Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
sharkman

Waterboarding. Is it really that bad?

Recommended Posts

On 1/26/2017 at 0:34 PM, sharkman said:

Your link has the same quotes from Trump that mine does, I guess it was just the one interview.  

 

No one has refuted the scenario I outlined.  If a terrorist is detained, and he knows the particulars of an upcoming attack with a jetliner, the CIA or whomever is obligated to try and save the thousands of lives that are at stake.  Waterboarding?  Here's the bucket, have at it.

One problem there is that you don't know what a suspect knows, so torture could be justified against many suspects that have an exceedingly low probability of being involved in such a plot. It would not be a big step from there to torture every terrorist suspect until he signs the confession and then send him to court to be sentenced.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The_Squid said:

And you have a "feeling" it works, so you think it works.  What works better....   your feelings on a subject, or looking at what experts say about it?

It is not a feeling , i've seen it work, and have taken the course, so it has been done to me as well...it can be effective, if you have someone who is very experienced at it....asnwer the this question then, Why is torture still being used today, and for thousands of years if it is not effective ? as your experts say....is it a perfect tool , no it is not but in the hands of the right person it will produce results.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

One problem there is that you don't know what a suspect knows, so torture could be justified against many suspects that have an exceedingly low probability of being involved in such a plot. It would not be a big step from there to torture every terrorist suspect until he signs the confession and then send him to court to be sentenced.  

Well, it is a big step, actually a chasm.  Totalitarianism  is what you're talking about, places like North Korea, China, Iran and several other mid east countries as well as Isis.  The US has banned waterboarding, and is now reconsidering.  I outlined a scenario in which its known that a terrorist has the goods on a mass murder attack(this could easily happen with intercepting cell phone calls or old fashioned surveillance).  No one wants to even consider it because it forces them to say it's okay to save thousands of lives by waterboarding. 

Edited by sharkman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The question is will those results be correct. The example you give above is a result that can be immediately verified, and if it is not the torture continues. What is the turnaround time for verification because that is a very important factor to consider.

Nothing is guaranteed, That being said they normally start with Known facts first, to judge if the prisoner is telling the truth and to convince them they already known the answer before asking the question, Remember the prisoner is already in poor state of mind and weaken physical condition, such as lack of sleep, or now sick with the flu , the prisoner is not thinking clearly, can not remember details of lies or mistruths they have told, in other words you might answer the same question a hundred times, each answer is compared  and if they do not add up then treatment continues.....until the prisoner see he can not hide the truth any more, and tells his interrogator.

Remember i am talking about torture that happens at the governmental level, of any country they have resources already in place to verify any info given, like i said if a RCMP person can give you all your tombstone data in 20 mins.....what info can they uncover in hours or days of looking......the actual torture part of it is only part of the process, everyone has a soft spot hidden in their character, such as family, relatives, or sexual preferences, or indiscretions of some type....they can use these soft spots as threats exposing them to the public, wife , family....or just show you a video of your family and it's routine, kids school, wifes work place etc etc....just the mention of a threat again'st them can be very effective....it throws the subject off balance, now they don't know what to believe, so they give up and spill the beans.....all info can be checked one way or another...

remember you have not slept for 3 or 4 days, your sick with the flu, you have been subjected to hot and cold, light and darkenss, and loud screaming the entire time, in a walk show you you family on video, and tell you something bad is going to happen unless you talk....what are you going to do....it 's check mate once they have you talking they continue over and over again, until it is all verified....then they will explore anything else they want, for other info or agenda's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Omni said:

So you're happy with your country violating habeas corpus.

Canada has done the same thing, remember the Omar Kadr incident where RCMP let US government officials question omar with out a lawyer present, or a canadian offical for that matter......so stop pointing fingers....when our government has not exactly been the angel here . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Well, it is a big step, actually a chasm.  Totalitarianism  is what you're talking about, places like North Korea, China, Iran and several other mid east countries as well as Isis.  The US has banned waterboarding, and is now reconsidering.  I outlined a scenario in which its known that a terrorist has the goods on a mass murder attack(this could easily happen with intercepting cell phone calls or old fashioned surveillance).  No one wants to even consider it because it forces them to say it's okay to save thousands of lives by waterboarding. 

Unscrupulous interrogators will jump this chasm as often as they can. Once you open up that crack, it will widen rapidly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The_Squid said:

I'm not sure that's even a factor.   Whether it works or not, the USA has signed onto multiple treaties and torture is illegal, regardless of the effectiveness.   Although, arguing it's effectiveness is a total lie, given all the evidence to the contrary. 

You say it is ineffective, and yet why are so many nations doing it, when the consequences are as severe as you mention why risk it ? maybe your source is ineffective, at convincing the world that torture is ineffective, or can not produce satisfying results. Why do most western nations teach it's military, intel community members torture resistance measures, if it is so ineffective, perhaps you should research that angle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Canada has done the same thing, remember the Omar Kadr incident where RCMP let US government officials question omar with out a lawyer present, or a canadian offical for that matter......so stop pointing fingers....when our government has not exactly been the angel here . 

The Khadr case is a good example of stupid torture. There was no possibility of a ticking bomb there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

And are you happy with that?

No i'm not happy with it, I've said in this post and many others regarding torture " that torture is unprofessional" it takes away the honor, ethis, morals and  values one gains within the institutions such as the military. "That's not what we are debating here, the question was does torture work ?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The Khadr case is a good example of stupid torture. There was no possibility of a ticking bomb there. 

Khadr was an example of a person that may have been privy to other intel they wanted, such as his fathers dealings, bin ladins where abouts etc etc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would concede there is a case to be made for torture in the ticking bomb scenario (which is why Dershowitz makes it) but I don't see any awareness of the slippery slope here that would give the green light to all sorts of cases. The punishment for breaking the rules would have to be severe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Khadr was an example of a person that may have been privy to other intel they wanted, such as his fathers dealings, bin ladins where abouts etc etc....

I do not believe that torture would be the best way to get that kind of info. Khadr was not a hardened fanatic by any stretch of the imagination. You'd want him talking freely, giving up details of OBL's preferences in coffee and other apparent trivia. And do you not think OBL would have moved on by then?

Edited by SpankyMcFarland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Khadr was an example of a person that may have been privy to other intel they wanted, such as his fathers dealings, bin ladins where abouts etc etc....

Khadr knew where bin Laden was????    LOL   You are stretching reality beyond all recognition!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

You can't separate the two because one of the reasons it doesn't work is that it undermines the values of the military. It takes away the moral standing of the military to intervene and it opens the doors to torture being used against our own people both civilian and military. If we do it, we certainly can't complain when others do it.

perhaps i am misunderstanding what you wrote. What i did say is that Canadian military forces are not allowed to use any form of torture what so ever, it is laid out in Canadian civil law, military law, Geneva convention and inter national law.....Our military went to great lengths to prove it had acted as per all the laws above while in Afghanistan, to protect our reputation. That being said i'm sure if you look hard enough into our history you will find examples of torture being used by governmental depts .

But just because we do not believe in the use of torture, does not send any message that it does not work, because it does work, it is the reason our government spends millions of dollars training our troops on torture resistance and E&E methods, it is why western nations also spend millions on the same training.... 

DND has always taken the high ground on this topic, and it's training for missions in afghanistan showed that clearly....our soldiers knew if we where captured torture was almost guaranteed, as was a possible beheading on TV.....and yet we did not torture any of our enemy nor did we cut off anyone's head.....because we had Canadian morals and values....to guide us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I do not believe that torture would be the best way to get that kind of info. Khadr was not a hardened fanatic by any stretch of the imagination. You'd want him talking freely, giving up details of OBL's preferences in coffee and other apparent trivia. And do you not think OBL would have moved on by then?

Sure he would have moved on, that much is a fact he was good at his craft , are you saying that info on old hide outs would not be useful, or perhaps who was his driver, is closest advisor, where they live etc etc all of this info is used to build a bigger picture.....and maybe your right maybe omar had no good intel but getting an asset that had close ties to OSBL would be worth checking out would they not be ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Sure he would have moved on, that much is a fact he was good at his craft , are you saying that info on old hide outs would not be useful, or perhaps who was his driver, is closest advisor, where they live etc etc all of this info is used to build a bigger picture.....and maybe your right maybe omar had no good intel but getting an asset that had close ties to OSBL would be worth checking out would they not be ?

I just feel (right or wrongly, no idea) that a young guy like that (not a volunteer, brought to Afghanistan by his family) could more usefully be coaxed to give up intel, given that he might have some trivial detail about somebody in the leadership that nobody would even think of asking. Many of his family WERE fanatics so who knows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I just feel (right or wrongly, no idea) that a young guy like that (not a volunteer, brought to Afghanistan by his family) could more usefully be coaxed to give up intel, given that he might have some trivial detail about somebody in the leadership that nobody would even think of asking. Many of his family WERE fanatics so who knows. 

You make it sound that he was participating in all of this again'st his will, because he was not.....in fact he took part in planting IED's  and gloated about perhaps  collecting  the bounty paid out for killing coalition service personal, not the actions of someone acting again'st his will....He was a terrorist end of story.....and nobody knew what type of intel he had, what they did know is he had ties that were close to OSBL, and the US intel service thought that was enough to question him......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

You make it sound that he was participating in all of this again'st his will, because he was not.....in fact he took part in planting IED's  and gloated about perhaps  collecting  the bounty paid out for killing coalition service personal, not the actions of someone acting again'st his will....He was a terrorist end of story.....and nobody knew what type of intel he had, what they did know is he had ties that were close to OSBL, and the US intel service thought that was enough to question him......

1. I did not say against his will.

2. It is a fact that he was taken to Pakistan and Afghanistan by his family, isn't it? He did not travel there on his own. At what point should Omar Khadr have left his family and come back to Canada? And whom would he have stayed with here if he had?

3. I understand how actions can be taken against persons deemed terrorists in other countries but if you invade a country, that country has the right to call on all residents, citizens or otherwise, to defend it. It is hard to see how actions taken in Afghanistan, sanctioned by the government, against an invading foreign power, can be deemed to be terrorism. There is no pure and simple about it unless we think 'we right, they wrong'.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

1. I did not say against his will.

2. It is a fact that he was taken to Pakistan and Afghanistan by his family, isn't it? He did not travel there on his own. At what point should Omar Khadr have left his family and come back to Canada? And whom would he have stayed with here if he had?

3. I understand how actions can be taken against persons deemed terrorists in other countries but if you invade a country, that country has the right to call on all residents, citizens or otherwise, to defend it. It is hard to see how actions taken in Afghanistan, sanctioned by the government, against an invading foreign power, can be deemed to be terrorism. There is no pure and simple about it unless we think 'we right, they wrong'.

 

 

I said you make it sound that way.

Your mixing the cultures in which he was submerged into,one that he identified with..... at the age of 12 according to afghanistan culture Omar was a man, not a boy, but rather a man. and why would he want to return to Canada, yes it was his country of birth, but that was about it, he did not relate to being a canadian, but rather a muslim caught up in all the shit in afghanistan, he wanted to bring war to the west......and that is what he done....his family and at some point even himself had decided to continue his war again'st the west.....and even with all that where is he now....Afghanistan considered him a terrorist because he was one, and terrorist don't last long in afghan prison....another fact why he is in Canada.....leaving him there would result in his death....and that does not play well on TV....

Lets establish a couple of pionts before we get into another topic already discussed.  At the time of Omars capture, AFghan had already had a free election , which established an elected government, by the people of Afghanistan.......unless your saying that election did not count or was illegal, or for some reason unknown to the rest of us bogus......this elected government had asked the western coalition to help in the securing all of their country.......which is legal..... Now if this is true according to written history. Then how can a Canadian boy to young to be in any army legally...., just happen to stand up and take up arms again'st a lawful government ? sounds like a terrorist already.....Next question is how an under aged canadian boy be recruited into fighting for what exactly......how can he take up arms again'st his own country of birth, as Canada was part of the coalition.....sounds like he has chosen to draw the line in the sand.....and it was opposite of Canada's elected governments choice......How can that be terrorism, it is simple AQ was a terrorist organization, to which he belonged, to which he operated with, and worked for....smells like shit, tastes like shit normally it is shit.... 

So under what law can a canadian citizen take up arms for any other nation other than canada even if it was invaded as you state.........provided that individual is over 18 years of age....as stated in the Genva convention 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

I said you make it sound that way.

Afghanistan considered him a terrorist because he was one, and terrorist don't last long in afghan prison....another fact why he is in Canada.....leaving him there would result in his death....and that does not play well on TV....

Lets establish a couple of pionts before we get into another topic already discussed.  At the time of Omars capture, AFghan had already had a free election , which established an elected government, by the people of Afghanistan.......unless your saying that election did not count or was illegal, or for some reason unknown to the rest of us bogus......this elected government had asked the western coalition to help in the securing all of their country.......which is legal..... Now if this is true according to written history. Then how can a Canadian boy to young to be in any army legally...., just happen to stand up and take up arms again'st a lawful government ? sounds like a terrorist already.....Next question is how an under aged canadian boy be recruited into fighting for what exactly......how can he take up arms again'st his own country of birth, as Canada was part of the coalition.....sounds like he has chosen to draw the line in the sand....

 

 

You're going to have to explain that timeline to me there because I am not that familiar with it. On the date of the crime, had there already been a democratic election in Afghanistan turfing the Taliban? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The_Squid said:

Eventually, I would imagine some Hague court dates...  but no consequences yet...   as per the lawyer's article I cited earlier.

USA is exempt from the ICC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

You're going to have to explain that timeline to me there because I am not that familiar with it. On the date of the crime, had there already been a democratic election in Afghanistan turfing the Taliban? 

what crime are you talking about , The one where Omar is captured?

Edited by Army Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2017 at 10:33 AM, cybercoma said:

There is an entire body of literature on the topic, if you would like me to post several more pieces of research on the topic for you.

I'm sure there is, shit i bet i can produce a mountain of literature that states Elvis is alive and well, does that make it so ? Lets say it does not work ? as you say it does not ....why has it been in existence for so long, why has it been practiced for so long. Why does so many government use it ? why do they spend money on preparing our military, intel agencies, and others for torture, to resist it , to keep secrets those indivs have had access to , secret.....if it did not work why even give torture a second thought......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...