www.ditl.org

To some people there's a difference between making someone uncomfortable and actual torture. Some people think waterboarding falls on the uncomfortable side of the line.

As for why I'd think that was obvious, to get resistant prisoners to talk and tell what they know. Not that you can really rely on anything you learn from torture. Done right a person will say anything they think will get them out of it.

Atekimogus wrote:Since I am not living in the US I am probably not as informed as I should be, but what do those right-wing shriekers - as you put it - actually say what's the point of it if it isn't torture? What I mean is if it isn't torture were they hoping that they could aquire information only due to an unpleasant - but not tortures - experience? Is that what is called advanced interrogation.

Most of them just go "it's only water, how's that torture"? You see, as far as many of them are concerned it's not torture unless it causes physical damage.
And then there are the dishonest ones, who know it's torture but just won't admit it because they want it done.

Atekimogus wrote:I do not really understand what they were trying to achieve with those procedures anyway, torture or not.

They're hoping to get information. Though as anyone with a brain can tell, torture is a terrible way to get information simply because the victim will say anything to get you to stop, even if it's completely false.

Rochey wrote: They're hoping to get information. Though as anyone with a brain can tell, torture is a terrible way to get information simply because the victim will say anything to get you to stop, even if it's completely false.

Well that was what I meant.

Either it is torture, then you get information but you can't really trust it as under torture most people will tell everything you want to hear.

Or it is NOT torture, but if it is not why even bother? Why should this "non-torture" be effective in any way if the prisoner doesn't want to share information.

So those people who defend these procedings by saying it wasn't actuall torture should at least come up with something what then they were hoping to achieve with it.

So no matter if they defend it or not it it looks amoral and stupid imho.

For those interested, an interview with the guy in question, where he explains why he assumed it was no big deal until he actualy did it.

No, wait...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Either works.

Dick knows how to get tricks out of anyone.

Hell, I have a hard enough time when I swallow a drink awkwardly.

-------

I've always thought in these "torture" debates that some people express strong convictions without strong evidence. That is, some conservatives tend to proudly proclaim that torture is "necessary" because "it is needed to get valuable intel." However, do they really know that 1) torture really works to begin with and 2) if it does, that there isn't a more humane path to the goal of getting intelligence? There is no justification to inflict pain for its own sake, yet I sometimes get the feeling that some think that the more painful methods must be more effective.

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:do they really know that 1) torture really works to begin with

No. It doesn't. Torture is a notoriously unreliable way of obtaining intel.

Indeed. One need only look at all the "confessions" people made to things like witchcraft back in the days of the Inquisition to see that such methods are useless. People will say anything to get you to stop.

Look at the most famous practitioners of torture.

The Inquisition: they already had guilt determined before they even apprehended anyone. They didn't care if someone admitted or not to Judaism, witchcraft, or whatever. Asking questions was simply an excuse for using torture as punishment.

Captain Henry Morgan: what was he going to ask the men he tortured - whether the people living in Spanish Panama were, in fact, Spanish Panamanians?

Chile: Questions? Hell, no, we just want to clip a car battery to your testicles because you disagree with the current regime.