Torture

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by asdf

Hm. I suppose the definitive Christian scripture in this regard would be Romans 12:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

I guess that from my perspective this is the one area in which I am not called to emulate God - but rather to "leave room for God's wrath"

I think I see what you're saying, and I agree with what I think is your point.

Let's play it out as it might happen in real life, to see if we still agree.

Suppose we're both talking to a man and we're both he sure knows something about an imminent terrorist strike and that we're both also sure that if you can get him to talk about what he knows we would then be able to save the lives of others.

Now suppose that he's admitted that he knows something that would save those people and you've tried your very best to be nice and respectful to him as a person while trying to help him see that he can help to save those people, and yet he still refuses to tell you anything that would save those people because he really wants them to suffer.

Me: " Okay. It's all on your head, now. I've done all that I can do, and now it's in the hands of God who will hold you responsible for the suffering that you could have helped to prevent."

You: ???

I can track with what you're saying here, and can more-or-less agree with your premises, with the caveat of "leaving room for God's wrath" as I mentioned above.

I accept the fact that there is only so much I can do to help someone, and I believe the best thing that I can do is to be a positive influence for good.

Another factor for me is the observation that any "pain" God inflicts, any "wrath" [he] pours out, is redemptive in purpose, not simply punishment. I would love to see human agencies take this focus more - to guide the ones suffering the consequences of their actions to greater shalom, wholeness, rather than simply to enact revenge or punishment. (Whenever possible, of course. I fully realize that some people have committed acts so vile that they may need to be forcibly removed from the community for the community's own safety.)

We agree, again.

I agree. I believe it to be inconsistent to what I know of God.

This is good. I'm with you.

I like hearing this stuff, too... although I'd still go on without your approval.

I'm not exactly sure where you are, here. It seems to me that you are using both "forgiveness" and "justice" in an eternal, postmortem sense, to refer to a person's stance before God.

If that's the case, that's not exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm speaking in a more temporal sense. I want to see justice, God's will being done "on earth as it is in heaven". This does encomp*** mercy/forgiveness as well as justice. For those who have broken the law and caused irreparable harm to fellow humans, to do nothing is an injustice.

I believe God forgives everyone who repents, and that a person who repents tries to repair the damages that he, or she, has caused, as much as possible.

Going to jail, in and of itself, serves no good purpose.

What society really needs is for those who have sinned to repent and for those who have been wronged to forgive those who have repented, or are in the process of repenting.

It's only when someone refuses to repent that they must be sent to live somewhere else.

Cool. It's nice talking to you, Bat-Man.

L'Shalom.

Boomerang toss... back atcha.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

I think I see what you're saying, and I agree with what I think is your point.

Let's play it out as it might happen in real life, to see if we still agree.

Suppose we're both talking to a man and we're both he sure knows something about an imminent terrorist strike and that we're both also sure that if you can get him to talk about what he knows we would then be able to save the lives of others.

Now suppose that he's admitted that he knows something that would save those people and you've tried your very best to be nice and respectful to him as a person while trying to help him see that he can help to save those people, and yet he still refuses to tell you anything that would save those people because he really wants them to suffer.

Me: " Okay. It's all on your head, now. I've done all that I can do, and now it's in the hands of God who will hold you responsible for the suffering that you could have helped to prevent."

You: ???

Sure. I like your response. I'd go with pretty much the same - though also it should be said that criminal punishment may be appropriate if guilt can be proven using the normal methods in a court of law / war crimes tribunal.

Also, a brief comment that the scenario you outline, the "ticking time bomb" scenario, exists only on TV. In educating myself about real interrogation scenarios, I have found interrogators say that if they can get a suspect to talk about anything (beyond Name, Rank, and Number), they will talk about everything.

I accept the fact that there is only so much I can do to help someone, and I believe the best thing that I can do is to be a positive influence for good.

Yes, I agree.

We agree, again.

I like hearing this stuff, too... although I'd still go on without your approval.

Good for you. You don't need my approval to follow the Truth.

I believe God forgives everyone who repents, and that a person who repents tries to repair the damages that he, or she, has caused, as much as possible.

Going to jail, in and of itself, serves no good purpose.

What society really needs is for those who have sinned to repent and for those who have been wronged to forgive those who have repented, or are in the process of repenting.

Yes, I agree.

It's only when someone refuses to repent that they must be sent to live somewhere else.

I suppose that's true, but it's very difficult for humans to judge the veracity of another's claim to repentance. The old slogan "Trust, but verify" may be appropriate - and in some circumstances the gravity of the offense may require containing a person out of concern for recidivism.

Boomerang toss... back atcha.

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by asdf

Sure. I like your response. I'd go with pretty much the same - though also it should be said that criminal punishment may be appropriate if guilt can be proven using the normal methods in a court of law / war crimes tribunal.

I agree, and I believe the only fit form of punishment for someone who refuses to repent from their sins, or infractions of God's laws, is to send them to live where they can do no more harm while still doing whatever I can to help them know how to become rehabilitated, and while just leaving them, in that other place, until they make that choice.

Also, a brief comment that the scenario you outline, the "ticking time bomb" scenario, exists only on TV. In educating myself about real interrogation scenarios, I have found interrogators say that if they can get a suspect to talk about anything (beyond Name, Rank, and Number), they will talk about everything.

We had him talking, and he still wouldn't tell us what we wanted to know.

I suppose that's true, but it's very difficult for humans to judge the veracity of another's claim to repentance. The old slogan "Trust, but verify" may be appropriate - and in some circumstances the gravity of the offense may require containing a person out of concern for recidivism.

Those who repent show by their own works that they have repented, or that they are in the process of repenting.

If they don't do it again, they have repented. If they do it again, they haven't repented, so they would still need to be rehabilitated while living somewhere else until they are willing to become rehabilitated.

The only thing society needs to do is make sure that people who sin know how to become rehabilitated while forgiving those who choose to be, and while also telling the offenders that the laws and punishments of God will apply to those who don't become rehabilitated.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

I agree, and I believe the only fit form of punishment for someone who refuses to repent from their sins, or infractions of God's laws, is to send them to live where they can do no more harm while still doing whatever I can to help them know how to become rehabilitated, and while just leaving them, in that other place, until they make that choice.

We had him talking, and he still wouldn't tell us what we wanted to know.

Those who repent show by their own works that they have repented, or that they are in the process of repenting.

If they don't do it again, they have repented. If they do it again, they haven't repented, so they would still need to be rehabilitated while living somewhere else until they are willing to become rehabilitated.

The only thing society needs to do is make sure that people who sin know how to become rehabilitated while forgiving those who choose to be, and while also telling the offenders that the laws and punishments of God will apply to those who don't become rehabilitated.

Sounds good.

[alanmolstad]

Torture works...thats the fact of life that the tree-huggers dont like to talk about.

The fact is that over 100s and 100s of years the history of how governments have learned things about each other is that the use Torture works .

It works, and it seems to work all the time.
It also helps confirm the results of other Torture .

In the real world what we have seen true for us and in our current wars is that there comes a time when you put a guy who might know something into a room, then you go in the same room and do what needs to be done to get the required information.

[asdf]

I stand by #3 above: "[Torture] leads to bad intelligence, corrupts good intelligence, and confessions stemmed from torture are inadmissible in court."


Did you (re)read this whole thread? I cited two former Army interrogators who explain how proper interrogation works, and why torture is an***hetical to the aim of good intelligence. Would you like me to dig up those links again?

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Torture works.

"Torture works". That depends on what you mean by "works". A tortured person will say anything to get the torture to stop. That is torture's aim, and at that it is indeed successful. Surely it leads to confessions — but does it lead to good intelligence? I have not seen convincing evidence to suggest that it does (even if I were to admit for the sake of argument — which I emphatically do not — that the ends justify the means).

The fact is that over 100s and 100s of years the history of how governments have learned things about each other is that the use Torture works

That is absolutely untrue. For the entire history of the U.S., under every presidency from George Washington to William Clinton, torture has been explicitly forbidden. We have held courts-martial and war crimes tribunals against soldiers—both foreign and our own—who have tortured.

there comes a time when you put a guy who might know something into a room, then you go in the same room and do what needs to be done to get the required information.

That's horrific. I can only say that I'm glad that you're not in charge of political and military policy.

"A guy who might know something". Goodness. You even tacitly acknowledge the possibility of torturing the innocent.

In any case, it's fair enough if you want to publicly make an argument that the United States of America should, as a matter of public policy, use torture on those considered or suspected of being enemies of the state. Go ahead and make that argument. But first, ditch the treaties and conventions prohibiting it. Amend the UCMJ.

Don't try to pretend this is how things have always been. It's not.

[alanmolstad]

ahh....that report given to Congress proved that not only does it work, one of the main gains from its use is that one story can be backed-up by others,

So its not a case of a guy saying anything , rather over time and over different individuals you can verify a story.

Thus the one thing the tree-huggers dont want us to know is now shown to be true.....

it works....and works well...and has proved itself time and time again over the years to be the thing that will work when other forms of investigation prove to be useless.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

ahh....that report given to Congress proved that not only does it work, one of the main gains from its use is that one story can be backed-up by others

I don't suppose you'd do me the courtesy of actually citing "that report given to Congress", would you?


Please, if torture "has proved itself time and time again" to be a more effective means of intelligence-gathering, then by all means cite some. Cite one. (Remember, it doesn't count if the torture victim was cooperative with interrogators before the torture begins, and it doesn't count if the torture occurs prior to attempting traditional interrogation.)


I seem to have forgotten that your preferred method of discourse is repeating yourself, without any citation or evidence or indication that you've read—let alone are making any attempt to respond to—the material above.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by asdf

I don't suppose you'd do me the courtesy of actually citing "that report given to Congress", would you?

I guess i could GOOGLE it for you.
But I remember the report was all in the news about a year or so ago.
The report was due to the reports about water-Boarding that we carried out in the effort to fight the wars and most importantly , to get Osama bin Laden.

getting bin Laden was behind the main push and the main reason this topic is in the news.

Apparently a lot of tree-huggers feel that "If we were just polite, and asked nicely" that the guys who knew where bin Laden was would whisper that location .....perhaps in exchange for ice cream?

The report's findings were that water-boarding actually worked...and worked well,,,and was very useful in the war effort and saved many American lives.



In the real world there are times when you have to go into a room with a guy who knows something you need to know, and do whatever it takes to walk out of that room with the information.

[alanmolstad]

the first hit on google...

http://www.startribune.com/121089124.html

[alanmolstad]

What we learn is that the use of stress to loosen a tongue works.
But it does not always work.
And it does not always get a person to tell the truth.

However sometimes if a person under great stress is still able to tell a lie, and you know it's a lie...then this points out that there has got to be a very good reason why a person would tell such a lie.

We dont like to think about what is going on in Egypt and North Korea right now, but the results are very clear.

North Korea has seen within the last year a purge due to a failed CIA effort to overthrow the current leadership (and put in place some other members of the Korean ruling family) this purge is the direct result of a lot of stress used against some of the highest members of the North Korean military.....

Also in Egypt (with the helping hand and financing of the CIA) they are using such stress in the weeding out members of the former elected party that were a threat to our interests and to our Egyptian military friends that we are very closely connected to.

Now a lot of people in our American/liberal leadership want us to think that the use of stress on people is not that useful, but the people that are tasked with the defense of this country know that it's a useful tool to have, and at times gives you results that you cant match by any other means.



It does not always work.

But over the history of this world it has shown more than enough times to have worked well enough to always keep around in case its needed.

It's like I said, - there are times in history where you have a guy in a room that knows something important, and you have to be able to go into that room with him and do whatever is necessary to be able to walk out of the room later with the information.

[asdf]

Thank you. I appreciate your pointing out which "report given to Congress" you were talking about—since there have been quite a few, such as that by the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the ​Cons***ution Project, and others.

But that "news" you cited is almost three years old, and does not demonstrate what you seem to think it does.

A few thoughts, in response:
1. The article you cited was by Adam Goldman at the AP. Here's what he reported one day later:

"[Khalid Shaikh] Mohammed did not reveal the names [the nicknames of several of bin Laden's couriers] while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic."

2. At least you're admitting that waterboarding is torture. I do appreciate the eschewing of euphemism. Waterboarding is a controlled drowning experience, developed by the Spanish Inquisition, utilized by the Gestapo and the Khmer Rouge, among others, and internationally recognized and condemned as a torture technique throughout history. During WWII, the U.S. hanged Japanese troops who engaged in waterboarding.

Apparently a lot of tree-huggers feel that "If we were just polite, and asked nicely" that the guys who knew where bin Laden was would whisper that location .....perhaps in exchange for ice cream?

3. Nevermind the fact that KSM did, in fact, reveal what he knew under standard interrogation and not under torture. Nevermind that it was only by ***uming that KSM lie under torture that interrogators were able to get the truth from him, several months later. Nevermind that he explicitly admitted to providing false information, which he had supposed the interrogators wanted to hear, in order to stop the torture. Nevermind the testimony of those who have actually conducted interrogations honorably and effectively. You have some good jokes about "tree-huggers" to deploy, and you're not going to let silly things like facts get in the way.

[alanmolstad]

yes, torture works, and works like a charm.
Torture is the reason we know where to send in the drones.
It is of information gained via stress we place on people.
.

Ever wonder why the military in Egypt was able to overthrow their own elected government and no one at the White House said a word?
Ever wonder why President Obama keeps talking about sending aid to the rebels in Syria, but not a word about sending in aid to reestablish civilian rule in Egypt?

Its because Obama and the CIA have a long history of hiring military contractors out of Egypt to get information out of people...
We catch people in Afghanistan, fly them to Egypt.....and from there they seem to disappear...later parts of them get dumped into a ditch outside an Estonian village.

And next week there is a whole new list of targets in Pakistan for the drones to go after...

So not only does torture work well at finding out unknown things, it works best when you already know the truth and just need to see how far some people will go to hide a truth you already know.

The length people go to to maintain a lie under stress shows you the depth they must think their information has...
The lies people tell under stress show you many things.....

Thats why the data that suggests that "No secrets were learned" is a child's way of thinking about this issue. because most of the time you are not putting stress on people to learn a secret at all....You are just confirming what you already know to be true.

You also learn many things by seeing how far people will go to maintain a cover story.

I know that if my son was going to be sent in to a hostile area of the world, that first they should place everyone they have caught under a lot of stress, just to make sure the planners of my son's mission know what is to be expected.
So it's not that you are looking for new information at all.
You just are making sure there is nothing else to know.
You may not learn a single new thing after hours and hours of placeing stress on people....but that's fine.....if there was truly nothing to find out, no secret to learn, then thats also another fact that helps guide the mission planners.

[asdf]

You are welcome to regard the testimony of those actually involved in interrogations to be "a child's way of thinking". You may be surprised to discover that I regard their account to hold more weight than some random guy on the internet's opinion.



You claim that if your son were to be headed to a hostile area, presumably in a military context, you'd want "everyone" around to be tortured. You don't mention whether you'd like him to be tortured by the other side if he were captured as a POW. Would you denounce your son's torture? Would you have any grounds to denounce it?