Trump-Torture Works

by Major Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:39 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-torture-absolutely-works-says-us-president-in-first-television-interview

Trump agrees with 'waterboarding', so do I.

In the grand scheme of things it is minimal to that which terrorists do.

by Original Quill Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:59 pm

Major wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-torture-absolutely-works-says-us-president-in-first-television-interview

Trump agrees with 'waterboarding', so do I.

In the grand scheme of things it is minimal to that which terrorists do.

So you like terrorist tactics. So do many, but to what end? Ironically, increased use of torture will mean more and more incidents of torture to American and British soldiers in the theater. This will result in offending our populations and motivating them to withdraw. You can't suck blood from a turnip.

"Be careful what you wish for, you may get it." --St Teresa of Avila

by Original Quill Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:59 pm

Major wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-torture-absolutely-works-says-us-president-in-first-television-interview

Trump agrees with 'waterboarding', so do I.

In the grand scheme of things it is minimal to that which terrorists do.

So you like terrorist tactics. So do many, but to what end? Ironically, increased use of torture will mean more and more incidents of torture to American and British soldiers in the theater. This will result in offending our populations and motivating them to withdraw. You can't suck blood from a turnip.

"Be careful what you wish for, you may get it." --St Teresa of Avila

by Syl Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:03 pm

I don't know whether torture works or not.

If a bomb was about to go off somewhere and a person had information that could stop it, but refused to give details, I can understand why any government may allow some procedures to loosen his tongue.

by Ben Reilly Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:05 pm

Major, it sounds like you favor it as a punishment rather than an interrogation technique. But remember, it's done to suspects who haven't been proven guilty.

by Original Quill Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:08 pm

Avoiding torture is no incentive to someone who is bent on suicide anyway. Torture is intended to motivate people, but suicide bombers take care of the problem themselves.

by Ben Reilly Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:35 pm

Besides, the experts in the field say it doesn't work: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466411509/detainee-interrogation-chief-waterboarding-doesnt-work

by eddie Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:42 pm

Isn't it far better to give your interrogation subjects a lot of beer, a few spliffs and some cocaine?
People talk and talk on that cocktail.

by Eilzel Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:51 pm

I'm not convinced. Perhaps Trump could be subject to a demonstration whereby we ask him about his tax returns and ties to Moscow.

by Guest Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:03 pm

Sometimes torture is necessary. I never used to think so until I read the "The Ticking Time bomb" situation and believe in this instance it is justified. Basically you have a situation where the threat of life is imminent. Say for example a bomb has been planted and you have the terrorist. The balance of weight to use torture is justified based off the imminent risk of life to others. So anywhere that there is an imminent risk to life and you can obtain that information through torture, it is viable to do so based on the balance of risk.

Its actually happened also.

Australian police beat a confession out of a suspect who had abandoned a stolen car with a baby in it who would have died from heatstroke. The criminal had refused at first to tell them where he’d left it.

by Ben Reilly Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:06 pm

Thorin wrote:Sometimes torture is necessary. I never used to think so until I read the "The Ticking Time bomb" situation and believe in this instance it is justified. Basically you have a situation where the threat of life is imminent. Say for example a bomb has been planted and you have the terrorist. The balance of weight to use torture is justified based off the imminent risk of life to others. So anywhere that there is an imminent risk to life and you can obtain that information through torture, it is viable to do so based on the balance of risk.

Its actually happened also.

Australian police beat a confession out of a suspect who had abandoned a stolen car with a baby in it who would have died from heatstroke. The criminal had refused at first to tell them where he’d left it.

Bad example in the case of the war on terror, though. The car thief wasn't part of an organization where he was given only enough info to carry out his small part of an attack.

by Guest Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:11 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote:Sometimes torture is necessary. I never used to think so until I read the "The Ticking Time bomb" situation and believe in this instance it is justified. Basically you have a situation where the threat of life is imminent. Say for example a bomb has been planted and you have the terrorist. The balance of weight to use torture is justified based off the imminent risk of life to others. So anywhere that there is an imminent risk to life and you can obtain that information through torture, it is viable to do so based on the balance of risk.

Its actually happened also.

Australian police beat a confession out of a suspect who had abandoned a stolen car with a baby in it who would have died from heatstroke. The criminal had refused at first to tell them where he’d left it.

Bad example in the case of the war on terror, though. The car thief wasn't part of an organization where he was given only enough info to carry out his small part of an attack.

Its not a bad example though Ben
Its a concept based on the imminent threat to life.
So given that they have caught a terrorist who tells his captors he has planted a Nuke bomb, are you telling me you would not sanction torture in this instance?
As seen what the cops did was wrong legally to the criminal, but ethically it saved the babies life.
Hence why in the instance of the "ticking time bomb" situation, torture is justified.
Again I am against Torture in general, but ask many soldiers in combat when pressed for information when they have someone captive and that could save imminent lives, what would they do? Whether they believe its justified?

Again this is on the principle of saving lives from an imminent threat.

I dont back the policy that Trump is proposing, but it should be legal based on the imminent threat to life situation.

by Major Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Ben, I would not give a flying frog whether he had been proved guilty or not if it meant saving the lives of my side.

I would do it myself.

My side comes first, first, first, first, always first.

by Original Quill Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:29 pm

Major wrote:Ben, I would not give a flying frog whether he had been proved guilty or not if it meant saving the lives of my side.

I would do it myself.

My side comes first, first, first, first, always first.

Well, then you can practice on British soldiers. Save a couple of trips that way. Razz

by eddie Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:33 pm

No one like my cocktail idea then?
I thought it was rather good and it would work I reckon.

by Original Quill Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:36 pm

eddie wrote:No one like my cocktail idea then?
I thought it was rather good and it would work I reckon.

During the war they developed a strategy just to nip that sort of thing...

Trump-Torture Works Loose-lips-sink-ships-quote-1

Trump-Torture Works 8769edc85116d57e368d9efe8e0583ae

by Syl Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:00 pm

eddie wrote:No one like my cocktail idea then?
I thought it was rather good and it would work I reckon.

We both made posts that have been completely overlooked.....maybe we should be busy preparing tea instead of getting involved in serious threads. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:01 pm

Syl wrote:
eddie wrote:No one like my cocktail idea then?
I thought it was rather good and it would work I reckon.

We both made posts that have been completely overlooked.....maybe we should be busy preparing tea instead of getting involved in serious threads.

I just read yours Syl and it was very similar to the two I posted

Sorry I missed it.

by Syl Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:03 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

We both made posts that have been completely overlooked.....maybe we should be busy preparing tea instead of getting involved in serious threads.

I just read yours Syl and it was very similar to the two I posted

I know...yet yours was taken seriously and mine was ignored.
I don't mind though.... Trump-Torture Works 3201073460

honest.

by Guest Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:03 pm

eddie wrote:Isn't it far better to give your interrogation subjects a lot of beer, a few spliffs and some cocaine?
People talk and talk on that cocktail.

All the above will enhance the mood the prisoner is in.
So if he is defiant, its just going to make him more defiant

by Syl Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:04 pm

Anyway...I am off to make tea. Laughing

Leave the men to talk MEN stuff. x

by Guest Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:06 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I just read yours Syl and it was very similar to the two I posted

I know...yet yours was taken seriously and mine was ignored.
I don't mind though.... honest.

Not sure mine would constitute as being taken seriously, its just that it had one response from Ben

He may not have seen your comment, to be honest, I never did, as I only scrolled up from the bottom comment and never got to the ones further up.

So it could have easily been missed when you click on the scrolling links to the side, they take you to the latest comment. So a tad lazy of us all for not reading all comments

Crying or Very sad

by Guest Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:07 pm

Syl wrote:Anyway...I am off to make tea.
Leave the men to talk MEN stuff. x

Enjoy...x

by Syl Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:14 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I know...yet yours was taken seriously and mine was ignored.
I don't mind though.... honest.

Not sure mine would constitute as being taken seriously, its just that it had one response from Ben

He may not have seen your comment, to be honest, I never did, as I only scrolled up from the bottom comment and never got to the ones further up.

So it could have easily been missed when you click on the scrolling links to the side, they take you to the latest comment. So a tad lazy of us all for not reading all comments

I was only teasing Thor.
And you are one of the most responsive posters here, I know you were not avoiding the posts. Smile

by Guest Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:16 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Not sure mine would constitute as being taken seriously, its just that it had one response from Ben

He may not have seen your comment, to be honest, I never did, as I only scrolled up from the bottom comment and never got to the ones further up.

So it could have easily been missed when you click on the scrolling links to the side, they take you to the latest comment. So a tad lazy of us all for not reading all comments

I was only teasing Thor.
And you are one of the most responsive posters here, I know you were not avoiding the posts.

We are the newsfix family Cool

by Syl Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:29 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I was only teasing Thor.
And you are one of the most responsive posters here, I know you were not avoiding the posts.

We are the newsfix family

LOL, complete with a grumpy grandad and a couple of wayward children. (No names) Razz

by Victorismyhero Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:35 pm

I agree with thorin...sometimes it can work...

I am sure if before he went gaga, the powers that be had let me interview brady with a pair of pliers, there would be no "missing" bodies Evil or Very Mad

by Guest Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:52 pm

Lord Foul wrote:I agree with thorin...sometimes it can work...

I am sure if before he went gaga, the powers that be had let me interview brady with a pair of pliers, there would be no "missing" bodies

This is quite an effective method, similar effects garnered as by pliers, from the film, "Man on Fire"

by eddie Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:54 pm

That's a great film.

by Guest Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:55 pm

eddie wrote:That's a great film.

One of my favs Eddie.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:23 am

Lord Foul wrote:I agree with thorin...sometimes it can work...

I am sure if before he went gaga, the powers that be had let me interview brady with a pair of pliers, there would be no "missing" bodies

It's a fun way to kill people, for those who like to play with their food before they eat. There are people who like that kind of thing, though I don't let my kids play with their kids. Evil or Very Mad

It bears no relationship to correct and valid information, however. It does get answers, but you have no idea if those answers mean anything. They might be 'alternative facts'.

In the end, torture is just another way to kill...for people who like sadistic things.

by Victorismyhero Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:41 am

you have no idea quill
In the case of someone like brady......
you DONT kill them ffs...the idea is to HURT them....and then when they give you info you stop....but if the info is wrong .....well then you resume.......only more so....

the process is hurt them...a bit(well...quite a lot really)....and ask for the info...and make them well aware of how bad the next step will be IF they have lied......if they have told the truth then fine it all stops...

rinse and repeat as necessary........

by Original Quill Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:48 am

Lord Foul wrote:you have no idea quill
In the case of someone like brady......
you DONT kill them ffs...the idea is to HURT themStop....and then when they give you info you stop....but if the info is wrong .....well then you resume.......only more so....

the process is hurt them...a bit(well...quite a lot really)....and ask for the info...and make them well aware of how bad the next step will be IF they have lied......if they have told the truth then fine it all stops...

rinse and repeat as necessary........

I agree right up to the Stop point. Beyond that, there's no evidence to claim it works.

At the Stop point, all you can talk about are our motives. And frankly I think those who like that kind of thing...well, I won't let their kids over to our place, that's all I'm gonna say. Like I said, it's like a predatory animal that likes to play with it's food.

Oh, and um...you never let someone whom you've tortured, live. Stupid if you do...he'll come back to kill your first born.

by Victorismyhero Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:52 am

well thats the horrible thing quill.....I wouldnt torture someone for "fun" or for enjoyment...but coldly and dispassionately to extract information....anyone who did torture for "enjoyment" would have to have a black soul indeed....

by Original Quill Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:54 am

Lord Foul wrote:well thats the horrible thing quill.....I wouldnt torture someone for "fun" or for enjoyment...but coldly and dispassionately to extract information....anyone who did torture for "enjoyment" would have to have a black soul indeed....

It's just another instrument of war.

by Victorismyhero Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:58 am

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:you have no idea quill
In the case of someone like brady......
you DONT kill them ffs...the idea is to HURT themStop....and then when they give you info you stop....but if the info is wrong .....well then you resume.......only more so....

the process is hurt them...a bit(well...quite a lot really)....and ask for the info...and make them well aware of how bad the next step will be IF they have lied......if they have told the truth then fine it all stops...

rinse and repeat as necessary........

I agree right up to the Stop point. Beyond that, there's no evidence to claim it works.

At the Stop point, all you can talk about are our motives. And frankly I think those who like that kind of thing...well, I won't let their kids over to our place, that's all I'm gonna say. Like I said, it's like a predatory animal that likes to play with it's food.

Oh, and um...you never let someone whom you've tortured, live. Stupid if you do...he'll come back to kill your first born.

not if he's doing "life means life" in a high security prison.....and if when his usefulness is gone and he's likely to escape you dispatch him cleanly....otherwise you ARE torturing for "fun" Trump-Torture Works 2190311264

pragmatism

by veya_victaous Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:58 am

it is pretty sad that Humans still use torture
the roman's pretty much worked out it doesn't really work as an interrogation technique. since people will just say whatever the think will make the torture stop.

it's only purpose is to 'demonstrate consequence' in which case flogging is more than sufficient. And we generally have decided that corporal punishment is wrong Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:29 am

Interrogation technique is just an excuse. People who torture like it. It's not complicated.

by veya_victaous Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:54 am

Original Quill wrote:Interrogation technique is just an excuse. People who torture like it. It's not complicated.

sort of agree, I think thee are some that are in a situation they feel they have to because of Nazi like leadership, and fear of being tortured if they don't.

I do think individuals that promote torture as a political tool should be 'put down humanely' Wink

We'd put down a dog for less Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:04 am

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:I agree with thorin...sometimes it can work...

I am sure if before he went gaga, the powers that be had let me interview brady with a pair of pliers, there would be no "missing" bodies

It's a fun way to kill people, for those who like to play with their food before they eat. There are people who like that kind of thing, though I don't let my kids play with their kids.

It bears no relationship to correct and valid information, however. It does get answers, but you have no idea if those answers mean anything. They might be 'alternative facts'.

In the end, torture is just another way to kill...for people who like sadistic things.

So in my reply earlier to Ben, would you have allowed the baby to die then?

Sometimes torture is necessary. I never used to think so until I read the "The Ticking Time bomb" situation and believe in this instance it is justified. Basically you have a situation where the threat of life is imminent. Say for example a bomb has been planted and you have the terrorist. The balance of weight to use torture is justified based off the imminent risk of life to others. So anywhere that there is an imminent risk to life and you can obtain that information through torture, it is viable to do so based on the balance of risk.

Its actually happened also.

Australian police beat a confession out of a suspect who had abandoned a stolen car with a baby in it who would have died from heatstroke. The criminal had refused at first to tell them where he’d left it.

by Guest Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:11 am

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:well thats the horrible thing quill.....I wouldnt torture someone for "fun" or for enjoyment...but coldly and dispassionately to extract information....anyone who did torture for "enjoyment" would have to have a black soul indeed....

It's just another instrument of war.

Not historically accurate in any shape or form.

Funnily enough and why I am surprised you did not know, it was originally part of the Judicial systems of the past.

by veya_victaous Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:14 am

but if he had been seriously dedicated to a cause like terrorist instead of just a thieving geranium.
it would have been entirely ineffective.
he may have lied and by the time they worked out that he had lied it's be too late.
a dedicated terrorist would actually just lead you on wild goose chase.

by Guest Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:16 am

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:you have no idea quill
In the case of someone like brady......
you DONT kill them ffs...the idea is to HURT themStop....and then when they give you info you stop....but if the info is wrong .....well then you resume.......only more so....

the process is hurt them...a bit(well...quite a lot really)....and ask for the info...and make them well aware of how bad the next step will be IF they have lied......if they have told the truth then fine it all stops...

rinse and repeat as necessary........

I agree right up to the Stop point. Beyond that, there's no evidence to claim it works.

At the Stop point, all you can talk about are our motives. And frankly I think those who like that kind of thing...well, I won't let their kids over to our place, that's all I'm gonna say. Like I said, it's like a predatory animal that likes to play with it's food.

Oh, and um...you never let someone whom you've tortured, live. Stupid if you do...he'll come back to kill your first born.

There is plenty of evidence to show that it works, where it has saved lives.
Again its something nobody would want to happen and should only be used within the "Ticking Time bomb" situation. When there is an imminent threat to life. The balance of the threat to life outweighs any ethics you may have in regards to using torture.

Many have lived from torture and have been set free. Its possible some will seek revenge, but does that outweigh the more pressing need to save those lives imminently under the threat?

No, it does not.

by Guest Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:18 am

veya_victaous wrote:but if he had been seriously dedicated to a cause like terrorist instead of just a thieving geranium.
it would have been entirely ineffective.
he may have lied and by the time they worked out that he had lied it's be too late.
a dedicated terrorist would actually just lead you on wild goose chase.

Would he?
That is just speculation.
There is a chance he will lead them to the wrong conclusions, just as there is every chance, he will tell the truth. So on the balance of risk, you would still then use torture.
Its also very clear torture has and does work, as it has been used for centuries to gain intelligence.
Like I say, I am per say against Torture, but with an imminent threat to life, then the threat to life outweighs any moral views on torture.

by eddie Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:40 am

Original Quill wrote:Interrogation technique is just an excuse. People who torture like it. It's not complicated.

I'm sort of with you on this. And I will ask again....isn't giving them a "talking" drug, a better way to get information?

by veya_victaous Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:23 am

Thorin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:but if he had been seriously dedicated to a cause like terrorist instead of just a thieving geranium.
it would have been entirely ineffective.
he may have lied and by the time they worked out that he had lied it's be too late.
a dedicated terrorist would actually just lead you on wild goose chase.

Would he?
That is just speculation.
There is a chance he will lead them to the wrong conclusions, just as there is every chance, he will tell the truth. So on the balance of risk, you would still then use torture.
Its also very clear torture has and does work, as it has been used for centuries to gain intelligence.
Like I say, I am per say against Torture, but with an imminent threat to life, then the threat to life outweighs any moral views on torture.

That alone makes it ineffective no better then 50 50

and been more Ineffective historically
Yes barbaric Evil peoples Used it for centuries for little to no benifit
often just hardening resistance

by Guest Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:10 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Would he?
That is just speculation.
There is a chance he will lead them to the wrong conclusions, just as there is every chance, he will tell the truth. So on the balance of risk, you would still then use torture.
Its also very clear torture has and does work, as it has been used for centuries to gain intelligence.
Like I say, I am per say against Torture, but with an imminent threat to life, then the threat to life outweighs any moral views on torture.

That alone makes it ineffective no better then 50 50

and been more Ineffective historically
Yes barbaric Evil peoples Used it for centuries for little to no benifit
often just hardening resistance

All irrelevant, if that 50% ends up saving lives.
Again at the end of the day the bases is on the balance of risk.
The risk is to required when there is the imminent threat to life.
Also you are throwing in speculative numbers not backed by evidence
Again, so would you torture the criminal or allow the baby to die?

by Original Quill Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:25 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Interrogation technique is just an excuse. People who torture like it. It's not complicated.

I'm sort of with you on this. And I will ask again....isn't giving them a "talking" drug, a better way to get information?

Of course it is. That serves to highlight that the whole interrogation thing is just a ruse. RW people, in America at least, are really into their wars. It's like the NFL. They see the other side's penalties, but never see their own side committing any penalties. So any act of vindictiveness is welcome and they feel they are justified.

Torture has nothing to do with interrogation. It's just another weapon to shoot off as a direct act of hostility. When you look at that tape of David Muir's interview of Donald Trump (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-anchor-david-muir-interviews-president/story?id=45047602), notice Trump makes only passing reference to interrogation in defending torture. Then he goes on to speak of how ISIS chops off heads. In his mind, it is a reprisal, not a means of interrogation. He would be for it no matter what, because it's a weapon, not a derivative of intel-gathering.

Civilized remove certain kinds of weapons from their arsenal when they realize that the use of it atrocious. The reasons--whether offensive or in retaliation--doesn't matter. Nuclear weapons are of that ilk. We now have Nuclear weapons bans for this reason. The Geneva Conventions were aimed at outlawing those kinds of weapons as well. These are fences we erect to rule off these kinds of things.

So, when Trump comes along and says Torture...hey, let's open this up...you wonder what he's going to open up next??! This is a man whose limits are only bounded by his anger. What else is he going to remove from the do not do list? He has already said he favors placing nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe...which is closer to the Middle East, innit? I remember in a paper I wrote back at Berkeley, I said: If they can do it, eventually they will do it!

by Guest Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:27 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's a fun way to kill people, for those who like to play with their food before they eat. There are people who like that kind of thing, though I don't let my kids play with their kids.

It bears no relationship to correct and valid information, however. It does get answers, but you have no idea if those answers mean anything. They might be 'alternative facts'.

In the end, torture is just another way to kill...for people who like sadistic things.

So in my reply earlier to Ben, would you have allowed the baby to die then?

Sometimes torture is necessary. I never used to think so until I read the "The Ticking Time bomb" situation and believe in this instance it is justified. Basically you have a situation where the threat of life is imminent. Say for example a bomb has been planted and you have the terrorist. The balance of weight to use torture is justified based off the imminent risk of life to others. So anywhere that there is an imminent risk to life and you can obtain that information through torture, it is viable to do so based on the balance of risk.

Its actually happened also.

Australian police beat a confession out of a suspect who had abandoned a stolen car with a baby in it who would have died from heatstroke. The criminal had refused at first to tell them where he’d left it.

by Guest Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:39 pm

Syl wrote:I don't know whether torture works or not.

If a bomb was about to go off somewhere and a person had information that could stop it, but refused to give details, I can understand why any government may allow some procedures to loosen his tongue.

Same here .

by Sponsored content