Trump-Torture Works

First topic message reminder :

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.

Better to catch flies with honey...?

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.

Yes, and even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But torture doesn't generally get the true answer, it gets the answer you want to hear. What you want to hear is in your head, and not in reality.

In any case, the minority President isn't interested in interrogation. He sees it as a weapon, akin to tanks and canons. In an interview over the weekend with David Muir, Trump said this about torture:

ABC News wrote:DAVID MUIR: You're now the president. Do you want waterboarding?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don't want people to chop off the citizens or anybody's heads in the Middle East. Okay? Because they're Christian or Muslim or anything else. I don't want -- look, you are old enough to have seen a time that was much different. You never saw heads chopped off until a few years ago.
Now they chop 'em off and they put 'em on camera and they send 'em all over the world. So we have that and we're not allowed to do anything. We're not playing on an even field. I will say this, I will rely on Pompeo and Mattis and my group. And if they don't wanna do, that's fine. If they do wanna do, then I will work for that end.

It is clear that the minority President doesn't believe it works. It's revenge.

1) So you did not answer my question on whether you would use torture to save the baby?

2) If you say it does not always work, you admit by this, to the fact it can indeed work. Which is all that is needed to justify the need sometimes to use Torture, based on a "ticking time bomb" situation.

3) Torture should never be legal, but where there are cases of imminent threat to life, I have no reason against torture being used.
I am not talking about what Trump wants to introduce, but where its possible to apply torture in a given situation.

4) What you fail to grasp is this quill, where there is a threat say for example of a terrorist bomb and you have the person who has planted this. Does his life matter more than those soon to be killed and maimed for life?

What is worse?

Water-boarding a terrorist or killing/maiming him?
Water-boarding an innocent person or killing/maiming him?

Now some people have had themselves try water torture, but have any of them felt what its like to be blown up with a terrorists bomb?
None of them would, as they would likely end up dead. So clearly the need to save lives warrants certain uses of torture.

Thorin wrote:1) So you did not answer my question on whether you would use torture to save the baby?

I think it was implied since I don't think torture works.  There's no guarantee it would save the baby.

Thorin wrote:2) If you say it does not always work, you admit by this, to the fact it can indeed work. Which is all that is needed to justify the need sometimes to use Torture, based on a "ticking time bomb" situation.

No that is not all that is needed.  What is needed in addition is some guarantee that it will work.There is no such guarantee, and without a guarantee it's simply an instrument of war.

Thorin wrote:3) Torture should never be legal, but where there are cases of imminent threat to life, I have no reason against torture being used.
I am not talking about what Trump wants to introduce, but where its possible to apply torture in a given situation.

Absent a guarantee, I would not even entertain it.

Thorin wrote:4) What you fail to grasp is this quill, where there is a threat say for example of a terrorist bomb and you have the person who has planted this. Does his life matter more than those soon to be killed and maimed for life?

What is worse?

Does threatening him guarantee he will tell you?  Without a guarantee that torture will work, it's a false hypothetical.  

Physicians used to bleed people to rid their bodies of evil spirits.  The worse the imminent catastrophe, the more they would bleed.  Still, no matter the danger, it didn't work.  The causation wasn't there.

Thorin wrote:Water-boarding a terrorist or killing/maiming him?
Water-boarding an innocent person or killing/maiming him?

Now some people have had themselves try water torture, but have any of them felt what its like to be blown up with a terrorists bomb?
None of them would, as they would likely end up dead. So clearly the need to save lives warrants certain uses of torture.

They once said that "the need to save lives" necessitates draining their blood.  They once said that bleeding rid their bodies of evil spirits.  It' didn't work.

Likewise, no matter the threat, if it doesn't work...it doesn't work.

1) Avoided the question again

2) But you admitted torture can work and does not need a guarantee with a ticking time bomb situation. You already lose in this situation unless you try. Trying, can bring about success in saving lives. If you do not attempt torture in a ticking time bomb situation, people will thus die in such attack. Unless with the remotest chance, you find the bomb by luck. Take the Aussie cops story, when a life is on the line, they choose the quickest best way to achieve results. That was beating him up and it succeeded in saving the babies life. If they had not have tortured the man, that baby would have died.

3)  You have repeated your last point, which I easily responded to and failed to answer the question.

4) Same as 3, you are just repeating yourself

5) Failed again to answer the questions raised

Try again and i will look in again when back

Laters

Thorin wrote:1) Avoided the question again

No, I answered the question.  

Thorin wrote:2) But you admitted torture works and does not need a guarantee with a ticking time bomb situation. You already lose unless you try. Trying can bring about success in saving lives

No, I have said many, many times, the problem with torture is that there is no guarantee that it works.  You may create an incentive, but an incentive to do what?  Lie?  Mislead?  Give you the answer you want to hear, but is not true?  There's no guarantee, whatever the answer.  If the enemy gave you a map of the minefield and told you 'walk here'...would you follow his advice?  I wouldn't.

Thorin wrote:3)  You have repeated your last point, which I easily responded to and failed to answer the question.

4) Same as 3, you are just repeating yourself

5) Failed again to answer the questions raised

Try again

But didge, you keep repeating your erroneous logic.  If torture doesn't work, why do it?  

There are million different reasons why someone would give you the answer he gives.  Truth is but a small part of it.  He might want to give you false information.  He might want to mislead you.  He might be a part of a disinformatzia campaign, such as they have in Russia.  

Even if you are given the precise, correct answer, how will you know?  You know nothing about his motives.  That's why I say, it's not just that he would lie.  There are no guarantees.

Original Quill wrote:

No, I answered the question.  


No, I have said many, many times, the problem with torture is that there is no guarantee that it works.  You may create an incentive, but an incentive to do what?  Lie?  Mislead?  Give you the answer you want to hear, but is not true?  There's no guarantee, whatever the answer.  If the enemy gave you a map of the minefield and told you 'walk here'...would you follow his advice?  I wouldn't.



But didge, you keep repeating your erroneous logic.  If torture doesn't work, why do it?  

There are million different reasons why someone would give you the answer he gives.  Truth is but a small part of it.  He might want to give you false information.  He might want to mislead you.  He might be a part of a disinformatzia campaign, such as they have in Russia.  

Even if you are given the precise, correct answer, how will you know?  You know nothing about his motives.  That's why I say, it's not just that he would lie.  There are no guarantees.  

Again, it does not need a guarantee its going to work. If you have a ticking time bomb situation. Failure to try, means people will end up dead, unless through the remotest chance of luck. That means if you do use torture, you increase the chances of saving lives, because even if there is no guarantee. We know that sometimes torture works. We know torture can and does works, because peoples lives have been saved. Example the baby saved by the Aussie cops.

You would need to show it never works, and you cannot do that can you Quill? Remember, this is based on the balance of risk, with regards to the threat of imminent life. If you are unable to prove torture never works, then your whole view point comes crashing down quill. As seen if at least sometimes it works, you do not need a guarantee in a ticking time bomb situation. As you basically having nothing left to lose in trying.

So you need to answer the qurstion you are evading

1) So you did not answer my question on whether you would use torture to save the baby?

Yes or no?

It needs a guarantee...otherwise it's patent assault, perhaps murder.

In any event, it's against the law for US personnel to perform torture. It's also against the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. In the US (or on the US behalf) if someone were to die, the perps could themselves be put to death. Not so, of course, for those countries not having the death penalty.

Original Quill wrote:It needs a guarantee...otherwise it's patent assault, perhaps murder.

In any event, it's against the law for US personnel to perform torture.  It's also against the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.  In the US (or on the US behalf) if someone were to die, the perps could themselves be put to death.  Not so, of course, for those countries not having the death penalty.

As I have easily explained it does not need a guarantee, when there is nothing left to lose with a "ticking time bomb" situation.
We are not debating the legality of the UN charter.

eddie wrote:Better to catch flies with honey...?

Muslim terrorists believe the honey is waiting for them AFTER they die not before, so I doubt it would work with them.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It needs a guarantee...otherwise it's patent assault, perhaps murder.

In any event, it's against the law for US personnel to perform torture.  It's also against the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.  In the US (or on the US behalf) if someone were to die, the perps could themselves be put to death.  Not so, of course, for those countries not having the death penalty.

As I have easily explained it does not need a guarantee, when there is nothing left to lose with a "ticking time bomb" situation.
We are not debating the legality of the UN charter.

It is sad that you value human life so cheaply. Let's change the equation. Now say it's one of your children that you want to torture to get the information.

Mind you, there's no guarantee that you will gain any information, but what the fook...what is there to lose but a kid, eh? You can always get more. They're easy to make.

Feels a little different when it's closer to your interests, doesn't it?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

As I have easily explained it does not need a guarantee, when there is nothing left to lose with a "ticking time bomb" situation.
We are not debating the legality of the UN charter.

It is sad that you value human life so cheaply.  Let's change the equation.  Now say it's one of your children that you want to torture to get the information.  

Mind you, there's no guarantee that you will gain any information, but what the fook...what is there to lose but a kid, eh?  You can always get more.  They're easy to make.

Feels a little different when it's closer to your interests, doesn't it?

If its one of my children, that has planted a bomb, I would beat them like the cops did to get the information out in a ticking time bomb situation with the baby.

So it feels no different, as even if its my son they intend to murder people and with nothing left to lose, I would act accordingly

At least I answer your questions, so lets reverse this onto you

How about the bomb is attached to your daughter and you have limited time to save her with the only option left, with nothing left to lose. Is either to torture the captive has planted this on her or you allow her to die?

So which is it?

Is there no better way to get information out of someone, than pain?
I am undecided on this as no one has offered an alternative. Why isn't there some sort of "truth" drug?

Thorin wrote:If its one of my children, that has planted a bomb, I would beat them like the cops did to get the information out in a ticking time bomb situation with the baby.

Beating one's children until they are dead?  And there's no guarantee they have the information?  You don't even know.  Poor kids...if they need legal help let me know.

And just because it was successful once, doesn't recommend a bad idea for all times.  After all, we dropped the nuclear bomb once...do you recommend it as a standard practice?

As to your complaint, you've not asked a relevant question.  You've meandered off course several times and I've had to bring you back.  Stick to the point and don't ask stupid questions next time.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:If its one of my children, that has planted a bomb, I would beat them like the cops did to get the information out in a ticking time bomb situation with the baby.

Beating one's children until they are dead?  And there's no guarantee they have the information?  You don't even know.  Poor kids.

And just because it was successful once, doesn't recommend a bad idea for all times.  After all, we dropped the nuclear bomb once...do you recommend it as a standard practice?

As to your complaint, you've not asked a relevant question.  You've meandered off course several times and I've had to bring you back.  Stick to the point and don't ask stupid questions next time.

1) Where did I say I would beat anyone to death?
never did, most people who under go torture are never killed, so your reasoning is poor to say the least.
I said beat it out of him. It might work, they again it might not, but I would at least try, because lives are at stake

2) Again, it does not need a guarantee its going to work. If you have a ticking time bomb situation. Failure to try, means people will end up dead, unless through the remotest chance of luck. That means if you do use torture, you increase the chances of saving lives, because even if there is no guarantee. We know that sometimes torture works. We know torture can and does works, because peoples lives have been saved. Example the baby saved by the Aussie cops. 

You would need to show it never works, and you cannot do that can you Quill? Remember, this is based on the balance of risk, with regards to the threat of imminent life. If you are unable to prove torture never works, then your whole view point comes crashing down quill. As seen if at least sometimes it works, you do not need a guarantee in a ticking time bomb situation. As you basically having nothing left to lose in trying.

3) For the 20th time you have failed to answer my questions

How about the bomb is attached to your daughter and you have limited time to save her with the only option left, with nothing left to lose. Is either to torture the captive has planted this on her or you allow her to die?

So which is it?