Nice video. It really sickens me to see so many politicians support torture. To me it's mind boggling how this doesn't destroy their careers. I guess that's were the pro torture, fear inspiring media comes into play. We condemned to death the Japanese in WWII for waterboarding. We grew up with a strong belief that our nations liberated instead of occupied and we treated a POWs in a humane way. This was the major difference between the west and the axis or soviets. We need to look in the mirror.
I think your reading of Sun Tzu was not quite right but I agree with everything else in your video. To be more direct. I was a British Soldier & part of the illegal invasion of Iraq. Knowing the enemy I had already determined that no matter what happened, I would not surrender. This was not false bravado but if you like fear. I would rather die a relatively quick death, than allow myself to be tortured & later murdered brutally at their hands. I would go down if necessary trying to bit them.
Thanks for sharing. I am curious how you would interpret the Sun Tzu quote. My understanding is that generals who convince the enemy to give up without a fight are the greatest of all. Is this not what Sun Tzu was driving at?
@AntiCitizenX Hi, I have watched through the relevant part of the video again. I find I am less at odds with you than I thought. I have just done a little more reading, you were right & I was wrong. Can you guess if I am religious or not? hehe I have to tell you as a UK soldier I did feel my life was more in danger because of lack of regard for prisoner welfare shown by the US. I wanted the enemy to feel terrified but all he need do was put his hands up to look forward to a hot meal & safety.
@AntiCitizenX Why is I was wrong so difficult for some people? We have a wide rage of experiences every day. We are political animals and therefore tend to express our views. It stands to reason that we might not have all the evidence or just misjudge something all the time and are therefore wrong on something on a regular basis.
Wasn't one of your slides Carl Sagan saying it was OK to be wrong a lot of the time, if you aren't then you're not doing it right?
Not a free nation? Then what am I doing expressing grievances against my government? Shouldn't I be in prison? What about all those guns sitting in my closet? And why don't people ask to see papers when I travel across the country?
@AntiCitizenX The most oppressed are those who think they are free when the case is not such. Having a country run by corporate interest in complete disreguard for the people is not a free nation.
Could have fooled me. I have openly expressed my grievances against the ruling authority and have yet to be reprimanded or censured by my democratically elected lawmakers. Sounds pretty free to me.
@AntiCitizenX Again, The most opressed are those who theink they are free when the case is not such. Americans only get to choose who the corporate interest will decide over. There was an overwhelming majority for a lot of things that hasnt happen. The people are not in charge.
Indeed. I recently read that a lot of German soldiers on the fields of World War II eagerly surrendered to US forces at the first opportunity because of older relatives of theirs who had fought us in the First War and been treated humanely.
The internment camps were why the Japanese fought us with such dogged determination.
This is why the Iraqi army surrendered so readily in Desert Storm. They knew they would be treated better as prisoners of the first world than soldiers of the third.
It's what I've been saying to others basically, offering the enemy an incentive, like reduced prison times works far better than causing pain, and possibly future death.
It's how I would give up, if I were tortured, my only goal is to stop the torture, not to give evidence.
"A little off-topic from atheism, but apparently no one in the media seems to understand that torturing prisoners is the moral equivalent to eating babies and trading slaves."
In all the books I have read in philosophy, morally speaking, torturing is about at the same level of bad as murdering people (sometimes worse!). Usually, things actions are measured by the amount of pleasure/pain they bring, and pure pain is as bad as you can get.
You cant justify torture by "it maybe will get us info"
I think you are quote mining sun tzu. it could have also meant the usage of land mines or indirect means of war for the sake of the safety of your own army. (San tzu did use land mines). over all your messege is emotionally touching, and true.
@Miranox2 Watch deadliest warrior the San tzu segment. And they didn't have land mines like we did... but they had a primitive version. I think it was like black powder packed into a pot... that would be triggered by a flaming torch or something??? just search up deadliest warrior Sun Tzu. The show uses actual historians so there is legitamacy. and by indirect i mean like.. using bees and using the landscape to win the battle.
Well while 'Americans' think / thought (before the 9/11 inside job) that we did not torture the rest of the third world had first hand personal knowledge that we did indeed torture & frequently wrote about it. Out controlled press rarely let these stories see the light of day. It took photo documentation to expose how we have been doing it all along 'legally' through Rendition.
The whole point of exposing it to the public was to instill fear - i.e. shut up or you could be next.
I also don't think it's a waste of time/energy to campaign against land-mines, or nuclear weapons, or depleted uranium, etc., etc.... But I understand that was not your main point.
The Bush Administration also said America DOES NOT torture b/c they simply redefined the word "torture". Essentially they said that (to paraphrase) 'Torture is Bad. America Never does Anything Bad. Therefore, America doesn't use Torture. We use "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" '.
my only criticism is that @4:15 & @6:14 it should read "...why America [should] not torture..." B/c America clearly does torture and HAS in almost all conflicts it's been involved in. And tortue is only one of a long list of bad policies our gov. uses that spoils America's reputation. (I also think we should just END the war.) other than that, great video!
You must be an immature youngin' - so unaware of the world and what we must do. Stating my opinion I was expecting someone like you. But like Malcolm X - fight violence with violence and non violence with non violence. But possibilities are endless.
And you must be blissfully unaware of how pitiful your arguments & reasoning is as you engage in a random ad hominem in order to draw attention away from your completely ignoring the question.
Who needs to be tortured, who decides, and to what end?
We can call each other stupid later, answer the questions
Well if you are eager for an answer i'll give you something: Bad people. And that can be defined in any kind of aspect you would like. Drawing my attention away from the question wasn't my intention I truly laughed when you said i need my genitals to be removed you gave me the troll satisfaction of your angered reaction. Who decides? Who cares, When does it end? When it does.
You made them public, you are presenting a public agenda. Your opinions are fine on your own but if your intent is to have them manifest in the real world then I have every reason to question your "stupid" beliefs
"i'll give you something: Bad people"
So after the build up & name calling of "immature" you offer the reasoning of a child..."BAD MAN DID BAD THING"
Really? So the law reads, "bad people get tortured"?
"the troll satisfaction of your angered reaction"
And you provided me the smug satisfaction of witnessing a troll not recognizing ironic dichotomy when its staring him in the face (I even all capped your quote to draw attention to it in case you were slow witted...guess I underestimated you)
So that is one point to you for getting me to respond to your inept posting but one very enjoyable point to me for watching your troll attempts backfire under the weight of your own obtuseness
@Hopeful71 Wow i just noticed this one; you are angry and you mispelt words (like you were typing too fast with anxiety in one of your posts) You are angry and gave me satisfaction making two posts i came back to edit your a hippocrit because i said contradict xD - I am glad you care so much about everything and I got under your skin so easily - but now i have a life which you don't
"came back to edit your a hippocrit because i said contradict"
Ummm, yeah
"but now i have a life which you don't"
So that is your cognitive dissonance way of saying, "I really have no argument, I have tried everything I can to distract from that fact, so I am gonna pack my tiny brain up &, in the face of defeat, declare victory"
I got it; trolling is tough work when lacking in intelligence, metacognition, & any self-awareness. So, prepare for genital removal
@Hopeful71 Okay bookworm. I can take the genital removal like a man. But, where does that leave you? All I made a point about was I don't care about people who deserve torture... Nonetheless, I am still getting under your skin!! =)
I feel no pain; making me feel stupid actually makes me feel nothing seeing as you are a nobody to ME =D
So enlighten me some more. Use even bigger words, phrases, and metaphors. And on top of that, waste some more time with jolly ol' me my argumentative buddy =)
I am not interested in taking media lessons from anonymous assholes who begin conversations with baseless accusations. If you wish to address the claims of the video, you are welcome to do so. But if all you're going to do is troll my forum with mindless insults then you will just be banned and your comments deleted.
I allways found it inexcusable and cowardly that the US basically outsourced toture to other nations. Doing it themselves is of course bad, but giving your prisoners to other nations that have no qualms about torturing is JUST as bad, and twice as cowardly. That - and the whole thing about Guantanamo. Its basic purpose was just to cicumvent the laws to be able to treat prisoners as if they had to human rights.How can people do that and till claim to be ethical and better than their enemies?
@TheStigma and BTW, this is not meant to insult americans, but to encourage you to stand up to the leaders that allow such attrocities. Even though my country has never been enganged in torture - that is probably just a matter of circumstances. Your battle regarding these things could just as easily have been mine - but unfortunately I just don't have any rights to demand anything from another nations government - but you do. Let them know what you think about it.
BTW, outsourcing torture interrogation is against the Geneva Conventions. We cannot legally transport a prisoner's custody if there is good reason to fear for his safety.
I can't believe people still try and defend the use of torture, when it was made clear by those who were ordered to perform it that it was entirely political (any honest person already knew this). You can read it right from the torture memo's, the testimony in front of congress. Search the NYtimes website for the report by the senate armed services committee on detainee treatment, page 72
I can remember the outcry during the Korean War when American POWs were being subjected to similar techniques without any physical element, e.g. sleep deprivation, continual noise, etc. This was called 'brainwashing' and was presented as evidence that North Korea was utterly debased. It produced some startling results as many prisoners began to espouse the creed of their captors. Gitmo has a different agenda; it's to make the American people feel better. And I've been ashamed since Nixon.
OO good question - a person walks into a police department at 10am, says he has planted 10 bombs under schools in the state set to go off in 10.15am, any exodus of students would cause the bombs to explode, he gives the location of one and he says he knows the deactivation code and will give it over for a certain price, that he gets to kill one police officer.
Suppose you torture the guy and he eventually tells you a bomb is buried under high school "X". So you run off, rent a tractor, dig up the basement, and find nothing. Great! You just wasted 5 hours of time chasing a wild goose.
Now suppose he didn't plant bombs under high schools, but only kidnapped a child. And suppose he did not confess to it, but you only suspect he did it. Now what? Because that's how the real world is. You wanna throw away Constitutional rights?
@AntiCitizenX With your 100k troops vs 20k, if the 20k were fighting in something they believe in just as sincerely as the other side, I'd expect all of them to die fighting for their cause.
My bombman gave the location of one bomb to show it's real and he's not kidding, there's 9 others he could give the locations too but any tampering would cause an explosion, he knows the deactivation code for all of them.
" I'd expect all of them to die fighting for their cause."
Life is not like RTS games where soldiers are more than happy to die for you. Historically speaking, soldiers almost never "fight to the death." The only reason the Japanese were so fanatical is because the soldiers were told that the Americans were brutal monsters who would practically eat them if ever captured. If not for this propaganda, the Japanese would have surrender in much greater numbers.
The main problem with your bomb man is that he simply doesn't exist. You can't go around trampling the Constitution based on events that never occur outside of television. You might as well ask if its okay to anally rape 7-year-old girls if there were a way to save lives from it. You might be able to concoct a specific scenario where it seems feasible, but realistically its not something you officially endorse.
@AntiCitizenX The problem I have is this, 'what if such a scenario does present itself?' such actions have to be considered even if they're uncomfortable to think about.
If you want to consider such events, then consider this. Suppose a girl is kidnapped. You are 95% sure you have the right man, but cannot find the body. Should you torture him to get the information? Suppose you do and it works. Then what? Can we torture anyone the police arrest over any offense for any information? What kind of state are you building that happily utilizes such measures? What is the cutoff? How well can you reasonably expect it to statistically work?
@AntiCitizenX You see, being 95% sure (I'd prefer being closer to 100%) and doing such an act when someone's/lots of lives are on the line is way different to doing such an act for "any offense for any information".
I'm just interested to see what happens when all investigative measures are exhausted and the bad guy gets his way and is smiling in his cell,would all the good guys go home happily knowing that even though people died,at least they didn't hit the bad guy trying to save those lives?
The problem I am trying to drive at with torture is that it has no track record of providing useful information in any reliable way. What it DOES have is a track record of being abused by the state as a tool for extracting false confessions and severe oppression. Even if you had perfect 100 % certainty in a criminal kidnapping case, you can't go around violating his constitutional rights until at least AFTER he is convicted in a court of law.
@JeanLouie1106 Far more people die every year in road traffic accidents in the US than have died in all terrorist outrages. Do you campaign against the automobile industry? How about the tobacco industry? And why isn't it part of the War on Drugs? There was a British citizen in Gitmo who was accused of terrorism despite the fact that he could prove he was at work in Dixon's at the time of the alleged offence. The truth is the US is finished as a moral force, and as an economic force.
I do believe there is a place for torture, I'll admit it's not very helpful when it comes to getting someone to say something you want them to say, like a confession, but can be very useful in getting information that was previously unknown. Torture is a small part of why a group of many peoples goes to war, I doubt treating prisoners with 'dignity and humanity' like this clip says would make enemies who fight for a great cause, in their eyes, surrender.
Treating people nicely does not stop wars. What it does do is add incentive for the enemy to surrender as he begins to face certain defeat. If you have a force of 100,000 that surrounds an enemy force of 20,000, they are pretty much doomed. But if all they have to look forward to is a torture chamber, they will fight hard to the death, and likely take a few thousand of your own men with them. Offer them honorable terms, and many will give up peacefully.
You must keep in mind that a person being tortured would say anything to be rid of the experience. Why not simply tell the interrogator what they want to hear? As their claims of innocense and/or unknowing is seen as false.
It is simply put pointless. Just as much as war being stupidity.
My wife's family is quite religious ... evagelical Christian .. and I can see how their thinking seems black and white, and like religious zealotry. But day to day, they are normal, wonderful, in touch, and even open to other ideas. They might always fall back to their religious convictions, though, when in doubt.
Would they have joined the Knights Templar? Would they have roused and begun a hunt for Rosicrucians? Would they have gladly given their lives to help rid the holy land of the infidel? I'm not talking about the standard everyday religious pundit. But the ones who would turniquette themselves so they don't bleed out that they may kill more infidels. Or strap a bomb on and charge a school.
There are certainly fanatics out there. I just don't know how many, or in what form, or how flexible they might be, or how much a product of their environment. And I can't see into men's hearts so I don't know how many proclaim fanatacism but are otherwise motivated. And things are so rarely black-and-white ...
In this current conflict, at least more than 1,100 between 2k3 and 2k8 in Iraq. And at least 28 in the first 8 months in Pakistan. These suicide attackers have their own support personel. Much like tanks would.
"And things are so rarely black-and-white"
This is EXACTLY what I'm trying to point out here. Aliens argument is very reasonable, but as I thought about it, I realize it doesn't apply in all situations.
@Exmech2 What I mean to say is, I don't know - and can't know - how many of those who proclaim fanatacism really mean what they say. Surely many are saying it for other reasons. Or most likely, for a combination of reasons. But I do acknowledge, there are some true believers.
Normally I'd agree with you. But the numbers of actual suicide attacks, and the support they receive as documented by many sources, including Al-Jazerrah, bely that there's something else going on.
Being the "nice guys" during WWII actually prompted whole divisions to breakout of Soviet encirclement specifically to surrender to the Western Allies. But that logic doesn't seem to be working in the insurrections in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe I'm speaking to early. We shall see.
The ultimate problem with suicide bombing is that it is a tactic of last resort that cannot be sustained in any continuous, operational sense. So be careful what you deduce from it.
You also need to understand the mentality of the Afghan people. They are hardly united by anything remotely ideological, and are far better described as a fractured group or competing clans. So beware the "they are all alike" mentality. The Taliban are a lot more complex than you give them credit for.
The Taliban are for more complex than you, my friend, are giving them credit for. Suicide attacks CAN, and HAVE been sustained. And are very effective.
Search on: chronology of tamil tigers suicide attacks
You will be surprised.
"So be careful what you deduce from it."
Back at ya. My whole point is this: This is a brand new phenomena with NO historical precedent. And so proclaiming any strategy as sure-shot method is making a mistake.
"And so proclaiming any strategy as sure-shot method is making a mistake."
Oh believe me, I make no such claims. All I would say is, in regards to this video, I can think of no self-interested strategic goal that may be served by torture.
I do think AntiCitizen X has a good point in that each person fighting for the Taliban is probably doing so for their own reason ... probably various blends of ideology, selfishness, and/or true selflessness as they perceive it ... which is my way of saying, I also have trouble accepting that all, or even almost all, Taliban are motivated primarily by ideology, and are willing to suicide, and so on. Even their leaders might not be nearly as ideologically motivated as they claim. Case by case ...
I made a factual in my earlier post regarding the ONLY 28 suicide bombings... those were in Pakistan. In the first 8 months of 2008, there were 28 suicide bombing in Pakistan, killing more than 420.
Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. But in dealing with an ideological inssurrection, all the standard military manuals go out the window. Clausewitz and Sun T'zu do not belong here. Mao and Michael Collins do.
Perhaps you are simply better educated on the question than I. But isn't this, too, creeping in the direction of a conspiracy theory ... 'they' (in this case, religious zealots) are fundamentally 'other' from 'us'? Aren't they more likely just like us - every bit as complex, conflicted and confused? (Or am only I complex, conflicted and confused?)
I see where you're going with that, and sadly, 500 characters is bit too smal for correct identification. When I say, I am speaking of, specifically, the Fanaticism motivated soldier. Examples through History would be Mao's Army, the Viet Minh, Taliban, Mujahideen, Hassassins, Kamikaze, Sepoy, Moro, and many others.
If you wouldn't mind commenting on a particular lesson of Sun Tzu's. He was given the task to train a regiment of women soldiers. They were not serious, and kept giggling as he tried to drill them. Would you remind us of what he did about this, and his rationale for his action?
Oh... in front of the regiment of women, he had their lieutenants beheaded, even though it was plainly obvious they were not at fault. The women became serious after that. I should point out, however, that this is an anecdote as related by Tu Mu as an example Moral Law in Art of War 1:4
I am afraid you lost me a bit - I never read Art of War. What is the significance of its being an anecdote as related by someone else, just that it might not be true? Or does Tu Mu have a particular agenda? And what is the point of the lesson anyway? He made them responsible for their fellow soliders and refocused the morality into a kind of group morality? (Or he scared them? Or both.)
Umm... first, I made the mistake of making the attribution to Sun T'zu himself, so I was correcting myself. Being historically honest.
The Art of War is a collection whose base text was authored by Sun T'zu. but there were many additions through the centuries. And it's helpful to a historian to identify who said what.
Thank you. I remain, at least for the moment, an ardent defender of Psychological Warfare. Which can, by your broad definition, be considered torture. However, you've made some valid points, forcing me to rethink my position. I'll get back to you with some arguments if you're open to them.
Hey now, don't go knocking on Psychological Warfare! There are all sorts of great things you can do with PsiOps. My only contention is that the goal should be directed at trying to convince the enemy to surrender; not to carry on fighting.
In fact, I would even argue that a *reputation for treating prisoners humanely* is, itself, a form of PsiOps. How many Iraqis would be willing to face certain destruction when all they have to do is lay down arms to get a free hot meal? Is the 1/50 chance of killing a US soldier really worth it?
The very same number we have already been fighting. They aren't indoctrinated that the US is a "big bad meanie", say, as the Japanese of Okinawa were. They are indoctrinated that the US is an infidel power, a crusader, and must be ejected from the holy land. A wholly different circumstance.
These are good talking points, so I'll address them one at a time.
Indoctrination only goes so far. When faced with the prospect of imminent annihilation or surrender and a hot meal, at least SOME soldiers will defect, no matter what nation they are from. This was actually a huge success in Iraqi Freedom. The PsiOps guys dropped pamphlets everywhere promising food and shelter for those who surrendered, and many thousands of Iraqis indeed chose surrender over resistance.
With respect to a national army, you are absolutely correct. However, these tactics aren't working very well against the Taliban. Who do seem to prefer imminent destruction over a hot meal.
"However, these tactics aren't working very well against the Taliban."
This is a very over-simplified view of things, but for argument's sake, let's assume you are right.
So what? Is the periodic failure to entice surrender now your pretext to go around torturing every last prisoner? What do we gain by throwing away our obligations to treat prisoners humanely? What about reputation for the sake of future wars? Is EVERY LAST ENEMY WE EVER FACE going to be as fanatical as the Taliban?
That may very well be true. But realistically, do you honestly think that *every last* soldier in the service of the Taliban is an over-zealous religious fanatic with no regard for his personal safety? And again, even if they were, is this a pretext to start torturing people? Or are you just bringing it up as a talking point? Please explain.
Actually yes. And not merely the soldiery. Those that support it are highly fanatical. With no regard for their personal safety. It's very hard to find a comparable military action in which one side opts for suicide attacks as a measure of standard tactics. Think about this for a bit, then get back to me.
"Actually yes. And not merely the soldiery. Those that support it are highly fanatical. With no regard for their personal safety."
On what basis do you assert this claim? What you are saying effectively goes against basic human nature.
Yes, suicide bombing is an employed tactic, but such tactics are the exception, not the norm. They have to be, or else very last Taliban soldier would have committed suicide already.
Reading the Taliban literature. And through personal corrospondence with some of its supporters.
"Yes, suicide bombing is an employed tactic, but such tactics are the exception..."
I'm sorry. Alien. You are demonstrably wrong here.Suicide bombings are an effective tactic to maim more than individual enemy, as well as striking at targets that are militarily out of reach.
There were about 800 Kamikaze in total. Approximately 300 were killed in action. From the beginning of the Iraqi invasion till 2008, there were more then 1,100. And that is only in Iraq. In the first 8 months of 2008, there were ONLY 28 suicide attacks, killing more than 420. Clearly, what motivates a European enemy, is not what is motivating these guys.
And again, what does this have to do with torture? Even if what you said was perfectly true, how does torturing prisoners relate to this? You speak of them as fanatics undeterred by psychology. Okay fine, but what about their recruits? You think torturing prisoners will serve any other purpose than provoking more young volunteers to join their ranks?
There are a hundred reasons why torture only helps the enemy, and not one that serves American goals. Please explain your point in this.
My point is this... You've only mentioned a few of these "hundred reasons". And those you mention are perfectly applicable to a civilized enemy. But they fail when fanaticism is the motivation of any given enemy.
I am, in no way, defending the use of torture. And I thought I made that clear already. I AM pointing out that there are some situations where your normally sound logic fails.
Okay, I think I finally see what you are driving at.
Allow me to put it this way: No matter how fanatical the enemy may be, it is physically impossible to ever achieve total, 100-percent suicide-ready devotion. When push comes to shove, at least some finite fraction of them will be deterred in some way or another by an honest humanitarian reputation of the enemy. Given the choice of annihilation or surrender, at least some always surrender if they can sincerely expect humane treatment.
If we were dealing with the products of a Western style society, I would agree. But unfortunately, this is proving NOT to be tactic of last resort as the Kamikaze were. This tactic has proven far too effective in Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq... and the list goes on.
@Exmech2 the kamikaze were not a last resort attack they were used frequently during world war 2 as a legitimate strategy to attack ships many japanese planes did not have the required fuel to fly to a battle and fly back
Please... the Kamikaze were last resort. We aren't defining kamikaze as "my plane is hit, I'll crash it into that ship". This occurred on both sides most notably at Pearl Harbor, and Midway. The Kamikaze, however, were to commit suicide as a matter of tactic. This is what the unit Tamai created was asked to do. And this was in late 1944 when it was realized the IJN could not stop the Allied invasion of the Phillipines. It was last resort.
There is no debate going on about whether the Kamikaze were last resort. There were no Kamikaze units formed prior to September 1944 after such devestating defeats as the Turkey Shoot.
I don't think I made myself very clear, so let me say it another way.
The problem with suicide attacks is that you can only do them once. So when I say they are not sustainable, it is because you are strictly limited by the trickle of volunteers you can draw into your force. The probability of inflicting casualties is also not nearly as high as I think your are indicating. Foiled suicide bombs are common in my understanding (but I could be wrong).
28 attacks in 8 months is hardly a significant military figure, given the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in country as we speak. If you want to talk about "proven effective," then I feel the IED booby trap is far superior.
umm, the 28 in the first 8 months was Pakistan for 2008. And yes, it's significant when you consider kill/loss ratio. For Iraq, over a 5 year period there were a little over 1,100. Averaging about 18 attacks a month. You're mistaking weapon use with effectiveness. There are no reported IED attacks in well fortified areas. There's a reason for that.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the mindset of a potential suicide bomber is pretty rare. You cannot coerce someone into suicide bombing the way you can simply draft soldiers. The ranks of suicide bombers require a special form of hatred and dedication that is not normally found in the average person.
And finally, suicide bombing is, tactically speaking, a tool of sporadic casualty infliction in small numbers. Any strategic value obtained from suicide bombing is strictly psychological in nature. So although you may be right that humane reputation does not necessarily convince suicide bombers to surrender, it certainly does wonders for stifling the pool of hatred from which to recruit more bombers.
Sri Lanka, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Taliban, Iran, Spain, Britain, France, the United States, as well as numerous paramilitary groups around the world, differ with your opinion on the effectiveness of suicide bombing.
Regarding your assertions of "doing wonders", you can't back it up with facts. And you know this.
"...when all they have to do is lay down arms to get a free hot meal?"
This paid dividends in the first Iraqi conflict. Tens of thousands of Iraqi's surrendered merely because they knew they would get fed, even though they also knew WE were starving them as airpower kept blowing up their supply trucks. Is starving your enemy torture? Also remember, Schwarzkopf was demonized for using bulldozers to bury, alive, Iraqi soldiers who were still manning their trenches.
It absolutely is. But the issue here is not torture of the enemy, per se. The issue is torture of enemy *prisoners.* As long as a man is holding a rifle and maintaining resistance, then anything goes. You can bury alive, amputate limbs, maim, mutilate, or all-around kill him. That's war. But the moment he declares his intention to surrender, it is vital that he be honored in that regard. Otherwise, you give no incentive for the enemy to give up.
You need to realize that as long as a man maintains his will to resist, then there exists a finite probability, greater than zero, that he will kill or injure one of your own. This reason alone is enough to treat prisoners well, because it entices further surrender with less risk to your own men. Reputation physically saves your own men's lives. I don't give two shits about humanitarianism or being nice. The lives of our own soldiers are the fundamental issue here.
I agree that an untarnished reputation CAN entice an enemy. However with a religious zealot, things are a bit different. They have very different goals for the conflict. In this regard, and only this regard, I would compare the current Taliban insurrection with the Sepoy rebellion of 1857. The Brits could have been nice, or terrible (and were both). Neither deterred or enticed the zealous enemy.
The word torture is like the words art or terrorist. They mean different things to different people. We need to discuss exactly what tortue is before we have the next conversation. Is it torture to ask questions without giving the subject a backrub and their favorite ice cream? I believe that the line should be drawn at physical damage or permanet psycological damage.
Strictly speaking, the very words of the Geneva Convention itself prohibit subjecting prisoners to "any unpleasantness of any kind." This does not mean you have to give prisoners back rubs, but it does mean that you cannot subject them to excessive physical duress for the sake of extracting information. Water-boarding especially.
Yes, it is, but that is not the context of the statement. Here are the actual words from Article 17:
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be
threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
So obviously, the text implies "extra" unpleasantness beyond being a prisoner already.
Thank you. In all the times i've tried to have this discussion, you're the first to try to define torture. And the Geneva Convention? Top notch. Unfortunately, when somebody's definition of torture includes things as mundane as insults, they shouldn't be sited as an authority. Even children in school yards are exposed to threats, insults and upleasant or disadvantageous treatment on a daily basis.
On a larger note, the overall definition seems extremely broad. It seems like people could argue for things even more stupid than my ice cream and backrubs.
"Even children in school yards are exposed to threats, insults and upleasant or disadvantageous treatment on a daily basis."
Comparing schoolyard hi-jinx to wartime imprisonment is a bit of a silly comparison, don't you think?
The fact of the matter is, you cannot inflict pain on people for the sake of extracting information. Period. It is illegal in every way, and the more severe the pain, the more illegal it becomes. It also serves no purpose beyond needless escalation of violence.
One of the best arguments against torture that I have ever seen. Well done. To show that torture is not only morally wrong, but also detrimental to the war effort was brilliant.
An interesting polemic against torture that seems to be a subtle blend of Rule-Utilitarianism and Consequntialism. Your objection is not the traditional rights argument, implying that you would find torture acceptable if a central premise in the calculus that US soldiers die as a result is rejected, or simply removed in some thought experiment. One might say your objection is contingent, rather than moral, and relies on the appeal to the emotions that can lead to cognitive bias.
Wow I love this video, powerful stuff. and you are absolutely correct, I am recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, I was a prison guard there. and one of the biggest dangers for me was when news would break about torture or abuse, that meant riots and that meant someone got hurt, the men who killed those detainees in vengance in baghdad caused unbleivable difficulties for us and destryoed all the rapport we had developed over the years.
It's from the Blackhawk Down soundtrack. I think it's called "Leave No Man Behind."
I also really appreciate your insight. There was another guy on the forum claiming to be a soldier, but did so under some kind of pretense that his title grants him the right to say whatever he wants without question. So I'm glad you are around to rub his nose a little.
I would love to see anyone who suggests that waterboarding 'isn't torture' undergoes it to prove it.
Christopher Hitchens did and he spoke very well about how it was in every sense of the word torture. Pity Fox news lie mongers don't have the stones to try the same.
My sentence about the Japanese was poorly worded but I think you knew what I was going for.
I know that truth drug isn't very reliable, either. But, contrary to what you think, we should use it if it works. Torture is different from landmines. Landmines can kill friend or enemy. Interrogation cannot backfire, it can just fail.
I'm not an advocate for abusing human rights, but I think its the government's duty to place citizens' rights over prisoners' comfort.
What this video didn't really emphasize, was that torture in its own right does not produce reliable intelligence. No court in the US allows any "confession under duress" (which torture is inclusive to). The Geneva convention (which the US has signed on to) has banned torture. Technically, those involved with water boarding are to be tried in an international court!
I mean to say that your thesis has the emphasis. And that, US courts do not accept confessions under duress, nor do they accept lie detectors as a method of confession. I imagine there could be an entirely separate video dissecting all the finer points of torture.
"Interrogation cannot backfire, it can just fail."
I beg to differ. The incentive it places into the enemy to continue fighting is certainly a "backfire," is it not?
I should also point out that I am not suggesting we give every prisoner his own massage chair. I am just trying to argue that torturing them serves no self interest. On the other hand, offering to TRADE a massage chair for information is certainly reasonable, and I would even argue that it has a higher success rate.
I posted a reply but youtube didn't put it up. The short version is, some prisoners have traits like honor or religious valor, thus making them virtually immune to bargaing for information. While torture might just lead them to telling a lie, it seems, to me, to have a better chance than trying to bargain with a fanatic.
Well I don't have much more to argue. Thanks for the discussion and its even been a little educational.
You have to be careful when you copy/paste text from other responses. Sometimes it sneaks in a character that YouTube doesn't like and so it refuses to post your reply. Then you lose all that hard work you put in to typing your reply. I noticed the same thing happens if you try to include URLs. So always backup your reply before you click that "post comment" button!
Torture can be a reliable way to extract information. Why do you think Japanese commit suicide because they thought Americans would torture them?
When someone is being tortured, their judgment isn't clear, and most of the time they don't understand the low chance of getting set free for spilling their guts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have lie-detector tests and solutions that cause people to tell the truth?
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have lie-detector tests and solutions that cause people to tell the truth?"
To the best of my knowledge, we do not. Lie detectors are notoriously easy to defeat and a man will say anything to make the pain stop. Like I said before, if you could demonstrate a way to extract real intelligence through physical coercion, then you would have a real point. But there is a reason by courts never admit testimony gained under duress. You just can't trust it.
I'm not trying to outsmart you, either. Its more of a "I disagree" type thing than a "you're wrong and this is why."
Opinions can't be changed on Youtube and old beliefs can't be taken away. Normally I don't talk to atheists on Youtube because they tend to have God Complexes and easily defeated arguments, but I haven't really seen much of either in you
Have you considered what the cost might be? You seem smarter than the 9/11 truth people, so I'm going to put 9/11 out there. That was not the last attack they intended to perform.
If torturing means we are causing the deaths of more and more Americans, refraining from torture might mean we're handing over our citizens to be slaughtered. These people are trying to make bombs (or suspected of such things) when they're arrested. Only a fool would think lightly of that.
"refraining from torture might mean we're handing over our citizens to be slaughtered."
If torture were in any way a reliable way of extracting information, then you'd have a point. This is the whole purpose of the land mine analogy. But torture simply fails to do this. You might as well try to justify infant cannibalism on the grounds that it cures cancer. It simply doesn't.
"Torture is the tool of tyrants..." now, Christians, consider the notion of Hell.
cyxgun 1 month ago
Nice video. It really sickens me to see so many politicians support torture. To me it's mind boggling how this doesn't destroy their careers. I guess that's were the pro torture, fear inspiring media comes into play. We condemned to death the Japanese in WWII for waterboarding. We grew up with a strong belief that our nations liberated instead of occupied and we treated a POWs in a humane way. This was the major difference between the west and the axis or soviets. We need to look in the mirror.
Kariakas 1 month ago
I think your reading of Sun Tzu was not quite right but I agree with everything else in your video. To be more direct. I was a British Soldier & part of the illegal invasion of Iraq. Knowing the enemy I had already determined that no matter what happened, I would not surrender. This was not false bravado but if you like fear. I would rather die a relatively quick death, than allow myself to be tortured & later murdered brutally at their hands. I would go down if necessary trying to bit them.
William00048 1 month ago
@William00048
Thanks for sharing. I am curious how you would interpret the Sun Tzu quote. My understanding is that generals who convince the enemy to give up without a fight are the greatest of all. Is this not what Sun Tzu was driving at?
AntiCitizenX 1 month ago
@AntiCitizenX Hi, I have watched through the relevant part of the video again. I find I am less at odds with you than I thought. I have just done a little more reading, you were right & I was wrong. Can you guess if I am religious or not? hehe I have to tell you as a UK soldier I did feel my life was more in danger because of lack of regard for prisoner welfare shown by the US. I wanted the enemy to feel terrified but all he need do was put his hands up to look forward to a hot meal & safety.
William00048 1 month ago
@William00048
"I have just done a little more reading, you were right & I was wrong. "
ZOMG!!!!! You just restored my faith in humanity. :)
AntiCitizenX 1 month ago
@AntiCitizenX Why is I was wrong so difficult for some people? We have a wide rage of experiences every day. We are political animals and therefore tend to express our views. It stands to reason that we might not have all the evidence or just misjudge something all the time and are therefore wrong on something on a regular basis.
Wasn't one of your slides Carl Sagan saying it was OK to be wrong a lot of the time, if you aren't then you're not doing it right?
Take care lah.
William00048 1 month ago
To comment your slide at 6:13 this is based on a fallacy. America is not a free nation.
rugbyanden 4 months ago 3
@rugbyanden
Not a free nation? Then what am I doing expressing grievances against my government? Shouldn't I be in prison? What about all those guns sitting in my closet? And why don't people ask to see papers when I travel across the country?
AntiCitizenX 4 months ago
@AntiCitizenX The most oppressed are those who think they are free when the case is not such. Having a country run by corporate interest in complete disreguard for the people is not a free nation.
rugbyanden 4 months ago
@rugbyanden
Could have fooled me. I have openly expressed my grievances against the ruling authority and have yet to be reprimanded or censured by my democratically elected lawmakers. Sounds pretty free to me.
AntiCitizenX 4 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Again, The most opressed are those who theink they are free when the case is not such. Americans only get to choose who the corporate interest will decide over. There was an overwhelming majority for a lot of things that hasnt happen. The people are not in charge.
rugbyanden 4 months ago
@rugbyanden
You seem to be confusing the word "oppression" with the word "corruption."
AntiCitizenX 4 months ago
Indeed. I recently read that a lot of German soldiers on the fields of World War II eagerly surrendered to US forces at the first opportunity because of older relatives of theirs who had fought us in the First War and been treated humanely.
The internment camps were why the Japanese fought us with such dogged determination.
This is why the Iraqi army surrendered so readily in Desert Storm. They knew they would be treated better as prisoners of the first world than soldiers of the third.
lazyperfectionist1 4 months ago
Excellent video.
It's what I've been saying to others basically, offering the enemy an incentive, like reduced prison times works far better than causing pain, and possibly future death.
It's how I would give up, if I were tortured, my only goal is to stop the torture, not to give evidence.
superhamzah85 5 months ago
I lol'ed so hard when Billy boy said "you were facing the lack of intelligence we are facing..."
Acrimonator 6 months ago
@Acrimonator
You can't explain that! You can't explain it... Pinhead. ;)
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@Acrimonator Indeed. Sounds like he's describing Bush's leadership, doesn't it?
lazyperfectionist1 4 months ago
"A little off-topic from atheism, but apparently no one in the media seems to understand that torturing prisoners is the moral equivalent to eating babies and trading slaves."
In all the books I have read in philosophy, morally speaking, torturing is about at the same level of bad as murdering people (sometimes worse!). Usually, things actions are measured by the amount of pleasure/pain they bring, and pure pain is as bad as you can get.
You cant justify torture by "it maybe will get us info"
kittyloaf 6 months ago
I think you are quote mining sun tzu. it could have also meant the usage of land mines or indirect means of war for the sake of the safety of your own army. (San tzu did use land mines). over all your messege is emotionally touching, and true.
robobrain10000 8 months ago
@robobrain10000 Sun Tzu lived over 2000 years ago. Did land mines even exist back then? I doubt it. Also, define what you mean by indirect war.
Miranox2 7 months ago
@Miranox2 Watch deadliest warrior the San tzu segment. And they didn't have land mines like we did... but they had a primitive version. I think it was like black powder packed into a pot... that would be triggered by a flaming torch or something??? just search up deadliest warrior Sun Tzu. The show uses actual historians so there is legitamacy. and by indirect i mean like.. using bees and using the landscape to win the battle.
robobrain10000 7 months ago
Well while 'Americans' think / thought (before the 9/11 inside job) that we did not torture the rest of the third world had first hand personal knowledge that we did indeed torture & frequently wrote about it. Out controlled press rarely let these stories see the light of day. It took photo documentation to expose how we have been doing it all along 'legally' through Rendition.
The whole point of exposing it to the public was to instill fear - i.e. shut up or you could be next.
nsaminder 11 months ago
I also don't think it's a waste of time/energy to campaign against land-mines, or nuclear weapons, or depleted uranium, etc., etc.... But I understand that was not your main point.
hardinmichael1981 11 months ago
The Bush Administration also said America DOES NOT torture b/c they simply redefined the word "torture". Essentially they said that (to paraphrase) 'Torture is Bad. America Never does Anything Bad. Therefore, America doesn't use Torture. We use "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" '.
hardinmichael1981 11 months ago 6
@hardinmichael1981
You make a perfectly valid criticism.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
my only criticism is that @4:15 & @6:14 it should read "...why America [should] not torture..." B/c America clearly does torture and HAS in almost all conflicts it's been involved in. And tortue is only one of a long list of bad policies our gov. uses that spoils America's reputation. (I also think we should just END the war.) other than that, great video!
hardinmichael1981 11 months ago
Not to troll but some people need to be tortured. End of story. Im a proud Canadian =D
GoreyAndKrookedOnes 11 months ago
@GoreyAndKrookedOnes
"Not to troll but some people NEED to be to tortured"
Who? And who decides? And to what end?
I suspect you are a troll...trolls NEED to have their genitals cut off
Hopeful71 10 months ago
@Hopeful71
You must be an immature youngin' - so unaware of the world and what we must do. Stating my opinion I was expecting someone like you. But like Malcolm X - fight violence with violence and non violence with non violence. But possibilities are endless.
Have a wonderful day =D
GoreyAndKrookedOnes 10 months ago
@GoreyAndKrookedOnes
"You must be an immature youngin"
And you must be blissfully unaware of how pitiful your arguments & reasoning is as you engage in a random ad hominem in order to draw attention away from your completely ignoring the question.
Who needs to be tortured, who decides, and to what end?
We can call each other stupid later, answer the questions
Hopeful71 10 months ago
@Hopeful71
Well if you are eager for an answer i'll give you something: Bad people. And that can be defined in any kind of aspect you would like. Drawing my attention away from the question wasn't my intention I truly laughed when you said i need my genitals to be removed you gave me the troll satisfaction of your angered reaction. Who decides? Who cares, When does it end? When it does.
Why are you question my opinion and beliefs?
GoreyAndKrookedOnes 10 months ago
@GoreyAndKrookedOnes
"Why are you question my opinion and beliefs?"
You made them public, you are presenting a public agenda. Your opinions are fine on your own but if your intent is to have them manifest in the real world then I have every reason to question your "stupid" beliefs
"i'll give you something: Bad people"
So after the build up & name calling of "immature" you offer the reasoning of a child..."BAD MAN DID BAD THING"
Really? So the law reads, "bad people get tortured"?
cont...
Hopeful71 10 months ago
...cont
"the troll satisfaction of your angered reaction"
And you provided me the smug satisfaction of witnessing a troll not recognizing ironic dichotomy when its staring him in the face (I even all capped your quote to draw attention to it in case you were slow witted...guess I underestimated you)
So that is one point to you for getting me to respond to your inept posting but one very enjoyable point to me for watching your troll attempts backfire under the weight of your own obtuseness
Hopeful71 10 months ago
@Hopeful71 Wow i just noticed this one; you are angry and you mispelt words (like you were typing too fast with anxiety in one of your posts) You are angry and gave me satisfaction making two posts i came back to edit your a hippocrit because i said contradict xD - I am glad you care so much about everything and I got under your skin so easily - but now i have a life which you don't
GoreyAndKrookedOnes 10 months ago
@GoreyAndKrookedOnes
"came back to edit your a hippocrit because i said contradict"
Ummm, yeah
"but now i have a life which you don't"
So that is your cognitive dissonance way of saying, "I really have no argument, I have tried everything I can to distract from that fact, so I am gonna pack my tiny brain up &, in the face of defeat, declare victory"
I got it; trolling is tough work when lacking in intelligence, metacognition, & any self-awareness. So, prepare for genital removal
Hopeful71 10 months ago
@Hopeful71 Okay bookworm. I can take the genital removal like a man. But, where does that leave you? All I made a point about was I don't care about people who deserve torture... Nonetheless, I am still getting under your skin!! =)
I feel no pain; making me feel stupid actually makes me feel nothing seeing as you are a nobody to ME =D
So enlighten me some more. Use even bigger words, phrases, and metaphors. And on top of that, waste some more time with jolly ol' me my argumentative buddy =)
GoreyAndKrookedOnes 10 months ago
@Hopeful71 Buddy you got some major issues. You can interpret what i said any way you would like.
"I suspect you are a troll...trolls NEED to have their genitals cut off "
Stop contradicting yourself as well.
GoreyAndKrookedOnes 10 months ago
Nice unsourced claims set to dramatic music, bro.
Anderasio 1 year ago
@Anderasio
"Unsourced?" Did you even watch the video?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
No, I turned that shit off at about 2 mins.
You should really go to film school so you can learn to captivate your audience better.
Anderasio 1 year ago
@Anderasio
I'm not here to entertain you. Maybe instead of focusing on the pretty lights, loud noises, and flashing colors, try learning something.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
If you don't know how to keep your audience captivated, you picked the wrong media. Try writing a liveblog or something.
Anderasio 1 year ago
@Anderasio
I am not interested in taking media lessons from anonymous assholes who begin conversations with baseless accusations. If you wish to address the claims of the video, you are welcome to do so. But if all you're going to do is troll my forum with mindless insults then you will just be banned and your comments deleted.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX I am addressing the video; it's too boring and too emotional for you to get the facts out within 1/3 of the video, and I turned it off.
This didn't even HAVE to be a video, up to the ~2 min mark, all I saw was text.
Delete my comments?
As a citizen of the United States, I expected you to be more favorable towards free speech, but, eh.
Anderasio 1 year ago
@Anderasio
At least 235 other viewers say you're full of shit.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
237 out of 4426?
That's 5%.
Anderasio 1 year ago
So it s torture that saves other peoples lives
GreenAndGreezy 1 year ago
I appauld your sentiments and your reasoned case is well made. But there is a better reason for not torturing and that is simply that it is wrong.
By the way, America does torture and assassinate people.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
I allways found it inexcusable and cowardly that the US basically outsourced toture to other nations. Doing it themselves is of course bad, but giving your prisoners to other nations that have no qualms about torturing is JUST as bad, and twice as cowardly. That - and the whole thing about Guantanamo. Its basic purpose was just to cicumvent the laws to be able to treat prisoners as if they had to human rights.How can people do that and till claim to be ethical and better than their enemies?
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma and BTW, this is not meant to insult americans, but to encourage you to stand up to the leaders that allow such attrocities. Even though my country has never been enganged in torture - that is probably just a matter of circumstances. Your battle regarding these things could just as easily have been mine - but unfortunately I just don't have any rights to demand anything from another nations government - but you do. Let them know what you think about it.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma
BTW, outsourcing torture interrogation is against the Geneva Conventions. We cannot legally transport a prisoner's custody if there is good reason to fear for his safety.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
I can't believe people still try and defend the use of torture, when it was made clear by those who were ordered to perform it that it was entirely political (any honest person already knew this). You can read it right from the torture memo's, the testimony in front of congress. Search the NYtimes website for the report by the senate armed services committee on detainee treatment, page 72
mooseclamps 1 year ago
I can remember the outcry during the Korean War when American POWs were being subjected to similar techniques without any physical element, e.g. sleep deprivation, continual noise, etc. This was called 'brainwashing' and was presented as evidence that North Korea was utterly debased. It produced some startling results as many prisoners began to espouse the creed of their captors. Gitmo has a different agenda; it's to make the American people feel better. And I've been ashamed since Nixon.
colourmegone 1 year ago
Wow, that was really good. Thanks for doing it.
wamerocity 1 year ago
OO good question - a person walks into a police department at 10am, says he has planted 10 bombs under schools in the state set to go off in 10.15am, any exodus of students would cause the bombs to explode, he gives the location of one and he says he knows the deactivation code and will give it over for a certain price, that he gets to kill one police officer.
What do you do?
JeanLouie1106 1 year ago
@JeanLouie1106
Suppose you torture the guy and he eventually tells you a bomb is buried under high school "X". So you run off, rent a tractor, dig up the basement, and find nothing. Great! You just wasted 5 hours of time chasing a wild goose.
Now suppose he didn't plant bombs under high schools, but only kidnapped a child. And suppose he did not confess to it, but you only suspect he did it. Now what? Because that's how the real world is. You wanna throw away Constitutional rights?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX With your 100k troops vs 20k, if the 20k were fighting in something they believe in just as sincerely as the other side, I'd expect all of them to die fighting for their cause.
My bombman gave the location of one bomb to show it's real and he's not kidding, there's 9 others he could give the locations too but any tampering would cause an explosion, he knows the deactivation code for all of them.
Being nice isn't useful in extreme situations.
JeanLouie1106 1 year ago
@JeanLouie1106
" I'd expect all of them to die fighting for their cause."
Life is not like RTS games where soldiers are more than happy to die for you. Historically speaking, soldiers almost never "fight to the death." The only reason the Japanese were so fanatical is because the soldiers were told that the Americans were brutal monsters who would practically eat them if ever captured. If not for this propaganda, the Japanese would have surrender in much greater numbers.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@JeanLouie1106
"My bombman gave the location of one bomb"
The main problem with your bomb man is that he simply doesn't exist. You can't go around trampling the Constitution based on events that never occur outside of television. You might as well ask if its okay to anally rape 7-year-old girls if there were a way to save lives from it. You might be able to concoct a specific scenario where it seems feasible, but realistically its not something you officially endorse.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX The problem I have is this, 'what if such a scenario does present itself?' such actions have to be considered even if they're uncomfortable to think about.
JeanLouie1106 1 year ago
@JeanLouie1106
If you want to consider such events, then consider this. Suppose a girl is kidnapped. You are 95% sure you have the right man, but cannot find the body. Should you torture him to get the information? Suppose you do and it works. Then what? Can we torture anyone the police arrest over any offense for any information? What kind of state are you building that happily utilizes such measures? What is the cutoff? How well can you reasonably expect it to statistically work?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX You see, being 95% sure (I'd prefer being closer to 100%) and doing such an act when someone's/lots of lives are on the line is way different to doing such an act for "any offense for any information".
I'm just interested to see what happens when all investigative measures are exhausted and the bad guy gets his way and is smiling in his cell,would all the good guys go home happily knowing that even though people died,at least they didn't hit the bad guy trying to save those lives?
JeanLouie1106 1 year ago
@JeanLouie1106
The problem I am trying to drive at with torture is that it has no track record of providing useful information in any reliable way. What it DOES have is a track record of being abused by the state as a tool for extracting false confessions and severe oppression. Even if you had perfect 100 % certainty in a criminal kidnapping case, you can't go around violating his constitutional rights until at least AFTER he is convicted in a court of law.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@JeanLouie1106 Far more people die every year in road traffic accidents in the US than have died in all terrorist outrages. Do you campaign against the automobile industry? How about the tobacco industry? And why isn't it part of the War on Drugs? There was a British citizen in Gitmo who was accused of terrorism despite the fact that he could prove he was at work in Dixon's at the time of the alleged offence. The truth is the US is finished as a moral force, and as an economic force.
colourmegone 1 year ago
I do believe there is a place for torture, I'll admit it's not very helpful when it comes to getting someone to say something you want them to say, like a confession, but can be very useful in getting information that was previously unknown. Torture is a small part of why a group of many peoples goes to war, I doubt treating prisoners with 'dignity and humanity' like this clip says would make enemies who fight for a great cause, in their eyes, surrender.
JeanLouie1106 1 year ago
@JeanLouie1106
Treating people nicely does not stop wars. What it does do is add incentive for the enemy to surrender as he begins to face certain defeat. If you have a force of 100,000 that surrounds an enemy force of 20,000, they are pretty much doomed. But if all they have to look forward to is a torture chamber, they will fight hard to the death, and likely take a few thousand of your own men with them. Offer them honorable terms, and many will give up peacefully.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
But without torture, how else can Hannity get a chubby?
newsradiohead 2 years ago
@newsradiohead
LOL...
I think the election of Scott Brown gave him a raging boner.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
A well-formulated video.
You must keep in mind that a person being tortured would say anything to be rid of the experience. Why not simply tell the interrogator what they want to hear? As their claims of innocense and/or unknowing is seen as false.
It is simply put pointless. Just as much as war being stupidity.
Erklon 2 years ago
My wife's family is quite religious ... evagelical Christian .. and I can see how their thinking seems black and white, and like religious zealotry. But day to day, they are normal, wonderful, in touch, and even open to other ideas. They might always fall back to their religious convictions, though, when in doubt.
catfacecathead 2 years ago
Would they have joined the Knights Templar? Would they have roused and begun a hunt for Rosicrucians? Would they have gladly given their lives to help rid the holy land of the infidel? I'm not talking about the standard everyday religious pundit. But the ones who would turniquette themselves so they don't bleed out that they may kill more infidels. Or strap a bomb on and charge a school.
Exmech2 2 years ago
There are certainly fanatics out there. I just don't know how many, or in what form, or how flexible they might be, or how much a product of their environment. And I can't see into men's hearts so I don't know how many proclaim fanatacism but are otherwise motivated. And things are so rarely black-and-white ...
catfacecathead 2 years ago
"I don't know how many proclaim..."
In this current conflict, at least more than 1,100 between 2k3 and 2k8 in Iraq. And at least 28 in the first 8 months in Pakistan. These suicide attackers have their own support personel. Much like tanks would.
"And things are so rarely black-and-white"
This is EXACTLY what I'm trying to point out here. Aliens argument is very reasonable, but as I thought about it, I realize it doesn't apply in all situations.
Exmech2 2 years ago
@Exmech2 What I mean to say is, I don't know - and can't know - how many of those who proclaim fanatacism really mean what they say. Surely many are saying it for other reasons. Or most likely, for a combination of reasons. But I do acknowledge, there are some true believers.
catfacecathead 2 years ago
Normally I'd agree with you. But the numbers of actual suicide attacks, and the support they receive as documented by many sources, including Al-Jazerrah, bely that there's something else going on.
Being the "nice guys" during WWII actually prompted whole divisions to breakout of Soviet encirclement specifically to surrender to the Western Allies. But that logic doesn't seem to be working in the insurrections in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe I'm speaking to early. We shall see.
Exmech2 2 years ago
The ultimate problem with suicide bombing is that it is a tactic of last resort that cannot be sustained in any continuous, operational sense. So be careful what you deduce from it.
You also need to understand the mentality of the Afghan people. They are hardly united by anything remotely ideological, and are far better described as a fractured group or competing clans. So beware the "they are all alike" mentality. The Taliban are a lot more complex than you give them credit for.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
The Taliban are for more complex than you, my friend, are giving them credit for. Suicide attacks CAN, and HAVE been sustained. And are very effective.
Search on: chronology of tamil tigers suicide attacks
You will be surprised.
"So be careful what you deduce from it."
Back at ya. My whole point is this: This is a brand new phenomena with NO historical precedent. And so proclaiming any strategy as sure-shot method is making a mistake.
Exmech2 2 years ago
@Exmech2
"And so proclaiming any strategy as sure-shot method is making a mistake."
Oh believe me, I make no such claims. All I would say is, in regards to this video, I can think of no self-interested strategic goal that may be served by torture.
And also, thank you for the interesting dialogue.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
I agree... with one edit:
At this time, I can think of no self-interested strategic goal that may be served by torture.
Exmech2 2 years ago
I do think AntiCitizen X has a good point in that each person fighting for the Taliban is probably doing so for their own reason ... probably various blends of ideology, selfishness, and/or true selflessness as they perceive it ... which is my way of saying, I also have trouble accepting that all, or even almost all, Taliban are motivated primarily by ideology, and are willing to suicide, and so on. Even their leaders might not be nearly as ideologically motivated as they claim. Case by case ...
catfacecathead 2 years ago
I made a factual in my earlier post regarding the ONLY 28 suicide bombings... those were in Pakistan. In the first 8 months of 2008, there were 28 suicide bombing in Pakistan, killing more than 420.
Exmech2 2 years ago
"I also have trouble accepting that all"
Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. But in dealing with an ideological inssurrection, all the standard military manuals go out the window. Clausewitz and Sun T'zu do not belong here. Mao and Michael Collins do.
Exmech2 2 years ago
Perhaps you are simply better educated on the question than I. But isn't this, too, creeping in the direction of a conspiracy theory ... 'they' (in this case, religious zealots) are fundamentally 'other' from 'us'? Aren't they more likely just like us - every bit as complex, conflicted and confused? (Or am only I complex, conflicted and confused?)
catfacecathead 2 years ago
I see where you're going with that, and sadly, 500 characters is bit too smal for correct identification. When I say, I am speaking of, specifically, the Fanaticism motivated soldier. Examples through History would be Mao's Army, the Viet Minh, Taliban, Mujahideen, Hassassins, Kamikaze, Sepoy, Moro, and many others.
Exmech2 2 years ago
If you wouldn't mind commenting on a particular lesson of Sun Tzu's. He was given the task to train a regiment of women soldiers. They were not serious, and kept giggling as he tried to drill them. Would you remind us of what he did about this, and his rationale for his action?
Exmech2 2 years ago
I am curious ... what is the answer?
catfacecathead 2 years ago
What is the answer re: Sun Tzu, I mean ...
catfacecathead 2 years ago
Oh... in front of the regiment of women, he had their lieutenants beheaded, even though it was plainly obvious they were not at fault. The women became serious after that. I should point out, however, that this is an anecdote as related by Tu Mu as an example Moral Law in Art of War 1:4
Exmech2 2 years ago
I am afraid you lost me a bit - I never read Art of War. What is the significance of its being an anecdote as related by someone else, just that it might not be true? Or does Tu Mu have a particular agenda? And what is the point of the lesson anyway? He made them responsible for their fellow soliders and refocused the morality into a kind of group morality? (Or he scared them? Or both.)
catfacecathead 2 years ago
Umm... first, I made the mistake of making the attribution to Sun T'zu himself, so I was correcting myself. Being historically honest.
The Art of War is a collection whose base text was authored by Sun T'zu. but there were many additions through the centuries. And it's helpful to a historian to identify who said what.
Exmech2 2 years ago
Thank you. I remain, at least for the moment, an ardent defender of Psychological Warfare. Which can, by your broad definition, be considered torture. However, you've made some valid points, forcing me to rethink my position. I'll get back to you with some arguments if you're open to them.
Exmech2 2 years ago
Hey now, don't go knocking on Psychological Warfare! There are all sorts of great things you can do with PsiOps. My only contention is that the goal should be directed at trying to convince the enemy to surrender; not to carry on fighting.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
In fact, I would even argue that a *reputation for treating prisoners humanely* is, itself, a form of PsiOps. How many Iraqis would be willing to face certain destruction when all they have to do is lay down arms to get a free hot meal? Is the 1/50 chance of killing a US soldier really worth it?
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
"How many Iraqis would be willing..."
The very same number we have already been fighting. They aren't indoctrinated that the US is a "big bad meanie", say, as the Japanese of Okinawa were. They are indoctrinated that the US is an infidel power, a crusader, and must be ejected from the holy land. A wholly different circumstance.
Exmech2 2 years ago
These are good talking points, so I'll address them one at a time.
Indoctrination only goes so far. When faced with the prospect of imminent annihilation or surrender and a hot meal, at least SOME soldiers will defect, no matter what nation they are from. This was actually a huge success in Iraqi Freedom. The PsiOps guys dropped pamphlets everywhere promising food and shelter for those who surrendered, and many thousands of Iraqis indeed chose surrender over resistance.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
"Indoctrination only goes so far..."
With respect to a national army, you are absolutely correct. However, these tactics aren't working very well against the Taliban. Who do seem to prefer imminent destruction over a hot meal.
Exmech2 2 years ago
"However, these tactics aren't working very well against the Taliban."
This is a very over-simplified view of things, but for argument's sake, let's assume you are right.
So what? Is the periodic failure to entice surrender now your pretext to go around torturing every last prisoner? What do we gain by throwing away our obligations to treat prisoners humanely? What about reputation for the sake of future wars? Is EVERY LAST ENEMY WE EVER FACE going to be as fanatical as the Taliban?
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
"Is the periodic failure to entice..."
Of course not. Please don't treat me like that.
"What do we gain by throwing away..."
I haven't argued that we should. I merely pointed out that these tactics DON'T WORK with a zealous enemy.
" Is EVERY LAST ENEMY..."
THIS... is the oversimplification you accused me of. Please think about your position, and posts, a bit more.
Exmech2 2 years ago
I apologize. I assumed you were about to head in that direction, so I over-reacted.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
"These tactics don't work with a zealous enemy."
That may very well be true. But realistically, do you honestly think that *every last* soldier in the service of the Taliban is an over-zealous religious fanatic with no regard for his personal safety? And again, even if they were, is this a pretext to start torturing people? Or are you just bringing it up as a talking point? Please explain.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
"...that *every last* soldier in the service..."?
Actually yes. And not merely the soldiery. Those that support it are highly fanatical. With no regard for their personal safety. It's very hard to find a comparable military action in which one side opts for suicide attacks as a measure of standard tactics. Think about this for a bit, then get back to me.
Exmech2 2 years ago
"Actually yes. And not merely the soldiery. Those that support it are highly fanatical. With no regard for their personal safety."
On what basis do you assert this claim? What you are saying effectively goes against basic human nature.
Yes, suicide bombing is an employed tactic, but such tactics are the exception, not the norm. They have to be, or else very last Taliban soldier would have committed suicide already.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
"On what basis do you assert this claim?"
Reading the Taliban literature. And through personal corrospondence with some of its supporters.
"Yes, suicide bombing is an employed tactic, but such tactics are the exception..."
I'm sorry. Alien. You are demonstrably wrong here.Suicide bombings are an effective tactic to maim more than individual enemy, as well as striking at targets that are militarily out of reach.
Exmech2 2 years ago
There were about 800 Kamikaze in total. Approximately 300 were killed in action. From the beginning of the Iraqi invasion till 2008, there were more then 1,100. And that is only in Iraq. In the first 8 months of 2008, there were ONLY 28 suicide attacks, killing more than 420. Clearly, what motivates a European enemy, is not what is motivating these guys.
Exmech2 2 years ago
And again, what does this have to do with torture? Even if what you said was perfectly true, how does torturing prisoners relate to this? You speak of them as fanatics undeterred by psychology. Okay fine, but what about their recruits? You think torturing prisoners will serve any other purpose than provoking more young volunteers to join their ranks?
There are a hundred reasons why torture only helps the enemy, and not one that serves American goals. Please explain your point in this.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
My point is this... You've only mentioned a few of these "hundred reasons". And those you mention are perfectly applicable to a civilized enemy. But they fail when fanaticism is the motivation of any given enemy.
I am, in no way, defending the use of torture. And I thought I made that clear already. I AM pointing out that there are some situations where your normally sound logic fails.
Exmech2 2 years ago
Okay, I think I finally see what you are driving at.
Allow me to put it this way: No matter how fanatical the enemy may be, it is physically impossible to ever achieve total, 100-percent suicide-ready devotion. When push comes to shove, at least some finite fraction of them will be deterred in some way or another by an honest humanitarian reputation of the enemy. Given the choice of annihilation or surrender, at least some always surrender if they can sincerely expect humane treatment.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
If we were dealing with the products of a Western style society, I would agree. But unfortunately, this is proving NOT to be tactic of last resort as the Kamikaze were. This tactic has proven far too effective in Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq... and the list goes on.
Exmech2 2 years ago
@Exmech2 the kamikaze were not a last resort attack they were used frequently during world war 2 as a legitimate strategy to attack ships many japanese planes did not have the required fuel to fly to a battle and fly back
excandersham 2 years ago
Please... the Kamikaze were last resort. We aren't defining kamikaze as "my plane is hit, I'll crash it into that ship". This occurred on both sides most notably at Pearl Harbor, and Midway. The Kamikaze, however, were to commit suicide as a matter of tactic. This is what the unit Tamai created was asked to do. And this was in late 1944 when it was realized the IJN could not stop the Allied invasion of the Phillipines. It was last resort.
Exmech2 2 years ago
@Exmech2 however it is debatable whether they were a last resort attack as the first use did occur after several japanese defeats
excandersham 2 years ago
There is no debate going on about whether the Kamikaze were last resort. There were no Kamikaze units formed prior to September 1944 after such devestating defeats as the Turkey Shoot.
Exmech2 2 years ago
@Exmech2
I don't think I made myself very clear, so let me say it another way.
The problem with suicide attacks is that you can only do them once. So when I say they are not sustainable, it is because you are strictly limited by the trickle of volunteers you can draw into your force. The probability of inflicting casualties is also not nearly as high as I think your are indicating. Foiled suicide bombs are common in my understanding (but I could be wrong).
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
"trickle of volunteers you can draw into your force."
The number of successful attacks refute this.
"probability of inflicting casualties is also not nearly"
Pakistan, 1st 8 months of 2008: 28 attacks, average killed: 16. This method of attack is chosen BECAUSE it's proven damned effective.
Exmech2 2 years ago
but those kills could have been done without the need for the attacker to die aswell
excandersham 2 years ago
You're reducing a bit far. For WWII, the 4 Kamikaze units were unique in that their operational orders required there suicide.
Exmech2 2 years ago
@Exmech2
28 attacks in 8 months is hardly a significant military figure, given the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in country as we speak. If you want to talk about "proven effective," then I feel the IED booby trap is far superior.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
umm, the 28 in the first 8 months was Pakistan for 2008. And yes, it's significant when you consider kill/loss ratio. For Iraq, over a 5 year period there were a little over 1,100. Averaging about 18 attacks a month. You're mistaking weapon use with effectiveness. There are no reported IED attacks in well fortified areas. There's a reason for that.
Exmech2 2 years ago
@Exmech2
Another thing to keep in mind is that the mindset of a potential suicide bomber is pretty rare. You cannot coerce someone into suicide bombing the way you can simply draft soldiers. The ranks of suicide bombers require a special form of hatred and dedication that is not normally found in the average person.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
You would be right... in a country based on Western philosophies.
When you say "average person", what do you mean? Who is your average person?
Exmech2 2 years ago
some suicide attacks are motivated out of fear however such as stalins russian army against german tanks
excandersham 2 years ago
@excandersham
Oh, and desperation. You are correct on that.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
@Exmech2
And finally, suicide bombing is, tactically speaking, a tool of sporadic casualty infliction in small numbers. Any strategic value obtained from suicide bombing is strictly psychological in nature. So although you may be right that humane reputation does not necessarily convince suicide bombers to surrender, it certainly does wonders for stifling the pool of hatred from which to recruit more bombers.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Sri Lanka, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Taliban, Iran, Spain, Britain, France, the United States, as well as numerous paramilitary groups around the world, differ with your opinion on the effectiveness of suicide bombing.
Regarding your assertions of "doing wonders", you can't back it up with facts. And you know this.
Exmech2 2 years ago
"...when all they have to do is lay down arms to get a free hot meal?"
This paid dividends in the first Iraqi conflict. Tens of thousands of Iraqi's surrendered merely because they knew they would get fed, even though they also knew WE were starving them as airpower kept blowing up their supply trucks. Is starving your enemy torture? Also remember, Schwarzkopf was demonized for using bulldozers to bury, alive, Iraqi soldiers who were still manning their trenches.
Exmech2 2 years ago
"Is starving your enemy torture?"
It absolutely is. But the issue here is not torture of the enemy, per se. The issue is torture of enemy *prisoners.* As long as a man is holding a rifle and maintaining resistance, then anything goes. You can bury alive, amputate limbs, maim, mutilate, or all-around kill him. That's war. But the moment he declares his intention to surrender, it is vital that he be honored in that regard. Otherwise, you give no incentive for the enemy to give up.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
You need to realize that as long as a man maintains his will to resist, then there exists a finite probability, greater than zero, that he will kill or injure one of your own. This reason alone is enough to treat prisoners well, because it entices further surrender with less risk to your own men. Reputation physically saves your own men's lives. I don't give two shits about humanitarianism or being nice. The lives of our own soldiers are the fundamental issue here.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
I agree that an untarnished reputation CAN entice an enemy. However with a religious zealot, things are a bit different. They have very different goals for the conflict. In this regard, and only this regard, I would compare the current Taliban insurrection with the Sepoy rebellion of 1857. The Brits could have been nice, or terrible (and were both). Neither deterred or enticed the zealous enemy.
Exmech2 2 years ago
Actually, America tortures its own civilians.
Health care plan anyone?
hosweetim89 2 years ago
The word torture is like the words art or terrorist. They mean different things to different people. We need to discuss exactly what tortue is before we have the next conversation. Is it torture to ask questions without giving the subject a backrub and their favorite ice cream? I believe that the line should be drawn at physical damage or permanet psycological damage.
tbeld 2 years ago
Strictly speaking, the very words of the Geneva Convention itself prohibit subjecting prisoners to "any unpleasantness of any kind." This does not mean you have to give prisoners back rubs, but it does mean that you cannot subject them to excessive physical duress for the sake of extracting information. Water-boarding especially.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Isn't being imprisoned unpleasant?
tbeld 2 years ago
Yes, it is, but that is not the context of the statement. Here are the actual words from Article 17:
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be
threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
So obviously, the text implies "extra" unpleasantness beyond being a prisoner already.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Thank you. In all the times i've tried to have this discussion, you're the first to try to define torture. And the Geneva Convention? Top notch. Unfortunately, when somebody's definition of torture includes things as mundane as insults, they shouldn't be sited as an authority. Even children in school yards are exposed to threats, insults and upleasant or disadvantageous treatment on a daily basis.
tbeld 2 years ago
On a larger note, the overall definition seems extremely broad. It seems like people could argue for things even more stupid than my ice cream and backrubs.
tbeld 2 years ago
"Even children in school yards are exposed to threats, insults and upleasant or disadvantageous treatment on a daily basis."
Comparing schoolyard hi-jinx to wartime imprisonment is a bit of a silly comparison, don't you think?
The fact of the matter is, you cannot inflict pain on people for the sake of extracting information. Period. It is illegal in every way, and the more severe the pain, the more illegal it becomes. It also serves no purpose beyond needless escalation of violence.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
One of the best arguments against torture that I have ever seen. Well done. To show that torture is not only morally wrong, but also detrimental to the war effort was brilliant.
srelma 2 years ago
2:43 how embarrassing to be on that list!
farvision 2 years ago
I agree with your premise, that torture is wrong, and pose this simply playing Cheneys devil advocate.
Origen305 2 years ago
An interesting polemic against torture that seems to be a subtle blend of Rule-Utilitarianism and Consequntialism. Your objection is not the traditional rights argument, implying that you would find torture acceptable if a central premise in the calculus that US soldiers die as a result is rejected, or simply removed in some thought experiment. One might say your objection is contingent, rather than moral, and relies on the appeal to the emotions that can lead to cognitive bias.
Origen305 2 years ago
ILLEGAL COMBATANTS NOT COVERED
AbitaVets 2 years ago
NO, MATTER HOW YOU SPIN IT.
AbitaVets 2 years ago
Wow I love this video, powerful stuff. and you are absolutely correct, I am recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, I was a prison guard there. and one of the biggest dangers for me was when news would break about torture or abuse, that meant riots and that meant someone got hurt, the men who killed those detainees in vengance in baghdad caused unbleivable difficulties for us and destryoed all the rapport we had developed over the years.
tavadon777 2 years ago
What song is played in the background?
tavadon777 2 years ago
It's from the Blackhawk Down soundtrack. I think it's called "Leave No Man Behind."
I also really appreciate your insight. There was another guy on the forum claiming to be a soldier, but did so under some kind of pretense that his title grants him the right to say whatever he wants without question. So I'm glad you are around to rub his nose a little.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Yeah I saw him... And I left him a heated reply...
tavadon777 2 years ago
I would love to see anyone who suggests that waterboarding 'isn't torture' undergoes it to prove it.
Christopher Hitchens did and he spoke very well about how it was in every sense of the word torture. Pity Fox news lie mongers don't have the stones to try the same.
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago
I only have one word: Bravo. Oh, and also that this video gave me shivers.
AislinCade 2 years ago
Well spoken Mr. AntiCitizenX and I don't understand why so many people don't get it.
Florence00pi 2 years ago
Chinese tickle torchure kind of works though.
dothebedn 2 years ago
Lol. Peter Zeihan is facing lack of intelligence just by being on FOX.
ThePaleWriter 2 years ago
You are correct torture should not be used.
simple382 2 years ago
Comment removed
heavystallin 2 years ago
My sentence about the Japanese was poorly worded but I think you knew what I was going for.
I know that truth drug isn't very reliable, either. But, contrary to what you think, we should use it if it works. Torture is different from landmines. Landmines can kill friend or enemy. Interrogation cannot backfire, it can just fail.
I'm not an advocate for abusing human rights, but I think its the government's duty to place citizens' rights over prisoners' comfort.
heavystallin 2 years ago
What this video didn't really emphasize, was that torture in its own right does not produce reliable intelligence. No court in the US allows any "confession under duress" (which torture is inclusive to). The Geneva convention (which the US has signed on to) has banned torture. Technically, those involved with water boarding are to be tried in an international court!
charkopolis 2 years ago
"What this video didn't really emphasize, was that torture in its own right does not produce reliable intelligence."
This was the whole point of the land mine analogy, remember? Land mines work, torture does not.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
I mean to say that your thesis has the emphasis. And that, US courts do not accept confessions under duress, nor do they accept lie detectors as a method of confession. I imagine there could be an entirely separate video dissecting all the finer points of torture.
charkopolis 2 years ago
"Interrogation cannot backfire, it can just fail."
I beg to differ. The incentive it places into the enemy to continue fighting is certainly a "backfire," is it not?
I should also point out that I am not suggesting we give every prisoner his own massage chair. I am just trying to argue that torturing them serves no self interest. On the other hand, offering to TRADE a massage chair for information is certainly reasonable, and I would even argue that it has a higher success rate.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
I posted a reply but youtube didn't put it up. The short version is, some prisoners have traits like honor or religious valor, thus making them virtually immune to bargaing for information. While torture might just lead them to telling a lie, it seems, to me, to have a better chance than trying to bargain with a fanatic.
Well I don't have much more to argue. Thanks for the discussion and its even been a little educational.
heavystallin 2 years ago
You have to be careful when you copy/paste text from other responses. Sometimes it sneaks in a character that YouTube doesn't like and so it refuses to post your reply. Then you lose all that hard work you put in to typing your reply. I noticed the same thing happens if you try to include URLs. So always backup your reply before you click that "post comment" button!
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Take care. You are welcome back any time.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Torture can be a reliable way to extract information. Why do you think Japanese commit suicide because they thought Americans would torture them?
When someone is being tortured, their judgment isn't clear, and most of the time they don't understand the low chance of getting set free for spilling their guts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have lie-detector tests and solutions that cause people to tell the truth?
heavystallin 2 years ago
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have lie-detector tests and solutions that cause people to tell the truth?"
To the best of my knowledge, we do not. Lie detectors are notoriously easy to defeat and a man will say anything to make the pain stop. Like I said before, if you could demonstrate a way to extract real intelligence through physical coercion, then you would have a real point. But there is a reason by courts never admit testimony gained under duress. You just can't trust it.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
I'm not trying to outsmart you, either. Its more of a "I disagree" type thing than a "you're wrong and this is why."
Opinions can't be changed on Youtube and old beliefs can't be taken away. Normally I don't talk to atheists on Youtube because they tend to have God Complexes and easily defeated arguments, but I haven't really seen much of either in you
heavystallin 2 years ago
Have you considered what the cost might be? You seem smarter than the 9/11 truth people, so I'm going to put 9/11 out there. That was not the last attack they intended to perform.
If torturing means we are causing the deaths of more and more Americans, refraining from torture might mean we're handing over our citizens to be slaughtered. These people are trying to make bombs (or suspected of such things) when they're arrested. Only a fool would think lightly of that.
heavystallin 2 years ago
"refraining from torture might mean we're handing over our citizens to be slaughtered."
If torture were in any way a reliable way of extracting information, then you'd have a point. This is the whole purpose of the land mine analogy. But torture simply fails to do this. You might as well try to justify infant cannibalism on the grounds that it cures cancer. It simply doesn't.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
What you're doing here is creating a false dichotomy; and there are other options than torture. I think you're over-simplifying the situation.
charkopolis 2 years ago
THE 1920's FIGHT BY RULES OF LAW
AbitaVets 2 years ago
THEE MAY BE OTHERS, HAVEN'T FOUND
AbitaVets 2 years ago