Saturday, August 29, 2009
On the effectiveness of torture
Crossposted from Althouse's comments on this post:
Any libtard who blindly asserts that 'torture doesn't work' is a half-witted, naive little panty-waist talking out of his ass.
Torture works. It always has. The threat of torture works. It always has. Not in every single instance with every single suspect, but damn well enough and consistently enough.
Here's where the typical pony-tailed pinko tries to assert "yeah, it's effective at getting the victim to say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear."
That's because the libtard shitbird is an amateur, and he read about torture committed by amateurs, and therefore, in his ignorance he cannot conceive that other people are professionals.
Torture is extremely effective at extracting confirmable information, where the victim cannot be certain that the information is not already known to the interrogator, and where the detaining power is sufficiently brutal - or is perceived to be sufficiently brutal - that the victim has a reason to believe that his lot will become substantially worse if he is caught in a lie.
This is not difficult to do where the detaining power is organized and disciplined about tracking information received and shares it among the interrogators, carefully keeping track of known and unknown, confirmed and unconfirmed information.
In some cases, less intense forms of interrogation are effective BECAUSE more brutal interrogations were performed on others, and the subject of the less intense interrogation has no idea whether the first guy broke or not - but must assume he has.
I keep seeing libtards argue crap they don't understand till they're blue in the face.
There are legitimate moral arguments why we should not practice torture - putting aside definitional problems. But every time some ignorant fool argues that it just isn't effective, he makes an utter clown of himself.
Any libtard who blindly asserts that 'torture doesn't work' is a half-witted, naive little panty-waist talking out of his ass.
Torture works. It always has. The threat of torture works. It always has. Not in every single instance with every single suspect, but damn well enough and consistently enough.
Here's where the typical pony-tailed pinko tries to assert "yeah, it's effective at getting the victim to say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear."
That's because the libtard shitbird is an amateur, and he read about torture committed by amateurs, and therefore, in his ignorance he cannot conceive that other people are professionals.
Torture is extremely effective at extracting confirmable information, where the victim cannot be certain that the information is not already known to the interrogator, and where the detaining power is sufficiently brutal - or is perceived to be sufficiently brutal - that the victim has a reason to believe that his lot will become substantially worse if he is caught in a lie.
This is not difficult to do where the detaining power is organized and disciplined about tracking information received and shares it among the interrogators, carefully keeping track of known and unknown, confirmed and unconfirmed information.
In some cases, less intense forms of interrogation are effective BECAUSE more brutal interrogations were performed on others, and the subject of the less intense interrogation has no idea whether the first guy broke or not - but must assume he has.
I keep seeing libtards argue crap they don't understand till they're blue in the face.
There are legitimate moral arguments why we should not practice torture - putting aside definitional problems. But every time some ignorant fool argues that it just isn't effective, he makes an utter clown of himself.
Labels: detainees, ethics, The Left, War on Terror, Warfighting
Comments:
Okay, so let me ask you this. What about all those people who insist waterboarding is not torture, and no civilized country would use torture? Are you going to attack all those waterboarders for not using real torture?
You are conflating 2 things that do not belong together. Personally I think we need to have torture of some sort in the weapons rack. There are times when that is the only thing that will get the information needed. It should not be used immediately but only as a last resort. All civilized countries use what some call torture to some extent. Check out the way cops work on criminals - the good cop/bad cop for example is the same method as threatening all sorts of damage. Same method that Holder is complaining about with threats to kill or hit with truncheons or waterboard. Do you think cops should not use the good cop/bad cop method to get info? That is what you are talking about.
Personally what is the benefit of not having torture in the arsenal. Do you think that will keep this particular enemy from choppiong off heads or stoning to death? Will it make you feel better to say I did not torture and they did so I am better than they are. In the meantime you have a dead body there and a family here who lost a treasured member. Would you not torture to keep that from happening? If you say you would not, then I hope you are never in the position to make that decision for the country.
Personally what is the benefit of not having torture in the arsenal. Do you think that will keep this particular enemy from choppiong off heads or stoning to death? Will it make you feel better to say I did not torture and they did so I am better than they are. In the meantime you have a dead body there and a family here who lost a treasured member. Would you not torture to keep that from happening? If you say you would not, then I hope you are never in the position to make that decision for the country.
The "he'll say anything you want" argument is a fine reason for not allowing coercive interrogation in criminal investigations; a confession obtained through coercion is meaningless. I'm firmly of the opinion that no evidence so obtained should be admissible in court, ever.
On the other hand... for extracting information which can then be checked against other sources, as a basis for military (or similar) action... yeah, these methods can be useful, and we have to be real careful about just when we'll tolerate their use.
On yet another hand, real old-fashioned torture - the systematic infliction of extreme pain and great bodily harm for the amusement of spectators (see, e.g., Vlad the Impaler), is just plain evil, even if it has been popular through the ages.
On the other hand... for extracting information which can then be checked against other sources, as a basis for military (or similar) action... yeah, these methods can be useful, and we have to be real careful about just when we'll tolerate their use.
On yet another hand, real old-fashioned torture - the systematic infliction of extreme pain and great bodily harm for the amusement of spectators (see, e.g., Vlad the Impaler), is just plain evil, even if it has been popular through the ages.
We've heard the false confessions made by captured American soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere. You can make people say whatever you want. How are we to believe confessions extracted by torture?
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 6:02 AM
: 6:02 AM
