MI5 cover up torture

[Walsingham]

I'd ahve thought it would be far more effective to tap into the preconscious. Show them a montage of images, at a speed which the mind can take in but not process. Measure electrical activity in the brain, and retinal movement. See which ones trigger unusual responses. You'd be able to see what images they recognised, which were alarming etc etc.

There is no way to translate that into meaningful information, there are many images that are bound to cause responses due to nature or the nurture of the individual. Is less effective and the information, more confusing.

 

I agree it would be very tricky. but I disagree that it would be impossible to convert that sense data into a mathematical matrix and get some sustaining intelligence from it. For example, if you ahd pictures of known terrorists and put them into a bunch of other unknown terrorists. Or if you wanted to know where the guy was wrong, then local landmarks could elicit a reaction. I mean we're talking a huge effort, but it's feasible.

[Meshugger]

Because they are simply fooled. No physical pain involved and no psychological either. Kinda like men try do in order to get a easy lay on a late friday night.

No, I mean, how do you figure it's not possible to have a desperate, utterly humiliated person believe he's better off taking what the "good cop" is offering?

 

That was not what i was saying. By careful social engineering, the subject will willfully give the information wanted because he has established a bond of friendship with the interogator. I was not talking about the good cop/bad cop-scenario.

 

 

The morality of torture is that the act is inheritly wrong, no matter the reasons behind it.

Sigh. And here I thought we were making progress.

 

So... can you actually substantiate that?

 

Hoho, aren't we a scholar today?

 

It is very difficult to prove, for example if you want to prove that inflicting harm to further ones goal benefits society more than not doing so. If person A impose harm on B, and consequense on doing so may only benefit A, and only on the expense of B, is that really torture in the sense of the point i am making? No. However, when intelligense services conduct torture, the beneficiary is the state, and since a state cannot exist without people, the people ultimately bear a moral responsibility.

 

If the people wish equality in front of the law, then the state should be able to torture them, which is counterproductive since no one really wants to be tortured. Subsequently, the state has to torture people that are not of the state or sovereign. This implies that torture is conducted by those who can on those who can not defend themselves, might makes right and all. That concludes, for me, that torture is a form of tyranny that benefits only benefits strong, which has no place in a western society.

[Walsingham]

Because they are simply fooled. No physical pain involved and no psychological either. Kinda like men try do in order to get a easy lay on a late friday night.

No, I mean, how do you figure it's not possible to have a desperate, utterly humiliated person believe he's better off taking what the "good cop" is offering?

 

That was not what i was saying. By careful social engineering, the subject will willfully give the information wanted because he has established a bond of friendship with the interogator. I was not talking about the good cop/bad cop-scenario.

 

 

Back when I worked as journalist, and even more recently, I established that people want to tell their story. You'd be quite simply amazed by what people will say if you genuinely care about what they say. Like that ex-Para who opened up and told me all about the suicide bomber he was forced to shoot in Iraq. Towards the end of the evening he laughed and said he'd never ever told anyone so much about it, not even the Army psychologists. As a journalist I got hitmen and drug-smugglers to open up in pretty much the same way.

 

I'm not saying interviews have to work that way. But it's a powerful mechanism, as Meshugger suggests.

[Pidesco]

It's a result of you appearing meek, open, non threatening, and genuinely interested.

 

 

This may sound like a thinly veiled insult, but isn't. I'm essentially the same way.

 

 

Most people are self involved, deaf bottom feeders, who literally have no interests whatsoever, beyond themselves. Hence, there's a lot of people with interesting things to say, who have no one to tell them to.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Anyway, I'm not arguing for the efficacy of brutality in winning wars, but let's not distort historical fact to make dubious points.

 

Then what precisely are you waffling on about?

My point was that torture often works, since I didn't claim that that was what won Chechnya the rest of the discussion was irrelevant, except that I had to correct the distortion of historical fact.

[Gfted1]

Yes, a friendly bloke drinking at the bar and people that *want* to tell their stories to journalists for their own gains are exactly the same as trying to extract secret information from a battle hardened trooper. All they need is a little understanding and a kind ear and they will spill their guts.

[Meshugger]

Yes, a friendly bloke drinking at the bar and people that *want* to tell their stories to journalists for their own gains are exactly the same as trying to extract secret information from a battle hardened trooper. All they need is a little understanding and a kind ear and they will spill their guts.

 

You do understand that most people are hardwired to greet others in a friendly manner? Humans are social creatures, and thus any form of guard or mental resistance can be lowered by a clever orator. Even the most hardened terrorist comes from social pack that they would consider as family, people that they treat well and wish no harm upon, and for whom they will fight with every strength to protect.

 

Unless you confuse them with mentally impaired people such as extreme narcissists, sociopaths or full blown psychos. Should they be tortured?

Edited February 15, 2010 by Meshugger

[Gfted1]

What Im saying is that all the examples "of how all we need is a kind smile" are contrived. A lonely guy at a bar wants to speak about what he did to an interested fellow armed service member? Shocking! A hitman and drug dealer being interviewed by a journalist told him stuff? Inconceivable! Chat up a hostile enemy into giving up secret information? I dont think so.

 

And just for the record, Im not debating morals or ethics but the absurd comment that "torture doesnt work". I mean, what? Are we just going to ignore thousands of years of successful torture to support some newage feelgood crapola? Ill bet you that not one person here wouldnt spill their guts of everything they know if put to the test.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Gfted1

[Junai]

Are we just going to ignore thousands of years of successful torture to support some newage feelgood crapola?

 

yes

[Orogun01]

And just for the record, Im not debating morals or ethics but the absurd comment that "torture doesnt work". I mean, what? Are we just going to ignore thousands of years of successful torture to support some newage feelgood crapola? Ill bet you that not one person here wouldnt spill their guts of everything they know if put to the test.

As a way to extract information; reliable information, it is useless. As a way to force a signed confession is very successful those are the thousands of years past; a bunch of crimes pinned on the most likely culprit. And Ill bet you that the persons here would consent to have the knowledge the torturer seeks, just to make the pain go away.

[Walsingham]

What Im saying is that all the examples "of how all we need is a kind smile" are contrived. A lonely guy at a bar wants to speak about what he did to an interested fellow armed service member? Shocking! A hitman and drug dealer being interviewed by a journalist told him stuff? Inconceivable! Chat up a hostile enemy into giving up secret information? I dont think so.

 

And just for the record, Im not debating morals or ethics but the absurd comment that "torture doesnt work". I mean, what? Are we just going to ignore thousands of years of successful torture to support some newage feelgood crapola? Ill bet you that not one person here wouldnt spill their guts of everything they know if put to the test.

 

@ WoD: Fair enough. Your point is now clear.

 

I'd like to ask a very simple question: can either of you

 

1. Tell me if you've ever been tortured?

2. Give us 3 anecdotal examples of torture in any circumstance leading to intelligence of a calibre and latency improbable by other means. It doesn't ahve to be impossible by other means

[Meshugger]

What Im saying is that all the examples "of how all we need is a kind smile" are contrived. A lonely guy at a bar wants to speak about what he did to an interested fellow armed service member? Shocking! A hitman and drug dealer being interviewed by a journalist told him stuff? Inconceivable! Chat up a hostile enemy into giving up secret information? I dont think so.

 

And just for the record, Im not debating morals or ethics but the absurd comment that "torture doesnt work". I mean, what? Are we just going to ignore thousands of years of successful torture to support some newage feelgood crapola? Ill bet you that not one person here wouldnt spill their guts of everything they know if put to the test.

 

Bah, Walsh beat me to it.

[Gfted1]

I'd like to ask a very simple question: can either of you

 

1. Tell me if you've ever been tortured?

2. Give us 3 anecdotal examples of torture in any circumstance leading to intelligence of a calibre and latency improbable by other means. It doesn't ahve to be impossible by other means

 

 

*sigh*

 

Its like Ive become the mayor of Crazytown.

 

1) Of course Ive never been tortured. Whats that have to do with anything? Ive also never been lit on fire but I dont need to to know it hurts.

 

2) What? Prove an improvable wasnt provable by other means? Again, whats that have to do with anything?

 

Whats being debated is "torture doesnt work". I dont care if there are other ways (debatable), Im disputing how all you experts in the matter *know* that "torture doesnt work". Its utterly ridiculous for those words to even leave your fingertips when 100% of the people reading this would cave to torture and provide every last detail asked of them.

[Trenitay]

most terrorists wouldn't. They'd tell the best lie they could come up with.

[Gfted1]

 

Most "terrorists" are uneducated dirtfarmers who have been indoctrinated / brainwashed into dying for allah. They arent some supersoldiers who have received the highest training to resist torture.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'd like to ask a very simple question: can either of you

 

1. Tell me if you've ever been tortured?

2. Give us 3 anecdotal examples of torture in any circumstance leading to intelligence of a calibre and latency improbable by other means. It doesn't ahve to be impossible by other means

 

1. Only by my children

2. According to high government officials, they got highly valuable information by waterboarding Khalid Sheik Muhammed.

[Meshugger]

I'd like to ask a very simple question: can either of you

 

1. Tell me if you've ever been tortured?

2. Give us 3 anecdotal examples of torture in any circumstance leading to intelligence of a calibre and latency improbable by other means. It doesn't ahve to be impossible by other means

 

 

*sigh*

 

Its like Ive become the mayor of Crazytown.

 

1) Of course Ive never been tortured. Whats that have to do with anything? Ive also never been lit on fire but I dont need to to know it hurts.

 

2) What? Prove an improvable wasnt provable by other means? Again, whats that have to do with anything?

 

Whats being debated is "torture doesnt work". I dont care if there are other ways (debatable), Im disputing how all you experts in the matter *know* that "torture doesnt work". Its utterly ridiculous for those words to even leave your fingertips when 100% of the people reading this would cave to torture and provide every last detail asked of them.

 

I actually debated whether a western society should accept torture as a means of getting information. Torture is the easiest way, just as total tyranny is the easiest platform to run a state. We do not have democracies as a means to simplify the decision process.

[Meshugger]

I'd like to ask a very simple question: can either of you

 

1. Tell me if you've ever been tortured?

2. Give us 3 anecdotal examples of torture in any circumstance leading to intelligence of a calibre and latency improbable by other means. It doesn't ahve to be impossible by other means

 

1. Only by my children

2. According to high government officials, they got highly valuable information by waterboarding Khalid Sheik Muhammed.

 

Did they waterboard you? Nasty rascals

 

What information are we talking about here? Remember that a lot of politics surrounded the issue, it was not in the best interest of the previous government that it was "bad" intel that he gave them.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Meshugger

[Gfted1]

I actually debated whether a western society should accept torture as a means of getting information. Torture is the easiest way, just as total tyranny is the easiest platform to run a state. We do not have democracies as a means to simplify the decision process.

 

I see. Well that falls on the morality side of things and thats a lot stickier. Is it moral to torture someone? Is it moral to let people die that otherwise would have been saved by the information torture supplied? How big is that number, is it ok to let 10 people die to protect your morality but not 100 people?

[Meshugger]

I actually debated whether a western society should accept torture as a means of getting information. Torture is the easiest way, just as total tyranny is the easiest platform to run a state. We do not have democracies as a means to simplify the decision process.

 

I see. Well that falls on the morality side of things and thats a lot stickier. Is it moral to torture someone? Is it moral to let people die that otherwise would have been saved by the information torture supplied? How big is that number, is it ok to let 10 people die to protect your morality but not 100 people?

 

You assume that the information is only available through torture of the subject(s). Is the torture the only method, or is it just the easiest?

 

I can make it even stickier for you: what if the people saved by conducting torture are the worst kind of people that you could ever imagine, if you are aware of them is of no matter. Is it ok to torture a terrorist in order to save 100 potential child-rapists?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Meshugger

[Gfted1]

Im getting off tangent here as I was only disputing "torture doesnt work" but I'll answer your question. For the sake of this conversation, lets say it was the only method. Time is of an essence and you either torture the information out of him or people will die. What do you do?

 

EDIT: No, I wouldnt torture someone to protect child-rapists, who would? Not all pigs are created equally after all.

 

EDIT2: Ah, "potential" child-rapists. Well, thats just too abstract to answer clearly. Thought crime, so far, still isnt illegal so "potential" doesnt factor in.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Gfted1

[Meshugger]

Thank you, i'll ponder on my answers and get back to you tomorrow.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Meshugger

[Walsingham]

Im getting off tangent here as I was only disputing "torture doesnt work" but I'll answer your question. For the sake of this conversation, lets say it was the only method. Time is of an essence and you either torture the information out of him or people will die. What do you do?

 

Didn't Numbers already cover this?

[Trenitay]

 

Most "terrorists" are uneducated dirtfarmers who have been indoctrinated / brainwashed into dying for allah. They arent some supersoldiers who have received the highest training to resist torture.

 

They don't resist. They get it to stop as quickly as possible.

[Wrath of Dagon]

What information are we talking about here? Remember that a lot of politics surrounded the issue, it was not in the best interest of the previous government that it was "bad" intel that he gave them.

Information about Al Qaeda and what they were planning. This was also confirmed by Obama's intelligence coordinator, and no one actually denied it. The actual information is classified of course, although Cheney asked for some of it to be declassified.