MI5 cover up torture

[213374U]

FSB has a very bad reputation for such a young organization. Worse even than KGB (not NKVD), in some cases...

[Orogun01]

FSB has a very bad reputation for such a young organization. Worse even than KGB (not NKVD), in some cases...

Well what do you expect out of the KGB's successor, I think that most of the KGB's agents are there after it closed.

[Gfted1]

*sigh* Not this again.

 

While the desk jockeys at MI5 may occasionally hold the occasional torture party for the odd Yankee Walter Mitty the simple 'fact' I've absorbed from every experienced soldier I've ever spoken to is that torture doesn't extract useful information. I mean just think about it. If torturing people worked then there would have been zero resistance movements against the nazis. Instead of a bazillion.

 

 

Yeah, well I call BS. I know if someone was coming at my weiner with a hot poker that I would sing like a canary. Not false info, not partial info, full disclosure of whatever they wanted to know. A skilled interrogator will know when youve snapped and are just spouting nonsense. Also, they probably already know the general range of what you would possibly know. They arent going to interrogate a field grunt into telling them what the launch codes are, DUH. They will ask things he could possibly know: wheres the rest of your squad, how many of you are there, etc...

 

Now with *every*single*thing* being classified as torture all were left with is harsh glares? C'mon. OMG, we made them listen to Metallica, OH THE HUMANITY! What? They had to stand for 12 hours!!! Call the press!

[lord of flies]

Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Unarmed prisoners are not toys.

[Darth InSidious]

Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Unarmed prisoners are not toys.

First sane thing you've said.

 

OMG, we made them listen to Metallica, OH THE HUMANITY!

Well, certainly being forced to listen to pop music should be classed as cruel and unusual punishment...

[213374U]

Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Unarmed prisoners are not toys.

Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is known to have very close ties to Organization O, whose members have been convicted for committing random acts of violence against innocent civilians in the past. State Security Organization S has intercepted information that an attack on a population center identified only by codename is imminent. As a precautionary measure, all members of Organization O have gone into hiding, save for Mr. X.

 

Procedure P is proven to be a reliable method for extracting information from uncooperative subjects, but will subject the individual to considerable physical pain and mental stress. It will, however, leave no lasting scars.

 

Question: would it be wrong for S to detain Mr. X and subject him to P in order to acquire the information necessary to prevent the attack? Aye or Nay?

Edited February 11, 2010 by 213374U

[Orogun01]

Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Unarmed prisoners are not toys.

Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is known to have very close ties to Organization O, whose members have been convicted for committing random acts of violence against innocent civilians in the past. State Security Organization S has intercepted information that an attack on a population center identified only by codename is imminent. As a precautionary measure, all members of Organization O have gone into hiding, save for Mr. X.

 

Procedure P is proven to be a reliable method for extracting information from uncooperative subjects, but will subject the individual to considerable physical pain and mental stress. It will, however, leave no lasting scars.

 

Question: would it be wrong for S to detain Mr. X and subject him to P in order to acquire the information necessary to prevent the attack? Aye or Nay?

Is Mr. X a Muslim?

[Walsingham]

Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Unarmed prisoners are not toys.

Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is known to have very close ties to Organization O, whose members have been convicted for committing random acts of violence against innocent civilians in the past. State Security Organization S has intercepted information that an attack on a population center identified only by codename is imminent. As a precautionary measure, all members of Organization O have gone into hiding, save for Mr. X.

 

Procedure P is proven to be a reliable method for extracting information from uncooperative subjects, but will subject the individual to considerable physical pain and mental stress. It will, however, leave no lasting scars.

 

Question: would it be wrong for S to detain Mr. X and subject him to P in order to acquire the information necessary to prevent the attack? Aye or Nay?

 

Frankly in the scenario you describe I would say yes. This is why I consider torture both repugnant and retarded. But your method P is a fiction. I do not just refer to anecdotal evidence or historical conjecture. Studies of trauma indicate that torture type treatment will not only predispose a subject to oppose you but actively inhibit the ability of a subject to cooperate, and to even retreive basic information.

 

I am annoyed because this fantasy dilemma leads to people being tortured all over teh place by men who hate the concept but believe mistakenly that they are protecting others by employing these methods.

 

I do not think it is a coincidence that condoning these sorts of methods arose during a period where the security services pressed every available halfwit into service at the front line.

 

Just look at the British experience in NOrthern Ireland. Our period of greatest success coincided with a drive to obey the principles of law, and our worst failures have associated with the reverse.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Unarmed prisoners are not toys.

Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is known to have very close ties to Organization O, whose members have been convicted for committing random acts of violence against innocent civilians in the past. State Security Organization S has intercepted information that an attack on a population center identified only by codename is imminent. As a precautionary measure, all members of Organization O have gone into hiding, save for Mr. X.

 

Procedure P is proven to be a reliable method for extracting information from uncooperative subjects, but will subject the individual to considerable physical pain and mental stress. It will, however, leave no lasting scars.

 

Question: would it be wrong for S to detain Mr. X and subject him to P in order to acquire the information necessary to prevent the attack? Aye or Nay?

 

The only thing missing is the Codename E for the attack on a population center.

 

and then everyone in your scenario could go to SEXPO and have a big party.

[Walsingham]

Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Unarmed prisoners are not toys.

Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is known to have very close ties to Organization O, whose members have been convicted for committing random acts of violence against innocent civilians in the past. State Security Organization S has intercepted information that an attack on a population center identified only by codename is imminent. As a precautionary measure, all members of Organization O have gone into hiding, save for Mr. X.

 

Procedure P is proven to be a reliable method for extracting information from uncooperative subjects, but will subject the individual to considerable physical pain and mental stress. It will, however, leave no lasting scars.

 

Question: would it be wrong for S to detain Mr. X and subject him to P in order to acquire the information necessary to prevent the attack? Aye or Nay?

 

The only thing missing is the Codename E for the attack on a population center.

 

and then everyone in your scenario could go to SEXPO and have a big party.

 

Can I change my answer to 'have a party?' I didn't realise that was an option.

[Hiro Protagonist]

How does an intelligence service work if it can't torture people once in a while?

 

Every intelligence agency does it. You're not going to get any information by just asking nicely.

[Zoraptor]

Studies of trauma indicate that torture type treatment will not only predispose a subject to oppose you but actively inhibit the ability of a subject to cooperate, and to even retreive basic information.

Yes, and not only that but also most normal people will say anything (usually whatever they think the torturer wants to hear) in order to make it stop while those trained will tend to say stuff which is inaccurate, or worse, partly accurate but designed to give a false impression. The information gained is of very poor quality because you have to check literally everything about it to have any idea of its quality. At least if someone is keeping their gob shut you don't end up wasting resources chasing wild geese or getting a dose of whatever the subject thinks you want, which inevitably leads to scenario fulfillment- think there are lots of AQ agents in the US? Torture people and ask them and- surprise surprise- you'll find they tell you that there are lots of agents because that's precisely what you are rewarding them for saying.

[Walsingham]

How does an intelligence service work if it can't torture people once in a while?

 

Every intelligence agency does it. You're not going to get any information by just asking nicely.

 

 

Ow. I just quite literally and physically hit myself in the side of the head. ARE YOU NOT LISTENING? TORTURE WORKS IN THE MOVIES. JUST LIKE EXPLODING CARS, AND HAVING SEX WITH SCARLETT JOHANSSON.

 

CAN WE PLEASE DROP THIS RIDICULOUS AND DANGEROUS FANTASY?

 

PLEASE?

 

As mad as it may soundpulling someone's fingernails out doesn't make them tell you what you need to know. And sometimes - not always but sometimes - asking someone questions in a forceful but humane way does. Particularly if the only reason they are your enemy is the fact that they think you go about torturing people.

[213374U]

Frankly in the scenario you describe I would say yes.

So, if using torture is wrong, not using it is right. The direct consequence would appear to be that the attack proceeds as planned, and people die. Interesting, but I would like to hear how you see this as a more acceptable outcome.

 

 

I am annoyed because this fantasy dilemma leads to people being tortured all over teh place by men who hate the concept but believe mistakenly that they are protecting others by employing these methods.

This is a hypothetical scenario. Nobody is actually being tortured so no need to get your pants all in a bunch. It is useful however to establish whether torture can be a moral choice or not, and why; it's not meant to be a justification of torture. Morality is an important aspect to consider in the lawmaking process, so the discussion has value, hurting sensibilities notwithstanding.

 

 

But your method P is a fiction. I do not just refer to anecdotal evidence or historical conjecture. Studies of trauma indicate that torture type treatment will not only predispose a subject to oppose you but actively inhibit the ability of a subject to cooperate, and to even retreive basic information.

Yes, the method is fiction because this is a hypothetical scenario. Mr. X doesn't exist, either.

 

But I'd like to see this proof you claim to possess that establishes beyond all doubt that torture cannot be used to extract information, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Remember, it takes only a counterexample to destroy a general rule. And I'm even more interested in finding out if those who so adamantly argue that torture is immoral are incidentally conviced, as seems to be your case, that it doesn't work - and how both ideas are related.

 

As for the Northern Ireland example, I think you are trying to give torture an undue weight in this regard, and at the same minimizing that of other factors. Torture = Lose, Due Process = Win? I doubt it's that simple. Nothing ever is.

 

I don't have a clear opinion on the matter myself. Don't know enough... which is why I'm posting all this crap.

 

 

edit:

The only thing missing is the Codename E for the attack on a population center.

 

and then everyone in your scenario could go to SEXPO and have a big party.

Just saw this. 0_o

 

There must be a way to make money off that talent of yours. TV contests maybe? Prodigious really...

Edited February 12, 2010 by 213374U

[Pidesco]

It seems to me that the problem with the "torture doesn't work" argument is that it assumes that torture is just a simple hurt and terrorize them until they talk. However, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't a lot more complex, developed and subtle than movie torture. Stockholm syndrome comes to mind, for example.

[Orogun01]

It seems to me that the problem with the "torture doesn't work" argument is that it assumes that torture is just a simple hurt and terrorize them until they talk. However, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't a lot more complex, developed and subtle than movie torture. Stockholm syndrome comes to mind, for example.

Torture becomes counterproductive for extracting information since after a while people will agree and say anything to make the pain stop. I clarify that in this case I mean the act of damaging the subject and not just depriving him.

E.G. every confession extracted by the catholic church during the Middle ages.

[Sand]

That is why you do not torture an individual with pain. You let them feel euphoric joy, pleasure, and complete contentment, then with one sudden move you take it away. Only to return it if they cooperate.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Ow. I just quite literally and physically hit myself in the side of the head. ARE YOU NOT LISTENING? TORTURE WORKS IN THE MOVIES. JUST LIKE EXPLODING CARS, AND HAVING SEX WITH SCARLETT JOHANSSON.

 

CAN WE PLEASE DROP THIS RIDICULOUS AND DANGEROUS FANTASY?

 

PLEASE?

 

As mad as it may soundpulling someone's fingernails out doesn't make them tell you what you need to know. And sometimes - not always but sometimes - asking someone questions in a forceful but humane way does. Particularly if the only reason they are your enemy is the fact that they think you go about torturing people.

 

You're suggesting torture has never worked and truthfull information has never come from someone that has been tortured?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Of course torture works, if it didn't no one would use it. http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2...-moral-torture/

[lord of flies]

Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Unarmed prisoners are not toys.

Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is known to have very close ties to Organization O, whose members have been convicted for committing random acts of violence against innocent civilians in the past. State Security Organization S has intercepted information that an attack on a population center identified only by codename is imminent. As a precautionary measure, all members of Organization O have gone into hiding, save for Mr. X.

 

Procedure P is proven to be a reliable method for extracting information from uncooperative subjects, but will subject the individual to considerable physical pain and mental stress. It will, however, leave no lasting scars.

 

Question: would it be wrong for S to detain Mr. X and subject him to P in order to acquire the information necessary to prevent the attack? Aye or Nay?

Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is a mean bad baby rapist and puppy-kicker. State Security Organization S has him in their custody. State Security Organization S knows that if it performs Procedure P on Mr. X, magical fairies will descend from the sky and grant the human race wealth, peace and genuine democratic socialism without fault. The only problem is that Procedure P is a brutal attack which involves psychologically breaking down Mr. X until he's a blubbering, hallucinating child.

 

Question: would it be wrong for S to subject Mr. X to procedure P in order to create a glorious utopia? Aye or Nay?

[Tigranes]

Go ahead, perform it.

 

No, really. Unlike the movies, if that was really the case (i.e. fairies) we as a society will probably make it happen.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Unarmed prisoners are not toys.

I agree. Doesn't mean torture doesn't work.

[Trenitay]

But it doesn't work.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I'm guessing it only works by luck and only if you use it right. But it has worked before, and it probably still works. It shouldn't, I know, but it does, otherwise no one would freaking use it.

[lord of flies]

The most effective forms of torture are the psychological ones (e.g. sensory deprivation, exposure to phobias, sleep deprivation). They were pioneered by the various state security agencies in the Soviet Union, and the United States piggy-backed off their developments. That's why the USA has carefully avoided recognizing psychological torture as torture.