MI5 cover up torture

[Trenitay]

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.

 

You assume people are logical which they most certainly are not. Just because someone does something doesn't mean it works.

[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?

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?

Preform Procedure P with some Preparation H to ease Mr. X suffering and it all be all right

[Moose]

Not everyone has the same vision of heaven.

[213374U]

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

Answering a question with a question? How lame. Don't hijack my hypothetical scenario, lof. I don't hijack your "let's all jack off to communism" threads.

 

As for the question you pose, you'll need to revise it. You assert that performing P would result in both democratic socialism and a utopia, but that DOES NOT COMPUTE.

Edited February 12, 2010 by 213374U

[Meshugger]

Most investigation stories and books that i have read about the subject has given me the following conclusion:

 

1) Those who have sanctioned torture are seldom people of high moral character. Either they are sadists themselves, or have to work with sadists.

2) Being subtle, fooling and oversmarting your opponent is more prevalent. The best act of espionage or counter-terrorism comes when the enemy is not even aware that you have aqcuired information from them.

3) Targets of torture are often trained against physical pain and psychological wargames. More often, they come from backgrounds where they have been inflicted severe physical or psychological abuse since childhood.

4) When conducting questioning of a subject, the most valuable information is often acquired when the subject is relaxed and have created a sense of bond, call it even friendship, with the questioner. The questioner is often an expert in social engineering and of high intelligence.

 

Sanctioning torture says more about us than about our enemy. Only men that lack class, sense of culture and high ethics thinks that it is ok. Like the Soviet Russians.

 

On the hypotethical situation that numbersman put up: It simply lacks any practical significance, but i will play along. Lets say that torture was the only way to acquire the information needed, and consequently torture was implemented. However, the torturer and the those involved and sanctioned it should be put into prison according to the law of the land. If the subject of torture have died, they will then be tried for murder and will be given life in prison. Like a good RPG, there should be choices and consequences for your actions.

 

No army should have a field book on torture, torture should not be a legal technicality, torture is simply an action of the desperate that lack intelligence, honor, rectitude and class. Torture is a criminal activity.

[lord of flies]

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

Answering a question with a question? How lame. Don't hijack my hypothetical scenario, lof. I don't hijack your "let's all jack off to communism" threads.

The point is that you're making up a ridiculous situation to prove your point. Why don't you come back when you have a justification for torture that's not pulled out of an episode of 24?

[213374U]

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

Answering a question with a question? How lame. Don't hijack my hypothetical scenario, lof. I don't hijack your "let's all jack off to communism" threads.

The point is that you're making up a ridiculous situation to prove your point. Why don't you come back when you have a justification for torture that's not pulled out of an episode of 24?

It's not a justification for anything, but it's not as if I really expect you to understand this. You can patronize with your moral absolutes as much as you like, but unless you can adequately defend them, they are just useless dogma.

 

If a silly thing like my little hypothetical scenario leaves you squealing like a schoolgirl, you got some stuff to figure out on your own. And if I got you so worked up, I must be doing something right.

 

So, quit squirming and answer the goddamn question, or things are going to get ugly. Understand?

 

I don't watch TV, btw.

Edited February 12, 2010 by 213374U

[213374U]

4) When conducting questioning of a subject, the most valuable information is often acquired when the subject is relaxed and have created a sense of bond, call it even friendship, with the questioner. The questioner is often an expert in social engineering and of high intelligence.

This and torture are mutually exclusive... how?

 

 

On the hypotethical situation that numbersman put up: It simply lacks any practical significance, but i will play along. Lets say that torture was the only way to acquire the information needed, and consequently torture was implemented. However, the torturer and the those involved and sanctioned it should be put into prison according to the law of the land. If the subject of torture have died, they will then be tried for murder and will be given life in prison. Like a good RPG, there should be choices and consequences for your actions.

Interesting point of view. So you consider it could be a moral choice, a sort of selfless sacrifice.

 

It is at any rate, as torturers have their characters changed by torture as well, whether they know it or not. Unlike videogames, torture really does cause a desensitisation to suffering in the perpetrator, from what I've read mainly about military Argentinian torturers.

 

As for the practicality of the scenario (or lack thereof), that's the whole point. I would certainly not feel comfortable with a state agency that had legal authority to operate around the rule of law in that sense. But that is beside the point and it obscures and shifts the focus away from the morality of torture, which is what I'm trying to discern.

[Walsingham]

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

 

As much as I rate your college level experience of torture, I have to say you have no idea what you are talking about. I mentioned the torture thing to a friend of mine who worked with the ANC in South Africa and he said that yes, people break under torture, but breaking and providing useful timely information are completely different things.

 

Judging by all the interest, I think several people here would benefit from picking up 'The Interrogator's War'. It runs through 90% of what I've heard and it does so in an engaging style.

 

Going back to Numbers' point: yes. I think it would be an interesting question of sacrifice. To surerender one's morality to serve and protect teh innocent. I say that having considered it long before I ever got involved with the Forces. But fortunately it turns out I won't have to make that distinction. It's rather like asking me if it's moral to smear myself in honey and run through a kindergarten to cure someone of cancer. It just fails to compute.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Torture is just a tool, and of limited use. If the manual I've got anything to go by, its one of the less important ways of getting information. Creating and maintaining a web of informants is the most important activity. Torture falls under "purposeful acting on individual" (hard to translate), among such stuff as blackmail, manipulation etc. Whether or not the information gained by torture is valid is left up to the agent to decide, much like every other piece of information.

 

As for whether its wrong. Yes it is. But that doesn't make it any less neccessary.

 

Its one of those things that depends entirely on which side of the stick you're on.

Edited February 12, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Wrath of Dagon]

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

 

As much as I rate your college level experience of torture, I have to say you have no idea what you are talking about. I mentioned the torture thing to a friend of mine who worked with the ANC in South Africa and he said that yes, people break under torture, but breaking and providing useful timely information are completely different things.

Did you even read the link? Interrogation is a process, not a magic bullet. You check and cross check everything, just as with any other source of info. Intelligence work is by nature unreliable, witness all the CIA blunders. Doesn't mean it's never useful. Edited February 12, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[213374U]

As for whether its wrong. Yes it is. But that doesn't make it any less neccessary.

How can it be both wrong and necessary? Wrong how and necessary for what?

 

How about we keep the intellectually hollow aphorisms to a minimum? They sure sound cool, but aren't good for much.

 

@Wals: thanks for the recommendation. I'm adding that to my wishlist - even if it completely misses the point. I haven't disputed the effectiveness of interrogation methods that don't involve torture, even if it's impossible for any technique to reach 100% success rate. I also don't accept your rationale that using it would mean sacrificing one's morality, as that concedes the point that torture is the wrong choice. Sorry old boy but you're not going to win this one so easily.

[Orogun01]

As for whether its wrong. Yes it is. But that doesn't make it any less neccessary.

How can it be both wrong and necessary? Wrong how and necessary for what?

 

How about we keep the intellectually hollow aphorisms to a minimum? They sure sound cool, but aren't good for much.

 

@Wals: thanks for the recommendation. I'm adding that to my wishlist - even if it completely misses the point. I haven't disputed the effectiveness of interrogation methods that don't involve torture, even if it's impossible for any technique to reach 100% success rate. I also don't accept your rationale that using it would mean sacrificing one's morality, as that concedes the point that torture is the wrong choice. Sorry old boy but you're not going to win this one so easily.

Morally is wrong, but that's why not everybody is cut out to make the decision to go ahead with it if it means that a greater good is achieved. Is matter less universal and more relative, if the situation warrants for the use of torture and the individuals involved have no qualms about it then it may seem as viable option. Specifically referring to torture as means of information extraction I would soon left it to individual discretion, if the agent out on the field feels that it is necessary and it achieves the goal there won't be any complaints.

 

As for the ethics, I'm sure that a consensus won't be found and that the subject is going to be blurred by aphorisms used to push a point forward. It would be morally wrong to use torture, but once we enter the gray zone of morals and the ends justify the means it becomes a necessary wrong.

[RPGmasterBoo]

As for whether its wrong. Yes it is. But that doesn't make it any less neccessary.

How can it be both wrong and necessary? Wrong how and necessary for what?

 

How about we keep the intellectually hollow aphorisms to a minimum? They sure sound cool, but aren't good for much.

 

Dont be a wanker. Ethically wrong, but necessary in the work of Intelligence agencies.

[Meshugger]

4) When conducting questioning of a subject, the most valuable information is often acquired when the subject is relaxed and have created a sense of bond, call it even friendship, with the questioner. The questioner is often an expert in social engineering and of high intelligence.

This and torture are mutually exclusive... how?

 

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.

 

 

Interesting point of view. So you consider it could be a moral choice, a sort of selfless sacrifice.

 

It is at any rate, as torturers have their characters changed by torture as well, whether they know it or not. Unlike videogames, torture really does cause a desensitisation to suffering in the perpetrator, from what I've read mainly about military Argentinian torturers.

 

As i said, having to work for a sadist.

 

As for the practicality of the scenario (or lack thereof), that's the whole point. I would certainly not feel comfortable with a state agency that had legal authority to operate around the rule of law in that sense. But that is beside the point and it obscures and shifts the focus away from the morality of torture, which is what I'm trying to discern.

 

Not really a selfless sacrifice, since it doesn't require the accused to act out of sadism or desperation. The consequence of being held in court happens no matter the intention. The morality of torture is that the act is inheritly wrong, no matter the reasons behind it.

[lord of flies]

It's not a justification for anything, but it's not as if I really expect you to understand this. You can patronize with your moral absolutes as much as you like, but unless you can adequately defend them, they are just useless dogma.

Here's my defense: your hypothetical is absurd. It's as relevant to a discussion of the morality of torture as "what if there was an ethnicity solely comprised of thieving murderers" is to a discussion of the morality of genocide or racism.

If a silly thing like my little hypothetical scenario leaves you squealing like a schoolgirl, you got some stuff to figure out on your own. And if I got you so worked up, I must be doing something right.

I have, at times, been worked up about things on the internet. Your dumb example only caused me to roll my eyes and feel slight irritation. Don't pat yourself on the back.

So, quit squirming and answer the goddamn question, or things are going to get ugly. Understand?

lol like how? You gonna come over to my house and beat me up?

[213374U]

Dont be a wanker. Ethically wrong, but necessary in the work of Intelligence agencies.

Don't be a conceited jerkwad. Also, work harder on your argumentations, as all you did is substitute one word for another that means exactly the same in this context (ethics-morality). If something is necessary, in this case, for the greater good, it cannot be "ethically" or otherwise wrong, as either an acceptable alternative exists or the goal is impossible to achieve. Asshat.

 

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

 

Here's my defense: your hypothetical is absurd. It's as relevant to a discussion of the morality of torture as "what if there was an ethnicity solely comprised of thieving murderers" is to a discussion of the morality of genocide or racism.

"Help help, I can't find a good argument so I'm going to resort to irrelevant analogies in a desperate effort to divert the attention and evade the point!"

 

Try harder.

 

 

lol like how? You gonna come over to my house and beat me up?

You'd like that, but no such luck, sorry. I'm just playing the part everyone seems to ascribe to me.

[lord of flies]

Here's my defense: your hypothetical is absurd. It's as relevant to a discussion of the morality of torture as "what if there was an ethnicity solely comprised of thieving murderers" is to a discussion of the morality of genocide or racism.

"Help help, I can't find a good argument so I'm going to resort to irrelevant analogies in a desperate effort to divert the attention and evade the point!"

 

Try harder.

You have never managed to actually differentiate in any meaningful way between my absurd hypotheticals and your own. Perhaps it is because there is no way to do so? Edited February 13, 2010 by lord of flies

[213374U]

You have never managed to actually differentiate in any meaningful way between my absurd hypotheticals and your own. Perhaps it is because there is no way to do so?

Because an analogy by itself is not a rebuttal, I do not need to waste my time refuting a non-argument.

 

Try harder.

[lord of flies]

You have never managed to actually differentiate in any meaningful way between my absurd hypotheticals and your own. Perhaps it is because there is no way to do so?

Because an analogy by itself is not a rebuttal, I do not need to waste my time refuting a non-argument.

 

Try harder.

Oh, okay. Here's my counterpoint: your hypothetical is absurd bull**** that has never and will never happen, which exists only to further your stupid legalistic bull**** argument. Oops, I already said that, you dishonest ****.

[213374U]

Oh, okay. Here's my counterpoint: your hypothetical is absurd bull**** that has never and will never happen, which exists only to further your stupid legalistic bull**** argument. Oops, I already said that, you dishonest ****.

lof, meet thought experiment. Thought experiment, meet lof.

 

And you still haven't explained why it's absurd. You are just now realizing that a hypothetical scenario is... *SHOCK!!!* not real. Welcome to page 3.

[lord of flies]

Oh, okay. Here's my counterpoint: your hypothetical is absurd bull**** that has never and will never happen, which exists only to further your stupid legalistic bull**** argument. Oops, I already said that, you dishonest ****.

lof, meet thought experiment. Thought experiment, meet lof.

 

And you still haven't explained why it's absurd. You are just now realizing that a hypothetical scenario is... *SHOCK!!!* not real. Welcome to page 3.

Do you not understand why it is absurd? Seriously? "Check out this superpowerful terrorist organization, KAOS, capable of a major attack against an entire city. Oh look, KAOS disappeared off the face of the Earth except for one member. Of course, the single member they forgot to take on their interdimensional trip to the Phantom Zone knows every single detail of their future plans. And, what is more, he has never been trained to resist torture." Does that really sound plausible to you? Really?

[213374U]

No, it doesn't sound plausible. Implausibility does not equal impossibility, and it does certainly not imply absurdity. Nope, not even with your fallacious ridicule. And, again, that's why it's a hypothetical scenario.

 

Stop running circles, you'll end up throwing up. Either think of an argument or go back to The Manifesto.

[lord of flies]

No, it doesn't sound plausible. Implausibility does not equal impossibility, and it does certainly not imply absurdity. Nope, not even with your fallacious ridicule. And, again, that's why it's a hypothetical scenario.

 

Stop running circles, you'll end up throwing up. Either think of an argument or go back to The Manifesto.

No, even in your absurd stupid bull**** hypothetical where we ignore all facts and deal with nonexistent enemies, it is still wrong to torture. Sorry.

[213374U]

Yes, Allah is great, Anarcho-syndicalism is the only way to Salvation, and unfortunately Santa won't be bringing you any presents because you have been a very, very naughty boy!

 

See, I don't need to explain why - here with lof, we take what people say at face value!

 

You've sufficiently proven that you don't understand the point of a thought experiment, or even the simple process of argument-rebuttal that makes a debate possible. Come back when you do.

 

PS. Maxwell's Demon isn't really under your bed, sleep tight.