bluemonday Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 In todays Times '24' is fictional. So is the idea that torture works Ben Macintyre Clicky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Rumsfeld (remember him) had something to do with getting by the Geneva convention, he sorted stuff out with Bush & Gonzales after 9/11 that made torture ok but only if the pain was less than would be caused by serious physical injury (like organ failure) they constantly refer to the Kubark manual and these memos are being brought to general public attention about 5 years too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 i imagine these will make pretty gruesome viewing. US to issue 'prison abuse' photos I think the excuse about rouge elements and bad apples is very weak. What did the CO of Abu Graib say - he wanted to Gitmo-ize the prison. 60 prosecutions involving 400 individuals - how many prisons did they operate? That's alot of bad apples - but the issue for me is they were put in a permissive barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SScott Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 i imagine these will make pretty gruesome viewing. US to issue 'prison abuse' photos I think the excuse about rouge elements and bad apples is very weak. What did the CO of Abu Graib say - he wanted to Gitmo-ize the prison. 60 prosecutions involving 400 individuals - how many prisons did they operate? That's alot of bad apples - but the issue for me is they were put in a permissive barrel. You know about the Stanford study on this very subject from the late 60's do you not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 of course - for those who don't click here. And especially watch this talk by the "Prison" superintendent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SScott Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Use what works. That simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 The argument when trying to justify torture is too often presented as follows: a known terrorist has knowledge about a terrorist atrocity if he is tortured he will give up this information - do you torture him? My view is that a better way for it to be presented is: You have two people brought before you - one is innocent, the other is a terrorist who has knowledge of a terrorist atrocity - do you torture both of them? What if it is two innocent people, or 20? Remember 100s of people passed though the black jails. I wonder how many interrogators, or should that be torturers, were drowning etc people who had no ability to answer their questions other than by desperately making stuff up and how much confusion the chaff this created actually obscured any useful intelligence they actually obtained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Interrogation done right means you don't lay a hand on the subject. If you have to resort to physical violence, you taint what information you gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.