The debate "Should waterboarding be unbanned so that terrorists could be questioned easily" was started by
April 12, 2016, 2:06 am.
By the way, jamesbond007 is disagreeing with this statement.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Alex posted 17 arguments, jamesbond007 posted 6 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 12 arguments, jamesbond007 posted 5 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, Alex posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
ProudAmerican888, blanco, historybuff, lets_hear_your_argument, wildcat79, oscar90000 and 5 visitors agree.
jamesbond007, PsychDave, Alex, RyanWakefield, Doormatt, mxhsin, SwaggerPoptart, Zuhayr and 7 visitors disagree.
i will make this app great again!
No never terrorists are hard people and they deserve something which is upto their standards or else u might hurt their self-esteem mate
yeah helping our alies isn't important. not my job.
our alies hate us almost as much as our enimies.
That was only to aide Europe, sad for our allies to face the brunt. They can still implement their own measures though instead of relying on the US for the cooperation. In a way it's both detrimental and bennificial to all parties.
Europe can do things their own ways and how they want to, while it saves costs for the US.
especially cause Obama scrapped the modern missile defense systems.
yes it is.
The day nukes are launched is a grave day for everything here on Earth.
Dave, just as you will say not to use nuclear weapons I say don't use tourture. you only use them if necessary. if a country nukes you, you hit them. if a terrorist isn't giving us info we need to stop a bombing we can use tourture.
yeah. everyone is safe. our house is strong.
Is everyone alright?
OMG an 7.1 magnitude earthquake occured 15 minutes ago in assam, india. our house shook badly.
Then you were lying when you said torture shouldn't be used.
if a terrorist figures out we are bluffing we give good cop a day off, and send in bad cop to do a little bit of tourture. then send in good cop to be nice again the next day.
That is a false comparison. People can hate America for one thing and not another. Torturing people would make more people hate America and those who already do would hate the west more.
Alex, if you don't think we should ever use it, why would anyone believe the threat? The US proved to be willing to use nuclear weapons if necessary, and has repeatedly demonstrated that the military will be used as needed. Threats are only effective if they are not empty. What you are suggesting is to make a show of unbanning torture, then keep it banned in private but use the threat to get information. That might be effective against individuals, but terrorist groups aren't stupid. They would know quite quickly if the threat was empty and then be back to having nothing to fear from it.
Either you want to unban torture and use it or it should stay banned. Anything in between is useless.
I'm not saying tourture people, I'm saying legalize tourture. oh, and we have tourture illegally now. by your logic the rest of the world must love us, nobody should be chanting death to america, it should be working perfectly, there should be no shootings in common workplaces or anything like that since your plan (which is in effect right now) brings so much peace it almost seems like hate.
except that studies prove that doesn't work. you are arguing based entirely on an emotional response. the evidence says that what are suggesting wouldn't work and would only inspire more hatred for America.
it's like why have nuclear weapons? we aren't using them, we don't need to use them.
why have a strong military, if we are currently using little to none of it? come on figue it out.
what would produce greater results
a guy being nice to a terrorists, or a guy being nice to a terrorist with bad cop comming in and mentioning how tourture is legal every once in a while. basically bluff.
Why unban it if not to use it?
unban tourture, but don't use it. is that fair?
Soso you're the one that started crying because you got your feeling hurts. No you weren't debating with Alex everything I said you disagreed with. Even when I say Waterboarding is bad, you'd say.. No idiot waterboarding is bad. You should just change your name to Trump that would be a fitting name for your responses.
Bump thread over broken discussions, keep it going!
Yes, I am, I've pointed this out earlier....
I figure people can click on a link to read the data if they don't want to take my argument at face value. I didn't think I'd have to spoon feed anyone information with such a limited character set... I made the argument that torture doesn't work, provided a few sources in support of it, then argued that other interrogation techniques are more effective (never said torture was never effective), posted a few links in support of that, then made the argument that torture is a recruitment tool for terrorists, and posted a few links in support of that.....
On another point, I was trying to debate with Alex (who the original post was in reply to) and he seemed to have no problem actually understanding what argument I was making nor seemed to have any problems with the sources I provided. You ended up jumping into our debate questioning why I debate with scientific sources and pretty much demanded that I accept your anecdotal evidence and dilute the strength of my argument based on your experience which I can't vouch for.....
Torture was clearly defined in the studies I provided and so your whole point of "psychological torture Vs physical" was a non issue since the working definition includes both. So I didn't address that point and you went off into personal attacks rather than being focused on the topic or debate etiquette (if that's the discussion you wanted to have)....
You are aware we both agreed on waterboarding isn't needed right? You're 10000 links are annoying. Just say what's in the link and site it instead of posting it.
So you didn't even read through the studies....
The studies that are linked in the evidence based law enforcement article looked at efficacy. The studies looked at various interrogation techniques and the looked at true Vs false confessions, true Vs false intelligence, etc... for each tactic.
This study that I linked to earlier
Looked at WHEN during the interrogation process the subjects revealed pertinent information and what techniques were used during that time and what the build up of techniques was. The analysis was then made as to which techniques in which sequence produces the best intelligence.
The army field book review looked at emotional approaches Vs direct approaches (as the army field book clearly states that torture is not effective as an interrogation technique). It studied the false and truthful statements made by each subject and also looked at non-compliance rates for each technique and gave a statistical analysis of which strategy worked best (produces the best intelligence)
The Smithsonian article was a piece which summarized an international meta study which looked at which techniques were used during the acquisition of actionable intelligence. Then, at the end of the article is an anecdotal story of an army interrogator using bonding techniques to get actionable intelligence from a prisoner who had given a false confession while being tortured.
The BBC article is simply a comparison of the interrogation protocol that is in place now as compared to a few years earlier and why those protocols changed and how they'd apply to the Boston Marathon bomber. The main subject of the article is a group called the "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group" , created in 2009 by presidential order. So the protocols discussed are from their books.... Then at the end there are a few anecdotal stories of some interrogatiors from the FBI who tell their success stories with various techniques.
Scientific how? Because somebody said so? They analyse the brains of people who went through it? No
I completely understand the definition for torture is: any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally on a person for such purposes as obtaining from them or a third person information or confession.... So yes mental torture would be included in that definition....
As for your second post
The difference being that the anecdotal evidence I provided was also substantiated with scientific research and the people who were the subject of the interviews are named experts in their fields and are thus not anonymous Internet warriors. So yes, they instantly are more reputable than you since we at least know their names and can research their history, and we can see if they recanted their statements or made claims of being misquoted. We can also look and see if they've made contradictory statements. I can't research you or your statements.
I don't know what you're trying to say with this:"your "Research" you're lying about knowing is the same as a bible and for you to lie here and make statements on other saying the opposite makes me look at you like you really have no idea what you're saying." that just sounds like jibberish to me.... Are you saying I made statements where I have said I condone/am pro torture?
As for my anecdotes, you just took other anecdotes and used them to justify what you're saying but was bashing and belittling everyone early because of religion which is the exact same thing. So your "Research" you're lying about knowing is the same as a bible and for you to lie here and make statements on other saying the opposite makes me look at you like you really have no idea what you're saying.
I'm telling you being there that there is more then just physical torture why do you not listen?
What are you talking about??
The primary sources I listed were from Peer reviewed journals, the news media articles had expert testimony which can easily be verified, the conclusions I drew from the articles do not rely on anyone outlier of the article, the Smithsonian and BBC are fairly well respected media outlets (it's not like I was citing MSNBC or fox) the Center for Evidence Based Crime policy has a link in their article to the original research.
Media matters is probably my only questionable source since it explicitly focuses on conservative talking points.
You sure seem to think you know a lot about me by just a handful of interactions on this app.... Seems a little hasty and I'll informed.
You're making absurd strawman arguments as well. I have never stated that I "hate and think people who believe in religion are insignificant to the world"; I'm a humanist, so making the claim that I "care less about humanness and self worth" is contradictory to the entire philosophy, it is also in stark contrast to most of the arguments I've made here (except for the few times where I took positions that I didn't believe in). Now for the last thing "care more about being right.....". I was well aware of the research into torture before starting this debate. I was also well aware that there isn't really any contradictory evidence to my position.
Now, simply because I can't say "I've done this" doesn't mean I can't do my research on the topic and it doesn't mean I can't speak as an informed agent on the subject. In fact this is a very common topic in justice and morality discussions. So this is by far not the first time I've addressed this topic.
It does however see like if it were up to you, your personal experience would trump scientific evidence (yes, a few of the sources I provided are just that).
You seem to think that your anecdotal experience gives you some special right to own the conversation even though your experience leads you to the same conclusions as my research into the topic.
As I said before, I don't know you, I don't know if you're even telling the truth about your "experience" and I don't know if you're "experience" was representative of the topic at hand. Therefore, it is absurd to rely on anything you say without evidence as you are the definition of an unreliable source. Even the media matters article is more credible than you since it at least publishes where they got their data and who analyzed it....
That's because the CIA isn't going around holding sensing sessions like you showed. You'd take a terrorist word over anything. Not only that but words that can be twisted by the media sites you got them from. You're using Facebook. The "reputable sites" you posted sited news media.
Take your coworkers aside and let them speak ill of the boss. Then wait a week and have the boss run it. it's different. Understand people, not #s statistics is easily miscalculated. You know nothing of people you already stated you hated and thought people who believe in religion are insignificant to the world. You care less about humanness and self worth. You care more about being right even if you know nothing about it just Google and click the first link that supports only you, but refuse to see the other side.
Well, at least we're getting a somewhat better line of criticism than "outdated and inaccurate"
Sure, media outlets are somewhat of a bad source if used by themselves. However, I used them in conjunction with primary sources which bolster the claims made by media outlets.... If you ever do any research, you'll figure out primary sources are the gold standard of evidence.
The problem with the Cia Factbook is that's it's really difficult to find actual studies.
They even have a disclaimer at the bottom of each article which absolves them of having to endorse the information provided. It's also hard to tell where and if their studies were published in peer reviewed journals.
As a general rule, I try and use scholastic databases to get primary data (academic search complete, CQ databases, proquest, HSDL, etc...) . Since torture has a ton of articles on the books it was simply easier to go through and find non scholarly articles that support the point and simply add scholarly articles where a little more support was needed. Since there is no primary source available to look at recruitment as a result of torture, this couldn't be done for that point.
However, in support of interrogation techniques other than torture, I provided two scholarly articles.....
It also seems like you have no issue with the conclusions that I drew from the articles. So I really don't understand your criticism in general. I made general statements that are generally supported by any of the sources you'll find on the subject, primary, secondary, or tertiary. So my conclusions don't rely on outliers in one particular article to be valid.....
Actually read my statements and not just the first line. Secondly you can't use media or information obtained through media as a legitimate source they can publish what they want check sites the CIA Factbook not www.imright.com. there's a such thing at mental and emotional torture that everyone here is neglecting.
Haha, that is the most absurd criticism I've ever seen....
The links I posted about torture being a recruitment tool for terrorists are from 2009-2015
The BBC article on interrogation techniques was from 2013, the Smithsonian article was from 2014
The study of interviewing high value detainees is from 2014
The article from evidence based policing is from 2012
The study of empirical analysis of the interrogation techniques from the US army field book is from 2014
Tell me, which ones are outdated? Where is the data that's supposed to be better than the data I provided? Show me the studies which contradict these studies and I'll happily concede my point.
If you read the whole thing you'd see I oppose water boarding btw dave
Afghan Soldiers in no way had to support US troops. Use some common sense.
All of them. They're outdated and inaccurate.
TZW do you have anything other than your opinion that proves sosocratese wrong? I gave sources that show tortured people give false information to make it stop. You haven't addressed that. He gave sources that show torture is ineffective. You haven't countered that. All you have done is claimed that making soldiers do their job was equivalent to torture, which should be visible as a flawed comparison. What makes you an expert on torture? If you believe you are a more knowledgeable source than anyone else, how do you know anything about the topic?
The ones you posted in links?
Really... What "false information"?
Are you sure? You're playing the telephone game. Spitting out false information.
Good, so we've arrived at the ad hominem argument... Congrats, you've shown that your are utterly inept at debating....
Do facts that disagree with what you say. You're ignorant you sit at home eat bonbons and watch TV. That means you don't know anything but what you read that can be faked.
Simple fact is Alex, when you go through suffering in a time of war you gain a greater sense of loyalty, patriotism, and honor for what you fight for. They see how bad they have been treated and don't want their family, friends, and battle buddies go through the same.
Think about you being captured and you being tortured. Then picture your family. You might think you won't see them again, but what will hurt more is thinking they'll go through the same.
Your experience means absolutely nothing to me. I don't care one bit what missions you ran, what you did, what you saw, or what you believe works. I don't know you, I don't know if you're being truthful, I don't know if your experiences are representative of the larger picture.... This is what we would call anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is next to useless and so you need to backup claims through scientific evidence which, eliminates bias and personal prejudice from the equation.... In other words, your experiences are worthless when taken as evidence for a given subject. You can compile a large number of personal experiences from multiple different operators with various backgrounds and engagements and compile a meta study, but that's the only valid use of anecdotal evidence.
With me providing you the sources that I believe substantiate the points I'm making it gives you the opportunity to evaluate the data yourself. You don't have to take my word for it, you can simply see what the data says and if I'm misrepresenting something.
I don't even use anecdotal evidence when discussing medicine, philosophy, or science. Even though I work in medicine and studied philosophy of science. You will always find me backing up my claims with actual data.
With your anecdotal nonsense I have to take the word of an anonymous stranger on the Internet to be fair, unbiased, and truthful... Now which do you think is the more consistently reliable approach do you think?
On a side note:
I can't believe we have to have a discussion about whether or not arguments need to have supporting evidence to be valid.... That would seem like a given to me.
Ok, so like I have said I am a service member and work literally in the same building. Everything that you displayed is completely true. You can get information and correct information through being unkind to people.
I.e in Afghanistan everyday we would force afghans to go on patrol with us. Didn't matter to us if they were sick, tired, worn out, etc. They were being forced to do something they didn't want to (a form of belittling the people). Why did we do that? We knew they worked with the Taliban and we wouldn't go on a route that they have an ambush set up. Granted it's not the same as waterboarding, but we are forcing people to do tasks when they can't mentally or physically do it at times.
So don't post a bs link when I lived it and see the plot holes. I do see that it's easier to get information by being kind, but sometimes people don't get it. You can't just go around waterboarding people for the sake of it. A lot of the time you find out you have the wrong guy to begin with. We are dealing with people not anything else. Treat people as people and they develop trust and are willing to open up. It takes time though which is where the agreeing side stands they want answers now.
what about legalizing tourture, and have bad cop terrorists with it, while good cop is nice and gets the info. cause if I was a terrorist and knew that I wouldn't be tortured, why would I give any info? if I was a terrorist who was treated nicely, but threatened with tourture, I might give some info.
Thinking that you're right and know about the topic are different than being able to substantiate your position on a topic.
In a debate, you must be able to substantiate your claims... How hard is that to understand. Even making simple claims "like torture doesn't work" need to be followed up by evidence to support the claim.
Look at any formal debate and you'll see they all clearly cite their sources.
Have you deployed with a unit that actually goes out and conducts HUMINT? I have so what do your links mean to me? Nothing just something somebody knows nothing about and acts like they do.
In other words you debate what you don't know
My points are made. I use the links as support for my argument.
Argument: torture doesn't work
Argument: torture is a recruitment tool
Argument: experts in the field of interrogation have studied and come to the conclusion that other interrogation techniques are more effective.
That is how you debate TWZ....Otherwise it's called rhetoric or worse, grandstanding. Arguments without support are also called claims by assertion (a logical fallacy).
We should do what works. Not what pleases our sense of revenge or our hatred for the opposite side. Playing nice with terrorists during interrogation to obtain life saving information simply works.... No one is saying we have to send them to a nice place after we have the information.
I've shown you that torture doesn't work, that other interrogation techniques are more effective, and that the use of torture is detrimental to our national security as a whole...do you still have any arguments that would support your position?
it's not like they're all buddy buddy and walking around hugging each other and going out on dates.
Sosocrates, could you just debate instead of posting the first Google link you see?
so we should be nice to the property who cut of heads and burn people in cages?
However, since you can never actually count on the information obtained through torture and even the house intelligence committee has been given reports that other techniques were much more efficient at getting information, why would you give terrorists a recruitment tool like torture? There is no evidence to support torture at any time, all the scientific data shows us that torture is not effective and leads to more recruitment.
So not only is torture ineffective at gathering information, not only does it lead to false information, but it's actually counterproductive to our national security.
It's not a movie it's real life.
Good cop/ bad cop. do both. one has to work. at least tell the terrorist "were allowed to tourture you" I'm in favor of getting info from these guys.
Experts in the field of interrogation seem to disagree with you Alex
Study finds torture to be much less effective than "playing nice"
I don't know how much more evidence I need to present here, but it's fairly obvious that your position is not one that you came to through empirical data.
In the face of science and experts being absolutely in opposition to your point, by what evidence do you justify your position....
"I will give you food once you tell me where your terrorist friends are. but only after we check it out and arrest them you will get food" - that will work.
it is proven that torture is not an effective way of getting information. why would you want to do something that is illegal and completely ineffective?
More then get published to the media. If a bombing takes place it's on the media for weeks, if one gets foiled it gets on the news for 10 minutes. Two bombs go off and you act like a country has failed or tactics lack. You catch more flies with honey then crap.
Look at all the ISIS bombings we've stooped. oh wait...
Pretty well, look at all the HVTs we've gotten.
how's that working working out?
Read up on Hanss Scharff
you do know that's how the United states HUMINTers get their information right?
try to be friends with a terrorist. let me know how that works out for you
You receive more information by being nice actually. If you build a bond with a person they develop trust. They will tell you information without them even knowing it.
Even you, I actually have a group presentation on torture soon, and these links are helpful. The specific cases will be useful, but sources with general material also provided insight.
you did appreciate me? :(
Thank you for these links, very much appreciated and needed.
Here is some info on forced false confessions.
First Lieutenant Marcus McDilda was the US airman tortured for information about the atomic bomb who said the US had hundreds and that Tokyo and Kyoto were next.
sorry i searched net and found out toture doesnt helps.
of a highly trained tactical team can't send in anyone to sport terrorists we, and will shoot before getting shot at, we got some bad guys in the military
So it isn't torture itself, but who we torture? I understand that forcing leads that shouldn't exist cause problems, but there are people that should know information. Torturing POWs isn't ideal, but there are at least some groups of extremest or radicalism that could be tested out on. After all, if they can cause mass murder, but can only be hung once, the Justice portion of punishment is flawed. We can't hope for justice, or should give them comfort, but on the slimmest chance that this person, with guilt evident and preponderance great, deserving or expected to feel pain, should be tortured. Barbaric? Civility should not be an excuse to remove safety, and on an unrelated note restrict liberty.
For more personal reasons, could I have more information and/or a link on those cases? It would be very helpful to me.
please see my below example on wikipedia.
When you kick in a door in the middle east, people are going to react violently. How will the team going in confirm it before responding with legal force? The police in America aren't always good at making sure, so how much worse will it be with language barriers in a highly armed region?
for example operation neptune spear.
prisoner on sleep deprivation who gives a wrong answer will be given another try then tortured.
why would the FBI kill innocent people? even if it's a false place they won't go in shooting before confirming there are terrorists.
I am not arguing whether they deserve it, I am not even really arguing that we shouldn't sink to their level, though I don't think we should. I am saying torture has gotten false confessions and incorrect information out of people for hundreds of years. Look at all the people who confessed to consorting with the devil and witchcraft in the witch hunts. Look at the US airman who was tortured by the Japanese for info on the atomic bomb (which he didn't know). People being tortured will say yes to anything, that is the danger.
FBI - is your base here?
Prisoner - yes!
FBI kick down door. Not the right place. Innocent people are killed, inspiring more hatred for the West.
See how reality works?
While the disagreeing arguments have been true, the fact is that much of the information is time sensitive, and an answer closer to the truth than the guess we have is still useful. Those tortured often divulge information we didn't think to ask as well, which is helpful when we don't have direction. Otherwise, they may sit in silence. There have been instances where they gave up information by letting them ride in a jet, but nowadays terrorists are of a loyal and martyr complex variety. Treating terrorists good isn't as useful as it once was, and can be seen as a reward that shouldn't be given.
Terrorists are tough people and they deserve such torture methods.
hahaha. alex i respect and admire you.
FBI: where are your base camp? tell or we will cut your penis.
TERRORIST IN FEAR. please dont cut that. that camp is in location X
FBI : THANKYOU. YOUR PENIS IS SAFE.
"They will admit to anything, or confirm anything. "
FBI: are your terrorists friends hidden in location X?
Terrorist on sleep deprivation who will admit to anything: yes
FBI gets a warrant and kicks some a** over at location X
see how that works.
Both of you are utterly missing the point. I am not saying I am opposed because I feel bad for the terrorist, I am saying that torture is an unreliable method of getting information, so why would we stoop to their level? Do at least a basic amount of research and you will be able to see that torture has conclusively been shown to be ineffective. As I said, they tell you what they think you want to hear to make it stop weather it is true or not.
Alex, sleep deprivation doesn't make people truthful any more than alcohol does. It makes them suggestible. They will admit to anything, or confirm anything.
Swat/agemt/jamesbond007, if they are prepared to die for their cause, and kill for their cause, do you really think threats will convince them to betray it?
so how about giving a threat that we cut his penis ? he will know that only way to get out of this is to tell the truth. without that little piece of pipe, no man can survive.
What about forcing people to stay awake this males them want sleep, they know the only way out is to tell you the truth. They will be deprived of sleep which makes it harder to think and make up stories. it's also not too painful and does no long term damage, such as the terrorists' burning and chopping of heads.
psychdave disagreed. it means he thinks about those people who doesnt think about him.
I disagree because torture is not a successful method of getting information. People won't tell you the truth, they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear to make it stop.
i wonder who disagreed.
if waterboading is too violent, what about other tourture methods like sleep deprivation? terrorists need to be questions and don't have rights as US citizens.
they are cutting off heads of people, burning christians in cages, and we can't touch them. incredible.