Should torture be a legal method of extracting information?
No.
>>72015030
Of course not.
>>72015030
sexual torture.
>>72015030
Wagging lips usually follows fair treatment & more reliable. The british learned this in the last big one & so did the israelis
>>72015030
It doesn't work
>>72015030
It will become legal when it stops benifitting the govorment.
Yeah
>>72015030
No.
>>72015030
Yes, anal tortures.
>>72015030
It's not Lawful retarded
learn to law
Only when absolutely necessary and when the confidence threshold that the torturee actually knows what you want him to talk about.
>>72015030
I don't think torture will work to well on people that will literally blow themselves up.
>>72015030
are you fucking crazy?
torture does NOT yield good, truthful information. it yields whatever nonsense the tortured person believes will stop the torture. this should be manifestly self-evident. any government KNOWS THIS, and therefore it should scare the hell out of you if your government EVER starts wondering aloud if torture may be justifiable under ANY circumstances.
Yes.
>>72015030
Nah. Too open to abuse vs. what you get out of it.
>>72015030
Depends on the context. Sometimes it's useful, other times it's a complete waste of time sadists get off on.
>>72015030
No. It isn't reliable, people confess anything under torture just to end the pain.
>>72015030
Torture is a shitskin thing
We're better than that.
>for information extraction
well no because it doesn't work
as punishment, though, sure. anyone who says a child rapist shouldn't have his nuts roasted over an open fire or that a terrorist shouldn't have his tongue cut out and fingers snapped is an apologist faggot
>>72015702
Hello Ahmed
>>72015204
This. Extraction by snoo snoo
>>72015030
>Should torture be a legal method of extracting information?
no.
Anyone saying 'no' ITT is retarded. Torture has to be a weapon in our arsenal because the threat of torture will make someone talk. We ready know the torture itself doesn't work, but the possibility of it will care the hell out of people. If it's outright illegal, the detainee has nothing to fear.
Read the fucking Art of the Deal.
>>72015752
>canuck believes muslims punish child rapists and terrorists instead of being those things
>>72015030
No. It is in conflict with our values. Programs like torture also ruin the "branding" that United States is a force of good. We become more like the barbarians in the middle east every time the CIA tortures someone.
>>72015030
No. It should be a legal form of punishment, though.
>>72015030
Bribery is better.
source-my my son's dad works for google
When did the meme start that torture didn't work? I am genuinely curious. I am not saying it's necessarily wrong but who and where have these studies been conducted.
The legality of torture is irrelevant.
If you think for a second the CIA pulls out a rulebook of what the president says is legal before interrogations you're delusional.
>>72015514
You're assuming the interrogator is a fool. Don't do that.
>>72015030
No, if you hold someone's feet to the fire they'll tell you whatever I think you want to hear, even if it's not true.
Cruelty without purpose is savagery.
>>72015030
Well, here is what you're going to find. Most generals do not condone torture. Why?
>Quid pro quo with their own captured
>Torture on its own is not a reliable way of obtaining information
>It fuels the propaganda efforts of the enemy quite easily
People that do support torture tend to be blood thirsty retards, and authoritarian politicians.
Here's a redpill for ya: torture isn't used by governments to extract actionable intel, it's used to force people into giving false conventions so the torturers can pretend they're doing a good job and keep getting funding and get people to "admit" to whatever the authority of the days agenda is. It's all a scam and torture always has been all the way back to medieval times where they forced people to admit to impossible things like witchcraft.
That's why the CIA's "best" torture techniques (sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, stress positions) are also things that make you go crazy after a while. They don't want you to admit the truth, losing your grip on reality and not being able to remember anything from lack of sleep is obviously the opposite state you want someone to be in to tell you facts, they just want your mind to be pliable enough to suggestion that you'll admit to whatever bullshit charges they put in front of you. Not that pain based techniques are any different, people will eventually say whatever you want to get you to leave them alone, it's just more cost effective to keep them awake for a week in a dark room too small to sit in.
You're much better off manipulating the person into thinking you can help each other out to get accurate info from them, everyone's heroes the Nazi's best interrogator actually just went for a nice walk with enemies and they told him everything he wanted to know in casual conversation without even realizing it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff#Technique
No.
Mostly because it doesn't fucking work, but also because we need standards to protect ourselves.
>>72015030
Possibly, if you keep paperwork on it or something. This only being said because I assume at least a few people who allegedly have information yet don't actually know anything are going to get tortured for a little bit until i guess they prove they don't not know anything.
>>72015791
>Commit an extreme crime
>Get rewarded with perpetual snoo snoo
>>72015030
No. It should be a legal method of punishment though desu.
>>72015702
Or you could just end their lifes in a humane and painless fashion.
Freedom from cruelty and degrading treatment should be the right of every sentient organism, not only humans.
Of course americans will defend torture because for the last few decades American govt was playing the world police and using torture to "ensure the safety of American interests".
>>72015030
if it worked, I can assure you that it would be legal.
>>72015945
>Studies
I don't think you really understand the concept in play here. There is no control. It's mostly an argument of standards and a history of use for extracting confessions and fear mongering.
The only torture I support is killing them and all of their family. Just kill them all, and there's nobody left to have secrets.
>>72016007
>No, if you hold someone's feet to the fire they'll tell you whatever I think you want to hear, even if it's not true.
t. hollywood movies
>>72016226
>I don't think you really understand the concept in play here
Explain? I am not speaking in terms of the moral implications. I am simply asking how have people determined that a good modern interrogator (as in not paco the cartel member connecting a car battery to your ballsac) can't effectively use torture to garner information?
>>72016360
It's generally true.
Interrogators aren't really neutral, they want results. And people will eventually tell them what they want to hear, just to make it stop. This already happens in normal interrogation, plenty of people eventually break down and confess crimes they never committed, torture just emphasizes this.
>>72015030
Torture will get the truth, unfortunately it also getting a lot of bullshit as well. The hard part is telling which is which.
>>72016117
>commit extreme crime
>condemned to 30 years of blue balling and erotic electric shocks or until you spill info.
>>72016463
By studies, I mean simply that there is no way to conduct these experiments ethically or scientifically.
>I am simply asking how have people determined that a good modern interrogator (as in not paco the cartel member connecting a car battery to your ballsac) can't effectively use torture to garner information?
It's not so much this, as that the use of torture would be to confirm information, or to create false confessions. Therefore, it's often not necessary, and does more harm than good to the perceptions of the employer.
>>72016470
>people confess to crimes in specific contexts
>this means torture can't be used to extract specific information under any circumstance whatsoever
>protocol adjustment is impossible
>context is irrelevant
>ban things
>>72016601
That's my FETISH
No.
Firstly, governments do illegal things all the time, including torture, and if you make it legal they'll start allowing it for everything, until it becomes almost commonplace.
Secondly, defection is more reliable, gives you more information, and works again and again.
Thirdly, it's a branding issue. We are good, they are bad, we don't use torture, they do.
>>72016625
>this means torture can't be used to extract specific information under any circumstance whatsoever
It could be. But as history has shown, other methods tend to be more effective.
>protocol adjustment is impossible
No. Protocol enforcement, however, is.
>ban things
I bet you'll advocate torture right up to the day where some fuckface thinks you have information that you don't actually have, and starts to torture you for it.
Not using torture is sensible because we have better means of gathering information, especially reliable information.
Banning torture is self-protection from shitty law enforcement that'd use it in a heartbeat if they could.
I think torture should be used as a last resort, more of a submission exercise or as someone else said, you know they know what you want. I also think it should be allowed down to a local police level.
>>72016825
everything in this post and your last post is total bullshit
>I bet you'll advocate torture right up to the day where some fuckface thinks you have information that you don't actually have, and starts to torture you for it.
>if I advocate something for my enemies, this means that I'm fine with it happening to me
We've got a real German intellectual right here
>the terrorists WANT us to defend ourselves!
This is why your country is the way that it is, comrade
>>72016929
Okay, so I've got to ask then, is torture really worth it on your account?
>>72015030
only if they are Jews or Muslims
>>72016929
>if I advocate something for my enemies, this means that I'm fine with it happening to me
>If I allow my government to torture people, there's no way this could ever come back to bite me! No way they'd torture me, I'm a good guy, I've you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear!
Since when it's not?
>>72015030
Absolutely not.
>>72015030
Yes torture is natural
>>72015204
>>72015030
Muslims are the exception to the rule. It's not a crime if they aren't people.
>>72017569
Where does it exsist in animals outside of cats playing with mice?
>>72015030
>Should torture be a legal method of extracting information?
That did not work well for my country, one of the people that got tortured was the current president Dilma, they stuck a rat in her vagoo, she then went on to become president and fuck the country economy up in revenge.
Just don't do it mate, you will fuel otherwise irrelevant people into becoming political forces with leftist ideals.
>>72015030
William Luther Pierce went on at length about how torture was a bad thing, and that they didnt have muslims in mind, but you and me.
>>72017146
They're going to rape you and cut your head off either way cuck.
>>72017738
Humans?
Why not just give 'em some cocaine? Get someone sufficiently shitfaced on narcotics until they begin to mentally break down and that'll probably yield more truthful information than thumbscrews.
Besides, giving the government the power to torture people is risky shit since they'll eventually begin to lower the bar of when it's acceptable to torture.
>>72015030
Nope. Torturers are the worse kind of people that exist. They should be banned from existence.
>>72018363
>Catalog
Thank god Zillions aren't people.
>>72015030
Yes. Make those ISIS shitskins think twice
Here's one. Lock them in a room for a week with only a limited supply of water. After the week is up offer him some pork to eat. Then just start leaving some bacon for him everyday and see how long it takes him to eat
Yes. We've been playing nice for too long. It's time to take off the gloves.
>>72018484
Fuck that, piss in a blender, add bacon, puree and force down his throat with a funnel. Then do what you said.
>>72018583
I never expected to hear that from a Muslim nation.
>>72018584
Nah, m8. You got to make them eat the pork on their own free will. It's all about mentally breaking them. Make them break themselves
>>72018484
Muslims are allowed to break rules for survival. The Qur'an is as ethically flexible as they are.
For criminal investigations? No.
For uniformed members or a civilian militia of an armed forces on nation you are at war with? No.
For terrorists with a compelling reason to believe they have useful information, yes.
>>72018167
i've always thought that treating someone so well that it breaks indoctrination is better than making them hate you with pain. most ISIS members just have nothing better to do with their lives, but if you took them out partying and filled every one of their vices not only would they not be able to return because you have evidence of them breaking their own religious laws but they'd probably want to give you info anyway.
>>72015030
Yes. People saying torture doesn't work clearly have never been tortured.
>>72015513
Why? Blowing yourself up is quick and painless. Torture is long and painful and often times doesn't end with deaths embrace. Most hadjis don't have the mental, physical, or emotional endurance to handle it much less most people.
>>72019719
I would think the lead up to blowing yourself up would be a fairly torturous endeavor, if not simply psychologically.
>>72019554
>implying people wont just tell you what you want to fool you into letting them go.
Torture should be allowed against war criminals, who should then be executed. The reason isn't to extract information but psychological warfare against those that would fight us. I think people would not be willing to fight if they knew what lay on the other side for them.
>>72020465
only if you're a moron
it's quick and painless to the point of being literally unnoticeable
there are infinitely many worse ways to go
>>72020919
>only if you're a moron
I would think morons would be easier to convince to blow themselves up as they are less likely to be reflective, outside of some important operations with more intricacy.
It should be illegal since there is much more efficient way to have information by negotiating, blackmailing or using drugs.
The only reason an agent would use torture is because he is a sadist or to blow some steam, in both case it is counterproductive.
