Torture was very effective at rooting out witches in the salem witch trials. People confessed to being witches and told their interrogators who else was a witch in response to torture. Those they'd accused of being witches were then also tortured and they also confessed and gave information about other witches.


Torture makes people say anything to stop the pain and distress. Sometimes what they say is true; if for example they really do know something, they may well give that information. But unless you can say with 100% certainty that the people who are being tortured, know useful information, then you cannot trust that the information they inevitably give will be useful. Consequently alll information becomes suspect. Unless of course you are using their information to confirm what you already know...in which case why is there a need to drag it out of them with torture?

I can assure you, that if I were to find myself dragged into some situation through being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and accused of being part of some underground organisation; torture would have me naming names and detailing plans, regardless of whether any of that was valid.

Even if you do know for sure that someone is 'guilty' or involved in plots; you may get answers to your questions, but you may not get everything they could tell you. Psychological techniques to bring them to you, rather than traumatise them may well gain you more information, whilst also opening up new questions to ask as you dig deeper.

That and....it's fucking wrong. Just wrong. There is such a thing as 'right and wrong' and this is wrong. Totally, completely, morally wrong. It's also dangerous. If a government is prepared to sanction torture to protect its people from external threats; then it is not such a giant step for them to use it to protect from internal threats: for the police force to deem it acceptable to use toture to protect the 'law abiding' from the law breaker; or for an administration to use it to protect itself from 'dissent'. There is no sliding scale. It is either an acceptable tool or it is an unacceptable tool.

BUT, what the fuck is mental pain and suffering?

Presumably, something like making someone think they're about to be executed. Less relevant to this particular situastion, but in a wider context, something like exposing somebody to the screams of their family members whilst they are tortured.

OMFG - thank you bruce.

tw - shortly put - As usual you don't understand what I'm saying. Just stop trying.

It is defined in the US Code:

:thumb:

Just to step aside from the main thrust of this debate for a moment; I think it's also worth considering the effect of torture on those who perform the interrogations. We expect our soldiers to cope with all kinds of nasty and brutalising realities; often without truly understanding the effects of such experiences on their psyches; or without providing proper and effective methods of lessening the impact.

Those who torture suspects on 'our' behalf,* do so according to their orders; and are therefore exposed, by us, to something potentially even more brutalising than violent death.

*ostensibly, the British state neither condones torture (of any kind) nor accepts information derived from torture. In reality our intelligence services have been fundamentally implicated in both condoning and then utilising information gathered through the torture of suspects: most particularly those subject to the 'extraordinary renditon' system.

Thumbs up to the qeustion? Good, good. Now recognise that a clear answer has been offered.

A clear answer based on subjectivity is not a clear answer. Intent is very difficult to measure as well.

I wasn't referring to my answerr; I was referring to the one posted by Redux. The one that explains how it is defined in the US law code. Seems pretty fucking clear to me.

As was I, it states in the part that he did not post:

You can't measure intent, unless a person tells you what it was, and severe mental pain is a completely subjective thing.

Every time Redux posts he tortures.

The US Army Field Manual also provides the 18 acceptable and legal approaches to interrogation and they are all psychological in nature.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...4-52/app-h.htm

And these were extended by law several years ago to apply beyond just the Army...to any US personnel (including CIA).

Y'know, thids is bizarre to me. If someone had said to me when i was younger, that in a decade or so, I would be having a conversation in which Americans were attempting to justify the use of torture on detainees, I'd never have believed it. I'd have believed it of my own country before I'd have believed it of yours.

All these new definitions are post Abu Ghraib.

@ Merc: I was referring to this.


How is that not clear?