Thread: Why do we torture prisoners?

It's not very effective:

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)

How effective is torture? Not very | NOLA.com


Also I like this web site's pro's and con's list. It's just a blog about ending torture, but it's reason #5 was particularly insightful.

BalancedPolitics.org - Terrorist Prisoner Enhanced Interrogation and Torture (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)

5. It creates sympathy for people who would otherwise be scorned and shamed.

It makes me wonder if the Bush administration wasn't simply trying to sabotage the war effort before it was even off the ground by adding fuel to the fire for the opposition. It's division politics. Instead of accepting support from all sides and fostering unity toward a common end, they had to go one step too far, so there would be something for their opposition to vehemently object to. Is it even possible, in our wildest dreams, that the tactical advantage gained could exceed the damage caused by the (100% forseeable) division?

Now we've got democrats huddling on one side of the aisle, terrified of what conservatives might do next if they get another president in office, and conservatives huddling on the other side, terrified of a liberal backlash if they don't defend every decision GW ever made to the death (including the authorization of torture) in case the first inch of ground they concede might rupture the dam and release a torrent of other changes.

And Jesus, if he out there, is probably crying a little.

Originally Posted by kojax

It's not very effective:

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)

How effective is torture? Not very | NOLA.com


Also I like this web site's pro's and con's list. It's just a blog about ending torture, but it's reason #5 was particularly insightful.

BalancedPolitics.org - Terrorist Prisoner Enhanced Interrogation and Torture (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)

5. It creates sympathy for people who would otherwise be scorned and shamed.

It makes me wonder if the Bush administration wasn't simply trying to sabotage the war effort before it was even off the ground by adding fuel to the fire for the opposition. It's division politics. Instead of accepting support from all sides and fostering unity toward a common end, they had to go one step too far, so there would be something for their opposition to vehemently object to. Is it even possible, in our wildest dreams, that the tactical advantage gained could exceed the damage caused by the (100% forseeable) division?

Now we've got democrats huddling on one side of the aisle, terrified of what conservatives might do next if they get another president in office, and conservatives huddling on the other side, terrified of a liberal backlash if they don't defend every decision GW ever made to the death (including the authorization of torture) in case the first inch of ground they concede might rupture the dam and release a torrent of other changes.

And Jesus, if he out there, is probably crying a little.

Torturing the camel jockeys who want to kill Americans is a good idea.

Originally Posted by JoReba

Originally Posted by kojax

It's not very effective:

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)

How effective is torture? Not very | NOLA.com


Also I like this web site's pro's and con's list. It's just a blog about ending torture, but it's reason #5 was particularly insightful.

BalancedPolitics.org - Terrorist Prisoner Enhanced Interrogation and Torture (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)

5. It creates sympathy for people who would otherwise be scorned and shamed.

It makes me wonder if the Bush administration wasn't simply trying to sabotage the war effort before it was even off the ground by adding fuel to the fire for the opposition. It's division politics. Instead of accepting support from all sides and fostering unity toward a common end, they had to go one step too far, so there would be something for their opposition to vehemently object to. Is it even possible, in our wildest dreams, that the tactical advantage gained could exceed the damage caused by the (100% forseeable) division?

Now we've got democrats huddling on one side of the aisle, terrified of what conservatives might do next if they get another president in office, and conservatives huddling on the other side, terrified of a liberal backlash if they don't defend every decision GW ever made to the death (including the authorization of torture) in case the first inch of ground they concede might rupture the dam and release a torrent of other changes.

And Jesus, if he out there, is probably crying a little.

Torturing the camel jockeys who want to kill Americans is a good idea.

Hmmm good to know your racist as well as homophobic

Lynndie England ( I like that name ) she is a real pistol.

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by JoReba

Originally Posted by kojax

It's not very effective:

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)

How effective is torture? Not very | NOLA.com


Also I like this web site's pro's and con's list. It's just a blog about ending torture, but it's reason #5 was particularly insightful.

BalancedPolitics.org - Terrorist Prisoner Enhanced Interrogation and Torture (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)

5. It creates sympathy for people who would otherwise be scorned and shamed.

It makes me wonder if the Bush administration wasn't simply trying to sabotage the war effort before it was even off the ground by adding fuel to the fire for the opposition. It's division politics. Instead of accepting support from all sides and fostering unity toward a common end, they had to go one step too far, so there would be something for their opposition to vehemently object to. Is it even possible, in our wildest dreams, that the tactical advantage gained could exceed the damage caused by the (100% forseeable) division?

Now we've got democrats huddling on one side of the aisle, terrified of what conservatives might do next if they get another president in office, and conservatives huddling on the other side, terrified of a liberal backlash if they don't defend every decision GW ever made to the death (including the authorization of torture) in case the first inch of ground they concede might rupture the dam and release a torrent of other changes.

And Jesus, if he out there, is probably crying a little.

Torturing the camel jockeys who want to kill Americans is a good idea.

Hmmm good to know your racist as well as homophobic

Are you saying racial distinctions do not exist? Hmmm... Interesting. Blacks need to be informed of this. As well, Semitic Muslims seem to have missed that point amidst their terrorist activities. Chinese need to stop referring to themselves as "Real People." Pygmies need to start wearing large lifts in their sandals. Mexicans need to stop listening to Ranchero Music. All of this must occur because races do not exist with each having their own "cultural" distinctions.

Concerning this "homophobia" issue, you apparently did not quite yet realize that homosexuals are not to be feared. There is no reason to be phobic about weak, limp, poorly principled, and simpering subpopulations. "Homodisgustia" and "homopity" are more appropriate terms to describe how Normosexual People view homosexuals. Just ask them some time. That is, ask Normosexual People who are not metrosexuals, not feminized males, not screaming lesbians, not occupiers, not weak little liberals looking for handouts, and not brainwashed into being PC.

Let me know when I can further help you. Remember, it is neither a moral discrepancy nor a crime to hold any of these opinions. The discrepancies and crimes occur when self entitled people expect Normosexuals to pay the cost of self indulgent and perverted activities which chatty little hearts think they must do in order to "be themselves."

Lol.

Ahhh, massive amounts of stereotypical hogwash. You do realize you interact with many gay people every time you leave your house. "weak, limp, poorly principled, and simpering subpopulations" is the classic media portrayal of a gay person, and its also as far from reality for the vast majority as you get.

"Normosexual " is not an actual word and has no actual meaning, you are looking for the word Heterosexual, I think. You are described how seriosly bigoted people view LGBT people and not how the majority of American view LGBT.

Why should your morals be imposed on anyone?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Ahhh, massive amounts of stereotypical hogwash. You do realize you interact with many gay people every time you leave your house. "weak, limp, poorly principled, and simpering subpopulations" is the classic media portrayal of a gay person, and its also as far from reality for the vast majority as you get.

"Normosexual " is not an actual word and has no actual meaning, you are looking for the word Heterosexual, I think. You are described how seriosly bigoted people view LGBT people and not how the majority of American view LGBT.

Why should your morals be imposed on anyone?

Why should LGBTP (Pedophiles, who are always homosexual) people want Normosexuals to think they are okay? Do LGBTP people have some sort of an innate guilt, or feeling of impropriety for which they need to overcompensate by:

1.) Trying to copy heterosexual marriage?

2.) Having those gaudy "Pride Parades," which most LGBTP people avoid?

3.) Unable to sexually reproduce as a homosexual?

4.) Trying to say everyone is at risk for AIDS in the same way they are at risk?

5.) Having specially legislated rights and protections because they are not the fittest to survive within the process of evolution?

6.) Trying to say being LGBTP is not any kind of choice they made, yet claiming they are sentient humans?

7.) Trying to act well groomed, in style, chatty, friendly, and competent to hide the fact they are still failures at being heterosexual?

Lol. Homos need to just mind their own bidness, and stay away from Normosexuals. I do indeed work with a few homos, and always laugh at their ineptitude. One big homo was placed in charge of a bunch of secretaries, but after some of them quit and demanded to be transferred he was put in a cubicle in the back area. He now is in charge of nobody.

Lol.

The title of this thread is 'why do we torture prisoners'. Nothing to do with homosexuality. Let's stick to the point, guys.

The reality is that "we" do not torture prisoners. Obviously not me, since I am not American. But neither do 99.999% of Americans. I suspect that the vast majority of Americans are appalled at what their leaders have done.

So the question is more, why do those shitheads elected to high office condone torture?

Makes them look tough.

At least to JoReba and similar types.

Just once I'd like to see them pander to people with a few brains.

Let's burn some witches while we're at it.

Originally Posted by JoReba

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Ahhh, massive amounts of stereotypical hogwash. You do realize you interact with many gay people every time you leave your house. "weak, limp, poorly principled, and simpering subpopulations" is the classic media portrayal of a gay person, and its also as far from reality for the vast majority as you get.

"Normosexual " is not an actual word and has no actual meaning, you are looking for the word Heterosexual, I think. You are described how seriosly bigoted people view LGBT people and not how the majority of American view LGBT.

Why should your morals be imposed on anyone?

Why should LGBTP (Pedophiles, who are always homosexual) people want Normosexuals to think they are okay? Do LGBTP people have some sort of an innate guilt, or feeling of impropriety for which they need to overcompensate by:

1.) Trying to copy heterosexual marriage?

2.) Having those gaudy "Pride Parades," which most LGBTP people avoid?

3.) Unable to sexually reproduce as a homosexual?

4.) Trying to say everyone is at risk for AIDS in the same way they are at risk?

5.) Having specially legislated rights and protections because they are not the fittest to survive within the process of evolution?

6.) Trying to say being LGBTP is not any kind of choice they made, yet claiming they are sentient humans?

7.) Trying to act well groomed, in style, chatty, friendly, and competent to hide the fact they are still failures at being heterosexual?

Lol. Homos need to just mind their own bidness, and stay away from Normosexuals. I do indeed work with a few homos, and always laugh at their ineptitude. One big homo was placed in charge of a bunch of secretaries, but after some of them quit and demanded to be transferred he was put in a cubicle in the back area. He now is in charge of nobody.

Lol.

Pedophiles are NOT "always homosexual". Your comments are inaccurate as well as offensive. Find another way to amuse yourself, you have been reported.

Could we get JoReba's LGBT comments here and elsewhere all condensed into one thread?

I will bet people have been banned altogether for less. I am not suggesting we do so, but still...

The reality is that "we" do not torture prisoners. Obviously not me, since I am not American. But neither do 99.999% of Americans. I suspect that the vast majority of Americans are appalled at what their leaders have done.

No, they aren't.

Gitmo was established in 2002, and pictures of its first inmates being held in stress positions in the Cuban sun without water were published on the covers of major news magazines when it opened. Guantanamo Bay detention camp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The doings at Abu Ghraib were well documented and public knowledge by the spring of 2004, and the connections with Gitmo and Bagram and others not as famous were well established, obviously policy and officially condoned Annals of National Security: Torture at Abu Ghraib : The New Yorker

W won re-election, or nearly so (requiring only electoral fraud in Ohio for the electoral vote majority, and probably garnering a legitimate majority of the national vote) in November of 2004. 54 million people were not appalled whatsoever.

Thing is, a majority of Americans genuinely believe two things: that what was done to the captives at all those prisons - Bagram, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Diego Garcia, and several others, wasn't really torture; and that the stuff that was pretty bad and also photographed so it couldn't be denied was the work of a few bad apples acting on their own.

They really believe that. And by now, they have to - in self defense of their own self respect.

So the question is more, why do those shitheads elected to high office condone torture?

It's been working for them all over the world for years now, in dozens of countries and hundreds of operations. Why would they draw the line at America? Besides, those guys were a continuation of Reagan, who took over for Nixon as the flag bearer for the old KKK faction - and that political faction is comfortable with torture in general, has been for hundreds of years.

As the bestselling author and spokesman of American rightwing politics put it back then, we should torture and kill John Walker LIndh so that "liberals know they can be killed".

Once the pattern is seen, the purpose becomes clear. Torture is not done for information. It is done for intimidation and oppression in defense of illegitimate government. And it does work, for that purpose.

It might work if the present legislation passes to allow torture of Americans suspected of terrorist activities. It would work on Americans. I can't see how it would work on Muslims. They already have the upper hand in that area with all their public beheadings. We're not going to get it back from them by making naked man pyramids.

I think it's hard for people who are socially well adjusted (the majority of American liberals) to understand people who are very poorly socially adjusted to the point of needing to make social affiliation with them compulsory by violent means (the extremist - hopefully minority - portion of America's conservatives). Some people really can't connect with each other any other way than just to band together against a common enemy. It's a tragedy of our species. And of course, the enemy becomes whoever didn't want to join their war.

Originally Posted by kojax

It might work if the present legislation passes to allow torture of Americans suspected of terrorist activities.

Already passed. And not really needed - without habeas corpus and all the rest, the law doesn't have to address torture specifically.

Originally Posted by kojax

It would work on Americans. I can't see how it would work on Muslims. They already have the upper hand in that area with all their public beheadings. We're not going to get it back from them by making naked man pyramids.

It has been working on Muslims for decades - as our ally Saddam Hussein proved, and as Shah Pahlevi showed for a long time before, and all the rest.

And don't kid yourself about the naked man pyramids - people died under "interrogation" at Abu Ghraib and Bagram, suicides at Gitmo, false confessions everywhere - some of them publicized, which tells you all you need to know about the agenda. And the dogs, the specific types of shaming, the rest of the stuff borrowed from the Israeli pros, that stuff works on Muslims.

That's how Cheney's crowd has been doing business for decades now, from Nicaragua to Iran. Sooner of later the benefits of bringing it home to America are going to find their loophole in the US political setup.

Common ground between JoReba and your average Wahhabi guy- they are anti-gay and pro-torture, the both of 'em.

The most extreme homophobes are closet gay Christians in my experience. Probably the sight of the naked man pyramids in Dave Wilson's link got JoReba excited, and he had to remind us all how badly he hates homosexuality so we won't think (by which I mean realize) that he's actually gay himself.

It's a complicated contradiction. I wouldn't be surprised if it should turn out that the real reason he wanted the torture to continue is because it excites him to see that stuff.

"Why do we torture prisoners?"
(I hope we is meant in the figurative sense)

I would say that the US(and most countries) is not democratic, is plagued by hierarchies and is corrupted by money(whose effects are very hard to recognize) and cloaked in secrecy/manipulation of information

1- I hope that 51% of the people and citizens of the US disapprove of torture (along with genocide, mass killing of for profits[war], child rape and other immoral actions) and would not have any of it if it could vote in a direct participatory democracy. So one of the factors that make wanton torture possible is the absence of democracy

2- Then, if it is clear that the majority of the people do not want torture, and that this inhuman sadistic immoral barbaric criminal activity is nonetheless performed by officials, part of it is that it is enabled by hierarchy, where one command is transmitted along a chain of obedience and where executors are expected to comply even if the majority of the organization would oppose the command if asked in a free organizational referendum (free of pressure, and of consequences).

3- I dont have the time to go into the role of money and secrecy(and control of information)

Originally Posted by JoReba

Why should LGBTP (Pedophiles, who are always homosexual) people want Normosexuals to think they are okay? Do LGBTP people have some sort of an innate guilt, or feeling of impropriety for which they need to overcompensate by:..............

Off topic, bigoted and adding nothing scientific or substantial to the discussion.

Consider this a warning. Take your axe grinding elsewhere--it's not welcome here.

Lynx

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"Why do we torture prisoners?"
(I hope we is meant in the figurative sense)

I would say that the US(and most countries) is not democratic, is plagued by hierarchies and is corrupted by money(whose effects are very hard to recognize) and cloaked in secrecy/manipulation of information

1- I hope that 51% of the people and citizens of the US disapprove of torture (along with genocide, mass killing of for profits[war], child rape and other immoral actions) and would not have any of it if it could vote in a direct participatory democracy. So one of the factors that make wanton torture possible is the absence of democracy

2- Then, if it is clear that the majority of the people do not want torture, and that this inhuman sadistic immoral barbaric criminal activity is nonetheless performed by officials, part of it is that it is enabled by hierarchy, where one command is transmitted along a chain of obedience and where executors are expected to comply even if the majority of the organization would oppose the command if asked in a free organizational referendum (free of pressure, and of consequences).

I'm pretty sure 51% are in favor of it. Probably a good part of the reason is just that we're loyal to our soldiers and they're loyal to each other. Nobody wants to say that it's ok for a few more soldiers to die rather than water board a person who believes in a different religion than (most of) us and has chosen to fight on the wrong side for reasons we can't understand or appreciate.

I wonder if it's just being done as a purely political gesture? We're trying to tell our soldiers that their lives matter more than our ideals by allowing them to do something horribly contradictory to our ideals on the basis that, *in theory*, it would improve their chances of survival? Never mind that, *in practice*, it probably doesn't, because whatever small amount of useful intel we might glean from breaking a man's will down to the point of submission is countered by increased blow back, the near impossibility of winning any hearts and/or minds (not that I'm sure this matters much), and the likelihood of diminished popular support for the war effort on the part of the American public.

It's a case of emotion trumping reason.

If those are typical American emotions, the world is in deep trouble!

"Someone commited a hideous crime and choose not to admit for it, so we torture them as punishment and take their confession as a tool to redeem themselves" --- *torturer's mind...