UKC

I always thought it only got the 'answers you wanted' out of the unfortunate victims; and the torturers just enjoyed torturing so it was kind of an excuse to, like, torture people.

Have I missed something?

Gosh I'm so behind the times.

In reply to pasbury:

I'd like to think Trump's just indulging in a giant piss-take to see how far he can push things before he's hauled away, but sadly I don't think that's the case.

In reply to Ridge:

you wish!

In reply to pasbury:

Er no, you're not. Even King James was embarrassed when he ordered the torture of Guy Fawkes - who had just tried to kill him - and torture ceased to be officially sanctioned pretty much after that. That's 400 years ago.

Obviously I might be tempted to reconsider if I was able to torture someone - oh, I don't know, someone like D Trump perhaps - and find out whether the rumours about him are true... yep, I'd put my principles on hold for a while to do that.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'd like to to give him the Edward II treatment but he'd probably enjoy it, now that the viagra has stopped working.

In reply to pasbury:

>"So is torture OK?"

Was at my school...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Rob - don't lower yourself to his level. I find it deeply confusing and troubling that we have come to this point in history where all my values seems silly even though I know they are not.

And now here we are in a weird world of would-be torturers (Trump), appeasers (May), racists (Trump, Farage) and liars (May, Johnson, Trump, Gove, Farage, Murdoch... add your own in here

In reply to pasbury:

I would normally say that torture was not acceptable at all, under any circumstance.

But then, if someone had information, which imperiled the safety of one of my family, I'd have to reconsider.

In reply to Big Ger:

Reasonable response with some wisdom, Ger.

I think there have been psychological experiments (that I can't be arsed looking up) that demonstrate how we would all go further than we'd admit, or even know.

I will say in public with a straight face that torture is never ever justified, yet if a situation were engineered whereby it were the only way to prevent some horrific outcome for one of my childeren, I'd have no restraint.

In reply to Big Ger:



That's an extremely unlikely situation, like the hypothetical 'ticking bomb' situation that people like Trump try and use to justify torture.

If anyone harmed my family I'd kill the bastard if at all possible, but that's a vastly different situation from making it government policy to let the general public go weapons free on each other rather than bother with having a legal system.

In reply to Ridge:

Spot on Ridge. The answer to the OP is, no it isn't OK.

In reply to pasbury:

Anyone seen 'Unthinkable' with Michael Sheen and Samuel L Jackson?

Makes an interesting contribution to this debate.

In reply to Ridge:


It's not that unlikely, but not on the ticking bomb timescale. Say you have intelligence that a group of IS terrorist in London are planning something for Pancake Tuesday as they consider it offensive, you have some IS people in custody already from say Belgium who were at the same training camp as them in Syria.. but they won't talk, how close to the date do you take it, or how far would you push them?

By torture, would you include everything sleep depravation, white noise, listening to very loud Diane Abbot speeches... not just the classic water boarding?

ps. Any parent of young kids knows how effect sleep depravation can be as a form of torture!

In reply to Ridge:

Soviets knew how to deal with those extremely unlikely situations.
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/how-to-deal-with-hostage-takers-soviet-l...

In reply to pasbury:

No. Aggressive interrogation techniques are 1 of many tools in a toolbox to use. You escalate or de-eacalate depending on who it is, what the situation is and why he is there.


Yes. Torture is a word thrown about by the media and people who have no idea what they are talking about.

We aren't talking about "torturing" the local chav who keeps shop lifting track suits from TK Maxx.

We are talking about hardline, highly motivated, brainwashed, manipulated, (sometimes) religiously motivated, dangerous individuals.

You can't exactly sit down with a cup of tea and a packet of biscuits, but withhold the biscuits until he or she answers the questions politely.


It's not about being behind the times. It's just not knowing.

In reply to Big Ger:


Torture is a broad term that covers a lot. It's a term thrown about by the media and people who don't know what they are talking about.

Aggressive interrogation techniques have a place in a toolbox to escalate a situation.


How do you know if they have information or not?

"well excuse me Mr Bad Guy, do you have any information that might help us?

"Nope"

"Ok, have a good day, be on your merry way."

In reply to Bootrock:


It doesn't matter. Torture, or whatever euphemism you want to use, is morally disgusting, of highly doubtful effectiveness in the short term, and always diasterous strategically.

Try watching
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Algiers

In reply to Bootrock:


"I don't believe you and will drown/beat/burn you now"

Oh shit, you weren't who I thought and now I've antagonised your entire family/religion/tribe/country, undermined the rule of law and any moral superiority I might have had, and wasted time and money but still don't know what I need to. Still internet blowhards now feel good and macho

In reply to pasbury:

It's morally repugnant and on a purely pragmatic level, doesn't work.

In reply to MG:


No. Torture is a huge broad term. There is difference between dark ages torture and
Putting someone in temporary discomfort.

Torture is a buzzword.

The people interrogation is target at are highly motivated, trained, extremist, brainwashed, dangerous individuals. Let's not get down the one route of all terrorism is based on Islamic extremism. That's one slice of the pie.

In reply to MG:

Nope. That's not how interrogation works. Again that's a whole host of tools for getting information.

From financial incentives and bribery, family incentives, to blackmail and mental stress, to temporary physical discomfort.

It's a hell of a lot more than people know.


Again it all comes down to background, information and situation. It's not a case of plucking random people off the street. It's about taking hold of people who engage in extra curricular activity with unsavoury individuals. Intelligence and information is the key.

You escalate and de-escalate. You work on different people with different techniques depending on their position in the situation, You don't just pluck little Johnny off the street and start "drowning" him.


And it's got nothing to do with feeling macho. Or feeling anything. It's about reading a situation and responding to that situation with certain actions. You have to remember that these are highly motivated and determined individuals.

In reply to Bootrock:

That's why Guantanamo Bay has solved the terrorism problem. Oh hang on...

In reply to pasbury:


Well Tronald Dump insists that it works wonders (I suspect he has first hand experience torturing prostitutes)


No I don't think you've missed anything.

It worked a charm during the Witch trials in the Dark ages.
What could possibly be the problem . (this is a joke before anyone says anything)

TWS

In reply to Bootrock:


No it's not (below) It's well defined and pretending otherwise is dishonest. As is pretending it's "tempory discomfort"

""Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed"

In reply to MG:


It's not for solving terrorism. Which is impossible.

Terrorism is built on terror for an idea. It bullies people into submissive with fear. vegans could resort to terrorism is they so desire. You will never "solve" terrosim. Again it's a broad term covering too many bases.

Guantanamo bay is a weird one and it's a tricky one to discuss. While I would be inclined to agree it was probably a step to far in terms of scale. We can never know the extent of what happened and We can never know how much information saved lives and aided in capturing people. But to put an outright ban on legitimate techniques is not the answer. You have to break down that term and focus on the situation and the actions needed.

Using the term torture and having a knee jerk emotional reaction is not the answer.

In reply to MG:




So that rules out everything. Shall we try charm offensive? Have a little tickle?

There's a big difference between using a rack, or dark ages torture and a few stress positions and sleep deprivation. That's the whole point. Again. You missed it. You just emotionally knee jerk when you hear the word.

In reply to pasbury:

Of course it's not. However Trump is still the leader of a country we wish to remain on trading and cordial terms with, and whist we might wish to express our disfavour at some of his policies, we would be nuts to make an issue of it to the extent of breaking off trade relations. It's the same reason why we continue to trade with other, often much worse regimes. That's what diplomacy is all about however unsavoury it can be at times.

That's one of the downsides of our having decided to leave the EU which at least went through the motions of civilised behaviour. It's a tough old world we are plunging ourselves into now and these are some of the realistic consequences of that decision whether we like it or not.

In reply to The New NickB:

want to know what I find morally repugnant?

Cutting people's heads off in the streets

Setting fire to all girls schools with the fire escapes blocked.

Female genital mutiliation

Throwing homosexuals off of the highest building in the town

Strapping IEDs to kids with Down syndrome.

Blowing up restaurants and gigs.

Shooting people in the face for a cartoon.

Ploughing through kids in a HGV.

Setting female teachers on fire.

All in the name of a fairytale.

In reply to Bootrock: The trouble with Gitmo, various dark prisons or especially Baghram is that we don't know how much they fermented and helped radical Islamic terror groups.

I don't like torture. History does not reflect well on those who do it either in terms of results, or moral judgement

In reply to wbo:


I would tend to agree. And we don't know how much information saved lives or aided in capture.



Well it seems to not be affecting a certaint religion that finds torture, and proper torture not the stuff that people get upset about, is doing quite well, no one seems to bat an eyelid.

In reply to Bootrock:

But simulated drowning, beating, etc is all fine and dandy? You can't object when others do such things if you support them when you do them.

In reply to Bootrock:

I find all that morally repugnant as well strangely enough, of course none of that has any bearing of the morality of torture and torture does nothing to reduce or end any of those practices.

In reply to Bootrock:


Sounds like a pretty good idea, yes.


Not I didn't. You, however, have fallen for the "nice" torture myth peddled by some on the American right. Christopher Hitchens rather bravely tested this claim out, and found it to be (predictably) nonsense

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808

In reply to pasbury:

It's pretty unlikely that anyone who posts on this site has much experience of torturing people, to get a more clear cut answer you'd need to speak to whoever carries it out in the CIA.

Given the allies the UK has and the foreign forces we work alongside, the UK has absolutely no need to torture anyone as there is nothing we could do that would likely be anywhere near as unpleasent as what the Saudis, Afghans, Iraqis etc might do to them.

Reality is that whether you like it or not, as soon as anyone UK forces capture are handed over to someone else, more 'robust' methods may well be used to extract information. And the Saudis don't give a f*ck what anyone on UKC thinks!

In reply to Bootrock:
That is all very well but when you actually read the feedback from the CIA and others in the intelligence community they basically say it does not work in providing you with the information you need. That is why in their approval hearings both the new secretary of defence and nsa said basically you get far better results with " two beers and a packet of fags".The new guys do not approve of it.

The problem with torture is simply you get information you want to hear rather than information that is useful.

It is why people like Bush/Cheney etc dropped water boarding etc.

It is a complete waste of time and produces rubbish information.

In reply to MG:


Depends entirely on the situation. Again, it's about background, situation, actions and why, for what result?

By that reasoning we should disband our military and never raise a hand to anyone.

It's a tool on a toolbox. You escalate or de-escalate a situation. Sometimes a situation requires a soft response, other times it requires a hard response. That's the whole point.

In reply to Bootrock:


No it's doesn't


?? What are you talking about?


And some "tools" shouldn't be used because of all the reasons above.

In reply to neilh:


Yep I concur. I have read a few articles that say this, and I have read a few that disagree.


Again it all depends. There's a lot of tools in the toolbox. And incentives are another one. It's all situationally dependant.



Again the term is a broad term. And it depends on the situation. It covers a lot. By definition sleep deprivation is torture.

In reply to MG:





Nope, I haven't, I can just appreciate a situation has a lot more work parts and a lot more to it than throwing terms about and dismissing things we don't like or emotionally knee jerking. And I know It's not pleasant.

In reply to Bootrock:

I don't think anyone here has given a knee jerk reaction. There have been a range of good reasons for not taking part in torture from moral to practical, as well as evidence for those reasons from history and those who have used torture. If there are any knee jerk, unthinking reactions it's from the like of Trump and those proposing using it again. Reactions you seem to be buying into.

In reply to Big Ger:



I think we all would. But torture is such a poor choice to get to the truth. It is hard to control the pain/death thresholds and there is no guarantee of getting the truth out over lies and misinformation - which, in your scenario, could lead to a loss of valuable time/resources, ensuring your family member is endangered.

In the middle ages 'witches' confessed under torture to turning in to hares and dancing with the 'Queen of the Fairies'. Quite impossible, but deemed as 'the truth' in the context of the time.

As with most things, we should look at what science says about torture and its effectiveness.

In reply to MG:
I don't buy into anything. Of course it's a knee jerk reaction. It's been posted on UKC because of what trump said.

There's far more qualified people out there to determine these things and they don't give a shit what people on UKC say.

I have read articles that both agree and disagree with "torture". I have debated it numerous times, and read evidence that falls on both sides. And it's a broad term, until we get away from just throwing that term about we won't get anywhere.

You posted the definition, which covers literally anything. So we can't do anything. That's ridiculous. You have a situation and you use the multitude of different tools, like I said above. It's not just about "torture". It's situationally dependant, it depends on where the person slots in, and for what reason.

You lot are getting upset at a few things you don't know about, yet teenage girls are getting stoned to death, and actual torture is being used on innocent civilians and you lot don't bat an eyelid.

In reply to Bootrock:












You can add rendition to a Cuban prison camp indefinitely with torture included and semi-indiscriminate drone bombings to that list.

In reply to MG:



But unfortunately went on to say we couldn't criticise America for employing it, but he went a bit mental after 9/11, like many others. A shame.

In reply to Bootrock:


You're doing that thing where you're lying about other people's positions again.

In reply to Bootrock:

The discussion is clearly a response to Trump. People's positions won't be. THe subject has been around for ever and high profile since at leas the Iraq war.


I thought you believed in democracy? Don't you think whether or not the UK takes part in or is complicit in torture should be decided democratically? If so, should UKC be one of many places where people can for opinions about it?


Have you read it. It obviously doesn't cover "anything", and it's silly to claim it does.


Again, what are you on about? It's a bit rich to claim "we" don't know what we are talking about when you weren't even aware of the accepted definition of torture but try to set yourself up as some sort of expert. And absurd to claim "we" don't bat an eyelid about other attrocities, they just aren't the subject of this thread.

In reply to Bootrock:


We're talking about fellow human beings.
jk

In reply to Bootrock:

You need to look at it in 2 ways. (1) as a deterrent. (2) does torture provide any useful information.

On (2) the overwhelming evidence is no, that is why it is considered by the intelligence community a waste of time. Cheney etc realised this.so changed the rules. To go back is a retrograde step.lessons have been learnt.

(1) can be debated endlessly

In reply to neilh:


The Nazis found that torture was very effective and useful during WW2. Most Resistance cells were rounded up and destroyed as a direct result of information extracted from captured Resistance members under torture.

In reply to Bootrock:



So your counter argument to a definition is to simply claim that there cant be any rules.
Awesome.


So what is your deep expertise in the subject?

In reply to Bootrock:


You do the posters quite a disservice. Their opinions on torture would have been pretty consistent even had Trump never existed.


And the vast majority of them will disagree with you.

In reply to neilh:



I wouldn't say overwhelming but yes there is contradictive evidence out there.



Agreed.

In reply to Trangia:

Yes, I struggle with that too. I suppose the one thing the Nazis had going for them is that they weren't remotely interested in winning the 'hearts and minds' argument; and at least partly as a result of that, they lost. As of course, did the Japanese. So maybe strategically torture wasn't such a great idea?

As a kid I used to read about an Allies counter intelligence officer called Oreste Pinto, he refused to use any form of physical torture but was spectacularly successful getting intelligence out of die hard Nazis.

In reply to Bootrock:


Mirrors?

In reply to pasbury:

I'm still not entirely sure where I stand on this. On one hand I find the Idea of torture repugnant. However, If one has reasonable evidence to suggest that someone has information that could be an imminent threat to life, and are unwilling to express it, then it does seem appropriate to use every tool available.

Is it right for an enemy to torture a captured British soldier to gather intelligence?

If not, then it's not right to torture our enemies.

In reply to Trangia:


Unlike Bootrock I am not an expert on the subject but I thought the evidence for the Nazi success rate was so so. A lot was achieved through informers and other means.

In reply to Bootrock:


"...teenage girls are getting stoned to death" is done to kill. Not to extract information.

"...actual torture is being used on innocent civilians..." Agreed. But is it being used to extract information. If so, how effective is it?

In reply to KevinD:


Such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englandspiel

The Nazis notably failed against the resistance in Yugoslavia.

In reply to pasbury:

The other point to note is that it can easily be a pyrrhic victory - even if it was effective, if we use torture those people who would commit the other atrocities listed below can use that to justify their own actions. In particular, how do you think vulnerable or impressionable young people get radicalised? They are shown evidence of where the western world doesn't practice what it preaches - such as use of torture at black sites, as well as drone killings.

One of the few sensible things that Bootrock has said on here is that you can't fix terrorism. But what you can try to do is live by a moral code that encourages others to do the same, so that fewer people want to engage in it.

In reply to Big Ger:


That is a big "IF". If your intelligence gathering is so water tight that you can, without a shadow of a doubt, know that one person has the information you need, then it is probably good enough to already have the information.

Or are you happy to use torture on people you only suspect have information ? because that is a very slippery slope to be on.

In reply to Bootrock:


Trump, who has just used the word, obviously falls into the latter category.

Of course you are wrong though, there are people who use the word who do know what they are talking about, such as John McCain.

In reply to pasbury:

Excluding and moral issues for a moment, I think it can be valid where the captors are certain the detainee knows something and its simply a questions of information extraction. It of cause falls down when you're just fishing for information on someone when you don't know that they know it because people will say anything for you to stop so the information is often of little value.

In reply to Trangia:
All I can say is that bush / Cheney were pro-torture. Then after the intelligence community analysed the results bush banned it as it was counter productive. ( the change in policy was nothing to do with Obama).It's why you get people like McCain - a victim of Vietnamese methods - also saying it's a waste of time.

You had a former defence secretary on the BBC - panetta - this week also saying the same thing.

Even " mad dog" says the same.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/opinion/the-lingering-stench-of-torture....

In reply to neilh:

Fake news! Bootrock has "read articles that both agree and disagree with "torture", and has "debated it numerous times, and read evidence that falls on both sides".

I'm with Bootrock as he has logic. He has the best logic.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Except there is no 'simple' when it comes to torture as a means of information extraction. Modern science has known for decades that experiencing torture, be it physical or psychological torture (eg. prolonged sensory deprivation) is so traumatic that you can shatter people's sense of identity so completely that they literally have no idea what is true and what is not. Someone can sincerely believe they are telling you the truth when it is a complete fiction, or something the interrogators have suggested to them.

In 2002 there was a scare about an imminant dirty bomb attack on US soil that came from information gained from the torture of Jose Padilla aka. Abdullah al-Muhajir. According to a 2003 CIA memo it turned out the information was based on a joke article he had once read on the internet.

Even if one is able to set the moral issues aside, on a purely tactical basis it just doesn't work as a means of gathering intelligence.

In reply to Bootrock:

I have to wonder why anyone being tortured would reveal anything other than providing massochistic satisfaction to the torturer. If someone is pulling your nails out, they're not going to let you go once they've finished. You're as good as dead. Knowing that, why would you tell them anything useful?

If my dirty bomb is set to go off at the pancake party and I'm arrested in advance, under torture I'm guaranteed to reveal, screaming and crying for mercy, nothing more useful than the bomb is in the ice-cream cart instead.

In reply to David Martin:


Hope. Probably the last thing to die.
jk

In reply to Bootrock:


Which includes everyone on this forum, including you.

All the expert opinion I've read since the debacle of Iraq/Abu Gahraib/Guantanamo suggest torture is ineffective as an intelligence gather technique.

And of course morally wrong by most standard of civilised society.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:
"I think it can be valid where the captors are certain the detainee knows something "

even if the detainee is not involved in the plot but has other reasons for not getting involved? would you permit your kids to be tortured if someone believed it would benefit others? By torture I mean actual pain and harm, beyond sleep deprivation or bullying (except where the latter is used to induce strong fear that could be torture)

In reply to MG:

I certainly do not feel that democratic will can be used to justify torture in its narrow, traditional, sense

In reply to pasbury:

The biggest irony in the use of torture to contain those who rebel against you, is that the being a 'torturer' or an institution that supports it, is in itself is something worth rebelling against.

In reply to pasbury:

It's one of those philosophical moral conundrums isn't it. I object to torture in principle but if torturing a terrorist resulted in saving innocent lives, I'm not sure how I could argue the case. At a personal level I wouldn't hesitate if it was my direct family that was affected. Does that make me a hypocrite? I think the answer may be yes but I'm probably more of a pragmatist than a high minded idealist. Thank god I don't have to make these kind of decisions.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

I think the problem is that intuition is sometimes misleading. No matter how much we may know that in practice it doesn't work, we still struggle to accept that as it goes against our intuition. If it comes to the crunch and loved ones are at stake, intuition will tend to win.

Trump is playing to the gallery, all part of his populist, say anything character.


He and the people cheerleading the use of torture would be the first to use their hand stitched trousers as latrine if they had to do the torturing.

Nobody is saying take your average Daesh moron to Alton Towers or give him a cuddle, but in the long run, subtler methods are generally yield better results.

It'a a bit like the death penalty, makes it tricky to bang on about the sanctity of human life if your dropping someone through a floor.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


You have made one hell of a strawman there. Think. On what grounds can captors be 100% "certain the detainee knows something" ? If your intelligence is that good you almost certainly don't need the the testimony of a completely stressed and disturbed person under torture.

In reply to Big Ger:


I think there's that element probably in most people? In principle I'd say it's not okay, but I can't help wondering if when people know that an individual knows something, if it hasn't sometimes allowed that information to be obtained.

I'd still say no to torture...

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:



Dunno. I suspect for some it would make them feel all warm inside.
I do think those who go on about "enhanced interrogration" and "robust questioning" or whatever the current phrase is to try and make it sound better should volunteer to be on the receiving end.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


I don't know, the republican party especially seems to have cognitive dissonance down to a fine art on this one.
jk

In reply to KevinD:
I've read of torturers saying that it can dehumanise the person doing the torture, too, that it leaves them different as a person in a way which isn't good, making it protection for more than just the people tortured*.

*Not including the psychopaths and people already disturbed who are doing the torturing perhaps.

In reply to Bootrock:

Information obtained under torture can't be regarded as reliable:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-torture-isis-created-fake-...

And as a bigger question: What are we fighting for?

In reply to GrahamD:

Well for example, a code or password to access a computer or disarm a bomb when its time critical.

You've uncovered a plot to blow up a school in a terrorist attack, tracked the culprits down, burst in their flat with anti terror police and catch them red handed with evidence of the plot, viable bomb making plans and equipment as well as details as to date and time, but you don't know the schools location and its due to blow today. The physical evidence all points to the culprits you have in custody being those who planted the bomb and in a few hours it'll explode and kill 100's of kids unless you can get to the school.

So you ask them and they say we know but we'll never to tell you. So what do you do? consign yourself to the fact they they have won this time and just charge them with life in prison once the school has blown up? Or do you crack out blow torch and see if they can be convinced? Maybe they'll hold out and tell you nothing or the wrong information, but that can be reduced if you promise to drag it out long after the bomb goes off if they tell you false info. Either way at least you've tried.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

What you miss judge on this situation is these people's complete contempt for their own lives or those of others. So you start applying the blow torch and he makes up some crap. You waste a whole bunch of time working out was crap. Then re-apply the blow torch sequence repeats until the bomb blows up. Then our little friend has won and due to the cell structure probably knows precious little else. He also knows that you are likely to kill or lock him up for the rest of his life so has little incentive to cooperate. He also knows he only has to hold out for a limited time so can focus his efforts on just holding till that point then can effectively just give in.

I'm lead to believe the more sophisticated techniques rely on trying to psychologically break someone's ideology and almost enforce Stockholm type syndrome. This clearly takes time talking to the person and building some sort of rapport which would be difficult in your situation.

In reply to pasbury:
To those of you assuming the moral high ground and objecting to torture on principle consider the following hypothetical situation of your family being held to ransom by a kidnapper/terrorist who has been captured but will not say where your family is being held. Would you condone torture if:

a) It leads to the return of your family safely.
b) Perhaps lead to the return of your family.
c) Not condone it under any circumstances.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

That misses the point. If the information provided from the torture to help your family is unreliable then it's useless.

That is in effect why the CIA etc have decided that torturing prisoners is a waste of time .

Never mind the moral issues.

In reply to GridNorth:

Have a read of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario#Views_rejecting_to...

Particularly the plausibility bit.

In reply to neilh:

Here is "mad dog's " views on torture

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/james-mattis-defense-secreta...

In reply to neilh:
I've changed the wording slightly but the unreliability of information is a moot point in the scenario I describe i.e. torture leads to the recovery of your family which by definition means the information is reliable. I'm just trying to bring the debate down to a basic level at which point it is a purely moral issue. It may be a little over simplistic but does get to the point.

Al

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You've uncovered a plot. And you are absolutely sure that the person you want to torture does have the answer or its actually an accomplice ? After you have irrevocably maimed them and still not got anything because they didn't actually have the answer you wanted, what then ? what does that make you holding the blow torch ? or when do you stop the torture ? how do you know the answer you get is real ? And, to be honest, can you think of ANY examples that say this is a scenario for which we can justify taking civilisation back to the middle ages ?

To be honest your strawman plot is so unlikely and flimsy even Nicholas Cage would walk away from it. It is quicker to evacuate a school than it is to go about the process you describe, then to difuse a bomb with the children still inside.

In reply to GridNorth:

I would, given that situation, and bearing in mind not everyone who commits a terrible crime is a religious nutter who thinks he's going to a better place.

Equally, if I was the criminal in that case I think I'd be fessing up pretty quickly when someone gets the Dremel kit out. As much as the sanctification as I'd get from causing the family distress by not revealing the location might be at the time. I think that would very quickly become out weighted by the prospect of not getting slowly and horrifically mutilated 1cm2 at a time with the router attachment.

And if they were a total mentalist who held and never relieved it, then nothing's lost. At the very least we know the culprit suffered for his crimes before being left to rot in jail for the rest of his life.

In reply to GridNorth:


That makes it fairly meaningless by claiming perfect information. However if we are going for unrealistic scenarios.
Your family is being held hostage etc etc.
However instead of the kidnapper you have their sister who knows where they are but will not say. Would you torture her?

In reply to GridNorth:


I'll turn that question around. Would you walk your child into a police station, knowing they'd got caught up in something bad and had knowledge needed to save the lives of someone else's family, knowing they wouldn't give it up freely and the Police would systematically destroy your child's body and mind to get that what they wanted? That'd be a sacrifice worth making, right, one for many? If you couldn't have that done to your child why would you condone or accept it happening to someone else's?
jk

In reply to Bootrock:


What is the answer, when without emotions we wouldn't be human?

In reply to KevinD:


And further the pretence that the decision would be in isolation. In fact the use of torture has far wider implications for any society that uses it. Bad ones.

In reply to pasbury:

I liked the quote on the BBC site today taken from the apartheid era in South Africa

' How do you capture an elephant. You catch a mouse and beat him repeatedly until he tells you he is an elephant'

In reply to GridNorth:

And past evidence shows that it has been proven that the reliability of such information is very questionable. What would you do then ?

That is the debate. 😀

In reply to Timmd:
Emotions make us human, and are also responsible for many of our moral faults. Empathy can be misapplied, our moral intuitions are very often incorrect and emotion is demonstrably the least useful guide when making crucial moral judgements.

edit: sober application of the law is the best thing in the face of emotional responses. That's why as a society we let a murderer face legal justice rather than the wrath of the victim's family. That's why torture should be illegal, even though we could sympathise with many of the hypothetical situations being discussed above.

Sam Harris has some interesting thoughts on torture: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-id-rather-not-speak-about-torture1

In reply to pasbury:

F*ck me but the number of pro-torture responses to this post are massively depressing. What the f*ck is wrong with you people????

In reply to Scotch Bingington:


The annual UKC torture thread is rarely an edifying spectacle.
jk

In reply to Scotch Bingington:

I'm not sure even 'pro-torture' responders are actually in favour of torture. In the same way that few people who are 'pro-choice' on the question of abortion, actually think abortions are a 'good' thing. It's possible to be nuanced about difficult questions. In fact, it's important to be nuanced.

In reply to neilh:

Exactly the point, and I think he knows a little more than us lot, and the Tangerine Bonobo.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

And what if you are actually innocent, but the torturer THINKS you know something? You keep screaming out "I know nothing!" and your torturer (a Fawlty Towers fan), thinks you are taking the piss and reaches for the industrial Dremel kit...you WILL eventually stop denying that you know nothing and be full of information.....all of it useless, but anything to buy you respite before your lies are found out and your torturer comes at you again - only this time really pissed off and believing even more that you know something, but that you are stubborn and simply a tough nut to crack; someone who is bullshitting him and taking the piss. Yep - we're gonna need a bigger Dremel.

In reply to ChrisBrooke:
My point is we wouldn't want to stop the suffering endured by torture victims without emotions, and we wouldn't want it to happen either, emotions could be equally applicable to both cases, where there's a sense of revenge behind okaying torture.

The 'knee jerk emotional response' could apply to both, on threads on here, that phrase can seem to be mainly used against people who don't want torture to happen, with them sometimes caricatured as 'emotional liberal lefty types who won't accept the harsh realities of the world where torture is sometimes useful' etc.

In reply to Timmd:


I agree, kind of. It depends if you consider empathy and/or compassion to be emotional responses. Empathy and/or compassion should be sufficient to end the suffering induced by torture. One's emotional response, or visceral disgust at the thought, could be a good indicator of your sound moral judgement, but not necessarily. I guess, I was just arguing that our emotions (and our moral instincts) aren't necessarily the best faculties to leverage in making decisions about the morality of torture in 'the cold light of day'.

>where there's a sense of revenge behind okaying torture.

I don't think any sensible person would advocate an element of revenge being justification for use of torture by the state.


Agreed. Caricatures aren't useful. Sam Harris in the article I linked makes the point that if you want to argue that there are no, and could never be any, possible situations in which torture could be justified, then fair enough. Once you concede that there could be such a situation, however hypothetical, then you need to do the ugly job of pragmatically considering how, when, what etc, without the 'knee-jerk emotional reaction' that is hard to avoid (around such an unpleasant, ugly topic).
Anyway, sorry, got to go. Have a good weekend y'all.

In reply to pasbury:

I'm just trying to establish if those who are taking a stance on moral grounds would feel the same if they had direct involvement. I can sit at my computer in my comfy chair and take the moral high ground by saying it's morally wrong, it doesn't work, it would make us as bad as them, blah, blah, blah but I'm willing to admit that if I thought that torturing someone would save my loved ones lives I might not be able to live up to my principles.

Al

In reply to pasbury:

Armchair debate. Different when you're involved in the intelligence that could save lives.

In reply to pasbury: no same debate - the armed forces et al don't have carte blanche to operate however they like to protect our society. There are norms, standards that western society operate too. This armchair debate is an expression of what society thinks, and the armed forces, security or whoever can't run around torturing who they want just in case.

In reply to GridNorth:

See my earlier reply. The heart would likely take over from the head, even if you knew it was wrong or pointless.

Highly emotional states aren't conducive to careful thought. That's why we have a lesser charge of manslaughter for heat-of-the-moment killing; given time to consider a response, many would be expected to choose a different course of action, but in an enraged state our rational faculties don't get a look-in.

In reply to Scotch Bingington:

The pro torture responses are not nearly as depressing as the acts of terrorism by ISIS and other extreme Islamic groups. If they don't want to be tortured they should not involve themselves in terrorism, if they do, as far as I am concerned they lose their human rights. Good riddance, and who cares if they are waterboarded for intelligence,... not quite as bad as stoning women to death for doing the shopping unaccompanied by a male, but not many threads from the luvvies about that....

In reply to Jim 1003:

WTF. I don't approve of torture and, wait, I also don't approve of stoning women or knocking walls down on gay men (you haven't come out against that so I assume you are fine with that, or killing teachers or any other bad thing you haven't specifically mentioned. I think the topic is in response to surprising statements from the US president, not listing a lot of shit we would basically assume any civilised person is against. I despise ISIS and have followed the war against them with hope and satisfaction at their area finally getting kicked. Bur torture...dubious benefit, morally repugnant and would you like to be an American soldier or citizen who nows falls into the wrong hands, cause your leader just said torture is OK.

In reply to pasbury:

My daughter wouldn't tell me where she'd hidden the mini eggs - a particularly ferocious Chinese burn soon sorted that out. Just sayin'...

In reply to Ridge:


Nothing lie what Trump is trying to justify.


Exactly.

In reply to Bootrock:



Well, I though most people would see, in that example, that I was taking it as a given that I knew they did.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Can you give me one example where this has ever happened?

In reply to james Campbell:

Can you give an example of when this has ever happened?

In reply to Shani:




Not much there to disagree with, but I have to ask "what other options would you suggest"?

In reply to GrahamD:


Totally untrue, does not stand to reason.


Again, it depends on the situation, the reality of the threat/danger to my family. I wouldn't start setting fire to people on a whim, I'm not ISIS.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Wrong wrong wrong, I am not depressed by Isis, I'm angry and exasperated and looking for ways to defuse the forces that fuel them. What would depress me is if we, as in; us; you and me; our neighbours; our cops; the guy round the corner, suddenly think it's OK to torture people.

Torture seems to be a slippery concept to some people - that is depressing. I'm pretty sure that the victims could define what torture is without any fancy words or equivocation.

In reply to summo:


And I thought it was just me ......

In reply to pasbury:

I think most of us would rather see ISIS put down humanely like teh rabid dogs they are. I don't think anyone is advocating torture for it's own sake.

In reply to pasbury:


My guess is that after more than a decade of the war on terror the spooks will have something more effective than waterboarding for getting information from a reluctant subject when it is important. They've had ample opportunity to work on psychological and technical approaches such as getting someone in the right mood with drugs then putting them in a virtual reality headset to make them think they are somewhere safe and talking to someone they trust while monitoring their EEG to make sure they aren't lying.

In reply to Scotch Bingington:


True, but I have found the discussion enlightening. The pro-torture people don't seem to think about the sorid grim reality of actual existing torture, of people rounded up due to their race, religion, ethnicity or politics, to be hideously maimed or murdered; and actually believe in some fantasy virtuous torture. Like they have on the telly on "24".

In reply to Bootrock:




What has the above got to do with the price of wiring a car battery to someone's genitals?

The whole premis of the pro torture arguments seems to be that at this precise moment in time Jihadi Nigel is having a goat curry in a training camp in Yemen and saying to his mate Jamal Al Spunkbubble; "Keep it to yourself Brother, but on Pancake Day 2023 I'm going to blow up Cleator Moor University with a LVBIED at half past two. I'm also going to design the only IED in the world with a keypad to disarm it right up to the point the big LED timer gets to 00:00:01. Oh, and don't tell anyone but the passward is A.L.L.A.H"

Meanwhile, I'm sure Bootrock Mitty can tell us all about why a terrorist "cell" is called a "cell", and the long established technique of using cut outs to pass messages they don't understand? Or perhaps explain the concept of giving the people doing the dirty work perishable information, so even if the Belgian plod get straight into the blowtorch on the soles of the feet and get the information about the bomb in London out of the prisoner, the plan has already changed due to members being captured? Maybe Bootrock can fill us in on his imaginary conduct after capture training? You know, the bit that informs you that even after you give up any information it won't be believed, and you'll still be beaten and buggered senseless for the next week just in case you were telling porkies, and it's in fact in your interests to lie for as long as possible because giving up the information promptly will just extend the ordeal? So much for the rapid extraction of vital information.

Yes, Gestapo tactics do work, but only if you're prepared to round up a load of innocent people and machine gun them in the shopping centre in the hope some other member of the community cracks. Have we seriously got to that point? Really?

In reply to Flinticus:


They would be tortured by ISIS anyway, unless you don't include beheading as torture, that would have nothing to do with Trump. ISIS burnt to death the Jordanian airman they captured , was has that got to do with Trump? Not sure I think water boarding is torture , I certainly don't care how many terrorists are water boarded.

In reply to pasbury:
If we're ok torturing terrorists, or suspected terrorists, are we ok torturing domestic criminals - kidnappers for example?

In reply to Big Ger:


I don't think the gap morally is as wide as you think. Torture because you think someone is doing something that upsets you. With the high possibility that you maim someone innocent in your revenge lust.

In reply to Big Ger:


What are you on ? ISIS isn't something you can kill anymore than you can 'kill' comunism or capitalism. What you are doing is lumping everyone who may have any association with ISIS from keyboard sympathiser to active ISIS leadership. This is people we are talking about and the way individuals are treated should be proportionate to their crime.

In reply to GrahamD:

Members of ISIS are being killed almost daily, fortunately the Americans are doing a good job of targeting their leadership with drones and blowing them up. Excellent news!

In reply to Jim 1003:


If it is true then it is excellent news. But that is worlds away from torturing some kid from Huddersfield who had her head turned by the promise of a better world, on the off chance they might know something.

In reply to pasbury:

No, it's not OK. Just like capital punishment is not OK. Even if, especially if, the other side do it. Else, how are you different from them? And it definitely is not OK for the President to say it is OK. Leaders set a moral tone and framework of values that sways others. Since values drive all that we do, it is their greatest test to do this well. They must act responsibly, with knowledge and with vision. To advocate torture is to fail in all three regards, IMHO.

In reply to Big Ger:


That is where we need to look at science to find out what works.

But, this does not negate the fact that if science shows torture doesn't work as a means of information extraction, then we should NOT torture.

And if torture is shown not to work, we should most definitely not torture simply because we can't think of an alternative.

In reply to GrahamD:


LOL!! Yes, of course, I was thinking of setting fire to someone because they were doing something that upsets me, like leaving the milk out in hot weather.

Get a grip.

In reply to Jim 1003:

'Members of ISIS are being killed almost daily, fortunately the Americans are doing a good job of targeting their leadership with drones and blowing them up. Excellent news!'

Excellent indeed! Just as a matter of interest ... where exactly ARE you getting your info from?

In reply to Ridge:
Been at work, and busy few days so might tap out of this thread for a bit. But:

Dude, what?


Read my posts again. You will see that the "ticking IED" situation is a hypothetical situation and can go either way. Depends on who, what, where, why and when.

The pro "torture" isn't just reliant on that scenario. It's a tool, in a toolbox. You escalate to it, with the idea of it being a deterrent, or not being used at all.
You don't just Nick petty criminals and start giving them the good news. It's for hardline, dedicated, highly motivated, highly trained, brainwashed/manipulated, (sometimes) religiously motivated. Let's not start down the line of all terrorists are Islamic extremists, that's one slice of a big, deep, tasty pie.

There's a whole host of tools to use, like I said. From finicial and family incentive, to blackmail, to physical and mental discomfort.

Once again we can't talk about it, it just goes for a knee jerk straight for gestapo and dark ages torture rhetoric.


What would have helped Belgian plod? Some actual borders they control, so domestic terror suspects cant just flee to other countries unchallenged...

In reply to Bootrock:



You've been watching too many of those SAS programs on TV. The first question is what does science tell us about these techniques?

As a follow up, breaking people to reveal more than name rank or number, or to verify information is one thing.

But trying to get fresh information out of a person you are breaking, without actually knowing if they actually HAVE that information....well that sounds like it could get messy & dehumanising very quickly, in time critical scenarios or through familiarity.

In reply to pasbury:
Yet another article in the New Scientist this week to say that torture does'nt work, it just gives false information.
Apart from the fact it is totally immoral, and makes you just as bad as your enemies.
Its starting to look like old Trumpy is in the Mussolini ,Stalin, Hitler league.

In reply to Shani:


There's mixed reports and articles.


Seems it's you that's watched too many naff SAS programmes.


Again. Depends on the situation, who the suspect is, what position he holds, why the information is needed, what information is needed, is it fresh information, is it verifying information, etc the list goes on. And the the tools required for that are wide and varied.

A pawn? bit of financial incentive, maybe pay off a few debts of theirs. Subtle blackmail.

A queen? Might have to escalate a bit.

In reply to Bootrock:




I think Ridge has a bit of knowledge from his military training, wereas you're coming across as a fantasist.

There's a handful of you on this thread desperate to come up with a situation were torture might be useful, but as more informed posters are trying to tell you, it's not even very useful then. The real value of torture is for tyrannical, oppressive regimes, who have successfully used torture to spread terror amongst their own populations and the enemy. Let a few prisoners out just to spread horrific tales and most people will be too scared to resist.

For a civilised country, there is much more value in terms of gathering information, to be able to honestly say 'we do not and will not torture people'. From what I've read the most valuable information is that willing volunteered by people who change their minds about what they've got into. That's far more likely to happen if you are actually 'the good guys', if they know they can come forward and they will be treated humanely.

In reply to Bootrock:


I've asked for evidence from you before and couldn't provide any. Perhaps you might like to try again with this claim above.


WTF?.......absolutely NOTHING to do with torture.

In reply to Shani:


I said, I was busy with work. I will get back to you.



Dude. Seriously. Take off the snowflake glasses and read my posts. "Torture" is a tool in a toolbox. Financial incentive has nothing to do with "torture" but it has a lot to do with gaining the information you require. This isn't Hollywood where you can see elements of the plot. It's like playing chess, without seeing all the opponents pieces, Or his moves until he takes on one of your pieces.
There are other methods of extracting information from people or about people. Go back and read my posts. It's not about going straight in heavy handed if you can go about things subtly. It's all situation dependant, who they are, what position they hold, what the background is, what the result is, what the reasoning is, etc etc.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Lol you can call me Walter. Royal Messtin Regiment was it?


Not coming up with any situation. Just pointing out that there is a plethora of different situations and scenarios and people and various different ways to extract information. I have already said that.
But you need variety on your menu. You need to pick and choose the relevant course of action depending on who, what, where, why, when and how.

Torture is just the buzzword that flies about that everyone is jumping on. By definition you can't do anything except maybe put their milk in the tea without taking the teabag out first, or withholding the biscuits.

Maybe we should try charm offensive?





I agree. However it's the whole torture buzzword. There's a difference in a bit of sleep deprivation with a few stress positions, and locking someone up in a Bronze Bull.

Again, your bringing up a different situation. A turncoat or someone willing to give up information would respond to other methods, so you keep the big stick in the bottom of the toolbox and use something else.

But if you capture a hardline, highly motivated, religiously charged, intelligent individual, then the soft approach might not work and that toolbox might have to be opened to show the big stick, if that doesn't work, then it escalates. Just the thought of the big stick sitting on the table might be enough.

In reply to Bootrock:


Yes, of course.



Again WTF, Buttercup. Nobody is arguing AGAINST extracting information from terrorists. Absolutely nobody on this thread.

Many people ARE arguing against torture. Get a grip and stop the sophistry, strawmen and distractions. Have you evidence torture works or not? Is so, share it.

In reply to Bootrock:


Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps, or maybe just a pansy resting on his laurels.

In reply to Bootrock:

'Snowflake'

Sorry dude - you really are a bit of an asshole aren't you.

And quite proud of it by the sound of it too.

In reply to Shani:


Or, more pertinantly, ever being subjected to state sponsored torture, had someone in their family subjected to state sponsored torture - especially where they had no information to give ? I'm sure the torture advocates only behave the way they do because its always 'them', never 'me' that is likely to be on the receiving end.

In reply to Jim 1003:


My bet is less than 30 seconds with some rough men and a jug of water would sharpen even your thinking.
jk

In reply to Bootrock:



You misunderstand. What I mean is that in the long run you will 'turn' more people, or to put it another way, more people will see sense, if your country is beyond reproach on prisoner treatment.

We are not in the midst of a huge war, but there is a problem with internet inspired extremism, it's a propaganda war. Treating terrorist worse than other criminals is propaganda gold to them.


To this individual, probably not. It has to be more subtle techniques in a civilised country.... if we did go totally barbaric (it doesn't sound like your individual is going to blab after some sleep deprivation), then that's more propaganda gold and a few thousand more radicalised.

It's a long game, and by and large it works, we are relatively safe here.

In reply to jkarran:



Its certainly a technique the Catholic Inquisition put plenty of store by.

In reply to GrahamD:


Worked well for them didn't it?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

As an instrument of repression, yes it worked very well.

The point is that water boarding is every bit a real torture - even if if it doesn't maime the victims compared with other methods.

In reply to GrahamD:

There is something particularly threatening about "state sponsored" that anyone who hasn't found themselves spending a night or two in a police cell probably can't fully appreciate. When you find yourself on the wrong side of the state, by accident or intent, you become quite aware of your insignificance.

I don't like to invest any government with the right to engage in torture; be that removing fingernails and eyeballs or simply depriving one of sleep.

In reply to Bootrock:
I guess I can chime in with some specialised knowledge on this considering I've interviewed Syrians, boys who ISIS attempted to recruit, and read testimonies by torturers and ISIS "soldiers".

Assuming that these guys are what you see in the TV shows is a mistake. ISIS prays on young boys and men who are afraid, poor and alone. You can imagine growing up out in the countryside in Syria, with no education beyond middle school, living in a small town with 10-20 houses, nothing to do and your whole life consists of maybe farming, maybe doing odd manual labor jobs. The war begins, and suddenly surviving becomes even harder. Maybe your brothers have to move to Lebanon and Jordan to work and send money back to the family, leaving you all alone. Then some guys roll in with their nice Toyotas, say something about religion, and put a rifle in your hand. Suddenly now, you have power. You can decide your own fate. They tell you to join them in their conquest of the country, where you will get cars, guns, money, women. You know your cousin joined these guys and posts all those cool pictures on FB with guns in his hand and he gets all those likes, people say he's bad ass and God's warrior.

Over time, the religious ideas will harden in that boys head until he believes it himself, because he wants to latch on to something to make himself feel good. He gets told he isn't just a farmer's son growing up in a place no one has heard of, but a chosen man who will spread the word of how people can become like him. People will adore him, and fear him, but he will be a just leader.

And so it goes. It's the same story as every other extremist movement, from 1%ers to religious cults to Nazis. They prey on people who are weak and desperate, and through marketing present themselves as a way out of it.

But the function behind how he became indoctrinated can also be the same function that reverses it in an interrogation. I don't know why people here seem to assume an interrogation is just talking to someone. It's a highly studied field that people train for years to master. It's manipulation of the mind's weaknesses, gaining trust and poking and prodding until the information comes out. And if one guy doesn't crack, then you just need 1 out of 100 to do it and you can take down a whole organisation. Because when you do get the information, it isn't just a small drip to make you stop, you get everything.

With torture, you just fuel the fire. You end up traumatising what is really still just a scared little boy, and you send a message to his friends at home that we really are the devils they make us out to be. It isn't just blustering like your dad said those guys with the cars and guns were doing, it's real. "They're killing us, we have to fight." Not even to speak of the possibility of getting the wrong intel. In short, the downside is huge, but the upside is exactly the same as conventional means.

You don't win an ideological war by force. You win it by talking it to death, by helping those people out in the countrysides so their situations don't get so desperate. Yes it's frustrating and people will die, but at the same time we will starve them by cutting off their resource: Fear, anger and desperation.

I learned a long time ago that when you're in a situation that can spiral into a potential conflict (I worked in a maximum security prison once, and also in the military), it's extremely hard to be mad at a person who is calm and treats you nicely and respectfully.

The only thing you gain by hurting the other person is feeling better about yourself momentarily. But long-term you will lose more than you gain from it.

In reply to TheFasting:


Don't disagree there. All good points. And yes it would work for the pawns. My posts don't say go all out for the hard stuff straight away, if at all. Again, depends who, where, what, why, when etc etc etc.

It's a tool in a tool box. A pawn could be easily persuaded, a queen might need more attention.

In reply to Bootrock:


Well, I suppose that's one way to get the information.... good of you to volunteer Booty.

In reply to TheFasting:

One of the most informative and considered posts I can remember ever reading on here. Thank you.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Have a like! And I echo that post that says it was the most informative and interesting posts. I actually enjoyed reading it.

In reply to pasbury:

Watch the film "unthinkable". Very thought provoking

In reply to john arran:

Thanks. I know a lot about the situation over there now from talking to Syrians myself so I try to provide information when I can.

I went in to that job believing in limiting the number of refugees my country takes in and went out of it with a few different ideas. But I still maybe somewhere in the center of that topic politically, I can see both sides of it. The stuff that goes on over there is much worse than the mainstream media covers in terms of the sheer mayhem of it. Still you have to take care to bring in the victims and not the perpetrators.

In reply to Bootrock:
I don't think I agree. Those guys at the top are too far gone, and will probably never give you anything useful.

For example, take Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He was the mastermind behind 9/11 and was waterboarded 183 times after his capture. An average man can last about 14 seconds of that before feeling panic and a drowning sensation. He went through it 183 times. But it was still only a few months after the torture during a standard interrogation, when he discussed a man called Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti. Also known as bin Laden's courier in Abbottabad.

The report released on whether torture lead to killing bin Laden shows several examples of this. An "unidentified third" subject also gave them relevant info about Al-Kuwaiti the day before they started torturing him. The report itself concluded that torture was not instrumental in finding him.

So even when the US employed their torture machinery full steam, in the hunt for the most wanted man of this century, who was the leader of a fanatic religious cult like you say we'd need torture to get information from, we still got the info from conventional interrogations.

In reply to TheFasting:
Thank you for this humane, and well informed post. It is so much more valuable than my mere emotionally driven opinion.

In reply to TheFasting:
"it's extremely hard to be mad at a person who is calm and treats you nicely and respectfully."

this is a bit off topic but I have a friend whose father as a very young man was in a German unit that killed and wounded a lot of Americans before they were captured. He remembers his father talking of being scared out of his wits and, as they'd been told all their lives how the British and Americans would treat them, they were very jumpy as they expected to die very soon. They were passed to a British unit who sat them down and gave them tea at which point they relaxed as they couldn't imagine people giving them tea and then shooting them. He subsequently settled in England and lived the rest of his life here.

In reply to wercat:
I think treating people with kindness might be the only strategy to bring them out of those extremist environments. After the Third Reich fell, Western society as a whole decided that the only way to avoid it happening again was to build up Germany again by giving them money. Could you imagine something like the Marshall Plan today? Would never happen.

Instead of that ideology popping up again and again, as a societal phenomenon it just died right then and there (with some exceptions probably), and stories like your friend's father are what we have instead. Extremism only seems to grow in environments with fear, anger and desperation. Help them on their feet, and it disappears.

In reply to TheFasting:
Actually I think I was a bit strict saying it was off-topic. It represents the kind of country I want to belong to, not one that condones real torture in the traditional sense.

One thing that I didn't add is that my mate told me his father said that moment was the beginning of a real respect for the British way of life.