If we condone torturing those we capture, are we putting our own troops in danger of being tortured

Originally posted by Skewed

Originally posted by Traydor
there are more humane ways to get information from people

What would they be?

Pretty please, with sugar on top, tell us.

Hell, my kids do not fall for that when I am trying to find out who left the milk sitting on the counter.

edit on 10-5-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)

The fact you have to ask what they would be says something in itself, we are suppose to be civilized society and to torture somebody who 'may or may not' have information only makes us savages. If you believe that it's ok to torture somebody for information then you are basically saying that it would be ok for somebody to torture you or even your kids (God forbid) for information they may or may not have. You shouldn't think it's ok to do to others if it's not ok to do to you.

You need to use your head more, we are not savages and we should act accordingly.

reply to post by Traydor

The fact you have to ask what they would be says something in itself, we are suppose to be civilized society and to torture somebody who 'may or may not' have information only makes us savages. If you believe that it's ok to torture somebody for information then you are basically saying that it would be ok for somebody to torture you or even your kids (God forbid) for information they may or may not have. You shouldn't think it's ok to do to others if it's not ok to do to you.

But that is part of the point to the topic.
Putting a TV in front of Saddam's cell for 4 days playing South Park seems more insulting to me then torture, but it is a form of torture. Telling someone there family will be or has been executed when in fact they are fine, is a form of torture. Though I don't see this the same as what we call physical torture it still is torture by definition. And I see nothing wrong with these.
Mind you I don't see anything wrong with other forms of torture either with reasoning listed by others on this thread.

Originally posted by Traydor


The fact you have to ask what they would be says something in itself, we are suppose to be civilized society and to torture somebody who 'may or may not' have information only makes us savages. If you believe that it's ok to torture somebody for information then you are basically saying that it would be ok for somebody to torture you or even your kids (God forbid) for information they may or may not have. You shouldn't think it's ok to do to others if it's not ok to do to you.

You need to use your head more, we are not savages and we should act accordingly.

Hypothetically speaking, suppose there was indication that a bomb was located somewhere in your town and a suspicious individual was caught with evidence that pointed out that there was a bomb, and the individual was taken into custody. The law enforcement agency has ultimately discovered damning evidence against this person and all indications directly pointed to the fact that there is indeed a bomb, just waiting to go off.

But the man will not talk, he sits there just staring at the interrogators with a smug smile. How do they find that bomb?

Originally posted by AnteBellum
So in essence, I guess I do condone certain types of torture. But to answer the title of this post correctly, I would have to also say yes, it does put our troops in danger of the same treatment.

I think it's entirely flawed thinking if you believe that our enemies look to us to see how to treat their prisoners.

Is there any evidence to prove otherwise?

Originally posted by Skewed


Hypothetically speaking, suppose there was indication that a bomb was located somewhere in your town and a suspicious individual was caught with evidence that pointed out that there was a bomb, and the individual was taken into custody. The law enforcement agency has ultimately discovered damning evidence against this person and all indications directly pointed to the fact that there is indeed a bomb, just waiting to go off.

But the man will not talk, he sits there just staring at the interrogators with a smug smile. How do they find that bomb?

sounds like you watched to much batman.

thats a poor example to hold your argument for torture.

Originally posted by TheMaverick


thats a poor example to hold your argument for torture.

Why is that?

Because ultimately we all know the truth of the matter is that in order to make the person talk is to start breaking fingers, otherwise thousands of people are going to die when it goes off?

Sometimes the truth hurts.

I understand the logic of what is being said but just imagine that you yourself was pulled into a room and you were accused of with-holding information on bombs or what ever the case may be the fact is there is not guarantee that you have the infomation (if any) that they want.

If you don't have the information and they acknowledged this after you have been tortured would you still think that what they did to you was justified or would you rather wish they had used a different approach other than torture? You really need to think about this through before you answer because i'm sure the answer would be that you wish they had taken a different approach.

Imagine going through water torture, being burned, being badly beaten, starved, sleep deprivation, having the soles of your feet flayed, your fingers broken, fingernails being pulled, teeth being pulled. Think of any one of these being done to you and would you still say torture is ok. Could you do this to someone else and feel that it's ok to cause this much pain on someone? Does this make you better than the person your torturing?

Speaking for myself i couldn't, people who can do this are monsters no matter how noble the cause they think are doing. It goes against the freedoms and rights we stand for. I know this sounds simplistic but i'm referring to a wide spectum of freedoms and the struggles we have gone through to make the lives we take for granted today, a life that half the world today can only dream of having.

Originally posted by Skewed

Originally posted by TheMaverick


thats a poor example to hold your argument for torture.

Why is that?

Because ultimately we all know the truth of the matter is that in order to make the person talk is to start breaking fingers, otherwise thousands of people are going to die when it goes off?

Sometimes the truth hurts.

do you know about Sodium thiopental,or more commonly known as sodium pentathol,basically it's a truth serum that chemically induces a person to tell the truth,so you don't need to break bones...

although i don't know the full ingredients i know its based round sodium pentathol.

reply to post by TheMaverick

do you know about Sodium thiopental,or more commonly known as sodium pentathol,basically it's a truth serum that chemically induces a person to tell the truth,so you don't need to break bones...
although i don't know the full ingredients i know its based round sodium pentathol.

I thought, given the effects of this drug, make it not much more effective then torture itself.
Still in all I am terribly afraid of needles, almost to the point of phobia, so this would be torture to me!

Torture is very subjective to the individual. Though I would condone many forms of it, I still would not want to participate in all forms, for example: Brazen Bull
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d8880d34c323.jpg[/atsimg]

The brazen bull, bronze bull, or the Sicilian bull was a torture and execution device designed in ancient Greece.[1] Its inventor, metal worker Perillos of Athens, proposed it to Phalaris, the tyrant of Akragas, Sicily, as a new means of executing criminals.[2] The bull was made entirely of bronze, hollow, with a door in one side.[3] The condemned were locked in the bull and a fire was set under it, heating the metal until it became yellow hot and causing the person inside to roast to death.

Wiki Link

This along with impalement are some of the worst our species has ever conceived.

Originally posted by Traydor
I understand the logic of what is being said but just imagine that you yourself was pulled into a room and you were accused of with-holding information on bombs or what ever the case may be the fact is there is not guarantee that you have the infomation (if any) that they want.

If you don't have the information and they acknowledged this after you have been tortured would you still think that what they did to you was justified or would you rather wish they had used a different approach other than torture? You really need to think about this through before you answer because i'm sure the answer would be that you wish they had taken a different approach.

Imagine going through water torture, being burned, being badly beaten, starved, sleep deprivation, having the soles of your feet flayed, your fingers broken, fingernails being pulled, teeth being pulled. Think of any one of these being done to you and would you still say torture is ok. Could you do this to someone else and feel that it's ok to cause this much pain on someone? Does this make you better than the person your torturing?

Speaking for myself i couldn't, people who can do this are monsters no matter how noble the cause they think are doing. It goes against the freedoms and rights we stand for. I know this sounds simplistic but i'm referring to a wide spectum of freedoms and the struggles we have gone through to make the lives we take for granted today, a life that half the world today can only dream of having.

edit on 10/5/2011 by Traydor because: (no reason given)

I see your point, valid as it may be, but there is always that doubt.

I can look at it two ways, if by chance I held a secret that involved the lives of thousands and their blood was on my hands. I know for a fact, that if I were in that position that there is nothing they could say to me, threaten me with, show me, or what ever, I would never talk. Now, I have a pretty high tolerance to pain and can take a pretty good beating, I do not know how much or how long I could last, I know I would eventually break. But until they start breaking fingers and pulling teeth they would not get anything.


The second way I can look at this is, if by chance a family member was abducted and the person stashed them away somewhere, but got caught going to the store to get supplies. Given the opportunity, I would ask the person two times, where my family member is, after that, bone breaking would commence until I got what I needed to hear.

As far as having the wrong person, after a little pain I would say it would become a little obvious as to if they were in fact telling the truth or not. A person hiding something would typically take a bit longer and even progress into things even more painful than someone who was not hiding something before they "broke".

Originally posted by Skewed
But until they start breaking fingers and pulling teeth they would not get anything.

brilliant,just simply brilliant.

do you understand about modern day professional torture.

reply to post by TheMaverick


Just being honest.

Or do you want to split hairs.

They're going to cut your head off anyways, so I wouldn't worry about it.