Water torture

[Santerme]

jimmy two times Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Would you torture a captured suicide bomber if the

> information received from him prevented a bomb

> going off and thus saving possibly hundreds of

> lives?

The CIA IG's report declared that there is no evidence that criminal tactics stopped "any credible threats" and it is known that lawful forms have often worked faster and more reliably against high-level al Qaeda detainees, sometimes within an hour or a little longer.

[jimmy two times]

Whilst I accept that's what they said I don't think the CIA would ever reveal their true tactics.

[bigbadwolf]

I think you'll find that the CIA, MI6 etc just move those they want to question to countries with a blurred line between cruelty and gentle persuasion such as Banana republics in central America and offer concessions/blind eye in exchange for a few toe nails.

[Atila Reincarnate]

bigbadwolf Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's O.K Sean. You can save it for Atila'a

> Requiem.

Please don't drag me into this. I'm far too busy doing my vigilante thing, isn't that right blah?

[lozzyloz]

Jx2, your context was we tortured people in WW2 to extract information that 'saved lives' and that was ok. So using your same logic, by dropping a couple of nukes and killing thousands to end the Pacific campaign would also be acceptable? Perhaps dropping an H bomb over Afghanistan would save us having to torture terrorists and end the heroin trade as a bonus. Acceptable?

[Santerme]

jimmy two times Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wasn't torture used in the second world war to

> great effect? I'd imagine many lives were saved on

> the information garnered. It's not for the

> squeamish, but perhaps a necessary evil......Even

> Jack Bauer is prone to a bit of it.

Torture is known to be ineffective and every real professional in the business knows this.

Interrogators torture because they were unskilled, ignorant, sadistic, desirous to inflict harm on hated enemies or is plain lazy.

Torture is the quickest and easiest way to create a tangible facsimile of results that resemble information, even though in reality they were of very low grade and highly undependable.

Historically, people became torturers not because they have been proven to be effective in getting information, but just because they had the reputation of being tough, politically reliable, or volunteered.

All that the Gestapo had done was to make people confess to whatever they have been accused of.

A good counter point to the torture of Al-Qaida operatives would be http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151 by the interrogator who uncovered the information that led to the elimination of al Zarqawi.

He did so completely through conventional means.

He says in his book that in his experience, almost no useful intellegence had been gathered by torture.

As for the British torturing in WW2, in fact the psychological effect on captured spies in Britain of knowing that their lack of cooperation would certainly end with hanging or the firing squad was threat enough to turn most of them into double agents for MI5 and proved highly effective in deception operations up to D Day.

Never strike a man.

It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment.

In fact in the aftermath of the atomic bombs on Japan, a US airman was tortured in to revealing that the US possessed hundreds of further devices, which we know is absolutely not the case...a bit counter productive for the Japanese

[jimmy two times]

Lozzyloz that is not applying the same logic. Plus you also intimated that my logic also advocated genocide. Dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima could be considered a war crime because a huge amount of innocent people were killed. However, it did result in the total capitulation of Japan. I would not classify torturing an enemy combatant to extract useful information as a war crime. Torture is a very effective tool. Perhaps not in it's crudest form, but psychological torture is probably the most effective. Either way it's torture.

[lozzyloz]

So where do you draw the line? Suspect terrorist is tortured. Torturer goes too far and kills them. Finds out later they were innocent. Lots of pain no gain. Acceptable?

[jimmy two times]

Casualty of war.

[lozzyloz]

So innocent victim just like those in Hiroshima. Your logic is flawed.

[Santerme]

lozzyloz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So where do you draw the line? Suspect terrorist

> is tortured. Torturer goes too far and kills them.

> Finds out later they were innocent. Lots of pain

> no gain. Acceptable?

In Iraq or AFG the net effect of this would have been to create 10 new terrorists and the certain death of another coalition soldier.

Pretty effective in my view for the insurgents.

[jimmy two times]

Lozzyloz my logic is not flawed. The bombing of Hiroshima did achieve it's ultimate end, which was the immediate surrender of Japan and an end to the loss of American life. This was the objective of the Americans. The Japanese may have surrendered eventually but many thousands of American lives would have been lost in the battles to take each island in the march to take Tokyo. As appaling as the loss of Japanese life was it was simply a case, in the eyes of the Americans, as us or them. And really this is what war boils down to. There really are no rules of engagement and it's naive to think otherwise, although I don't mean to suggest that you are naive. I think you are probably just a person with a very healthy moral compass.

[jimmy two times]

And Santerme I'm not ignoring the very good points you make. You present a very good case and seem very knowledgable, but I still truly believe many insurgents are being tortured to extract information.

[mockney piers]

Japan had made surrender overtures, America rejected them demanding unconditional surrender, dropped two bombs, Japan offered conditional surrender, America accepted.

Seems to me it was about showing everyone (well, the Russians who had ploughed through the Japanese forces on the newly opened eastern (their eastern, not Germany's obviously) front) who was the most powerful country in the world with the ultimate weapon and using a bomb that had cost billions even back then to produce, than some dubious nonsense about stopping the war early.

[mockney piers]

Oh, and torture just wrong. Just sick sadism, not only beneath us, but beneath contempt. Drug dealers are bad, but you advocate getting those who uphold the law to perform sick acts?

No, no and thrice nay.

[jimmy two times]

I reckon they'd be queuing up to be quite honest. Anyway, I have made my position clear. It is as follows:

1.Death penalty for Sadistic murderers who are done bang to rights

2. Chemical castration for Paedophiles

3. Torture to extract valuable information from terrorists

4. Corporal punishment and /or torture for hardcore drug dealers

5. All the above for Arsenal fans and cyclists who mount pavements.

[Santerme]

jimmy two times Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lozzyloz my logic is not flawed. The bombing of

> Hiroshima did achieve it's ultimate end, which was

> the immediate surrender of Japan and an end to the

> loss of American life. This was the objective of

> the Americans. The Japanese may have surrendered

> eventually but many thousands of American lives

> would have been lost in the battles to take each

> island in the march to take Tokyo. As appaling as

> the loss of Japanese life was it was simply a

> case, in the eyes of the Americans, as us or them.

> And really this is what war boils down to. There

> really are no rules of engagement and it's naive

> to think otherwise, although I don't mean to

> suggest that you are naive. I think you are

> probably just a person with a very healthy moral

> compass.

"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold

Commanding General of the U.S. Army

Air Forces Under President Truman

"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "

- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."

- Admiral William D. Leahy

Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."

- John McCloy

"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."

- President Harry S. Truman

Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

"Some of my conclusions may invoke acorn and even ridicule.

"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.

"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."

- Stewart L. Udall

US Congressman and

Author of "Myths of August"

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.

- J. Samuel Walker

Chief Historian

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[mockney piers]

Ha ha, very nice JTT.

Although on a serious point, of "I reckon they'd be queuing up to be quite honest." I agree with you thta there are probably quite a few who would be, and may even serve as a recruiting tool.

Even more reason why...blah..blah..etc, you know what I'm going to say.

[mockney piers]

and good cross post Santerme

[blah]

Ive just come back from Cambodia and did a bit of sightseeing.On the laugh a minute jaunt to the killing fields, my travelling chum stopped to extract a stone form his shoe. It turned out to be a tooth.How we laughed about it as we walked by the tree that babies had their heads were smashed against in order to save bullets

State endorsed violence is always a winner isnt it.

[lozzyloz]

Snorks, I mean blah, you had me rotfl. Try this out for pure comedy genius, but if you're looking for a real belly laugh then you can't go wrong here.

Jx2, you could be onto something.

[blah]

I have killed this this thread.

My work here is done.

[ruffers]

I can't help but think that headlines along the lines of "They flushed their heads down the toilet" evoke more Public School than Guantanemo Bay (moving on from yesterday's Ashes to Ashes comparisons..)

[????]

...followed by a "Wedgie"

[Tony.London Suburbs]

???? Wrote:

followed by a "Wedgie"

The only "Wedgie" that I would like to see tortured and have his cranium removed is Viscount "Wedgie" Benn, and we can do his Son, Hilary, at the same time.

The Show could be a Double-Headed Bill ..(tu)