Ex-CIA agent: We used torture and it worked

[AtW]

You may get some information (possibly unreliable), but at least you have 1 less terrorist to worry about.

Are you out of mind? What makes you being 100% sure that anyone tortured is actually a terrorist? The people that are tortured are not even convicted yet - they are innocent until proven guilty. Frankly if you look at Guantanomo and assume that USA put there worst of the worst, then it turns out that the USA has got nothing to charge vast majority of people there, so they are letting most of them go now because even they realised that it is totally pointless to keep those people.

A sensible thing would have been to arrest terrorist suspect, finger print/DNA check them and put this person on a list of people that never gets any visas into any decent country. If they happen to fight with firearms in Afganistan or Iraq then they should be judged by the laws of that country - those of them that don't get killed on the battlefield obviously.

--

During Cold War a lot more was at stake. The enemy (USSR) actually had hierarchy, state secrets and lots of stuff that certain people knew - this is where torture could have helped and torture was used extensively in USSR to get this information out of people, yet it did not help USSR, and lack of torture in the West did not prevent the West from winning the war.

Terrorism right now is peanuts even comparing with what is deemed "normal" loss of life from accidents, cancer, AIDS etc.

[Board Game Geek]

Are you out of mind? What makes you being 100% sure that anyone tortured is actually a terrorist? The people that are tortured are not even convicted yet

I did make references to proven terrorists Alex.

Of course I don't mean people who are locked up with no proof or pending trial.

There are situations when there is enough substantial evidence from varying sources to nail someone 100%, or they get caught in the act red-handed.

Eg, let's suppose Terrorist Bob send a letter and a picture to the Press saying he is going to assassinate a high profile target, eg, The Queen.

2 weeks later, a major incident goes off in London, Terrorist Bob waves to the CCTV camera outside Buck Palace as he unpacks his Shoulder-launched RPG and fires at Lizzie's Bedroom. Moments later, the explosion hits, Queenie dead, and 50 million coppers surround his VW Campervan and he hands himself in.

What is the point of this going to trial ? Even the Devil aint gonna be able to represent Mr Bob on this one. Let's try not to be clever and think of ways to get him off the hook in the hypothetical story above. The fact is, he's guilty beyond proof.

So why waste time and resources with the law in this case ? It's counter-productive. We all know what the result will be. Even a breeze block could work it out.

So, slap him on the chair, get whatever you can from him (it may be useful), then finish him.
****
I'm not talking about people who happened to be in the area during a security forces swoop, who may legitimately be innocent (but increadibly unlucky or stupid to be there at that time).

I'm talking about the Terrorist Bob's of this world.

I'm fully aware of the grey areas that the others who are yet to be judged may inhabit, and provision is made for them.

[AtW]

You have no clue BBG, this is because you must have lived in a decent country where tyrants or more specifically special services don't torture people at will.

In USSR torture was used to get confessions from people - in fact the legal system was changed so that such confession had sufficient weight to get conviction, very often this was capital punishment that often was implemented almost immediately after conviction, and people knew they would be shot, yet they would sign anything only to stop the pain - quick death becomes a preferable option. Needless to say that this approach (and some others) screwed up Russia big time.

And now you talk casually about torture without having a single clue what you are advocating - if the Queen dies in assassination then she will die as a head of FREE state - as much as like her Majesty, to me this is preferable to have her survive but make the state NOT FREE. Millions dies for freedom in this country in the past, and to give up all this and other principles to save a handful of people (no matter how high positioned) is a betrayal of all those who died.

---

Terrorism is overrated - people should accept that some people will inevitably die, just like they die from car accidents, cancer, etc. Some reasonable actiosn should be taken to minimise the risk, but people should focus on much bigger problems in terms of dead people - cancer for example affects far more people than terrorism.

[Board Game Geek]

Alex, I'm not talking about Russia, and I don't even know why you brought it up in the first place. Look out your window..are you in Russia ? No.

I'm talking about a scenario in the UK in which a terrorist commits an atrocity, there is no room for doubt, so it's pointless going to trial, and prior to the execution (he's going to die anyway), there may be some information that may be useful through torture. Chances are, he'll give misinformation anyway, though a skilled interrogator would be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Alex...stop bleating on about Russia. It's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Board Game Geek]

Some reasonable action should be taken to minimise the risk

What does that mean ?

A few extra "bobbies on the beat" ?

An ID card Scheme ?

I feel safer already.....

[RandyW]

Alex, I'm not talking about Russia, and I don't even know why you brought it up in the first place. Look out your window..are you in Russia ? No.

I'm talking about a scenario in the UK in which a terrorist commits an atrocity, there is no room for doubt, so it's pointless going to trial, and prior to the execution (he's going to die anyway), there may be some information that may be useful through torture. Chances are, he'll give misinformation anyway, though a skilled interrogator would be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Alex...stop bleating on about Russia. It's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

So we can torture people when we're sure they've committed a crime, but we can't when we're unsure. Who's going to decide this?

[r0bly0ns]

So we can torture people when we're sure they've committed a crime, but we can't when we're unsure. Who's going to decide this?

This Guy

[RandyW]

This Guy

Your link's broken!

[RandyW]

But I do agree with the principle of letting Beaker decide.

[r0bly0ns]

Try again