Senate report on CIA torture techniques released

Skybird · 12-10-14, 07:59 AM

This also seems to support my old argument that torture only has a chance to make sense - ignoring all moral aspects here - if the answer obtained could be immediately checked and so valsified or verified. Else the subject will tell just anything to escape the agony. If the subject knows that the truth or lie of its statements will be immediately revealed and so a lie will not mean escape from pain, the situation is a very different one immediately, an dit also immediately limits the situation where torture may provide some usefulness, assuming the severity of the issue it all is about indeed makes it morally defendable to consider torture (which like death "penalty" I consider to be as something that is in no way part of the ordinary tool kit of fighting crime and terrorism). - Report was summarised by media to conclude that there has been little or no useful information being obtained by the CIA in these sessions.

Apropos agony, somebody again questioned that certain things that5 do not leave bleeding scars on the body and see the flesh being snibbled off the bone, would be torture. Imposing agony on the body and soul (waterboarding), or pushing the subject physically beyond breaking point (sleep prevention) IS torture for sure.

As usual, I do not 100% rule out torture under every imaginable circumstance. But I recommend to mostly stay away from it. The dilemma is best described in this movie that I referred to in earlier years already, one of the Dirty Harry movies. The kidnapped girl is in a box somewhere, suffocating, the perpetrator knows where she is, and is in custody. What do you rate higher in this setting? The intererst of the villain laughing in your face while the girl dies - or the right of the girl to live and get freed, at the cost of the villain's rights being violated and pain inflicted on him to make him hand over the information?. In such a clear setting, the choice if as clear for me: victim's interests rule higher than bad guy's interests.

In Germany, there was a crime case some years ago, the kidnapping of a boy whose parents were millionaires. The criminal was caught, to me an clear case of very severe psychopathic personality structure, with zero space for any empathy for others, or emotional life. The responsible police inspector threatened to beat him if he would not tell them where he had hidden his victim. In fact, it did not go beyond the threatening. The subject was successfully intimidated and led them were the boy was held, but it was too late, he was dead. Later the man sued the police inspector over charges of threatening excessive force and even violation of human rights (his own violation of his victim's rights he never lost a word for), if I remember correctly, this bastard went as far as the European Courts. Disciplinary measure also were exceuted by th auhtorities by themselves. The inspector, as far as I remember, was sentenced (a scandal, imo) for a suspended milder penalty. Justice fled from making a clear moral statement here: on behalf of the victims, and against the criminal perpetrators.

These days everything, even good and evil, need to be balanced 50:50 and need to be seen in relation, it seems. Pfui.

12-10-14, 07:59 AM	#14
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,712 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	This also seems to support my old argument that torture only has a chance to make sense - ignoring all moral aspects here - if the answer obtained could be immediately checked and so valsified or verified. Else the subject will tell just anything to escape the agony. If the subject knows that the truth or lie of its statements will be immediately revealed and so a lie will not mean escape from pain, the situation is a very different one immediately, an dit also immediately limits the situation where torture may provide some usefulness, assuming the severity of the issue it all is about indeed makes it morally defendable to consider torture (which like death "penalty" I consider to be as something that is in no way part of the ordinary tool kit of fighting crime and terrorism). - Report was summarised by media to conclude that there has been little or no useful information being obtained by the CIA in these sessions. Apropos agony, somebody again questioned that certain things that5 do not leave bleeding scars on the body and see the flesh being snibbled off the bone, would be torture. Imposing agony on the body and soul (waterboarding), or pushing the subject physically beyond breaking point (sleep prevention) IS torture for sure. As usual, I do not 100% rule out torture under every imaginable circumstance. But I recommend to mostly stay away from it. The dilemma is best described in this movie that I referred to in earlier years already, one of the Dirty Harry movies. The kidnapped girl is in a box somewhere, suffocating, the perpetrator knows where she is, and is in custody. What do you rate higher in this setting? The intererst of the villain laughing in your face while the girl dies - or the right of the girl to live and get freed, at the cost of the villain's rights being violated and pain inflicted on him to make him hand over the information?. In such a clear setting, the choice if as clear for me: victim's interests rule higher than bad guy's interests. In Germany, there was a crime case some years ago, the kidnapping of a boy whose parents were millionaires. The criminal was caught, to me an clear case of very severe psychopathic personality structure, with zero space for any empathy for others, or emotional life. The responsible police inspector *threatened* to beat him if he would not tell them where he had hidden his victim. In fact, it did not go beyond the threatening. The subject was successfully intimidated and led them were the boy was held, but it was too late, he was dead. Later the man sued the police inspector over charges of threatening excessive force and even violation of human rights (his own violation of his victim's rights he never lost a word for), if I remember correctly, this bastard went as far as the European Courts. Disciplinary measure also were exceuted by th auhtorities by themselves. The inspector, as far as I remember, was sentenced (a scandal, imo) for a suspended milder penalty. Justice fled from making a clear moral statement here: on behalf of the victims, and against the criminal perpetrators. These days everything, even good and evil, need to be balanced 50:50 and need to be seen in relation, it seems. Pfui. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 12-10-14 at 08:13 AM.