Quote:
Originally posted by Adder
The reason people say torture doesn't work is the massive risk of the false positive not concern about that false negative.
|
As my examples pointed out, people can and do get valuable information from torture. Sometimes they get bad information but they also get good information. Otherwise the Gestapo and KGB wouldn't have been so effective in using captured operatives to destroy resistance rings. In addition, if people are punished for giving out bad information it would seem to me that that would encourage them to stick with the good information.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Adder Also, it is nice to know that torture innocent people doesn't bother you, as long as they are not in uniform.
|
When did I say that?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Adder Moreover, I think you vastly over estimate the number of circumstances in which innocent lives are so imminently at stake that torture can save them.
|
Why do you say that? There is no question many plots have been foiled by information gleaned from captured operatives. As I said, the whole success of their operation depends on secrecey and their operatives keeping secrets. Their plans (like 9-11) can not work if they lose if a participant blabs. One of their biggest vulnerabilities is information gleaned from captured operatives. It seems logical to me that one of the most effective ways to fight these guys is to capture their people and to get information from them.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Adder Finally, didn't we just get done talking about drawing sweeping conclusions from anecdotal evidence?
|
What ancedotal evidence? The entire underground movement in WWII changing their tactics to prevent exposure from captured resistence fighters? The fact almost every POW in captured in Vietnam eventually broke and gave the North Vietnamese information. The fact that the KGB was able to capture and expose countless operatives by torturing their collegues? The question is: when did torture not work?
Threaded Mode