O'Reilly: 'It's Bull' That Torture Doesn't Work

Torture working depends on your definition of "working." If "working" means it gets "actionable intelligence" from the subject, then it rarely works. If "working" means it creates more terrorists and hardens their hearts to commit even greater acts of violence against their perceived oppressors, then it works very well. If "working" means it suits the purposes of the global fascist elite in perpetuating conflict and suffering, then it is doing a bang-up job.

Torture may, or may not, generate short term results on low level operatives. Any operator worth his keep will resist, has been highly trained to resist, interrogation. True fanatics would rather die than give up the cause. The real players, on both sides, are off limits to capture and questioning. They are, after all, ultimately on the same team.

Torture doesn't reveal useful information.

Anyone, and I do mean anyone, under torture will say whatever you want them to. It doesn't matter if they're innocent or not, innocent people will create a story in their mind to appease you, just to get the torture to stop.


Unfortunately, the administration knows this.

Why would they bother to go and capture the *real culprits* when innocent people will tell you they're guilty if you torture them enough.
The administration doesn't want to actually get the real planners, they just want to make it look like they're doing their job.

*real culprits* I refer to none only than the one pegged with the original crime. Osama bin Laden. Given todays technological prowess, the odds of not finding him by now is next to nill... in fact, I'd bet it's just about impossible not to find him if you give a determined man what he needs.

This all boils down to one simple fact. They don't want the real culprits yet. If they had them, the war would be over.
But the region isn't controlled enough for the energy/oil companies the Bush administration serves to maintain profits and control over their assets in the region.

Not to mention, one of the main investments of the administration; the defense contractors could do with a little more time to reap in a few more profit quarters.
And who on the administration would care if it caused an all out regional war? That would look pretty good in Bush and Cheneys portfolios.

(At least then we can nab them for insider trading.)

I said this once before in an earlier thread (long, long, ago...) and I got flamed fairly brutally:

Torture is not simple unless you goal is to get the person to say something you already have in mind. It isn't just about hurting someone (and in this case scaring them to near death). If you are after intelligence, torture alone is almost useless.

Torture works if you already know what you want the victim to say/ If you are unaware of the victim's knowledge, you will not receive anything resembling 'solid intelligence' UNLESS you do it over and over, for extended periods, so you can refine and 'verify' the source's worth.

This means that if you have a hapless prisoner - you are going to submit him to suffering, repeatedly, until you are convinced he is inconsequential. Pretty - honorable, huh?

There are those who think it's worth it, some who don't. Time, I suppose will tell.

Torture, I believe becomes regrettably necessary when it's a question of disrupting something imminent. In other words, if it is necessary for expedience born of 'known' probabilities. If the scenario is reasonable, the torture, such as water-boarding, can be justified and relatively quick (though it will not seem so to the unfortunate victim).

But this nonsense about torturing someone who has been out of the so-called 'terrorist' circle for years is just fishing. Anything they could provide of a 'life saving nature' has long since 'expired.' If it takes that long to 'save lives' I'm afraid it doesn't inspire much confidence.

Pharmaceutical psychiatry has provided tools however, that are nearly always successful to some degree, at least thus far as reported by researchers and some medical sources. This would involve no less resolve to apply, but I fail to hear of it being used for some reason. I can't believe they wouldn't do this; it is certainly not any more morally objectionable than physical torture..., it doesn't apply to 'quick' info extraction, but for these 'long term' cases what's the difference, outside the sadistic voyeurism, and the lowest-common-denominator 'Serves 'em right!' angle?

reply to post by Souljah
I suppose the difference for me is that I seek to embrace my animalistic nature along with the spirtual and accept my part in the universal gestalt.

This does not mean that I surrender to my theoretical reptilian roots or my theoretical spiritual creation. Nor does it mean that I agree with using force, a denial of liberty, or torture of any fellow human. It just means that I accept the evidence I have personally witnessed.

Anything further is a philosophical/political discourse that is meaningless without first accepting what is real to my universe.

reply to post by kerontehe

I understand what you are trying to say. But if we agree, that torture works - then we can also say that lying works too. And stealing. And killing. Because it is not very far away from these actions. And then the entire pandora box opens up and we can say for almost any negative form of human behaviour that works. Genocide works too then - soon you have ethnicly clean land. The problem here is, that we use a form of violence, with a gentle thought that it is for a noble moral cause. Then again, we can say that for almost anything.

Originally posted by kerontehe
I guess you have never watched a cat "play" a mouse to death, sometimes for hours.

In the Natural World & according to the Laws of Nature, such "torture" does have a legitimate purpose: The cat is also sharpening its reflexes & honing skills required for the purpose of hunting prey for its own survival (even if the cat doesn't immediately eat the mouse afterwards). This purpose cannot hold valid for a human torturer & his victim: The torturer does not "hunt" his victim (the victim already being restrained & helpless when brought to torture) & the survival of the torturer does not depend on whether he actually hones his skill for torture.
The point here is that humanity was evolved or created (whichever way you want to call it) under the auspice of the Natural World & the Natural Laws that apply to everything within it...Humanity is the only species that tries so hard to "break out" from those Laws & creates his own suffering because of it. Torture (especially if personal survival is not a factor when putting torture to use) is one of those practices that proves that we are not above Nature & all of that "law-breaking" will come back to haunt us...Sooner or later.

Originally posted by Karlhungis
The thing is, what is the administration looking for with their torture? They want confessions out of everyone. They are getting it. They don't care about civil rights. They are getting what they want. Weather it is someone confessing to being Al Qeada or if it is giving up legit intel. They have the resources to follow up on the false leads and the real ones. All the while, pissing on the constitution, the geneva convention and our world image.

And this is exactly why torture should not be allowed, under any circumstances whatsoever. It was recognized as ethically unreliable & morally reprehensible, & those nations that signed the Geneva Convention made a binding agreement not to do it. Any action that contradicts such an agreement is admitting that we are not civilized & we backslide into ancient barbarity. As a unique species on Earth, we cannot advance civilization if we ourselves cannot remain civilized.

National Defense is just that: Self Defense on the level of a Nation & its People...Any other actual practice conducted by a nation is nothing less than straying away from the concept of National Defense itself.
How does torturing a captive for information on one day help a soldier guarding a national border to shoot dead an enemy soldier who's trying to invade on another day?

Originally posted by Souljah
But I also think that most cases of torture, which have occured around the world in past centuries were not even near that noble moral reason to allow torture.

There is nothing "noble" or "moral" about intentionally continuing the same barbarism that has been with our species since its very beginnings...It is nothing but an intellectual rationalization to justify the practice of sadism. If you think hard enough about anything, including total human genocide, you can eventually justify anything regardless of ethics or morality. The Geneva Convention recognized this and so also did the nations that signed it and (more importantly) abide by it.

In my "opinion" the only reason this administration has used torcher and treated detainese worst than animals is for fear. Muslims don't fear death, soooooooooooo let's try torture GUD ONE

O'Rielly is just so full of HIMSELF he's pathetic.

Original Article

CLINTON: But if you actually talked to the people who were in the rooms with these guys, what they will tell me is that you do not get the high quality…

O’REILLY: That’s bull. It’s just bull. Michael Scheuer, who was the head of the bin Laden unit, sat there and said we broke these guys by waterboarding. It’s bull.

Who really cares what what O'Rielly thinks?

Is he an EXPERT on torture and know the statistics on how much "useful" information actually is given when these sort of TORTURE methods are used?

NO!

Does he care about the statistics?

NO!

He's using as his "evidence" what one person told him! Pretty impressive stuff there O'Reilly! You reallly hit the ball out of the park with THAT evidence! What a come back!

Michael Scheuer told him, "we broke these guys by waterboarding".

He uses this as PROOF that torture produces good, useful information!

Just because you "break" somebody doesn't mean it's going to produce good useful information!

He chooses to ignore people who could actually be called EXPERTS on torture, or at the very least, know what they are talking about!

People like FBI Director Robert Mueller, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Gen. David Petraeus, they all believe torture doesn't produce good useful information and does more harm than good.

O'Reilly is a bullheaded ignorant man because once he believes something, he refuses to listen to anything contrary to that belief, even if the evidence to the contrary to what he believes is overwhelming, he chooses to ignore it! There's no changing his mind, he's bullheaded!

You'd have to torture HIM to get him to get him to change what he believes. (HEY, there's an idea!)

That's just the way he is!

People should REALLY just stop going on his show to be interviewed! Who wants to be interviewed or debate with a bullheaded ignorant man?


[edit on 5/4/2008 by Keyhole]

"I fear you speak upon the rack,
Where men enforced do speak anything."
- Shakespeare

Like others have said, torture is ineffective. It only emboldens the enemy and damages our reputation. Torture is one of the few universally condemned practices across civilization. And yes, waterboarding is torture. Don't believe me? Ask the Japanese soldiers who were convicted of war crimes and executed for waterboarding Americans during World War II.

A common misconception, fostered by the media after Abu Ghraib, is that torture occurs only in isolated instances and is carried out by random disgruntled soldiers. The reality is that torture is a staple of clandestine military policy condoned and encouraged at the highest levels of power. Comprehensive war crimes tribunals for American military and political leaders are perhaps the only thing left at this point that could take us off the road to tyranny. But they're a long, long shot.

Originally posted by jpm1602
Chad, I'll work on getting Emeril in that day doing italian delicassies with plenty to go around. Maybe O will even give out free cars. The possibilities.

haha I would love to see that happen. Bill O'Reilly truly deserves to be taken out by you & Emeril.

Bill O'Reilly & his associates have been claiming that Mark Cuban is a bad person for producing a movie about soldiers, who were torturing, raping, and murdering innocent folks:

Bill O'Reilly Attacks Mark Cuban Day 2


[edit on 4-5-2008 by ChadAndrewATS]

reply to post by Keyhole


I know what you mean. Bill O'Reilly is definitely bullheaded. When he's has discussions with guests, who he is paid to interview and/or debate, he usually turns those discussions into battles:

Bill O'Reilly vs Donahue

O'reilly and donahue battle it out on national television and talk about that dumb chick cindy sheehan.O reilly wins!

Jeremy Glick vs. Bill Oreilly (Historical Context)

While I don't agree with Jeremy on certain issues, I felt that Oreilly treated his position very unfairly by invoking hateful emotion and guilt by association.

BILL OREILLY *OWNED* BY U.S. IRAQ WAR VET


˚ Bill O'Reilly Gets Owned By Kid
˚ Michael Moore vs. Bill O'Reilly Pt. 1of 2
˚ Michael Moore vs. Bill O'Reilly Pt. 2of 2

[edit on 4-5-2008 by ChadAndrewATS]

I worked with a mate who was a marine medic. He did some hops on his tours. He told me of a Honduran priest during the contra times that was to get some info out of a drug lord pawn. It started with hammering the subjects nutsack to a wooden chair, just to get his attention.
If I was on g salary I'd believe I'd find other ways to garner recon.
The inhumanity we as a species can deliver to one another is disturbing at best and killing of every last shread of decency we know.

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
He's got a point.
Torture does work.
Sad but true.

Absolutely. Torture clearly works. I think some of the Al Quaeda held in Guantanamo actually admitted to killing Abraham Lincoln, one of them admitted to being Mrs. O' Leary's cow, and a few more have testified(under torture) to being the masterminds of the UFO phenomenon. [/sarcasm

The point is, under torture, anyone will say anything possible to make the torture stop. Read some of the stories of the Hanoi Hilton prisoners. Torture does not, nor has it ever worked to produce reliable, accurate information.

Curious what waterboarding looks like?


Video

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Jadette]

Lets torture him and find out if he's right.

reply to post by jpm1602

That's horrible. I'm so sad to read that story. Many warmongers are supporting terrible things like that, on a daily basis.

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
He's got a point.
Torture does work.
Sad but true.

Yeah, it really helped us find out who was a witch and who wasn't.

Those pesky witches. Waterboard them all. /sarcasm

HERETIC!!!

RECANT HERETIC AND EMBRACE THE TRUE RELIGION!!!

Yeah, that really worked for torquemada and his mates.

I suppose that why we have all these non-catholic denominations now...

And boy - that cleansing by fire must have been a sure winner...

Anyone read Bravo 2 Zero?

The much more brutal torture didn't work too well there either - the iraqi's who conducted the torture always thought they were dealing with a forward observation platoon, rather than the SAS (if you believe McNabs version)

In other words the mentality was this:
"We have tortured them, they must be telling the truth"

Wrong again.

With the right amount of waterboarding, stress positions for extended periods, sleep deprivation, electrical stimulation of the genitals and drugs, I'm sure we could even get Mr. O'Reilly to admit to being Dick Cheney's lover AND that he was the shooter on the grassy Knoll

The right amount of torture will almost always get the required results. Namely, the confession to the charges laid by the torturer. anything in fact to make the pain and torment stop.

I keep having a recurring fantasy about having enough money to organize and hire professional private agents with great experience to kidnap and detain certain people, like the scum O'Reilly. Imagine taking them to a location and question and shown the error of their ways. I am not talking about physically doing anything...they would be released unharmed later.

I am talking about giving them some education, some guidance and some warnings. Allow them to face questions they now ignore and be forced to answer them without any ' spin'. If a liar and shill like the nasty O'Reilly was given the same treatment he wishes on others, he would change fast. Perhaps showing video's would be enough...perhaps more would be needed depending on the case. Most os the scum that wopuld be targeted now would get a real wake up call and the rest of their types would resign, change their ways, or try and hire enough security to insure that they too were not grabbed and ' educated ' before returning to the airwaves with their garbage.

I know, it will never happen...but I can dream, can't I? I think that oif certain key senators and others were sat down and forced to listen and answer questions about 9-11, we would get some action later from them...many never see the facts we all know here.And in some really hard cases, like the Dov Zakhiems and others, it might take more direct ways of insuring their change of heart...Cheney is the type that would not qualify: His heart is so black and evil that nothing short of a rope will ever allow the world to breath easy while he exists. No use trying to change a truly evil man...they love their evil, like Cheney does.

Anyway, even though this cannot happen, I wish that something could shake these people up and get them to see the danger we are in...right now, from the cabal. The scum like O'Reilly make a fortune lying and denying the truth, and they are dishonest and corrupt...Bill is especially seedy and sexist, a foul mouthed bully that is actually a sissy: He has the Fox security do all his dirty work while he runs from resort to resort playing golf and doing God knows what...a real loser.