When speaking of torture in the media, why is it preferaced with "If we could prevent a nuclear attack...?"

Question

Torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" as it is called nowadays by the military and CIA is only discussed in the media when there is an event of a nuclear attack or shown in tv shows like "24" and it is made to seem acceptable then. Why?

Answer 1

There's a story where a guy asks a girl if she'll sleep with him. She says no. He asks if she'll sleep with him for a million. She says ok. Then he asks if she'll sleep with him for $75. She says, "What do you think I am?" and he replies, "We've established what you are, now we're just dickering over the price."

If they can first establish that under extreme conditions torture might be acceptable, then they can argue that the issue isn't whether or not you accept torture, but which circumstances make it ok...if it's ok to torture to stop a nuke, then isn't torture ok to stop a smaller scale terror attack...and isn't it ok to stop other crimes against the west...and isn't it ok to stop...but wait, you've already said that's ok under some circumstances, why not these?

Answer 2

This was called sharpened interrogation by the SS - most of the SS were Dr's in particular psychiatrists Durring the sharpened interogations a Dr had to be present and so on

I will leave it to you to look it up but suce Dr supervised interogations that the world was sickened by included a lot of the same things we hear of today

The use of the word nuclear does a few things

One in introduces a lot of fear , once such a weapon is let off their is no winner and death is assured not only for the "lucky" ones near the strike but also a slow one for the unlucky a few miles away and birth defects for multiple generations as well

It also does somthing else It normalizes the word the concept and so on Keep up the threat long enough and it becomes more acceptable to do it to "them" first before they get a chance to do it to us

It is almost a knee jerk reaction of people to sooner or later say oh yeah and do whatever has been the most threatened thing back or first - Human nature is sadly predictable

At no time in history has torture gotten someone credible info It is cruel barbaric and turns a segment of our population into primitive evil animals -

It also fundementally defeats us when we become what we fight -

I want to point out that the "union of concerned scientists" wrote a pettition expressing concern that the new "mini" nuke (which is 6 times stronger than those used in Japan) had been downgraded to sae for civilian use and therefore a battlfielfd commander decision no longer the big long process and mandatory disclosure of use that one classified as a nuclear weapon was/is

Now they were concerned about use of this mini nuke against Iran the front man of scientists is from California and is named Jorge Hirsch - Good luck finding that guy on the web any more

The only existing quotes I have found are at antiwar.com with no orignal work by the scientist himself

I am not sure what if anything is to be made of that - but it follows a series of what I call "window stories"

The window opened and reported use of chemical weapons by Israel against Lebenon bodies were charred black etc

Then 20 minutes later the window closed and the subject was never mentioned again - ever -

The right will say it was a false propaganda story with no truth to it and so it died the left will see a conspiracy of media control -

One would have had to have been there to actually know and I wasn't - so I am left to guess with the rest of you why the union of concerned scientists who's front man was educated in the US and a nuclear phicisit isn't as available as he once was

Global warming -scientists also complained that there was political interfernce in a poll taken - Many said that they were pressured into removing words like global warming and so on

Should be front page news ? page 22 of some paper never repeated and long forgotten about -

Scientists who agreed with the political ideology of race were given huge grants - Those who disagreed were ruined or persuaded or left the nation or worse

Hmmm

Think tanks that agree get money Those that do not disapear or are ruined

But now that we have sharpened interogation techniques borrowed from a war 60 years ago to protect us against nuclear threats - there is no need to worry

Big brother loves you and he is watching you - Maybe that is or maybe not

Answer 3

The worst case scenario is used so it seems acceptable.
IF it could prevent the deaths of thousands.
IF it were reliable.
IF by behaving worse than the enemy we could gain something.
But since there is no way of knowing that and in truth that's not likely in the next twenty years, delivery systems for nukes being what they are, its a way to excuse state sponsored torture.
Its a way for us to get used to the idea.
A way for acceptance.
And you can see how easy we slip into it. Look at these answers, you would think that we either torture or get nuked.
Defeatocrats? Really? Its torture or we lose people? When has that happened? Isn't that just fear and not knowledge of the way terrorists work? Not one of them would have full knowledge of any such plan. Its not the way they do things.

Answer 4

It is prefaced this way in order to prepare the listener to accept the pro-torture propaganda that is to follow.

The servile and prurient U.S. media doesn't need to be controlled by the government - its owners have it parrot government propaganda all on their own!

Torture has been scientifically proven to produce questionable results in interrogation. The victim will say anything they think the torturer wants to hear in order to make it stop.

The best use of torture is not any results it gets from the victim - it's to put fear in the general population. "Look what we do to people who we think oppose us! YOU don't want us to think you oppose us, now do you?"

It's great for instilling fear in unruly people who think they have rights.

Like Americans.

By the way, for the "defeatocrat" guy? I do not support either the "Democrat" or "Republican" factions of big business. I am a socialist.

Chew on that, dittohead.

Answer 5

If it saves the lives of innocent American citizens I am for it. Altho from what I have heard the "torture" we use doesn't dismember or subject the terrorist scumbag to waves of pain.Since that is the case, the term "torture" would not be strictly correct. And Don't give me the "what if" scenario, if you have no evidence, you have no proof.

Answer 6

Gee, I don't know, maybe because a nuclear attack is a bad thing for, gosh, hundreds of thousands of people and lasts for decades, but torturing one person who has the information we need to prevent such a catastrophe is just one person--who doesn't suffer nearly as much as he would if he were in a nuclear attack. Just a thought.

Answer 7

worst case scenario i guess. but what about a school like in russia? should we not do all we can even if one life is lost to prevent major loss of life? i think yes.

Answer 8

If you could save over a million lives by breaking one guys arm, most people see as it being worth it.

Answer 9

and you prefer the defeatocrat solution??? do nothing..it figures