CDZ Would you support enhanced interrogation if:

[Dan Stubbs]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree

torture is known to give false information, sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase, the terrorist wants to die and be a martyr...

better to use proven techniques of interrogation questioning and get boots on the ground doing gumshoe work to find it...

Well, he would not want me to have to question him the second time. I would bet he would talk straight second time.

 

[Coyote]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

Facts are we are dealing with people who cutting off your head and dragging your body around the streets is
"fun" . So think it over and giving me a alternative method of getting real time information from the subject.

Fact is...in real life, torture seldom works. Are you saying there is no alternative?

 

[Coyote]

By the way, I resent your implication that partisan politics plays a role in how "cool" I am about a scenario. You and I have argued torture sevetal times over the years, as I have with othets long before Trump. My position has always been the same and it is grounded in my sense of right and wrong, not political expediancy. Torture is wrong, and no matter how you try to make it "clean" and copacetik it is still torture. Once you start to rationale its use in one scenario it becones eadier to rationalize it in others. That is the difference between theoretical and real life.

It's just inevitable . Just as the finger about bin Laden and 9/11 blame was super-charged by politics. And I have no reason to believe that it wouldn't be political in the NEXT mega-disaster. Do YOU??

Under the polarized 2 party system with inherent unstable finger pointing --- it's just a sad fact of life about our dysfunctional country..

Well it hasnothing todowith howI feel about torture.

 

[Faun]

That's a matter of trust. Anti terrorism folks aren't stupid. THere had to be a viable connection or the person wouldn't be that IMPORTANT to the frantic investigation. It's not like they fooled a FISA court into spying on an opposition political campaign and are just fishing. There's no time to waste.

If you don't TRUST their judgement under those exceptional circumstances -- FIRE them all. Don't hamstring them with "ideals" that can end up killing Thousands and/or killing a city for a 1000 years.

Under conditions such as those, no amount of effort is wasted on "maybe" leads.

The problem is lots of innocent people got swept up and tortured based on weak or faulty information. It is easy to talk about theoretical but it doesnt work that way in practice. There is little to no oversight and transparency.

You don't TRUST these people -- FIRE their asses. I just told you under these circumstances there's no time to WASTE. Actually not any time to sweep either really. This is a case where there is a KNOWN imminent danger and a SMALL LIST of potential targets.

You'd be cool with losing Chicago to a radioactive bomb for 500 or 1000 yrs and killing thousands? EVEN IF in the long run -- one of conspirators WAS FOUND to be in custody and questioned?

I don't think so. Need an answer. And for the WORSE CASE scenario -- all this neglect happened under Trump or some other leader you've been opposing for years. You cool with that? Shooting them at a court martial AFTER the event is FINE with you?

I am not cool with any of it. It is a situation with no correct ethical answer. You choose one and I choose another. It is like my asking you if you are ok or cool with dozens or even hundreds of "suspects" grabbed up in a panic being tortured or killed trying to extract info they may or may not have.

Are you cool with that?

None of these interrogation techniques are intended to cause physical damage. They are designed to SPEED up the interrogation process.

Would be less "cool" with it if it happened under an Admin that you despised? I'm pretty sure you would be. The 2nd guessing would be EPIC and pounded by the dissident media. Just like the blame for 9/11 and bin Laden was.

The idea of "sweeps" is patently faulty on it's face. It's a sign of desperation and retaliation. And it not gonna stop any situation as was proposed in the OP. Waste of time and largely a sign of incompetent flailing instead of targeted investigation.

I'm certain that in the OP scenario this person would have been caught with either hard physical evidence, such as providing components, funding, transportation of items intimately related to the suspected plot.

I dont care what administration it happens under, that doesnt change anything.

The OP scenario is theoretical. It is never thar clearcut in reality. Just look at what happened in Abu Ghraib and the various black sites where we outsourced torture. And innocent people were tortured and little useful info gained. That is the reality of this theoretical game.

The whole purpose of this exercise is to justify torture since the follow up to someone saying, torture the suspect, is to narrow down the threat.

In other words, once you agree a person should be tortured for information leading to discover the location of a nuclear bomb, that begs the question ... ok, what about if it's a conventional bomb planted in a large skyscraper in NYC? Then, what if it's a pipe bomb in crowded area? Then, what if it's just to prevent a mass shooting... then what if it's just to save one life, but that life is your own child's?

Once you get to that point, there is no longer any valid excuse to prohibit torture anywhere at anytime for any reason, if the excuse is to save even one life, even of no one's life is in imminent danger.

And the whole reason this discussion is happening right now on multiple threads across multiple forums is to justify Trump's position of allowing torture as he names a new CIA director who was was involved committing torture following 9.11.

This thread is the result of rightwingnuts getting their marching orders.

 

[Coyote]

How about this addendum to the OP. You have the same scenario except: your advisors tell you there are two ways of trying to get information out of a suspect. You can feed him jello shots until he is drunk and he might spill the beans or you could torture him and he might break. You only have time for one. Which would you choose and why?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

The hell we aren't. We shot prisoners during the war, yes all of them. in all of the wars. There are Progressive Panpers that live in the shadow of what many fought for and died for. Gutless to the core. Their are many who just have not seen or experienced the horrors of war and battle. I think in the future you are going to experience the oppressive movement who controls your life in ways that you can not imagine.

 

[Pop23]

Let me know when you subject yourself to water boarding at the hands of an enemy captor and you have no idea whether they will kill you or not.

It is ironic that, according to one of your quotes, what makes waterboarding “not torture” is defined by who the victim is, not the act. That is seriously warped.

10s of thousands of our military are water-boarded in survival training. It's actually a mental stressor and not likely to cause permanent physical damage.

Waterboarding: A SERE-ing Experience for Tens of Thousands of US Military Personnel | Human Events


On the OP scenario ---

I would have to TRY to break the suspect in order to protect 100s of thousands or millions of lives. Sorry, but when the dirty bomb explodes and radioactively contaminates downtown Chicago for the next 1000 years, I'm gonna regret living if I didn't push for information. I don't know how anybody could live with the guilt of not trying.

There ARE possible scenarios where you need to push for ANY leads. Good, bad or indifferent.

And --- the media and the public will SKEWER the people in charge if it's known they had a conspirator in custody and DID NOT attempt to save those lives and the 1000 years of radioactive Chicago..

What this all comes down to is INTENT and the backlash from the RESULTS.

If the intent of the Torture was to simply inflict incredible pain to someone you have hatred for, then yes, it is simply barbaric.

But, in the scenario of saving life at any and all cost, although still barbarism, it is a case of need and not wanton blood lust. To an absolutist there is not difference, but reality is far different.

The difference is the failure of legal interrogation tactics on a person known to have information that, if given, can save thousands, if not millions of life's.

The faux outrage by some on this thread reminds me of the story of the town drunk who showed up at his usual bar dressed in a fine suit and with a new haircut. He orders Martinis instead of beer and proceeds to get drunk. The bartender asks him "what's up with the suit and Martini's" and the drunk responds that he's running for Congress because it's not what's inside me that matters, it's what you look like on the outside.

I wrote about this on another thread. There would be two results should the United States Government approved this in this specific scenario:

First. The torture (and I will not shy away from the use of the word) gets the desired results and the bomb is found and disarmed.

The news would be filled with stories of just how many life's were saved. Stories of those that would have perished, the single Mother, the Teacher about to retire, the retired, the sick, the poor, the Democrats, the Republicans, Young Married couple with their child. There would be 24/7 coverage of the economic damage the blast would have created and the recession/depression it would have caused, and the administration and those that applied the torture would be applauded as hero's, not only here, but in the entire civilized world as the world wakes up to the now real possibility that this could soon happen to them as well.

Those that opposed the use of torture to accomplish the resulting savings of life would be ridiculed. They would not dare show their face or voice their opinions in fear of looking the fool.

Second: The torture fails and the bomb goes off killing many thousands of people, maybe millions. The economy goes into a tailspin. War is declared on each and every nation known to harbor these terrorist groups, not only by the United States, but by every nation that could fall victim by the same act by those groups. The world becomes a very chaotic place in the matter of days.

What was done to the individual that had the information, but refused to supply it, becomes unimportant as the world try's to come to grip with what happened and tries to restore some semblance of order.

Again, those that oppose the use of torture would not dare to open their mouths as thousands of their fellow countrymen are being put to rest, and thousands more, maybe millions more are being treated and are dying from the fallout that later occurred. The people would be far more interested in where their next meal was going to come from, what was happening with the economy and watching their Sons and Daughters go off to War to seek justice for what just happened.

The dude that was tortured, and the approval of such would lay at roughly 15,000 on the list of concerns that the American people would have at that point and for decades in the future.

If all that is important to you is the appearance of being decent, while those around you die, then those that would oppose the use of torture as a last resort, are no different than the drunk in the bar that I referenced earlier and just as shallow in thought.

So how many potentially innocent people do you subject to torture until you realize it isnt working? What do yo tell those people, too bad, our intelligence was faulty?

Far fewer than die if I don't

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

If mild interrogation sometimes fails, and you move on to moderate interrogation that sometimes works, but often fails, then you move on to heightened interrogation, which sometimes works, but often fails, then the logical extension is, the greater the discomfort, the greater the chance of success. But I agree, it's all speculation on an individual basis.

So let's look at something that is not based on speculation:

The bomb explodes killing hundreds of thousands and making millions ill from it's effects and sending the economy into a tale spin.

You are asked to address the families of the dead. You have two choices, you make one of two honest statements:

"We are extremely sorry for your loss and let me assure you we did everything possible to gain the information from the individual that could have stopped this, including torture, and we failed in the attempt."

or

"We are extremely sorry for your loss and let me assure you we did everything possible to gain the information, short of torturing the man, and we failed in the attempt.

Which statement do you feel most comfortable making?

Which statement do you think the families of the dead would appreciate the most?

 

[Pop23]

How about this addendum to the OP. You have the same scenario except: your advisors tell you there are two ways of trying to get information out of a suspect. You can feed him jello shots until he is drunk and he might spill the beans or you could torture him and he might break. You only have time for one. Which would you choose and why?

I'm a bit biased cuz I do enjoy me a good jello shot now and again!

That being said, obviously the jello option is the best, but even though, what makes you think that the information given while drunk would actually be truthful?

And not being an absolutest, and having a little experience in interrogation, I would add that, I good interrogator can tell when someone is about to break. If the jello fails, and the interrogator, with his experience can tell that, he needs to have the option to move beyond that to more intense methods.

 

[flacaltenn]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

Facts are we are dealing with people who cutting off your head and dragging your body around the streets is
"fun" . So think it over and giving me a alternative method of getting real time information from the subject.

Fact is...in real life, torture seldom works. Are you saying there is no alternative?

That's simply not true. Or the military wouldn't prep airmen and those likely to be captured for that eventuality..

There's ample evidence on both sides in waterboarding and such and you will NEVER get a straight answer out of the Intel "spook" groups. Never ask a CIA or DNI their opinion on ANYTHING -- they are likely lying on purpose.

 

[Pop23]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

Facts are we are dealing with people who cutting off your head and dragging your body around the streets is
"fun" . So think it over and giving me a alternative method of getting real time information from the subject.

Fact is...in real life, torture seldom works. Are you saying there is no alternative?

THANK YOU! SELDOM IS NOWHERE NEAR NEVER!

As a last resort, using something that seldom works is light years better than doing nothing!

We agree!

 

[rightwinger]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

That’s the usual BS example. It hasn’t happened. And torture just makes people lie to make the pain stop.

It also violates international law, not that laws matter to you

Torture is unconstitutional per the 8th amendment

And the constitutional rights of those that die in the blast are to be ignored?

I get your drift, but it's insane.

Our Constitution still rules

Simple statement from a simple fool. Your rights end at my nose, remember that doozy.

My rights end at the US Constitution

 

[Faun]

10s of thousands of our military are water-boarded in survival training. It's actually a mental stressor and not likely to cause permanent physical damage.

Waterboarding: A SERE-ing Experience for Tens of Thousands of US Military Personnel | Human Events


On the OP scenario ---

I would have to TRY to break the suspect in order to protect 100s of thousands or millions of lives. Sorry, but when the dirty bomb explodes and radioactively contaminates downtown Chicago for the next 1000 years, I'm gonna regret living if I didn't push for information. I don't know how anybody could live with the guilt of not trying.

There ARE possible scenarios where you need to push for ANY leads. Good, bad or indifferent.

And --- the media and the public will SKEWER the people in charge if it's known they had a conspirator in custody and DID NOT attempt to save those lives and the 1000 years of radioactive Chicago..

What this all comes down to is INTENT and the backlash from the RESULTS.

If the intent of the Torture was to simply inflict incredible pain to someone you have hatred for, then yes, it is simply barbaric.

But, in the scenario of saving life at any and all cost, although still barbarism, it is a case of need and not wanton blood lust. To an absolutist there is not difference, but reality is far different.

The difference is the failure of legal interrogation tactics on a person known to have information that, if given, can save thousands, if not millions of life's.

The faux outrage by some on this thread reminds me of the story of the town drunk who showed up at his usual bar dressed in a fine suit and with a new haircut. He orders Martinis instead of beer and proceeds to get drunk. The bartender asks him "what's up with the suit and Martini's" and the drunk responds that he's running for Congress because it's not what's inside me that matters, it's what you look like on the outside.

I wrote about this on another thread. There would be two results should the United States Government approved this in this specific scenario:

First. The torture (and I will not shy away from the use of the word) gets the desired results and the bomb is found and disarmed.

The news would be filled with stories of just how many life's were saved. Stories of those that would have perished, the single Mother, the Teacher about to retire, the retired, the sick, the poor, the Democrats, the Republicans, Young Married couple with their child. There would be 24/7 coverage of the economic damage the blast would have created and the recession/depression it would have caused, and the administration and those that applied the torture would be applauded as hero's, not only here, but in the entire civilized world as the world wakes up to the now real possibility that this could soon happen to them as well.

Those that opposed the use of torture to accomplish the resulting savings of life would be ridiculed. They would not dare show their face or voice their opinions in fear of looking the fool.

Second: The torture fails and the bomb goes off killing many thousands of people, maybe millions. The economy goes into a tailspin. War is declared on each and every nation known to harbor these terrorist groups, not only by the United States, but by every nation that could fall victim by the same act by those groups. The world becomes a very chaotic place in the matter of days.

What was done to the individual that had the information, but refused to supply it, becomes unimportant as the world try's to come to grip with what happened and tries to restore some semblance of order.

Again, those that oppose the use of torture would not dare to open their mouths as thousands of their fellow countrymen are being put to rest, and thousands more, maybe millions more are being treated and are dying from the fallout that later occurred. The people would be far more interested in where their next meal was going to come from, what was happening with the economy and watching their Sons and Daughters go off to War to seek justice for what just happened.

The dude that was tortured, and the approval of such would lay at roughly 15,000 on the list of concerns that the American people would have at that point and for decades in the future.

If all that is important to you is the appearance of being decent, while those around you die, then those that would oppose the use of torture as a last resort, are no different than the drunk in the bar that I referenced earlier and just as shallow in thought.

So how many potentially innocent people do you subject to torture until you realize it isnt working? What do yo tell those people, too bad, our intelligence was faulty?

Far fewer than die if I don't

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

 

[Pop23]

That’s the usual BS example. It hasn’t happened. And torture just makes people lie to make the pain stop.

It also violates international law, not that laws matter to you

Torture is unconstitutional per the 8th amendment

And the constitutional rights of those that die in the blast are to be ignored?

I get your drift, but it's insane.

Our Constitution still rules

Simple statement from a simple fool. Your rights end at my nose, remember that doozy.

My rights end at the US Constitution

Try using that in a smoking ban thread

 

[Pop23]

What this all comes down to is INTENT and the backlash from the RESULTS.

If the intent of the Torture was to simply inflict incredible pain to someone you have hatred for, then yes, it is simply barbaric.

But, in the scenario of saving life at any and all cost, although still barbarism, it is a case of need and not wanton blood lust. To an absolutist there is not difference, but reality is far different.

The difference is the failure of legal interrogation tactics on a person known to have information that, if given, can save thousands, if not millions of life's.

The faux outrage by some on this thread reminds me of the story of the town drunk who showed up at his usual bar dressed in a fine suit and with a new haircut. He orders Martinis instead of beer and proceeds to get drunk. The bartender asks him "what's up with the suit and Martini's" and the drunk responds that he's running for Congress because it's not what's inside me that matters, it's what you look like on the outside.

I wrote about this on another thread. There would be two results should the United States Government approved this in this specific scenario:

First. The torture (and I will not shy away from the use of the word) gets the desired results and the bomb is found and disarmed.

The news would be filled with stories of just how many life's were saved. Stories of those that would have perished, the single Mother, the Teacher about to retire, the retired, the sick, the poor, the Democrats, the Republicans, Young Married couple with their child. There would be 24/7 coverage of the economic damage the blast would have created and the recession/depression it would have caused, and the administration and those that applied the torture would be applauded as hero's, not only here, but in the entire civilized world as the world wakes up to the now real possibility that this could soon happen to them as well.

Those that opposed the use of torture to accomplish the resulting savings of life would be ridiculed. They would not dare show their face or voice their opinions in fear of looking the fool.

Second: The torture fails and the bomb goes off killing many thousands of people, maybe millions. The economy goes into a tailspin. War is declared on each and every nation known to harbor these terrorist groups, not only by the United States, but by every nation that could fall victim by the same act by those groups. The world becomes a very chaotic place in the matter of days.

What was done to the individual that had the information, but refused to supply it, becomes unimportant as the world try's to come to grip with what happened and tries to restore some semblance of order.

Again, those that oppose the use of torture would not dare to open their mouths as thousands of their fellow countrymen are being put to rest, and thousands more, maybe millions more are being treated and are dying from the fallout that later occurred. The people would be far more interested in where their next meal was going to come from, what was happening with the economy and watching their Sons and Daughters go off to War to seek justice for what just happened.

The dude that was tortured, and the approval of such would lay at roughly 15,000 on the list of concerns that the American people would have at that point and for decades in the future.

If all that is important to you is the appearance of being decent, while those around you die, then those that would oppose the use of torture as a last resort, are no different than the drunk in the bar that I referenced earlier and just as shallow in thought.

So how many potentially innocent people do you subject to torture until you realize it isnt working? What do yo tell those people, too bad, our intelligence was faulty?

Far fewer than die if I don't

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

I've never implied that other methods would not work. I don't know where you get your ideas sometimes, or that those methods should not be tried first, but what I have argued is, that torture be used when all else fails, especially when millions of life's might be at stake.

So leave now and go get a life.

 

[flacaltenn]

What this all comes down to is INTENT and the backlash from the RESULTS.

If the intent of the Torture was to simply inflict incredible pain to someone you have hatred for, then yes, it is simply barbaric.

But, in the scenario of saving life at any and all cost, although still barbarism, it is a case of need and not wanton blood lust. To an absolutist there is not difference, but reality is far different.

The difference is the failure of legal interrogation tactics on a person known to have information that, if given, can save thousands, if not millions of life's.

The faux outrage by some on this thread reminds me of the story of the town drunk who showed up at his usual bar dressed in a fine suit and with a new haircut. He orders Martinis instead of beer and proceeds to get drunk. The bartender asks him "what's up with the suit and Martini's" and the drunk responds that he's running for Congress because it's not what's inside me that matters, it's what you look like on the outside.

I wrote about this on another thread. There would be two results should the United States Government approved this in this specific scenario:

First. The torture (and I will not shy away from the use of the word) gets the desired results and the bomb is found and disarmed.

The news would be filled with stories of just how many life's were saved. Stories of those that would have perished, the single Mother, the Teacher about to retire, the retired, the sick, the poor, the Democrats, the Republicans, Young Married couple with their child. There would be 24/7 coverage of the economic damage the blast would have created and the recession/depression it would have caused, and the administration and those that applied the torture would be applauded as hero's, not only here, but in the entire civilized world as the world wakes up to the now real possibility that this could soon happen to them as well.

Those that opposed the use of torture to accomplish the resulting savings of life would be ridiculed. They would not dare show their face or voice their opinions in fear of looking the fool.

Second: The torture fails and the bomb goes off killing many thousands of people, maybe millions. The economy goes into a tailspin. War is declared on each and every nation known to harbor these terrorist groups, not only by the United States, but by every nation that could fall victim by the same act by those groups. The world becomes a very chaotic place in the matter of days.

What was done to the individual that had the information, but refused to supply it, becomes unimportant as the world try's to come to grip with what happened and tries to restore some semblance of order.

Again, those that oppose the use of torture would not dare to open their mouths as thousands of their fellow countrymen are being put to rest, and thousands more, maybe millions more are being treated and are dying from the fallout that later occurred. The people would be far more interested in where their next meal was going to come from, what was happening with the economy and watching their Sons and Daughters go off to War to seek justice for what just happened.

The dude that was tortured, and the approval of such would lay at roughly 15,000 on the list of concerns that the American people would have at that point and for decades in the future.

If all that is important to you is the appearance of being decent, while those around you die, then those that would oppose the use of torture as a last resort, are no different than the drunk in the bar that I referenced earlier and just as shallow in thought.

So how many potentially innocent people do you subject to torture until you realize it isnt working? What do yo tell those people, too bad, our intelligence was faulty?

Far fewer than die if I don't

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

So when you have maybe 12 or 36 hours to interrogate somebody and you TRULY believe there is a WMD targeted for Chicago --- is "maybe" not good enough for you?

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- this is EXACTLY why the Patriot Act -- that everyone seems to LOVE added "extended detention" as one of the tools. It's taking someone into a cell without counsel or outside contact for a couple days to work them over for information. So don't PRETEND to be all ethical and legal if you are one of those who think the Patriotic Act is just fine.

That Constitutional abomination is in the process of destroying our political system right now because we could not TRUST leadership NOT to abuse it.

 

[Faun]

So how many potentially innocent people do you subject to torture until you realize it isnt working? What do yo tell those people, too bad, our intelligence was faulty?

Far fewer than die if I don't

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

I've never implied that other methods would not work. I don't know where you get your ideas sometimes, or that those methods should not be tried first, but what I have argued is, that torture be used when all else fails, especially when millions of life's might be at stake.

So leave now and go get a life.

You implied torture is the best method, which it what I took issue with. Who knows what I said to make you think otherwise? But you actually did assert....

Far fewer than die if I don't [torture]

There is absolutely no way to accurately assert that. There is no data, no study, no proof that is necessarily true, to assert that with any amount of certainty. And in fact, it could cost more lives than it saves.

That is what I'm saying. You are responsible for any other meaning you concocted from that.

 

[Pop23]

Far fewer than die if I don't

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

I've never implied that other methods would not work. I don't know where you get your ideas sometimes, or that those methods should not be tried first, but what I have argued is, that torture be used when all else fails, especially when millions of life's might be at stake.

So leave now and go get a life.

You implied torture is the best method, which it what I took issue with. Who knows what I said to make you think otherwise? But you actually did assert....

Far fewer than die if I don't [torture]

There is absolutely no way to assert that. There is no data, no study, proof that is necessarily true.

That is what I'm saying. You are responsible for any other meaning you concocted from that.

Take it out of context and you can make it whatever you want. But we know better.

My entire argument is, has been, and will be that, with time running out, a prisoner that appears to be resistant to the normal methods, that accelerating it beyond the norm is only logical.

 

[Faun]

So how many potentially innocent people do you subject to torture until you realize it isnt working? What do yo tell those people, too bad, our intelligence was faulty?

Far fewer than die if I don't

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

So when you have maybe 12 or 36 hours to interrogate somebody and you TRULY believe there is a WMD targeted for Chicago --- is "maybe" not good enough for you?

Maybe ... a mind-reading machine would be more effective
Maybe ... begging would be more effective
Maybe ... befriending would be more effective
Maybe ... bribing would be more effective
Maybe ... cajoling would be more effective
Maybe ... drugging would be more effective
Maybe ... reasoning would be more effective
Maybe ... torture would be more effective

Why use torture?

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

I've never implied that other methods would not work. I don't know where you get your ideas sometimes, or that those methods should not be tried first, but what I have argued is, that torture be used when all else fails, especially when millions of life's might be at stake.

So leave now and go get a life.

You implied torture is the best method, which it what I took issue with. Who knows what I said to make you think otherwise? But you actually did assert....

Far fewer than die if I don't [torture]

There is absolutely no way to assert that. There is no data, no study, proof that is necessarily true.

That is what I'm saying. You are responsible for any other meaning you concocted from that.

Take it out of context and you can make it whatever you want. But we know better.

My entire argument is, has been, and will be that, with time running out, a prisoner that appears to be resistant to the normal methods, that accelerating it beyond the norm is only logical.

And you've offered nothing you think works better than torture and you're doing so with no evidence to back up your position.