CDZ Would you support enhanced interrogation if:

[Pop23]

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

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

Wrong and wrong. Whether of not enhanced interrogation provides reliable information is a matter of opinion. While those who have used it generally think it does, those who claim it doesn't generally have no experience using it. If you wanted advice on having brain surgery who would you ask, a brain surgeon or a dermatologist? The opinions of people who have firs hand knowledge of its efficacy should also carry more weight. Whether is is legal is also a matter of opinion. Those who are opposed to it claim it is illegal while those who believe it is a valuable tool believe it is legal.

Torture is against the Geneva Conventions (and yes, that includes waterboarding), which makes it illegal for our military to use it.

The Geneva convention covers uniformed soldiers. Terrorists are not.

 

[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?

This must be the latest nonsense bouncing off the walls of the rightwing echo chamber as there are several threads on that very question.

And you won’t answer

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Such is the reprehensible right's contempt for the rule of law.

The ends never justify the means.

I take it you would prefer to allow many of your Countrymen die than to exhaust any and all chances that you could save them then, right?

You think that leaves you with clean hands? Here's a clue, it wouldn't. They would be bloody as hell.

As a consequence of their ignorance, fear, and stupidity most on the right have nothing but contempt for the rule of law, the right to due process, and equal protection of the law.

Conservativism is the bane of liberty and justice.

 

[eagle1462010]

Yep. If that what it takes to stop a major attack..........yep

 

[eagle1462010]

If someone had one of my family members like in the movie Taken.............I would do what I have to do to save my family........

People here can dance around this all day...............but most would do the same .................

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

“enhanced interrogation”

Conservatives are cowards as well, using this moronic euphemism for the crime of torture in a failed attempt to conceal their contempt for the rule of law.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If someone had one of my family members like in the movie Taken.............I would do what I have to do to save my family........

People here can dance around this all day...............but most would do the same .................

Just about everyone has some red line after which they would say, twist the bastard's nuts until he talks, but for some reason they would rather leave the decision up to some intelligence or military officer who takes his oath to serve and protect seriously rather than spell out in law when it is permissible,

 

[eagle1462010]

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?

“enhanced interrogation”

Conservatives are cowards as well, using this moronic euphemism for the crime of torture in a failed attempt to conceal their contempt for the rule of law.

The Only Law on the battlefield is kill the enemy before he kills you.................You can water down what that means I don't care............

You are really gonna sit here and be all high and mighty...........Mr. Ethical..............but if this guy knew about about a bomb to kill an entire city of U.S. citizens you read him his dang rights..................yeah right.

 

[Pop23]

Such is the reprehensible right's contempt for the rule of law.

The ends never justify the means.

I take it you would prefer to allow many of your Countrymen die than to exhaust any and all chances that you could save them then, right?

You think that leaves you with clean hands? Here's a clue, it wouldn't. They would be bloody as hell.

As a consequence of their ignorance, fear, and stupidity most on the right have nothing but contempt for the rule of law, the right to due process, and equal protection of the law.

Conservativism is the bane of liberty and justice.

Nah, we just like saving life’s. You on the other hand must like dead Americans

 

[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?

“enhanced interrogation”

Conservatives are cowards as well, using this moronic euphemism for the crime of torture in a failed attempt to conceal their contempt for the rule of law.

^^^^^ do it secretly on my behalf, then I can deny I had any part of it.

 

[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?

Never.

And while we are at it call it by it’s proper name: torture.

 

[Coyote]

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!

So what do you instead?

Secret WWII camp interrogators say torture wasn't needed

 

[irosie91]

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!

So what do you instead?

Secret WWII camp interrogators say torture wasn't needed

Depends on what you call "torture"

 

[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?

Didn’t we just do this thread?

 

[eagle1462010]

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!

So what do you instead?

Secret WWII camp interrogators say torture wasn't needed

Depends on what you call "torture"

Locked in a room full of hard core liberals and let them talk..............

 

[Coyote]

The interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, seems to exemplify this conundrum. It has been credited with locating Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of these attacks, and possibly thwarting other attacks. What if all interrogation techniques were not used and thousands of people died as a result? Would anyone be held responsible for not preventing this?

What information was gained? For example...one such claim was false...

Does torture work?
The situation is further clouded by the fact that members of the George W. Bush administration made claims for the effectiveness of torture that have later been proven to be untrue. One such claim was that the water-boarding (simulated drowning) of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed produced vital information that allowed them to break up a plot to attack the Liberty Tower in Los Angeles in 2002. Slight problem - in 2002 Shaikh Mohammed was busy evading capture in Pakistan.

And according to this...they concluded torture doesn’t work.

US report on 'enhanced interrogation' concludes: torture doesn't work
Report says that CIA detainees subjected to ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ produced either faulty intelligence or no intelligence at all

 

[eagle1462010]

The interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, seems to exemplify this conundrum. It has been credited with locating Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of these attacks, and possibly thwarting other attacks. What if all interrogation techniques were not used and thousands of people died as a result? Would anyone be held responsible for not preventing this?

What information was gained? For example...one such claim was false...

Does torture work?
The situation is further clouded by the fact that members of the George W. Bush administration made claims for the effectiveness of torture that have later been proven to be untrue. One such claim was that the water-boarding (simulated drowning) of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed produced vital information that allowed them to break up a plot to attack the Liberty Tower in Los Angeles in 2002. Slight problem - in 2002 Shaikh Mohammed was busy evading capture in Pakistan.

And according to this...they concluded torture doesn’t work.

US report on 'enhanced interrogation' concludes: torture doesn't work
Report says that CIA detainees subjected to ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ produced either faulty intelligence or no intelligence at all

That wasn't the scenario of the OP...............

WMD is known to exist.........this guy knows where it is............if you don't find the bomb an entire U.S. city is going to die...............

That was my understanding of the OP..............a WHAT IF thread.

 

[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?

Https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2
The strongest argument in favour of torture is the so called 'ticking bomb' scenario, re-imagined with the help of John Doe's toasty testicles above. Alan Dershowitz gave a good summary of it in the San Francisco Chronicle back in 2001:

Everybody says they're opposed to torture. But everyone would do it personally if they knew it could save the life of a kidnapped child who had only two hours of oxygen left before death. And it would be the right thing to do.

It's a compelling argument, until you start to look at the assumptions that you have to make to accept it. This argument assumes that you have the right person in custody, it assumes that this person actually has the information you need, it assumes that there isn't a better way of getting hold of the evidence, and above all it assumes that torture is an effective way of getting that information.

 

[Coyote]

The interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, seems to exemplify this conundrum. It has been credited with locating Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of these attacks, and possibly thwarting other attacks. What if all interrogation techniques were not used and thousands of people died as a result? Would anyone be held responsible for not preventing this?

What information was gained? For example...one such claim was false...

Does torture work?
The situation is further clouded by the fact that members of the George W. Bush administration made claims for the effectiveness of torture that have later been proven to be untrue. One such claim was that the water-boarding (simulated drowning) of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed produced vital information that allowed them to break up a plot to attack the Liberty Tower in Los Angeles in 2002. Slight problem - in 2002 Shaikh Mohammed was busy evading capture in Pakistan.

And according to this...they concluded torture doesn’t work.

US report on 'enhanced interrogation' concludes: torture doesn't work
Report says that CIA detainees subjected to ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ produced either faulty intelligence or no intelligence at all

That wasn't the scenario of the OP...............

WMD is known to exist.........this guy knows where it is............if you don't find the bomb an entire U.S. city is going to die...............

That was my understanding of the OP..............a WHAT IF thread.

It is still relevant.

 

[PredFan]

I would always support enhanced interrogation, hell torture, against enemies who are trying to kill us.