Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Wow, ive never seen a thread jump to 3 pages so fast. I must say, im impressed.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Manasecret, the key to the statements you quoted are that they waterboarded along with other techniques. The other methods may have played a significant factor to the executions, depending on what they are. I know the Japanese did far more heinous activities than waterboard. Even beyond thosse questions, laws can change and often do in 50 or so years. The legal definition of torture as I still understand it remains as I've described, unless someone has a more recent informaton (it does get confusing).


Game, good well thought out and fair minded post! I only have two challenges to your overall high quality comments.

1) No one is arguing that other interrogation methods don't work. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be used at all. But no method is full proof and individuals are different. Some break like a 6th grader in th Vice Principles office, and others would spit in the face of Batman himself. I'm for using the least extreme method available that can get the information we need to protect ourselves as long as it fits in with the legal definitions.

2) I think you may be confusing what I mean by evidence.
As we've stated, much of the potential evidence is still classified. Not even Dick Cheney can declassify these documents anymore. Witness evidence is one thing, but as long as there are redacted and classified documents still sitting under lock and key that directly address the results of the interrogations, I still think the argument remains open.

Other than that I think you make very very valid arguments. I remain undecided, but I certainly sympathize with your viewpoint.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

You want to try keeping up with it, there are about 5 different conversations going on discussing several topics and I think a few people are getting things out of context in the confusion. I for one have read some posts and had an entirely different reaction to it than the people or person that it may have been directed at. I have read some of the replies and thought to myself 'how does that in any way pertain to what the previous guy was saying?' but it's starting to gain some clarity at least.


:lol: True, very true, I could not have put it better myself.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...and-Loses.html

Don't know the radio personality, but he undergoes waterboarding to see if it is torture or not.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

This depends on your definition of working.

-If working means you you can get someone to admit to something thay may or may not be true to help build a case to kill more people..
-If working is sending a message of fear to other countries about being caught by us..
-If working is pissing off your enemies and making an example of people..

Then torture works. And I think that's the reason it survived over time, not because of how reliable the information is. But because it creates this shield of intimidation, and it makes people say anything that you want them to say (given that you've clued them off to what you want them to say).

So if you're saying that the fact that it gives reliable information is why it survived, then I disagree and ask you to show me proof.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Let's turn this question around:

If our enemies used waterboarding today to extract information from U.S. prisoners, and then those U.S. prisoners were released and we had the ability to prosecute the people who did the waterboarding or ordered it to be done, should and would they be prosecuted for torture?

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Okay, this thread has become way too hard to follow, but just two quick points:

1. His name is Cheney. Not Cheany. Not Cheny. It's C-H-E-N-E-Y. Not that hard.

2. Intelligence is spelled i-n-t-e-l-l-i-g-e-n-c-e.

Thanks, that was driving me insane. Sorry if I was a bit harsh.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Another question would be, would we even have the right to do that anymore?

I mean, when it REALLY happend to US soldiers we threw a big hissy-fit over it. But now that we stooped to that level, who the hell are we to tell someone else how to act in times of war?

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Ok, well after a brief moment of lucidity, you're back to misrepresenting my arguments again, and worse yet, the interrogation methods I was referring to in the post you quoted were the ones that you said we should use instead of waterboarding! My whole point is that not every technique works on everyone, it's a game of hit and miss regardless of technique used.

You're still asking me for proof when we've already explained, ad nauseum, and the proof is still under lock and key. Repeatedly asking for it won't magically make it declassified! And lack of available evidence to the contrary does not equal evidence for your argument, especially when that evidence you ask for is not available to review.

I mean, am I incoherent? Do we speak the same language? We must not, because I can't think of any other reason why you would continue to ask me the same questions over and over again in such a smarmy and condescending fashion after I have given you thorough, comprehensive and polite answers.

I'm not even disagreeing with the heart of your argument, I'm just saying that in my opinion we don't know enough to make a final judgement. I remain undecided, and at the most I'm simply acknowledging that this is a complex issue, as represented by the number of posts and pages this thread has received. Can we simply agree to disagree and not attempt to reinterpret each other's arguments so they fit our world view? I don't think thats much to ask, quite honestly.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Ok, strangler, way to avoid the point and clear up nothing.

From my understanding of your arguement (which is apparently wrong according to you).. torture has been used over a long period of time by multiple countries, therefore it must have provided reliable information at some point or another. Do you agree with this statement?

Cause that's the impression I got from this quote:

I don't need side commentary either, just a yes or no. Clarify me on your stance. This is just one thing I've felt you've dismissed as fact.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Conservative radio host gets waterboarded:

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/con...-waterboarded/

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

I didn't notice that my video I linked was for radio personality Mancow. I used to listen to his show a little back in the day...

The problem with this argument is that many of the prisoners we are detaining are these terrorist guys that don't belong to any country and no one is holding accountable for. They aren't POW if no one wants to claim them. At least that is my impression, I don't pay enough attention to the news to know if we are globally being held accountable for the safety and quality of imprisonment for these people so you can happily link me to some news sites suggesting otherwise, I'm just lazy. :p

Anyway.....

I don't like the textbook definition of torture and interrogation. I think they both serve 2 different purposes.

When I think of interrogation I think of a situation where someone who is suspected of a crime (perhaps evidence is involved) is questioned. These questions might be held up to the scrutiny of a polygraph test, and they most likely are administered by trained psychologists. They are probably carefully chosen, and used as a litmus test for the truth. Perhaps playing good cop/bad cop still falls within the realm of "interrogation." Threatening the suspect, yelling at them, even beating the shit out of them might all fall within the realm of "interrogation." None of this sounds all that frightening though because usually this is done through the legal system...usually....

When I think of torture I think of a situation where someone has information or plans about an event that may not have happened. In this situation it might be hard to question them or give them a polygraph test. It's kind of like extracting a confession. "Yes, I confess! We planned to blow up your trade center!" In this situation...if good cop/bad cop doesn't work...why not rip off some nails or sleep deprive them or water board them or give them electric shock! Obviously the flaw with this plan is most people will do anything to get out of stress because we enjoy equilibrium. In that situation who is to say someone doesn't give a BS answer to stop the pain? More frightening than the pain though is the fact that a lot of this torture is happening unsupervised. That sucks. If torture is O-K, it should be ok through some sort of system of checks and balances.

I think that system should be global too. I think there should be checks and balances for intelligence between a few of our big allies. I also think the world shouldn't be sympathetic to known terrorists or associates of guys like Bin Laden. If you hang out with Bin Laden I think you probably had the water boarding coming.

The problem is really 'what is torture.' I think it can be both physical and psychological, or just physical, or just psychological. I'd definitely say water boarding is torture though. I've seen numerous people try it out in relaxed environments and no one seems to enjoy it. Could you image getting water boarded in a secret CIA prison? Fucccckkkk no, I say!

Anyway, another issue I have is what is the alternative to no torture? Better interrogation? Better interrogation how? I mean it's one thing to have an armchair discussion about the obvious moral pitfalls of torture. It's much more productive to actually come up with a solution to this problem. I think this very fact is the reason why Obama has been so hesitant with recent policy regarding the issue; the man is a critical thinker.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Yeah, I mean think about it.. most videos you see of it, someone is having it done by someone they trust. And they still puss out really fast and call it torture.