Torture vs. Interrogation

[Typhoid]

My question remains: How do you get the information legally?

I don't know, how do the police get it out of mass murderers?
Last I checked they didn't waterboard them or isolate them for days on end.
Oh, hey - massive extentsive interrogation.


Torture is torture. Call it what you want, and slap a pretty little sticker on it, but it's still torture. If you need information, that doesn't make it right to do that to another human being. Even if the human being is/has/plans to kill other people.


Interrogation is good for eventually getting the answer out of someone.
Torture is good for getting them to say what you want them to say.

[BreakABone]

I will say that it always works for Jack Bauer so it can't be all wrong.

On a more serious note even without a fear of death, I think exerting a certain amount of power over someone can technically be considered psychological torture as you are pretty much telling them they would be meant with this treatment unless they tell you what you want to hear.

And I think that may be my issue with torture as it is with therapy is that you may bring up memories or events that never really occurred because of the relationship you develop with the other individual,

[Bond]

You do realize that Obama retained the right to use these tactics in the future if he deems it necessary, right?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Bond

You do realize that Obama retained the right to use these tactics in the future if he deems it necessary, right?

Oh wait, I thought we were talking about the previous accounts of torture.
I didn't know this was yet another "Obama's not different" thread.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Oh wait, I thought we were talking about the previous accounts of torture.
I didn't know this was yet another "Obama's not different" thread.

I think that comment was a little less than fair. I simply wanted to point out that Obama has not absolved the use of these tactics, but rather suspended their practice, with the possibility of reinstating them if he deems it necessary in the future.

[Professor S]

I think this whole debate has taken a very poor turn. It seems that people no longer want to debate the merits of arguments, but instead simply want to make blanket statements of opinion pretending to be fact. Ending comments with "Period" or "This is that and thats it" don't make your opinion any more valid, especially when the evidence that would answer the debate is still classified. So far we've only seen exactly what they want you to see, and I find it hard to come to a conclusion when half of the evidence may be under lock and key.

This is a complex issue for the reasons I've illustrated in previous posts in this thread, and it would become even more complex if we are ever attacked again. Can you feel strongly? Yes, but to claim this is black and white doesn't reflect enlightenment, it only frees you from having to think about the subject any further.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I think this whole debate has taken a very poor turn. It seems that people no longer want to debate the merits of arguments, but instead simply want to make blanket statements of opinion pretending to be fact.

Getting rid of enhanced interrogation techniques does not sudden erase the problem that existing techniques were not working.

The only time I heard of a legit situation where the "existing techniques" not working, is when they were pushing harder and harder to get a non existent link between Iraq and 9-11. Care to share with us some other factual situations in which less image-destroying teqniques didn't help, but torture helped?

If not, why were you making a blanket statement of opinion pretending that it is a fact?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Bond

I think that comment was a little less than fair. I simply wanted to point out that Obama has not absolved the use of these tactics, but rather suspended their practice, with the possibility of reinstating them if he deems it necessary in the future.

He hasn't absolved them yet because nobody "high up" (Other than, you know - the U.N) has deemed these tactics to be torture yet. So if he is able to do these things in the future and get his scapegoats, why wouldn't he?

Not to mention it would be in relatively poor taste for a newly appointed President to jump right up and say "Yes, what my predecessor did was torture."

Just because Obama hasn't absolved it, doesn't mean it still isn't torture.
Hell, even if the US government decided it's not torture - that doesn't mean it's not torture.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Just because Obama hasn't absolved it, doesn't mean it still isn't torture.
Hell, even if the US government decided it's not torture - that doesn't mean it's not torture.

I don't believe I ever insinuated that - I was simply stating a fact.

[manasecret]

If waterboarding is legally wishy-washy whether it's torture or not, how was the U.S. then able to try and execute some Japanese for torture including waterboarding?

Republican presidential candidate John McCain reminded people Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.

"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans," McCain said during a news conference.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...litics_3554687

[Combine 017]

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

[Professor S]

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.

I think if there was clear evidence for Cheany to point out that it did work, and did save lives.. He would have brought it up by now, or someone would have. But who knows, maybe someone will step up and come to the hearings who actually participated in it and tell the truth about it.

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.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

1) No one is arguing that other interrogation methods don't work. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be used at all.

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

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.

[TheGame]

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:

No one is arguing that other interrogation methods don't work. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be used at all.

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.