Effectiveness of Torture

[tsig]

My main concern are the 1000's of innocent lives that might perish simply because the left is too squeamish to cause temporary pain and discomfort in a very bad, known terrorist who may have information about an impending attack. Think of the horrible emotional experience of the folks who had to jump from 100th floor of the WTC as it burned under and around them. But at least their memories lasted only as long as it takes to plummet 100 stories.

But you are man enough to intentionally inflict pain on someone who is completely in your power.

 

[BeAChooser]

We really don't need all that info to prove that torture evidence is unreliable.

You haven't proven anything tsig. Various members of the CIA and other intel agencies have stated categorically that the information gathered via enhanced interrogation methods of al-Qaeda members was reliable and did save many lives. Now you can claim they are liars but the only way we can know is if Obama releases the documents and data on the interrogations that show whether information was learned and whether it was reliable or not. So will you join me in calling on Obama to release that information ... or hide behind excuses for not doing that like the others on your side in this debate?

 

[BeAChooser]

If he told it to them immediately then why did they keep doing it?

To learn the rest of what he knew. You don't really think a hard case like KSM spilled his guts of everything he knew the first time a little pain and discomfort was applied, do you? Of course he tried to keep some things secret, hoping that interrogators would be satisfied with the first few scraps. Again, the only way we can know exactly how well waterboarding worked is if Obama releases the interrogation details of KSM's sessions. So join me in calling for him to do that ... or are you afraid the answer might not be to your liking?

 

[tsig]

But it appears the CIA only used enhanced techniques under very restrictive conditions and with close monitoring of the subjects by doctors, etc. I don't think there is any question that the three who were waterboarded were very, very bad people, or that we had good reason to suspect they might know about other serious impending attacks against US interests. I don't trust a government that will blindly rule out the use of a tool that may have already saved many lives and prevented serious terrorist attacks based on a definition of torture that sees no moral difference between inflicting brief pain or discomfort on a very bad person and allowing 1000s of people to be murdered simply because that definition precludes the use of brief pain or discomfort to elicit information. That sort of policy is going to get many people killed.

So you're only going to torture very, very bad people?

 

[tsig]

Call it what you want. You are avoiding the question and every one can see it. So answer the question. Do you see a moral difference between inflicting brief pain or discomfort on a very bad person knowing that might save many lives, and choosing not to inflict brief pain or discomfort knowing that doing so will condemn those lives to almost certain death. Yes or no?

There is no way to know that with certainty.

 

[tsig]

You haven't proven anything tsig. Various members of the CIA and other intel agencies have stated categorically that the information gathered via enhanced interrogation methods of al-Qaeda members was reliable and did save many lives. Now you can claim they are liars but the only way we can know is if Obama releases the documents and data on the interrogations that show whether information was learned and whether it was reliable or not. So will you join me in calling on Obama to release that information ... or hide behind excuses for not doing that like the others on your side in this debate?

So you do believe in witches?

 

[BeAChooser]

But you are man enough to intentionally inflict pain on someone who is completely in your power.

Inflict a little TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on a prisoner one knows to be evil, to save hundreds of people from having to jump from skyscrapers to escape the heat and smoke of fires started by the terrorist associates of that prisoner? Absolutely.

Tell me, tsig ... are you such a *man* that you'd let dozens or hundreds of people almost certainly experience that fate even when you know you might be able to prevent it by simply applying some temporary pain and discomfort to someone you know was a very, very bad person involved in such plots?

 

[tsig]

To learn the rest of what he knew. You don't really think a hard case like KSM spilled his guts of everything he knew the first time a little pain and discomfort was applied, do you? Of course he tried to keep some things secret, hoping that interrogators would be satisfied with the first few scraps. Again, the only way we can know exactly how well waterboarding worked is if Obama releases the interrogation details of KSM's sessions. So join me in calling for him to do that ... or are you afraid the answer might not be to your liking?

unlike you I am unable to get inside the mind of a "very, very bad man".

 

[Bill Thompson]

Is having no short-term memory a requirement to be a Liberal?

The Libs were demanding that we revise our views on torture after 9-11 because it would be worth it to prevent another terrorist attack.

But now all that hupla seems to have been stricken from their collective memory. Ah, maybe they are The Borg.

I think the CIA admits that they only waterboarded two persons. And you cannot argue with success. I do not see planes flying into any more buildings.

 

[BeAChooser]

So you're only going to torture very, very bad people?

You keep using the loaded word "torture" because you think it wins this argument. But the *torture* we are talking about here is brief pain and discomfort inflicted under the close monitoring of a doctor. Not the broken bones, electric shock and other nasty things most people think of when they hear the word *torture*. Therefore, I think you are being a little dishonest.

And the US waterboarded a total of THREE people out the thousands they captured over the last 6 years. THREE. And every one of them was a very, very bad person with 100% certainty. It's not like this was being applied willy nilly to everyone we captured. Apparently you'd rather preclude it's use entirely and dramatically increase the chance that the next big terrorist attack will succeed because you equate the morality of applying brief pain and discomfort to even just one person, to the morality of letting the next attack killing thousands succeed because you sanctimoniously wouldn't waterboard anyone ... ever.

 

[SezMe]

Evidence of what?

Evidence that both "sides" (I don't like that characterization, but you know what I mean) interpret the documents differently so that, contrary to BAC's bleating, release of the documents he cites is not going to clarify the situation.

 

[BeAChooser]

There is no way to know that with certainty.

There is certainty in few things in life. Yet you still get out of bed each morning. I think your response is simply another attempt to avoid answering a very simple question that says a lot about your understanding of morality ... that says something you apparently don't want people to see.

 

[tsig]

Inflict a little TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on a prisoner one knows to be evil, to save hundreds of people from having to jump from skyscrapers to escape the heat and smoke of fires started by the terrorist associates of that prisoner? Absolutely.

Tell me, tsig ... are you such a *man* that you'd let dozens or hundreds of people almost certainly experience that fate even when you know you might be able to prevent it by simply applying some temporary pain and discomfort to someone you know was a very, very bad person involved in such plots?

How would you know beforehand that "Inflicting a little TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on a prisoner one knows to be evil" would give you that info?

You seem really hung up on that evil thing. It always helps to dehumanize your enemy.

 

[tsig]

Is having no short-term memory a requirement to be a Liberal?

The Libs were demanding that we revise our views on torture after 9-11 because it would be worth it to prevent another terrorist attack.

But now all that hupla seems to have been stricken from their collective memory. Ah, maybe they are The Borg.

I think the CIA admits that they only waterboarded two persons. And you cannot argue with success. I do not see planes flying into any more buildings.

Yes and I don't see any elephants on the corner when I whistle so I better keep whistling.

 

[SezMe]

I think the truth is that really don't want to know whether waterboarding works because if you did, you would no longer be able to play your politically motivated games.

Oh, cut the stupid black and white thinking. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on what you mean by "work". The effectiveness relative to other techniques depends on the subject, the interrogator, the setting, etc., etc., etc. Depends on the timing. And so on...endlessly. Grow up.

And your accusation of political motivation makes pasture pizza look appetizing. You know nothing of my motivations. Pot, kettle, meet.

 

[corplinx]

You seem really hung up on that evil thing. It always helps to dehumanize your enemy.

Feel free to humanize KSM.
He felt his heart break as he felt the blade cut into the sinew of Daniel Pearl's neck. "This is a shame that the infidels have pushed me to his" thought KSM as he choked back tears......

 

[corplinx]

Oh, cut the stupid black and white thinking. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on what you mean by "work". The effectiveness relative to other techniques depends on the subject, the interrogator, the setting, etc., etc., etc. Depends on the timing. And so on...endlessly. Grow up.

Agreed.

This is why we should interrogate like Upchurch suggested by taking them out for drinks. After all. Colt 45...... works every time.

 

[BeAChooser]

contrary to BAC's bleating, release of the documents he cites is not going to clarify the situation.

You are rationalizing. You don't know this. The only way we can know is if Obama orders the release of the documents. But you are afraid to have that happen because you are afraid what we learn might embarrass your side in this debate. Prove you are wrong. I think that should be clear to all by now.

 

[tsig]

You keep using the loaded word "torture" because you think it wins this argument. But the *torture* we are talking about here is brief pain and discomfort inflicted under the close monitoring of a doctor. Not the broken bones, electric shock and other nasty things most people think of when they hear the word *torture*. Therefore, I think you are being a little dishonest.

And the US waterboarded a total of THREE people out the thousands they captured over the last 6 years. THREE. And every one of them was a very, very bad person with 100% certainty. It's not like this was being applied willy nilly to everyone we captured. Apparently you'd rather preclude it's use entirely and dramatically increase the chance that the next big terrorist attack will succeed because you equate the morality of applying brief pain and discomfort to even just one person, to the morality of letting the next attack killing thousands succeed because you sanctimoniously wouldn't waterboard anyone ... ever.

If it is just "brief pain and discomfort inflicted under the close monitoring of a doctor" then why is it you think it is so effective?

 

[corplinx]

If it is just "brief pain and discomfort inflicted under the close monitoring of a doctor" then why is it you think it is so effective?

Perhaps you haven't paid attention to the thread or read a description of what waterboarding does in regards to mental state. Come back when you have. We can't be catching people up everytime someone new joins the thread and asks "why would it work/be effective?".