That is not how I remember it was, the controversy came because the Bush administration decided to remove the force restrictions and to tell the interrogators to ignore the manuals.
I don’t see why the assertion that torture isn’t effective should be separated out from my ethical position. Agree with it or not, it’s a part of the discussion.
True, it’s a moot point for me personally since I’ve already arrived at my ethical position. But others haven’t and it may help in tipping them toward my POV.
Well, the point is that you don’t think “torture” should be done whether or not it’s effective. So I’m sure you’ll forgive the rest of us if we don’t take you entirely seriously when you argue that it’s not effective. You (as you just admitted) are just trying to win people over to your side. You haven’t made some grand impartial investigation on the efficacy of various interrogation techniques and decided that “torture” isn’t effective. You aren’t even qualified to judge the effectiveness of various techniques in the first place.
Lobo and Gigo, follow Mach Tuck. Just come clean and admit you really have no idea whether “torture” is effective or not and are just trying to win converts to your ideological position. You’ll feel better admitting the truth.
:rolleyes:
I already did say twice what my position is, your caricature is not a correct one, but then again, thank you for showing all your sorry unconvincing rhetoric.
You are still trying to convince all to continue to play “lottery”.
Yep, you got it. I’m trying to convince people to torture. Man, you are quite perceptive.
That was stupid. The idea that they did not really intend to drown the people would have only mattered if the person being tortured was let in on that secret. If not, he was being tortured. Then you make that claim that it was carefully choreographed I read that only in right wing posts.
But you apparently have made up your mind and nothing can change that.
Sorry, I’m working and didn’t read the whole thread and what I’ve read from you doesn’t appear particularly insightful and insulting me after I mentioned knowing people who’ve actually been tortured doesn’t do a lot to convince me that you have anything worth saying about the subject.
That said, perhaps I’m wrong. Please reiterate your example.
Also, if you believe that “normal interrogation techniques” are more effective than “torture”, wouldn’t that mean that the British were far more effective at “breaking” captured IRA suspects than the Gestapo was at breaking captured members of the French resistance or captured OSS and SOE operatives?
Similarly, please explain to me why you’re in a better position to judge the effectiveness of torture than members of SAVAK, the KGB, the Mossad, or the ISI.
Even if some American interrogators claim that torture doesn’t work, I think everyone knowledgeable about the intelligence business agrees that the KGB, Mossad, and the Stasi were far more efficient and far more effective than their American counterparts.
If that’s the case, shouldn’t they be the ones we take our cues from when judging the effectiveness of torture.
Once again, I find torture reprehensible and feel it shouldn’t be used and damn the consequences, but that doesn’t mean I’m such a moron that I’ll claim that all the torture victims who testify to it’s effectiveness are lying.
So all this hemming and hawing about establishing a consensus regarding the efficacy of torture was bullshit? Because that would just be “mindlessly repeating stuff you read in your echo chamber” instead of “thinking for yourself”. Truthiness.
I don’t know with personal knowledge if it works or not. But I’m smart enough to accept the consensus of experts working in the field. And their consensus is that it provides unreliable information.
You however, are ignoring them because their expertise goes against your unfounded beliefs. That isn’t a good thing to do.
Why do you think repeating yourself is a good debate tactic? Is it because you are unable to process my specific refutations of these points?
Nope, I can see that you are trying to convince people that that it is effective, but then again, I already dealt with that angle. You have to resort to caricatures and straw men to continue going.
The reality remains that the Bush administration got what it needed from water boarding and other enhanced interrogation methods: justification for the Iraq war.
What was considered effective by the American people was not what the Bush administration considered what “effective” was.
This is pure idiocy. I have not claimed a single time that torture or EITs are effective. I don’t have a belief one way or another about their effectiveness. I’m simply trying to get you and others to broaden your thinking here, to no avail so far.
I’m sorry but you’re falling into the John Yoo trap.
He argued that torture only consisted of physical force that caused permanent damage, death or pain comparable to “organ failure”(yes, that’s an actual quote).
He decided to allow torture by simply redefining it and you’re doing the same if you think that threatening people with death or maiming doesn’t constitute torture.
To your credit, you appear to be backing off your claim that Scharff’s supposed success(we only have a wikipedia article to judge and wikipedia articles are notoriously unreliable) shows that torture doesn’t work because you’re not sure if his threatening to have people killed or maimed if they didn’t tell him what he wanted to know constituted torture.
I’m pretty sure that Amnesty International and similar organizations would find it objectionable and the Army field manual specifically forbids threatening people with harm or death so unless the military decided to ignore regulations any army interrogators who tried such techniques would be subject to potential court martial.
To me it’s a no brainer. That’s obviously torture and I’m sure that any of us would consider it torture if we were on the receiving end.
Is not that they are lying, under torture they will admit to killing Bozo the clown to get the pain go away. The information **can **be the truth, but it is really naive to think that the torturer is looking for the truth.
I can not comprehend why you are ignoring the colossal example of the false information Al-libi gave us regarding connections with Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein thanks to enhanced interrogation. That info was used in the now discredited testimony by Powell to the UN and was used by the Bush administration to convince many to follow with the invasion of Iraq.
As I said before, no one has shown that there’s a consensus among former officers of the KGB, the Stasi, the Gestapo and numerous other organizations that torture doesn’t work.
Like I said, I’ve heard from people tortured by SAVAK, SAVAK’s Islamic successor, and by the North Vietnamese and all freely admit that they cracked and spilled their guts under torture.
Ignoring their testimony strikes me as grossly insulting to them and assuming that US interrogators are somehow better qualified to comment on torture than members of Intelligence agencies that were far more effective strikes me as extremely foolish.
Actually, I only “argued” insofar as I gave an example of one interrogator who eschewed physical abuse and got good results. You doth protest too much, methinks.
And I have no problem admitting I’m trying to win people over to my side in this case. I’m proud to take the controversial position that people shouldn’t be tortured, brutalized, physically abused or whatever term one prefers.
Finally - clear standards! Attention everyone on the SDMB: You must make a grand impartial investigation in order to have a valid opinion on anything! Submit all drafts to RR for approval before posting, along with your personal qualifications on the subject matter.
Uh, because as I said before I know people who’ve been tortured and they all admit they squealed.
Conversely, I’ve known people who were brought in for questioning by the police and none talked.
Like I said before, if you were correct then the LAPD would be far more successful and flipping members of the Bloods and the Crips than the Gestapo would have been and breaking members of the Maquis.
The opposite is true and arguing otherwise is frankly anti-intellectual.
That said, perhaps I’m wrong so convince me that the LAPD has been more successful at getting gangmembers to rat on fellow gangbangers than the Gestapo was at getting members of the Maquis to talk.
And even then your position would be silly, already by broadening my thinking and looking at history I can say that there are not only ethical reasons on why one should dismiss torture or “enhanced interrogations”; and it is because an unethical leader can also use the information gained for reasons that are not good for all, but only good for some.
Good advice for you. When you post nonsense* as though it is true, (without even botherinbg with a citation for your claim), there is no reason to believe that you are arguing in good faith, although I doubt that you would actually feel better admitting the truth.
It was the Bush administration that chose to lump all interrogation methods under the euphemism “enhanced interrogation” without distinguishing between torture and non-torture. The OP specifically mentioned torture, (waterboarding), and you have not really made any effort to distinguish between various methods. There is no evidence in this thread that you are after “truth.”
- Among specifics: instructions for interrogators to refrain from torture is not simply a guideline for “grunts in the field,” it was the specific set of instructions for guys in G2 and S2 whose job it was to interrogate prisoners over extended periods. Pretending that only untrained “grunts” were given those instructions indicates a clear disregard for evidence or “truth.”
This military academy in Singapore (not known for liberal tendencies) reports that:
I’m sorry, but in my experience a sweeping accusation of calling a supported academic point of being an anti-intellectual one is a really silly one.