I have provided cites. You ignored them. I’m repeating myself because you aren’t addressing what I’m saying. You’re back-peddling and declaring victory even though your position is founded on profound ignorance and ignoring factual information that rebuts your ideology.
I cited that the consensus of professional interrogators believe torture provides unreliable information. You disagree, but will no provide cites to the contrary.
Do you or do you not have a cite that shows that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch agree with your definition of torture?
Heh.
Even then it is not effective, as the more recent example of the false information we got regarding Al-Qeada and Saddam showed.
I already granted that torture is effective to get other things, like getting the fortune of “false converts” and intimidating people.
That is our line buddy, it is what the New Yorker piece reported, and still we got lousy information.
No, I don’t.
No one, even Amensty International, is saying when you have a suspect you should give them a Pina Colada and send them to hang by the pool and hope they decide to tell you something.
Interrogators who eschew physical abuse will say you should try to keep your suspect off balance and use psychology to get them to talk. Over the course of these discussions I have seen interrogators who say torture is a shitty means to gather intelligence also say interrogation is often not pleasant for the person being interrogated.
Hell, police in the United States may threaten all sorts of things. “If you don’t talk we’ll make sure you go to jail with no hope of parole!” The police can tell you that but they can’t make that happen. What you get charged with is up to the DA and your sentencing (if found guilty) is up to the court. If you choose to be cooperative with the police they will tell the court that and it might reduce your sentence but then it might not. Police are free to lie to you and scare you in an interrogation. This is why standard boilerplate for defense attorneys is to tell their clients to shut-the-fuck-up and say nothing till the attorney gets there and can advise them. Being cooperative with police when you are a suspect (and without legal representation) is rarely, if ever, in the suspect’s best interests.
I can think of no one who defines that as torture though.
If a US interrogator threatens to send someone back to Saudi Arabia where they know full well the prisoner will be tortured that is fine. Actually sending them back is something else.
Ok, so then you agree that threatening to have people tortured or killed if they don’t talk is a form of torture and that Scharff used torture.
Also, no one disputes that torture is ineffective sometimes, just that it’s often effective, unless you want to insist that Scharff wasn’t effective.
Huh.
Didn’t you read my post?
I cited Tim Pat Coogan. Is he not good enough for you? Why?
No, and I tend to agree now with others that you are twisting what others say, that is not discussing in goo faith.
Tortured logic, it is not effective no matter how many times you attempt to use it.
This is not true. you haven’t provided a cite, good or bad, for any of your claims yet.
As I have seen how you twist even quotes that do not support what you say so, yes, we need to see the actual quotes or source to make sure that you are not doing the same with him.
Then you and I have a serious disagreement on what constitutes torture.
I think there is such a thing as psychological torture while you clearly don’t.
Also, I’m pretty sure that most people would agree that putting a gun to a man’s head and threatening to shoot him if he doesn’t give the names of his associates would be considered a form of torture by most people on here.
Or at least they would if they’d grown up in a country or situation where they could see it happening to them.
You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
I already mentioned Tim Pat Coogan.
He is what is known as a cite.
Why is he not good enough for you?
:rolleyes:
A cite is something like this:
Others then can see the context and the source, what you are doing is **not **a cite.
He is what is known as the author of a book, and what you have provided comes nowhere near what passes for a cite for anyone here(including, I suspect, you.)
He might be good enough but hard to tell since you did not cite anything but rather suggested we read a book. A $22 book that is 864 pages long.
Perhaps he says something on point to all this but for a message board I am not going to wade through that book.
How about you cite the relevant passages you want to use to make your case?
Ok, so then you think threatening people with death or maiming if they don’t tell you what you want to hear isn’t torture?
I’m sorry but your logic escapes me.
You seem to want to redefine certain methods that most people recognize as torture as not being torture.
Why?
To me when the US threatens to turn people over to the Saudis if they don’t spill their guts, they’re engaging in torture.
You think differently.
Please explain why and give me your definition of torture, because as it is, you remind me very much of John Yoo.
Nope, I’m coming from the angle that torture poisons the well of information with both good and bad information, on top of that it is mostly a tool of the powerful to justify their power abuses and to keep the dissenters in line.
No, you are just torturing logic so you get what you want. It is not what I have been saying.
As you continue to miss it, even using your definition does not help to make torture a good system for gathering good information.
I’m sorry, I did not realize that acknowledged experts in their fields weren’t considered reliable citations.
Considering how many people here think wikipedia is actually a worthwhile citation I’m more than a bit surprised.
He might or might not be a reliable citation. But you need to *cite *what he said.
You are asserting that he said something that agrees with you point. But you are not telling us exactly what it is. Go to the book and type exactly what he said and we can look at it.
You really need to learn how to debate online if you want to have any success. This isn’t complicated.
No you are not, since you have been told what is meant by “cite” more than once. You have refused to provide any cites for any of your claims.