You didn’t understand what you read. It doesn’t say that torture provided the information. It said that some of the information came from people who were previously tortured.
Maybe you should read it again with an eye for comprehension?
In any case, we’ve already presented evidence that the consensus among professional interrogators believe that torture provides unreliable information. Rand Rover is, of course, free to chose to ignore that factual information.
Lobo, I guess you are just trying to fool people who are new to this thread. Those of us who’ve followed the whole thing know that that consensus exists in your mind only–you’ve provided no evidence of it. You’ve repeatedly asserted it, and I’ve repeatedly said you’ve provided no evidence for it, and you’ve repeatedly asserted it again (and again).
How is it that you have some sort of problem, here? You keep demanding proof of the alleged “consensus”, seems to me it would easy enough to prove otherwise, simply by hauling in somebody on Mr Panetta’s level of expertise to say that, yes, indeed, waterboarding did ObL. You got, you bring, yes? You no got? Then you demand that the other guy bring.
The other guy brings? Well, then, you’re boned, aren’t you?
Actually, what those who have followed the thread recognize is that you have some imaginary definition of “consensus” that you employ, (carefully failing to specify the conditions that would meet it), that you wave around to dismiss the fact that a general consenus has been demonstrated through numerous citations to multiple statements from people in the intelligence community of multiple agencies in multiple nations.
Now, you’re back with a handful of statements in which “EIT” (never defined, so it might be torture or it might be other methodology) is mentioned in connection with a small number of prisoners, none of whom are identified as having rendered information under the pressure of “EIT.” And, of course, you are still denying the consensus regarding torture that has already been established.
ROVER is desperate to believe that torture is justified and works. There is no example of actionable info garnered from torture. After the fact, people can say a prisoner spilled a bit of data that proved to be true. But under torture they say anything to make the pain stop. They just spray out things until we quit. Then you have to decide what is true. a what is not. And then have to decide whether you can commit to action based on it. By the time you analyze the data it would probably be too damn late.
The only thing that is sure, is we are a nation that tortures. You can not make that go away. We are not the people we pretended to be.
Yoo, Rumsfield, Bush and Cheney are the experts in ROVER’S camp. They are civilians who ordered the military to commit atrocities because they believed, without proof that torture works.
The only truth is we are torturers. We are 3rd world in our attitude toward prisoners. We have taken a giant step backwards.
Please. You are so mixed up here it’s almost unbelievable.
First, on the subject of EITs and “torture,” you are the one that (i) thinks all EITs are “torture” and (ii) reads statements condemning “torture” and thinks they must apply to all EITs. In reality, the EITs are each carefuly choreographed and planned operations, and any particular person who uses the term “torture” in the abstract can mean anything at all, from “any infliction of even the slightest discomfort for any period of time” to “the infliction of prolonged pain that is intended to result in death.”
Second, I’m not using any odd definition of consensus. I think the definition at dictionary.com is perfectly fine, which is a majority opinion or a generally accepted opinion. You select the news articles you read (the subjects of which were selected by their writers and publishers) and read various agencies condemning “torture” and somehow think that all that adds up to “there is a consensus that EITs are ineffective.” In reality, there are some agencies that have published statements against “torture” and others that haven’t said a damn thing about torture and virtually none that have said anything about the specific EITs we are talking about in this thread. There’s not a consensus on any issue, let alone that “EITs are ineffective.”
Third, I’m not trying to fool anybody. I’m not even trying to convince anyone of anything. I have made no claim about whether EITs are effective or not and really have no opinion on the matter. I recognize that I’m not qualified to have an opinion–that my opinion on the matter is about as useful or valuable as an opinion about exactly how to treat a particular form of cancer. You are the one who’s formed an opinion that you are trying to push on others as the truth based on your own particular biases.
Could I get a cite for this incident? Not even related to this debate, this bit just sounds really fascinating, historically. (My view of “fascinating” runs a bit morbid, admittedly. )
Of course you are. You are simply pretending that the evidence you have seen doesn’t exist.
Your opinion is worthless precisely because you ignore the evidence we’ve given about the consensus opinion.
Professional interrogators agree that torture provides unreliable information. This is demonstrated by numerous cites. You have provided nothing citing otherwise, yet still demand that your uninformed opinions are correct.
And yet, you are the one claiming that I hold a position that I have never posted at any time in this thread or any other.
When you can address the points I have made instead of inventing positions for me to hold, you might have a basis for participating in this discussion instead of simply bumping the thread with nonsense every time you get bored.
There have been more than enough citations to sufficient numbers of police and intelligence agencies noting the lack of effectiveness regarding torture, that your claim that no consensus has been reached amounts to chanting “la la la la la I can’t hear you” in response. Similarly, your effort, at this stage, to pretend that you are simply talking about the (never identified and never defined) "EIT"s when the posts regarding the consensus have specifically addressed torture is nothing more than you trying to move the goalposts often enough to avoid being caught.
There may well be Enhanced Interrogation Techniques that do not amount to torture, but the only ones discussed in this thread–waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and a couple of others–are on the “torture” side of the line and those are the techniques that have been shown to have a consensus among police and intelligence agencies as lacking effectiveness.
This bullshit does not work for Glenn Beck, (except among his sycophants), and it fails here.
Are you sure this actually happened and you’re not thinking of the movie* Mississippi Burning *because that sounds remarkably like a scene from the movie which the director made up.
You have got to be kidding me. That article was written by two undergraduate students, and they cite absolutely nothing for the existence of a consensus.
Tomndebb, at this point I have to assume you have crossed over into bizarro world. Your last couple of posts have been extremely strange, and they are so nonresponsive to my posts that you could have written them beforehand.
Just in case there’s a chance of reaching the real tomndebb through the bizarro void, I’ll respond to each of your points.
What is the position I’m claiming you hold that you don’t actually hold? I’m honestly confused here. I have claimed only that you hold the position that there is a consensus that EITs are ineffective.
Also, my post that bumped this thread was “nonsense”? How’s that? It’s a former CIA director discussing his belief about the effectiveness of EITs, and specifically how they helped capture ObL. That’s what this thread is about. Or perhaps anything that goes against your ideology is nonsense–is that right?
Here’s where your confusion is really strange. This thread is about (and I have througout only been discussing) enhanced interrogation techniques. The EITs are all very well defined–you can read the papers published by the government that describe them in extreme detail. You are the one who reads others saying that “torture isn’t effective” and extrapolates that into “EITs aren’t effective.” The burden is on you to show that all your sources discussing “torture” are also discussing the EITs. The burden is not on me to precisely define EITs, which is a weird thing for you to say anyway since they absolutely are precisely defined (and not by me).
Right–this is you doing what I said you do above (and in my earlier posts)–deciding yourself that EITs are torture and that therefore those who say torture isn’t effective are also saying that EITs aren’t effective.
Here’s perhaps the most bizarre part. In the first part of your post, you say that I’m claiming you hold a position you don’t hold. Here, you say that I hold a position I don’t hold. I’ve been very clear through this thread that I have no opinion about whether the EITs are effective and that I’m not qualified to hold such an opinion. And yet you and others insist that I’m trying to argue that EITs are effective.
Your arguments, such as they are, fail. You are the only person here who thinks you have a legitimate point to make.
The only reason people are still participating in this thread is a morbid fascination to see how long you will continue to hold to a thoroughly debunked notion.
You have not won a point anywhere in this thread. You seem to think everyone else just misunderstands the points you are making so you are right and they are wrong. There is a landslide of evidence against your position yet you remain recalcitrant.
That is a sign of mental illness. Seek help. I am not kidding. (Unless you are being intentionally argumentative for the sake of argument.)
)