What claim have I made that I need to provide a cite for? (Also, I did provide a link to an article wherein a former CIA director discusses the effectiveness of EITs.)
I have no doubt about that. It’s taking longer than we thought indeed.
Which is what, exactly?
What do you think my position is?
Nope, just trying to fight ignorance.
People of a certain bent believe that their opinion on an issue means something. They think they can read some stuff and then conclude “EITs are ineffective” and then fight tooth and nail against anyone who doesn’t agree with them. I, on the other hand, am happy concluding that I’m not qualified to conclude whether or not EITs are effective, that my opinion on the matter is about as meaningful as my opinion on which course of treatment to use against a particular form of cancer (I’m a lawyer, by the way).
Also, I think that many of the people arguing that EITs aren’t effective simply aren’t able to separate out the efficacy issue from the moral/practical/“should it be done” issue. It’s possible to believe that EITs can be effective while also believing they shouldn’t be done (as at least one poster in this thread has demonstrated).
As I noticed, those undergraduates were already involved or going to work on high profile cases, in any case, if you were correct a rebuttal in a journal could be found then against them, and quickly.
I expect that you will find none.
The consensus they speak is not only coming from the many cites already presented, once again, if your position had any logic, most of the interrogators would come forward with evidence that most of them do think that torture is good to use; as it is, it is clear that we had just vindictive POS civilians like Bush and company that thought they knew better.
I’ve provided all the rebuttal that is necessary. They made an unsupported assertion and I called them on it.
Also, funny how this post shows how you think. In your world, anything that isn’t true gets “rebutted” by a post on one of your favorite little sites (e.g., thinkprogress), so you think that if what they said was untrue I could just go to some website and look up a handy ready-made rebuttal of it, and the fact that I haven’t posted such a cite means that what they said is true.
The support comes from the other cite from the same post (it had not only the paper from the undergraduates) that everyone can notice you decided to ignore. BTW it is when going to the academic setting where I notice even less support for your agnosticism on this matter.
Nope, as you always seem to fond of, you only show that you are willing to ignore academic and papers from experts on the matter like the ones from post #214 and #106 (that last paper BTW was from Lisa Hajjar, Associate Professor of the University of Santa Barbara).
Ignoring evidence **is **how you think, and all are aware of it.
That statement is not accurate. You have also claimed
I have made neither of those claims. You then repeat that assertion in the post to which I am replying:
I have never made any claim about all EITs being torture and your insistence that I have is nonsense.
The thread moved on from merely EITs to the effectiveness of actual torture many weeks ago. You are merely playing word games at this point.
Not accurate. As noted, the discussion moved from “EIT” to torture a long time ago. You are simply playing word games at this point.
And I have not argued that you believe that either EIT or torture are effective (again ascribing to me a position that I have not expressed); I simply have noted that you are playing games in this thread, responding to posters who are discussing torture with assertions about EITs while carefully never distinguishing what you believe might be a difference. There are a couple of posters who have equated EITs and torture as a congruent set, but neither Lobohan nor I have done so, yet you persist in ascribing that conflation to us instead of clarifying your position.
OK, I see. But I think my basic point is still applicable: you read stuff where people say “torture is ineffective,” and you think that by “torture” they must mean everything that you think is included in that term. Therefore, you think there is a consensus that what you define as torture is ineffective (and I’m not even mentioning the other problems with finding a consensus in this manner, which I’ve discussed above). In reality, people can mean a wide variety of different things by the word “torture.”
Show me where any of the people I am arguing with actually admit that torture works. I can certainly show you where they have stated in previous threads that torture doesn’t work. or are you saying that people have NOT said such a thing in the past?
You’re like the third person to use this analogy in this thread (and Tomndebb wonders where I get the impression that people are claiming that torture doesn’t work). Its not like a broken clock that coinicdentally happens to be right twice a day. There was specific information that the torture was being used to extract and specific verifiable information was extracted. Its that simple.
Thats the defense attorney’s position. My crim pro is a bit fuzzy but I believe the law (and bricker can correct me if he’s paying attention) is that I cannot use such evidence against the person whose rights were vilated.
For example, if I perform a warrantless search in your house and uncover evidence, I cannot use that evidence against you but I can use it against your partners in crime. I believe this was a case of using information gained through torture against someone other than the torture victim.
Besides, we’re talking about using torture outside the criminal procedure context. We are just arguing about whether or not it works.
There you go tomndebb, You still think noone is taking this position? I think you go just trying to see reasoanbleness from your side while searching for unreasonableness from mine.
If there was, then how do you explain why it is that when historians or reporters bother to ask the experts, the vast majority of them report that Torture is not reliable?
Now you are torturing the facts to find an interpretation that will leave some room for the possibility that torture was not an element of the discovery of bin Laden.
Follow the thread back. I cite a newpaper article where the defense attorney for one of the klansmen that had been convicted for the murders of the freedom rigders is trying to overturn the conviction in part on the basis that the bodies were discovered by torturing one of his associates.
I already posted the evidence from the report by The New Yorker, it is not my problem if you missed it.
As history shows, reprehensible rulers do not care that it works, they only care that it works to lead others into supporting the regime or a stupid war.
No, it is based on historical precedent, unlike others that claim that torture never works, I do think it can work on occasion, but it would require an extraordinary set of circumstances, the previous administration (that is the focus of this current discussion) did not had that.