I think the first quote points out the truth of the second quote quite admirably.
And I think this post points out the truth of the following quote:
I find that highly unlikely. More likely, you’ll forget about it and bring the same objections up next time.
We have shown consensus via citations, why on Earth should you be able to dismiss our arguments when you are unwilling to read them? This is a debate forum. If you just want to piss around and ignore facts why not head to IMHO?
You made accusations that I simply want to find experts to support my positions. That assertion is baldly wrong, and you still refuse to acknowledge it.
You are mis-characterizing the people you’re arguing against. This is understandable, since your position has nothing factual to back it up.
If you don’t agree that “torture bad” you aren’t being particularly in line with American ideals. If it doesn’t provide superior intelligence using torture is simply evil.
Since your view is based on no facts I agree.
Lobo, in the mountains of links to web pages posted above, care to steer me in the direction of anything purporting to provide a consensus of working interrogators? Maybe quote a choice bit of something? Thanking you in advance.
Wait—your post seems to imply that there exists some relationship between what Elucidator posts and any point made in a post he responds to. I thought he just used any old post as a tee from which to launch one on his oh-so-entertaining bon mots.
Not that I’m doubting you, mind you. But that notion never occurred to me. Consider ignorance fought.
You asked for cites, and cites were provided. I think it’s rather obvious based on your postings in this thread that nothing will come of this but even more rewrites of other peoples posts and demands for cites. You got exactly the cites you asked for-the least you could do is have the decency to look at them.
Czarcasm, are you going to offer anything substantive on this discussion at all? Or are you just going to follow me around and nip at my heels?
Lobo said he bases his belief on a consensus of working interrogators. Then he and others provide links to a bunch of web pages. I asked where I could find a discussion of this consensus of working interrogators. I think that’s an appropriate question.
You literally want a poll? Is that the game you’re playing? Every US intelligence agency thinks it doesn’t provide reliable info. Explain in detail what you want, what would satisfy your ideological armor of disbelief?
I can provide ten thousand professional interrogators and you’d still hide behind your wall of indifferent-to-facts-opinion.
Dude, you just aren’t worth the bother of following around. I was already getting something substantive from this thread until you started throwing up your usual roadblocks-rewording other people’s posts and demanding cites over and over and over again. Well, people went through some time and effort to find the cites you kept whining about, so would it really be too much to ask you to spend a fraction of that time and effort to click on a link or two?
Wait, I get it. Rand Rover is asking for a cite which itself says “a consensus of interrogators agree”. But then, that’ll only be one cite saying that: Then we’ll need to show that a consensus of all sites agree that there is a consensus. But how will we show that that’s the consensus of all sites? Well, we’ll need to find a consensus on that point, and so on.
Let’s just cut that short, shall we? “Consensus” means that most relevant folks agree. The fact-based folks in this thread have already shown that the Army, the CIA, the FBI, and assorted other agencies all say that torture doesn’t work. In other words, a consensus. We don’t need a cite for the consensus itself because we’ve demonstrated that right here.
:rolleyes:
I want nothing more than for you to support the claims you are making. I won’t even ask you to support the obviously hyperbolic ones, like “Every US intelligence agency thinks it doesn’t provide reliable info.”
See, a “consensus” is a funny thing. When people are motivated to report only a certain side of an issue, and then other people are motivated to read only that same side of an issue, a “consensus” has a way of coming into existence by sheer force of will of consumers (instead of generators) of the facts.
But some of those same people actually use enhanced interrogation techniques in certain circumstances. So what does that tell you?
Noted and agreed.
Can you provide a cite for your claim that the same people that claim that torture doesn’t work use it anyway?
I remind everybody of the Great Debates rules on insults. This thread is devolving into pointless sniping on all sides.
I’ll just point out to those who might not be able to get it that those positions don’t come from personal opinions, but rather from a consensus of experts in the organization. The only other group of interrogators I can think of are local law enforcement officers. I’ve heard no desire to bring back torture from them, and the fact that the crime rate has not increased a lot since those methods were banned is another argument against the effectiveness of torture.
That there are stupid people in any organization and/or politics trumps good sense.
So despite what was previously claimed, it isn’t the same people that say that torture doesn’t work that also use it anyway, but different people. Thank you.
Of course, being the open-minded guy I am, if Rand Rover can provide cites that back up his claim, I’d be willing to take a look.
If you remember,. there was some concern a few years ago about interrogators starting to work who had grown up watching 24, and had been convinced that the stuff they showed there actually worked.
The overall on-topic response* so far can be summarized as:
-
No, torture is just wrong.
-
Eight years? I’m not impressed. **
So, with the OP’s permission, I would like to expand the question.
Do you think the continued extra-legal detentions assisted in obtaining the necessary intelligence? If so, does this change your opinion of that?
- This does leave out the “Actually, the information wasn’t obtained through torture” as that does not acknowledge the original premise.
** This is intended to include the “Torture is widely held to be counter-productive to obtaining reliable intelligence.”