Oh you recall that do you ?
Or did you read it somewhere?
Or see it on T. V?
I dont “recall” you as having actually been there…or anywhere near there.
Funnily enough the U.S. interrogators who were actually there,and I’m not one of them,I’m a Brit and an ex soldier not an interrogator,dont recall your version of events at all.
I would not be stunned with amazement if there have been media reports from someone with an axe to grind who may or have may not been there and who may or have may not totally fucked up,but I trust what the majority of the U.S. interrogators have to say about it ,but thats just me.
No its not,anymore then a professor is the gold standard in intelligence operations or being involved in combat.
It is the gold standard of someone who wishes to be published,promote his own morality as against reality and wants people to like him.
Check out this article for an analysis of McCain’s conflicted voting record on torture. Before that vote, I believed that he would never vote to authorize torture, but now I’m not so sure.
As for whether torture produces useful information, here is one of many anecdotes from Vietnam, where American pilots were tortured for information about their unit composition, or engaged in “friendly” chats intended to bring them close to their captors:
It’s possible, I guess, that we’ve learned ways to break people down that are more elegant than the crude application of lots of pain, but without a contrary cite from someone in the business, I’m going to have to call “bullshit” and lean on the wealth of evidence we have from Vietnam.
So is this one of those threads where only posts on one side of an issue are allowed? Well, you’re the moderator, so I guess I can foresee how that will end. But before the thread is closed, let me point out that there have been three examples given in this thread where torture was used to obtain real information. It was those who claim that torture never works who then re-defined what it was they were asking for. And when asked for cites of their position stated that such cites were impossible to obtain.
“Oooh! I’m being persecuted by the Moderators!”
The way I see it, there is one topic here-Has torture been used successfully in a “ticking time bomb” scenario. There are two sides to this issue-yes, or no. The way the question is worded, it seems to me that the onus is on those who take the “yes” side of this debate to come up with a concrete example that actually fits the question that is being asked. The alternative-asking the “no” side to prove that it has never been effective-is too silly to even discuss.
But that is the position that several people have taken in this thread - that the “ticking bomb” scenario is not possible because torture has never worked in any circumstance, including that one. So if that’s their line of reasoning in responding to the topic of the thread, then it’s also a legitimate topic for the thread to respond to that line of reasoning.
Bullshit.
Using this so-called logic, all the “yes” side has to do is come up one example, while the “no” side has to negate every single example of torture being used, including ones they have have no knowledge of.
As I recall, it was in Fiasco. But it’s simply common sense, the reaction I’d expect from any group of people anywhere. What’s your reason for believing that Iraqis are so different from anyone else ?
Why should I care about the opinion of torturers, of monsters ? Of proven liars and incompetents ?
Exactly. I’ll agree that if their premise that torture never gains any useful information is correct then it would follow that torture never gains any useful information in a ticking bomb scenario. So they are making a valid argument, if you accept the premise. In order to rebut their argument it’s necessasry to rebut the premise. To say that they can present the argument but that rebutting it is off-topic restricts this debate to only one side.
No, to rebut the argument as stated in the OP all one has to do is present a single case where torture has aided in getting essential information to prevent a “ticking time bomb” situation.
One single real world case.
That would apply to the OP.
That. Is. All. You. Have. To. Do.
Simplest thing in the world to show, if it has ever happened.
As far as I can tell, I’m the only one who has posted a real life, genuine example of a “ticking bomb” in the London bus bombing case - and in that one, the information was obtained and the bomb was stopped. No torture was needed and would have been counter-productive because, generally speaking, people don’t turn their sons and friends over to torturers.
People are funny like that.
900 pages of academically published research into a subject are apparently considered, by you, as less worthwhile and valid than your own opinion? Sorry, but I thought the discussion in “Great Debates” was a bit greater than that.
As the topic has devolved into personal attacks, I’ve said my last in this particular topic.
Three examples in which torture was used to obtain information in the middle of an ongoing situation.
Now you can argue about the details. That it was the threat of torture and not actual torture itself. That it was gathering up people after an attack rather than before the attack. And of course that there was no literal ticking time bomb - but quite frankly there hardly ever is a ticking time bomb. People who want to blow something up in real life usually just blow it up - they don’t use elaborate clock mechanisms to increase the dramatic tension and allow the hero an opportunity to disarm the bomb. Which is why I chose to frame the scenario in more general terms of people in the middle of doing something the government thinks is wrong and the government trying to stop them before they do it.
The first case-no torture.
The second case-an unverified story.
The third case-mass murder, an unverified claim that the perpetrators were among the murdered, and no (most importantly) nothing was prevented in the nick of time by the torture.
