Reply With Quote
Does the act of our interrogators torturing prisoners make the idea that we are evil more or less credible to the next potential recruit of the Al Qaeda ideology?
You base this on what? A belief that our enemies only torture in response to our doing so? A belief they wouldn't be trying to destroy our cities -- and ALL the lives in them were we just nicer?
Hogwash.
I don't buy that. These silly debates only demonstrate to our enemies that we're a bunch of idiots.
Tell that to the lives saved by waterboarding Khalid Mohammed and that other piece of trash.
Does the act of our interrogators torturing prisoners make the idea that we are evil more or less credible to the next potential recruit of the Al Qaeda ideology?
I don't think it does either and I don't think they care...to them, we're infidels, and that's reason enough to hate us.
That is not quite an answer to the question.Does the act of our interrogators torturing prisoners make the idea that we are evil more or less credible to the next potential recruit of the Al Qaeda ideology?
Either:
a) Torture makes the idea that we are evil more credible.
or
b) Torture makes the idea that we are evil less credible.
Which is it?
No, it is an answer to the question.
It could be
c) It makes no difference at all.
Do you believe al Qaeda would stop it's efforts to kill us all if we renounced torture and never did it?
not true. what if some other technique (that doesn't put us in a moral/legal quandry) is more effective than torture at yielding good information? Wouldn't that a be a good argument against torture?
Sure. What is that technique?
And, the use of any technique is situational. In some cases, whatever technique you mention would be less preferable that torture, and vice versa. That we only employed the practice in three instances tells me our government recognizes that, even if you don't.
nevermind. I thought you read the article.
Like the bomb-on-the-subway-Jack-Bauer-scenario that seems to only occur in fiction?And, the use of any technique is situational. In some cases, whatever technique you mention would be less preferable that torture, and vice versa.
I did. Not every al Qaeda terrorist will respond to that technique. And, not every situation has the luxury of the time it takes to enact that technique.
The scenario doesn't have to be that dramatic for actionable intelligence gained through waterboarding to have been worth it. Learning of a terrorist plot in the early stages is just as valuable.
Or, say, learning where Khalid Shaihk Mohammed is hiding could be another valuable piece of intelligence.
Which is the most plausible statement, based on what any reasonable person would say:
a) Torture makes the idea that we are evil more credible.
or
b) Torture makes the idea that we are evil less credible.
or
c) It makes no difference at all.
Do people that really hate us attempt to recruit new people to their cause?
Yes or no?
Sure, and you're saying they haven't been doing so, even before we waterboarded three terrorists?
I'm saying those that would join that cause would do so no matter what. , they'll rise up and kill over silly cartoons.
I think we should just capture and torture every muslim on the planet.
To what end?
Actionable information about muslim terrorists, but mostly, eradication of muslim terrorism, really.'
At that, it sounds like fun.
Well, I think I'd support the strategy we've undertaken but, thanks for playing FWD.
Your statement directly contradicts the interrogator's.Do people that really hate us attempt to recruit new people to their cause?
Yes or no?
Do you know more about how they recruit people and what motivates people to join Al Qaeda than the interrogator?
Well, the interrogator is mixing apples and oranges.
First, what took place at Abu Ghraib were abuses that were prosecuted and punished. Second, We're doing anything but torturing or abusing at Guantanamo.
And, you can thank our friends in the media for helping al Qaeda foment hatred over those issues.
I notice he didn't mention they were flocking to Iraq because of waterboarding.
Of course you do. But you have every desire to forego legal and even cons utional principles to fight a war that has no identifiable enemy -- no nation, no state -- and no discernable end point. My post was obviously absurd, but I'm not sure that the current strategy is any less absurd, quite frankly. I simply don't understand the willingess to cede personal liberties, our belief in the rule of law, or the moral highground in an effort to fight a battle that is, frankly, unwinnable because of the nature of the enemy we fight and the cause that they believe in.
Hatred of America and its ideals drives terrorists; ironically, the mode of dealing with that problem that you propose seems to suggest that we're better off if we act as they do. You'll deny that over and over, but if we cede freedoms and long-held beliefs about justice and morality, are we truly any better than they are? Is the difference between them and us our unwillingness to behead those we've first tortured?
If we're going to justify our actions by suggesting that they get results and that they're little different than what we face from the enemy, then why not just go all the way? Why not target anyone who might remotely be associated with ideology of terrorism (after all, terrorists target anyone who might remotely be associated with American ideology) and simply eradicate them to ensure that our ideology prevails?
What legal and cons utional principles have I forgone?
I am.
What personal liberties have you ceded? What rule of law is being violated? When did anyone ever recognize us as having the "moral highground." All that's ever happened is that our enemies try to get the rest of the world to beat us about the head with such an argument.
Bar none, we have prosecuted this war in the most humane manner possible under the cir stances of a just war.
Where have I ever suggested that?
Frankly, I would have preferred if the New York Times and the traitors in the NSA had never leaked our techniques. Then, who would have ever known that we even waterboarded three terrorists? No one.
You want to blame someone. Blame those that leak classified information about our intelligence technologies and techniques.
Sure we are. We're a damn sight better than the animals that fly planes into skyscrapers, cut off the heads of innocent people, and kill just because we're not Muslim.
No, it's the purpose of the torture that's different. And, while they do it to everyone they capture...we've done it to exactly three people. There is no moral equivolency here FWD.
Because a) I never said it was "little different," there's a big difference between what we've done and what our enemies have done.
Because that is precisely where we differ.
Okay FWD; this just in:
BBC: 6 gunmen shot and killed at New Delhi airport
If the fresh warning was waterboarded out of the survivor of last week's attacks, was the technique worthwhile?
I bet if we tortured this guy he'd change his tune.
I don't think so. We have laws that prohibit torture and have agreed not to go there, even with those we capture in war.
Besides, we've been able to ferret out warnings for decades without resorting to torture to do so. , we had enough information to stop 9-11 and didn't need waterboarding or torture to reach that point. If we hadn't had our heads up our bureaucratic asses, we might have never seen the horrors of that day.
Now you're not answering the question. If waterboarding saved lives at the airport in New Delhi today, would it be worth it?
If you're trying to get me to suggest that the ends justify the means, I'm not going to. I don't think torture serves any worthwhile purpose.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions