U.S. Interrogator: Torture doesn't work

[ChumpDumper]

Nope.


Nope.

But, I would rather our servicemen and women, if captured, be subjected to the EITs, as designed by the CIA and vetted by the DOJ, than what we both know would happen to them, instead.

So you're fine with it.

Cool.

[Cry Havoc]

I'd rather be waterboarded as it is designed by the CIA than whatever else would befall me in the hands of al Qaeda. Absolutely.

It's so nice to see that the standard you're holding Americans to is that of terrorists that you want to torture.

[Yonivore]

It's so nice to see that the standard you're holding Americans to is that of terrorists that you want to torture.

I don't think any of our enemies are even close to the standards we've set for designing and vetting our interrogations techniques. If only they were.

Be careful, you're going to put an eye out with all that straw.

[Cry Havoc]

I don't think any of our enemies are even close to the standards we've set for designing and vetting our interrogations techniques. If only they were.

Be careful, you're going to put an eye out with all that straw.

Quoting you directly is a strawman now. Got it. Thanks for playing.

[Yonivore]

Quoting you directly is a strawman now. Got it. Thanks for playing.

It's so nice to see that the standard you're holding Americans to is that of terrorists that you want to torture.

It's not even a quote, from me or anyone else. It's the very epitome of a strawman argument.

[Cry Havoc]

It's not even a quote, from me or anyone else. It's the very epitome of a strawman argument.

I'd rather be waterboarded as it is designed by the CIA than whatever else would befall me in the hands of al Qaeda. Absolutely.

It's a direct quote. Look, dude, you can play stupid all you want, I have no problem with that. But it's laughable to accuse me of strawmanning when you yourself made the direct comparison.

Oh, wait, forgive me... did you mean to put that in blue font? It's so hard to tell with you these days.

[Yonivore]

It's a direct quote. Look, dude, you can play stupid all you want, I have no problem with that. But it's laughable to accuse me of strawmanning when you yourself made the direct comparison.

Oh, wait, forgive me... did you mean to put that in blue font? It's so hard to tell with you these days.

Saying, "I'd rather be waterboarded as it is designed by the CIA than whatever else would befall me in the hands of al Qaeda. Absolutely." <> as, "It's so nice to see that the standard you're holding Americans to is that of terrorists that you want to torture." It's certainly not a direct quote.

Apparently, it's your characterization of what my words meant and you couldn't be more wrong.

[CosmicCowboy]

How exactly should one interrogate terrorists?

Milk and cookies and saying "pretty please" clearly doesn't work.

This is a serious question. What were they supposed to do?

[Cry Havoc]

How exactly should one interrogate terrorists?

Milk and cookies and saying "pretty please" clearly doesn't work.

This is a serious question. What were they supposed to do?

We have scientific evidence that cruelty in the form of torture is not effective, and can in fact be counter-productive. Why would you want them to use a method of interrogation that is exceptionally cruel and does not have any validity?

because clearly the only alternative to torturing them is pampering them, right?

[Cry Havoc]

Saying, "I'd rather be waterboarded as it is designed by the CIA than whatever else would befall me in the hands of al Qaeda. Absolutely." <> as, "It's so nice to see that the standard you're holding Americans to is that of terrorists that you want to torture." It's certainly not a direct quote.

Apparently, it's your characterization of what my words meant and you couldn't be more wrong.

You made a direct comparison between the torture we inflict and the torture that's inflicted by other countries/groups and said you'd rather be tortured by the US if you had a choice. I'm not sure why I have to repeat your own words back to you so that you actually realize what you said, but there it is.

In other news, I'd much rather get hit by a Geo Metro than a Semi.


...


WHAT?! How dare you think I'm comparing a small car to a tractor trailer!!!!

[CosmicCowboy]

We have scientific evidence that cruelty in the form of torture is not effective, and can in fact be counter-productive. Why would you want them to use a method of interrogation that is exceptionally cruel and does not have any validity?

because clearly the only alternative to torturing them is pampering them, right?

So how would you get them to volunteer information?

[Cry Havoc]

So how would you get them to volunteer information?

That's not an easy question to answer, and could obviously fill several hundreds if not thousands of SpursTalk pages. But I don't think we should err on the side of ghastly human cruelty, effective or not. And it's not.

[ElNono]

How exactly should one interrogate terrorists?

Milk and cookies and saying "pretty please" clearly doesn't work.

This is a serious question. What were they supposed to do?

Didn't know that traditional methods of interrogation that did not involve torture included milk and cookies. But hey, the record shows those methods actually were much more effective in gathering actionable intelligence than torture, so more milk and cookies for them.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's not an easy question to answer, and could obviously fill several hundreds if not thousands of SpursTalk pages. But I don't think we should err on the side of ghastly human cruelty, effective or not. And it's not.

[Cry Havoc]

Ah, so your solution to things is when in doubt, be as vicious as possible, even when it doesn't accomplish anything. Cool.

[FromWayDowntown]

So I guess your answer is that we should torture those people without limit to get little useful information and if we manage to impose those methods on completely innocent people in the process, so be it?

[ChumpDumper]

So how would you get them to volunteer information?

I'd use the methods that proved more effective than torture.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ah, so your solution to things is when in doubt, be as vicious as possible, even when it doesn't accomplish anything. Cool.

It's YOUR flawed premise that enhanced interrogation doesn't work 100% of the time.

I was just making fun of the way you tap danced around the question of how in your perfect world they SHOULD have gotten the terrorists to volunteer information.

[CosmicCowboy]

So I guess your answer is that we should torture those people without limit to get little useful information and if we manage to impose those methods on completely innocent people in the process, so be it?

I'm honestly not sure what is or was the correct thing to do...

They clearly were not tortured "without limit" as all methods used were allegedly cleared through the justice department prior to use as "not torture" no matter how distasteful we may find them in retrospect. You can quibble about the justice departments finding all you want but I suspect if they had submitted "pulling their fingernails out with pliers" that the Justice Department would have felt the torture line had been crossed...

[Cry Havoc]

It's YOUR flawed premise that enhanced interrogation doesn't work 100% of the time.

I was just making fun of the way you tap danced around the question of how in your perfect world they SHOULD have gotten the terrorists to volunteer information.

I'm honestly not sure what is or was the correct thing to do...

They clearly were not tortured "without limit" as all methods used were allegedly cleared through the justice department prior to use as "not torture" no matter how distasteful we may find them in retrospect. You can quibble about the justice departments finding all you want but I suspect if they had submitted "pulling their fingernails out with pliers" that the Justice Department would have felt the torture line had been crossed...

I find it humorous how in one breath you can lambaste me for "pretending to live in a perfect world" and in the next state that "surely we'd never cross the line into truly monstrous things". Because the people at the Justice Department are apparently infallible, right? You know, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'd use the methods that proved more effective than torture.

Can you be more specific?

[CosmicCowboy]

I find it humorous how in one breath you can lambaste me for "pretending to live in a perfect world" and in the next state that "surely we'd never cross the line into truly monstrous things". Because the people at the Justice Department are apparently infallible, right? You know, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Do you have any proof they pulled fingernails at Gitmo?

Do you have proof of ANY "monstrous things" done to the terrorists?

[ElNono]

I'm honestly not sure what is or was the correct thing to do...

They clearly were not tortured "without limit" as all methods used were allegedly cleared through the justice department prior to use as "not torture" no matter how distasteful we may find them in retrospect. You can quibble about the justice departments finding all you want but I suspect if they had submitted "pulling their fingernails out with pliers" that the Justice Department would have felt the torture line had been crossed...

You don't trust Eric Holder in determining what's legal or not, why would you trust him or his predecessors to determine what's legal when it comes to torture or not?

I think this world lived through a whole lot of atrocities and we've established (including the US) where that line is, through treaties we've signed, among other things, and especially on the moral side of the equation.

When you say you're the good guy, you gotta act like the good guy. That doesn't mean being naive, but it does mean that if you want to hold other people to higher standards, then you have to respect those standards yourself.

This whole "war on terror" has created all sorts of supra-legal terminology to dance around our own laws and treaties (we don't even consider these people POWs, we invented the figure of "enemy combatants" to dodge the legal ramifications, amongst other things). Even the tribunals where these people are "tried" (if they're tried at all), are a new frankenstein concoction created to sidestep both our civil and military justice processes.

We created a clandestine parallel legal "system" to largely sidestep being held accountable to our judicial higher standards. It's extremely un-American and anybody that claims to respect the Cons ution should be extremely alarmed about this entire construct, since "enemy combatant" can be anybody, including US citizens (and have been US citizens). We've have had a whole lot of people detained without charges or trials in Guantanamo for years. What's the difference between that and the Japanese interment camps in WWII, besides the motives? It's shameful, and a black eye in US history. And shame on this administration for not undoing a lot of that damage.

[Yonivore]

Can you be more specific?

Like Chump's ever been specific.

[Spurminator]

We certainly learned a lot from the Japanese Internment camps. Unfortunately, it was mainly in the PR realm.