- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,569
- Reaction score
- 14,785
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Well, we could follow the previously established protocols that have been recently re-affirmed.so what are you fine with? How would you deal with them?
Here's someone who accepted such a challenge ...I challenge anyone that believes water boarding is not torture to under go water boarding for 10 minutes with one question given to them before it starts, Now do you think it's not torture?
Indeed. If the prisoner will not willingly provide the false information you need, then you'll probably have to torture him to get it.
Says you.not as effective though...
Indeed. If the prisoner will not willingly provide the false information you need, then you'll probably have to torture him to get it.
We could skip the search for false information altogether. Just a thought.What's your solution?
I can re-post these links a third time too if it'll help.not as effective though...
I challenge anyone that believes water boarding is not torture to under go water boarding for 10 minutes with one question given to them before it starts, Now do you think it's not torture?
so what are you fine with? How would you deal with them?
not as effective though...
We could skip the search for false information altogether. Just a thought.
And ftr, if Karl were unable to answer such a question it still wouldn't add any validity to your position. It would merely mean that Karl was unable to provide an answer. To assume otherwise is fall victim to the logical fallacy called argument from ignorance.
As noted many times now, those protocals are more effective than torture.
yes, I've seen the claims. What I notice is that they don't give any examples of where it worked, nothing we can verify. I can give you an example, a verifiable example of where it got us misinformation that we used to our detriment: al Libi.
If it was a sucessful as this claim you link suggests, why can not one example equal to mine be given? I also wonder why you don't ask them to prove they had success? Why debunk something that hasn't even been supported by actual evidence yet?
BTW, I don't use the word ever. To be ineffective it does not have to never lead to information. It's that all or nothing thinking that gets us into so much trouble. You have to study things for a period of time, compare it with other methods, and determine the most effective versus the least effective. The litature says torture is the least effective way.
And, when those protocols don't work, then what? Throw our hands up and say, "well, we tried!"? Are you ok with American soldiers possibly dieing, because someone was too limp-wristed to rough up a prisoner? I'm not ok with it at all.
That's the kind of information you were talking about. Check the thread you'll see it's true. Not my fault that you didn't notice that.How do you know the information is false, before you even know what the information is? :rofl
Indeed. If the prisoner will not willingly provide the false information you need, then you'll probably have to torture him to get it.
What's your solution?
.We could skip the search for false information altogether. Just a thought.
That much is true.For an argument to have credibility, it needs to counter what my argument. "Let's don't do that", isn't argument, nor is, "I'm right, because you're not".
As has been pointed out, we already have such methods....then it's their duty to the country to come with an alternative method of extracting information from captured enemy fighters.
It is extremely rare. Iirc, 3 people were subjected to it.If there so many other effective, proven options waterboarding would be extremely rare.
Them? In a fire fight, you fight. People get shot. It happens. Once captured, follow rule of law. Bombing areas where civilians are is ineffective and likely creates more problems than it solves. understand the military is too large and clumsy to be the primary instrument in this type of effort. Smaller, more surgical nits should be used. No bombings of civilian areas, follow rule of law, and behave with the honor and moral clarity we profess.
So I guess it is only used because the guards and interrogators get bored or are all cruel sadistic bastards. If there so many other effective, proven options waterboarding would be extremely rare. Your conclusions just don't add up. I completely agree that the fatal flaw in any interrogation technique is that you cannot be sure what you are being told is true. The information has to be verfied. Let's just say that waterboarding is no more and no less effective than other techniques at our disposal. Psycholigical techniques take a lot of time to be effective and in the end you have no more gaurantee that the information is true than you have with something like waterboarding. And if the information is true their is no gaurantee it is still valid. If you catch someone who has been killing your fellow soldiers, killing civilians, killing your fellow citizens and hell bent on killing you I think you would have a better perspective about interrogation and the need to get timely information. I do not condone other forms of torture. Yes, I consider waterboarding torture. But I can't rule it out as an option. Your one example that you keep bringing up about its ineffectiveness only proves what we already know; It is not always effective just like any other form of interrogation. There is evidence that it saves lives but you can choose not to believe it. Not going to bother citing more examples for you to rationalize away.
problem with that is the military have their hands tied by the suits back home, in Iraq we could do nothing without permission and if you stop bombing areas that means the ground units have to clear them out which would cause major casulties. As soon as the body bags start rolling of those planes people back home stop supporting the war.
I can re-post these links a third time too if it'll help.
We have civilian leadership. So such has always been the case, and that is how it shoudl be.
However, you're missing one important point, it was the military that objected to torture, who make it public, who fought it being used. It was poor civilian leadership that tried to push it.
And we didn't need to have any units in iraq. We never needed to invade. But you are confusing a couple of things here. I'll explain more when I return.
I won't stop you. Thanks for explaining that this is the internet, buddy.and what you win the argument because you posted some links? Buddy this is the internet I could post a million links about why waterboarding is effective, I could post links about recent events about the fact
Even if this was true, it doesn't speak to the comparison between the various methods, nor does it serve to establish the overall effectiveness of waterboarding.waterboarding helped us get bin Laden: This interrogation tactic was integral to extracting information years ago from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi that helped us find and kill bin Laden
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?