Does Torture Work? The C.I.A.’s Claims and What the Committee Found

Simply because you don't recall it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Cheney's been trying to justify torture on a regular basis for years, most recently with a flurry of what we know to be false claims after the bin laden raid. It was discussed quite a bit in 2011 and again when the fake version of history was included in the movie zero dark thirty

 

24 was a fictional TV show.

there is virtually nothing coming out now that we did not know years ago and that me and several others here were not talking about almost a decade ago. this is all so disgusting and even worse, the real people responsible will never be held accountable.

bush, cheney, rumsfeld, gonzales, yoo...all those f***ers should be executed for war crimes.

we had bush's attorney (john yoo) in 2005 arguing that he had the authority to order a child's testicles crushed in front of his parents...these are sick f***s.

 

I'm not a proponent of torture. It was just an exercise question. Can you people not read?

 

The exercise questoin is deficient - it assumes that torture works, which it does not.

It's like saying "should Yao Ming play point guard instead of Patrick Beverley?" Who cares? The question is nonsensical.

 

Of course there is an assumption; hence, "exercise". Do some of you just need to feel righteous? I find the fact that some of you are uncomfortable with the question to be interesting - almost as if you don't want to confront your feelings toward the hypothetical. You could've just said 'no', but you didn't.

 

Torture will get the person to say anything they know. So if they have information that you want, you'll get it. The problem is that they will say whatever they think you want to hear. They'll give false leads that will require manpower and resources to investigate and then weed out from the truth.

While it will work it isn't effective at all. And the information can be gotten other ways. There is never a good time to torture. It is pointless.

 

The problem with the hypothetical is that it presupposes torture will get you the information you want in time to save thousands of people.

There is never a time where that would be the case. As I mentioned in the other post the torture victim will give all kinds of information both real and unreal. So the time it would take to sort through it all makes it ineffective. There are other more effective ways to get more reliable information. So there will never be an instance when it will be the one way to save thousands of people.

 

What do the repubs have to say about torture being used as a form of punishment and not as a form of interrogation? Ghul gave them all the info they wanted and yet they tortured him. How do you justify that?

 

I'm going to ask this again has it stopped yet or are they still using these methods to get information.

 

I wouldn't say never, though very unlikely. It was a question regarding how much we think we would abide by our principles. Maybe I should rephrase the question with a more believable scenario - would you kill a robber to save your family?

 

Yes but only after I had shoved hummus up his rectum to find out what other robbers were coming after my family.

 

I've said torture is unacceptable and illegal and doesn't work - we shouldn't do it under any circumstances, even made-up ones.

 

So when do the hearings start? Republicans are signalling support for another round of Benghazi "scandal" hearings, despite the fact that it's just absolutely not a scandal. This torture thing, though? Nothing to see here...

 

I don't know what I'm more ashamed about - that it happened or that those who made it happen are still being shielded from accountability.

American exceptionalism is a ****ing joke.

 

The Democrats report 'absolved' Republicans claiming they had no knowledge. It lays blame on the CIA.

 

Obama says he has stopped these things. But Bush started these things (or did he inherit them?) without telling anyone about it and tried to cover it all up. So, there's no particularly good reason we should take Obama on his word here either.

 

Well, I don't think we'll see Bush and Cheney and Yoo and others taking a lot of trips to other countries.

 

There are some idiots that are against torture, but turn a blind eye when it comes to deadly drone strikes. At least with torture you can get some info from the terrorist, you cant do that if they die in a drone strike!

 

There's about zero chance of them ever being successfully prosecuted in the US - imagine the Eric Garner or Ferguson grand juries, but instead of the victims being vaguely sympathetic, being terrorists. And instead of the defendants being a bunch of street cops, they're stalwart patriots

Zero. Chance. In. Hell

THis makes no logical sense whatsoever. First off, Bush was the one who stopped these things, Obama went further and rolled back a lot of the documentation that made them possible. Second - your assumption of lack of credibility by virtue of them both being presidents is too silly to bother being taken seriously.

 

This country is full of what I call "bleeding heart liberals" who get turned off by the idea of torturing for no good reason.