you're right, that was childish and dumb of me to say. I wasn't thinking clearly. we should use proven tactics that work to get the info we need and <i>then</i> torture the hell out of him.
Do you not think hardened terrorists tend to be somewhat different animals from conventional criminals (even career criminals)? Leaving aside the moral aspect, if employed judiciously, tortures could very well yield valuable information which otherwise may not be available. The techniques outlined in FB's post seem to revolve around strengthening or disapproving what are known or suspected by the interrogators, rather than extracting something they are unaware of. What are hardened terrorists afraid of losing, some egos? Seriously?
FAIL. unAmerican. But I'll give you this. I could be convinced that you are a torture expert. Congrats.
Your analysis of whether these other techniques work, or torture works is not based on anything. We have firsthand knowledge that the other techniques have worked, and yielded valuable information from the highest level terrorists we've had. We also know that those same high level terrorists stopped giving useful information, once torture was employed. The known analysis we have as well as examples to back it up, is that the techniques I've mentioned do work, and torture doesn't. I don't mind you disagreeing with that, but to do so based on your best guess of the minds and psyche of terrorists are won't help. Please provide evidence to support your claim.
Not according to people who have actually done it. I can dredge up name after name of ex-Military/CIA/FBI interrogator who will unequivocally say that torture is ineffective and ends up generating false information. I love how you think these "hardened terrorists" are Magneto-esque supervillains with extraordinary mental powers - do you have any evidence of these super-hardened terrorists who have been beyond the means of any conventional techinique- Abu Zubayadah's case (the one described in the news this weekend) seems to indicate the exact opposite....he gave up all the info he had, then was tortured for months, and nothing actionable came out of it except for a waste of time and another sorry chapter in the legacy of the US' war on terror. According to this former FBI interrogator who has interviewed such detainees - this is a myth: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lvsvO9kvSdo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lvsvO9kvSdo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
What worked on some may not work on others. That's not difficult to imagine. If torture were proved utterly useless, then it would be abandoned ages ago. Leaving it out completely is naive to say the least. Hey, you could always fall back to rely on the non-torture techniques you mentioned to verify the reliability of the information extracted from torture, couldn't you?
Based upon the pro-torture side presented herein, it is irrelevant whether torture provides relevant information. The intent is not to extract information, but revenge. Ironically, the same mentality spawning the very terrorists they want to torture.
It was abandoned ages ago - why do you think it has been illegal for decades? lol, no. Think this statement through.
It is hard to imagine that torture would ever be the only way to get information. If other methods are double checking the work of torture, why not just start with the other methods?
Sam, why do you think waterboarding is so crucial to our national security? We cannot use metal-based interrogation methods.
hollywood has a hand in this perception. i agree, people act like these guys are trained 10 times harder than our seals or rangers or something.
Training is good for making people buy counter-intelligence false info, but true believers will hold out from helping the devil more than anyone who is sane or does not have the cause as the most important aspect of their lives.
I've skimmed this thread and a lot of posters seem to be justifying the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on the grounds that consider the enormity of his crime it is the right thing to torture him. Many are even going farther to say that he should be tortured even more, ie waterboarding him for each victim of 9/11. If you agree with that I have a question. Should torture like waterboarding then be part of our regular justice system and not just something reserved for terrorism suspects? For those who argue that torture is an effective way to gather information should it then be used on suspects for domestic investigations such as in missing persons cases?
Good question. I would generally say no to torture for American citizens, but I actually wouldn't mind waterboarding them a couple of times. I only consider this torture because it is so excessive. I do think there is a difference between American citizens, POWs, & foreign terrorists and what their rights should be.
depends, Tim McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson- sure. also note that the air force has waterboarded 25k americans as part of the SERE program.
so if an american citizen planned the terrorist attack which kills more than 2000 people of hiw own countrymen on the country he has swore to protect then he does not get tortured?
At what point in the investigation / criminal case against McVeigh should he have been tortured for information? When he was initially suspected? When he was indicted? After conviction?
