Obama: It may be harder to get info w/o Bush tactics

I never understand the argument, "if we know a guy has something", if you know he knows something, why do you need to torture him, wouldn't you know what he knows. how would you know he knows something without knowing what he knows

 

I am not for torture. In theory, the answers to your question could be many different things. For example, you know the guy was at a meeting where an operation was planned, but you don't know what was said at the meeting, you intercepted a transmission made by the guy, but they were speaking in code so you don't know the details of what they are planning, etc. It is certainly possible to know someone knows something, but have varying degrees of knowledge about what that something is.

 

yet the entire premise is based on an illusion. the cases where we tortured people were not these cases.

secondly if there is an impending attack, why wouldn't the torturee give a false lead to buy time?

 

As I said, I am not for torture. I was answering pgabs very specific question about how it would be possible to know that the detainee knows something, but still need to get from the detainee what that something is. Neither of your points have anything to do with that question, they are simply arguments against torture in general. Try to follow along before you argue with me, please.

 

Sure, in the right hands, a gun can serve and protect, in the wrong hands, it kills and creates anarchy.

Torture is the same way. Torture can do terrible damage to our reputation when used excessively and irresponsibly like it was many times during the Bush - Cheney era. But it wasn't an issue under Clinton? No.

It must be used very carefully with checks and balances. But it's not an all or nothing scenario.

 

From the crazy files:

According the the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life the strongest supporters of torture are white evangelical Protistants.

source

[rquoter]
The Religious Dimensions of the Torture Debate

April 29, 2009

Amid intense public debate over the use of torture against suspected terrorists, an analysis by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life of a new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press illustrates differences in the views of four major religious traditions in the U.S. about whether torture of suspected terrorists can be justified. Differences in opinion on this issue also are apparent based on frequency of attendance at religious services.



Data from a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 14-21, 2009, among 742 American adults. Other religious groups are not reported due to small sample sizes.

Question wording: Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?
[/rquoter]