Enhanched Interrogation vs. Torture?

[edgeburner]

 

Then if we are going to do it, lets simply admit it, call it what it is, and be done with it. The world will judge us by our actions. If those actions don't produce results, well, then were they really 'justified'? If we do the same things we condemn our enemies for, is that not just a bit hypocritical? Besides, it has already been proven that torture is ineffective as a means of intelligence gathering. Inflict enough pain on anyone, and they will happily tell you what you want to hear, whether it is true or not. Not to mention that coerced testimony is inadmissible in any court of law.

I think the extremes matter. We are not maiming these turds for life, we are not chopping off their heads. Anyone who tells you that people will say 'anything" under duress aren't being truthful...at least not when it comes to a skilled interrogator. these folks can extract the truth, via drugs or physiological manipulation.

 

Do you think we pussy-footed around with Nazi POW's in WW2? Were those 'atrocities' worth it? Believe me, those German POW's were abused much worse than the Gitmo country clubbers are.

 

Freedom comes at a cost, you must weigh that cost against your moral code and see which one is more important to you. I am a born and raised Catholic, i don't like putting anyone under duress, but, sometime the 'rules' are trashed by the enemy.

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2014 by edgeburner

[Aurielius]

Regardless of it's efficacy (Enhanced interrogation) it skirts the boundaries of the Geneva Convention. It is not that I have an iota of pity for the Gitmo detainees, I just think that the Geneva Conventions are a more important ethical line not to cross. Surrendering your ideals to defend them seems a tad illogical, there should be a difference between us and them.

[edgeburner]

 

Regardless of it's efficacy (Enhanced interrogation) it skirts the boundaries of the Geneva Convention. It is not that I have an iota of pity for the Gitmo detainees, I just think that the Geneva Conventions are a more important ethical line not to cross. Surrendering your ideals to defend them seems a tad illogical, there should be a difference between us and them.

 

Point taken,

 

But, there is already a huge difference between us and them. Sometimes you have to take off the gloves and boots and step into the sh*t. It's the only way to fight that fire with fire.

 

Otherwise, upholding our precious moral standards will result in us living under their sharia standards....our complaints about racism, sexism and homophobia will seem trivial in comparison.

 

There is a fine line....pandering to extremist won't reveal it.

[HeyYou]

Regardless of it's efficacy (Enhanced interrogation) it skirts the boundaries of the Geneva Convention. It is not that I have an iota of pity for the Gitmo detainees, I just think that the Geneva Conventions are a more important ethical line not to cross. Surrendering your ideals to defend them seems a tad illogical, there should be a difference between us and them.

 

Thank You A. That's what I was looking for.

 

 

Regardless of it's efficacy (Enhanced interrogation) it skirts the boundaries of the Geneva Convention. It is not that I have an iota of pity for the Gitmo detainees, I just think that the Geneva Conventions are a more important ethical line not to cross. Surrendering your ideals to defend them seems a tad illogical, there should be a difference between us and them.

 

Point taken,

 

But, there is already a huge difference between us and them. Sometimes you have to take off the gloves and boots and step into the sh*t. It's the only way to fight that fire with fire.

 

Otherwise, upholding our precious moral standards will result in us living under their sharia standards....our complaints about racism, sexism and homophobia will seem trivial in comparison.

 

There is a fine line....pandering to extremist won't reveal it.

 

And that is why we should leave war fighting to..... the war fighters. The politicians set the END goal, and then the military gets us there. We defeated germany by destroying their industrial capacity, and choking off resources. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, including women and children, and no one here at home even batted an eye. We bombed Dresden, a target with little to no military value, just to see how the deaths of LOTS of civilians would affect the enemy morale....... and no one said boo. Today, that would be considered a war crime..... We have become too soft when it comes to defending our homeland, (and a whole lot of other areas as well....... but, that's several other topics...) and it appears that political correctness is the rule of the day. Hell, a guy in California was forced to remove his AMERICAN flag, because it might upset his Mexican neighbors. (who also happened to be living in California.......) That's just stupid...... But, I digress. Turn the generals loose. Tell them: Defeat ISIS, remove them as a threat, do not use nukes. And let them go. My guess is, ISIS would be history inside 90 days. Of course, a fair few folks out there in the world would be pissed at us..... but, they would have a whole new respect for the US. Or maybe that would be "fear"......

[edgeburner]

 

We defeated germany by destroying their industrial capacity, and choking off resources.

And, how did we acquire those targets? Intelligence garnered from,,,,,,?

 

It wasn't because we petted those German kitties.

 

nd that is why we should leave war fighting to..... the war fighters

Agreed! but we must acquire the intelligence to guide those fighters somehow.......somehow ain't always pretty

[edgeburner]

. Hell, a guy in California was forced to remove his AMERICAN flag, because it might upset his Mexican neighbors

 

 

This sort of thing is becoming more and more common, Riddle me this....if the American flag offends you, why to you live in America?

Edited December 9, 2014 by edgeburner

[HeyYou]

We knew where most of their production facilities were before the war..... we also had agents on the ground. Some of the more esoteric targets we probably used 'enhanced' methods to obtain information on, but, that was the exception, not the rule...... Would it have made any difference had we not? Maybe. But, there is something we can never know.

 

And that is part of the problem with the current situation in most of the Middle East.... we have no one on the ground to give us intelligence....... torturing them doesn't really help either.... religious fanatics are notorious for choosing an unpleasant death over giving up info........ I am quite certain the CIA used far more 'unpleasant' methods than mere water-boarding..... in some of their 'secret' prisons..... Either that, or they just handed the suspects over to 'less scrupulous' allies..... and let THEM have at 'em.

 

But, again, it has been PROVEN that torture is NOT an effective means of information gathering.

 

 

This sort of thing is becoming more and more common, Riddle me this....if the American flag offends you, why to you live in America?

 

 

That was my question as well.... Quite frankly, if you don't like me flying my american flag, IN AMERICA, get the flock OUT! I will happily lend you a boot up the backside to speed you on your way. :D

[edgeburner]

 

But, again, it has been PROVEN that torture is NOT an effective means of information gathering.

 

Actually, that is not true. depending on the individual. some fold like a lawn chair, others take their secrets with the to meet their ugly, bearded virgins in hell. There us no 'across the board" rule on that one.

 

 

. we also had agents on the ground. Some of the more esoteric targets we probably used 'enhanced' methods to obtain information on, but, that was the exception, not the rule....

No doubt, war is a dirty business and ethics often take a back seat to the anything goes method of gathering info. I guarantee you, they weren't worried about PC nonsense back in 1944/5

They weren't concerned about supplying the enemy prisoners with televisions, a balanced diet, newspapers from home, ect.

 

 

I will happily lend you a boot up the backside to speed you on your way. :D

Make that two boots. We'll launch him like a Skyrim giant pounding the ground :smile:

 

Edited December 9, 2014 by edgeburner

[HeyYou]

In this article in paragraph 5, it states:

 

 

It alleges that the harsh interrogations failed to produce unique and life-saving intelligence

 

Of course the intelligence agencies disagree, but then, even if they KNEW FOR A FACT that their interrogation techniques did not yield any significant results, they would still be required to say they did, to justify their use.

 

There are some other interesting tidbits in the report summary, and I doubt it tells the full story either.....

 

But, in the end, torturing captives to garner information, or any other reason for that matter.... just isn't something we, as the supposed 'good guys', should be doing. If we resort to those methods, not only are we in violation of various international laws, but we are morally wrong as well. There are other ways to get the information, that are just as, if not MORE effective. Especially when dealing with zealots......

[kvnchrist]

We are not the good guys. We are the ones with the biggest toys and the moxy to claim to be good. History is part of the spoils of war. He who victors determines the facts and that in turn produces history.

 

People talk all the time about goodness and rightiousness, but if you fail at doing what you have set out to do you are and shall remain a failure. Repect, dignity and honor can be claimed by those in bondage, but their voices are drowned out by all the screams.