Enhanched Interrogation vs. Torture?

[kvnchrist]

Well, as long as we are being so humorous. Why don't we, just for fun go to the 59th floor of a skyscraper and set the room on fire, so there's no way out. Then we can make jokes about wither we want to burn to death on aviation fuel or jump, hoping against hope that we have a heart attack before we collide with the ground. I wonder if their heart jumped into their throat as they felt the pull of gravity or did they feel that weird sense you get from a roller coaster, when they reached terminal velocity? I wonder if they spattered when they hit or did they drive their spines into the concrete like tomb stones?

 

I don't think the present path the topic is on is of benefit to anyone. So I'll reverse it here and remind you guys of what is at steak here.

 

 

People forget who these people are and what they are capable of, when the sun shines and the storms of long ago are forgotten. I come from a religious background. I've seen fanaticism up close and personal. Do you really think they care any more about us then that Kansas man did about that abortion doctor right before he blew the guys brains out.?

 

We are the evilest of evil to these people and we are all marked for the same death. They just haven't been in to situation to place their cross hairs on our personage yet.

 

We have about as much of a chance of reasoning with them as Nancy Pelosi has of reasoning with Pat Robertson. Both groups have their own set of truths and these terrorist want nothing more than to politicize their own version of faith and bury the rest of the world with it.

 

You think the environmentalist want to cleans the air and you think they are pushy. These people are 100 times worse with their ideology and they want to cleanse the whole world. They don't push, they explode.

[Maharg67]

 

Torture is not effective in gaining strong, reliable, vital information. A well experienced interrogator, not torturer, gains information more effectively by more subtle means. Tortured people often lie to stop the pain, because they are angry and even if they try to be accurate the torture itself has befuddled their minds.

 

Many studies, the testimonies of experienced people, have proven this and yet the false belief, justifications, of torture, continue.

 

This issue is not just about the USA but goes way back before there was a USA and is international in nature. My own country, Australia, has also been implicated of the involvement in secret torture programs.

 

 

This seems to be the ongoing naritive by some people. That this was torture and since it was torture then the information gained was useless. There's a lot of assumptions in this entire way of thinking.

 

 

Your response does not make sense to me. It was torture that was carried out, there is no other way to describe it truthfully. Torture has been proven to be useless in gaining useful information. Both those who have tortured and those who have been tortured have admitted as much. If you can not take their testimonies seriously, who can you take seriously? There are no false assumptions but reliable conclusions based upon evidence, when it comes to the push against the legitimate use of torture to gain information.

 

It has also been stated, by those on the scene and who have heavily researched it, that torture is a very good way of recruiting terrorists because they are brought together, where they can form networks, and are all abused terribly whether they are actually guilty or not; thus they have both incentive, and the means, to prepare for future terrorism. The counter argument that 'if they are in such a high security special prison' that they 'must be guilty' is both illogical and unfair but it is also damaging to the fight against terrorism.

 

Terrorists need to be found early, and dealt with efficiently, before they can carry out acts of terrorism but torture is not an effective way of helping to do so. There are better, more effective, ways of gaining information and blocking any terrorist acts before they happen.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

Torture is not effective in gaining strong, reliable, vital information. A well experienced interrogator, not torturer, gains information more effectively by more subtle means. Tortured people often lie to stop the pain, because they are angry and even if they try to be accurate the torture itself has befuddled their minds.

 

Many studies, the testimonies of experienced people, have proven this and yet the false belief, justifications, of torture, continue.

 

This issue is not just about the USA but goes way back before there was a USA and is international in nature. My own country, Australia, has also been implicated of the involvement in secret torture programs.

 

 

This seems to be the ongoing naritive by some people. That this was torture and since it was torture then the information gained was useless. There's a lot of assumptions in this entire way of thinking.

 

 

Your response does not make sense to me. It was torture that was carried out, there is no other way to describe it truthfully. Torture has been proven to be useless in gaining useful information. Both those who have tortured and those who have been tortured have admitted as much. If you can not take their testimonies seriously, who can you take seriously? There are no false assumptions but reliable conclusions based upon evidence, when it comes to the push against the legitimate use of torture to gain information.

 

It has also been stated, by those on the scene and who have heavily researched it, that torture is a very good way of recruiting terrorists because they are brought together, where they can form networks, and are all abused terribly whether they are actually guilty or not; thus they have both incentive, and the means, to prepare for future terrorism. The counter argument that 'if they are in such a high security special prison' that they 'must be guilty' is both illogical and unfair but it is also damaging to the fight against terrorism.

 

Terrorists need to be found early, and dealt with efficiently, before they can carry out acts of terrorism but torture is not an effective way of helping to do so. There are better, more effective, ways of gaining information and blocking any terrorist acts before they happen.

 

 

 

I repeat my last post and add that any atrocity that those who wish to gain recruits can manufacture is useful to them, even without a political produced study done with a preconceived conclusion.

[Maharg67]

 

 

 

Torture is not effective in gaining strong, reliable, vital information. A well experienced interrogator, not torturer, gains information more effectively by more subtle means. Tortured people often lie to stop the pain, because they are angry and even if they try to be accurate the torture itself has befuddled their minds.

 

Many studies, the testimonies of experienced people, have proven this and yet the false belief, justifications, of torture, continue.

 

This issue is not just about the USA but goes way back before there was a USA and is international in nature. My own country, Australia, has also been implicated of the involvement in secret torture programs.

 

 

This seems to be the ongoing naritive by some people. That this was torture and since it was torture then the information gained was useless. There's a lot of assumptions in this entire way of thinking.

 

 

Your response does not make sense to me. It was torture that was carried out, there is no other way to describe it truthfully. Torture has been proven to be useless in gaining useful information. Both those who have tortured and those who have been tortured have admitted as much. If you can not take their testimonies seriously, who can you take seriously? There are no false assumptions but reliable conclusions based upon evidence, when it comes to the push against the legitimate use of torture to gain information.

 

It has also been stated, by those on the scene and who have heavily researched it, that torture is a very good way of recruiting terrorists because they are brought together, where they can form networks, and are all abused terribly whether they are actually guilty or not; thus they have both incentive, and the means, to prepare for future terrorism. The counter argument that 'if they are in such a high security special prison' that they 'must be guilty' is both illogical and unfair but it is also damaging to the fight against terrorism.

 

Terrorists need to be found early, and dealt with efficiently, before they can carry out acts of terrorism but torture is not an effective way of helping to do so. There are better, more effective, ways of gaining information and blocking any terrorist acts before they happen.

 

 

 

I repeat my last post and add that any atrocity that those who wish to gain recruits can manufacture is useful to them, even without a political produced study done with a preconceived conclusion.

 

 

Again your response is puzzling. Atrocity produced by who? I did not mention any atrocity as manufactured by 'those who wish to gain recruits'. The atrocity was carried out by one side and the recruiting was done by the other side.

 

The studies done were of a wide range done by many factions, some being opposed to each other. The idea of 'preconceived conclusions' is a misleading one under such conditions. It is also easy to label any study as preconceived, especially if one disagrees with its conclusions. As for the use of the term 'political' it is almost meaningless because all of what is happening is to do with politics. All sides are being political. Unless you define only those you disagree with as being 'political', I can find no strong reason for you using such a term in the context that you did so.

[xENJAJVEx]

is it really honorable to be ripped apart by lions? I could think of MUCH better ways to die....... Just stick a sword in my chest, thankyouverymuch.

Well, if you're letting the man (the criminal) fight to the death, instead of just being hanged or gassed or whatever then I'd class that as an "honourable" death. However, depending on what type of crime the said individual has

committed, he could then be released . . . If he survived that is. He'd obviously have a fair chance against the beasts; a weapon, some armour and plenty of opportunity to use the environment to his advantage.

 

It would then be a case of Survival of the Fittest. But why not allow the public to enjoy this spectacle? :happy: I couldn't think of any reason not to allow them.

[kvnchrist]

Fanatics need nothing more than ideology for them to gain adherents to their cause. How many times has this been proven, even in our own society with the left and right . All you need is a convincing story and you can get several people to agree with you. Hell, the media sensationalizes one stupid thing some crackpot says and suddenly everyone on that side of the political spectrum is the same way. I don't need studies to show me what I've seen with my own eyes.

 

Do you really think that a partisan report did without any input by the other side and one that was done without interviewing anyone who was actually there at the time can be taken with anything more than a grain of salt. The preconception could quite possibly be on the Democrats side as they may have been looking for any evidence that would fit their narrative. I don't see, in today's political climate of anything factual coming from purely partisan investigations. Hell, the Republicans have been on witch hunts against the Obams administration for years. Do you think anything they will come up with will be in any way fair? The Democrats put this together and shoved it out at the last minute as a parting shot at the Republicans because it was under a Republican administration which, supposedly all this occurred under.

 

It simply blows my mind, with all the anger and hate in Washington and the blindly partisan leanings of the media cronies why anyone would instantaneously accept any report as totally true from any single political party. These reports that were supposedly used instead of interviewing to get to the facts could very well be mined for ammo to be thrown at the other side. How many times have you seen people on this very debate area read into what others have posted because how they felt about the individual? If you are looking for something, it isn't long before you find it. You just have to manipulate the information at hand.

[kvnchrist]

 

is it really honorable to be ripped apart by lions? I could think of MUCH better ways to die....... Just stick a sword in my chest, thankyouverymuch.

Well, if you're letting the man (the criminal) fight to the death, instead of just being hanged or gassed or whatever then I'd class that as an "honourable" death. However, depending on what type of crime the said individual has

committed, he could then be released . . . If he survived that is. He'd obviously have a fair chance against the beasts; a weapon, some armour and plenty of opportunity to use the environment to his advantage.

 

It would then be a case of Survival of the Fittest. But why not allow the public to enjoy this spectacle? :happy: I couldn't think of any reason not to allow them.

 

 

 

This topic is getting drug down to the level of absurdity and I have also added to that absurdity with sarcasm of my own. That's the best example of becoming irritated and frustrated I know of and I don't wish follow down this road. I apologize to everyone and the staff for that childish outburst.

 

If I haven't made my point by now , I don't think I ever will. I'm done with this topic. You guys have fun.

[HeyYou]

I would point out, that the REASON it is a 'partisan' report, is because the republicans REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE. They already knew the answer as well. We have known the answer since long before King George 'the decider' stated that 'it isn't really torture'. What a load of bull feces. The dems knew what the results were going to be as well, as the conclusion that torture is worthless as an intelligence gathering tool was know LONG before this report was even commissioned. Quite frankly, I am unsure why they bothered to waste several years, and god knows how much money..... on this in any event. There really wasn't a point. (but then, does ANYTHING washington does actually NEED to have a point?)

 

Is this going to be used against us? You bet. And not just by the jihadi's either. Even Lil' Kim o' N. Korea is cashing in on this. "Human Rights Abuses"..... I can see him now, sitting behind his desk, giggling, and pointing, and whispering behind his hand "And they call US barbarians........"

 

Right. That is just so much the image the US really wants to portray on the national stage...... Even the Australians are second guessing their 'close alliance' with us..... And I don't blame them.

[Beriallord]

If they were to catch someone like the leader of ISIS, in which they know for 100% certainty has TONS of intel that could save many lives, I got no problems with not only water boarding, but even threatening to hook his nuts up to a car battery if he doesn't start talking quickly and truthfully.

[HeyYou]

If they were to catch someone like the leader of ISIS, in which they know for 100% certainty has TONS of intel that could save many lives, I got no problems with not only water boarding, but even threatening to hook his nuts up to a car battery if he doesn't start talking quickly and truthfully.

In all reality, if we had the leader of ISIS, I wouldn't mind hooking him up to the battery charger just for 'fun'. I may, or may not, ask him some questions.

 

"Does that hurt?"

 

"Does more amperage hurt more?"

 

Etc.