Defining the goal Well, anything can be said to work if you demand certain goals. Torture works great. It hurts. It makes people say whatever they think their torturer wants to hear. And in doing so, that perpetuates the need for more torture, since whatever they say is what one wants to hear and not necessarily the truth, so torture them some more just to make sure. It's all in how we define the goals. Still, though, help me out with something: (1) Create program to help soldiers avoid giving false confessions under enemy duress. (2) Examine the techniques used by enemies to elicit these false confessions. (3) Reapply these techniques to a new program to be used against enemies. (4) Claim that the information you got from these techniques was good. I mean, does it really make sense to use enemy techniques for producing false confessions to torture the "truth" out of suspects? What the Bush administration did was say, "Let's use these techniques our enemies applied to cause our soldiers to give false confessions, and hope we get real information from the people we torture. Oh, and even if we don't, we'll say we did. And then some people around the nation and world will be on our side and say stuff like, 'I don't advocate torture, but I believe it works'." And getting a lot of worthless information? Okay, how about this? First, I'll tap your phone and collect a lot of useless information. And then I'll torture the shit out of you and collect a lot of useless information. And then I'll tell everybody that I had to, that you made me do it. And they'll nod and say, "Well, if he had to ...." And as you nurse your wounds and recover from the damage, just remember that there's no difference between tapping your phone and torturing the shit out of you. Sorry, dude. Futility is one thing. But committing crimes against humanity in pursuit of futility is something else entirely. • • • Does anyone remember last year when Gen. Petraeus came to testify before Congress? MoveOn took out an advert, which everyone on the Hill condemned, and the message we got from the right wing was that Petraeus was an honorable man and nobody had the right to accuse him of lying. Well, we've all had a chance to see Petraeus' May, 2007 memo explaining to the troops under his command that torture doesn't work. And, just like here at Sciforums, Petraeus is persona non gratis on this issue. Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. That would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone 'talk;' however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.____________________ Notes: Petraeus, David. Memorandum. May 10, 2007. WashingtonPost.com. Accessed May 5, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/petraeus_values_051007.pdf
It's even worse than that. Not only does torture itself not work, it is incompatible with interrogation techniques that do work. This is important, as the only principled defense of torture I've yet heard (and which is, by all accounts, the justification that was actually in force) is that those responsible couldn't be sure that torture wouldn't work, and so had the obligation to pursue it, what with thousands of lives on the line, etc. Call this the "Hail Mary" justification: torture as a last resort in desparate circumstances. But that (thin) rationale also breaks down, when you consider that torture is not only known to be ineffective as an intelligence gathering tool, but that it is also well known to preclude other, effective approaches. It is actively counter-productive: all that useless information you gather just adds to the confusion and corrupts the reliability of your intelligence. So what we have is not the pursuit of a last-ditch option, but the outright sabotage of intelligence gathering, in a time of war. To stick with the football analogy, what we have is not so much a Hail Mary pass, as a quarterback that, upon receiving the snap, promptly turns around and runs into his own inzone. And then the idiot tells us he HAD to do that, because it was the ONLY chance to win the game.
Just the basic abilities to read and distinguish credible experts from charlatans, coupled with a lack of ideological bias.
Perhaps a little reading might be helpful Buffalo Roam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Utilitarian_Arguments_Against_Torture There is a strong utilitarian argument against torture; namely, that there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness. The lack of scientific basis for the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation techniques is summarized in a 2006 Intelligence Science Board report titled "EDUCING INFORMATION, Interrogation: Science and Art, Foundations for the Future". The report is currently hosted in the FAS website. http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf
Really? and just how did they determine this? Who and how did they torture someone to prove this? What were their methods and controls? What was their objective? To prove that torture doesn't work? Now how about aggressive interrogation? The redacted releases show that aggressive interrogation leads to actionable intelligence, or it wouldn't have been redacted.
Yes you are quite correct. But I like calling hannity a coward because he dislikes it. I have heard his rants when someone calls him a chicken hawk...kind of funny in a strange sort of way. But I guess folks buy the act. What is truely scary is the right wing nut jobs on talk radio are advocating..justifying the torture of common criminals. Where does it stop. This is truely scary stuff coming from the right wing nut jobs.
Perhaps you might be willing to answer a general question Perhaps you might, for once, give a genuine answer to a question. Seriously, if they've got something better, where is it? What is the political wisdom of withholding something real in order to promote bullshit? Where has this mysterious, magic bean of information been? And why hide it away? I asked you these questions last month, Mr. Roam, and for whatever reasons you did not address them. I am genuinely curious about your theory on this one. For nearly four years, now, the Bush crew has been pushing several examples of how their torture works. For pretty much the entire time, those stories were soundly debunked. Yet, as I have noted many times, the Bush administration kept on pushing the same stories despite the response. So now the GOP has gone into conspiracy-theory mode. The evidence has been redacted! The evidence has been redacted! Apparently, 100 days is the period in which the sensitive information that the Bush administration refused to release stopped being so dangerous to national security. How convenient. But, seriously, if the Bush administration had its proof of the efficacy of torture, why spend almost four years bullshitting us? Really, I would like your opinion and insight. Because by the current state of the torture-advocacy argument, (1) Torture works, and we have the data to prove it. (2) Because the data was sensitive to national security, it wasn't released. (3) In lieu of the real data, we promoted lies. (4) Now that everything is coming to bear on we who torture, we want this information released. (5) Coincidentally, sometime in the last 100 days, right about the time Obama said investigation and prosecution would be the AG's decision, the data stopped being a national security issue. Yes, that's right. Torture works, and we can prove it, but we're not going to because we think it's risky to do so, but we will lie to you for four years, and when our story starts coming apart at the seams, we will demand the release of the very same information we sought to keep classified because, while we kept it classified for legitimate reasons, the black socialist in the White House is keeping it under wraps for purely political reasons. Yes, Obama's first 100 days made all the difference in the world, didn't it? The national security threat that would have occurred had Bush and Cheney released the memos to the public in order to prove their case has completely disappeared now that Barack Hussein Obama is in the White House.
How about you first read the 370-odd page exhaustive report issued by the National Defense Intelligence College for yourself, with an eye for those questions, and then point us to where you think any problems lie in their methodology or conclusions. Just shotgunning possible objections to something you haven't read doesn't convince anyone of anything but your laziness.
Well, yeah .... Perhaps I'm being a bit intrusive, but isn't that a little selfish a justification? I mean, the larger truth that it hints at is that stating the obvious annoys the hell out of people drowning in denial. But, to the other, yes, I see the entertainment value in it. I only raise the point because for all the invective these folks spew at everyone else, the one thing they can't tolerate is when their methods are turned on them. The surest way to deafen a war dog is to speak the truth. And that's their job. Some people who have nothing better to do simply withdraw and stay away from other people. Others, like Hannity, O'Reilly, and the like, would rather try to make everyone miserable. Speaking of right-wing radio gasbags, did you hear about Michael Savage?
UK privileges revoked He's on the UK's ban list. He can't enter the British empire. The Home Secretary this week released sixteen of twenty-two names on its no-entry list, omitting six names for reasons of "public interest". There are a few Americans on it; Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper we already knew about. Michael Savage A. Weiner, apparently, is another name. And he's furious, saying he wants to sue the Home Secretary for defamation. See Huffington Post or BBC for starters.
Why? What has Savage done? He's not promoting violence... Is it because you don't agree with what he has to say?
Take your pick: http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/michael_savage The guy is a hate monger...better than hannity or limbaugh...but a hame monger none the less.
It is a broader standard The standard is broader than simply "promoting violence". Here, instead of a liberal outlet like HuffPo or a government-sponsored organization like BBC, let's go with something right-wing, like WorldNetDaily: Smith explained to Britain's GMTV that she believed it was "important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country." "Coming to this country is a privilege," she said. "If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded." Savage said he wants top First Amendment attorneys to represent him "in a major international case." "I want to sue the British home secretary for defamation," he said, "for linking me up with murderers because of my opinions, my writings, my speaking – none of which have advocated any violence, ever. .... .... In an interview with the BBC, Smith said Savage, the No. 3-rated radio host in the U.S., is "someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country." I would point out, since a conservative political voice is involved, that conservatives frequently make the point that Hispanics and Muslims coming to the United States ought to adhere to our standards and values. Apparently, some of them also think that when Americans travel abroad, our hosts ought to adhere to our standards and values. It's an interesting contrast. Additionally, I'll note that I find it amusing that Savage wants "top First Amendment attorneys" to represent him in British jurisdiction. And, you know, this is Britain we're talking about. Could someone please provide me an article or transcript in which Savage has protested the no-fly list in the U.S.? You know, the one that suspects members of Congress? Comparatively, a friend of mine once ran a yellow light (turning red as he passed through) because he was trying to get his car off a major thoroughfare before it burst into flames. The officer never asked him what was going on, but simply arrested him. Had he been convicted of reckless endangerment, he would have been barred entry to England, where he was a student at the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts. When we negotiated my plea deal for a DUI charge, even the DA was sympathetic to finding a charge that would not bar me entry to Canada. In either case, the difference would be how the U.S. regards these outcomes and how Canada or England do. And while Savage has done nothing illegal under American law that we know of—although plenty would accuse him of slander—he apparently transgressed, at some point, British standards. ____________________ Notes: "Banned by U.K., Savage hits back". May 5, 2009. WorldNetDaily.com. Accessed May 6, 2009. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97127
No, you just attribute credibility to those who agree with your opinion and bias, and have no experience to distinguish credible experts from charlatans. Your Human aren't you? so this is factual impossibility. :roflmao:
Wow, three entire days and that's all you could come up with? If there are credible experts out there who are arguing that torture works (as an intelligence gathering device, that is, and not an instrument of state terror), then it should be easy enough for you to cite one of them in response. That would shut me up a lot more effectively than personal aspersions from someone who's never even met me. But there you have a problem: anyone with any credibility, from any point on the political spectrum, knows that torture doesn't work, and has said so. Do you consider, for example, David Paetreus to be an unreliable charlatan? The National Defence Intelligence College?
Well .... Shortly before the election, the Daily Telegraph, Britain's leading quality broadsheet, published its lists of the 100 most influential US conservatives and liberals. They ranked Sean Hannity at #44. For comparison, former VP Cheney was #6, former President Bush #21, Rush Limbaugh #3, Ann Coulter #84, and RNC Chairman Michael Steele did not, as far as I can tell, make the list. (The only Google hit led to the comments for the article; I'm still combing the list itself, an exercise that helps me understand a bit about masochism.) Oh, a cross-dressing adulterer with financial ties to Al Qaeda topped the list. Amazing, that. Can't say how much those rankings have changed since the election loss, massive alienation of voters, and power struggle within the RNC. Still, though, if you want to find a reason to bang your head against a brick wall until you wake up in the back of an ambulance— "The most influential US Conservatives". The Daily Telegraph. October 14, 2008. Telegraph.co.uk. Accessed May 8, 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1435461/The-most-influential-US-conservatives-1-20.html —that'll do it.
