Experts Say: Torture Yields Little Reliable Information.

[Alpha1]

Alpha1, your logic is scarey. You sound like a disciple of VP DICK. Basically you are saying that we are better than they are so it is okay for us to torture them. On one hand you claim moral values and on the other you claim those values only pertain to "us."

I believe the correct term for a person like you is Hypocrite. Is that correct?

Well Jim, I don't get the logic you used to arrive at the conclusions you've come to....

"Alpha1, your logic is scarey. You sound like a disciple of VP DICK. Basically you are saying that we are better than they are so it is okay for us to torture them. On one hand you claim moral values and on the other you claim those values only pertain to "us."

No where did I claim it was okay for us to torture them....and generally, we do claim those 'moral values' pertain to us....
Thats not to deny that shit happens, and US troops can be brutal at times, that too is reality....but one hour does not make a day nor one day a month...

---------------------------------------------

Fallacy #1...Torture doesn't work...

"I had learned what we all learned over there," McCain said. "Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."

That McCain broke under torture doesn't make him any less of an American hero. But it does prove he's wrong to claim that harsh interrogation techniques simply don't work.

So torture can in some cases be effective...that doesn't make it the right thing to do....that doesn't mean I endorse it...it only means I believe the reality of it...
---------------------------------------------

Fallacy # 2.....If we treat the enemy captives real nice...they in turn will treat US captives real nice....

My replay: "That would be just peachy keen if it were true."
Why do I say that?...because it happens to be reality....and I further said, "especially with THIS enemy"
If you fail to admit that THIS enemy is barbaric in its treatment of captives, then you must live under a rock with your head up your you know what.
How we treat them in captivity will have little to no affect on how they treat their captives....thats the sad truth of it...

This is not to say that their are no civilized enemys in the world, but you have to understand that war is killing, the ultimate act


McCain said"

“We’ve sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists,” McCain said earlier as he sat next to Bush in the Oval Office. “We have no grief for them, but what we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are. And I think this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on terror.”

John McCain...

And my comment was:

"Now this is a very valid reason...."

Is this hard to understand? The main result of us being humane is how the rest of the civilized world views us....

 

[jillian]

Jillian: Thank you for the kind compliment but ... Divide-the-enemy is MY tactic!

Ah... but I don't see you as the enemy. And my assumption is that you're smart enough not to want to allign yourself in interest with someone like that.

Praise from a liberal .... how can I redeem myself in the eyes of my fellow reactionary rightwingers?

Jerking that knee again, huh? lol...

Hmm... I know! I'll add what may be a small article of exception to my argument that we should never use torture.

Sometimes you hear one of the old chestnuts from sophomore philosophy courses: suppose there were a nuclear weapon hidden in New York, ticking inevitably towards detonation in a couple of hours. Far too soon to evacuate more than a tiny fraction of the population.

But you have captured the person who planted it. And he is susceptible to extreme torture. If you apply the electrodes to the right places, he will definitely tell you where it is, and you can disarm it, saving ten million lives.

Would it then be right to torture him?

Perhaps others would like to comment?

NOTE: do not try to wriggle out of this question by saying, "His information would not be reliable." In this case it will be reliable. Torture, and spare millions. Don't torture, and millions will be vaporized. (Those who raise the it-would-not-be-reliable-dodge are implicitly admitting that there is no other argument against torture, i.e., if t did work, then it would be okay to do it.)

Well, how do we know we have the right person? Then I'll address your inquiry.

 

[maineman]

MY post has NOTHING to do with the effectiveness of torture...
It has all to do with, no matter how good we treat our prisoners

"THIS enemy don't give a shit how you treat their captives....they'll cut your freekin' head off with dull knife while you try to scream and pray for a quick end ....they are the true evil animals ... they even make movies for you so you get the idea...they execute captives 90% of the time, without blinking an eye....while the US supplies our prisoners a Koran, culturally correct food, medical care, and a fuckin' volley ball to entertain themselves....only the truely simpleminded believe they will treat us as humanely as we treat them....you lie to yourselves so you can cling to a fantasy...."

Have a hard understanding that....""THIS enemy don't give a shit how you treat their captives....they'll cut your freekin' head off with dull knife while you try to scream and pray for a quick end ....they are the true evil animals ... they even make movies for you so you get the idea...they execute captives 90% of the time, without blinking an eye."

These animals don't give a rats ass what happens to their followers....they send them out to commit suicide...and cut the heads off their enemies....
and you think, "if we treat them nice, they will treat us nice"?

so...on this point, you are, in fact, saying that the great and powerful Alpha1 knows more about torture that McCain. That is what I have been telling you all along!

 

[Alpha1]

so...on this point, you are, in fact, saying that the great and powerful Alpha1 knows more about torture that McCain. That is what I have been telling you all along!

I'm really at a loss as to why you insist on mis-characterizing what I say....I happen to agree with the points made by these 28 retired military leaders and John McCain......

Admiral Hutson was also one of 28 retired military leaders who wrote a letter to Sen. McCain in support of the amendment (see letter at: www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/pdf/mccain-100305.pdf). "Getting our interrogation policies back on track will preserve our standing to fight for humane treatment of American soldiers who are captured in future combat operations, and it will help put our security efforts back on the moral high ground."

Our policy will preserve our right and standing to fight for humane treatment of American soldiers ....get the point?


In a statement released by Senator McCain,:

"We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world — a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."

This is a far cry from asserting "if we make nice, they will make nice".....this is wishful thinking at best....as McCain says..."We stand for something more in the world — a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad."

And needless to say..I NEVER claimed any of what you accuse me of....

If you must lie about what I say....try harder...or give me the post that goes over you head....I'll clarify...
and any one of my posts, as it is in everyone's case , is not meant to stand alone, they must be put into the contest of all my posts....

 

[DeadCanDance]

It would be nice to believe that torture never works to get reliable information. Of course, we would then have to ask ourselves why interrogators still want to use it. Are they just stupid? Are they just seeking a rationalization for gratifying their own sadistic impulses?

Every interrogation expert I've heard interviewed says that torture rarely provides accurate and useful information. And the few times it does, is outweighted by the amount of bogus information and leads that you have to waste resources on running down. Not to mention the harm to our moral authority, and our ability to persuade hearts and minds.

Torture is largely a technique for intimidation. That's why tin pot dictators from Pol Pot to Saddam used it. To intimidate people - and their nation at large - into fear and submission. In short, its primarily a tool for authoritarian control.

The fact is, that it can work, sometimes. It is not SO effective that someone who cares only for results will always want to use it as first resort. And other, slower, longer-term methods may yield results that are more reliable than torture. (See The Interrogator's War or similar books by the same author.)

But it worked pretty well for the French during the Algerian War of Independence -- they cracked the FLN network in Algiers through use of torture, not that it did them any good in the long run. I believe the Chileans under Allende had some successes with it, and also the Gestapo.

Yeah, but everybody you just mentioned, eventually LOST. Whatever momentary or trivial successes they had with torture, was outweighed by the ultimate outcome: they lost the hearts and minds of the people they tried to control and dominate.

We should eschew torture as either official, or officially-tolerated, policy, because -- especially in the kind of long-term war we are in -- our reputation as "the good guys" is worth many divisions. Our huge advantage over our adversaries is to be seen by ordinary people everywhere as the representatives of the advance of civilization. This does not just mean better entertainment technology and laser-designator fire-control systems.

Concur.

 

[Alpha1]

so...on this point, you are, in fact, saying that the great and powerful Alpha1 knows more about torture that McCain. That is what I have been telling you all along!

I'll even help you out MM....seems you quite taken with the second line of this paragraph taken from a McCain statement....but do read it all....

McCain:
Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects-in part-the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.



but its by far not the only comment McCain ever made.....Its 14 words out of thousands he made....and he mentions this as pertinent to Americans captured by more traditional enemies.....in that particular scenario it certainly has some validity.....is this your pet peeve with your accusations..?

Post 214...
Fallacy # 2.....If we treat the enemy captives real nice...they in turn will treat US captives real nice....

My replay: "That would be just peachy keen if it were true."
Why do I say that?...because it happens to be reality....and I further said, "especially with THIS enemy"
If you fail to admit that THIS enemy is barbaric in its treatment of captives, then you must live under a rock with your head up your you know what.
How we treat them in captivity will have little to no affect on how they treat their captives....thats the sad truth of it...

This is not to say that their are no civilized enemies in the world, but you have to understand that war is killing, the ultimate act


I might have explained further what I meant in bold above....but it was you that specified THIS war in your first post....

So, of course, there might be a time when we are at odds with a more civilized enemy and McCains 14 words will have taken on a great deal more meaning on treatment of prisioners on both sides....but my opinion still is valid...."if we make nice, they will make nice"....is still wishful thinking and more of a "gee, I hope so"....

Mistreatment by us will, in all probably, result in the enemy mis-treatment....but humane treatment is no guarantee of the principle of reciprocity, especially with this enemy.....so I'll give you a F+ just for trying so hard....

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

Whoa!!! In my post #242 above, I referred to "Chileans under Allende" using torture successfully. Of course I meant "Chileans under Pinochet". Had Allende's plan to socialize Chile come to fruition, the results would indeed have been torture for the Chilean people, if standing in queues to get your bread ration can be considered torture. And if the far Left within the Unidad Popular had come to dominate it, perhaps as the outcome of a civil war the Left won, genuine torture of captured Rightists might have taken place. But Allende's government had no political prisoners and did not torture the non-political ones it had.

Jillian: Thank you for the kind compliment but ... Divide-the-enemy is MY tactic!

Praise from a liberal .... how can I redeem myself in the eyes of my fellow reactionary rightwingers?

Hmm... I know! I'll add what may be a small article of exception to my argument that we should never use torture.

Sometimes you hear one of the old chestnuts from sophomore philosophy courses: suppose there were a nuclear weapon hidden in New York, ticking inevitably towards detonation in a couple of hours. Far too soon to evacuate more than a tiny fraction of the population.

But you have captured the person who planted it. And he is susceptible to extreme torture. If you apply the electrodes to the right places, he will definitely tell you where it is, and you can disarm it, saving ten million lives.

Would it then be right to torture him?

Perhaps others would like to comment?

NOTE: do not try to wriggle out of this question by saying, "His information would not be reliable." In this case it will be reliable. Torture, and spare millions. Don't torture, and millions will be vaporized. (Those who raise the it-would-not-be-reliable-dodge are implicitly admitting that there is no other argument against torture, i.e., if t did work, then it would be okay to do it.)

Sounds like a t.v. show produce by Faux.

As for what I think. I have a question. Is this person you're using for this scenario being held and "tortured" in the vicinity of the blast radius? If so, he should already know that he will die with the masses. If this is the case, torture is futile.

 

[maineman]

I'll even help you out MM....seems you quite taken with the second line of this paragraph taken from a McCain statement....but do read it all....

McCain:
Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects-in part-the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.



but its by far not the only comment McCain ever made.....Its 14 words out of thousands he made....and he mentions this as pertinent to Americans captured by more traditional enemies.....in that particular scenario it certainly has some validity.....is this your pet peeve with your accusations..?

Post 214...
Fallacy # 2.....If we treat the enemy captives real nice...they in turn will treat US captives real nice....

My replay: "That would be just peachy keen if it were true."
Why do I say that?...because it happens to be reality....and I further said, "especially with THIS enemy"
If you fail to admit that THIS enemy is barbaric in its treatment of captives, then you must live under a rock with your head up your you know what.
How we treat them in captivity will have little to no affect on how they treat their captives....thats the sad truth of it...

This is not to say that their are no civilized enemies in the world, but you have to understand that war is killing, the ultimate act


I might have explained further what I meant in bold above....but it was you that specified THIS war in your first post....

So, of course, there might be a time when we are at odds with a more civilized enemy and McCains 14 words will have taken on a great deal more meaning on treatment of prisioners on both sides....but my opinion still is valid...."if we make nice, they will make nice"....is still wishful thinking and more of a "gee, I hope so"....

Mistreatment by us will, in all probably, result in the enemy mis-treatment....but humane treatment is no guarantee of the principle of reciprocity, especially with this enemy.....so I'll give you a F+ just for trying so hard....

what was McCain's stance on torturing our prisoners? and what was the basis for his stance?

I'll wait.

oh...and you missed these words that ended the quote above:

and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.

 

[Doug]

Jillian: don't take everything I write absolutely seriously.

The Ticking Time Bomb question is always disturbing. I stipulate that we have the person who knows where the bomb is. I stipulate that he will tell us, if tortured. Since no one wants to draw the only possible conclusion, they just deny the stipulations. These queries are valid for messy real situations, of course. But it is useful to take pure unmessy cases to see if we can derive general principles from it.

My own solution to the Ticking Tick Bomb question is this: refuse to answer. If you say "no", don't torture, let ten million people die, you are ... irresponsible. If you say, "yes", torture .. you admit the validity, in principle of torture, when the stakes are high enough. Those who want to torture will take a "yes" answer to argue, if ten million lives saved justifies it, why not a thousand? Or ten? (There is an old joke whose punch line is "Madam, we have already established that. Now we are just haggling over the price.")

By refusing to answer, you avoid commiting to an insane position; and you avoid giving ammunition to the torture-them-all crowd.

What you are doing is acknowledging what I would argue is actually an old conservative principle (but one we should be happy to share with liberals): Life is too complex to be completely covered by sets of formal rules -- human judgement and wisdom play a role, and these are incapable of being completely formalized. There are things which are done and not said. There are things which are said, and not done.

Now, this leaves unanswered the question, torture, or not.

All I can say here is: you could trust me to do the right thing, and I suspect I could trust anyone else to do the right thing. But don't ask me to say what it is. See previous-but-one paragraph.

 

[Alpha1]

what was McCain's stance on torturing our prisoners? and what was the basis for his stance?

I'll wait.

oh...and you missed these words that ended the quote above:

and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.

I didn't miss them...it means the same thing in different words...
---------------------

In a statement released by Senator McCain,:

"We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world — a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."

(....)

Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects-in part-the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.

-----------
In another statement by McCain (which I can't locate right now), he said, if effect....that if the US should resort to the same tactics as our enemy, he
mused about how we as a nation would be seen in the eyes of the world.....I don't recall the exact words...but that was the gist of it...something akin to the first quote...like world opinion of the US would be diminished and suffer if it became routine method of our treatment of captives...

-----------
And I believe McCain also stated that not only was it morally wrong, but he questioned the effectiveness of it.....

So the basis of his views come from a number of directions...and each one has a degree of validity....

 

[maineman]

I didn't miss them...it means the same thing in different words...
---------------------

In a statement released by Senator McCain,:

"We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world — a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."

(....)

Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects-in part-the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.

-----------
In another statement by McCain (which I can't locate right now), he said, if effect....that if the US should resort to the same tactics as our enemy, he
mused about how we as a nation would be seen in the eyes of the world.....I don't recall the exact words...but that was the gist of it...something akin to the first quote...like world opinion of the US would be diminished and suffer if it became routine method of our treatment of captives...

-----------
And I believe McCain also stated that not only was it morally wrong, but he questioned the effectiveness of it.....

So the basis of his views come from a number of directions...and each one has a degree of validity....

a lot of "I believe" and "I think" in that tapdancing act.

Just quit the bullshit. Do you , or do you not, hold yourself up to be a greater authority on torture than John McCain?

 

[Gunny]

so John McCain....decorated Vietnam vet and POW...is full of shit and ALPHA1, the anonymous internet poster, knows better?

McCain IS full of shit.

 

[maineman]

McCain IS full of shit.

his opinion about torturing prisoners is not more informed than alpha1's, or YOURS?

 

[Gunny]

his opinion about torturing prisoners is not more informed than alpha1's, or YOURS?

Nope. His opinion about BEING tortured is. At the same time, I'd say his experience disqualifies him as having an objective opinion.

There's a WHOLE lot of dishonesty in the topic of "torture" as it is defined and redefined to suit political arguments. Besides the political extemism, there's the emotional extremism involved, and in most cases, with the most "morally-outraged" being the verysame people who squeal about morality when it inconveniences their desires.

An open, honest debate on the topic without the aforemention BS would be rather refreshing, to say the least.

 

[Alpha1]

OSS........Office of Strategic Services
OSS-X2...OSS counter-espionage branch
IRIS........Interim Research and Intelligence Service
SI...........Secret Intelligence-War Department
SSU........Strategic Services Unit
CIG.........Central Intelligence Group
OSO........Office of Special Operations
CIA.........Central Intelligence Agency

These groups were established during WWII and after, in the 40's.....
What do imagine happened to foreign spys and enemy agents that these groups found in their midst and took into custody ?

In their galactic naiveity, todays left would probably think we had a little dinner party and politely asked these foreign agents to tell us their secrets and who they reported to, etc....then sent them on their merry way.
--------------------------
Sandy Berger (Clinton Administration):

"In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him (Osama)here is to bring him into the justice system," Mr. Berger told the Washington Post in October 2001. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him someplace where justice is more 'streamlined.'"

Streamlined ? What about that ? Sound just a little like 'rendition' ?
No outrage from the media or the Democrats then, was there ? Can't be BJ Billy and Mr. Sandy Burgler condoned rendition, can it ?
where justice is more 'streamlined ?
-------------------------
Where do terms like..."wet work" or "plausible deniability" come from ? Something new since Bush? Really?
------------------------
The CIA has been accussed of some 'questionable deeds' over the course of 60 years, under both Republicans and Democrats....

The media, for the most part was not very aggressive in exposing or telling the world of these supected misdeeds at the time....
Neither Democrats nor Republicans were very vocal in exposing or telling the world of these supected misdeeds at the time.....
-----------------------
That was then...this is now

Times have changed...Democrats have changed.....the Neo-Dimocrats...

they've become the slime party....
power at any cost party....
even if it means sliming their own country,
exposing their own county's secrets,
undermining their country is no deterrent to them....
sliming their President and Military, in public for the world to see is common

It is they that have done the most damage to our public image in the eyes of the world.....it is they that fuel the fires of our enemy

The party JFK or even LBJ would not have stooped so low into the filth as todays Slimy Democrats....they were a different breed, a better breed then....they were my party then.

Today, the new breed, make me want to puke...

 

[maineman]

no political bullshit here at all.,,not on this topic, not from me.

I understand completely that our enemies today could give a shit about the laws of war... and I don't think that matters one bit. I believe that we cannot know who our enemies of tomorrow are...and we can not, therefore, know how THEY will feel about those laws. And I firmly believe that however we treat our enemies of today will become the BEST we can expect those future enemies to treat our troops captured on the battlefields of that future war.

But as long as you have your yellow made in china support the troops bumper magnet, the real consequences for future GI's is really of no consequences.

that chickenshit attitude makes me wanna puke.

 

[AllieBaba]

UMMMM exactly how do we torture terrorists again? And for that matter what countries Army do these fighters fight for? What does their uniform look like? And when captured under what war bill are they protected? Also have the 4 American Soldiers that have been captured been tortured or have they been treated with respect?

We torture them by taunting them. Like the French in Monty Python....

 

[Warner]

We have to decide our own moral stance on torture and stick to it. We cannot apply one standard to Arabs and another to European's. It damages us when we do otherwise.

Personally, I don't have a lot of problems with torturing Arabs or any other terrorist as long as they are caught red handed and there is no doubt that they are in fact a terrorist. However torture used against captured combatants is another story, and against "suspects" is totally unacceptable.

However the bigger point that we need to understand w.r.t. the Arab's is that under their own codes it is okay to torture them. What it is not okay to do is to use their faith against them. Stress positions, water-boarding, beatings, and even cutting their heads off with a dull knife are acceptable. Forcing them to stand naked in front of a woman, positioning them in homosexual poses, or making them eat pork are not. Such violations of Muslim dignity are what enrage the Islamic world against us and are of no real benefit to us anyway.

Want to get info out of a prisoner and have no moral restrictions about how you get it? It's simple! Make them smoke crack for a few days. Then withhold it unless they answer your questions truthfully. Let them know you know the answers to some of the questions you will be asking and if they tell you any lies you will go away for a few hours and they will not get any crack. They'll tell you everything they know and they won't lie. Crackheads will sell their babies for a hit.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

A couple of problems with torture, other than the fact that decent people find it to be monsterous:

* For starters, the way we get our suspects is ripe for abuse. We get a tipoff from someone, and arrest our suspect. Trouble is, people over there are just turning in people they don't like, especially from other tribes. They may be insurgents, or completely innocent. It's sort of like Soviet street sweeps--you've got a failed State, and rather than admit defeat, they are determined to look like they're doing something. If they can't find the enemy, they'll make one up.

* Once you torture someone, you may get reliable information. Or not. If the person being tortured is not involved in terrorist activity, they'll make up any fantastical fairy tale they can think of to get the torture to stop. So now you've got bad information, and our troops will be sent to attack or arrest innocent people, which diverts them from attacking the real enemies.

Also, "they are doing it too!" doesn't fly, otherwise we would have been gassing german POW's during WWII.

 

[Shogun]

I applaud Baron vonbigmeat for his position AND for having one of the funniest names on this messageboard.