CDZ Would you support enhanced interrogation if:

[jwoodie]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

 

[Care4all]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

 

[Pop23]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

Yep and Yep. No question about it

 

[Pop23]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree

 

[martybegan]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

Drugs are considered by some to be torture.

 

[TNHarley]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

I always thought "proven interrogation techniques" was enhanced interrogation? lol

 

[there4eyeM]

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

 

[Pop23]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

I always thought "proven interrogation techniques" was enhanced interrogation? lol

No, what they think it is, is a stern talking to and losing the right to pudding at dinner time!

 

[TNHarley]

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

So what do you instead?

 

[Care4all]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree

torture is known to give false information, sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase, the terrorist wants to die and be a martyr...

better to use proven techniques of interrogation questioning and get boots on the ground doing gumshoe work to find it...

 

[Pop23]

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

If we were dealing with an enemy that attacked face to face, man to man, I might agree with you. But when dealing with an enemy that hides among our own and looks to inflict incredible damage to our people and our economy..........

Katie bar the door, the rule book gets thrown out, and here's the deal. Not a single civilized nation would be up in arms about it. Not one.

If the same was plotted in France or Germany, and they saved the live's of a large number of their citizens by torturing a terrorist, we would PROUDLY stand by them.

FACT

 

[Pop23]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree

torture is known to give false information, sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase, the terrorist wants to die and be a martyr...

better to use proven techniques of interrogation questioning and get boots on the ground doing gumshoe work to find it...

I've not said those techniques should be abandoned, but if they fail, and if you want, give them the option to talk, or get tortured. They prefer the latter, so be it. No skin off my back, but we may peel some off his.

 

[there4eyeM]

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

So what do you instead?

Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.

 

[martybegan]

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

So what do you instead?

Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[martybegan]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree

torture is known to give false information, sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase, the terrorist wants to die and be a martyr...

better to use proven techniques of interrogation questioning and get boots on the ground doing gumshoe work to find it...

Care to define "proven techniques?"

 

[there4eyeM]

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

So what do you instead?

Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.

You didn't answer the question.

Most certainly wrong. The question in the cited post was answered and alternatives to physical pain infliction, mostly for the eagerly sadistic joy of doing it (as is clear from some posters), has been discussed in above threads. Read them.

 

[Rambunctious]

I support it...it should be done as a common practice until this Jihad is over....to eliminate it from our quiver is foolish...are we fools?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Such is the reprehensible right's contempt for the rule of law.

The ends never justify the means.

 

[Pop23]

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

So what do you instead?

Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.

You didn't answer the question.

Most certainly wrong. The question in the cited post was answered and alternatives to physical pain infliction, mostly for the eagerly sadistic joy of doing it (as is clear from some posters), has been discussed in above threads. Read them.

And still no answer to what you would do?

What would you do if normal interrogation tactics failed (Which is often the case)? Let your fellow countrymen die? Why, because you want to look good to the other kids?

 

[jwoodie]

The interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, seems to exemplify this conundrum. It has been credited with locating Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of these attacks, and possibly thwarting other attacks. What if all interrogation techniques were not used and thousands of people died as a result? Would anyone be held responsible for not preventing this?