CDZ Would you support enhanced interrogation if:

[Pop23]

Far fewer than die if I don't

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

So when you have maybe 12 or 36 hours to interrogate somebody and you TRULY believe there is a WMD targeted for Chicago --- is "maybe" not good enough for you?

Maybe ... a mind-reading machine would be more effective
Maybe ... begging would be more effective
Maybe ... befriending would be more effective
Maybe ... bribing would be more effective
Maybe ... cajoling would be more effective
Maybe ... drugging would be more effective
Maybe ... reasoning would be more effective
Maybe ... torture would be more effective

Why use torture?

Because there is no downside

 

[Pop23]

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

I've never implied that other methods would not work. I don't know where you get your ideas sometimes, or that those methods should not be tried first, but what I have argued is, that torture be used when all else fails, especially when millions of life's might be at stake.

So leave now and go get a life.

You implied torture is the best method, which it what I took issue with. Who knows what I said to make you think otherwise? But you actually did assert....

Far fewer than die if I don't [torture]

There is absolutely no way to assert that. There is no data, no study, proof that is necessarily true.

That is what I'm saying. You are responsible for any other meaning you concocted from that.

Take it out of context and you can make it whatever you want. But we know better.

My entire argument is, has been, and will be that, with time running out, a prisoner that appears to be resistant to the normal methods, that accelerating it beyond the norm is only logical.

And you've offered nothing you think works better than torture and you're doing so with no evidence to back up your position.

I have, your just too stupid to understand it.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

So when you have maybe 12 or 36 hours to interrogate somebody and you TRULY believe there is a WMD targeted for Chicago --- is "maybe" not good enough for you?

Maybe ... a mind-reading machine would be more effective
Maybe ... begging would be more effective
Maybe ... befriending would be more effective
Maybe ... bribing would be more effective
Maybe ... cajoling would be more effective
Maybe ... drugging would be more effective
Maybe ... reasoning would be more effective
Maybe ... torture would be more effective

Why use torture?

Because there is no downside

Again.... yes, there is a downside.

The downside is perhaps one of those other methods works better than torture and would have saved NYC where torture may not have.

 

[Faun]

I have, your just too stupid to understand it.

No, you haven't. You can't since there is no proof that torture is the most effective method to acquire information from a suspect.

And by the way .... accurate spelling is helpful when calling others, stupid.

 

[Pop23]

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

So when you have maybe 12 or 36 hours to interrogate somebody and you TRULY believe there is a WMD targeted for Chicago --- is "maybe" not good enough for you?

Maybe ... a mind-reading machine would be more effective
Maybe ... begging would be more effective
Maybe ... befriending would be more effective
Maybe ... bribing would be more effective
Maybe ... cajoling would be more effective
Maybe ... drugging would be more effective
Maybe ... reasoning would be more effective
Maybe ... torture would be more effective

Why use torture?

Because there is no downside

Again.... yes, there is a downside.

The downside is perhaps one of those other methods works better than torture and would have saved NYC where torture may not have.

I guess you are unaware that interrogators have the experience to know, with some certainty, how they are coming in the breaking process. If they estimate the time is beyond the scope of the legally acceptable time allotted, they escalate to the next level, then the next, then the next. Once they hit the maximum allowable level, and not be within the allotted time?

I guess you just let A million Americans die?

Your call Faun.

 

[Faun]

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

So when you have maybe 12 or 36 hours to interrogate somebody and you TRULY believe there is a WMD targeted for Chicago --- is "maybe" not good enough for you?

Maybe ... a mind-reading machine would be more effective
Maybe ... begging would be more effective
Maybe ... befriending would be more effective
Maybe ... bribing would be more effective
Maybe ... cajoling would be more effective
Maybe ... drugging would be more effective
Maybe ... reasoning would be more effective
Maybe ... torture would be more effective

Why use torture?

Because there is no downside

Again.... yes, there is a downside.

The downside is perhaps one of those other methods works better than torture and would have saved NYC where torture may not have.

I guess you are unaware that interrogators have the experience to know, with some certainty, how they are coming in the breaking process. If they estimate the time is beyond the scope of the legally acceptable time allotted, they escalate to the next level, then the next, then the next. Once they hit the maximum allowable level, and not be within the allotted time?

I guess you just let A million Americans die?

Your call Faun.

Or maybe another method would work where torture fails. Applying your standards of making up outcomes, you just let millions dies.

And there are just as many interrogators who say torture is not the best way to obtain information from a suspect as there are who say it is.

As I said from early on -- there is no right answer to the OP scenario. I was right then and I'm right now.

The only purpose this thread offers is to convince folks who are against torture, to accept it. And the only reason for that at this time is because that is the direction Trump wants to take America. So the right is trying to make torture more palatable.

 

[Pop23]

So when you have maybe 12 or 36 hours to interrogate somebody and you TRULY believe there is a WMD targeted for Chicago --- is "maybe" not good enough for you?

Maybe ... a mind-reading machine would be more effective
Maybe ... begging would be more effective
Maybe ... befriending would be more effective
Maybe ... bribing would be more effective
Maybe ... cajoling would be more effective
Maybe ... drugging would be more effective
Maybe ... reasoning would be more effective
Maybe ... torture would be more effective

Why use torture?

Because there is no downside

Again.... yes, there is a downside.

The downside is perhaps one of those other methods works better than torture and would have saved NYC where torture may not have.

I guess you are unaware that interrogators have the experience to know, with some certainty, how they are coming in the breaking process. If they estimate the time is beyond the scope of the legally acceptable time allotted, they escalate to the next level, then the next, then the next. Once they hit the maximum allowable level, and not be within the allotted time?

I guess you just let A million Americans die?

Your call Faun.

Or maybe another method would work where torture fails. Applying your standards of making up outcomes, you just let millions dies.

And there are just as many interrogators who say torture is not the best way to obtain information from a suspect as there are who say it is.

As I said from early on -- there is no right answer to the OP scenario. I was right then and I'm right now.

The only purpose this thread offers is to convince folks who are against torture, to accept it. And the only reason for that at this time is because that is the direction Trump wants to take America. So the right is trying to make torture more palatable.

From you're post

"as many interrogators who say torture is not the best way to obtain information"

No one claimed it was the best, but as outlined many, many times, when time is running out, and all other methods have failed, it becomes the only remaining method. And all should be used to save that staggering amount of life.

You've offered no alternatives except to stay on a failed course.

Guess what, that is exactly what you are doing now!

Thank you.

 

[Faun]

Maybe ... a mind-reading machine would be more effective
Maybe ... begging would be more effective
Maybe ... befriending would be more effective
Maybe ... bribing would be more effective
Maybe ... cajoling would be more effective
Maybe ... drugging would be more effective
Maybe ... reasoning would be more effective
Maybe ... torture would be more effective

Why use torture?

Because there is no downside

Again.... yes, there is a downside.

The downside is perhaps one of those other methods works better than torture and would have saved NYC where torture may not have.

I guess you are unaware that interrogators have the experience to know, with some certainty, how they are coming in the breaking process. If they estimate the time is beyond the scope of the legally acceptable time allotted, they escalate to the next level, then the next, then the next. Once they hit the maximum allowable level, and not be within the allotted time?

I guess you just let A million Americans die?

Your call Faun.

Or maybe another method would work where torture fails. Applying your standards of making up outcomes, you just let millions dies.

And there are just as many interrogators who say torture is not the best way to obtain information from a suspect as there are who say it is.

As I said from early on -- there is no right answer to the OP scenario. I was right then and I'm right now.

The only purpose this thread offers is to convince folks who are against torture, to accept it. And the only reason for that at this time is because that is the direction Trump wants to take America. So the right is trying to make torture more palatable.

From you're post

"as many interrogators who say torture is not the best way to obtain information"

No one claimed it was the best, but as outlined many, many times, when time is running out, and all other methods have failed, it becomes the only remaining method. And all should be used to save that staggering amount of life.

You've offered no alternatives except to stay on a failed course.

Guess what, that is exactly what you are doing now!

Thank you.

If it's not the best method, why use it?

 

[Pop23]

Because there is no downside

Again.... yes, there is a downside.

The downside is perhaps one of those other methods works better than torture and would have saved NYC where torture may not have.

I guess you are unaware that interrogators have the experience to know, with some certainty, how they are coming in the breaking process. If they estimate the time is beyond the scope of the legally acceptable time allotted, they escalate to the next level, then the next, then the next. Once they hit the maximum allowable level, and not be within the allotted time?

I guess you just let A million Americans die?

Your call Faun.

Or maybe another method would work where torture fails. Applying your standards of making up outcomes, you just let millions dies.

And there are just as many interrogators who say torture is not the best way to obtain information from a suspect as there are who say it is.

As I said from early on -- there is no right answer to the OP scenario. I was right then and I'm right now.

The only purpose this thread offers is to convince folks who are against torture, to accept it. And the only reason for that at this time is because that is the direction Trump wants to take America. So the right is trying to make torture more palatable.

From you're post

"as many interrogators who say torture is not the best way to obtain information"

No one claimed it was the best, but as outlined many, many times, when time is running out, and all other methods have failed, it becomes the only remaining method. And all should be used to save that staggering amount of life.

You've offered no alternatives except to stay on a failed course.

Guess what, that is exactly what you are doing now!

Thank you.

If it's not the best method, why use it?

Deflection Faun. What is your alternative?

No answer, then you lose. You already know that, right?

 

[flacaltenn]

Far fewer than die if I don't

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

So when you have maybe 12 or 36 hours to interrogate somebody and you TRULY believe there is a WMD targeted for Chicago --- is "maybe" not good enough for you?

Maybe ... a mind-reading machine would be more effective
Maybe ... begging would be more effective
Maybe ... befriending would be more effective
Maybe ... bribing would be more effective
Maybe ... cajoling would be more effective
Maybe ... drugging would be more effective
Maybe ... reasoning would be more effective
Maybe ... torture would be more effective

Why use torture?

cajoling and reasoning or begging is definitely not gonna work. Your list is a lot shorter than your sarcasm..

Now MAYBE --- threatening their family would work just swell. But you have to SELL that and even that takes time. Or a Hollywood scenario involving dangling them over a pool of sharks. Those are more complicated and take more time and resources.

I can do sarcasm too.. But it's too serious a proposition to screw it up with sarcasm..

 

[Faun]

Again.... yes, there is a downside.

The downside is perhaps one of those other methods works better than torture and would have saved NYC where torture may not have.

I guess you are unaware that interrogators have the experience to know, with some certainty, how they are coming in the breaking process. If they estimate the time is beyond the scope of the legally acceptable time allotted, they escalate to the next level, then the next, then the next. Once they hit the maximum allowable level, and not be within the allotted time?

I guess you just let A million Americans die?

Your call Faun.

Or maybe another method would work where torture fails. Applying your standards of making up outcomes, you just let millions dies.

And there are just as many interrogators who say torture is not the best way to obtain information from a suspect as there are who say it is.

As I said from early on -- there is no right answer to the OP scenario. I was right then and I'm right now.

The only purpose this thread offers is to convince folks who are against torture, to accept it. And the only reason for that at this time is because that is the direction Trump wants to take America. So the right is trying to make torture more palatable.

From you're post

"as many interrogators who say torture is not the best way to obtain information"

No one claimed it was the best, but as outlined many, many times, when time is running out, and all other methods have failed, it becomes the only remaining method. And all should be used to save that staggering amount of life.

You've offered no alternatives except to stay on a failed course.

Guess what, that is exactly what you are doing now!

Thank you.

If it's not the best method, why use it?

Deflection Faun. What is your alternative?

No answer, then you lose. You already know that, right?

There is no argument I can lose when you can't win. And you can't win an argument you can't prove. You have nothing to offer to prove torture is the best method and you even admit you're not claiming it's the best -- yet you cling to it anyway.

And again, the question you refuse to answer -- why use torture?

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

So when you have maybe 12 or 36 hours to interrogate somebody and you TRULY believe there is a WMD targeted for Chicago --- is "maybe" not good enough for you?

Maybe ... a mind-reading machine would be more effective
Maybe ... begging would be more effective
Maybe ... befriending would be more effective
Maybe ... bribing would be more effective
Maybe ... cajoling would be more effective
Maybe ... drugging would be more effective
Maybe ... reasoning would be more effective
Maybe ... torture would be more effective

Why use torture?

cajoling and reasoning or begging is definitely not gonna work. Your list is a lot shorter than your sarcasm..

Now MAYBE --- threatening their family would work just swell. But you have to SELL that and even that takes time. Or a Hollywood scenario involving dangling them over a pool of sharks. Those are more complicated and take more time and resources.

I can do sarcasm too.. But it's too serious a proposition to screw it up with sarcasm..

Hopefully, you get the point. That being there is no proven method which works best. So why use torture?

 

[Pop23]

I guess you are unaware that interrogators have the experience to know, with some certainty, how they are coming in the breaking process. If they estimate the time is beyond the scope of the legally acceptable time allotted, they escalate to the next level, then the next, then the next. Once they hit the maximum allowable level, and not be within the allotted time?

I guess you just let A million Americans die?

Your call Faun.

Or maybe another method would work where torture fails. Applying your standards of making up outcomes, you just let millions dies.

And there are just as many interrogators who say torture is not the best way to obtain information from a suspect as there are who say it is.

As I said from early on -- there is no right answer to the OP scenario. I was right then and I'm right now.

The only purpose this thread offers is to convince folks who are against torture, to accept it. And the only reason for that at this time is because that is the direction Trump wants to take America. So the right is trying to make torture more palatable.

From you're post

"as many interrogators who say torture is not the best way to obtain information"

No one claimed it was the best, but as outlined many, many times, when time is running out, and all other methods have failed, it becomes the only remaining method. And all should be used to save that staggering amount of life.

You've offered no alternatives except to stay on a failed course.

Guess what, that is exactly what you are doing now!

Thank you.

If it's not the best method, why use it?

Deflection Faun. What is your alternative?

No answer, then you lose. You already know that, right?

There is no argument I can lose when you can't win. And you can't win an argument you can't prove. You have nothing to offer to prove torture is the best method and you even admit you're not claiming it's the best -- yet you cling to it anyway.

And again, the question you refuse to answer -- why use torture?

Had I claimed it the best method, you might have a point. But it is the last method, unless you have a better suggestion than going along a failed path, then you lose

Again.

Many Thanks

 

[flacaltenn]

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

So when you have maybe 12 or 36 hours to interrogate somebody and you TRULY believe there is a WMD targeted for Chicago --- is "maybe" not good enough for you?

Maybe ... a mind-reading machine would be more effective
Maybe ... begging would be more effective
Maybe ... befriending would be more effective
Maybe ... bribing would be more effective
Maybe ... cajoling would be more effective
Maybe ... drugging would be more effective
Maybe ... reasoning would be more effective
Maybe ... torture would be more effective

Why use torture?

cajoling and reasoning or begging is definitely not gonna work. Your list is a lot shorter than your sarcasm..

Now MAYBE --- threatening their family would work just swell. But you have to SELL that and even that takes time. Or a Hollywood scenario involving dangling them over a pool of sharks. Those are more complicated and take more time and resources.

I can do sarcasm too.. But it's too serious a proposition to screw it up with sarcasm..

Hopefully, you get the point. That being there is no proven method which works best. So why use torture?

There is whole SCIENCE of persuasion. Don't flatter youself assuming you're inventing ANYTHING here. Literally, a PROFESSION. So don't act like you're the 1st one to think about it.

Like flashing lights and sirens all day and all night at the Branch Davidian Compound and playing "These Boots are Made For Walking" and recording of rabbits being eaten alive. CONSTANTLY at torturous volume to deprive them of communication and sleep. Probably a entire DRUG lab somewhere supplying "novelty" products for the "persuasion" industry..

 

[Coyote]

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?

Facts are we are dealing with people who cutting off your head and dragging your body around the streets is
"fun" . So think it over and giving me a alternative method of getting real time information from the subject.

Fact is...in real life, torture seldom works. Are you saying there is no alternative?

That's simply not true. Or the military wouldn't prep airmen and those likely to be captured for that eventuality..

There's ample evidence on both sides in waterboarding and such and you will NEVER get a straight answer out of the Intel "spook" groups. Never ask a CIA or DNI their opinion on ANYTHING -- they are likely lying on purpose.

What ample evidence?

 

[Coyote]

BTW -- this is EXACTLY why the Patriot Act -- that everyone seems to LOVE added "extended detention" as one of the tools. It's taking someone into a cell without counsel or outside contact for a couple days to work them over for information. So don't PRETEND to be all ethical and legal if you are one of those who think the Patriotic Act is just fine.

That Constitutional abomination is in the process of destroying our political system right now because we could not TRUST leadership NOT to abuse it.

I am not a big fan of the Patriot Act either.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Facts are we are dealing with people who cutting off your head and dragging your body around the streets is
"fun" . So think it over and giving me a alternative method of getting real time information from the subject.

Fact is...in real life, torture seldom works. Are you saying there is no alternative?

THANK YOU! SELDOM IS NOWHERE NEAR NEVER!

As a last resort, using something that seldom works is light years better than doing nothing!

We agree!

Assuming there are only two alternatives. Torture or nothing. That is creating a false dichotomy...

 

[Coyote]

How about this addendum to the OP. You have the same scenario except: your advisors tell you there are two ways of trying to get information out of a suspect. You can feed him jello shots until he is drunk and he might spill the beans or you could torture him and he might break. You only have time for one. Which would you choose and why?

I'm a bit biased cuz I do enjoy me a good jello shot now and again!

That being said, obviously the jello option is the best, but even though, what makes you think that the information given while drunk would actually be truthful?

And not being an absolutest, and having a little experience in interrogation, I would add that, I good interrogator can tell when someone is about to break. If the jello fails, and the interrogator, with his experience can tell that, he needs to have the option to move beyond that to more intense methods.

Thank you. And thank you for being One of the few willing to call it what is, torture.





Lime, cherry or rainbow?

 

[Coyote]

So how many potentially innocent people do you subject to torture until you realize it isnt working? What do yo tell those people, too bad, our intelligence was faulty?

Far fewer than die if I don't

LOLOL

Now you're pretending torturing actually works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it takes too long to get the truth out of the suspect and NYC is obliterated before the suspect reveals the truth. Maybe it would have wielded the truth much faster and save NYC to try other methods.

So torture could actually result in more deaths.

No one knows because there is no answer.

To say torture can never work is the height of irrational, no logic based thinking.

Ummm.... how about you argue what I actually say?

I didn't say it "never" works. I said maybe it does (implied), maybe it doesn't. Maybe there are more productive methods. No one knows which is why there is no answer to the OP's question.

There is no way on Earth you can prove torture will wield better results than other methods.

So when you have maybe 12 or 36 hours to interrogate somebody and you TRULY believe there is a WMD targeted for Chicago --- is "maybe" not good enough for you?

Or you take three hours of torture and get false information because the person will say whatever you want to escape the torture.

 

[del]

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?

Facts are we are dealing with people who cutting off your head and dragging your body around the streets is
"fun" . So think it over and giving me a alternative method of getting real time information from the subject.

Fact is...in real life, torture seldom works. Are you saying there is no alternative?

That's simply not true. Or the military wouldn't prep airmen and those likely to be captured for that eventuality..

There's ample evidence on both sides in waterboarding and such and you will NEVER get a straight answer out of the Intel "spook" groups. Never ask a CIA or DNI their opinion on ANYTHING -- they are likely lying on purpose.

What ample evidence?

the non-existent kind

it's a rwnj speciality, like uranium one, seth rich and pizzagate

i give them credit; they know their audience