CDZ Would you support enhanced interrogation if:

[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?

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...

Nope, it might be exactly the decision we face.

 

[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?

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

You assume he wouldn’t give false information anyway.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

You assume he wouldn’t give false information anyway.

Would read him his rights and watch a city get blown away...................

 

[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...

Nope, it might be exactly the decision we face.

I do not think. Reality is seldom that clear. Instead of certainty we are faced with “credible intelligence” (such as what led to the invasion of Iraq) or broad unthinking panic ridden sweeps such as put many people into Abu Ghraib and other dark places where things were done to human beings outside of any system of accountability.

It is nothing like a clean easy theoretical.

 

[Coyote]

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.

You assume he wouldn’t give false information anyway.

Would read him his rights and watch a city get blown away...................

Or torture an innocent man because he looked suspicious.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You assume he wouldn’t give false information anyway.

Would read him his rights and watch a city get blown away...................

Or torture an innocent man because he looked suspicious.

Indeed possible. Of course, we can’t be absolutely sure that we convict anyone who we know 100% guilty

We, in each case use best information we have, in the time we have it.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

You assume he wouldn’t give false information anyway.

Would read him his rights and watch a city get blown away...................

Or torture an innocent man because he looked suspicious.

LOL.....................

You think or counter terrorism groups are rounding up all innocent people.............

In other words...............you'd go............Let me get some Sunscreen.

 

[Coyote]

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.

You assume he wouldn’t give false information anyway.

Would read him his rights and watch a city get blown away...................

Or torture an innocent man because he looked suspicious.

Indeed possible. Of course, we can’t be absolutely sure that we convict anyone who we know 100% guilty

We, in each case use best information we have, in the time we have it.

Agree, but for that same reason I oppose the death penalty ... at least if it is a wrongful conviction it will not be a wrongful termination of a person’s life.

 

[Coyote]

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.

You assume he wouldn’t give false information anyway.

Would read him his rights and watch a city get blown away...................

Or torture an innocent man because he looked suspicious.

LOL.....................

You think or counter terrorism groups are rounding up all innocent people.............

In other words...............you'd go............Let me get some Sunscreen.

No. It isn’t what I think. It is what you are saying.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

First, hiding behind harmless sounding fake names is the same as lying.
Call it what it is.

No, of course not.

We know that torture does not yield accurate info. We KNOW that. So, why torture?

The US just keeps sinking deeper into the slime.

 

[Pop23]

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

You assume he wouldn’t give false information anyway.

Would read him his rights and watch a city get blown away...................

Or torture an innocent man because he looked suspicious.

Indeed possible. Of course, we can’t be absolutely sure that we convict anyone who we know 100% guilty

We, in each case use best information we have, in the time we have it.

Agree, but for that same reason I oppose the death penalty ... at least if it is a wrongful conviction it will not be a wrongful termination of a person’s life.

We agree on DP for same reason. Although I want it reserved for the most heinous

 

[candycorn]

If the scenario is get the information or the bomb goes off within 24 hours and there are no other mitigating circumstances such as someone else knowing and other less baser techniques have not worked...of course you ramp up the coercion apparatus to include torture. What is wrong with you folks? You've got to try something to stop the bomb from going off.

Just know that the scenario has almost zero chance of ever coming to fruition outside of the hypothetical so it's just an academic experience.

 

[IsaacNewton]

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?

That you word torture as 'enhanced interrogation' betrays your own misgivings about it.

 

[dblack]

The last thing I want is a government empowered to torture people.

 

[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?

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

Then you assign folks to check out the leads and go at again. 24/7 if necessary. THat's the point. You may not KNOW if any leads are good. But pros can tell when the person is TRYING to cooperate.

 

[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

You did imply it was the best method when you asserted millions would die without it. And while you may now say it is the last method, this is what your ever fluid position morphed into as you started by suggesting torture and nothing else.

 

[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

Under these circumstances, torture is virtually guaranteed to fail. Terrorists want to be martyred with their attack. Threatening them with impending death won't cause them to give up their terror plans; especially one as enormous as detonating a nuclear device in a big city.

Thanks to you, millions die.

 

[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?

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..

I've staked no claim to inventing any of those measures. Merely point out some of the alternatives. Some of which, would most certainly be more effective in this situation.

 

[Faun]

The last thing I want is a government empowered to torture people.

That's what it all comes down to.

And the answer is, "no."

 

[eagle1462010]

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

Under these circumstances, torture is virtually guaranteed to fail. Terrorists want to be martyred with their attack. Threatening them with impending death won't cause them to give up their terror plans; especially one as enormous as detonating a nuclear device in a big city.

Thanks to you, millions die.

So says the expert on the subject....................because you tortured him all will die. Where the hell do people like you come from.

There are NO GUARANTEES either way.

Finally, Candycorn says under the scenario of the OP that of course we would do whatever it takes to try to save the city and the lives there.......................Wasn't that hard to say to you Politically Correct assholes. You are so hard up on your PC Holy than thou world that you can't bring yourselves to say it. So DIGNIFIED............SO SELF RIGHTEOUS.............Almost GODLY............should we bow............

You have determined we are EVIL because we openly stated we would do what we would have to do in that scenario................While you condemn us for stating our opinions on what we would do.

Now that one has had the guts to state the obvious to the scenario of the OP................No I don't agree with torturing our prisoners of War............But in extreme circumstances I would GO MEDIEVEL ON SOMEONE. You condemn me because you ARE COWARDS......................You know damned well you would do what you had to do under the scenario posted. If you wouldn't do so to save the lives of so many people then I call you a Politically Correct Coward.

You can condemn me for being so upfront with my position.............I don't care...........It is my opinion and exactly what I'd do if that scenario came up. Have a Nice Day.