- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do you believe torture/enhanced interrogation is effective ?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 3:40 am to mouton
Posted on 12/11/14 at 3:40 am to mouton
quote:
Posted by moutonI am a worthless piece of trash
Admitting that you have a problem is the first step to recovery. In your case I think you are a lost cause
1
Posted on 12/11/14 at 4:59 am to GetCocky11
quote:If little green men visit us from outer space, they are ETs.
If it violates the Geneva Convention, it is torture.
But as it hasn't happened, why mention it?
This post was edited on 12/11/14 at 10:55 am
Posted on 12/11/14 at 6:32 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Torture their Mom and Pops.
why are we torturing anyone? from a morality stand point, we're no better than the islamists that we hate.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:52 am to bencoleman
quote:
In your case I think you are a lost cause
Because I asked the board's opinion on whether torture is effective or not?
You truly are a pathetic little worm of a man.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:57 am to mouton
quote:It is.
Because I asked the board's opinion on whether torture is effective or not?
That is not remotely disputable.
Next question?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:00 am to monsterballads
quote:
why are we torturing anyone? from a morality stand point, we're no better than the islamists that we hate.
Daniel Pearl's widow would like to talk to you
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:07 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It is. That is not remotely disputable. Next question?
I just asked the board's opinion. Plenty here disagree with you as do plenty of experts on the subject.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:09 am to mouton
quote:
I just asked the board's opinion. Plenty here disagree with you as do plenty of experts on the subject.
It's not a matter of opinion. If it has been shown to be effective, it's impossible to argue that it's not effective. It has been shown to be effective when done properly.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:10 am to mouton
No idea I have never been tortured or tortured anyone so unless anyone has been and they can share that with us the results. This is a very stupid question.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:11 am to Jake88
quote:
And, actually, techniques like this have been used by the US long before you were born.
That's a pretty weak justification, no? I mean we've all used it at some point, but it doesn't really say anything. The US did a lot of shite before we were born that would make some of you blush.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:16 am to Navytiger74
quote:
It's not a matter of opinion. If it has been shown to be effective, it's impossible to argue that it's not effective. It has been shown to be effective when done properly.
Then why do so many interrogation experts say the opposite?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:23 am to Navytiger74
Former high-level CIA official Bob Baer said "And torture -- I just don't think it really works ... you don't get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you."
Rear Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General for the Navy, said "Another objection is that torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners."
Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, said "I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear."
Dan Coleman, one of the FBI agents assigned to the 9/11 suspects held at Guantanamo said "Brutalization doesn't work. We know that.
Rear Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General for the Navy, said "Another objection is that torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners."
Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, said "I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear."
Dan Coleman, one of the FBI agents assigned to the 9/11 suspects held at Guantanamo said "Brutalization doesn't work. We know that.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:23 am to mouton
quote:
Then why do so many interrogation experts say the opposite?
They're either lying or you're misundering standing what they're saying. Like anything, torture can be ineffective. That doesn't mean it's inherently ineffective. It's been proven effective throughout human history. Grabbing random Arabs off the street and threatening to cut their balls off may not be an effective way to get useful information, but targeting high-value subjects (and often their associates) and putting them through a designed program has proven extremely effective.
As I said, this really muddies the debate. It should be about whether or not we think torture is justified to meet certain ends. It's bullshite to argue that good intelligence hasn't been and can't be derived from torture.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:26 am to mouton
It probably is to some degree, but the real issue should be "is this something we want to do?"
This post was edited on 12/11/14 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:29 am to mouton
quote:
Former high-level CIA official Bob Baer said "And torture -- I just don't think it really works ... you don't get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you."
Rear Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General for the Navy, said "Another objection is that torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners."
Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, said "I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear."
Dan Coleman, one of the FBI agents assigned to the 9/11 suspects held at Guantanamo said "Brutalization doesn't work. We know that.
What a bunch of bullshite. You think CIA went into this cold, nabbed some randoms, and just started shouting at them? That isn't how this works. It's as much (or more) psychological as it is physical. They nab guys whom they are fairly certain to be valuable sources of information (generally based upon field work, link analysis, background knowledge, and a host of other sources). They establish a rapport and their absolute control of the relationship. They deprive these guys of power and hope. And they spent more time working on their minds than their bodies. Yeah, they fricked up a few cases. I'll give you that. But they don't torture in a vacuum.
This post was edited on 12/11/14 at 11:36 am
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:43 am to Navytiger74
I never said whether I thought it was effective or not. I just asked if the viable intel vs the false intel recieved balanced out. People then jumped in to attack me based on me asking this question stating it is not even up for debate. I am now just pointing out that plenty of experts in the field state that it is not effective.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:44 am to Navytiger74
quote:What is this "proof" you keep mentioning?
but targeting high-value subjects (and often their associates) and putting them through a designed program has proven extremely effective.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:51 am to mouton
From what I've read, there is actually a lot of debate (even within CIA) as to whether or not these methods are effective.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:59 am to mouton
quote:
People then jumped in to attack me based on me asking this question stating it is not even up for debate.
I wasn't trying to attack. But my original point stands. The fact that it has worked pretty strongly supports the idea that it can work. I don't think the guys who conceived of, designed, and ran the program did it because they were sadists. It produced good intel. I'm sure it produced some bad intel as well.
Opposing it because it's "not effective anyway" is too easy a moral out for me. That's the road these guys want to take. The honest truth is that it does work, and is still morally unjustifiable.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 2:12 pm to mouton
quote:Plenty issue psychobabble about many things.
Plenty here disagree with you as do plenty of experts on the subject.
NAMBLA is good for kids.
Fathers don't matter.
The US is a racist country.
Spanking is child abuse.
We are a rape culture.
etc, etc, etc,
============
2+2=4
The sky is blue.
Grass is green.
Consequence drives behavior.
It is what it is, and what it is is indisputable.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News