Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

[On Guard for Thee]

Bullshit. Acknowledging torture works is not advocating it. As I said, thousands of years of governmental and religious agencies have known that and still know that. It might not be nice or moral or ethical but it certainly works.

Hiding your head in the sand about it is pointless and stupid.

Assuming it works when there is so much evidence that it tends to reveal bad information is pointless and stupid. But it does I suppose an "excuse" for those who enjoy using it.

[dre]

I think the standard should be what we ourselves are willing to accept. If Waterboarding IS effective, and its not torture or inhumane treatment, and its consistant with our values, then lets train up the RCMP.

[dre]

Assuming it works when there is so much evidence that it tends to reveal bad information is pointless and stupid. But it does I suppose an "excuse" for those who enjoy using it.

The thing is... who cares even if it DOES work. That kind of argument from utility is dangerous, and I see more danger in our government using the trumped up and almost statistically insignificant threat of terrorism as a excuse to slip every further down the slippery slope of moral depravity.

Whether or not we want to support the use of severe pain or discomfort as a tool for our government to use is a moral question. The utility of such practices is not relevant.... theres all kinds of useful things that government isnt allowed to do.

[Peter F]

The world is filled with people who want to kill us. If we capture one/some of these individuals should we pass legislation to allow our federal interrogators to apply EIT to these people in an effort to save Canadian lives?

was the question in the opening .

My answer is no.

[On Guard for Thee]

The thing is... who cares even if it DOES work. That kind of argument from utility is dangerous, and I see more danger in our government using the trumped up and almost statistically insignificant threat of terrorism as a excuse to slip every further down the slippery slope of moral depravity.

Whether or not we want to support the use of severe pain or discomfort as a tool for our government to use is a moral question. The utility of such practices is not relevant.... theres all kinds of useful things that government isnt allowed to do.

I agree and I have been searching for an interview I heard on CBC radio some time ago, with a retired British agent who spent his whole career in MI6. He spoke about both the volume and veracity of information he, and other of his colleagues, were able to obtain, mostly from Russian agents they had captured during the cold war days, using exactly the opposite type of techniques than water boarding etc. Why get our hands dirty and get poor results in the process?

[Argus]

I think the standard should be what we ourselves are willing to accept. If Waterboarding IS effective, and its not torture or inhumane treatment, and its consistant with our values, then lets train up the RCMP.

What we accept in terms of police dealing with criminals isn't the same as what we accept in terms of defending our society from foreign terrorists.

For example, the Supreme Court recently let a child murderer walk free because they felt the police had been unfair in tricking him into making a willing confession. Since he's already murdered all his kids, I suppose he isn't that much danger to the community. Letting a terrorist go because the police were unfair to him, however, could see bombs going off and a lot of people being killed.

[Argus]

The thing is... who cares even if it DOES work. That kind of argument from utility is dangerous, and I see more danger in our government using the trumped up and almost statistically insignificant threat of terrorism as a excuse to slip every further down the slippery slope of moral depravity.

It's statistically significant not because there aren't hordes of religious nut jobs who want to machinegun people in malls over here, but because the authorities do their best to keep such people out, by which I mean intelligence gathering, among other things.

I doubt there are many cases in which I would ever approve the use of such methods, though drugs are another story, but I would never say never.

[Argus]

Assuming it works when there is so much evidence that it tends to reveal bad information is pointless and stupid. But it does I suppose an "excuse" for those who enjoy using it.

There is actually almost NO evidence saying it doesn't work. But I know that logic never enjoys much prominence in your emotionally overwrought opinions.

[dre]

There is actually almost NO evidence saying it doesn't work. But I know that logic never enjoys much prominence in your emotionally overwrought opinions.

Youre the one with emotionally overwrought opinions. Youre so frightened of something that has a 1 in 20 million chance of killing you that you that your willing to justify moral depravity on the part of the state. And youre calling OTHER people emotional? Good luck with that.

Edited August 8, 2014 by dre

[GostHacked]

There is actually almost NO evidence saying it doesn't work. But I know that logic never enjoys much prominence in your emotionally overwrought opinions.

If you get a false confession out of torture, that instantly proves it does NOT work. If I can torture you to get you to say anything or confess to anything, then what have I gained from it? Nothing. Therefor, it does not work.

[eyeball]

What we accept in terms of police dealing with criminals isn't the same as what we accept in terms of defending our society from foreign terrorists.

The RCMP made it very clear to my wife and I that the money spent on the bag of pot my son and friends got busted with went straight to Osama Bin Laden.

Why shouldn't they have been tortured?

[guyser]

The RCMP made it very clear to my wife and I that the money spent on the bag of pot my son and friends got busted with went straight to Osama Bin Laden.

If true I would have laughed in the RCMP's face and told them to GTFO .

[Argus]

Youre the one with emotionally overwrought opinions. Youre so frightened of something that has a 1 in 20 million chance of killing you that you that your willing to justify moral depravity on the part of the state. And youre calling OTHER people emotional? Good luck with that.

You and he are both far too emotional to apply any logic to this discussion. I haven't advocated for torture. In fact, I've only really pointed out that your pious declarations (based solely on how repugnant you find the idea) that torture doesn't work are silly and not born out by the facts - or any realistic grasp on reality.

[Argus]

If you get a false confession out of torture, that instantly proves it does NOT work. If I can torture you to get you to say anything or confess to anything, then what have I gained from it? Nothing. Therefor, it does not work.

,

That is, once again, a total absence of logic. Torture works best where the answer can be checked out, and where you know somewhat about what you're asking. If you demand the name of his superior, for example, or contact, he will wind up giving you the name, a name which can be checked out and verified. If you demand to know where the arms supply is, well, he has to supply the actual location. Telling you it's somewhere, having you check, and find nothing, is not going to avail him much. Where is the bomb planted is the obvious question whose answer cannot be faked. The bomb is either there, or its not.

Again, I'm not suggesting it's something we ought to use, except perhaps in very rare circumstances. I agree that interrogation over periods of time will do well - if you have the time - with most people. And even where that doesn't work I'm not philosophically in favour of torture. That being said, I'm not philosophically in favour of just shooting people in the head, either, but I can think of a number of exceptions...

[dre]

You and he are both far too emotional to apply any logic to this discussion. I haven't advocated for torture. In fact, I've only really pointed out that your pious declarations (based solely on how repugnant you find the idea) that torture doesn't work are silly and not born out by the facts - or any realistic grasp on reality.

Nowhere did I even express an opinion on whether or not torture works. I just rejected an argument from utility. This is a common occurence for you, and people are often left wondering who you are even replying to or if maybe youre even accidently quoting the wrong poster or posting in the wrong topic.

If I WAS going to weigh in on whether or not torture works I would say sometimes it does and sometimes it doesnt. Its obviously possible that you could get some accurate information some of the time, but most of the time its more useful for intimidation than gathering intelligence. We do have some records from countries that used torture. Torture was legal in Frace between 1500 and 1750, and almost 800 attempts were made to torture information out of individuals in Paris and Toulouse. Less than 1 in 10 made any statements what-so-ever. In Paris they could only get statements out of 3% of tortured prisoners and thats not even getting into whether those statements are accurate or not.

More problems arise when consider torturing the informed VS the misinformed. The information you get out of torturing someone who is guilty may be roughly as accurate as information gotten during conventional interrogation, but if you torture someone that really doesnt have the information you need, they are going to get confused and tell you anything they can to make it stop, which is going to waste your time and lead you on a lot of wild goose chases.

The reality is that even if you CAN get reliable information through torture SOME of the time, in general its not a very effective strategy for gathering intelligence.

[eyeball]

If true I would have laughed in the RCMP's face and told them to GTFO .

Well he had us and the other kids parents in the cop shop and while I'm pretty sure he got that sense from us. We weren't going to tell him to get a grip in front of our kids, I mean, we had to keep up some sort of appearance of respect for order if not the law.

[GostHacked]

If I WAS going to weigh in on whether or not torture works I would say sometimes it does and sometimes it doesnt. Its obviously possible that you could get some accurate information some of the time, but most of the time its more useful for intimidation than gathering intelligence. We do have some records from countries that used torture. Torture was legal in Frace between 1500 and 1750, and almost 800 attempts were made to torture information out of individuals in Paris and Toulouse. Less than 1 in 10 made any statements what-so-ever. In Paris they could only get statements out of 3% of tortured prisoners and thats not even getting into whether those statements are accurate or not.

1 in 10 is a failure. If only 3% of factual information is gained through torture (and as you said, that needs to be verified), it does not work Argus. Plain and simple.

[guyser]

Well he had us and the other kids parents in the cop shop and while I'm pretty sure he got that sense from us. We weren't going to tell him to get a grip in front of our kids, I mean, we had to keep up some sort of appearance of respect for order if not the law.

I get that, its not an esay situation when sitting in the shop with your kid, but on the other hand, spewing outright lies in front of your kid can be a lesson too.

A lesson can be it is against the law, AND telling the kid in front of the cops that what they are saying is a large pile of BS.

[Moonlight Graham]

I just heard the end-all argument from Jesse Ventura (who has been waterboarded):

If waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques aren't torture, then why don't the domestic police forces of the U.S. (or other western countries) use them when they interrogate suspects/criminals?

That's what I thought. BOOM! END OF DISCUSSION.

[Bryan]

I just heard the end-all argument from Jesse Ventura (who has been waterboarded):

If waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques aren't torture, then why don't the domestic police forces of the U.S. (or other western countries) use them when they interrogate suspects/criminals?

That's a good point. Maybe they should under some circumstances, especially if people's lives are at stake.

[Je suis Omar]

Maybe they should under some circumstances, especially if people's lives are at stake.

These are the people standing front and center screaming about how brutal (stick in the boogeyman of the day "terrorist") is.

[Je suis Omar]

The RCMP made it very clear to my wife and I that the money spent on the bag of pot my son and friends got busted with went straight to Osama Bin Laden.

There's no need at all to show respect for ignorance this profound.

Rf**kingCMP! Good Dog!!!