marks2065

No. Be careful with this argument, it's leads quickly to some conclusions/implcations that I highly doubt you support. Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction is not torture. The people who detain legally before trial and who issue tickets that are 'fiscally detrimental' (police officers) and who detain legally after trial (local, State, and federal officers of the court and prison wardens/officers) are not torturers. VR/Marg just because you give it a politically correct name to sooth your soul doesn't mean it isn't a form of torture.

Can you provide any evidence to support that? That's what has been repeatedly asked. The two links you provided this morning don't. What are the right conditions? How do you determine that? And that's the problem. By extentsion of the argument you and others employ, advocacy of Mike's [mnealtx] facetious/straw man ""bring in the comfy cushions" interrogation method is just as likely an effective mechanism as torture. Why does that not have as strong of an advocacy sector as those who want to employ torture? Why is that seen is silly or naive but torture is not? But what if it doesn't? What if all the evidence unequivocally indicates that it doesn't do that? That instead it's putting them at more risk, costing more, and harming US national interests ... why do you want to hang onto that? Why?

The information that you get will be unreliable. The counterproductiveness of the false info you will be getting will easily outweigh any benefit you will gain from the correct info you will obtain, and will actually make it much more difficult for you to find out which bits of info are correct. And all the while you are persuading more people to take up arms against you. You seem to think that it's the case that in the really desperate situation, when it's really, really important, you can bring in torture and it'll definitely be one of those occasions where torture will give you the correct information. It's not like that. But that situation is not going to happen. Classical interrogation will be a much better bet to get you that information than torture. (This conversation is going down the exact same road as the one I suggested in my first point on this thread. You say you accept that torture is unreliable, and that classical interrogation is better, but you still want to use torture for those cases where we stand to lose the most by getting it wrong. It makes no fucking sense!) Why!? It's an inferior technique! Why, when the stakes are high, would you not use the techniques you know to be better? name something better that isn't torture.

This is interesting ... not saying I think it's valid ... but trying to imagine the thought process/work through the argument. Hostage-taking is illegal. Kidnapping is illegal. Piracy is illegal. (We're back to the Laws of Warfare, sea this time instead of land.) Illegal detention of civilians by non-state actors is illegal. I've never heard of anyone define or use any of those interchangably with torture before. Basically you're expanding the definition of torture, yes? Point of clarification that also goes to question of effectivenenss: are the ransoms in the Somali cases being paid because the shipowners want the cargo or are they concerned about the well-being crew? The answer depends on how cynical one is feeling ... Imo, both to some extent. What has been the effect of the actions of the Somali pirates? Have their actions been effective in stopping maritime trade? VR/Marg they are not trying to stop trade, they want money to support their agenda. so the threat of hurting the crews of the ships is paying off because some ransoms have been paid. I feel it is not torture that the people are against in this thread, it is the extent that the torture is taken to. Anything that is done to a person that is detramental their fisical or mental health to extract information is torture, even our courts torture people to extract information. How many people have been put in jail for contempt of court because they wouldn't give up the information in a trial? Isn't locking them up indefinately until they testify torture?

From the second, quoting Sen McCain's books: “McCain said: ‘I regret very much having done so. The information was of no real use to the Vietnamese, but the Code of Conduct for American Prisoners of War orders us to refrain from providing any information beyond our names, rank and serial number.’” How long into his detainment was that? How much other/useless information was ‘confessed’ to beforehand? In the article that you cited, Sen McCain explicitly is quoted (from one of his books) as saying what torture obtained was of “no real use.” That’s the best you can do? One article that says torture is an instrument of state terror. Are you agreeing with the author that the US is a terrorist state? That’s what the article you linked says. “Yet despite this body of knowledge, torture continues to be debated in the United States as if it were merely a morally questionable way to extract information, not an instrument of state terror. But there's a problem: No one claims that torture is an effective interrogation tool--least of all the people who practice it. Torture ‘doesn't work. There are better ways to deal with captives,’ CIA director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16. And a recently declassified memo written by an FBI official in Guantánamo states that extreme coercion produced ‘nothing more than what FBI got using simple investigative techniques.’ The Army's own interrogation field manual states that force ‘can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.’” The other is quoting from the same man who's referenced in the subject line as calling torture al Qa'eda's "greatest recruiting tool" and speaking likely to folks like you "... you can't underestimate the damage that our treatment of prisoners, both at Abu Ghraib and other [facilities, has] ... harmed our national security interests.” More from Sen McCain “I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. “Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively [i.e., no torture - nerdgirl], and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. “My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.” VR/Marg all I have been saying is that, under the right conditions, torture does work and in some conditions it can work for a positive outcome. I have never said we should use it as a first aproach to extract information or as a normal means to get info. If torture is needed to get information from a combatant and that information could save lives of our troops or allies then I support it. I would expect it to to used by any military when the stakes are high. Would I like to be tortured? no but I would expect it and therefore I would probably talk before it happened unless I thought i was going to be killed anyway. It would work on me. therefore torture would, in some cases, be a viable way of getting information.

Ah, the good old "some say." Who says? What evidence do they provide? Here's something you would realise if you had paid any attention to this thread - not only is torture not the only means to gain that information, it is demonstrably inferior to other means. you wanted proof read thishttp://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml or thishttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/klein torture does work, even the threat of torture works, the pirates are holding the crews of ships and threatening their harm if a ransom is not paid, that is torture and in some cases it is working. millions of $s in ransom has been paid.

The goal is winning the war and leaving a stable country in place. To do anything that does not further the achievent of that goal is counter-productive and self defeating. so would eliminating anything that could help you achieve that goal Exactly. So that's why we can eliminate torture, since, as shown before, it will NOT help us achieve that goal, and will in fact HINDER us from achieving that goal. it becomes a tool agaist us for terrorists only because we let it become a tool, to many bleeding hearts and vocal people against torture, and spreading it all over the news gives the terrorists something to use against us in the media, and that is what they use to recruit new terrorists. Mark, all the experts agree that torture is NOT effective. If you have any real evidence to the contrary, please post it. Your opinion does not count as evidence. Show me were torture has NEVER been an effective means of extracting information. Are there other methods to get information, yes, but no means are completely effective or completely ineffective, therefore in some cases it can be used to gain information when other means have failed.

You keep making statements like this, and then not supporting them. Please post references. The experts in the field of interrogation seem to concur that torture doesn't work. If you have other sources, post them. Let's see something of substance to back up your beliefs. there are no sources that say torture has never been an effective tool only on cases that have been studied say torture is not effective. until you study all cases the truth will not be known.

The goal is winning the war and leaving a stable country in place. To do anything that does not further the achievent of that goal is counter-productive and self defeating. so would eliminating anything that could help you achieve that goal Exactly. So that's why we can eliminate torture, since, as shown before, it will NOT help us achieve that goal, and will in fact HINDER us from achieving that goal. it becomes a tool agaist us for terrorists only because we let it become a tool, to many bleeding hearts and vocal people against torture, and spreading it all over the news gives the terrorists something to use against us in the media, and that is what they use to recruit new terrorists.

If the "option" as you call it has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective (see the links in my OP); + more: LTC James Corum, USA (ret), formerly Army Command: “The torture of suspects [at Abu Ghraib] did not lead to any useful intelligence information being extracted" to increase risk to US soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, deployed US civilians and Americans abroad - more terrorists equals more risk; to be counter to US strategic interests; and is al Qa'eda's "greatest recruiting tool," *why* do you want to pursue it? The methodology you are arguing for is counter to the goals you assert. What you are arguing for is making it more difficult for achieving US strategic goals. Why would you want to pursue that? Absolute condemnation of torture is one of those “reasons people love America” – we don’t lower the bar, in the past and in the future, America should establish and maintain the bar. Because someone else does something does not make it “right” or effective. The US should not try to emulate China, Somalia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sudan, or any other nation that employs torture. VR/Marg eliminating the tools to do the job makes the job harder or impossible to do, if used properly torture can be an effective to to obtain a desired goal. there is a right time and a right place to use extreme measures and if and when that time comes not using those measures is detremental to yourself not the enemy.

The goal is winning the war and leaving a stable country in place. To do anything that does not further the achievent of that goal is counter-productive and self defeating. so would eliminating anything that could help you achieve that goal

Now back to the THREAD.. we are doing the same over there turning more civilians.. into insurgents.. or as you like to call them terrorists... lookin for a little payback for killing their brother.. or father.. or cousin... over there its about hearts and minds... if you do not win those.. you do not win.. period. The situation there calls for intellect and intelligence. Violating the GC and violating basic human rights in an occupied country.. is not going to win a stable future. On this we agree, but I would not limit my options on how to reach these goals.

if that soldier was acting as a terrorist, yes.

How did you get to the opinion that this is a viable method? What did you see, read, &/or experience that prompted that conclusion? VR/Marg human nature. everyone has a breaking point, and the trick is to find that and find the path to that. torture is any means that makes someone give out what they don't want to, not all torture is violent, but all forced extractions are torture.

Ignorance of the problem leads to ignorance of any viable solution. if everybody stopped spending all their time and money defending the rights of the offenders and put that on taking care of the innocent people then maybe we could start moving forward.

when did i say i supported killing or torturing innocent people? or even blowing up buildings? if you could prevent a bombing by extracting information from a war prisoner i am ok with that.

Are you a victim?? You looking for a handout to relive your personal suffering??? WE waste all that time on the guilty for a reason.. HOPEFULLY to prevent them from being among us to re-offend. We spend VAST SUMS of money on weapons systems to protect us.... that did not protect us on 9/11 now did it. I guess in your parlance we wasted billions to defend against those criminals and murderers and very little on the programs to make our own citizens more educated and healthier to cope with the world. Most of the people that died that day did so fairly quickly... Quite a few of your fellow countrymen and women die slow deaths due to lousy health care... Lousy educations.... and the piss poor attitudes of those who have made it... the I got mine.. and fuck all the rest of you attitude. Many of them will never be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.. because they AINT GOT THE BOOTS. SO instead we build more prisons ... which turn low level criminals into more knowledgeable nasty repeat and lifelong offenders. Having a bunch of sadists running our prisons... or sadists running the torture chambers accomplishes one thing... more virulent criminals.. and more determined insurgents/terrorists. They go hand in hand. Very few people who are treated well tend to turn to violence . Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned... but it seems too few want to learn from past mistakes. people commit crimes because they are not afraid of the consequences of their actions, if we stopped turning prisons into summer camps we wouldn't have as much crime. we need to stop spending money on prisons and start putting that money in the treatment and help of the people that suffered from the treatment of the criminals.

How about YOU showing some valid evidence proving that torture is effective? soory but last I heard my scurity level clearance for russia, china, india, and other countries was not high enough to be able to gather that information.

Please post data to support your statement. no nobody can prove either way, unless you can show documentation of every torture case that has ever been done. just because some cases have been documented doesn't mean that all torture is useless. I feel if done under the right situation at the right time it does work to a degree that could have positive outcomes.

I wonder what this world would be like if we put the attention, time and money on defending the rights and taking care of the victims of crimes. Why do we waste resources on the guilty? Weather the crime was local of foriegn makes no difference, and resources should be spent on defending the victims and nothing spared to achieve what is needed to make this world safe for those that have been victimized. we waste billions a year to defend criminals and murderers and very little to take care of the people that have endured the tortures put on them by the agressors. If torture saves the lives of american soldiers or people in the streets then i am for it. And since it's been PROVEN not to do that, what are you for? no it is proven it doesn't work in ALL cases, but unless someone has proof that torture has never worked then i would have to say in some cases it does work and will sometimes save lives. But when it doesn't work you get false information and that loses lives, and you don't know which is which. Your position is completely untenable from a praactical viewpoint as well as being immoral and illegal. show me valid evidence proving your point, there is non because most is done with the publics knowledge and therefore any stats you might have would be misleading.

If torture causes the loss of life of an American soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine would you be against it? As Sen McCain stated, torture is a; Qa’eda’s “greatest recruiting tool” – therefore torture is leading to more terrorists. More terrorists equals greater risk for US uniformed service and civilians. Do you really not see that? Or does something else drive you to want torture to be used? (I don't know how to say that differently and still succinctly ....) I'm genuinely asking because I can't figure out how with all the information out there showing torture is (1) ineffective; (2) increases risk to US uniformed service members, deployed civilians, and overseas Americans; and (3) is counter to US strategic interests and makes implementing & executing actions in support of US strategic interests more difficult; why anyone would still support it? I just don't get it. Or is there some reason that you want to be 'for torture'? VR/Marg i feel that america has comprimised itself in that we are against torture, therefore the people are not afraid of it, in that i would be less likely to give in to it untill it actually happened. but if i was in a country that I knew did use torture i would be more likely to give info under the threat of torture.

I wonder what this world would be like if we put the attention, time and money on defending the rights and taking care of the victims of crimes. Why do we waste resources on the guilty? Weather the crime was local of foriegn makes no difference, and resources should be spent on defending the victims and nothing spared to achieve what is needed to make this world safe for those that have been victimized. we waste billions a year to defend criminals and murderers and very little to take care of the people that have endured the tortures put on them by the agressors. If torture saves the lives of american soldiers or people in the streets then i am for it. And since it's been PROVEN not to do that, what are you for? no it is proven it doesn't work in ALL cases, but unless someone has proof that torture has never worked then i would have to say in some cases it does work and will sometimes save lives.

I wonder what this world would be like if we put the attention, time and money on defending the rights and taking care of the victims of crimes. Why do we waste resources on the guilty? Weather the crime was local of foriegn makes no difference, and resources should be spent on defending the victims and nothing spared to achieve what is needed to make this world safe for those that have been victimized. we waste billions a year to defend criminals and murderers and very little to take care of the people that have endured the tortures put on them by the agressors. If torture saves the lives of american soldiers or people in the streets then i am for it.

short term memory problems? 1 trillion bailout bill?

I guess it will be good for you when Obama takes over - you'll not have to explain your blindness to the actions of the current Administration anymore. i don't know if any of the lefties have been paying attention lately, but the last I saw was that the democrats have been in control of congress for at least 3.5 years and that means they must have passed any spending bills put through congress. seems to me they could have stopped most of the spending at almost any time, to bad they couldn't muster any self control and say STOP. what make me question things even more is that spending is more out of control when the dem's control congress as in 1992-1996 and 2002- present.