"It hasn't proved to be an effective tool for gathering intelligence." -Co-worker who worked intell in the Air Force and NSA

 

 

 

My assumption is that it will sometimes result in a captive saying anything that sounds good to get the torture to stop even if temporarily.

I know this is a little out there when you think about it but I am for ANYTHING that saves American lives.

 

And it's immoral.

 

So is war....Who cares?

My biggest problem with torture is what if the intelligence is wrong (gee that never happens) and the guy you have and you are sure has life saving information doesn't know what you think he knows and he goes through hours of torture that he can not stop since he does not have the information intelligence says he has.

 

 

Who cares if it's ineffective? These are terrorists we're talking about. There is no such thing as being "too harsh" when it comes to terrorists.

I know this is a little out there when you think about it but I am for ANYTHING that saves American lives.

This

My assumption is that it will sometimes result in a captive saying anything that sounds good to get the torture to stop even if temporarily.

 

That's a given. He can give a much better explanation than I can, I'll see if I can get him to comment on his thoughts.

 

He says covert intelligence gathering (wire taps, anything that doesn't allow the enemy to know you're there) is by far the best option.

Who cares if it's ineffective? These are terrorists we're talking about. There is no such thing as being "too harsh" when it comes to terrorists.

 

It doesn't provide accurate intelligence.

So is war....Who cares?

 

How our POWs are treated doesn't matter to you? Is that what you're saying?

How our POWs are treated doesn't matter to you? Is that what you're saying?

 

 

Not at all. That's a huge leap.

 

You said you're against it because it's immoral. War is immoral too. Does that mean we should never go to war though?

 

And for the record, terrorists have always and will always treat our soldiers a million times more inhumane than we could ever imagine. Let's not kid ourselves and act like the terrorists are going to "go easy" on our soldiers because we didn't water-board them.

Not at all. That's a huge leap.

 

You said you're against it because it's immoral. War is immoral too. Does that mean we should never go to war though?

 

And for the record, terrorists have always and will always treat our soldiers a million times more inhumane than we could ever imagine. Let's not kid ourselves and act like the terrorists are going to "go easy" on our soldiers because we didn't water-board them.

 

 

I'm against it because it doesn't provide accurate intelligence and it's immoral.

 

War is immoral and we should never go to war unless we are attacked first.

 

No one said "terrorists" (which is a broad definition) treat our POWs any better.

I'm against it because it doesn't provide accurate intelligence and it's immoral.

 

War is immoral and we should never go to war unless we are attacked first.

 

No one said "terrorists" (which is a broad definition) treat our POWs any better.

 

And as I said, I'm for the use of it on terrorists. I didn't say POWs from other countries.

You said you're against it because it's immoral. War is immoral too. Does that mean we should never go to war though?

 

Let me ask a hypothetical. If the US goes to war with Iran tomorrow, would you support and defend an executive order calling for the immediate and indefinite internment of all Muslim-Americans without trial or representation? Certainly this would be immoral and illegal by our standards, but one could argue that it might prevent a domestic attack by some Muslims here who are sympathetic to Iran or consider the US to be at war with their people. If war is immoral, and this fact can justify any other acts of immorality in its pursuit, wouldn't it be acceptable?

And as I said, I'm for the use of it on terrorists. I didn't say POWs from other countries.

 

Terrorists being held captive are not considered POWs? Why would you use it if it is ineffective?

Terrorists being held captive are not considered POWs? Why would you use it if it is ineffective?

 

 

Because I am 100% for anything that causes extreme pain and suffering to terrorists.

Let me ask a hypothetical. If the US goes to war with Iran tomorrow, would you support and defend an executive order calling for the immediate and indefinite internment of all Muslim-Americans without trial or representation? Certainly this would be immoral and illegal by our standards, but one could argue that it might prevent a domestic attack by some Muslims here who are sympathetic to Iran or consider the US to be at war with their people. If war is immoral, and this fact can justify any other acts of immorality in its pursuit, wouldn't it be acceptable?

 

 

No, because all Muslim-Americans aren't terrorists. I didn't say I'd use it in cases of war. Simply with terrorists.