Historically speaking he's right. What many who were tortured did was "make up" or tell half truths about what the torturers wanted to hear. Evidence used under torture was often thrown out in the military and/or the courts. It is rare that it's brought sound/solid help or evidence.

 

Maybe so, but tell Los Angeles it wasn't solid help.

Torture does not obtain reliable information. It is a form of vengeance more than anything else.

 

I do have a college education and I see no reason to defend that fact. While my study of history plays a role in my belief, I would argue the belief is more a matter of principal rather than theory.

 

The situation you present is an extreme scenario, and personally I would in all likelihood want vengeance. But in a clear frame of mind I can tell you now that I don't think torture would provide a means of saving anyone.

 

You raise a valid concern about the value of torture ie qualify of information. Plenty say the quality is simply not there.

 

However, lets again assume in my example that your child can be saved along with 3000 others. You're going to stand on principle and not take a shot at getting the info by any means necessary? Even if it means the ultimate demise of a loved one?

Maybe so, but tell Los Angeles it wasn't solid help.

 

There seems to be some misleading info about this out there. The Bush administration claimed that it directly or indirectly broke up the plot with an arrest about a year prior to KSM being waterboarded.

Historically speaking he's right. What many who were tortured did was "make up" or tell half truths about what the torturers wanted to hear. Evidence used under torture was often thrown out in the military and/or the courts. It is rare that it's brought sound/solid help or evidence.

 

 

There has been evidence posted in this thread or one of the other associated ones that says reliable info has been provided through waterboarding. In fact, Obama's own Director of National Intelligence has stated such (I posted a quote yesterday from that person). Are you claiming that Obama's Director of National Intelligence is lying or if not lying, is blatantly wrong in his position?

 

Dennis Blair, Obama's Director of National Intelligence (who has defended the practices in discussion here) stated (as quoted from yesterday's WSJ:

 

"high value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

 

In the article, it was explained that "those methods" included waterboarding.

 

Something else you may want to read and consider as you opine on the validity of info coming from interrogations:

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

 

Personally, I don't think the debate should be whether techniques like waterboarding provides reliable information. I think it does. Not all of the info is reliable, but some of it obviously is (or else, why would interrogators use the technique?). The debate should be whether we as a nation want to use such a technique even if it provides reliable information.

Edited April 23, 200917 yr by leatherneck

There is not an issue out there on which I am more conflicted and undecided then this one. I can't commit to a solid position.

There has been evidence posted in this thread or one of the other associated ones that says reliable info has been provided through waterboarding. In fact, Obama's own Director of National Intelligence has stated such (I posted a quote yesterday from that person). Are you claiming that Obama's Director of National Intelligence is lying or if not lying, is blatantly wrong in his position?

 

Dennis Blair, Obama's Director of National Intelligence (who has defended the practices in discussion here) stated (as quoted from yesterday's WSJ:

 

"high value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

 

In the article, it was explained that "those methods" included waterboarding.

 

Something else you may want to read and consider as you opine on the validity of info coming from interrogations:

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

 

Personally, I don't think the debate should be whether techniques like waterboarding provides reliable information. I think it does. Not all of the info is reliable, but some of it obviously is (or else, why would interrogators use the technique?). The debate should be whether we as a nation want to use such a technique even if it provides reliable information.

 

 

Re: Blair it was not reported in many cases that while he did confirm that value was gained he also didn't think it was worth it.

 

“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=3

There seems to be some misleading info about this out there. The Bush administration claimed that it directly or indirectly broke up the plot with an arrest about a year prior to KSM being waterboarded.

 

Here's an article that cites comments from the Bush admin along with a timeline to argue that the waterboarding of KSM one year later had zero to do with breaking up the plot.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

Here's an article that cites comments from the Bush admin along with a timeline to argue that the waterboarding of KSM one year later had zero to do with breaking up the plot.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

 

Interesting article. I don't know much about the author and his political beliefs (and how they may have slanted his reporting) but based on the article, I'd say he was/is not a fan of Bush. So I'm not sure how much weight I can place on his assertions. Not criticizing you for posting it (as I've posted articles from very conservative authors in the past) just making the observation. To me, the much more insightful evidence on the whole "is waterboarding info reliable" issue, is the quote by Obama's current Director of National Intelligence. He seems to think waterboarding yields valuable information.

 

There does seem to be some confusion as to how many planned attack there were on the U.S. Bank Tower. Is it possible that the thwarted attack mentioned in the 2002 briefing was a different, earlier one than the one that was learned of via the waterboarding? Not suggesting that was the case, just asking, because the article is somewhat confusing.

Re: Blair it was not reported in many cases that while he did confirm that value was gained he also didn't think it was worth it.

 

“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=3

 

The quote does not refute the contention that waterboarding yields reliable information.

 

But it does gets to the issue I previously said was the more germane one: whether we should be doing waterboarding even if it provides reliable info.

 

I fully understand his position on the negatives outweighing the benefits, yet I'll submit that the survivors of people killed in an attack that might have been thwarted by information yielded in waterboarding would think very differently than Mr. Blair.

 

As I've said all along, this is a very, very difficult issue for Obama to handle. It's not the black and white issue that some on both sides have tried to portray it to be. I can't criticize Obama for banning it; yet I can't criticize Bush for authorizing it.

There seems to be some misleading info about this out there. The Bush administration claimed that it directly or indirectly broke up the plot with an arrest about a year prior to KSM being waterboarded.

 

There's misleading info out there about every aspect of the torture debate. One of the reasons why it's so debatable. One thing I keep wondering about is are there any plots that were thwarted that we don't know about for stragetic reasons. I suspect there are but of course we won't know for a long time, if ever.

Interesting article. .

 

There's misleading info out there about every aspect of the torture debate. One of the reasons why it's so debatable. One thing I keep wondering about is are there any plots that were thwarted that we don't know about for stragetic reasons. I suspect there are but of course we won't know for a long time, if ever.

 

Gentlemen, its a heavy burden I carry:ohbrother: but I carry it anyway in the name of good debate. We find that often times key pieces of information are not presented (such as Blair's comment about it not being worth it) or they are misinterpreted (potentially the case with the LA situation). I know it gets me labeled since the "other side" is usually that of the Dems but if we're going to debate I say we debate off of complete info as often as possible. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

Our "image around the world" is not as great as we Americans would like to believe, considering our economic practices. With that in mind, I don't think our engaging in torture reduces our earthly prestige as much as we would like to believe.

No, but this is a country founded on Christian principles. We believe in due process to justice, not an eye-for-an-eye justice.

 

I understand and agree to a point. But all one has to do is look at the track record of these terrorists, watch the gruesome video of the DeBerg beheading, and realize that they operate on a different level than we feel comfortable. To be honest, I have little problem with torture as long as it to save numerous lives, does not cause long term physical problems AND is only conducted on the worst elements.

Gentlemen, its a heavy burden I carry:ohbrother: but I carry it anyway in the name of good debate. We find that often times key pieces of information are not presented (such as Blair's comment about it not being worth it) or they are misinterpreted (potentially the case with the LA situation). I know it gets me labeled since the "other side" is usually that of the Dems but if we're going to debate I say we debate off of complete info as often as possible. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

 

Kind of like releasing only certain memos and not others? I agree.

Gentlemen, its a heavy burden I carry:ohbrother: but I carry it anyway in the name of good debate. We find that often times key pieces of information are not presented (such as Blair's comment about it not being worth it) or they are misinterpreted (potentially the case with the LA situation). I know it gets me labeled since the "other side" is usually that of the Dems but if we're going to debate I say we debate off of complete info as often as possible. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

 

You are killing me.

 

Blair's comment that you posted was not intentionally omitted by me my fine little friend if that it what you are insinuating. Frankly the quote you added was not pertinent to the discussion I was then involved in; to wit: whether waterboarding yielded reliable information?.

 

It is pertinent to the discussion on whether the negatives outweigh the positives of waterboard. Do you agree with me that such is where the discussion should turn and we should stop arguing about whether it yields reliable info and whether our use of waterboarding induces our enemies, whom otherwise would not use waterboarding, to use waterboarding?

 

In otherwords: are you finally going to quit playing the Socratic method law professor asking questions and start participating in the discussion?