Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course you can do a study. Sample size consisting of control groups and torture groups. Any scientist knows this.
Until a contrary view from a non-partisan working group (akin to 9/11 commission and their report), the Rumsfeld working group results will have to stand.
But torture is illegal, and anyway, how many people are going to volunteer to be tortured so, how can you get around that?
Trying to reason with terorists?!? I don't think that would be very effective! Most of them are crazy or brainwashed or both.
The strategy is not about reasoning with terrorists. It's about stopping the development of terrorists. No amount of bullets, or torture, or any other kind of aggression is going to eliminate terrorism. Kill one, and another steps up to the plate. But stop the hatred, create doubt, give them other goals, and maybe, someday, there will be fewer people advocating hate and violence. Start it here, in the United States, where we have the fewest reasons to hate, where we have less grievances with the rest of the world, where we have the most opportunities to learn about other religions and other cultures, and then we have a chance at winning the "war against terrorism". But if we embrace hate, embrace torture, if we make it an us against them conflict, we've already lost.
The strategy is not about reasoning with terrorists. It's about stopping the development of terrorists. No amount of bullets, or torture, or any other kind of aggression is going to eliminate terrorism. Kill one, and another steps up to the plate. But stop the hatred, create doubt, give them other goals, and maybe, someday, there will be fewer people advocating hate and violence. Start it here, in the United States, where we have the fewest reasons to hate, where we have less grievances with the rest of the world, where we have the most opportunities to learn about other religions and other cultures, and then we have a chance at winning the "war against terrorism". But if we embrace hate, embrace torture, if we make it an us against them conflict, we've already lost.
If you can figure a way to get terrorists to stop hating, create doubt in their minds, and get them to make new goals, then you would win a Nobel Peace Prize. I think there is only one who can do that.
If you can figure a way to get terrorists to stop hating, create doubt in their minds, and get them to make new goals, then you would win a Nobel Peace Prize. I think there is only one who can do that.
Exactly. As I said, most terrorists are wackos and you can't reason with wackos.
Of course you can do a study. Sample size consisting of control groups and torture groups. Any scientist knows this.
Until a contrary view from a non-partisan working group (akin to 9/11 commission and their report), the Rumsfeld working group results will have to stand.
I have Googled "Rumsfeld study", but have been unable to find anything, in fact most topics are anti Rumsfeld for so called torture. If anyone can provide a link, it would be greatly appreciated.
You are being disingenuous now, and if you can't answer I understand, these are not easy questions.
I'm not trying to be disingenuous. I'm just saying if the 9/11 hijackers had been suspects before 9/11, if they'd been under surveillance, then catching one and torturing him to get the details of the plot would have been moot. We might not have had all the details of the plot, but if you trust our army so much that you believe they can determine who to torture and when and how long, you surely must trust that our FBI would have been able in the situation described above to stop 9/11.
As for the other questions, you already know how I think about torture. I think it's a dead-end. And I reiterate that it's not just about the people we torture. It's about our servicemen that we ask to do this. I could never do this to another human being. And I won't ask someone else to do it on my behalf. Not even to save my life. Our soldiers who've died on the battlefield, or even if they've died in the supply lines, or during training, or in any other way, they die with honor. Restraining someone and torturing them is not honorable. Restraining someone and torturing them breaks something inside, something intangible but integral to who we are. I don't want any of our soldiers to die, but I don't want any of them to have to live with the fact that they've tortured someone either. I don't want to send that soldier back to his family, when he's pushed barriers down inside himself over what he would and would not do to another human being.
If you can figure a way to get terrorists to stop hating, create doubt in their minds, and get them to make new goals, then you would win a Nobel Peace Prize. I think there is only one who can do that.
Then let's follow that one's lead. I don't think torture is on that path, though.
I'm not trying to be disingenuous. I'm just saying if the 9/11 hijackers had been suspects before 9/11, if they'd been under surveillance, then catching one and torturing him to get the details of the plot would have been moot. We might not have had all the details of the plot, but if you trust our army so much that you believe they can determine who to torture and when and how long, you surely must trust that our FBI would have been able in the situation described above to stop 9/11.
As for the other questions, you already know how I think about torture. I think it's a dead-end. And I reiterate that it's not just about the people we torture. It's about our servicemen that we ask to do this. I could never do this to another human being. And I won't ask someone else to do it on my behalf. Not even to save my life. Our soldiers who've died on the battlefield, or even if they've died in the supply lines, or during training, or in any other way, they die with honor. Restraining someone and torturing them is not honorable. Restraining someone and torturing them breaks something inside, something intangible but integral to who we are. I don't want any of our soldiers to die, but I don't want any of them to have to live with the fact that they've tortured someone either. I don't want to send that soldier back to his family, when he's pushed barriers down inside himself over what he would and would not do to another human being.
You have still not answered the question, if you do not want to just say so.
Anyone who volunteers to be in the military has a good idea what they may be exposed to but they do it anyway. I am sure that the job of water boarding was given to individuals who were deemed mentally capable of handling the job. Now stop with this and answer the question if you can.
Ok, so let's outlaw all "torture", including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, humiliation, rough handling, whatever...well, aside from having to completely change much of what we do for military training...how would you have us interrogate these people? Ask nicely? Give them cookies for correct answers?
Seriously, what alternative do you offer?
Any kind of aggressive interrogation is going to have it's flaws in terms of 100% reliable results...but it's better than nothing. I'll take 30% effacacy over 5% from asking nicely.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
