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.
No, it is not justified. Of course a torturer will argue it works, but many experts (FBI for example) say there are more efficient ways to extract information without the use of violence.
Okay, just want to know how you think, that is all.
We have to take this on a case by case basis. We have to know the extreme circumstances at the time and what the CIA believe it would get out to prevent another 9/11 attack that was in the works. This goes on every war, extreme measures for extreme circumstances. The report doesn't interview 1 CIA officer connected to these accusations. Not 1 CIA top official has endorsed the Democrat Senate Report, that says it all.
but to say water boarding shouldn't be use in ANY CIRCUMSTANCES doesn't know anything about intel and fighting a war.
I am wondering how we should draw the line between tough but humane treatment and degrading and inhumane treatment? (To me, humane treatment and tough sound like contradiction.)
We might consider the recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the Ramirez Sanchez (Carlos the Jackal) case.
The French held Ramirez Sanchez in solitary confinement for over eight years. The Grand Chamber held that this treatment was not degrading or inhumane (in short because the conditions, while not comfy, were not so bad to lead to permanent psychiatric or physical deterioration.
water boarding vs solitary confinement for over eight years
"And let me be clear, torture is wrong, unambiguously. Period. The end. Civilized nations do not engage in torture and Congress has rightly acted to make absolutely clear that the United States will not engage in torture," he said."
"No, it is not justified. Of course a torturer will argue it works, but many experts (FBI for example) say there are more efficient ways to extract information without the use of violence"
If there were more efficient ways, why didn't the FBI share them. time was of the essence after 9.11.
Last edited by Kracer; 12-11-2014 at 11:48 AM..
Reason: edit
"And let me be clear, torture is wrong, unambiguously. Period. The end. Civilized nations do not engage in torture and Congress has rightly acted to make absolutely clear that the United States will not engage in torture," he said."
Of course, that was after he denigrated Senate Democrats for releasing the report. Even so...
you can be against torture and be against the democrats for this political stunt.
How can you put out a 40 million dollar "report" that is 1 sided and the senate didn't interview for the record 1 CIA agent or 1 top CIA official connected to this?
when none of the CIA top officials endorse the democrat senate report you know the report is garbage.
"The bottom line? We don't know if torture or harsh techniques work and chances are we will never have a definitive answer. There may be cases where harsh techniques actually "work" and succeed in extracting valuable information but this does not mean that rapport building techniques are deficient in comparison."
I think above statement is at least fair and balanced. But one can argue that torture is never justified. After all, how can you prove "truth" out of a terrorist's mouth due to "torture" "harsh techniques" (whatever term you would like to use) actually saved thousands of lives.
It is easy to judge interrogation techniques using perfect 20/20 hindsight.
"No, it is not justified. Of course a torturer will argue it works, but many experts (FBI for example) say there are more efficient ways to extract information without the use of violence"
.
so any CIA professional who argues that some interrogation techniques depending on the circumstances might work are not experts? lol
the FBI schooling the CIA on what is more efficient way to extract information peacefully on unlawful enemy combatants is funny.
"The bottom line? We don't know if torture or harsh techniques work and chances are we will never have a definitive answer. There may be cases where harsh techniques actually "work" and succeed in extracting valuable information but this does not mean that rapport building techniques are deficient in comparison."
I think above statement is at least fair and balanced. But one can argue that torture is never justified. After all, how can you prove "truth" out of a terrorist's mouth due to "torture" "harsh techniques" (whatever term you would like to use) actually saved thousands of lives.
It is easy to judge interrogation techniques using perfect 20/20 hindsight.
But isn't that what is all about during war and extreme circumstances. They miss some and hit some.
But to say the CIA should never use water boarding in any circumstances is dangerous and put us in a disadvantage. They should have that as an option if top CIA officials think it will get valuable information to save lives.
Is a nasty business the security of our nation and the world is a dangerous place.
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.
held Ramirez Sanchez in solitary confinement for over eight years. The Grand Chamber held that this treatment was not degrading or inhumane (in short because the conditions, while not comfy, were not so bad to lead to permanent psychiatric or physical deterioration. 
