Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Of course people are upset about the carnage and cruelty. What does that have to do with voicing their opposition to torture?

---

Just makes me wonder why you have to repeatedly voice your outrage over torture that has ceased, and never about the on-going carnage and cruelty. There are currently three or four threads ongoing about waterboarding, but I've never seen any (that I didn't start) about the daily car bomb attacks on civilians throughout the Middle-East and south Asia.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
GEEZER:

"It's all Islam's fault."...OR, you could substitute Palestinians and Israelis just as well.

---

Quote:

---

My point is: A life is a life, whether it is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Israeli or Palestinian, or Russian or a woman or a child or a young man. Whether is was taken specifically or carelessly (collateral damage).

---

Quote:

---

Your false, baseless portrayal of me ( an many conservatives ) is a great mental block to you, and also serves as cover so as to avoid havig to deal with real, actual issues of substance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

but I've never seen any (that I didn't start) about the daily car bomb attacks on civilians throughout the Middle-East and south Asia.

---

or the daily death that occurs in Africa due to starvation? Or the number of fatalities due to air pollution?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

How about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

We pretended to drown them...they told us good stuff.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


It pretty much seems that if you can't blame it on the U.S., no one here is very interested in any disaster or crisis.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
How about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

---

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't see how that's necessarily dramatically different from waterboarding or whatever other modern torture techniques are used.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In fact, intel gathered from individual sources has been some of the most crucial.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

---

Oops.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But the hardened, fanatical believer seems to be the best person psychologically prepared to withstand torture or lie in the most convincing way to protect the information that means more to them than their life.

Torture would be what they expect. And nothing would be easier than lying, ESPECIALLY if time is of the essence.


It all just seems wholly uneffective.

---

Quote:

---

Your false, baseless portrayal of me ( an many conservatives ) is a great mental block to you, and also serves as cover so as to avoid havig to deal with real, actual issues of substance.

---

Quote:

---

One still must decide if what they are being told is the truth regardless of the techniques used.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't see how that's necessarily dramatically different from waterboarding or whatever other modern torture techniques are used.

---

The difference is that coercive interrogation techniques are used with the intent of finding information. Witch trials and inquisitions were used with the intent of extracting confessing and then execution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, the issue is gray. There is a continuum. But morals- at least according to you- shouldn't be. aren't you engaging in moral relativism?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But the hardened, fanatical believer seems to be the best person psychologically prepared to withstand torture or lie in the most convincing way to protect the information that means more to them than their life.

Torture would be what they expect. And nothing would be easier than lying, ESPECIALLY if time is of the essence.


It all just seems wholly uneffective.

---

They seem prepared to withstand questioning in general. And they could just as easily lie under normal interrogation. Coercion is used to penetrate that resolve. The interrogation process is not made any easier by it. One still must decide if what they are being told is the truth regardless of the techniques used.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
They seem prepared to withstand questioning in general. And they could just as easily lie under normal interrogation. Coercion is used to penetrate that resolve. The interrogation process is not made any easier by it. One still must decide if what they are being told is the truth regardless of the techniques used.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Which makes them different how?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
If there is still a question of validity than why risk infringing on human rights? Why risk damaging our country's image? Why risk the sanity of interrogators?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
If it's not a moral question of harming another person to benefit yourself than what it is?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So moral relativism is saying that its better to kill someone even thought you weren't specifically targeting them, than to kill someone on purpose? Does "intent" come into this? Or just the final outcome?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I've never seen any where near the rage and anger toward the terrorists as I've seen displayed for those who decided that harsh interrogation, and NOT torture, was worth engaging in when the lives of 1000's of civilians was at risk. The phony, mock indignation of the Left over the NON issue of water boarding is a bit much to take.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, so in your mind INTENT is the key difference? We torture, but we don't "intend" to kill? And when we do kill, we kill for a good cause, and kinda by accident? So even if our means are questionable our goals are good?.

---

Quote:

---

Signym, moral relativism means that you are applying different judgments to different cultures. The acceptable morals are relative based on culture or ethnicity or environment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
How do you feel about killing in self-defense?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So if the information extracted is just as likely to be false as during non-torture interrogation, why bother? You win nothing. I sincerely doubt that pain is going to motivate any fanatic to suddenly sell out their ideals when they could just as easily lie and obfuscate, so "penetrating that resolve" doesn't seem like something that would happen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
It's not okay for "terrorists" to kill people with car bombs, but okay for "governments" to kill people with missiles?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Which makes them different how?

---

I’ve already told you how they are different. The US doesn’t use, to my understanding, any coercive interrogation that is solely intended to extract confessions and/or kill the suspect. They aren’t the same thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
That's kind of what I'm getting at. If you had simply said that it's worse to kill a lot of people with a car bomb than it is to waterboard a single person I would agree. OTOH it seems to make a difference to you WHO is doing the killing, and for what reason. It's not okay for "terrorists" to kill people with car bombs, but okay for "governments" to kill people with missiles?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So if the information extracted is just as likely to be false as during non-torture interrogation, why bother? You win nothing. I sincerely doubt that pain is going to motivate any fanatic to suddenly sell out their ideals when they could just as easily lie and obfuscate, so "penetrating that resolve" doesn't seem like something that would happen.

---

I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But they did not torture to kill. They tortured for information along with confession.

The killing might have happened accidentally. It was not the intent. They were going to be publicly executed afterwards.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And I still don't understand how torturing for a confession is different from torturing for any other kind of information. How is it different? Do you think people respond that differently to "Say you are a witch" than they do to "Say where the bomb is"?

---

Quote:

---

The life of the suspected witch or infidel was forfeit as soon as the trial started.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And what are those circumstances? How can the torturers know whether the victim is telling the truth or a lie? Do they just keep torturing on and check later? Do they stop each time to check and them start again? Do you increase the intensity of the torture further and further each time a lie was proven?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Then perhaps it’s something you need to think about for a while.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The whole process was designed to extract a confession. The life of the suspected witch or infidel was forfeit as soon as the trial started.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And I still don't understand how torturing for a confession is different from torturing for any other kind of information. How is it different? Do you think people respond that differently to "Say you are a witch" than they do to "Say where the bomb is"?

---

Then perhaps it’s something you need to think about for a while.

---

Quote:

---

I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.

---

Quote:

---

The life of the suspected witch or infidel was forfeit as soon as the trial started.

---

Quote:

---

Your false, baseless portrayal of me ( an many conservatives ) is a great mental block to you, and also serves as cover so as to avoid havig to deal with real, actual issues of substance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Let's get rid of the question "Is waterboarding torture?" for the moment. Basically Finn, you're willing to "crack" people, and in the context that you expressed... by any mean necessary. Boiling oil, if need be. Electric shock. Pulling fingernails. Right? As long as doctors are there to control the infection, revive if necessary, keep the person alive and available for further questioning.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And what are those circumstances? How can the torturers know whether the victim is telling the truth or a lie? Do they just keep torturing on and check later? Do they stop each time to check and them start again? Do you increase the intensity of the torture further and further each time a lie was proven?

---

Coercion is most effective when it is used to cause exhaustion, I suspect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Yes. But they didn't necessarily know that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Don't you think that's kind of an arrogant thing to say? You insist there is a difference, so you can kindly explain to me what that difference is. You're not even trying to explain, you just keep stating that there is one. I'm asking HOW they are different.

---

Quote:

---

It seems to me that inflicting injury is more likely to result in shock then diminished resolve.

---

Quote:

---

I think I've been pretty clear in drawing a line between extracting confessions and interrogation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Kind of a non-answer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Are you saying that sleep-deprivation is a good kind of torture or are you saying torture them until they can't stand it anymore (which is silly because they could well start lying early and keep lying when they are echausted)?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s not arrogant at all. I explained to you how they are different. You don’t have to accept the explanation, but asking me to explain the difference over and over again because you don’t like the answer I gave you is not conducive to discussion. So I don’t know where else we can go with that line of questioning.

---

Quote:

---

Okay, honestly. I'm not trying to be irritating, but I have not noticed you explaining the difference. Maybe I didn't catch it from your words.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
If it's not a moral question of harming another person to benefit yourself than what it is?

---

No more so then the question of killing in self defense. You’re killing another person to benefit yourself in that case? How do you feel about killing in self-defense?

---