Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame
This depends on your definition of working.
-If working means you you can get someone to admit to something thay may or may not be true to help build a case to kill more people..
-If working is sending a message of fear to other countries about being caught by us..
-If working is pissing off your enemies and making an example of people..
Then torture works. And I think that's the reason it survived over time, not because of how reliable the information is. But because it creates this shield of intimidation, and it makes people say anything that you want them to say (given that you've clued them off to what you want them to say).
So if you're saying that the fact that it gives reliable information is why it survived, then I disagree and ask you to show me proof.
|
Ok, well after a brief moment of lucidity, you're back to misrepresenting my arguments again, and worse yet, the interrogation methods I was referring to in the post you quoted were the ones that you said we should use instead of waterboarding! My whole point is that not every technique works on everyone, it's a game of hit and miss regardless of technique used.
You're still asking me for proof when we've already explained,
ad nauseum, and the proof is still under lock and key. Repeatedly asking for it won't magically make it declassified! And lack of available evidence to the contrary does not equal evidence for your argument, especially when that evidence you ask for is not available to review.
I mean, am I incoherent? Do we speak the same language? We must not, because I can't think of any other reason why you would continue to ask me the same questions over and over again in such a smarmy and condescending fashion after I have given you thorough, comprehensive and
polite answers.
I'm not even disagreeing with the heart of your argument, I'm just saying that in my opinion we don't know enough to make a final judgement. I remain undecided, and at the most I'm simply acknowledging that this is a complex issue, as represented by the number of posts and pages this thread has received. Can we simply agree to disagree and not attempt to reinterpret each other's arguments so they fit our world view? I don't think thats much to ask, quite honestly.