Torture vs. Interrogation

[Professor S]

Seems reasonable to me, but I'd like there to continue to be some checks and balances. If someone does call for the "nuclear option", I think that it needs to have Presidential approval for highest acountability, and rare enough that such a responsibility would not encumber the president.

After those thresholds are met, Jack Bauer the motherf**ker.

[Typhoid]

My question remains: How do you get the information legally?

I don't know, how do the police get it out of mass murderers?
Last I checked they didn't waterboard them or isolate them for days on end.
Oh, hey - massive extentsive interrogation.


Torture is torture. Call it what you want, and slap a pretty little sticker on it, but it's still torture. If you need information, that doesn't make it right to do that to another human being. Even if the human being is/has/plans to kill other people.


Interrogation is good for eventually getting the answer out of someone.
Torture is good for getting them to say what you want them to say.

[TheGame]

You guys should watch the hearings they will have about this topic, the experts in general say that it does not work. I've yet to see anyone present a good example of when it worked and gave reliable information.

[BreakABone]

I will say that it always works for Jack Bauer so it can't be all wrong.

On a more serious note even without a fear of death, I think exerting a certain amount of power over someone can technically be considered psychological torture as you are pretty much telling them they would be meant with this treatment unless they tell you what you want to hear.

And I think that may be my issue with torture as it is with therapy is that you may bring up memories or events that never really occurred because of the relationship you develop with the other individual,

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

You guys should watch the hearings they will have about this topic, the experts in general say that it does not work. I've yet to see anyone present a good example of when it worked and gave reliable information.

I'm aware of what the experts say on both sides, but as I stated earlier, it's mainly anecdotal evidence. A lot of the testimony against is also about torture in general, and not waterboarding specifically. I'd like to see the specifics from internal documents and memos and get some real clarity on this episode.

I'm not orthodox on this issue by any means. I just want to see the results of the waterboardings on the three detainees before passing my final judgment. Whether or not these activities garnered any significant results is what would sway me from reluctantly accepting a controversial technique and wanting it abolished.

[Vampyr]

You never use those methods. Period. We, as Americans, should not use those methods. They are torture - it's actually NOT a complex question.

First of all, the methods don't work. Second of all, you have NO IDEA if the what the person said is true, or they just said it to make you stop.

For me this doesn't even need observing, analyzing, or thinking about - the answer is pretty clear cut: the greatest country in the world (no offense to Canadians) doesn't torture people.

The whole thing reeks of past scenarios like the spanish inquisition. They thought what they were doing was 'getting the answers they absolutely needed' too.

And people who pose the question, "What if you HAD to do it to save lives" are trying to trick the person into trying to answer an impossible question.

[Bond]

You do realize that Obama retained the right to use these tactics in the future if he deems it necessary, right?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Bond

You do realize that Obama retained the right to use these tactics in the future if he deems it necessary, right?

Oh wait, I thought we were talking about the previous accounts of torture.
I didn't know this was yet another "Obama's not different" thread.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Oh wait, I thought we were talking about the previous accounts of torture.
I didn't know this was yet another "Obama's not different" thread.

I think that comment was a little less than fair. I simply wanted to point out that Obama has not absolved the use of these tactics, but rather suspended their practice, with the possibility of reinstating them if he deems it necessary in the future.

[Professor S]

I think this whole debate has taken a very poor turn. It seems that people no longer want to debate the merits of arguments, but instead simply want to make blanket statements of opinion pretending to be fact. Ending comments with "Period" or "This is that and thats it" don't make your opinion any more valid, especially when the evidence that would answer the debate is still classified. So far we've only seen exactly what they want you to see, and I find it hard to come to a conclusion when half of the evidence may be under lock and key.

This is a complex issue for the reasons I've illustrated in previous posts in this thread, and it would become even more complex if we are ever attacked again. Can you feel strongly? Yes, but to claim this is black and white doesn't reflect enlightenment, it only frees you from having to think about the subject any further.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I think this whole debate has taken a very poor turn. It seems that people no longer want to debate the merits of arguments, but instead simply want to make blanket statements of opinion pretending to be fact.

Getting rid of enhanced interrogation techniques does not sudden erase the problem that existing techniques were not working.

The only time I heard of a legit situation where the "existing techniques" not working, is when they were pushing harder and harder to get a non existent link between Iraq and 9-11. Care to share with us some other factual situations in which less image-destroying teqniques didn't help, but torture helped?

If not, why were you making a blanket statement of opinion pretending that it is a fact?

[KillerGremlin]

Obviously torture does work otherwise this wouldn't be a debate. This part of the issue I never understood. However, torture does not work well and it is not ethical.

What is the difference between torture and interrogation...a whole bunch of gray area I suppose and a lot of slippery slope arguments.

I do agree that we need stricter regulation. But who watches the CIA?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Bond

I think that comment was a little less than fair. I simply wanted to point out that Obama has not absolved the use of these tactics, but rather suspended their practice, with the possibility of reinstating them if he deems it necessary in the future.

He hasn't absolved them yet because nobody "high up" (Other than, you know - the U.N) has deemed these tactics to be torture yet. So if he is able to do these things in the future and get his scapegoats, why wouldn't he?

Not to mention it would be in relatively poor taste for a newly appointed President to jump right up and say "Yes, what my predecessor did was torture."

Just because Obama hasn't absolved it, doesn't mean it still isn't torture.
Hell, even if the US government decided it's not torture - that doesn't mean it's not torture.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

What is the difference between torture and interrogation...a whole bunch of gray area I suppose and a lot of slippery slope arguments.

I do agree that we need stricter regulation. But who watches the CIA?

Honestly, you're right about the big grey area. But I think if we were going to torture, don't use something that the world has long known to be torture.. or something that our own country complained about being done to us before.

If you're going to bend the rules to get info, then do something that's technically not covered by the rules to begin with. So if you get caught, then you can say "I didn't know it was torture! Sorry we will never do it again!"... instead of being caught red handed doing something that has been done before.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

What is the difference between torture and interrogation...a whole bunch of gray area I suppose and a lot of slippery slope arguments.

Really?
I mean, I know people are going to say "blah blah blah dictionary blah blah blah" to me - but this is what the two mean.

Interrogation:
1. the act of interrogating; questioning.
2. an instance of being interrogated: He seemed shaken after his interrogation.
3. a question; inquiry.
4. a written list of questions.
5. an interrogation point; question mark.

Torture
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.