Manasecret, the key to the statements you quoted are that they waterboarded along with other techniques. The other methods may have played a significant factor to the executions, depending on what they are. I know the Japanese did far more heinous activities than waterboard. Even beyond thosse questions, laws can change and often do in 50 or so years. The legal definition of torture as I still understand it remains as I've described, unless someone has a more recent informaton (it does get confusing).
Game, good well thought out and fair minded post! I only have two challenges to your overall high quality comments.
1) No one is arguing that other interrogation methods don't work. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be used at all. But no method is full proof and individuals are different. Some break like a 6th grader in th Vice Principles office, and others would spit in the face of Batman himself. I'm for using the least extreme method available that can get the information we need to protect ourselves as long as it fits in with the legal definitions.
2) I think you may be confusing what I mean by evidence.
Quote:
|
I think if there was clear evidence for Cheany to point out that it did work, and did save lives.. He would have brought it up by now, or someone would have. But who knows, maybe someone will step up and come to the hearings who actually participated in it and tell the truth about it.
|
As we've stated, much of the potential evidence is still classified. Not even Dick Cheney can declassify these documents anymore. Witness evidence is one thing, but as long as there are redacted and classified documents still sitting under lock and key that directly address the results of the interrogations, I still think the argument remains open.
Other than that I think you make very very valid arguments. I remain undecided, but I certainly sympathize with your viewpoint.
Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
Threaded Mode
