Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace, there is no mean-ends justification for torture.
|
I define torture differently than you do.
Quote:
|
there was no effort to understand even the most basic research on the effects of torture---see the ny times article from this morning i posted above---there was extensive us military research done after the korean war on the fact that torture elicits one kind of information, which is the desire for the torture to stop. that this has been obvious from the 18th century onward is something that is maybe a bit abstruse to expect the parochials from american conservatism to know about---but there's no excuse for not doing the basic legwork on the efficacy of the technique if one is to lend even the slightest credence to the argument you're trying to make.
|
I think abusing people with no evidence to support that the person being questioned has specific information on a specific issue could be torture and would be a waste of time.
I think in order for us to understand each other we have to refine the questions. So basically I can honestly say I agree with you and then honestly say I disagree with you. I think randomly abusing prisoners to seek some random piece of information basically will not useful. On the other hand if you have a target who has specific information and that target is questioned with specificity with increasing severity eventually you will get the information you seek.
Quote:
|
you haven't a leg to stand on here, ace.
|
You have given no clear guidance to the basic questions on the table. When does it become torture and what makes it torture? If I had a clear answer to those questions, I would agree with you. The 'I know it when I see it' argument is not helpful for people like me, who see the world in 'black and white', I don't get the shades of gray stuff. Define it so I can understand it.