Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
You're lucky we don't otherwise you might erroneously believe without question that "enhanced interrogation techniques" work, have worked, or might work. You may not buy my argument or the arguments of others regardless of where the experts stand on the issue, but I'm satisfied that there's some doubt in your mind.
|
You seem to have no basis for your view other than so called and self proclaimed 'experts'. Perhaps those who can get results from enhanced interrogation techniques don't do talk shows.
Quote:
|
How about Brigadier General David R. Irvine, retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School, saying torture doesn't work?
|
You miss the point. How does he know? Has he practiced enhanced interrogation techniques? How does he explain the circumstances when it has worked? If he was making a qualified statement regarding when 'it' may work and when 'it' may not work he would have credibility in my book. But you seem to quote him making an absolute statement. Also, there are those who 'can do' and there are those that teach. Teachers don't always know how or why 'doers' can be effective in unconventional ways.
Quote:
|
How about severl former FBI interrogators—who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects—saying not only categorically that torture does not help collect intelligence but also that it creates terrorists?
|
"creates terrorists?" The people who are terrorists are already terrorists. Those on the fence, may have a number of things that make them convert. In some cases they may decide not to become a terrorist if they know they may be subject to "torture", just like some people avoid a criminal life to avoid the punitive aspects of imprisonment.
FBI interrogators are generally involved with people with different cultural experiences than the CIA people would be involved with, so again we need to drill down and understand what they are actually saying.
Quote:
|
How about the Senate Armed Services Committee, after speaking to the CIA interrogators that have recently tortured, coming to the unanimous conclusion that torture doesn't work?
|
We first need to make sure that everyone is working off of the same definition of "torture". That is one reason why I spent time trying to get you to clearly define it. My definition is different than yours and I believe your definition is vague.
Quote:
|
How about Dan Coleman, one of the FBI agents assigned to the 9/11 suspects held at Guantanamo that actually witnessed torture, saying that it doesn't work?
|
See above.
Quote:
|
How about John McCain, a man who was actually tortured (and who you may very well have voted for in the last presidential election), explaining in no uncertain terms that torture doesn't work?
|
John MccCain did not have any strategic information to offer, he is what I would consider a 'foot soldier'. McCain was tortured and he eventually denounced his country, which is what the enemy wanted. They accomplished their goal and used him for propaganda.
Quote:
|
You're actively refusing to see the truth on this matter,
|
...by asking questions, I am actively refusing the truth? I ask you - why do you fear questions? Why do you fear having your views challenged?
Quote:
|
and the more people out there like you go unchallenged, the greater the chances that we'll torture again.
|
I told you what I was willing to do and what I would support being done. You would consider torture things that I do not consider torture so the risk exists and will not go away. But, at least I am willing to engage in an open manner and seek clarity.
Quote:
|
I won't allow that. You're dead wrong on the issue and you've been presented with plenty of evidence. See it. Comprehend it.
|
I may be wrong, but that is one issue. The real issue is an honest and direct responce to questions. We are still at - 'the experts said so, so it must be true'...that is not good enough for me. If it is good enough for you, that's fine, just recognize honest differences.
---------- Post added at 09:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
so ace, darling, evidence is "b.s." -----
|
I laid out the basis for my view. There is evidence, and if we drill down into the information and that information can not be supported can ewasily become b.s. Do you disagree? If you do agree I don't get your point.
Quote:
|
but you expect anyone to believe that yours are "fundamental questions"?
|
When do we stop this? My questions are my questions. My questions are simple and address fundamental concepts. Feel free to ignore my questions any time you want. When you do respond you almost never address the question, but put your focus on my short comings. We know I have them, we know, we know, we know. do I need to qualify everything I write with things like.. 'this is just my view and may have no value to anyone but me...', if you don't buy my questions as "fundamental", I respect that view, but that does not answer the question.
Quote:
|
it's clear you don't want an answer--you won't accept what's offered as argument, you don't read supporting material that's posted....so why are we doing this again?
|
Yea, that it, I don't read?!? Perhaps, one time you can support your view with specifics. You may be surprised with the response you get when you present a critique with specifics.