Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I accept that you are mostly correct.
|
You're a wise man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
However the position you take is one that allows for no exception. I find it interesting how you avoid realizing you have 'painted yourself into a corner'. It is challenging my ability to illustrate this, it is much more fun than those SODUKO puzzles, my wife really likes those but I get bored with them.
|
You have to demonstrate a damned good reason to take such a huge risk as saying "maybe you can torture, just maybe". So far, as roach has said, there's no legitimate argument for utility. There's no, "well in this particular instance, torture saved lives!". There's an assumption that torture can work, but there's nothing to back it up. I can't allow things even in the same zip code as torture unless the damage they do to us as a collective people can be excused by some great good, if that's even possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
A fair answer. If I were your agent I would accept that and I would want to be tried by a jury. Do you think you would end up with a morale problem in the agency?
|
I think a reminder that even intelligence agents have laudable principles would be good for the agency. Moreover, it's good to have a systemic purge of bad agents. We need a dependable CIA more than we need those radical, do-anything-to-get-what-they-want few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Would you try to get a secondary source? Would you have someone else speak to the prisoner captured?
|
The next interrogator (that is able to follow the rules) would be a secondary source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Would you release that prisoner?
|
I'd only release a prisoner if that prisoner were captured or detained illegally. Being mistreated doesn't make one innocent, innocence does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Would you allow him the right to file civil charges against me and the government?
|
After we were done with him, sure. Still, I have to assume that this hypothetical person was arrested or detained for a very, very good reason. I'm not going to further delay getting the valuable intelligence that this person might have by allowing him to contact the ACLU from his cell. There are procedures for this kind of thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
That is fair, I think having a list of what is and what is not acceptable is a step in the right direction. I think when most of the waterboarding was being done it was not explicitly illegal. If as a nation we move forward with clarity, I think we avoid these debates in the future. So, I am in favor of what Obama's original position was, of focusing on the future.
|
Can you supply any kind of rational explanation for waterboarding a man 183 times in a month? Maybe we should set illegality aside for just a moment and concentrate on utility, because that's gotta be the first step in the conversation. According to the record, they used a technique which was not the same as the one employed by the SERE for advanced military training, as instead of pouring a small amount of water on a damp cloth, on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed they used a much larger amount of water pouring over a longer period. Moreover, the military personnel that undergo waterboarding know they are in a controlled environment, they are safe. Khalid was not in that environment at all. He had been stripped and beaten at least once, followed by what I have to expect was one of the most unpleasant enemas in history (this has been corroborated by a member of the Red Cross that witnessed the event). The scary part, though, is that during those 183 waterboardings, no actionable intelligence is said to have been attained. Sure, supposedly the information is said to have stopped an attack on LA, but that doesn't fit the time line. He was waterboarded after when that supposed counter-terrorist operation took place. In other words, there's no evidence that those 183 waterboarding sessions yielded any actionable intelligence.
---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Hey, Will are you reading this?
|
Yeah, I read that and I strongly disagree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kutulu
Yes on both. I'm not going to ignore information obtained but at the same time you have to send a message that that sort of behavior will not be tolerated.
|
This is contradictory. Are you on Ace's side (or perhaps former side) in thinking that intelligence from torture is anything but completely unreliable? This doesn't just have to be an ethical argument, it can be both ethical and logical. Torture is a violation of our principles AND it doesn't work. We have both on our side, so we can't lose.