Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Ty you stated: "None of those "assumptions" are faulty
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you hate dealing with logic and logical arguments but which one of these assumptions did you think was faulty?
1) Al Qaeda can only pull off effective terrorist acts to kill innocent people if certain information stays secret.
2) Al Qaeda operatives have varying levels of access to such information
3) We have captured and continue to capture Al Qaeda operatives
4) Many captured operatives won't want to give to our interrogators this pertinent information.
5) Not always, but in many cases pain and the threat of pain can induce people to do things they are reluctant to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me then that if all these are true, then you have to conclude that the use of torture will save innocent lives. Especially if you add six and seven.
6) in some circumstances torture is more effective than other forms of interrogation.
7) We are reasonably doubtful we can get the same information without expending a significant amount of additional resources or can get the information as quickly with other means.
|
Even if (1) - (6) are right, the argument falls apart on the realization that a prohibition on torture is part of a commitment of human rights and other principles that serve us well. So, I disagree with (7).
Quote:
However, the whole argument falls apart if either of the following two arguments is valid:
A) Torture does not work, or is not an effective means for procuring relevant information. If that were true then there would be absolutely no reason to use torture. However if that statement were true that begs the question of:
1) Why the Gestapo was able to break up resistance rings every time they captured an operative?
2) Why did these groups change their tactics as the war went on to make sure that every operative only was familiar with a limited number of operatives and no one was ever told any one else’s true name?
3) Why did the KGB have the reputation of always getting information out of captured operatives?
4) Why were the North Vietnamese able to get so much classified information from captured pilots and why did John McCain say that it was too much to expect any of these down pilots not to divulge classified information.
|
I think everyone agrees that torture sometimes works, if by "works" one means permits one to recover information.
That said, you should know that the FBI's interrogation techniques differ from the CIA's, and depend on flipping the source's sympathies. Read
The Looming Tower. There's something to it.
Quote:
B) If torture does work, but there are better means of getting the information. If there are better means to get this information then there would be absolutely no reason to use torture. But if this were true then:
1) Why have I never heard of another non torture technique that is as effective as torture? People keep saying they are out there but how come no one can identify one?
|
Because it's not a "technique." And because you haven't read enough.
Quote:
|
2) I have heard of other “non torture” techniques that have worked, but in all these cases the promoter of the certain technique was promoting a technique that really was torture, they just were not calling it such (for example water boarding, sleep deprivation etc). Has someone heard different?
|
(2) isn't an argument. It's about torture under another name.
Quote:
|
Do you believe that torture is immoral even in the ticking time bomb scenario?
|
I've answered this before. You have a lot of gall, ignoring my questions instead of answering them and then asking me questions you've asked me before.
