Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
He forgets the logical, pragmatic and efficient. You can cite all the contrarian eggheads you like for the proposition torture isn't effective, but anyone who's broken a limb or been kicked in the balls would admit, infliction of intense pain will cause results.
|
But not always useful results. They tell you what you want to hear, which is why torture has always been used by repressive regimes with an interest in obtaining false confessions. If you want good information, you want to get the source to cooperate with you. The desire to torture people has more to do with wanting to be the kind of person who is ready to kick someone in the balls or break limbs. It's what intellectuals do to pose as tough guys and men of the world. Like you just did -- you call a veteran -- a retired admiral -- you know almost nothing about a "contrarian egghead."
Quote:
|
But in a world where we have hundreds of these people in custody and need the information as quickly as possible, "torture" is a lamentable necessity.
|
Stop basing your worldview on "24."
Quote:
|
And really, when you start discussing "alternatives" to "torture," aren't you just talking about acceptable degrees of torture?
|
No. You're talking about flipping a source so that he identifies with your side. There are different ways to do this, but they generally involve isolation and treating people decently.
All you have to do is look at the current crop of GOP presidential candidates to see that this desire to justify torture isn't really about the results -- it's about wanting to preen and pose, to look and sound tough. Giuliani, for one, is bent on making religious conservatives forget his marriages and cross-dressing and support of gun rights and all that other stuff by sounding more aggressive and tougher than the next guy.
I like your notion that McCain, who has actual experience with torture that you and most other people don't have, is "biased." Don't let reality get in the way of macho posing.
