Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
1. 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."
2. Stop basing your worldview on "24."
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
|
1. Nice try. Third world regimes have used it, badly, and not with the level of sophistication we employ, to obtain false confessions. Comparing Pol Pot or Stalin to us is not a rebuttal. Their goals were false confessions and their mathods were not as advanced as ours. Be careful using the broad brush, counselor.
2. The only television I watch is the Daily Show and Colbert Report and Keith Olbermann and O'Reilly sometimes (for laughs). I have never seen an episode of 24.
3. No. No, I'm not. I'm talking about getting the info out of him with whatever method works.
4. Agreed. I don't carry the candidates water on this issue. I am merely arguing for what I see as a common sense reality of the thing - that torture no doubt works. Other methods might as well, but those are all torture under a different name, which you amusingly suggest involves "treating the person decently." You want to believe that's the only way we can get the best information because that gives the crux of your argument automatic credibility. But we both know that's not a settled fact, and the truth is, in some cases your approach works; in others, torture works; in still some others, blending both approaches works. I'll agree its a greay area and your approach should be the initial one used, for humane reasons. You'll agree, if you're thinking reasonably and not emotionally, that if your approach does not work, or if time is of the essence, torture is the next logical, necessary step.
5. McCain is biased. He cannot speak to this issue as dispassionately as others might because of his history. There is also controversy over what he might have spilled under torture. And he is running for President and trying to define himself against the others, who all, as you note, defend Torequmada techniques.
Summing it, I agree with you. But when your approach fails, I think taking things to the next level is necessary. Unfortunately necessary.
