See, in this post you're actually making valid arguments, not just being a retard like Fatbat. I still disagree with you, but I respect your position. Does torture bring valid information? I really don't know, and I dont know why you're so sure it doesn't. Sometimes it probably does.
Well first off, the only example that US had that it actually worked was recently withdrawn by the agent who said it.
If you really want to get in depth:
http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf
^--ridiculously comprehensive paper on interrogation/reliability/history/psychology.
Here's an excerpt:
Little social science literature speaks directly to the effectiveness of coercive
tactics in educing accurate, useful information, but there is literature on how
coercive infl uence strategies, such as inducing fear, affects relationships. The induction of fear or pain appears to be a critical element. If a source views the educer as the cause of his aversive situation, he may react against it by increasing
his resistance and determination not to comply (see the next section). Research has shown consistently that recipients of punishment or aversive stimuli do distinguish between unpleasant sensations that are self-infl icted or naturally occurring and those intentionally caused by another person. One implication for educing information seems to be that the source should not view the primary educer as the cause of any negative consequences; someone else should wear
the black hat if necessary. Ideally, the source should perceive that he alone is responsible for his situation.
More generally, social science research indicates that a perception of coercion can negatively affect the tenor of the relationship between the educer and the source
and decrease the likelihood that the source will comply or cooperate
^--incompatible with torture.
If someone kidnapped my sister and didn't tell me where she was and I got hold of them and they won't tell me where she is I'll probably be punching them in the face til they tell me.
Personal conflict is different than government conflict. But also you seem to have this false idea that we're using torture on a tight timeline, when that's never actually appeared to be the case.
We have
time to legally make life shit for these guys. US Military prisons are not exactly glorious, even without waterboarding. Small, dark cells, utter isolation, etc.
But I'm being dragged into an 'effectiveness' argument here, and that's not the point.
The point is: It's mother fucking illegal, unconstitutional, and it's our Government. If you lose control and break some guy's face in, that's part of life. It happens all the time. But our government does not have that flexibility. Our government cannot get probation, cannot go to jail, and sets the tone for how the international community behaves. Hell, their actions torturing people here puts
our soldiers at higher risk for being tortured.
I won't be wiretapping their phone, tailing their friends and tracing their bank accounts. Yes, the information can be gotten by other means, but other means take much longer. My argument is that torture is almost always wrong, but there may be extreme circumstances when its a last resort.
And some circumstances are worse then others. Its not always all the same, as even you've admitted.
I 'admitted' it? Jesus, you make it sound like it's a confession. I said that all reasons for torturing someone are not 'equal' on the moral scale. That does not mean that any are even 'close to ok'.
as for "war on terror" and muslims, well personally I believe there is a "war on terror" and then there is a culture "war". War on terror is a war against terrorists who happen to be muslims, its not a war on Islam. There is a completely separate "battle" - the cultural one, where secular democracy is up against Islamism (and other totalitarian political systems) and this is not and should not be a violent "battle" - it is the battle of ideas. The two should never be confused. The West is winning the war on terror. However in some parts of the West, in parts of Europe for example, the West is losing the battle of ideas, and this is in large part due to useful idiots like Fatbat.
You do realize that is how they fight out there, right? We are not winning the war on terror. This is how wars are fought out there. They last generations, and the weaker of the 2 armies just harasses the other until their will to fight or their money gives out.
It's guerilla warfare.
As for the drugs argument, sure, I've watched people shoot up heroin, cocaine, speed, ecstasy... I know quite a lot about drugs and their physiological effects, so my opinion is that shooting up recreationally is not a good idea with any of them. However you're merely being defensive here, when you know your argument had a hole in it the size of Baghdad.
What the hell? It was a semantic problem in a logical argument. I wasn't being 'defensive' (though now I am), I was being
dismissive. That's not even a "hole".
The drug analogy makes sense if you stick to the common perceptions that
1)Cocaine is bad
2)Heroin is worse.
3)A father doing cocaine would have less influence over his son doing something similar. Even if it's slightly worse. 'Degrees of wrong' is a shitty argument to have to try and make.
Even if you disagree with them, it's not too hard to figure it out for the purposes of an analogy. Your opinion of the drugs is completely beside the point.
