Top Interrogators Delcare Torture Ineffective in Intelligence Gathering

[maxrule]

Originally Posted by Nosketch78

Uh...because they chose to enter the profession of TORTURER and are obviously extreme sadists??! Waterboarding and psycological torture were designed for interrogation without leaving any marks. I don't think those tools would be very effective for that.


The pure ignorance that you're vomiting in this thread is astounding. Did you even look at a single one of those articles? They prove you wrong. But you still continue to fight for a practice in a thread that proves your opinion wrong, and you flat out refuse to accept it? This isn't even ignorance, it's stupidity. Oh, and you should know that John Mccain is 100% against torture, and has stated multiple times that it is inneffective and immoral.

Yes, I know McCain is 100% against torture. So am I. I'm not making a case for torture. I'm just refuting that articles suggestion that you can not torture information out of someone. I know for a fact that it has been done before and will be done again.

Yes, I will admit that it is immoral but if it was ineffective for obtaining accurate information in every case I guess that most would consider it a waste of time yet it still goes on around the world.

Again, I don't support torture. I bet there are to many quicker paths to hell than to bind and torture another human being.

I know that many of you have a big problem with Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and all that but is there any instance of an AMERICAN being tortured by an AMERICAN enemy that you've EVER had a problem with or is it only Bush and America that tortures people these days?

[Nosketch78]

Of course I have a problem with terrorists torturing Americans, but that is far different than Americans torturing terrorists, as we are Americans and WE are the government. WE can have direct control over the issue. I simply cannot do anything about militias capturing and torturing others, but I can vote American officals out of office who fight for the practice.

And I'm sorry, but the article just proves you wrong. Yes, torture is effective in getting information out of people, if they have the information. Unfortunately the average person who is captured and sent to a place like Abu Gharib is a foot soldier, a recruit who knows nothing more about troop positions and battle plans than any American infantry. Torturing someone like this can only yield false intel and put even more lives at risk.

[sneakatoke]

Originally Posted by maxrule

It's an article, it proves nothing.

The article is bullshit if they claim that you can't control people by torturing them. That is flat fucking nonsense.

Millions upon million and millions more people through out history have been tortured in to control. That is a fact of history.

Have you never read the ART OF WAR?

Ask McCain; he was TORTURED and he broke. YOU WILL BREAK!

Saddam knew all about torture; he tortured his own people by the thousands.

Putting underwear on someones head and taking their picture is not torture. That's more like torment than torture.

Torture's Dirty Secret: It Works
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/klein

Firstly, the articles that I posted don't say you can't control someone via torture. What the articles DO say, if you had actually read them, is that it's ineffective for gathering actionable intelligence. Those are two different things. Read before making yourself look stupid. Thanks.

Secondly, McCain did break. Did he give the Vietnamese any actionable intelligence? No, he didn't. A perfect example of why torture isn't an effective information gathering tool.

And third, you apparently didn't even read the your own article. I guess you thought you knew what it was about from title. Here are a couple excerpts for your education:

This is torture's true purpose: to terrorize--not only the people in Guantánamo's cages and Syria's isolation cells but also, and more important, the broader community that hears about these abuses. Torture is a machine designed to break the will to resist--the individual prisoner's will and the collective will.

Yet despite this body of knowledge, torture continues to be debated in the United States as if it were merely a morally questionable way to extract information, not an instrument of state terror. But there's a problem: No one claims that torture is an effective interrogation tool--least of all the people who practice it. Torture "doesn't work. There are better ways to deal with captives," CIA director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16.

Exactly. As an interrogation tool, torture is a bust.

Originally Posted by maxrule

Yes, I know McCain is 100% against torture. So am I. I'm not making a case for torture. I'm just refuting that articles suggestion that you can not torture information out of someone. I know for a fact that it has been done before and will be done again.

Yes, I will admit that it is immoral but if it was ineffective for obtaining accurate information in every case I guess that most would consider it a waste of time yet it still goes on around the world.

Again, I don't support torture. I bet there are to many quicker paths to hell than to bind and torture another human being.

I know that many of you have a big problem with Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and all that but is there any instance of an AMERICAN being tortured by an AMERICAN enemy that you've EVER had a problem with or is it only Bush and America that tortures people these days?

Again you miss the point of every article I posted. It's not an issue of morality. It's an issue of effectiveness. These are career military officers and interrogation experts from the Army, the Air Force, the FBI, the CIA, the DoD, and the DIA that are saying TORTURE ISN'T AN EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR GATHERING ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE. I decided on all caps since you seem to miss the point entirely. Please, before you post in response, actually read the articles so you know what you're responding to. Then we could have meaningful dialogue on the issue.