I would like to amend my statement on torture: Of course it can be effective. But I think the question is a) could you get it more efficiently by other means and b) are you willing to become the enemy you are trying to defeat. There are books by other governments dating back centuries doubting the reliability and efficiency of torture. You will get mounds and mounds of information, sure, but how much is truth, how much is just pain induced wishful thinking and how much are outright lies. If you have a very specific item you are looking for and you already know 75% of the situation, yes, I think you can quickly and reliably get information from someone via torture. But as a general information gathering tool, no, it is not useful at all, imho. The second part is the part where many will diverge on. The morality of it. I personally do not want to become the monster I am trying to defeat. If it takes 156 waterboarding sessions to get something from someone, I think there would be better ways to get it than doing that. I am no expert, of course, and the idea of doing an experiment to test the veracity of torture would be evil. Also what is torture? Most see torture as hanging someone by their thumbs, cutting off toes, physical abuse. But what about sleep/food deprivation? Keeping them in the cold? Drugs? It is a dangerous path that I do not want my country going down.
I think you're talking about IP's comment and not mine, so I'll proceed as such. And I'll agree. IP could have said "torture is great for eliciting false statements" and that would have been supportable at some level. But he went the extra mile and said "torture is great at eliciting false information but not at eliciting accurate information", which is plainly dumb.
I dont think its as easy as saying it never works or works all the time. I also think it has become a very political topic that gets painted black and white from start to finish from the definition to the its success. Im not going to pretend to understand interrogation methods and its success or failures but I dont think its as simple as some think.
I don't know much in this world, but interrogation* definitely does elicit responses. And I won't dispute that sometimes it elicits responses that are less than accurate. *which I'll define as covering interrogation by way of torture
When did I say that? Said actionable. I said good, usable. The information is intermixed with a bunch of crap, and you have to sort it out. If you *think* they know something that they don't, you'll eventually get false information just to try and get you to stop. Your post is plainly dumb, as you quoted me as saying something I never said. And when BPV says it is a "really dumb comment" and then immediately follows it up with a comment about the reliability of intel being debatable... Well that just goes to show he'll argue with me if I say the sky is blue.
Jesus TF Christ, IP, you wrote this: "Torture is great for forcing statements and intimidation, but not for getting actionable information." There is no denying that interrogation techniques -- running the gamut from benign to really evil - do get information and a lot of that information is truthful information. Accurate information isn't actionable? Is that what you're saying? Okay.
Jesus Christ, I only said I that I said actionable right at the start of the post you just quoted. That's not the same thing as you claimed I said.
If you're going to take the Lord's name in vain, can you at least do it properly and put a "tap dancing" or "[breast] focking" in there. Tia.
