[Aramike]

Well, your intelligence isn't working, because you're getting my position completely wrong and being very condescending at the same time.

I've read your post and have yet to see how I'm getting your position wrong.

You're against enhanced interrogation methods, correct?

As far as being condescending, yeah, I'm good at that.

I'm not saying that the CIA interrogators and those who approved their actions are idiots for thinking that torture works. Smart people can make mistakes. One thing that I've learned in the past few years is that intelligence is a very imperfect art. People in the intel community like to think that it's a science, but it's not anywhere close.

First off, I like how you present this argument. You're attempting to say that you know more about the intelligence community than the people in it.

Wrong.

Secondly, intelligence in a science and art combined, or either, depending on your role in gathering and deciphering it.

The smart people at the CIA and our other intelligence agencies were sure that Iraq had WMD in early 2003. I've talked to people who saw the intel, smart people who have no political stake in the decision whatsoever, and they said that they were stunned when we didn't find WMD after we went in. Unlike a lot of your stereotypical lefties, I don't think the WMD findings were politically motivated. It was a genuine mistake.

Fair enough regarding the "lefty" point. I'll take you out of the category, in my view.

In any case, even regarding the mistakes made in the matter, the agencies learned from and made adjustments to help prevent future mistakes. Here we fall back on the three options, as for some reason the agency as a whole is not interested in making any adjustments, thereby not acknowledging any mistakes.

The point I'm trying to make is that intelligence is not perfect, in fact it's not even close. Intel people will tell you waht they think, and they'll be honest about it, but they can be very wrong.

I agree with this and know this first hand. However, they are indeed correct more often than not.

So when the CIA comes forward and says that they're 100% sure that this detainee knows exactly where the next terrorist attack is coming, and that we just need to waterboard him to get the info, you have to take that with more than a grain of salt. You need an entire salt mine.

You went from good post to not-so-good post right there. By your logic, why trust ANYTHING that the CIA produces?

Again, they get it right WAY more often than not. It's just that it doesn't make the New York Times when they get it right.

So if the CIA says they need to waterboard a subject, I'm inclined to believe them.

You never know anything for a fact in the intelligence world. I'm not trying to say that our intel people are idiots, that they're political hacks, or that they're sadists. It's just the nature of the field. All things considered our intel agencies do a damn good job, but they're up against an impossible challenge.

I find it odd that you say that just after saying you should take certain recommendations with a grain of salt.

Also, you DO know things for a fact in the intelligence world. We're not talking mood-setting lines in a Tom Clancy novel, here. In the real world, the intelligence community focuses on obtaining information, with an emphasis on FACTUAL, VERIFIABLE information. And, it gains a lot of it.

So getting back to torture, in a scenario with perfect information, I might be okay with torture in very limited circumstances. But based on everything I've learned about intel, I'm firmly convinced that perfect information never exists.

Perfect information always exists. The key is obtaining it. The trick is that you never know its veracity until you have it. So, I err on the side of having the information.

Therefore, I can't support torture ever. At best it simply means confusing yourself by doing awful things to an awful person. But it can also mean degrading yourself by doing awful things to a genuinely innocent person and inspiring others to do those same awful things to your people.

That's mumbo-jumbo, sorry. "Confusing yourself"? Huh? Inspiring others? What? I'm pretty sure that, prior to the public hubbub about waterboarding, people were inspired to attack us all the same. And, quite frankly, they were a lot more successful at it back then.

And, if we're "torturing" innocent people, I'd advocate for that to stop, just like you. But not the practice as a whole. That'd be like saying that, due to innocent people being wrongly sent to prison, we should eliminate prisons.

PS: I'll lay off the condescending remarks to you too (as best I can). I keep thinking everyone is Tribeman.