Where fools rush in.. (Dem's & hearings)

[Aramike]

Awful, and there's absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. I admit that our stance on torture won't deter our current enemy, but what we're doing now sets a dangerous precedent.

Our stance on so-called "torture" isn't meant to deter an enemy. It is designed to acquire information. This is a very important distinction.

Stop taking out all your prejudices against the left on me. Where do I call them sadists? Where do I say they were doing it for cheap thrills? POINT ME TO AN EXACT *******ING QUOTE!

Blah, blah ...

Please read my point again. There are only THREE real reasons for using enhanced interrogations. One reason is that it works (which you don't believe). The second reason is that those using it are idiots because it doesn't work (you believe that it doesn't work). The third is that those using the method don't care whether or not it works, because they enjoy the method.

So, considering that you clearly state that you don't believe it works, we are left with two options. Now, (pay attention, as this is difficult), either our service people and CIA operatives are complete morons and continue to use a method of interrogation that doesn't work (as you somehow managed to figure out with no real-world experience whatsoever), or they are sadists.

I apologize - I deduced your position based upon available facts. I didn't mean to make an educated inference without a specific quote to prove it.

It's called "intelligence". It works.

In my opinion those who authorized and used methods that are now officially considered torture did so thinking that they were doing good. They were pursuing a very narrow goal (getting a detainee to talk), and they failed to see the wider consequences of their actions. They were guilty of shortsightedness and narrow thinking, not malice.

What a broad statement...

A CIA or military interrogator is not charged with seeing "the wider consequences" - they are charged with gaining the needed information.

As such, we default to the three options.

Again, stop portraying me as your (fictional) stereotypical leftie. You wouldn't like it if I came here and started slandering you with everything I don't like about the right.

Honestly, I wouldn't cry about it because I'm not completely on the right (although I do lean right). You can say whatever you want with my point of view, and even generalize it ... and I have the intellectual integrity to back my view up or specifically explain why your summation of said view is inaccurate.

The use of the methods that are now considered torture was widespread. Lots of detainees were tortured, and some were tortured hundreds of times. You can't honestly believe that they were going after a specific piece of info in every case.

Actually, I can say that they were going after specific information in each case ... because that's what makes sense.

You are the one making the charges. Therefore, furnish proof that I am wrong, as that is your burden.

In any case, if you're correct and there is broad, indiscriminate torture being used on a wholesale basis, I am against it just as much as you are. But your point seems to infer that your problem is with indiscrimate application of enhanced interrogation (just as I am). Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the point.

That inference naturally leads to that you are okay with enhanced interrogation being used for specific information from specific individuals ... which means you agree with me all along.

So, let's ask the question and cut the crap, shall we? If we have someone in custody, who's aware of an imminent threat and is not disclosing it, should we be able to use enhanced interrogation methods?

I personally think that the methods were authorized for a very specific circumstance, and once it was used the first time the dam was broken, so to speak. Their use became more widespread until it became systematic.

I give you credit for not attempting to over reach blame here. However, are you implying that, should we go back to specifics it would be okay?

Well, I guess I'll go back to the guy who told me those things and tell him he's wrong. He's only the former Director of the CIA, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

Somehow I doubt that ... either that, or you don't understand what he's talking about.

Like I said, indeed there is an abundance of information ... sorting through it is not the problem, however. We don't have the RIGHT information.

I know. For a fact.