Without a doubt.Do you think our allies think less of us?
Without a doubt.Do you think our allies think less of us?
Does SERE training actually waterboard?
If it does, isn't it slightly less intense than the real thing would be since you know these people are training you and not actually trying to get information out of you without giving a hoot if you actually drown?
zukiphile said:I wouldn't want to accept without reflection that we should strive unduly to be liked. In matters that involve the use of force and national security, I would prefer that we be feared.
I am afraid that subtle truth seems to be way to much for some people to grasp.Has anybody argued that torture never works? Of course torture can provide good intelligence...the argument is that it's unreliable because it can also provide bad intelligence. So proving that waterboarding provided good intelligence in a handful of instances doesn't prove that torture (or waterboarding) as a whole is effective.
Of course torture can provide good intelligence...
Of course torture can provide good intelligence...
Finally.......and it only took 11 pages.
Yes, they do...and that definition has already been posted in this thread. One of the studies clearly stated "as defined by the UN."
It is called the "neo-con mentality"...the trick to it is to stop someone mid-sentence as soon as they say "but" and you can completely misinterpret and misrepresent them with a clear conscious.Its a shame thats all you got out of that entire statement.
So proving that waterboarding provided good intelligence in a handful of instances doesn't prove that torture (or waterboarding) as a whole is effective.
Waterboarding however is a relatively recent tool.
It is called the "neo-con mentality"...
If it is unreliable (which it is) and there are better and more proven techniques (which there are) to retrieve "reliable" information you have to ask yourself why use torture? Then you have to understand that maybe it is because it is a great method for getting whatever information you might need to support your own agenda regardless of truth.And again it doesn't need to be. None of us here are the people who set the criteria for which interrogation techniques are effective and which aren't. Maybe they consider 10% bogus info effective and maybe they consider 50% bogus intel effective. I don't know.
Once again...no they are not. The specialists do not feel it is effective but the powers that be wish to keep it around because it is a useful tool. if you think back to just a short while ago when the talk shows were ripe with complaints from intel analysts that were complaining of information overload coming from such methods and how there were way to many bad leads that deterred resources that are in short supply. What you are saying is akin to saying "the politicians have decided guns are too dangerous for me to own so they must be too dangerous."However what I do know is that the people who set the scale and who know the scale are calling waterboarding effective
Once again...no they are not. The specialists do not feel it is effective but the powers that be wish to keep it around because it is a useful tool.
The specialists do not feel it is effective but the powers that be wish to keep it around because it is a useful tool.
That is not a real request because you have already been shown case studies and official statements about torturous acts and you choose to keep playing this game of semantics by saying waterboarding is not specifically mentioned...despite the fact it fits all descriptions.Show me. Please show me. I want to see where any specialist specifically says waterboarding is not effective.
This is spoken like a man who has never actually sat in front of somebody else and interviewed/interrogated him. In my experience, the individuals who claims that rapport based interview techniques are the only effective means of extracting worthwhile intelligence are the people who have never actually interviewed/interrogated somebody, or have only done so to people that have an American or Western way of thinking.If it [waterboarding] is unreliable (which it is) and there are better and more proven techniques (which there are) to retrieve "reliable" information you have to ask yourself why use torture [you mean waterboarding?]?
And you are basing this on what? I am guessing just personal opinion that is not backed up by any experience.This is spoken like a man who has never actually sat in front of somebody else and interviewed/interrogated him. In my experience, the individuals who claims that rapport based interview techniques are the only effective means of extracting worthwhile intelligence are the people who have never actually interviewed/interrogated somebody, or have only done so to people that have an American or Western way of thinking.
You mean this part?And I would love to see your response to the second part of that post.
if you think back to just a short while ago when the talk shows were ripe with complaints from intel analysts that were complaining of information overload coming from such methods and how there were way to many bad leads that deterred resources that are in short supply.
No, I meant this part...You mean this part?
What you are saying is akin to saying "the politicians have decided guns are too dangerous for me to own so they must be too dangerous."