Enhanced Interrogation and the "torture memos"

Redcell

Active member
Ok so there is still some stuff about the enhanced interogation techniques
waterboarding, heavy metal, sleep deprivation ect if all of this gets intel that would save people, which it did, why does Obama get rid of it and then only release the interogation techniques and not the results?

The image that is gatherd is that obama is weakining National security while trying to put a bad name on the republicans by saying heres what bush allowed, and then holding back the results making it seem that there is no good coming from it.

How is this helping The USA? his job is not to slander the right its to help everybody and not ruin National security.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/bush-torture-memos-releas_n_187867.html so you can read the memos. this does nothing to help the US
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sometimes you can think of it this way.
More lives will be lost of we do not interrogate with those methods. But maybe that's the price we have to pay in order to justify ourselves as the good guys. Funny thing is, Jack Bauer also says this at the end of Season 7 of 24.
 
Sometimes you can think of it this way.
More lives will be lost of we do not interrogate with those methods. But maybe that's the price we have to pay in order to justify ourselves as the good guys. Funny thing is, Jack Bauer also says this at the end of Season 7 of 24.

I will see your Jack Bauer and raise you a Friedrich Nietzsche quote..."And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. " I am sorry as much as I have tried to understand the "if torture saves lives then it was worth it" argument it still does not sit well.

If you have to adopt the morals of your enemy in order to win then were the values you are defending really worth defending in the first place?
 
You misunderstood me.
What I meant was if we lose many more lives by foregoing the use of torture, maybe what we believe in is more important than saving a few more lives.
 
Sometimes you must sacrafice a little to save alot. What is worse torturing a group of terrorists or knowing theres a way to save thousands of people and not taking any action? you must choose the lesser evil right? and i dont belive that what we did to those men in gitmo qualifies as torture what they do to our marines is torture.

The action of releasing those memos only helped the other side, and the decision to stop using those methods took away a good way to get intel on what is going on in thier heads and insight into thier plans.
 
Answer me this, Redcell, if you were being starved every day, and the little food you received was absolute CRAP, you were being "drowned" every day, and lived in a hole by yourself... Wouldn't you tell the person doing it to you anything you could to get out of it? Even... Say... A LIE? And before you answer, consider the fact that if you tell me you wouldn't lie and would only break to tell the truth, I'm going to discredit all future posts from you.
 
It's been admitted by US authorities that they are aware that torture doesn't work. Something that civilised societies have known for a century or more. It is merely a way for them to terrorise their prisoners and exact some sort of revenge.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/torture-doesnt-work-says-fbi-expert-20090514-b4t6.html

Those TV and "B" grade movie scenarios where information gained through torture save the day are just that,... Hollywood Bullsh!t.

A torture subject will tell his interrogators whatever he thinks they want to hear, to escape the torture. This is useless as more often than not it is only telling you what you already suspect irrespective of whether there is any truth in the matter.
 
If you know the person has the information and the other forms of interrogation have not worked then I have no problem with torture.
 
But what we're saying is that regardless of whether or not the person has the TRUE information, they will tell you anything they can to get you to stop torturing them... They would give you an address for Osama Bin Laden to stop you from some of the techniques we use, the problem is, there ISN'T an address for Bin Laden. They LIE to stop the torture.
 
I wouldn't be entirely sure about that.
I'm saying we should not have torture to ensure the higher moral ground.
Its effectiveness may depend on the individual. Think about it. Torture hurts like hell and if they only turn it up every time your intel is no good and then make it stop and make life comfy if your information turns out to be pretty good and this is going to go on for a very long time...

Having said that, if we want to justify ourselves as the good guys, torture is never a good idea. If more innocent people have to die as a result of foregoing torture, I guess that's the price we will have to pay.
Just the next time a terrorist attack isn't averted because of information that could have been extracted from torture, I don't want to hear the public whining again.
 
Answer me this, Redcell, if you were being starved every day, and the little food you received was absolute CRAP, you were being "drowned" every day, and lived in a hole by yourself... Wouldn't you tell the person doing it to you anything you could to get out of it? Even... Say... A LIE? And before you answer, consider the fact that if you tell me you wouldn't lie and would only break to tell the truth, I'm going to discredit all future posts from you.


Of course Id lie who wouldnt but the people asking the questions have to have other sources and would be able to tell if they are lying or not. not with everything but with a fair amount. so lets say I lie, they check up on other facts and would eventually find out I am lying. then I would go back to being Starved,waterboarded,and put in a hole, repeatedly untill I told the truth. Which is what happend.
 
Of course Id lie who wouldnt but the people asking the questions have to have other sources and would be able to tell if they are lying or not. not with everything but with a fair amount. so lets say I lie, they check up on other facts and would eventually find out I am lying. then I would go back to being Starved,waterboarded,and put in a hole, repeatedly untill I told the truth. Which is what happend.
In some cases... But who did we catch more of, the first and second in commands or the low level grunts who don't know anything to give away? We know these people are smart and cunning enough to convince people to blow themselves up, do we really think they're stupid enough to give away their valuable information to anyone who MIGHT get caught?
 
but that isnt who we waterboard. it is people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who we interrogate.
if we did that to everyone we would have an issue.
 
I hope they really do put a stop to the enhanced interrogation. Discomfort will only get someone to say what you want to hear, if you really want to learn a secret you need sleep deprivation and lots of psychedelic drugs.
 
but that isnt who we waterboard. it is people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who we interrogate.
if we did that to everyone we would have an issue.
You obviously live in fairy land. "They" would use it on you without a second thought, if it suited their needs, believe it or not, there are people who enjoy doing this type of stuff, you would be just another toy for them to play with.

If they want someone to admit that the sky is falling in, torture will easily achieve that aim.... it's absolutely Pointless......

As it has been pointed out. Torture almost never achieves it's alleged aims, even the FBI admit that fact. http://www.smh.com.au/world/torture-doesnt-work-says-fbi-expert-20090514-b4t6.html

The very theory upon which it's use is based is flawed.
 
Last edited:
So how do we feel about torture?

Let's test it, here is a quick scenario.

A soldier from your country has been captured by the enemy, they believe that he has vital operational information, so they use torture to extract the information.

My questions are:

1. How do you react?
2. How should your govt react?
3. Does this fall within the Geneva & Hague Conventions?
 
I think his signature might be a clue.
"After Carefully Thinking about The Situation I Have Decided THe U.S. Should Use Kill Em All And Let God Sort Em Out As The Official ROE in Iraq. This Decision Took 15 Seconds."

If that was the ROE, that would defeat the purpose of being there.


Do not use torture, simply because it makes us hard to justify a higher moral ground. Actually, it would make it almost impossible.
 
It's one thing to torture, but looking at what happened in Abu Ghraib, is that permitted? Gee, why not just find their wives and daughters and rape them instead?

If you know the guy has the info, torture him. But to sexually molest him as that female thing did at AG? In such a case I say "what good for the goose is good for the gander". Do it to her, but in public, BY those she did it to.
 
Back
Top