Enhanced interrogation has produced mountains of intelligence that is still being used today.

 

Proof? Osama bin Laden was found and killed based of information KSM provided during waterboarding. That's right, KSM gave up bin Laden's personal courier which led to his whereabouts and you know the rest of the story. There are many other examples and you can research on your own if you are interested.

 

I'm in no way defending torture by the US or any other entity but you cannot dismiss it out of hand by saying it does not work.

 

Lastly, this is not a repub/democrat thing. Presidents from both parties have either authorized the techniques, allowed techniques to continue or used intelligence derived to authorize operations.

 

Even if it works, and there is a lot of argument that it does not work, but even if it does work, you have to ask, is it worth destroying our country's reputation as a beacon of human rights, a defender of international law, and a follower of the Geneva Convention, in order to get this one guy?  

 

When America tortures, it gives the rest of the world license to torture, and that includes US soldiers or citizens that are captured by our enemies. 

 

When we descend to the level of savagery that characterizes our enemies: North Korea, ISIS, Iran... then who have we become?  What are we fighting for if not the rule of law and standards of civilization?  We are asking the world to choose our way of life over our enemies' way of life, and yet, the more this goes on, the harder it is to distinguish us from them.  

---

I agree with you but I hope you understand that it was not done to get just "one guy". That was just an example that I used to point out the techniques work.

 

As to giving the rest of the world license to torture, sadly any American if captured will be tortured and almost certainly killed.  Whether the US engages in torture or not, our enemies will torture and kill according to their values, not ours.

Thanks again for the reasonable discussion.

---

We live in far more dangerous times than we realize. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/c...story.html

 

================================================================================

 

"...what’s potentially most dangerous to this country’s democratic future is not so much that these abuses occurred, which was already well established, but that congressional oversight of the CIA, and public discussion of it, should be developing along the same partisan political lines that quickly form around every other issue in today’s polarized Washington."

 

"Thus does the United States approach a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lies an intelligence community that sees itself as the whipping boy of one political party and protected favorite of another — to the latter of which it owes reciprocal obligations."

 

"What made the Stasi, Gestapo and KGB especially threatening to political freedom was their subordination to, and seamless integration with, totalitarian political parties. Those parties’ ambitions were especially monstrous, to be sure. But for a secret intelligence service, even ideologically moderate partisanship would be corrosive and corrupting, both for itself and for the wider society."

 

================================================================================================

 

This is scary stuff. 

---

I've had my opinions on this subject over the years and still live in a grey area concerning it, but I'm currently reading Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand and it's hard for me to form an opinion.

 

On the one hand, reading what the Japs did to Louie Zamperini and the other POW's has been hard. The things the Japs did are off the chain. It's hard to imagine humans could and would do that to other humans and I disagree with it wholeheartedly. 

 

On the other hand, when they tortured the POW's for intel, they did get positive results. Not always, but they did. Sometimes it seems like it's the "kill one man to save thousands" or "sacrifice a few so the whole will live" type situation. Never an easy choice and like someone else pointed out, the pressure the US was under after 9/11 had to be unreal. I wouldn't have wanted to be a decision maker in any of those situations.

 

Either way it's a lose/lose situation because somebody will suffer.

---

Torture doesn't produce results. What happens on Fox's '24' tv show and reality are not equal.

 

The reality is that the majority of the public has no idea what happens or how frequently it occurs.  Intelligence gathering can be a dark, dirty business.

 

the objection to torture shouldn't be it's effectiveness. The objection is it's compromise of morality. If we're simply willing to forfeit the moral high ground for the sake of security that is the SAME exact argument terrorist make when committing acts of terrorism. 

 

Do people believe only guilty parties are tortured? Is anyone really comfortable with giving our government the authority to torture with the only justification being the sake of security? These moral compromises are what have lead us to this problem in the first place, we interfere in foreign affairs on the justification of the greater good.

 

It's a double edge sword.  If we refuse to use a technique that our enemies will gladly use simply based on morality, then we will lose period.  Think about taking a knife to a gun fight.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The reality is that the majority of the public has no idea what happens or how frequently it occurs. Intelligence gathering can be a dark, dirty business.



It's a double edge sword. If we refuse to use a technique that our enemies will gladly use simply based on morality, then we will lose period. Think about taking a knife to a gun fight.

I disagree torture didn't help the Japanese defeat America nor did it help Germany. It hasn't changed North Koreas standing.


What happens when someone innocent is tortured? Where's the justification just a casualty of war?


When did the result become justification for the actions? That's what the enemy does they justify evil with the end being a perceived good. We need to torture people to defend ourselves is the same premise, justifying an evil (torture) for a perceived good (safety).


You really want to fight terrorism? Stop sending foreign aid watch how fast their wells dry up and their back to the Stone Age. Doesn't really matter how Much they hate us when they can't afford a sling shot to launch rocks in.

---

I never said it help Japan win the war, I said they got positive or correct intel which helped the Japanese to some degree.


Ultimately they lost, of course, but had we not dropped those bombs it would have been a longer war. The Japanese were not going to surrender without a major event happening to completely demoralize them. But that's another subject.

---

I never said it help Japan win the war, I said they got positive or correct intel which helped the Japanese to some degree.


Ultimately they lost, of course, but had we not dropped those bombs it would have been a longer war. The Japanese were not going to surrender without a major event happening to completely demoralize them. But that's another subject.

Most military analysts from that time predicted that a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland would have led to casualties in the tens of millions for the Japanese, and well over a million American casualties. It would have made D-Day and Stalingrad look like picnics in comparison...

 

Of course, that's something that the PC police don't want you to know. I don't believe in the use of nuclear weapons, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki really pegs the question of whether the ends truly justified the means.

 

 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ope...wnfall.htm

---

I disagree torture didn't help the Japanese defeat America nor did it help Germany. It hasn't changed North Koreas standing.


What happens when someone innocent is tortured? Where's the justification just a casualty of war?


When did the result become justification for the actions? That's what the enemy does they justify evil with the end being a perceived good. We need to torture people to defend ourselves is the same premise, justifying an evil (torture) for a perceived good (safety).


You really want to fight terrorism? Stop sending foreign aid watch how fast their wells dry up and their back to the Stone Age. Doesn't really matter how Much they hate us when they can't afford a sling shot to launch rocks in.

 

I'm with you on the torture thing, but your last statement is one of my pet peeves.

 

Why does anyone think our foreign aid is some kind of benevolent gesture on our part? Foreign aid exists to benefit America. It's part of our foreign policy. We do it to help us, not them.

 

The greatest example was the Marshall Plan. That wasn't to help Germany so much as to build a bulwark against the encroachment of the Soviet Union.

 

So what foreign aid is hurting our interests?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I'm with you on the torture thing, but your last statement is one of my pet peeves.

 

Why does anyone think our foreign aid is some kind of benevolent gesture on our part? Foreign aid exists to benefit America. It's part of our foreign policy. We do it to help us, not them.

 

The greatest example was the Marshall Plan. That wasn't to help Germany so much as to build a bulwark against the encroachment of the Soviet Union.

 

So what foreign aid is hurting our interests?

 

Oh I don't know how about the Foreign Aid we sent to Syrian Rebels to over throw Assad. Which is now better known as ISIS causing a bigger problem than Assad ever did.

 

Or maybe the Shah of Iran which lead to a hostile regime replacing him for the last 40 years.

 

The money we send to Palestine ends up in the hands of Hamas.

 

There's endless examples of foreign aid ending up in terrorist hands, or regimes taking our money and then doing what every they want. That's my single biggest problem with our foreign policy on both sides, the idea we can buy our friends is ludicrous, it's never worked and it'll never work, the only thing it accomplishes is further adding to our deficit every year. 

 

There would be no ISIS as we know it today if it wasn't for American aid, weapons and training. We create half the messes we end up having to go clean up. 

---

Oh I don't know how about the Foreign Aid we sent to Syrian Rebels to over throw Assad. Which is now better known as ISIS causing a bigger problem than Assad ever did.

 

Or maybe the Shah of Iran which lead to a hostile regime replacing him for the last 40 years.

 

The money we send to Palestine ends up in the hands of Hamas.

 

There's endless examples of foreign aid ending up in terrorist hands, or regimes taking our money and then doing what every they want. That's my single biggest problem with our foreign policy on both sides, the idea we can buy our friends is ludicrous, it's never worked and it'll never work, the only thing it accomplishes is further adding to our deficit every year. 

 

There would be no ISIS as we know it today if it wasn't for American aid, weapons and training. We create half the messes we end up having to go clean up. 

 

... or African warlords taking supply drops from civilians. I'm sure a lot of it serves an actual purpose, but there's far too much being wasted.

---

Oh I don't know how about the Foreign Aid we sent to Syrian Rebels to over throw Assad. Which is now better known as ISIS causing a bigger problem than Assad ever did.

 

Or maybe the Shah of Iran which lead to a hostile regime replacing him for the last 40 years.

 

The money we send to Palestine ends up in the hands of Hamas.

 

There's endless examples of foreign aid ending up in terrorist hands, or regimes taking our money and then doing what every they want. That's my single biggest problem with our foreign policy on both sides, the idea we can buy our friends is ludicrous, it's never worked and it'll never work, the only thing it accomplishes is further adding to our deficit every year. 

 

There would be no ISIS as we know it today if it wasn't for American aid, weapons and training. We create half the messes we end up having to go clean up. 

 

I think that is way too simplistic. I guess we should crawl in a hole and hope everything turns out ok. 

 

Glad your viewpoint did not hold sway when allies needed assistance during World War II. I don't think isolationism is in America's best interest. I don't know of any serious politician who thinks so.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I think that is way too simplistic. I guess we should crawl in a hole and hope everything turns out ok. 

 

Glad your viewpoint did not hold sway when allies needed assistance during World War II. I don't think isolationism is in America's best interest. I don't know of any serious politician who thinks so.

 

What is your opinion on Saudi Arabia? I couldn't find the most recent number, but we usually give them about $1 million every year. It isn't very much, but I know we typically give them far more in military equipment. 

 

Saudi Arabia is always tied into terrorism. Where there's smoke, there's fire... that sort of thing. What do we gain from contributing anything to them when it's likely that they help fund terrorists fighting against us and our allies?

---

... or African warlords taking supply drops from civilians. I'm sure a lot of it serves an actual purpose, but there's far too much being wasted.

Mogadishu being an excellent example of this.

---

What is your opinion on Saudi Arabia? I couldn't find the most recent number, but we usually give them about $1 million every year. It isn't very much, but I know we typically give them far more in military equipment. 

 

Saudi Arabia is always tied into terrorism. Where there's smoke, there's fire... that sort of thing. What do we gain from contributing anything to them when it's likely that they help fund terrorists fighting against us and our allies?

 

Do we give them military equipment or sell it to them?    I thought we sold it to them.  

---

I think that is way too simplistic. I guess we should crawl in a hole and hope everything turns out ok. 

 

Glad your viewpoint did not hold sway when allies needed assistance during World War II. I don't think isolationism is in America's best interest. I don't know of any serious politician who thinks so.

 

There's a whole lot of scaling back we could do before Isolation even becomes a topic. 

 

WWII happened because of foreign intervention, sanctions on Germany after WWI is what gave Hitler the political opportunity to rise to power.

 

The majority of the time our aid has the opposite effect of it's stated goal, common sense says we either don't give it to the right people (hell we give it to everyone) or it just simply doesn't work the way we think it does. All of this doesn't even account to the fact that we don't have the money to give away in the first place. 

 

Simplistic is ignoring the fact that every dollar we give away is a dollar we are borrowing and further compromising our own national security. What comes first our security or the rest of the world? If we where not running a deficit every year then we could argue if foreign aid is something beneficial but at 17 trillion and counting it shouldn't even be a topic for discussion.

---

Simplistic is ignoring the fact that every dollar we give away is a dollar we are borrowing and further compromising our own national security. What comes first our security or the rest of the world? If we where not running a deficit every year then we could argue if foreign aid is something beneficial but at 17 trillion and counting it shouldn't even be a topic for discussion.

In Ronald Reagan's famous "A Time for Choosing" speech in support of Barry Goldwater in 1964, he mentioned that quote: "There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is not fiscal and economic stability within the United States."

 

 

That quote basically summarizes what Fiscal Conservatism and Non-Interventionalism is all about. BTW, there is a big difference between "Non-Intervention" and "Isolationism". Non-Intervention is where a Country basically agrees not to meddle in the affairs of another Country. "Isolationism" is basically like North Korea today. No contact with the outside world, and very little cooperation.

---

Do we give them military equipment or sell it to them?    I thought we sold it to them.

Yes, I think bush jr signed some 900 million dollar arms deal with the Saudis. I believe Saudi Arabia is where the funding for 911 came out of.

---

Yes, I think bush jr signed some 900 million dollar arms deal with the Saudis. I believe Saudi Arabia is where the funding for 911 came out of.

And that's why a lot of people couldn't figure out why we invaded Afghanistan instead of Saudi. Also, the majority, if not all, of the hijackers were from Saudi IIRC.

---

And that's why a lot of people couldn't figure out why we invaded Afghanistan instead of Saudi. Also, the majority, if not all, of the hijackers were from Saudi IIRC.

 

You're kidding.   People can't figure out why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia?   Invade Saudi Arabia???   They are our allies.   That's like saying we should invade Canada. 

---