Originally posted by Uniceft17
reply to post by sos37
What does this have to do with the OP anyways??
We have lost our moral athourity with this one, How are we going to tell anyone not to torture our soldiers if we sit back and do the same thing.
Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death
******SKIP******
The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.
It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.
The Washington Post has reported that the FBI did not view the torture of Abu Zubaida as yielding valuable information — one of the principle arguments for embracing an official torture program.
******SKIP******
While this supports the common view that torture generally yields unreliable information, it is important to note that this debate has been framed in terms appealing to the White House: whether torture is beneficial. In a demonstration of the ultimate moral relativity of this Administration, the primary argument in the torture debate is whether it has produced useful information.
Retired high-ranking military officers and national security experts at a national summit on torture Sept. 11 agreed: A policy that permits torture does not make the United States or its troops safer.
******SKIP******
-- Un-American. George Washington set the standard during the American Revolution by insisting on the humane treatment of prisoners during wartime.
-- Ineffective. Information obtained through extreme coercive physical and mental abuse is notoriously unreliable.
-- Unnecessary. Skilled interrogators know more effective ways to obtain reliable actionable intelligence.
-- Damaging. “The person who is tortured is damaged. But so is the torturer, the nation and the military,” Xenakis concluded. Torture creates “increasing risk of retaliatory measures” that endangers military personnel on the front lines.
Fear, anger and politics all contributed to the climate that allowed the torture of detainees to become national policy, said Don Guter, retired rear admiral and a former Navy Judge Advocate General.
“I do not think that torture makes us safer as a country,” Greenburg said.
Information gained through interrogation is less reliable than data obtained by the established intelligence community, she said, pointing to the experience of Arizona Sen. John McCain as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. For the first 3 1/2 years of his captivity, McCain was regularly subjected to torture -- and regularly gave false information to his captors.
Greenburg also noted McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has said his love for country, family and faith grew much deeper as a result of his brutal treatment by those who interrogated him.
She asked if the United States wants to support a policy that makes suspected terrorists more committed to their nations, tribes and religions.
Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by 44soulslayer
So you're saying torture justifies terrorism? If that's true, then the converse is also true is it not? Terrorism justifies torture.
We know these men are terrorists and have acted in terrorist acts against the U.S., therefore torture is justified, according to your argument.
