Gene Frenkle Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Ok, so if enhanced interrogation doesn't work, why has it been used as a method of gaining information for centuries? Seriously? Why is homeopathy still around? I suspect it has something to do with how counter-intuitive the idea is. It should be next to impossible to argure with facts, but sadly that is not the case and unimaginative people tend to believe what they want to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 So does this mean that 'enhanced interrogation techniques' are un-patriotic? Did I allude to that? I think that if America is supposed to be thought of as a "Moral" country, then torture defeats that notion. If said torture is ineffective why continue with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Change Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Did I allude to that? I think that if America is supposed to be thought of as a "Moral" country, then torture defeats that notion. If said torture is ineffective why continue with it? Are we? What is the source of our morals? Just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Are we? What is the source of our morals? Just wondering. Our morals are hard-wired, but not because we're Americans. I've posted a link to this article before. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/0.../15-hauser.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Change Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Our morals are hard-wired, but not because we're Americans. I've posted a link to this article before. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/0.../15-hauser.html Well that settles it for me. After reading that one page thesis, I'm convinced! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Define: torture Most of the posts on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Well that settles it for me. After reading that one page thesis, I'm convinced! I'm sure the whole study is available if you care to challenge your worldview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Ok, so if enhanced interrogation doesn't work, why has it been used as a method of gaining information for centuries? Why have people prayed for centuries? By your "logic", it must work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Why have people prayed for centuries? By your "logic", it must work. Great analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Maybe it's me, but I think there is reason to believe an ex-FBI agent who was actually there, and was the actual interrogator of Abu Zubaydah, saying that he got great information out of the suspect, naming Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others, without torture, and they didnt get much if anything with the torture. Soufan was a lead FBI interrogator of Abu Zubaydah, one of the first major al-Qaida figures to be captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The initial interrogation of Zubaydah, using the bureau's traditional, rapport-building techniques, yielded valuable intelligence, including the role of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, he said. Then-CIA director George Tenet congratulated the interrogators - until he learned that they were from the FBI, not the CIA, Soufan said. A team from the CIA's Counterterrorism Center that included a government contractor quickly replaced him and his colleagues. They introduced harsh interrogation techniques, and Zubaydah's cooperation stopped, Soufan said. After complaints from officials in Washington about the dried-up intelligence flow, Soufan and colleagues reverted to the traditional approach, and Zubaydah began talking again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Maybe it's me, but I think there is reason to believe an ex-FBI agent who was actually there, and was the actual interrogator of Abu Zubaydah, saying that he got great information out of the suspect, naming Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others, without torture, and they didnt get much if anything with the torture. I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA's methods ended up making the FBI's interrogation even easier the second time around, i.e. the "good cop/bad cop" routine writ large. Not saying that makes the CIA's actions okay (the pissing match quoted in your quote - and I see no reason to disbelieve it - is particularly egregious). Just making the observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Pelosi said that one month later, she was told only that the Justice Department had concluded that such techniques were legal, not that they were being used. Rep. Pelosi responded with "no comment" when later asked if she was really that !@#$ing stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Rep. Pelosi responded with "no comment" when later asked if she was really that !@#$ing stupid. Bad career moves 101: Don't say the CIA is lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Bad career moves 101: Don't say the CIA is lying. She's !@#$ing toast! Cheat on your taxes?? You're safe. But !@#$ with the CIA???? I dont care who, what, where, when, how, there will be someone in the CIA that will bury botox shiit for brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 She's !@#$ing toast! I'm going to miss her. The question becomes, does the administration let her play this out or replace her before she gets her ass handed to her in 2010. On the other hand, it'll be a cold day in hell when that part of California elects a Republican, but maybe they can come up with a more productive Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I'm going to miss her. The question becomes, does the administration let her play this out or replace her before she gets her ass handed to her in 2010. On the other hand, it'll be a cold day in hell when that part of California elects a Republican, but maybe they can come up with a more productive Democrat. It's ok, I'm here now. I'll take care of everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 It's ok, I'm here now. I'll take care of everything. Glad to hear it. I was afraid they'd get to you before you got to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Glad to hear it. I was afraid they'd get to you before you got to them. Nope, when I see these old hippies and young commies it just reinforces my belief that we are so right and they are soooooo wrong. Oh, and they're good for a good laugh too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I'm going to miss her. The question becomes, does the administration let her play this out or replace her before she gets her ass handed to her in 2010. On the other hand, it'll be a cold day in hell when that part of California elects a Republican, but maybe they can come up with a more productive Democrat. I'm sorry, what meeting was more important than the security of our country and what we're doing to the terrorists in captivity? So she says she sends an aide to these meetings? Then doesn't get the complete details of these meetings? Isn't that incompetence along with the obviously lieing? When she knew what those meeting consisted of? I've got no compassion for any politician that would put our country in potential danger. AND? send a subordinate to these meetings? At least that's what she says? Please, please, if there is any justice in this country, this woman should be thrown out of her position as speaker, then her her seat in the house. That should do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I'm sorry, what meeting was more important than the security of our country and what we're doing to the terrorists in captivity? So she says she sends an aide to these meetings? Then doesn't get the complete details of these meetings? Isn't that incompetence along with the obviously lieing? When she knew what those meeting consisted of? I've got no compassion for any politician that would put our country in potential danger. AND? send a subordinate to these meetings? At least that's what she says? Please, please, if there is any justice in this country, this woman should be thrown out of her position as speaker, then her her seat in the house. That should do it. I dunno, didn't Obama chair the working group on Afghanistan for six months before showing up for a meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts