A Possible Way to Maintain Coercive Interrogation Techniques
If the Administration really wants to maintain the authority to use coercive techniques against terrorist detainees, it should consider sharing some evidence of the techniques’ success.
I support the government having some limited form of coercive techniques at its disposal because the Administration has claimed that it has received vital intelligence from high-level Al Qaeda figures — information that has disrupted major terror plots. Bush has at least strongly implied that this information was obtained as a result of some form of coercive interrogation.
If this is true, he should reveal details about it. I don’t recommend precipitiously making everything public. I recommend going to selected Senators first, and showing them in detail why these techniques are necessary.
For example, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Warner are not members of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I don’t know the extent to which the members of that committee are privy to top-secret details of the interrogations of detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But it seems to me that the members of that committee, at a minimum, should be provided that information — and perhaps Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner should receive it as well.
If the information is truly as compelling as Bush says it is, these Senators would presumably change their tune upon being informed of the specifics. I despise John McCain, but I believe he and the other men are patriots, and would not cast our country’s safety aside if there were clear evidence that these techniques are necessary.
And if they didn’t change their tune, even in the face of compelling evidence, Bush could declassify the information and go public with the details — and these men would suffer grevious hits to their political standing.
Sure, we don’t want to declassify such information if we can avoid it. But the government is running the risk of losing these techniques entirely. If the techniques are truly critical, then it seems to me there would be little harm in sharing the specifics with these Senators. (I’m assuming that this hasn’t already happened, although I don’t know this to be the case.) If push comes to shove, a selective declassification may well be a lesser evil than losing these techniques entirely.
Of course, it could be that no such compelling information exists, and that Bush is simply playing politics with the issue — in which case he would not follow my suggestion. But if the evidence is really there, shouldn’t he take the steps I have described?
The McCain position seems to be that some level of additional risk is worth the moral and PR value of full POW treatment. He probably is full on with NSA surveillance for instance. So actual lives saved would not count for much. “They could have been saved by other means” and “preserving the principles we’re fighting for is worth loss of a few lives.”
My POV is simple. When GOP rebels, the MSM and the Dems start taking political advantage and using Abu Graib, secret torture prisons and Gitmo to undermine support for the country during war, the admin has no choice but to make them take a public stand on their responsibilities with respect to national security and the closer to an election the better.
The puiblic probably does not want to “see” the details, although the MSM will be sure to rub their noses in it every chance, they just want somebody they trust to make the call.
boris (e173ce) — 9/17/2006 @ 11:18 ami despise john mccain too!
assistant devil's advocate (a496c0) — 9/17/2006 @ 11:25 amThe last time I wrote BS here you thought I was attacking your post. Can I now write “s#$t” about McCain and his gang? Losers that they are, they have adopted the doctrine of acceptable losses (how many of our citizens should die so that we may look good?) to our disadvantage. The President proposes the doctrine of acceptable losses (how many of our perceived enemies should listen to Hot Chili Peppers music in a cold room) for our enemies’ disadvantage. Gee, I really wonder which one I should choose?
nk (77d95e) — 9/17/2006 @ 12:57 pmGood point, nk; I’d like someone to ask McCain how many American lives he is willing to give up on behalf of saving terrorists some discomfort.
Patterico, why would you put the burden on the advocates to prove that coercive interrogation works? A bit of introspection convinces me that the technique would work on me, and I expect that most people –if they are being honest with themselves– would expect it to work on them. Also, this technique has been used for millenia by highly successful organizations; in fact it was used almost universally by all successful organizations capable of using it until the last century or so. With such a compelling case for, how can you demand more evidence from the pros when the cons haven’t provided any evidence even worth discussing?
The opinion of a couple of generals that they don’t think it works? Please. If Colin Powell were an expert in interrogation and if he had no scruples about coercive techniques, then that would be a minor point for the cons –not remotely enough to swing the case, but a point. As it is, they have nothing.
Let the cons come up with some real evidence, say a case study showing that coercive techniqes don’t work. Or maybe they could show us that a large number of people who have applied these techniques and had no scruples about them, later admitted that they didn’t think the techniques had proven effective. If they could come up with such evidence then their position would at least be worth discussing; until then, it should be taken no more seriously than the equally ridiculous idea that ethnic profiling doesn’t work.
(Actually, based on my observation that there are so many scientists who are willing to pervert science to serve the Left, I predict that someone will soon come up with such a study. I also predict that the study will have some serious flaw such as applying only to criminal situations or using an irrelevant criterion of success, but that it will get lots of publicity and be used for decades as proof of this silly position).
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 9/17/2006 @ 1:41 pmLet the cons come up with some real evidence
Have a voluntary study. 20 young healthy people from southern states who never learned to swim. They get to hide $50,000 anywhere they want. If they can resist waterboarding and cold room they get to keep the money.
Then take 20 young healthy people from far northern states who are avid swimmers.
Betcha the northern swimmers keep more money than the southern ones. 20 for 20 I’d guess. Pretty cheap for a government study and would rather convincingly make the case that: (1) It works on some and (2) it’s not torture.
boris (e173ce) — 9/17/2006 @ 2:20 pmPatterico, why would you put the burden on the advocates to prove that coercive interrogation works?
Because we are in danger of losing the techniques due to public disgust with them. If it can be shown that they are effective, I think public sentiment would change.
Patterico (de0616) — 9/17/2006 @ 2:41 pmHell, boris, there are already game shows that do similar things. People endure all kinds of awful things just for a 1/5 chance to earn 50,000.
Maybe that would be a good one-way test: if people will do it voluntarily for an expected payoff of $10,000, then it isn’t torture.
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 9/17/2006 @ 3:32 pmPatterico, why do you think that we are in danger of losing the techniques due to public disgust? I think we are in danger of losing the techniques due to moral grandstanding by a small minority. Is there some poll on this that you are working from? (that’s not a rhetorical question) Absent any real data, I’d guess that over 60% of the public agree with me on this, given a fairly-asked question.
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 9/17/2006 @ 3:38 pmI’d have to agree with Doc here. I think we should use every coercive technique possible that has been proven to elicit good information, and I’m sort of an EveryWoman so probably lots of other Americans feel the same way.
I do agree that Bush should be on the rhetorical offensive re interrogations and the WOT, though. Whenever he displays his zeal for the mission, his poll numbers go up. Americans want a president willing to fight and win because he believes it is an imperative for the nation’s survival. Sometimes we question his commitment, as when we hear nothing from the White House for months while the MSM drive home the quagmire, anti-US narrative.
Patricia (2cc180) — 9/17/2006 @ 4:53 pmMr Frey thoughtfully posted:
Wow, Mr Frey; for what it’s worth to you, I am genuinely impressed. You are really trying to understand and, if possible, persuade those with whom you disagree instead of just summarily dismissing the opposing point of view. Thanks.
Such evidence would indeed be a powerful argument in your favor; I and probably many others would concede much to your position if someone could show it.
Rick (c7fbdd) — 9/17/2006 @ 5:51 pmI understand that Amnesty International has come down hard on our use of tickle torture. The Administration is on the defensive, as usual, refusing to discuss the tools used (rumored to be feathers from endangered species)in this barbaric practice. The Democrats are united in their outrage of the use of the Red Hot Chili Peppers as a tool of torture and swear that this practice will stop five minutes after Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker.
Howard Veit (28df94) — 9/17/2006 @ 7:40 pmmany others would concede much to your position if someone could show it
The likelihood of a pure ticking bomb event happening in public view is very small. How many should die while such incontrovertible proof remains elusive? Shouldn’t it be possible to demonstrate whether physically harmless techniques like waterboarding and cold room have a measurable money threshold using young healthy volunteers?
One argument has been that subjects will “say anything” to avoid the discomfort. Wouldn’t that include answering the question “where is the ticking bomb”?
boris (e173ce) — 9/17/2006 @ 7:49 pmPatricia said:
Then you don’t really agree with Doc. He would not need any evidence of any ability to elicit good information before permitting any form of coercive interrogation techniques.
This burden-shifting game is really a distraction from the basic issue though. There is evidence that the harshest techniques are ineffective – whether you choose to ignore it is a separate matter. Patterico himself has attested to his belief in this idea as a general matter and in the law enforcement context.
Most of us agree, though, that there is a scenario where we are pretty sure a specific person has specific info regarding a specific massive threat. Even if the sugar & spice method works better, it takes longer, and if the clock is ticking we need to extract that information without any regard to the fact that the vessel for that info is a human being. We have people & methods who can do that, and at that point we want to utilize them.
With this in mind, I suggested (in the other thread) the following standard:
Afford GC protections, as currently applied per custom, to all rank and file soldiers, uniformed or otherwise.
Create an exigency exception providing complete exemption from such protections, contingent on probable cause that this prisoner holds vital information concerning a specific and imminent threat to civilian lives.
biwah (324fa0) — 9/17/2006 @ 8:00 pmthat the harshest techniques are ineffective … in the law enforcement context
Lame dodge. With waterboarding one might be able to force a false confession from some individuals, but it is not possible to get someone who doesn’t know where the ticking bomb is to develop psychic abilities and tell you where it is. A method doesn’t have to be effective in the law enforcement context to be perfectly effective in the ticking bomb context.
If the individual will “say anything” to avoid the discomfort, wouldn’t that include the location of the ticking bomb if they know it?
Why not just admit there are effective, humane techniques that work in that context and simply propose that in order to avoid the possibility of somebody being waterboarded who doesn’t know where the bomb is a certain number of times people shouldn’t complain about innocent family members getting blown up who could have been saved except for lack of probable cause.
boris (e173ce) — 9/17/2006 @ 8:15 pmYes. If there is a ticking bomb situation, you have to be running out to act on the info right away, and thus confirm the truth of the info. Which means the prisoner can’t avoid torture – at best, earn a quick break followed by guaranteed resumption – by giving false info.
Regarding probable cause: without some idea of what you want, you’re on a fishing expedition. Whatever intelligence random torture (not directed toward specific intelligence) yields, it’s going to be couched in 10 times as much faulty, dead-end info. It’s unreliable.
Are you abandoning any pretense of trying to have our soldiers being kept safely and humanely when captured by the enemy?
biwah (324fa0) — 9/17/2006 @ 8:31 pmAre you abandoning any pretense of trying to have our soldiers being kept safely
After the piss Koran and the Danish cartoons, any concern that the enemy might start waterboarding our captured soldiers instead of beheading them … well lets just say I’d reather find out where the ticking bomb is right now than expect polite adherence to the golden rule.
boris (e173ce) — 9/17/2006 @ 8:44 pm“Are you abandoning any pretense of trying to have our soldiers being kept safely and humanely when captured by the enemy?”
Do you persist in the pretense that the two-legged animals we are currently fighting will ever treat our soldiers humanely? Can you point to even one such instance?
nk (5e5670) — 9/17/2006 @ 8:46 pmWhatever intelligence random torture (not directed toward specific intelligence)
Don’t think random torture has been advocated. Is this a straw dummy?
Waterboarding and cold room is not torture and would only be used sparingly. Probable cause seems too restrictive when dealing with sizable groups captured on the battlefield without forensics or witnesses. Reliable intel would derive from crossreferenced interrogation. If key peices of the puzzle require some coercion, using waterboarding, cold room and the like, the only probable cause that’s relevant is that are they members of an organization engaged in terrorism and war crimes.
Hence the linkage between tribunals and interrogation.
boris (e173ce) — 9/17/2006 @ 8:56 pmAny pretense that we are better than those “two-legged animals” will be falsified when we abandon our own standards.
Rick (c7fbdd) — 9/17/2006 @ 9:24 pmLet’s be clear. The beheadings, suicide bombings, Theo Van Gogh, the nun murder, all duly noted for their abhorrence. On the other hand, prior to Abu Ghraib there were instances of captured soldiers being returned. Since then, none. Not all captured journalists have been beheaded.
As brutal as they are, it is not their sole goal to make the blood flow. It is their goal to reduce our standing, “expose” our inhumanity. Whether or not it irks you to acknowledge it, both (all) sides are playing to a larger audience, the members of which are all potential participants in the immediate and long-term future.
It is not them, but us, whose conduct will set the standard for conduct in war. This is not about polite adherence to any rule. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that this, as our president has often observed, is a war of ideologies. Ideology is one of our weapons, and an indispensable one.
biwah (324fa0) — 9/18/2006 @ 5:12 amSo all should be willing to be killed to keep our ideology pure? Sounds like a twisted version of Dr Strangelove.
You need something like evidence to make a claim that their treatment of prisoners is based on our use of waterboarding and cold room. After the Koran and Cartoon news, seems pretty thin.
boris (e173ce) — 9/18/2006 @ 5:57 ami will leave you to your myopia.
biwah (2dcf66) — 9/18/2006 @ 6:18 amplaying to a larger audience
As in: “The West wants to be loved. It can’t stand the idea that somebody — anybody — doesn’t like us.”
Pathetic if that’s your agenda.
boris (e173ce) — 9/18/2006 @ 6:24 ambiwah thoughtfully posted:
I’m curious, biwah; who do you think is winning the war of ideologies right now?
Rick (c7fbdd) — 9/18/2006 @ 8:30 amIt’s pretty obvious that Rick is winning the award of idiocracies right now.
boris (e173ce) — 9/18/2006 @ 8:55 amWe stand for freedom, economic opportunity, democracy, technology, and the rule of law.
With a platform like this we can survive a couple of backslides, even high-visibility ones. We just have to brush up our game and act as if we intend to be the standard bearer for these values for at least another century. If we catch blame from certain cynics on the sidelines, we don’t care.
boris is an example of the view that we should embrace the lowest common denominator and also of a total contempt for realpolitik. At the outset of a long and inevitably global war, he would fixate on short-term goals of negligible value. Meanwhile, the size and strength of our enemy are based almost entirely on the interpretation of the U.S.’s actions.
The fascist ideology of our opponents draws its strength almost entirely from hatred of the west. When we treat rank-and-file combatants humanely, we treat them better than their own leaders do. Therefore, I believe that if we act humanely toward the rank and file, we will win. If we treat them barbarically, we will never win.
biwah (2dcf66) — 9/18/2006 @ 9:28 amhe would fixate on short-term goals of negligible value
Preventing massive civilian casualties from loss of intel is a “short-term goals of negligible value”. Ok. In that case you advocate spilling American blood so that the euro-leftists will have less to complain about.
boris (e173ce) — 9/18/2006 @ 9:32 amIs that all we have to do? Better let Gen. Abazaid in on this.
Pablo (efa871) — 9/18/2006 @ 9:36 amthe size and strength of our enemy are based almost entirely on the interpretation of the U.S.’s actions
So the nice actions of the BJ adminstration must be why there were no terrorist attacks during the 90s. Then W becomes president and even before any W policy could be put in place, his very cowboyness enraged, strengthened and provoked them to attack us on 911.
The grasp of reality on diplay here is very enlightening.
boris (e173ce) — 9/18/2006 @ 9:43 amPreventing massive civilian casualties from loss of intel is a “short-term goals of negligible value”. Ok.
my dear windbag, I have addressed this exact situation in a previous exchange between you and me. how quickly we forget.
Is that all we have to do?
no, it is not all we have to do. but if we don’t do it, we might as well pack up now.
biwah (2dcf66) — 9/18/2006 @ 9:46 amI have addressed this exact situation in a previous exchange
It’s just fun to point out how ridiculous your POV is. Besides if you keep bringing up your pathetic blather, then you can’t complain when others keep making fun of it.
Suggest you stick to making points instead of acting like a crybaby that you’re not getting unchallanged attention.
boris (e173ce) — 9/18/2006 @ 9:54 amhis very cowboyness enraged, strengthened and provoked them to attack us on 911.
I see your point, but the small, well-heeled group of terrorists that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks have morphed into a loosely connected and sometimes opposed collection armed militias embedded in the civilian population. Things have changed.
And, again, my proposed standard for the captured leadership of terrorist groups is different for their foot soldiers. Please address that.
Also you could save your time by not attributing every cartoonish lefty screed that you have heard leveled against Bush to me.
biwah (2dcf66) — 9/18/2006 @ 9:56 amnot attributing every cartoonish lefty screed that you have heard leveled against Bush to me
More crybaby. If you see that in my excerpts of your posts perhaps you’re not coming across as you intend.
In this thread I advocate limited use of coercive interrogation for key peices of intel. You seem to advocate limited use of coercive interrogation for specific leaders. My take is results oriented, yours appears to be “guilt” oriented.
Big deal.
boris (e173ce) — 9/18/2006 @ 10:02 amSome people are redefining torture to win the argument vie semantic tricks. “Classical” torture includes the rack, red hot pokers, thumbscrews, and the modern addition, electricity to the “private parts”.
The techniques actually being used are psychologicly stressfull, but no where near in the same class.
By the way, Mythbusters (on Discovery Channel) did a segment on the Chinese Water “Torture” (CWT). For the unfamiliar, this involves trying the victim down and dripping water on their forehead. That’s it, just dripping water on their forehead. In this case, the “victims” knew their “tormentors”, knew that they would be released as soon as they asked, “breaking” was asking to be released. As low stress a test as possible. None the less, all of the “victims” broke in well under three hours. The Mythbusters rated the CWT as confirmed.
In a real situation, the victims would have greater reason to resist, of course, but the stress would be higher too.
larry (336e87) — 9/18/2006 @ 11:27 ambiwah posted:
“Therefore, I believe that if we act humanely toward the rank and file, we will win. If we treat them barbarically, we will never win.”
I understand that’s your position, biwah, and I respect it; what I’m asking you to share is your assessment of how the US is doing.
rick (ea2ac3) — 9/18/2006 @ 12:10 pmbiwah, you said, “Then you don’t really agree with Doc. He would not need any evidence of any ability to elicit good information before permitting any form of coercive interrogation techniques.”
This is a false characterization of my position. My position is that the evidence we already have in favor of the proposition is so overwhelming that it is silly to ask for more. I take the same position, for example, with respect to sword-making. I have no first-hand knowledge of pottery making, but there are two reasons that I believe that firing clay will make pottery: first, the idea of heat changing the nature of the clay accords with other processes I’m familiar with, and second, the technique was used for for millenia by people who really ought to have known whether it worked or not. Given these two points, I am perfectly justified in assuming that it works in spite of some vague hand-waving and head-shaking arguments from my contemporaries who have no more first-hand knowledge of the process than I do.
On the oher hand, you also said, “There is evidence that the harshest techniques are ineffective”, So give. What is this evidence?
And don’t bother with evidence about false confessions. No one disputes that prisoners can give false confessions under torture, but since I’m not advocating the use of harsh interrogation for the purpose of obtaiing confessions, such a point is not relevant.
And actually, I’m not even interested in evidence that people someimes lie under harsh interrogation; people lie under all forms of interrogation so lies are not relevant either. What I want is evidence that in the preponderance of cases, the intelligence that one acquires from coercive interrogation is inferior to (or even no better than) the intelligence that one acquires from nice interrogation.
I not only think that there is no such evidence, I think that this is so obviously false that practically no one believes it who doesn’t have emotional or political motives for wanting to believe it.
If I’m wrong then give me some links and I’ll read them, but really, please don’t waste my time with links to arguments that I have already discarded.
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 9/18/2006 @ 12:26 pmDoc Rampage, would you be kind enough to direct me to the evidence that in the preponderance of cases, the intelligence that one acquires from “coercive” interrogation is superior to the intelligence that one acquires from “nice” interrogation. Thanks
rick (ea2ac3) — 9/18/2006 @ 1:17 pmHere’s a simple test. Take two volunteers, give them each $35,000 they can hide anywhere they want. Now one (flip of the coin) will be asked nicely where they hid the money. The other will undego waterboarding and cold room.
If they can withstand 4 hours of interrogation, they get to keep the money.
Common sense anyone?
boris (e173ce) — 9/18/2006 @ 1:39 pmRick, I have already answered your question, but here it is spelled out:
First, the evidence of introspection convinces me that coercive interrogation would work better on me than nice interrogation.
Second, thoughout history, people who had experience with coercive interrogation have thought that it worked well enough that they continued to do it. Since those people know a lot more about it than you do, I’ll take their word for it.
And I may as well add a third point related to the second: modern specialialists in interrogation at the CIA and elsewhere have studied these things for decades in a scientific way, and they seem to think that coercive interrogation works. For you and others like you to dispute these professionals is like a Monday morning quarterback who has only seen one football game in his life arguing with an NFL coach about strategy. It’s laughable.
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 9/18/2006 @ 3:59 pmThanks, Doc Rampage; I was just wondering how well evidenced your position really was, and your reply has answered that question quite clearly. Thanks, again.
rick (ea2ac3) — 9/18/2006 @ 4:14 pmRick, snark is a poor substitute for argumentation.
As to your implied suggestion that my case is not strong, I suggest you think about the parallel case I made for pottery in a previous comment. You are in the position of someone arguing that it is not the firing that hardens the pottery. Of course it is always possible that thousands of years of praticing experts have been unanimously wrong about the effectiveness of their techniques, but such a position requires enormous evidence, and no one on your side has yet offered any evidence at all.
I suspect that at some level you realize how weak your position is, and that this is why you offer snark instead of response.
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 9/18/2006 @ 6:38 pm“Of course it is always possible that thousands of years of praticing experts have been unanimously wrong about the effectiveness of their techniques…”
There’s are very good reasons why most of us no longer bleed patients with leeches, or make human sacrifices to lusty gods, or drill holes in peoples heads to release demons. And those reasons are very good ones even though “practing experts” used those and countless other “techniques” for centuries on end.
The “argumentum ad antiquitatem” mixed with an “appeal to authority” isn’t an argument at all; it’s just two combined logical fallacies, and they’re only two of several to be found in your reply. A claim along the lines that “since the Grand Inquistor Tomás de Torquemada found torture to be ‘effective’, it must really work” just isn’t as powerful as you appear to think it should be. Quite the contrary, the history of torture from the Inquisitions to the Gulags demonstrates just how ineffective these methods are. Sure, they got lots of people to confess to all sorts of activities and to name lots of “co-conspirators”, and I suppose in that way you might be tempted to call torture “effective”, but the problem is that those methods frequently got the WRONG people: people who would say anything to stop the torture, even if that meant incriminating not only themselves, but also innocent neighbors and family. And in my humble opinion, that’s an argument AGAINST the effectiveness of torture.
You obviously have another point of view, but I just don’t feel like debating the kinds of claims that you have made here, and if that’s a “snark” (whatever that is), so be it.
rick (ea2ac3) — 9/18/2006 @ 7:23 pmwho would say anything to stop the …
… waterboarding. Wouldn’t that include answering the question “where is the ticking bomb?”?
boris (e173ce) — 9/18/2006 @ 7:35 pmIs Senator McCain’s position on coerced interrogation a bit too “sublime” for its own good?!?!
There is an old Spanish saying that goes: “From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but one misstep” meaning that the line between the sublime and the ridiculous oftentimes is at best tenuous, and that it is very easy indeed to slip from the “exceedingly sublime” to the “utterly ridiculous”!
This is the case with Senator McCain and the three Republican turn-coats who have defected with him on the issue of coerced interrogations, and who are so “sublimely” concerned about the “High Moral Ground,” and the “Geneva Convention”!
Personally, I would advise Senator McCain not to go up too high on his quest for this mythical
“High Moral Ground” lest he rises so high on all his “hot air,” that an Al Qaeda truck, full of explosives, can be driven right underneath him!
On the other hand, McCain’s interrogation proposal, if applied, rather reminds me of an old joke (of course with variations), where when a reporter visiting a CIA interrogation facility to verify our compliance with McCain’s Law, approaches an interrogation room, he hears someone being savagely slapped and abused, over and over, and he hears the voice of the American interrogator screaming from out of the room:
“Will you speak now?!?!” When the reporter opens the door to the interrogation room, to his surprise, and contrary to his first impressions, it is the poor, listless, interrogator who is being held by the neck by the detainee who is brutally beating him while the interrogator tries to make him talk!
Need I say more?!?!
Althor 😛
Althor (d8da01) — 9/18/2006 @ 7:53 pmRick, the fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem is “it must be right because that’s the way it has always been done.” This is not my argument. My argument is “we have good reason to assume that it is right because everyone with the actual experience to judge thinks that it is right.”
Your accusation that this is an appeal to authority, on the other hand is correct. But not all appeals to authority are fallacious. An appeal to the authority of actual practicing experts is a sound argument, and not only sound but so strong that it is often considered conclusive, and is admissible in courts of law. Once again I note that while you continue to scorn the very strong case that I made, you have yet to offer any argument at all on your side.
Furthermore, your counterexamples are not to the point. (I actually considered explaining in advance why these are not counter examples, but I hoped in vain that you would have the discrimination to figure it out for yourself and save me the trouble). As to ancient medicine, magic and similar errors, there has never been anything remotely resembling the universal expert opinion in these areas that there is on coercive interrogation (in medicine, not even today). In addition, medicine and magic are enterprises of many variables, and when someone heals or dies, the doctor often has no way to know what things were factors and what were not. By contrast, coercive interrogations leads to answers that turn out to be either true or false. The users of such techniques very often had quick and unambiguous empirical testing of their methods.
As to the Gulag not being effective, you need to read some history. The brutal oppressors of Russia didn’t manage to stay in power for forty years because they were beloved by the people.
As to false confessions, that issue has been answered several time by several people already but I will repeat it here: the goal in achieving a false confession is merely to get the confession, not to find the truth, so this is just an example of coercive techniques proving effective. If torture can force someone to confess, knowing that he will be killed for confessing, then torture can force someone to reveal things that he doesn’t want to reveal, even knowing that there will be dire consequences.
So let us tally up the score, shall we? I have outlined a strong case based on widely respected types of argument. You have offered snark, dodges, irrelevant counterexamples (repeatedly), and inept accusations of fallacy. Oh, and you intimidated me by using Latin and big words like “fallacy”. I’m guessing that in your mind you are winning the debate.
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 9/19/2006 @ 12:13 amI’m guessing that in your mind you are winning the debate.
lol, probably doesn’t believe there even is a debate
boris (e173ce) — 9/19/2006 @ 8:19 amTORTURE DOESN’T WORK?
Morons. ABC says it does.
Christoph (9824e6) — 9/20/2006 @ 9:59 pmCorrection… coerced interrogation, significantly less than torture, works… torture just works more consistantly and faster.
Dummies.
Christoph (9824e6) — 9/20/2006 @ 10:00 pm