On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:40:30 -0600, Secret Squirrel wrote:

We just agreed that in some cases interrogators got useful
information from captives. However, we didn't say that
they used torture to do so in those instances. Like I
said, sometimes captives will volunteer such information
on their own, or will give information as part of a deal.
You don't need to torture people to force out information
of dubious value because people will sometimes just *give*
it to you.

Since we eventually released something like 95 % plus of
the captives at Abu Gharib, after concluding that they
were indeed not insurgents (or "The Terrorists"; according
to Fox Newspeak) I find it hard to see how torturing them
got any useful information whatsoever. In fact, it's more
likely to be counterproductive, not only as a public
relations-issue, but also in terms of trying to conduct
any investigation. People will say anything to get you to
stop the torture; then you end up sending investigators
down blind alleys to try to corroborate the non-existent
"facts" you may have gotten.

All this is well-known. Torture has no rational
justification; its practice continues in the world only
because it gives interrogators the illusion of getting
information quickly and easily and may feed their personal
desires for revenge or of hate. But the information you
get from it is untrustworthy.

Aside from the simple fact that torture will only get bad
intell; torture does worse things to "us" than to "them".

That said, I wonder how Bush's torture compares with
Saddam's torture.

If one can't distinguish between a brutal dictator and a
military force of liberators, I suggest some /really/ bad
mistakes have been made.

And it appears that President Rove and Vice boy, Cheney,
have been behind most of them.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:40:30 -0600, Secret Squirrel wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns972E9C702CB7Ffstone69@213.155.197.138:

Secret Squirrel <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote in
news:ULWBCVZF38702.5798958333@anonymous.poster:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns972DD8FF43966fstone69@213.155.197.138:

Secret Squirrel <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote in
news:BT6WRJYQ38701.6847800926@anonymous.poster:

man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1134604266.568462.313700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.co
m:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

Problem is that's not a isolated case. Forbes (?),
that bastion of socialism, regularly posts a list of
the World's Worst CEOs, ones who took profitable
companies and ran them into the ground, usually
walking away from the wreck enriched.

You realize he'll now think Forbes IS a bastion of
socialism.

Well, I can't say for sure that Forbes is the one who
publishes the list of worst CEOs; but it's for sure one
of the fav Chamber of Commerce rags, like Business Week
or the like.

You know, because the U.S. Army Field Manual
supports terrorists because it doesn't agree with
torture?

That's because nobody would support torture unless
they're a sadist. All torture gets you is bad
intelligence; people will say anything to stop it even
if they genuinely don't know the answers. Torture is not
only morally abhorrent, but lousy policy, just like
mistreating POWs is both morally abhorrent and lousy
policy.

Well then, there's no problem, because what our
interrogators do is clearly effective and gets *good*
intelligence, so it must not be torture.

We get good intelligence from interogations? Maybe, in
some instances. I would say that the face value of
anything you get from a captive is not worth much w/o
corroboration. I'd sooner have hard evidence than talk.

Well, of course you need corroboration, regardless of
whether the information is gotten from rigorous
interrogation or by saying "pretty please with sugar on
it".

So, if the corroboration is the pudding's proof anyway--then
why place so much emphasis on trying to extract infomation
from captives?

Plus, even when you do get good information, you don't
need torture; some prisoners will eventually decide to
talk in response to incentives or even suddenly offer to
talk for reasons of their own. OTH, captives dedicated to
the cause won't divulge useful information even when
tortured to death, there's been examples of that too.

So why torture at all?

We just concluded that it wasn't really torture after all.

We did? That's not so.

We just agreed that in some cases interrogators got useful
information from captives. However, we didn't say that they
used torture to do so in those instances. Like I said,
sometimes captives will volunteer such information on their
own, or will give information as part of a deal. You don't
need to torture people to force out information of dubious
value because people will sometimes just *give* it to you.

Since we eventually released something like 95 % plus of the
captives at Abu Gharib, after concluding that they were indeed
not insurgents (or "The Terrorists"; according to Fox Newspeak)
I find it hard to see how torturing them got any useful
information whatsoever. In fact, it's more likely to be
counterproductive, not only as a public relations-issue, but
also in terms of trying to conduct any investigation. People will
say anything to get you to stop the torture; then you end up
sending investigators down blind alleys to try to corroborate
the non-existent "facts" you may have gotten.

All this is well-known. Torture has no rational justification;
its practice continues in the world only because it gives
interrogators the illusion of getting information quickly
and easily and may feed their personal desires for revenge or
of hate. But the information you get from it is untrustworthy.

Aside from the simple fact that torture will only get bad intell;
torture does worse things to "us" than to "them".

That said, I wonder how Bush's torture compares with Saddam's
torture.

If one can't distinguish between a brutal dictator and a military
force of liberators, I suggest some /really/ bad mistakes have been
made.

And it appears that President Rove and Vice boy, Cheney, have been
behind most of them.