Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're saying that the problem is that we're willing to use waterboarding but not smelter kilns?
|
People on this board keep arguing that torture doesn't work. I think that position is naive and I think my post helped prove that. I think people just don't want to accept the ramifications of certain decisions.
It would be really great if torture could not extract useful information. Then our interrogators would not be faced with such an awful dilemma.
But I think one of the keys to saving lives and foiling terrorists is getting the name of other terrorists from captured terrorists. Information on hiding terrorists is the most critical information we can get. Until we invent an effective truth serum, extracting that information from detainees, since they don't want to give it up, is going to involve some sort of physical or mental abuse. I consider that torture.
The more we restrict our interrogators from using abusive techniques the less information we are going to get. And for this particular conflict, the information we are not going to get is key information.
On the other hand, if we do torture people, it is going to get out and make it easier for the opposition to recruit. If I lived in Pakistan and I didn't care to much about the conflict either way, but my brother was captured by the Americans, and tortured by them, that would be a strong incentive for me to join Al Queda. The use of torture also diminishes our belief in our moral high ground, which is not good for the morale on our side in the war on terror.
It is when people try and pretend the cost doesn't exist when making decisions, that is when really bad choices are made.
