No, those are not the only three options.[.quote]
Yes, literally they are. That's just simple logic.
Read my rebuttal closer. And no, I'm not missing say the say anything part. I'm addressing it by pointing out that saying what is factually correct is not the same as saying anything.
What in the ****?
The point is torture is ineffective. Think spectrum and not either/or and you'll understand the argument better.
I understand it,
I've worked in the field. You learned about it from newspaper articles to have a rock to throw at Bush. Big difference.
They do if you understand what is being argued.
You don't understand interrogations.
Better options should be the focus and not a desire to use something so problematic as torture that has serious issues with getting misinformation (which is what makes it ineffective).
Uhhh..what desire? Better options are the focus. Did you think people were just opening up source operations via torture? Again: you don't know what you're talking about.
It is to the point of the ticking time hypothetical some raise. They had it and didn't need to use torture.
You don't know what you're talking about.
This does not mean that they can be made to talk with stress methods.
Wait, what? I thought you said they'd "say anything" under torture. Now you mean to say that they'd "say anything other than the truth"? What in the ****?
Don't make a leap not stated. But 90% is a very high percentage, much better than any method should count on. Now, with the one in four, that person will eventually tell us something with torture, but most likely misinformation. Since we know we have acted on misinformation, we cannot argue our trained people know the difference. We know, for a fact, that we acted on misinformation we got from someone we tortured (al Libi).
What? Dude, go to DSDC or something.
No method is based on the right time and place. It's measured by what is most likely to happen. Something that gets you more misinformation than actual information is considered ineffective. Something that causes more problems than good is ineffective. This is why the literature is so insistent that torture is ineffective.
lol no. Methods are based upon time, place, personalities, and stressors. That's it. Take a course, man. The literature is not insistent, by the way: you're lying.
No, the literature is clear that it is ineffective, which is why we have not used it prior to Bush and his people, who went against the experts, including those in the military.
Stop lying, Boo. No it's not clear. Have you
ever take a course in interrogation? Read a DIA pam? No, you haven't. You just don't know. But you seem to be arguing very vehemently for political purposes, and I think it's hilarious.
We agree that the least intrusive methods are the most desirable, most controllable, and most effective. I mean, I
know that, you've been told that, so you go with it. Cool. Great. But then you take that and run with it, and decide that more intrusive methods are horrible, never work, are ineffective, etc. And that's just wrong. I'm here to tell you, but I can see you'll never agree.
And that's fine, you're not in charge of anything, thankfully, so the intelligence community will continue to work to be as effective as it can be in reality, not in Boo World.