Sheesh, can we get some intellectual honesty up in here? hatuey, arguing that torture has worked to successfully derive accurate and reliable data/information is not an argument that torture will always result in deriving accurate and reliable data/information. It simply means that torture does work.
I don't think that Zimmer would and I am not arguing that torture always works. We're simply stating the obvious...that it does work.
Since some of us are now playing the appealing to authority game,
here's my card:
A former CIA agent who participated in interrogations of terror suspects said Tuesday that the controversial interrogation technique of "waterboarding" has saved lives, but he considers the method torture and now opposes its use.
The former agent, who said he participated in the Abu Zubayda interrogation but not his waterboarding, said the CIA decided to waterboard the al Qaeda operative only after he was "wholly uncooperative" for weeks and refused to answer questions.
All that changed -- and Zubayda reportedly had a divine revelation -- after 30 to 35 seconds of waterboarding, Kiriakou said he learned from the CIA agents who performed the technique.
The terror suspect, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly gave up information that indirectly led to the the 2003 raid in Pakistan yielding the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged planner of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Kiriakou said.
Again, this is not an endorsement to use torture to interrogate anyone. It's simply citing the fact that torture does work.
Can we move past this very simple, indisputable point?
If you wanna argue that while torture does work it is too problemattic to rely on as a practice, then do so. But don't torture the simple points I or zimmer are making.
If you wanna argue that there are less physically coercive techniques to be used that will ellicit accurate and reliable data, then argue that, but don't caricature my or zimmer's arguments.
Simon seems particularly concerned with portraying our intelligence offices and national security personnel as buffoons who would not at all attempt to corroborate a detainee's statements before apologizing to a city that has been attacked for chasing down false leads. :roll: But he says he's talking about the real world.
Pfffft!
Lastly, Hatuey...I have told you this before...
No. It's the words of people who've actually conducted torture and cohesive methods.
You mean "coercive," not "cohesive." Get the terminology right.