[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Preechr

You saying torture is not effective is like me claiming that pepper spray doesn't work because ninjas, yogis and PCP addicts are immune to it. I promise you that if I believe I'm subject to torture by my captors, I'm spilling my guts. Al Quaeda is not the Legion of Doom. Your average terrorist is a garden variety idiot. That's what makes them so dangerous.

It's not really my claim to make.

Furthermore, in many cases, the intelligence reports on which suspects are detained have been obtained through the use of torture. However, Ogg argued that we have very little reason to believe that intelligence obtained through torture is reliable. In fact, the only published study on the efficacy of torture (a report published by the Algerian police) argues that the value of information received through torture is minimal. In most cases it represents the desperate attempts of the victim to stop the torture and reflects what the torturer wants to hear.

http://www.royalphil.arts.gla.ac.uk/...s/ogg-just.htm

My concern is that run-of-the-mill combatants or abducted dentists would finger anyone to get the focus off of themselves. Even if that meant exaggerating the roles of fellow prisoners or making up stories about their neighbor being an Al Qaeda operative.

It would be great to know what interrogation methods work and what don't, and just use what works though. A great example could be Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly, without whose loose tongue we might not have got Zarqawi.

( http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...ed_zarqaw.html )

But despite the common assumption, we'll proably never know why he told what he did, since I'm sure that's a Jordanian state secret. I do see your point though, if was Jordanian torture that gave us Zarqawi's location, then hooray for Jordanian torture, right?

Originally Posted by Preechr

You ask if we should be willing to adopt the values of our enemy. As I am expaining this, do you see me doing that? I'm not suggesting firing squads, beheadings or mass graves here. An official ban on torture would take away a very valuable psychological tool.

The entire point of terrorist activity is psychological damage to the enemy, since they can't achieve real damage. I'm not saying we're jsut as bad as them, but if the whole point is just to show them "we can put the fear in you, too" then we're adopting the value of terror as a tactic in the face of tactical disadvantage.

In my opinion, the worst thing we can do is justify the lies our enemies tell about us - that decreases our best advantage. Treating everything with kid gloves decreases our firepower advantage, but I suspect our advantages leave us a large enough margin to allow room for finesse. Moral outrage is a recruiting tool for the enemy.

Is the question, "do we want the quickest results or the longest lasting ones?" a legitimate one?

Originally Posted by Preechr

You and I can sit over here and discuss the tremendous benefits that lie in store for them once something as simple as basic security is established, but that dentist can go to work every day and sleep all night long, smiling all the time like nothing is wrong, while his blithe disconnectedness to the war all around him might very easily one day destroy the lives of his loved ones or himself. All it takes is the thought of someone causing him a little pain, and all of a sudden he's a team player.

Yeah, but whose team is he gonna play for? Whomever scares him the most or happens to be closest at the moment? That's not particularly assuring.

Originally Posted by Preechr

The War on Terror is building a bridge between their way of life and ours. The War on Terror is ending their endless war.

That sounds great, but is it really what's happening? I rather think our War on Terror, as framed by the Pentagon, is about depleteing terrorist resources in an area that is as far the fuck away from our shores as is feasible, but it's taking a very real toll on our resources as well.

In the long run, I just don't see an end to it unless we have a moral highground to bring people to. Do you think the sort of activities that the western world calls war crimes is material for "building a bridge between their way of life and ours"?

To my perception, your opinion regarding wartime standards seems to be more rooted in pragmatism than moral value. You think we aren't really using our claws, and that our overactive conscience is a liabilty. Is that a misunderstanding?