1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did it work or didn't it?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by CarltonBanks, May 20, 2011.

  1. CarltonBanks

    CarltonBanks New Member

    Washington Times, a right-leaning paper, claims Wikileaks shows enhanced interrogation did work.


    One side claims enhanced interrogation was useless and does more harm than good, the other side claims it was directly responsible for leading to bin Laden. I would imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
  2. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    It clearly worked.

    But don't expect anyone on the other side to ever admit that.
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Even if it "worked," you can't evaluate it in a vacuum. Did it work better than non-enhanced interrogation? Worse? What was the marginal difference? At what expense did it work? Did we lost dignity in the process? Moral high ground? Something tangible like the trust of other nations in diplomatic settings?
  4. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    It worked. That's all I care about.
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    We could eliminate all highway deaths by banning cars. Such a policy would, technically, "work."
  6. CarltonBanks

    CarltonBanks New Member

    One of your better posts, Dick. Then you follow up with that horrible "ban cars" post. Come on, you are better than that.

    You bring up questions that are very important, ones that will not be answered for a long time. But they are completely valid and should be considered in the argument.
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    It's not a horrible post, Carlton. I'm just drawing an extreme analogy to make a point. You can't evaluate a policy in a vacuum, without considering the other implications that flow from it. We could ban cars. Highway deaths problem would be immediately solved. But at what expense? Isn't there a less intrusive way? Seatbelt laws. Lower the legal BAC. Regulation of vehicle safety standards. Raise the driving age. On and on. Also, how many deaths do you now case because people can't get to the emergency room in time? Or can't get to a job and fall into poverty? Etc., etc.
  8. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Worked to do what? Make a bunch of Americans who're cruel cowards wet themselves in revenge fantasy joy? Yeah, it did that just fine.
  9. Mark McGwire

    Mark McGwire Member

    A lie ain't a side of the story. It's just a lie.
  10. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    It should be noted that the claim about enhanced interrogation has never been that it is "useless," as the original post says in its caricature attempt. The value of the information obtained by these means is always in question -- which is entirely different from saying it is "useless" -- but the bigger issues are whether the U.S. is violating the principles on which the nation was founded, and whether torture puts our own soldiers in harm's way and hinders our moral authority in the "world's policeman" role we have given ourselves for the last century.
  11. ^^^^^^^^
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    No, no, no.

    You cannot make that statement without further context.

    That's essentially Economics 101. You can't measure the value of something without knowing its marginal value in comparison to the alternative.

    I bit my tongue yesterday. It hurts a little. Should I cut off my head? It would "work" to cure the pain, right?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page