Did it work or didn't it?

[CarltonBanks]

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/19/wikileaks-bolsters-argument-for-enhanced-interroga/

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.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

It clearly worked.

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

 

[Dick Whitman]

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?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

It worked. That's all I care about.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It worked. That's all I care about.

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

 

[CarltonBanks]

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?

One of your better posts, ****. 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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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?

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

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.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

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.

 

[Mark McGwire]

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

 

[LongTimeListener]

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.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

It worked. That's all I care about.

^^^^^^^^

 

[Dick Whitman]

It worked. That's all I care about.

^^^^^^^^

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?

 

[vicd]

Should we torture Bin Laden's captured wives and children? Is it moral to torture a 13-year-old if it saves the life of one American soldier? If we capture a 12-year-old female suicide bomber before she blows up, do we torture her?

 

[Bob Cook]

I'm sure this thread, like the 176 Osama bin Laden threads before it, will give us the definitive answer.

 

[CarltonBanks]

We are getting off base here and it is just going to lead to another locked thread. We used enhanced interrogation. I do not consider that "torture" and millions share my opinion. So all the ethical arguments about "torture" are not valid in my eyes. However, enhanced interrogation is not perfect and could cause the United States to lose face worldwide. I understand that and it is something that should be looked at by the next president when he or she is setting policy. Either way, the "enhanced interrogation = torture" equasion is not valid.

By the way, Bob, if you feel this is a waste of time feel free to step out of the thread. We can make it without you...although it will be diffiult.

 

[sportsguydave]

It clearly worked.

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

John McCain, who knows a little bit more than all of us on this particular subject, disagrees.

 

[Boom_70]

What worked well was the Bin Laden assassination. We should move to the same step with some of those GITMO terrorists and stop wasting water.

I read that a GITMO prisoner "killed" himself yesterday. Hmmmmm.

 

[vicd]

We are getting off base here and it is just going to lead to another locked thread. We used enhanced interrogation. I do not consider that "torture" and millions share my opinion. So all the ethical arguments about "torture" are not valid in my eyes. However, enhanced interrogation is not perfect and could cause the United States to lose face worldwide. I understand that and it is something that should be looked at by the next president when he or she is setting policy. Either way, the "enhanced interrogation = torture" equasion is not valid.

Should we waterboard a 12-year-old if it saves one American's life?

 

[CarltonBanks]

We are getting off base here and it is just going to lead to another locked thread. We used enhanced interrogation. I do not consider that "torture" and millions share my opinion. So all the ethical arguments about "torture" are not valid in my eyes. However, enhanced interrogation is not perfect and could cause the United States to lose face worldwide. I understand that and it is something that should be looked at by the next president when he or she is setting policy. Either way, the "enhanced interrogation = torture" equasion is not valid.

Should we waterboard a 12-year-old if it saves one American's life?

Is the 12-year-old an enemy combatant? I have a feeling a 12-year-old would not be that difficult to break without waterboarding. However, if he was an enemy combatant and taking up arms against the United States or actively trying to kill civilians I have no problem with it.

 

[LongTimeListener]

We are getting off base here and it is just going to lead to another locked thread. We used enhanced interrogation. I do not consider that "torture" and millions share my opinion. So all the ethical arguments about "torture" are not valid in my eyes. However, enhanced interrogation is not perfect and could cause the United States to lose face worldwide. I understand that and it is something that should be looked at by the next president when he or she is setting policy. Either way, the "enhanced interrogation = torture" equasion is not valid.

1) Millions of people also shared/share your opinion that Obama's true birthplace was in doubt.

2) "Enhanced interrogation" is just a cute way of making torture sound more palatable.

3) #2 is my opinion. Your opinion is clearly the opposite of mine. However, that does not make my opinion -- which is really the widely held majority opinion in this country -- "not valid" as your conclusion states.