[quote=Shadowfax][quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]
That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.
Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]
As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another. The fact that the AG’s office investigated these methods and found that they did not consitute torture does not prove anything. All the human rights agencies in the world are staffed with lawyers who say the opposite. In the end, you have to search your soul and decide what is right thing to do? The fact that the Bush administration acted without congressional support in these areas is the real litmus test–as the voice of the electorate, I am with those on this board that believe that we are a nation of laws, that our ideals matter and that if we were going to embark on “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture-lite, we should have take the proper, careful steps to bring that in line with our laws. We signed treaties saying we won’t torture. We publish reports (state department) wagging our fingers at other nations for doing the same acts. We have to walk the walk and talk the talk.
I am with others, too, that it is not remotely clear that such techniques gave us any worthwhile intelligence. OF COURSE the bushies will say that they got good info that prevented further attacks.
The fact is, we, the people, don’t know one way or the other what info was obtained through these methods and what info was obtained through good old fashioned sleuthing, being observant, on heightened alert, citizen tips, etc. We don’t know. Until we know, all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel. If it’s not effective, why use it? Leads me to think that people are sickos–and using terror/torture to combat terror is not what America is supposed to be about.
[/quote]
Again we are in need of defining torture. I said there were opinions given to the Bush administration saying the techniques used were not torture and you dismiss that by saying you can find lawyers who will say anything. I am not doubting that, as I too, am a lawyer but it doesn’t mean their opinion was wrong and it definitely doesn’t mean the Bush administration was wrong to rely on such.
And as far as getting Congressional approval for these techniques, it seems more is coming out on this every day. It appears that some if not many in Congress and particularly those well placed (Pelosi)did know what was going on and didn’t raise any complaints about it at the time.
Lastly, it is clearly illogical for intelligent people to use enhanced interrogation techniques and/or torture if it didn’t work. We have some very intelligent folks in interrogation. To assume that everyone through history who used extreme techniques to get info did so because the were sadists or something and not because it gave them real info seems naive.
I am not saying it works in all cases but it is clear from everything I read that certain more extreme techniques work very well in certain circumstances and other less extreme techniques work better in other circumstances. You must not be looking at very many sources to say, “all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel”.
