Is this where I claim that using torture won’t work in gaining confessions? Using torture to gain a confession is quite different from gaining Intel. You can make anyone confess guilty or not by use of torture. As many have pointed out many will give false Intel while being torture but they give false information when not being torture. Difference is Intel can be verified by various methods. Police have used it in the past and in many countries.

Brazil
“Torture is mainly used on the so called "war against drug dealers" in the city Rio de Janeiro, located on the state of Rio de Janeiro. In this case, the PM (Militar Police), BOPE (Elite Squad), and the drug dealers themselves use it in order to obtain information about simply everything. In some cases, one dealer may capture an associate of another dealer and torture him to obtain various information about the other dealer's operations. The police also use torture against drug users and dealers' subordinates to obtain information about the dealers themselves”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_torture_in_recent_times

Just because something is effective doesn’t mean it should be widely used. Wire taps are effective but in the US law enforcement can’t use them anytime and anywhere they want. They need a court order and have to provide good probable cause.

Torture to gain confession or for the so call “pleasure” of it are cases within themselves. Intel gathering is another and why would Intel gatherers law enforcement are not use it if it didn’t work? Should we ever do it, seldom do it, or make it a general practice is another argument altogether. However it hard to have a intelligent discussion with people who claim it doesn’t work.

Looks like you back peddling.

Not really...I asked if could provide evidence that American and/or other Allied forces used waterboarding (during WWII) and if you could provide evidence that torture has worked in providing reliable information and/or saving lives...you didn't find any evidence for the former and only spotty evidence for the latter (the French did appear to get some information from torturing Algerians)...

Ask a liberal if waterboarding should be use to save a thousand people and they won’t give a direct answer but give lame arguments.

Perhaps they give "lame" arguments because what is being asked is a lame hypothetical...there has never been a case were torturing someone would save a thousand people...but let us extend this a bit further...if torture is a necessary evil, how come the police can't torture suspects they have in their custody? Surely, if it were so effective, law enforcement would have much to gain by waterboarding suspected rapists, murderers, and drug dealers...oh, and by the way, I don't know who else you may be referring to, but you will note that I have not resorted to name-calling in this particular debate with you...

Were the Japanese prosecuted for simply wakeboarding? No and the term waterboarding covers a wide range of actions.

For the most part I was shooting down lift wings arguments which don’t hold water. Ask a liberal if waterboarding should be use to save a thousand people and they won’t give a direct answer but give lame arguments. Man up and answer it one way or the other.

In the end the lift asks for proof but even if it is given they ignore it or resort to name calling. I have always said that extreme measure should be done only in extreme cases even before 911. It the lift that are afraid to “man” up for their choices.

I understand why U.S. interrogation instructors tell their students that it doesn’t work. The US seldom ever wants them to use it. If you can convince them it doesn’t work then they are far less likely to use them. In reality if done right it can work.

“The interrogation method was used by the Japanese in World War II, by U.S. troops in the Philippines and by the French in Algeria”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

Here is a statement from a lift wing site. I had an example of a former Russian interrogator that said that torture can be an effective interrogation tool but can't seem to find it. It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with methods to separate good information from bad.

“ They had some success with it; they did undoubtedly get some intelligence from the use of torture." That intelligence included information about future terrorist strikes and the infrastructure of terror networks in Algiers.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/04/23/torture/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/kamiya

Cheney has stated...

You will pardon me if I do not count the former vice-president as a reliable source...

Water boarding was use as a field expedient technique in WWII to gather quick battlefield intelligence to save lives.

Oh really? Would you care to provide evidence that American and/or other Allied forces used waterboarding?

Surely you are not one of those ignorant people that think harsh interrogation technique or torture can’t work in getting valid information?

Surely you can provide evidence that torture has worked in providing reliable information and/or saving lives...

Surely you are not one of those ignorant people that think harsh interrogation technique or torture can’t work in getting valid information?

FYI , I don’t watch 24.

Yes torture is wrong as is running a red light. End of story? Nowhere close. We both agree that running the red light even though it is wrong is appropriate in certain scenarios. I’m saying that in extreme cases torture even though wrong could be appropriate. It sounds like you are saying that even if it cost thousands, millions or even billions of lives, it shouldn’t be used.

The argument of “it is wrong therefore it should never be done” falls apart when it comes face to face with reality. One counter case proves the argument wrong and I have shown at least one case that we both agree on that shows the argument as being wrong. Is torture on the same level as running a red light? No but that wasn’t the point.

You originally wrote:

Is that the society with many that refused to take responsibility by saying that torture should not be allowed in any scenario but if the ticking time bomb scenario happens then agents should break the laws? This “society” don’t want to make the hard choices upfront but sweep the dirt under the rug. If it comes to light they become all shock that such thing would happen but still want the benefits of others doing it.

...and then went on to talk about red lights and a perfect world, so that is where I connected the two...torture is wrong, period, end of story, no quotation marks needed...

I didn’t bring up torture directly but was talking in general terms and we were talking about a movie. However If you are willing to admit the above statement then we can go further on the torture discussion although that has been discuss many times before.

The brilliance of A Few Good Men is that even though Lt. Col. Jessup is undoubtedly the villain, he's given some great points:

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way."

Oh really? So we do not have the right to question those who protect us simply because they are performing that service?

Your kids being hungry doesn’t justify running a red light. Running a red light (in a safe manner and yes there is a safe manner) to rush a severely injure person to a hospital to save their life is. It happened at least once while the ambulance was stuck in a snowdrift in their driveway that I know of.

Umm, unlike Eric, I'm happy to break this to you...there is an enormous difference between running a red light because of a medical emergency and torturing someone because you think he/she might be able to provide you with some information which may or may not be critical...