On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Roger Howard wrote: > But the reality is that interrogation has its place; the question is > about the extent to which it can be useful.
I think the question has been answered and the answer is that it is never useful. I'm aware of the game theoretic scenarios where the torturer has some information but the victim doesn't know what information the torturer has and he can use that as leverage to extract additional information. I'm also aware that experts in military intelligence have testified that they have never heard of an actual case where the theory was successfully applied. It isn't a stretcher at all to believe that if the Bushies could produce a single example of a case where 'enhanced interrogation' produced information that save a single life they would have trumpeted it far and wide. Of course now Cheney says that the proof that torture works is on the way: <http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/happy-hour-open-thread-cheney-mystery-solved/ > So we supposedly will have a definitive answer eventually. I just hold with those who think that if the evidence exists, Cheney would have made it available when it would have done him some good. > I think it can be both - it's a fallacy to talk about a group of > hundreds of millions of people as if there is a single operating > motive/intent. Well, if so it's a fallacy in which you enthusiastically indulge: "Americans will only get it when some of our own are captured/ imprisoned, whether reasonably or not, and subjected to the same abuses. The outrage will fly. Even then, though, only maybe half will mentally equate it with the same scenario in reverse. American exceptionalism is blinding." In contrast my generalization was really safe. People have tortured throughout history. The rationale that it is a form of intelligence gathering is very recent. The south didn't even try to use it to justify their treatment of union troops at Andersonville. > >> I have a Moslem American friend who admits that when he say the video >> of Palestinians cheering after 9/11 he 'just wanted to smash their >> faces in' women and children as well as the men. I can't help but >> think that simply acknowledging that the point of the torture was to >> inflict suffering on those who we suspected of rejoicing in our >> suffering would be a small step in the right direction. > > Good luck with that. I'm quite optimistic. If we exclude the nut-job, Rush Limbaugh following, portion of the population, your view, that torture has any utility as an intelligence gathering tool, is probably already a minority opinion. After all, the assertion that torture is useless is still part of the Army Field Manual and has been advocated by John McCain and several fairly right wing pundits. --- Just because they're good at propaganda doesn't mean we have to be good at stupid. -Marty Kaplan _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
