On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 05:38:25 -0700, Chris Gehlker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:40 PM, David P. Henderson wrote: > >> >> On 21 Apr 2009, at 20:57, Chris Gehlker wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> >> Bull, you are both talking about interrogation and torture as if they >> are one and the same. They are not. Interrogation is necessary and >> does produce positive results. Torture on the other hand has been >> scientifically demonstrated to be unreliable. The US Military has >> very specific interrogation techniques that take time but produce >> generally reliable results and they do not as a rule rely on >> stressing the subject but involve introducing positive feedback from >> the subject by finding points of commonality from which to build >> empathy. I'm sure there a better more detailed explanations than mine. > > I agree completely. It's just that when Roger said "interrogation" it > was clear from context that he meant 'enhanced interrogation', the new > euphemism for torture.
If that's how I was taken, then I was very unclear. Torture does *not* have a place, which is why I didn't say torture. I said interrogation, and I meant what I said - that interrogation can be proper, but it may not give us the answers we want and we have to accept that without moving on to more extreme, uhh "enhanced", forms. In other words, just because we can't get the answers we think exist with legal, humane, moral interrogations, doesn't give us the right to step it up. _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
