Good, you passed the first test. The rest of your response is ultimately irrelevant, because in truth the real question was "Are you willing to perform acts of torture on individuals whose views are similar to your own if for some reason their actions threaten you?"CRTGAMER wrote:To answer your query, to prevent any killing of innocents, yes.Ack wrote:Are you willing to waterboard domestic terrorists standing up for what they feel are their white Christian values?CRTGAMER wrote:Oh there is no doubt we already have import and home brew terrorists which are multipling. How far are we willing to go thru the vetting, prisoner questioning, and giving up privacy to protect citizens and migrants in our nation?
@ SpaceBooger - I replied to your thoughts and updated my Education post.
Second question: if engaging in torture on an individual known to possess vital information does not result in the unveiling of that information, are you then willing to take the next vital step and make them watch as you torture those nearest to them? Are you willing to torture their friends, their families, their spouses and children if it will prevent any killing of innocents?
In fact this is a tried and true defense against torture, something that al Qaeda operatives would have been trained in once they had learned of the US's program: you mentally pick a point that you are willing to concede, preferably something which will look big to your enemies but is actually quite small in the grand scheme of things, and hopefully something that the enemy is already partially aware of so you merely corroborate evidence. You then let that be your "big reveal." When the torture begins, you focus on smaller things to slow their process: old and outdated intel, information that you are already aware the enemy possesses, things that will take a little time for others to corroborate but that the enemy will in all likelihood determine eventually anyway. You give up these small truths to see if the enemy will continue, and if they do, then you "break" and give up your big reveal. The enemy now thinks they have broken you of your most important secret and cast you aside as spent, while you keep your real secrets hidden.marurun wrote:It is. Especially this bit in the written summary, near the end.Sarge wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-cia-chie ... da-leader/
An interesting interview, certainly.Rodriguez may be "convinced" torture helped save lives, but the way he says that suggests he doesn't know it saved lives. We should not sacrifice our ideals and violate international law because a former official is "convinced" of something he cannot factually elucidate.Rodriguez maintains he got information from the interrogations of KSM and others that enabled the CIA to disrupt at least 10 large-scale terrorist plots. But when Stahl reminds him the CIA's own inspector general said that his enhanced interrogation program did not stop any imminent attack, Rodriguez says, "We don't know. ...if, for example, al Qaeda would have been able to continue on with their anthrax program or nuclear program...or sleeper agents ...working with Khalid Sheik Mohammed to take down the Brooklyn Bridge, for example."
Stahl then suggests that KSM was never really broken, because he never gave up Osama bin Laden. "There is a limit...to what they will tell us," replies Rodriguez.
In short, sell out your pawns and maybe the odd rook or bishop to keep your queen intact so the enemy is never truly safe.
