|
Arpig -> RE: Apparently, EITs actually worked... (6/6/2009 8:08:16 AM)
|
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the whether or not these methods worked is an irrelevant point of debate. These, and similar methods have worked for thousands of years. If somebody knows something you need to know, torturring that person is a sure fire method of learning whatever it is he knows. Unfortunatly, they work so well that somebody who doesn't know anything worthwile will also tell you whatever they think you want to hear as well.
They are an unreliable method of gathering intel at best, unless you somehow know in advance that the subject does in fact know what you are trying to find out. Take for example, a simple taliban grunt taken in Afghanistan, I doubt there would be any point in torturing him, as the liklihood of him having any really useful info is pretty low. Somebody high up in AQ circles on the other hand, is a different story. Torture (I hate the euphimism EITs, it is a cowardly way of trying to get around the question of whether torture should be used by redefining what is being done as somehow not torture) will rather quickly break him, and cause him to reveal what he knows. The problem is knowing when he has had enough, when is he genuinly telling you what he knows, rather than trying to end the torture by telling you something plausible. The more indescriminate torture's use is, the less usefull the overall intelligence gained is. The more people subjected to it, the more people who genuinly do not know anything useful there will be, telling you what you want to hear to save themselves.
All things considered, torture is, and always has been, an effective methods of getting someone to reveal any information they may be trying to conceal. It works, its true. It is also true that it causes people to confess to things (or knowing things) they never did, just ask Torquemada.
Those who oppose torture (in other words, those who are right[:)]) who argue that it doesn't work are being naive. Of course it works, always has, always will. If it didn't work then it wouldn't have been used for all of human history, nor would it still be in use. It does however also gather a lot of false intel along the way. That is the reason that in most places it is used sparingly (even in Myanmar they only torture those who they are sure know something they need to know), why it is not routinely applied to anybody and everybody who comes into the authorities' hands.
There really is nothing new about torture being used by the US (or any other country for that matter), soldiers have been using torture in the field since the dawn of time. It was used by both sides during WWII, it was used by both sides in Vietnam, Hell it was used by both sides during the American Revolution. The CIA has been using torture ever since its inception, thats how come when the Bush administration went looking for torturers they were readily available. The difference here is that torture is now openly the accepted policy of the US, rather than something done in the shadows by those in the field. In the past (OK, to be honest the recent past meaning the period of time when we have considered ourselves to be civilised and ethically motivated) those who got caught using torture were punished, and that is how it should be.
|
|
|
|
