[quote]100meters wrote:
…
you keep changing “not effective” to “never” I’m noticing.
My actual position is we don’t need to do it and shouldn’t do it because it’s not as effective, it’s a waste of valuable resources, and obviously harms us in the war on terror, if one believes that U.S. policy and perceived U.S. hypocrisy helps fuel the angst that creates more terrorist/ism (which I do).
[/quote]
You keep claiming it doesn’t work. It does. It should only be used in special cases. Just as it has been.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
you keep changing “not effective” to “never” I’m noticing.
My actual position is we don’t need to do it and shouldn’t do it because it’s not as effective, it’s a waste of valuable resources, and obviously harms us in the war on terror, if one believes that U.S. policy and perceived U.S. hypocrisy helps fuel the angst that creates more terrorist/ism (which I do).
You keep claiming it doesn’t work. It does. It should only be used in special cases. Just as it has been.[/quote]
At least you dropped “never”.
But yes convincing argument something “works” so use it.
How about how well does it work—me thinks this is the actual issue, and on that issue based on what we know it doesn’t work well (some known truth plus boatloads of false information) to doesn’t work at all (litany of totally false confessions).
If it is less effective or as effective as traditional interrogation techniques, then there’s no need to do it. Nobody thinks it is more effective so it’s a pretty easy choice.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
you keep changing “not effective” to “never” I’m noticing.
My actual position is we don’t need to do it and shouldn’t do it because it’s not as effective, it’s a waste of valuable resources, and obviously harms us in the war on terror, if one believes that U.S. policy and perceived U.S. hypocrisy helps fuel the angst that creates more terrorist/ism (which I do).
You keep claiming it doesn’t work. It does. It should only be used in special cases. Just as it has been.
At least you dropped “never”.
But yes convincing argument something “works” so use it.
How about how well does it work—me thinks this is the actual issue, and on that issue based on what we know it doesn’t work well (some known truth plus boatloads of false information) to doesn’t work at all (litany of totally false confessions).
If it is less effective or as effective as traditional interrogation techniques, then there’s no need to do it. Nobody thinks it is more effective so it’s a pretty easy choice.
[/quote]
No one is claiming it is the only tool in the box or should be used all the time but a lot of people are claiming it doesn’t work. It does and it seems you don’t have a point.