John McCain to Bush apologists: Stop lying about Bin Laden and torture

[Vekseid]

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN SPEAKS ON THE SENATE FLOOR ON THE DEBATE ON THE USE OF TORTURE

The relevant part of the transcript from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/john-mccain-to-bush-apologists-stop-lying-about-bin-laden-and-torture/2011/03/03/AF10AnzG_blog.html

    “With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:

    “The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.

    “In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.

    “I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’

    “In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts.

[itsbeenfun2000]

Good for McCain. He may be the last honest Republican left.

[Zakharra]

 I wouldn't exactly call him honest, but he does stand for what he believes in, even if sometimes it is against his constituents.

[Trieste]

You can't really blame him for being against 'enhanced' interrogation considering he's been on the receiving end.

[itsbeenfun2000]

That's why it was important for him to stand up against torture. If anyone will be listened to by the Republican senators it is him

[Autumn52]

I don't normally post in the section. I usually do not voice my opinion in these situations but for some reason I find I am compelled to voice my opinion on this. I do not want to debate this issue. Everyone is entitled to there opinion and I in no way want to insinuate that my opinion is more important than anyone elses. I simple wish to state it.

On September 11, 2001 2977 people died in the worst terrorist attack on American soil. It has been 10 years in bring the mastermind behind those attack to justice. The face of America changed that awful day. Our ideals, our hopes for the future and our moral standards changed.

America is held to a higher standard, let face it we have obeyed the rules for years. What did that get us? 9/11/01 that's what. I don't think 'enhanced interrogation techniques' are the answer but I will say that as an American I would do anything to make sure that the people who were involved are brought to justice.

Torture has been and is used against the men and women who defend this country from terrorism. I am not saying that because we are treated badly that we have the right to mistreat others. What I am saying is that it is naive to think that the people we entrust in public office with the defense of this country will not face this debate over and over again. The hard decisions have to be made. Sometimes there is no time to debate. We have to entrust our safety to people we trust will do whatever it takes to keep us safe and be willing to give them our support.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my opinion.

[Oniya]

Interrogation is a tricky business whether it's in war-time (military) or peace-time (police).  The most important thing about any interrogation is that truthful information comes out. 

In the case that lead to Brown vs. Mississippi in 1936, the suspects were tortured with whippings, and one was even held by his neck from a tree while being whipped.  The SCOTUS ruled unanimously that 'A defendant's confession that is extracted by police violence cannot be entered as evidence and violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.'  Even so, modern, non-violent interrogation techniques can still lead to false confessions.  The McCarthy-era trials resulted in many people being falsely accused of being 'communists' and losing their livelihoods.  Michael Crowe was not tortured, but the interrogation techniques that were used on him resulted in a false confession to the murder of his sister in 1998.  As a result, the real killer didn't face trial until 2004. 

Torture has been used throughout history to get the information that the interrogators want to hear.  If that is consistently shown to be unlikely to be the truth, I find it to be of dubious benefit at best, whether that's to keep our people safe, or to track down other terrorists.  A properly trained interrogator can come to the truth without resorting to torture.  The apologists need to learn from history.  It didn't work in 15th century Spain, it didn't work in 1930's Mississippi - and they shouldn't claim it works now.

[Trieste]

I personally don't approve of bending my rules and my values because someone punched me in the face. I have found that when I am angry, if I bend my values to get back at someone, I feel a whole lot worse later than if they had simply hurt me. It feels like I let them make me compromise myself, and that is unacceptable.

I really admire McCain for speaking out about this. I think it took guts, since he is often seen as a hardline GOPer.

[Autumn52]

I would like to add one more thing. I admire anyone, whether I agree with them or not, who will stand up for what they believe in. It takes courage and determination to do so.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'd judge it as a mixture of guts, personal beliefs, and simple political opportunism myself, though that is through my instinctive "politicians=scum" mental filter. I don't doubt that he is personally against torture, but he is also a smart person, and if he has any remaining ambitions of running for the Presidency again, he knows that it'll be essential for him to distance himself from Bush as much as possible. This is another step along that path.

[Zakharra]

You can't really blame him for being against 'enhanced' interrogation considering he's been on the receiving end.

Agreed.

[gaggedLouise]

Admirable, and I would agree with Trieste on why it's rooted in his own personal experience.

You can't really blame him for being against 'enhanced' interrogation considering he's been on the receiving end.

And it matters that it's he of all people. Many within the GOP who would instantly shrug off comments from Amnesty International, from Susan Rice or Gore Vidal will still have regard for McCain on this matter.

Considering that it took ten years to find bin Laden, and that the grounds for suspicion against some of the people who used to be at Gitmo (like, having 100$ bank notes in one's wallet or a certain brand of cell phone, and having been to Pakistan, Lebanon or the UAE) were more than flimsy, the case for using torture as an ordinary interrogation technique doesn't look very steady. If you waterboard someone or threaten to send them into a dark hole full of rats running around they will, in many cases, say anything to avoid it.

And if some people. like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were waterboarded 190 times, then it's not something the interrogators spent a lot of time thinking about and grabbed only as  last resort: they were just running down a lane that had been opened up by a directive from above. A directive which seems likely to have been issued by none other than George W Bush personally.

[Yorubi]

As much as I dislike politics and how bad things are with general corruption and likes being a fundamental part of how its run, there are still a few glimmers of hope where they do stand up for what they believe in and actually show they do have a human side behind them. I just wish something like that was common place and not some very rare occurrences.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't always agree with Sen. McCain's outlook on somethings, hell there isn't a politician I agree with 100%, but we are of an accord on 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." Some, like sleep deprivation (to a DEGREE) are valid and help break down resistance, but you can't tell me NEARLY drowning a man repeatedly or inducing near hypothermia works to bring out the truth. You are water boarding a man till he tells you want you want to hear.. nothing more.

Sorry.  You can't convince me that rendition, water boarding or things that Saddam might have done will work to our benefit.

Addition: I put Senator McCain in the same box as the late Senator Kennedy and Helms. They did a LOT of things I don't like, but I can respect ONE thing. They looked out for their voters. They did what they THOUGHT was best for their constituents. That's rare these days. Today it's all about 'which PACs and Lobbyists can make me the most'.

[Lyell]

I'm on the fence on this issue. The common arguement seems to be that interrogation only produces false confessions or bad information. Interrogation intended to procure verifiable information used to save lives is often overlooked.

KSM’s revelations helped authorities arrest at least six major terrorists:

* Ohio-based trucker Iyman Faris pleaded guilty May 1, 2003, to providing material support to terrorists. He secured 2,000 sleeping bags for al Qaeda and delivered cash, cell phones and airline tickets to its men. He also conspired to derail a train near Washington, D.C., and use acetylene torches to sever the Brooklyn Bridge’s cables, plunging it into the East River.

* Jemaah Islamiya (JI) agent Rusman "Gun Gun" Gunawan was convicted of transferring money to bomb Jakarta’s Marriott Hotel, killing 12 and injuring 150.

* Hambali, Gunawan’s brother and ring-leader of JI’s October 2002 Bali nightclub blasts, killed 202 and wounded 209.

* Suspected al Qaeda agent Majid Khan, officials say, provided money to JI terrorists and plotted to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, detonate U.S. gas stations and poison American water reservoirs.

* Jose Padilla, who trained with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, was convicted last August of providing material support to terrorists and conspiring to kidnap, maim and murder people overseas. Padilla, suspected of but not charged with planning a radioactive "dirty bomb" attack, reportedly learned to incinerate residential high-rises by igniting apartments filled with natural gas.

* Malaysian Yazid Sufaat, an American-educated biochemist and JI member, reportedly provided hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi housing in Kuala Lumpur during a January 2000 9/11 planning summit. He also is suspected of employing "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui. "The 9/11 Commission Report" (page 151) states: "Sufaat would spend several months attempting to cultivate anthrax for al Qaeda in a laboratory he helped set up near the Kandahar airport."

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/04/12/tough-interrogations-saved-lives-debunking-allegations-of-bush-era-quot-torture-quot/

[Oniya]

I'm on the fence on this issue. The common arguement seems to be that interrogation only produces false confessions or bad information. Interrogation intended to procure verifiable information used to save lives is often overlooked.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/04/12/tough-interrogations-saved-lives-debunking-allegations-of-bush-era-quot-torture-quot/

No - bad interrogation leads to bad information.  Skilled interrogation leads to good information.  Bad = use of physical or emotional pain to elicit a response.  After a certain point, people will say anything just to get out of the situation.  This is why police interrogations should be recorded - so that the conditions that lead to the information can be reviewed.

[Lyell]

No - bad interrogation leads to bad information.  Skilled interrogation leads to good information.  Bad = use of physical or emotional pain to elicit a response.  After a certain point, people will say anything just to get out of the situation. 

The same man and method that procured the information that led to those arrests are what produced the false information that was mentioned at the start of the post.

This is why police interrogations should be recorded - so that the conditions that lead to the information can be reviewed.

I've expressed my approval of this in its thread.

EDIT: Or atleast, I thought I had. Nevermind.

[Oniya]

It's more a matter of luck than anything else if bad interrogation leads to correct information.  In bad interrogation, the interrogator goes in with a preconception of what the answer 'should' be.  The questions are leading, and the subject may be threatened or subjected to physical pain.  ('And then you shot her, right, Johnny?  With that gun you found in the dresser?  You know what they do to scum like you in prison, Johnny...')  The interrogator does not let up until the desired answer (or an answer that fits the preconceptions) is achieved.

In good interrogation, the subject is given non-leading questions, and the answers are compared with the evidence that the interrogator has already acquired.  ('What happened then, Johnny?  Uh-huh...  The guy who did this made a mistake, Johnny.  He left his blood on the glass where he broke the window.  You know about DNA, Johnny?')  The information retrieved can then be verified, and hasn't been inadvertently (or intentionally) fed to the subject.

[Lyell]

So it's absolutely undisputed certainty that bad interrogation questioning was performed in both instances?

I also have to ask, is good humane interrogation that yields no information better than bad interrogation that leads to some good and some faulty information?

[Xenophile]

Torture has always been known to be a dubious way to get information, and the greatest argument for it's use has been "they're barbarians and won't understand reasoning, and need to be pressure with violence" since antiquity. Good interrogation has a better chance to yield good results, but asking "Torture with some chance of good results vs No torture and no results" is such an unrealistic hypothetical question that it isn't a good question when we already know that torture is a flawed technique without having discussed or looked over the other interrogation techniques. It assumes the results.

[Lyell]

Interrogation and torture are two different things.

Humane interrogation, question drilling, sleep deprivation, things that don't cause lasting harm, whatever. A strong mind can persevere.

Khalid wasn't subjected to waterboarding until it was evident his patience would outlast their timeliness in getting what they needed out of him. Last resort.

So no, my question wasn't entirely hypothetical.

[Xenophile]

What you filed under humane interrogation does leave long term damage. Second, you assume their minds are strong enough to withstand it. Is less harmful methods less evil if the recipient is better at withstanding it? It only means that they need to use harsher methods to make him crack eventually anyway, so that argument is moot.

Last resort torture is still torture, and did that method provide any usable information on all of the other instances? A handful of successful cases have been mentioned, but there are nigh innumerable instances when it hasn't, and done nothing but harm and promote the USA as yet another uncaring imperial power. Are we even certain that the waterboarding in Khalid's case -was- made as a last resort?

[Lyell]

Sorry, but you lost me at evil.

Good, evil, right, wrong - black and white terms for people who see the world as one or the other. One root thing is assigned a value and anything connected to it falls under that same value. There's no room for intent, only absolutes. This is why I can't debate on this forum. "You're either 100% with us or against us."

[Xenophile]

Sorry, but you lost me at evil.

Good, evil, right, wrong - black and white terms for people who see the world as one or the other. One root thing is assigned a value and anything connected to it falls under that same value. There's no room for intent, only absolutes. This is why I can't debate on this forum. "You're either 100% with us or against us."

Congratulations for understanding that the world isn't Black & White, though I should have done a better job at specifying, I still get the feeling that you misunderstood my intentions when using the word "evil". I rarely do use it seriously, but when other people use words as "immoral" and unethical" to describe torture,it isn't that much of a far stretch to call it "evil" as well.

[Trieste]

Sorry, but you lost me at evil.

Good, evil, right, wrong - black and white terms for people who see the world as one or the other. One root thing is assigned a value and anything connected to it falls under that same value. There's no room for intent, only absolutes. This is why I can't debate on this forum. "You're either 100% with us or against us."

There is evil in the world. Whether there are genuinely, irrevocable evil people, I don't know, but there are evil, evil deeds. (I would hold the case of Baby P up as an example.)

That said, you asked about the trade-off between bad information, good information, and varying interrogation techniques. What you're asking about is essentially a value, a personal belief that is held sometimes without logic. I personally don't believe it is ever right to torture another human being. Causing permanent physical and mental damage in someone because you think they might know something useful which may or may not help you - it's unacceptable in any situation.

You asked, I answered, and I'm happy to discuss - but if you try to debate it with me, I'm going to ignore you. There are some values that can be evaluated, discussed, and examined, but sometimes they really do come down to "I believe this is just wrong."

Another example, just to throw it out there, would be the hypothetical statement that, "I believe killing someone is wrong in any circumstance." Now, the person may think that killing in self-defense is one of those situations where it's wrong but you can't do much else. The person may believe that someone who got the death penalty deserves to die; the values are not mutually exclusive. But some things do come down to a moral judgement that something is wrong to do to another person, an animal, whatever.

This is one of those debates that is tangled in morals, which makes it extremely difficult.

[Vekseid]

So it's absolutely undisputed certainty that bad interrogation questioning was performed in both instances?

I also have to ask, is good humane interrogation that yields no information better than bad interrogation that leads to some good and some faulty information?

Good interrogation works because it's really hard not to let your guard down amongst people who treat you as friends.

Bad interrogation doesn't work because it prevents the subject from humanizing their interrogators.

This isn't new.

[Lyell]

You asked, I answered, and I'm happy to discuss - but if you try to debate it with me, I'm going to ignore you. There are some values that can be evaluated, discussed, and examined, but sometimes they really do come down to "I believe this is just wrong."

This is exactly why this subject and audience falls outside of the 'debatable forums' for me. Everyone is so absolutely entrenched in "This is just wrong" that there can be no actual debate or discussion. Anything even slightly suggesting the contrary is also wrong, invalid, and unacceptable. That's not discussion. That's "Group Think."

The only satisfaction I got out of posting in this thread was the irony of a politician getting praise for voicing an unpopular opinion in the same page that my unpopular opinion got so much negative reaction.

[Trieste]

It's not a case of group think or stonewalling, but you've chosen to ask about a subject that is not always based in logic. Humans are not strictly logical human beings, and that's not necessarily a fault.

It is an illogical choice to hold the lives and health of strangers sacrosanct. There have been countless papers published on the seeming paradox of altruistic and egalitarian cultures turning out to be the most evolutionarily successful.

If you'd like to read my reaction as being negative, that's fine, but when you misconstrue people who give you answers that you apparently don't like, you're not going to get a lot of sympathy from other posters and you're certainly not going to be seen as the victim of some anti-intellectual conspiracy. You honestly didn't answer a single thing in my post except to pat yourself on the back for being so persecuted.

I didn't persecute you.

I disagreed with you.

There is a significant difference.

[Lyell]

It's not a case of group think or stonewalling, but you've chosen to ask about a subject that is not always based in logic. Humans are not strictly logical human beings, and that's not necessarily a fault.

What part of 'torture is evil and never permissible is not stonewalling?

It is an illogical choice to hold the lives and health of strangers sacrosanct. There have been countless papers published on the seeming paradox of altruistic and egalitarian cultures turning out to be the most evolutionarily successful.

And can such a culture successfully survive in the face of an adversary that would kill them simply for being of that culture?

If you'd like to read my reaction as being negative, that's fine, but when you misconstrue people who give you answers that you apparently don't like, you're not going to get a lot of sympathy from other posters and you're certainly not going to be seen as the victim of some anti-intellectual conspiracy. You honestly didn't answer a single thing in my post except to pat yourself on the back for being so persecuted.

What is there to answer? You adamantly believe this particular subject has no grey area and I do. You've already said you'd ignore any such message so I didn't see a point in posting it.

I didn't persecute you.

But you are replying for those who did, or hinted at it.

I disagreed with you.

There is a significant difference.

This much I am willing to agree with.

[Shjade]

What part of 'torture is evil and never permissible is not stonewalling?

The rest of it I can't - or, rather, won't - speak on, but this part at least seems sorta easy to answer: a stone wall wouldn't respond or have an opinion. Stonewalling would be "no comment, no discussion." "Torture is evil and never permissible" isn't really stonewalling so much as it is stating a position and refusing to be swayed from it. It's giving you something; it's just not opening the door for you to argue against that something.

If you get stonewalled, you get nothing.

As to torture: if it produces useful results, okay. If it doesn't, then what has it accomplished other than damage to everyone involved? Given you can't know whether it's produced useful results until after you've used it and then tested what it gave you, I'd say it's pretty near useless and far too costly as gambles go, all morality aside.

[Lyell]

The rest of it I can't - or, rather, won't - speak on, but this part at least seems sorta easy to answer: a stone wall wouldn't respond or have an opinion. Stonewalling would be "no comment, no discussion." "Torture is evil and never permissible" isn't really stonewalling so much as it is stating a position and refusing to be swayed from it. It's giving you something; it's just not opening the door for you to argue against that something.

If you get stonewalled, you get nothing.

I'm going to ignore you.

Sounds pretty nothing to me.

As to torture: if it produces useful results, okay. If it doesn't, then what has it accomplished other than damage to everyone involved? Given you can't know whether it's produced useful results until after you've used it and then tested what it gave you, I'd say it's pretty near useless and far too costly as gambles go, all morality aside.

I posted a snip from an article that listed six arrests made from the information provided by one man through torture. I'd put a value on the lives it saved, but it might offend someone.

[Shjade]

If they got six arrests from him through torture, I have to imagine they could have done the same through other means. One case in which it works does not ensure it will work all the time, or even a majority of the time.

She said she'd ignore you if you try to debate the point after having given you her position. Like I said, she gave you something and refuses to be swayed from it.

[Lyell]

If they got six arrests from him through torture, I have to imagine they could have done the same through other means.

From the same article, just before the arrests are mentioned,

After U.S. and Pakistani authorities captured KSM in March 2003, he stayed mum for months, often answering questions with Koranic chants. Interrogators eventually water-boarded him–for just 90 seconds. KSM "didn’t resist," one CIA veteran said in the August 13 New Yorker. "He sang right away."

Ofcourse, this assumes that the CIA can be trusted. I don't know what your feelings are twords them.

One case in which it works does not ensure it will work all the time, or even a majority of the time.

John McCain publicly admitted that torture worked on him. He wrote such in his 1999 autobiography. That it is a gamble is pretty much understood, but like most high stakes gambles sometimes the payout is tempting, sometimes worth it. 

She said she'd ignore you if you try to debate the point after having given you her position. Like I said, she gave you something and refuses to be swayed from it.

Then further dialogue is pointless because unless it's in-line with her views, it is invalid. "You're wrong. I'm not going to discuss why, but you're wrong. Oh, by the way, I won't pay attention to anything you say to the contrary." Can we get away from this?

Stonewalling: Verb: Delay or block (a request, process, or person) by refusing to answer questions or by giving evasive replies.

I'm sure that word means what I think it means.

[Autumn52]

Isn't part of the reason we value being an American because we have the right to state our opinion in an open forum? It is for me anyway. Being an American for me means that I don't have to agree with you and you don't have to agree with me. No one has to be wrong or right. What is right for me may not be right for you and so on. We each have a right to our opinion and we as individuals don't have to fight for or debate that right in a forum such as this. We have a government that provides a military that fights for our rights everyday. What we do have to do is stand behind the men and women who fight for our rights and give them and their families the support they deserve.

I have read this thread, since making my comment, and each side has good points. If this was an easy task there would be no need to debate it. It is my opinion that this is one of those subjects that can, and most likely will, be debated until the end of time and we will be right where we are today. Each person has a right to their own opinion. Majority has nothing to do with that. My opinion is not a popular one but I did not feel, nor do I feel today, that I could not express that opinion.

It is my vital hope that when things like this come to light, as they have here, that we as individuals look inward and find how it affects our own personal view of the world. It isn't our job to change the mind of someone with a different opinion. I will say it again, just because someones opinion does not agree with our own that does not make them wrong, just as it does not make me or you or anyone else right. Living in a free society means that we have the right to have opposing opinions. What feels right for you may not feel right for me. The one thing we have in common is that we all get to have an opinion.

I value the freedom our men and women in the armed forces fight for, and if for no other reason than that I value each individuals right to voice their personal beliefs.

Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion once again.

[ReanimateMagnus]

Torture for information, in my opinion, isn't really that bad. I mean it's not like someone is going to torture you for information since the average American doesn't really have anything valuable to say. The guy that was tortured on the other hand, does. Why should he keep secrets that put American lives at risk?

[TheGlyphstone]

I've never been a huge fan of torture, but when someone brings up the 'moral high ground' argument - that we shouldn't torture because we're better than the enemy, I'm compelled to remind them that when the enemy takes prisoners of ours, they behead them and release video footage of the execution on the Internet. That doesn't make waterboarding good by any means, but if I was forced to pick a side to be captured by, my decision is easy.

[HairyHeretic]

Torture for information, in my opinion, isn't really that bad. I mean it's not like someone is going to torture you for information since the average American doesn't really have anything valuable to say. The guy that was tortured on the other hand, does. Why should he keep secrets that put American lives at risk?

How do you feel about granting the police the right to torture suspects? After all, they likely have information that would be useful in solving crimes. And if they're violent criminals, lifes might be at risk too.

[Jude]

Torture for information, in my opinion, isn't really that bad. I mean it's not like someone is going to torture you for information since the average American doesn't really have anything valuable to say. The guy that was tortured on the other hand, does. Why should he keep secrets that put American lives at risk?

That assumes that the average American couldn't ever be mistaken for someone who has information that needs to be tortured out of them -- which isn't really a safe assumption.  When officials are under pressure and it's basically up to them to decide the entry point on torture, lots of bad things can and will happen in the name of the American people.

The question is actually very simple:  do you really want someone to experience cruel, inhumane treatment in your name based on other people's determinations?

[ReanimateMagnus]

do you really want someone to experience cruel, inhumane treatment in your name based on other people's determinations?

I would sacrifice a few to save many. I'm sure this isn't the first time this decision has been made. I'm looking at you Truman.

But to answer your question more directly: If I don't know about inhumane treatment of people then I don't mind. When it comes to parading it around, that's why I say "hold on a minute let's know everything before we go pointing fingers."

[Shjade]

But to answer your question more directly: If I don't know about inhumane treatment of people then I don't mind. When it comes to parading it around, that's why I say "hold on a minute let's know everything before we go pointing fingers."

There's a city by the name of Omelas you might want to look into, then, as it seems to suit your sensibilities.

[ReanimateMagnus]

How do you feel about granting the police the right to torture suspects? After all, they likely have information that would be useful in solving crimes. And if they're violent criminals, lifes might be at risk too.

Like how they might threaten and punch a suspect or whatnot? Like in the tv shows. Yeah that seems to get results faster than the traditional system of "oh please tell us or you're going to jail"

[Shjade]

Like how they might threaten and punch a suspect or whatnot? Like in the tv shows. Yeah that seems to get results faster than the traditional system of "oh please tell us or you're going to jail"

Because it's in the script.

[Falanor]

Like how they might threaten and punch a suspect or whatnot? Like in the tv shows. Yeah that seems to get results faster than the traditional system of "oh please tell us or you're going to jail"

Having watched police interview tactics and discussed them with police in real life at a past job, you'd be amazed at how off tv is.  Most of the time a suspect is so ready to get out of the police's hands he's already willing to talk.  The rest of the time it takes convincing of the likes of "Tell us what you know or you go to jail for crimes X and Y for ten to fifteen years".  A lot of information is bartered for in lieu of a loss of freedoms.  Most of the time when a cop commits violence to get information it comes out, and looks bad as a whole for all police, which is why they generally look down on it now.

[ReanimateMagnus]

Because it's in the script.

True, but then again I've never witness or seen it tried in real life so I wouldn't know if it works or not. So really I'm just guessing that it would be more effective on certain individuals.

Having watched police interview tactics and discussed them with police in real life at a past job, you'd be amazed at how off tv is.  Most of the time a suspect is so ready to get out of the police's hands he's already willing to talk.  The rest of the time it takes convincing of the likes of "Tell us what you know or you go to jail for crimes X and Y for ten to fifteen years".  A lot of information is bartered for in lieu of a loss of freedoms.  Most of the time when a cop commits violence to get information it comes out, and looks bad as a whole for all police, which is why they generally look down on it now.

See this person probably would know more than I would on the topic of police interviewing tactics. I'm just giving a shot out in the dark.

But what if the cops are bluffing and the criminal knows it. Or knows that they wont catch him unless he talks?

[Falanor]

See this person probably would know more than I would on the topic of police interviewing tactics. I'm just giving a shot out in the dark.

But what if the cops are bluffing and the criminal knows it. Or knows that they wont catch him unless he talks?

Knowing that they're bluffing is a possibility but most of the time police push hard on things when they know they have evidence enough to cause problems for the person that has information.  Plus a lot of criminals are willing to work with police simply because it's a favor that they could owe you.  Doesn't mean that the police will turn a blind eye to something you did, but they won't throw the book at you if you cooperate with them.

There's always a possibility that they might not catch the guy without the information that another criminal has, however, most don't like to play with the odds as they tend to be really bad on the police not eventually figuring things out.  Then you have obstruction charges heading your way.  Then whatever information you may or may not have on other people becomes worthless because they don't know if they can trust the info.  All-in-all it becomes a dangerous and slippy path to take, with few upsides.

[ReanimateMagnus]

Yeah but the more high profile criminals are less likely to cooperate because they could always just pay the bail. Right?

[TheGlyphstone]

The high profile criminals are also less likely to be even considered for violence, because that same status and money could easily kill a cop's career (or the cop) the instant they got out of the station.

[ReanimateMagnus]

The high profile criminals are also less likely to be even considered for violence, because that same status and money could easily kill a cop's career (or the cop) the instant they got out of the station.

I guess you are right, but what about those FBI agents who really just don't care what kind of threat they could give to him or her.

[TheGlyphstone]

I guess you are right, but what about those FBI agents who really just don't care what kind of threat they could give to him or her.

The hard-bitten federal agent who only cares for justice, and isn't worried about having themselves, their families, or their friends targeted by mob hitmen in retaliation for beating up the boss in an interrogation room? I'm pretty sure those only exist in movies, or 24.

Besides, high-profile criminals with money can also get high-profile lawyers, usually on retainer. Our theoretical beat cop (pun intended) would have a very small amount of time to rough the bad guy up before his sleazy lawyer showed up demanding access to the client.

[ReanimateMagnus]

The hard-bitten federal agent who only cares for justice, and isn't worried about having themselves, their families, or their friends targeted by mob hitmen in retaliation for beating up the boss in an interrogation room? I'm pretty sure those only exist in movies, or 24.

Besides, high-profile criminals with money can also get high-profile lawyers, usually on retainer. Our theoretical beat cop (pun intended) would have a very small amount of time to rough the bad guy up before his sleazy lawyer showed up demanding access to the client.

I guess I either watch too much or too little cop dramas on TV.

[Oniya]

Try watching Forensics Files, 'The First 48' and the like.  Far more interesting, if only because they're talking about real cases.