Ok, here is the conundrum that most liberals simply don't face. (Certainly not jklugman we seems to have nothing to do than troll through and clip left wing articles. I mean Slate except for Hitchen's articles is about as left as you can get.)

It appears that the recent planned attacks in the UK on airliners heading to the US - the plot to bring down airliners using binary explosives - was foiled by some heavy handed interrogation of suspects in Pakistan. It is very likely the suspects were tortured.

It worked, the plot was foiled.

My question to all the parochial liberals (mostly Americans who have very little experience of life outside the US) - what would you do if you knew that ...

Ok, here is the conundrum that most liberals simply don't face. (Certainly not jklugman we seems to have nothing to do than troll through and clip left wing articles. I mean Slate except for Hitchen's articles is about as left as you can get.)

It appears that the recent planned attacks in the UK on airliners heading to the US - the plot to bring down airliners using binary explosives - was foiled by some heavy handed interrogation of suspects in Pakistan. It is very likely the suspects were tortured.

It worked, the plot was foiled.

My question to all the parochial liberals (mostly Americans who have very little experience of life outside the US) - what would you do if you knew that torturing one terrorist suspect could save hundreds, possibly thousands of lives?

Would you stand on principle and let people potentially die? Or would you compromise your principles - however repugnant it may be - and try and get the truth.

We all know torture is bad, but what would you do klugman? Any fool can clip left wing articles; but going beyond this for the moment what would you do?

I can't recall anything specific off the top of my head, but I have read a lot of people saying that this plot about bombing UK airliners with liquid explosives had little chance of success. So algoa456's example is not necessarily a story of torture saving lives.

I imagine it is extremely rare where US officials would have someone in custody whom they are reasonably sure have knowledge of an impending terrorist attack. Even in those cases I think condoning torture takes us on a slippery slope. It is not good to have agents of the US engaging in torture--it is not good for the detainee, it is not good for the interrogators, it is not good for the US image.

Moreover, algoa456's comment d...

I can't recall anything specific off the top of my head, but I have read a lot of people saying that this plot about bombing UK airliners with liquid explosives had little chance of success. So algoa456's example is not necessarily a story of torture saving lives.

I imagine it is extremely rare where US officials would have someone in custody whom they are reasonably sure have knowledge of an impending terrorist attack. Even in those cases I think condoning torture takes us on a slippery slope. It is not good to have agents of the US engaging in torture--it is not good for the detainee, it is not good for the interrogators, it is not good for the US image.

Moreover, algoa456's comment does not take into consideration the failures of torture--how we can get bad information by using these methods.

plot about bombing UK airliners with liquid explosives had little chance of success

So.....how many other terrorists plots do you think HAVE succeeded that had little chance of success....I'd say just about all of them, they all tend to be foiled because of hard work and intelligence.

how we can get bad information by using these methods.

As for bad info...every single method we DO use will yield bad information, its part of the game....but I am betting this will get more reliable info than just leaving them in jail and begging for an anwser.

I imagine it is extremely rare where US officials would have someone in
custody whom they are reasonably sur...

read more»

plot about bombing UK airliners with liquid explosives had little chance of success

So.....how many other terrorists plots do you think HAVE succeeded that had little chance of success....I'd say just about all of them, they all tend to be foiled because of hard work and intelligence.

how we can get bad information by using these methods.

As for bad info...every single method we DO use will yield bad information, its part of the game....but I am betting this will get more reliable info than just leaving them in jail and begging for an anwser.

I imagine it is extremely rare where US officials would have someone in
custody whom they are reasonably sure have knowledge of an impending
terrorist attack.

Once again, I am sure most the the Higher up's in the structure that we caputre have TONS of information about attack plots, seeing as they make them, and not only attack plots but how they get supplies, where they conduct business, there is infinte knowledge you can get from a detainee.

usmc6531 said:

As for bad info...every single method we DO use will yield bad information, its part of the game....but I am betting this will get more reliable info than just leaving them in jail and begging for an anwser.

The head of intelligence for our very own Army, Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, completely disagrees with this premise:

"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices," Kimmons said. "I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that." He argued that "any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress thr...

read more»

usmc6531 said:

As for bad info...every single method we DO use will yield bad information, its part of the game....but I am betting this will get more reliable info than just leaving them in jail and begging for an anwser.

The head of intelligence for our very own Army, Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, completely disagrees with this premise:

"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices," Kimmons said. "I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that." He argued that "any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility." And Kimmons conceded that bad P.R. about abuse could work against the United States in the war on terror. "It would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used," Kimmons said. "We can't afford to go there."

And he proved his point by referring to history:

"our most significant successes on the battlefield -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically, all of them" -- came from interrogators that stuck to the kinds of humane techniques framed in the new Army manual. "We don't need abusive practices in there," Kimmons said. "Nothing good will come from them."