Re: Dolt James Re: "Doc"James Endorses torture, too!
".... ethics is dependent on values, not science...." Summarising your post - Bla-bla-bla-bla, waffle-waffle-waffle, all leading to a big non-point.
"....That's why it's debatable....." You failed to debate anything, you even failed to start the debate as to why you considered "torture"/"enhanced interrogation techniques" (delete as your "ethics" prefer) to be unethical of ineffective. It is very obvious why you failed to do so - ethics are dependent on either analysis of a situation leading to an ethical position, or on unquestioning adoption of someone else's position. Since you have offered zero analysis, it looks like you merely took the position spoonfed to you.
"....It doesn't work: the US senate report says so...." Again, you are falling back on spoonfed soundbites rather than answering the question I posed. The soundbite is your assumption that the senate report could be anything other than politically-derived and that it somehow trumps independent thought and analysis. A simple bit of historical reading would have shown you that even unscientific torture was quite successful - the WW2 Allied intelligence agencies planned around the hope an agent captured by the Germans could hold out for 24 hours, meaning other agents had to scarper inside of those 24 hours to avoid also going into the bag. This was proven to be realistic, with whole resistance cells being uncovered by the Germans in quick order if they did not relocate within that 24 hour window after an agent's capture. Please do explain how German torture techniques, developed ad-hoc and without the benefit of another sixty-odd years of scientific research, could somehow be so massively more effective than modern day CIA techniques?
"..... If you are so enraged you can't follow....." LOL, you are confusing my laughing at your uninformed prattling with rage. Does it help you to think that anyone that dares to question your lack of analysis or perspective as "raging"? My question was if "torture"/"enhanced interrogation techniques" are so useless, why does the CIA continue to want to use them when the whole program was very expensive in time, money and resources? Since you seem to be having a problem considering that, let me try and help you with a simple argument that shows the error in your adopted position.
Every operation of the CIA since the Sixties has been subject to computational statistical analysis of both cost and effectiveness. Developments in information systems over the decades have only made that analysis the more thorough and detailed (thanks partly to Larry Ellison, who wrote the original Oracle relational database as a CIA project). It would seem obvious that the CIA have a far greater insight into the effectiveness of the program, built up from years of statistical analysis, than any senator or committee, regardless of what political decisions as to the outcome were likely made before the report you champion was even written.
".....I describe why I consider the argument a straw man....." No, you merely tried to insist it was a straw man as you seem unable to debate it. You failed to answer that question, I have even given you a simple argument to try and counter, please do try again (if only for the humour value).