Bush: Torture was right because it got results

[d000hg]

BBC News - George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

If we didn't already, discuss?

[Mich the Tester]

Aside from the moral dimension, which I find quite disgusting but is probably beyond the lilmited comprehension of George Dubya Bush, I wonder how many more lives have been lost as a result of handing terrorist leaders free propaganda by torturing people.

Is there not some humane institution where GWB can be kept for the protection of himself and the world?

[kandr]

BBC News - George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

If we didn't already, discuss?

All them dang terrorist damn right, yeehaa

[sasguru]

Aside from the moral dimension, which I find quite disgusting

Why is it disgusting? Surely more disgusting is NOT using it and letting hundreds/thousands of people die?
I think the only question is: Is it really effective? If we can prove that its is, then I would have no compunction in using it.

[d000hg]

Is it just a numbers game then? How many falsely accused people is it ok to torture to find one person with information?

[SupremeSpod]

Why is it disgusting? Surely more disgusting is NOT using it and letting hundreds/thousands of people die?
I think the only question is: Is it really effective? If we can prove that its is, then I would have no compunction in using it.

Drawing on your years in the forces there SAS? No, I didn't think so.

[sasguru]

Is it just a numbers game then? How many falsely accused people is it ok to torture to find one person with information?

Well perhaps the criteria for being a torturee, to coin a word, should be set quite high. e.g. that Khalid guy, Head of operations for al Qaeda. No problem with torturing him.
Probably not worth torturing the foot soldiers anyway.

[Mich the Tester]

Why is it disgusting? Surely more disgusting is NOT using it and letting hundreds/thousands of people die?
I think the only question is: Is it really effective? If we can prove that its is, then I would have no compunction in using it.

You can never prove it's effective, because you're trying to prove a negative; that someone would not have done something IF you had tortured him, or even that someone WOULD have done something if you had not tortured him. Impossible to prove.

[sasguru]

Drawing on your years in the forces there SAS? No, I didn't think so.

What's that got to do with anything? - we're discussing the moral implications. Try to think like an officer and not a grunt for a change.

[d000hg]

Well perhaps the criteria for being a torturee, to coin a word, should be set quite high. e.g. that Khalid guy, Head of operations for al Qaeda. No problem with torturing him.
Probably not worth torturing the foot soldiers anyway.

So after someone's already convicted, you can torture them? How do you get the confession to convict them without torturing an innocent person... that whole innocent-till-proven-guilty thing really gets in the way.