doG

Well, this is not an attempt to take the discussion off topic but it is an attempt to find out why these two questions are viewed as off topic or irrelevant to the discussion since they were deleted. Again, Are anthropology and sociology valid sciences? Is the study of anthropology or sociology complete if religion is disregarded as an element or variable in those studies? I can also see my reply to Sisyphus clarifying that religion does not necessarily mean theology was deleted and I am very puzzled as to why it is not pertinent to this discussion. I hope that deleted post is still available for review so that someone can explain how it is off topic when it was a direct, relevant reply to a post that remains.

Ummmmmm....No. Some religious discussions are about alleged supernatural beings. Buddhism is one that comes to mind which involves no deities. Pantheism and Panentheism are also religions that do not involve supernatural deities. From a scientific point of view it is my opinion that religion itself is a prominent element of human cultures and any truly scientific discussion of sociology is incomplete with considering its effects on societies.

Option 3 is inappropriate for the given question. Agnosticism is not about belief in God, it is about whether or not man could ever "know" that there is or is not a God.

Zero? Does it not seem common sense that the sum of all numbers in any sequence would be bigger than the biggest number in the sequence you're summing up?

Is it against U.S. law to fight against the U.S. on foreign soil? I'm not aware of any U.S. laws that would apply. IMO it's time for the new President to decide if the war declared on terror is in fact a legitimate declaration of war or not. If it is then these detainees are prisoners of war and should be treated as such. If it's not then the war is over these detainees should be returned to their homelands unless it can be should that they are suspected of committing war crimes. Either way the judicial branch of the U.S. has no jurisdiction over them.

What law? What judge? I question the jurisdictional authority of any U.S. judge to preside over any foreign prisoner of war captured on foreign soil. Many of the Gitmo detainees are foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan. Whose law would they be accountable under?

Maybe that's why the "good cop bad cop" routine is effective since the bad cop reinforces the rapport with the good cop :shrug

I looked at those already but they left me with some questions in my mind. How often is good information retrieved using torture that is never admitted to? How often is bad data retrieved from promise of a reward of some kind for cooperation? I suspect both occur more than we know and it skews the true results either a little or a lot. IMO, the claim that torture does or does not work cannot be substantiated satisfactorily to make a blanket claim that it is not an effective method to extract information. In the end it all comes down to an individuals breaking point. Some will break under torture and others will not. Beyond that I do not believe it could be proven that a majority of individuals will or won't. It would be my guess that most individuals with a low tolerance for pain would yield to torture and for those with an increasing tolerance it would be less effective. That is just a guess though.

Hmmm.. Looks pretty plain to me, torture is not a reliable technique of extracting information. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I suspect any data obtained from the enemy is questionable at best. Is there any data available that some data is truly less questionable than other data based solely on how the data is obtained?

What does it matter if they do it if torture is an ineffective method for extracting information? We should just pick anyone for the mission with no regard for whether or not they can withstand the enemies methods for trying to extract mission critical information. Heck, maybe we should even do away with the various levels of information classification. Any good ol' boy that's never been in trouble should be good enough to carry top secret plans as long as he promises to keep them secret. Surely he'll keep that promise even if they do something like shoving bamboo splinters under his fingernails, huh?

Not gonna happen. The media often reports that this agency or that has eliminated some imminent threat but it never really has the details of what all authorities did to get the information. What authorities are really going to tell the media they used torture anyhow? As long as their definition of torture has enough wiggle room they can deny using it. Now, why don't you tell us something. If torture is ineffective should our own mission leaders dismiss it as a viable threat from our enemies when selecting personnel for their missions that are to be entrusted with mission critical information? Should they ever be concerned about which members of their team might talk to the enemy if tortured?

23.....

I'd think Reprogramming Your ATM For Fun And For Profit (Mainly For Profit) would be easier than stealing them

http://feingold.senate.gov/ruleoflaw/testimony/johnson.pdf http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788004686~db=all http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1171369 http://www.stormingmedia.us/45/4541/A454174.html There are many more available if the above are deemed inappropriate for any reason. I could only access the content on the first of these. The rest were abstract of larger works which failed, as the first did, to highlight the problem with the lack of science in the conclusions of any of these pieces, of torture failing to be a reliable technique for extracting information. I could not locate any statistics on how often individuals with valuable information were successful in keeping that information to themselves. In is very understandable that individuals that have no such information to divulge will say anything to stop torture, I know I would. How successful though is torture in extracting individuals that do have useful information? I personally don't believe the material exists to answer that question accurately and I do not believe bascule can't support his claim that it is not useful with such individuals. This article actually helps make a point I've tried to raise: I don't believe that your statement is correct. Not according to an agreement that we were a party to and bound by: CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment....... ... Have agreed as follows: Part I Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. According to this the mental suffering induced by Col. John Rothrock whom used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected to get the information or confession he needed was torture. It is obvious from his own remarks though that he believed it was not. Some people will call any discomfort or any violation of what they perceive as a violation to an individuals human rights torture. Not at all. They raise the questions that need to be asked. What exactly is torture versus coercion for example? When is it effective and when is it not? Is it ever warranted? From a U.S. perspective is there a difference between foreign combatants and U.S. citizens? Does torture in any form work against those that are known for a fact to have needed information? Such questions are difficult or even impossible to answer or debate without some agreement on terms and definitions. I'm sure we would all agree that cutting of one's fingers one at a time is clearly torture but what about simply inducing fear or depriving them of sleep? Isn't it fair to ask someone that claims torture does or doesn't work if these methods are torture or not and if they are effective at extracting information or not? If torture's efficacy is minimal then why does our own government have positions in agencies like the CIA and special forces where part of the selection process for those positions evaluates an individuals ability to withstand torture by the enemy without divulging information to that enemy about our mission? If it's so ineffective then why should we even worry about an enemy using such tactics against our own as a reliable technique for extracting information from us?

The group here obviously has a wide variety of opinion on what constitutes torture, to what extreme it should or should not be used and when. I wonder what the diversity of opinion is when comparing the subject in the OP to some Johnny picked up off the street in Anytown U.S.A.. When comparing a known foreign member, of a terrorist organization that swears to destroy the United States, caught as a combatant on foreign soil fighting against U.S. troops, should it be allowable to use more coercive interrogative techniques than the Constitution would allow one to use on Johnny? IMO it would be warranted. What do you think? I ask this to sort us out between those that think terrorists deserve as much Constitutional protection as our own and those that do not. Which camp are you in?

At the rate things are melting around here, in the coldest temps we've seen in 10 years, that thing will end up covering the whole front page....

So, is it cruel, inhuman or degrading to put someone on a pork-only diet until they talk? If yes for some people and no for others then explain why it is not ambiguous. Obviously most will agree that shoving bamboo slivers under someone's fingernails is torture for anyone but as soon as you switch from physical methods to mental methods no one wants to agree what is and what is not torture. Those against it define it broadly and claim anything that causes mental anguish is torture and those tolerant of it disagree. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Can you prove such a claim?

There are obviously limits we should observe and those set forth in the Geneva Convention are limits we have agreed to with other signers of the Convention even though organizations like Al Qaeda are not signatories to such. Torture itself is an ambiguous term defined broadly by those against torture and narrowly by those that favor it. Aside from all of that though we have no shortage of people that would come here and cry foul and rant about the treatment terrorists receive while keeping their lips sealed about the treatment our own citizens have suffered. Further, you will find some concession among those that favor the necessary means to obtain intelligence, a flexibility in their position while those that cry out against these methods give the impression of being totally inflexible. They concede nothing. They act like they could care less if 1000s are murdered as long as no one, not one soul, is ever waterboarded.

Suspected terrorists or confirmed combatant actually captured on the battlefield fighting against our troops as this individual was?

I didn't think you'd answer my questions before asking more of your own. It's very telling of those that cry out about the treatment of a terrorist while saying absolutely nothing about the 1000s of American lives they're complicit in taking. Sometimes what one is silent about is deafening over what they are screaming about.

Perhaps we need to get you back on topic here. A foreign fighter captured in battle on foreign soil fighting against our troops, the subject of this thread, IS NOT protected by the U.S. Constitution. If you want to be mad then be mad about any possible violations of the Geneva Convention since it covers POWs and the Constitution does not.

Obviously this level of interrogative method is offensive to some. I wonder if they would tell me how many American lives must be in jeopardy before they would not consider such methods offensive? How many lives should we forfeit to protect a terrorist? A 1000? 5000? A million? How many is enough before you become as concerned about Americans as you are for this prisoner....I mean terrorist?

Maybe the question is "why not?". I'm not a Clinton fan by any stretch of the imagination but her selection doesn't bother me either. She's a smart, capable person and I'd much rather see sopmeone like her than someone like John Kerry or Hanoi Jane....

I'd agree that George Bush is a moron but I do believe Jimmy Carter was dumber and still not as bad as Harding whom was really probably the worst of all U.S. Presidents.

I think imagining a solution is actually pretty easy, implementing it is the hard part...