DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

No.

Demonstrate to me that they HAVE to be used, that they are the only effective means of extracting immediately useful intelligence from someone whom we are certain possesses it, and I'll consider this as a one-off ticking time bomb scenario (ie, something that only exists in Jack Bauer's universe, not our own)

But don't try to tell me that that's what we'd be using it for if it became an official state sanctioned policy. It is far more common for torture to be used for coercing FALSE information out of captured suspects who we have only the faintest idea might have done something or might be planning something under that scenario than it ever will prevent some major catastrophic event like a terrorist bombing killing thousands of people. I've yet to see compelling evidence that the counter-factual that we don't need to torture people in order to get the even this poor same quality of information, much less develop better information, is somehow false. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that the counterfactual that torture does not work is more accurate.

The idea that you can beat or prod the correct and true information you need out of an otherwise unwilling and uncooperative suspect is a Hollywood fantasy. What really happens is people tell you want you want to hear. Not what you need to know.

Are you telling me that terrorists are willing to compromise? Are you telling me that torture hasn't saved the lives of millions of Americans so far?

Yes. I am saying that torture hasn't saved lives (show me the proof that it has done anything of the kind, much less "millions of Americans", which is an absurdity). Its very likely perpetuated the existence of a threat by demonstrating a hypocrisy before the almighty "rule of law" that we conveniently discard at our whim when, for example, a Muslim may be involved.

No, I am not telling you that terrorists are "willing to compromise". I'm not sure what you mean by that however, so it's possible that I am in fact suggesting something like it. But I'm not sure what that has to do with torturing them to get information out of them when they are captured. (and you're operating, I think, on the assumption that everyone we capture is definitely a terrorist of some kind to begin with. An assumption which our own government knows to be blatantly false as they've released or been ordered to release over half of their captives as completely innocent).

First of all there is no such thing as "Homeland Security" . . . DHS is nothing but a wasteful and corrupt political entity that was created solely to put the DOJ directly under control of the currant POTUS – one of the main steps toward a political dictatorship.

As far as finding out information from probable and possible terrorists, you do not have to torture at all since they are like all criminals – they just love to brag about their exploits and what they know of other criminals of their ilk.

Philosophical debates about what is or is not considered torture and the perceived or not perceived benefits of such actions is doing nothing but turning the attention of the general population away from what is really happening in this country. Another essential step towards a political dictatorship.

We all need to wake up and take a real hard look at what is happening around us and right under our noses.

Philosophical/legal debates about what constitutes torture may be a distraction from.. whatever it is that you think is going on…

But it would seem to me that if the state believes that it possesses the power to strip someone of a legal status granting reasonable levels of due process and protection and abuse them at our whim, even if the whim is supposedly granted through "national security" (but does not have to be established and justified that this is the case, before or after), that's a pretty significant problem worth talking about that's precisely along the lines of regression toward the behavior of a political dictatorship.

I'm sorry, but wasn't the Department of Homeland Security created in 2003? And who was the POTUS in 2003?
Absolutely, you do need to wake up…

To be "fair" PD doesn't seem to be over fond of W or Obama from what I can tell.

But being a lot less overtly raging over W when the policies and problems are basically the same now does make for an obvious point of curiosity, yes.

You are right, I am not a fan of either. . . . . . .

The words "Currant POTUS" are aimed at whoever the POTUS may be at anytime in the future.

Progressivism is the culprit here. We are now living during a time that could very well spell the end of freedom and liberty within the national boundaries of our once great nation. This has been a work in progress for well over one hundred years.

I do not have the answer to the question, but I do know that this election – although purposefully labeled "mid-term" to deceive the average voter into thinking that it does not matter much – will be one of the most important elections in the entire history of the United States. It will either signal the death knell of liberty and freedom, or it will draw the very near future battle lines for those of us who will not go quietly into the night.

If you are an American who is of legal age to vote, then get yourself registered and get out and VOTE!

Your future and the future of your brethren are counting on you.

It would be helpful if there were some candidates running who were worthy of voting for…… just as an unfortunate thought. Even if they are somehow translated into these paragons of civic virtue by their ability to spout platitudes about "socialism", I can't say I'm all that impressed one way or the other. It's actually fairly depressing to watch one party descend so completely into madness instead of offering a viable alternative with real and coherent ideas.

And the perspective that the world is constantly perched on some great precipice is fun, for a while, to watch when other people hold it. But in practice, there's not much difference between one and the other or the next. It's all the same broken egg basket from out here.

Couple questions to give you some perspective: when did this end as an official policy? 2006

How many American lives have been lost to terrorist plots since then? (excluding combat soldiers who while under terrorist threat, are also often considered occupying forces under assault by what amounts to guerrilla warfare tactics rather than genuine terrorism). 5 in Mumbai. 13 in Ft Hood. 1 in Arkansas. And the last two were attacks on soldiers or military bases/recruiting stations rather than civilian targets. (this does not include the murder of George Tiller or the guy who kamikazed a plane into an IRS building, which I would include, but many would not) So…

Meanwhile we had enough information to prevent both of the attempted bombings over the last year and the government simply failed to act in a coherent response.

Any questions so far?

Maybe I'm cynical, but no matter which party gains/keeps majority, somehow I don't think much is going to change from the way it's been going for decades now…

No, torture is not necessary. As Sun Tzu pointed out above, torture merely makes people say what they think the torturer wants to hear. If said torturer wants to hear about a worldwide conspiracy of people, then that's probably what they're going to get.

Then, of course, there's the whole ethical debate….

It is precisely that attitude that has put us in the predicament that we are currently in.

If you cannot find a candidate that suits your political bent, then step up to the plate and take on the challenge.

I do not care who or what you vote for, just GET OUT AND VOTE!

I have candidates that I support…unfortunately, I'm too young to vote or run for office. :/ Being a minor in this country kind of stinks sometimes. XD

The problem is that people don't really assess their options. They just vote straight ticket, picking "the lesser of two evils" instead of finding a candidate that isn't evil.

I'm guessing it was more a general exhortation than one specifically directed at you. For my money the problem isn't people who don't participate, because participation rates are lowest among people who are uninformed or, usually, younger voters anyway. Which would be helpful if more 20 somethings voted to counterbalance the very active elderly vote on a few things, but it's not the end of the world if we have to wait 10-15 years to get them out of the way on a few outdated social mores that we mistakenly wrote into law in the first place. And it's not like I expect social security and medicare to be fixed anytime soon anyway.

The problem is that the people who do participate tolerate a process that doesn't actually create meaningful options for their vote and, more importantly, they do not participate in between election seasons and observe and extend their opinions into the public sphere when laws are actually being written. Very few people pay much attention to what the people they elected are actually doing when they are elected and hence all manner of civically, constitutionally, or ethically reprehensible behavior is tolerated. Since the choices between the candidates are rarely meaningful, if we at least did this, and actually recognized our own Congressman for being a scum bag when they are in fact (rather than simply saying that "Congress sucks, but my guy is okay", like we do), it would help a lot more than turning out votes.

Incidentally, if you really want to turn out the vote, let people buy off voters who don't want to participate or wouldn't otherwise. Not saying this would help much with the perceptions of corruption or the duopoly problem of the two parties and not much else. But it would raise voter turnout in a big hurry.

FYI: (Mind Control on HDS Website) by Russians? Russian troopers were in Chicago and Colorado days ago 'training' our Natl Guard and Troops. Why?
http://www.allgov.com/Agency/Department_of_Homela… has this: Controversies
Under Homeland Security Contracts Abuse: …findings revealed a “pattern of reckless spending, poor planning and ineffective oversight that is wasting taxpayers dollars and undermining our security efforts.”

DHS Looking for Mind Control
In 2007, it was reported that the department had spent money on Russian mind-control research in an attempt to get a leg up on terrorist attempts to attack the US. Through a Canadian intermediary company, DHS sponsored research by the Psychotechnology Research Institute in Moscow working on Semantic Stimuli Response Measurements Technology (SSRM Tek), a software-based mind reader that supposedly tests involuntary responses to subliminal messages.

The research was based on the work of Igor Smirnov, a controversial Russian scientist who was compared to the legendary figure Rasputin because of his almost mystical powers of persuasion. Many in Russia have called Smirnov the father of “psychotronic weapons.” The Soviet military enlisted Smirnov’s psychotechnology during the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan in the 1980s to combat the Mujahideen.'