06 Feb 09
I don't understand... is torture a useful tool or not? I guess Obamas team thinks if it's really important... torture works just fine.
Leon E. Panetta, the White House pick to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday left open the possibility that the agency could seek permission to use interrogation methods more aggressive than the limited menu that President Obama authorized under new rules issued last month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06cia.html?ref=us
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by lepomisWell, uncivilized countries does it, so it surely works.
I don't understand... is torture a useful tool or not? I guess Obamas team thinks if it's really important... torture works just fine.
Leon E. Panetta, the White House pick to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday left open the possibility that the agency could seek permission to use interrogation methods more aggressive than the limited m ...[text shortened]... ules issued last month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06cia.html?ref=us
So why not used by USA?
Abroad, naturally, USA is not uncivilized.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by lepomiswell, I think torture is usually inhumane, however it depends on what you define as ''torture'', interrogation techniques are/were an important tool against terrorism.
I don't understand... is torture a useful tool or not? I guess Obamas team thinks if it's really important... torture works just fine.
Leon E. Panetta, the White House pick to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday left open the possibility that the agency could seek permission to use interrogation methods more aggressive than the limited m ...[text shortened]... ules issued last month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06cia.html?ref=us
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by lepomisPanetta was pressed on the "ticking bomb" scenario, the situation which happens a lot in 24 but not very much in real life i.e. a situation where there is a bomb somewhere that will explode in the near future killing thousands (or more) people. The scenario further posits that interrogation measures have failed to get from the suspect the location of the bomb so that the mass killing can be averted. Thus, in these circumstances is it completely impermissible to use interrogation techniques beyond what the Obama administration has approved in normal circumstances?
I don't understand... is torture a useful tool or not? I guess Obamas team thinks if it's really important... torture works just fine.
Leon E. Panetta, the White House pick to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday left open the possibility that the agency could seek permission to use interrogation methods more aggressive than the limited m ...[text shortened]... ules issued last month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06cia.html?ref=us
Panetta's answer to this far fetched hypothetical was that he might ask for approval to use some type of enhanced interrogation technique in this scenario. A key word is "MIGHT". Personally, I think he was just sidestepping the question but the question deserves to be sidestepped. If that extreme situation ever occurs, what has to be done will be done. But as the questioners were trying to not merely deal with that scenario, but suggest a more wide ranging loophole to a torture ban, it would be impolitic (and wrong) for Panetta to suggest that such a loophole is available.