Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture?

YouTube - Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSYjwqi4BjE&feature=haxa_popt00us00)

I don't know any churchgoer who supports "torture" . If you ask me why I approved of the enhanced interrogation techniques that went beyond tea and crumpets questioning then I would tell you that I think the country is worth defending .

I recognize that the methods employed do not come even close to the barbarity that is torture that the enemy regularly employs. It is a huge leap to equate making someone think they are drowning ;with slowly cutting their heads off with a dull knife ;with drilling holes in their victims with a power drill;or other maiming practices they regularly employ. I don't understand why the non-church goer would make the equivalence .

I just can't make the leap . To me this is torture..
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/jumper11zg3yf1.jpg

If that makes me a hypocrite then... well... it is not the worse sin in the world .

I don't know either, but I bet most of them don't view the techniques we used as "torture." I wonder why no one ever points out that a majority of Democrats and independents can justify the use of "torture" on occasion also.

http://people-press.org/reports/images/510-2.gif

We could always stick to bombing villages with drones somewhat indiscriminately to kill suspected terrorists instead of throwing them up against false walls if that would help soothe minds "tortured" over "torture."

Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture?Hello Lev:

I don't know. Maybe because the god they worship is a pretty mean mofo - with all that hellfire and brimstone and stuff.

excon

I don't know any churchgoer who supports "torture" . If you ask me why I approved of the enhanced interrogation techniques that went beyond tea and crumpets questioning then I would tell you that I think the country is worth defending .

I recognize that the methods employed do not come even close to the barbarity that is torture that the enemy regularly employs. It is a huge leap to equate making someone think they are drowning ;with slowly cutting their heads off with a dull knife ;with drilling holes in their victims with a power drill;or other maiming practices they regularily employ. I don't understand why the non-church goer would make the equivalence .

I just can't make the leap . To me this is torture ..
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/jumper11zg3yf1.jpg

If that makes me a hypocrite then ...well ... it is not the worse sin in the world .

So let me get this straight your line of reasoning here is if they do so can we.What would be the difference between us and them.A civilized society is suppose to act like one.If you don't think simulating drowning is not torture, then try doing it on yourself you will have loads of fun.Religions teaches peace, but the most violent are the one who claim to be religious.

I don't know either, but I bet most of them don't view the techniques we used as "torture." I wonder why no one ever points out that a majority of Democrats and independents can justify the use of "torture" on occasion also.

http://people-press.org/reports/images/510-2.gif

We could always stick to bombing villages with drones somewhat indiscriminately to kill suspected terrorists instead of throwing them up against false walls if that would help soothe minds "tortured" over "torture."

This is not suppose to be democrat, republican issue, nice try though.

Ex

Aren't you Jewish? Ever read Judges or Joshua?


---------------------------------------------------


Pew: Church-Goers Like Torture More - The Atlantic Politics Channel (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/pew_church-goers_like_torture_more.php)

I question the methodology and thus the conclusions that can be implied by this study.

Look at the sample size of this poll

Less than 200 in each sub group
And the sample in the White Evangelical Protestant and the weekly attenders are about twice that of the unaffiliated or never / seldom attend. Is the "p value" significant? The chances of sampling error are to high.
Even those among those "unaffiliated," with religion - 15% vs 18-19% can "often" justify torture.


The US population is about 300,000,000, to say that less than 1000 can be representative of about 75,000,000 is false.

Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Christianity)


----------------------------------------------------

Romans 12:17-21
Micah 6:8
1 John 3
1 John 4
John 8
Galatians 5: 14-15


All do not support torture.







G&P

Perhaps they love their freedom of religion and want a strong government that will protect their rights.

Perhaps they understand the difference between being at war and prisoners of war and a prisoner in jail for a crime.

Perhaps they know the difference in questioning methods that are done to our our agents in training and real torture.

Perhaps they don't believe all the media hype calling questioning methods as torture.

Perhaps they have sat though one of my sermons and know what real torture is.

Your question is too loaded with preconceptions to be answered without of modifying it.

As has been pointed out, what kind of stats are you relying on for this preposteros claim?

And I, for one, don't define torture the way you apparently do. Having to hold your breath for 20 seconds doesn't seem too hard.

And finally, you ask what the difference is between "them" and "us".

I can tell you what it WILL be if we don't take steps to protect our country. "They" will win and "us" will die.

So let me get this straight your line of reasoning here is if they do so can we.What would be the difference between us and them.A civilized society is suppose to act like one.If you don't think simulating drowning is not torture, then try doing it on yourself you will have loads of fun.Religions teaches peace, but the most violent are the one who claim to be religious.

The facts are that, in regimes that try to eliminate religion, mankinds worst genocides have occurred:

Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Hitler

They were also Communist and /or Socialist





G&P

So let me get this straight your line of reasoning here is if they do so can we.What would be the difference between us and them.A civilized society is suppose to act like one.If you don't think simulating drowning is not torture, then try doing it on yourself you will have loads of fun.Religions teaches peace, but the most violent are the one who claim to be religious.

They said that some of our military goes through water boarding as training.
Yeah I am with you we should just reason with them and then believe we made peace and see what they do to us next.
Also from what I heard many of the Democrats that are so opposed to it and claim they didn't know anything about it actually gave the okay for it at the time. That is why I heard they aren't going after the Republicans that approved it because it might eventually come back on them.

Perhaps they love thier freedom of religion and want a strong government that will protect thier rights.

Perhaps they understand the difference between being at war and prisoners of war and a prisoner in jail for a crime.

Perhaps they know the difference in questioning methods that are done to our our agents in training and real torture.

Perhaps they don't believe all the media hype calling questioning methods as torture.

Perhpas they have sat though one of my sermons and know what real torture is.

Maybe they are not Christians so you think its okay to torture them

Maybe they don't look like you and you think its okay to torture people who don't look like you

Maybe they are not Americans and its okay to torture other since they are not really human beings

Maybe the priests have been feeding them garbage, and as they say garbage in garbage out

Maybe you need to take a good hard look at the facts

Ex

aren't you Jewish? Ever read Judges or Joshua?


---------------------------------------------------


Pew: Church-Goers Like Torture More - The Atlantic Politics Channel (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/pew_church-goers_like_torture_more.php)

I question the methodology and thus the conclusions that can be implied by this study.

Look at the sample size of this poll

Less than 200 in each sub group
and the sample in the White Evangelical Protestant and the weekly attenders are about twice that of the unaffiliated or never / seldom attend. Is the "p value" significant? The chances of sampling error are to high.
Even those among those "unaffiliated," with religion - 15% vs 18-19% can "often" justify torture.


The US population is about 300,000,000, to say that less than 1000 can be representative of about 75,000,000 is false.

Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Christianity)


----------------------------------------------------

Romans 12:17-21
Micah 6:8
1 John 3
1 John 4
John 8
Galatians 5: 14-15


all do not support torture.







G&P


So you are saying the sample size is not a true representation of the population.DO you know how scientific pools are conducted,Do you even know what a p value is.

Your question is too loaded with preconceptions to be answered without of modifying it.

As has been pointed out, what kind of stats are you relying on for this preposteros claim?

And I, for one, don't define torture the way you apparently do. Having to hold your breath for 20 seconds doesn't seem too hard.

And finally, you ask what the difference is between "them" and "us".

I can tell you what it WILL be if we don't take steps to protect our country. "They" will win and "us" will die.

As I said if water boarding is not torture try doing it on yourself, heck have the kids and the wife join in too, it will be a family affair.

So let me get this straight your line of reasoning here is if they do so can we.What would be the difference between us and them.A civilized society is suppose to act like one.If you don't think simulating drowning is not torture, then try doing it on yourself you will have loads of fun.Religions teaches peace, but the most violent are the one who claim to be religious.

What you just did was put words in my mouth. If you don't see the difference between what we did and what they did then perhaps it is your moral compass that's out of wack. Too much relativism if you ask me.

You say water boarding is not torture, and my moral compass is out of wack! Nice

This is not suppose to be democrat, republican issue, nice try though.

I get what it was supposed to be which is why it needed a perspective that never gets told.

What you just did was put words in my mouth. If you don't see the difference between what we did and what they did then perhaps it is your moral compass that's out of wack. Too much relativism if you ask me.

Yep put words in FR_chucks mouth too it seems.

I don't hear anybody crying over the civilians (ours or theirs) that the terrorists beheaded.
I don't hear the bleeding hearts getting anywhere with sitting down and reasoning with them.
I don't hear the bleeding hearts crying that ONE soldiers death is one too many so we need to get out of the war NOW.

How things change simply because their man is President.

Alan Keyes is the only one that I think really gets it about ANYTHING political!

Hello again:

Yeah, the deniers don't torture. They engage in torture "light", and torture "light" is just fine.

For sure if 41 seconds of waterboarding is torture, then 39 seconds is torture light. If banging a guy into a wall is torture, hanging on to his collar when you do it is only torture light.

But, of course, they are in denial... They see ONE act, and don't think it's torture, so ALL the acts put together couldn't be torture if any one act isn't... But, of course, they are in denial...

I guess they think being hung from a ceiling by handcuffs when it's time to sleep is OK... But, when they take you down, they don't let you sleep... Nope, they take you in for your morning waterboard... After your waterboard, they put you in a little tiny box with bugs... Then its time for your NEXT waterboard... After your morning waterboard, you're hung up again in your cell... By the way, the temp in your cell is freezing... Then it's time for some wall banging, maybe a head slap or two, and then your before lunch waterboard...

Yup, they're in denial... And, I have no idea why churchgoers are in the forefront of it. Kind of makes you NEVER want to go to church, doesn't it?

excon

So you are saying the sample size is not a true representation of the population.DO you know how scientific pools are conducted,Do you even know what a p value is.

Is 742 people a true representation?

What you just did was put words in my mouth. If you don't see the difference between what we did and what they did then perhaps it is your moral compass that's out of wack. Too much relativism if you ask me.

Actually he seems to be quite categorical in his moral judgements. If anyone is invoking relativism here, it is those that are in favour of torture, RELATIVE to the situation at hand. Before you start throwing around moral terms, it is always good to have some idea of what they actually mean.

No relativism involved here since we believe that the treatment involved is not immoral.But equating a cold room ,loud music,pushing someone against a fake wall, or making someone think they are going to drown... with torture is the worst kind of moral relativism.What you guys are doing is dumbing down torture to any method of interrogation technique that gets someone the say something they did not intend to reveal willingly .

I have asked before and have not gotten a satisfactory answer from the people who condemn these techniques. Beyond tea and crumpets... what interrogation methods would you permit on someone like KSM who was a key planner in AQ attacks?

I have asked before and have not gotten a satisfactory answer from the people who condemn these techniques. Beyond tea and crumpets...what interrogation methods would you permit on someone like KSM who was a key planner in AQ attacks?Hello again, tom:

I have answered. You just don't like my answer. Our law doesn't call for special treatment for the really bad guys. Our law doesn't even SEE WHO the bad guys are. Our justice, is blind.

You, on the other hand, want to list certain people, or offenses, who are exceptionally bad... In fact, SO bad, that our law shouldn't apply to them, because, well THEY'RE BAD.

That isn't how our laws work here.

excon

PS> I'm not an interrogator, but I don't think tea and crumpets are served.

PPS> You never did answer question #35, did you?

Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture?

YouTube - Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSYjwqi4BjE&feature=haxa_popt00us00)

Interesting question.

First of all, the question used in the poll (according to what Cafferty reported) was regarding support for "enhanced interrogation techniques". The word "torture" seems to not have been used in the poll. I wonder what the results of the poll would have been if the word "torture" had been used instead.

Secondly, the number of people who support enhanced interrogation matches very closely the number that doesn't... 49% to 47% I think the report said. So the country is evenly split on the issue. Also, the issue splits along party lines... Republicans favor it, while Democrats do not.

I wonder what the demographics are for churchgoers... what percentage are Dems vs. Reps. If, as I suspect, most frequent churchgoers are Republicans, then the issue of enhanced interrogation has nothing to do with whether they go to church, but rather is a function of their conservative leanings. It just so happens that people with conservative leanings tend to go to church more often.

It's sort of like asking why more people with Southern accents drink mint juleps than those with Northern accents. It just so happens that a mint julep is a regional drink based in the south. More Southerners drink it. Therefore, most of the people who drink it will have a Southern accent. The fact of an accent is not the determining factor over who drinks mint juleps. The accent is a function of region, and region is the deciding factor on who drinks mint juleps.

Similarly, churchgoing is not the deciding factor on who supports enhanced interrogation techniques. Political affiliation is the deciding factor, and it just so happens that Conservatives are the political group that is more likely to go to church regularly.

In other words, there is no cause and effect relationship between churchgoing and support of enhanced interrogations. There IS a relationship between CONSERVATISM and support of enhanced interrogations.

I'm not going to get into the question of whether the enhanced interrogations constitute "torture" or not, because that is beyond the scope of the question.

Hope this answers your question.

Elliot

Our law doesn't call for special treatment for the really bad guys. Our law doesn't even SEE WHO the bad guys are. Our justice, is blind.

But this isn't law enforcement . It is war.



You never did answer question #35, did you?
#35 you exaggeration The Red Cross confirmed that .They were waterboarded fewer than 15 times in all, according to the Red Cross, which has spoken to them.The large number the MSM ran with is the number of times water was poured on them, with each pour lasting only seconds. Abu Zubaida lasted 35 seconds.

but this isn't law enforcement . it is war. Hello again, tom:

I don't know. I thought there were laws that govern our conduct in war. Yes, as I recall, there definitely are. Those are the ones I'm talking about.

excon

PS> Notice how I said laws that govern OUR conduct in war... I said that, because those laws don't make any exceptions for how we treat the really bad guy, either.

PS> I'm not an interrogator, but I don't think tea and crumpets are served

How about Monty Python's Big Comfey Couch from the Spanish Inquisition skit ?

laws that govern our conduct in war

Yes; and Justice Dept lawyers used those guidelines in drafting the memos.

So let me get this straight your line of reasoning here is if they do so can we.What would be the difference between us and them.A civilized society is suppose to act like one.If you don't think simulating drowning is not torture, then try doing it on yourself you will have loads of fun.Religions teaches peace, but the most violent are the one who claim to be religious.

Have you ever seen a Star Trek: The Original Series episode called "The Savage Curtain"? (It's the one with Lincoln and Surak.) The basic lesson of the episode is that there is no difference between how "good" fights and how "evil" fights. The difference is not in the methods by which they fight, but rather what it is they are fighting for.

Historically, this lesson is true. The methods used by the Allies to combat the Axis Powers in WWII were no different from those used by the Axis Powers. Tanks, planes, bombs, grenades, guns, strategies, tactics, hand-to-hand techniques, training methods, INTERROGATIONS OF POWs, etc. were relatively the same on both sides. The difference is in what they were fighting for. One side fought for world domination and oppression, the other for freedom.

So when you ask "What would be the difference between us (the USA) and them (the terrorists)?" my answer is there is no difference in technique or method. The difference is in what we are fighting for. They are fighting for oppression and forced conversion to Islam, while we are fighting for freedom and the protection of innocent civillians.

As for whether I think simulated drowning is torture or not, I would like to see what our former colleague on this website, KINDJ, would say about it. You see, as a former SEAL, he went through SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) school as part of his training. SERE training is the part of special warfare training that teaches operatives how to resist torture when captured. During SERE training, operatives are "tortured" with simulated drowning, tight confinement, sleep deprivation, positional stress positions, beatings, cold, heat, exposure, and all the other methods used on the terrorists at Gitmo. So we have a colleague who has been through this stuff and has a working knowledge of what these techniques entail and how effective they are.

(I don't want to answer for him, but in conversations that I have had with him in the past, he told me that those techniques, while very unpleasant, leave no lasting damage or harm. Therefore, under the LEGAL definition of "torture" these techniques do not constitute torture. Nevertheless, we should ask him directly for his response.)

The word "torture" is being redefined in a way that has never been applied before in our history to a military setting. We have used similar (and worse) techniques to interrogate POWs since the beginning of our existence as a nation. In every war, we have used "harsh interrogation techniques" to obtain information necessary to defeat the enemy and disrupt his plans. This idea that "torture" is something new for the CIA or military interrogators is completely false. We have ALWAYS used these techniques to get the information we need. Again the difference between us and the enemy is not in the methods we use to fight, but rather in what we are fighting for.

Elliot

Our law doesn't even SEE WHO the bad guys are. Our justice, is blind.

Except when a little empathy is needed?

and Justice Dept lawyers used those guidelines in drafting the memos.Hello again, tom:

And, that same Justice Department recommended disciplinary action against these very lawyers, including reprimands and disbarment.

You don't get disbarred for writing bad law. You get disbarred because you did something illegal or unethical...

The entire house of cards is coming down. Bybee will be impeached. Yoo will be fired. And, the other guy will never find work.

excon

Except when a little empathy is needed?

Tee hee hee... ;) ( I think ex is going to ignore that comment)

except when a little empathy is needed?

Nice one!! :D :D :D :D :D :D

Hello again:

Yeah, the deniers don't torture. They engage in torture "light", and torture "light" is just fine.

For sure if 41 seconds of waterboarding is torture, then 39 seconds is torture light. If banging a guy into a wall is torture, hanging on to his collar when you do it is only torture light.

But, of course, they are in denial.... They see ONE act, and don't think it's torture, so ALL the acts put together couldn't be torture if any one act isn't.... But, of course, they are in denial...

I guess they think being hung from a ceiling by handcuffs when it's time to sleep is ok... But, when they take you down, they don't let you sleep.... Nope, they take you in for your morning waterboard... After your waterboard, they put you in a little tiny box with bugs... Then its time for your NEXT waterboard... After your morning waterboard, you're hung up again in your cell... By the way, the temp in your cell is freezing... Then it's time for some wall banging, maybe a head slap or two, and then your before lunch waterboard...

Yup, they're in denial... And, I have no idea why churchgoers are in the forefront of it. Kinda makes you NEVER want to go to church, doesn't it?

excon

Makes me wonder how many freezing days there are annually in Cuba:=?

Makes me wonder how many freezing days there are annually in Cuba:=?Hello gal:

Yup, waterboarding isn't torture because they can hold their breath for 40 seconds. Besides that, they don't have air conditioning in Cuba.

You epitomize denial.

excon

No relativism involved here since we believe that the treatment involved is not immoral.But equating a cold room ,loud music,pushing someone against a fake wall, or making someone think they are going to drown ...with torture is the worst kind of moral relativism.What you guys are doing is dumbing down torture to any method of interrogation technique that gets someone the say something they did not intend to reveal willingly .

I have asked before and have not gotten a satisfactory answer from the people who condemn these techniques. Beyond tea and crumpets...what interrogation methods would you permit on someone like KSM who was a key planner in AQ attacks?

I'm not one of those who think that what went on at gitmo qualifies as torture.

I think I could get a lot of information out of these terrorists using nothing more than a handful of lard or a piece of bacon.

Would that be torture?

Hello again:

Yeah, the deniers don't torture. They engage in torture "light", and torture "light" is just fine.

For sure if 41 seconds of waterboarding is torture, then 39 seconds is torture light. If banging a guy into a wall is torture, hanging on to his collar when you do it is only torture light.

But, of course, they are in denial.... They see ONE act, and don't think it's torture, so ALL the acts put together couldn't be torture if any one act isn't.... But, of course, they are in denial...

I guess they think being hung from a ceiling by handcuffs when it's time to sleep is ok... But, when they take you down, they don't let you sleep.... Nope, they take you in for your morning waterboard... After your waterboard, they put you in a little tiny box with bugs... Then its time for your NEXT waterboard... After your morning waterboard, you're hung up again in your cell... By the way, the temp in your cell is freezing... Then it's time for some wall banging, maybe a head slap or two, and then your before lunch waterboard...

Yup, they're in denial... And, I have no idea why churchgoers are in the forefront of it. Kinda makes you NEVER want to go to church, doesn't it?

excon

Now I know you don't know what you're talking about... and everyone else who has read the "torture memos" and the accounts of what occurred in the interrogations knows it too.

You clearly have not read the "torture memos". You also clearly have not read actual accounts of what occurred. Your own description of the "events" makes that clear.

There were no "morning and afternoon waterboardings". It was not permisable to do a waterboarding session more than twice a week, and never twice in the same day. People were never hung up by handcuffs. You made it up. Perhaps based on movies you've seen, perhaps based on stories you've heard about REAL torture. But it is not the reality of what occurred.

On the other hand, your position makes sense now. IF you assume that your description is accurate, then sure, I can understand why you would be against that sort of thing.

But since that is NOT what occurred, but rather only your own imagination at work, we cannot base decisions of national security on your fantasies.

Elliot

Hello gal:

Yup, waterboarding isn't torture because they can hold their breath for 40 seconds. Besides that, they don't have air conditioning in Cuba.

You epitomize denial.

excon

May I respectfully suggest you try about 4 squares of Ex Lax?:)

And, that same Justice Department recommended disciplinary action against these very lawyers, including reprimands and disbarment.



Yes... no prosecution because they could find nothing to justify it. Instead they will be remanded to liberal state bars to do their own versions of kangaroo justice. Lolololol

I expect a slew of resignations from the Obama justice dept .because they are clearly politicizing giving legal advice to an administration. Why would Obama justice dept attys think that they will be protected when the next administration comes in ?

Why would Obama justice dept attys think that they will be protected when the next administration comes in ?Hello tom:

They'd be protected the same way you and I are protected - by obeying the law. I don't know why that's so hard for you supposed law and order people to grasp.

excon

No relativism involved here since we believe that the treatment involved is not immoral.But equating a cold room ,loud music,pushing someone against a fake wall, or making someone think they are going to drown ...with torture is the worst kind of moral relativism.What you guys are doing is dumbing down torture to any method of interrogation technique that gets someone the say something they did not intend to reveal willingly .

I have asked before and have not gotten a satisfactory answer from the people who condemn these techniques. Beyond tea and crumpets...what interrogation methods would you permit on someone like KSM who was a key planner in AQ attacks?

I realise that you yourself are not "pro-torture" as it were, but rather you seem to disagree on what the correct definition of "torture" is. Hence I did not single you out. Also I did not make myself clear enough, in that I was talking about those in the survey shown by speechless, not those on this board. They were not asked "what is torture", but rather "when is torture justified". As to the YouTube link, someone else has already pointed out that the respondents were actually asked about "enhanced interrogation", not "torture". Whether "enhanced interrogation" is in fact a metaphor for "torture" is a different question.

All that aside, defining torture as something that is different to your own definition is not relativism at all. A moral relativist says "there are no objective moral truths", and it is in fact a superior position. A common misconception is that the relativist is somehow excluded from making categorical moral judgments, as though bound by some "law of relativism". This is a mistake, and misses the point altogether. When I say "torture is always wrong", what I am really saying is "AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, torture is categorically wrong,". Further to this, when I say "waterboarding is always a form of torture", what I am saying is that "as far as I am concerned......etc".

Now, if one were to say "waterboarding is not torture under any circumstances", they would be making a categorical statement, and may or may not hold to a relativist position. The same would be true if someone said the complete opposite. However, if someone were to say "waterboarding is only torture if......", they would by necessity be making a RELATIVE moral judgment, in that the act of waterboarding may be considered as being right or wrong, depending on the RELATIVE conditions.

As for the objection you raise about "equating a cold room etc,.... to torture", again this is about definition of terms. Of course there are varying degrees of torture, with some forms being a lot worse than others, much like there are varying degrees of child abuse. In many countries it is considered to be abuse if a child is denied medical treatment due to religious grounds, in others it is not. As far as "enhanced interrogation" goes, I think you will find that the majority of law experts, judges, human rights organizations, ethicists, etc, believe that it IS torture, and as it happens, so do I. There are many fine law enforcment organizations worldwide that achieve fantastic results without the use of such methods, in fact most of them see it as being counter productive.

I don't know... killing is worse than torture which is worse than aggressive interrogation. But we accept killing the bad guys because we absolutely believe we are the good guys. Perhaps that is really where the difference between absolutes and relativism lies.

Obama gets on his high horse about us losing our moral compass because someone who we got valuable intel from got wet. But he loses no sleep at night while unmanned drones perform executions of the enemy under his orders . I guess it is OK that we assassinate based on intel that was obtained without causing us moral angst.

I have no doubt that there is a healthy debate to be had about which interrogation techniques work better.. I'm sure those law enforcement people from other nations often have all the time in the world on their sides and can wear the subject down slowly with kindness.
As I have noted elsewhere the reason these methods were adopted was because of the intel gap that we found ourselves in after the attacks on 9-11... intel gaps which were in no small part due to the thought that the war against jihadistan was a law enforcement exercise.
I give you as an example Obama's man at DNI Dennis Blair (from the redacted portion of his comments ) :

"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the Al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

But... as far as effectiveness goes... I think Wrechard at Belmont Club said it best .

When I ran safehouses in the anti-Marcos days the first order of business whenever a cell member was captured by the police was to alert the surviving members, move the safehouse and destroy all links to the captured person. That's because everyone knew that there was a great probability that the captive would talk under duress, however great his bravery and resistance. Nobody I know, or have heard of who has had experience in real-life situations has ever said, “our cell should continue as usual and the safehouse should remain open, despite the fact that one of our own is being tortured by the secret police, because I read in the New York Times that coercion never works.”
Belmont Club » Terrorism and moral torture (http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/04/22/terrorism-and-moral-torture/)

I understand where you are coming from tomder55, however I feel that it is unfair to compare to compare the killing of an enemy combatant that is "in theatre" so to speak, with the mistreatment of one who has been captured, and thus taken "out of theatre". Again this all comes down to what is defined as "mistreatment" or "torture".

Although it is no doubt true that useful information was obtained through using these techniques, it does not follow that the information could not have been obtained through other means. There are many ways that information can be obtained that don't even involve interrogation, "enhanced" or not. Please note that this does not mean I believe no interrogation should take place at all.

As far as Wrechards comments go, it is my understanding that the measures he described are common practice worldwide, threat of torture or no. In fact it is my understanding that it would usually occur as soon as a member disappeared, whether it was known that they were in custody to or not. One basically has to assume the worst, and the chance that a network could be rolled up is simply too great a risk.

In any case, I doubt you are suggesting that the methods used by said secret police are acceptable means of gaining information. Even if they were more effective than the more advanced methods available to U.S intelligence gatherers, a proposition of which I am highly dubious, I would still find them to be abhorent, and I have a suspicion that you would to.

Interesting question.

I wonder what the demographics are for churchgoers... what percentage are Dems vs. Reps. If, as I suspect, most frequent churchgoers are Republicans, then the issue of enhanced interrogation has nothing to do with whether they go to church, but rather is a function of their conservative leanings. It just so happens that people with conservative leanings tend to go to church more often.
Elliot

My guess is there has to be some kind of corelation between church goes and the acceptance of torure.Since this is a scientific poll not a study I am not sure if they can test for it



It's sort of like asking why more people with Southern accents drink mint juleps than those with Northern accents. It just so happens that a mint julep is a regional drink based in the south. More Southerners drink it. Therefore, most of the people who drink it will have a Southern accent. The fact of an accent is not the determining factor over who drinks mint juleps. The accent is a function of region, and region is the deciding factor on who drinks mint juleps.


I think the conclusion you are jumping to here has no basis.As I said before if we had a scientific study we could be more sure



Similarly, churchgoing is not the deciding factor on who supports enhanced interrogation techniques. Political affiliation is the deciding factor, and it just so happens that Conservatives are the political group that is more likely to go to church regularly.

In other words, there is no cause and effect relationship between churchgoing and support of enhanced interrogations. There IS a relationship between CONSERVATISM and support of enhanced interrogations.


Where re you getting all this from?? Are you lloking at the same poll that I am?
I'm not going to get into the question of whether the enhanced interrogations constitute "torture" or not, because that is beyond the scope of the question.

Hope this answers your question.

Elliot[/QUOTE]

I don't know ...killing is worse than torture which is worse than aggressive interrogation. But we accept killing the bad guys because we absolutely believe we are the good guys. Perhaps that is really where the difference between absolutes and relativism lies.

Obama gets on his high horse about us losing our moral compass because someone who we got valuable intel from got wet. But he loses no sleep at night while unmanned drones perform executions of the enemy under his orders . I guess it is ok that we assassinate based on intel that was obtained without causing us moral angst.

I have no doubt that there is a healthy debate to be had about which interrogation techniques work better ..I'm sure those law enforcement people from other nations often have all the time in the world on their sides and can wear the subject down slowly with kindness.
As I have noted elsewhere the reason these methods were adopted was because of the intel gap that we found ourselves in after the attacks on 9-11 ....intel gaps which were in no small part due to the thought that the war against jihadistan was a law enforcement exercise.
I give you as an example Obama's man at DNI Dennis Blair (from the redacted portion of his comments ) :

But ... as far as effectiveness goes.....I think Wrechard at Belmont Club said it best .

Belmont Club » Terrorism and moral torture (http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/04/22/terrorism-and-moral-torture/)

You are sure there was a healthy debate, and why might one ask you were so sure.There is no information that supports this.Maybe you had a feeling deep inside that really there was a discussion.That put aside you say other countries have all the time in the world to deal with terrorist, may I point out to you israel and india, or do you think america is the only country in the world.Might want to invest in a map of the world, it will broaden your horizons exponentially, I promise

I'll test my knowledge of the world and against yours any day and certainly the use of the English language. I am cetainly aware that the US is not the only country in the world battling jihadistan .Are you suggesting to me that the 2 countries that you mention have dealt with terrorist using the Marquis of Queensbury rules ? Maybe you should invest in a history book.

I said : (look closely )
I have no doubt that there is a healthy debate to be had about which interrogation techniques work better . No where is there an implication in that comment that the debate has taken place yet.

I'll test my knowlege of the world and against yours any day and certainly the use of the English language. I am cetainly aware that the US is not the only country in the world battling jihadistan .Are you suggesting to me that the 2 countries that you mention have dealt with terrorist using the Marquis of Queensbury rules ? Maybe you should invest in a history book.

I said : (look closely )
I have no doubt that there is a healthy debate to be had about which interrogation techniques work better . No where is there an implication in that comment that the debate has taken place yet.

What we have here is a public forum, meaning a lot of people from around the world can participate in this discusion,now for some people english is not their first languages, wow isn't that a surprise.So what did you learn today 1) America is not the only country in the world and secound that there are other languages spoken in the world.

[QUOTE=tomder55;1717618]
I'm sure those law enforcement people from other nations often have all the time in the world on their sides and can wear the subject down slowly with kindness.
/QUOTE]

This is what you had said in a previous post and my answer was isreal and india have to deal with this kind of threat everyday and yet they donot employ torture as a means of gaining information.

I think we all know America isn't the only country in the world and English isn't the only language. Many of us even recognize the condescension in that charge which seems to be a favorite among liberals. And speaking of favorites among liberals, another was complaining of Bush air raiding villages and bombing civilians, which seems much harsher than this alleged "torture."

So what does Obama do? He air raids villages and bombs civilians.


Police fired on rock-throwing protesters angry over civilian deaths they blamed on American bombing runs in western Afghanistan (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_AFGHANISTAN?SITE=TNKNN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT), a local official said Thursday, as the U.S. military rushed a team to the site to investigate.

Let's hear the outrage, you guys need to be consistent. But it won't come, just like I'm hearing nothing about any of the other Bush era policies he's continuing.

Update: Obama himself made that complaint. (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/78105/)

In the OP, it would have been much fairer if the first word "Why" were not there.

It presupposes an allegation not proven.

I think we all know America isn't the only country in the world and English isn't the only language. Many of us even recognize the condescension in that charge which seems to be a favorite among liberals. And speaking of favorites among liberals, another was complaining of Bush air raiding villages and bombing civilians, which seems much harsher than this alleged "torture."

So what does Obama do? He air raids villages and bombs civilians.



Let's hear the outrage, you guys need to be consistent. But it won't come, just like I'm hearing nothing about any of the other Bush era policies he's continuing.

Update: Obama himself made that complaint. (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/78105/)

What are you going on about?? I am not a liberal, read the question it says why church goers not why liberals.If you want to have a discusiion as to why liberals do what they do please start a new thread

What are you going on about??? i am not a liberal, read the question it says why church goers not why liberals.If you want to have a discusiion as to why liberals do what they do please start a new thread

You didn't like the answer I gave you.

Churchgoers are predominantly Conservative. Conservatives are predominanly in favor of enhanced interrogations. For some reason, though, you want to equate "church attendance" with being in favor of torture without any of the intervening steps.

Elliot

You didn't like the answer I gave you.

Churchgoers are predominantly Conservative. Conservatives are predominanly in favor of enhanced interrogations. For some reason, though, you want to equate "church attendance" with being in favor of torture without any of the intervening steps.

Elliot

What data do you have that backs this up, I have seen none.?. I am not the one equating that church goers favor torture, cnn and gallop pool is.

So you are saying the sample size is not a true representation of the population.DO you know how scientific pools are conducted,Do you even know what a p value is.

In fact I do. You see I'm in the medical field and studies are published daily. In a paper they have in introduction giving a short summary of prior studies and an important question. Next is methodology. In this part a control population is as close as possible to the case population as possible except in the one variable in question. This is to eliminate as many confounding factors as possible.

For example, if one were to do a study on church attendance versus heart attacks, you have to control, or make sure each population has the same percentage of heart risk factors. These known risk factors include , age, diabetes, smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, gender and family history. You can't say that church goers have higher rates of heart attacks if you have twice the rate of smoking and high cholesterol in the church goers.

Likewise in this pew study we don't know other poentially confounding factors.
Did the church goers polled personally know someone who died on 9/11? Are they more likely to be military affiliated? Do they view America more favorably than non-churchgoers? Are they more conservative? Are they older [ WW2 generation ]?
All these factors can skew the poll at the outset, and thus invalidate the conclusion that is drawn.

As to P-value, in the medical literature <0.01 is the gold standard.
p-value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value)




You may note on post #7 my biblically based answer to the question of torture.







G&P