@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Art, we could do as you suggest and post links to all sorts of "experts" who supposed our positions, but to what end?
I suspect we can produce an identical number of links, none of which will be so compelling that either of us will concede the other's point.
Here's what we know: Numerous serious people (including Leon Panetta) have concluded that enhanced interrogation methods provided important actionable intelligence.
Fair enough. We don't have to do this. I agree neither of us would concede on this. It would ultimately come down to who could provide the better experts, etc. Then that would only turn to arguments about the people themselves.
That said, you could resist throwing one name in the ring, could you?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The argument that the same intelligence could have been obtained with less invasive methods can never be proved.
Correct. What argument can be made in the affirmative is that the grand sum of intelligence that it took to locate bin Laden did not come the questionable techniques. So in the end, you're fighting pretty hard for a small amount of info which could come from other means. Further, the necessity of said info given the larger data collection, is also in question.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I don't know if you own a house, but if you do, let's imagine it is invaded by vermin: mice, squirrels, raccoons, etc. There are all sorts of recommended ways to rid your home of such pests, but none of them work perfectly. Let's say in your particular case however, your last resort, poison traps, does the trick, and rids you of the vermin.
Now comes an animal lover who insists that live traps would have worked as
well. As a matter of fact, you tried live traps and it didn't work, but that's not to say that additional attempts would not have worked. In any case you know the poison traps did work.
The next time vermin invade your house are you going to very possibly waste
time with live traps or are you going straight to poison?
The live trap advocate is bound to tell you that you really don't know if you could have gotten rid of the pests without killing them, and he probably would be right.
Killing vermin sucks, but so does a vermin infestation.
I appreciate your analogy, but I think it is inaccurate. Rather, I think a better, and more accurate analogy is as follows:
You have pests. You immediately resort to kill traps. Results are unsatisfactory. You quit trying to get rid of the pests. Another month goes by and you start trying again. You then do research and find that you can have fewer pests by making sure you don't leave your trash out and that sealing your windows and doors provides a better deterrent. You learn about the bugs and learn they like pools of standing water, so you check your house and patio. After months and months, you rid your house of the pests using sound knowledge of your insect invaders. Then, somebody comes to you and says that it was not your smart decisions and application of knowledge that got rid of the pests; it was the expensive kill traps you used months ago.
Leon Panetta comes over, and says that, yeah... some ant ate some bait a few months ago...
A
R
T
