But still, it begs the question: "1984" has come and is a full-generation long gone.

Are we actually less "free" than in 1948?

Big time QFE.

you dear sweet rotting carcass of a Viking-desdendant you

Gotta be consistent here.  What was the point of this Scipio?  I don't think the wink makes it any better...

Do you realize how childish you sound?  You criticise Scipio for criticising you for not responding to points he's made only to follow it up with, "your 'philosophical points' suck."  Which is it?  Honestly, you [both] sound like my kids when they're fighting.  I wonder who will say, "he started it."  I'd actually like to know what you think and why you think that way on issues like this Roadkill.  Perhaps we could actually all learn something.  Your posts rarely offer any meat however and it's kind of annoying. 

1- I'm curious why.  Is it because of the sensationalism?  Is it because you think that waterboarding itself is worse than beating a man to a bloody pulp?  Is it because it is used in the guise of usefulness while the others are not?  I don't know what you think is worse and why the Hitchens video sickens you.

2- the methods used in conventional interrogation are not typically for the purpose of saving hundreds or thousands of lives.  I just see a difference between the two in their pupose.  I don't know if this necessarilly makes it okay.

4- I'd also like to see data or some kind of evidence (even if it's anecdotal from previous interrogators).  I think whether it's effective or not is the key of the issue for me. 

5- I agree that the burden of proof should fall on the shoulders of those advocating the use of torture but if torture is being used, I'm assuming there is some case to be made for it's use and effectiveness, therefore counterevidence may be required to convince. 

6- Here is my big disagreement with you Rabi.  Let us take an extreme hypothetical situation where it has been discovered that Iran has finally recieved nuclear weapon technology and is intending to use it on Tel Aviv via Hezbollah.  Israeli intellegence has captured a high ranking Hezbollah terrorist who is believed to know the location of a nuclear devise which has been smuggled in.  Which would be more immoral, using harsh interrogation techniques, even up to what may be considered torture, or not doing everything in your power to stop an attack which could kill thousands upon thousands of people?  If in fact torture to get information is effective, the answer for me would be simple.  Use whatever techniques necessary to extract the information which will save thousands of lives.  I actually think it would be immoral not to!  This is why, for me, the answer hinges upon whether or not the use of torture techniques are in fact effective or not. 

That's the only thing I disagree with Scipio's response on... except for this: 

you dear sweet rotting carcass of a Viking-desdendant you

Gotta be consistent here.  What was the point of this Scipio?  I don't think the wink makes it any better...

Eh? (i) He is a dearly beloved, sweetheart member of the forum; we all have a poignant love-hate relationship with the little Aryan cutie pie; (ii) His avatar is "Roadkill," i.e., a "rotting carcass; and (iii) he is Norwegian, i.e., a descendant of the Vikings. Nothing untrue, nothing slanderous, nothing offensive, just mild teasing cause he is such a pistol.

RK, I read all the online version of that book. Cleary the authors wish to err on the side of the individual human rights of all interrogation subjects. At every point (primarily chapter 2, and 3) where any reference was made to the issue of whether harsh interrogation techniques work or not, no citations were given, no reference was made to a Chi-Square test comparing the relative outcomes of harsh vs. non-harsh methods, and no other statistical information about the relative merits of rapport-based vs. harsh techniques was offered.

Perhaps such data exists, but it is odd that the authors did not cite the main/most recent sources in the literature right where they make claims that "harsh techniques do not work" as a means to acquire information.

This is not my area (thankfully, cause it seems to be populated primarily with non-pragmatic types) but I did a quick look in the literature. I found that there was a special issue of Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), Vol 7(1), Dec 2007. pp. 29-33.

In which . Costanzo, E. Gerrity and M. B. Lykes wrote a feature article stating that "psychologists should not be involved in interrogations that make use of torture or other forms of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment." The central message of the feature article was that coercive interrogation is unethical, and does not work, and psychologists should have nothing whatsoever to do with interrogations of terrorists because of the risk of being involved with something unethical and inhumane.

The remainder of that issue of ASAP was devoted to comments by various other psychologists, and social scientists. Here are a few of the comments, with the first being from the editor of that issue.

This , combined with the lack of citations in the book that decries harsh interrogation as "useless" and banal, suggests to me that actual observational studies with samples of 10 to 20 (let alone case-control studies that would actually standup in an FDA or Health and Human Services court room) does not exist in any form plentiful enough for the 25+ social scientists who published in this issue of ASAP to make it known to the editor.

A second comment that is pretty clearly dissenting with central claims of the feature article

So, while you might like to think based on that book you found that it is a closed-and-shut case, there appears to be some dissent even among psychological and social scientists who study human rights, police work, interrogation, and the like.

Last one for now . . .

That last part highlighted in green speaks volumes I think. I doubt that this would have gone to press had the Editor known differently. In getting this issue to press, the Editor would have been privy to the knowledge of all the invidiuals involved.

It is notoriously hard to find "evidence showing that something does not work" in the literature, because there is an intrinsic bias in academic research publishing against publishing of negative results. So, it may be that there is evidence out there showing quite convincingly that, as several of the contributors of the book you cite "rapport-based" methods of interrogation work better and coercive methods do not work at all.

But one last point that makes me suspiscious of such claims when they are not backed up with citations to empirical studies that provide evidence showing that the claims are likely to be true.

The "Reid Technique" is touted in the book you cite as "the best," and even "the only humane" way to interrogate subjects. What does this technique amount to? A Wiki page will be the easiest way to pick out the parts that strike me as ironic vis a vis claims that coercion "don't work."

There are three components to the technique "factual analysis, interviewing, and interrogation." Factual analysis is essentially doing the preliminary and background work to know all the salient facts. Ideally, the next step is "Interviewing" followed by "Interrogation" which are distinctive in being initially friendly (and deceptively so) then confrontational and accusatory.

The Reid Technique involved psychological manipulation, falsehood, and false sincerity on the part of the interviewer/interrogator.