I wish everyone would stop calling them enhanced interrogation techniques. It sounds like "new and improved Tide."

>I assume you're only open to debate if the EITs have a chance of success. Which is the entire point of my thread.
>
>>I would prefer that EITs are never used at all. But I'm open to debate in extreme case if:
>>- He was found guilty in a fair trial or a judge have accorded a warrant
>>- One or more lives are at sake
>>- He's the only one who can help
>>- All others methods were exhausted and EIT is the only method left
>>
>>Using EITs to help build a case against the prisonner in court is unacceptable. Under torture, a person can say anything the torturer want to ear just to stop the pain (I know I would).
>>
>>>I am not black or white on this issue. I believe all weapons must remain in our basket, even if we never deploy them. I think we need a more open and honest debate regarding these "techniques". People are closer to agreement regarding whether waterboarding, is torture.
>>>However, right now we have people suggesting that all the listed EITs are torture and to me that's disingenuous. In addition, throwing around falsities like "torture doesn't work" stifles an uncomfortable debate.
>>>
>>>We as a nation must decide what is an acceptable balance between freedom and what we'll do to protect that freedom. In order to have an honest debate we must have all the information presented to make a judgment. The very idea that "torture doesn't work" is silly at best. Now we can debate whether it's successful enough to warrant it's use and to what degree. But simply dismissing it from the entire debate, regardless of the circumstances, based upon a moral conclusion wrought from a disingenuous platitude is not just wrong but negligent.