Report Abuse

You have chosen to report the following comment as abusive, offensive, or inappropriate.

So Freeland calls Scarborough "sophomoric", and then we she explains why torture provides unreliable information he just keeps screaming "YES OR NO, YES OR NO, YES OR NO?!". This is the problem with this sort of discourse, people for some reason have forgotten that the world is not black-and-white, yes-or-no in the vast majority of cases. Scarborough does raise a very valid point, in that answers gotten through torture are unreliable answers because people will say anything to make it stop. This is why torture was abandoned as a method of interrogation for law enforcement in the United States. Moving it off US soil and doing it to people you've called terrorists doesn't make it any less wrong, or any less unreliable.<br> <br> And what happens if the person you're torturing honestly doesn't know, or is innocent? Neal brought this up yesterday with the "would you torture someone to save your kid" dilemma. Yes, most sensible people would -- but what happens if it doesn't work? What happens if you have an innocent person on your hands that you're torturing? Do you just say "oops, sorry about that buddy" like our government does?<br> <br> Especially considering that 'terrorists' aren't given trials and don't even have to have any proof brought against them, allowing torturous interrogation methods is a dangerous abuse of human rights. There are people in the intelligence community that have been quite successful getting information from terrorists without resorting to torture, by using proper interrogation techniques. When you have to resort to inflicting fear and pain to accomplish your goal, you are at the same level as the 'terrorists' you are supposedly fighting.
By Irony

Your name
Explanation
Security Code	* Please enter the code shown above