I think it's more disturbing that a majority of Democrats don't support any of the methods.
Why?
How are we supposed to interrogate effectively if we can't cause a minimal amount of discomfort for the detainees? A terrorist knows they aren't getting released, I doubt the good cop/bad cop routine is going to work on them.
What does it mean to "interrogate effectively"?
Interrogating in which ever way necessary to best get the information out of that particular individual.
What information does what you refer to as "discomfort" yield?
Whatever information they are withholding? I didn't say I agree with everything on the list. I just don't understand what's wrong with things like threatening their families as long as we don't actually act on it. We're trying to stop attacks, aren't we?
Are threats the only item on this list that you approve of?
It depends on the severity of the implementation, or the particular individual being interrogated. If we are certain of someone's guilt and are trying to gain information about an attack, I'm fine with any of the methods presented in this poll, save for the rectal one which is just inane.
OK. But this only brings us back to a stronger version of our previous question: What kind of information is gained if and only if we use these methods?
I don't really think about it in a broad sense. If an individual has information about an attack, we should use any means necessary to get them to talk. Different things might work for different individuals.
Can you describe the circumstances under which you would expect any of these tactics to elicit useful information? Can you point to any particular incident in which these methods did work or, failing that, would have worked?
I concede I'm not familiar with a particular incident.
Why wouldn't some of these tactics work? I'd assume most terrorists are strong willed individuals. If someone is withholding information on an attack, another terrorist, etc, it is vital to get the information through whichever means necessary. That individual may feel inclined to give up said information if they feel threatened, or feel that their family is in danger. Maybe being made uncomfortable long enough breaks their will. I wouldn't expect standard interrogation methods to work on these people.
So you admit that your argument that torture is useful lacks empirical support? "Why not?" is reason enough for you?
To be fair, that Senate report also contained a few, comparatively unnoticed, references to the use of torture by the Pakistanis in the aftermath of 9/11, and suggested that that
was in fact useful when it came to obtaining intelligence.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-14/senate-cia-report-makes-case-torture-worked-in-pakistan
