Effectiveness of Torture [Archive]

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 06:37 PM

In various water-boarding threads, the pro-boarders have all but admitted that water-boarding is torture.

I'll admit that it's torture AS CURRENTLY DEFINED. But definitions can change. Now will you admit that the other side in this war doesn't care one iota about your definition of torture other than to use it against our side so they can kill and main many more innocent people than they already have? You plan to fight this war with lawyers and the other side is laughing because they know from experience how foolish and TRULY ineffective that approach has been and will be in countering their terrorist activities.

Most of them have brought up effectiveness and efficiency as part of their argument as to why it's ok to do, thus evading the actual argument as to whether it's torture or not.

No more than your side has evaded the issue of whether waterboarding is really effective or not. If you really were convinced of your position, I'm confident you'd be joining people like me in demanding that Obama release whatever documents are needed to prove whether the CIA management lied about the effectiveness of torture or the folks on your side of this debate. But you're content to just let the issue remain muddled and unresolved because you think you can win this debate through appeals to emotional arguments in the media.

Also, I've been told by many of the folks on your side of this debate that even if waterboarding were effective in eliciting vital information that might save thousands of live (when no other method would work in the time available), they'd still be against using it. They insist it's immoral. They apparently think it's just as evil to temporarily cause some pain or discomfort in one very bad person in an effort to save thousands of lives, as to knowingly let those thousands of lives perish simply because one is unwilling to cause even temporary pain and discomfort. Even if you are not one of these people, you are evading criticism of the bogus moral equivalency they postulate between these two very morally different acts.

Now, what I'd like to see is actual evidence that torture, including water-boarding, is effective, efficient and reliable as a method of interrogation.

So would I, but at this point in time only one man can resolve this issue. Obama. Multiple top people in the CIA and intelligence agencies are on the record (as was reported in those other threads you mentioned) stating that enhanced interrogation methods, particularly waterboarding, did elicit vital information that saved lives and defeated planned/ongoing terrorist plots, when conventional methods of eliciting such information had failed. Either they are lying or they are not. And the only way to know is for Obama to release the secret reports that detail the interrogations and how the information that was obtained panned out and saved lives. If Obama won't do this, I can only presume it's because those documents show exactly what the CIA maintained and he knows that release of the documents would only serve to discredit the leftists who form the core of his support base.

Such silly questions as "would you water-board someone to save a million lives" should be ignored

This is not a silly question at all because it shows the moral inconsistency of the anti-*waterboarding* side in this debate. And the definition of torture is all about perceptions of morality. Maybe the current definition is simply wrong because the people controlling that definition are infected by the same moral inconsistencies.

So, to you torture advocates, which includes water-boarding fans, show me the evidence. Convince me that torture actually works.

You are simply rehashing a discussion that already took place on those previous threads you mentioned. Either the CIA lied or they did not. The only way to know is for Obama to release the currently secret information needed to know one way or the other. If Obama won't do that, what is he hiding? I suggest something that he thinks will hurt him politically.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 06:39 PM

According to the Red Cross, he was waterboarded five times within a week.

And the CIA maintains he immediately told them valuable intel that he'd withheld when subject to conventional interrogation methods.

parky76

31st May 2009, 06:40 PM

what if..what if..

doctors could completely erase the memory of a detainee, so that he would have zero memory of the water-boarding, after it was done?

i have to admit, i would possibly support it. my main concern is the horrible emotional experience of being water-boarded, along with everlasting memories that go with it.

now, if the memories could be erased? that would be a whole new story. for me at least.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 06:41 PM

Since it's been agreed that interrogation experts cannot come to a consensus as to whether it's effective or reliable, should we not ban the use of torture?

No, because we can actually determine whether waterboarding was effective. All that needs to happen is for Obama to order the release of the reports detailing the interrogations and their effectiveness. And then we can know for sure. Why is he refusing to do this, TBK? What's Obama hiding?

Towlie

31st May 2009, 06:43 PM

I think the question is moot. Who cares if it works or not?

Whether you argue that torture shouldn't be used because it doesn't work, or that torture should be used because it does work, you're still at that same low moral level. Always remember that if you argue that torture shouldn't be used because it doesn't work, you're implying that if some new, more horrible and excruciating form of torture is developed that does work, you're okay with using it.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 06:43 PM

How bout...Since it's been agreed that abortion experts cannot come to a consensus as to whether it's a baby or not, should we not ban abortion?

And in that case we can't even demand God release a report that will tell us for sure. So how about answering Drysdale's question, TBK?

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 06:48 PM

my main concern is the horrible emotional experience of being water-boarded, along with everlasting memories that go with it.

My main concern are the 1000's of innocent lives that might perish simply because the left is too squeamish to cause temporary pain and discomfort in a very bad, known terrorist who may have information about an impending attack. Think of the horrible emotional experience of the folks who had to jump from 100th floor of the WTC as it burned under and around them. But at least their memories lasted only as long as it takes to plummet 100 stories.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 06:54 PM

Whether you argue that torture shouldn't be used because it doesn't work, or that torture should be used because it does work, you're still at that same low moral level.

So you think the morality of inflicting some temporary pain or discomfort on a known, very bad terrorist to elicit information that might save hundreds or thousands of lives is the same as that of a person consciously not inflicting such temporary pain and discomfort, even though they know the result of not doing it will be the almost certain death of hundreds or thousands of innocent people? In other words, you're an advocate of moral equivalency?

parky76

31st May 2009, 06:54 PM

Think of the horrible emotional experience of the folks who had to jump from 100th floor of the WTC as it burned under and around them. But at least their memories lasted only as long as it takes to plummet 100 stories.

excuse me, I lived about 1.5 miles from the WTC. I breathed in the yellow air for weeks. And I went down there to help in the recovery. I need no education about the event.

Now, do i have problem with KSM getting waterboarded? not as much as some schmuck who got ratted out in Afghanistan.

its not the real, well known terrorists i am worried about..its the guys who we have neither tried, nor presented with evidence, that they are terrorists.

i do NOT trust our allies in Afghanistan and Iraq to give us "real" terrorists, 100% of the time.

SezMe

31st May 2009, 06:56 PM

Just to play devil's advoacate here and attempt to not derail.

How bout...Since it's been agreed that abortion experts cannot come to a consensus as to whether it's a baby or not, should we not ban abortion?
That's not the right analogy. The issue is effectiveness so the analogy is "is abortion effective in terminating the pregnancy?" I know of no debate on that matter.

Thus the OP states to ignore the definition of torture and focus on effectiveness. That's the topic.

ETA: BAC, take notice.

Towlie

31st May 2009, 06:57 PM

My main concern are the 1000's of innocent lives that might perish simply because the left is too squeamish to cause temporary pain and discomfort in a very bad, known terrorist who may have information about an impending attack. Think of the horrible emotional experience of the folks who had to jump from 100th floor of the WTC as it burned under and around them. But at least their memories lasted only as long as it takes to plummet 100 stories.I call that the "nothing is evil" argument. For any act you can imagine and would normally call evil, it's always possible to dream up a hypothetical scenario that would excuse it. There's nothing special about torture in this regard, such arguments can be adapted to excuse rape, murder, child molesting, or any other evil act that you can possibly think of.

SezMe

31st May 2009, 06:59 PM

I think the topic is a pretty dead one to be honest. Right now too much is unknown to make a reliable skeptical inquiry about the effectiveness of water boarding KSM.
I'm in agreement with corp here. But even beyond KSM, I don't think any of us has definitive evidence either way regarding the issue raised in the OP. Each of us is just going to argue our previously held bias and fail utterly to convince the other side. Sometimes, on other topics, even the discussion can be worthwhile but here...not so much.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 07:02 PM

i do NOT trust our allies in Afghanistan and Iraq to give us "real" terrorists, 100% of the time.

But it appears the CIA only used enhanced techniques under very restrictive conditions and with close monitoring of the subjects by doctors, etc. I don't think there is any question that the three who were waterboarded were very, very bad people, or that we had good reason to suspect they might know about other serious impending attacks against US interests. I don't trust a government that will blindly rule out the use of a tool that may have already saved many lives and prevented serious terrorist attacks based on a definition of torture that sees no moral difference between inflicting brief pain or discomfort on a very bad person and allowing 1000s of people to be murdered simply because that definition precludes the use of brief pain or discomfort to elicit information. That sort of policy is going to get many people killed.

corplinx

31st May 2009, 07:14 PM

i do NOT trust our allies in Afghanistan and Iraq to give us "real" terrorists, 100% of the time.

There is no current or future water boarding program. Maybe you didn't get the memo.

It seems to have been an exception made for three exceptional assets:
1. the guy behind 911
2. the guy behind the cole bombing
3. their logistics and whereabouts guy

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 07:20 PM

That's not the right analogy.

Drysdale's analogy is perfectly appropriate to this discussion. The argument being made in both cases is that the inability to reach consensus in the face of uncertainty suggests we do nothing given serious consequences. thaiboxerken's statement was based on the assumption that almost everyone will agree that ANY *torture* is bad so we shouldn't do it if we are at all uncertain about whether it will save lives. Drydale's analogy assumes almost everyone will agree that killing a baby is bad so we shouldn't kill a fetus if we are at all uncertain about whether it is a baby. Of course, that challenges one of the left's most important issues so of course the left will claim its a "different" situation entirely. :rolleyes:

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 07:25 PM

I call that the "nothing is evil" argument.

Call it what you want. You are avoiding the question and every one can see it. So answer the question. Do you see a moral difference between inflicting brief pain or discomfort on a very bad person knowing that might save many lives, and choosing not to inflict brief pain or discomfort knowing that doing so will condemn those lives to almost certain death. Yes or no? :D

corplinx

31st May 2009, 07:27 PM

I think the question is moot. Who cares if it works or not?

At some point we may capture Osama Bin Laden. It will be assumed that he might have knowledge of plots being birthed or in progress. At that point, I expect he will be tortured in a foreign country to obtain this information under the practice called "Rendition". Personally, if that is the case, I would rather we carry it out. KSM was seen to by the red cross and given adequate food/etc in Gitmo.

Option A:
We send OBL to some other country where they do who knows what to him including possibly physical torture, sodomize him, cut him, beat him, etc.

Option B:
We could water board him in Gitmo under strict controls. The red cross could see to him. He would have clean living quarters and have adequate food.

Under the current administration's policies, it appears we will outsource the hard stuff via rendition.

Option C:
Upchurch takes him out for steak and beer every night. They play chess matches. OBL eventually talks.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 07:29 PM

I'm in agreement with corp here. But even beyond KSM, I don't think any of us has definitive evidence either way regarding the issue raised in the OP. Each of us is just going to argue our previously held bias and fail utterly to convince the other side.

So why not just join me in demanding that Obama release whatever reports or data is needed to know whether the CIA told the truth or not when they claimed that enhanced methods worked, saved lives and prevented terrorists attacks that would not have been stopped otherwise? I'm curious why so many on your side of this issue refuse to do that ... either ignore my plea or post various lame excuses for Obama not doing it. :D

Towlie

31st May 2009, 08:03 PM

Call it what you want. You are avoiding the question and every one can see it. So answer the question. Do you see a moral difference between inflicting brief pain or discomfort on a very bad person knowing that might save many lives, and choosing not to inflict brief pain or discomfort knowing that doing so will condemn those lives to almost certain death. Yes or no? :DSuppose this hypothetical terrorist doesn't respond to your torture, but he agrees to disarm the ticking time bomb if you agree to perform an unnatural and thoroughly humiliating act while his friends make a video of it to spread around the Internet? Would you agree to that? Or do your principles only apply to others and not yourself?

Gord_in_Toronto

31st May 2009, 08:13 PM

SezMe

31st May 2009, 08:15 PM

So why not just join me in demanding that Obama release whatever reports or data is needed to know whether the CIA told the truth or not when they claimed that enhanced methods worked, saved lives and prevented terrorists attacks that would not have been stopped otherwise? I'm curious why so many on your side of this issue refuse to do that ... either ignore my plea or post various lame excuses for Obama not doing it. :D
Because my joining (or not) you on this forum will have absolutely no effect in real life. So why bother?

Here's my shot at the mil: If the reports/data you are alluding to are released, they will not be conclusive. You will shout, "See!" and the other side will shout, "See!". People on both sides will refer to "other" reports or additional data that would substantiate their existing position. Spinmeisters on both sides will have a field day.

And nothing will get resolved. Your incessant call to release the reports/data is pissing upwind.

ETA: :D

ETA2: Here's a spot of evidence. Cheney say the reports support the effectiveness of torture. Leahy (I think that is the Senator) says they don't.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 08:25 PM

Suppose this hypothetical terrorist doesn't respond to your torture, but he agrees to disarm the ticking time bomb if you agree to perform an unnatural and thoroughly humiliating act while his friends make a video of it to spread around the Internet? Would you agree to that? Or do your principles only apply to others and not yourself?

You answer my question first. Then I'll be glad to address yours. Or are your questions only an attempt to avoid answering the question I asked ... to avoid revealing whether you subscribe to the bogus notion of moral equivalence?

tsig

31st May 2009, 08:37 PM

Has anyone mentioned the sheer fun factor of torturing terrorists?

There seems to be a lot of "retaliation thinking" among the torture advocates. It doesn't matter what info we get, the terrorists deserved the torture.

Torture becomes an end in itself not the means to obtain infomation.

tsig

31st May 2009, 08:40 PM

I'll admit that it's torture AS CURRENTLY DEFINED. But definitions can change. Now will you admit that the other side in this war doesn't care one iota about your definition of torture other than to use it against our side so they can kill and main many more innocent people than they already have? You plan to fight this war with lawyers and the other side is laughing because they know from experience how foolish and TRULY ineffective that approach has been and will be in countering their terrorist activities.

No more than your side has evaded the issue of whether waterboarding is really effective or not. If you really were convinced of your position, I'm confident you'd be joining people like me in demanding that Obama release whatever documents are needed to prove whether the CIA management lied about the effectiveness of torture or the folks on your side of this debate. But you're content to just let the issue remain muddled and unresolved because you think you can win this debate through appeals to emotional arguments in the media.

Also, I've been told by many of the folks on your side of this debate that even if waterboarding were effective in eliciting vital information that might save thousands of live (when no other method would work in the time available), they'd still be against using it. They insist it's immoral. They apparently think it's just as evil to temporarily cause some pain or discomfort in one very bad person in an effort to save thousands of lives, as to knowingly let those thousands of lives perish simply because one is unwilling to cause even temporary pain and discomfort. Even if you are not one of these people, you are evading criticism of the bogus moral equivalency they postulate between these two very morally different acts.

So would I, but at this point in time only one man can resolve this issue. Obama. Multiple top people in the CIA and intelligence agencies are on the record (as was reported in those other threads you mentioned) stating that enhanced interrogation methods, particularly waterboarding, did elicit vital information that saved lives and defeated planned/ongoing terrorist plots, when conventional methods of eliciting such information had failed. Either they are lying or they are not. And the only way to know is for Obama to release the secret reports that detail the interrogations and how the information that was obtained panned out and saved lives. If Obama won't do this, I can only presume it's because those documents show exactly what the CIA maintained and he knows that release of the documents would only serve to discredit the leftists who form the core of his support base.

This is not a silly question at all because it shows the moral inconsistency of the anti-*waterboarding* side in this debate. And the definition of torture is all about perceptions of morality. Maybe the current definition is simply wrong because the people controlling that definition are infected by the same moral inconsistencies.

You are simply rehashing a discussion that already took place on those previous threads you mentioned. Either the CIA lied or they did not. The only way to know is for Obama to release the currently secret information needed to know one way or the other. If Obama won't do that, what is he hiding? I suggest something that he thinks will hurt him politically.

We really don't need all that info to prove that torture evidence is unreliable.

Unless you believe in witches.

corplinx

31st May 2009, 08:40 PM

ETA2: Here's a spot of evidence. Cheney say the reports support the effectiveness of torture. Leahy (I think that is the Senator) says they don't.

Evidence of what? Neither is a trustworthy source. Cheney is a poster-board for tunnel-vision and Leahy is one of the emptiest suits in DC. He seems to only exist for partisan purposes. Anything else he attempts, results in him looking insane or retarded.

tsig

31st May 2009, 08:41 PM

And the CIA maintains he immediately told them valuable intel that he'd withheld when subject to conventional interrogation methods.

If he told it to them immediately then why did they keep doing it?

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 08:43 PM

Because my joining (or not) you on this forum will have absolutely no effect in real life.

How do you know? A river starts with a single drop of water. Before long, if other drops join it, it can be force that is almost unstoppable, that can't be ignored. And even if your joining my call will have no effect, then what the harm can joining the call do? I think the truth is that really don't want to know whether waterboarding works because if you did, you would no longer be able to play your politically motivated games.

ETA2: Here's a spot of evidence. Cheney say the reports support the effectiveness of torture. Leahy (I think that is the Senator) says they don't.

So let's find out who is right. And we can use the *wisdom* of Leahy in that regard. Here's a direct quote from Patrick Leahy after he asked Judge Bybee (you know who that is?) to testify in front of his subcommittee about Bybee's "role" in drafting the torture memos, and Bybee refused to appear:

... the presumption in our civil law is that when a person fails to come forward with information in his possession that is relevant to a matter, it is presumed to be because the information is negative and not helpful to his cause.

So let's apply that logic to Obama now. He's the only one who can authorize the release of the reports and data that will resolve the issue of whether the CIA lied about waterboarding working or didn't lie. Since Obama is failing to do that, one can only presume it's because the conclusion of those reports is "not helpful to his cause." :D

tsig

31st May 2009, 08:45 PM

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 08:49 PM

We really don't need all that info to prove that torture evidence is unreliable.

You haven't proven anything tsig. Various members of the CIA and other intel agencies have stated categorically that the information gathered via enhanced interrogation methods of al-Qaeda members was reliable and did save many lives. Now you can claim they are liars but the only way we can know is if Obama releases the documents and data on the interrogations that show whether information was learned and whether it was reliable or not. So will you join me in calling on Obama to release that information ... or hide behind excuses for not doing that like the others on your side in this debate? :D

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 08:53 PM

If he told it to them immediately then why did they keep doing it?

To learn the rest of what he knew. You don't really think a hard case like KSM spilled his guts of everything he knew the first time a little pain and discomfort was applied, do you? Of course he tried to keep some things secret, hoping that interrogators would be satisfied with the first few scraps. Again, the only way we can know exactly how well waterboarding worked is if Obama releases the interrogation details of KSM's sessions. So join me in calling for him to do that ... or are you afraid the answer might not be to your liking? :D

tsig

31st May 2009, 08:53 PM

But it appears the CIA only used enhanced techniques under very restrictive conditions and with close monitoring of the subjects by doctors, etc. I don't think there is any question that the three who were waterboarded were very, very bad people, or that we had good reason to suspect they might know about other serious impending attacks against US interests. I don't trust a government that will blindly rule out the use of a tool that may have already saved many lives and prevented serious terrorist attacks based on a definition of torture that sees no moral difference between inflicting brief pain or discomfort on a very bad person and allowing 1000s of people to be murdered simply because that definition precludes the use of brief pain or discomfort to elicit information. That sort of policy is going to get many people killed.

So you're only going to torture very, very bad people?

tsig

31st May 2009, 08:56 PM

tsig

31st May 2009, 08:59 PM

You haven't proven anything tsig. Various members of the CIA and other intel agencies have stated categorically that the information gathered via enhanced interrogation methods of al-Qaeda members was reliable and did save many lives. Now you can claim they are liars but the only way we can know is if Obama releases the documents and data on the interrogations that show whether information was learned and whether it was reliable or not. So will you join me in calling on Obama to release that information ... or hide behind excuses for not doing that like the others on your side in this debate? :D

So you do believe in witches?

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 09:00 PM

But you are man enough to intentionally inflict pain on someone who is completely in your power.

Inflict a little TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on a prisoner one knows to be evil, to save hundreds of people from having to jump from skyscrapers to escape the heat and smoke of fires started by the terrorist associates of that prisoner? Absolutely.

Tell me, tsig ... are you such a *man* that you'd let dozens or hundreds of people almost certainly experience that fate even when you know you might be able to prevent it by simply applying some temporary pain and discomfort to someone you know was a very, very bad person involved in such plots? :rolleyes:

tsig

31st May 2009, 09:04 PM

To learn the rest of what he knew. You don't really think a hard case like KSM spilled his guts of everything he knew the first time a little pain and discomfort was applied, do you? Of course he tried to keep some things secret, hoping that interrogators would be satisfied with the first few scraps. Again, the only way we can know exactly how well waterboarding worked is if Obama releases the interrogation details of KSM's sessions. So join me in calling for him to do that ... or are you afraid the answer might not be to your liking? :D

unlike you I am unable to get inside the mind of a "very, very bad man".

Bill Thompson

31st May 2009, 09:08 PM

Is having no short-term memory a requirement to be a Liberal?

The Libs were demanding that we revise our views on torture after 9-11 because it would be worth it to prevent another terrorist attack.

But now all that hupla seems to have been stricken from their collective memory. Ah, maybe they are The Borg.

I think the CIA admits that they only waterboarded two persons. And you cannot argue with success. I do not see planes flying into any more buildings.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 09:09 PM

So you're only going to torture very, very bad people?

You keep using the loaded word "torture" because you think it wins this argument. But the *torture* we are talking about here is brief pain and discomfort inflicted under the close monitoring of a doctor. Not the broken bones, electric shock and other nasty things most people think of when they hear the word *torture*. Therefore, I think you are being a little dishonest.

And the US waterboarded a total of THREE people out the thousands they captured over the last 6 years. THREE. And every one of them was a very, very bad person with 100% certainty. It's not like this was being applied willy nilly to everyone we captured. Apparently you'd rather preclude it's use entirely and dramatically increase the chance that the next big terrorist attack will succeed because you equate the morality of applying brief pain and discomfort to even just one person, to the morality of letting the next attack killing thousands succeed because you sanctimoniously wouldn't waterboard anyone ... ever. :rolleyes:

SezMe

31st May 2009, 09:10 PM

Evidence of what?
Evidence that both "sides" (I don't like that characterization, but you know what I mean) interpret the documents differently so that, contrary to BAC's bleating, release of the documents he cites is not going to clarify the situation.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 09:13 PM

There is no way to know that with certainty.

There is certainty in few things in life. Yet you still get out of bed each morning. I think your response is simply another attempt to avoid answering a very simple question that says a lot about your understanding of morality ... that says something you apparently don't want people to see. :D

tsig

31st May 2009, 09:14 PM

Inflict a little TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on a prisoner one knows to be evil, to save hundreds of people from having to jump from skyscrapers to escape the heat and smoke of fires started by the terrorist associates of that prisoner? Absolutely.

Tell me, tsig ... are you such a *man* that you'd let dozens or hundreds of people almost certainly experience that fate even when you know you might be able to prevent it by simply applying some temporary pain and discomfort to someone you know was a very, very bad person involved in such plots? :rolleyes:

How would you know beforehand that "Inflicting a little TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on a prisoner one knows to be evil" would give you that info?

You seem really hung up on that evil thing. It always helps to dehumanize your enemy.

tsig

31st May 2009, 09:16 PM

SezMe

31st May 2009, 09:17 PM

I think the truth is that really don't want to know whether waterboarding works because if you did, you would no longer be able to play your politically motivated games.
Oh, cut the stupid black and white thinking. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on what you mean by "work". The effectiveness relative to other techniques depends on the subject, the interrogator, the setting, etc., etc., etc. Depends on the timing. And so on...endlessly. Grow up.

And your accusation of political motivation makes pasture pizza look appetizing. You know nothing of my motivations. Pot, kettle, meet.

corplinx

31st May 2009, 09:17 PM

You seem really hung up on that evil thing. It always helps to dehumanize your enemy.

Feel free to humanize KSM.
He felt his heart break as he felt the blade cut into the sinew of Daniel Pearl's neck. "This is a shame that the infidels have pushed me to his" thought KSM as he choked back tears......

corplinx

31st May 2009, 09:19 PM

Oh, cut the stupid black and white thinking. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on what you mean by "work". The effectiveness relative to other techniques depends on the subject, the interrogator, the setting, etc., etc., etc. Depends on the timing. And so on...endlessly. Grow up.

Agreed.

This is why we should interrogate like Upchurch suggested by taking them out for drinks. After all. Colt 45...... works every time.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 09:20 PM

contrary to BAC's bleating, release of the documents he cites is not going to clarify the situation.

You are rationalizing. You don't know this. The only way we can know is if Obama orders the release of the documents. But you are afraid to have that happen because you are afraid what we learn might embarrass your side in this debate. Prove you are wrong. I think that should be clear to all by now. :D

tsig

31st May 2009, 09:20 PM

You keep using the loaded word "torture" because you think it wins this argument. But the *torture* we are talking about here is brief pain and discomfort inflicted under the close monitoring of a doctor. Not the broken bones, electric shock and other nasty things most people think of when they hear the word *torture*. Therefore, I think you are being a little dishonest.

And the US waterboarded a total of THREE people out the thousands they captured over the last 6 years. THREE. And every one of them was a very, very bad person with 100% certainty. It's not like this was being applied willy nilly to everyone we captured. Apparently you'd rather preclude it's use entirely and dramatically increase the chance that the next big terrorist attack will succeed because you equate the morality of applying brief pain and discomfort to even just one person, to the morality of letting the next attack killing thousands succeed because you sanctimoniously wouldn't waterboard anyone ... ever. :rolleyes:

If it is just "brief pain and discomfort inflicted under the close monitoring of a doctor" then why is it you think it is so effective?

corplinx

31st May 2009, 09:22 PM

If it is just "brief pain and discomfort inflicted under the close monitoring of a doctor" then why is it you think it is so effective?

Perhaps you haven't paid attention to the thread or read a description of what waterboarding does in regards to mental state. Come back when you have. We can't be catching people up everytime someone new joins the thread and asks "why would it work/be effective?".

tsig

31st May 2009, 09:24 PM

There is certainty in few things in life. Yet you still get out of bed each morning. I think your response is simply another attempt to avoid answering a very simple question that says a lot about your understanding of morality ... that says something you apparently don't want people to see. :D

You are the one proposing the scenario where we have to obtain info by means of "brief pain and discomfort inflicted under the close monitoring of a doctor".

If you don't know with certainty that the man has the info then how can you inflict "brief pain and discomfort under the close monitoring of a doctor".

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 09:31 PM

How would you know beforehand that "Inflicting a little TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on a prisoner one knows to be evil" would give you that info?

I said MIGHT. We went over this issue previously. You're just as desperate now to avoid answering a very simple question as you were then. :D

You seem really hung up on that evil thing.

The concept of evil is at the very foundation of the concept of morality. Which is why you object to *torture*. You are the one hung up on evil my friend. You seem to think inflicting a little pain or discomfort on one person in the hope of saving thousands of lives is as evil as not doing that even though you then know that thousands of lives will likely be lost as a result.

It always helps to dehumanize your enemy

And don't you dehumanize those thousands of lives that will be lost because you refuse to apply a little temporary pain and discomfort to one evil person to save them? Or do you think the rights of KSM to be free from temporary pain and discomfort transcend the right of those thousands to remain alive? Or perhap you think men like KSM aren't really evil at all? Perhaps you believe in their cause? :D

corplinx

31st May 2009, 09:33 PM

If you don't know with certainty that the man has the info then how can you inflict "brief pain and discomfort under the close monitoring of a doctor".

With KSM, there is value in knowing that he had no knowledge of any plots in progress considering his position in the network. Knowing when an asset like KSM is no longer valuable to you is a good thing, since after his tribunal he will most likely be executed.

tsig

31st May 2009, 09:38 PM

Perhaps you haven't paid attention to the thread or read a description of what waterboarding does in regards to mental state. Come back when you have. We can't be catching people up everytime someone new joins the thread and asks "why would it work/be effective?".

You have time to post "We can't be catching people up everytime someone new joins the thread and asks "why would it work/be effective?" but no links?

(I've read the whole thing)

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 09:39 PM

Oh, cut the stupid black and white thinking. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on what you mean by "work".

I'm the not one with the black and white thinking here. You're the one who insists we not waterboard under any circumstances. You're the one who seems afraid to have Obama release the only material that can resolve the question of how effective waterboarding and the other enhanced interrogation methods have been at eliciting information that other methods did not elicit. So "grow up", SM.

And your accusation of political motivation makes pasture pizza look appetizing. You know nothing of my motivations.

I can only base my assessment on your behavior. And for some reason you seem to be dead set against asking Obama to disclose the only material that might resolve the OP's question. And if I can take the liberty of modifying the statement by Leahy that I quoted earlier, when a person fails to demand information that is relevant to a matter, one might presume that's because the person thinks the information is negative and not helpful to his cause. :D

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 09:41 PM

If it is just "brief pain and discomfort inflicted under the close monitoring of a doctor" then why is it you think it is so effective?

Don't you know anything about waterboarding? Or are you just commenting from a foundation of ignorance?

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 09:42 PM

If you don't know with certainty that the man has the info then how can you inflict "brief pain and discomfort under the close monitoring of a doctor".

Those reports that Obama is refusing to release will tell you. :D

tsig

31st May 2009, 09:46 PM

I said MIGHT. We went over this issue previously. You're just as desperate now to avoid answering a very simple question as you were then. :D

The concept of evil is at the very foundation of the concept of morality. Which is why you object to *torture*. You are the one hung up on evil my friend. You seem to think inflicting a little pain or discomfort on one person in the hope of saving thousands of lives is as evil as not doing that even though you then know that thousands of lives will likely be lost as a result.

And don't you dehumanize those thousands of lives that will be lost because you refuse to apply a little temporary pain and discomfort to one evil person to save them? Or do you think the rights of KSM to be free from temporary pain and discomfort transcend the right of those thousands to remain alive? Or perhap you think men like KSM aren't really evil at all? Perhaps you believe in their cause? :D

So now we're down to the ultimate slander. If i don't agree with you then I must be the enemy.

tsig

31st May 2009, 09:50 PM

With KSM, there is value in knowing that he had no knowledge of any plots in progress considering his position in the network. Knowing when an asset like KSM is no longer valuable to you is a good thing, since after his tribunal he will most likely be executed.

KSM was actually a human and not an asset. If you want to prevent another 911 you had better understand the enemy.

tsig

31st May 2009, 09:53 PM

Don't you know anything about waterboarding? Or are you just commenting from a foundation of ignorance?

Those are your words. You claim on the one hand that it broke the hardened terrorist within minutes then you say it is no big deal.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 09:54 PM

So now we're down to the ultimate slander. If i don't agree with you then I must be the enemy.

I didn't slander you. I've asked you questions and given you the opportunity to answer. All of which you've refused to answer. So if anything, you've slandered yourself by your refusal to do so.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 09:56 PM

If you want to prevent another 911 you had better understand the enemy.

Are you claiming to understand *our* enemy? Do you empathize with him?

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 09:57 PM

You claim on the one hand that it broke the hardened terrorist within minutes then you say it is no big deal.

Actually I said no such thing. And you've not only shown that you don't understand waterboarding but you don't understand the nature of *our* enemy. Or the process of interrogation.

tsig

31st May 2009, 09:59 PM

I didn't slander you. I've asked you questions and given you the opportunity to answer. All of which you've refused to answer. So if anything, you've slandered yourself by your refusal to do so.

The only question that I know you have asked me is "would you be willing to inflict punishment on a helpless individual on the chance he might have info leading to the saving of lives"

The answer is:

No.

tsig

31st May 2009, 10:04 PM

Are you claiming to understand *our* enemy? Do you empathize with him?

I was referring to "The Art of War"

http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html

Understanding the enemy is a basic principle of any conflict. I'm not sure why you equate understanding with empathizing.

tsig

31st May 2009, 10:07 PM

Actually I said no such thing. And you've not only shown that you don't understand waterboarding but you don't understand the nature of *our* enemy. Or the process of interrogation.

Then you can enlighten me about the "process of interrogation". I thought it was asking questions and getting answers.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 10:11 PM

The only question that I know you have asked me is "would you be willing to inflict punishment on a helpless individual on the chance he might have info leading to the saving of lives"

Once again, you try your best to avoid answering the question I actually asked you. Quite telling.

And since you apparently just missed the other questions I asked you, I'll repeat them so you can't possibly miss them:

Will you join me in calling on Obama to release the documents and data that will tell us whether the CIA was correct in saying that enhance interrogation methods work ... that they saved many lives and stopped terrorist plots that conventional interrogation methods did not?

Don't you dehumanize those thousands of lives that will be lost because you refuse to apply a little temporary pain and discomfort to one evil person to save them?

Do you think the rights of KSM to be free from temporary pain and discomfort transcend the right of those thousands to remain alive?

Do you think men like KSM aren't really evil at all?

tsig

31st May 2009, 10:19 PM

Once again, you try your best to avoid answering the question I actually asked you. Quite telling.

And since you apparently just missed the other questions I asked you, I'll repeat them so you can't possibly miss them:

Will you join me in calling on Obama to release the documents and data that will tell us whether the CIA was correct in saying that enhance interrogation methods work ... that they saved many lives and stopped terrorist plots that conventional interrogation methods did not?

Don't you dehumanize those thousands of lives that will be lost because you refuse to apply a little temporary pain and discomfort to one evil person to save them?

Do you think the rights of KSM to be free from temporary pain and discomfort transcend the right of those thousands to remain alive?

Do you think men like KSM aren't really evil at all?

1. Yes i would like the documents released.

2. No

3. false dichotomy.

4. By their own beliefs. No.

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 10:20 PM

Understanding the enemy is a basic principle of any conflict.

How trite. How will you understand your enemy if you can't elicit any information from him that he doesn't want you to know? By the way, Sun Tzu lived in an age when torture was the real thing. And he expressed his deep awareness that foreknowledge is a critical factor for success in war and that foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits. It comes from people. :D

I'm not sure why you equate understanding with empathizing.

Because Obama does, I naturally assumed you do, too. :D

Ysidro

31st May 2009, 10:22 PM

I was referring to "The Art of War"

http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html

Understanding the enemy is a basic principle of any conflict. I'm not sure why you equate understanding with empathizing.

Empathizing is one of those things ebil libruls do, not right-thinking manly men American patriots with beer in their veins and apple pie in their hearts.

tsig

31st May 2009, 10:27 PM

How trite. How will you understand your enemy if you can't elicit any information from him that he doesn't want you to know? By the way, Sun Tzu lived in an age when torture was the real thing. And he expressed his deep awareness that foreknowledge is a critical factor for success in war and that foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits. It comes from people. :D

Because Obama does, I naturally assumed you do, too. :D

So you are claiming that the only source of reliable information comes from torturing your enemy?

Pain begets truth?

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 10:28 PM

1. Yes i would like the documents released.

2. No

3. false dichotomy.

4. By their own beliefs. No.

That was quite illuminating.

1) Good for you. You are one of the few on your side of this issue to join me. Now what will you think if Obama doesn't release the documents? Could that refusal be an indication that the CIA was right?

2) You don't think murder is dehumanizing?

3) Why do you claim #3 is a false dichotomy? As posed the two possibilities are mutually exclusive. And you must pick one.

4) You avoided the question. Do YOU think KSM was evil?

tsig

31st May 2009, 10:29 PM

Empathizing is one of those things ebil libruls do, not right-thinking manly men American patriots with beer in their veins and apple pie in their hearts.

And blood in their eye.

tsig

31st May 2009, 10:33 PM

That was quite illuminating.

1) Good for you. You are one of the few on your side of this issue to join me. Now what will you think if Obama doesn't release the documents? Could that refusal be an indication that the CIA was right?

2) You don't think murder is dehumanizing?

3) Why do you claim #3 is a false dichotomy? As posed the two possibilities are mutually exclusive. And you must pick one.

4) You avoided the question. Do YOU think KSM was evil?

So all you have is more questions?

I answered yours now you answer mine.

Do you believe in witches?

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 10:36 PM

So you are claiming that the only source of reliable information comes from torturing your enemy?

No. What I said is that under the time constraints available in some situations, waterboarding (and other enhanced interrogation methods) may be the only way of eliciting accurate information in a timely (i.e., useful) manner.

According to the CIA, some of the information obtained from the 3 terrorists was urgently needed and some of it actually prevented a terrorist plot that was just days from occurring when it was stopped. Had they relied on conventional methods, that attack would likely have occurred on schedule, killing many people. Now of course, that's just what the CIA claimed. Only Obama can tell us whether that's true and so far he's refused to do that. :D

BeAChooser

31st May 2009, 10:37 PM

I answered yours

Not in all cases.

Do you believe in witches?

And the relevance of that to this thread?

tsig

31st May 2009, 10:41 PM

No. What I said is that under the time constraints available in some situations, waterboarding (and other enhanced interrogation methods) may be the only way of eliciting accurate information in a timely (i.e., useful) manner.

According to the CIA, some of the information obtained from the 3 terrorists was urgently needed and some of it actually prevented a terrorist plot that was just days from occurring when it was stopped. Had they relied on conventional methods, that attack would likely have occurred on schedule, killing many people. Now of course, that's just what the CIA claimed. Only Obama can tell us whether that's true and so far he's refused to do that. :D

So the evidence is something that never happened?

tsig

31st May 2009, 10:43 PM

Not in all cases.

And the relevance of that to this thread?

Many people confessed to being witches under torture. If you think torture produces truth then you you should believe in witches.

But you dodged the question quite nicely didn't you?

corplinx

31st May 2009, 10:51 PM

Oh god, not another guy who read the cliff notes for Sun Tzu and thinks he's discovered something profound.

SezMe

31st May 2009, 10:55 PM

You are rationalizing. You don't know this.
Actually, I provided evidence for my view. You have not - you have only endlessly repeated your belief.

SezMe

31st May 2009, 10:56 PM

You're the one who insists we not waterboard under any circumstances.
You can, of course, provide a link to my post where I made such an insistence.

SezMe

31st May 2009, 10:57 PM

This is why we should interrogate like Upchurch suggested by taking them out for drinks.
You can, of course, provide a link to Upchurch's post where he made such a suggestion.

thaiboxerken

31st May 2009, 10:59 PM

tsig

31st May 2009, 11:04 PM

Oh god, not another guy who read the cliff notes for Sun Tzu and thinks he's discovered something profound.

You might want to attack what i said instead of me.

thaiboxerken

31st May 2009, 11:07 PM

Drysdale

1st June 2009, 07:29 AM

Torture is about the treatment of people. Fetus's aren't people.

Again,that's your view. In many people's view they are.

Drysdale

1st June 2009, 07:38 AM

It looks to me as if the argument from the pro-torture side is that there is no evidence that water-boarding works because Obama is hiding it. I think the fact that people have been water-boarded to confess to witchcraft shows that water-boarding is an unreliable interrogation method. Also, the claim that it's not physically painful is just wrong. Water-boarding is painful.

Who's placing rocks on people? Is that in the memos that have'nt been released?

Anyway, there's some other thread I think addressing this, but it also seems appropriate here.

First,what is the definition of torture?

I personally dont consider waterboarding torture. I consider rockpiling,pulling teeth,fingernails,removing appendages, etc,etc torture.

But ok, why is'nt all correspondence regarding this released? Maybe we'd have a better idea to the OP.

I think most people know why, it was an effort to score political points.

Look,we are good. Bush was bad.
Did'nt work though huh?

Upchurch

1st June 2009, 07:52 AM

The Libs were demanding that we revise our views on torture after 9-11 because it would be worth it to prevent another terrorist attack.
Source?

I think the CIA admits that they only waterboarded two persons. And you cannot argue with success. I do not see planes flying into any more buildings.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

JoeTheJuggler

1st June 2009, 08:42 AM

Again,that's your view. In many people's view they are.
Even for people who think a fetus is a person, abortion does not fit the definition of torture. Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain by an agent of the government on a person in his custody or control for the purpose of getting information, a confession or as punishment.

Abortion--even if you think the fetus is a person--doesn't fit on several points.

JoeTheJuggler

1st June 2009, 08:47 AM

It looks to me as if the argument from the pro-torture side is that there is no evidence that water-boarding works because Obama is hiding it. I think the fact that people have been water-boarded to confess to witchcraft shows that water-boarding is an unreliable interrogation method. Also, the claim that it's not physically painful is just wrong. Water-boarding is painful.
I tend to agree, but it's not even necessary to prove that there is physical pain in waterboarding for it to be torture. The definition of torture (in both the CAT and the US code) specifically allows for the infliction of severe mental pain as being torture.

In the US Code, one form of that pain is defined as that caused by the "threat of eminent death". It could be torture to pretend like you're going to execute a prison without causing him any physical pain whatsoever (perhaps injecting him with a mild sedative, or blindfolding him against a wall and shooting him with a firing squad where all the guns shoot blanks--or even where they all intentionally miss).

Waterboarding certainly qualifies. The whole point of it is to make the person think (or feel) as if he is about to die.

Sorry--I keep replying to issues that are really OT for this thread.

JoeTheJuggler

1st June 2009, 08:52 AM

First,what is the definition of torture?
Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain--mental or physical--by an agent of a government on a person in his custody or control for the purpose of extracting information, a confession or as punishment. It is so defined in the Convention Against Torture (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm) (signed and ratified by the US and therefore part of US law), and in the U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113C, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html) section 2340 (passed to comply with the CAT).

I personally dont consider waterboarding torture.

I find it interesting that you're willing to express the opinion that waterboarding isn't torture when you've also expressed ignorance of the definition of torture.

You just intuit that it's not torture?

fishbob

1st June 2009, 08:55 AM

Has anyone mentioned the sheer fun factor of torturing terrorists?

Deviated prevert alert.

JoeTheJuggler

1st June 2009, 09:11 AM

Back to the topic. . .

I think there are several lines of thought that have been well expressed here that show that torture is ineffective. If I might summarize them. . .

1. At the point in time when you decide to break the law and commit torture (the law allows no circumstance whatsoever to justify torture), you can't possibly know whether you'll get useful information. (Yes, I understand you can sometimes get information that can then be verified, but when you decide to intentionally inflict severe pain on a prison, you don't know for sure the guy knows the information you need, and you don't know that he'll give it to you if he does.)

2. Even if you somehow magically knew you had the guy with the information and knew 100% for sure that you would get that information (and not get bad information that needed to be teased apart from the good info), you still can't possibly know that committing the crime of torture is the only way to get that information. Law enforcement is full of stories of unexpected tips, a quirky turn of events that leads to the information, etc. For the matter, the intel you're after might already be sitting on some analysts desks and be minutes away from getting to the person who will recognize its significance.

3. The history of torture hasn't show it to be particularly effective. (Hence tsig's pointed question, "Do you believe in witches?") Witchhunts and the Inquisition have shown that you can make a person say pretty much anything you want him to say to stop pain. There was a thread on how torture supposedly won WWII for the Allies, but it has been shown that in fact the Axis probably committed more acts of torture than they Allies, and yet they lost the war. I doubt we could tease out causality, but it's clear that torture did not correlate with success.

I think any one of these points is sufficient to show that torture is not effective.

The point I keep making in these torture threads, which I understand isn't the question being asked here, is that even if you can prove torture is effective, it's irrelevant when asking whether or not it's OK to torture. The law clearly says nothing can be used to justify torture. Even wrt crimes where the law doesn't specifically say nothing can be used to justify committing the crime, the end of the crime usually can't be used as a defense. The example I keep using is that if I rob a bank in order to pay for a loved-one's medical treatment, I have still committed the crime of robbery. I might be able to use the noble end as a mitigating circumstance in sentencing, but it is certainly not a defense.

JoeTheJuggler

1st June 2009, 09:16 AM

Has anyone mentioned the sheer fun factor of torturing terrorists?
I hope you're joking, but if I take it at face value I can respond to your post.

The crime of torture that we've been talking about (as defined in the C.A.T.) doesn't cover the intentional infliction of severe pain for purposes of fun. In the U.S. that version of torture is a matter for State law. For the most part, States see that sort of torture as an aggravating factor of some other crime rather than a crime itself (because it's impossible to commit torture without committing some other crime). Here's a paper (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/4/2/1/1/p142113_index.html)offering a very nice summary of that version of torture.

However, that kind of torture is not the same topic. I think we can safely say that all of the torture threads in this forum, including this one, refer to torture as defined by the C.A.T. (torture committed by an agent of a government for the purpose of extracting info, a confession or as punishment).

tsig

1st June 2009, 09:25 AM

Source?

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

It's the missing elephant on the corner fallacy.

tsig

1st June 2009, 09:33 AM

I hope you're joking, but if I take it at face value I can respond to your post.

The crime of torture that we've been talking about (as defined in the C.A.T.) doesn't cover the intentional infliction of severe pain for purposes of fun. In the U.S. that version of torture is a matter for State law. For the most part, States see that sort of torture as an aggravating factor of some other crime rather than a crime itself (because it's impossible to commit torture without committing some other crime). Here's a paper (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/4/2/1/1/p142113_index.html)offering a very nice summary of that version of torture.

However, that kind of torture is not the same topic. I think we can safely say that all of the torture threads in this forum, including this one, refer to torture as defined by the C.A.T. (torture committed by an agent of a government for the purpose of extracting info, a confession or as punishment).

So you are saying that "an agent of a government for the purpose of extracting info, a confession or as punishment" couldn't also get a little joy out of watching the pain?

thaiboxerken

1st June 2009, 09:36 AM

I'm thinking that it takes a bit of a sadist to torture another human being, for any reason.

However, back on topic....... still no evidence has been presented that torture is effective and reliable. Why violate human rights to do something that hasn't been shown to be reliable or effective?

tsig

1st June 2009, 09:38 AM

I'm thinking that it takes a bit of a sadist to torture another human being, for any reason.

The proponents of torture out themselves with every post. It's not information they want but to punish the evildoer.

corplinx

1st June 2009, 10:02 AM

3. The history of torture hasn't show it to be particularly effective.

That is basically a dodge. The point of the thread was really about the effectiveness of water boarding and not torture in general.

By your weak logic. Baseball is a game for losers because their is only 1 team a year that is the champion team. All the other teams failed.

thaiboxerken

1st June 2009, 10:05 AM

That is basically a dodge. The point of the thread was really about the effectiveness of water boarding and not torture in general.

No. The point of this thread is about the effectiveness of torture, of which water-boarding is one of the methods.

By your weak logic. Baseball is a game for losers because their is only 1 team a year that is the champion team. All the other teams failed.

By your logic, water-boarding is effective because some expert said it is, even though other experts disagree.

tsig

1st June 2009, 10:14 AM

That is basically a dodge. The point of the thread was really about the effectiveness of water boarding and not torture in general.

By your weak logic. Baseball is a game for losers because their is only 1 team a year that is the champion team. All the other teams failed.

You might want to look at the title of the thread " Effectiveness of Torture" before you embarrass yourself further.

corplinx

1st June 2009, 10:26 AM

You might want to look at the title of the thread " Effectiveness of Torture" before you embarrass yourself further.

Do try keeping up with the thread sometime before embarassing yourself any more. Even thought that was the title, the opening post starts:
"In various water-boarding threads, the pro-boarders have all but admitted that water-boarding is torture. Most of them have brought up effectiveness and efficiency as part of their argument as to why it's ok to do, thus evading the actual argument as to whether it's torture or not.

However, this thread is not about discussing whether water-boarding is torture or not. This is about whether torture is effective."

He does on to say not just water boarding but torture in general should be discussed, but as you can see from the thread (if you had bothered reading it), nobody argued that torture in general works. So this has basically been a water boarding thread.

To recap:
The thread was created because of his perceptions about proponents of water boarding. Most of the discussions has been about waterboarding. Despite the title and a small disclaimer in the opening post, it is a water boarding thread.

Stop failing so hard.

Drysdale

1st June 2009, 11:02 AM

Drysdale

1st June 2009, 11:05 AM

Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain--mental or physical--by an agent of a government on a person in his custody or control for the purpose of extracting information, a confession or as punishment. It is so defined in the Convention Against Torture (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm) (signed and ratified by the US and therefore part of US law), and in the U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113C, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html) section 2340 (passed to comply with the CAT).

I find it interesting that you're willing to express the opinion that waterboarding isn't torture when you've also expressed ignorance of the definition of torture.

You just intuit that it's not torture?

Which of those definitions cited would apply to waterboarding?

thaiboxerken

1st June 2009, 11:28 AM

Is there any evidence it isnt effective?

In gathering truthful data, there is no evidence that it's effective. In gathering false-confessions and false-data, yes, it's been shown to be effective.

Drysdale

1st June 2009, 12:27 PM

So you're saying this is a lie?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=2&hp

tsig

1st June 2009, 12:28 PM

Do try keeping up with the thread sometime before embarassing yourself any more. Even thought that was the title, the opening post starts:
"In various water-boarding threads, the pro-boarders have all but admitted that water-boarding is torture. Most of them have brought up effectiveness and efficiency as part of their argument as to why it's ok to do, thus evading the actual argument as to whether it's torture or not.

However, this thread is not about discussing whether water-boarding is torture or not. This is about whether torture is effective."

He does on to say not just water boarding but torture in general should be discussed, but as you can see from the thread (if you had bothered reading it), nobody argued that torture in general works. So this has basically been a water boarding thread.

To recap:
The thread was created because of his perceptions about proponents of water boarding. Most of the discussions has been about waterboarding. Despite the title and a small disclaimer in the opening post, it is a water boarding thread.

Stop failing so hard.

Semantics aside do you favor waterboarding? Would you trust your life to the information gained during waterboarding?

tsig

1st June 2009, 12:31 PM

Is there any evidence it isnt effective?

Witches. do you believe?

Enough pain will produce any fact the torturer wants.

thaiboxerken

1st June 2009, 12:41 PM

So you're saying this is a lie?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=2&hp

A broken clock can produce the accurate time as well, just not reliably. These claims about waterboarding bring up other questions, like how often did good information come from this? A total of over 250 waterboardings occurred, couldn't 250 methods of interrogation that didn't involve torture produce just as much or more information?

Cobalt

1st June 2009, 12:51 PM

In gathering truthful data, there is no evidence that it's effective. In gathering false-confessions and false-data, yes, it's been shown to be effective.

Evidence?

This always sounds like a weak cop out. I'd agree that if someone is actually innocent, sure, they'll say a load of crap to stop it from happening.

But the people that were waterboarded were exceptional cases, not just some middle eastern looking people who were walking down a street looking at a high rise funny.

I would imagine that those people were in fact prepared for interrogations, of many sorts. And when simple stuff doesn't work, you attempt something more.

Do I think that it's something to be proud of? Hell no!
If it can save lives and be worthwhile, do I think it should happen? If necessary, sure!

thaiboxerken

1st June 2009, 12:53 PM

You're asking for evidence that torture can provide false-data and false-confessions, Cobalt? Do you believe in witches?

Cobalt

1st June 2009, 12:57 PM

You're asking for evidence that torture can provide false-data and false-confessions, Cobalt? Do you believe in witches?

Your statements suggest that torture is only capable of producing false information.

I suggest you provide evidence for that.

And the witch question is dumb. Did you even read the part of my post where I admit that any truly innocent person will say anything to get out of something, and that who was waterboarded were exceptional cases?

Give up on that crap, it's quite lame.

thaiboxerken

1st June 2009, 01:19 PM

Your statements suggest that torture is only capable of producing false information.

Let me clarify my statement to you, so that no straw-men are erected. I'm stating that there is plenty of evidence that torture CAN produce false information on a regular basis.

And the witch question is dumb. Did you even read the part of my post where I admit that any truly innocent person will say anything to get out of something, and that who was waterboarded were exceptional cases?

Here is a secret for you, guilty people will also say anything to stop torture as well. There is no magical property that makes torture work differently on innocent or guilty people.

tsig

1st June 2009, 01:37 PM

Evidence?

This always sounds like a weak cop out. I'd agree that if someone is actually innocent, sure, they'll say a load of crap to stop it from happening.

But the people that were waterboarded were exceptional cases, not just some middle eastern looking people who were walking down a street looking at a high rise funny.

I would imagine that those people were in fact prepared for interrogations, of many sorts. And when simple stuff doesn't work, you attempt something more.

Do I think that it's something to be proud of? Hell no!
If it can save lives and be worthwhile, do I think it should happen? If necessary, sure!

So they were superhuman? Why would you think that the info you got was true?

JoeTheJuggler

1st June 2009, 01:42 PM

So you are saying that "an agent of a government for the purpose of extracting info, a confession or as punishment" couldn't also get a little joy out of watching the pain?
No. I'm saying if the only reason he's doing it is out of fun (as Marc's post suggested), it's the other definition of torture.

I would guess if an interrogator showed evidence that he was enjoying the torture (the C.A.T. kind of torture) such as taking a photo of himself with the dead body of the guy he helped torture to death grinning and showing a thumbs up sign, that should be considered an aggravating circumstance to the crime of torture.

I realize there were sadists involved in these things. However, I also think a lot of the people guilty of torture, especially the higher ups who were pretty far removed from the dirty work, probably did or ordered the torture out of decent motives. Again, doesn't matter; it's still a crime.

JoeTheJuggler

1st June 2009, 01:47 PM

But the people that were waterboarded were exceptional cases, not just some middle eastern looking people who were walking down a street looking at a high rise funny.
Waterboarding is just one form of torture that was conducted under the Bush administration. (The way I read this thread title, the question is about the effectiveness of torture.) Other forms of torture, especially beating and having the prisoner hung from his handcuffed wrists in a position not quite kneeling have even led to the death of these prisoners from the torture.

In at least one case, just about what you facetiously suggested is about what happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(human_rights_victim))--a perfectly innocent Afghani (no connection to any bad guys at all) driving his taxi was taken into custody and tortured to death.

As for waterboarding, does the fact that it was only done to 3 prisoners (over and over again) make it somehow NOT a crime?

JoeTheJuggler

1st June 2009, 01:51 PM

Your statements suggest that torture is only capable of producing false information.

You're deliberately misreading his statements then. If you like, respond to my point number 1 in post number 103.

The point isn't that torture never ever produces correct intelligence. The point is that at the time you make the decision to break international and US law by committing torture, you have no idea whether or not it will produce good intelligence.

Also, you also can't possibly know that it's the only possible way of producing that needed intel (a point that the "ticking time bomb" hypotheticals ask us to concede).

Distracted1

1st June 2009, 01:52 PM

Were'nt the expectations for American P.O.W. s changed after the Korean conflict allowing our soldiers to say just about anything whilst undergoing torture without damaging their honor or reputations? Can that be considered evidence for the efficacy of torture?

Do the advocates of Torture under " the right circumstances " in this thread aknowledge the justifications of the Koreans to torture our soldiers?, after all, they were fighting an enemy that had a history of at least twice using WMD's on its' opponent.

The same for the Vietnamese, were they justified to use torture on our soldiers because it was "effective"?

Is what's good for the goose good for the gander?

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 02:06 PM

You can, of course, provide a link to my post where I made such an insistence.

Don't you remember saying this?

That we are discussing the very notion of torture as being acceptable in my view violates the very bedrock principle of sacred honor. I don't want to be a part of it.

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 02:16 PM

It looks to me as if the argument from the pro-torture side is that there is no evidence that water-boarding works because Obama is hiding it.

The dishonesty (or at least lack of understanding) from your side appears to be endless. I think dishonesty applies in your case because in a previous thread YOU were referred to posts that provided specific statements (i.e., evidence) and facts from CIA and other sources that indicate waterboarding worked. Here is some of the material you ignored.

Dennis Blair, Obama’s director of national intelligence - "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html )

General Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under President Bush - “the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html ). Hayden recently wrote "As late as 2006, fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of Al Qaeda came from those interrogations." (http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=AvantGo&op=ReadStory&sid=6029 )

Former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has said, "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened." (The Washington Post via http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/01/lz1e1krauth22258-exceptions-no-torture-rule/?opinion )

George Tenet told CBS' "60 Minutes" (http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2007/04/george-tenet-terrorist-interrogations.html) - "Here's what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the United States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."

And here is an article that you were referred to that gives specific details about how waterboarding worked to save lives and stop terrorist attacks when conventional approaches had failed.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE5YTNmZTg5OWUyOTlkMGUxOTk3OGMxY2I4ZDQ4YWQ=

Summarizing the facts claimed in it one could say ...

1) On 9/11 a terrorist plot horrifically murdered over 3000 innocent men, women and children in the United States.

2) We captured the mastermind of that plot, a man with the initials KSM. He was a man so evil that he actually plotted the death of 30,000 people and managed to murder over 3000.

3) KSM was interrogated by conventional means and yes, he did reveal some information, but apparently nothing that he didn't already think we knew. They were totally unable to get him to reveal information about any ongoing or still planned plots, and he did not give up the names of any other terrorists that he thought we didn't already know.

4) When asked what al-Qaeda plots were in the works, KSM told the interrogators that "Soon, you will know". So here was a terrorist, who they already knew had masterminded the killing of 3000+ people in a horrific manner; who destroyed four commercial passenger jets and a complex of skyscrapers to do it; who caused a trillion dollars in damage to an economy overall; and who damaged the psyche of an entire nation, and he was leading investigators to believe that "soon" there would be other such calamities.

5) And those investigators knew that there were indeed other plots underway. They knew that the terrorist organization was large, with many members. They knew that KSM was high enough in the al-Qaeda organization to know about some of the plots. In fact, they'd already discovered that he looked into crop dusters before he was caught ... planes whose only terrorist use might be to spread some form or biological or chemical weapon, which it was feared they might have obtained. So if nothing else, they suspected that might be an ongoing plot.

6) So they decided to waterboard him. And after getting nothing out of KSM by conventional interrogation, that he didn't think they already knew, he broke in minutes and started telling them things about ongoing plots and the names of other terrorists. Sure, he continued to resist, week they learned many things that indeed did prevent the loss of many additional lives (and not just Americans).

7) The article I linked lists some of the life saving facts they learned from waterboarding KSM and the two other top al-Qaeda members. As result of the information they obtained, they captured multiple additional terrorists ... terrorists who they hadn't known anything about even after months of conventional interrogation ... terrorists who were actively plotting additional mass murders at the time they were caught ... terrorists who were involved in the mass murder plots that had already taken place or that had been involved in plots that had been stopped.

8) And as pointed out in that article, one the plots (carrying out simultaneous attacks on the consulate, western residences and westerners at the local airport in Karachi) was stopped only days before it was completed. And the only reason that happened is that we used enhanced interrogation techniques on another captive.

The truth is you simply don't like what the CIA officers and that very specific evidence say, so you and the others have just ignored it or dismissed it out of hand. So you just ignore this evidence and continue your charade.

Now you can argue that the facts in that article aren't true ... that the CIA agents who provided those facts are liars. That the other officials I quoted above are liars. If that's the way you want to view it, then the best we can say is that the verdict is out. And the only way to resolve this is for Obama to release whatever information is necessary to resolve it.

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 02:21 PM

I'm thinking that it takes a bit of a sadist to torture another human being, for any reason.

What sort of human will not apply some temporary pain and discomfort to a very bad person who likely has knowledge about terrorist plots that will soon kill hundreds or even thousands (or tens of thousands) of human beings? Especially if the CIA is right and waterboarding is effective at eliciting accurate and actionable intelligence in a short time? Hmmmmmmm? :D

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 02:31 PM

The proponents of torture out themselves with every post. It's not information they want but to punish the evildoer.

Garbage.

If anyone is outing themselves, it is those who see the application of some temporary pain or discomfort (via waterboarding) as morally worse than not waterboarding ... even though past use of that method might now suggest one could get the information needed to prevent thousands of people from being murdered. Those folks are saying that applying some temporary pain and discomfort to one demonstrably bad person is more evil than allowing the murder of 1000's of people to take place when one perhaps could have prevented it without causing more than temporary pain and discomfort to one demonstrably bad person. I think that shows your own moral compass is broken, tsig.

Upchurch

1st June 2009, 02:43 PM

What sort of human will not apply some temporary pain and discomfort to a very bad person who likely has knowledge about terrorist plots that will soon kill hundreds or even thousands (or tens of thousands) of human beings?
I just have to ask. Thread after thread, you have presented this logical fallacy, but you refrain from calling it what it is: torture. Why is that? If you think torture is justified, why not own up to it and ask:

What sort of human will not torture a very bad person who likely has knowledge about a terrorist plot that will soon kill hundreds (thousands, etc.) of human beings?

Is it that you know the answer is that it takes a very bad person to torture another human being in the first place?

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 02:44 PM

A total of over 250 waterboardings occurred, couldn't 250 methods of interrogation that didn't involve torture produce just as much or more information?

KSM said he was waterboarded 5 times. He experienced 5 SESSIONS of waterboarding over a period of a week. Water was applied more than once in each of those sessions for numbers like you stated. So your question is whether conventional methods could have produced the same information in that week.

The answer to your question is that the CIA is already on record stating that they had applied conventional methods for far more than a weeks time and had obtained no information from KSM that he didn't already think we knew. He did not disclose any details about the plots we didn't yet know about or reveal the names of other terrorists. And he showed no signs of breaking. But in one week of waterboarding, he not only revealed the existance of other plots but the names of other terrorists would allowed those plots to be defeated. Another instance of enhanced interrogation is said to have produced information that managed to stop a terrorist attack only days before it was set to occur. Had we relied on conventional methods, that terrorist attack would likely have occurred, killing many people.

So as long as we believe the CIA, that's excellent evidence that waterboarding worked where conventional methods did not. Now you can argue that the CIA are liars but then only way to resolve this issue is for Obama to release the data to do it. That he isn't releasing that data suggests to me that he knows the CIA is right and his supporters are wrong, and that he's embarked on a policy that is deeply flawed and may eventually lead to the death of many Americans.

Cobalt

1st June 2009, 03:04 PM

So they were superhuman? Why would you think that the info you got was true? The **** are you babbling about, superhuman?

Waterboarding is just one form of torture that was conducted under the Bush administration. (The way I read this thread title, the question is about the effectiveness of torture.) Other forms of torture, especially beating and having the prisoner hung from his handcuffed wrists in a position not quite kneeling have even led to the death of these prisoners from the torture. For one thing, multiquote rules. Two, offer up evidence about those other forms of torture?

In at least one case, just about what you facetiously suggested is about what happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(human_rights_victim))--a perfectly innocent Afghani (no connection to any bad guys at all) driving his taxi was taken into custody and tortured to death.
By the US? If so, that's not good and that was hideously poor judgement. Where did I say that it's perfectly fine to torture everyone?

As for waterboarding, does the fact that it was only done to 3 prisoners (over and over again) make it somehow NOT a crime? Didn't say that either, hoss.

You're deliberately misreading his statements then. If you like, respond to my point number 1 in post number 103. Perhaps later. So far I'm just saying what his posts read like to me.

The point isn't that torture never ever produces correct intelligence. The point is that at the time you make the decision to break international and US law by committing torture, you have no idea whether or not it will produce good intelligence.
And if it does, great, still a crime, I get that.

Also, you also can't possibly know that it's the only possible way of producing that needed intel (a point that the "ticking time bomb" hypotheticals ask us to concede). I never said it was the only way. Goddamn, do people not read?

tsig

1st June 2009, 03:12 PM

The dishonesty (or at least lack of understanding) from your side appears to be endless. I think dishonesty applies in your case because in a previous thread YOU were referred to posts that provided specific statements (i.e., evidence) and facts from CIA and other sources that indicate waterboarding worked. Here is some of the material you ignored.

Dennis Blair, Obama’s director of national intelligence - "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html )

General Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under President Bush - “the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html ). Hayden recently wrote "As late as 2006, fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of Al Qaeda came from those interrogations." (http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=AvantGo&op=ReadStory&sid=6029 )

Former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has said, "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened." (The Washington Post via http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/01/lz1e1krauth22258-exceptions-no-torture-rule/?opinion )

George Tenet told CBS' "60 Minutes" (http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2007/04/george-tenet-terrorist-interrogations.html) - "Here's what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the United States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."

And here is an article that you were referred to that gives specific details about how waterboarding worked to save lives and stop terrorist attacks when conventional approaches had failed.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE5YTNmZTg5OWUyOTlkMGUxOTk3OGMxY2I4ZDQ4YWQ=

Summarizing the facts claimed in it one could say ...

1) On 9/11 a terrorist plot horrifically murdered over 3000 innocent men, women and children in the United States.

2) We captured the mastermind of that plot, a man with the initials KSM. He was a man so evil that he actually plotted the death of 30,000 people and managed to murder over 3000.

3) KSM was interrogated by conventional means and yes, he did reveal some information, but apparently nothing that he didn't already think we knew. They were totally unable to get him to reveal information about any ongoing or still planned plots, and he did not give up the names of any other terrorists that he thought we didn't already know.

4) When asked what al-Qaeda plots were in the works, KSM told the interrogators that "Soon, you will know". So here was a terrorist, who they already knew had masterminded the killing of 3000+ people in a horrific manner; who destroyed four commercial passenger jets and a complex of skyscrapers to do it; who caused a trillion dollars in damage to an economy overall; and who damaged the psyche of an entire nation, and he was leading investigators to believe that "soon" there would be other such calamities.

5) And those investigators knew that there were indeed other plots underway. They knew that the terrorist organization was large, with many members. They knew that KSM was high enough in the al-Qaeda organization to know about some of the plots. In fact, they'd already discovered that he looked into crop dusters before he was caught ... planes whose only terrorist use might be to spread some form or biological or chemical weapon, which it was feared they might have obtained. So if nothing else, they suspected that might be an ongoing plot.

6) So they decided to waterboard him. And after getting nothing out of KSM by conventional interrogation, that he didn't think they already knew, he broke in minutes and started telling them things about ongoing plots and the names of other terrorists. Sure, he continued to resist, week they learned many things that indeed did prevent the loss of many additional lives (and not just Americans).

7) The article I linked lists some of the life saving facts they learned from waterboarding KSM and the two other top al-Qaeda members. As result of the information they obtained, they captured multiple additional terrorists ... terrorists who they hadn't known anything about even after months of conventional interrogation ... terrorists who were actively plotting additional mass murders at the time they were caught ... terrorists who were involved in the mass murder plots that had already taken place or that had been involved in plots that had been stopped.

8) And as pointed out in that article, one the plots (carrying out simultaneous attacks on the consulate, western residences and westerners at the local airport in Karachi) was stopped only days before it was completed. And the only reason that happened is that we used enhanced interrogation techniques on another captive.

The truth is you simply don't like what the CIA officers and that very specific evidence say, so you and the others have just ignored it or dismissed it out of hand. So you just ignore this evidence and continue your charade.

Now you can argue that the facts in that article aren't true ... that the CIA agents who provided those facts are liars. That the other officials I quoted above are liars. If that's the way you want to view it, then the best we can say is that the verdict is out. And the only way to resolve this is for Obama to release whatever information is necessary to resolve it.

Until we waterboard those agents I see no way to get to the truth.

Your gold standard of truth is torture so why believe them till we make 'em gag on there own vomit?

Towlie

1st June 2009, 03:16 PM

BeAChooser, any pain or discomfort forcibly inflicted upon people to make them bend to your will is torture. That's what the word means.

If you wish to argue otherwise, please tell us what alternate word you would use for "pain or discomfort forcibly inflicted upon people to make them bend to your will" in cases where you would contend that such inflicted pain or discomfort doesn't qualify as torture.

tsig

1st June 2009, 03:17 PM

Garbage.

If anyone is outing themselves, it is those who see the application of some temporary pain or discomfort (via waterboarding) as morally worse than not waterboarding ... even though past use of that method might now suggest one could get the information needed to prevent thousands of people from being murdered. Those folks are saying that applying some temporary pain and discomfort to one demonstrably bad person is more evil than allowing the murder of 1000's of people to take place when one perhaps could have prevented it without causing more than temporary pain and discomfort to one demonstrably bad person. I think that shows your own moral compass is broken, tsig.

You wish to inflict pain in order to serve a problematically higher good.

I see a human in front of me.

Why do you think that only pain produces truth?

thaiboxerken

1st June 2009, 03:18 PM

For the purposes of this thread..and human understanding, water-boarding is considered torture. If someone wants to debate about this, there are plenty of other threads to do so. If someone has good evidence that torture is effective and reliable, feel free to give it. So far, all we have are anecdotes and opinions.

tsig

1st June 2009, 03:23 PM

The **** are you babbling about, superhuman?

For one thing, multiquote rules. Two, offer up evidence about those other forms of torture?

By the US? If so, that's not good and that was hideously poor judgement. Where did I say that it's perfectly fine to torture everyone?
Didn't say that either, hoss.

Perhaps later. So far I'm just saying what his posts read like to me.

And if it does, great, still a crime, I get that.

I never said it was the only way. Goddamn, do people not read?

"The **** are you babbling about, superhuman"

Once again you attack me rather than what i said.

corplinx

1st June 2009, 03:28 PM

So far, all we have are anecdotes and opinions.

There is no double blind on the effectiveness of torture in general nor waterboarding specifically. As torture itself has a rather....... broad definition, it would not make for a good controlled study anyway.

One poster a few posts back defined torture in such a way that farting in your office to drive out an unwanted visitor would be torture.

"Does torture work?" is too broad of a question.

thaiboxerken

1st June 2009, 03:34 PM

There is no double blind on the effectiveness of torture in general nor waterboarding specifically.

Then there is no reason to believe it works.

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 04:03 PM

Until we waterboard those agents I see no way to get to the truth.

Your gold standard of truth is torture so why believe them till we make 'em gag on there own vomit?

See what I mean about tsig ignoring any evidence that doesn't conform to his world view and not really being interested in the truth folks? :D

tsig

1st June 2009, 04:10 PM

See what I mean about tsig ignoring any evidence that doesn't conform to his world view and not really being interested in the truth folks? :D

If you have evidence that torture works then this thread would have ended long ago.

Why do you attack me and not what I said?

tsig

1st June 2009, 04:15 PM

There is no double blind on the effectiveness of torture in general nor waterboarding specifically. As torture itself has a rather....... broad definition, it would not make for a good controlled study anyway.

One poster a few posts back defined torture in such a way that farting in your office to drive out an unwanted visitor would be torture.

"Does torture work?" is too broad of a question.

Yes we should refine it. Thumbscrews, the Rack, Fire, just which one of these is not torture? Which one works?

Truth thru Pain!!

Cobalt

1st June 2009, 04:16 PM

"The **** are you babbling about, superhuman"

Once again you attack me rather than what i said.

No, an attack would be "Your hygiene leaves much to be desired."

What I said was, "What the **** are you babbling about, superhuman?"

Meaning, where the **** did you get "Superhuman" from. Cause I don't recall saying it until then.

corplinx

1st June 2009, 04:21 PM

Then there is no reason to believe it works.

That is silly. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the scientific method. My educated guess based on reading about how water boarding works, reading about its past results, talking with someone who has undergone the procedure, and looking at my own incident with drowning panic in the past lead me to postulate that water boarding is to some degree effective. I am not sure anyone would dispute that water boarding breaks people. How good that condition is for information gathering is in dispute.

An educated guess is not a fact but neither is it dismissed out of hand. A doctor's prognosis can often be an educated guess.

I think you are bending skeptical inquiry to suit your desired outcome.

tsig

1st June 2009, 04:22 PM

No, an attack would be "Your hygiene leaves much to be desired."

What I said was, "What the **** are you babbling about, superhuman?"

Meaning, where the **** did you get "Superhuman" from. Cause I don't recall saying it until then.

I said superhuman since you seemed to think that the terrorists could withstand torture that Navy Seals couldn't.

You might try to follow the conversation before you stick your comments in.

JoeTheJuggler

1st June 2009, 04:24 PM

Two, offer up evidence about those other forms of torture?
You're kidding right?

Are you suggesting that there isn't sufficient evidence that prisoners were beaten, hung from their wrists, threatened with death, and so on?

Where have you been living?

And if it does, great, still a crime, I get that.
No, you're missing the point. When you make the decision to commit that crime you don't know if you'll get good information by committing torture. To claim that torture is effective (and offer it as a moral justification) is to claim that it is always effective.

I never said it was the only way. Goddamn, do people not read?
Yes, I read just fine. I think you're the one who's not paying attention.

When the effectiveness of torture is offered as a justification for committing the crime of torture, I think the claim implies that it's the only option. The way I look at it is that the claim "Torture is effective" is the claim that the benefit will outweigh the costs.

Since other methods of interrogation, investigation and intelligence-gathering might also yield the desired information yet these other methods don't carry the huge costs--committing a crime, inviting retaliation in kind to our people, going against our own ideals and principles, providing a recruitment tool for the bad guys, tarnishing our credibility and reputation, etc., using "Torture is effective" as a justification for torture means that you think it will produce good intelligence or legitimate confessions far more reliably than these cost-free methods.

corplinx

1st June 2009, 04:28 PM

Are you suggesting that there isn't sufficient evidence that prisoners were beaten, hung from their wrists, threatened with death, and so on?

Abuse for sadistic gratification is not torture. It is far worse. Its inflicting discomfort simply because the person doing so enjoys it.

Cobalt

1st June 2009, 05:01 PM

I said superhuman since you seemed to think that the terrorists could withstand torture that Navy Seals couldn't.

You might try to follow the conversation before you stick your comments in.
I'll just quote what I originally said so you can enjoy the delicious irony of your statement the way I am.
Evidence?

This always sounds like a weak cop out. I'd agree that if someone is actually innocent, sure, they'll say a load of crap to stop it from happening.

But the people that were waterboarded were exceptional cases, not just some middle eastern looking people who were walking down a street looking at a high rise funny.

I would imagine that those people were in fact prepared for interrogations, of many sorts. And when simple stuff doesn't work, you attempt something more.

Do I think that it's something to be proud of? Hell no!
If it can save lives and be worthwhile, do I think it should happen? If necessary, sure!

Moving on.
You're kidding right? No.

Are you suggesting that there isn't sufficient evidence that prisoners were beaten, hung from their wrists, threatened with death, and so on? No, I asked you to provide some because I don't have any in front of me. You claimed it, I figured it would be the least you could do.

Where have you been living?
Suburbia.

No, you're missing the point. When you make the decision to commit that crime you don't know if you'll get good information by committing torture. To claim that torture is effective (and offer it as a moral justification) is to claim that it is always effective. No, I don't think it's always effective. If there's reason to believe it WILL be effective, that's a different story.

Yes, I read just fine. I think you're the one who's not paying attention.
Whatever, hoss.

When the effectiveness of torture is offered as a justification for committing the crime of torture, I think the claim implies that it's the only option. The way I look at it is that the claim "Torture is effective" is the claim that the benefit will outweigh the costs. Jesus H. Tapdancing Rodruigez Christ. Where did I say it was the ONLY option? And what ****ing "cost" is there? That armchair internet kiddies will be sad about it? I'll put it simply.

If it has a chance to be effective, I'm more than willing to sacrifice your feelings of anger to save lives.

Since other methods of interrogation, investigation and intelligence-gathering might also yield the desired information yet these other methods don't carry the huge costs--committing a crime, inviting retaliation in kind to our people, going against our own ideals and principles, providing a recruitment tool for the bad guys, tarnishing our credibility and reputation, etc., using "Torture is effective" as a justification for torture means that you think it will produce good intelligence or legitimate confessions far more reliably than these cost-free methods.

Okay, several of those "reasons" are crap. Crime, valid. Ideals and principles, understandable. But it isn't going to invite retaliation from a group who was intending on destroying us anyway. That's a weak excuse. These people also don't need an excuse to be recruited. Also a pathetic excuse. It tarnishes our reputation in the eyes of who, internet kiddies and other countries? What the **** difference does England's opinion of us matter?

It's like to some people, (Not necessarily you,) it's more important to look good than to protect our people. And I find that sad.

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 05:02 PM

BeAChooser, any pain or discomfort forcibly inflicted upon people to make them bend to your will is torture. That's what the word means.

Only because a group of potentially fallible humans defined it that way. But perceptions of morality can (and have) changed over time and from one culture to the next. From one circumstance to the next. Maybe the definition of torture is too broad in this age when small groups of terrorists can potentially kill tens of thousands or even millions of innocent people.

The group of humans who defined torture in the way you quote is also a group of humans that seems to think that all torture is equally bad. They seem to think that temporarily causing discomfort to one person is worse than allowing the murder of thousands of people to occur because you don't apply temporary discomfort. You appear to subscribe to that view yourself. Which I think is just plain silly. It's moral equivalence at it's worst.

You bandie the word torture around knowing full well what image it conjures (flayed skin, pulled teeth, electricity cooking genitals) in the minds of most people. You do this knowing full well that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were approved for use by the CIA, like waterboarding, are nothing like that. You never mention that strict guidelines were established on employing the enhanced techniques. You never mention that only THREE people ... three DEMONSTRABLY VERY BAD PEOPLE ... were waterboarded by the US in the last 6 years, despite capturing thousands of people suspected of being al-Qaeda. You never mention that those three were specifically waterboarded because they had resisted conventional techniques, because it was thought they knew information about other serious ongoing plots, and because learning about those plots was considered time urgent. You hide these facts from readers. You'd never mention them if our side didn't bring them in these threads. You'd be content to tell only half the story.

And when someone points out that people in positions to know the facts, such as CIA sources, state that waterboarding has worked and saved peoples lives, your side of this debate simply ignores that evidence. And for the most part, is not interested in finding out if the CIA is right. Some of you, even knowing that evidence exists, continue to act like it's an established fact that waterboarding doesn't work. And then misrepresent what our side of this debate actually believe. I don't think that behavior reflects very well on your side of this debate.

To be blunt, I don't think you hold the moral high ground here. It seems to me that your side is willing to let thousands die who could be saved by just applying temporary pain or discomfort to a bad person. And I think that's because your side doesn't really value human life as much as you claim. Which is perhaps why some members on your side (as seen in this thread btw) callously dismiss the possibility that a fetus is a human being.

In fact, your side believes in that so strongly, that you elected a man to be President who was the ONLY Senator in the Illinois legislature to vote to prevent doctors from giving medical care to a fetus that somehow manages to survive an abortion, no matter how late term the abortion. So apparently, our President and some on your side don't even think a "fetus" is a human being even one second before it is actually born. Which in my opinion is complete nonsense. It certainly is inconsistent with laws that allow for murder charges to be filed in cases where an unborn child is killed ... laws that democrats helped pass.

Upchurch

1st June 2009, 05:08 PM

Wow, BAC, you really don't want to own the pro-torture position do you? Could it be that you actually still retain enough humanity to know that it takes a "VERY BAD PERSON" to torture another human being, no matter how vile that human being is?

Distracted1

1st June 2009, 05:09 PM

...my opinion is complete nonsense

Maybe you're right. Its always nice to focus on only the portions of reality that prove our points.<S>

Upchurch

1st June 2009, 05:12 PM

You bandie the word torture around knowing full well what image it conjures (flayed skin, pulled teeth, electricity cooking genitals) in the minds of most people.
I'm curious, BAC. If it would save hundreds, thousands, or even millions of innocent lives, wouldn't you flay the skin off of a very bad person? Wouldn't you pull their teeth? Wouldn't you cook their genitals? We're talking about the lives of innocent people here vs sending electrical voltage through a bad man's penis.

How could you not do it, BAC? Countless innocent lives are at stake.

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 05:27 PM

To claim that torture is effective (and offer it as a moral justification) is to claim that it is always effective.

There you go again, making up utter nonsense and misrepresenting what our side has actually stated in previous threads. As I clearly explained in previous threads, this is a probabilistic issue as are most things in life. There's only a probability that the person knows the information needed to prevent an attack. There's only a probability that waterboarding will extract the information. There's only a probability that you'll be able to act on that information in time to stop the attack. But when the consequences may be so serious (thousands or more dead?), applying temporary pain and discomfort to a bad person in the attempt to garner information may be more moral than doing nothing and simply letting all those people probably die.

Since other methods of interrogation, investigation and intelligence-gathering might also yield the desired information

Again, you simply ignore the evidence. The CIA has stated we've already had situations where the conventional methods did not work and the enhanced methods did work but just in time to barely prevent attacks. Now you can argue that the CIA are liars but then you need to join me in demanding that Obama release the data needed to find out. And if he doesn't, you need to join me in asking skeptically why he hasn't.

committing a crime

It's only a crime if we define it as a crime.

inviting retaliation in kind to our people

We are talking about terrorists here, Joe. People who are going to murder thousands of people whether you waterboard or not. People who already have hideously killed and dismembered our people when they've been captured. Our use of waterboarding is not going to affect their behavior ONE IOTA. And you know it.

going against our own ideals and principles

Says who? Our country has done far worse than waterboard someone through 200 years of history. I don't see it as very idealistic to allow terrorists to potentially kill thousands or even tens of thousands of Americans because you think waterboarding is worse than mass murder.

providing a recruitment tool for the bad guys

The biggest recruitment tool the other side has is success in their attacks, which you've just markedly increased the likelihood of due to banning enhanced interrogation methods. People flocked to Osama because he showed how the US was a paper tiger and because of his success in attacks.

tarnishing our credibility and reputation

In whose eyes? Our credibility and reputation depends on there not being successful attacks against the US. It will be boosted if we save hundreds or thousands of people in other countries ... as the CIA reported happened because of our use of enhanced interrogation. Waterboarding a few very bad people from time to time, when we waterboard thousands of our own soldiers, when media types are willing to let themselves be waterboarded, under the constraints that were imposed on the CIA in waterboarding, is not going to tarnish our credibility and reputation ... UNLESS THE LEFT DOES IT.

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 05:34 PM

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 05:36 PM

Its always nice to focus on only the portions of reality that prove our points.<S>

Thank you for proving my point about your side of this debate. I can see you're going to be a great addition to this forum. :D

Upchurch

1st June 2009, 05:38 PM

Wow, Upchurch. You seem to think that temporarily causing discomfort to one person is worse than allowing the murder of thousands of people to probably occur because you won't apply temporary discomfort. You're so morally *superior* to me. :rolleyes:
You mean you wouldn't rip a guy's fingernails off to save millions of innocent lives? Why not?

tsig

1st June 2009, 05:54 PM

Wow, Upchurch. You seem to think that temporarily causing discomfort to one person is worse than allowing the murder of thousands of people to probably occur because you won't apply temporary discomfort. You're so morally *superior* to me. :rolleyes:

Why is the humanity of the individual being tortured being ignored.

BAC you are willing to hurt someone to achieve your ends.

Just how are you different from the very bad man?

Upchurch

1st June 2009, 05:57 PM

Why is the humanity of the individual being tortured being ignored.
The humanity of the person being tortured, in the case of KSM, was lost long ago. It is the humanity of those doing the torturing that is the issue.

Locknar

1st June 2009, 06:02 PM

Off-topic posts moved to AAH; please stay on topic.

tsig

1st June 2009, 06:06 PM

The humanity of the person being tortured, in the case of KSM, was lost long ago. It is the humanity of those doing the torturing that is the issue.

Why is KSM not a human? What are your standards for humanity? If someone falls short of your judgment of what is human then can we do anything with them?

Upchurch

1st June 2009, 06:13 PM

Why is KSM not a human? What are your standards for humanity? If someone falls short of your judgment of what is human the can we do anything with them?
While I don't think he should be tortured, he lost any claims at humanity through his actions which, as corp pointed out, includes this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl#The_Daniel_Pearl_video).

corp and BAC are correct in that KSM is a very bad personTM. As such, I have very little concern for his well being. I am more concerned about we accord ourselves for our own sake rather than his.

tsig

1st June 2009, 06:54 PM

While I don't think he should be tortured, he lost any claims at humanity through his actions which, as corp pointed out, includes this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl#The_Daniel_Pearl_video).

corp and BAC are correct in that KSM is a very bad personTM. As such, I have very little concern for his well being. I am more concerned about we accord ourselves for our own sake rather than his.

Just when did he cease to be human? I think for own sake we must treat him as human.

Upchurch

1st June 2009, 07:03 PM

Just when did he cease to be human? I think for own sake we must treat him as human.
I absolutely agree we should treat him as human for our own sake. That doesn't mean I consider anything more than human garbage.

tsig

1st June 2009, 07:37 PM

I absolutely agree we should treat him as human for our own sake. That doesn't mean I consider anything more than human garbage.

Why would you do this? Is it easier to discard people than to learn about them?

Are you at some pinnacle where you can see the worth of each person?

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 07:44 PM

Just how are you different from the very bad man?

Isn't it obvious?

Unlike KSM, I've not been involved in the murder of thousands of people already, nor am I involved in additional plots aimed at hopefully (from the terrorist's perspective) killing thousands more in the future.

Through this continued nonsense, you are only demonstrating that you, like many liberals, really don't understand evil. You are only demonstrating that you see a moral equivalence between a person inducing pain to save thousands of lives and a person murdering thousands of people. I think most people, it they understood that was really where you are coming from would shake their heads in disgust and dismiss your views out of hand. So I'm trying to help them understand that. :D

Upchurch

1st June 2009, 07:53 PM

Why would you do this? Is it easier to discard people than to learn about them?
What makes you think I haven't learned about him?

Sometimes to know someone is to love them. Sometimes not.

tsig

1st June 2009, 08:08 PM

Isn't it obvious?

Unlike KSM, I've not been involved in the murder of thousands of people already, nor am I involved in additional plots aimed at hopefully (from the terrorist's perspective) killing thousands more in the future.

Through this continued nonsense, you are only demonstrating that you, like many liberals, really don't understand evil. You are only demonstrating that you see a moral equivalence between a person inducing pain to save thousands of lives and a person murdering thousands of people. I think most people, it they understood that was really where you are coming from would shake their heads in disgust and dismiss your views out of hand. So I'm trying to help them understand that. :D

There is no such thing as evil. It exists only in your head. Or in your hands.

You are the one advocating pain as a truth device.

applecorped

1st June 2009, 08:08 PM

You are the one advocating pain as a truth device.

Sweet, sweet truth.

tsig

1st June 2009, 08:13 PM

Sweet, sweet truth.

Some pay for it others get it at JREF for free.

Morrigan

1st June 2009, 08:42 PM

You bandie the word torture around knowing full well what image it conjures (flayed skin, pulled teeth, electricity cooking genitals) in the minds of most people. You do this knowing full well that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were approved for use by the CIA, like waterboarding, are nothing like that.

So what? Let's assume that standard torture advanced interrogation techniques entail waterboarding but not cooking genitals. So you are saying waterboarding is fine, but flaying or cooking genitals isn't fine, since you make this distinction.

Answer me this, yes or no: would you flay someone's skin/pull their teeth/cook their genitals, to maybe save the lives of hundreds or thousands?

BeAChooser

1st June 2009, 08:53 PM

Answer me this, yes or no: would you flay someone's skin/pull their teeth/cook their genitals, to maybe save the lives of hundreds or thousands?

No. But I would inflict some TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on him/her ... as in waterboarding. You see, I can respond rationally. In contrast to those on your side of this debate who see inflicting temporary pain and discomfort as morally equal to (or even worse) than letting hundreds or thousands of people die when *maybe* you could have saved them by simply inflicting that temporary pain and discomfort. :D

thaiboxerken

2nd June 2009, 12:44 AM

That is silly.

No, it's not.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the scientific method.

Actually, I am. Are there any studies on the effectiveness of torture?

My educated guess based on reading about how water boarding works, reading about its past results, talking with someone who has undergone the procedure, and looking at my own incident with drowning panic in the past lead me to postulate that water boarding is to some degree effective.

Just like a homeopath's educated guess based on what they read and past results.

I am not sure anyone would dispute that water boarding breaks people. How good that condition is for information gathering is in dispute.

Torture can break people. There are many ways people act when they are broken. Do you know if broken people give accurate information? It seems to me that broken people can confess to witchcraft.

An educated guess is not a fact but neither is it dismissed out of hand. A doctor's prognosis can often be an educated guess.

I can dismiss your educated guess because it merely reflects your personal bias.

I think you are bending skeptical inquiry to suit your desired outcome.

Hardly. I'm looking for facts and evidence, not opinions based on episodes of 24.

thaiboxerken

2nd June 2009, 12:47 AM

No. But I would inflict some TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on him/her ... as in waterboarding.

So it's ok to cause a person trauma, as long as it's physically temporary...why? Would you advocate such treatment on a child? The pain is only temporary, right?

Upchurch

2nd June 2009, 03:16 AM

No.
No? NO?!?

You would let tens of millions of people die simply because you won't take a pair of pliers and rip out the teeth, one at a time, from a VERY BAD PERSON? It's only temporary. He can get bridges and/or dentures later and it will save the lives of tens of millions of people!

Why do you love KSM so much more than tens of millions of innocent US citizens?

And you think you have the morally *superior* position?

tsig

2nd June 2009, 04:47 AM

JoeTheJuggler

2nd June 2009, 07:43 AM

You have no way of knowing all that. If one had all the knowledge proposed in your scenario there would be no need to torture.

This has been pointed out to BaC many times.

His argument still depends entirely on an impossible hypothetical, one where you know that only by committing the crime of torture you will save millions of innocent lives. My typical reply is that I reject the hypothetical as impossible for the very reason you've indicated, tsig.

JoeTheJuggler

2nd June 2009, 07:46 AM

letting hundreds or thousands of people die when *maybe* you could have saved them by simply inflicting that temporary pain and discomfort. :D

You're being disingenuous again. Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain. Let's not talk about "some" pain or "discomfort". (At least you're not repeating "a little pain" like you were doing before.)

Why is it when you formulate this hypothetical you don't say the word "torture"? You're trying to frame it as a minor thing relative to a completely unknown chance of maybe saving a life or ("hundreds or thousands" of lives).

Morrigan

2nd June 2009, 09:56 AM

No. But I would inflict some TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on him/her ... as in waterboarding. You see, I can respond rationally. In contrast to those on your side of this debate who see inflicting temporary pain and discomfort as morally equal to (or even worse) than letting hundreds or thousands of people die when *maybe* you could have saved them by simply inflicting that temporary pain and discomfort. :D

What about the moral equivalence between inflicting permanent pain on just ONE EVIL MAN vs letting thousands of innocents die? You could have saved all those people by simply sacrificing ONE (sick, evil monster) guy's teeth/skin/penis... but instead you'd let them all die. All in the name of moral superiority. Oh, we're so impressed by your moral clarity. :rolleyes:

No? NO?!?

You would let tens of millions of people die simply because you won't take a pair of pliers and rip out the teeth, one at a time, from a VERY BAD PERSON? It's only temporary. He can get bridges and/or dentures later and it will save the lives of tens of millions of people!

Why do you love KSM so much more than tens of millions of innocent US citizens?

And you think you have the morally *superior* position?

:newlol Damn, was beaten to it.

JoeTheJuggler

2nd June 2009, 10:23 AM

thaiboxerken

2nd June 2009, 10:26 AM

I agree with you, Joe. When we decide that "bad" people can be tortured, then we start to have subjective standards as to who can be tortured and who cannot. The only objective standard is to make all torture illegal. Granted, what torture is seems to be subjective to certain conservatives, even though the internationally recognized definition seems to be objective.

BeAChooser

2nd June 2009, 02:28 PM

So it's ok to cause a person trauma, as long as it's physically temporary...why? Would you advocate such treatment on a child?

If a child knowing information that might save many lives was refusing to disclose it? Yes. Do you really consider inflicting some temporary pain on a child worse than what that child would be doing by withholding the information? Or what you would be doing by not getting the information from the child using temporary pain?

By the way, were you never spanked as a child? :D

BeAChooser

2nd June 2009, 02:30 PM

And you think you have the morally *superior* position?

To you? Yes. Because I'd at least go so far as to use temporary pain and discomfort to elicit vital information that would save many lives. You apparently wouldn't even do that. You'd let those lives be lost. :D

Upchurch

2nd June 2009, 02:38 PM

To you? Yes. Because I'd at least go so far as to use temporary pain and discomfort to elicit vital information that would save many lives. You apparently wouldn't even do that. You'd let those lives be lost. :D
You would let those lives be lost too because you would not be willing take a pair of gardening sheers and start cutting off a VERY BAD PERSON's toes, one by one, to save HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of INNOCENT lives.

You'd let those people just die, wouldn't you?

It's a simple question, after all.

BeAChooser

2nd June 2009, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
No. But I would inflict some TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on him/her ... as in waterboarding. You see, I can respond rationally. In contrast to those on your side of this debate who see inflicting temporary pain and discomfort as morally equal to (or even worse) than letting hundreds or thousands of people die when *maybe* you could have saved them by simply inflicting that temporary pain and discomfort.

You have no way of knowing all that. If one had all the knowledge proposed in your scenario there would be no need to torture.

Your claims are so disjointed now ... responses so disconnected from the quotes you respond to, that it's almost not worth even responding to your claims any more. But since JoeTheJuggler has chimed in to agree with you, I will respond and show why you and Joe are wrong ... using an existing example ... the case of KSM.

In KSM's case, we knew with high probability that he was a very bad terrorist who'd already been involved in a plot leading to the death of thousands of Americans.

We knew with high probability that there were many more terrorists like him still out there, belonging to the organization that he belonged to (al-Qaeda) and hoping to kill more Americans in new terrorist plots.

We knew that al-Qaeda had time to start other plots during the time after 9/11 when KSM was still free (nearly 2 years). Hence, there was a high probability that there were other plots underway to kill more Americans and its allies at the time KSM was captured.

Two years is a lot of time so there was a high probability some of those plots might be reaching fruition. Thus there was urgency.

We knew with high probability that KSM was a leader in their organization and hence would, with high probability, know details about some of the ongoing or planned plots and even know the names of some of the terrorists involved in them.

We knew with high probability that having such information would allow us to foil those plots and perhaps capture those terrorists.

We knew with high probability that KSM would know the names of other terrorists in his organization and know many other details about the way al-Qaeda was structured and operated.

We knew with high probability that knowing that information would also be quite helpful in defeating al-Qaeda

We also knew that conventional interrogation techniques were not working with KSM. He was clearly resistant to them. Even after a week or two of conventional methods being used, he had not revealed any information about ongoing plots or the names of single terrorist. He hadn't told interrogators anything that he didn't think they already knew. When asked what the ongoing plots were, he is reported to have replied: "Soon you will know."

We also knew with some degree of certainty that waterboarding would be able to break his resistance to talking in a time frame more consistent with the urgency of our need to know what he knew. We knew this because we routinely used waterboarding in training our own special forces. We knew what it could do.

And that's what we knew. Now go ahead you two ... tell us how that information makes enhanced interrogation methods unnecessary. :D

BeAChooser

2nd June 2009, 03:36 PM

Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain.

So then putting a harmless caterpillar in a cell with a terrorist isn't torture after all? Glad we've cleared that up. And that sort of rules out considering panties on a prisoner's head as torture, too. :D

Let's not talk about "some" pain or "discomfort".

Well do you have a definition for "severe". Something that can be quantified in absolute terms? Maybe my "some" is your "severe" ... (:D).

Do you know prior to 2005, the legal definition of torture in this country said that only procedures that could result in "organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death" constituted torture punishable by law? See what I mean about how it's just a definition that can change depending on the circumstances and even the whims of the whoever is running the government at the time. It's not written on stone anywhere.

Why is it when you formulate this hypothetical you don't say the word "torture"?

For the same reason many of you don't call a fetus a baby. :D

tsig

2nd June 2009, 03:42 PM

I don't see how it matters at all whether the victim of torture is 100% good, 100% evil or an actual real person (i.e. some mixture of both) in deciding whether torture is effective and whether its effectiveness can be used as a justification.

As with most limits on the authority of government, the ban on torture is a restriction on what we ("we" as in "we the people" aka as "the government" or an agent of the government) can do. That is, it's an absolute limit on what we can do rather than some sort of privilege that attaches to some individuals and not others.

This is a bit of topic drift, but I also reject the notion that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens. That we can get around due process by setting up a prison offshore is absurd.

Torture has a history we do not need to wait to determine it's effectiveness.

There is also for Americans:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentviii

This argument was resolved 200 years ago.

BeAChooser

2nd June 2009, 03:42 PM

What about the moral equivalence between inflicting permanent pain on just ONE EVIL MAN vs letting thousands of innocents die? You could have saved all those people by simply sacrificing ONE (sick, evil monster) guy's teeth/skin/penis... but instead you'd let them all die. All in the name of moral superiority. Oh, we're so impressed by your moral clarity.

Maybe I'm just trying to be more morally clear, more morally superior, than you.

Tell us, would you inflict permanent pain on one evil man who with 100% certainty was involved in a plot that with 100% certainty was going to kill a million people, if there was a 100% certainty that doing so would save those million lives? I wouldn't hesitate. Would you?

BeAChooser

2nd June 2009, 03:46 PM

I don't see how it matters at all whether the victim of torture is 100% good, 100% evil or an actual real person (i.e. some mixture of both) in deciding whether torture is effective and whether its effectiveness can be used as a justification.

I agree, but since you folks don't want to talk about the CIA claims of effectiveness and why Obama is withholding data that could either validate or refute those claims, we might might as well talk about hypothetical scenarios, evil men, and moral equivalency.

tsig

2nd June 2009, 03:50 PM

If a child knowing information that might save many lives was refusing to disclose it? Yes. Do you really consider inflicting some temporary pain on a child worse than what that child would be doing by withholding the information? Or what you would be doing by not getting the information from the child using temporary pain?

By the way, were you never spanked as a child? :D

You seem really determined to hurt someone. Why is that?

tsig

2nd June 2009, 03:55 PM

Maybe I'm just trying to be more morally clear, more morally superior, than you.

Tell us, would you inflict permanent pain on one evil man who with 100% certainty was involved in a plot that with 100% certainty was going to kill a million people, if there was a 100% certainty that doing so would save those million lives? I wouldn't hesitate. Would you?

WOW the goalposts just went by at warp speed!!

It's pretty clear that you are salivating at the opportunity to have at a helpless naked victim.

BeAChooser

2nd June 2009, 04:09 PM

When we decide that "bad" people can be tortured, then we start to have subjective standards as to who can be tortured and who cannot. The only objective standard is to make all torture illegal. Granted, what torture is seems to be subjective to certain conservatives, even though the internationally recognized definition seems to be objective.

Obviously, you don't know the definition of subjective and objective. Many *modern* people consider spanking children torture. Yet generations of children grew up being spanked and were probably the better for it, for the most part. That's because the definition of torture is based on the feelings of those defining it. Your feelings are different than mine (and yours aren't always right). One culture can feel differently about issues than another. The people of one time period may have different feelings about issues than the next. And leftists apparently have different feelings than conservatives. There is nothing sacred about the current definition of torture. It came into existance only a few years ago. An objective standard would be one having reality. Like a rock. Like a law of nature that scientists can measure. Not a law written by a small group of men and women about something as ethereal as "torture".

BeAChooser

2nd June 2009, 04:20 PM

You would let those lives be lost too because you would not be willing take a pair of gardening sheers and start cutting off a VERY BAD PERSON's toes, one by one, to save HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of INNOCENT lives.

You'd let those people just die, wouldn't you?

It's a simple question, after all.

Tell you what, Upchurch, let's put our debate in the same concrete terms I used with Morrigan.

Would you inflict severe or even permanent pain on ONE evil person, who with 100% certainty is involved in a plot that with 100% certainty is going to kill a million people, if there is a 100% certainty that inflicting that pain will save those million lives, and you know with 100% certainty there is no other way to get the information in time to save those million lives? Yes or no?

tsig

2nd June 2009, 04:25 PM

Tell you what, Upchurch, let's put our debate in the same concrete terms I used with Morrigan.

Would you inflict severe or even permanent pain on ONE evil person, who with 100% certainty is involved in a plot that with 100% certainty is going to kill a million people, if there is a 100% certainty that inflicting that pain will save those million lives, and you know with 100% certainty there is no other way to get the information in time to save those million lives? Yes or no?

If I knew all that then torture is superfluous.

Would you inflict pain just because you could?

BeAChooser

2nd June 2009, 04:25 PM

BeAChooser- Tell us, would you inflict permanent pain on one evil man who with 100% certainty was involved in a plot that with 100% certainty was going to kill a million people, if there was a 100% certainty that doing so would save those million lives? I wouldn't hesitate. Would you?

WOW the goalposts just went by at warp speed!!

The goalposts haven't changed. I'm simply trying to make it even easier for folks on your side of this debate to answer my hypothetical question. Apparently even that attempt is useless. Or shall we assume your answer would be "no, you wouldn't inflict permanent pain" in this case? :D

tsig

2nd June 2009, 04:31 PM

The goalposts haven't changed. I'm simply trying to make it even easier for folks on your side of this debate to answer my hypothetical question. Apparently even that attempt is useless. Or shall we assume your answer would be "no, you wouldn't inflict permanent pain" in this case? :D

No.

If an entire universe of bleeding victims depended on me adding one more then NO!!

BeAChooser

2nd June 2009, 04:37 PM

No.

If an entire universe of bleeding victims depended on me adding one more then NO!!

I rest my case, folks. Such is the insanity of the left. :D

tsig

2nd June 2009, 04:43 PM

I rest my case, folks. Such is the insanity of the left. :D

Such is your inhumanity. happily punishing for truth.

CapelDodger

2nd June 2009, 04:52 PM

In KSM's case, we knew with high probability that he was a very bad terrorist who'd already been involved in a plot leading to the death of thousands of Americans.

He was notorious, and quite open about it. Al Qaeda has never been shy; self-promotion seems to be one of their main motivations.

We knew with high probability that KSM was a leader in their organization and hence would, with high probability, know details about some of the ongoing or planned plots and even know the names of some of the terrorists involved in them.

As a leader he'd have no need to know details. He wouldn't know what names the people on the ground were using, locations of safe-houses and drops, bank account numbers.

We knew with high probability that having such information would allow us to foil those plots and perhaps capture those terrorists.

There would be a very low probability that he would have such information.

We knew with high probability that KSM would know the names of other terrorists in his organization and know many other details about the way al-Qaeda was structured and operated.

That he'd know. But then so does everybody. It's very loosely structured and operates on an ad-hoc basis. Mostly it's a franchise (and these days hardly even that).

We knew with high probability that knowing that information would also be quite helpful in defeating al-Qaeda

His insights into personalities and inter-personal dynamics would indeed be helpful. You're not going to torture that sort of stuff out of anybody. You have to play the individual skilfully.

We also knew that conventional interrogation techniques were not working with KSM. He was clearly resistant to them. Even after a week or two of conventional methods being used, he had not revealed any information about ongoing plots or the names of single terrorist. He hadn't told interrogators anything that he didn't think they already knew. When asked what the ongoing plots were, he is reported to have replied: "Soon you will know."

Of course he did. He's playing the part of a sinister powerful terrorist and revelling in it. He didn't know a damn' thing.

(Heck, and I thought I was gonna get me an ear ... :mad:)

The moment he's picked up everything he knows about current operations is automatically regared as blown. Two weeks later he knows nothing.

We also knew with some degree of certainty that waterboarding would be able to break his resistance to talking in a time frame more consistent with the urgency of our need to know what he knew. We knew this because we routinely used waterboarding in training our own special forces. We knew what it could do.

It can make people cry "Uncle". That's what we know from the special forces experience.

What did KSM cry? What arrests followed, what materials were recovered, what plots were revealed?

Let's imagine KSM cries "I'll tell you!" (metaphorically) and then says, for instance, that there's going to be a copy-cat of 9/11 launched on Los Angeles. Does that mean this is true? Obviously not. It may be a distraction. This guy's a sinister terrorist mastermind, remember. What are you going to do?

Waterboard him again, I guess. If he breaks and admits the target is really Chicago then you can stop.

Or not. Whatever. You can't trust anything a terrorist mastermind says.

And that's what we knew. Now go ahead you two ... tell us how that information makes enhanced interrogation methods unnecessary. :D

Perhaps you could tell us how it might be useful?

Morrigan

3rd June 2009, 07:48 AM

Maybe I'm just trying to be more morally clear, more morally superior, than you.
Your moral clarity is so shining, it's completely blinding you.

But I can't help but notice you didn't answer the question. Would you torture (e.g. flay, pull out the teeth, electrocute the penis, etc.) a man if there is an uncertain possibility it could save thousands of lives? Yes or no?

Tell us, would you inflict permanent pain on one evil man who with 100% certainty was involved in a plot that with 100% certainty was going to kill a million people, if there was a 100% certainty that doing so would save those million lives? I wouldn't hesitate. Would you?
100% certainty that he'd talk and 100% certainty that his intel would save lives? Sure I would. But now we're talking about a world where magic is real, mind-reading is real. Such a world does not exist. Would you come back to reality now please, instead of asking goofy hypotheticals? The scenario you propose is so utterly silly, even the most exaggerated moments of 24 or movies don't have them.

Upchurch

3rd June 2009, 09:12 AM

Maybe I'm just trying to be more morally clear, more morally superior, than you.

Tell us, would you inflict permanent pain on one evil man who with 100% certainty was involved in a plot that with 100% certainty was going to kill a million people, if there was a 100% certainty that doing so would save those million lives? I wouldn't hesitate. Would you?
So, are you now fully embracing the pro-torture position? Will you now call it by its proper name, "torture"?

eta: Alternatively, it seems that there is a point where something is holding you back from hurting VERY BAD PEOPLE even though it might save millions upon millions of innocent lives. What is it that is holding you back?

BeAChooser

3rd June 2009, 11:45 AM

As a leader he'd have no need to know details. He wouldn't know what names the people on the ground were using, locations of safe-houses and drops, bank account numbers.

But he would quite likely know about the existance of the plots and know the top tier in a given plot's leadership. Osama even met directly with some the 9/11 hijackers (we have video of that). Al-Zarqawi certainly knew the names and general plans for the failed chemical bomb attack in Jordan. In fact, one reason it may have failed is that al-Zarqawi wasn't able to properly monitor the plot's execution (because he was too busy running from US forces). So don't simply discount the assertion that with high probability KSM knew information we vitally needed to know about ongoing plots and the terrorists involved in them.

Quote:
We knew with high probability that having such information would allow us to foil those plots and perhaps capture those terrorists.

There would be a very low probability that he would have such information.

On the contrary. Knowing that a plot even exists and knowing it's target is the single most important datum needed to defeat it. And knowing who the top terrorists are running the specific plot is probably next most important. So KSM did have, with high probability, information that would allow us to foil the plots. And the CIA reported that he did disclose the existance of previously unknown plots, the names of terrorists involved in them, and that information helped foil the plots.

Quote:
We knew with high probability that KSM would know the names of other terrorists in his organization and know many other details about the way al-Qaeda was structured and operated.

That he'd know. But then so does everybody.

Not true. Most al-qaeda wouldn't be nearly as informed about the way that al-Qaeda is structured and operates. It's called compartmentalization. It's called just being smarter than the average al-Qaeda member. It's why capturing the guy at the top is ALWAYS important. And the CIA has stated that what was learned about the organization from KSM has saved many lives.

It's very loosely structured and operates on an ad-hoc basis. Mostly it's a franchise (and these days hardly even that).

Not as loose as you think. For example, al-Qaeda kept detailed "employment" records and had the equivalent of employee handbooks. And we aren't talking about al-Qaeda these days but the way it was back in 2004.

His insights into personalities and inter-personal dynamics would indeed be helpful. You're not going to torture that sort of stuff out of anybody. You have to play the individual skilfully.

That's your claim. The CIA says something different. So the only way to resolve this is to have Obama release the records of the interrogations needed to do that ... or have some form of very impartial jury do it. Will you join me in calling for that? :D

When asked what the ongoing plots were, he is reported to have replied: "Soon you will know."

Of course he did. He's playing the part of a sinister powerful terrorist and revelling in it. He didn't know a damn' thing.

Except that's not what top CIA and other intel officials say, or what the *facts* reported by various sources say. Like I said, the verdict is still out. You aren't in a position to claim with any certainty that "he didn't know a damn' thing". :D

The moment he's picked up everything he knows about current operations is automatically regared as blown. Two weeks later he knows nothing.

Except the CIA says that's wrong. In fact, the CIA stated that information learned by enhanced interrogation even stopped a large terrorist attack in Britian only days before it would have occurred. Had we waited for conventional interrogation methods (taking the terrorist to lunch at Denny's?) to work it's magic, it seems likely that particular attack would have succeeded. With the loss of many lives.

Quote:
We also knew with some degree of certainty that waterboarding would be able to break his resistance to talking in a time frame more consistent with the urgency of our need to know what he knew. We knew this because we routinely used waterboarding in training our own special forces. We knew what it could do.

It can make people cry "Uncle". That's what we know from the special forces experience.

We knew a great deal more than that. And you know it.

What did KSM cry? What arrests followed, what materials were recovered, what plots were revealed?

Well at this point only Obama knows for sure. We have two sides saying publically quite different things. Both potentially politically motivated. So the only way to resolve this is for Obama to release the interrogation and followup reports or convene a truly independent jury to look at the data and tell the public. But given past experience with the latter, I think I'd prefer to have them simply release the reports (perhaps heaviy redacted to hide any still useful information or ongoing threat concerns). Now won't you join me in that demand ... are you hiding from really finding out? :)

BeAChooser

3rd June 2009, 11:50 AM

100% certainty that he'd talk and 100% certainty that his intel would save lives? Sure I would. But now we're talking about a world where magic is real, mind-reading is real.

Ok, how about if there is a 99% certainty in all those things? You still going to try and save that million lives or let them with very high certainty all die because you won't hurt even ONE evil man?

BeAChooser

3rd June 2009, 11:54 AM

leftysergeant

3rd June 2009, 11:57 AM

But he would quite likely know about the existance of the plots and know the top tier in a given plot's leadership. Osama even met directly with some the 9/11 hijackers (we have video of that). Al-Zarqawi certainly knew the names and general plans for the failed chemical bomb attack in Jordan. In fact, one reason it may have failed is that al-Zarqawi wasn't able to properly monitor the plot's execution (because he was too busy running from US forces).

Or maybe it was just something he pulled out of his diaper and offered to the animals toruturing him to make them stop. I would still just as soon put the torturers up[ against the wall as I would KSM because they blew a chance to get some actually usefull intel.

Except the CIA says that's wrong. In fact, the CIA stated that information learned by enhanced interrogation even stopped a large terrorist attack in Britian only days before it would have occurred.

They can say it all they want, but the slimebags can't prove it.

We knew a great deal more than that. And you know it.

Those of us who know anything about small-cell operations think you know a lot of garbage that just isn't true.

Now won't you join me in that demand ... are you hiding from really finding out? :)

That is a definite "Not just no , but **** NO!"

thaiboxerken

3rd June 2009, 12:03 PM

So if Upchurch had all knowledge, he still wouldn't torture a person? Why should he have to torture a person if he knew all the answers already?

Upchurch

3rd June 2009, 12:15 PM

Notice folks, that Upchurch didn't even try to answer the question I posed him.
You've yet to answer my questions, which I started asking first. Should I rest my case and call you insane, as well?

Or would you rather have a dialogue?

Morrigan

3rd June 2009, 02:42 PM

Ok, how about if there is a 99% certainty in all those things? You still going to try and save that million lives or let them with very high certainty all die because you won't hurt even ONE evil man?

How could I have such certainty? And as others pointed out, if I'm already that certain of everything, why would I need torture to extract information?

You still haven't answered the question. So we know now that 100% certainty that the tortured man will talk (AND reveal useful intel) is good enough for you. 99% is also good. How about 75%? 50%? 30%? 5%? What's your threshold, BAC?

Allow me to play your game:

"BeAChooser would violently torture anyone if he thought it could be useful, even if there's no evidence that it actually would be useful. If he thinks it might work, it's all fair game. He really gets a kick out of torturing people - bonus points if they're evil. I rest my case. Such is the insanity of the right. :rolleyes:"

BeAChooser

3rd June 2009, 05:15 PM

They can say it all they want, but the slimebags can't prove it.

Then Obama should have no reason not to release the reports and other data that the CIA claims would prove this. Right?

That is a definite "Not just no , but **** NO!"

What are you afraid of, left? :D

BeAChooser

3rd June 2009, 05:19 PM

So if Upchurch had all knowledge, he still wouldn't torture a person? Why should he have to torture a person if he knew all the answers already?

See how the desperation sets in, folks, when faced with a very simple hypothetical that reveals their belief in moral equivalence between mass murder and even temporary pain or discomfort of one evil person? These are the people now running our government. Scary. :D

BeAChooser

3rd June 2009, 05:25 PM

How could I have such certainty?

But say you do? Under that situation would you make the attempt to save those million lives or just condemn them to death even though there would have been a very, very, very high probability of saving them? I don't see why this is a hard question to answer ... if you have ANY moral clarity. The more ambiguious situations come much later. So again, is a 1% chance of inducing pain and not saving the million lives too much uncertainty for you or not? :)

CapelDodger

3rd June 2009, 06:22 PM

But he would quite likely know about the existance of the plots and know the top tier in a given plot's leadership. Osama even met directly with some the 9/11 hijackers (we have video of that).

That doesn't mean bin Laden knew details of the plot. He laid on hands to bless the enterprise, for his own self-glorification. It's all about him remember. The playboy terrorist.

Al-Zarqawi certainly knew the names and general plans for the failed chemical bomb attack in Jordan. In fact, one reason it may have failed is that al-Zarqawi wasn't able to properly monitor the plot's execution (because he was too busy running from US forces).

Zarqawi was nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and I don't share your certainty about the "failed chemical attack". Do you believe everything you're told by security services?

Zarqawi took on the Al Qaeda name in return for a bunch of Saudi money. So let's not get sidetracked.

So don't simply discount the assertion that with high probability KSM knew information we vitally needed to know about ongoing plots and the terrorists involved in them.

I'll concede a very low probability that he might have a name or two, but terrorists tend to use lots of names.

On the contrary. Knowing that a plot even exists and knowing it's target is the single most important datum needed to defeat it. And knowing who the top terrorists are running the specific plot is probably next most important. So KSM did have, with high probability, information that would allow us to foil the plots.

Even if he had information on plots-in-progress it would be useless after a couple of weeks. Anything he knew when he was picked up would automatically by regarded as blown.

And the CIA reported that he did disclose the existance of previously unknown plots, the names of terrorists involved in them, and that information helped foil the plots.

They would say that, wouldn't they?

Not true. Most al-qaeda wouldn't be nearly as informed about the way that al-Qaeda is structured and operates.

Of course they would. Al Qaeda's structure is all part of its rationale.

It's called compartmentalization.

If by that you mean what I think you mean, it's called a cell-structure. The idea goes back to the 19thCE (at least) but there are always people who justify their existence by inventing new names for old things.

It's called just being smarter than the average al-Qaeda member.

But then you might mean something else entirely.

What's clever about torture?

It's why capturing the guy at the top is ALWAYS important.

Cell-structure means that there are no critical nodes. Not even the top guy (who's still out there down a hole, apparently).

And the CIA has stated that what was learned about the organization from KSM has saved many lives.

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

Not as loose as you think. For example, al-Qaeda kept detailed "employment" records and had the equivalent of employee handbooks. And we aren't talking about al-Qaeda these days but the way it was back in 2004.

If the CIA has those records why did they need to torture people for names? Of couse they might only be known from reputation.

That's your claim. The CIA says something different. So the only way to resolve this is to have Obama release the records of the interrogations needed to do that ... or have some form of very impartial jury do it. Will you join me in calling for that? :D

They will come out sooner or later (unless they're destroyed, which will send its own message). It'll be interesting to see what the CIA's attitude is. At the moment they can claim anything, as can Cheney, and claim justification by the absence of attacks since 9/11. The actual tapes would get us past a lot of speculation.

Nobody's got anything to hide anymore. This was all years ago.

Except that's not what top CIA and other intel officials say, or what the *facts* reported by various sources say. Like I said, the verdict is still out. You aren't in a position to claim with any certainty that "he didn't know a damn' thing". :D

History will bear me out. Some things are just bleedin' obvious.

It took Al Qaeda years to pull off 9/11, and they used up all their assets in the process. It brought a *****-storm down on them like they'd never imagined and they've been running from hole to hole ever since. Frickin' playboy terrorists. The only audience they impress are US Americans.

Except the CIA says that's wrong. In fact, the CIA stated that information learned by enhanced interrogation even stopped a large terrorist attack in Britian only days before it would have occurred.

Well there's a thing. Do we have anything more to go on than their word?

Had we waited for conventional interrogation methods (taking the terrorist to lunch at Denny's?) to work it's magic, it seems likely that particular attack would have succeeded. With the loss of many lives.

It doesn't seem likely to me. I'm a sceptic, particularly when it comes to self-serving unsupported statements by security services about things that didn't happen.

We knew a great deal more than that. And you know it.

No I don't. I don't even know what "breaking" means for the special forces subjects. Did they press an "Uncle" button to make it stop? Or did they have to give up some supremely embarrassing incident from their youth? What exactly were they broken into?

Well at this point only Obama knows for sure. We have two sides saying publically quite different things. Both potentially politically motivated. So the only way to resolve this is for Obama to release the interrogation and followup reports or convene a truly independent jury to look at the data and tell the public. But given past experience with the latter, I think I'd prefer to have them simply release the reports (perhaps heaviy redacted to hide any still useful information or ongoing threat concerns). Now won't you join me in that demand ... are you hiding from really finding out? :)

Let's see the tapes. I'm all in favour. Who isn't?

The CIA should demand their release. The CIA's credibility - nay, their honour - has been impugned (not least by the likes of me). They should be able to point to more than unsupported reports from "sources".

I'm particularly interested in the way they saved the UK from something awful. Or didn't. Only the tapes will tell.

thaiboxerken

3rd June 2009, 06:40 PM

See how the desperation sets in, folks, when faced with a very simple hypothetical that reveals their belief in moral equivalence between mass murder and even temporary pain or discomfort of one evil person? These are the people now running our government. Scary. :D

Who are these folks you're talking to? Also, your hypothetical is as absurd as asking "would you rape a baby to save the lives of millions of people?" I'm glad the torture-advocates are no longer in power. The same people who started a war that has cost countless lives, both civilian and US military.

Towlie

3rd June 2009, 06:49 PM

These are the people now running our government. Scary. :DEverything is "scary" when your only path to power is fear.

CapelDodger

3rd June 2009, 06:50 PM

Or maybe it was just something he pulled out of his diaper and offered to the animals toruturing him to make them stop.

I could get the Pope to deny Christ given the tools.

How can you trust what you're told under duress? You can't, obviously. Does anybody outside the Vatican believe that the Knights Templar were plotting with Jews and Saracens to bring down Christendom? OK, some probably do, but it does take all sorts ...

"What was Saddam's role in 9/11?"

"That heathen is not numbered amongst the Sons of Heaven!"

Glug glug glug gasp

"What was Saddam's ..."

"It was all his idea!"

"There, that wasn't so hard was it?"

I would still just as soon put the torturers up against the wall as I would KSM because they blew a chance to get some actually usefull intel.

You have to take it to the top. Which evacuated the moral high-ground with some alacrity. Eagerly.

They can say it all they want, but the slimebags can't prove it.

Free the tapes! All of them! Let's rob Obama of that evil weapon called innuendo.

Those of us who know anything about small-cell operations think you know a lot of garbage that just isn't true.

Some of us know (about revolutionary cell-structure, for instance) and others believe (anything security services say, for instance).

That is a definite "Not just no , but **** NO!"

YES! Let's see the tapes. The people want to know. The vicarious pleasure some will get from them is no argument for censorship. The internet is rife with wank-material anyway.

It was done in the name of the people. The people are entitled to watch.

CapelDodger

3rd June 2009, 07:00 PM

Everything is "scary" when your only path to power is fear.

Cheney's still pressing the "fear" button every chance he gets. I think people have more immediate concerns these days.

I'm old enough to remember the existential panic that kicked in when Clinton was elected (Bill, that is). Talk about anti-climax. No 9/11, no major wars, no banking crisis, no recession, no invasion by Cuba. Just the dot-con giggle and one blowjob. In eight years. Such a disappointment.

JoeTheJuggler

3rd June 2009, 07:25 PM

So then putting a harmless caterpillar in a cell with a terrorist isn't torture after all? Glad we've cleared that up. And that sort of rules out considering panties on a prisoner's head as torture, too. :D
The pain can be physical of mental. But you already knew that because you've been told over and over.

Your argumentation style seems to be to wait a while and repeat the same stupid and already disproven illogical nonsense out for another go around.

Do you know prior to 2005, the legal definition of torture in this country said that only procedures that could result in "organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death" constituted torture punishable by law? Nope. That's not true.

The Convention Against Torture was signed by the U.S. in 1988 and ratified in 1994. At that moment it was US Law.

ETA: Well do you have a definition for "severe". Something that can be quantified in absolute terms? Maybe my "some" is your "severe" ... (:D).
The courts have no problem dealing with words like "severe" or "inappropriate" or "reasonable" and the like.

And I don't think your "some" is the same as my "severe". I think you're purposely trying to describe torture as something trivial compared with some great benefit (that you magically know is waiting for you when you make the decision to commit torture). The reason I say this is because not long ago in virtually the same sentence you referred to it as "a little pain" or even "a little discomfort", which by definition would not be torture. Since torture is what we're talking about, the most honest thing would be for you to use the correct term. If not, at least use a term that fits the definition, such as "severe pain".

Nope, I think you're just trying your best to spin torture as something trivial.

JoeTheJuggler

3rd June 2009, 07:36 PM

Notice folks, that Upchurch didn't even try to answer the question I posed him. Apparently, even if he had 100% certainty in all things related to the scenario, he still couldn't bring himself to hurt one evil person to save a million lives. In short, he values the well being of that evil person (someone who with 100% uncertainty was already involved in a mega-murder) over the lives of a million innocent people. I rest my case. Such is the insanity of the left. :rolleyes:

I reject that it's possible to know there is a 99% certainty that torturing someone will give you information that will save lives.

The thing about not know is that you don't know.

Changing your hypothetical from 100% certainty to 99% that torturing someone will save lives does not make your hypothetical any more acceptable.

At the point you decide to commit the crime of torture you don't know whether you'll get a good result. Assigning a number you pull out of thin air is not a valid way of making an unknown into something known.

BeAChooser

3rd June 2009, 10:42 PM

That doesn't mean bin Laden knew details of the plot.

But nevertheless, he did.

My point, in any case, is that Bin Laden was well aware that the plot was to attack certain specific targets by crashing airplanes into them around a certain date. And that certain people, like Atta were involved in it. One of them being KSM. That information alone, had it fallen into the hands of US interrogators, would likely have prevented success of the plot. The same is true in the KSM case. The interrogators were trying to find out what other plots were underway. The targets. The terrorist leaders of those plots. The dates at which they were supposed to occur. That information alone might be enough to have defeated those plots. Apparently, it was.

Zarqawi was nothing to do with Al Qaeda

False. Self-labeled al-qaeda members said they met with al-Zarqawi in Bagdhad PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq to plan and get funding for the chemical bomb attack in Jordan. al-Zarqawi had a training camp in Afghanistan before he came to Iraq (which happened after our invasion of Afghanistan). I don't think you can convince me that he was allowed to operate that camp in Afghanistan without the approval and cooperation of the Taliban AND al-Qaeda. Those two groups were joined at the hips ... literally ... with the children of bin Laden and the head of the Taliban even getting married. And besides, you yourself said that al-Qaeda was loosely structured and a franchise. :D

and I don't share your certainty about the "failed chemical attack". Do you believe everything you're told by security services?

But this case was tried in a Jordanian court, with witness after witness testifying, with the jury being shown the vehicles, chemicals and explosives the dozen terrorists brought into the country, with the terrorists admitting on video and in the court room to many details of the plot, including it's ultimate purpose, and with the jury convicting the terrorists, including al-Zarqawi. Funny how your side simply dismisses any evidence that doesn't fit your hate-Bush world view. :rolleyes:

Zarqawi took on the Al Qaeda name in return for a bunch of Saudi money.

Prove that. A link please.

Here's an opposing views:

http://www.signandsight.com/features/449.html

During a year of research on Zarqawi, the Jordanian journalist Fuad Hussein interviewed a number of senior Al-Qaida members. They included Saif al-Adel, a former colonel in the Egyptian Special Forces and bin Laden's military commander. Saif al-Adel, supposedly under "house arrest" in Iran, sent his report on Zarqawi via a system of messengers. The document consists of 42 densely handwritten pages of yellow greaseproof paper. Each page has dozens of fold-marks. According to individuals present when the documents were handed over, they were folded to the size of cigarettes and smuggled into Jordan.

What Saif al-Adel had to tell was informative and explosive. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, he claimed, was not unknown within Al-Qaida's highest circle. Osama bin Laden had allegedly been thinking how the tens of thousands of Afghanistan veterans who travelled home after the defeat of the Soviet troops could be mobilized for a continuation of the jihad. "Some of them were just wandering about out there", wrote Saif al-Adel, something he considered a "waste".  Al-Qaida began to collect information on all of the pioneers of jihad: "The Jordanian and Palestinian brothers were at the top of this list," since the network's own intelligence "suggested that there were not many supporters of Al-Qaida or its ideas in Palestine and Jordan".

Zarqawi's "historic pleas" in court, in which he insulted the King of Jordan, had been noted with pride. "We were therefore very pleased early in 1999 when we heard that he had been released."  Shortly after Zarqawi's arrival in Kandahar at the end of 1999, Saif al-Adel visited him at a guest house. He was immediately struck by Zarqawi's weaknesses. He found a man "with poor rhetorical skills, who expressed what was on his mind bluntly." Saif al-Adel also noted that Zarqawi's practical experience (of jihad) was "not extensive." "But his ambition was great, his objectives clear."  He was more seriously worried about Zarqawi's "rigorist views" on some issues. This applied in particular to the "bayat", the vow of allegiance to al Qaida formulated by Osama bin Laden. Zarqawi wanted no compromises – as demonstrated by his position on the Saudi regime. He refused to support bin Laden until he declared war on the House of Saud. Moreover, he considered al Qaida's methods too moderate.  The morning after this meeting, during a discussion with Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, Saif al-Adel raised the question of Zarqawi. The two leaders did not seem enthusiastic. There was a fundamental problem: while bin Laden and Zawahiri were mainly interested in fighting "crusaders and Jews" (primarily the USA), Zarqawi's focus was on Arab regimes and Israel.

After two hours of heated debate, the two leaders granted Saif al-Adel permission to take care of Zarqawi. He suggested to the Jordanian that he found his own group, offering the use of a military training camp near the Afghan city of Herat, on the Iranian border. He was assured funding and weapons. For Zarqawi, this offer was a triumph. He was not even required to swear a vow of allegiance, merely to provide "coordination and cooperation in the service of our common goals". In concrete terms this meant the establishment of Al-Qaida cells in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq.

I'll concede a very low probability that he might have a name or two, but terrorists tend to use lots of names.

Don't be ridiculous, CD. You know darn well that someone as high in al-Qaeda's organization as KSM knew lots of names and certainly knew the identities of the people running the plots he was overwatching.

Even if he had information on plots-in-progress it would be useless after a couple of weeks.

That's not what the CIA said. You make lots of claims but what actual credentials do you have to make those claims. Now it's true that the CIA might be lying. But then so might you. :)

Quote:
And the CIA reported that he did disclose the existance of previously unknown plots, the names of terrorists involved in them, and that information helped foil the plots.

They would say that, wouldn't they?

And I could say the same thing about those on your side of the political fence. So like I said, the only way to resolve this is for your man, Obama, to release the reports needed to know. If he won't do that, I think that suggests it is because he knows the reports will show he's embarked on yet another foolish course ... and that his supporters by and large have been ... well ... spreading misinformation about the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation. :D

Of course they would.

Are you so desperate that you have to stoop to the ridiculous? Do you think the average employee at McD really knows all that much about the way McD as a corporation makes decisions and passes information back and forth between it's top management. The average al-Qaeda member probably knows just as little. Afterall, the rank and file al-Qaeda member isn't the brightest bulb in the drawer ... if you can get him to make a suicide attack. :D

Quote:
It's called compartmentalization.

If by that you mean what I think you mean, it's called a cell-structure.

No, it's also routinely called compartmentalization.

http://www.terrorism-research.com/groups/ "The smallest elements of terrorist organizations are the cells that serve as building blocks for the terrorist organization. One of the primary reasons for a cellular or compartmentalized structure is security. "

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:kGJTgDmbRq0J:fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57513.pdf+terrorist+organization+compartmentalizat ion&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us "Although terrorism’s complex webs of characteristics — along with the inherent secrecy and compartmentalization of both terrorist organizations and
government responses — limit available data, the formulation of practical, useful measurement criteria appears both tractable and ready to be addressed."

http://tomdiaz.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/terrorist-organizations-like-hezbollah-finding-big-money-in-drug-trafficking/ "The cartels operate just like terrorist organizations, with extremely complex organizational structures, consisting of highly compartmentalized cells: distribution cells, transportation cells, money laundering cells, and in some cases assassination cells or ‘hit squads.’ "

http://www.ladlass.com/intel/archives/010444.html "Compartmentalization into "cell" structures is crucial to the survival of the group. It has become vital as counter terrorist efforts have intensified in scope and effectiveness."

http://books.google.com/books?id=y7GcIsdagHIC&pg=PA548&lpg=PA548&dq=terrorist+organization+compartmentalization&source=bl&ots=DqeI22CGQl&sig=CIRZlIbCCnbvFmXyDDn3eO_o4YI&hl=en&ei=ulMnSouaFoOitgPA-MhG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 "Additionally, the terrorist organization is compartmentalized into a cellular structure in which one member of one cell may know only one member of another cell."

http://www.hstoday.us/content/view/6239/92/ "“These groups, both terrorist groups and global drug trafficking organizations, operate in highly compartmentalized cells, where their handlers only know the operatives’ first names, and each cell knows either very little or nothing at all of other cells’ operations,” said Braun."

etc. etc. etc.

Quote:
It's called just being smarter than the average al-Qaeda member.

But then you might mean something else entirely.

No, I meant what I said. Osama and KSM were smarter than the average al-Qaeda member. That should be obvious. That's why they were near the top. And yes, even in a compartmentalized structure the guy at the top usually knows more than the guy at the bottom ... at least in terms of information you need to disrupt the organization.

Quote:
It's why capturing the guy at the top is ALWAYS important.

Cell-structure means that there are no critical nodes. Not even the top guy (who's still out there down a hole, apparently).

No, Osama is probably dead.

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

And the folks on your side of the issue would say what they've said. Don't pretend there's no possibility their agenda is driving what they claim. It wouldn't be the first time that liberals have misrepresented or lied. So the only way to resolve this is for Obama to resolve it by releasing the reports.

If the CIA has those records why did they need to torture people for names?

They didn't find master lists containing every name. Perhaps they only found any such lists after they waterboarded someone. ;)

They will come out sooner or later

Yeah ... maybe the NYTimes will publish them. :rolleyes: But the truth is we need to have this resolved NOW. Because it's doing grave damage to our national security NOW. Not ten years from now. Obama could resolve this tomorrow, if he wanted. I don't see the excuse for him not doing that ... unless it's political in nature. And here we thought Obama meant *change*. :rolleyes:

Nobody's got anything to hide anymore. This was all years ago.

Wrong. People have staked their reputations on what they've claimed. Interesting that Cheney is the one asking that the documents be released. He sounds confident he's right. :D

History will bear me out.

Or perhaps me. If there's a big successful terrorist attack in the next few years, want to bet it's success will be traced back to not getting some vital information in a timely manner that they could have gotten had they had better interrogation methods? :D

It took Al Qaeda years to pull off 9/11, and they used up all their assets in the process.

That's nonsense. al-Qaeda was a huge organization. Thousands and thousands of would be terrorists passed through the training camps in Afghanistan. But a few were "used up" on 9/11. And al-qaeda has plenty of money. If there is a reason we've had 8 years without a major attack on the US, perhaps the reason is vigilance on our part. The CIA says that numerous plots were stopped because of that vigilance ... which included enhanced interrogation of certain people. Now the only one who can show the CIA is lying or not lying about that is Obama. Since Obama isn't prosecuting the CIA for lying, or firing anyone in the CIA for lying, I can only assume that the CIA didn't lie. Because after all, Obama wouldn't want a bunch of liars at the CIA, would he? :D

Well there's a thing. Do we have anything more to go on than their word?

Yes. The secret documents detailing the interrogations, what was learned, and what was done with that information that are in Obama's hands.

Quote:
Had we waited for conventional interrogation methods (taking the terrorist to lunch at Denny's?) to work it's magic, it seems likely that particular attack would have succeeded. With the loss of many lives.

It doesn't seem likely to me.

Good for you. But that doesn't really mean anything. The only way to know is to see the actual reports.

I'm a sceptic, particularly when it comes to self-serving unsupported statements by security services about things that didn't happen.

I'm just as skeptical about self-serving unsupported statements by leftists and democrats who have their own agenda to promote.

Quote:
We knew a great deal more than that. And you know it.

No I don't.

You mean to say that after waterboarding thousands of our own soldiers and having countless experts study and refine the use of waterboarding as an interrogation tool, you really think we don't know a lot about it's effectiveness? Well if you insist on playing the "ridiculous claim card". Apparently you aren't even aware that "some of the military and intel people who have undergone waterboarding in their training report that they were waterboarded multiple times--until they gave up the information that they were told to try to withhold." I suggest you read this: http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6085 , to clear up some of your lack of information regarding this issue, the CIA experience and the dishonesty of those disputing the CIA's claims.

BeAChooser

3rd June 2009, 10:46 PM

Also, your hypothetical is as absurd as asking "would you rape a baby to save the lives of millions of people?"

But I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you to cause pain to a very evil man. And you apparently can't answer that simple hypothetical because you know what the answer you'd like to give says about your moral compass compared to mine. :D

BeAChooser

3rd June 2009, 10:55 PM

Cheney's still pressing the "fear" button every chance he gets. I think people have more immediate concerns these days.

Yeah. They are worried about the economy because of the many fear buttons Obama has pressed there. Worried about what Obama's *solution* to the economy is going to do the country, long term. Worried about where Obama's foreign policy is really taking us.

I'm old enough to remember the existential panic that kicked in when Clinton was elected (Bill, that is). Talk about anti-climax.

Only because most folks don't know the damage that Bill did to this country thanks to a complicit media. Folks like you never seem to want to honestly debate Chinagate, CampaignFinanceGate, FileGate, the abuse of the IRS and military under Clinton's watch, the deaths of Foster and Brown, etc. Why is that? :D

No 9/11, no major wars, no banking crisis, no recession

But Clinton did help plant the seeds of 9/11, the War on Terror, the banking crisis, and the recession. The just bloomed during Bush's two terms. :D

thaiboxerken

4th June 2009, 05:24 AM

But I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you to cause pain to a very evil man. And you apparently can't answer that simple hypothetical because you know what the answer you'd like to give says about your moral compass compared to mine. :D

Would you rape a baby if you knew it would save 100 million lives? I'm asking you this simple hypothetical to see where your moral compass lies.

Don't like this question? Ok. Would you rape an evil man to save 100 million lives?

Upchurch

4th June 2009, 05:47 AM

I'm asking you to cause pain to a very evil man. And you apparently can't answer that simple hypothetical because you know what the answer you'd like to give says about your moral compass compared to mine. :D
Before you start stroking your moral compass too hard, you also said you wouldn't torture a very evil person, even if it meant saving the lives of millions of people.

The question is: why did you say that? What is it that prevents you from wanting to torture another human being, no matter how despicable he may be?

Morrigan

4th June 2009, 07:53 AM

Upchurch

4th June 2009, 10:19 AM

He will NEVER answer that question. He will come back and ask the same question he's been asking (that we've all already answered), boast about his moral clarity (lol), call the "left" insane, trump his superiority, rinse, repeat.
Maybe he will answer it, maybe he won't.

It's easy to talk about moral clarity when you never address questions that muddy the waters.

BeAChooser

4th June 2009, 11:39 AM

Your argumentation style seems to be to wait a while and repeat the same stupid and already disproven illogical nonsense out for another go around.

Gee. I might say the same thing to you. :D

Quote:
Do you know prior to 2005, the legal definition of torture in this country said that only procedures that could result in "organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death" constituted torture punishable by law?

Nope. That's not true.

The Convention Against Torture was signed by the U.S. in 1988 and ratified in 1994. At that moment it was US Law.

You are wrong. I suggest you read the following government document (from the Attorney General's Office) dated December of 2004. I will specifically quote a few excerpts that prove what I said was correct ... i.e., prior to 2005, US law was interpreted to define torture different than now):

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm

This Office interpreted the federal criminal prohibition against torture--codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A--in Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§*2340-2340A (Aug. 1, 2002) ("August 2002 Memorandum"). ... snip ...

Questions have since been raised, both by this Office and by others, about the appropriateness and relevance of the non-statutory discussion in the August 2002 Memorandum, and also about various aspects of the statutory analysis, in particular the statement that "severe" pain under the statute was limited to pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
We decided to withdraw the August 2002 Memorandum, a decision you announced in June 2004. At that time, you directed this Office to prepare a replacement memorandum. ... snip ...

In other words, Joe, prior to 2005, "severe" pain was interpreted (because the language of the law is vague and subject to interpretation) to be limited to pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." So THAT was the law at the time.

Continuing from the linked Attorney General's Office document:

This memorandum supersedes the August 2002 Memorandum in its entirety. ... snip ... We have also modified in some important respects our analysis of the legal standards applicable under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A. For example, we disagree with statements in the August 2002 Memorandum limiting "severe" pain under the statute to "excruciating and agonizing" pain, id. at 19, or to pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,"

In other words, Joe, the same Attorney General's Office people, looking at the same wording in the law, suddenly decided to change their INTERPRETATION of it. Because, a vague word such as "severe" is open to interpretation. Why might could change the interpretation back to what it was tomorrow, it that was necessary. And it would still be the law of the land ... until someone decides to actually change the wording of the law itself.

Let's take a look at that wording. Continuing from the linked Attorney General's Office document:

The CAT defines "torture" so as to require the intentional infliction of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." Article 1(1) of the CAT provides:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

The Senate attached the following understanding to its resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the CAT:

The United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

S. Exec. Rep. No. 101-30, at 36 (1990). This understanding was deposited with the U.S. instrument of ratification, see 1830 U.N.T.S. 320 (Oct. 21, 1994), and thus defines the scope of the United States' obligations under the treaty.

In other words, Joe, the Senate had to interpret the wording the CAT (because it uses vague terms, subject to interpretation). The Senate specifically noted it's interpretation in the ratification documents. And the language in the Senater interpretation is itself vague and thus subject to interpretation, too. You'll note in particular that the word "severe" is still undefined.

That's why the Attorney General's office had to try and define it. So they could enforce it. They defined it one way prior to 2005 and a different way after that, because of the linked memorandum. As I said.

Continuing from the linked Attorney General's Office document:

Because the statute does not define "severe," "we construe [the] term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning." FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476 (1994). ... snip ...

You see, Joe? Even the Attorney General's Office admits that the law does not define "severe". It is subject to interpretation. And the interpretation changed in December of 2004. Like I said.

Now note carefully the following excerpt from the linked Attorney General's Memorandum because it discusses the Senate's logic during ratification of the CAT in 1988:

As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee explained in its report recommending that the Senate consent to ratification of the CAT:
The [CAT] seeks to define "torture" in a relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an extreme practice which is universally condemned. . . .

. . . .

. . . The term "torture," in United States and international usage, is usually reserved for extreme, deliberate and unusually cruel practices, for example, sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents to sensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging in positions that cause extreme pain.

S. Exec. Rep. No. 101-30, at 13-14. See also David P. Stewart, The Torture Convention and the Reception of International Criminal Law Within the United States, 15 Nova L. Rev. 449, 455 (1991) ("By stressing the extreme nature of torture, . . . [the] definition [of torture in the CAT] describes a relatively limited set of circumstances likely to be illegal under most, if not all, domestic legal systems.").

Further, the CAT distinguishes between torture and "other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1." CAT art. 16. The CAT thus treats torture as an "extreme form" of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. See S. Exec. Rep. No. 101-30, at 6, 13; see also J. Herman Burgers & Hans Danelius, The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 80 (1988) ("CAT Handbook") (noting that Article 16 implies "that torture is the gravest form of [cruel, inhuman, or degrading] treatment [or] punishment") (emphasis added); Malcolm D. Evans, Getting to Grips with Torture, 51 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 365, 369 (2002) ... snip ... The Senate Foreign Relations Committee emphasized this point in its report recommending that the Senate consent to ratification of the CAT.

So you see, Joe, even this Attorney General's memorandum, which revised the definition of "severe" to one more broad than before, acknowledges that the Senate originally ratified the CAT with a much more limited definition of "severe" in mind. So if anything, the law of the land in the minds of those who ratified the CAT in 1988 was more in line with the definition of severe that I have championed ... not yours and not whoever wrote this AG memorandom. Now you are not going to disagree with the 1988 Senate, are you? :D

Continuing from the linked Attorney General's Office document:

Representations made to the Senate by Executive Branch officials when the Senate was considering the CAT are also relevant in interpreting the CAT's torture prohibition--which sections 2340-2340A implement. Mark Richard, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division, testified that "[t]orture is understood to be that barbaric cruelty which lies at the top of the pyramid of human rights misconduct." Convention Against Torture: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, 101st Cong. 16 (1990) ("CAT Hearing") (prepared statement). ... snip ...

Now Joe ... seriously ... do you really think that causing temporary pain or discomfort "lies at the top of the pyramid of human rights misconduct"? Really? :rolleyes:
Now of course, in this 2004 Memorandum, the AG's office suddenly altered it's long held view and declared

we do not believe Congress intended to reach only conduct involving "excruciating and agonizing" pain or suffering.

Notice the word "believe"? And you'll note that their evidence for this new assertion is minimal at best. In fact, they admitted that

Drawing distinctions among gradations of pain (for example, severe, mild, moderate, substantial, extreme, intense, excruciating, or agonizing) is obviously not an easy task, especially given the lack of any precise, objective scientific criteria for measuring pain.

and the best they could do was quote from another judicial INTERPRETATION of another law (TVPA) related to torture that itself defines torture using that still very vague word "severe". But even that judicial interpretation falls short because it states (according to the AG memo)

The severity requirement is crucial to ensuring that the conduct proscribed by the [CAT] and the TVPA is sufficiently extreme and outrageous to warrant the universal condemnation that the term "torture" both connotes and invokes. The drafters of the [CAT], as well as the Reagan Administration that signed it, the Bush Administration that submitted it to Congress, and the Senate that ultimately ratified it, therefore all sought to ensure that "only acts of a certain gravity shall be considered to constitute torture."

Joe, you will note that there is NOT "universal" condemnation of waterboarding (to induce temporary pain and discomfort) and the other enhanced interrogation methods the CIA used with KSM and the other terrorists in question. Many of us do not feel they are "acts of sufficient gravity" to constitute "torture", especially in a situation where the goal is to save countless lives. In short, the severity definition you want to use does not ensure "universal condemnation" and thus fails the test set by the AG's office in the memo.

Continuing from the linked Attorney General's Office document:

The critical issue is the degree of pain and suffering that the alleged torturer intended to, and actually did, inflict upon the victim. The more intense, lasting, or heinous the agony, the more likely it is to be torture.

So here, despite the fact that the AG's office wished to broaden the definition of torture in the interpretation of the law, they still acknowledged that the agony caused must be "intense", lasting or heinous to qualify as torture. Well I and many others maintain that waterboarding is neither "heinous" or "lasting", and not all that "intense" if journalists are willing to submit themselves repeatedly to it. It may be highly uncomfortable but I don't "intense" describes what they experience accurately. The same is true of the other enhanced interrogation methods that the CIA employed against the al-Qaeda terrorists.

In short, the AG is not successfully making a case for disallowing waterboarding and the other enhanced techniques. In fact, for the most part, what the 2004 AG Memorandum is really doing is playing word games to rationalize "A" definition of torture that fits the mood of the administration at the moment. The AG's office is not finding a "truth" but trying to rationalize a way to a interpretation that apparently they'd been asked to provide by someone in the administration based on the politics of the moment. And tomorrow someone else will probably ask them to find a way to rationalize a new interpretation. See where this is going?

Here are just a few more excerpts from the linked Attorney General's Office document:
The statute provides a specific definition of "severe mental pain or suffering," see 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2), but does not define the term "severe physical pain or suffering." Although we think the meaning of "severe physical pain" is relatively straightforward, the question remains whether Congress intended to prohibit a category of "severe physical suffering" distinct from "severe physical pain." ... snip ... Exactly what is included in the concept of "severe physical suffering," however, is difficult to ascertain.
The text of the statute and the CAT, and their history, provide little concrete guidance as to what Congress intended separately to include as "severe physical suffering."
Notice all the wishy-washy language Joe? The whole memorandum is like that ... chock full of phrases like "believe", "do not believe", "think", "they intended", "does not define", "difficult to ascertain", "ambiguous" and so forth. And it just gets worse and worse the farther you read in the document. And leave it to lawyers to say something in 10000 words that you could probably say in 100 with greater clarity. That is presuming they actually said something meaningful in the memorandum ... which I'm not convinced they did. :D
Now, moving on to your other comments...
ETA:
The courts have no problem dealing with words like "severe" or "inappropriate" or "reasonable" and the like.

I think I just proved you wrong, Joe. :D

And I don't think your "some" is the same as my "severe".

How can you know? You don't know my tolerance for pain or discomfort. Some people can't even stand the sight of lima beans on their dinner plate. ;)

I think you're purposely trying to describe torture as something trivial compared with some great benefit (that you magically know is waiting for you when you make the decision to commit torture).

First of all, I don't find what folks used to consider torture (i.e., pulling fingernails, beatings, electric shock, etc) trivial. But some of the things now described as being torture by your side in this debate? Yes, those are absolutely trivial.

Second, there is no magic to it. Just common sense and a reasonable understanding of the probabilities involved. And an ability to deal with probability rather than insisting on a world in black and white where everything must be certain before acting to save lives.

And third, I think you are saying the act of inflicting even temporary pain or discomfort on a very bad person in order to save many lives is as bad or worse than the act of allowing the murder of many lives when you could have saved them by only inflicting temporary pain or discomfort. I have a problem with that.

Nope, I think you're just trying your best to spin torture as something trivial.

No, I'm trying to keep you from making torture mean something trivial. See the difference? :D

BeAChooser

4th June 2009, 12:03 PM

I reject that it's possible to know there is a 99% certainty that torturing someone will give you information that will save lives.

But suppose there was. Consider this a thought experiment designed to quantify your moral clarity. Not actually represent a real situation. :D

The thing about not know is that you don't know.

But there is a difference between being a little uncertain and being very uncertain. There is a difference between knowing something with high probability and knowing something with only low probability. And that's useful information that smart people try to use in making decisions.

Changing your hypothetical from 100% certainty to 99% that torturing someone will save lives does not make your hypothetical any more acceptable.

But it's just a "hypothetical" Joe. I'm not trying to say it's necessarily the real situation. I'm trying to find out if there is ANY circumstance where you'd save the million lives. Where you'd value one evil man's suffering in pain less than the lives of those million innocent, and mostly good, people. I think it is quite interesting and illuminating that so many on your side of this debate have such difficulty just answering a simple, quite clear cut (IMO) yes/no "hypothetical". :D

At the point you decide to commit the crime of torture you don't know whether you'll get a good result.

But an investigator/interrogator can know some things with enough confidence to justify the action. Based on a variety of known facts, they can have a high confidence there is an ongoing terrorist plot. Based on various factors, they can have high confidence that the person to be interrogated is in a position to know something that would stop that terrorist attack. And based on past experience (like say that of the CIA's, which many on your side of the aisle apparently don't want to really know about), they could know with reasonably high confidence that waterboarding will cause that hardened terrorist to talk and reveal actionable intel. In that case, he might be able to waterboard the individual with some confidence that he can save those the lives that are at risk.

So through my 100% hypothetical, I'm trying to find out if there is any degree of confidence at which you'd save those lives. The hesitation of some to answer my limiting case hypothetical makes me think maybe there isn't. Which I think says something about their rationality. And when one does answer that limiting case in the positive manner (that I maintain suggests rationality in the eyes of most people), then naturally I want to find out if they will still answer yes if I introduce just a little uncertainty. A rational question to explore. :D

JoeTheJuggler

4th June 2009, 12:15 PM

They defined it one way prior to 2005 and a different way after that, because of the linked memorandum.
Check the dates. The C.A.T. was ratified in 1994. The stuff you're talking about (limiting it to pain equivalent to that of organ failure, loss of bodily function and death) was in memos (not law) starting around 2002. This attempt at redefining torture that way failed, though. The U.S. Code reflects the language you quoted from the US's ratification reservations that narrowed and clarified the definition of mental pain (but certainly did not say that it's only torture if the pain is equivalent to that of loss of bodily function, organ failure or death). In fact, it even specified that the mental pain can be that caused by the "threat of imminent death" (same language in the signing reservations and in the U.S. Code).

And the interpretation changed in December of 2004. Like I said.
That's a mischaracterization of the history of the law on torture. Again, the accepted law worldwide was the C.A.T., and the U.S. ratified that in 1994. In 2002, these guys attempted to have torture redefined as being pain similar to loss of bodily function, organ failure or death. That re-definition never made it into law. It never made it into any Code, it did not result in the U.S. renouncing the C.A.T. and it was no part of any court case.

It was a memo.

ETA: The A.G. is part of the executive branch. He is not a one-man legislature.

By the way, why do you keep using my name over and over? Are you trying to make this into some kind of personal thing?

Upchurch

4th June 2009, 12:18 PM

He will NEVER answer that question
Point to Morrigan.

JoeTheJuggler

4th June 2009, 12:20 PM

But suppose there was. Consider this a thought experiment designed to quantify your moral clarity. Not actually represent a real situation. :D
I will not. Your hypotheticals ask me to consider something that is impossible.

At the moment you choose to commit the crime of torture, you cannot know whether you will get information that will result in anything positive. (As I've pointed out, even if you could know that, it's still not a justification for committing the crime, but the topic here is the narrow one of "effectiveness".)

But there is a difference between being a little uncertain and being very uncertain. There is a difference between knowing something with high probability and knowing something with only low probability. And that's useful information that smart people try to use in making decisions.
It doesn't matter how smart people are. They cannot know the future, and there's no calculation you can do that will give you a reasonable estimate on the probability of a successful outcome by committing torture.

Again, that's why the law very specifically says there is no circumstances that may be used to justify it.

But it's just a "hypothetical" Joe. I'm not trying to say it's necessarily the real situation. I'm trying to find out if there is ANY circumstance where you'd save the million lives. Where you'd value one evil man's suffering in pain less than the lives of those million innocent, and mostly good, people.

I understand what a hypothetical is. However, the one you keep suggesting is an impossible situation. It's designed for one purpose, to attempt to justify committing the crime of torture. I could set up the same impossible hypothetical for any crime and claim that crime is an effective way to achieve the positive end, but I have to stipulate as part of the hypothetical that the positive end will happen, so it's merely a circular argument.

In other words, in trying to prove that torture is effective, you're asking me to cede the point that torture is effective. That's called begging the question.

JoeTheJuggler

4th June 2009, 12:22 PM

No, I'm trying to keep you from making torture mean something trivial. See the difference? :D
Please note: this thread is on the topic of the effectiveness of torture. You keep trying to frame torture in a way that makes it something less than torture.

(This is not a thread on the question of whether something is or is not torture.)

So using words like "some pain" or "discomfort" when what you're talking about is torture is disingenuous.

BeAChooser

4th June 2009, 12:45 PM

Would you rape a baby if you knew it would save 100 million lives? I'm asking you this simple hypothetical to see where your moral compass lies.

You ask a hard moral question. I'll go ahead and answer it, while noting that you couldn't even answer a very easy question, where all I asked was whether you'd inflict some temporary pain and discomfort on one adult evil man to save those million lives.

But out of fairness, let's at least put your hypothetical on the same level as the one I offered Morrigan and Upchurch. It's not just a matter of my "knowing" ... i.e., what I believe. Let's say there is a 100% certainty that if I rape this hypothetical baby, that a 100 million lives will be saved that would otherwise have all died with a 100% certainty in the immediate future.

In which case my answer is yes, emotionally painful as the act might be for me. I might even go to hell for it and Satan would dance in glee. Or perhaps God would intervene and say I chose the greater good (because God clearly does not believe in moral equivalence, like you do). And were it put to a human jury trial, a few of those 100 million might be on the jury, in which case I doubt I'd be convicted. Even if they weren't, I suspect the jury would not convict because again, most people do not subscribe to the notion of moral equivalence, like you do. They would understand. And I can hope the baby would survive, and being so young have no memories of the event.

Would you rape an evil man to save 100 million lives?

Obviously yes, under the same constraints.

Now, care to answer my limiting case hypothetical? Or will you continue to hide? Same goes for you, Morrigan and Upchurch. Or is it *Point To Me*? :D

Upchurch

4th June 2009, 12:51 PM

Now, care to answer my limiting case hypothetical? Or will you continue to hide? Same goes for you, Morrigan and Upchurch. Or is it *Point To Me*? :D
No point for you. You're still avoiding answering the question, just as Morrigan said.

thaiboxerken

4th June 2009, 01:01 PM

I like that you answered my hypotheticals. Now, can you tell me why you present your absurd hypothetical about torture?

BeAChooser

4th June 2009, 01:51 PM

Check the dates. The C.A.T. was ratified in 1994.

Sorry, my mistake in saying 1988. Sloppy writing.

The stuff you're talking about (limiting it to pain equivalent to that of organ failure, loss of bodily function and death) was in memos (not law) starting around 2002.

Fair enough, but all I originally said is that the current definition is different than the one prior to 2005. Which is true. And regardless, as pointed out in the 2002 memo, the Senate in 1994 still seemed to subscribe to a far more limited definition of torture that what is being imposed now. That appears to be proven in the 2004 memo where they quote the Senate itself. Isn't there such a thing as intent in the law? Or do you think the intent of the 1994 Senate doesn't matter at all even though they made this law you are now trying to enforce with a new, much broader definition of torture?

Here is more to support my position in this:

http://hnn.us/articles/32497.html

when President William Clinton sent this UN Convention to Congress for ratification in 1994, he included language drafted six years earlier by the Reagan administration—with four detailed diplomatic “reservations” focused on just one word in the convention’s 26-printed pages. That word was “mental.”

Significantly, these intricately-constructed diplomatic reservations re-defined torture, as interpreted by the United States, to exclude sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain—the very techniques the CIA had refined at such great cost.

So even Clinton clearly didn't agree with your current restrictions and the actual statutes were written to reflect his reservations.

Moreover,

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/update_it_depends_what_you_mea.php

The 1994 law defines torture as including only practices "specifically intended" to inflict "severe physical ... pain or suffering" and certain other practices that cause "prolonged mental harm" (emphasis added). Under this definition, deliberately inflicting pain that is not quite "severe," or mental harm that is not quite "prolonged," is no crime. ... snip ... the definition is certainly narrow enough to leave room for doubt whether it would be torture to waterboard a high-level terrorist for, say, 15 seconds.

You see, it's a matter of INTERPRETATION because neither treaty or statute specify the meaning of "serious" or "prolonged". Period. The law is only what it is interpreted to be. So if we choose to allow waterboarding, we can, and still be within the language of the law. Now as the above source states "whether the law leaves room for doubt about whether waterboarding is torture is one thing; whether the law ought to leave room for doubt on that point is quite another." You are certainly entitled to believe it shouldn't but don't try and deceive people into thinking that as currently worded it leaves no room for doubt. That would be highly dishonest as I think most readers should be able to see by now.

Here's more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243020964825531.html

The 1994 law was passed pursuant to an international treaty, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. The law's definition of torture is circular. Torture under that law means "severe physical or mental pain or suffering," which in turn means "prolonged mental harm," which must be caused by one of four prohibited acts. The only relevant one to the CIA inquiry was threatening or inflicting "severe physical pain or suffering." What is "prolonged mental suffering"? The term appears nowhere else in the U.S. Code.

That definition does indeed appear circular. Continuing,

Congress required, in order for there to be a violation of the law, that an interrogator specifically intend that the detainee suffer prolonged physical or mental suffering as a result of the prohibited conduct. Just knowing a person could be injured from the interrogation method is not a violation under Supreme Court rulings interpreting "specific intent" in other criminal statutes.

Now obviously "prolonged" is subject to interpretation. Does 90 seconds of waterboarding really qualify as prolonged. Today, KSM seems no worse, physically or mentally, even after five sessions of water boarding over a week's time. Again, the definition is subject to interpretation. Don't try and deceive people into thinking it is not.

the accepted law worldwide was the C.A.T.

What a shame it's not universally accepted ... say by al-qaeda.

In 2002, these guys attempted to have torture redefined as being pain similar to loss of bodily function, organ failure or death.

And the folks who wrote C.A.T. redefined it from what it had been previous to that. My point is that definitions can change. And maybe, given the situation vis a vis the confluence of terrorism and WMD now, which wasn't much of a concern back in 1988, the definition should be changed again. And we should change that definition in our own laws, even if they don't convene a new convention on torture.

It was a memo.

No, it was an INTERPRETATION of the word "serious" in order to define what to prosecute as torture under the law. It was perfectly valid for the administration to seek such an interpretation in light of the events of 9/11, fears of additional mass casualty terrorist attacks, and the difficulty interrogators were having in getting intel from captured terrorists. If the legislature wants to leave no room for interpretation then they need to very specifically define what "severe" means in the statute. Until such time as they do, the interpretation process is as much a part of the "law" as writing and passing the treaty or statute itself.

thaiboxerken

4th June 2009, 01:58 PM

BeaCh, definitions are tautological, they are not arguments. Thus, the definition of torture presented may be wrong, but it cannot be "circular."

BeAChooser

4th June 2009, 02:32 PM

I will not. Your hypotheticals ask me to consider something that is impossible.

Lot's of things have been considered impossible (by the majority), yet the folks that looked at hypotheticals made them reality. What is a hypothetical but something to help clarify and explore. I think you are just hiding because of what this limiting case might show about your moral compass. :D

At the moment you choose to commit the crime of torture, you cannot know whether you will get information that will result in anything positive.

But suppose you could? Assume that, so we can better understand your views on morality. You do want us to understand those views, don't you? :D

Quote:
But there is a difference between being a little uncertain and being very uncertain. There is a difference between knowing something with high probability and knowing something with only low probability. And that's useful information that smart people try to use in making decisions.

It doesn't matter how smart people are. They cannot know the future, and there's no calculation you can do that will give you a reasonable estimate on the probability of a successful outcome by committing torture.

I think most people will see that's nonsense. The CIA and our government made precisely that calculation where KSM and a few other terrorists were concerned (of course, they interpreted the methods the CIA was to use as NOT being torture). And if we are to believe their claims (which only Obama can disprove if they are indeed false), they were successful in saving lives.

Again, that's why the law very specifically says there is no circumstances that may be used to justify it.

But the law doesn't very specifically define serious or prolonged. So the interpretation was that the methods used by the CIA (like waterboarding) were not torture. Nothing wrong with that. The interpretation has changed, but it could change again, back to that previous interpretation, if there was a need and that was our decision. Unfortunately, perhaps another terrorist attack will be needed for that to happen. We can only hope that it doesn't kill too many people. :(

I understand what a hypothetical is. However, the one you keep suggesting is an impossible situation.

Why does a hypothetical necessarily have to be possible? Why are you so hung up on this if the purpose of the hypothetical is merely to explore the limits of our views on something ... say morality? Are your views on morality something you don't wish to discuss? That would be odd given that the issue of morality is at the heart of concerns about *torture*. :D

In other words, in trying to prove that torture is effective

No, I'm merely asking you to pretend that it's effective and that you have 100% certainty about all those other things so that we can explore the issue of morality and where you stand on that. And that's needed because the definition of torture is linked to the notion of morality.

BeAChooser

4th June 2009, 02:41 PM

Please note: this thread is on the topic of the effectiveness of torture.

But how can you discuss the effectiveness of torture unless you define it? And as I've shown, that definition has changed over time because certain phrases in the current definition are so vague and imprecise. Also, you folks really don't seem all that interested in actually knowing whether waterboarding, if you insist on labeling it torture, is effective. You are quite content to allow Obama to keep the details of the interrogations involving it secret.

(This is not a thread on the question of whether something is or is not torture.)

Sure it is. How can you ask us to tell you the effectiveness of torture unless we all agree what constitutes torture. As things stand, the statutes do not specifically state that waterboarding is torture. Hence that's open to interpretation and I choose not to include it in my interpretation.

So using words like "some pain" or "discomfort" when what you're talking about is torture is disingenuous.

No it's not because the statutes do not define "severe". And any doctor or psychologist can tell you that different people have different interpretations of pain and discomfort. If the law is going to leave itself open to interpretation, don't be surprised if different people interpret it differently.

thaiboxerken

4th June 2009, 02:47 PM

BeACH, the whole point of waterboarding is to cause the victim to think they are going die.

BeAChooser

4th June 2009, 02:48 PM

I like that you answered my hypotheticals.

I've nothing to hide. And I think I proved my point about you, because you haven't addressed my hypothetical even after I answered yours. :D

Now, can you tell me why you present your absurd hypothetical about torture?

I guess you haven't bothered to pay attention to anything else on this thread because I clearly spelled that out prior to your post. I suggest you go back and TRY to understand what I posted. Until such time as you do, I don't think I'll waste any more time on you. :D

thaiboxerken

4th June 2009, 02:59 PM

Your attempt to paint people as having a poor moral compass based on idiotic hypothetical situations has nothing to do with the effectiveness of torture.

JoeTheJuggler

4th June 2009, 03:21 PM

Lot's [sic] of things have been considered impossible (by the majority), yet the folks that looked at hypotheticals made them reality.
This makes no sense whatsoever.

What is a hypothetical but something to help clarify and explore.
Possibly, but yours isn't. Yours is simply an attempt to justify torture. And it works by assuming that torture is effective (that is, it asks me to assume that you will save lives by committing torture--not something it is possible to know when you are making the decision whether or not to commit torture).

I think you are just hiding because of what this limiting case might show about your moral compass.
Bull. I'm not hiding anything. I've consistently held the position that I am opposed to torture in any circumstance whatsoever.

But suppose you could? Assume that, so we can better understand your views on morality.
Again, you're asking me to cede that torture is effective in order for you to make an argument based on a hypothetical to support the position that torture is effective. You're begging the question. I will not cede it. That's the very proposition you're trying to support.

But the law doesn't very specifically define serious or prolonged.

First of all, you do realize you're trying to conduct two arguments here? In one (the one that's on-topic for this thread) you're trying to argue that torture is effective. In another, you're apparently trying to argue that some of the things that most of us consider to be torture shouldn't be considered torture because you don't think the legal definition of torture isn't clear enough.

So here, you're addressing the second argument. It's off topic, but I'll tackle it a bit.

"Prolonged" is not part of the original C.A.T. definition, but was part of the U.S.'s ratification reservations and part of the U.S. Code. It talks about the damage being prolonged. Depending on what you're arguing about (waterboarding? confining someone with an insect phobia in a box with an insect?), a strong case can be made that something like PTSD is a form of prolonged damage. In the case of the people who were beaten (including those who were killed), the case is quite obvious. Scars and death are about as "prolonged" as damage can get.

As for "severe" the U.S.'s reservations--and similar language that made it into the U.S. Code--is, I believe consistent with the C.A.T. definition. The U.S. gave specific examples of what it takes to be "severe" when talking about "mental pain". It even anticipates situations where the victim experiences no physical pain whatsoever (so this belies the attempt at redefining it offered in the memos you cited). And again, courts are comfortable addressing terms like "severe" or "reasonable" and so on. In the case of waterboarding, the US's language clearly covers that since it says that the mental pain can include pain caused by the threat of imminent death. The very point of waterboarding is to make the victim think/feel as if he is about to die.

Confining a phobic person in a box with a bug might be a bit of a grey area.
I would happily ignore that one rather iffy case if we actually prosecuted the ones that aren't even remotely grey --like waterboarding people over and over or the beatings, the sex stuff, the hanging from the wrists and the cases where the victim was tortured to death.

JoeTheJuggler

4th June 2009, 03:22 PM

I've nothing to hide. And I think I proved my point about you, because you haven't addressed my hypothetical even after I answered yours.
Many of us have addressed your hypotheticals over and over again. Telling you that they're impossible and that they're begging the question is indeed addressing them.

CapelDodger

4th June 2009, 05:46 PM

Many of us have addressed your hypotheticals over and over again. Telling you that they're impossible and that they're begging the question is indeed addressing them.

What Joe said.

Torture takes place in real situations, not unrealistic hypotheticals. It's effectiveness has to be measured by its performance across those situations.

Did torture of the Templars elicit useful information? Well, the treasure's still missing, so no it didn't. And the King's men got seriously medieval on their asses.

You believe the CIA and Cheney when they tell you that things which didn't happen would have happened if torture hadn't been applied. They might equally well not have happened anyway. 9/11 remains a one-off after almost eight years, which strongly suggests that the righteous response in Afghanistan did what it was meant to do.

Unless you want to claim that torture has had a 100% success rate at foiling plots for the last eight years. Which seems a little unlikely.

CapelDodger

4th June 2009, 05:50 PM

BeACH, the whole point of waterboarding is to cause the victim to think they are going die.

It's not just a conscious thought; the sense of smothering works at the brain-stem level so what you experience is horror and panic. It is very, very unpleasant.

CapelDodger

4th June 2009, 06:43 PM

But nevertheless, he did.

My point, in any case, is that Bin Laden was well aware that the plot was to attack certain specific targets by crashing airplanes into them around a certain date. And that certain people, like Atta were involved in it. One of them being KSM. That information alone, had it fallen into the hands of US interrogators, would likely have prevented success of the plot.

It isn't lkely at all. More likely is that they'd have been fed a nonexistent plot to direct attention away from the real one. An example would be truck-bombs in underpasses in New York (all those Jews and Wall Street), Hollywood (Jews again, and cultural imperialism) and Washington. That should do it. Then you giggle like a fool when the real thing goes off.

The same is true in the KSM case. The interrogators were trying to find out what other plots were underway. The targets. The terrorist leaders of those plots. The dates at which they were supposed to occur. That information alone might be enough to have defeated those plots. Apparently, it was.

I have a stone in my garden which keeps away elephants. Apparently it works.

False.

Not so.

Self-labeled al-qaeda members said they met with al-Zarqawi in Bagdhad PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq to plan and get funding for the chemical bomb attack in Jordan.

This may be true. What "self-labelled Al Qaeda members" said to Jordanian interrogators at a time that Jordan's close ally and (dare I say it?) patron the US was desperate for a link between Zarqawi (a Jordanian street-fighter unimpressed by any playboy terrorist) and the playboy terrorist's Al Qaeda is not evidence. Jordan is still a Kingdom, remember; they get medieval on you over there.

al-Zarqawi had a training camp in Afghanistan before he came to
Iraq (which happened after our invasion of Afghanistan).

Lots of people had training camps in Afghanistan under the Taliban. That was the problem. It doesn't make them all associates. Zarqawi and bin Laden cannot be more unlike.

I don't think you can convince me that he was allowed to operate that camp in Afghanistan without the approval and cooperation of the Taliban AND al-Qaeda.

The Taliban were not subservient to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was useful to them (mostly as a conduit for Saudi money and for their suicide brigades) but that's all. There were Islamists of every stripe from all over.

Al Qaeda is not the monster you imagine it to be. It just happens to be the one that came home to you. Unsurprisingly it came to you courtesy of an entitled playboy.

Bush and bin Laden have quite a bit in common.

Those two groups were joined at the hips ... literally ... with the children of bin Laden and the head of the Taliban even getting married. And besides, you yourself said that al-Qaeda was loosely structured and a franchise. :D

That's not "joined at the hips", that's bin Laden as supplicant. And what the last point is supposed to mean I can't fathom.

The Taliban was a creation of Pakistan from the mujahadeen detritus left behind when the Russians pulled out and the US lost interest. Al Qaeda is a late arrival.

I could go on, but the fact is that you haven't got a clue about Afghanistan or Al Qaeda or Zarqawi or Jordan or anything you're talking about.

But this case was tried in a Jordanian court, with witness after witness testifying, with the jury being shown the vehicles, chemicals and explosives the dozen terrorists brought into the country, with the terrorists admitting on video and in the court room to many details of the plot, including it's ultimate purpose, and with the jury convicting the terrorists, including al-Zarqawi. Funny how your side simply dismisses any evidence that doesn't fit your hate-Bush world view. :rolleyes:

I'm not at all surprised that you suck this up becaue it does fit your world-view, which for you is apparently enough. That and a source of authority, such as a Jordanian court.

I don't have a world view. Imagine that, eh? A disinterested observer with a functioning intellect and time on his hands. Don't try to slander me as biased. I distrust everything, not just circuses in Jordanian courts.

Ease of belief isn't my problem.

BeAChooser

4th June 2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:
What is a hypothetical but something to help clarify and explore.

Possibly, but yours isn't. Yours is simply an attempt to justify torture.

You can regurgitate that as much as you want, Joe. You are correct in only a very limited sense. Let me explain.

Any rational reader can see that I've been attempting to understand the basis for your definition of torture as compared to the basis for mine. That's because the definition would obviously affect whether we even need to assess the effectiveness of waterboarding an evil person. If waterboarding as used by the CIA is not REALLY torture under current law, then I suppose it's perfectly ok if you and the others continue to ignore what the CIA said with regard to waterboarding's effectiveness. But then it's also perfectly ok if the CIA continues waterboarding very evil terrorists now and then.

I think I've already won this portion of the argument since I've already established that the definition of the phrases "severe" and "prolonged" in the definition of torture aren't written on any tablet or even in any convention or law signed or passed by the US. Thus, interpretation plays an important role in the law and allows wide latitude as to what acts actually do constitute torture. We've seen that latitude at work over the last few decades.

But let's assume for the sake of argument (a hypothetical, if you please) that waterboarding is torture. Even then, I think the CAT and your use of it in setting US policy is fatally flawed. This is where my hypothetical questions concerning morality enter the picture. Since the abhorrence of torture ultimately rests on a sense of morality, understanding your views on morality, compared to mine, is essential to understanding our differing OPINIONS about what US policy should be vis a vis torture.

Personally, I think your (and the CAT's authors') definition and treatment of torture rests on a belief in the moral equivalence between inflicting pain and murder. For that reason, the CAT authors stated that there can be no mitigating circumstances for *torture* (a sentiment that you have repeated ad infinitum). Like you, they must believe that inflicting temporary pain on one person is morally equivalent to allowing a mass murder of immense proportions to take place that one could potentially have stopped by just inflicting temporary pain and discomfort. I think your refusal to answer my hypothetical was an attempt to avoid confirming that in black and white.

I, on the other hand, do not believe in moral equivalence. It's tricky, but I think there can be morally valid justifications for acts that are still to some degree immoral themselves, as long as they serve a greater moral good. Shouldn't one of our purpose here be to increase the overall moral goodness of the universe? Make it a better place? If allowing a mass murder that one could stop is actually much, much worse, morally, than inflicting temporary pain on one person, then the overall moral goodness of the universe will decrease if we follow your and Obama's approach to fighting terror and as a result there are more successful mass casualty attacks.

For this reason, it seems to me (and many others) that laws against torture should take into account the circumstances of the world today ... specifically, the efforts by terrorist groups (for whom deterrence is obviously ineffective) to make WMD-scale attacks on innocent populations, potentially killing millions at a time. That fact could lead to situations where inflicting some temporary pain or discomfort to one very bad person might save large numbers of human lives from horrible deaths.

Which explains why I'm trying to assess the degree to which you believe in moral equivalence. :D

I'm not hiding anything. I've consistently held the position that I am opposed to torture in any circumstance whatsoever.

Then even without specifically answering my hypothetical question you've answered it. You believe in absolute moral equivalence.

If inflicting temporary pain on one person could with 100 percent certainty prevent the otherwise certain destruction of the universe (all I've described is a circumstance and you did say "ANY circumstance WHATSOEVER"), you wouldn't do it. Personally, I think that's insane.

"Prolonged" is not part of the original C.A.T. definition, but was part of the U.S.'s ratification reservations and part of the U.S. Code. It talks about the damage being prolonged.

Nevertheless, "prolonged" isn't defined in US law. And I suppose one could argue that the CAT means that even a nanosecond of severe (whatever that is) pain qualifies as *torture*. Again, I think that's insane.

In the case of the people who were beaten (including those who were killed), the case is quite obvious. Scars and death are about as "prolonged" as damage can get.

But no one is arguing about that case, are they? :D

The U.S. gave specific examples of what it takes to be "severe" when talking about "mental pain".

And yet there is obviously still much disagreement. Obviously whatever language they used is subject to great interpretation. Why else did the 2004 AG memo need to go on and on and on in the "mental" section of the memo and end up saying very little that was was concrete or definitive?

And again, courts are comfortable addressing terms like "severe" or "reasonable" and so on.

Again, all they are doing is interpreting. That can change from one court to the next. After the next big terrorist attack, I bet the courts look at things a little different than now. :D

In the case of waterboarding, the US's language clearly covers that since it says that the mental pain can include pain caused by the threat of imminent death.

There is no threat of imminent death from waterboarding as used by the CIA. You, me and even terrorists worldwide must have heard that waterboarding didn't harm any of those it was used on, certainly not under the guidelines the CIA imposed on itself in its use. We've waterboarded thousands of our own soldiers. Journalists are volunteering to be waterboarded. Obviously, there is no threat of imminent death. So now it seems you are defining torture as being subjected to any irrational fear that a person has? :rolleyes:

Confining a phobic person in a box with a bug might be a bit of a grey area.

Not if the above is true. The likelihood of a phobic person dying from fright from a bug is just as high as a person dying while being waterboarded by the CIA under the guidelines it set. At least be consistent in your views. But you can't do that because then you know that most Americans would really decide you folks are nuts if you start insisting that putting a caterpillar in a cell with an evil mass murdering terrorist is torture. :D