Where fools rush in.. (Dem's & hearings) [Archive]

SteamWake

05-12-09, 11:30 AM

The CIA says "no":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html?wprss=rss_print/asection

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.
The agency provided none, the officials said.

That article in the ... ahem... Washington Post seems to focus on one individual.

But Cheny stating that lives were saved will obviously be dissmissed as a lie becaus well its Cheny saying it.

Max2147

05-12-09, 11:38 AM

SteamWake

05-12-09, 11:48 AM

The Dems should have stood up and protested against torture as soon as it became public. Several Dems did so as individuals, but they should have done so as a party.

That said, I'm gald to see them making up for their mistakes.

Thats whats so freakin aggrivatting about the whole thing.

It has nothing to do with making up for their mistakes.

It has to with ripping the Bush administrration and maintaining their power.

The topic is almost irrelevant to them.

AVGWarhawk

05-12-09, 12:06 PM

Thats whats so freakin aggrivatting about the whole thing.

It has nothing to do with making up for their mistakes.

It has to with ripping the Bush administrration and maintaining their power.

The topic is almost irrelevant to them.

I have to agree here. Why is it so relevant today as opposed to 2003? Busy at work looking to secure another 4 years. Nothing more.

Aramike

05-12-09, 12:23 PM

The CIA says "no":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html?wprss=rss_print/asectionThat depends on who you ask: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/waterboarding_worked_wonders_e.html

Here's a blog discussing your article: http://patterico.com/2009/04/26/waterboarding-worked-part-3-the-wapo-falls-for-the-lazy-argument-on-the-timing-issue-of-the-library-tower-attack/

The bottom line is that I really don't give a damn about the comfort of those who support the actions of suicide bombers in a civilian shopping district. Waterboarding is not injuring the detainees ... it is merely causing physical and mental distress.

Oh well.

Fr8monkey

05-12-09, 12:39 PM

AVGWarhawk

05-12-09, 01:00 PM

Tchocky

05-12-09, 01:08 PM

But if she was on the senate committee then she did have the legislative power.

The chances of an investigation being successful and clear are higher under a friendly administration than under the BUsh Administration. Obama has shown a remarkable willingness to get the facts out in the open. This makes the political atmosphere easier.
basically what Max2147 posted.

I can't get my head around the feelings that certain Democratic politicians are the ones at fault, and more deserving of ire and disrespect than the people who ordered the torture in the first place.

As for those arguing whether torture saves lives or not, I hope you can see what's wrong with that question.

There have been several investigation running since this came to attention, mostly in 2003/4, but now is the first time that documents have been willingly provided by the White House or any governement agency, documents that show the tortured logic and legal stovepiping that was going on after 9/11.

Read the memos released, they're harrowing.

SteamWake

05-12-09, 01:11 PM

Obama has shown a remarkable willingness to get the facts out in the open.

That all depends on which facts your talking about.

But yes there is a willingness, hell even a compulsion to get the facts out in the open regardless of consiquences but thats another debate.

heartc

05-12-09, 01:15 PM

I must have missed the memo that showed how waterboarding is torture.

Ok, let's see:

-We must not make "wars of aggression" against those who harbor and support terrorists.
-We must not increase security and public surveillance measures to spot them and shut them down (I can agree with not doing that, the state is a too dangerous being for it).
-Using common sense in form of ethnic profiling is racist.
-And when we finally have some top suspect or indeed identified terrorist in custody, we must handle them with velvet gloves.

OK, so I guess all we can do is just sit there and wait. Once the first nuke goes off in a Western city, or large scale bio attack happens, all this crap is gona go right out the window anyway.

Max2147

05-12-09, 01:51 PM

If American soldiers were being waterboarded by an enemy, we'd call it torture.

Torture gives you plenty of information, but most of it is garbage. Everybody who has spoken about waterboarding from personal experience says that they'll do anything to make it stop. That means that the guy who knows nothing will start spewing stuff about any terrorist plot he can think up on the spot.

The problem for American intelligence these days isn't a lack of information. If anything, they have too much information. Their problem is digesting all the information and picking out the useful stuff. It's like going through a massive car junkyard to find the exact parts you need, and there's only one of each in the entire place. Adding more junk to that pike isn't going to help us, and it might end up hurting us.

SteamWake

05-12-09, 02:02 PM

Aramike

05-12-09, 02:22 PM

If American soldiers were being waterboarded by an enemy, we'd call it torture.So what do you call beheading American civilians and non-combantants?Torture gives you plenty of information, but most of it is garbage.Hogwash. The military and CIA interrogators aren't foolish - they are unlikely to continue employing interrogation methods which don't work.

What people like you are doing is demonizing such patriots as sadists looking for a cheap thrill through hurting others. There's only three options here:

Either enhanced interrogation works and that's why we used it.
Enhanced interrogation does not work, and it's used only for the interrogaters to get their jollies.
Enhanced interrorgation does not work, and the military and CIA operatives who employ the methods are morons.
Usually what makes the most sense is the answer.Everybody who has spoken about waterboarding from personal experience says that they'll do anything to make it stop. That means that the guy who knows nothing will start spewing stuff about any terrorist plot he can think up on the spot.You're presuming (as many of the left do, who don't independantly research the issue) that waterboarding is being used indiscriminately. What, do you honestly think that you're the only one to figure out that, should the method be used on someone with no information, that person is likely to make something up?

They're not just pouring water on people and asking "what do you know?" - that's foolish (ironically it is also the left's main argument against the method).

The method is used when we KNOW that a detainee has SPECIFIC information, but we don't know what that information is. For example, let's say we know that detainee X was at a planning session for a terrorist attack 2 years ago. We know this via satellite photography and humint. We use traditional questioning but the detainee won't reveal the contents of the meeting. That's when other techniques would be applied.

Sure, we may not stop a terrorist plot this way (plans may have changed due to the detainee's captivity, etc.) - but it IS worth a shot, considering that we're judging a known terrorist's comfort against the well-being of American civilians. The problem for American intelligence these days isn't a lack of information. If anything, they have too much information.You obviously know very little about how intelligence works. There's no such thing as "too much" information.Their problem is digesting all the information and picking out the useful stuff. That's absurd. If you're referring to, say, NSA intercepts (sigint) than yes, there's a lot to absorb. However, like I said, you obviously know little about how intelligence works.

The biggest enemy of intelligence gathering is counter-intelligence - something that Al Qaeda is very good at. Prior to 9/11, almost all of our intel on terrorism was communications (comint/sigint). This is easily defeated by simply not using the phone, for example. The problem is that we have traditionally had very little human intelligence (humint) as these groups are difficult to compromise due to their insidious nature. Even so, should a group actually be infiltrated, how do you suppose getting any information out? The groups are so small that tracing leaked information would be a fairly simple task, and due to a clear communications black-out, just getting the word out in the first place would be nearly impossible.It's like going through a massive car junkyard to find the exact parts you need, and there's only one of each in the entire place. This is more like going through a massive junkyard looking for a certain part, and trying to find it on a specific car. Makes more sense than arbitrarily looking through the whole damned thing, doesn't it?Adding more junk to that pike isn't going to help us, and it might end up hurting us. Again, you demonstrate that you don't know how the intel community works. "Adding more junk", as you put it, can be immeasurably helpful if the information proves to be accurate. If it doesn't, then we're in the same boat either way.

Aramike

05-12-09, 02:27 PM

My question is during the debates Sen. McCain stated he believes in Water boarding and stated himself that it saves lives; but as a POW in Vietnam HE was water boarded and said he would say anything to get it to stop. Hypocracy, indeed?Not hypocritcal at all. Here, again, is this foolish assumption that we are simply waterboarding everyone and asking "what do you know?".

The waterboarding McCain experienced was an arbitrary application of the method, designed simply to break a man's spirit for the sake of doing so.

The waterboarding the detainees experience is used on specific individuals to gain specific information.

mookiemookie

05-12-09, 02:39 PM

So what do you call beheading American civilians and non-combantants?

This isn't as bad Saddam Hussein or Torquemada, but it's just a few degrees from what Reagan used to condemn the Soviet Union for (while, you know, supporting far worse in Central America).

Talk about being hypocritical.

"[W]e conclude that the authorized use of sleep deprivation by adequately trained interrogators...could not reasonably be considered specifically intended to cause severe mental pain or suffering." - From page 40 of one May 10, 2005 CIA torture memo"Sleeplessness was a great form of torture: it left no visible marks and could not provide grounds for complaint even if an inspection-something unheard of anyway-were to strike on the morrow." - From page 112 of Volume 1 of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago

mookiemookie

05-12-09, 02:40 PM

Not hypocritcal at all. Here, again, is this foolish assumption that we are simply waterboarding everyone and asking "what do you know?".

The waterboarding McCain experienced was an arbitrary application of the method, designed simply to break a man's spirit for the sake of doing so.

The waterboarding the detainees experience is used on specific individuals to gain specific information.

In what realm does slamming someone against a wall 20 or 30 times not constitute an intent to cause extreme pain, i.e. torture? It's all okay if you think the guy knows something you want to know? Why do it in the first place? Just because you say you're only doing it to shock and alarm someone into talking doesn't make it so. The same could be said about kicking a guy in the jewels.

AVGWarhawk

05-12-09, 02:48 PM

August

05-12-09, 02:54 PM

The same could be said about kicking a guy in the jewels.

If the guy knows where and when the next 9-11 is going to occur then maybe kicking him in the jewels to encourage him to share that information might be justified.

heartc

05-12-09, 02:56 PM

In what realm does slamming someone against a wall 20 or 30 times not constitute an intent to cause extreme pain, i.e. torture? It's all okay if you think the guy knows something you want to know? Why do it in the first place? Just because you say you're only doing it to shock and alarm someone into talking doesn't make it so. The same could be said about kicking a guy in the jewels.

A flexible wall...

Jesus Christ, these are shock tactics. How do some people here think you get an answer from a die-hard terrorist who would have no qualms about nuking a city immediately if he could?
Over a cup of coffee??

And comparing that to the Stalin regime or Soviet Russia where the state was in fact terrorising its own citizens, most of which were not guilty of anything, is laughable.

Tchocky

05-12-09, 02:59 PM

If the guy knows where and when the next 9-11 is going to occur then maybe kicking him in the jewels to encourage him to share that information might be justified.

So torture is OK?

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.

From the UN Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory.

Aramike

05-12-09, 02:59 PM

In what realm does slamming someone against a wall 20 or 30 times not constitute an intent to cause extreme pain, i.e. torture? It's all okay if you think the guy knows something you want to know? Yes, absolutely, positively, 100% no doubt, it is okay if the guy knows something that we need to know to save AMERICAN LIVES, and that information cannot be extracted quickly enough to be useful.

The limit that should be respected is causing serious injury or disfigurement, or the use of enhanced techniques without probable cause to do so.

Aramike

05-12-09, 03:02 PM

So torture is OK?Okay, I'll bite: torture that does not cause permanant injury or disfigurement, and used with probable cause to do so, is indeed okay.

Although, I wouldn't call that "torture" ... I'd call that "pressure".

I'm just going off of the semantic trap you're trying to lay.

Tchocky

05-12-09, 03:05 PM

AVGWarhawk

05-12-09, 03:09 PM

heartc

05-12-09, 03:12 PM

My point is torture is not OK, but I don't see how waterboarding or the above mentioned "walling" constitutes torture.

It certainly isn't comparable to the "traditional" (and common sense) idea of torture. And it is certainly hard to understand how some people completely shut out the context of those interrogation techniques while trying hard to paint it as indiscriminate torture.

SteamWake

05-12-09, 03:13 PM

The US Gov't signed the Convention Against Torture, you can take the definition therein to be tacitly accepted by almost every nation on Earth.

Unless I miss your meaning thats one of the most niaeve things I've ever heard.

Im sure than now that we have a Convention terrorists will put down there machettes, car batterys, and whatever weird **** they use to torture people, sometimes just for sport. Yes all that will end now.

Aramike

05-12-09, 03:13 PM

Aramike, I'm not laying any sort of trap. I want to know if August would approve of torture. Simple as.

That you think there is a semantic trap here is, I think, illustrative of the Bush Administrations attempts in this area, whether you meant it or not.
"We want to torture people, but we're not allowed. Let's find a way to torture someone while calling it something else. Lawyers, write us a definition please."

The US Gov't signed the Convention Against Torture, you can take the definition therein to be tacitly accepted by almost every nation on Earth.You are correct - I do believe that the Bush administration did try to redefine torture so that the methods that needed to be employed were legal.

And I agree with that.

Look, we're talking about innocent, civilian lives and people who are hell bent in taking them. Those people will use any method - including torture - INDISCRIMINATELY to cause terror and disrupt/destroy our way of life.

We're not talking about tank formations on a battlefield. This is about one guy with a backpack containing a dirty bomb walking into NYC. The game has changed, along with the rules. The Bush Administration realized that. Obama along with the very left-leaning UN does not.

The fact that they wish to gamble with the lives of civilians in order to attempt to make a political statement is wrong.

Waterboarding someone who knows information that can save lives, and will not disclose it, is not wrong. Preventing the extraction of such information, especially for mere political gain, is MORALLY DEPRAVED.

AVGWarhawk

05-12-09, 03:16 PM

Waterboarding someone who knows information that can save lives, and will not disclose it, is not wrong. Preventing the extraction of such information, especially for mere political gain, is MORALLY DEPRAVED.

I would buy this line of thinking.

Tribesman

05-12-09, 03:25 PM

Yes, absolutely, positively, 100% no doubt, it is okay if the guy knows something that we need to know to save AMERICAN LIVES, and that information cannot be extracted quickly enough to be useful.
So supporting torture using the pathetic ticking bomb routine and throwing in nationalist crap for good measure well done.

The waterboarding the detainees experience is used on specific individuals to gain specific information.
Yeah KSM gave specific information that he had done every islamic terrorist attack in modern hisory .

So what do you call beheading American civilians and non-combantants?
Murder , what do you call it ?
What do you call beheading non-Americans ? I still call it murder .
Murder is murder and toryure is torture , it doesn't matter what country or citizen is doing it .
Hogwash. The military and CIA interrogators aren't foolish - they are unlikely to continue employing interrogation methods which don't work.

In the course of the recent publicity over the US using torture how many military and agency interregators have gone on record criticising the method and its effectiveness is obtaining actionable intelligence ?

heartc

05-12-09, 03:26 PM

BTW, they can really stop doing it now anyway. Many of the techniques were psychological in nature in that they were suggestive to the detainee that there is worse to come. Shock and surprise. Now that the formerly TOP SECRET documents have all been disclosed to the public, those techniques are useless now. Yeah, guess why they were TOP SECRET. Not just because it is a difficult subject and the evil Bush admin didn't want you to know - the Bush admin / CIA didn't want THEM to know that the techniques are not just the beginning, but in reality the last resort.

So just scrap the whole thing now and "hang" a few people for political effect, at least that will be funny to watch.

Tribesman

05-12-09, 03:31 PM

them. Those people will use any method - including torture - INDISCRIMINATELY to cause terror and disrupt/destroy our way of life.

And by using torture , secret prisons , detntin without trial , operating outside of your own laws you are destroying your way of life .

Tchocky

05-12-09, 03:32 PM

Unless I miss your meaning thats one of the most niaeve things I've ever heard.

Im sure than now that we have a Convention terrorists will put down there machettes, car batterys, and whatever weird **** they use to torture people, sometimes just for sport. Yes all that will end now.

Er, no. You're being obtuse. How did you possibly come to the conclusion that a convention against torture means an end to terrorism?

No terrorist signed the convention against torture, the US and other nations did. It doesn't mean that terrorism will vanish overnight, it means that certain nations agreed that there are things they will not do.

You are correct - I do believe that the Bush administration did try to redefine torture so that the methods that needed to be employed were legal.
Not legal under the definition in the Convention Against Torture. They should have withdrawn from the Convention if they wanted any of this to be legal. Why do it in secret? Why hide away?

Look, we're talking about innocent, civilian lives and people who are hell bent in taking them. Those people will use any method - including torture - INDISCRIMINATELY to cause terror and disrupt/destroy our way of life.

The Bush Administration realized that. Obama along with the very left-leaning UN does not.

The fact that they wish to gamble with the lives of civilians in order to attempt to make a political statement is wrong. It's not possible that they believe that torturing is wrong? Not possible at all?

Waterboarding someone who knows information that can save lives, and will not disclose it, is not wrong. What about pulling out fingernails?
Preventing the extraction of such information, especially for mere political gain, is MORALLY DEPRAVED. Information from torture is notoriously unreliable.
The ticking-time-bomb scenario that you're describing just doesn't occur outside of 24.

I would buy this line of thinking.
So you approve of torture, AVG?

Does you believe that a nation will create more enemies by torturing the ones it captures?

Do you not believe that when America tortures prisoners, that it proves Al-Qaeda propaganda to be correct?

mookiemookie

05-12-09, 03:32 PM

They did rename it....enhanced techniques I believe.

A rose by any other name...

AVGWarhawk

05-12-09, 03:44 PM

A rose by any other name...

Just politically correct in this day of age...just poltically correct:D

AVGWarhawk

05-12-09, 03:50 PM

I would buy this line of thinking.

So you approve of torture, AVG?

Does you believe that a nation will create more enemies by torturing the ones it captures?

Do you not believe that when America tortures prisoners, that it proves Al-Qaeda propaganda to be correct?

You know what, beheading individuals is far worse then what waterboarding is...specifically if these individuals are just citizens or reporters doing a job. So yep, I have no issue with it. Last thing I want to see is a another beheading at the hands of terrorists. You know, waterboarding may not be fun and is torture but hey, the 'victim' gets up afterwards and given a towel to dry off. What happens to the beheaded innocent....why he is paraded on you-tube for all to see. Al-Qaeda propaganda...what are we supposed to be portrayed as the nice guys? Come on, they bought it here, we did not ask for it. Responding with three hots and cot plus TV all day without recourse is ridiculas. Time to spill the beans with some help of natures abundant water.

Tribesman

05-12-09, 03:55 PM

The ticking-time-bomb scenario that you're describing just doesn't occur outside of 24.

It does , that fella that got the information on Al-zacahawis location said the ticking bomb situation was commonplace in Iraq , but he said that torture doesn't work .
Does you believe that a nation will create more enemies by torturing the ones it captures?

He also said that most of the local and foriegn terrorists he dealt with in Iraq gave the US use of torture and the prisoner abuse as major reasons for them joining the terrorists in the first place .

Tribesman

05-12-09, 03:58 PM

You know what, beheading individuals is far worse then what waterboarding is
Yeah and murder is worse than theft so that means stealing is perfectly OK
What a fruitcake:down:

Tchocky

05-12-09, 04:05 PM

I can't understand your reasoning, AVG. Torture is OK because there are other people doing worse things.

You know what, beheading individuals is far worse then what waterboarding is...specifically if these individuals are just citizens or reporters doing a job. So yep, I have no issue with it.

I wasn't asking specifically about waterboarding, but about torture. Are you in favour of using torture as a means of furthering US policy?

heartc

05-12-09, 04:17 PM

He also said that most of the local and foriegn terrorists he dealt with in Iraq gave the US use of torture and the prisoner abuse as major reasons for them joining the terrorists in the first place .

Oh, so to fight the percieved "use of torture" and prisoner abuse they put explosives on themselves, walk to a market place and blow innocents up in the name of jihad?
Makes sense.
Let's try and find some more excuses for terrorists. Could be fun.

Tribesman

05-12-09, 04:31 PM

Oh, so to fight the percieved "use of torture" and prisoner abuse
"use of torture" ?????
Oh I get it ...It certainly isn't comparable to the "traditional" (and common sense) idea of torture
When the Gestapo did it against people they called terrorists it was torture , when Imperial Japan did it against enemies of the empire it was torture , when N.Korea did it against what they called Imperialist lackeys it was torture , but when some retard who got into the whitehouse says its OK then it isn't torture .

CaptainHaplo

05-12-09, 06:11 PM

Let me make this real easy and clear for those of you who dont get it.....

If you sign a treaty or agreement - your bound to follow its dictates - whenever you deal with any other signatory. However - the terrorists didn't sign on - so they dont fall under the agreement. Just like they don't fall under the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of POW's.

Now call it waving the national flag or whatever you want to try and demean it - but here is the way it is when your dealing with MOST Americans....

"MY People are worth more to me than yours are."

I've said it time and again - its a question of them or us, and the fact is that you had people with the balls to say "well - in a them or us situation - its going to be them that gets the short end of the stick." Like it or not - thats the way it is.

So make your snide little comments about "waah your playing the nationalism card" (being from canada I can see why you don't have an understanding of national pride.... though don't think we don't appreciate that you sent 7 guys and that tank to WW2. See we remember!)

*For all my Canuck friends - thats a joke mates!*

Whine about the ticking time bomb - but heres the question - when do you know that there is one? Apparently you want to stick your head in the sand and say "well there just CANT be one" - well buddy, we had that attitude pre 9/11 - and see what it got us? To quote a famous saying...

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Until you figure out that there are people out there that want to not only kill you - but destroy your very society - and take that threat seriously, you will be unable to win against terrorism. Its not pleasant that things must - thankfully RARELY - be done outside the normal procedures - but if one guy gets made a little uncomfortable so we can verify some info and save lives, thats ok.

If you think its torture - don't ever try to play streetball in NY brother - cuz the rules are simple - no blood, no foul.

August

05-12-09, 06:26 PM

Aramike, I'm not laying any sort of trap.

Sure you are. Your question is an over simplified generalization. It's like asking someone if they approve of killing without mentioning the particular situation in which the killing occurs.

For example:
1. Do you approve of killing the man who is currently engaged in trying to kill your wife and children?

2. Do you approve of killing the man who is not?

If your answer to one question is different than the other then you are a hypocrite.

Aramike

05-12-09, 11:53 PM

So supporting torture using the pathetic ticking bomb routine and throwing in nationalist crap for good measure well done.So pretending an argument doesn't have validity because you can't make an effective rebuttal in a run-on sentence well done.

In any case, trying to pretend that there aren't national interests and that terrorists don't attempt to bomb nations, and THEN trying to present that as a counter argument, is just STUPID.

Give it some thought, why don't you?Murder , what do you call it ?
What do you call beheading non-Americans ? I still call it murder .
Murder is murder and toryure is torture , it doesn't matter what country or citizen is doing it .You're right - murder is murder.

However, you clearly don't understand how legal systems work. Germany, for instance, doesn't prosecute murder the same way as, say, the US.

Defining crimes in the context of the citizens who are victimized is normal, no matter what nation you're from. I know you'd like to see it as "nationalistic", and so be it.

Only left-wing lunatics tend to believe (unfoundedly) that the world doesn't consist of different nations, with different cultures and different criminal codes.

Have fun with your Kool-Aid.

Tribesman

05-13-09, 12:03 AM

Let me make this real easy and clear for those of you who dont get it.....
Poeple get what you and the other torture supporters are saying , the problem is that what you are saying is a load of bollox .
You also demonstrate that you understand neither international law or US law , but luckily both your government appointed judges and your military lawyers understand those laws .
So go on remind me for a good laugh , how is it you can say....If you sign a treaty or agreement - your bound to follow its dictates - whenever you deal with any other signatory. However - the terrorists didn't sign on - so they dont fall under the agreement. Just like they don't fall under the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of POW's.
...when your supreme court and the military manual repeatedly say otherwise?

Aramike

05-13-09, 12:08 AM

Not legal under the definition in the Convention Against Torture. They should have withdrawn from the Convention if they wanted any of this to be legal. Why do it in secret? Why hide away?What's the difference?

You're changing the argument from "is it right?" to a technicality. Frankly, when it comes to civilian life, I couldn't give a damn about technicalities.It's not possible that they believe that torturing is wrong? Not possible at all?It's irrelevent.

If they have a demonstrably better method at producing human intelligence, I'm all for it. However, the fact is that the administration's "beliefs" are secondary to their task of defending American interests, as is incumbent upon the Commander in Chief.

I mean seriously, if they believed that oil is wrong should the country just prohibit its use? If so, why aren't you advocating the Bush Administration in its belief that abortion is wrong?

"Belief" means nothing. At some level, politics and policy must be pragmatic.
What about pulling out fingernails?I'd be opposed to it - I already said I oppose disfigurement.Information from torture is notoriously unreliable. That depends upon the information and the method of retrieving it. You are correct - information from torture is unreliable - when indiscriminately applied. People who know nothing will indeed say anything.

HOWEVER, that is not the situation. We are applying so-called "torture" to people who DO know something. And guess what? They say what they know.

Which is exactly the point (oddly enough that is exactly a point your side never addresses).The ticking-time-bomb scenario that you're describing just doesn't occur outside of 24.You're nuts if you actually believe that.

Hypothetically, let's say that, on 9/10, we had captive someone who knew of the WTC plot. Would that not qualify as a "ticking time bomb" scenario to you?

Wouldn't pretty much any terrorist attack that has ever occurred been, at some point, a ticking time bomb scenario?

I think you should revisit your point.So you approve of torture, AVG?

Does you believe that a nation will create more enemies by torturing the ones it captures?

Do you not believe that when America tortures prisoners, that it proves Al-Qaeda propaganda to be correct? Again, you infer that the so-called "torture" is indescriminate and wholesale, and avoid the point that it is targetted.

I'm curious as to why you keep avoiding that point...

Aramike

05-13-09, 12:14 AM

And by using torture , secret prisons , detntin without trial , operating outside of your own laws you are destroying your way of life .How, exactly, are we destroying our way of life? I'm guessing that you're attempting to employ empty rhertoric in support of your argument, because, quite frankly, this makes no sense.

Let's say we're talking about out-and-out torture (even though I support no such thing). Employing said torture against those who are not protected by our freedoms; who, in fact wish to destroy our freedoms, does NOT compromise said freedoms in any way. In fact, it may protect them.

Nice job attempting to use a lefty talking-point, without attempting to make sense of it.

Tribesman

05-13-09, 12:27 AM

So pretending an argument doesn't have validity because you can't make an effective rebuttal in a run-on sentence well done.

:har::har::har::har:
In any case, trying to pretend that there aren't national interests and that terrorists don't attempt to bomb nations, and THEN trying to present that as a counter argument, is just STUPID.
Have you ever considered learning to read?
Try this line again very slowly , get a responible adult to help if you get stuck....
It does , that fella that got the information on Al-zacahawis location said the ticking bomb situation was commonplace in Iraq , but he said that torture doesn't work .

Now then would that American interogator be who did interrogations on over 300 terrorists in Iraq deal with people who did bombings ?
Did he say that in the ticking bomb situations relating to both IEDs and suicide bombings the torture doesn't really work ?
So please tell me as I am quite interested in the workings of a fruitcake mind , who is this mythical STUPID person you refer to who claimed that terrorists don't attempt to bomb ?
Once you have figured that one out we can deal with how the mythical STUPID person pretends there are no national interests .

Only left-wing lunatics tend to believe (unfoundedly) that the world doesn't consist of different nations, with different cultures and different criminal codes.

Wow , thanks for explaining that , I always wondered why I needed a passport and why Saudi Arabia has crazy laws , now I realise its because the world has different cultures and nations . Blimey I must have been really ignorant before you enlightened me , I offer my heartfelt thanks to you for curing me of the strange confusion I got when I looked at those funny lines in an atlas .

Tribesman

05-13-09, 12:36 AM

How, exactly, are we destroying our way of life?
Such hard questions .:rotfl:
What is the United States of America ? what are its founding principles and driving ethos ?
How does the rejection of the rule of law and the acceptance of barbarous practices that the State rightly condemns when others do it destroy that ?
Come to think of it didn't one of your founding fathers have a very well used line that summed it up .

Max2147

05-13-09, 12:41 AM

So what do you call beheading American civilians and non-combantants?
Awful, and there's absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. I admit that our stance on torture won't deter our current enemy, but what we're doing now sets a dangerous precedent.

Hogwash. The military and CIA interrogators aren't foolish - they are unlikely to continue employing interrogation methods which don't work.

What people like you are doing is demonizing such patriots as sadists looking for a cheap thrill through hurting others. There's only three options here:

Either enhanced interrogation works and that's why we used it.
Enhanced interrogation does not work, and it's used only for the interrogaters to get their jollies.
Enhanced interrorgation does not work, and the military and CIA operatives who employ the methods are morons.

Usually what makes the most sense is the answer.
Stop taking out all your prejudices against the left on me. Where do I call them sadists? Where do I say they were doing it for cheap thrills? POINT ME TO AN EXACT *******ING QUOTE!

In my opinion those who authorized and used methods that are now officially considered torture did so thinking that they were doing good. They were pursuing a very narrow goal (getting a detainee to talk), and they failed to see the wider consequences of their actions. They were guilty of shortsightedness and narrow thinking, not malice.

You're presuming (as many of the left do, who don't independantly research the issue) that waterboarding is being used indiscriminately. What, do you honestly think that you're the only one to figure out that, should the method be used on someone with no information, that person is likely to make something up?

They're not just pouring water on people and asking "what do you know?" - that's foolish (ironically it is also the left's main argument against the method).

The method is used when we KNOW that a detainee has SPECIFIC information, but we don't know what that information is. For example, let's say we know that detainee X was at a planning session for a terrorist attack 2 years ago. We know this via satellite photography and humint. We use traditional questioning but the detainee won't reveal the contents of the meeting. That's when other techniques would be applied.

Sure, we may not stop a terrorist plot this way (plans may have changed due to the detainee's captivity, etc.) - but it IS worth a shot, considering that we're judging a known terrorist's comfort against the well-being of American civilians.
Again, stop portraying me as your (fictional) stereotypical leftie. You wouldn't like it if I came here and started slandering you with everything I don't like about the right.

The use of the methods that are now considered torture was widespread. Lots of detainees were tortured, and some were tortured hundreds of times. You can't honestly believe that they were going after a specific piece of info in every case.

I personally think that the methods were authorized for a very specific circumstance, and once it was used the first time the dam was broken, so to speak. Their use became more widespread until it became systematic.

You obviously know very little about how intelligence works.... There's no such thing as "too much" information.That's absurd. If you're referring to, say, NSA intercepts (sigint) than yes, there's a lot to absorb. However, like I said, you obviously know little about how intelligence works.

The biggest enemy of intelligence gathering is counter-intelligence - something that Al Qaeda is very good at. Prior to 9/11, almost all of our intel on terrorism was communications (comint/sigint). This is easily defeated by simply not using the phone, for example. The problem is that we have traditionally had very little human intelligence (humint) as these groups are difficult to compromise due to their insidious nature. Even so, should a group actually be infiltrated, how do you suppose getting any information out? The groups are so small that tracing leaked information would be a fairly simple task, and due to a clear communications black-out, just getting the word out in the first place would be nearly impossible.This is more like going through a massive junkyard looking for a certain part, and trying to find it on a specific car. Makes more sense than arbitrarily looking through the whole damned thing, doesn't it?Again, you demonstrate that you don't know how the intel community works. "Adding more junk", as you put it, can be immeasurably helpful if the information proves to be accurate. If it doesn't, then we're in the same boat either way.
Well, I guess I'll go back to the guy who told me those things and tell him he's wrong. He's only the former Director of the CIA, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

Aramike

05-13-09, 03:59 AM

Have you ever considered learning to read?
Try this line again very slowly , get a responible adult to help if you get stuck....Have you ever considered learning to write, much less comprehend?

Please read the specifics of what I was responding to. Should be simple: I used the "quote" feature.Now then would that American interogator be who did interrogations on over 300 terrorists in Iraq deal with people who did bombings ?
Did he say that in the ticking bomb situations relating to both IEDs and suicide bombings the torture doesn't really work ?
So please tell me as I am quite interested in the workings of a fruitcake mind , who is this mythical STUPID person you refer to who claimed that terrorists don't attempt to bomb ?
Once you have figured that one out we can deal with how the mythical STUPID person pretends there are no national interests .Again, I ask you to consult a specialist on educating you to read. None of this is related to my point.

When did I state there was a mythical "stupid" person that terrorists don't attempt to bomb? Seriously, is that the best you've got? :rotfl:

Also, is the entire basis of your argument structured around the insight of one singular individual speaking to the Washington Post?

Perhaps I should start a thread about how the world is flat because one individual from the Flat Earth Society said so... :doh:Wow , thanks for explaining that , I always wondered why I needed a passport and why Saudi Arabia has crazy laws , now I realise its because the world has different cultures and nations . Blimey I must have been really ignorant before you enlightened me , I offer my heartfelt thanks to you for curing me of the strange confusion I got when I looked at those funny lines in an atlas . Ah, yes ... thick sarcasm to explain that you acknowledge that what I am saying is fact, all the while taking positions and attempting to make points that are in direct contravention with said facts.

Nice work. You just earned a Bronze in the Debate Special Olympics.

You know, if you want to make a point on a topic it helps to actually make a point, rather than feigning insult. In other words, you should be able to show why I'm wrong substantively. Yet, you clearly dodge the issue.

Hmm, wonder why...

Tchocky

05-13-09, 04:07 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051103412.html

Torture always gets you what you want to know. Whether what you want to know is true or not.

Libi was captured fleeing Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/afghanistan.html?nav=el) in late 2001, and he vanished into the secret detention system run by the Bush administration. He became the unnamed source, according to Senate investigators, behind Bush administration claims in 2002 and 2003 that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to al-Qaeda operatives. The claim was most famously delivered by then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in his address to the United Nations in February 2003.

Powell later called the speech a "blot" on his record, saying he was not given all available intelligence and analysis within the government. The Defense Intelligence Agency and some analysts at the CIA had questioned the veracity of Libi's testimony, which was obtained after the prisoner was transferred to Egyptian custody for questioning by the CIA, according to Senate investigators.

In their book "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War," Michael Isikoff and David Corn said Libi made up the story about Iraqi training after he was beaten and subjected to a "mock burial" by his Egyptian interrogators, who put him in a cramped box for 17 hours. Libi recanted the story after being returned to CIA custody in 2004.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

From an FBI interrogator

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.
It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

More on this from Andrew Sullivan - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article6168270.ece

When Philip Zelikow, Condi Rice’s key aide, wrote a memo saying explicitly that this was torture and illegal, they did not just ignore him but, according to Zelikow last week, sought to collect and destroy all copies of his memo.

The second startling revelation was confirmation that Zubaydah, the first prisoner to be tortured, was judged by the CIA and FBI to have told everything he knew before Bush and Cheney ordered the 83 waterboardings. Why did they order the torture? An FBI interrogator of Zubaydah broke ranks to tell The New York Times “there was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics”.

What did the Bush administration gain from torturing Zubaydah? As David Rose reported in Vanity Fair magazine last year, the result of the torture was a confession by Zubaydah that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda had a working relationship, the key casus belli for the Iraq war. Rose quotes a Pentagon analyst who read the transcripts from the interrogation: “Abu Zubaydah was saying Iraq and Al-Qaeda had an operational relationship. It was everything the administration hoped it would be.”

That analyst did not then know that the evidence was procured through torture. “As soon as I learnt that the reports had come from torture, once my anger had subsided I understood the damage it had done,” the analyst says.

The president used this tortured evidence to defend the war, alongside the confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who was cited by Colin Powell at the United Nations as a first-person source of the Saddam-Al-Qaeda connection. But al-Libi was also tortured. And we know that such an operational connection did not exist. And we also now know that what Zubaydah and al-Libi provided were false confessions, procured through torture techniques designed by the communist Chinese to produce false confessions. In other words, the first act of torture authorised by Bush gave the United States part of the false evidence that it used to go to war against Saddam.

Aramike

05-13-09, 04:25 AM

Awful, and there's absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. I admit that our stance on torture won't deter our current enemy, but what we're doing now sets a dangerous precedent.Our stance on so-called "torture" isn't meant to deter an enemy. It is designed to acquire information. This is a very important distinction.Stop taking out all your prejudices against the left on me. Where do I call them sadists? Where do I say they were doing it for cheap thrills? POINT ME TO AN EXACT *******ING QUOTE!Blah, blah ...

Please read my point again. There are only THREE real reasons for using enhanced interrogations. One reason is that it works (which you don't believe). The second reason is that those using it are idiots because it doesn't work (you believe that it doesn't work). The third is that those using the method don't care whether or not it works, because they enjoy the method.

So, considering that you clearly state that you don't believe it works, we are left with two options. Now, (pay attention, as this is difficult), either our service people and CIA operatives are complete morons and continue to use a method of interrogation that doesn't work (as you somehow managed to figure out with no real-world experience whatsoever), or they are sadists.

I apologize - I deduced your position based upon available facts. I didn't mean to make an educated inference without a specific quote to prove it.

It's called "intelligence". It works.In my opinion those who authorized and used methods that are now officially considered torture did so thinking that they were doing good. They were pursuing a very narrow goal (getting a detainee to talk), and they failed to see the wider consequences of their actions. They were guilty of shortsightedness and narrow thinking, not malice.What a broad statement...

A CIA or military interrogator is not charged with seeing "the wider consequences" - they are charged with gaining the needed information.

As such, we default to the three options.Again, stop portraying me as your (fictional) stereotypical leftie. You wouldn't like it if I came here and started slandering you with everything I don't like about the right.Honestly, I wouldn't cry about it because I'm not completely on the right (although I do lean right). You can say whatever you want with my point of view, and even generalize it ... and I have the intellectual integrity to back my view up or specifically explain why your summation of said view is inaccurate.The use of the methods that are now considered torture was widespread. Lots of detainees were tortured, and some were tortured hundreds of times. You can't honestly believe that they were going after a specific piece of info in every case.Actually, I can say that they were going after specific information in each case ... because that's what makes sense.

You are the one making the charges. Therefore, furnish proof that I am wrong, as that is your burden.

In any case, if you're correct and there is broad, indiscriminate torture being used on a wholesale basis, I am against it just as much as you are. But your point seems to infer that your problem is with indiscrimate application of enhanced interrogation (just as I am). Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the point.

That inference naturally leads to that you are okay with enhanced interrogation being used for specific information from specific individuals ... which means you agree with me all along.

So, let's ask the question and cut the crap, shall we? If we have someone in custody, who's aware of an imminent threat and is not disclosing it, should we be able to use enhanced interrogation methods?I personally think that the methods were authorized for a very specific circumstance, and once it was used the first time the dam was broken, so to speak. Their use became more widespread until it became systematic.I give you credit for not attempting to over reach blame here. However, are you implying that, should we go back to specifics it would be okay?Well, I guess I'll go back to the guy who told me those things and tell him he's wrong. He's only the former Director of the CIA, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Somehow I doubt that ... either that, or you don't understand what he's talking about.

Like I said, indeed there is an abundance of information ... sorting through it is not the problem, however. We don't have the RIGHT information.

I know. For a fact.

Aramike

05-13-09, 04:29 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051103412.html

Torture always gets you what you want to know. Whether what you want to know is true or not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

From an FBI interrogator

More on this from Andrew Sullivan - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article6168270.eceSimple-minded.

Seriously, is it that hard for you to think of a simple way to confirm the veracity of the information given under pressure? Just ask, and I'll spell it out for you.

Oh, and don't expect anyone to go crazy over an FBI agent's account for what works and doesn't work. They are citizens, just like you and me, and therefore are subject to the same politcal bias'.

Tchocky

05-13-09, 04:36 AM

Simple-minded.
What?
Information obtained under torture turns out to be unreliable, concocted, made up.

Seriously, is it that hard for you to think of a simple way to confirm the veracity of the information given under pressure? Just ask, and I'll spell it out for you.
What?
There was no attempt to confirm that information, because it was that they wanted to hear. Saddam and Al-Qaeda working together.

Oh, and don't expect anyone to go crazy over an FBI agent's account for what works and doesn't work. They are citizens, just like you and me, and therefore are subject to the same politcal bias'.

So you think that this first-hand account is not to be believed, because the writer............is a citizen?

An update from toady's NYT on the circumstances of Congressional knowledge. - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13divoll.html?th&emc=th

Aramike

05-13-09, 04:36 AM

Such hard questions .:rotfl:
What is the United States of America ? what are its founding principles and driving ethos ?
How does the rejection of the rule of law and the acceptance of barbarous practices that the State rightly condemns when others do it destroy that ?
Come to think of it didn't one of your founding fathers have a very well used line that summed it up .It's crazy how we, as a nation, wrote all this stuff down, isn't it?

Funny how our Constitution doesn't cover the topic...

Again, I ask you to demonstrate how this specifically will destroy the American way of life. For some reason I'm betting you'll avoid this question yet again, as you clearly have no answer.

Aramike

05-13-09, 04:47 AM

What?
Information obtained under torture turns out to be unreliable, concocted, made up. Under certain conditions, you're right.

However, under other conditions it invariably turns out to be accurate.

This is the difference between asking "what do you know" to someone who knows nothing and "where's your base" to someone who knows.What?
There was no attempt to confirm that information, because it was that they wanted to hear. Saddam and Al-Qaeda working together.Please tell me you're not serious... You honestly think this is the only information ever obtained, and therefore is your example at making a point?

Like I offerred, I could explain a very simply way such questioning would work and be verified. Ironic how you dodged that and set a straight course for an ultra liberal talking point (which makes little sense to begin with).So you think that this first-hand account is not to be believed, because the writer............is a citizen?Erm, no ... this is, like, the easiest point to get ... (seriously, Aramike's in the ring, dude)...

Being a "citizen" was only PART of my point. You clearly ignored my outright statement of "subject to political bias". Also, you ignored my inference that he is ONE CITIZEN.

Bet you there's ONE CITIZEN of similar qualifications who's on the other side of the issue...

In any case, politcal bias on both sides is why I don't rely on either of them to form my opinion. I use common sense. I suggest you try my technique.

Tribesman

05-13-09, 05:14 AM

Our stance on so-called "torture"
Says it all , torture is torture , no two ways about it , putting it in parenthesis just shows that your views are totally ignorant on the subject.

Seriously, is it that hard for you to think of a simple way to confirm the veracity of the information given under pressure? Just ask, and I'll spell it out for you.

Yes therei s a way , which is why the ticking bomb to justify torture arguement is crap , because torture doesn't provide reliable information .

Again, I ask you to consult a specialist on educating you to read. None of this is related to my point.

You have no point , you are attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

Perhaps I should start a thread about how the world is flat because one individual from the Flat Earth Society said so...
Perhaps you shouild look at the multitude if interrogators who have spoken during this recent episode , and then go back through recent history or even ancient history and maybe realise why it is you who is the equivalent of the flat earther on this subject .

Ah, yes ... thick sarcasm to explain that you acknowledge that what I am saying is fact,
No that is sarcasm directed at the irrelevant crap you wrote .

When did I state there was a mythical "stupid" person that terrorists don't attempt to bomb?
You described a position as STUPID , you implied that someone was taking that position , since no one has then obviously you are refering to a mythical person .

You know, if you want to make a point on a topic it helps to actually make a point, rather than feigning insult. In other words, you should be able to show why I'm wrong substantively.
Posession of a funtioning brain shows you to be wrong , substantively wrong . Torture is illegal , waterboarding under every definition of torture is torture , torture is ineffective at providing reliable information , unreliable information is not much use and is actually a hinderence in cases like the "ticking bomb" where accuracy is essential .
Plus of course for good measure your knowledge of both international and American law is woefully lacking any credibility , which of course completely undrmines your "destroying way of life" nonsense .

But hey lets put it simply so that perhaps even you can grasp it . America says waterboarding is torture , American courts say waterboarding is torture . Every year the American government does these nice little reports on how screwed up countries are , one measure for assesment of how screwed up the country is is the use of torture in those countries , crazy tin pot dictatorships get bad marks from the State Dept because they use torture . If you support your country using torture you are lowering it to the same level of those crazy tin pot dictatorships .
Now if you don't think that making your country the moral equivalent of N.Korea or Sudan is destroying your way of life then you really havn't thought at all

Tchocky

05-13-09, 05:22 AM

Please tell me you're not serious... You honestly think this is the only information ever obtained, and therefore is your example at making a point? No. I don't think that. I haven't a clue where you're picking that up from. Show me where I said that this was the "only information ever obtained".

The information received under torture of this person was the centrepiece for Colin Powells claim that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were working on WMD's together. I posted that above.
The information was wrong, and known to be problematic by DIA and some CIA. But it was included anyway. To me that displays a lack of concern to whether the information is accurate, or at least a willingness to accept non-verified information. Like Curveball.

Like I offerred, I could explain a very simply way such questioning would work and be verified. Ironic how you dodged that and set a straight course for an ultra liberal talking point (which makes little sense to begin with). Go on then, you don't need my permission to post something.

Being a "citizen" was only PART of my point. You clearly ignored my outright statement of "subject to political bias". Also, you ignored my inference that he is ONE CITIZEN.

Bet you there's ONE CITIZEN of similar qualifications who's on the other side of the issue...
Not everything comes down to someone's "side". This guy was in the room, doing the interrogation. And he states that normal interrogation was working, contrary to what the OLC memo states.

In any case, politcal bias on both sides is why I don't rely on either of them to form my opinion. I use common sense. So listening to the people who were involved in the process isn't "common sense"?
The words of the interrogators are discounted because of possible political bias?

I use common sense. I suggest you try my technique. Can you leave this out? It's really tiresome.

Kapitan_Phillips

05-13-09, 06:34 AM

I'm going to have to start throwing penalty flags for personal attacks if you people cant have a discussion without lacing it with condescending remarks about others.

Keep it civil, or keep it the hell off of this forum. Simple as.

SteamWake

05-13-09, 07:47 AM

Kapitan_Phillips

05-13-09, 08:03 AM

May as well lock it anyhow its wandered so far off the topic its not even reconizable.

No, there's still potential for intelligent debate, if people can resist getting patronising or agressive.

In the words of Hilent Sunter 3:

"Be less agressive!" :P

August

05-13-09, 08:12 AM

This thread has become torture to read. I'm reporting all you evil people to the UN human rights commission.

AVGWarhawk

05-13-09, 10:50 AM

Tchocky,

I do not understand you. Here is what you wrote in the Nazi wanna be thread who went after some Jews a day ago. :hmmm:

Tchocky
People who don't respect the rule of law should be beaten up and locked up on sight.

Not for nothing Tchocky, terrorists who do not respect the law of the land should be beaten up and locked up on sight.

I can't understand your reasoning, AVG. Torture is OK because there are other people doing worse things.

AVGwarhawk
You know what, beheading individuals is far worse then what waterboarding is...specifically if these individuals are just citizens or reporters doing a job. So yep, I have no issue with it.

Tchocky
I wasn't asking specifically about waterboarding, but about torture. Are you in favour of using torture as a means of furthering US policy?

I'm talking about waterboarding. The thread concerned what Pelosi was told in 2003 concerning waterboarding. Not 'one more turn Rackmaster" type torture. I do not understand how you can remotely equate waterboarding with the beheadings of innocents. As far as out and out physical torture such as the likes of John McCain received...no I do not think it is a viable means of furthering US policy. In fact, it was to further getting information, not further US policy as I see it.

So judging by the Neo Nazi kids who did a mean thing to some Jewish folks, you believe they should be beaten to the very inch of their lives until the see the light of the law and grow up. Should not a terrorist that killed thousands receive the same or is he a misguided individual that needs counseling?

Tchocky

05-13-09, 10:55 AM

I was being sarcastic. Read the rest of my posts in that thread.

AVGWarhawk

05-13-09, 11:02 AM

I was being sarcastic. Read the rest of my posts in that thread.

People who don't respect the rule of law should be beaten up and locked up on sight.

It's hard to tell who's the fascist there, dude.

Isn't the point of a "human right" that it is inalienable?

I did not read sarcasim in this post. :hmmm: At any rate, this is not an argument. I think waterboarding is fine. Sure beats the hell out of beheading. Sure, two wrongs do not make a right but, when terrorists are killing thousands, creating roadside bombs, using innocent women and children to deliver bombs to market places, beheading an innocent who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, attacking subway stations and look to do more harm to many...yep...waterboard away. :03:

Max2147

05-13-09, 11:03 AM

It's called "intelligence". It works.
Well, your intelligence isn't working, because you're getting my position completely wrong and being very condescending at the same time.

I'm not saying that the CIA interrogators and those who approved their actions are idiots for thinking that torture works. Smart people can make mistakes. One thing that I've learned in the past few years is that intelligence is a very imperfect art. People in the intel community like to think that it's a science, but it's not anywhere close.

The smart people at the CIA and our other intelligence agencies were sure that Iraq had WMD in early 2003. I've talked to people who saw the intel, smart people who have no political stake in the decision whatsoever, and they said that they were stunned when we didn't find WMD after we went in. Unlike a lot of your stereotypical lefties, I don't think the WMD findings were politically motivated. It was a genuine mistake.

The smart people at the CIA also got it completely wrong during the Cold War. Robert Gates - somebody who I have tremendous respect for - was telling Reagan every chance he could that Gorbachev coudln't be trusted on arms control issues. Oops. Fortunately Gates is man enough to admit he was wrong.

Our intel also messed up badly when it came to the Soviets' nuclear stockpile. One of the most important questions of the Cold War was how many nuclear warheads the Soviets had. I'm sure our intel agencies put a lot of time and effort into finding out the number of warheads. They put the best people they had on that question. The result? Our estimate was about half of what the Soviets really had. For most of the Cold War the Soviets had twice as many nukes as we thought they had.

The point I'm trying to make is that intelligence is not perfect, in fact it's not even close. Intel people will tell you waht they think, and they'll be honest about it, but they can be very wrong.

So when the CIA comes forward and says that they're 100% sure that this detainee knows exactly where the next terrorist attack is coming, and that we just need to waterboard him to get the info, you have to take that with more than a grain of salt. You need an entire salt mine.

You never know anything for a fact in the intelligence world. I'm not trying to say that our intel people are idiots, that they're political hacks, or that they're sadists. It's just the nature of the field. All things considered our intel agencies do a damn good job, but they're up against an impossible challenge.

So getting back to torture, in a scenario with perfect information, I might be okay with torture in very limited circumstances. But based on everything I've learned about intel, I'm firmly convinced that perfect information never exists. Even if I'm the one who thinks that I have perfect information, I have to remember the nature of intel and the fact that I'm fallible. Therefore, I can't support torture ever. At best it simply means confusing yourself by doing awful things to an awful person. But it can also mean degrading yourself by doing awful things to a genuinely innocent person and inspiring others to do those same awful things to your people.

SteamWake

05-13-09, 11:21 AM

In a weak attempt to get this back on topic...

Ms. Pelosi which is it? Did you or did you not know and when did you not know it.

The House majority leader reluctantly agreed Tuesday that congressional hearings should investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that she wasn't informed, more than six years ago, that harsh interrogation methods were used on an al-Qaida leader.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jH6pV2iQrgquerGyDffV8LVmaJKwD984UT0O0

AVGWarhawk

05-13-09, 11:26 AM

Of course she knew....this is just some vast rightwing conspiracy:hmmm:

Tchocky

05-13-09, 11:54 AM

I think waterboarding is fine. Sure beats the hell out of beheading. Sure, two wrongs do not make a right but, when terrorists are killing thousands, creating roadside bombs, using innocent women and children to deliver bombs to market places, beheading an innocent who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, attacking subway stations and look to do more harm to many...yep...waterboard away. :03:

Is that your reasoning?

It's ok to torture people because they do worse?

Aramike

05-13-09, 12:01 PM

Says it all , torture is torture , no two ways about it , putting it in parenthesis just shows that your views are totally ignorant on the subject. Erm, how does that show that I'm ignorant on the subject, are you are just spouting meaningless drivel in an attempt to avoid making a point?

I mean, isn't part of the debate that we disagree with what constitutes torture? It is interesting how you're attempting to settle that difference by essentially simply stating that it is settled, and then stating that those who disagree are "ignorant on the subject".

You may be better off debating a rock. You'd have a 50/50 chance of winning.Yes therei s a way , which is why the ticking bomb to justify torture arguement is crap , because torture doesn't provide reliable information .So, because you have found a couple sources who have a couple of instances where enhanced techniques haven't provided reliable information (with the veracity of these sources in question, even), you now make the broad inference that "torture" doesn't provide reliable information?

Okay, I'll bite. Maybe it doesn't. But I don't believe waterboarding is torture. And I know for a fact that it DOES provide reliable information - if applied properly.Go on then, you don't need my permission to post something.I wasn't asking for your permission. I was wondering if I actually needed to post something that is simple to research/figure out.

In any interrogation, it is important to ask a subject a mix of questions you know the answers to, and questions you want to learn the answers to. That's how interrogators attempt to decipher reliable information. For instance, let's say you have an individual in custody, who you know for a fact was at a planning meeting with his terrorist pals. Instead of just asking "what are you planning?", you ask him if he was at the meeting, where it was, etc. Once a subject begins answering those questions, that's an indication that he's broken.

Now yes, a subject will say ANYTHING to make the interrogation stop - if you tell them what to say. If you were to be waterboarded, you'd confess to being a replublican in about 5 seconds if asked. The average CIA officer lasts about 14 seconds. That's why simple yes/no questions aren't asked - it makes no sense.

However, the creative part of the brain shuts down (or slows down) when the body is in peril, or believes it is. Flight response followed by logic takes over. Lies simply aren't compelling at this stage.

These are some of the reasons I support the limited application of enhanced interrogation techniques, in specific and direct cases.Posession of a funtioning brain shows you to be wrong , substantively wrong . Torture is illegal , waterboarding under every definition of torture is torture , torture is ineffective at providing reliable information , unreliable information is not much use and is actually a hinderence in cases like the "ticking bomb" where accuracy is essential .
Plus of course for good measure your knowledge of both international and American law is woefully lacking any credibility , which of course completely undrmines your "destroying way of life" nonsense .Ah yes, the typical argument of "you are wrong therefore you are wrong" without ANY basis whatsoever.

Nice try (yeah, not really).But hey lets put it simply so that perhaps even you can grasp it . America says waterboarding is torture , American courts say waterboarding is torture . Every year the American government does these nice little reports on how screwed up countries are , one measure for assesment of how screwed up the country is is the use of torture in those countries , crazy tin pot dictatorships get bad marks from the State Dept because they use torture . If you support your country using torture you are lowering it to the same level of those crazy tin pot dictatorships .
Now if you don't think that making your country the moral equivalent of N.Korea or Sudan is destroying your way of life then you really havn't thought at all We'd have to go a lot further than any waterboarding that has ever happened to be the moral equivalent of North Korea of Sudan. I know it's tough for you to grasp (clearly, because all of your arguments are of the "just because" nature), but you should try actually researching something beyond the op-ed page of the New York Times prior to making your claims.

AVGWarhawk

05-13-09, 12:09 PM

Is that your reasoning?

It's ok to torture people because they do worse?

No, my reasoning is this, waterboarding has been put on the table as the most evil practice on the earth as of late. We are deemed as some sort of monster for waterboarding terrorists. In my view, he is getting off much lighter then those who are paraded around on the internet before, during and after the beheadings. And again, as stated above, torture in the physical sense that John McCain received I do not agree with. Suffering a bit with a cloth on your face and water poured over it to simulate drowning, although not pleasent and not meant to be, is fine by me. Although you may not see my view on this I do not see your view on waterboarding(not out and out torture for the rackmaster as you believe I'm thinking)...just the sole question and debate on waterboarding itself.

As far as I'm concerned, any right to anything a terrorist might have was lost just after the aircrafts crashed into several buildings killing thousands on 9/11.

Aramike

05-13-09, 12:13 PM

No. I don't think that. I haven't a clue where you're picking that up from. Show me where I said that this was the "only information ever obtained".Okay, seriously, your point was that, due to some "bad" information, enhanced interrogation shouldn't occur. My counter-point is that there is good information being learned as well, but that you're acting as though only bad information exists.

By the way, have you ever stopped and REALLY thought about it? If so, you'd recognize that a lot of the "bad" information gathered is a result not of the technique being used, but of the subject simply believing bad information.

That should clear things up.The information received under torture of this person was the centrepiece for Colin Powells claim that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were working on WMD's together. I posted that above.
The information was wrong, and known to be problematic by DIA and some CIA. But it was included anyway. To me that displays a lack of concern to whether the information is accurate, or at least a willingness to accept non-verified information. Like Curveball.[quote]I agree, and have said for years that this is a problem. But this has nothing to do with the subject being discussed.[quote]Go on then, you don't need my permission to post something.I accidently posted this in the previous post.Not everything comes down to someone's "side". This guy was in the room, doing the interrogation. And he states that normal interrogation was working, contrary to what the OLC memo states. In this case it does come down to someone's side, as there are plenty of OTHER people in the room who state otherwise.So listening to the people who were involved in the process isn't "common sense"?
The words of the interrogators are discounted because of possible political bias?Listening to the one or two that agree with your point while discounting the others of similar qualifications isn't common sense when honestly making an attempt to find the truth. Sorry.Can you leave this out? It's really tiresome. Apologies. I confused you with Tribesman.

Aramike

05-13-09, 12:15 PM

No, my reasoning is this, waterboarding has been put on the table as the most evil practice on the earth as of late. We are deemed as some sort of monster for waterboarding terrorists. In my view, he is getting off much lighter then those who are paraded around on the internet before, during and after the beheadings. And again, as stated above, torture in the physical sense that John McCain received I do not agree with. Suffering a bit with a cloth on your face and water poured over it to simulate drowning, although not pleasent and not meant to be, is fine by me. Although you may not see my view on this I do not see your view on waterboarding(not out and out torture for the rackmaster as you believe I'm thinking)...just the sole question and debate on waterboarding itself.

As far as I'm concerned, any right to anything a terrorist might have was lost just after the aircrafts crashed into several buildings killing thousands on 9/11.Good post. :up:

To expand, these people do not have Constitutional rights to begin with. That, and the fact that they wish to destroy everything that the Constitution stands for, is sufficient argument for not providing Constitutional due process, in my view.

AVGWarhawk

05-13-09, 12:33 PM

Good post. :up:

To expand, these people do not have Constitutional rights to begin with. That, and the fact that they wish to destroy everything that the Constitution stands for, is sufficient argument for not providing Constitutional due process, in my view.

Some might see it differently than we but those like you and me who are here today are living with the aftermath of 9/11. The world was never the same for anyone here in the US. That day I remember clearly. That day I pulled all my delivery drivers from Washington DC because one sole aircraft was in the air...the world stopped to watch and listen. At the end of the day I went home and hugged my two daughters knowing the world I grew up in will be very different from the world my daughters will grow up in.

In short, I could give a rats a$$ about a terrorist getting waterboarded. In fact, the water is fine....come on in. :up:

Aramike

05-13-09, 12:38 PM

Well, your intelligence isn't working, because you're getting my position completely wrong and being very condescending at the same time.I've read your post and have yet to see how I'm getting your position wrong.

You're against enhanced interrogation methods, correct?

As far as being condescending, yeah, I'm good at that.I'm not saying that the CIA interrogators and those who approved their actions are idiots for thinking that torture works. Smart people can make mistakes. One thing that I've learned in the past few years is that intelligence is a very imperfect art. People in the intel community like to think that it's a science, but it's not anywhere close.First off, I like how you present this argument. You're attempting to say that you know more about the intelligence community than the people in it.

Wrong.

Secondly, intelligence in a science and art combined, or either, depending on your role in gathering and deciphering it.The smart people at the CIA and our other intelligence agencies were sure that Iraq had WMD in early 2003. I've talked to people who saw the intel, smart people who have no political stake in the decision whatsoever, and they said that they were stunned when we didn't find WMD after we went in. Unlike a lot of your stereotypical lefties, I don't think the WMD findings were politically motivated. It was a genuine mistake.Fair enough regarding the "lefty" point. I'll take you out of the category, in my view.

In any case, even regarding the mistakes made in the matter, the agencies learned from and made adjustments to help prevent future mistakes. Here we fall back on the three options, as for some reason the agency as a whole is not interested in making any adjustments, thereby not acknowledging any mistakes.The point I'm trying to make is that intelligence is not perfect, in fact it's not even close. Intel people will tell you waht they think, and they'll be honest about it, but they can be very wrong.I agree with this and know this first hand. However, they are indeed correct more often than not.So when the CIA comes forward and says that they're 100% sure that this detainee knows exactly where the next terrorist attack is coming, and that we just need to waterboard him to get the info, you have to take that with more than a grain of salt. You need an entire salt mine. You went from good post to not-so-good post right there. By your logic, why trust ANYTHING that the CIA produces?

Again, they get it right WAY more often than not. It's just that it doesn't make the New York Times when they get it right.

So if the CIA says they need to waterboard a subject, I'm inclined to believe them.You never know anything for a fact in the intelligence world. I'm not trying to say that our intel people are idiots, that they're political hacks, or that they're sadists. It's just the nature of the field. All things considered our intel agencies do a damn good job, but they're up against an impossible challenge.I find it odd that you say that just after saying you should take certain recommendations with a grain of salt.

Also, you DO know things for a fact in the intelligence world. We're not talking mood-setting lines in a Tom Clancy novel, here. In the real world, the intelligence community focuses on obtaining information, with an emphasis on FACTUAL, VERIFIABLE information. And, it gains a lot of it.So getting back to torture, in a scenario with perfect information, I might be okay with torture in very limited circumstances. But based on everything I've learned about intel, I'm firmly convinced that perfect information never exists. Perfect information always exists. The key is obtaining it. The trick is that you never know its veracity until you have it. So, I err on the side of having the information.Therefore, I can't support torture ever. At best it simply means confusing yourself by doing awful things to an awful person. But it can also mean degrading yourself by doing awful things to a genuinely innocent person and inspiring others to do those same awful things to your people.That's mumbo-jumbo, sorry. "Confusing yourself"? Huh? Inspiring others? What? I'm pretty sure that, prior to the public hubbub about waterboarding, people were inspired to attack us all the same. And, quite frankly, they were a lot more successful at it back then.

And, if we're "torturing" innocent people, I'd advocate for that to stop, just like you. But not the practice as a whole. That'd be like saying that, due to innocent people being wrongly sent to prison, we should eliminate prisons.

PS: I'll lay off the condescending remarks to you too (as best I can). I keep thinking everyone is Tribeman. :know:

Tribesman

05-13-09, 12:48 PM

Erm, how does that show that I'm ignorant on the subject, are you are just spouting meaningless drivel in an attempt to avoid making a point?

It shows you are ignorant on the subject as you are attempting to redefine reality to fit with your views .

I mean, isn't part of the debate that we disagree with what constitutes torture?
Exactly , torture is clearly defined but you wish to rewrite the definition , life doesn't work like that , the world doesn't bend to accomodate your particular view.

It is interesting how you're attempting to settle that difference by essentially simply stating that it is settled
It is settled , unless you can get the courts to turn around their decisions , get governments and militaries to rewrite their rules of law and ge the international bodies to redefine torture .
But there is no hope of that as your definition of torture is rubbish , after all under your definition hundreds of exceptionally nasty forms of torture which are rightly banned and condened would become just "torture".

Ah yes, the typical argument of "you are wrong therefore you are wrong" without ANY basis whatsoever.

Plenty of basis and very soild basis at that , whereas you have tried in addition to redefinition some crazy comparisons . Waterboarding isn't as bad as beheading . OK but who said beheading is OK . Theres a name for that isn't there , its called a formal fallacy , in this case a completely illogical and false arguement .

So judging by the Neo Nazi kids who did a mean thing to some Jewish folks, you believe they should be beaten to the very inch of their lives until the see the light of the law and grow up. Should not a terrorist that killed thousands receive the same or is he a misguided individual that needs counseling?
Wow , you know I mentioned reading earlier , no offence but how on earth did you get that from what was written in that particular topic ?
You managed to take someones arguement against something and portray it as a arguement for something :har::har::har::har: and added a strawman for good measure.
No, my reasoning is this, waterboarding has been put on the table as the most evil practice on the earth as of late.
Your reasoning is once again completely flawed , you are acting on a false premise , in fact by doing so it is by definition not reasoning at all .

AVGWarhawk

05-13-09, 01:06 PM

And now there is some back-tracking...ACLU up in arms over the lack of transparency promised by the White House. No photos to be sent out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/13/white-house-obama-release-photos-detainee-abuse/

Should have left well enough alone............:03:

Tchocky

05-13-09, 01:23 PM

No, my reasoning is this, waterboarding has been put on the table as the most evil practice on the earth as of late. We are deemed as some sort of monster for waterboarding terrorists. I'd argue that torture is an evil practice, and waterboarding is just one method. I don't think a line can be drawn between waterboarding and more bloody/loud forms of torture. Sleep deprivation is a horrific form of torture, but it doesn't produce any blood or visual disfigurement. Does that make it ok in your book?

Waterboarding is only one of the methods that were used. Sleep deprivation (up to 11 days chained up), starvation, beatings, refusing medical treatment until the suspect started to talk (done to a US citizen).
In my view, he is getting off much lighter then those who are paraded around on the internet before, during and after the beheadings. Why does this matter? Honestly, I can't see the logic in it being ok to torture bad people, just because they're bad people. All you seem to focus on is how awful terrorists are, not on why it is ok for a nation to torture people.

And again, as stated above, torture in the physical sense that John McCain received I do not agree with. Suffering a bit with a cloth on your face and water poured over it to simulate drowning, although not pleasent and not meant to be, is fine by me. Although you may not see my view on this I do not see your view on waterboarding(not out and out torture for the rackmaster as you believe I'm thinking)...just the sole question and debate on waterboarding itself.Waterboarding is torture, AVG. It is "out and out" torture. The only people saying otherwise are those who have been caught doing. Waterboarding also isn't the only thing that was going on. Read the released memos and you'll see this.
You can't have it both ways on this, really.

Guards beat detainees and filmed it. Sleep deprivations. Same as happened to John McCain. But I suppose that's somehow not "out and out" torture.

As far as I'm concerned, any right to anything a terrorist might have was lost just after the aircrafts crashed into several buildings killing thousands on 9/11.I can't believe this. It's OK to torture anyone we think is a terrorist, because we've been hurt.

Surely a challenging time like post-9/11 is a chance to prove that you are not weak and barbaric.
If you claim to value peace and justice, kidnapping and torturing people makes these hobbies, not values.

Okay, seriously, your point was that, due to some "bad" information, enhanced interrogation shouldn't occur. My counter-point is that there is good information being learned as well, but that you're acting as though only bad information exists.

No, my point boils down to the idea that torture should not be allowed because it is a repellent and disgusting practice, not because it does or does not work.

Aramike

05-13-09, 01:29 PM

It shows you are ignorant on the subject as you are attempting to redefine reality to fit with your views .I have no once attempted to redefine reality.

You should seriously stop attempting to "win" the discussion by implying that you're position is the default (read: only) one.

That is definitely an attempt to "redefine reality".Exactly , torture is clearly defined but you wish to rewrite the definition , life doesn't work like that , the world doesn't bend to accomodate your particular view.Huh? You're confusing me with someone else. I couldn't care less about the definition of the word.

The LEGAL definition is what matters. Legal definitions are defined and redefined constantly.

Sorry, but life DOES work like that.It is settled , unless you can get the courts to turn around their decisions , get governments and militaries to rewrite their rules of law and ge the international bodies to redefine torture . :haha::haha::haha:

That is by far the weakest. argument. ever.

So, because you believe certain people agree with YOUR position, it's the right position? Can't you illustrate your points on the basis of their merits, or is defaulting to the positions of others the best you got?

I'd also like to remind you what the discussion is about, but I'll let you read back yourself. (Hint: I couldn't care less about international legal issues, and therefore have not been debating them. In fact, I've even acknowledged that the Bush administration was trying to get the legal parameters of torture changed).But there is no hope of that as your definition of torture is rubbish , after all under your definition hundreds of exceptionally nasty forms of torture which are rightly banned and condened would become just "torture".Again, you must be confusing me with someone else.

Please try to carefully read my points in the future. I remember specifically stating that I don't care if waterboarding is called torture or not. That isn't the debate. The debate is whether or not the practice should be allowed.

I mean, I know its difficult to resist the temptation to change the focus of the discussion on something you can actually make a coherent point on, but do try.Plenty of basis and very soild basis at that , whereas you have tried in addition to redefinition some crazy comparisons . Waterboarding isn't as bad as beheading . OK but who said beheading is OK . Theres a name for that isn't there , its called a formal fallacy , in this case a completely illogical and false arguement .Well, considering that I never said that "waterboarding isn't as bad as beheading"... I'll let you finish the thought, because you clearly seem to know exactly the point.

But, just for fits and giggles, let's look back at what you're referencing, shall we? I said, "So what do you call beheading American civilians and non-combantants?" Which, was in DIRECT RESPONSE to, "If American soldiers were being waterboarded by an enemy, we'd call it torture."

The point was pretty simple in scope and message, but I'll spell it out for you anyway: Americans (and civilians) ARE being tortured, but for some reason we don't call it that.

That's an irony, and has little to do with the point of the discussion. It was merely a response to a comment (and one that you didn't even make).

Now stop embarrassing yourself. :|\\

Aramike

05-13-09, 01:35 PM

No, my point boils down to the idea that torture should not be allowed because it is a repellent and disgusting practice, not because it does or does not work. Okay, fair enough. But, on the other hand, allowing the possible wholesale slaughter of civilians because you are unwilling to do something you find "repellent and disgusting" is pretty sick, isn't it?

In fact, its morally depraved..

Unfortunately, in the real world, things that are "repellent and disgusting" often have to occur. War comes to mind. War is always disgusting, but we can't just let every Hitler have Europe now can we?

AVGWarhawk

05-13-09, 01:40 PM

You don't understand Tchocky...

I could give a rats a$$ about a terrorist getting waterboarded.

Again, you might understand my point of view or see it as a non-issue for me if said 9/11 incident happened in your neighborhood. Again, any and all rights afforded a terrorist after 9/11 are null and void in my book.

also, torture is an ends to a problem or a means to obtain something correct? Beheadings on youtube, IED, recruiting kids to carry bombs into market places, car bombs, taking aircraft, letting gas loose in the subways are a means to obtain something for the terrorist. Really man, the torture does not hold a candle to the laundry list crap the terrorist do. These terrorist threaten and plan everyday to do something to innocent people. So hey, one guy in the torture chamber 'took of for the team'. 3500 innocent took one for the team on 9/11.

I do not understand your outrage concerning a tortured individual that would probably cut your throat if given the opportunity.

Furthermore, I did not state waterboarding is not torture. Yes, it is a form of torture but far less than say using the 'Iron Maiden'. As far a kidnapping people??????? WTH, the nice folks who lost their heads were kidnapped. That is rich...kidnapped....no, they were rounded up as terrorist for killing thousands. We did not kidnap them. Furthermore, it is not a hobby, it is no less than what the terrorist are doing. Such is life.

I see your view as torture being barbaric, etc. No issue there. My view is I really do not care about a terrorist being tortured.

Good to go!

Tchocky

05-13-09, 02:05 PM

they were rounded up as terrorist for killing thousands. We did not kidnap themUm, lots of the prisoners in Gitmo were bought from the Northern Alliance, had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Torture them as well? I mean, they're supposed to be the "worst of the worst"

My view is I really do not care about a terrorist being torturedDo you not think it makes things an awful lot worse for Americans to be known as torturers, practitioners of a practice that almost the entire world has rejected? For a US soldier captured in combat, does this make things better or worse? For recruiting potential terrorists, does this act as a deterrent, or as a reason to fight America?

Again, torture isn't about the characteristics of the tortured, but of the torturer. It says something about you, not the guy in the chair.

I can appreciate that you don't care. It just depresses me that Americans don't care, and in some cases, want to torture people. (EDIT, meant to type "some" americans, my mistake). There's a bloodthirsty streak in some of this that is scary to see. The fact that several posters here are giving 9/11 as an excuse to torture reeks of revenge.
In fairness, 99% of the Americans who want to torture people that I've met, have been on the Internet.

Okay, fair enough. But, on the other hand, allowing the possible wholesale slaughter of civilians because you are unwilling to do something you find "repellent and disgusting" is pretty sick, isn't it?

In fact, its morally depraved.. I'd prefer to live at risk in a country that didn't torture people. I think I would live at a lower risk in such a country, too. I think the fact that America has tortured prisoners has hurt it, been a cause celebre for terrorists, and made it less safe for Americans in general.

Unfortunately, in the real world, things that are "repellent and disgusting" often have to occur. War comes to mind. War is always disgusting, but we can't just let every Hitler have Europe now can we? Not every situation is comparable to 1939. I don't see how the present situation is analogous. If we're talking WW2, it's worth remembering that the US prosecuted Japanese soldiers for war crimes and torture, on evidence of waterboarding.
I believe that it is good for a nation to say that there are certain practices that it will not indulge in, that are beneath it. The concept of a just war is a difficult one, but I don't believe the question of torture is.

AVGWarhawk

05-13-09, 02:16 PM

Um, lots of the prisoners in Gitmo were bought from the Northern Alliance, had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Torture them as well? I mean, they're supposed to be the "worst of the worst"

Do you not think it makes things an awful lot worse for Americans to be known as torturers, practitioners of a practice that almost the entire world has rejected? For a US soldier captured in combat, does this make things better or worse? For recruiting potential terrorists, does this act as a deterrent, or as a reason to fight America?

Again, torture isn't about the characteristics of the tortured, but of the torturer. It says something about you, not the guy in the chair.

I can appreciate that you don't care. It just depresses me that Americans don't care, and in some cases, want to torture people. There's a bloodthirsty streak in some of this that is scary to see. The fact that several posters here are giving 9/11 as an excuse to torture reeks of revenge.
In fairness, 99% of the Americans who want to torture people that I've met, have been on the Internet.

You are reading to much into it Tchocky. First of all, I did not say I approve of torture. I said I did not care if it was done. Secondly, you have thrown the whole lot of Americans into the 'don't care' about torture pile. There are a bunch at the ACLU that do care. 9/11 is not an excuse, it is a fact. Also, the 99% of American who want to torture people you found on the net...I never said I wanted torture nor promote it. I do not care about this particular brand of terrorist being tortured. I see one in this thread who promotes torture and is fine in his view. So be it.

Do I think it deters torture for American soldiers who are captured...nope. But you know what, they are going to torture anyway whether we torture or not. Beheading to follow. For some reason, you have painted a human face on a terrorist...this was your first mistake. Find me a compassionate terrorist and I will find you unicorn.

The northern alliance? Alliance means what? This alliance was allied with what entity then?

America known as torturers that the world has rejected such practices? What world is that who has rejected torturing people? Happens everyday. Heck, some countries do not bother to torture, if they do not like you, you simply disappear.

Torture watch

http://www.irct.org/Torture-in-the-world-35.aspx

Tchocky

05-13-09, 02:29 PM

You are reading to much into it Tchocky. First of all, I did not say I approve of torture. I said I did not care if it was done. Secondly, you have thrown the whole lot of Americans into the 'don't care' about torture pile. There are a bunch at the ACLU that do care. 9/11 is not an excuse, it is a fact. Also, the 99% of American who want to torture people you found on the net...I never said I wanted torture nor promote it. I do not care about this particular brand of terrorist being tortured. I see one in this thread who promotes torture and is fine in his view. So be it. I meant to type "some" Americans, edited now. I believed that you approved until you said you just didnt care.

Do I think it deters torture for American soldiers who are captured...nope. But you know what, they are going to torture anyway whether we torture or not. Beheading to follow.
For some reason, you have painted a human face on a terrorist...this was your first mistake. Find me a compassionate terrorist and I will find you unicorn. For some reason? What in blazes are you talking about? Terrorists are people. They blow up people, and bleed when they got shot. They're not mythical incarnations of evil, sent by an angry God.
I grew up with a few terrorists, my next door neighbour blew up 30 people in a shopping centre. They are humans. It's possible for a human to do horrible things.

The northern alliance? Alliance means what? This alliance was allied with what entity then? The Northern Alliance from the war in Afghanistan, allied with the US in the initial war there.

What world is that who has rejected torturing people? Happens everyday. Heck, some countries do not bother to torture, if they do not like you, you simply disappear.Signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture, which includes the US.

http://www.irct.org/Torture-in-the-world-35.aspxI know it still happens, I find it sad that the US is one country that tortures people.

AVGWarhawk

05-13-09, 02:41 PM

It is sad that tortured performed. Reading up on the disposition today, a less harmful technique was used and information gained. There was pressure to use more diabolical techniques after this initial technique worked. The problem here Tchocky is the thread concerned Pelosi and the rest of the crew...what did they know? They knew everything but sat on their thumbs yet they come out on their high horse. Total rubbish. This entire debacle is not about torture...it is political jockeying..nothing more. That is sadder then the actual torture itself because it shows the world that our politcal parties are self-serving. This speaks volumes to me and the world.

At any rate, things like this prevent a reoccurrance in the furture(so it is hoped)

Tribesman

05-13-09, 02:41 PM

I have no once attempted to redefine reality.
You have repeatedly attempted to redefine what constitutes torture.
Huh? You're confusing me with someone else. I couldn't care less about the definition of the word.

Is that why you keep trying to show that waterboarding isn't really torture when by definition it is torture?
The LEGAL definition is what matters. Legal definitions are defined and redefined constantly.

Good point , can you show any ruling that redefines what constitutes torture to back up your actual views or have you just done an epic fail ?
In fact, I've even acknowledged that the Bush administration was trying to get the legal parameters of torture changed).
Well done you prove my point , the attempt to get torture redefined failed because what they were trying to claim was not torture is obviously torture.
The debate is whether or not the practice should be allowed.

If it is illegal it is illegal , throwing the rule of law out of the window destroys your way of life and the values your country is built on
But, just for fits and giggles, let's look back at what you're referencing, shall we? I said, "So what do you call beheading American civilians and non-combantants?" Which, was in DIRECT RESPONSE to, "If American soldiers were being waterboarded by an enemy, we'd call it torture."

Murder is murder and torture is torture , it doesn't matter who does it it is still murder and torture .
The point was pretty simple in scope and message, but I'll spell it out for you anyway: Americans (and civilians) ARE being tortured, but for some reason we don't call it that.

Bull**** , visit the Pearle website , lots of newpaper links and politicians quotes there about Daniels torture and murder , though of course his family is strongly against the use of torture .

Again, you might understand my point of view or see it as a non-issue for me if said 9/11 incident happened in your neighborhood.
Such arrogance , where were you on that day ? who did you lose ? How many funerals were you at in NY ? who have you lost to Islamic terrorism before then ?
Don't try and come high and mighty with such views as you really havn't got a clue and are a relative newcomer to the problems of terrorism.

Aramike

05-13-09, 03:17 PM

You have repeatedly attempted to redefine what constitutes torture.I have never, not once, attempted this throughout this thread.

You should stop making things up.Is that why you keep trying to show that waterboarding isn't really torture when by definition it is torture?Again, I have never, not once attempted to show that.

Seriously, are you even reading the thread?

In fact, I SPECIFICALLY WROTE THE FOLLOWING: "Okay, I'll bite: torture that does not cause permanant injury or disfigurement, and used with probable cause to do so, is indeed okay."

Is that clear enough for you to understand now, or do you insist upon continuing to assign me positions for you to debate against?

I for one believe that waterboarding is a form of torture (although that wouldn't be my first descriptor of the activity, it is indeed accurate). That's not my point, and has never been such.

My point is, AGAIN, "torture that does not cause permanant injury or disfigurement, and used with probable cause to do so, is indeed okay."

Would you like me to record and upload an audio file so you don't have to read it?Good point , can you show any ruling that redefines what constitutes torture to back up your actual views or have you just done an epic fail ?That's an idiotic question to ask in a debate.

Opinions can stand on merits other than the opinions of others (such as the courts). By your logic, original thinking shouldn't be allowed because there wouldn't be any opinions to back the original thought. That logic itself is an "epic fail".

And yes, there are four members of the US Supreme Court who wrote sharp dissents that agree with my views. Or are they not allowed to have an opinion, either?

What the real failure is, however, the fact that you keep assigning me arguments rather than addressing the ones I've actually made.Well done you prove my point , the attempt to get torture redefined failed because what they were trying to claim was not torture is obviously torture.I didn't "prove your point". I wrote that like 30 posts back.Bull**** , visit the Pearle website , lots of newpaper links and politicians quotes there about Daniels torture and murder , though of course his family is strongly against the use of torture .Was discussing in the context of the thread at the time I wrote it. More importantly, in general discussion it isn't called "torture" ... it's called a "beheading".

Again, not that difficult to comprehend. Or is it?

Tribesman

05-13-09, 03:35 PM

Was discussing in the context of the thread at the time I wrote it. More importantly, in general discussion it isn't called "torture" ... it's called a "beheading".

No , there were three seperate levels of crime committed , kidnap first , then torture , then murder
Again, not that difficult to comprehend. Or is it?
Ask yourself , as you clearly havn't got it

I have never, not once, attempted this throughout this thread.

:har::har::har::har::har:

Aramike

05-13-09, 03:42 PM

No , there were three seperate levels of crime committed , kidnap first , then torture , then murder

Ask yourself , as you clearly havn't got it

:har::har::har::har::har:Ah yes, you keep attempting to imply that I said something that I didn't.

Funny how you avoid the actual FACTS that were posted in favor of the fantasy world where you're points actually make sense as a rebuttal.

Too difficult for you, huh?

AVGWarhawk

05-13-09, 03:44 PM

AVGWarhawk

05-13-09, 03:53 PM

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13416407.htm

Ummm...he started it and I guess should finish it. The transparency just got opaque.

Aramike

05-13-09, 03:54 PM

Tribeman/Aramike,

You both have missed the entire reason for this to be brought up. The now transparent government is two faced. This is nothing but political positioning. If you really think they cared about torture they would have raised their hand in 2003 when this was brought up in closed door briefings. This is nothing but making a set up for the next elections. It is all about power. They could care any less that some terrorist suffered some form of torture.Heh, I didn't miss the point. It's just that the topic of whether torture is right or wrong is a lot more interesting.

It's clear that Pelosi and Co. knew all about what was going on. I've honestly given up on trying to point out the facts about these power-mad liberals. People just want to believe what they WANT these politicians to be (which is what the politicians describe themselves as). The facts be damned.

It's a sad state of affairs, really.

Tribesman

05-13-09, 06:07 PM

The now transparent government is two faced.
Did you expect them not to be ?
Politicians have a strong tendancy to be self serving scum no matter which party they belong to .

It's just that the topic of whether torture is right or wrong is a lot more interesting.

It isn't really , what is interesting is watching people try and justify the unjustifiable .
Funny how you avoid the actual FACTS
It appears you have difficulty with the meaning of the word FACT

Aramike

05-13-09, 06:26 PM

It appears you have difficulty with the meaning of the word FACT Actually, you do. The facts of what I said can be proven, as the posts are here for all to see. In fact, I even quoted myself as proof, and have made the facts apparent.

This is yet another abject failure to cover up your errors in the discussion.

CaptainHaplo

05-13-09, 06:55 PM

Aramike - There is that saying that one should never argue with an idiot, because he will bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience. There is another that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

Now - the facts are simple - an interrogation tactic was used that is - by the current legal definition - one of torture. However, the people that it was used on do not enjoy the legal protections of the treaty defining such acts, nor do they fall under the protections of any ratified convention or the U.S. Constitution. If anyone doubts this - then I challenge them to put up a link to a US ratified treaty in which the terrorists organizations in question were a signatory, or a US Supreme Court decision stating that non-signatories to treatys and conventions shall be extened their benefits.

It can't be done.....

Also - it has been stated that the UCMJ or other military guidelines specifies how terrorists should be dealt with. Again - show me. The UCMJ, and related Geneva Convention articles stipulate how to deal with captured government civilians and military personnel of an enemy NATION. The UCMJ also puts forth a strict code of conduct for armed services personnel themselves. This is why convictions and article actions against the individuals have been ONLY under the articles of personal conduct. Again - show me I'm wrong..... Not one conviction has been for an article violation regarding the treatment of the prisoners involved itself, but rather the personal conduct article was violated by said acts.

If one were to be intellectually honest, then if the GC covered every combat situation and theatre, then the house to house, forced entry searches, etc still done today would violate the GC rules. This idea that the GC covers everyone and everything, everywhere, is pure bollox spewed by those who might WISH it did, but are apparently under no desire to learn the reality.

Its nice to sit here and bandy semantics and say "well this and well that" - but if you really want to be given some level of credibility in your arguements, you need to either put up, or shut up. Saying "well so and so who was there said such and such" - is, under the law - hearsay. So, instead of saying something is or isnt true, or that a treaty in this case does apply, show us the reality so you have something more than 3rd, 4th and 5th party hearsay that happens to agree with your point of view.

This isn't the first time I have issued such a challenge, and I fully expect that it will be again avoided because after all - the truth isn't whats important to some. For some, "fact" is subjective.

Now - sure the Dems knew what was going on. But whats important is that this entire witch hunt is an attempt to find a way to CREATE the vietnam quagmire all over again for political benefit. Take away the tools that work, hobble those that keep you safe, so that you can say "well we can't win so we have to lose".....

One last comment - politicians are by nature hypocrits. Thats why I have moved forward with my own POTUS run - you may not agree with me all the time, but at least you know I will tell you the way I see it every time - not give you some smoke and mirrors and a smile. The American people deserve that.

CaptainHaplo

05-13-09, 07:32 PM

BTW - I am fully aware that the previous administration stated that "we don't torture" - and that was a boldfaced lie. I don't try to hide or obfuscate that point. Whats done is done.

Tribesman

05-14-09, 02:28 AM

If anyone doubts this - then I challenge them to put up a link to a US ratified treaty in which the terrorists organizations in question were a signatory,

Terrorists insurgents and non state parties are covered under common provision 3 of the Geneva convention , it was the first time s
uch people became fully covered as earlier treaties only covered "terrorists" acting under the recognised governments . It was signed and ratified by the US , hey they even helped draw it up .
So by asking for a treaty signed by terrorists you demonstrate that you also are woefully inadequate in your knowledge .
Also of course the Declaration of Human rights while not a binding treaty is obligatory on all signataries in regards to all people .
If one were to be intellectually honest, then if the GC covered every combat situation and theatre, then the house to house, forced entry searches, etc still done today would violate the GC rules.
Actually that stuff predated Geneva , it goes back to the Hague conventions , Geneva just built on those .forced entry , search and siezure and fighting in civilian areas ...terms and conditions apply .

OK for someone who doesn't redefine torture
Although, I wouldn't call that "torture" ... I'd call that "pressure".

Redefining
torture that does not cause permanant injury or disfigurement, and used with probable cause to do so, is indeed okay.

redefining
I do believe that the Bush administration did try to redefine torture so that the methods that needed to be employed were legal.

And I agree with that.

Supporting redefining
We are applying so-called "torture"
redefining
Again, you infer that the so-called "torture"
Again
Let's say we're talking about out-and-out torture
And again
Our stance on so-called "torture"
And again
I don't believe waterboarding is torture
yet again

You are right Aramike , I was wrong , you haven't attempted to redefine torture at all repeatedly throughout the topic .
Its lucky you oppose that torture , becasue if you only opposed some torture and supported other torture then your only way forward would have been to attempt to redefine the torture you liked so it wouldn't be torture .

Tchocky

05-14-09, 02:41 AM

Its nice to sit here and bandy semantics and say "well this and well that" - but if you really want to be given some level of credibility in your arguements, you need to either put up, or shut up. Saying "well so and so who was there said such and such" - is, under the law - hearsay. So, instead of saying something is or isnt true, or that a treaty in this case does apply, show us the reality so you have something more than 3rd, 4th and 5th party hearsay that happens to agree with your point of view.

This isn't the first time I have issued such a challenge, and I fully expect that it will be again avoided because after all - the truth isn't whats important to some. For some, "fact" is subjective.
Testimony. Yesterday.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/

Now - sure the Dems knew what was going on. But whats important is that this entire witch hunt is an attempt to find a way to CREATE the vietnam quagmire all over again for political benefit. Take away the tools that work, hobble those that keep you safe, so that you can say "well we can't win so we have to lose"..... The point of which being....?

Aramike

05-14-09, 03:01 AM

Okay, I'll - yet again - break this down for you into something more simple and suited to your abilities.

Quoting my own statements:Although, I wouldn't call that "torture" ... I'd call that "pressure". That's not "redefining" something, as you like to claim. That's stating my opinion on the matter.torture that does not cause permanant injury or disfigurement, and used with probable cause to do so, is indeed okay.Seriously? You think saying that I'm okay with limited applications of torture redefines the word?

You can't be serious (but I'm afraid you are). Not smart.I do believe that the Bush administration did try to redefine torture so that the methods that needed to be employed were legal.

And I agree with that. I've already clearly stated (in this very quote, even) that I'm referring to the legal definition - not the definition of the word.

Get it straight.We are applying so-called "torture" Again, how is this "redefining", as I gave no alternative definition?

Do you know what the word "redefine" means?You are right Aramike , I was wrong , you haven't attempted to redefine torture at all repeatedly throughout the topic .Posting a bunch of quotes and typing "redefining" after them doesn't make it true. It just makes you look foolish in that you clearly don't know what the term means.Its lucky you oppose that torture , becasue if you only opposed some torture and supported other torture then your only way forward would have been to attempt to redefine the torture you liked so it wouldn't be torture . Who said I opposed torture? I specifically said that I am for some applications of torture under specific circumstances.

The word "torture" encompasses a lot of things. Breaking those things down and being specific as to what applications I'd find acceptable is not "redefining" torture.

That's about as stupid as saying that if I were to prefer a certain model of car, that means I approve of ALL models of cars.

Silly.

Tchocky

05-14-09, 03:37 AM

Regarding how much Congress knew, and when, I think it's important to read this. An article by someone who knows the systems in place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13divoll.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th

Posted it earlier, but might as well quote it.

It’s logical to ask, so what if it was only four members? If they objected to the program, why didn’t they take steps to change it or stop it? Maybe they should have tried. But as a practical matter, there was very little, if anything, the Gang of Four could have done to affect the Bush administration’s decision on the enhanced interrogation techniques program. To stop it, they needed the whole Congress.

....

But there is nothing in the legislative history of the Gang of Eight exception that supports the use made of it by the Bush administration — to shield, indefinitely, a politically controversial program from Congressional scrutiny. The exception has been abused to the point where it no longer has meaning, and Congress should examine whether it should be clarified or even eliminated.

If we do keep it, Congress should spell out in detail the very limited circumstances in which a Gang of Eight briefing may be given, and permit such secrecy for only a limited time. Only short-term operational security — not a controversial policy choice — should justify a temporary close hold.

Of course, the real reason that notifying four members of Congress was better than 40 to the Bush White House is crystal-clear — to eliminate political pushback. Check the box that Congress was informed just in case, someday, the program becomes public and things get rough. But do so in a way that the legislative branch is not in a position to cause any trouble.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-05/how-many-were-tortured-to-death/ - An article from a reporter who has been researching this for 5 years

Tchocky

05-14-09, 04:08 AM

Matt Taibbi echoing something that I've seen quite a bit of.
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/05/11/torture-is-fun/

Obviously Mr. Reeg suffered a terrible experience; I would never make light of that. What I do want to say is that there seems to be this idea that those of us who are against making torture an allowable practice in the U.S. are somehow condoning the behavior of those wacko/******* religious extremists, that we’re picking “their side” in the debate, like it’s an either/or proposition or something.

Kapitan_Phillips

05-14-09, 04:16 AM

Aramike, the line is perilously close to you.

CaptainHaplo

05-14-09, 06:17 AM

Nice try - but the "testimony. yesteday." comment linked to the testimony of one guy regarding his witnessing of "torture" and its effectiveness.

As it has been pointed out - one guy's OPINION isnt fact, especially when the vast majority of those involved have stated it has been effective. Still - it was a noble try.

Now - regarding Common Article 3 - it states:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

.... - this is the relevant portion.
However - one important part - territory of one of the High Contracting Parties - is often glossed over. Sorry - but neither Iraq nor Afghanistan qualifes under those terms. Was this war being waged on US soil, it would be a different matter - the GC would apply. But its not - so this is why they cannot claim GC protections.

Still - a solid attempt to put out out utter bullcrap in the hope some dumb schmuck might believe it. Might want to check talking points before you repeat them though....

I will deal with the dhr when I return from work this eve.

Tchocky

05-14-09, 06:25 AM

Tribesman

05-14-09, 07:00 AM

However - one important part - territory of one of the High Contracting Parties - is often glossed over. Sorry - but neither Iraq nor Afghanistan qualifes under those terms. Was this war being waged on US soil, it would be a different matter - the GC would apply. But its not - so this is why they cannot claim GC protections.

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Nice try , one ever so slight teensy weensy little enormously huge gaping great problem with what you have written there though , as the GC does apply which means your latest attempt was total bollox, Afghanistan and Iraq are both high contracting parties :doh:, even if they were not America was occupying those territories so as a high contracting party they still apply to the occupying power.
You really should apply your own words to what you write as it really was a classic example of a solid attempt to put out out utter bullcrap in the hope some dumb schmuck might believe it. :rotfl:
I will deal with the dhr when I return from work this eve.
You had better deal with the conventions first .

Who said I opposed torture?
That was sarcasm , we know you support torture but feel slightly uncomfortable that it is unjustifiable so attempt to redefine what it is

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 08:16 AM

I know it is a lot of fun to debate the debatable but back to the thread topic at hand:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124226863721018193.html

Pelosi an accomplice to 'torture'.....looks that way. Seems there are dirty hands for everyone. :hmmm:

Is it just me or is Obama a gun jumper? Gitmo...hasty decision. Just close it...no plan of action on where and how to keep the detainees. Displaying memos on Gitmo....hasty decision. Does Obama not look the entire picture first before he goes head-long into just throwing things out of the table for all to see? What is next?

I'm guessing Pelosi will become a thorn in Obama's side after this little tidbit.

Tchocky

05-14-09, 08:32 AM

Why was displaying the memos a hasty decision?

Oh, Karl Rove doesn't understand the circumstances of the briefings. He finds it

If Mrs. Pelosi considers the enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture, didn't she have a responsibility to complain at the time, introduce legislation to end the practices, or attempt to deny funding for the CIA's use of them? If she knew what was going on and did nothing, does that make her an accessory to a crime of torture, as many Democrats are calling enhanced interrogation?

JUST four members of Congress were notified in 2002 when the Central Intelligence Agency’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” program was first approved and carried out, according to documents released by the agency last week. They were Senators Bob Graham and Richard Shelby and Representatives Porter Goss and Nancy Pelosi, then the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees — the so-called “Gang of Four.” Each was briefed orally and it was understood that they were not to speak about the program with anyone, including their colleagues on the committees.

from here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13divoll.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 09:17 AM

August

05-14-09, 09:29 AM

...repercussions not considered

This is what happens when you elect a man who isn't qualified or prepared for the job of President.

mookiemookie

05-14-09, 09:48 AM

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 09:59 AM

Obama is getting cold feet about releasing torture photos: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30725189/

His reasoning? "He said the abrupt reversal of his position came out of concern that the pictures would 'further inflame anti-American opinion' and endanger U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Which, in a funny coincidence, is the precise reason why torture doesn't work and endangers us further rather than making us safer.

Therefore the memo's originally released should have been left alone. What, did he really think the world would embrace him and think everything is splendid from here on out? It would seem that those that voiced an opinion over releasing these memo's would do more harm than good. Not only in the world view but within his own 'transparent' government. Furthermore, this opens the door to the world who are now suspect that other things went on. Welcome to the dirty laundry list.

Tchocky

05-14-09, 10:02 AM

It was hasty because it looks to me that possible repercussions were not weighed. Hang with me on this. During the election, Obama kept throwing out timelimes for Iraq withdrawal. After getting a briefing of what is really occurring in Iraq he changed his tune on the withdrawal timeline. He did not have the facts. Seems fairly logical to me. Would you prefer that he stuck to the first timeline (which was always subject to change due to new information if he took office), no matter what information was received?
Gitmo, yes, just close it down without a plan. Repercussions on this hasty decision. It wasn't a hasty decision, it was common knowledge during the campaign.
No consideration on what the repercussions of this decision would create. What are these repercussions?
Let show memo's on torture...it all looks to be nothing but the "Star Chamber" of Republicans involved anyway, but wait, it seems that some of Obama staunchest supportors knew about these tortures and did nothing. Read the article by the Senate Intelligence Committee counsel, their options were very limited.

Let's assume that Pelosi knew about and fully supported torture - that's no reason not to investigate torture, who ordered it and who enabled it. Because it's wrong and illegal, not because it's totally confined to Republicans.

Did Obama take into account that if these memos did go out how would the world view the US? As we see here in this thread, the US is not seen in a good light. It would seem it put the US a few steps back in the hole in the world view of the US. Again, repercussions not considered. You're wrong here. I'm sure that the effect on America's image was considered.
I think it puts the US in a better light, coming clean about what has been happening, instead of keeping things secret. Do you disagree?
Also, I think that how the world views America is, in this case, a less that critical factor.
If you torture people, you should expect to be seen as torturers.
Obama has banned these practices, that makes America look good. Being honest about what happened also makes America look good. Makes lots of sense to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8003023.stm

Ok, now this administration is looking to persecute some Bush official in this matter. This administration might want to pick up Pelosi as well and let the proceedings begin. What should Nancy Pelosi be prosecuted for here? Knowing about it and keeping it secret, as is the procedure for these situations?
Really, this is a political ploy at best and it does not seem to paint anyone in a favorable light.
How is it a political ploy? I suppose in the interests of equality they should prosecute one Democrat for every Republican?

You seem to be overly concerned with image here.
Frankly, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how it makes people look. At least not to me.
I think it's worth finding out if government officials broke the law. If it makes people look bad, so be it.

In short, getting the facts, looking at the possible outcomes of releasing these memos and pictures were not weighed. Also, if such a thing did happen and not to the general publics knowledge...what else are the idiots in Washington doing that no one is aware of? :hmmm: Perhaps this will generate a snowball effect of other wrong doings?

EDIT: And another thing...this 'enhanced techique' Call it what it is...torture. This friggin play on words is stupid. It is as bad as 'What is 'is'?..Bill Clinton Yeah, agreed.

I think the same applies to differtiating between forms of torture that produce visible scars, and those that don't.

EDIT - mookiemookie - I really lose hope when I hear Obama using the same reasons as Bush for doing the same things. Bloody stupid.

EDIT 2 - Just saw this from Colin Powell's Chief of Staff

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee “was compliant” (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, “revealed” such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.

Max2147

05-14-09, 10:31 AM

The memos and photos are two very different issues. From what I understand, the photos show unauthorized behavior, and the soldiers involved have been disciplined. The memos say what sort of behavior was authorized.

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 10:52 AM

Tchocky,

I have to cherry pick here on the responses:

Your Iraq answer and the campaign:

Seems fairly logical to me. Would you prefer that he stuck to the first timeline (which was always subject to change due to new information if he took office), no matter what information was received?

No, he should not have made any statements until he was fully briefed on Iraq. This was purely political and getting votes.

Gitmo response:

It wasn't a hasty decision, it was common knowledge during the campaign.

It was hasty in the respect that there was no plan. Just close it. -shrug- ok, were are we sending the detainees....Obama-shrug-...next on the agenda:06:

Repercussions/Gitmo:

What are these repercussions?

Repercussions in the sense that American would be a bit miffed at closing a base of detainees responsible for 9/11. I sure do not want the new Gitmo camp in my backyard. How about you?

Torture and Pelosi:

Read the article by the Senate Intelligence Committee counsel, their options were very limited.

Let's assume that Pelosi knew about and fully supported torture - that's no reason not to investigate torture, who ordered it and who enabled it. Because it's wrong and illegal, not because it's totally confined to Republicans.

Well, here is the problem with all of that. The folks in Pelosi camp a week ago were...'Gasp, how could this have gone on?' 'We were never advised!' No wait a darn minute....you(Pelosi) were briefed in 2003. It was not a mystery. Then a back pedel to "I could do nothing about it'. Yeah sure, she did not care. If it was illegal then why then did Pelosi and Co sit on their thumbs? Because the were told to be quiet? Since when have Pelosi and Co been quiet on anything? To me, this is a politcial ploy that is backfiring.

Making America look bad and not thinking about that before releasing memo's:

Your response:

You're wrong here. I'm sure that the effect on America's image was considered.
I think it puts the US in a better light, coming clean about what has been happening, instead of keeping things secret. Do you disagree?
Also, I think that how the world views America is, in this case, a less that critical factor.
If you torture people, you should expect to be seen as torturers.
Obama has banned these practices, that makes America look good. Being honest about what happened also makes America look good. Makes lots of sense to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8003023.stm

Since when is America supposed to come clean and obsolve their souls of wrong doings? Is this some kind of feel good counselling session that is global? Does the rest of the world fess up to wrong doings? I'm thinking no.

Pelosi on trial:

Your response:

What should Nancy Pelosi be prosecuted for here? Knowing about it and keeping it secret, as is the procedure for these situations?

Yes, she should have gone to Bush personally or via letter as suggested if this was completely wrong to torture...she did not. She is therefore just as much at fault.

I'm not concerned with image here as suggested. I'm assuming the image of America you are speaking of. No, I'm not concerned. What I'm concerned with is this really seems to be nothing but political and mud slinging.

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 11:37 AM

The plot thickens and so does the soup Pelosi is in.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/pelosi.waterboarding/

The source said Pelosi didn't object when she learned that waterboarding was being used because she had not been personally briefed about it -- only her aide had been told.
The source said Pelosi supported a letter that Harman sent to the administration at the time raising concerns. The source asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of matters discussed in classified intelligence briefings.

So let me get this right, it is all the aids fault? The aid is running your office? This classified material was ok for the aid to hear?

Pelosi supported a letter? Did she sign the letter? Is there any shred of evidence she supported the letter? Can we see the letter?

Oh God, now it is really thick:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/pelosi-cia-lied.html

“At the same time, the Bush administration was misleading the American people about the threats of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” she added. “The CIA was misleading the Congress. At the same time, the administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

She is grasping at straws. It is everyone's fault but her own.

SteamWake

05-14-09, 12:17 PM

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 12:25 PM

Well, I tell you what Steamwake, Pelosi is in some hot water. Claiming the CIA lied to her. If she is in fact found to have known via tapes or memo of the meeting she is probably going to resign. Let's face it, the law states that senior officals be briefed on anything the CIA is doing. Giving half or no info is not something they would do. Furthermore, why not tell Pelosi? That makes no sense at all. What would the CIA obtain by not telling Pelosi. Furthermore, she had an aid attend and the aid did not tell her? WTH! This is classified secret information....an aid was sent? Is this aid watching over the big red buttons to the nukes also? :shifty:

Obama has taken the eye off the ball and so has Washington. They are more engrossed in prosecuting the Bush administration than running Washington.

Aramike

05-14-09, 01:00 PM

That was sarcasm , we know you support torture but feel slightly uncomfortable that it is unjustifiable so attempt to redefine what it is Are you kidding? You know how I feel now, too?

I'm not at all uncomfortable with certain forms of torture being used.

What you're attempting to do, however, is say that, because I support a very specific application of the methods, I must support all torture as a whole.

It's not that simple. I have been very specific as to what I support. And I am not at all uncomfortable with supporting it.

I don't need to redefine anything, which is why I don't bother.

Tribesman

05-14-09, 01:00 PM

Repercussions in the sense that American would be a bit miffed at closing a base of detainees responsible for 9/11.
What utter tripe , of the many hundreds detained at Gitmo how many have even been charge of any offence whatsoever let alone convicted?
You make me sick when you talk of 9/11 , you supportd those who let most of those involved escape justice becuse it was cheaper and you instead wasted the time with some crazy illegal half baked ideological crusade that has completely failed to deliver.
What is worse is that this issue trancends the so called party lines that some follow , which is why you get muppets repeating the same pathetic old party lines long after they have been shown to be complete bollox
.
If Pelosi broke the law then screw her throw her to the justices , if Bush broke the law then screw him , throw him to the justices.
If servicemen broke the law then screw them , throw them to the justices (after all the "only following orders" excuse has long been established as tripe.
BTW where are you Haplo ? did looking at the court rulings make you realise you position was untennable

Aramike

05-14-09, 01:03 PM

Aramike, the line is perilously close to you.Erm, that's oddly selective of you.

Besides, I like to walk the line. :arrgh!:

Tribesman

05-14-09, 01:14 PM

I'm not at all uncomfortable with certain forms of torture being used.

Simple isn't it , either you support torture or you don't , redefining certin forms of torture to fit with your definition of torture rather than the established definition so as to make your view less reprehensible is attempting to redefine torture .so as to make your views less repellant to people
Your problem is that your position is impossible to defend

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 01:24 PM

What utter tripe , of the many hundreds detained at Gitmo how many have even been charge of any offence whatsoever let alone convicted?
You make me sick when you talk of 9/11 , you supportd those who let most of those involved escape justice becuse it was cheaper and you instead wasted the time with some crazy illegal half baked ideological crusade that has completely failed to deliver.
What is worse is that this issue trancends the so called party lines that some follow , which is why you get muppets repeating the same pathetic old party lines long after they have been shown to be complete bollox
.
If Pelosi broke the law then screw her throw her to the justices , if Bush broke the law then screw him , throw him to the justices.
If servicemen broke the law then screw them , throw them to the justices (after all the "only following orders" excuse has long been established as tripe.
BTW where are you Haplo ? did looking at the court rulings make you realise you position was untennable

Well sir, I'm sorry you get sick when I talk of 9/11. Sorry, this is what started it all. Shall I talk of the daily traffic jams? Yes, Pelosi is lying, if Bush used these techniques he is trouble. Same with anyone involved. I have not supported anyone. Please find where I have. However, reading your diatribe I'm wondering if finding another thread to visit and enjoy might be in order for you.

mookiemookie

05-14-09, 01:37 PM

Are you kidding? You know how I feel now, too?

I'm not at all uncomfortable with certain forms of torture being used.

What you're attempting to do, however, is say that, because I support a very specific application of the methods, I must support all torture as a whole.

It's not that simple. I have been very specific as to what I support. And I am not at all uncomfortable with supporting it.

I don't need to redefine anything, which is why I don't bother.

Let's say the Bloods catch a Crips gang member on their turf. The Bloods proceed to tie him up, smack him around and pour water in his nose and mouth. The cops bust in just as this Crips member is being waterboarded for the 180th time.

Are the cops going to say he wasn't tortured? What's the DA's reaction going to be? How is it going to be reported in the news? Are they going to say that the Crip didn't have his fingernails pulled out or he wasn't cut up and killed so it wasn't torture? Hell no, they're going to say he was tortured. There's no moral equivalence here. Torture is torture is torture. Just because you've changed the definition for yourself doesn't mean the definition has been changed.

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 01:55 PM

Mookie, Aramike I see you are from the US. Tribesman, not sure were you hale from but going after one another is not what the thread is about. I think all involved would be more concerned with how this is being handled, who knew what and why nothing was done in 2003. This to me is really the problem not who here approves or disapproves of torture.

Kapitan_Phillips

05-14-09, 01:57 PM

Tribesman, not sure were you hale from but going after one another is not

Eire = Ireland, I believe.

Tribesman

05-14-09, 02:13 PM

I think all involved would be more concerned with how this is being handled, who knew what and why nothing was done in 2003.
Why nothing was done is because certain politicians and lawyers presented an arguement that raised questions , those questions have since been shown to be bollox. In the interim action was taken on the basis of those questions even though they were bollox and have since been shown to be obviously bollox .

Since even the most rudimentary examination of those questions posed would have shown them to be farcical it is rather astounding that anyone signed off on them . In which case the only course is to put all those concerned in the process on trial for their actions.
Then again tht doesn't address those that still put out the thoroughly debunked arguements put out by the last administration , the only civilisd address to those people would be "please keep up to date you muppets you have been proved wrong years ago"

SteamWake

05-14-09, 02:33 PM

Obama has taken the eye off the ball and so has Washington. They are more engrossed in prosecuting the Bush administration than running Washington.

Wins the thread ! :woot:

Something that I find curious is the fact that the 'enhanced interrigations' did produce results and prevented an attack on Los Angelis. But that gets covered up in all the noise.

heartc

05-14-09, 02:47 PM

Somehow I get the impression that the realitys of life and politics are beginning to take hold.

The nominees with tax problems.

The Pelosi thing.

The ACLU chiding Obama about the interrigation pictures.

The 'stimulus' is not exactly stimulating. Read yesterday where a woman dead for 40 years recieved a stimulus check.

GM importing chinese cars after accepting money from the US.

I know there are some other er... issues I have overlooked and now backlash on the Gittmo 'executive order'.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/obama-considers-detaining-terror-suspects-indefinitely/

Cant wait to see whats in store for the nationalized health care agenda.

Well, isn't it always like that when leftists win the race?
People fall for their fairy tales, unrealistic, "good-sounding" and "well-meaning" approaches which is all they build their campaign on, and then when they actually get into power, shortly after there is a rude awakening which includes more taxes to pay and plenty of other **** for everybody, including those who were not on drugs when they went voting.

At least that usually happens in Germany. See, over here even the conservatives are what you would call left. Our "conservatives" are more left than your democrats (though with the Big O in power now I'm not so sure anymore), and our left are what you would call downright commies. They found out that winning elections is much easier when you talk bull, something left politicians are good in, so our conservatives adopted that approach. You know, we have a magic word here in this country, and unfortunately it is written into our "constitution". It is "Social Market Economy". "Soziale Marktwirtschaft". In other words, it is "Capitalism, BUT". And that "BUT" is used as an excuse for whatever stupid crap the left comes up with. And the "conservatives" are too coward to confront them on the issue of "Soziale Gerechtigkeit" ("social fairness"), and the only other party which might truely be in favor of a sound free market economy never gains more than 18%. Because in Germany, people do not believe in the "I can become what I want" approach, but rather "The evil rich, the decadent middle class, and the holy poor". And granted, with our tax / "social contribution" burden for the "normal citizen" and the bureaucratic approach we have to EVERYTHING, you can't really hold it against them when they feel they are stuck, because in the end they really are. And I guess it is too much to ask that they realize this situation however is brought about by their vote for those who run their campaign on fairy tales.

Granted, all the above might be hard for you to understand as an American, used to the art of common sense. But I'm positive that this will soon change now that the "Messiah" has arrived in America, too. It is indeed eerie to see how many of his ideas are in congruence with what OUR LEFT says (remember, where you Americans would rather think "commie"). And it is even more eerie to see many Americans to fall for just that, and see him as some kind of Messiah exactly because of that crap.
This is how you end up in a state that taxes you to death, takes around 50% of what you cost your employer away from you (income tax, "social contributions", including "public pension" that these days will amount to nothing to live off, so you have to take out private insurance in addition, and additionally there will be the VAT and a whole host of other taxes like yearly taxes on using a car etc.) and gets involved in economy by saving the asses of big century old companies (because of fear of job losses and thus political opinions) while taxing INTO OBLIVION small and middle-sized enterprises who *together* provide THE MOST JOBS but will never MAKE IT INTO THE HEADLINES WHEN THEY GO DOWN one after another - or do not even open, which is a hidden destruction of jobs.

F*ck, here I thought, "When this place here hits rock-bottom and I'm getting to tired of this crap, I'll go to the US." Now with the "Messiah" in power over there, too, and more and more of you formerly freedom loving people making yourselves whores of the state by making yourself financially dependent on it by your vote, just as we did and do, I'm not so sure any more if that would make ANY sense after all.

Damn. America is too much of a genuine, honest and - if I may - divine effort to fall for stupid fantasy **** spewed from the mouth of politicians. Remember, those ****ers were the reasons why you left Europe behind *in the first place*. For the love of God, please don't make it Europe Second Edition. Please don't. Don't.

heartc

05-14-09, 03:04 PM

BTW, I realize now, I'm the off-topic Superman here in this thread. Sorry.
Though maybe in reality this thread is about great sounding ideas, wishfull thinking and cosy promises vs. what matters and is happening in the real world. Then it might not be so off-topic after all.

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 03:08 PM

BTW, I realize now, I'm the off-topic Superman here in this thread. Sorry.

Not really, the thread went south anyway. I liked your post. If you see my last, this thread should really concern itself with what the government is doing on the one hand and not doing on the other hand. Pelosi has publically stated the CIA lied to her and Congress. That is some strong stuff and very heady. This could be ruinous for her(no big deal) and the Democrats. If the CIA provides tapes or documents showing she knew this waterboarding deal, resigning is her only option. Fantasyland is now over. The government will be suspect from here on out.

heartc

05-14-09, 03:14 PM

Fantasyland is now over. The government will be suspect from here on out.

Well, yes, you're right. That was the point which made me start off with my opinion above after all.

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 03:32 PM

I find it astonishing this whole thing. Our government hiding the truths then said truths brought to light for 'transperancy' only to find the hands in the cookie jar were many. Some of these hands a certain leader would have hoped were not in that jar. This certain leaders agenda today was completely overshadowed by this. In fact, he was non-existant today. With that in mind one should realize the gravity of this revelation. Really, she is in deep dodo if the CIA provides proof positive she knew. Stating that the CIA lied to her and Congress...treason perhaps?

Tribesman

05-14-09, 03:40 PM

[QUOTE][ The government will be suspect from here on out. /QUOTE]
Governments are always suspect .
Did you think this pesent one has only just become suspect and was squeaky clean since inaugertation?
Or did you think that previous governmens were not suspect?

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 03:46 PM

[quote][ The government will be suspect from here on out. /QUOTE]
Governments are always suspect .
Did you think this pesent one has only just become suspect and was squeaky clean since inaugertation?
Or did you think that previous governmens were not suspect?

Perhaps you misunderstood or I was not complete in my thought...since Obama was elected everyone was 'feel good', a new sun on the horizon, a new day, we feel refreshed, all will be well, he has risen yadda yadda yadda....an image Obama was attempting and successfully accomplished. He overcame the staff that did not pay taxes and other assorted nonsense. The image was still good until today. This image is now tarnished and tarnished badly. So those that followed like a herd of sheep into the light will have the fantasy dispelled. Certainly the previous administrations as all administrations are suspect. This one had it's own flavor and it was sweet to a lot....it just turned sour. It is clearly seen the government is self serving. Pelosi would say anything to get out of this and that was witnessed today. Honestly, I do not think we will see the truth unless the CIA who has been fingered needs to really clear the air and keep it's image clear...I suspect that might happen. Is it easier to have one person take the fall or an entire entity that the world is supposed to trust. After all it is the Central Intelligence Agency.

Tribesman

05-14-09, 04:08 PM

Aramike

05-14-09, 04:39 PM

Simple isn't it , either you support torture or you don't , redefining certin forms of torture to fit with your definition of torture rather than the established definition so as to make your view less reprehensible is attempting to redefine torture .so as to make your views less repellant to people
Your problem is that your position is impossible to defendThat is just silly.

I don't approve of most forms of torture. I do approve of some forms. To attempt a gross over-simplication and say that I would therefore simply approve of torture is misleading, and is the exact reason that I'm using specifics to convey my point.

You do know that the basis of written communication involves using words which most properly convey the message one is trying to get across, right? Therefore, by simply saying "Aramike approves of torture" inadequately describes my position. However, the words I used to present which methods I do approve of COMPLETELY describes my position.

This is like fifth-grade stuff, man.

And how is my position "impossible to defend"? That is also a silly statement. I'm defending my position just fine, thank you. Also, you are not the arbiter of what position is correct and what's not. That's why people debate differentiating points of view.

Aramike

05-14-09, 04:45 PM

Let's say the Bloods catch a Crips gang member on their turf. The Bloods proceed to tie him up, smack him around and pour water in his nose and mouth. The cops bust in just as this Crips member is being waterboarded for the 180th time.

Are the cops going to say he wasn't tortured? What's the DA's reaction going to be? How is it going to be reported in the news? Are they going to say that the Crip didn't have his fingernails pulled out or he wasn't cut up and killed so it wasn't torture? Hell no, they're going to say he was tortured. There's no moral equivalence here. Torture is torture is torture. Just because you've changed the definition for yourself doesn't mean the definition has been changed.Erm, again, I'm not saying that waterboarding isn't torture. You should read what I write and skip over Tribesman's attempts to make a point for me, so he has something to attempt to counter.

Let me make this clear (for the umpteenth time) - waterboarding is a FORM OF TORTURE that I support when used following specific guidelines. Period. Case closed. No redefining.

Agreeing with something is NOT redefining it. Redefining something is applying a different definition to a word. I am not doing that. It IS torture.

Seriously, can I make this any easier for you lefties? Geez...

:har::har::har:

Tribesman

05-14-09, 04:52 PM

That is just silly.

No it isn't, you either support torture or you don't , torture is clearly defined , there is no middleground in this case , something is either torture or it isn't.
I don't approve of most forms of torture. I do approve of some forms.
Torture is torture , simple as that, you cannot rename torture as "torture" and pretend its somehow OK
And how is my position "impossible to defend"?
Because torture is indefensible , which is why some of your politicians are wriggling like hooked worms trying to get off the barb they have placed themselves upon

Aramike

05-14-09, 04:56 PM

Wow, this is tedious:No it isn't, you either support torture or you don't , torture is clearly defined , there is no middleground in this case , something is either torture or it isn't.Already said I support certain forms of torture, and there clearly is a middleground. You do know what "conditional statements" are, right?

You are suggesting that someone who supports waterboarding must also support all other forms of torture. That's not a very intelligent suggestion, as I will now prove easily prove it wrong:

I support waterboarding.
I do not support yanking somone's fingernails out.

See? I win.Torture is torture , simple as that, you cannot rename torture as "torture" and pretend its somehow OK Since when does putting a word in quotes change the word?

Not trying to be insulting here, but is English your first language?

It would be similar to me saying that a Mini is a "car". Clearly it is a car, and using quotes don't change it. What the quotes implies is what I feel about the car itself.

Got it?

Tribesman

05-14-09, 05:01 PM

I support waterboarding.
I do not support yanking somone's fingernails out.

See? I win.
You support torture , you do not support torture .
Yeah thats a win :doh:

Tchocky

05-14-09, 05:14 PM

*Two U.S. intelligence officers confirm that Vice President Cheney’s office suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner, a former intelligence official for Saddam Hussein, who was suspected to have knowledge of a Saddam-al Qaeda connection.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/cheneys-role-deepens/p/

Aside - I find it interesting that some of those who decry government intrusion into private life seem to be perfectly happy with government exercising the powers of arbitrary arrest and torture.

CaptainHaplo

05-14-09, 05:37 PM

Actually tribesman, you are partially correct and I was partially incorrect. Afghanistan was a signatory at the time, thus they would be covered n theory. Iraq however was not a signatory and did not declare ratification until well after. However, be that as it may, I am not above admitting a mistake, and I was in fact incorrect. One could argue that both ratified the treaty at various times.

Tribesman

05-14-09, 05:59 PM

Actually tribesman, you are partially correct and I was partially incorrect. Afghanistan was a signatory at the time, thus they would be covered n theory. Iraq however was not a signatory and did not declare ratification until well after.
Well after ? you mean Iraq ratified it over 52 years ago ?
OK that aside , one easy way to see if the conventions apply .
You came out with the some of the same arguements Bush tried , those arguements have since been put before the courts on numerous occasions , the arguements have fallen at every fence . It is the failure of these arguements which now has some politicians scurrying to distance themselves from actions they approved with the very silly legal advice Bush got his lawyers to peddle
One could argue that both ratified the treaty at various times.
actually you couldn't really argue on that , it is a clearly established fact . but as I said earleir even if neither Iraq or afghanistan had ratified the convention it would still apply as the United States is bound as a high contracting party that was the occupying power

AVGWarhawk

05-14-09, 07:00 PM

I am curious Warhawk , I thought the "feelgood" factor was simply that he couldn't be as much of a ***** as Bush was and the only ones in the main really pushing the "he's perfect" crap were certain bloggers who were upset with the election result and invented a position that they could attack.
As for the recent events , like blocking the release of photos and videos , the fruitcakes are attacking him for doing it , yet supporting him for doing it . The reason given being that it would be bad for America , which is the same reason they objected to the earlier releases of photos.
So reaslly there ar ethree levels of hypocracy in play here , that of the old administration , that of the new administration , and that of the blind supporters of either .

I agree with your last line. In my mind I really do think Obama came in with good intentions and a mind free of the hypocracy. I think he wants to clear the air as it were. As far as the election losers pushing the 'perfect' ploy, it backfired. Obama supporters believe he is perfect, etc. The problem he faces is the old school DC way of getting things done. Personally I do not mind he released these memos. They would come out sooner or later anyway. I do not think he thought it would cut as deep as it looks to be doing. As far as the pictures, I do not need to see them. I believe it was done. Do I believe it was right to do it. Not really but my response in the thread concerning this is I do not care at this juncture. There is a plethora of other issues that need immediate attention.

Aramike

05-14-09, 09:25 PM

You support torture , you do not support torture .
Yeah thats a win :doh:That's why the english language has additional words.

Like, "certain", and "specifically", along with other words to identify the "certain" and "specific".

:har::har::har::har:

If someone asks you what kind of car you drive the answer isn't "car".

Tribesman

05-15-09, 02:24 AM

torture is torture Aramike .

Tchocky

05-15-09, 03:01 AM

If the CIA provides tapes or documents showing she knew this waterboarding deal, resigning is her only option. Fantasyland is now over. The government will be suspect from here on out.

Do you feel the same way about those who ordered the torture?

EDIT - Matt Yglesias sums it up pretty well here - http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/pelosi-presser.php

AVGWarhawk

05-15-09, 07:51 AM

Do you feel the same way about those who ordered the torture?

EDIT - Matt Yglesias sums it up pretty well here - http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/pelosi-presser.php

Certainly. But as most of these go, somehow this will fall into the murky waters and be forgotten like most issues such as this that involve high power government employees.

Tchocky

05-15-09, 08:01 AM

I don't think that something like this should be allowed to fade away.

Not when it seems that the Vice President of the US tortured people in order to find excuses (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/05/14/cheney/) for going to war.

In an essay that first appeared on the Washington Note blog (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/05/the_truth_about/), Wilkerson says that even when the interrogators of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the Libyan al-Qaida operative, reported that he had become “compliant” -- in other words, cooperative after sufficient abuse -- the vice-president’s office ordered further torture of the Libyan by his hosts at an Egyptian prison because he had not yet implicated Saddam with al-Qaida

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/grand-unified-scandal/

AVGWarhawk

05-15-09, 08:09 AM

I believe it will Tchocky. Things like this receive late night phone calls and hush hush meetings. Things are sorted behind closed doors. The media is not given information. Once it is off the TV screens and out of the papers/internet the short rememberance of Americans kicks in. But thinking about it, what Pelosi said yesterday was quite strong. She actually said the CIA lied. By doing so she has greatly underminded the image of the CIA and splashed on a face of distrust now for the agency. If she is correct and the CIA did in fact 'mis-lead' the Congress then we do have a very bad issue within this agency. I do not think that is the case because Chaney has been pushing to get these memos release concerning what was obtained by torturing. He has been denied. So, there is something there. It will boil down to how much the high power individuals involved want to go with it. I'm guessing a draw. All parties involved will be in hot water. How to avoid that? Say nothing at all and let it fade into the background with the other noise.

Today I watched Pelosi on the hot coals. She has changed here story a few times and looks to be a bit flustered indicating to me she is cornered.

Tchocky

05-15-09, 08:25 AM

I'm not happy about this flap with Pelosi, because I think it's distracting from the more important central issue of serious crimes committed by government officials. Not that the four people Congress are blameless in any way, but that the people who ordered torture to take place deserve first attention.

Notice that Pelosi is being questioned to a degree that Dick Cheney, as yet, has not.

Some of the commentary has gotten to the stage where torture seems to be legal when Republicans order it, but illegal once there's a chance of attacking a Democrat. That's an exaggeration, of course, but the moral equivalence being bandied about defies belief.

AVGWarhawk

05-15-09, 08:39 AM

From what I read the torture was legal under Bush. Obama made this illegal immediately after taking office. I think they are looking at the legality and or the actual methods used. I believe some of the methods introduced in 2002 do not reflect the actual methods used in 2003, ie waterboarding. Some more is coming to light at the moment. I think Cheney will be questioned. GW Bush will be questioned. More to come. But yes, the Pelosi issue is an distraction but she will become part of the larger picture because she did not protect back in 2002 or 2003. A 'letter' was sent and she expressed her concern, to whom we do not know.

AVGWarhawk

05-15-09, 08:45 AM

Here is a good article in today's news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051404240.html

The speaker's charges about the CIA's alleged deception and her shifting accounts of what she knew and when she knew it are likely to add to calls for some kind of independent body to investigate this supercharged issue, though Obama and many members of Congress would like to avoid a wholesale unearthing of the past at a time when their plates are full with pressing concerns.

They just might unearth more than they care too.

Tchocky

05-15-09, 08:46 AM

From what I read the torture was legal under Bush.
Torture isn't legal.

AVGWarhawk

05-15-09, 08:52 AM

Washington now is engaged in a battle royal of finger-pointing, second-guessing and self-defense, all over techniques President Obama banned in the first days of his administration. Both sides in this debate believe they have something to prove -- and gain -- by keeping the fight alive.

From the article link above. 'Techniques Presidnet Obama banned.' Torture in the word illegal but some techniques not? Very gray area, no? So, what exactly was not illegal in the eyes that ran the show in 2002-2003?

Tchocky

05-15-09, 09:04 AM

The fact that Obama banned torture doesn't meant that it was legal before.

Note from former Senator Bob Graham, who had the same suposed briefings as Pelosi -

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/bob-graham-says-cia-has-admitted-to-errors-in-breifing-records-cia-not-talking.php

“On three of the four occasions, when I consulted my schedule and my notes, it was clear that no briefing had taken place, and the CIA eventually concurred in that. So their record keeping is a little bit suspect.”

AVGWarhawk

05-15-09, 09:08 AM

In steps the gray area. Bare with me, Obama takes the helm and immediately bands certain techniques. So, what are these certain techniques and are they considered torture? What exactly was Obama banning if it was illegal to begin with?

I'm getting a headache:oops:

AVGWarhawk

05-15-09, 09:18 AM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22550.html

When asked why she didn’t protest about being misled when she learned in 2003 that the CIA was, in fact, waterboarding detainees, Pelosi replied: “They mislead us all the time.”

Oh my, she needs to stop talking.

SteamWake

05-15-09, 11:16 AM

Oh my, she needs to stop talking.

Yea, talk about torture, did you see that conference :o

Aramike

05-15-09, 11:30 AM

torture is torture Aramike .No kidding. And I've already (100 times over) stated the conditions and form of torture I agree with.

So, what's your point?

Aramike

05-15-09, 12:01 PM

Richard Cohen, a notorious lefty, wrote an intriguing piece in the Washington Post that ran this Tuesday, entitled "What if Cheney's Right"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051102668.html

An excerpt:
In some sense, this is an arcane point since the United States insists it will not torture anymore -- not that, the Bush people quickly add, it ever did. Torture is a moral abomination, and President Obama is right to restate American opposition to it. But where I reserve a soupçon of doubt is over the question of whether "enhanced interrogation techniques" actually work. That they do not is a matter of absolute conviction among those on the political left, who seem to think that the CIA tortured suspected terrorists just for the hell of it.

The fact is that there are two essential views, here: torture in certain cases is okay, and torture never is okay. The problem with the latter view is that many on the left tend to try to support it by making the absurd claim that torture hardly ever (if not "never") works.

The question that should be debated (but is often glossed over) is whether or not torture should be employed in specific cases, respecting specific guidelines, in order to attempt to save innocent lives.

As far as I'm concerned, there is little to no doubt that waterboarding is an effective technique at information extraction. The argument that subjects would simply say anything makes little sense, as the technique is used to glean specifics and therefore any nonsense would be easily identifiable.

So, here's the question: if we have reasonable suspicions that a captured terrorist has valuable information that can SAVE LIVES, and other techniques have failed at extracting that information, should strictly limited applications of torture be permitted? Why/why not?

AVGWarhawk

05-15-09, 12:20 PM

Good article on Cheney. He is very adament about these memos so I suspect there really is something in there.

So, here's the question: if we have reasonable suspicions that a captured terrorist has valuable information that can SAVE LIVES, and other techniques have failed at extracting that information, should strictly limited applications of torture be permitted? Why/why not?

Very gray area. What is list of approved "enhanced techiques'? What constitutes torture by definition? Physical? Emotional? None? Sleep deprivation? In the article you linked Cheney makes a good question:

Cheney poses a hard, hard question: Is it more immoral to torture than it is to fail to prevent the deaths of thousands?

After the attacks all stated the NSA/CIA/FBI and everyone else knew this was coming but did nothing. It is almost like being damned if they did and damned if they don't.

Tchocky

05-15-09, 12:48 PM

The fact is that there are two essential views, here: torture in certain cases is okay, and torture never is okay. The problem with the latter view is that many on the left tend to try to support it by making the absurd claim that torture hardly ever (if not "never") works.
That's absurd. You're saying that a point of view is flawed because some people don't argue it well.

As I've said before, the point about torture is not whether it works or not.

The question that should be debated (but is often glossed over) is whether or not torture should be employed in specific cases, respecting specific guidelines, in order to attempt to save innocent lives. Who sets those guidelines?
Who decides how much torture is OK? (I can't believe that I'm asking this question)

As far as I'm concerned, there is little to no doubt that waterboarding is an effective technique at information extraction. Have you anything to back that up with?

The argument that subjects would simply say anything makes little sense, as the technique is used to glean specifics and therefore any nonsense would be easily identifiable. Have you anything to back that up with? Libi was tortured until he admitted to a non-existent connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Does that fit your "specific cases"?
What exactly are the criteria for torturing someone, then? What would your limits and specific cases be?
So, here's the question: if we have reasonable suspicions that a captured terrorist has valuable information that can SAVE LIVES, and other techniques have failed at extracting that information, should strictly limited applications of torture be permitted?

No, because it is wrong to torture. It is wrong to torture people in order to gain information.

What the hell is "limited" torture anyway?

AVGWarhawk

05-15-09, 12:58 PM

As far as I'm concerned, there is little to no doubt that waterboarding is an effective technique at information extraction.

Have you anything to back that up with?

Apparently Dick Cheney says it does work but the memos will not be released. He is very adamant about this. I think there is something there.

Ultimately as you stated, what is and is not torture? Who decides? When is enough enough? There is no clear defined answer so in retrospect torture should not be employed.

porphy

05-15-09, 01:05 PM

I have a question to the ones accepting certain forms of torture, in this case water boarding, under specific conditions.

Would you agree that the members of a terrorist organisation are right, both legally and morally, to apply the same methods of torture in the same kind of conditions as specified?

For example, they capture three Americans that they know are working for the army, but not as uniformed soldiers, and they know these persons to have knowledge about a planned air strike that will kill and maim hundreds of civilians in a village somewhere. If the terrorists can extract this knowledge, through torture it will make it possible to save the civilians.

It should be right should it not? I mean the Americans won't suffer any real serious harm, and the cause is good by all standards.
Or is this not right, as the terrorists are bent on doing, and already have done, and probably will continue to do, all kinds of evil stuff against the US and its citizens. This would only be another of their misdeeds.

I'm really curious about how anyone would reason in a case like this, given that you accept the initial thing about some sort of torture under special and specified conditions. If this rule can't be extended and more general, how is it that it can be valid reasoning for a specific nation or a special group of people?

There seems to me to be a recurring theme in the thread. It's very easy to combine "they are evil anyway and started the whole thing" + "the purpose of controlled torturing for vital information is a good one". The conclusion, according to some, seems be that evil persons don't have the right to do some torture for a good purpose, but good guys can get away with some torture if the cause is good, without any moral blame, or even legal action.

Maybe I'm wrong and you see it some other way, in any case I would be interested to hear your view on this. :yep:

cheers Porphy

August

05-15-09, 01:09 PM

One could make the argument that simple incarceration is torture. After all to someone with claustrophobia it certainly would feel that way. Are we going to ban taking prisoners altogether?

Tchocky

05-15-09, 01:16 PM

Ultimately as you stated, what is and is not torture? Who decides? When is enough enough? There is no clear defined answer so in retrospect torture should not be employed.

US Law states torture is illegal, under the following definition.

1 - "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
2 - "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) 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; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) 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;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2340.html

August - No.

AVGWarhawk

05-15-09, 01:18 PM

This begs the question...what the hell were Bush and Co including Pelosi doing in 2002-2003? Do as I say not as I do? This is certainly a quaqmire.

porphy

05-15-09, 01:23 PM

One could make the argument that simple incarceration is torture. After all to someone with claustrophobia it certainly would feel that way. Are we going to ban taking prisoners altogether?

Sure, you can always argue this way, as the slippery slope always apply. So we can't really argue any moral standards because of that? Not even upholding our own?

Yes some people would describe being in a cell as torture. But can you find anyone that has been subject to prolonged water boarding claim "I was not tortured, I was simply subjected to advanced interrogation"

cheers Porphy

AVGWarhawk

05-15-09, 01:32 PM

Not withstanding being put in a cell it looks like International law as well as US Constitutional Law was completely ignored. Although many point the finger at Bush, the implications that Pelosi knew that some form of 'enhanced techniques'(just another name for torture) was happening would be conclusive that all were involved in some form of torture which is illegal...period. I would say that Pelosi is attempting to save her hide. The others, well, no use attempting to do that. So, at this point, it does not matter who knew about waterboarding and who didn't, the fact is, torture was being performed to their knowledge thus making them part of it. End of story.

Aramike

05-15-09, 01:55 PM

That's absurd. You're saying that a point of view is flawed because some people don't argue it well.

As I've said before, the point about torture is not whether it works or not.This makes no sense. If my point is that torture works despite claims to the contrary, how is it that said point is not actually the point?Who sets those guidelines?
Who decides how much torture is OK? (I can't believe that I'm asking this question)Honestly, I can't believe you're asking this question, either.

It is obvious that who would set the guidelines would be those who are legally tasked in doing so - you know, the same people who set the guidelines against enhanced interrogations.

You know, elected officials. The same people who set the guidelines (read: laws) for the rest of everything.

Are system of government is fairly clear on who's in charge.Have you anything to back that up with? I have practicality (along with links I have posted earlier in this thread, ALONG with the fact that the average time for a CIA officer to break is 14 seconds).

If the techniques didn't work, why would anyone want to use them? This is a point of Richard Cohen's piece (and he's against the techniques).

Furthermore, a former Vice President of the US says they work, and there's proof, and has called for said proof to be declassified. Why aren't these memos being shown?Have you anything to back that up with? Libi was tortured until he admitted to a non-existent connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Does that fit your "specific cases"?Please cite this case more completely, with specifics.

Oh, and one case does not invalidate a technique.What exactly are the criteria for torturing someone, then? What would your limits and specific cases be?I've already written this several times in the thread.

I approve of the use of limited forms of torture when it is used against a known terrorist when there is probable cause to believe said terrorist has specific information relevent to the safeguard of innocent, civilian life. Further, said techniques are not to be employed unless other methods of obtaining the information has failed. Finally, the methods used are to only include those that do not cause permanant injury, disability or disfigurement. As an aside, I really couldn't give a damn if a terrorist ends up suffering from a mental illness such as PTSD. Just imagine what their surviving victims are going through.

In addition, I would even approve of a warrant system being put in place, meaning that probable cause would have to be demonstrated to a civilian authority prior to techniques being used. That is, so long as we can get past the politics of it.No, because it is wrong to torture. It is wrong to torture people in order to gain information.

What the hell is "limited" torture anyway? It is wrong to risk innocent lives because you're squeamish about a technique that could save them. In fact, it is so morally wrong that I consider it depraved, and quite sickening that certain individuals won't accept that sometimes undesirable things need to be done in order to spare innocent lives.

And, I've just decribed "limited" torture.

Aramike

05-15-09, 01:57 PM

Would you agree that the members of a terrorist organisation are right, both legally and morally, to apply the same methods of torture in the same kind of conditions as specified? Why would anyone agree with that?

A terrorist organization itself is illegal and immoral. As such, activities that directly support its mission are illegal and immoral.

Aramike

05-15-09, 01:59 PM

porphy

05-15-09, 02:29 PM

Why would anyone agree with that?

A terrorist organization itself is illegal and immoral. As such, activities that directly support its mission are illegal and immoral.

That was a bit to short, almost sidestepping, wasn't it? Please read again. It would be more interesting to me if you replied to more than half a quoted sentence of the the original post.

How would the situation described there directly support their mission? You don't really answer the question I asked through an example. I can spell it out more clearly.

Could it be right that evil persons in illegal organizations use torture for a good cause?
Does it not in any way affect the moral and legal standards if a good person use torture for a good purpose?

cheers Porphy

August

05-15-09, 02:32 PM

Sure, you can always argue this way, as the slippery slope always apply. So we can't really argue any moral standards because of that? Not even upholding our own?

Yes some people would describe being in a cell as torture. But can you find anyone that has been subject to prolonged water boarding claim "I was not tortured, I was simply subjected to advanced interrogation"

cheers Porphy

I don't think you can find anyone who has been in jail that WOULDN'T call it torture...

Aramike

05-15-09, 04:03 PM

That was a bit to short, almost sidestepping, wasn't it? Please read again. It would be more interesting to me if you replied to more than half a quoted sentence of the the original post.

How would the situation described there directly support their mission? You don't really answer the question I asked through an example. I can spell it out more clearly.

Could it be right that evil persons in illegal organizations use torture for a good cause?
Does it not in any way affect the moral and legal standards if a good person use torture for a good purpose?

cheers PorphyI'm sorry, but it didn't seem to require a terrible amount of explanation when the topic is regarding the moral authority of terrorist organizations.

But, I'll bite. Let's say that both the US and Al Qaeda waterboards prisoners. Which do you think is more morally justifiable: waterboarding prisoners to obtain information used to assist in the destruction of innocent civilian life, or waterboarding prisoners to PREVENT said destruction? In fact, I would argue that the latter becomes a moral IMPERATIVE when considering the former.

As far as legal standards goes, you won't get any argument from me that, according to the letter of the law, torture in all cases is illegal. However, that being said, I believe the law to be wrong, short-sighted, and dangerous. I believe the law was written in a time that didn't comprehend the nature of the enemy that, I believe the law must be side-stepped in order to counter.

The law even defines "torture" as the use of "truth serum"-type drugs. Having been under the influence of those drugs in the past (for training purposes), I find nothing "torturous" about them (according to the literal definition).

Heck, even substantial amounts of painkillers can be used for the same purpose - which is precisely why officials with certain security clearances have security details posted with them during hospital visits.

But hey - that's torture, too ... legally.

porphy

05-15-09, 06:12 PM

[quote]I'm sorry, but it didn't seem to require a terrible amount of explanation when the topic is regarding the moral authority of terrorist organizations.The topic is obviously not about the moral authority of terrorists, it's about your own, I might even say personal, moral standard and the reasons given for them.

But, I'll bite. Let's say that both the US and Al Qaeda waterboards prisoners. Which do you think is more morally justifiable: waterboarding prisoners to obtain information used to assist in the destruction of innocent civilian life, or waterboarding prisoners to PREVENT said destruction? In fact, I would argue that the latter becomes a moral IMPERATIVE when considering the former.
Read my example again. The situation I described is one where evil terrorists are water boarding US persons to obtain information to prevent loss of innocent civilian life. Is that ok? According to your argument with some sort of torture in special cases, it seems yes. If not please explain why not.
If the reason is they are evil already, and they have done bad things and plan do do more of the same after saving the civilians, it seems your final position is that it is alright for good people to use some torture on evil persons for a good cause.
So why isn't this used on a wider scale, say in connection to serious crimes that hurt a lot of citizens in the US? And if the methods are effective, as suggested, it seems strange to withhold these means of combating serious crime even at home, or?

As far as legal standards goes, you won't get any argument from me that, according to the letter of the law, torture in all cases is illegal. However, that being said, I believe the law to be wrong, short-sighted, and dangerous. I believe the law was written in a time that didn't comprehend the nature of the enemy that, I believe the law must be side-stepped in order to counter.
That is fine. It's a very clear and straight answer and you stance is, I take it, that the law should be changed to allow for some torture in special cases. Is it right that you also want this as UN treaty? When the nature the enemy is especially bad, any nation can use some torture to extract vital information. Or is the sidestepping or changing of law only for the US?

The law even defines "torture" as the use of "truth serum"-type drugs. Having been under the influence of those drugs in the past (for training purposes), I find nothing "torturous" about them (according to the literal definition). I can understand that. So the new law should allow for the use of truth serums. If you have them, anyone can use them, internationally as well, in the described special cases? That sounds fair by me. But water boarding and getting hurt physically, and getting threatened with more of the same is still tortures even by the literal definition, which then still would be illegal I guess?

Heck, even substantial amounts of painkillers can be used for the same purpose - which is precisely why officials with certain security clearances have security details posted with them during hospital visits.

But hey - that's torture, too ... legally.Not the most impressing argument. I guess their hospital visit is not for the purpose of extracting security clearance information from the official in question? So the guard is there to watch that they don't get abused in that sense, or by accident spill the beans. What this example has to do with intentional torture, like water boarding is beyond me. It's obviously not a case of torture to be administrated drugs during surgery, as the purpose is a bit different, which I think you will agree with. Or do you want the law changed because of security clearance personnel "by definition" is tortured at US hospitals when under medical care?

cheers Porphy

Tribesman

05-15-09, 06:57 PM

urthermore, a former Vice President of the US says they work, and there's proof,
:har::har::har::har:
that would be the former vicepresident who is well known as a liar and has a track record of claimng there is proof when all there is was fabriction.
So what Cheney says is about as believable as Ted Haggard claiming to not be a poof .

A terrorist organization itself is illegal and immoral. As such, activities that directly support its mission are illegal and immoral.
Torture is itself illegal and immoral . As such, activities that directly support torture are illegal and immoral

This begs the question...what the hell were Bush and Co including Pelosi doing in 2002-2003?
Thats an easy question , what they were doing was breaking the law and telling people under them to break the law.

porphy

05-15-09, 07:24 PM

August[/b];1101881]I don't think you can find anyone who has been in jail that WOULDN'T call it torture...

I'm sorry, if that was supposed to part of any real discussion on the topic, I really don't think anyone will be very impressed by your word play. But you maybe just tried to be witty and lighten things up a bit? I agree, all this serious talk about torture done by the US can really be depressing...

cheers porphy

August

05-15-09, 08:07 PM

I'm sorry, if that was supposed to part of any real discussion on the topic, I really don't think anyone will be very impressed by your word play. But you maybe just tried to be witty and lighten things up a bit? I agree, all this serious talk about torture done by the US can really be depressing...

cheers porphy

Well my friend if you have ever experienced it yourself I think you'd agree that being confined to a small cell for any length of time is definitely a torturous experience for a human being. It has driven some people insane and it has caused others to literally wither and die.

Now how is that not considered torture?

Tribesman

05-16-09, 01:55 AM

Now how is that not considered torture?
Errrrrr...because it isn't torture.
Torture is defined , under the definition of torture you can find a line that means incarcertion is not torture

Aramike

05-16-09, 03:24 AM

Read my example again. The situation I described is one where evil terrorists are water boarding US persons to obtain information to prevent loss of innocent civilian life. Is that ok? According to your argument with some sort of torture in special cases, it seems yes. If not please explain why not. Sure, under that standard, the same morality would apply.

But the reason your argument is flawed is because your example is simply not occuring, while my example IS real life.So why isn't this used on a wider scale, say in connection to serious crimes that hurt a lot of citizens in the US? And if the methods are effective, as suggested, it seems strange to withhold these means of combating serious crime even at home, or?The difference is nationalistic. US citizens are specifically protected under the Constitution of the United States, which is of higher importance than any law or treaty subsequently created.

But that being said, you raise a valid point. And, quite frankly, my answer is that I would support the same methods being used under conditions I've prescribed with the same type of risks being presented.

So, no, my moral belief in the method is not conditional or hypocritical.That is fine. It's a very clear and straight answer and you stance is, I take it, that the law should be changed to allow for some torture in special cases. Is it right that you also want this as UN treaty? When the nature the enemy is especially bad, any nation can use some torture to extract vital information. Or is the sidestepping or changing of law only for the US?Umm, why are you attempting to change the issue and make it a typically-lefty version of the "US versus the World" debate?

In any case, my moral position remains unchanged: if ANY nation on the Earth used the SAME standards I've set forth (probable cause of suspicion, limited applicated of the techniques, goal being the safety of innocent life, etc), I would support them in using said techniques.

Morality doesn't know borders.I can understand that. So the new law should allow for the use of truth serums. If you have them, anyone can use them, internationally as well, in the described special cases? That sounds fair by me.So we agree that one part of the law should be changed. Hence, the debate can now be defined as whether or not the law is right, rather than people trying to justify their positions by quoting the law.But water boarding and getting hurt physically, and getting threatened with more of the same is still tortures even by the literal definition, which then still would be illegal I guess?You guess wrong. The use of torture would still be permitted following my guidelines (i.e., last resort).

Putting the rights of a known terrorist/criminal to be comfortable over the rights of the average citizen simply to live is immoral.

In the end, it becomes a situation of, "don't want to be waterboarded? Don't become a terrorist. However, should you do so, just tell us what you know when captured. However, should you decide to NOT do that, make sure we are able to retrieve the information via drugs. However, should THAT not be successful ... well, you had your chance."

I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with that.Not the most impressing argument. I guess their hospital visit is not for the purpose of extracting security clearance information from the official in question? So the guard is there to watch that they don't get abused in that sense, or by accident spill the beans. What this example has to do with intentional torture, like water boarding is beyond me. You missed the point completely. I mean WAY completely. :03:

The point was that many innocuous drugs used for pain management also can also be used to subvert an individual into saying things they would not otherwise say. That, technically, is also legal torture.

Now, ask ANYONE who's been on morphine whether or not they consider it torture, and tell me the results.

The greater point is that clearly the legal definition of torture is in need of some refinement. And, as such, if both sides can agree that one point of the law is inadequate, what precludes other points from being so?

porphy

05-16-09, 03:24 AM

Well my friend if you have ever experienced it yourself I think you'd agree that being confined to a small cell for any length of time is definitely a torturous experience for a human being. It has driven some people insane and it has caused others to literally wither and die.

Now how is that not considered torture?

I take it that you don't argue the point, when comparing torture to the experience of being in jail or locked up in a small cell, that a courts' sentence for jail at the same time qualifies as a sentence to torture? Aramike had a point when he earlier said that any proper discussion needs qualified statements.

Torture and a torturous experience is not exactly the same thing, no news there really. You can't exchange the one for the other in all contexts, which most people recognize. But sure, torture and torturous experience are connected. So, if you are serious about your words, which practical conclusions do you want to draw from the premise that being locked away always is a torturous experience for a human being? Should more methods of inflicting torturous experiences be approved of by law as we already have proper torture in the form of prisons, or should methods of treating humans formerly not thought of as torture be relabeled and put out of use?

cheers Porphy

Aramike

05-16-09, 03:25 AM

Errrrrr...because it isn't torture.
Torture is defined , under the definition of torture you can find a line that means incarcertion is not torture
Stop redefining torture.Torture is itself illegal and immoral . As such, activities that directly support torture are illegal and immoralWe were discussing the moral legitimacy of those who partake in an activity. Using the activity itself as a moral standard completely avoids the actual debate, which is WHY.

I know you like to "redefine" everything into something that you believe proves you right, but that's now how debate works.

Now step aside and let the big boys discuss this.

porphy

05-16-09, 06:55 AM

[quote]Sure, under that standard, the same morality would apply.Thanks, a clear and candid answer.

But the reason your argument is flawed is because your example is simply not occuring, while my example IS real life.The difference is nationalistic. US citizens are specifically protected under the Constitution of the United States, which is of higher importance than any law or treaty subsequently created.
But that being said, you raise a valid point. And, quite frankly, my answer is that I would support the same methods being used under conditions I've prescribed with the same type of risks being presented.
I don't think my argument is flawed because of the rarity of the example. Actually, it was not an argument against torture, but more a test piece which clearly show a certain kind of moral problem or situation. You responded and thought the conclusion that using some means of torture, in this case water boarding against US citizens to get hold of information would be ok, given the specified situation. In fact, it is more than ok, it would be a moral imperative, as you say earlier. The terrorists could according to this view be morally blamed for not torturing the US persons in this situation. Which is a consistant stance given your conditions, although most probably will feel a bit awkard about voicing it.

Maybe that is why I also notice that you feel a certain resistance, or say hesitation to allow for US persons being subjected to torture even in this specific situation.
My example was about exactly this, and you made your moral choice in a clear way, which I find refreshing compared to the stance, "the bad guys can have some go easy torture, good guys can't rightly be subject to it", or the "US citizens or soldiers are protected by law against any form of torture". As you point out, this is discussion is not mainly about the meaning of the law, but about a moral stance towards torture in relation to law and different kinds of situations, rare or common, but all possible.

So, no, my moral belief in the method is not conditional or hypocritical.Umm, why are you attempting to change the issue and make it a typically-lefty version of the "US versus the World" debate?

In any case, my moral position remains unchanged: if ANY nation on the Earth used the SAME standards I've set forth (probable cause of suspicion, limited applicated of the techniques, goal being the safety of innocent life, etc), I would support them in using said techniques.
Morality doesn't know borders
It was not my intention to make it a US vs world thing. I was merley curious about how this stance of yours would fare on a global level. Which you responded to as well. Moral judgements know no borders as you say. They strive for universal cover, and that goes for both condemning torture and approve of it in specified situations.

So we agree that one part of the law should be changed. Hence, the debate can now be defined as whether or not the law is right, rather than people trying to justify their positions by quoting the law.You guess wrong. The use of torture would still be permitted following my guidelines (i.e., last resort).I don't agree that the law necessarly should be changed, but I agree that any discussion of the merits of the law can in the end lead to a change of the law. But this change should not be the result of political secrecy or a sudden reaction to a situation which couldn't be known in advance were you only seek an advantage against the enemy. The laws are used as guidence in these cases, otrherwise ends would always justify means. The change of law comes from informed and open democratic discussion, not as part and parcel of a strategy to obtain hard to get information from prisoners.

Putting the rights of a known terrorist/criminal to be comfortable over the rights of the average citizen simply to live is immoral.

In the end, it becomes a situation of, "don't want to be waterboarded? Don't become a terrorist. However, should you do so, just tell us what you know when captured. However, should you decide to NOT do that, make sure we are able to retrieve the information via drugs. However, should THAT not be successful ... well, you had your chance."

Yes, that is consistent, as long as no one complains if US citizens getting a rendez vouz with the water board, for refusing to give up inormation that can save civilian life. but we have already settled that one.

I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with that.You missed the point completely. I mean WAY completely. :03:

The point was that many innocuous drugs used for pain management also can also be used to subvert an individual into saying things they would not otherwise say. That, technically, is also legal torture.

Now, ask ANYONE who's been on morphine whether or not they consider it torture, and tell me the results.

The greater point is that clearly the legal definition of torture is in need of some refinement. And, as such, if both sides can agree that one point of the law is inadequate, what precludes other points from being so?Yes, maybe I missed the point there. But I still maintain that you can't make a clear case about what is approved torture and what is not, from only the experience of the treatment. (see Augusts try down that line...).

I agree with your last thing, law can always be discussed and found inadequate from a moral point of view. The other thing is to consider what kind of world we will have if this moral point of view is to have legal form.

I'm going out for some rock climbing now, it is a beatuiful day here.

cheers Porphy