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

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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. 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.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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.

Is that your reasoning?

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

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Good post.

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.

[Aramike]

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.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

[AVGWarhawk]

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]

they were rounded up as terrorist for killing thousands. We did not kidnap them

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"

My view is I really do not care about a terrorist being tortured

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. (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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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

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]

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.

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 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]

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...etainee-abuse/

Should have left well enough alone............

[Aramike]

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 .

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.