You started the thread with "I'm fine with torture", not "I'm studying the human condition". The insane level of acrobatic backpedaling you've done since then would put even the most accomplished daredevil to shame. While it's sad you're unwilling to simply say, "I didn't mean I was fine with torture, I mean that there's nothing I can do about it", it's not altogether unexpected. You're just as stubborn as I am at times.

Like i said, "I'm fine with torture."

Since you're claiming to be stubborn in reading, maybe the repetition is enough for you to understand it.

I'm done.

You're still saying essentially the same thing. You're aware people torture, you're aware they have their reasons, and, AGAIN, you're fine with torture. You're alright with people torturing for their own reasons. That's not a defense of your position, it's an elaboration at best, and it's still inexcusable.

Why is it that you never responded to my question about your position on other horrible acts? Are you fine with genocide? Are you fine with child prostitution? Are you fine with slavery?

will, zero reading comprehension. I am saying EXACTLY the same thing, not ESSENTIALLY, EXACTLY. No, my opinion isn't inexcusable, it's my opinion.

You're willing to take flying leaps like the Flying Burrito Brothers but you're not willing to understand my position enough to take the necessary logical steps to answer your own questions.

Since you need someone to hold your hand to make this particular leap, let me walk you down the path. You're free to substitute the word TORTURE for just about anything else the range of a human being is capable of doing, both NEGATIVE and POSITIVE. There is no ethical or moral judgments taking place at this level of the discussion for my point of view.

You're trying so hard to convince my that my position is wrong, instead of trying to understand what my position means. Read post #72 again.

once again, i only have a couple minutes while i finish my last cup o joe before pitching outward...

the main reason that i have trouble with the abstracting of this use of torture by the cia out of its context, so out of its institutional framework, is that it is the bureaucratoc framework itself that makes this kind of thing so problematic. we've touched on this from time to time--doing one's job, compartmentalization: the way in which one's functions in a bureaucratic setting fragment the understanding, separating for example what's normal as part of the job from its effects--the extreme case is the holocaust which would not have been possible without an entire bureaucracy devoted to murder as an administrative matter....a bureaucracy, for all its efficiencies at the level of information movement from place to place etc, is a really stupid system in that ANYTHING can theoretically be made a normal objective, reduced to an administrative problem, worked on by absolutely regular folk like you and me with no malicious intent who just do their 9-5 the best they can....this is not to say that the fact of being in such a position changes anything about the outcomes--torture is still torture---but it does explain how it is that the starting place of an isolated or abstract individual standing in no particular place may describe how you or i writing here might react to this information, but in terms of thinking it through with an idea of how one would prevent this sort of thing from happening, it's the wrong place.

if a bureaucracy is a stupid kind of system in that it implements directives without providing space to think about the directives, and this as a function of how power is distributed, what a vertical organization is, how it works, then it is the fashioning of the rules that is a particular Problem in this case---i think that the people who worked out this policy should face charges. it is not ok to legitimate torture. it is not ok to create a situation in which torture is routinely applied. because from certain positions of power, it is all too easy to do it. to lapse into theological/ethical language, this process is the banalization of evil.

it's not a coincidence that international conventions that impose limits on technological systems that can be used in combat (gas for example) and human rights conventions (which extends to the geneva conventions) are products of the 20th century, which was a period of the explosion of bureaucratic forms of administration...

rb, I'm with you on that. The bureaucracy of any administration or heirarchy removes the directness of the cause and effect since they aren't directly the cause. They pushed the paper or made the call and they didn't directly do the acts. IMO it's not much different than the capos and the soldiers isolating the don from any kind of responsibility. Even at that simple framework, the soldiers have footmen who may have done the deeds to further isolate.

This again is why I'm looking at it from that loop, even going to the Spanish Inquisition, you've got a framework that is isolating and compartmentalizing the processes into acceptable bite size parts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/op...r=2&ref=global

so to make things clear:
we know from the memos that the military resisted implementing these torture techniques.
We know from the memos that the CIA agents involved in some of these cases didn't want to implement them, but people all the way back in Virginia and DC ordered them to.
And now we know from someone who was there that they were useless, and that the worst stuff to come out of these torture sessions is still not declassified.

And some people still insist on defending this?

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

U.S. Soldier Who Killed Herself--After Refusing to Take Part in Torture

We also know that the FBI resisted implementing the techniques.
We know that torture was in fact not used to stop a terrorist attack in LA, in fact there's no evidence at all that any torture resulted in lives saved or attacks prevented.

Also, just as a reminder, the US had no trouble prosecuting Japanese soldiers for torturing people by waterboarding.

Thanks for those links, Will.

Can I summarize?

1. Torture is wrong.
2. Torture is illegal, both in US and international law.
3. Agents of the US government tortured people, with the encouragement of those at the highest levels of government - at least Cheney, and possibly with the approval or knowledge of Bush.

regarding the prosecution of japanese for waterboarding--again remember that the way these things work, there really is only one real crime against humanity and that crime is losing a war.

I am personally troubled by my feelings on the matter of torture. I think torture is horrible and if asked if I condone it my immediate reaction is hell no. However if faced with specific details about a situation I can imagine many circumstances where not only would I condone it I would strongly support it. Maybe this is the result of watching too many crime dramas and shows like 24.

I haven't read enough about the charges against the CIA, etc..But I suspect my position on the matter would depend on the details of every case of suspected torture.

paul krugman makes an eloquent case for the pursuit of serious investigations on this issue.
from this morning's ny times:

Yes,

...and...to make things worse, I am going to call Obama and his administration a "biatch", if they don't act in a manner consistent with what they think are the facts and their so called moral compass. There are those willing to do what needs to be done, like Bush, and their are people who live in a theoretical 'la la' land, like I think Obama does.

---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------

We don't need further investigation, we know enough to bring charges. Why make this more complicated than it needs to be. Why can't they make their decision on what we know? Obama has all the documents, we know the victims, no one is going to voluntarily incriminate themselves in an investigation, we know the buck stops with Bush. I suggest they either file formal charges or move on.

Needs to be done? Have you not read anything in this page at all?
Even the people in the fucking torture room are publicly saying that it wasn't needed, nor was it effective. That is was pushed from Langley and DC, with the intent of finding the Al Qaeda Iraq link, and that some of the false info obtained through torture was even cited by Powell in the UN.

It's counterintuitive for most people that torture cannot really function as a tool for gaining intelligence, but it's something we should all deal with. As entertaining as 24 is, and it's certainly that, if jack Bauer were real, he likely would have extracted false confessions half the time he tortured and might have gotten his fellow characters killed. Of course Jack Bauer isn't real. Los Angeles was never nuked, the first black president wasn't assassinated and replaced by a traiter, African militants never breached the White House and kidnapped the president, and there's no way Kim Bauer could be that stupid and unlucky... there's just no way.

According to virtually every expert (REAL experts, people that have actually witnessed or carried out torture), not only does it not work but there are better and more humane options. We can remain the "good guys" AND attain life-saving intelligence. Does that seem like the best option? Instead of sacrificing our dignity and morality for unreliable intelligence, we can remain steadfast and respectful to the principles upon which this country is founded while simultaneously effectively gaining reliable intelligence.

ace---like it or not, the investigations are about bringing criminal charges.
it doesn't matter whether you like it or not; it doesn't matter whether you imagine--against all evidence--that there's a justification for using torture.
personally, i think it'd be a considerable step forward in making it more difficult for regimes to engage in such practices were there to be such prosecutions. it's be a step toward placing legal limits around authoritarian reactionary regimes like that of george w bush.

One thing that "needs to be done" is enforce laws. I don't think the law was broken, you Obama, and other do. So explain to me what his problem is? I accept that many don't see the issue the way that I do, now I have moved on...my question now is what are you going to do about it? Not literally you, but "you" in the context of everyone who is disturbed by Bush's blatant violation of clearly defined law for no purpose.

---------- Post added at 07:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

I understand that, but I also know that charges can be brought without "perfect" information.

I find it odd that some here find it unbelievable that someone like me can even question if torture actually occurred or if waterboarding is torture, they take the stance that it is a done deal - slam dunk - no need for discussion - etc., and now you and some others are saying we need further investigation????

It is not about what I like, it is about me not understanding the 'fog' you folks are in. I say enjoy the sun, enjoy the rain and get out of the fog. If it is clear that the law was broken, then the next steps are clear. Either take the legal action if you think the law was broken, or say that you think the law was broken but that you are not going to take legal action for whatever reason, or say you don't think the law was broken. Seems simple to me.

there you go again, ace. your "sunshine" apparently involves neither reading the available information nor thinking real hard about what you do take in. so by "fog" i assume you refer to that state of being in contact with actual information.

if you'd actually read this thread, it was pretty clear from the outset why bringing charges against the bush people would be a problem--it's also become clear over the past few days that the obama administration isn't able to do what it wanted to do, which was release this information and let the matter drop. this isn't over by a long shot, and people like you who still defend the bush administration's actions, based on paper-thin thinking in your case, will have ample time to go all gordon liddy and argue that there is no torture in any of the practices so long as a republican administration is behind them of course. the issue will end up being the limits placed on executive power by international convention. as an authoritarian, you would probably not recognise any such limits...but i think yours is an outworn worldview and one of the reasons that i think the trials--should they come--would be so beneficial for the united states is that they'd spell the absolute end of the possibility for folk who think as you do about power from ever holding it here.

i think that's a win-win situation.

enjoy the "sun"...

Our differences are pretty clear. It doesn't seem that we are even reading the same information or even what has been posted here.

Another difference is I can state my view in a simple declarative sentence. If it is clear the law was broken, press charges against those who violated the law. I understand "the problem" with bringing charges against a former President and that is why I say act one way or the other. What is it that needs further investigation? If your point is that this is not as "clear" as some believe, perhaps you should direct your comments to those folks, because I already know it is not "clear".

I agree. I understand that tortured people would say whatever you want to hear, anything to make it stop, I know I probably would. You want me to say the world is really flat, fine, just stop the pain. But I can't get over the idea that there may be rare circumstances where it should be allowed.

What circumstances? I'm honestly curious.

Don't laugh but my wife and I discussed this the other day. Someone has kidnapped your child and buried her in a sealed coffin. They caught an escaped child murderer who admits he did it and the evidence is overwhelming that he did and there is only an hour or so before the air runs out. The only way he will talk is if the feds give him immunity for the other 20 kids they have proven he has killed so far and they aren't budging. He has vowed to kill many more children if given the opportunity. Time is running out, my wife's question, what can be done to make him talk? No matter what the feds offer he will not talk. Now there is only 45 minutes left.....tick tick tick

We could go on and on with other scenarios, planted nukes, etc... I guess the argument against using torture tactics even with overwhelming evidence and an admission of guilt is because we can never be 100% sure until we find the child dead or alive. However we know he is afraid of water and it won't permanently harm him so just maybe...tick tick tick....

That's just it, if you torture him he's just as likely to send you to the wrong place. He might do it out of spite or he may do it just because he wants the pain and/or suffering to stop. We want to give your child the best chance, so we'd avoid torture. We'd use something demonstrated with a higher probability of success in situations similar to the one you'd be in. I don't claim to know what those might be, but I know torture isn't on the list.

He might, but then again, he might not. Time is running out.

Well, flstf, I understand will's point about the efficacy of torture, or lack thereof. I also understand that in your theoretical window, there isn't much time for bonding or positive reinforcement. This isn't really my main point on the topic of the thread, but I'd like to point out that there is a difference between what happens off the records, and what is official policy of our society. In your case, if you personally decided you don't have time for this shit - your daughter is about to die - and you decided to starting beating the bejusus out of this hypothetical child killer, I personally couldn't blame you. Maybe a cop does it for you; he has children of his own, and he wants to keep your girl alive. I can see that - I can't condone it, but I can see it. I might do the same thing. Here's the catch; in that situation, if I decided to start wailing on the fucker, or waterboard him, or drag him behind my car or whatever - I would implicitly be ready to accept the consequences. Sure, I might try to get out of them, but I wouldn't be surprised when I was prosecuted for it. I'd probably go for temporary insanity, and maybe I'd get a reduced sentence.

That's different from an organized policy directed from top levels of administration, who are responsible for setting the tone of how interrogations are conducted. If you set the bar at borderline torture, or farther at 'holy shit that's torture,' what do you think is happening that isn't set down on paper?

I don't think you can set up torture as the official policy of your interrogation techniques, and expect not to be hit with human rights violations. I'm sure that it will sometimes happen, regardless - but in those cases the people involved shouldn't have instruction to do so, and they should be ready to take the hit if caught.

My point is that there are better options, options with a significantly higher chance of success. You could torture the guy out of desperation, but you'd be bypassing a lot of other, better options. Wouldn't you want to use a strategy with the highest likelihood of success?

Yes, but before we run completely out of time, I would want to keep all options open, including, gasp, torture, unless I was sure it would not work in this case.

Let's say you have a bomb you need to diffuse. You're well trained, know all about diffusing bombs, but you're kinda stumped this time. Do you stand up, unzip your fly and urinate on it? Urination can theoretically short the electronics of a bomb, I suppose. There are undoubtedly better options, but urination is one of those options you keep open in case you're completely out of time.

Torture is that urination option: it stands almost no chance at working, there are many much better options available to you, and you lose your dignity in the process.

...The well trained people felt harsh interrogation techniques were appropriate and productive. If the bomb expert decided to snip the blue wire, why would you second guess him?

It's the opposite of that, actually. Well trained people have come forward, people that actually did the torturing everyone is talking about, and have said unequivocally that it was worse than useless. Who are you to question what they experienced, the informed conclusions they've come to?

Linked in this very thread is an opinion piece by one of the first FBI agents to interrogate Al Qaeda suspects, and he is saying that they were talking before torture was applied. He even said that the FBI specialist on Khalid Sheik Mohamed was kept from his interrogation sessions because of the torture.

Also linked here is the fact that the CIA agents in the room themselves resisted torture, and that higher ups in Langley and DC pushed for torture despite their resistance.

Also linked in this thread is the fact that the military itself resisted it.

Finally, it is also linked that the key issue these higher ups thousands of miles away from the torture rooms were concerned with was finding a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

...Yet the CIA has maintained the effectiveness of the techniques.

Dude, they are not completely fricking stupid. The interrogator has enough freedom to apply strategies that are succesful. If the shit didn't work they would have moved on to things that did. That they apparently continued to use it is evidence counter to that put forward by a lone FBI guy.

I mean seriously, for you to honestly believe the CIA knew the techniques did not work but kept employing them anyways indicates that the Agency: 1, just wanted to hurt people; 2, but didn't want to actually hurt them, thus not actually torturing people; 3, wanted to half-torture people more than they wanted to collect intelligence/save American lives; Nobody is that stupid, and even if you think the CIA is evil, the agents are anything but stupid.

Have they? I don't remember hearing anything about that from the CIA, just from Bush Administration officials.
The people they answered to were. I don't think you understand that. If you're working for George W. Bush, you follow his lead and his orders, you're going to do stupid things.

It would be helpful if you read what everyone in this thread posted. The Administration wanted a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, even though no such link existed. How do you get a detainee to illicit the confession you want, regardless of whether it's true or not?

you know, slims, there's the problem of torture at all. that it is used. this is a big problem, this is the central legal issue, really--but it's also a political issue, and a corrosive political issue.

then there's the problem of its frequency of use---over the past week it came out that some of the main suspects were subjected to such treatment over and over and over again.
at the same time, i don't see any reason for you to assume that because torture was used that therefore only torture was used. i don't see anyone arguing in that direction, nor is there evidence that this was the case---but in certain situations, certain people, it was used and used alot.

it was the official policy of the bush administration that torture be used.

if you ask me personally, i'd tell you that i think there should be charges brought against entire command chains over this.
if you ask me what i think will happen, i'd say that the prosecution of people for developing, implementing and carrying out this policy will be complicated procedurally and politically, and i think the administration would have preferred not to find itself under such pressure to continue pressing the matter because of that. i've already outlined why i think this poses such problems, and why i think it logical that an international war crimes tribunal do the prosecuting.

another way of posing these questions: prosecution for this particular crime against humanity does not lend itself to any version of the "bad apple"theory that folk are so fond of as a way of dealing with a Situation while enabling themselves to act as though nothing structurally is wrong. this points to significant structural problems--not only at the level of to what extent was what the bush people did legitimate and to what extent was it not--in other words, how far does the power of the executive really extend---this is a problem in that a case brought for torture could easily end up in a fight over the definition of executive power, what it is, how it is defined, whether certain conceptions of executive power have to be ruled out in the american political context--or whether there might be system changes required to put a brake on executive power in other ways.....then there's the problem of what is an illegal order...then there's the problem of the extent to which there are problems with bureaucratic organization itself because it seems that such organizations are almost entirely incapable to implementing checks on policy internally--know what i mean? whatever is determined to be the rational goal of an apparatus becomes what is administered and ethical problems are either compartmentalized away or they're dealt with via requests for policy change when you get around to it thanks very much but in the meantime we'll be doing what you ask...

so while i absolutely think there should be consequences for this slide into fascism lite, in the end we'll see what happens.

this is only cut and dry pragmatically if you don't take anything into account.
ethically, tho, this is a no-brainer in my view.

a waterboarding video demonstration i came across today

I see irony.

I keep hearing this line of thought over and over. The first question that comes to my mind is: how do we know? Assuming the 'experts' who have come to this conclusion have not regularly engaged in actually 'torturing' people to get information, what is there conclusion based on. Can they point actual data or is the conclusion pure and simple speculation? Can they cite any scientific studies, or are they just basing the view on a theoretical hypothesis?

Again, I think there is a clear difference between using enhanced questioning techniques when seeking specific information based on evidence that the target knows the information and using 'torture' either for the simple sake of harming individuals or just seeking random bits of unknown information. I agree that if a 'foot soldier' is captured "positive reinforcement" may be the best way to get any information he has. However, if a high value target is captured, I would support the use of enhance interrogation techniques until his will is broken and he has disclosed the information needed. The available time would determine how quickly we should escalate the 'questioning'.

Mainly it's massive historical precedent, coming not just from modern nations but evidence dating back to earlier civilizations. Still, there are also a great deal of contemporary experts, people well versed in or involved with torture, that speak as if as one to say that torture doesn't work. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue that torture doesn't work. They're everywhere. The only people that really seem to support torture are either Bush Administration officials or people parroting those officials. Or third world despots. Or Israel.

Who's side do you want to be on, the chickenhawks or the experts?

Let's say you work at the CIA. You're specialty is questioning prisoners and extracting information. The problem is that the current administration wants you to find a link between al Qaeda and Iraq that isn't there. You tell them clearly that you've questioned plenty of detainees about this and there's no case to be made, but they say push harder. You question more and more people, using techniques that you know, based on your decades of experience, to be effective. Still nothing. No link whatsoever. They're pressuring your boss's boss's boss to get this intel, and the pressure on you is intense to say the least. Finally, someone in that chain of command (probably at or near the top based on what we now know) orders you to torture for the information. You very strongly advise against this, because in your decades of experience not once has torture been even close to reliable, but an order is an order. You find out later that the same requests are made of the military and FBI, only to have them back out completely and refuse to torture. You do it anyway, and eventually you get intelligence about a very vague link. A lot of the confession goes against established intelligence on both Iraq and al Qeada, but your superiors decide that it's good enough.

Why are we ignoring our experts? Because it's convenient.
As far as studies are concerned, there were massive studies done when creating the Army Field Manual, which states:
Still, all of the best information available on the subject comes straight from the mouths of the experts, who can't exactly write a book or participate in a peer-reviewed study about what they've done. They all agree, torture doesn't work.
That'd be great if you want to get unreliable information, but what kind of idiot wants unreliable information in a life and death situation? Why would that individual ignore generations of precedent and the best expertise available in the world? Why would that individual not use proven techniques? The answer is simple: you torture when you want to illicit a false confession.

Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda before the US invaded, and torture doesn't work. Process it, deal with it, and let's move on. We've got a lot of work to do.

If only the rigorous evidentiary standards called for in the first paragraph weren't implicitly discarded to write the second.

or alternatively, ace, you could at least make a pretense of having read the thread through before you started posting to it--if you had read it, you'd find that this question of precedent is addressed in it.

I generally stop reading b.s. pretty quickly. Simply stated the above responses do not address the fundamental question I asked. I believe the only real way to know the answer is for the experts to have direct experience with torture or intimate knowledge of the circumstance when others used torture. If what everyone is saying is that the experts read about it, I consider that a b.s. answer. Sorry if some of you folks want to tap dance around direct questions. Bottom line for me is that the 'experts' have no credibility on this question, and to those simply repeating what the 'experts' say and say its true because the 'experts' said it was should pause and reflect on the issue a bit more.

---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------


I was not making a claim that one technique is more effective than another, I just illustrated what I would do and why.

You're lucky we don't otherwise you might erroneously believe without question that "enhanced interrogation techniques" work, have worked, or might work. You may not buy my argument or the arguments of others regardless of where the experts stand on the issue, but I'm satisfied that there's some doubt in your mind.
How about Brigadier General David R. Irvine, retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School, saying torture doesn't work? How about severl former FBI interrogators—who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects—saying not only categorically that torture does not help collect intelligence but also that it creates terrorists? How about the Senate Armed Services Committee, after speaking to the CIA interrogators that have recently tortured, coming to the unanimous conclusion that torture doesn't work? How about Dan Coleman, one of the FBI agents assigned to the 9/11 suspects held at Guantanamo that actually witnessed torture, saying that it doesn't work? How about John McCain, a man who was actually tortured (and who you may very well have voted for in the last presidential election), explaining in no uncertain terms that torture doesn't work?

You're actively refusing to see the truth on this matter, and the more people out there like you go unchallenged, the greater the chances that we'll torture again. I won't allow that. You're dead wrong on the issue and you've been presented with plenty of evidence. See it. Comprehend it.

so ace, darling, evidence is "b.s." -----but you expect anyone to believe that yours are "fundamental questions"?
it's clear you don't want an answer--you won't accept what's offered as argument, you don't read supporting material that's posted....so why are we doing this again?

You seem to have no basis for your view other than so called and self proclaimed 'experts'. Perhaps those who can get results from enhanced interrogation techniques don't do talk shows.

You miss the point. How does he know? Has he practiced enhanced interrogation techniques? How does he explain the circumstances when it has worked? If he was making a qualified statement regarding when 'it' may work and when 'it' may not work he would have credibility in my book. But you seem to quote him making an absolute statement. Also, there are those who 'can do' and there are those that teach. Teachers don't always know how or why 'doers' can be effective in unconventional ways.

"creates terrorists?" The people who are terrorists are already terrorists. Those on the fence, may have a number of things that make them convert. In some cases they may decide not to become a terrorist if they know they may be subject to "torture", just like some people avoid a criminal life to avoid the punitive aspects of imprisonment.

FBI interrogators are generally involved with people with different cultural experiences than the CIA people would be involved with, so again we need to drill down and understand what they are actually saying.


We first need to make sure that everyone is working off of the same definition of "torture". That is one reason why I spent time trying to get you to clearly define it. My definition is different than yours and I believe your definition is vague.

See above.

John MccCain did not have any strategic information to offer, he is what I would consider a 'foot soldier'. McCain was tortured and he eventually denounced his country, which is what the enemy wanted. They accomplished their goal and used him for propaganda.

...by asking questions, I am actively refusing the truth? I ask you - why do you fear questions? Why do you fear having your views challenged?

I told you what I was willing to do and what I would support being done. You would consider torture things that I do not consider torture so the risk exists and will not go away. But, at least I am willing to engage in an open manner and seek clarity.

I may be wrong, but that is one issue. The real issue is an honest and direct responce to questions. We are still at - 'the experts said so, so it must be true'...that is not good enough for me. If it is good enough for you, that's fine, just recognize honest differences.

---------- Post added at 09:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------

I laid out the basis for my view. There is evidence, and if we drill down into the information and that information can not be supported can ewasily become b.s. Do you disagree? If you do agree I don't get your point.

When do we stop this? My questions are my questions. My questions are simple and address fundamental concepts. Feel free to ignore my questions any time you want. When you do respond you almost never address the question, but put your focus on my short comings. We know I have them, we know, we know, we know. do I need to qualify everything I write with things like.. 'this is just my view and may have no value to anyone but me...', if you don't buy my questions as "fundamental", I respect that view, but that does not answer the question.

Yea, that it, I don't read?!? Perhaps, one time you can support your view with specifics. You may be surprised with the response you get when you present a critique with specifics.

I didn't cite one person from a talk show. I've on several occasions cited reputable news sources, sources that regularly break serious stories.
He's not only one of the foremost experts in the world on the subject, but he teaches people how to question. You don't get to be a world famous expert on a subject unless you know at least the first thing about that subject. To assume otherwise is to perform some incredible mental gymnastics.
Yes.
Please cite these circumstances.
Read the article he wrote for yourself:
Why Torture Doesn't Work | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet
This is a statement that's either said in jest or by failing students. Everyone else in the world knows that you don't get to teach at such a high level without having unquestionable expertise. Regardless, General Irvine was a doer and is now a teacher, so even if your statement is true he's still a reliable source of information.
Stop ignoring reality. We can't prosecute most of the people we've detained because there's not enough evidence, and many have been released because it was demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they were 100% innocent. What happens when you torture an innocent person? You create hatred in them, you give them a reason to hate "us". This isn't rocket science.
Sounds like a claim that requires a citation.
It's not in the least, but you're arguing for "enhanced interrogation" which is torture. There's no gray area in that term, regardless of the intent of the language. Enhanced interrogation is torture. If it weren't, it'd be called "interrogation".
He said something he knew was not true to stop the torture, which demonstrates the failing of torture for intelligence. He proves my point.
You're asking questions that have been answered. Again and again. Cited, supported, and repeated. You're intentionally ignoring things. Why are you afraid of seeing the truth?
Stop pretending like I'm not answering your questions. This thread is bursting at the seams with my honest and complete answers. Stop ignoring them.
Why are you pretending that the most qualified people to answer these questions aren't qualified? Why would you ignore the opinion of someone that's actually repeatedly tortured many individuals for intelligence? Why would you ignore someone that's been in the community and that's demonstrated a knowledge so substantial that he is teaching the next generation of world-class interrogators? Why do you think you know better than these people?

Edit: Maybe we should just start to list effective alternatives to torture.
I just read this one today, and it was very impressive:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/195089/output/print

There have been some who have said information has been obtained using enhance interrogation techniques, or what you may consider torture, there has been a request by Chaney to release documents showing that valuable information was obtained, but you have not reconciled this discrepancy and your position.

Your logic is flawed. To illustrate, at one point 'experts' were certain that the sun revolved around the earth.

My statement was based on people who have said it has worked. I think Obama's administration should release all the information related to the question. I acknowledge that I may be wrong, but you seem to be certain that your position is correct and is an absolute certainty.

Again, the basic problem is there was no clear definition of torture given. I am not comfortable with the 'we know it when we see it' argument.

I also find it ironic that for example we celebrate snipers killing alleged pirates in a criminal matter not a declared war without asking question but we have grave concerns about known terrorist fighting as our enemy in a declared war being questioned using enhanced techniques. I don't get how people on the left reconcile these kinds of issues.

This can lead us into a different direction, but I will simply say it is not unusual for a teacher to teach conventional wisdom or fundamentally sound principles and then have someone with the ability to turn conventional wisdom upside down or use methods and get superior results using fundamentally unsound principles. I think the nature of getting information from people is more of an art rather than a science.

When does waterboarding become torture?
Is that threshold the same for every human?
What is meant by terms like "extreme" or "severe"?

I have not questioned their qualification, I have questioned how they know what they claim to know. If your experts have engaged in torturing people like you claimed above, why don't you want them put in jail for those crimes? There is a logical flaw, that I can not reconcile in my mind so I am asking for clarification. You have been tap dancing around that basic issue.

I am planning on doing some white water rafting this summer. I am going to rely on experts. I won't accept teaching from an expert about the best or only way to navigate conditions in a river, unless they have experienced it. The expert is an expert because they know what works from experience. Anybody can read a book and teach from the book, and I am not saying anything is wrong with that, but for me before I call one an expert they need real experience.

I am sorry, but this statement right there points to the futility of discussing this with you.

First of all, experts are nothing more than people with a great deal of experience studying something. Yes, they do get things wrong from time to time, but I'd still rather rely on the findings of any research done by experts than this sort of ultra relativism that posits any statement of fact as inherently in doubt.

I mean, it's really easy to defend this position, but it's bullshit and tells me more about you than the situation.

You are basically saying that torture should be the default, and that the burden of proof is on those who say it doesn't work. Never mind the impossibilities of proving a negative, you are saying on top of that that any opinion from anyone with an in depth knowledge of the subject (i.e., the experts) is inherently false because there have been instances of experts being wrong before.

I mean, how can anyone argue against such bulletproof standards? If your position is "torture until there is definite proof that it does NOT work, and such proof has to come from people who have no in depth knowledge of the subject because experts have been wrong before," nothing short of God himself coming down to earth to tell you that torture is wrong will suffice.

Of course, it is ironic that the American right, long the attackers of relativism, are now reduced to the most extreme forms of relativism.

Now, I would love to know which lines you don't think should be crossed. Why don't we implement torture at home?

Who?
Sounds like you have nothing but theoretical evidence. Which is more reliable, actual evidence or theoretical evidence? Fortunately, Chaney has a spotless record on the truth.... :orly:
By that horrible logic you should never trust anyone for any reason, regardless of their credentials. Because, you know, people have been wrong in the past. I was even wrong once, so I must always be wrong.
Can you name these people without naming an administration official?
You can't really play that game with this topic, the "I have an open mind, but you're close-minded" thing only works when we're accepting the same information. You're not accepting my evidence for some reason. Are you Dick Cheney?
We're not in a declared war, ace. Not even close. The last war the US declared was WWII. We have a AUMF in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're not fighting Iraq or Afghanistan, we're not even fighting an organization; we're fighting certain people that cannot be defined beyond "militant". They have no organized structure to speak of, are fighting for myriad reasons, and span the religious, political, and even social spectrum. Stop thinking in absolutist terms and the world will become a lot more clear.
After maybe high school, all of my teachers had to have a working knowledge of the subject they taught. Especially when the classes started to become more specialized.

Still, the man is a general. I'd venture a guess that most generals know quite a lot of shit about war.
When it's done.
According to the men who have actually waterboarded people, the threshdold is between maybe 5 and 15 seconds. That's a very, very small window.
I've already covered this. Maybe we should try something different for this particular question, because I agree that it's an important question. I'm sure you have your own subjective definition of torture. I'm fairly sure that things repeated beatings with fists (something we did) or ramming a detainee's head into a steel plate repeatedly until he was bleeding profusely (something we did) would probably be a lot less controversial than waterboarding. Do you consider repeated beatings with fists or ramming a detainee's head into a steel plate until he bleeds torture? What do you consider torture and why?
They know because of direct and repeated experience. We've actually heard from the torturers, the men that torture, that this doesn't work. Jack Cloonan is a former FBI interrogator that tortured suspected members of al Qaeda. Here's a video where he uses his direct expertise based on real experience to pass along what he learned:

Please bear in mind that this man has attempted to use torture on several occasions and has found that it doesn't work on those occasions when he himself actually used torture. I don't know if I can make this any more clear.
I want them in jail, but first I want them to testify that torture doesn't work in front of the whole world so that the aceventuras out there no longer have any possible argument left to excuse torture.

I think it is incorrect to focus on the validity of the information obtained using torture. By that logic, any action is valid if you obtain something valuable enough. I also don't think it is correct to use our enemy's actions as a means of us doing something less extreme.

I pretty much see it as a black and white thing. We shouldn't torture. I do think that some harsh methods may be premissible but if the technique requires secret legal interpretations to justify it then we probably shouldn't be doing it.

The only measuring stick I would see appropriate is to consider what we would call acceptable methods for interrogating our own soldiers. Are we comfortable with the thought of our men being waterboarded?

---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------

Give me a freaking break, It's not that hard to tell the difference between someone who is actively threatening a person and someone who is in captivity and can't harm anyone.

I won't give you a break but I will ask you and Will a question.

Given, torture does not work. Given torture is illegal.

If I am one of your field CIA agents and your are President, and I report that I have obtained information of an impending attack that could kill innocent people from a captured terrorist using enhanced questioning techniques that you consider torture what are you going to do?

Do you have the DOJ bring charges against me?
Do you act on the information?

I know it is pretty easy to simply say that you won't engage in hypothetical situations, if you do or don't respond, my point is that your position lacks moral clarity. You can not be a pacifist or have those tendencies and be a defender of life and freedom. I think you have to be willing to fight, you have to be willing to do things that are unpleasant (even if it is killing alleged pirates without the benefit of a hearing or trial based on the judgment of your people in the field). I think you want it both ways, you want to pretend that you can defend life and freedom and think it can be done in a kind and gentle manner or what Obama calls our moral compass.

so you're still wasting time working on variants of the utility argument to legitimate torture?

here's a word you should learn, ace: sophistry.
a definition to help you out:

Specious but fallacious reasoning; employment of arguments which are intentionally deceptive.

These are going to have to stop being hypothetical assumptions. You're going to collapse under the weight of evidence eventually. It's not a matter of if at this point but when.
Considering that I've gotten reliable and consistent answers to the torture question from the foremost experienced experts in the world, I report you immediately. I can't have a rogue field agent using techniques that are demonstrably illegal and worse still useless. It doesn't even matter what I consider torture, that will be up to the appropriate tribunal, judge, or jury.
There are quite a few variables in this situation, so while I believe you'd be under DOJ jurisdiction, I'm not 100% sure. But yes, I'd report you to the appropriate authorities immediately.
I'll act on information from a reliable interrogator. Since I'm like 96% sure we're not all in an episode of 24, I won't be acting on information from a rogue agent that tortures detainees.

BTW, I've come up with a possible definition for torture you keep asking for:
If, at any time in the history of the US, we have charged a citizen or non-citizen for the act of torture, henceforth shall that act or those acts be considered torture. Example: we convicted several Japanese soldiers of torture for waterboarded US soldiers during WWII, therefore waterboarding is torture. This will prevent us from being massive hypocrites; it'll keep us honest.

Yes on both. I'm not going to ignore information obtained but at the same time you have to send a message that that sort of behavior will not be tolerated. The acceptance of torture assumes that information cannot be obtained by any other means. I've never said that torture cannot extract useful information, it is just a line in the sand I don't think we should cross. There are other methods that have proven to be more useful for obtaining information.

You still didn't answer the question of whether you would think it is acceptable for our enemies to torture our soldiers or other kidnapped civilians.

Ignoring the wharrgarbl in your post I still think you are being intentionally obtuse regarding the pirate situation. It was an active hostage situation.

And yes it has been done without torture for decades. It was the Bush Administration that changed the rules because they weren't getting the answers they wanted. Then they were so spineless when Abu Ghraib happened they immediately threw them under the bus because they thought they could make them look like a few loose cannons. Now that their own asses are on the line their tune has changed drastically. It suddenly went from a few isolated cases to 'enhanced interrogation methods.' When nobody bought that they tried trivializing the torture methods. "Oh look at me I'm slapping myself in the face and that's torture". Obviously that hasn't worked either so now Darth Cheney is all "You can’t handle the truth."

The whole situation proves once again that Bush and Cheney are miserable cowards.

I don't waste time.

Thanks.

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

I accept that you are mostly correct. However the position you take is one that allows for no exception. I find it interesting how you avoid realizing you have 'painted yourself into a corner'. It is challenging my ability to illustrate this, it is much more fun than those SODUKO puzzles, my wife really likes those but I get bored with them.

A fair answer. If I were your agent I would accept that and I would want to be tried by a jury. Do you think you would end up with a morale problem in the agency?


Would you try to get a secondary source? Would you have someone else speak to the prisoner captured? Would you release that prisoner? Would you allow him the right to file civil charges against me and the government?

That is fair, I think having a list of what is and what is not acceptable is a step in the right direction. I think when most of the waterboarding was being done it was not explicitly illegal. If as a nation we move forward with clarity, I think we avoid these debates in the future. So, I am in favor of what Obama's original position was, of focusing on the future.

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

Hey, Will are you reading this?

For the record, I would take punitive action against the agent and act on the information. If the information proved credible or was correct, I would give the guy a medal for saving lives, and give him a stern talking to, or put a memo in his personnel file, for acting against policy. Or, maybe I would make him go through interrogation training with an expert.

What makes it unacceptable to me is that I would respond with greater force. In my view of the world you impose consequences and that determines the degree upon which something is acceptable. For example if we leave a US citizen in a Iranian prison accused of spying, we consider that acceptable. When we force her release one way or the other, then we have considered it unacceptable.



Says who? The dead men will never tell their story. What if they were hostages as well? What if they were told to go up on deck with guns or be killed? Why is it o.k. for people to use judgment to kill but can not use judgment to use enhanced questioning techniques? I know it is off topic, but I have no clue as to how you reconcile things like this, with our "moral compass".

What about Pelosi and other members of congress informed on what was going on?

You're a wise man.:thumbsup:
You have to demonstrate a damned good reason to take such a huge risk as saying "maybe you can torture, just maybe". So far, as roach has said, there's no legitimate argument for utility. There's no, "well in this particular instance, torture saved lives!". There's an assumption that torture can work, but there's nothing to back it up. I can't allow things even in the same zip code as torture unless the damage they do to us as a collective people can be excused by some great good, if that's even possible.
I think a reminder that even intelligence agents have laudable principles would be good for the agency. Moreover, it's good to have a systemic purge of bad agents. We need a dependable CIA more than we need those radical, do-anything-to-get-what-they-want few.
The next interrogator (that is able to follow the rules) would be a secondary source.
I'd only release a prisoner if that prisoner were captured or detained illegally. Being mistreated doesn't make one innocent, innocence does.
After we were done with him, sure. Still, I have to assume that this hypothetical person was arrested or detained for a very, very good reason. I'm not going to further delay getting the valuable intelligence that this person might have by allowing him to contact the ACLU from his cell. There are procedures for this kind of thing.
Can you supply any kind of rational explanation for waterboarding a man 183 times in a month? Maybe we should set illegality aside for just a moment and concentrate on utility, because that's gotta be the first step in the conversation. According to the record, they used a technique which was not the same as the one employed by the SERE for advanced military training, as instead of pouring a small amount of water on a damp cloth, on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed they used a much larger amount of water pouring over a longer period. Moreover, the military personnel that undergo waterboarding know they are in a controlled environment, they are safe. Khalid was not in that environment at all. He had been stripped and beaten at least once, followed by what I have to expect was one of the most unpleasant enemas in history (this has been corroborated by a member of the Red Cross that witnessed the event). The scary part, though, is that during those 183 waterboardings, no actionable intelligence is said to have been attained. Sure, supposedly the information is said to have stopped an attack on LA, but that doesn't fit the time line. He was waterboarded after when that supposed counter-terrorist operation took place. In other words, there's no evidence that those 183 waterboarding sessions yielded any actionable intelligence.

---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------

Yeah, I read that and I strongly disagree.

This is contradictory. Are you on Ace's side (or perhaps former side) in thinking that intelligence from torture is anything but completely unreliable? This doesn't just have to be an ethical argument, it can be both ethical and logical. Torture is a violation of our principles AND it doesn't work. We have both on our side, so we can't lose.

You didn't answer the question. Let me restate: If we want to use waterboarding we have no right to complain if another country waterboards our guys. If we conduct severe beatings on detainees we have no right to complain when one of our guys gets beaten severely by captives.

This is a completely different scenario. We need to respect the laws of a nation when we are in it. Journalists shouldn't be going to Iran expecting to have the same freedoms that they have in the US. This doesn't mean we accept Iran's laws or methods of accusation, trial, and punishment, but overall it is their nation and we can't stop them from doing what we do. If we believe that an injustice has been done we can attempt to solve the problem diplomatically but there are no guarantees.

Conversely, even though I oppose capital punishment, if we convict a UK citizen for a capital offense that he carried out in the US, the US has the right to execute him in accordance with our laws (capital punishment is outlawed in the UK).

If you are talking specifically about Roxana Saberi, then yes, espionage is probably a bogus charge but she was originally arrested for attempting to purchase wine (illegal in Iran) and for acting as a reporter without credentials (her credentials were revoked in 2003 and then again in 2006). She continued collecting information for a book while occasionally publishing articles for NPR and the BBC. Maybe that is a stretch for "espionage" but it is easy to tell that she got herself into this mess by disobeying Iranian laws in the first place. Again, don't go to another country and expect to be given all your rights as an American.

It's not contradictory at all. First of all, we can't make a blanket statement that torture never works. I'm sure it can work at times. I'm also sure that people will just make up any story they can to get the it to stop. My position is that the accuracy of the information you obtain is irrelevant to the question of whether we should or should not torture. We shouldn't torture. In addition, we need to have a clear and absolute definition of what torture is. If we have to, we can make it an amendment to the Constitution.

The fact is that even if the information is suspect it is still intelligence. I'd still have it checked out. The agent that used the torture should still be prosecuted because he broke the law.

We need to send a clear message that torture cannot happen. But if someone does torture, you'll totally check it out thus excusing and enabling the behavior by legitimizing it.
Much like if you were to play baseball blindfolded you might hit the ball. Of course you might also hit the catcher.

Yes. I think this illustrates restraint.

On the other hand, in your 'reality' this is what you would get (like it or not). Without clearly defined parameters and a foggy moral compass (i.e. - a bullet in the head is o.k., but waterboarding is not). You would have your people capture a high value target and tell him to talk or start walking. If he starts walking...bang. No investigation, no false outrage, no trials, you simply had an enemy get a bullet in his head.

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

I don't complain about it. I make plans to address the issue.

In my view it is not a complaint to tell the enemy that if they unduly harm my people there will be unpleasant consequences, and that it would be in their best interest not to severely beat captives.

I do admit that I am a bit more extreme when it comes to these issues than the normal person. In a group of people I would be the one who needs to be 'talked down', but I know that, I do listen to a credible voice of reason and I am not a total animal.

When did I say it was okay to shoot someone we've already captured? That doesn't sound like something I'd say. I'll stick with the "what we've defined as torture through prosecutions" definition. If we've prosecuted someone for torture for doing something, it's torture when we do it, too.
And you lose all the valuable intel in said head. That's not a lack of restraint, it's crazy. Also, it's first degree murder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/us...ef=global-home

this is an interesting bit of information, don't you think?
the bush administration in its later incarnation investigated the conduct of the 3 main authors of the torture policy and concluded that the policy was rife with technical, legal and ethical problems--enough so that the dept. could see it's way clear to charges being brought at the level of bar associations--but not enough to warrant prosecution outright.

what do you make of this?

and to put an end to this tiresome rearguard action from the few remaining bush supporters (of the early version of the administration no less) that waterboarding is somehow not torture:

Several legal scholars have remarked that in approving waterboarding, the near-drowning method Mr. Obama and his aides have described as torture, the Justice Department lawyers did not cite cases in which the United States government previously prosecuted American law enforcement officials and Japanese World War II interrogators for using the procedure.

which defies mere cynicism...

At one point during these posts I pointed out how we used snipers to shoot alleged pirates. I found it interesting that our Navy was portrayed as heroic when the evidence that the men shot was circumstantial. There are no calls for investigation going on, there are no questioned being asked, there is no moral outrage, there was no calls for giving the alleged pirates their day in court, and Obama's moral compass was not questioned for giving the o.k. for what could be considered murder.

We disagree. What I think is crazy is an inconsistent morality code. It is easy to be a pacifist when one's 'brother' is willing to fight for one's right to be a pacifist. I have a problem reconciling that kind of morality. I have a problem with people who will eat veal, and protest killing baby seals. People who have crocodile skin man bags, but protest drilling for oil in Alaska. People who are outraged when a man in a third world country kills a tiger to protect his livestock and are 50 pounds over weight from eating burgers at fast food joints.

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------

I think the Obama Justice Department lacks conviction. Those who supported Obama deserve better. And some of us who did not support Obama would love to see this played out in a court of law or for them to shut up.

Which is why you're writing this from a bunker in eastern Europe after having tortured someone one while knowing full well that you most likely wouldn't get the information you were after.

The pirates weren't disarmed and in captivity when they were shot so I don't see how it's relevant to a debate about torture.
Not on this we don't. You can't shoot someone in the back of the head when we've got him in captivity. Not even Alberto Gonzales could get you out of a murder charge for that one. You're trying to make waterboarding sound better by comparing it to executing someone by shooting him in the back of the head. Don't be silly.
PSST... LQQK... If we've prosecuted someone for doing something that we considered torture in the past, that is now torture. Remember? No inconsistency whatsoever. Total consistency.

I repeat. I would not "torture" anyone unless I had supporting evidence that they actually had the information I was seeking. and generally 'foot soldiers' are not the people who would have high level strategic information, they tend to only know what their task is, and I agree "torture" would be of no value.

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

Of course, I understand why you don't see the relevance. I doubt I can make it clear, but it is o.k. to shoot people in the head in a criminal matter when there are clear alternatives and the evidence is not 100% certain that the alleged people are who or what we think they are, but is not o.k. to use enhance interrogation techniques against high level known and confessed terrorists/enemy combatants in a declared war. Like I said, given you not seeing the relevance and me seeing the relevance - if I was the guy in the field and you my commander-in-chief, I would make your life easier by asking the enemy to talk or walk.

He would not be shot while in captivity.

It's not "okay" to shoot people in the head, but occasionally it's unfortunately necessary. The men shot were armed and were putting Americans at undeniable mortal risk. Moreover, shooting those men was clearly the best way to end the situation. Torture on the other hand isn't the best way to extract information. If I'm wrong and shooting those people wasn't the best way to save innocent lives, then they made a mistake.

well you're willing to discuss things over tea or some other nicety with Muslim Middle Eastern enemy combatants but Black Somali (possibly Muslim) pirates, it's okay for them to get a bullet in the head?

You're going to equate unarmed, captured detainees with armed men that are holding hostages? What planet do you live on? It's fascinating how far people can stray from reality when ideology comes into play.

no, i'm looking at the line of where harm is okay and not okay in the will book.

instead of being captured they should have been shot, that would have been a-okay in the willravel book.

Your words not mine, and are you still saying you don't get it?

---------- Post added at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

What happened to negotiation? Many of these pirate matters got resolved without bloodshed. What about diplomacy, working with other governments to minimize piracy? Why was it o.k. to pull the trigger so fast?

ace--what exactly is the point that you imagine yourself to be making with this?
the rationale behind conventions that ban torture and other war crimes have to do with two basic problems:

a) inflicting excessive pain
b) placing limits around the collective psychosis of war.

the first should be obvious even to you.
you could say that war is about pain what about people who are wounded. and i'd maybe entertain this question did i not think that from the outset you were arguing in bad faith. you want to play this silly manly man gordon liddy-style hairsplitting game because you imagine that in so doing you can generate problems of boundary and in the process exculpate yourself for having supported the bush people and the bush people for yourself. this doesn't interest me, so there's no reason to play the game with you.

the second is easier---the boundary is law-governed state as over against the space of collective psychosis that is the battlefield. the boundary is the deliberate inflicting of pain on a defenseless prisoner as over against the chaos of battle.

You know me, I have this thing with hypotheticals and analogies. When my mind is not fully occupied, I just start thinking about what-if and silly little comparisons. I have been doing since childhood. Today, I do even when I am walking down the street - what would I do if someone put a gun in my back and asked for my wallet? What would I do if I saw that happening to the elderly woman in front of me? Just one of my many idiosyncrasies. But then I don't do drugs, smoke, or drink.

No it is not clear. For example my pain tolerances are very different from my spouses. In some things she tolerates more or less pain than I can. Our threshold of what we would consider "torture" are different. So, when Bush tried to get clearly defined parameters for enhance interrogation techinques, I think that was a good thing and I think it was the moral thing to do, rather than leaving the issue to chance and being vague.

ace---this is a ridiculous line of argumentation.

maybe if you want to have an actual discussion we can start over using a viable definition of the term. if you want to take this one on, do the research. otherwise, just read it. if you want to talk about it, then fine. but this mode of operation you've been indulging is a waste of time

Torture (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Regardless, you're still not torturing people, which means that you're advocating torture, all the while conveniently allowing other people to do it for you. I'm just saying... inconsistent morality code and all that.

Of course it is. Thanks for sharing your wisdom with me.

i offered you a viable definition of torture, ace darling.
you took the easy way out.
what a shock.

Because of all the mental "what-if" gymnastics I do, I know exactly what I am comfortable doing and what I am not comfortable doing. I would not be comfortable waterboarding someone. But, there are other enhanced interrogation techniques that I would be comfortable doing against a high value terrorist prisoner when I believed innocent lives were in danger and the prisoner had information needed to save innocent lives.

---------- Post added at 07:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

Your definition is viable. However, I illustrated why I thought it was vague. However, I did use an analogy comparing "torture" to the pain tolerances of me and my spouse, sorry about that, but you know me.

ace---go to the link and read the page that outlines something approaching a definition.
if you want to continue this.
of course, there are other things in the world to be done, and i am going to amuse myself doing some of those things.
i'll check back in later.
do let me know.
your move.

That's just it, though, the pirates were a danger at the moment the marines were there. The people in Gitmo? That's different. If they were holding guns to the heads of hostages, they would have been shot. Ask anyone involved in the GWOT. Ask the numerous vets on TFP. The people in Gitmo were not in the same situation as the pirates, and you know it. Are you honestly not seeing a difference or are you feigning incomprehension?
You sure like to put words in other people's mouths.


Ace, I think something should be clarified: I'm not particularly familiar with the Somali Pirate situation. I kinda avoided the story on the news because the media was clearly exaggerating parts of it and were ignoring other parts. I don't know if I agree with the shooting of the pirates, though if I understand the situation correctly had they not taken the shots the hostage or hostages would have undoubtedly died. If that's not the case, I disagree with the shootings. While I will never kill for any reason, I do understand common ethics about killing; it's a last resort to save innocent lives. If the shooting was not a last resort, then I disagree with them. If it was a last resort, if the people that have the most experience and expertise determined that negotiations would not work, then I understand why they had to do what they did.

If you found out that waterboarding was just the beginning, would you change your tune?
UK government suppressed evidence on Binyam Mohamed torture because MI6 helped his interrogators - Telegraph

Even if you can't really wrap your head around waterboarding being torture, what do you make of slicing a man's testicles with a scalpel? Could that be explained away as simply a harsh interrogation technique, or has this perhaps cross the indistinguishable line between not torture and torture?

If you found out that the US torturing gave our enemies permission to torture us would you change your tune?

Balkinization

I wonder how soon until they start slicing open testicles? You know, frat-boy type stuff.

I've seen a lot of debate about waterboarding lately, and while I haven't been involved in this conversation I thought I would share an account I came across of someone claiming to waterboard themselves. I say claimed, because of course it cannot be verified, though after reading it, I believe he tried it.

I waterboard! - Straight Dope Message Board

He gives a detailed account of trying all three versions of waterboarding, of which I didn't even know about prior to reading this. Regardless of if you believe him or not, I think its worth the read.

P.s. Sorry if this was somewhere in this thread, I only had time to read a page and a half.

Sounds like the guy came to the same conclusion as both the experts and amateurs like me that tried it for ourselves. It's torture.

We all know the Taliban doesn't waterboard their prisoners. They just go straight to beheadings.

They do behead, but that's hardly the only thing they do.

Oh yeah I forgot, they also do stonings as well.

Okay. Apples and Oranges. The Taliban isn't trying to extract intelligence from anyone with beheadings and stonings, they're executing those they've decided are anti-Taliban. Not comparable at all.

i didn't think that the taliban were the Enemy. i thought al-qaeda was.
go figure.

Well they weren't in the beginning.

After 9/11, when we determined that Bin Laden and his al Qaeda group (a small group of radicals and some financial backers we later named al Qaeda, actually) was responsible for 9/11, we found out they'd organized and trained in Afghanistan, and we worried that might happen again. We were also really, really pissed that Afghanistan was not only allowing such training to go on, but that they were still holding Bin Laden and refused to hand him over.

Had the Taliban not been so short-sighted and handed over Bin Laden, the Taliban today would be relatively small. The problem is that we took great offense when they refused to hand over Bin Laden, and we started bombing them. A lot. We killed a lot of Taliban, but a lot more civilians. If you know anything about terrorist organizations in the Middle East (or anywhere, really), killing civilians tends to increase recruitment numbers. Like it has in Lebanon with Hezbollah and in Palestine with Hamas.

The increasing numbers of Taliban made it harder to locate Bin Laden. We invaded, but found resistance from the growing Taliban and other "insurgents". Eventually they went from simply being people in our way to being "the trrrists" even though they had nothing to do with 9/11.

So now we're facing a much stronger, widespread, and larger Taliban which has used that control very wisely to take root in Pakistan. We're still looking for Bin Laden, but now we've settled into the role as "liberators" again, this time for Afghanistan, trying to fix the mess we made.

and at this point, capturing/killing Bin Laden will be nothing but a symbolic gesture 8 years too late. It will change absolutely nothing (for the positive) and may just fuel the fire of Taliban supporters.

no. it doesn't change anything.

By my understanding of your position, it would only matter if it were you, personally, that was being tortured by the Taliban as a direct consequence of the US torturing Afghans and Iraqis. Because then it wouldn't be something you see as somehow disconnected from yourself.

actually no... my position will not change. I have a belief and it will not waver or compromise.

it is part of the whole and the game of life within the context of war.

Remember, I do have a family member tortured by the "water cure" and beheaded for his role in assisting the Americans and insurgents against the Japanese in occupying Manila.

I also have another family member incarcerated by Ferdinand Marcos for 9 years for not printing pro-Marcos propaganda insisting, that he'd shut down the printing presses first. He was then incarcerated.

Why is it that you have a "belief" instead of an "opinion" on this?

It stems from the convictions and stances of family members. This topic has been discussed within the family as it impacted the family directly. It's beyond opinion because we as a family had to deal with it. There are stories both in print and orally about how and what happened and how individuals feel about this. I'll express it as an opinion in conversation, but pressed, I will divulge it's personal nature and it is more belief than opinion.

Opinions change, beliefs don't.

No, opinions *can* be changed, and that's important to remember. With new information or clarification of old information, the truth can shift. If you'r are ignoring or not accepting new information or a clearer view of old information, your belief turns into doctrine and you end up being wrong a lot. Opinions are more fluid and are capable of changing with the situation in order to be correct based on the best available information.

I have a very strong belief in how and why people are tortured. I'm fine with torture within the context of war, the belief has not changed.

really? how many opinions of yours have changed from discussions here at TFP? I know many of mine that have and am the first to point them out, but my beliefs? I know zero.

Sorry for the confusion, but we're not at war with anyone. We've not been at war since long before either of us were born. We have Authorization for Use of Military Force. There is no context of war. We, the US, are absolutely, positively not at war.

And I change beliefs as soon as I get new information. Off the top of my head, I changed my views on 9/11, vaccines, Barack Obama, Israel and Palestine, China, and the drug war. But none of that is important because we're not talking about my positions changing.

really? you mean to say they are just playing hide and seek? OLLY OLLY OXEN FREE!!!!

or freeze tag??? not IT!

Oh I didn't realize the stakes were so low.

I don't care how anyone including you lawyers it out to the legalese. It's war. Otherwise, it's enhanced interrogations.

We have Authorization for Use of Military Force. There is no context of war. We, the US, are absolutely, positively not at war. We've not been at war since WWII. It's not "legalese", it's basic English. We're not at war, this isn't a time of war, and the "context of war" doesn't apply.