Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation

[Playboypenguin]

Hawg Haggen

I think you must not have read most of the posts. No one is sympathizing with them. I am all for executing them with a carrot peeler once they are found guilty. What we are discussing is how torture does us more damage than it does good and is not an effective means at retrieving the reliable information needed to protect our citizens. It is more likely to send us off on wild goose chases...expending energy and manpower we cannot afford to waste.

Then you add in how easy it is for administrations to abuse the practice to prop up there own false arguments and agendas you have a whole other negative with which we have to deal.

 

[STAGE 2]

If torture is ineffective and waterboarding is torture, how is that not relevant? I am having a hard time wrapping my head around that kind of disconnected logic.

Because as I explained before, your argument is fallacious. You are dismissing waterboarding by association.

Traditional torture may very well be ineffective. However waterboarding is distinct enough to merit an individual look. Pigeonholing it to fit your analysis is where you are going wrong. That and not presenting any evidence on point.

To put it another way, you are arguing theory and I'm arguing practice. What theory says is irrelevant where practice is concerned.

 

[JuanCarlos]

You are trying to dismiss something by association. Thats a blatant fallacy.

No, he's trying to dismiss it by definition, not association. If he can show evidence that torture is ineffective, and that waterboarding is torture, then he's shown what you asked. At least if you believe goalposts should be stationary.


Also, I think rape is an excellent example of a counter to two arguments coming from the pro-waterboarding camp:

(A) If it doesn't cause physical injury or harm, it's fine.
(B) If it's okay to do to a volunteer in one environment, it's fine to force on an unwilling participant in another.

Both arguments are a load of crap. I've yet to see anybody arguing either of the above manage to counter this argument that something can be devastating psychologically yet cause no physical damage, and that something can be devastating psychologically in one situation even though it's no big deal in another.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Traditional torture may very well be ineffective. However waterboarding is distinct enough to merit an individual look. Pigeonholing it to fit your analysis is where you are going wrong. That and not presenting any evidence on point.

I fail to see what is so "distinct" about simulating drowning, and making a person feel like they are going to die. Other than not doing permanent physical damage, it seems pretty much on par with any other torture method: make them want so badly for it to stop they'll tell you what you want to know (and/or what you want to hear).

 

[Hawg]

What we are discussing is how torture does us more damage than it does good

Ok, how does it do us damage? Do you really care what any of them think of us? Do you think our allies think less of us? I don't. I'm sure we follow a lot of dead end leads anyway but if we can get any useful information using whatever means including torture it's worth it.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Because as I explained before, your argument is fallacious. You are dismissing waterboarding by association.

No, my argument takes into account that waterboarding is torture and not just associated with torture. Their is a big difference between "being associates with" and just "being." You seem to not be getting that.

The studies done on torture do not separate different acts from one another. Any act of placing someone in an immediate and severe state of distress and telling them it will end when they tell us what he want them to tell us yields the same result. A person willing to say what we want to hear to make us stop.

So when you get right down to it, the only leg your argument has to stand on is your personal belief that waterboarding is not torture. That belief seems to be in direct opposition to most every source you have quoted and the sources I have provided. So that brings up the issue of.." on what are you basing your opinion that waterboarding is somehow separate and distinct when the experts seem to disagree?"

 

[STAGE 2]

No, he's trying to dismiss it by definition, not association. If he can show evidence that torture is ineffective, and that waterboarding is torture, then he's shown what you asked. At least if you believe goalposts should be stationary.

Its the same thing. A definition, legal or otherwise, is irrelevant where the real world is concerned.

Asking someone to dismiss actual results because of theory is fallacious.

Both arguments are a load of crap. I've yet to see anybody arguing either of the above manage to counter this argument that something can be devastating psychologically yet cause no physical damage, and that something can be devastating psychologically in one situation even though it's no big deal in another.

Not to burst your bubble, but rape does cause physical injury, both in the restraint as well as the act itself. As far as the other point, when you have news correspondents volunteering to be waterboarded for "the experience" I don't think that it is something that heinous.

There is no doubt a difference between being waterboarded by your buddies during training and haveing it done while being a captive. However that is not a commentary on waterboarding but on captivity. ANYTHING menacing that a captor does is going to produce a different response. If the guy at the end of the table who is sharpening a knife is your buddy, thats going to illicit a different response than if its Mustafa.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Not to burst your bubble, but rape does cause physical injury, both in the restraint as well as the act itself.

Actually, it doesn't. One of the biggest internal crisis women face after a rape is the fact that they, in most cases, stopped resisting and gave in to the violation to avoid physical injury. In most cases, which do not also include other forms of assault, most rape cases do not result in physical injury and were performed by people that are very close to the victim. In fact, most cases of rape are so very hard to prosecute because defense attorneys use this lack of resistance as a form of expressed compliance.

 

[STAGE 2]

The studies done on torture do not separate different acts from one another.

BINGO!!! You hit the nail on the head. That is the problem right there.

All of your studies that talk about torture haven't addressed waterboarding. What you are trying to do is include waterboarding within the realm of torture so that the general statement of "it isn't effective" is applicable.

Thats not how this works. When something new comes along, or when there is something that cannot be definitively classified as torture (because if you are going to be honest, there is a legitimate argument as to what waterboarding is) then you can't just dismiss it as ineffective.

This is especially the case when there are real world results that contradict theory.

 

[Playboypenguin]

All of your studies that talk about torture haven't addressed waterboarding

They do address waterboarding by addressing torture as a whole. Only your own prejudice against accepting waterboarding as torture causes you to not accept this fact.

They do not name different types of torture but instead set a predetermined standard for what constitutes torture. A definition that includes waterboarding.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Not to burst your bubble, but rape does cause physical injury, both in the restraint as well as the act itself. As far as the other point, when you have news correspondents volunteering to be waterboarded for "the experience" I don't think that it is something that heinous.

Hate to burst your bubble but I doubt people just hang out for the waterboarding (so restraint is required there as well) and it's entirely possible to rape somebody (both in the legal sense and the psychologically damaging sense) without causing physical injury. Raping somebody passed out on roofies isn't going to cause injuries, but they'll certainly have issues when they find out what happend. If you widen it up from rape (which often has a very limited legal definition) to other forms of sexual assault, this is even more true.

And again, context matters. I've volunteered for things that were quite painful in the past, it doesn't mean suddenly it'd be no big deal if those same things were done to me against my will by a foreign government.

 

[73 Jock]

Well, I'm going to tip-toe through the landmines here and offer this:

A) As I do not believe (and I think most do not) that our elite military interrogators are performing waterboarding out of some sadistic revenge impulse, then it logically follows that waterboarding has generated important intelligence, and is expected to continue to do so.

B) The United States is irrefutably the leader of the world, and is looked to for establishing political and moral leadership. This higher standard is a burden we bear whether we choose to accept it or not.

C) Our enemies are ill-prepared to appreciate the complexities of identity under the Geneva Conventions, they are brutal and sadistic. Our friends are less inclined to recognize and accept the technical correctness (torture vs compulsion, nat'l affiliaton vs none) of our operations under the GCs, because they hold us to a higher standard.

D) In conclusion, while waterboarding-as-policy is yielding actionable intelligence, it's value must be weighed against the damage it is doing to our image and reputation.

 

[zukiphile]

D) In conclusion, while waterboarding-as-policy is yielding actionable intelligence, it's value must be weighed against the damage it is doing to our image and reputation.

73, that's a reasonable response, but I wouldn't want to accept without reflection that we should strive unduly to be liked. In matters that involve the use of force and national security, I would prefer that we be feared.

That sort of thing makes facile conclusions about us not being any better than those we fight becuase we've WBed three guys in the last several years more hyperbolic than informative.

See above, but do you really think we have not done things on the same line as waterboarding and possibly worse to more than three people in the last several years?

I'd be shocked if we hadn't. The statement I address isn't one you made, but the common formulation is "If we do X, we are no better than our enemy."

In Afganistan, if our enemy wants your cooperation and you have five children, they sit you down, fire up your oven, and cook one of your children alive while you are forced to watch and listen. You now have four children and a pretty good idea of how many you will have if you fail to fully cooperate.

The argument that we are no better than the people we fight because we panick their captured combatants with an interrogation technique lacks scale and perspective.

 

[Playboypenguin]

73 Jock

A) "Elite military interrogators" are not the ones setting the policy and all studies done by "experts" and others show the opposite.

B) Only Americans actually believe that. Leave the country and see how well that idea is accepted.

C) I agree but they feel that people like Bush are just as bloodthirsty and ruthless and he has done everything he can to make them appear correct.

D) Once again, studies show exactly the opposite.

 

[STAGE 2]

The rape issue is very easy. Its impractical as an interrogation tool for the simple reason that it would require an agent or an interrogator to rape someone. That isn't one of the job qualifications, especially since we aren't interrogating women. I'm not going to ask an agent to pop someone in the pail.

I'm glad thats finished.

They do address waterboarding by addressing torture as a whole. Only your own prejudice against accepting waterboarding as torture causes you to not accept this fact.

They do not name different types of torture but instead set a predetermined standard for what constitutes torture. A definition that includes waterboarding.

No they don't. YOU allege they do, but you have failed to provide any evidence of this. If these articles were written without giving consideration to waterboarding then their conclusions are irrelevant.

It has NOT been definitively decided that waterboarding is torture. Therefore its premature for you to use the results of torture to dismiss waterboarding.

More importantly, waterboarding has produced actual results. If you were being objective, the MOST you could say is that because of the evidence contradicting your theory, waterboarding deserves a specific look to determine whether or not it is diverting from the conventional consensus.

Simply saying, "its torture it doesn't work" is both fallacious and factually incorrect.

 

[Playboypenguin]

No they don't. YOU allege they do, but you have failed to provide any evidence of this. If these articles were written without giving consideration to waterboarding then their conclusions are irrelevant.

Yes, they do...and that definition has already been posted in this thread. One of the studies clearly stated "as defined by the UN."

Simply saying, "its torture it doesn't work" is both fallacious and factually incorrect.

And continuing to erroneously make an assertion of faulty logic does not change the fact that the logic is not fauly but that you are just unwilling to follow it. Once again you are confusing "associate" with "inclusion."

 

[Bruxley]

We are engaging in circular logic propagated by the very folks that admittedly don't know of which they speak.

Again:

Let's go with that logic.

A) Torture NEVER works.
-I agree

B) Waterboarding DOES work
-shown and proven

Conclusion - Waterboarding isn't torture.

Waterboarding works every time. It is used on those KNOWN (not thought or felt) to posses actionable intell. They WILL SPILL. It's plain flat wrong that it isn't effective and yes SAFE. The boggy man in the closet fear is misplaced. Kill an asset that you know has actionable intel????

Read the article:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...v20/ai_6676337

And further, WHY oh WHY would the intelligence community want to keep a tool that is ineffective. Sadistic desire to see people cough uncontrollably? You have to be blinded by disdain or naive to the anal accountability of the intel community to think that.

Waterboarding works to extract actionable intel from those that posses it every single time. THAT is why they want to continue using it and WHEN they use it. A confession isn't the goal. STOPPING someone acting against us is.

What about the guidline that it's over the line if we are not willing to do it to our own? Tazer to waterboarding, if you won't do it to your own then it's over the line.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Has anybody argued that torture never works? Of course torture can provide good intelligence...the argument is that it's unreliable because it can also provide bad intelligence. So proving that waterboarding provided good intelligence in a handful of instances doesn't prove that torture (or waterboarding) as a whole is effective.

 

[Redworm]

You could talk with military people who have been waterboarded and get their perspective,

Does SERE training actually waterboard?

If it does, isn't it slightly less intense than the real thing would be since you know these people are training you and not actually trying to get information out of you without giving a hoot if you actually drown?

 

[73 Jock]

A) "Elite military interrogators" are not the ones setting the policy and all studies done by "experts" and others show the opposite.

I'll let STAGE 2 handle that. He's doing all right.

B) Only Americans actually believe that. Leave the country and see how well that idea is accepted.

Leadership is our burden whether we accept it or not. Civilized world opinion is low specifically because we have forfeited our leadership responsibilities.

C) I agree but they feel that people like Bush are just as bloodthirsty and ruthless and he has done everything he can to make them appear correct.

As a grievously dissappointed Bush supporter, I believe that his biggest mistake was the failure to "sell" this endeavor to the world, and convince Americans to take "ownership" of it (and I hate those "Consultant" words).

The U.S. military is at war -- America is at the mall.

As a result of this disinterest, a peripheral issue like waterboarding (vs headchopping) takes on political importance disproportionate to the prime objective -- let's end this war -- by winning it.