Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation

Status
Not open for further replies.
zukiphile said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe that preference has been realized.

Despite our present "boots-on-ground" inadequacy, we are still the world's superpower. But we have demonstrated a less than benevolent, and somewhat clumsy wielding of the big sword.

The Kumbayah western Europeans -- whose culture and history we still share -- view this recklessness nervously. They probably feel like Mennonites living next door to the Branch Davidians.

Carrying fire-power demands a calm rational demeanor. I can't believe Reagan would have us here now.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I am afraid that subtle truth seems to be way to much for some people to grasp.
 
Yes, they do...and that definition has already been posted in this thread. One of the studies clearly stated "as defined by the UN."
Click to expand...

So then show me the footnote that they are including waterboarding when they speak of torture.

The notion that torture produces unreliable information has been around for a very long time. Waterboarding however is a relatively recent tool. You can't expand the conclusions that were reached prior to include something that occured later in time.

As of this very minute, there is no definitive ruling that waterboarding is torture. Some people say it is, and some people say it isn't. Your argument relies on a presumption that has yet to be reached, and forces us to ignore the real world results.


I can't for the life of me understand why someone who was in military intelligence, and is as versed in this as you say you are, can't provide me with an article or case study that says waterboarding is unreliable.

Surely with as long as this has been in the news, someone somewhere would have done this if it was in fact true.
 
Its a shame thats all you got out of that entire statement.
Click to expand...
It is called the "neo-con mentality"...the trick to it is to stop someone mid-sentence as soon as they say "but" and you can completely misinterpret and misrepresent them with a clear conscious.
 
So proving that waterboarding provided good intelligence in a handful of instances doesn't prove that torture (or waterboarding) as a whole is effective.
Click to expand...

And again it doesn't need to be. None of us here are the people who set the criteria for which interrogation techniques are effective and which aren't. Maybe they consider 10% bogus info effective and maybe they consider 50% bogus intel effective. I don't know.

However what I do know is that the people who set the scale and who know the scale are calling waterboarding effective. Since they are aware of who has been waterboarded, how many times it has been done, and how long it takes before someone breaks, they are the ONLY ones qualified to determine its effectiveness.

Thus, there isn't any need to prove that it is effective. Its already been deemed effective by both its proponents AS WELL as people that don't want it used.
 
Waterboarding however is a relatively recent tool.
Click to expand...

Really? Historical sources I have seen date it back to the Spanish Inquisition. Theodore Roosevelt dismissed a general because of waterboarding. Sounds like its been around a while to me.
 
And again it doesn't need to be. None of us here are the people who set the criteria for which interrogation techniques are effective and which aren't. Maybe they consider 10% bogus info effective and maybe they consider 50% bogus intel effective. I don't know.
Click to expand...
If it is unreliable (which it is) and there are better and more proven techniques (which there are) to retrieve "reliable" information you have to ask yourself why use torture? Then you have to understand that maybe it is because it is a great method for getting whatever information you might need to support your own agenda regardless of truth.

However what I do know is that the people who set the scale and who know the scale are calling waterboarding effective
Click to expand...
Once again...no they are not. The specialists do not feel it is effective but the powers that be wish to keep it around because it is a useful tool. if you think back to just a short while ago when the talk shows were ripe with complaints from intel analysts that were complaining of information overload coming from such methods and how there were way to many bad leads that deterred resources that are in short supply. What you are saying is akin to saying "the politicians have decided guns are too dangerous for me to own so they must be too dangerous."
 
Once again...no they are not. The specialists do not feel it is effective but the powers that be wish to keep it around because it is a useful tool.
Click to expand...

Show me. Please show me. I want to see where any specialist specifically says waterboarding is not effective.
 
The specialists do not feel it is effective but the powers that be wish to keep it around because it is a useful tool.
Click to expand...

What is that tripe?

Not effective but useful? 'specialists'? 'powers that be?

Do you mean the intel community does not feel it's effective but the President wants it around for torturing those that Cheney says are political enemies???

The intel community is saying, and in every way PERMISSIBLE showing that it IS EFFECTIVE. And that's where your your stuck. It does in FACT work to extract actionable intel from those KNOWN to posses it. You can't seem to get your head past the gibber jabbier and on to the real facts. Your using circular logic, dismissing the facts as 'neocon' bias, and just WON'T believe what those that KNOW (not think or feel) are telling you.

Useful but not effective, please..........

They want it because either it IS effective or they are sadistic, if you believe that they want it just to be sadistic your blinded by disdain.

Let's not forget that for every battle won by superior force, 10 are won by superior tactics, planning, and logistics derived from INTEL. truth is intel saves more lives then we will ever know. The peril of prevention applies because having prevented the action there leaves the ability to argue the action would never have happened anyway but FAIL to prevent an action and those same folks will be clamoring for accountability.



UNBROKEN link:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n4_v20/ai_6676337
 
Show me. Please show me. I want to see where any specialist specifically says waterboarding is not effective.
Click to expand...
That is not a real request because you have already been shown case studies and official statements about torturous acts and you choose to keep playing this game of semantics by saying waterboarding is not specifically mentioned...despite the fact it fits all descriptions.

That is like saying rum will not harm your liver because all studies just say "alcohol" and not rum specifically.

And I would love to see your response to the second part of that post.
 
If it [waterboarding] is unreliable (which it is) and there are better and more proven techniques (which there are) to retrieve "reliable" information you have to ask yourself why use torture [you mean waterboarding?]?
Click to expand...
This is spoken like a man who has never actually sat in front of somebody else and interviewed/interrogated him. In my experience, the individuals who claims that rapport based interview techniques are the only effective means of extracting worthwhile intelligence are the people who have never actually interviewed/interrogated somebody, or have only done so to people that have an American or Western way of thinking.

Lest anybody misunderstand me, rapport based interviewing is probably the single most effective technique to extract information, I myself use it regularly, it does however, have it's failures; religious zealots are often one of them. Also, lest anybody read more into this than there is, I am not in any way associated with the CIA, DIA, DOD, etc, etc.
 
This is spoken like a man who has never actually sat in front of somebody else and interviewed/interrogated him. In my experience, the individuals who claims that rapport based interview techniques are the only effective means of extracting worthwhile intelligence are the people who have never actually interviewed/interrogated somebody, or have only done so to people that have an American or Western way of thinking.
Click to expand...
And you are basing this on what? I am guessing just personal opinion that is not backed up by any experience.

Just for fun...I will offer a prize to the first person that successfully guesses my MOS (either old or new nomenclature) based on my posts. :)
 
And I would love to see your response to the second part of that post.
Click to expand...
You mean this part?
if you think back to just a short while ago when the talk shows were ripe with complaints from intel analysts that were complaining of information overload coming from such methods and how there were way to many bad leads that deterred resources that are in short supply.
Click to expand...

Intel Analysts get a bum rap, and are often unfairly looked down on by those "in the field". The fact of the matter is, without the amazing work done by the analysts, all the information in the world would result in very little intelligence. That said, I have met precious few intel analysts that have any actual field experience. The truth is, their complaint just doesn't hold water. Somebody without any experience actually gathering information can piss and moan all they like about this or that technique of information gathering, but until they've logged the hours attempting to get joe achmed the "true believer" to divulge something he doesn't want to, complaining about the method used is a little naive.

As before, I do not work for the CIA or Pentagon in any shape form or fashion. Things might operate differently for folks in those entities, I speak only from my experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top