Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why was waterboarding considered bad by the U.S. in the past, but OK now?

I think that the change in what our government thinks about waterboarding is one reason some of us question its use. To my knowledge, no president other than Bush has publicly endorsed it, and some presidents have taken a direct role in punishment of government agents who used waterboarding.
 
President Roosevelt (Theodore) removed a US general for waterboarding.
Click to expand...

And who did he waterboard. If it was a soldier, then I completely agree. Waterboarding soldiers of opposign armies is a major no-no.

Terrorists however are a different story.
 
A distinction that may help this latest line of discussion would be between Military, Stateless rouge militants (i.e. terrorists), Espionage, and Law Enforcement. These are each distinctly different entities.

In fact this goes to the topic in the OP. Bush vetoed legislation that would limit American espionage activities (Intelligence) to the Military (Army) operating parameters (Field Manual) not just banning waterboarding. It is like restricting the Military to the operating parameters of law enforcement. It was a good decision to veto this legislation.
 
First and formost, crucifixion is a method of EXECUTION not INTERROGATION.

Secondly, I'm not casting anything. The examples you posted are not crucifixion. These people are being supported with ropes and stands. They are not being dumped into pits and lefts hanging for days.

There is a world of difference between religious nutballs doing this for minutes and waterboarding. Religious nutballs have been doing stupid things for eons. This has NOTHING to do with whether waterboarding is effective.

So instead of talking about rape or :rolleyes crucifixion, why don't you explain to me why waterboarding doesn't work.
Click to expand...

The contention made was that people don't do things to themselves voluntarily which might be painful or harmful, so people choosing to be waterboarded proved it wasn't harmful.

Now, if you stopped rolling you eyes and bothered to read the links and posts that you so easily dismiss you might have read that these people go for the fully nailed to the cross job. And saying Execution is not Torture really is an exercise in semantics.

As to the request to prove that waterboarding doesn't work, I once again, for the third time, refer you to post number 63. You can argue that waterboarding did in fact work as he did sing like a canary. The only problem was that he was talking ****e. He only told the interrogators what they had fed him in the first place and wanted to hear.

And there's no difference between political nut-jobs and religious nut-jobs in my eyes, they'll both kill your ass as soon as look at you.
 
The contention made was that people don't do things to themselves voluntarily which might be painful or harmful, so people choosing to be waterboarded proved it wasn't harmful.
Click to expand...
Wrong. People frequently do things to themselves voluntarily which might be painful or harmful. For example, some people like to get stinking drunk every weekend, to the point of vomiting half the night and waking up with a fierce hangover the next day. For another example, people voluntarily run into burning buildings, often knowing they not only might but probably will suffer painful injuries, to save other people. They are called firemen. So that was never the contention.

The contention was that people generally don't torture themselves voluntarily. The same people who are so easily volunteering to be waterboarded would NEVER volunteer to genital electrocution, no matter how controlled the environment nor how much mental assurance they have that they won't be harmed.
 
Maybe we can get the JackAss movie guys to waterboard each other. No, on second thought, they'd probably go for the car battery to testicles thing.

The journalists are eager to be waterboarded for a hot story. How about Rather? Let's see if he knew the Bush Natl Guard story was a scam.
 
The contention made was that people don't do things to themselves voluntarily which might be painful or harmful, so people choosing to be waterboarded proved it wasn't harmful.
Click to expand...

No, I dont think anyone made that contention.

As to the request to prove that waterboarding doesn't work, I once again, for the third time, refer you to post number 63. You can argue that waterboarding did in fact work as he did sing like a canary. The only problem was that he was talking ****e. He only told the interrogators what they had fed him in the first place and wanted to hear.
Click to expand...

Really? So you where there and you know what he said:rolleyes:. Give me a break.

I'm sorry, did we try and convict these prisoners as terrorists at some point?
Click to expand...

No we didnt, and we don't have to. They have no rights, no presumption of innocence, no nothing. Again, this goes back to the issue of whether you think the intelligence community is just out there to put the crews to people.

If you think this is all they do, then there isn't anything I can say to convince you otherwise. However if you think that largely these people are honest and trying to protect us, then the people they pick up aren't going to be innocent folks. As such, they aren't civillians.

The 3 folks that have been waterboarded thus far were clearly terrorists.
 
Geez, I do not check L&P for a day and I am lost...

I guess it all comes down to your required level of validation. Some people want facts. They want testimony of experienced and educated people but they also want case studies, scientific reasoning, and real accounts to back up those statements. Such as General Patraeus who made statements that are backed up by case studies, expert opinion, and collected relative data.

Other people are happy just saying "this guy said this" and then not really requiring any real life evidence beyond that. They will even ignore the fact that they later change their story. Such as George Bush or one of his appointees saying so and then not backing it up with anything beyond "because I said so."

When it comes to retrieving accurate and reliable information my own personal experience shows me torture is not effective, the scientific evidence suggests torture is not effective, top officials in the field (who are not in political positions) support this belief, and basic common sense also supports it.

I will never be someone that turns my back and just believes a politician on his word. Especially when the said politician is a proven liar and when that word defies all relevant data.

If you (by you I mean anyone and not a specific person) want to be this naive go ahead. Although I doubt you are and that you most likely want to support this idea because it validates your own personal desire for revenge (which is in part understandable). But I would ask anyone willing to accept the word of Bush and his appointees on this without empirical data, how far do you tkat that mindset? Do you pick and chose when you decide to believe him without question or do you just believe him when his stance mirrors your own? When a similar politician says guns are a danger to society do you agree with them since they are in a position of power and experience or do you demand proof?

It also comes down to whether you want to play semantics games. Saying torture is bad, unless they are not wearing a uniform is a game that the adminstration wants you to play. They want you to say "some people do not count...regardless of their guilt or innocence." It is funny how these people like to play word games with treaties and agreements about torture and humane treatment. They will wiggle around wording and argue that things not spelled out explicitly are not disallowed but they will argue that the spirit of the law and general meaning is relevant when it regards the 2nd.
 
So show us the real accounts of waterboarding not working.
Click to expand...
Try reading the case studies regarding torture and it's effectiveness...or do you still want to argue whether waterboarding counts even though it clearly does fit the UN definition which most of the studies use as a standard?

I can very easily ask you were is your data saying waterboarding is effective? I would love to read it. I am not talking editorials either. I would love to see at least one case study.

The 2A does not mention revolvers, and revolvers did not exist when they wrote it. Should the 2A apply to revolvers or just to "arms" that they were familiar with at the time the amendment was written? Revolvers do fall under the definition of "arms" but they are not specifically mentioned and many people argue that they woud not be included because they were not in the frame of reference of the founders and therefore cannot be consider to fall under the definition of "arms" as it would have been when it was put forth.
 
For all the times in this thread the assertion has been made that

1. WBing is torture.
2. Torture doesn't work.
3. Therefore, WB doesn't work.

...it would have been more efficient to produce somehting dispositive about the third assertion that doesn't simply assume the truth of the first statement. Assuming one's premise is rarely persuasive.

I've seen senate testimony of those who WBed KSM. They noted that they received valuable information very quickly, the man "breaking" in something like a minute and a half. The witness was impressed that KSM held out that long.

That testimony indicates that this specific technique was effective.
 
...it would have been more efficient to produce somehting dispositive about the third assertion that doesn't simply assume the truth of the first statement. Assuming one's premise is rarely persuasive.

I've seen senate testimony of those who WBed KSM. They noted that they received valuable information very quickly, the man "breaking" in something like a minute and a half. The witness was impressed that KSM held out that long.
Click to expand...
Testimony is mostly here say. Where are the facts backing it up. There are tons of studies to dispute it. George Bush "testified" many times that there were WMD's in Iraq.

And where is validation as to "how is it effective." Is it effective in getting validation for a preconceived belief or is it effective in obtaining new reliable data?

One thing I will concede is that it is indeed a useful tool for receiving validation. Sometimes we know things but do not have the needed evidence to act upon it legally. Like when a cop knows someone is selling drugs out of their house but cannot prove it to get a warrant. In cases like this, practices such as waterboarding can be very effective. The downside is that this type of coercion is too easily misused to support false agendas. If the cop was allowed to waterboard a suspected patron for a statement that the dealer was selling he could then use that statement to get a warrant. The bad thing is he could use the same method to get a warrant to raid a home that was doing nothing wrong but had angered the officer in some way.
 
...it would have been more efficient to produce somehting dispositive about the third assertion that doesn't simply assume the truth of the first statement. Assuming one's premise is rarely persuasive.

I've seen senate testimony of those who WBed KSM. They noted that they received valuable information very quickly, the man "breaking" in something like a minute and a half. The witness was impressed that KSM held out that long.
Click to expand...
Testimony is mostly here say. Where are the facts backing it up. There are tons of studies to dispute it. George Bush "testified" many times that there were WMD's in Iraq.
Click to expand...

That is non-responsive. The senate testimony re KSM was not hearsay. It reflected first hand observation, and would not require "facts backing it up". The testmony is the form in which the facts were received by the senate committee.

And where is validation as to "how is it effective."
Click to expand...

Effective interrogation works as follows. The interrogator asks questions. If he gets answers, it was effective. It isn't that hard. That the information elicited merits verification is a constant feature of all interrogations and so is not an argument against the efficacy of WBing.

One thing I will concede is that it is indeed a useful tool for receiving validation. Sometimes we know things but do not have the needed evidence to act upon it legally. Like when a cop knows someone is selling drugs out of their house but cannot prove it to get a warrant. In cases like this, practices such as waterboarding can be very effective. The downside is that this type of coercion is too easily misused to support false agendas. If the cop was allowed to waterboard a suspected patron for a statement that the dealer was selling he could then use that statement to get a warrant. The bad thing is he could use the same method to get a warrant to raid a home that was doing nothing wrong but had angered the officer in some way.
Click to expand...
Coerced police confessions are illegal because they violate a citizen's rights under the COTUS. KSM doesn't have those rights, so that isn't a problem. The analogy differes so greatly that it fails to illustrate the aplication of WBing to non-uniformed foreign combatants.
 
That is non-responsive. The senate testimony re KSM was not hearsay. It reflected first hand observation, and would not require "facts backing it up". The testmony is the form in which the facts were received by the senate committee.
Click to expand...
Actually it is. Most of those that testified never witnessed the actual events. That is heresay by definition. Also, as I said before, they never backed up these statements with fact. The information gathered from KSM, and it's validity, has been widely disputed. The senate committee was never presented evidence and when they asked for evidence they were denied it. Testimony is not evidence.
Effective interrogation works as follows. The interrogator asks questions. If he gets answers, it was effective. It isn't that hard. That the information elicited merits verification is a constant feature of all interrogations and so is not an argument against the efficacy of WBing.
Click to expand...
You obviously do not understand the word "effective." If I ask a question and I do not get the answer I want and then repeat the question while applying stress or pain to the detainee until I get the answer I want is that truly effective?
Coerced police confessions are illegal because they violate a citizen's rights under the COTUS
Click to expand...
That does not change whether or not they are "effective." They are not illegal because they are mean things to do. They are illegal because it is not only unfair it is ineffective in obtaining good intel without abuse of the practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top