Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation

[zukiphile]

I am not a categorical proponent of WBing, but it is getting a bit deep.

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.

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.

You are mistaken. Testimony is evidence by definition. You assertion that most who testified never witnessed the actual events is an admission that some did. Those who did rendered evidence to the committee. That was not hearsay testimony. You are also somewhat confused about hearsay actually is, so it might be better to omit that from your argument in the future.

Arguing that KSM's info has been disputed is not a competent argument that it was wrong.

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.

You obviously do not understand the word "effective."

Is that as obvious to you as your understanding of the word hearsay?

Interrogation is a process of drawing responses. Aside from incorrectly assessing my understanding of the english language, you have also completely sidestepped the fact that no interrogation technique can guarantee the accuracy of the information provided. Since this argument cuts against all interrogation, it is as a matter of logic not an argument against WBing.

Coerced police confessions are illegal because they violate a citizen's rights under the COTUS

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.

That is false. It is illegal largely because of the 5th Am.

It is not persuasive to argue matters beyond your knowledge. Over time, the practice does nothing for a fellow's credibility.

 

[Playboypenguin]

You are mistaken. Testimony is evidence by definition. You assertion that most who testified never witnessed the actual events is an admission that some did. Those who did rendered evidence to the committee. That was not hearsay testimony. You are also somewhat confused about hearsay actually is, so it might be better to omit that from your argument in the future.

Arguing that KSM's info has been disputed is not a competent argument that it was wrong.

Once again, I will ask for the testimony of someone who witnessed information being gathered that did indeed pan out to be true and useful. The main proponent of the practice (who was cited by supporters of the practice) has admitted he based his testimony on what he heard and not what he saw. That is heresay. Also, in a court of law, testimony is not regarded as concrete evidence. In fact it is quite the opposite. Eye witness testimony is regarded as highly suspect and unreliable and often not enough to prosecute someone in itself.

Also, I hate to break it to you but the value of KSM's information is widely in doubt and very highly disputed. A simple google search would show you that if you were willing to actually look.

Interrogation is a process of drawing responses. Aside from incorrectly assessing my understanding of the english language, you have also completely sidestepped the fact that no interrogation technique can guarantee the accuracy of the information provided.

That is true, but forced testimony is very unreliable and there are much more successful means. So, even though it is good for retrieving information to validate a set idea, it is not shown to be effective in obtainng new and factual information. You seem to be the one sidestepping that fact

 

[zukiphile]

You are mistaken. Testimony is evidence by definition. You assertion that most who testified never witnessed the actual events is an admission that some did. Those who did rendered evidence to the committee. That was not hearsay testimony. You are also somewhat confused about hearsay actually is, so it might be better to omit that from your argument in the future.
Arguing that KSM's info has been disputed is not a competent argument that it was wrong.

Once again, I will ask for the testimony of someone who witnessed information being gathered that did indeed pan out to be true and useful. The main proponent of the practice (who was cited by supporters of the practice) has admitted he based his testimony on what he heard and not what he saw. That is heresay.

And once again, that is not the totality of the senate testimony. It is also ironic that you assert that his testimony is hearsay based on something someone else said.

Also, in a court of law, testimony is not regarded as concrete evidence.

Contrary to your assertion, testimony, even hearsay testimony, is evidence. There is no such thing that is "concrete evidence" as a matter of law, unless you meant a concret block I offered into evidence last summer.

Also, I hate to break it to you but the value of KSM's information is widely in doubt and very highly disputed. A simple google search would show you that if you were willing to actually look.

I have the sense that you didn't understand my point. As a matter of logic, noting that something is disputed is not an argument against it. Using dispute as evidence against is a fallacy.

Interrogation is a process of drawing responses. Aside from incorrectly assessing my understanding of the english language, you have also completely sidestepped the fact that no interrogation technique can guarantee the accuracy of the information provided.

That is true, but forced testimony is very unreliable and there are much more successful means. So, even though it is good for retrieving information to validate a set idea, it is not shown to be effective in obtainng new and factual information. You seem to be the one sidestepping that fact

far from sidestepping it, I addressed it directly in my prior post in a portion you did not quote. I wrote,

Since this argument cuts against all interrogation, it is as a matter of logic not an argument against WBing.

If that merits further explanation, I am glad to provide it.

I think it is a defensible position to hold that the US should not waterboard, at least as a matter of policy, for a variety of reasons. I don't see the need to demand that an opposing view is beyond reason.

 

[Playboypenguin]

And once again, that is not the totality of the senate testimony. It is also ironic that you assert that his testimony is hearsay based on something someone else said.

That is the definition of heresay. he made statements on events he did not witness.

Once again I would like to see the testimony of a person that went beyond the vague statement of "it is effective" and instead said how it is effective and cited proof. You seem to be holding these guys to a very weak standard of validation.

Contrary to your assertion, testimony, even hearsay testimony, is evidence.

Actually, I am pretty sure heresay is not even allowed in a criminal trial. Much less seen as reliable evidence.

I have the sense that you didn't understand my point. As a matter of logic, noting that something is disputed is not an argument against it. Using dispute as evidence against is a fallacy.

Point is, the validity of this example is widely disputed by reliable sources. The only thing supporting his testimony is the word of a few people who did not validate their statements with fact.

There is no such thing that is "concrete evidence" as a matter of law, unless you meant a concret block I offered into evidence last summer

There are such things as hard and soft evidence. Photos, security videos, fingerprints, DNA evidence, etc are considered hard evidence. Eye witness testimony and other things are not considered hard evidence.

 

[WhyteP38]

Actually, I am pretty sure heresay is not even allowed in a criminal trial. Much less seen as reliable evidence.

Wrong. The Federal Rules of Evidence, applicable to civil and criminal cases in federal courts, have 23 hearsay exceptions under FRE 803, and further exceptions through FRE 804 and FRE 807. States have their own hearsay exceptions, usually modelled after the federal rules.

And yes, it's "hear"say, not "here"say.

 

[zukiphile]

PBP, this isn't getting any better for you. If you have a good grasp of what you are really arguing about at this point, it isn't coming through.

And once again, that is not the totality of the senate testimony. It is also ironic that you assert that his testimony is hearsay based on something someone else said.

That is the definition of heresay.

No, it isn't. If it were, section 8 of the federal rules of evidence would be much more concise.

Contrary to your assertion, testimony, even hearsay testimony, is evidence.

Actually, I am pretty sure heresay is not even allowed in a criminal trial. Much less seen as reliable evidence.

I am not trying to be undiplomatic, but you are asserting a lot you don't know. Hearsay is admissible in criminal trials so long as it complies with the conditions of the rule cited above.

There is no such thing that is "concrete evidence" as a matter of law, unless you meant a concret block I offered into evidence last summer

There are such things as hard and soft evidence. Photos, security videos, fingerprints, DNA evidence, etc are considered hard evidence. Eye witness testimony and other things are not considered hard evidence.

Aside from being wrong, this is an argument against all interrogation whatsoever, since it will always provide evidence you deem categorically unreliable.

Have a good evening.

 

[WhyteP38]

There are such things as hard and soft evidence. Photos, security videos, fingerprints, DNA evidence, etc are considered hard evidence. Eye witness testimony and other things are not considered hard evidence.

The last time I checked, there is tangible evidence (physical items such as DNA, fingerprints, guns, etc.) and there is circumstantial evidence (eye witness testimony, etc.).

 

[Playboypenguin]

I am more than willing to be schooled on the exceptions under which heresay (was using the old english spelling). What are the exceptions? I highly doubt hearsay is ever seen as "stand alone" evidence. I would be fine with seeing an example where I am shown to be wrong on this. Many times I have seen cases where the bottom line is "we have people willing to say they did it, but we cannot find enough proof to back it up."

Aside from being wrong, this is an argument against all interrogation whatsoever, since it will always provide evidence you deem categorically unreliable.

Now you are backing off. I am stilling waiting to see the testimony I requested. That is the point of this discussion.

As for reliable methods of questioning, there are methods much more reliable and less open to abuse than torture. Nothing in life is certain but you do not discard everything based on the worst example. You use the method which is most proven.

 

[WhyteP38]

What are the exceptions?

I already posted them for you: FRE 803, FRE 804, and FRE 807. They apply to civil and criminal cases in federal courts.

 

[Playboypenguin]

But what are the exception? when are they used? what is a practical example of them? I am just asking you to take that information and apply it in a relevant manner. Just to show you did not just do a google search and list some information you did not research or comprehend.

If under one example, hearsay is only allowed when it supports a weight of pre-established evidence then it is not in itself evidence but is instead just collaborating testimony and is allowed into the record as such.

 

[WhyteP38]

They're used all the time. I'm not going to list them all because a) if you are too lazy to look them up yourself, that's your problem, and b) I don't want to do all that typing.

But here's a smattering of the more commonly known ones:

FRE 803 - Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of the Declarant Immaterial

803(1) - Present sense impression.
803(2) - Excited utterance.
803(3) - Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.
803(4) - Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
803(5) - Recorded recollection.
803(6) - Records of regularly conducted activity.

It doesn't take a genius to realize how often those exceptions come into play.

Then there's:

FRE 804 - Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable

FRE 807 - Residual Exception
"A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but haing equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines ..."

 

[Playboypenguin]

You are just cut and pasting. How about relating these words to a true case scenario. It does not take a lot of type. Just a sentence or two. You have shown up until now to be very willing to type.

I will be willing to expand on my original statement and say the non-exempt form of hearsay, meaning the person giving testimony, did not actually witness the event is not generally allowed and in the case of the senate hearing is the form of hearsay I was referring to in my post.

 

[WhyteP38]

You are just cut and pasting.

Wrong again. I just now typed them from the Federal Rules of Evidence, 2007 Edition, by Aspen Publishers.

How about relating these words to a true case scenerio.

You mean you can't imagine how a "present sense impression" would be used in court? Something like, "Joe said it was really cold outside"? Or an excited utterance like, "That guy in the blue hat just robbed the bank!" C'mon now!

 

[Playboypenguin]

You mean you can't imagine how a "present sense impression" would be used in court? Something like, "Joe said it was really cold outside"? Or an excited utterance like, "That guy in the blue hat just robbed the bank!" C'mon now

Actually that would not be "Present tense impression." Saying "It was really cold outside" is but saying "Joe said, it is really cold outside" is not.

Present tense impression is defines as...

(1) Present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.

 

[WhyteP38]

I will be willing to expand on my original statement and say the non-exempt form of hearsay, meaning the person giving testimony, did not actually witness the event is not generally allowed and in the case of the senate hearing is the form of hearsay I was referring to in my post.

You're talking about hearsay, but you don't even know what hearsay is.

 

[WhyteP38]

Actually that would not be "Present tense impression." Saying "It was really cold outside" is but saying "Joe said, it is really cold outside" is not.

You also don't know what a "declarant" is.

 

[Playboypenguin]

You're talking about hearsay, but you don't even know what hearsay is.

I am just saying there are different levels of hearsay. The example you shared above is not as you presented it. Hearsay can be "he told me this"...in that case it is not admissible. The person making the statement is not basing it on witnessed events but instead on the word of another. The person whose testimony is being quoted has to have actually made a statement that can be referenced. The "he told me" is not valid if not backed up by a statement from the original declarant. Under certain exceptions it can take different forms...but in all the admissible forms the declarant has to have actually witnessed the event in question. That is not the case in the examples I cited during the senate hearings.

Testimony can be hearsay if it is being presented by someone other than the declarant but it still requires that the original testimony be from someone that witnessed the event.

 

[WhyteP38]

I am just saying there are different levels of hearsay.

Wrong again. There is hearsay, there is non-hearsay, and there are hearsay exceptions.

A declarant is a person who makes the statement or assertion. Such statment can be either an in-court or out-of-court statement. A statement is an oral or written (human) assertion, or non-verbal (human) conduct intended as an assertion by a person.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Wrong again. There is hearsay, there is non-hearsay, and there are hearsay exceptions.

Wrong, their are mitigating factors that causes different levels of validity to be assigned. If that was not true all hearsay would either be allowed or not allowed.

Once again, you original example was incorrect in the way you presented it.

I cannot go to court and say "I know it is true because John told me he saw it" unless there is an actual statement from John. I can present his account as evidence but I cannot submit my hearing of his account as evidence.

 

[Bruxley]

What about a written report from 'John' to you, his superior, and the head of the agency, and the person testifying. Very weak PBP.

So the guy with no willingness to support his assertions is now not only being proven wrong s'more again today but want others to prove they know the proof personally and didn't just find the proof.

References Google searches to defend his assertions but holds that the same discredits another's proof.

And STILL hasn't answered what this statement is supposed to mean:
[QUOTE+PlayboyPenguin]The specialists do not feel it is effective but the powers that be wish to keep it around because it is a useful tool. [/QUOTE]

NOT effective but IS usefull......
Is it your assumption that the intel community and the President want to keep it for sadist reasons?

OH, and the HILARIOUS statement inferring Bush 'testified' about WMDs, here is a group of others 'testifying':
Expert 'testimony' - WMDs and the Iraqi threat

Saying something you believe is true but turns out later not to be is not lying. If it was you've lied ALOT in this thread. The people in the linked video weren't lying were they.

(Can't wait to read what you pull out of your ......... this time, )