Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruxely

Still waiting for a single example of testimony where anyone went on record beyond the vague "it is effective." Do you have that yet?

Is it your assumption that the intel community and the President want to keep it for sadist reasons?
Click to expand...
I pretty clearly stated why it is useful. Try rereading and see if you can catch it.

And just for the record, I would love to hear what your standard of validation is for govt officials. Is it enough for them to just say so or do they need to back it up...and to what degree do they need to back it up?
 
Another sidestep....SHOCKER......this is fun.

Effective = gaining actionable intel from someone know to posses it. Several people have testified as to the actionable intel gathered from KSM and what that intel was. AND that despite the use of other methods NOT being effective, after a minute and a half of waterboarding he spilled aand answered all questions asked after that.
 
Bruxely

Another post from you and we are still waiting for a single example of testimony where anyone went on record beyond the vague "it is effective." Do you have that yet?

You are accusing me of sidestepping things but you are not answering the question at all. I seem to be addressing your statement but you seem more intent on deflection rather than addressing the question.
 
Wrong, their [sic] are mitigating factors that causes different levels of validity to be assigned.
Click to expand...
Please point to the "different levels of validity" as set out in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Since you can google the rules electronically, it should be a breeze for you to find the rules and conduct a search for that language.

I'll save you some time. You won't find it. Because it's not there.
If that was not true all hearsay would either be allowed or not allowed.
Click to expand...
The exceptions are where the bulk of admissible hearsay is found. That's why they are called "exceptions." FRE 807 is a type of catch-all for the instances that are not covered by the exceptions in FRE 803 and FRE 804.

There is also FRE 801(d)(1) and (2) which defines certain out-of-court statements made by a witness or another person as non-hearsay.

FRE 801(d)(1) allows prior out-of-court statements by the witness to be admitted. FRE 801(d)(2) allows prior out-of-court statements to be admitted when they are admissions by a party-opponent, such as the party, a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment made during the existence of the relationship, or a statement by a coconspirator of a party.

Generally, the statements admitted under FRE 801(d)(1) and (2) fall into the definition of hearsay, but rather than define them as exceptions, FRE 801(d)(1) and (2) define them as non-hearsay.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying in court, that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (in the statement). The declarant can be either the witness or someone other than the witness.
 
from previous post...... said:
Effective = gaining actionable intel from someone know to posses it. Several people have testified as to the actionable intel gathered from KSM and what that intel was. AND that despite the use of other methods NOT being effective, after a minute and a half of waterboarding he spilled aand answered all questions asked after that.
Click to expand...

Your turn.......
 
Some sources claim that KSM was never waterboarded, but instead simply threatened with waterboarding. So using him as an example of the effectiveness of waterboarding may or may not be based in reality.

Do you really think most of these guys are going to hold out when threatened with torture? Our government keeps telling us how cowardly they all are, and I tend to believe that. They know they are never going to be free, and will ultimately be executed. Eventually, the CIA will get the information they want out of them, so they might as well talk, and keep the electrodes off their testicles.

Maybe our government is benefitting from all the talk and controversy surrounding waterboarding.
 
Please point to the "different levels of validity" as set out in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Since you can google the rules electronically, it should be a breeze for you to find the rules and conduct a search for that language.
Click to expand...
Do you not realize that the very fact that it is admissible under some circumstance and not under others makes that point in itself? If it was all the same it would either never be admissible or always be admissible.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying in court, that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (in the statement). The declarant can be either the witness or someone other than the witness.
Click to expand...
Being the declarant of the statement which attests to the original statement and being the declarant of the actual event are two different things. For hearsay to be admissible there has to be an original statement (out of court) asserting the witness of an event. You cannot refer to another unverified statement. You can't simply say " Steve told me so" unless Steve actually did say so for the purpose of providing testimony. In the case of someone saying that waterboarding "is effective" because someone told me so is not valid unless it is supported by further evidence. Where is this evidence?
 
Bruxley

Do I need to repeat the question?

Show us an example of anyone who went on record as saying waterboarding is a method of obtaining reliable information and provided proof.
 
Some sources claim that KSM was never waterboarded, but instead simply threatened with waterboarding. So using him as an example of the effectiveness of waterboarding may or may not be based in reality.
Click to expand...
Some sources claim that 9-11 was an inside job, or that no plane ever struck the Pentagon.

Then again, if the mere threat of waterboarding got KSM to talk, I'd say waterboarding is extremely effective and convenient. We don't even need to actually waterboard terrorists. So everyone is happy. Intel is gathered; no waterboarding happened.
 
Then again, if the mere threat of waterboarding got KSM to talk, I'd say waterboarding is extremely effective and convenient. We don't even need to actually waterboard terrorists. So everyone is happy. Intel is gathered; no waterboarding happened.
Click to expand...
So you would be happy just with the fact that he talked...and not that what he said was actually true?
 
Let me see if we're all on the same page. I'm pretty sure everyone here sees torture as a BAD thing. The question is whether it is a NECESSARY evil. This entire thread can be summed up in a few simple questions.

One: Do the ends justify the means?
Two: Are you willing to do something BAD in the hope of getting a greater good?
Three: Can you live with yourself if your GOOD turns out to be worthless?
Four: Does the government have the right subject people outside of its own collective to such actions if they are a threat to the state or the members of its collective? (Does the U.S. Constitution- and Bill of Rights- apply to non-citizens?)
Five: Where does the "burden of proof" lie is such instances?

I don't think anyone here LIKES torture of any kind. The answers to these questions do NOT reveal if you have "the stomach" for "victory." They reveal character, and that's something that varies widely- even among great people. Remember from opposing views comes greater thought- Hegel's theory of synthesis, if I recall correctly, and thought is ALWAYS good when deciding someone's fate.
FYI, personally, I go with "Le Morte' d' Arthur" for Number Four. "...that which we hold as good and right and true, is good and right and true for all men, under God, else we are nothing more than another robber tribe..." That's why I can not PERSONALLY torture anyone; it becomes personal for me, and I can not detach myself from it. Others can. This may be yet another instance where the state's views and mine are NOT the same, but just as I would not want the state to be my "moral compass," so too can I not do the same for the state.
 
Last edited:
Do you not realize that the very fact that it is admissible under some circumstance and not under others makes that point in itself? If it was all the same it would either never be admissible or always be admissible.
Click to expand...
Do you understand what the word "exception" means?

You said:
heresay [sic] is not even allowed in a criminal trial. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...
I replied that you were wrong because the federal rules have hearsay exceptions.

I'm the one who said that hearsay is admissible under some circumstances and not under others, as spelled out in the hearsay exceptions of the FRE.

YOU are the one who said it's not even allowed, but now you're claiming "levels of validity" and "admissible under some circumstance and not under others." You are now arguing the exact opposite of your original statement, but claiming it was original to you.
 
Warrior Poet

I am not a fan of torture at all. I am against it and do not believe the good out weighs the bad.

I can however admit that it can be effective. If we know someone is going to do something but cannot provide enough evidence to procede legally it can be used to get a detainee to give us the validating statement we need to procede properly and could therefore save lives.

Unfortunately it can also be used to validate things we know to be false but want people to believe are true. In the end I believe the possible abuses far outweighs the benefits.
 
Do you understand what the word "exception" means?
Click to expand...
Yes, it means it is not valid in some cases and it is in others. That in itself is a difference. That shows that their is some hearsay that is not valid and some that is valid. That means there are different levels of hearsay..the admissible forms and the inadmissible forms.
I'm the one who said that hearsay is admissible under some circumstances and not under others, as spelled out in the hearsay exceptions of the FRE.
Click to expand...
..and I admitted that hearsay is sometimes admissible...but not in the form it is being used in the senate testimony...because when the senate asked for validation of the original opinion they were denied it. Therefore there is no proof of the incident being witnessed by the original declarant that is being referenced.
 
Ok let me see if I get you here. The congressional testimony isn't reliable because it came from a Bush administration guy and goverment officials need not be trusted. AND the personal experiences of those here aren't valid because there is no OFFICIAL proof. The government aperent fabricated an elaborate hoax to fake:
— Ohio trucker Iyman Faris pleaded guilty May 1, 2003, to providing material support to terrorists. He also conspired to derail a train near Washington, D.C., and use acetylene torches to sever the Brooklyn Bridge's cables, plunging it into the East River.

— Jemaah Islamiya (JI) agent Rusman "Gun Gun" Gunawan was convicted of transferring money to bomb Jakarta's Marriott Hotel, killing 12 and injuring 150.

— Hambali, Gunawan's brother and ringleader of JI's October 2002 Bali nightclub blasts, killed 202 and wounded 209.

— Suspected al-Qaida agent Majid Khan, officials say, provided money to JI terrorists and plotted to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, detonate U.S. gas stations, and poison American water reservoirs.

— Jose Padilla, who trained with al-Qaida in Afghanistan, was convicted of providing material support to terrorists and conspiring to kidnap, maim, and murder people overseas.

— Malaysian Yazid Sufaat, an American-educated biochemist and JI member, reportedly provided hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi housing in Kuala Lumpur during a January 2000 9/11 planning summit. He also is suspected of employing "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui.

John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who witnessed the interrogation......

a detailed hoax complete with guilty pleas and convictions, AND ALL to keep a tool that is 'not effective but useful........

Now consiracy theories are one thing but...........

Your truly failing. Tough I'm sure but it would have been FAR more productive and easier on your credibility to have said by now what is clear to the rest of us.........your wrong..........S'MORE

Gotta eat some dinner. Can't WAIT to read what you pull out to further your now painfully strained arguement.

Try a sidestep or pick out a sentence and ignore the rest......Nah, that would be predictable, how about changing the subject! Rape, testicale shock, and crucifiction have been used so something fresh please.

BRB (Can hardly wait!)
 
So you would be happy just with the fact that he talked...and not that what he said was actually true?
Click to expand...
Since you oppose waterboarding, wouldn't you be happy with the fact that he talked without resorting to waterboarding?

Also, what interrogation methods do you recommend that would ensure the truth of the statements?
 
You are just sighting examples of events and "supposed" actions taken to prevent them. You are not providing evidence to their validity.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who witnessed the interrogation......
Click to expand...
He admitted that he DID NOT witness the interrogation.

So back to the original question. Where is the testimony that states that waterboarding is a valid method of obtaining new and reliable information from a detainee?
 
Yes, it means it is not valid in some cases and it is in others. That in itself is a difference. That shows that their is some hearsay that is not valid and some that is valid.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. It doesn't mean the statements are valid. It can mean that the admissible statements are more likely to be reliable, or that they are admissible because there is no other way to get critical and relevant information.

Just because a hearsay statement is inadmissible does not mean it is not valid. Some hearsay statements are valid but inadmissible because of the difficulties in proving validity. Some hearsay statements are valid but inadmissible because they are irrelevant to the issue. And some hearsay statements are valid but inadmissible because they would be unfairly prejudicial.

Generally, under FRE 104(a), the judge determines whether evidence is admissible or inadmissible, not valid or invalid. The weight and credibility of the evidence is determined by the trier of fact, be it the jury in a jury trial or a judge in a bench trial.
 
Also, what interrogation methods do you recommend that would ensure the truth of the statements?
Click to expand...
If you want to know what the most valuable and proven effective method is I can tell you that. It is compensation. The promise of safe passage for them and their family to a safe country. The promise of enough money or means to start over in a safe enviroment and the promise of freedom from prosecution. That has been historically proven to be the most effective means of gaining cooperation. I have never stated that cooperation is needed for good intel though. In fact it is easier to get good information from watching and listening to someone that does not know they are being watched or listened to than it is to bring them in for questioning in the first place.
 
Wrong again. It doesn't mean the statements are valid. It can mean that the admissible statements are more likely to be reliable, or that they are admissible because there is no other way to get critical and relevant information.
Click to expand...
So, some forms of hearsay are more reliable. Does that not mean that some forms are not as reliable? Can you not see that in itself shows different levels of hearsay. I can just look at that statement as see there are at least two different types. The type that is likely to be reliable and substantiated and the type that is not. You cannot say "it is all the same but it is different." It is an "either or" situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top