Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good lord...the whole thing discusses the use of torture and the fact that it is not an effective tool.
Click to expand...

And yet the term waterboarding is not found ANYWHERE in the whole article. Again I refer you to what constitutes a fallacy.


So now you want to play a game of semantics.
Click to expand...

Well I tell you what. Since congress, the courts, international law, and america is divided on the issue of whether waterboarding is torture I think its really disingenuous to call this semantics.


I have given you my personal experiences
Click to expand...

Really? Thus far the only thing you've told me is that you've never had any experience with water boarding. Whether you've actually interrogated anyone is questionable as well. Therefore on the issue at hand, you have as much personal experience as I do.


and backed it up with govt studies and opinions of noted experts
Click to expand...

Really? From the second page of your article... "The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense, the National Foreign Intelligence Community or the U.S. Government".

Furthermore, not a single one of those "noted experts" has worked for the CIA... you know, the folks performing these interrogations.


but you chose to believe what you want to believe despite your lack of personal experience or valid information. Now you are just living in a state of deliberate ignorance and denial in which neither I, nor anyone else, could possibly reach you.
Click to expand...

Well, since we've dispensed with the personal experience issue lets move on. What I really curious about is why is it perfectly ok for you to dismiss wholesale the statements of CIA officials and the results obtained from waterboarding terror suspects, but I'm supposed to take as gospel some academic treatise that doesn't talk about waterboarding thats written by people who don't perform these types of interrogations.

I shouldn't have to tell you that what happens in academia does not always carry over to the real world. Alternatively, what works in the real world is not always recieved well by the "experts".

So, once again, irony defined: I'm in "denial" and yet you are telling us that the government has not successfully waterboarded these particular individuals.
 
That's a false dichotomy. First, these particular individuals are no longer a threat. Second, I never suggested that "white gloves" must be used on those who are a threat.
Click to expand...

It may be a dichotomy, but its not false. These people are fanatics, and are not going to respond to regular coercive interrogation.

Furthermore, as long as they are breathing, they are a threat.


Making someone believe that they're drowning is essentially a threat of death, not too far removed from fake execution, which is also considered a form of torture.
Click to expand...

Well, then you and I disagree on that point.


That guarantees nothing; you could well just get another lie.
True, but that hasn't been the case.


And the CIA destroyed the "evidence" that might have verified those reports. Oops... I don't find that claim to be credible, and I've seen no evidence for it's validity.
Click to expand...

No, the CIA destroyed videotapes of their interrogations to 1) protect the identities of its operatives 2) eliminate any possibility of bad press having these techniques aired all over the news and 3) to not have to deal with any of the red cross/amnesty international peace weenies that would raise hell about this regardless.

However, the beautiful thing is that we don't just have to rely on video. We have the statements of MANY agents regarding the waterboarding itself AS WELL as the information that was acted upon and the results that were achieved.

So unless you are going to sit here and tell me that all of these agents are liars, then there is evidence that waterboarding has been effective.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
deleted---no point in continuing this discussion with someone that just contradicts without basis.
Click to expand...

Now now, don't cut and run because I called you on your lack of personal experience.

I have certianly contradicted you, however I certianly do have a basis. If the Director of the CIA has stated that these interrogation methods are irreplacable, then how can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that "the top people in the agency dont think it works".

All I've asked of you is a simple request. Show me someone FROM THE CIA who says that waterboarding isn't effective. I dont want an academic paper. I don't want your bald conclusions.

Show me some evidence from the people who are actually there.
 
I just showed you a comprehensive report by experts in the field of psychological warfare and interrogation techniques and yet you want to dispute it based on the fact that no one has produced you a CIA manual. Real logical thinking.

As for my personal experiences and the education I received in AIT, you have not contradicted or dispelled any of it nor do you have the means to do so.

All you have shown so far is that you are willing to take the word of a President that is a known and proven habitual liar (like when he claimed in a press conference the other day that he has never seen any information that would suggest that gas prices would rise to $4 a gallon only to have CNN airing minutes from multiple briefings he had received in the past several days that stated that very thing) and a retired CIA officer that is a politician trying to get an appointment claiming something that they cannot prove and is highly disputed. They are doing this to set a precedent to prevent things they have done coming back to haunt them after their reign has ended. they are setting a foundation to be able to say..."we had good cause to think this was effective and good cause to believe it was not true torture."
No, the CIA destroyed videotapes of their interrogations to 1) protect the identities of its operatives 2) eliminate any possibility of bad press having these techniques aired all over the news and 3) to not have to deal with any of the red cross/amnesty international peace weenies that would raise hell about this regardless.
Click to expand...
Ummm...they are protecting these people from the Senate Intel Committee??? :confused:
 
That guarantees nothing; you could well just get another lie.
Click to expand...

True, but that hasn't been the case.
Click to expand...

And you know this from personal experience? Somehow I doubt it. And we've already covered the topic of credibility...

We have the statements of MANY agents regarding the waterboarding itself AS WELL as the information that was acted upon and the results that were achieved.
Click to expand...

Well, let's consider that.

I recall from Bush's speech a couple days ago that he mentioned the "plot" on the U.S. Bank tower (incorrectly called the Library tower). But in fact, it appears this was largely false and no significant plot existed; furthermore, he has also used this "plot" as a basis for arguing for the domestic surveillance program. :barf:

PBP said:
Ummm...they are protecting these people from the Senate Intel Committee???
Click to expand...

Yeah, no kidding. :rolleyes:
 
I just showed you a comprehensive report by experts in the field of psychological warfare and interrogation techniques and yet you want to dispute it based on the fact that no one has produced you a CIA manual. Real logical thinking.
Click to expand...

No, I dispute it because it doesn't say ANYTHING about waterboarding. Don't you think that if you are going to use this report as evidence that waterboarding isn't effective, that it should at least mention it?

As for my personal experiences and the education I received in AIT, you have not contradicted or dispelled any of it nor do you have the means to do so.
Click to expand...

I don't need to. You already admitted that you have never waterboarded anyone. I wonder if I should even ask if you've ever seen anyone waterboarded as part of an interrogation.

As such you have NO personal experience where waterboarding is concerned. By your line of logic, I should be able to have Jerry Miculek talk to someone that has never shot a gun, and they would then be able to claim personal experience in shooting.

All you have shown so far is that you are willing to take the word of a President that is a known and proven habitual liar
Click to expand...

Really, because I don't think I've once brought Bush into this.

and a retired CIA officer that is a politician trying to get an appointment claiming something that they cannot prove and is highly disputed.
Click to expand...

No, there have been several different CIA agents, both retired and current, that have testified to the effectiveness of water boarding. You also keep glossing over the director's comments as well.

As far as this guy being a politician, I'd like to know what facts you have to support that.

Ummm...they are protecting these people from the Senate Intel Committee???
Click to expand...

The tapes were destroyed in 2005 as a result of the media focus on our prisons abroad. The senate committee has nothing to do with this other than the fact that handing it over to the committee would be a guarantee that it would be leaked.
 
Well, let's consider that.

I recall from Bush's speech a couple days ago that he mentioned the "plot" on the U.S. Bank tower (incorrectly called the Library tower). But in fact, it appears this was largely false and no significant plot existed; furthermore, he has also used this "plot" as a basis for arguing for the domestic surveillance program.
Click to expand...

And again, picking out a single example and extrapolating it to apply to every situation is a fallacy.
 
And again, picking out a single example and extrapolating it to apply to every situation is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

I didn't extrapolate to every situation; this shows a lack of credibility. This single example shows that the administration lied :eek: about the utility of their intelligence gathering programs. (Big surprise, huh? :rolleyes:)

Malasian authorities arrested a suspect before anything happened, and it does not appear the US intelligence was involved in that arrest.

"...intelligence officials, who declined to be identified because they did not want to criticize the White House publicly, said there is deep disagreement within the intelligence community over the seriousness of the scheme to attack the 73-story building and whether it was ever much more than talk."

See also post #63.
 
Now you just panicking and lying...I never confirmed nor did I deny any activities I participated in during my stint in MI.
Click to expand...

Ok. Now you are either lying or just have a very very short term memory.

In response to my question, "Just out of curiosity how many people have you waterboarded." You answered... "none".

I don't know about you but none in my book means none. So which is it. Are you telling the truth now or then.

And while you're at it, why are the top folks at the CIA (the ones who you say all agree that torture isn't effective) calling waterboarding effective?
 
I didn't extrapolate to every situation; this shows a lack of credibility. This single example shows that the administration lied about the utility of their intelligence gathering programs. (Big surprise, huh? )
Click to expand...

Why do you keep bringing Bush into it. I don't care what Bush says or does. He, just like the senate committees, is not experienced in interrogation nor has he performed any.

I do care what the CIA says and does. And they have been unanimous in their support for this tool.

All we heard during the early parts of the war from critics was "listen to the people on the ground". "Don't let policy makers decide what the folks on the ground need to do". Now apparently, it doesn't matter what the people on the ground think. The opinions of academics who have never waterboarded anyone are apparently worth more than the folks actually doing the work and getting results.
 
Isn't all this really a moot point? In November, Bush will be gone. McCain, Obama, and Hillary all oppose torture. So it will end, despite the fact that an undeterminable number of deaths have been prevented because of it.

As for listening to people on the ground, the US Army does not support, nor engages in torture. The Army field guide on interrogation indicates torture is not effective at providing accurate information.
 
Ok. Now you are either lying or just have a very very short term memory.
Click to expand...
Ok, you got me on that one. I miread the question. I thought I was being asked how many times I had witnessd it be successful. That is why I said "none, and how many times have you witnessed it be successful?"

I edited my previous response and noted the reason. :)
 
As for listening to people on the ground, the US Army does not support, nor engages in torture. The Army field guide on interrogation indicates torture is not effective at providing accurate information.
Click to expand...
Just as important, in my opinion, is the testimony by the head of the DIA that the Army field manual provides his people with the tools necessary to protect us.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2zmi3uLLTVI
 
As for listening to people on the ground, the US Army does not support, nor engages in torture. The Army field guide on interrogation indicates torture is not effective at providing accurate information.
Click to expand...
No, that is not true...because this politician that was trying to receive an appointment said different when he was not under oath. He even claimed waterboarding was not torture. Of course he later completely reversed what he said and then admitted waterboarding was ndeed a torturous act...but the trick is to know what day to pay attention to them and what day not to listen. :)
 
Ok, you got me on that one. I miread the question. I thought I was being asked how many times I had witnessd it be successful. That is why I said "none, and how many times have you witnessed it be successful?"
Click to expand...

Ok. Now that we've got past that, can you now explain to me why all the people in the intelligence game are arguing in favor of waterboarding?
 
can you now explain to me why all the people in the intelligence game are arguing in favor of waterboarding?
Click to expand...

Why do you think they are all in favor of it?
US Army intelligence must not be in favor of it. They are in the intelligence game.
 
Ok. Now that we've got past that, can you now explain to me why all the people in the intelligence game are arguing in favor of waterboarding?
Click to expand...
They are not arguing that it is a reliable method of obtaining information. They do not have a leg to stand on in that respect since all the experts disagree with them. A small faction is arguing that it should be allowed simply to protect themselves from the upcoming possible international war crimes charges that may be brought against them once the current administration is out of power. They are trying to establish a defense up front before they have to face charges.
 
Oddly enought the US has excused itself from all war crimes laws. Even odder is that all the western world has said ok, we're subject to these rules but you're not.

Buggered if I can explain it. Oh yeah, money.
 
Good link: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/10/fbi-interrogator-tor.html

Torture works against us.

Waterboarding is clearly torture either going by definition alone or past convictions.

Ok. Now that we've got past that, can you now explain to me why all the people in the intelligence game are arguing in favor of waterboarding?
Click to expand...

It's their job to support the administration's stance. Just as it is the job of a soldier to kill people when asked. Notice how the only vocal opponents are no longer employed by the government? ex-CIA, ex-FBI, etc. They are only then free to express their true opinions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top