Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation
- Thread starter Unregistered
- Start date
- Status
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Yes, the very same. But if you're going to quote him, then you should do us the favor of giving the whole quote, namely where he said...
"the harsh technique provided an intelligence breakthrough that "probably saved lives," but that he now regards the tactic as torture.
I'm thrilled that he "got religion". However that doesn't pertain to our conversation. All I care about is whether waterboarding is effective or not. Even this guy, who now opposes it, states that it is effective and has saved lives. I'd say thats a pretty ringing endorsement.
I quoted Kiriakou as a single example per your request. I've also given you the director of the CIA as well as several agents that have given anonymous interviews.
And how would you know?
No we can't, however when the people that run the organization are saying the same thing as the actual agents when they do make statements I think thats sufficient for a consensus.
In the abstract. We are talking about waterboarding. I want stuff on waterboarding. "Torture" is a generic term. It could mean sleep deprivation or it could mean disemboweling. Waterboarding doesn't fit nicely into the definition of torture since it doesn't have the traditional characteristics.
So, once again, what I want from you is a statement from someone stating SPECIFICALLY that waterboarding is ineffective.
All the evidence thus far points to the fact that it is highly effective. Taking Zubaida as an example, he was described as ideologically zealous, defiant and uncooperative -- until the day in mid-summer when his captors strapped him to a board, wrapped his nose and mouth in cellophane and forced water into his throat in a technique that simulates drowning.
The waterboarding lasted about 35 seconds before Abu Zubaida broke down, according to Kiriakou, who said he was given a detailed description of the incident by fellow team members. The next day, Abu Zubaida told his captors he would tell them whatever they wanted.
The same situation happened with KSM as well as the 3rd guy. Everyone in the intelligence community agrees that the information recieved from these 3 men was vital and valuable.
So when people such as Kiriakou, who don't like the technique, and don't want it used, say that its very effective, and has give us useful information and has probably saved lives, how on earth can you sit there and say that its not effective.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I thought our rights as citizens of the US where "God Given" rights? Are you suggesting god only gave those rights to anglos?
Key word..."probably." He then later admitted he really had no way of knowing since he did not witness the retrieval of information or the tactics used. Pretty powerful statement for someone that was the "star witness."
The director of the CIA is an appoitment...and "anonymous" interviews? Just how do you validate "anonymous" interview? You are willing to accept something like that as proof???
If you are trying to say waterboarding is not torture then I suggest you read this...
I think waterboarding ver clearly falls under that description.
Irrelevant as it pertains to this conversation.
He admitted no such thing. He stated that he was not present while the waterboarding was going on, however he was briefed by those who were.
The fact that you are arguing semantics with whether this "probably" saved lives shows your argument is crumbling. The information obtained by waterboarding was effective. Whether it saved lives is only icing on the cake.
No, not conclusively. However when every single person associated with the CIA says the same thing, both openly and anonymously, and there are 3 verified instances where it did work, it tends to disprove the theory that this technique is useless.
Of course if you disagree, you are free to present ANY evidence that specifically shows that waterboarding is not effective.
While I personally don't believe that it is, that isn't what I'm trying to say.
My argument is that waterboarding is an effective enough tool to keep in our tool chest. You keep trying to divert the argument from this issue.
Not that I give a wit about what the UN does, but again, this doesn't have anything to do with whether it is effective or not.
Stick to the issue and show me something that says waterboarding doesn't work.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Exactely...he has no first hand knowledge. All his glowing statements were made based on second hand knowledge...or "here say."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha....that is so ridiculous a statement it is funny.
By that logic, cutting off fingers would also be effective and should be allowed.
And since he is no longer with the company, what would be his incentive to lie, especially since he has changed his views on water boarding.
The bottom line is that these terrorists weren't talking until they were waterboarded. After that they sang. There isn't ANYBODY that disputes this.
So then prove me wrong. Show me something or someone that says waterboarding is ineffective.
No, because one causes physical pain and permanent disfigurement, the other doesn't.
However whether something is torture has nothing to do with whether its effective. You have contended that waterboarding isn't effective and yet presented ZERO evidence in support of this fact.
Since I'm the nobody and you're the MI guy, shouldn't it be easy for you to show us something that supports this?
First, you really need to define "ineffective" since it has already been pointed out that reeds under the fingernails also makes people sing like little birdies.
Sure, there is the narrow short term view that information was obtained, but there is also a lot of worthless information obtained. Confessions were given for acts that took place well after KSM was in custody.
Taking a single case where information yielded worthwhile results and expanding that to a generality on the technique doesn't hold water (so to speak). There is no difference between waterboarding and traditional medieval technique, so why wouldn't you apply knowledge about longterm ineffectiveness to waterboarding?
Second, that the recipient doesn't experience longterm damage is refuted by the fact that KSM only had to be waterboarded once. After that he said whatever he could to not have that applied again. The damage exists, and manifests itself in his behavior.
If a "24" situation comes up, feel free to use it. Until then, it certainly shouldn't be public policy. Any wonder why our allies aren't as friendly as they used to be? The US used to be "a shining city on a hill," and we should at least pretend to retain that image.
If waterboarding isn't torture, why can't our AG or head of CIA come out and say it is legal?
Sure, there is the narrow short term view that information was obtained, but there is also a lot of worthless information obtained. Confessions were given for acts that took place well after KSM was in custody.
Taking a single case where information yielded worthwhile results and expanding that to a generality on the technique doesn't hold water (so to speak). There is no difference between waterboarding and traditional medieval technique, so why wouldn't you apply knowledge about longterm ineffectiveness to waterboarding?
Second, that the recipient doesn't experience longterm damage is refuted by the fact that KSM only had to be waterboarded once. After that he said whatever he could to not have that applied again. The damage exists, and manifests itself in his behavior.
If a "24" situation comes up, feel free to use it. Until then, it certainly shouldn't be public policy. Any wonder why our allies aren't as friendly as they used to be? The US used to be "a shining city on a hill," and we should at least pretend to retain that image.
If waterboarding isn't torture, why can't our AG or head of CIA come out and say it is legal?
I don't need to define it. The people doing the interrogating already have, and they have deemed waterboarding to be very effective.
So you have personal knowledge as to what information KSM gave the CIA? You know how much of it was true and how much was not?
No, but we have three cases in which an incredibly miniminal amount of waterboarding produced a maximum of information.
Furthermore, there is a world of difference between waterboarding and torture. Thats why every single person on this board is given the choice between interrogation via waterboarding and interrogation via traditional means of torture would chose waterboarding. It certianly isn't pleasant, but its not the same as "medieval techniques".
Baloney. Its simply a normal cognitive reaction. If I burn my hand on the stove I don't have any desire to touch the burner again. This doesn't mean that I'm "damaged" it just means that I have a desire to avoid being burned.
But if we are going to delve into psychobabble for a moment, I think that there is something that deserves some analysis. Waterboarding has a unique quality that other methods of torture don't have. Waterboarding tricks the mind into believing that the person is drowning. Drowning is unique in that there isn't anything the body can do to compensate. As painful and gruesome as traditional torture can be, the body has ways of physically mitigating pain to certian extents.
The effectiveness of waterboarding is that there is no physiological compensation that the body can engage in because drowning is just drowning.
Three things. First, this is just an appeal to emotion.
Second, if you think that the CIA and the US was a "shining city" with clean hands up until the Bush administration took office I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Third, you don't seem to understand the nature of the threat we are facing. Every day is a "24" situation. Just because the bomb isn't scheduled to go off today doesn't mean the threat isnt there.
We need every advantage we can get to find and stop these people. This isn't easy and it doesn't happen over night. If you don't have the necessary intel, you will never know when the "24" situation arrives, and thus you won't be able to do anything about it.
Who knows. I really don't care if it is or not. You can start a new thread on the legality of waterboarding if you like. All I care about is whether it is effective, and the facts say it is.
If you disagree, for the 400th time please show me something that says waterboarding is ineffective.
Unregistered
Moderator
What traditional characteristics do you think it lacks?
TacticalDefense1911
New member
Don't know if this WaPo piece helps.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html
Unregistered
Moderator
According to that definition, if waterboarding simulates drowning, then it would be torture.
I find this entire thread to be interesting, what with the posturing (my military background is better than yours), the word-games, and so-on.
What seems to be lost here is that the terrorists who are (and should be) the object of torture are cowardly murderers. They would jump at the chance to behead you and your family, or me and my family. They would have no qualms about eviscerating you on the street in front of your house and dancing on your entrails.
Terrorists are truly cowards. They fight like cowards. And yet, there are those who would treat them as if they are honorable warriors. They are not! We aren't talking about some fencing match where participants bow to each other, score points, and shake hands when the fight is over. We are talking about a back-alley knife fight where there are no rules. The person who abides by "rules" is probably the one who loses.
Who cares if we hurt their sensibilities? Who cares if, in order to wipe them from the face of the earth, we break the "rules"? They don't honor any kind of "rules" to begin with. If by using some form of torture we win the battle, then so be it.
What seems to be lost here is that the terrorists who are (and should be) the object of torture are cowardly murderers. They would jump at the chance to behead you and your family, or me and my family. They would have no qualms about eviscerating you on the street in front of your house and dancing on your entrails.
Terrorists are truly cowards. They fight like cowards. And yet, there are those who would treat them as if they are honorable warriors. They are not! We aren't talking about some fencing match where participants bow to each other, score points, and shake hands when the fight is over. We are talking about a back-alley knife fight where there are no rules. The person who abides by "rules" is probably the one who loses.
Who cares if we hurt their sensibilities? Who cares if, in order to wipe them from the face of the earth, we break the "rules"? They don't honor any kind of "rules" to begin with. If by using some form of torture we win the battle, then so be it.
Unregistered
Moderator
We are suppposed to better than they are.
- Status