Waterboarding Rocks!

[A'isha]

Your narrow definition of OSS men is your escape clause, not mine. Many OSS operatives were not Americans. I understand you are traumatized by the realization that the U.S. wasn't always using Marquess of Queensberry rules in WWII. That's the nature of war.

And yet, the one and only example you provided of any torture being talked about in even the vaguest connection with the OSS during WWII details, in your own cited link, that the OSS considered itself a distinct organization from both Dai Li's secret police and SACO (which was why it was called by the separate name of SACO and not, y'know, the OSS), and that the (separate from Dai Li's men and the SACO) commander of the OSS group and his men in China disliked Dai Li because Dai Li tortured prisoners!

Your cognitive dissonance in this matter is staggering.

 

[Upchurch]

So, going back to my original argument, you now agree with me that the US never stooped to using torture during WWII?

 

[Upchurch]

I can't pull it up on my little phone at the moment, but it seems to me that Cicero had originally claimed that the OSS had been torturing Germans.

Cicero, are you claiming that Dai Li tortured Germans?

 

[tsig]

I can't pull it up on my little phone at the moment, but it seems to me that Cicero had originally claimed that the OSS had been torturing Germans.

Cicero, are you claiming that Dai Li tortured Germans?

Somebody some where tortured somebody and the OSS knew!!!!

OMG grab the water buckets and hot irons with this precedent we are set free!!!

 

[Morrigan]

Thing is, that's a judgement call. I'm not willing to accept your view of what's plausible or not.

You're not willing to accept that your doomsday sci-fi movie scenario is "not plausible"? Okay!

Nor have I even begun to list the scenarios that are possible. Could we agree that I probably could come up with scenarios that are plausible?

No, we can't agree on that. If you could come up with a plausible scenario, you would have used one from REALITY already. That you need to INVENT scenarios, or modify existing ones to the point of absurdity, in order to prove your point, shows just how warped you are.

And beside, as I said, irregardless of plausibility, are you willing to hurt one person to save the lives of thousands or even hundreds of thousands? Yes or no?

I already answered that. If I had to commit some atrocity in order to save the entire universe, sure, I'd do it. But I don't live out my days in anxiety about it, and I don't make policies about it.

And you don't live in the real world.

Coming from someone who keeps inventing bizarre sci-fi scenarios as arguments, this is rich.

In the real world there really are people trying to acquire nuclear materials for dirty bombs ... trying to acquire nuclear and other WMD weapons ... so they can use them against us or our allies in dramatic terrorist attacks. There really are people willing to commit suicide in order to kill thousands of innocent people. And there are no end to the ways they could do it. There really are people who have sworn to destroy our civilization and way of life.

I'm aware of that. But what you are conveniently omitting is that in the real world, these people aren't in captivity hours away from their attacks with torture as the only resort to prevent them; in the real world, waterboarding and torture are not very effective in obtaining this information anyway; in the real world, interrogation experts disagree with you and you are clutching at wet, slippery straws.

See? You see moral equivalence in a hurting single person and his destroying the planet. Your moral compass is broken.

Huh? I was saying that if I DID agree to your stupid premise, I WOULD torture someone to save the planet. You are so off the charts that you can't parse simple English now?
I tend to be utilitarian. If the evidence demonstrated that the torture of terrorists really worked and did help save lives, I would probably support its use.

And I bet you are a liberal.

You are a grotesque caricature.

Absolutely. What if in the next season of 24 the terrorist is home grown? We gots to torture that US MF.

In seasons 3 and 5, the main terrorists are American.

But this is such a stupid question, because it would justify anything.

Yes, if it was certain that it would save billions of lives, then I would torture someone. Also, if it was certain that it would save billions of lives, I would rape a child or set fire to a kitten.

When you have to invoke the saving of billions of lives to justify an action, then that's kind of a big clue that it is not, under any normal circumstances, justifiable.

Too true. Bolding the keyword here because BAC keeps missing the point.

To repeat: sure, in some bizarro world where the only possibility is choosing between torture and destroying thousands/millions/the world/the Universe, torture could be justified. This does NOT mean that it's justified in normal, typical, real-life circumstances - on the contrary, and all the historical evidence shows that a typical terror plot is not adverted hours in advance with last-minute torturing of a suspect, but through weeks-long (or more) investigations and subtle, non-torturing interrogation techniques, and that the use of waterboarding and other torture methods are not only not effective in long-term investigations, they are also ineffective for obtaining information rapidly (as shown by the need to use the technique 180 times or so before it remotely got anywhere). Therefore, it is not just moral, but also practical to outlaw torture as an interrogation technique.

 

[Cicero]

And yet, the one and only example you provided of any torture being talked about in even the vaguest connection with the OSS during WWII details, in your own cited link, that the OSS considered itself a distinct organization from both Dai Li's secret police and SACO (which was why it was called by the separate name of SACO and not, y'know, the OSS), and that the (separate from Dai Li's men and the SACO) commander of the OSS group and his men in China disliked Dai Li because Dai Li tortured prisoners!

Your cognitive dissonance in this matter is staggering.

"Donovan originally tried to work with Miles and Dai Li, by designating Miles as head of the OSS in China, but he had to go further to win over Dai Li. It was the millions of dollars that OSS had available, much of it in “unvouchered funds” for clandestine operations, which did not require accounting, that made Donovan’s organization so attractive to Dai Li.

In a friendly gesture in December 1942, Donovan got Miles and
Dai Li to agree to his plan for sending OSS Special Operations (SO) teams to China to arm and instruct Chinese guerrillas."

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...ure&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Li is on the OSS payroll

"Commander Miles had sent men to China to train the Chinese secret police in torture, etc. and that they were arming them for post-war conflict with the Communists, not to fight Japan), but only fleetingly."

This was the allegation about Miles that he addressed in his book "A Different Kind of War: The Little-Known Story of the Combined Guerilla Forces Created in China by the U.S. Navy and the Chinese during WWII."

 

[Cicero]

So, going back to my original argument, you now agree with me that the US never stooped to using torture during WWII?

Naturally, it was not U.S. official policy. However, there were clandestine operations were it did occur.

 

[Upchurch]

Naturally, it was not U.S. official policy. However, there were clandestine operations were it did occur.

By whom? The US or the Chinese?

...And I don't think slush money counts as being in the payroll. Do you have any example of the US using torture during WWII? Anything at all?

 

[Cicero]

By whom? The US or the Chinese?

...And I don't think slush money counts as being in the payroll. Do you have any example of the US using torture during WWII? Anything at all?

Slush money? What is this, CREP? It counted to the American taxpayes. Where do you think this money came from? I provided an example and a charge made against Commander Miles that he was training Chinese secret police on "torture" methods. I can't imagine they needed instruction on something they had centuries of experience in.

The U.S. didn't loose WWII. Any accounts of torture by the U.S. its Allies and their clandestine units were never compiled to be presented to a tribunal or court.

If you really believe that the reason the U.S. prevailed in WWIi is because we never engaged in what you would consider immoral activities then you are lving in a fool's paradise.

 

[A'isha]

"Donovan originally tried to work with Miles and Dai Li, by designating Miles as head of the OSS in China, but he had to go further to win over Dai Li. It was the millions of dollars that OSS had available, much of it in “unvouchered funds” for clandestine operations, which did not require accounting, that made Donovan’s organization so attractive to Dai Li.

In a friendly gesture in December 1942, Donovan got Miles and
Dai Li to agree to his plan for sending OSS Special Operations (SO) teams to China to arm and instruct Chinese guerrillas."

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...ure&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Li is on the OSS payroll

So, the OSS sends money to the Kuomintang's secret police to finance clandestine operations, and you are trying to say that means "Dai Li was an operative of the OSS".

Just like how the OSS' successor sending money to the Shah of Iran made him a CIA agent no different from the ones working at Langley!

"Commander Miles had sent men to China to train the Chinese secret police in torture, etc. and that they were arming them for post-war conflict with the Communists, not to fight Japan), but only fleetingly."

This was the allegation about Miles that he addressed in his book "A Different Kind of War: The Little-Known Story of the Combined Guerilla Forces Created in China by the U.S. Navy and the Chinese during WWII."

Despite the obvious search terms in the URL you provided, that sentence does not appear in the chapter you linked. In fact, the only places torture is mentioned in that chapter is references to the barbaric tortures the Chinese and Japanese (not the OSS) performed on those they captured, and what the actual OSS men were supposed to do (and in some places, did) when captured and tortured.

However, a brief search indicates it came from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=24648&start=30

Miles, Milton E. VADM USN. A Different Kind of War: The Little-Known Story of the Combined Guerilla Forces Created in China by the U.S. Navy and the Chinese during WWII. Prepared by Hawthorne Daniel after Miles' death. Doubleday and Company, Inc.: Garden City, New York. 1967. Autobiography of Milton "Mary" Miles, who served a deputy director of the Sino-American Cooperative Organization (SACO) under Chinese secret police chief Dai Li (see my listing above for a biography of Dai Li). Miles relates his experience training Chinese guerillas and coastwatchers and fighting the OSS and China Theater commanders for autonomy and supplies for his and Dai Li's men. Miles addresses some of the charges against SACO and Dai Li made during and after the war (that Miles had sent men to China to train the Chinese secret police in torture, etc. and that they were arming them for post-war conflict with the Communists, not to fight Japan), but only fleetingly.

Note the "(" that you cut off when you cut and pasted that sentence, and how the full paragraph describes Miles' book including a denial that he did any such thing as train Dai Li's secret police how to torture.

This is like pointing to this page, cutting and pasting the bit that says "Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing," and using it as evidence for an argument that 9/11 was an inside job.

Sheesh.

 

[leftysergeant]

If you really believe that the reason the U.S. prevailed in WWIi is because we never engaged in what you would consider immoral activities then you are lving in a fool's paradise.

If you think that our policy of not torturing, and our reputation for not doing so has never given us a military advantage, then you are probably not a veteran and probably totally ignorant of military strategy and the tactical advantage of being able to convince an enemy soldier to surrender.

In a large-scale conflict, especially one which, like WWII involves great numbers of conscripts, there are usually soldiers who have actionable intel to offer who are quite willing to surrender just to be out of action for the duration opf the war. Happened a lot in WWII, would have happened a lot had the compost ever hit the fan at Fulda.

The Russians had a reputation for torture. We did not. When it was clear what was about to happen, bear in mind, even sdoldiers already on German soil made tracks as quickly as possible to the WEST and offered almost no resistance.

Those bringing up the rear apparently staged one of the most ferocious delaying to the rear operations ever.

A reputation for not toruturing, in itself, gives you a strategic advantage that I would rather not lose to satisfy the little boy bully fantasies of a monster like Rummy.

 

[Cicero]

So, the OSS sends money to the Kuomintang's secret police to finance clandestine operations, and you are trying to say that means "Dai Li was an operative of the OSS".

Just like how the OSS' successor sending money to the Shah of Iran made him a CIA agent no different from the ones working at Langley!



Despite the obvious search terms in the URL you provided, that sentence does not appear in the chapter you linked. In fact, the only places torture is mentioned in that chapter is references to the barbaric tortures the Chinese and Japanese (not the OSS) performed on those they captured, and what the actual OSS men were supposed to do (and in some places, did) when captured and tortured.

However, a brief search indicates it came from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=24648&start=30



Note the "(" that you cut off when you cut and pasted that sentence, and how the full paragraph describes Miles' book including a denial that he did any such thing as train Dai Li's secret police how to torture.

This is like pointing to this page, cutting and pasting the bit that says "Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing," and using it as evidence for an argument that 9/11 was an inside job.

Sheesh.

Dai Li, or Tai Li, was an OSS operative. He was not the ruler of the country as was the Shaw of Iran. The point of the funding is that it proves the U.S. was not adverse to joining forces with any ally who could aid in the victory over the enemy. What do OSS operatives and Donovan's headquarters have to do with one another? Chungking OSS operative Julia Child was indeed different from the desk jockey's at Wild Bill's HQ.

I said that Miles addresses the charge in his book. Now we are into 9/11 woo? I can see that desperation is getting the better of you. Perhaps you should regroup when you have something relevant.

 

[leftysergeant]

Perhaps you should regroup when you have something relevant.

Back at you. The government of China, for all practical purposes, no longer fuinctioned after the Japanese occupation. War lords were feudal sovereigns. So,you could just as easily refer to Shaw Dai Li.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dai Li, or Tai Li, was an OSS operative. He was not the ruler of the country as was the Shaw of Iran. The point of the funding is that it proves the U.S. was not adverse to joining forces with any ally who could aid in the victory over the enemy.

The US has joined forces with lots of people. Such as Saudi Arabia --- how do you feel about stoning adulterers?

I said that Miles addresses the charge in his book. Now we are into 9/11 woo?

The analogy to your style of argument does indeed seem apt.

I can see that desperation is getting the better of you.

Proving you wrong is not a mark of desperation, but rather of cognition.

 

[Upchurch]

Slush money?

Yes:

"Donovan originally tried to work with Miles and Dai Li, by designating Miles as head of the OSS in China, but he had to go further to win over Dai Li. It was the millions of dollars that OSS had available, much of it in “unvouchered funds” for clandestine operations, which did not require accounting, that made Donovan’s organization so attractive to Dai Li.

Slush money.

The U.S. didn't loose WWII. Any accounts of torture by the U.S. its Allies and their clandestine units were never compiled to be presented to a tribunal or court.

Ah, so what were you basing the claim on when you said:

Members of the OSS are also veterans of WWII, and they used the waterboarding technique on Wehrmacht and Schutzstaffeln personnel captured during the war.

Of course the OSS wasn't in the cozy surroundings of Fort Hunt Virginia when they questioned their captives. They were in Sicily/Italy/France when they needed to get information in a hurry. Do their actions invalidate your notion that the U.S. held the moral high ground in WWII?

This is what I called BS on and asked you to provide evidence to prove. Was Dai Li traveling to Sicily/Italy/France on behalf of the OSS? Was Dai Li using the waterboarding technique on Wehrmacht and Schutzstaffeln personnel captured during the war?

In order to make the assertion, you had to have gotten it from somewhere, or else you made it up. Where did you get your information? Do you have anything to back up your claim? As I said, put up or shut up.

If you really believe that the reason the U.S. prevailed in WWIi is because we never engaged in what you would consider immoral activities then you are lving in a fool's paradise.

Just because you don't have respect for America and American veterans and are quickly willing to believe the worst about them, that does not mean the rest of us are fools. Perhaps you simply don't understand principle and integrity.

 

[leftysergeant]

So how did our pet watrerboarder fair in trhe political reallignment in China after the Japanese were gone?

Cicero, come get this box of fail.

 

[A'isha]

Dai Li, or Tai Li, was an OSS operative.

No matter how many times you try to claim Dai Li, the chief of the Kuomintang's secret police, was an "OSS operative", it stubbornly refuses to be true.

He was not the ruler of the country as was the Shaw of Iran.

Hmm...you're correct. The Shah was the equivalent of Chiang Kai-Shek, the ruler of the Kuomintang and later the ruler of the Republic of China (also known as the nation of Taiwan).

The equivalent of Dai Li, the head of Chiang Kai-Shek's secret police for the Kuomintang, would be Nasser Modagham, the head of the Shah's secret police and intelligence service SAVAK at the time of the 1979 revolution. So, Cicero...was Modgham a CIA agent?

How about Ngo Dinh Nhu, the head of South Vietnam's secret police during the early Vietnam war period? Was he a CIA agent?

How about Meir Dagan, the head of Israel's intelligence agency Mossad? Is he a CIA agent?

How about Prince Muqran bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, the head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency GIP? Is he a CIA agent?

The point of the funding is that it proves the U.S. was not adverse to joining forces with any ally who could aid in the victory over the enemy.

True. That's why we allied with the USSR against Hitler, after all. However, to use that to then claim that the US promoted and supported everything Stalin did simply because we had joined forces with him in wartime is foolish at best and utterly moronic at worst.

Just like trying to claim that the US supported and promoted everything Dai Li did as head of the Kuomintang's secret police just because we joined forces with him in wartime.

What do OSS operatives and Donovan's headquarters have to do with one another?

The former took orders from the latter. Which, since Dai Li did not take orders from OSS headquarters, makes Dai Li not an OSS operative.

Now we are into 9/11 woo? I can see that desperation is getting the better of you. Perhaps you should regroup when you have something relevant.

Considering that you apparently think that the cut-and-pasted assertion of a wholly unsupported and long since denied claim somehow constitutes evidence for that selfsame claim, I find the irony of your accusation particularly delicious.

 

[The Painter]

This entire thread is torture. You people are idiots. Only people who believe in torture will continue to post here, all others will stop.

Do not call names or use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[A'isha]

This entire thread is torture. You people are idiots. Only people who believe in torture will continue to post here, all others will stop.

And yet posting in this thread just once will save a HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE! Why do you libs want to let innocent people die by lurking in message board threads, huh?

 

[Cicero]

Just because you don't have respect for America and American veterans and are quickly willing to believe the worst about them, that does not mean the rest of us are fools. Perhaps you simply don't understand principle and integrity.

I have zero problem with any American, uniformed or not, in WWII fighting the enemy in any way they saw fit, in the heat of battle, or safely behind their own lines. You are the one who considers an American that went beyond Marquis of Queensberry Rules as war criminals. When American soldiers liberated Dachau, they shot surrendering SS guards. So what?

"The American GIs in a frenzy or horror, anger and guilt gun down some 122 captured German soldiers - most of them Waffen SS. Dozens of inmates break out of the prison enclosure and kill approximately 40 guards, some with their bare hands. Private John Lee of I Company later told newspapers that he was personally involved in at least 60 of the killings."

What does it matter if the OSS Chinese operatives in the Far East or the OSS Marquis operatives in the European theater used interrogation tactics that were not condoned by the U.S. Army?