BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Which is deliberate because the leftist mainstream media is acting like a bunch of sycophants who will do anything to promote Obama's dishonest and dangerous agendas. It's a sad day for America.
Waterboarding Rocks!
- Thread starter kallsop
- Start date
-
- Tags
- torture waterboarding
Which is deliberate because the leftist mainstream media is acting like a bunch of sycophants who will do anything to promote Obama's dishonest and dangerous agendas. It's a sad day for America.
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
In an effort to keep from lengthening this thread unnecessarily, my next 15 posts responding to BAC are condensed into this single one.
Ahem.
No, BAC, YOU'RE the one squirming away from your clear lack of moral clarity by trying to avoid my post #997. Nuh-uh, YOU are. Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh! YOU don't got moral clarity. No, you! YOU don't have moral clarity. Nuh-uh! Well, why don't you try to deal with post #997 then? Huh? You're scared, that's why. Nuh-uh, you're scared. No, you are. You're the scared one. Nuh-uh. Nuh-uh. Why're you squirmy, squirmy? No, you're squirming. Nuh-uh.
Excellent. I should be good here for the next 100 posts or so. See you in 9 hours.
Ahem.
No, BAC, YOU'RE the one squirming away from your clear lack of moral clarity by trying to avoid my post #997. Nuh-uh, YOU are. Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh! YOU don't got moral clarity. No, you! YOU don't have moral clarity. Nuh-uh! Well, why don't you try to deal with post #997 then? Huh? You're scared, that's why. Nuh-uh, you're scared. No, you are. You're the scared one. Nuh-uh. Nuh-uh. Why're you squirmy, squirmy? No, you're squirming. Nuh-uh.
Excellent. I should be good here for the next 100 posts or so. See you in 9 hours.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
No, but you can fall a 100 stories in that time due to the very real torture inflicted on innocent people during a terrorist attack.
http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/fallingman-lg.jpg
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
That's an opinion that a lot of us, who are Americans and quite knowledgeable about Iraq, don't agree with.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Not one of the waterboarding critics on this thread will admit that.
They have all gone into hiding from posts like #903.
This thread has turned out be very illuminating.
It shows their lack of moral clarity and inability to face the truth.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Exactly. The end result of moral equivalence on the part of the left.
SezMe
post-pre-born
I've decided to quit this thread. I was prompted by a reflection on a sentence familiar to nearly all of you:
These steadfast, brave men equated their very lives and livelihood with their sacred honor. That we are discussing the very notion of torture as being acceptable in my view violates the very bedrock principle of sacred honor. I don't want to be a part of it.
These steadfast, brave men equated their very lives and livelihood with their sacred honor. That we are discussing the very notion of torture as being acceptable in my view violates the very bedrock principle of sacred honor. I don't want to be a part of it.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
And then they blew some Redcoats away with muskets!!!!!!
post 491, reply 1 (of 2)
Yow! The thread is on page 27 already. I, on the other hand, am still back on page 13.
I dislike posting without having read all the posts in a thread. Earlier in the day, while preparing to reply to some posts on page 13, I read up through the then-current last page, 24. But the thread has grown another 3 pages since then.
There's quite a bit I want to reply to on pages 13 - 16, so I'm going to catch up on posting before I catch up on reading.
And there you have put your finger on the problem. The reason why lefty and others keep asking you to provide evidence is that you keep on refraining from providing it. As you yourself acknowledge by your words in this post, what you are providing is locations where you think evidence is located.
If evidence is indeed located in these places, then by all means dig it out and present it. Until you do, the evidence remains un-presented.
It is not up to lefty to dig up your evidence for you. It's up to you.
The tactic you are using is the same one used by believers in reincarnation, believers in psychic detectives, believers in conspiracy theories regarding the Kennedy assassination, and many others. They will wave a link, say that the evidence to prove their claims can be found in the articles, books, or web sites linked to, and then say that unless and until the skeptic goes to those sites, reads everything there, and refutes it, that their claim must be accepted. That's a good way to "prove" anything, regardless of its merits -- which is why it is not a method acceptable to skeptics in attempting to determine what is true and what isn't.
If you have evidence, then presenting it is an easy thing to do. When people fail to do so, and play games the way you are doing, it's very often a sign that the evidence to support their case won't stand up under scrutiny.
The reason you have been asked over and over to provide the information is that you still have not provided it. (As you yourself acknowledged, all you have done is provide "clues" to where it can be found.)
All you need to do is provide the evidence. If the evidence to support your points can be located at the places where you say it can, then by all means go there, locate it, and present it for the rest of us to see.
Once you have presented the evidence, then those of us who have asked to see it will be able to examine and evaluate it. If it stands up to scrutiny, then your work is done; if not, you can go back and try to find some evidence which will stand up to scrutiny.
If you still don't understand the difference between providing a location where you think evidence can be found and providing evidence, let me illustrate.
1. Here is a claim backed up by link-waving:
No evidence has been presented for the claim. It is simply a claim, backed up by a link at which evidence may or may not be found.
2. Here is the same claim, backed up by evidence.
Evidence, it should be noted, is not the same as proof. Unless a matter is extremely trivial, we should expect to find evidence which will support conflicting views. Therefore, in order to determine whether a claim is valid or not, we need to examine the evidence, see how much weight to assign to the various pieces, and see which way the balance tilts.
It is the weight of the evidence, considered as a whole, which determines whether we accept something as true or reject it as false. So just because I have submitted a piece of evidence that water-boarding is torture doesn't mean that water-boarding necessarily is torture. Nor should you assume that because you submit a piece of evidence that torture is effective at obtaining useful information that proves torture is effective at obtaining useful information.
But it's a start. And if your claim is true, you and those who agree with you should eventually be able to present sufficient evidence to show it.
Really? Which one?
I suspect you are referring to your incorrect claim that Kiriakou said conventional interrogation was "totally ineffective" (your words, not his) in getting information from Zubaydah and KSM. If so, you need to learn to read more carefully.
Nowhere in the article which you cite did Kiriakou say that conventional interrogation failed to provide useful information in those instances. (Nor would he have said that, since it isn't true.)
I'll demonstrate the difference between what you think he said and what he actually said two posts from now, in a reply to post 534 in which you repeat that incorrect claim.
Yow! The thread is on page 27 already. I, on the other hand, am still back on page 13.
I dislike posting without having read all the posts in a thread. Earlier in the day, while preparing to reply to some posts on page 13, I read up through the then-current last page, 24. But the thread has grown another 3 pages since then.
There's quite a bit I want to reply to on pages 13 - 16, so I'm going to catch up on posting before I catch up on reading.
And there you have put your finger on the problem. The reason why lefty and others keep asking you to provide evidence is that you keep on refraining from providing it. As you yourself acknowledge by your words in this post, what you are providing is locations where you think evidence is located.
If evidence is indeed located in these places, then by all means dig it out and present it. Until you do, the evidence remains un-presented.
It is not up to lefty to dig up your evidence for you. It's up to you.
The tactic you are using is the same one used by believers in reincarnation, believers in psychic detectives, believers in conspiracy theories regarding the Kennedy assassination, and many others. They will wave a link, say that the evidence to prove their claims can be found in the articles, books, or web sites linked to, and then say that unless and until the skeptic goes to those sites, reads everything there, and refutes it, that their claim must be accepted. That's a good way to "prove" anything, regardless of its merits -- which is why it is not a method acceptable to skeptics in attempting to determine what is true and what isn't.
If you have evidence, then presenting it is an easy thing to do. When people fail to do so, and play games the way you are doing, it's very often a sign that the evidence to support their case won't stand up under scrutiny.
The reason you have been asked over and over to provide the information is that you still have not provided it. (As you yourself acknowledged, all you have done is provide "clues" to where it can be found.)
All you need to do is provide the evidence. If the evidence to support your points can be located at the places where you say it can, then by all means go there, locate it, and present it for the rest of us to see.
Once you have presented the evidence, then those of us who have asked to see it will be able to examine and evaluate it. If it stands up to scrutiny, then your work is done; if not, you can go back and try to find some evidence which will stand up to scrutiny.
If you still don't understand the difference between providing a location where you think evidence can be found and providing evidence, let me illustrate.
1. Here is a claim backed up by link-waving:
Waterboarding is torture. Link.
No evidence has been presented for the claim. It is simply a claim, backed up by a link at which evidence may or may not be found.
2. Here is the same claim, backed up by evidence.
Waterboarding is torture.
Malcolm Nance, who was chief of training for the US Navy SERE program, describes it thusly:
Same claim, same link. But in the latter example, the evidence is laid out clearly for others to see. This makes it easy for others to examine what is being claimed as evidence and to see if it stands up to scrutiny.Malcolm Nance, who was chief of training for the US Navy SERE program, describes it thusly:
Evidence, it should be noted, is not the same as proof. Unless a matter is extremely trivial, we should expect to find evidence which will support conflicting views. Therefore, in order to determine whether a claim is valid or not, we need to examine the evidence, see how much weight to assign to the various pieces, and see which way the balance tilts.
It is the weight of the evidence, considered as a whole, which determines whether we accept something as true or reject it as false. So just because I have submitted a piece of evidence that water-boarding is torture doesn't mean that water-boarding necessarily is torture. Nor should you assume that because you submit a piece of evidence that torture is effective at obtaining useful information that proves torture is effective at obtaining useful information.
But it's a start. And if your claim is true, you and those who agree with you should eventually be able to present sufficient evidence to show it.
Really? Which one?
I suspect you are referring to your incorrect claim that Kiriakou said conventional interrogation was "totally ineffective" (your words, not his) in getting information from Zubaydah and KSM. If so, you need to learn to read more carefully.
Nowhere in the article which you cite did Kiriakou say that conventional interrogation failed to provide useful information in those instances. (Nor would he have said that, since it isn't true.)
I'll demonstrate the difference between what you think he said and what he actually said two posts from now, in a reply to post 534 in which you repeat that incorrect claim.
post # 491, reply 2 (of 2)
Yes. But we never know all the facts. The question is whether we know sufficient facts to render a reasonable judgment in this matter.
(1) We know that the plot was broken up prior to the authorization of torture and prior to any acknowledged use of torture.
(2) We have statements by those involved in the interrogations about how they obtained the information which enabled them to break up the plot.
Taken together, that supports the claim that conventional interrogation led to the information which enabled the plot to be foiled.
In contrast, we have no evidence to support the claim that torture was helpful in obtaining the information.
That seems sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that it was conventional methods, not torture, which enabled the plot to be thwarted.
Yes, I certainly would. So if there is any evidence to support those claims, I'd like to see it.
In the absence of that evidence, all we have is an unsupported claim. And since the unsupported claim is made by the same people who claimed the LA Tower plot was thwarted using information obtained by torture -- a claim which the evidence shows to be false -- it would be foolish to give any credence to these other claims until the evidence to support the claims is provided.
The people who said conventional methods obtained the information used to foil the LA plot were able to specify what the information was and how they obtained it. The people who said that conventional methods enabled them to get information identifying KSM as the mastermind of 9-11 were able to specify what the information was and how they obtained it. Strangely, the people claiming that torture has been effective in providing useful information still have not been able to provide a single comparable example.
Yes. But we never know all the facts. The question is whether we know sufficient facts to render a reasonable judgment in this matter.
(1) We know that the plot was broken up prior to the authorization of torture and prior to any acknowledged use of torture.
(2) We have statements by those involved in the interrogations about how they obtained the information which enabled them to break up the plot.
Taken together, that supports the claim that conventional interrogation led to the information which enabled the plot to be foiled.
In contrast, we have no evidence to support the claim that torture was helpful in obtaining the information.
That seems sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that it was conventional methods, not torture, which enabled the plot to be thwarted.
Yes, I certainly would. So if there is any evidence to support those claims, I'd like to see it.
In the absence of that evidence, all we have is an unsupported claim. And since the unsupported claim is made by the same people who claimed the LA Tower plot was thwarted using information obtained by torture -- a claim which the evidence shows to be false -- it would be foolish to give any credence to these other claims until the evidence to support the claims is provided.
The people who said conventional methods obtained the information used to foil the LA plot were able to specify what the information was and how they obtained it. The people who said that conventional methods enabled them to get information identifying KSM as the mastermind of 9-11 were able to specify what the information was and how they obtained it. Strangely, the people claiming that torture has been effective in providing useful information still have not been able to provide a single comparable example.
post # 534, reply 1 (of 3)
On several occasions, BAC has claimed -- incorrectly -- that conventional interrogation was "totally ineffective" in the interrogation of the captives who were later water-boarded. His source for this, he claims -- again incorrectly -- is John Kiriakou.
I'm going to reprint the most recent exchange between us on this, in order to bring people up to speed on the disagreement, since it is already 13 pages back in this thread. Then I will go through and demonstrate that, BAC to the contrary, Kiriakou said no such thing.
You really need to learn to read more carefully. Let me walk you through what Kiriakou said, line by line. In blue is the original, in italics is my paraphrase.
I believe that is a fair paraphrasing. I have left out some details which are not of concern to us in this argument, but I do not believe I have omitted anything relevant to the point we are arguing. If you think my paraphrasing is inadequate, I invite you to paraphrase it for yourself.
You claim that Kiriakou said that conventional methods were totally ineffective, i.e. that no useful information was obtained from Kiriakou through conventional methods. But as you can see if you attempt to paraphrase the article, that isn't in there. It's something you may be reading into it because you think it should be there.
What Kiriakou says is that Zubaydah was defiant and uncooperative. That is not the same as saying that no useful information was obtained. Skilled interrogators can -- and very often do -- obtain useful information from uncooperative prisoners.
Which, in this case, is exactly what happened. We have the detailed recollections of Ali Soufan and Rohan Gunaratna that a good deal of useful information was obtained from Zubaydah prior to his being water-boarded.
What we have here, in Kiriakou's and Soufan's separate articles, are two complementary descriptions of the same event. Kiriakou describes how Zubaydah was defiant prior to water-boarding (but does not go into whether or not useful information was obtained from him prior to water-boarding). Soufan's article mentions that useful information was obtained from Zubaydah prior to water-boarding (but but only touches lightly on Zubaydah's defiant attitude.)
This is a good example of why paraphrasing is a valuable skill for skeptics. Going through something and attempting to put it into one's own words is a very useful tool for examining material and seeing what it says. Often one gets one impression on a casual reading -- as you did -- but a different one on reading more carefully as one attempts to paraphrase accurately.
On several occasions, BAC has claimed -- incorrectly -- that conventional interrogation was "totally ineffective" in the interrogation of the captives who were later water-boarded. His source for this, he claims -- again incorrectly -- is John Kiriakou.
I'm going to reprint the most recent exchange between us on this, in order to bring people up to speed on the disagreement, since it is already 13 pages back in this thread. Then I will go through and demonstrate that, BAC to the contrary, Kiriakou said no such thing.
You really need to learn to read more carefully. Let me walk you through what Kiriakou said, line by line. In blue is the original, in italics is my paraphrase.
In an interview, Kiriakou said he did not witness Abu Zubaida's waterboarding but was part of the interrogation team that questioned him in a hospital in Pakistan for weeks after his capture in that country in the spring of 2002.
Kiriakou was part of the team that questioned Zubaida prior to his water-boarding.
He described Abu Zubaida as ideologically zealous, defiant and uncooperative
Prior to water-boarding Zubaydah was 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, Kiriakou said.
After water-boarding, Zubaydah said he would tell his captors anything they wanted to know.
I believe that is a fair paraphrasing. I have left out some details which are not of concern to us in this argument, but I do not believe I have omitted anything relevant to the point we are arguing. If you think my paraphrasing is inadequate, I invite you to paraphrase it for yourself.
You claim that Kiriakou said that conventional methods were totally ineffective, i.e. that no useful information was obtained from Kiriakou through conventional methods. But as you can see if you attempt to paraphrase the article, that isn't in there. It's something you may be reading into it because you think it should be there.
What Kiriakou says is that Zubaydah was defiant and uncooperative. That is not the same as saying that no useful information was obtained. Skilled interrogators can -- and very often do -- obtain useful information from uncooperative prisoners.
Which, in this case, is exactly what happened. We have the detailed recollections of Ali Soufan and Rohan Gunaratna that a good deal of useful information was obtained from Zubaydah prior to his being water-boarded.
What we have here, in Kiriakou's and Soufan's separate articles, are two complementary descriptions of the same event. Kiriakou describes how Zubaydah was defiant prior to water-boarding (but does not go into whether or not useful information was obtained from him prior to water-boarding). Soufan's article mentions that useful information was obtained from Zubaydah prior to water-boarding (but but only touches lightly on Zubaydah's defiant attitude.)
This is a good example of why paraphrasing is a valuable skill for skeptics. Going through something and attempting to put it into one's own words is a very useful tool for examining material and seeing what it says. Often one gets one impression on a casual reading -- as you did -- but a different one on reading more carefully as one attempts to paraphrase accurately.
post # 534, reply 2 (of 3)
BAC attempts to post some evidence:
This is much better. You have actually excerpted and posted material you wish to offer as evidence. Good job.
The next step is to see if it stands up to scrutiny. It doesn't.
What we have is an unnamed senior official saying that KSM said that KSM only talked because he'd been water-boarded.
What it doesn't say -- and what you still need to show -- is that because of water-boarding KSM provided useful information which enabled terrorist plots to be foiled. What you need are (1) specific examples of information he provided -- (2) describing currently in-progress terror plots -- (3) which turned out to be accurate -- (4) and which weren't already known. Nothing like that is contained in this snippet.
I will say, though, that it is very generous of you to impeach your own source. The unnamed official claims that KSM broke after 90 seconds of water-boarding and didn't need to be water-boarded ever again. So what you've given us here is the story of an unnamed official, who can't get the facts straight, assuring us that in his opinion torture is useful.
this again raises the question: if there really are numerous historical examples in which useful information was obtained through torture, why is it that instead of providing such examples you keep on giving us weak substitutes like this?
My guess? Because this is the best you've got.
BAC attempts to post some evidence:
This is much better. You have actually excerpted and posted material you wish to offer as evidence. Good job.
The next step is to see if it stands up to scrutiny. It doesn't.
What we have is an unnamed senior official saying that KSM said that KSM only talked because he'd been water-boarded.
What it doesn't say -- and what you still need to show -- is that because of water-boarding KSM provided useful information which enabled terrorist plots to be foiled. What you need are (1) specific examples of information he provided -- (2) describing currently in-progress terror plots -- (3) which turned out to be accurate -- (4) and which weren't already known. Nothing like that is contained in this snippet.
I will say, though, that it is very generous of you to impeach your own source. The unnamed official claims that KSM broke after 90 seconds of water-boarding and didn't need to be water-boarded ever again. So what you've given us here is the story of an unnamed official, who can't get the facts straight, assuring us that in his opinion torture is useful.
this again raises the question: if there really are numerous historical examples in which useful information was obtained through torture, why is it that instead of providing such examples you keep on giving us weak substitutes like this?
My guess? Because this is the best you've got.
post # 534, reply 3 (of 3)
Having asked you on several occasions in this thread to provide evidence that torture has been able to obtain useful information, I am glad to see you attempting to make an effort at providing evidence rather than clues to where evidence can be found. However, you still don't seem to understand the basics.
Human Events is an opinion magazine. The examples they provide may turn out to be useable, but first you will need to trace them back to a reliable source.
Citing a piece from Human Events is like citing something in a blog post or a letter to the editor. Human Events does not do investigative journalism; they write opinion and analysis pieces based on things they've heard or been told.
What you are citing is the opinion of someone who read or heard something somewhere. And what they read or heard may be a blog post or letter to the editor or talk radio item from someone else who read or heard something somewhere. And the source they got it from may be a blog post or letter to the editor or talk radio item from someone else who read or heard something somewhere...
In order for the material in the piece has to carry any weight as evidence, you need to trace it back to its primary source. Presumably these examples were provided by someone involved in the interrogations. Who? Where did they say the things Human Events is reporting they said, and what did they actually say? Until you can answer those questions, what you have are clues to the location of evidence -- but not evidence.
When you do find the source, there are some problems with the material which you will need to clear up. For instance, one of the examples offered, Jose Padilla, has already been to be invalid -- the information leading to his arrest came from conventional interrogation prior to its being obtained through torture.
Another example offered, KSM's "confession" that he personally beheaded Daniel Pearl, was of no use in disrupting any terrorist activities -- and is extremely dubious, to boot, since no verifying evidence has been found to support the confession. It appears to be similar to many other confessions people have made under torture and which later turned out to have no factual basis. If so, this example weakens rather than strengthens your case that torture can provide useful information.
And then there's the a repeat of the bit an which the unnamed CIA official incorrectly claims that KSM was water-boarded for 90 seconds and never needed to be water-boarded again. If Human Events didn't even fact-check enough to realize that was false, it's unlikely they fact-checked any of the rest.
If this were evidence being presented on behalf of a paranormal claim, I assume any good skeptic would see how unsatisfactory it is. I am baffled why, when some people post in Politics, they seem to forget even the most elementary principles of skepticism.
Having asked you on several occasions in this thread to provide evidence that torture has been able to obtain useful information, I am glad to see you attempting to make an effort at providing evidence rather than clues to where evidence can be found. However, you still don't seem to understand the basics.
Human Events is an opinion magazine. The examples they provide may turn out to be useable, but first you will need to trace them back to a reliable source.
Citing a piece from Human Events is like citing something in a blog post or a letter to the editor. Human Events does not do investigative journalism; they write opinion and analysis pieces based on things they've heard or been told.
What you are citing is the opinion of someone who read or heard something somewhere. And what they read or heard may be a blog post or letter to the editor or talk radio item from someone else who read or heard something somewhere. And the source they got it from may be a blog post or letter to the editor or talk radio item from someone else who read or heard something somewhere...
In order for the material in the piece has to carry any weight as evidence, you need to trace it back to its primary source. Presumably these examples were provided by someone involved in the interrogations. Who? Where did they say the things Human Events is reporting they said, and what did they actually say? Until you can answer those questions, what you have are clues to the location of evidence -- but not evidence.
When you do find the source, there are some problems with the material which you will need to clear up. For instance, one of the examples offered, Jose Padilla, has already been to be invalid -- the information leading to his arrest came from conventional interrogation prior to its being obtained through torture.
Another example offered, KSM's "confession" that he personally beheaded Daniel Pearl, was of no use in disrupting any terrorist activities -- and is extremely dubious, to boot, since no verifying evidence has been found to support the confession. It appears to be similar to many other confessions people have made under torture and which later turned out to have no factual basis. If so, this example weakens rather than strengthens your case that torture can provide useful information.
And then there's the a repeat of the bit an which the unnamed CIA official incorrectly claims that KSM was water-boarded for 90 seconds and never needed to be water-boarded again. If Human Events didn't even fact-check enough to realize that was false, it's unlikely they fact-checked any of the rest.
If this were evidence being presented on behalf of a paranormal claim, I assume any good skeptic would see how unsatisfactory it is. I am baffled why, when some people post in Politics, they seem to forget even the most elementary principles of skepticism.
I believe you are confusing Abu Zubaydah with Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM).
Zubaydah was taken into custody in March 2002 and interrogated for several months using conventional methods -- during which time the interrogators were able to obtain a number of valuable pieces of information which enabled them to prevent terrorist actions and arrest various terrorists -- before being water-boarded in August 2002. After being water-boarded, he also provided information -- which, as has been pointed out, enabled the authorities to foil a number of terrrorist actions which had already been foiled.
KSM, on the other hand, was taken into custody in March 2003 and water-boarded 183 times in March 2003. That doesn't leave a whole lot of time, between his arrest and the start of water-boarding, for several months of conventional interrogation.
Your not being able to tell the difference between these two does not speak well for your accuracy in other details of the claims you are making. Such as these which followed:
He was already talking before. No one has ever claimed that KSM is a mute.
After the water-boarding, he became "cooperative". He provided the interrogators with a stream of confessions -- such as a claim that he personally beheaded Daniel Pearl. If they had thought to ask him about the Kennedy assassination, he likely would have confessed to that as well.
What he did not do, as far as we know, is provide any useful information which was not already known.
That is indeed what we should do: examine the evidence in order to see what reasonable conclusion can be reached.
A simple assertion that information was gleaned through the use of water-boarding which saved lives carries no more weight than a simple assertion that information was gleaned through the use of psychic detectives which enabled bodies to be located or murderers identified. What is needed is details.
If a psychic detective can provide a transcript in which they said, the body will be found here -- and it is -- and the location was not previously known -- then that's evidence to support their claim. (Note that to date such clear evidence has not been forthcoming.)
Similarly, if a torture defender can provide details of statements obtained through the use of water-boarding -- and this information is shown to have been used to foil terrorist plots -- and this information was not previously known -- that's evidence in support of their claim that water-boarding works.
I note that to date such clear evidence has not been forthcoming.
reply to post # 501
Back on page 11, in post 413, I wrote:
To which BAC replied:
As a strong supporter of transparency in government, I agree with you that it would be good for as many relevant documents as possible relating to this matter to be declassified and publicly released.
You are wrong, however, that this is the only way to resolve the issue. If that were true, virtually nothing could ever be resolved.
When the Rosenbergs were accused of espionage, a great many documents related to the case were classified and unable to be reviewed. By your standard, it was improper to bring them to trial and improper to render a verdict since it was impossible to resolve the question of their innocence or guilt without publicly releasing every bit of that material.
The question is not whether all the evidence is available. The question is whether there is sufficient evidence available to reach a reasonable conclusion.
In this case, there is. True, we have conflicting statements. But on the one hand we have statements claiming that no useful information was obtained through the use of conventional methods. On the other hand we have statements which say that useful information was obtained through the use of conventional methods -- and these statements provide details identifying what this information was and how it was used.
The latter statements come from people who were directly involved in the interrogations. No one involved in the interrogations has disputed the facts presented in these statements. Unless these statements can be shown to be false -- either that the information was not obtained, or that it was not useful -- then statements providing examples trump statements claiming there are no examples.
Again, this is extremely elementary skepticism.
Back on page 11, in post 413, I wrote:
To which BAC replied:
As a strong supporter of transparency in government, I agree with you that it would be good for as many relevant documents as possible relating to this matter to be declassified and publicly released.
You are wrong, however, that this is the only way to resolve the issue. If that were true, virtually nothing could ever be resolved.
When the Rosenbergs were accused of espionage, a great many documents related to the case were classified and unable to be reviewed. By your standard, it was improper to bring them to trial and improper to render a verdict since it was impossible to resolve the question of their innocence or guilt without publicly releasing every bit of that material.
The question is not whether all the evidence is available. The question is whether there is sufficient evidence available to reach a reasonable conclusion.
In this case, there is. True, we have conflicting statements. But on the one hand we have statements claiming that no useful information was obtained through the use of conventional methods. On the other hand we have statements which say that useful information was obtained through the use of conventional methods -- and these statements provide details identifying what this information was and how it was used.
The latter statements come from people who were directly involved in the interrogations. No one involved in the interrogations has disputed the facts presented in these statements. Unless these statements can be shown to be false -- either that the information was not obtained, or that it was not useful -- then statements providing examples trump statements claiming there are no examples.
Again, this is extremely elementary skepticism.
post # 526, reply 1 (of 6)
I routinely paraphrase things in my posts -- as does any good skeptic. Paraphrasing is a useful tool and an essential skill in the practice of skepticism.
There are times when quoting exactly is called for, and times when paraphrasing is called for. That's probably a more advanced lesson in skepticism than you're able to absorb yet, though, so I'll just stick with the paraphrasing in this post and try to help you understand how quoting works in some future post.
1. One reason to paraphrase is to help check whether people in a discussion are understanding each other. (A) If we attempt to put what other people have said into our own words, it requires us to think more actively about what it is they have said than if we simply press the quote button mindlessly. (B) When one person attempts to paraphrase what another person has written, it helps both people see if they are understanding each other. If there is a significant misunderstanding going on, then the attempted paraphrase will express something different than the original writer intended, and make it easy to spot what it is that one person is saying and the other is hearing as something else. (C) The use of paraphrases also helps others who are following the discussion to better understand what is being said; it is easier to form false assumptions and misinterpretations when something is always expressed in the same words than when it is expressed in a variety of forms.
2. Another reason to paraphrase is to make sure it is the idea which is the focus and not the words with which it is expressed. If an a statement or argument depends upon a particular precise wording, it is very possible the point being made is primarily a semantic one rather than a substantive one.
3. Occasionally deceptive people put forward statements or arguments which appears to say one thing -- but, read literally, may mean something else. Paraphrasing can be a way to minimize such misunderstandings. By putting into words what we think we hear others saying, we give them a chance to correct us if there is some significant difference between what we are hearing and what they are saying.
4. Fourthly, skeptics routinely paraphrase is to try to translate from talking-pointese (which is not conducive to productive discussion) into skepticese (which is).
Non-skeptics tend to use rhetorical flourishes to make nonsense appear sensible (and sense appear nonsensical). They also tend to toss in irrelevant digs, to annoy the people they are arguing with and possibly throw them off-stride -- since their interest is "winning" the argument rather than in discerning what is and isn't true. If you go through the posts in this thread you can find hundreds of such examples.
Skeptics, in contrast, generally try to phrase things in more neutral language -- aiming more for precision than provocation. Hence, in a discussion on abortion, if someone were to write a post talking about the baby-killers making blood money off the slaughter of innocents because they're all satanists hell-bent on the destruction of America, a skeptic would likely attempt to paraphrase this into something less inflammatory in order to see if there is a testable claim buried amid the verbiage.
In the case of the hypotheticals, the object of the post was to present the two parallel hypotheticals -- your original, and my addition. Since the two are intended to be parallel, with the only difference being the amount of time which interrogators have in which to obtain the information needed to foil the plot, it makes sense to have the two hypotheticals written in as parallel a manner as possible.
Your original is written in mild talking-pointese. I therefore had a choice: I could write my hypothetical in talking-pointese to parallel yours, or I could re-write your hypothetical into skepticalese to parallel mine. The sensible choice is the latter, and that's what I did.
I believe that my paraphrasing of your hypothetical is an accurate representation of the question you are posing. If you disagree, please point out any significant differences in meaning between the question as I have posed it and the question as you originally phrased it.
I routinely paraphrase things in my posts -- as does any good skeptic. Paraphrasing is a useful tool and an essential skill in the practice of skepticism.
There are times when quoting exactly is called for, and times when paraphrasing is called for. That's probably a more advanced lesson in skepticism than you're able to absorb yet, though, so I'll just stick with the paraphrasing in this post and try to help you understand how quoting works in some future post.
1. One reason to paraphrase is to help check whether people in a discussion are understanding each other. (A) If we attempt to put what other people have said into our own words, it requires us to think more actively about what it is they have said than if we simply press the quote button mindlessly. (B) When one person attempts to paraphrase what another person has written, it helps both people see if they are understanding each other. If there is a significant misunderstanding going on, then the attempted paraphrase will express something different than the original writer intended, and make it easy to spot what it is that one person is saying and the other is hearing as something else. (C) The use of paraphrases also helps others who are following the discussion to better understand what is being said; it is easier to form false assumptions and misinterpretations when something is always expressed in the same words than when it is expressed in a variety of forms.
2. Another reason to paraphrase is to make sure it is the idea which is the focus and not the words with which it is expressed. If an a statement or argument depends upon a particular precise wording, it is very possible the point being made is primarily a semantic one rather than a substantive one.
3. Occasionally deceptive people put forward statements or arguments which appears to say one thing -- but, read literally, may mean something else. Paraphrasing can be a way to minimize such misunderstandings. By putting into words what we think we hear others saying, we give them a chance to correct us if there is some significant difference between what we are hearing and what they are saying.
4. Fourthly, skeptics routinely paraphrase is to try to translate from talking-pointese (which is not conducive to productive discussion) into skepticese (which is).
Non-skeptics tend to use rhetorical flourishes to make nonsense appear sensible (and sense appear nonsensical). They also tend to toss in irrelevant digs, to annoy the people they are arguing with and possibly throw them off-stride -- since their interest is "winning" the argument rather than in discerning what is and isn't true. If you go through the posts in this thread you can find hundreds of such examples.
Skeptics, in contrast, generally try to phrase things in more neutral language -- aiming more for precision than provocation. Hence, in a discussion on abortion, if someone were to write a post talking about the baby-killers making blood money off the slaughter of innocents because they're all satanists hell-bent on the destruction of America, a skeptic would likely attempt to paraphrase this into something less inflammatory in order to see if there is a testable claim buried amid the verbiage.
In the case of the hypotheticals, the object of the post was to present the two parallel hypotheticals -- your original, and my addition. Since the two are intended to be parallel, with the only difference being the amount of time which interrogators have in which to obtain the information needed to foil the plot, it makes sense to have the two hypotheticals written in as parallel a manner as possible.
Your original is written in mild talking-pointese. I therefore had a choice: I could write my hypothetical in talking-pointese to parallel yours, or I could re-write your hypothetical into skepticalese to parallel mine. The sensible choice is the latter, and that's what I did.
I believe that my paraphrasing of your hypothetical is an accurate representation of the question you are posing. If you disagree, please point out any significant differences in meaning between the question as I have posed it and the question as you originally phrased it.
post # 526, reply 2 (of 6)
For the sake of those -- such as BAC -- who aren't familiar with his original and my paraphrasing, let me present them again.
BeAChooser's original version:
My paraphrase:
I think it is safe to say that my reason for paraphrasing had nothing to do with substituting the word "torture" for "temporary, non-lethal pain".
For the sake of those -- such as BAC -- who aren't familiar with his original and my paraphrasing, let me present them again.
BeAChooser's original version:
My paraphrase:
I think it is safe to say that my reason for paraphrasing had nothing to do with substituting the word "torture" for "temporary, non-lethal pain".
post # 526, reply 3 (of 6)
You are correct: we do not know how likely conventional interrogation methods are to be successful if the available time is limited to a few hours.
What we do know is that conventional interrogations methods are generally successful at obtaining useful information given sufficient time, and that torture is generally ineffective. (Numerous examples have been provided in this thread of torture breaking people; but as of yet, no examples have been provided of torture being useful at obtaining useful information. Until evidence is shown that torture is effective at obtaining such information, it remains in the ineffective category. This is the same standard which we skeptics use in evaluating map-dowsing and psychic detectives. If you're going to apply a more lenient standard to torture in judging whether it is effective, then you need to apply the same standard to those things.)
So in a scenario where we have ample time, the choice is clear: we have a much greater chance of saving lives if we use conventional interrogation methods rather than torture.
In a scenario where we have only 3 hours, the choice is more difficult: we can either use methods which are likely to obtain the correct information, but which may not be able to produce it in the time available; or we can use methods which can almost certainly obtain an answer in the time available, but the answer obtained is unlikely to be correct.
Since obtaining the correct answer is essential to actually saving lives, the chance of saving lives is better if we use conventional methods rather than if we use torture. Some of you apparently have an emotional attachment to the idea of using torture. But if the aim is to save lives, you need to set that emotional attachment aside; the use of torture when so many lives are at stake is a risk we can't afford to take.
Really? That's a surprise to me. Could you quote the passage you are referring to?
I do recall referring to so-called "enhanced interrogation methods" as unproven, and I suspect you are simply misreading a passage in which I wrote that. If you will cite the post you are referring to, it will be easy to check and see if that is the case.
You are correct: we do not know how likely conventional interrogation methods are to be successful if the available time is limited to a few hours.
What we do know is that conventional interrogations methods are generally successful at obtaining useful information given sufficient time, and that torture is generally ineffective. (Numerous examples have been provided in this thread of torture breaking people; but as of yet, no examples have been provided of torture being useful at obtaining useful information. Until evidence is shown that torture is effective at obtaining such information, it remains in the ineffective category. This is the same standard which we skeptics use in evaluating map-dowsing and psychic detectives. If you're going to apply a more lenient standard to torture in judging whether it is effective, then you need to apply the same standard to those things.)
So in a scenario where we have ample time, the choice is clear: we have a much greater chance of saving lives if we use conventional interrogation methods rather than torture.
In a scenario where we have only 3 hours, the choice is more difficult: we can either use methods which are likely to obtain the correct information, but which may not be able to produce it in the time available; or we can use methods which can almost certainly obtain an answer in the time available, but the answer obtained is unlikely to be correct.
Since obtaining the correct answer is essential to actually saving lives, the chance of saving lives is better if we use conventional methods rather than if we use torture. Some of you apparently have an emotional attachment to the idea of using torture. But if the aim is to save lives, you need to set that emotional attachment aside; the use of torture when so many lives are at stake is a risk we can't afford to take.
Really? That's a surprise to me. Could you quote the passage you are referring to?
I do recall referring to so-called "enhanced interrogation methods" as unproven, and I suspect you are simply misreading a passage in which I wrote that. If you will cite the post you are referring to, it will be easy to check and see if that is the case.
post # 526, reply 5 (of 6)
All right, let's take it day by day. There are 30 days, and we know there are 30 days, until the terrorists attack. On day 1, we are better going with conventional methods (which are known to be able to obtain useful information) than with torture (which is not known to be able to obtain useful information). On day 2, we are better off going with conventional methods (which are known to be able to obtain useful information) than with torture (which is not known to be able to obtain useful information). On day 3 we are better off going with conventional methods (which are known to be able to obtain useful information) than with torture (which is not known to be able to obtain useful information). On day 4, we are better off going with conventional methods (which are known to be able to obtain useful information) than with torture (which is not known to be able to obtain useful information). On day 5 (etc.)
So we come to the end of day 29. One day left. And on day 30, we are still better off going going with conventional methods (which are known to be able to obtain useful information) than with torture (which is not known to be able to obtain useful information).
The argument which can be made for torture is the same as the argument which can be made for using a map-dowser: the method is capable of providing an answer in the allotted time. But we don't need just any answer -- we need the correct answer.
We are better off -- on day 30, as on day 1 -- using the method which has the greatest chance of coming up with the correct information. That's conventional interrogation techniques. The chance of success may be slim with conventional techniques -- but the chance is even slimmer with map-dowsing or torture.
I don't care how defiant he is. I care how much useful information we can get out of him. It is quite possible for a skilled interrogator to get useful information out of uncooperative prisoners.
As for a prisoner who says, "Soon, you will know": It's possible something actually is planned for the near future, and the prisoner is stupid enough to taunt you about it. It's also possible nothing is planned for the near future, and the prisoner is smart enough to taunt you about an imaginary imminent something in hopes you'll waste time looking for information about a non-existent plot rather than pressing about things which the prisoner actually does have information about.
A smart prisoner might taunt the captors in hopes they would do something stupid -- such as being panicked into using hasty ill-conceived interrogation methods rather than letting the professionals do their job. And there are people who might be foolish enough to fall for it. Fortunately, we have professionals such as Soufan and Herrington who know better.
With a hypothetical city at stake, we don't have time for that kind of stupidity. Anyone who gets rattled and makes foolish decisions such as torturing a captive simply because the captive makes defiant comments is in the wrong line of work.
All right, let's take it day by day. There are 30 days, and we know there are 30 days, until the terrorists attack. On day 1, we are better going with conventional methods (which are known to be able to obtain useful information) than with torture (which is not known to be able to obtain useful information). On day 2, we are better off going with conventional methods (which are known to be able to obtain useful information) than with torture (which is not known to be able to obtain useful information). On day 3 we are better off going with conventional methods (which are known to be able to obtain useful information) than with torture (which is not known to be able to obtain useful information). On day 4, we are better off going with conventional methods (which are known to be able to obtain useful information) than with torture (which is not known to be able to obtain useful information). On day 5 (etc.)
So we come to the end of day 29. One day left. And on day 30, we are still better off going going with conventional methods (which are known to be able to obtain useful information) than with torture (which is not known to be able to obtain useful information).
The argument which can be made for torture is the same as the argument which can be made for using a map-dowser: the method is capable of providing an answer in the allotted time. But we don't need just any answer -- we need the correct answer.
We are better off -- on day 30, as on day 1 -- using the method which has the greatest chance of coming up with the correct information. That's conventional interrogation techniques. The chance of success may be slim with conventional techniques -- but the chance is even slimmer with map-dowsing or torture.
I don't care how defiant he is. I care how much useful information we can get out of him. It is quite possible for a skilled interrogator to get useful information out of uncooperative prisoners.
As for a prisoner who says, "Soon, you will know": It's possible something actually is planned for the near future, and the prisoner is stupid enough to taunt you about it. It's also possible nothing is planned for the near future, and the prisoner is smart enough to taunt you about an imaginary imminent something in hopes you'll waste time looking for information about a non-existent plot rather than pressing about things which the prisoner actually does have information about.
A smart prisoner might taunt the captors in hopes they would do something stupid -- such as being panicked into using hasty ill-conceived interrogation methods rather than letting the professionals do their job. And there are people who might be foolish enough to fall for it. Fortunately, we have professionals such as Soufan and Herrington who know better.
With a hypothetical city at stake, we don't have time for that kind of stupidity. Anyone who gets rattled and makes foolish decisions such as torturing a captive simply because the captive makes defiant comments is in the wrong line of work.