Waterboarding Rocks!

[Nova Land]

post # 526, reply 4 (of 6)

According to the sources I provided, KSM was subjected to conventional interrogation methods for months and didn't break. But 90 seconds of waterboarding broke him.

If you did indeed provide sources which said that, it's additional evidence that your sources are no good. As I pointed out in post # 1074, it was March 2003 when KSM was taken into custody and it was March 2003 in which water-boarding began.

Either your sources are badly in error, or you are reading much too carelessly.

 

[Nova Land]

post # 526, reply 6 (of 6)

BeAChooser and I were discussing the likelihood of a ticking time bomb scenario such as he proposed actually occurring in real life as opposed to on "24" Here's the exchange, from post 471 back on page 12. I've colored my remarks in blue to make this a little easier to follow.

In fact, I don't know of a single case in which this has actually come up.

That doesn't mean it couldn't come up and in fact you don't know all of the cases that exist, if for no other reason than that governments keep secrets.

This is true.

Likewise it is true that alien spacecraft may have crash-landed on earth and the remains may be stored in a military hangar. The fact we don't know of a single case in which this has happened doesn't mean it hasn't happened, especially since (as you point out) the government keeps secrets.

Similarly it's possible the 9-11 attack was actually a plot carried out by our own government, as some 9-11 conspiracy theorists suggest.

But until there is substantial evidence to indicate that aliens crash-landed in on earth -- or that the US government planned and carried out the 9-11 attack -- or that a ticking-time-bomb scenario such as you posit secretly occurred -- then there is no good reason to believe any of these things is true.

That's what skepticism is about -- believing in things for which there is good evidence, and lacking belief in things for which that evidence is lacking.

In post 526, BAC chose to excerpt a single sentence from my above reply. I believe the sentence reads differently in context than in the excerpt.

Similarly it's possible the 9-11 attack was actually a plot carried out by our own government, as some 9-11 conspiracy theorists suggest.

Do you really believe that?

Yes. I really believe that there is no reason to believe that the 9-11 attack was carried out by our own government, and that it is mistaken to believe that it was unless substantial evidence can be provided to support that claim. Are you truly in disagreement with me on that point?

 

[Nova Land]

post # 528, reply 1 (of 2)

I cite the case of KSM and statements made by his interrogators. He remained defiant after months of conventional interrogation but broke in 90 seconds when waterboarding was begun.

As I've already pointed out (but am delighted to be able to point out again), KSM was arrested in March 2003 and water-boarding began in March 2003. Therefore your notion that he "remained defiant after months of conventional interrogation but broke in 90 seconds after waterboarding was begun" is mistaken.

So let's go on to your second sentence. This sentence is true -- but does not mean what you keep on trying to make it mean.

The true part is that KSM was defiant before waterboarding and broken after. The false part is the (implied) claim that he provided any useful information after being broken.

Yes, several people involved in the water-boarding have claimed he provided useful information. Likewise, Sylvia Browne and Noreen Renier claim they have provided useful information to police investigating crimes. So far, none of the examples provided by Sylvia, Noreen, or the torture defenders have stood up to scrutiny.

And the hypothetical situation is one where you have only hours to learn the truth. And you haven't proven that any conventional technique can break someone in hours, much less 90 seconds.

That is correct, I haven't. Likewise, you haven't proven torture can obtain any useful information even if given months, let alone if given only hours.

If what we needed was a confession that the captive killed John F. Kennedy, caused the Challenger to crash, or was responsible for John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, then torture is the way to go. But what's at issue in your hypothetical is not whether we can break somebody. It is whether we can get correct information about the location of the ticking time bomb in time to defuse it. You have yet to provide any evidence that torture can do that.

Examples have been given in which conventional methods have obtained useful information which was used to foil terror plots which were in progress (such as the planned attack on the LA Library Tower). Examples have been given in which torture has obtained useful information for foiling plots which have already been foiled (such as the planned attack on the LA Library tower).

In order to justify using torture in your ticking-time-bomb scenario, you first need to demonstrate that torture would be more effective in obtaining useful information than other possible choices. So far -- despite repeated requests to provide evidence for the effectiveness of torture -- you still have not done so.

 

[Nova Land]

post 528, reply 2 (of 2)

What you have not shown is that torture is effective in obtaining useful information which the questioner does not already possess.

Again, there are CIA personnel saying that is the case. You can choose to disbelieve them...

No, I can choose to read what they actually say and evaluate the evidence on that basis.

John Kiriakou, for instance, the person you cited earlier, said that the water-boarding "probably" was useful in obtaining information that was helpful in some way or another. But he was unable to name a single example.

A vague statement like that carries little to no weight as evidence in support of your claim -- and in my opinion carries weight against your claim. If the water-boarding had provided specific information which turned out to be useful, it would be easy to give examples. Kiriakou's inability to do so indicates that what the interrogators gained through torture was largely babbling. There may have been elements of truth mixed in, and some of the true things might even have been still of some relevance, but sorting out the grains of gold from the mountains of sand was beyond Kiriakou's capabilities.

Again, there are CIA personnel saying that is the case. You can choose to disbelieve them and believe in the interrogators you cite but until Obama releases the actually interrogation reports and tapes, we aren't going to know.

In life, there are many things we don't know. If we had to wait for perfect knowledge, nothing would ever get done. Most of us, however, are capable of making sound judgments based on the evidence available rather than the absolute standard you insist on.

In the case of conventional methods, there are people who claim that no useful information was obtained, and there are others who maintain that useful information was obtained. The ones claiming that useful information was obtained have been able to provide credible examples, specifying the information obtained, how it was obtained, and how it was used. A claim that something exists, backed up by examples, trumps a claim that no examples exist. That's such a basic principle I'm surprised you aren't aware of it.

The same principle applies to claims about the effectiveness of torture. There are people who claim that no useful information was obtained, and others who maintain that useful information was obtained. If those claiming that useful information was obtained through torture can provide examples, specifying the information which was obtained, how it was obtained, and how it was used, that will trump the claim that no useful information was obtained.

But so far, none of the examples offered has stood up to scrutiny. The LA Library Tower plot, for example, turned out on examination to have been foiled back in February 2002 from information obtained through conventional methods. The arrest of Jose Padilla, touted as another example of the effectiveness of torture, likewise turned out under examination to be based on information which was obtained by conventional methods long before torture was applied.

If you have valid examples, by all means present them. Until then, the claim that torture is able to obtain useful information remains as unproven as the claim that the polygraph is able to detect lies.

 

[Nova Land]

post # 556, reply 1 (of 3)

Another complicated exchange, so I've colored my part of the dialogue in blue.

Suppose there is not an incredibly-short time limit (necessitating the use of unconventional methods because it is felt conventional methods can't produce results quickly enough) as in the artificial hypothetical which has been constructed, but rather a more normal situation in which there is sufficient time for conventional methods to work. Are you willing to forbid the use of dubious techniques such as water-boarding and to let professional interrogators use the methods which over time have been found to be most effective and most reliable?

Sure.

Good! I am glad that is settled. While we still disagree on whether torture should be permitted under the (extremely unlikely) hypothetical you posed, we appear to be in agreement that torture should be banned whenever there is not a ticking time bomb.

I'm not sure why you say it wasn't settled. I've never made any comment on this thread that would suggest otherwise.

You seem to take umbrage at the strangest things!

What I said is that we are in agreement that torture should be banned as an interrogation method whenever there is not the (highly unlikely) ticking-time-bomb scenario you were posing. This is something you had not previously addressed so it seemed worth noting.

Until you answered my hypothetical, it was entirely possible you were in agreement with me on this point and entirely possible you were in disagreement on it. In that sense, yes, it was unsettled. Once you stated that you were in agreement, the matter became settled.

Identifying areas of agreement is a useful tool in the skeptical tool chest. It helps people understand each other's positions better, and it helps clear the table of things which don't need to be argued over.

When something is found which seems to be an area of agreement, it is useful to point it out -- and to attempt to state clearly what is that is agreed on, in order to make sure agreement actually does exist. That's what I did. That way, in case I was misunderstanding what you meant by Sure, or you were misunderstanding what I meant when I said Are you willing to forbid the use of dubious techniques such as water-boarding and to let professional interrogators use the methods which over time have been found to be most effective and most reliable?, we'd be able to spot quickly that we weren't on the same page rather than assume we were in agreement where we weren't.

Having both parties express what it is they are agreeing on, in their own words, is one good way to test if actual agreement exists. In this case, that didn't happen. Instead, I stated a proposition and you replied simply, Sure. That's potentially ambiguous; you might have been agreeing only to one small aspect of what I'd said, or might have understood my words differently than I did. Therefore I acknowledged your agreement, and re-stated the proposition myself, to make sure you understood what I was saying and were in fact in agreement with it. We appear to be in agreement that torture should be banned whenever there is not a ticking time bomb.

Since ticking time bomb scenarios of the one you posited are extremely rare -- indeed, as previously noted, none has ever come up as far as any of us are aware -- that means we are in agreement roughly 99.99% of the time that the use of torture would be a mistake and would increase rather than decrease the risk of lives being lost. I think that's well worth noting.

 

[Nova Land]

post # 556, reply 2 (of 3)

Now, are you therefore agreeing that what you call torture might be acceptable if there is a ticking time bomb? That is still unclear.

No, I'm not. And I'm surprised you're unclear about that; I thought I answered the question fairly clearly back in post # 364 on page 10:

As for my answer to the hypothetical: No, I would not torture the captive -- nor would I engage the services of Noreen Renier -- since in my estimation both these choices would reduce rather than increase the chance of detecting and de-activating the device. Even though the short amount of time in the hypothetical before the device goes off reduces the chance of traditional methods working in time, that still seems like a better chance for getting accurate information in time than the use of torture or the use of psychics.

If there were any good evidence that the use of torture or the use of psychics were more likely to produce useful results than conventional interrogation methods, then this might be a difficult moral choice. But since the available evidence seems to indicate that refraining from torture is more likely to succeed than torture is, my choice is easy. Any choice is a risk -- but in this case, refusing to indulge in torture appears to offer the lowest risk of the available choices.

You keep on missing what I think is blindingly obvious. Before a rational person could agree to torture a captive in order to obtain information, at a minimum it needs to be demonstrated that the use of torture provides a greater chance of obtaining that information than other possible choices.

So far you have not even shown that torture is as likely to obtain correct information as other choices, let alone more likely. To choose to torture someone under those conditions is irrational.

You are simply assuming -- without evidence to support your belief -- that torture is an effective method of obtaining correct information and that torture is more effective than other methods. That makes you no better a skeptic than the people who believe in dowsing and psychic detectives.

 

[Nova Land]

post # 556. reply 3 (of 3)

Having initially specified a hypothetical in which the amount of time before a terrorist plot was known with a good degree of certainty, BeAChooser then decided to explore the case that we know something is in the works but don't know how long we have.

In that case, I argued, the rational assumption is to assume we have time for conventional methods to work since it is much likelier that there is a sufficient time left than that we are in the final hour of the count-down:

We can therefore assign an extremely low probability to that occurrence. Ditto for two hours, three hours, twenty-four hours.

You are just blowing smoke. You don't know this. You can't know this.

If I toss an honest coin, I don't know whether it will come up heads or tails. But I do know that the chances are 50/50.

If I toss that coin ten times in a row, I do not know what the sequence of heads and tails will be. But I do know that a sequence with 5 heads and 5 tails is moderately likely and that a sequence of 10 heads is extremely unlikely.

It's known as probability. Things which have never been known to occur -- such as knowing with certainty we only have 3 hours until a terrorist plot kills hundreds of thousands of people, and knowing with certainty that a captive we have knows something which, if we knew it, would enable us to stop the terrorist plot -- get assigned very low probabilities.

Yes, I know -- that scenario happens all the time in the movies. Those are fiction. As Stuart Herrington noted:

Self-styled "experts" on interrogation frequently cite the "ticking bomb scenario" (featured on shows like "24") to justify the Jack Bauer-like tormenting of a prisoner. According to this construct, it is necessary and acceptable to torture in the name of saving an American city from "the next 9-11." This has a magnetic appeal to legions of Americans, among them future soldiers.

But the so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career.

There's my evidence that your scenario is rare: an expert saying he has never encountered one. You can trump that by citing experts who say this isn't rare and providing examples of this scenario which they have encountered. I'm fairly confident you won't be able to do so.

 

[Nova Land]

Geeze! That's like saying that if I take a gun and shoot six bullets into someone that I shot them six times rather than once.

Well technically, you would have in that case.

We see that sort of language in use all the time...

[BeAChooser then provided 6 examples, from various headlines, supporting this point, which I have snipped.]

I am delighted to note that once again we are in perfect agreement! The point you are making is precisely the point I was making.

Texas was claiming that if a person is taken out and water-boarded a number of times in quick secession that should only be counted as one instance of water-boarding.

If I take out a gun and shoot six bullets into someone then any sensible person would say that I shot the person six times. I am glad to see that in this instance I can count you on the sensible side.

Yes, it's one shooting incident. But during that incident I shot the person six times, not once.

Similarly, if interrogators take a person, put a cloth over the person's head, drip water onto it -- then let the person recover -- then drip water onto the cloth again -- then let the person recover -- then drip water onto it -- then let the person recover -- then drip water onto it again -- then let the person recover -- then drip water onto it -- then let the person recover -- and then drip water onto the cloth again -- then they have water-boarded the person six times. Yes, it's one water-boarding session. But during that session, the person was water-boarded six times.

 

[boloboffin]

A modest proposal for Texas et al. defending this arbitrary definition of "waterboarding": I understand your desire to wipe the stigma of the number 183 from the debate. Might I suggest a comparison of waterboarding to rape?

Do we count the number of times the penis is inserted when a woman is raped? Why, no. We simply say she was raped. Why would we put the rape victim through the further indecency of having to itemize her violations so minutely?

So when Nova Land and others scorn you for your argument, simply argue that waterboarding should not be seen as a shooting incident, but like a rape. I think you will find the deserving response to not only this argument, but your entire position.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You are either think you can get away with a baldfaced lie (and I don't think that's above you) or you are a completely unobservant fool who is intent on embarrassing himself. Below is my post #711 in it's entirety. As all can see, I did infact respond to your post #625, point by point, directly and to you.

My mistake. Your immediate response to my post was merely some of your gibberish about "lefty's basket", whatever that is.

I did not ignore the content of your post at all, as you did mine.

You are, of course, lying.

And if there were any insults in it, I showed why they were deserved. I think this proves once and for all to everyone on this forum why you deserve to be in that basket with lefty, DA. And off you go.

You appear to be talking gibberish again.

In light of my last point, I will temporarily take DA out of the ignore basket and address a post by him which did in fact offer a response to my question about why Obama would hesitate to disclose the reports and details if waterboarding didn't work and thus embarrass the Bush administration and folks that then must have lied to the American public about it's effectiveness.



A President can declassify anything. And isn't this whole thread about whether it's smart to follow Whitehouse legal advice?



I'm sure (at least I hope but you never really know where democrats are concerned) they would be if there are things that are still vital to keep secret. But still, there are a number of terrorist plots the government publically claimed we learned about and prevented via waterboarding when nothing else worked (and yes I already know that the LA Tower claim doesn't seem reasonable given the dates). Our enemies already know that we know about these cases. So in these cases, I again can see no reason that Obama could not release the full details of how and when that information was gleaned and whether conventional interrogation yielded that information or waterboarding ... and whether that information saved lives. And how much time elapsed between learning that information and when the terrorist event was slated to happen. That alone would tell us which group of witnesses (the FBI agents or the CIA agents) (Obama's minions or Bush minions) has lied to the American public. So we know which group to punish.



A precedent is only precedent if you make it a precedent.



Ahhhh ... so you are admitting the possibility that Obama is willing to look the other way when laws are broken or the CIA lies to the American public. That sounds to me like he hopes to use the CIA in the future ... and we've all seen how the last democrat administration used government agencies like the DOJ, FBI and IRS. Perhaps this knowledge of CIA wrong doing can be leverage to make them do something for democrats down the road. Like spy on one of their political opponents.

Sorry, but I thought Obama and his followers promised us *change* and a new, more lawful direction. One with ethics. One that wouldn't tolerate the government lying to the American people. I thought democrats were upset about Bush lying to the public. Yet here appears to be one democrat (DA) who would be willing to accept Obama lying ... just to have good relations with the people who ... spy on people and who terminate people with prejudice.



But we aren't talking about acting in "good faith" here. We are talking about one side or the other DELIBERATELY LYING to the American public about the efficacy of interrogation methods.



A corrupt CIA?



ROTFLOL! I don't think based on what we've seen so far that Obama has any hesitation in embarrassing America. I hear he's even going to release pictures of the torture to help do that.



Obviously not and obviously the rest of the democrat leadership doesn't either. Mr Adequate is really in denial about the character of democrats. And pretty desperate to fine any excuse for Obama not being the man he promised to be.

**********

I barely consider this a reply: it is certainly not a rebuttal. Much of it, indeed, appears to be a description of BAC's fantasy land, as when he bases his arguments on his paranoid delusions about democrats. Some of it consists of absurd lies about me personally, as, for example, every time he mentions me. And much of it is the purest gibberish, enlivened with the grossest of non sequiturs.

Would any sane person like to attempt a rebuttal, or are these delusions unique to BAC? If the latter, then I shall consider myself to have proved my point.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, he was utterly and completely wrong, Pardalis. As I just proved in my post #1055 above.

What an amusing delusion. Do you really suppose that you will persuade anyone to share it?

 

[Upchurch]

A modest proposal for Texas et al. defending this arbitrary definition of "waterboarding": I understand your desire to wipe the stigma of the number 183 from the debate. Might I suggest a comparison of waterboarding to rape?

Do we count the number of times the penis is inserted when a woman is raped? Why, no. We simply say she was raped. Why would we put the rape victim through the further indecency of having to itemize her violations so minutely?

So when Nova Land and others scorn you for your argument, simply argue that waterboarding should not be seen as a shooting incident, but like a rape. I think you will find the deserving response to not only this argument, but your entire position.

If I think this is hilarious, does that make me a bad person?

 

[Pardalis]

Actually, he was utterly and completely wrong, Pardalis. As I just proved in my post #1055 above.

You mean with little gems like this one:

A precedent is only precedent if you make it a precedent.

Is that supposed to mean something?

 

[Pardalis]

Even if it means thousands of people die as a result of not doing it? How can that be "right"? Like I said, you folks seem to think it is worse to inflict temporary pain and discomfort on 3 VERY BAD PEOPLE than to knowing stand by and let thousands of people die that you could have saved by doing so.

I agree these guys are scum, and I don't really care if they got hurt during their imprisonment, but what if there comes a situation when it is not so clear if the person is in fact a terrorist, or even guilty?

 

[BeAChooser]

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.

Don't *act* so high and mighty, SM.

Yes, the signers of the Declaration of Independence put lives and sacred honor on the line, but they put THEIR LIVES on the line, not just the lives of thousands and thousands of other innocents. The signatories of the C.A.T. have risked nothing other than the lives of a whole world full of innocent people, who those we are now fighting seem hell bent on torturing and far worse.

And let's not forget that Washington and our founding fathers were fighting a war against a STATE opponent, where the way we treated their soldiers might indeed be expected to impact the way the British acted towards our people. And eventually it did impact that. In contrast, al-Qaeda is not a STATE and there has been nothing to suggest that al-Qaeda's treatment of others is in any way or will be in any way impacted by our use of waterboarding and the like to gather information about their illegal and immoral activities from their illegal combatants.

Furthermore, I suspect that many of the things that have now been ruled torture by you on the left would simply not have been considered torture back in Revolutionary Times. When they spoke of torture, they meant the real thing. After all, most of our founding fathers even believed in capital punishment for murder, sabotage and spying, which you on the left generally don't believe in nowadays. Right? So don't go acting like the Founding Fathers would necessarily agree with you about this.

By the way, have you ever heard of the Committee on Spies which the American Congress created in 1776? Many of its members were Founding Fathers. It enacted the first espionage act:

RESOLVED, That all persons not members of, nor owing allegiance to, any of the United States of America, as described in a resolution to the Congress of the 29th of June last, who shall be found lurking as spies in or about the fortification or encampments of the armies of the United States, or of any of them, shall suffer death, according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a court martial, or such other punishment as such court martial may direct.

And who did this law apply to? Someone who posed as an ordinary citizen to do harm to our country? Like al-Qaeda's terrorists? Should we therefore follow the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and simply execute all al-Qaeda that we capture? At least that would spare us the torture of this debate.

 

[tsig]

Would you like a glass of water to help that distinction down?

Whenever torture comes up the would be torturers always soon start grading the degrees of pain sounding just like the Inquisitors they are.

(the Inquisition had handbooks on the amount and duration of pain to be meted out depending on the crime and attitude of the victim).

 

[BeAChooser]

NovaLand, I'll respond to your posts when I get the time.

Or I may just decide it'd be too much like pounding my head against a brick wall.

I'll let you know after I read your posts.

 

[BeAChooser]

but what if there comes a situation when it is not so clear if the person is in fact a terrorist, or even guilty?

Then I'm with you.

 

[BeAChooser]

Let me throw this out to fuel the fire:

http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn...stions_the_left_needs_to_answer_about_torture

April 28, 2009

Nine Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture

Dennis Prager

1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein(?) ... snip ...

2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? ... snip ...

3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time -- even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives -- wrong? ... snip ...

4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? ... snip ...

5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. ... snip ... Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?

6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. ... snip ... If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?

7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?

8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? ... snip ... Isn’t context of some significance here?

9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? ... snip ...

If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Let me throw this out to fuel the fire:

http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn...stions_the_left_needs_to_answer_about_torture

Can't you even be dishonest without help?