Torture: getting Cheney to admit to the Tate murders...

[theprestige]

I guess that they could have gotten similarly trustworthy and verifiable information by cutting of people's toes with garden shears, as well. Or by popping out people's eyes with soup spoons.

You ever wonder if they draw the line at waterboarding because physical mutilation is just as psychologically damaging to the interrogator as it is physically damaging to the subject?

But okay, Self-Righteous Man: What interrogation methods would you use? Saying "pretty please, with sugar on top"? Offering them ice cream? Maybe a nice back rub? Throwing up your hands in frustration and saying "well, I guess the information we wanted wasn't really that important, was it, guys?" and giving up on the whole thing?

 

[applecorped]

But okay, Self-Righteous Man: What interrogation methods would you use?

Rosie O'Donnell would do it for me.

 

[BTMO]

You ever wonder if they draw the line at waterboarding because physical mutilation is just as psychologically damaging to the interrogator as it is physically damaging to the subject?

But okay, Self-Righteous Man: What interrogation methods would you use? Saying "pretty please, with sugar on top"? Offering them ice cream? Maybe a nice back rub? Throwing up your hands in frustration and saying "well, I guess the information we wanted wasn't really that important, was it, guys?" and giving up on the whole thing?

Whereas psychological torture doesn't hurt anyone, right?

For myself, I would question them as you would any other criminal.

You know - evidence, motive, presumption of innocence until proven innocent. ETA: guilty - I meant to say guilty here. I assume you folks guessed that...

It isn't just coincidence that torture isn't used by civil authorities to question suspects.

Well, not in any civilised countries...

 

[Whiplash]

I rectract my ETA comments about the hatred of torture being driven by religion. It wasn't right to inject that into this discussion and I was speculating a bit wildly. Please disregard.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
Steroid and other drug abuse are more likely explanations for Venturas diminished mental capacity.

I wonder if NobbyNobbs considers that "ad hominum?"

In the absence of evidence that Ventura a) has abused steroids and other drugs, and b) has diminished mental capacity, yes, I would consider that an ad hominem.

 

[Whiplash]

I'm beginning to understand that part of this (for me) is about my own interpetation of the word "torture". The word makes me think about the cases where people have knowledge and are then tortured to get that knowledge. But I'm realizing that the more traditional use of the word torture is to describe abuse and suffering put upon someone only for the sadistic glee of it. Like psychopaths and serial killers, and even many ancient political and relgious figures.

The things I say about torture are more based on the thinking about it from a point of view of someone who has knowledge that is necessary to retrieve. Perhaps torture is not the correct word (it is in some cases, I admit), interrogation is another. I know, I know, "enhanced interrogation techniques" and all that. But I'm not sure. It seems there is some necessity to label things that fall between interrogation and outright abuse or torture. There seems (to me) to be some middle ground there. That is where my comments have been focused.

 

[Gangularis]

You are correct in that it doesn't only produce trustworthy information. What bothers me, still, is that some want to say that it never produces trustworthy info.

Please tell me, how is any of the information "trustworthy" if YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN TRUST IT?!....

 

[Whiplash]

More semantics. I'm wearying of it.

The way you could know if the information was trustworthy would be to further investigate what you have learned and see if it can be verified, or if the info, in fact, actually solves the crisis at hand. It this not obvious? I wouldn't advocate blindly acting on any intelligence gained, immediately, and without forthought.

I still don't understand the desire to quibble on this, especially with differing terminology and semantic games. I would honestly believe that virtually every rational being on the planet would accept that yes, there have probably been times (maybe even only the remotest, fewest times imaginable) that torture has produced a useful result.

That does not mean it's justifiable in any way either, I can't stress that enough. I'm just curious about the ongoing intellectual dishonesty of a few. I mean come on already, stop playing games here. Why the desire to find ways to rationalize that position?

 

[WildCat]

In the absence of evidence that Ventura a) has abused steroids and other drugs, and b) has diminished mental capacity, yes, I would consider that an ad hominem.

He admits he used steroids:

I used steroids occasionally myself. I would take testosterone for 30 days, then I’d go off it for nine months. But I later found out they were destructive. I even did a poster for the FDA once, explaining that I once took them and warning kids not to use them.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Jesse_Ventura_Drugs.htm


And he is a 9/11 truther, which proves diminished mental capacity:



QED

 

[Brainster]

More semantics. I'm wearying of it.

The way you could know if the information was trustworthy would be to further investigate what you have learned and see if it can be verified, or if the info, in fact, actually solves the crisis at hand. It this not obvious? I wouldn't advocate blindly acting on any intelligence gained, immediately, and without forthought.

I still don't understand the desire to quibble on this, especially with differing terminology and semantic games. I would honestly believe that virtually every rational being on the planet would accept that yes, there have probably been times (maybe even only the remotest, fewest times imaginable) that torture has produced a useful result.

That does not mean it's justifiable in any way either, I can't stress that enough. I'm just curious about the ongoing intellectual dishonesty of a few. I mean come on already, stop playing games here. Why the desire to find ways to rationalize that position?

Because if they win that point then there is nothing to put on the scales in favor of the EITs. There's only an argument about some issue when there are points in favor of that issue and points against it.

We all know the arguments against the EITs: that we cannot stoop to their level, that torture is never right, that we lose our moral authority, that our enemies will feel free to torture any of our forces that come under their control, etc.

If there is nothing to be placed on the other side of the scales, then obviously the EITs are wrong.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I remove all of Wikipedia's citations (or try to) because it really screws with readability.

Anyway, as the article says, the Navy SEALs claim him as one of their famous members.

Why is it a .com site if it is official?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Interesting. So the US military tortures its own soldiers, and Ventura doesn't object, but torture KSM and he's upset? Somebody's got their priorities wrong.

Funnily enough it was the psycholigists who torture the US troops who suggested it.

 

[ravdin]

And he is a 9/11 truther, which proves diminished mental capacity:

While the 9/11 truther business makes me lose a lot of respect for Ventura, it doesn't necessarily mean the man is wrong every single time he opens his mouth. Ad hominem is, by definition, attacking the arguer instead of the argument- which is exactly what you are doing here.

 

[Cicero]

While the 9/11 truther business makes me lose a lot of respect for Ventura, it doesn't necessarily mean the man is wrong every single time he opens his mouth. Ad hominem is, by definition, attacking the arguer instead of the argument- which is exactly what you are doing here.

Considering Ventura is not posting on this board, and that he never bothers to make this distinction himself, and that his propensity for lying about his own resume is well documented, and since he makes up "facts" to support his 9/11 woo, and since he is a celebrity who relies on his phony SEAL appellation to add gravitas to his benighted opinions, he should not be able to take refuge behind the protection of the ad hominem clause.

Not to mention that all the allegations posted about Ventura in this thread are true.

 

[Beerina]

1) Ventura was in the UDT's not SEAL's.

He wasn't getting bogged down in a detail when that had nothing to do with the point. Nor does this as an objection.

2) Since there are four people currently serving life sentences for these murders, why would Cheney confess to this after an hour of being waterboarded. Why not confess to it immediately? If getting confessions to obvious lies were the intent of the CIA interrogators, Ventura might actually have a point.

The point he's making is that he could get Cheney to confess to anything anyone wanted. Ironically, your analysis just emphasizes this. Cheney gives up easily to avoid the torture, and his confession is highly suspect.

3) Ventura definitely is an example of how waterboarding may be responsible for inducing brain damage.

Yet I'll bet you were a huge McCaine supporter.

In either case...

Interesting. So the US military tortures its own soldiers, and Ventura doesn't object, but torture KSM and he's upset? Somebody's got their priorities wrong.

...the US trains its soldiers with this, probably to get them used to it so it won't be quite the shock if it ever happens in reality. I hear the police all get tasered as part of their training, too. Gawrsh no!

 

[Brainster]

While the 9/11 truther business makes me lose a lot of respect for Ventura, it doesn't necessarily mean the man is wrong every single time he opens his mouth. Ad hominem is, by definition, attacking the arguer instead of the argument- which is exactly what you are doing here.

True enough except when the ad hominem goes directly to the credibility of the person making the statement. If somebody says to you, "Well, David Duke says that black people are mentally inferior," are you seriously going to get into a debate about genetics and the nature of IQ? I'd just go with the ad hom in that case; "David Duke's a racist moron and if you believe him, so are you." David Duke has no credibility when it comes to the topic of race.

In a similar fashion, Jesse has pissed away any credibility he might have had as a critic of the Bush Administration by his embrace of Trooferism.

 

[Brainster]

Gleen Greenwald has apparently embraced Jesse over his appearance, pointing out that this puts the lie to the claim that only hardline lefties support prosecution of those involved in the EITs:

Let's just repeat that: "I would prosecute the people that ordered it. Because torture is against the law." That is the crux of the case for investigations and prosecutions. That's it. Can anyone find a "liberal" or ideological argument anywhere in what Ventura said? It's about as far from a partisan or "leftist" idea as one can get. Yet our establishment media has succeeded (as Digby recently argued) in converting this view into a "Hard Left," "liberal" or "partisan" argument because that's the only prism through which they can understand anything, and that's their time-honored instrument for demonizing any idea that threatens their institutional prerogatives and orthodoxies (only the Hard Left favors this).

Now in fairness there are some other people who are not leftists or 9-11 fruitcakes at least favor an investigation, if they are not yet endorsing criminal charges; Philip Zelikow, for instance.

But Zelikow said he is not trying to point fingers. "My point of view on this is fairly straightforward," he said. "This is now a historical problem. Our country quit doing this some time ago. I think that a lot of people agree with me in judging that this program was a mistake - a pretty big mistake. It was a collective failure. A lot of people in both parties of this country convinced themselves for years that we needed a program like this to protect America.

"And so one of the reasons I support some kind of inquiry is to comprehend why so many people believed that a program like this was a good idea - since we now believe it was a mistake," he continued. "So we can learn from the mistake. When there is this kind of collective failure, we need to learn from what happened."

But it does raise the obvious question; why are Greenwald and some of the posters here pointing to Jesse Ventura, when they should be pointing to Zelikow? It is an enormous tactical error because Ventura can be laughed off while somebody like Zelikow cannot.

 

[ravdin]

True enough except when the ad hominem goes directly to the credibility of the person making the statement. If somebody says to you, "Well, David Duke says that black people are mentally inferior," are you seriously going to get into a debate about genetics and the nature of IQ? I'd just go with the ad hom in that case; "David Duke's a racist moron and if you believe him, so are you." David Duke has no credibility when it comes to the topic of race.

In a similar fashion, Jesse has pissed away any credibility he might have had as a critic of the Bush Administration by his embrace of Trooferism.

Your example is also an ad hom- X is true because David Duke says so. You're right that it would be a mistake to seriously engage such a weak argument.

I personally wouldn't choose to discuss waterboarding, or the merits of torture to extract useful information, based on the overall credibility of Jesse Ventura. But I can live with it if I more or less agree with him on a topic unrelated to 9/11.

 

[Cicero]

He wasn't getting bogged down in a detail when that had nothing to do with the point. Nor does this as an objection.

Larry King asked him if he was a SEAL and Ventura answered in the affirmative. Since this is BS, whatever Ventura says after that is tainted.

The point he's making is that he could get Cheney to confess to anything anyone wanted. Ironically, your analysis just emphasizes this. Cheney gives up easily to avoid the torture, and his confession is highly suspect.

This red-herring has been floated ad nauseam over the last few years and it doesn't get anymore traction when the feather boa wearing Ventura parrots it. The 3 detainees were not waterboarded to get them to admit to being OBL, nor was it to get them to admit to any phony stories, or to extract phony confessions for a criminal trial. Ventura's experience with waterboarding in BUD/S was to momentarily feel the sensation of being drowned. Nobody was interrogating him. However, there would be no need to waterboard Ventura to get the truth from him as the prospect of being subjected to a simple polygraph machine would get Ventura to spill his guts about his true military record.

Yet I'll bet you were a huge McCaine supporter.

Gambling is not your forte. My posts on JREF regarding McCain suggest anything but support.

In either case...



...the US trains its soldiers with this, probably to get them used to it so it won't be quite the shock if it ever happens in reality. I hear the police all get tasered as part of their training, too. Gawrsh no!

So the more a person is waterboarded the less of a shock it is to them? Maybe they could even build up a resistance? But why bother if all you need do to stop the procedure is tell a lie to satisfy your interrogators?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

He admits he used steroids:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Jesse_Ventura_Drugs.htm


And he is a 9/11 truther, which proves diminished mental capacity:



QED

Ok, so that first part is precisely the evidence I said I'd need. However, I consider the 2nd part to be an ad hominem in itself. You may as well say that anyone who believes in God has a diminished mental capacity, and therefore we can't trust anything else they might say.

Considering Ventura is not posting on this board, and that he never bothers to make this distinction himself, and that his propensity for lying about his own resume is well documented, and since he makes up "facts" to support his 9/11 woo, and since he is a celebrity who relies on his phony SEAL appellation to add gravitas to his benighted opinions, he should not be able to take refuge behind the protection of the ad hominem clause.

Not to mention that all the allegations posted about Ventura in this thread are true.

I didn't realize the ad hominem clause had exceptions attributed to it.

In a similar fashion, Jesse has pissed away any credibility he might have had as a critic of the Bush Administration by his embrace of Trooferism.

Even if this were true, the issue isn't the Bush administration, it's whether waterboarding is torture. Whether it is or not has nothing at all to do with 9/11.

Larry King asked him if he was a SEAL and Ventura answered in the affirmative. Since this is BS, whatever Ventura says after that is tainted.

So I take it you have never lied or exaggerated in your life? Because according to your logic, if you have, then everything else you've said since is tainted.