Effectiveness of Torture

Morrigan said:
I've made fun of Whiplash in the past, because he seems to be so easily offended and outraged at (usually) nothing; but I have to say, in this case, I can't disagree with him. He's completely unlike BeAChooser and his pro-torture ilk, and in his place I would also take umbrage at being lumped long with him.
Click to expand...

You should be in public office, Morrigan! I think you managed to praise and damn Whiplash in the same breath. :)

At any rate, I think Whiplash was right to take exception to the use of "conservative" as equal to "torture advocate", and I think thaiboxerken was right to make a prompt and sincere retraction and apology.
 
Thank you all, I was dreading coming back to this thread, as I feared I'd be attacked. When I first came here, I really would constantly be surprised by things I'd read here, causing me to rant (and the "outrage" jokes, which were deserved based on the content I was posting). But I really couldn't believe some of the things I was seeing, and wasn't sure how to react than shock or disbelief. I'm trying now to find some middle ground, as I said, and open my mind to understand the arguments against things I believe in.

And now I have to say, that this place still manages to surprise me, because as I said, I was really expecting to get insulted. I thought maybe I had been too defensive. But you all pleasantly surprised me.

Thank you very much.
 
Hey Joe, actually I wasn't damning him, I was merely acknowledging that I've less than kind in the past. :D

Speaking of damning and praising at the same time - I think that saying I should run for public office is also both a damnation and a praise, in a way, yes? :D
 
TortureApologiaChart6.jpg
 
BeAChooser said:
Waterboarding will prevent more of this.
Click to expand...

Despite the profundity of your belief I remain deeply unconvinced.

Your argument appears to be that because 9/11 has been a one-off, torture must have prevented any more. This is not a valid argument.

Apart from that you simply argue from the unsupported authority of interested parties.

Free the Tapes!

I wonder what the CIA's position is on freeing the tapes. Do your sources tell you anything on that?
 
BeAChooser said:
Actually, that's my opinion of you.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it.

Have you considered that your sources of information might not be terribly accurate? I'm one of those who didn't take their eyes off Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out. I can remember a world without Al Qaeda and the Taliban. My knowledge is based on following events as they occur, not reports from interested sources long after the event.

So I don't intend to waste any more time discussing this with you.

I think I've said what needed to be said on this thread.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you've said what you felt the need to say, and I've responded.

Readers can make up their own minds based on that.
Click to expand...

No doubt they will.
 
Whiplash said:
As a conservative who doesn't believe in doing any of those things, I take offense at your broad brush stroking here.
Click to expand...

Quite rightly. "Conservative" and "liberal" are thrown around with great abandon (particularly by US Americans, for whom they have special meaning).

Heck, I've been called a liberal and I don't even support universal suffrage.

I prefer the term "radical conservative" for the clique that's dominated the Republican party in recent decades. They've been much more radical than they've been conservative.
 
Upchurch said:
eta: better yet: source documents
Click to expand...
The statements quoted in the article are on page 15.

The question is whether or not KSM is credible on this. Personally, I dunno. On the one hand, the guy is a scum bag terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean he is lying about this.
 
And I don't think it's even necessary to prove that he was lying (during interrogation) or giving bogus information. The fact is, he could have. That means when the decision was made to break the law and commit the crime of torture, nobody knew it would provide useful intelligence.

The response that we also don't know whether legal and ethical investigative techniques will work is easily answered: when we decide to do those things, we're not breaking laws we agreed to obey.
 
Last edited:
Well, besides KSM, there is the other guy they tortured that they verified DID give false information and false confessions. They apologized to that person.
 
Did you notice that at the same hearing where Mohammed claimed he lied under torture, he also listed 29 terror plots in which he took part? And if he lied before, could he be lying now?

The only way we are going to know the real truth is if the Obama administration releases everything related to those enhanced interrogations. We need to see exactly what questions were asked, what the answers were, and how accurate the information obtained turned out to be.

What the Obama administration is doing is continuing to play political games ... releasing only select information that paints the picture that they want painted ... that waterboarding doesn't work.

The bottom line is this. Either numerous people at the CIA lied or they didn't. If they lied, then Obama should be punishing them. So far he isn't. If they didn't lie, then someone else needs to be punished.

So you really should be joining me in demanding that Obama release ALL the data on these interrogations.
 
Yea, BeaChooser, it seems that you do choose to place value on the evidence that support your position and none on those that don't. The reports about the unreliability of torture isn't only about KSM, but of the other guy that the CIA apologized to. The guy that the CIA forced false confessions and information out of, that they verified was false, and subsequently decided to apologize for that torture. I'm glad of one thing, though, BeaCh, you are no longer trying to convince people that water boarding isn't torture. At least there is one point to which you've seen where you are wrong.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yea, BeaChooser, it seems that you do choose to place value on the evidence that support your position and none on those that don't.
Click to expand...

FALSE. I've stated multiple times now that the CIA might be lying (although in that case, why isn't Obama punishing them?). That's why I've called for a full release of the data related to enhanced interrogation use by the CIA.

If anyone places no value on the other sides *evidence*, it is you. You just ignore the material I've provided and continue to insist that waterboarding and the other enhanced interrogation methods didn't stop any terrorist plots or save any lies. And you show no interest in joining me in demanding that Obama clear this matter up by releasing the full data set.

thaiboxerken said:
I'm glad of one thing, though, BeaCh, you are no longer trying to convince people that water boarding isn't torture. At least there is one point to which you've seen where you are wrong.
Click to expand...

And don't continue to mischaracterize my other statements either.
 
BeAch, the CIA said it garnered some good information from these torture techniques. However, it appears that they garnered much, much more false information. This includes false confessions. I'd say that shows that such methodology cannot be justified under the guise of effectiveness.
 
thaiboxerken said:
BeAch, the CIA said it garnered some good information from these torture techniques. However, it appears that they garnered much, much more false information.
Click to expand...

You don't know this. Most of the material on the interrogations is still classified (that's what heavily redacted means ... and we've only seen a fraction of the documents that must exist on this). Most of the material is being withheld from the public eye by the Obama administration. The Obama administration is only releasing what it chooses to release, and it has a political motivation for painting the picture that enhanced interrogation did not work and saved no American (or foreign) lives.

What we do have on the record are the statements of various CIA and other Intelligence officials. And they categorically state that much valuable information ... information that stopped terrorist plots and saved many lives ... was learned via enhanced interrogation AFTER conventional methods had failed to produce much intel of value. So either they are lying or they are not (in which case others ... on your side of this debate ... have lied). Now since Obama hasn't taken any action against these CIA officials, the logical conclusion is that the CIA personel aren't lying (because why would Obama want a bunch of liars in the CIA?). Like I said, if anyone is ignoring evidence to the contrary ... it's YOU.
 
Isn't there a point where you realize you're apologizing for torture? I mean... really? How do you manage this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom