• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Waterboarding Rocks!

Brainster said:
Well, at least the liberal posters on this board will stop claiming that you don't get any useful information out of "enhanced interrogation techniques".

For about two weeks anyway they'll go back to the "morally wrong" argument. Which is the only argument that's worth having, but now at least we know there's something to be placed on the other side of the scales.
Click to expand...

Remember when the fall back outrage position against waterboarding was that the subject of the exercise would make false confessions to stop the procedure? It seem the three people waterboarded by the CIA were too busy providing accurate and honest answers rather than try to claim they were OBL.
 
Cicero said:
Remember when the fall back outrage position against waterboarding was that the subject of the exercise would make false confessions to stop the procedure? It seem the three people waterboarded by the CIA were too busy providing accurate and honest answers rather than try to claim they were OBL.
Click to expand...
Prove he isn't lying about where they got the intel. They were illegally tapping our phones at the time, too, remember?
 
Cicero said:
Remember when the fall back outrage position against waterboarding was that the subject of the exercise would make false confessions to stop the procedure? It seem the three people waterboarded by the CIA were too busy providing accurate and honest answers rather than try to claim they were OBL.
Click to expand...

It's still irrelevant. That's exactly why the C.A.T. specifically said that nothing can justify using torture. I'm personally suspicious of the claims that they got good information this way, but even so, it's irrelevant.

Similarly, the fact that I want to use the proceeds of a robbery for a good purpose is irrelevant to whether or not robbery is a crime.
 
Brainster said:
Well, at least the liberal posters on this board will stop claiming that you don't get any useful information out of "enhanced interrogation techniques".

For about two weeks anyway they'll go back to the "morally wrong" argument. Which is the only argument that's worth having, but now at least we know there's something to be placed on the other side of the scales.
Click to expand...
That is, of course, exactly what you do not know.

From the link in the OP:

The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.​
 
Cicero said:
Remember when the fall back outrage position against waterboarding was that the subject of the exercise would make false confessions to stop the procedure? It seem the three people waterboarded by the CIA were too busy providing accurate and honest answers rather than try to claim they were OBL.
Click to expand...

No, I remember when that was a supplement to the primary position that torture is wrong regardless. Plus there still isn't any evidence that any useful information has been gleaned through torture that couldn't have been gotten in another way, or that any information gotten via torture can be reliably identified as true without corroboration.
 
Dr Adequate said:
That is, of course, exactly what you do not know.

From the link in the OP:

The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.​
Click to expand...

That is the moral argument, which I am glad to see discussed. As for whether the techniques worked, the Times notes that Blair has moved off the position he held only a few months ago:

The assessment by Admiral Blair represents a shift for him since he took office. When he was nominated for the position and appeared before the Senate intelligence committee on Jan. 22, he said: “I believe strongly that torture is not moral, legal or effective.” But he declined to assess whether the interrogation program under Mr. Bush had worked.

“Do you believe the C.I.A.’s interrogation detention program has been effective?” Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, asked him.

“I’ll have to look into that more closely before I can give you a good answer on that one,” Admiral Blair answered.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he did look into that more closely and concluded it has been effective.
 
I have only one thing to say on this topic at this time.

Liberal thinking is going to get a lot of Americans killed some day in an event that could have been prevented.
 
BeAChooser said:
I have only one thing to say on this topic at this time.

Liberal thinking is going to get a lot of Americans killed some day in an event that could have been prevented.
Click to expand...

Conservative thinking continues to get a lot of Americans killed in a war that could have been prevented.
 
leftysergeant said:
Prove he isn't lying about where they got the intel. They were illegally tapping our phones at the time, too, remember?
Click to expand...

It it was illegal then Congresswomen Jane Harman should have no trouble proving her abuse of power charge.

"Harman also appeared to question the legality of the wiretaps. While she said she could not recall the details of conversations with AIPAC officials, "anyone I might have talked to was an American citizen, and these were conversations that took place in the United States."

"A former U.S. intelligence official said that then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss signed an application for a warrant to extend the wiretapping operation after Harman had been identified on the recordings."

"The government is not supposed to use intelligence-gathering authorities to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens. But legal experts say there are exceptions, and that U.S. citizens can be targeted if the government can demonstrate to a special intelligence court that there is reason to suspect the citizen is acting as an agent of a foreign government."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-harman22-2009apr22,0,6177765.story
 
Prometheus said:
No, I remember when that was a supplement to the primary position that torture is wrong regardless. Plus there still isn't any evidence that any useful information has been gleaned through torture that couldn't have been gotten in another way, or that any information gotten via torture can be reliably identified as true without corroboration.
Click to expand...

What other way is that, exactly? Offering these three nylons and Hershey Bars? How do you know every other method wasn't tried and proved to be unsuccessful before these three were waterboarded?

Just because waterboarding is considered torture by its detractors, it is not ipso facto that the information was not corroborated. The info would be useless otherwise. Just as in civilian police work when a suspect voluntarily confesses to a crime it still has to be corroborated.
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
What other way is that, exactly? Offering these three nylons and Hershey Bars? How do you know every other method wasn't tried and proved to be unsuccessful before these three were waterboarded?
Click to expand...

Because the nasty little twirps wanted to waterboard people even when all the literature on the matter says that it is only useful for brainwashing.

Just because waterboarding is considered torture by its detractors, it is not ipso facto that the information was not corroborated. The info would be useless otherwise. Just as in civilian police work when a suspect voluntarily confesses to a crime it still has to be corroborated.
Click to expand...

But we have only the word of war criminals who were also involved in violations of our civil liberties that the information was obtained from waterboarding, rather than tapping every phone they could tap.

Do you know what any rational judge would do with the charges if that is all the evidence you can bring to court to support a prosecution?

Don't let the door spank you on your way out.
 
leftysergeant said:
Because the nasty little twirps wanted to waterboard people even when all the literature on the matter says that it is only useful for brainwashing.



But we have only the word of war criminals who were also involved in violations of our civil liberties that the information was obtained from waterboarding, rather than tapping every phone they could tap.

Do you know what any rational judge would do with the charges if that is all the evidence you can bring to court to support a prosecution?

Don't let the door spank you on your way out.
Click to expand...

War criminals? Brainwashing? Where are you getting this stuff? If these "twirps" were into waterboarding for the sheer joy of it, why did they stop at using the method on only three of the hundreds of detainees?
 
Cicero said:
Just because waterboarding is considered torture by its detractors, it is not ipso facto that the information was not corroborated. The info would be useless otherwise. Just as in civilian police work when a suspect voluntarily confesses to a crime it still has to be corroborated.
Click to expand...

Again whether or not you can get information through torture is wholly irrelevant. Here's what it says in the Convention Against Torture (signed and ratified by the U.S.):

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Click to expand...

As PaxImperium said, even if you think it's useful in some very limited circumstances, the problem with leaving an opening like that is that anyone could then make the argument that it's justified.

In this case, we had an administration that played fast and loose with intelligence already. I'm certainly not willing to trust their discretion to use something like torture appropriately (even if there is such a thing as the appropriate use of torture).

Finally, this is actually the law. If the U.S. chooses to ignore it, it has become a rogue state.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Again whether or not you can get information through torture is wholly irrelevant. Here's what it says in the Convention Against Torture (signed and ratified by the U.S.):
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to whom? Some 199 members of Congress think it is relevant. The CIA implemented the waterboarding, not members of the U.S. armed forces. Congress did not address this situation until December, 2007.

"In a 222-199 vote, the House approved a measure to require intelligence agents to comply with the Army Field Manual, which meets the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of war prisoners and prohibits torture."
 
Cicero said:
"In a 222-199 vote, the House approved a measure to require intelligence agents to comply with the Army Field Manual, which meets the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of war prisoners and prohibits torture."
Click to expand...
That's like saying that if congress passes a bill that reiterates that the president does not have a right to order murders, murder was never illegal.

Stare decisus, dude.
 
leftysergeant said:
That's like saying that if congress passes a bill that reiterates that the president does not have a right to order murders, murder was never illegal.

Stare decisus, dude.
Click to expand...

Or it could mean to the lucid among us that the CIA was never obliged legally under the Constitution or the Geneva Convention to operate under the Army Field Manual regarding interrogations until Congress submitted the Intelligence authorization bill in 2007 that Bush vetoed in 2008.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom