Waterboarding Rocks!

[leftysergeant]

9/11? - **** happens. Don't assume something can't happen. BTW reported.

The likelihood of anyone's ever capturing a suspect who would even meet BAC's and other torture fans' standards is so laughably remote thast we could throw in a requirement that we surrender to Ahmedinejad if we see a unicorn.. One is not much more likely than the other.

There have been some interesting mutations since the days of open-air nuke testing.

Any way, it is evil to suggest that evil be excused on the basis of the possibility that we might be inconvenienced.

 

[leftysergeant]

Please tell me that "this sort of thing" isn't terrorism.

Detainee operations and civil affairs.

 

[leftysergeant]

Partially killing a man? Is that like being somewhat pregnant?

We are drowning and resuccitating them in essence.

 

[Upchurch]

Your two responses aren't consistent.

Only if you accept a false dichotomy. I do not.

 

[Lonewulf]

I love the people with such lack of imagination that they really do feel that it's a choice between "torture", "killing them" or "letting them go".

Nice to see that they've been keeping up with interrogation techniques! A good amount of education is anathema to such a simplistic worldview.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Srawman. BAC is a United States citizen. KSM is a confessed mastermind of 911.

There's nothing in the U.S. Code that says it's only illegal if you torture a U.S. citizen. Everything about jurisdiction seems to depend on the person doing the torture and where the torture took place, not on the status of the victim.

If the offender is on U.S. soil, the law even says it's in our jurisdiction "irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender".

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

 

[Upchurch]

There's nothing in the U.S. Code that says it's only illegal if you torture a U.S. citizen.

Absolutely. What if in the next season of 24 the terrorist is home grown? We gots to torture that US MF.

 

[DC]

Absolutely. What if in the next season of 24 the terrorist is home grown? We gots to torture that US MF.

didnt he already Torture his brother?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We are drowning and resuccitating them in essence.

That's what Hitchens more or less said. He said it doesn't simulate drowning; it IS drowning.

I don't think it matters. At the very least it is the threat of imminent death, which is explicitly included in the definition of severe mental pain in the U.S. Code. (Remember, real victims of torture don't know in advance that they aren't going to be killed. I don't buy that all torture is merely a bluff anyway. The fact that we have tortured more than one prisoner to death shows that we're not at all committed to keeping the prisoner alive.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Absolutely. What if in the next season of 24 the terrorist is home grown? We gots to torture that US MF.

It is dismaying how many people get their ideas of what's legal from TV.

Some people still think a regular municipal police officer can say, "Halt our I'll shoot!" to a fleeing criminal, maybe fire a warning shot in the air, and then is allowed to shoot at the guy even when the officer is not in any danger himself. This myth came from '70s cop shows, I think.

 

[DC]

Some people still think a regular municipal police officer can say, "Halt our I'll shoot!" to a fleeing criminal, maybe fire a warning shot in the air, and then is allowed to shoot at the guy even when the officer is not in any danger himself. This myth came from '70s cop shows, I think.

 

[Praktik]

I just gotta give props to Nova I still haven't seen a cogent reply to the litany of well-made points he's made over the course of the last few pages.

Good work sir - I admire your patience and eloquence and look forward to see what "the other side" musters in response.

 

[Nova Land]

Another professional interrogator speaks out: Ali Soufan, an FBI supervisory special agent from 1997 - 2005, has an op-ed in the New York Times which addresses what he says are false claims being made on behalf of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the recently-released Justice Department memos.

Regarding the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, he writes:

It is inaccurate ... to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

Regarding a claim that torture provided actionable intelligence which led to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh:

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods.

Regarding the claim some have made, that torture provided actionable intelligence that led to the capture of Jose Padilla:

As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

Here, once again, we have someone with direct experience of how interrogation works explaining why torture, far from increasing the chance of obtaining information we need, actually makes it harder to do this and more likely that we will fail. Here's one example:

One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.

I note that BeAChooser still has not chosen to present any of the "many historical examples where valuable intel has been obtained through torture". Given that several of the examples which have been used by defenders of torture now appear to be bogus, I hope the believers in the value of torture can now understand the necessity for them to lay out their evidence clearly (rather than simply providing "clues" to where that evidence might possibly be found) so that it can be examined and evaluated.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I don't think it matters. At the very least it is the threat of imminent death, which is explicitly included in the definition of severe mental pain in the U.S. Code. (Remember, real victims of torture don't know in advance that they aren't going to be killed. I don't buy that all torture is merely a bluff anyway. The fact that we have tortured more than one prisoner to death shows that we're not at all committed to keeping the prisoner alive.)

Rather than saying "At the very least it is the threat of imminent death" I'd put it as "At the very least it is the belief of the threat of imminent death" that makes torture effective.

 

[A'isha]

Srawman. BAC is a United States citizen.

So? Do you really think that BAC, having already declared he'd gladly torture someone to prevent the deaths of untold billions in his lame hypothetical, would stop if his hypothetical torturee was a US citizen with the full rights thereof and say "Oh shoot, he's a US citizen, we can't torture him now. Guess all those billions are just gonna have to die."?

Because if you think he would say that, it calls into question his entire assertion that nothing is inviolable when it comes to saving potential lives. And if you don't think he'd say that, then whether BAC or any other torturee is a US Citizen is irrelevant, meaning that BAC supports the use of torture on US citizens.

 

[Pardalis]

Those associations are well established.

If it was well established, he wouldn't be president right now. I don't believe you.

Please find some tactic other than the usual democrat one of deny deny deny. It really grows old.

So I'm a Democrat now? What you call "deny", is plain old healthy skepticism over wild unsupported claims, that have an aura of fear mongering to them.

You can't just claim that your president has had associations with terrorists and hope nobody will notice.

To slander your own president isn't patriotic.

By the way Pardalis, would you be willing to hurt one person to prevent the death of hundreds of thousands? Yes or no? I'll assume a non response is a no.

Yes, if it was well established that the hurting would indeed prevent the deaths.

 

[Spinelli]

At the very least it is the belief of the threat of imminent death

um - wouldn't this make torture the solution to the $million dollar challenge? Not certain how that works but if physical coercion can effect this belief, wouldn't the torturer have performed a true supernatural act?

 

[Nogbad]

I notice you didn't even give me a chance to respond.

And although at first I decided not to respond to any comment that involved raping a child, I've changed my mind. Do you actually see moral equivalence between that act and killing everyone in a building ... or killing hundreds of thousands with a nuclear weapon? Really? If so, I can only



You say that's a fact but I've seen sources that would suggest otherwise. And if don't like the timeframe of that scenario just alter it to fit. Regardless of the scenario, would you let a hundred thousand people die just to avoid inflicting some non-lethal pain on one person? If you say yes, I think your moral compass is broken. You think all evil is the same.

You missed the other half of my post

I think we could argue all day whose compass is pointing south - needless to say I don't think it is mine.

Oh, my government comment was in jest btw I know your views.

 

[gdnp]

Keep in mind folks, this is the mentality of the people who now seem to be running this country. Feel safer?

Before you answer, folks, I suggest you look at BAC's frightening opinions below

Speaking of plausible scenarios many of those people in the refugee camp would likely to be very old or children and can probably be ruled out on that basis initially. And some of the refugees would be willing to credibly vouch for one another making it less likely they are the escapee. And perhaps a few others might be ruled out on some basis or another ... like their health. And since you must have some info that allows you to suspect a particular person, you would probably know the sex of your target. So perhaps the initial group you need to suspect is only 10-20 out of the hundred. And probabilistically, you wouldn't likely have to torture all of them find the one you need. You might, but it's not likely. Maybe non-torturous questioning could eliminate some of those from suspicion. And the response of others to very brief torture might eliminate them from suspicion. So now the question is whether you administer pain to half a dozen to prevent the death of a 1000 ... or perhaps many more than a 1000 since that number has to be uncertain because you don't know the details of the plot. Trading injury to 6 people for the lives of a thousand? Our society makes that sort of trade all the time in war, gdnp. And this is a war.

Notice, folks, how instead of answering a quite simple scenario that I presented to him, asking him if he would torture 99 innocent people in an attempt to save 1000 lives, he weasles it down to an admission that he would torture 6 innocent people on the chance of saving 1000 lives.

At least we are making progress. Now we know that if BAC is in charge and we give him the power to torture one definitely guilty person to save 100,000 lives, he would use this power to torture 6 innocent people to potentially save 1000 lives. How much farther would he go? Let's see:

Originally Posted by gdnp View Post
Or how about this:

You have water boarded, sleep deprived, and electric shocked your subject with no results. Time is running out. Fortuitously, you capture his pregnant wife, who supports her husband's cause but does not know the crucial information that he holds. It has already been pointed out that torturing a loved one in front of a suspect is more effective than torturing the suspect himself. Do you torture her in front of her husband with the hope that he will reveal the location of the bomb, saving hundreds of thousands of lives?

Absolutely.

Wow. we now know that, if he thinks it might get useful information out of a subject, he would be willing to torture his innocent pregnant wife! I wonder how much farther he would go? Do you think he would torture the suspects children? Maybe execute them one at a time until the suspect started naming names? Remember, this is war, and were talking of thousands of lives that may be in the balance. Isn't it a small price to pay? I don't know about you, but I'd sing like a canary if I thought it might save my kids. Even if I didn't know anything.

You see, folks, once you let someone like BAC have the right to torture, you have let the camel's nose under the tent. He's already admitted that he would not restrict it to people he knew with certainty were guilty--he'd torture people he knew were innocent. He has admitted that he would not restrict it to people that he knew had important information. He'd torture people who might know nothing.

Well there is a point at which I'd say no. I'm not willing to specify that point at this time. My only point in this discussion has been that that there is indeed a level at which trading injury to one (or even a few people) for the lives of many is the moral choice.

Got it, folks? Do you trust BAC and other of his ilk to draw the line where you would draw it? If you do, what do you think will happen if they are preparing an invasion and they are sure that the enemy has WMDs, a clear and present danger to our invading troops? The intelligence is a slam dunk. Do you think he might torture a few thousand captured enemy troops and officials until someone reveals the location of those WMDs?

What do you think he might do if, say, there were a White House plot to murder government officials and cover it up with fake suicides and plane crashes? The evidence is all there, all you need is a few confessions before they kill again. The future of our entire republic depends on exposing this plot and bringing the murderers to justice. Isn't the preservation of our once great democracy worth some mild temporary pain? Of course, we can't expect the corrupt government to investigate itself. The citizens will need to do the investigating here. All, of course, for purely selfless purposes.

Now don't get ridiculous in your effort to defend moral equivalency, gdnp.

No need. You have already stated that you would torture innocents for the greater good.

I've already said that you likely wouldn't be 100 percent certain. NOTHING is certain in life. ALL situations are probabilistic. You just have to do the best you can. And again, there is a difference between being 95% certain and being 5% certain. You don't seem to see that difference because you have no moral clarity.

Yeah, it's like the old joke of the woman who agrees to have sex with the handsome stranger for $10 million dollars, and then he offers her $20 and she slaps him and says "what kind of a girl do you think I am!" My response to you is the same as the the millionaire's response to the woman:

We've already determined that. Now we are just haggling over the price.

 

[Cicero]

Before you answer, folks, I suggest you look at BAC's frightening opinions below



Notice, folks, how instead of answering a quite simple scenario that I presented to him, asking him if he would torture 99 innocent people in an attempt to save 1000 lives, he weasles it down to an admission that he would torture 6 innocent people on the chance of saving 1000 lives.

At least we are making progress. Now we know that if BAC is in charge and we give him the power to torture one definitely guilty person to save 100,000 lives, he would use this power to torture 6 innocent people to potentially save 1000 lives. How much farther would he go? Let's see:



Wow. we now know that, if he thinks it might get useful information out of a subject, he would be willing to torture his innocent pregnant wife! I wonder how much farther he would go? Do you think he would torture the suspects children? Maybe execute them one at a time until the suspect started naming names? Remember, this is war, and were talking of thousands of lives that may be in the balance. Isn't it a small price to pay? I don't know about you, but I'd sing like a canary if I thought it might save my kids. Even if I didn't know anything.

You see, folks, once you let someone like BAC have the right to torture, you have let the camel's nose under the tent. He's already admitted that he would not restrict it to people he knew with certainty were guilty--he'd torture people he knew were innocent. He has admitted that he would not restrict it to people that he knew had important information. He'd torture people who might know nothing.


Got it, folks? Do you trust BAC and other of his ilk to draw the line where you would draw it? If you do, what do you think will happen if they are preparing an invasion and they are sure that the enemy has WMDs, a clear and present danger to our invading troops? The intelligence is a slam dunk. Do you think he might torture a few thousand captured enemy troops and officials until someone reveals the location of those WMDs?

What do you think he might do if, say, there were a White House plot to murder government officials and cover it up with fake suicides and plane crashes? The evidence is all there, all you need is a few confessions before they kill again. The future of our entire republic depends on exposing this plot and bringing the murderers to justice. Isn't the preservation of our once great democracy worth some mild temporary pain? Of course, we can't expect the corrupt government to investigate itself. The citizens will need to do the investigating here. All, of course, for purely selfless purposes.


No need. You have already stated that you would torture innocents for the greater good.

Yeah, it's like the old joke of the woman who agrees to have sex with the handsome stranger for $10 million dollars, and then he offers her $20 and she slaps him and says "what kind of a girl do you think I am!" My response to you is the same as the the millionaire's response to the woman:

We've already determined that. Now we are just haggling over the price.

Or we could make KSM read a gdnp post 183 times. I betcha before completing his initial attempt, KSM would beg for the H2O treatment.