Waterboarding Rocks!

[BeAChooser]

Regarding the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, he writes:

Because of the conflicting reports about this incident (and I already posted a conflicting report from a named CIA agent who was directly involved in the capture and interrogation of Zubaydah using the less harsh methods), there is only one way to resolve this issue. Obama needs to release the reports in their entirety. Anything less will leave the decision to emotion and politics, and that would not be a wise thing. Wouldn't you agree? Yes, it may be true that the CIA is lying. If so, we need to know it for certain so that we can clean house. Or the converse may be true. In which case, we need to know that. Right? Can we agree on this?

 

[tsig]

I have no reason to believe the government wants or needs to torture me. I'm not a terrorist trying to kill tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, tens of millions or even billions.

So Darat - can you answer the yes/no question I posed? Under the scenario I outlined (regardless of whether you think it plausible or not), would you apply non-lethal pain to a prisoner in the hopes of saving a hundred thousand lives or perhaps a few billion lives? Yes or no?

What good are your morals if they don't apply in just such a situation?

 

[BeAChooser]

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

That's interesting. You are at least admitting that techniques such as waterboarding are effective. So if it was a choice between waterboarding someone and with high probability letting 1000s of innocents die because you don't know that that person knows, which would you choose ... if you were only interested in taking the moral high ground (keeping in mind that Obama has said we've lost our "moral bearings")?

 

[BeAChooser]

Do you really think that BAC, having already declared he'd gladly torture someone to prevent the deaths of untold billions

And you wouldn't? Well I guess that makes you morally superior.

 

[tsig]

And you wouldn't? Well I guess that makes you morally superior.

Yes it does.

 

[BeAChooser]

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

Lot's of things are well established and yet have no consequence simply because the liberal mainstream media refuses to investigate and present them to the public ... and because the members of one party or another choose to put party over facts and country. For example, the illustrious democrat Senator Byrd was quoted saying it was undeniable that what Clinton did was an impeachable offense and that he was guilty of said offense. And yet, the mainstream media left most believing that the impeachment was all about a sex and Byrd himself voted to acquit. Get my point?

To slander your own president isn't patriotic.

ROTFLOL! Obama boasted to the press in 2004 that he attended Reverend Wright's church services EVERY saturday. And yet during the campaign he denied knowing anything about the inflammatory statements that Wright had made over the years. Obama worked side by side for years with William Ayers, a boastful and infamous terrorist, yet during the campaign Obama described Ayers as just some "guy in the neighborhood". And I don't see Obama waving the American flag much these days. Seems most of what he does is apologize for America and shake hands with (or bow to) dictators. Bet that makes Michelle proud ... finally.

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

Well how much certainty would you need ... if you were dealing with the lives of hundreds of thousands compared to the temporary suffering of one?

 

[applecorped]

Yes it does.

I love the smell of moral superiority in the morning.......it smells like victory.

 

[BeAChooser]

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.

And we know that you'd refuse to waterboard (a high non-lethal procedure) one definitely guilty person and let 100,000 people die. And you call mine a "frightening opinion"?

The truth is I'm struggling to deal with this highly complex issue in a rational and thoughtful manner on a case by case basis. You're simplying issuing a blanket statement which lets emotion overwhelm everything else. Which is what liberals often do. Folks, Which is a more frightening approach?

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!

Don't mischaracterize the situation you described. There are THOUSANDS of lives at stake. I think in your view, it could be hundreds of thousands of lives and it wouldn't make any difference. You still wouldn't do anything. You wouldn't even try an approach that you in your own scenario admitted might be effective. You'd let those thousands of people DIE, perhaps horrible deaths. And you say my opinions are frightening?

And all along I've been talking about non-lethal procedures. You throw the word "torture" about as if there is no difference between flaying a person alive and waterboarding. Or using some of the other mildly harsh techniques the CIA approved that liberals are now whining and whining about. But there is a difference.

I'm not talking about doing anything to the woman that would likely cause her or her baby permanent harm. But inducing some temporary suffering in a women that you admitted supports her husband's cause (i.e., killing thousands of people), is something I would do if that offered a way of saving those thousands of people. You'd just let them die, even though time was running out, and the consequences of not finding out what the prisoner knows is almost a certainty. And you say I have "frightening opinions"? What's frightening is that people who think like you might be in charge of defending the rest of us.

And by the way, you have a lot of gall throwing concern about that unborn baby's well being in my face when the President you support and voted for was the ONLY Senator to vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act which stated that if a child were born alive due to a botched abortion, a doctor would be called in to care for the child.

Do you trust BAC and other of his ilk to draw the line where you would draw it?

Well we know where your line in the sand is, gdnp. You'd let hundreds of thousands of people die because you are too squeamish ... too self righteous ... to inflict a little temporary discomfort on one person. And apparently you may be typical of the type of persona who will *defend* America under the Obama administration. Think about that folks.

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.

Oh this last *example* of yours is just priceless. Oh the irony. I'm glad you brought this one up.

We perhaps already had a somewhat similar plot, involving an official named Ron Brown who supposedly died in a plane crash during the Clinton years. And liberals like gdnp don't even want to investigate it, much less torture anyone to find out what actually happened. There were highly regarded US military officers charging that there was possibly foul play in the death of Ron Brown ... with hard evidence to back up their concerns, and the democrat controlled Department of Justice at the time didn't even interview them when the matter came to light.

Can we expect to see more of that type of *investigation* during Obama's administration ... since so many of the members of that previous administration are now in his administration? In fact, the person who is how heading the Department of Justice, Eric Holder, was the Deputy Attorney General at the time the concern about Brown's death surfaced. Is this the man who we are now to depend on to fully investigate this current matter? This man who had so many personal connections to Ron Brown? The man who threatened Nolanda Hill with prosecution if she testified to what she knew under oath (http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/pardongate.htm )?

 

[applecorped]

We're moving into CT territory.

 

[Prometheus]

The truth is I'm struggling to deal with this highly complex issue in a rational and thoughtful manner on a case by case basis. You're simplying issuing a blanket statement which lets emotion overwhelm everything else. Which is what liberals often do. Folks, Which is a more frightening approach?

Since your approach is the opposite of the ideals the United States was founded on, and much closer to those espoused by terrorists, I find yours far, far more frightening. Especially since the hypothetical situation you're so worried about that you'd trash American values to deal with it can never actually happen.

 

[BeAChooser]

I find it interesting that the only people I see advocating for torture are people of limited intelligence, life experience or respect for human life.

Says someone who apparently would let hundreds of thousands of people DIE rather than inflict some temporary discomfort on one person to keep them from dying.

 

[BeAChooser]

But this is such a stupid question, because it would justify anything.

Is it stupider than allowing hundred thousand to die because you won't inflict some temporary discomfort and pain on one person?

That's exactly what some of the folks on this thread have stated and you said nothing to them.

Yes, if it was certain that it would save billions of lives, then I would torture someone.

But you demand 100% certainty? You will NEVER get that. So in essense you too are saying that you would never inflict some temporary pain on someone to save a hundred thousand lives.

When you have to invoke the saving of billions of lives to justify an action, then that's kind of a big clue that it is not, under any normal circumstances, justifiable.

But we aren't talking about "normal circumstances", are we.

 

[MikeSun5]

I love the smell of moral superiority in the morning.......it smells like victory.

No kidding. That's certainly what this debate's turned into...

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And exactly how is the left going to surveil al-Qaeda when the left even objects to monitoring calls from known al-Qaeda members to people in the US.

Please quote anyone objecting to this.

ROTFLOL! Are you this uninformed? The program authorized warrantless intercepts where the government had "a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda." Objections were expressed by numerous officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and liberal members of the public. There were lawsuits filed to challenge the program. And you sit there and pretend that there were no objections?

 

[leftysergeant]

Says someone who apparently would let hundreds of thousands of people DIE rather than inflict some temporary discomfort on one person to keep them from dying.

Your problem is that you do not know anything about military intelligence. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that torture works.

We also have it on the word of one of our better military strategists that torturing prisoners decreases our military effectiveness.

Do get out of your basement and go get some real life experience.

 

[leftysergeant]

But you demand 100% certainty? You will NEVER get that. So in essense you too are saying that you would never inflict some temporary pain on someone to save a hundred thousand lives.

Now this is a demonstration of how poorly you have grasped the reality of what is going on here.

PTSD is permanent.

I do suggest that you refrain from further comment on things of which you know nothing relevant.

 

[leftysergeant]

The program authorized warrantless intercepts where the government had "a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda."

But they were supposed to go to a FISA court within 72 hours and they were supposed to keep records of who they tapped and why.

The iudiots ordering the taps, like Rummy, Cheney and Gonzo did not seem, probably due to a lack of integrity and intellectual capacity, to much care about things like laws.

That can kind of screw up otherwise healthy cultures.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Is it stupider than allowing hundred thousand to die because you won't inflict some temporary discomfort and pain on one person?

That's exactly what some of the folks on this thread have stated and you said nothing to them.

I answered "Yes" to the question to which they answered "No". If they have not noticed that I am in complete disagreement with them, that is not a ground on which to criticize me.

But you demand 100% certainty?

No. I stated that as a sufficient but not a necessary condition.

You will NEVER get that. So in essense you too are saying that you would never inflict some temporary pain on someone to save a hundred thousand lives.

Please do not lie to me about what I am saying.

But we aren't talking about "normal circumstances", are we.

No, we are talking about a hypothetical imaginary set of circumstances that you made up in your head.

Suppose that by marching all the Jews in the world into gas chambers, and finishing the job that Hitler started, you could save every other member of the human race, would you do it? Yes or no?

If your answer is a straightforward utilitarian "yes", please not that this does not constitute a justification of the Holocaust, because those were not the conditions actually applying.

 

[Dr Adequate]

ROTFLOL! Are you this uninformed? The program authorized warrantless intercepts where the government had "a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda." Objections were expressed by numerous officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and liberal members of the public. There were lawsuits filed to challenge the program. And you sit there and pretend that there were no objections?

I am not "pretending" anything, I am asking for information.

If you are unable to supply it, feel free to admit this.

You claimed that "the left", and I quote "objects to monitoring calls from known al-Qaeda members to people in the US". This is at least an overgeneralization, since I myself am on "the left" and have no such objection. Therefore I know without doubt that your claim is false.

I would, however, settle for an instance or two of anyone on "the left" who objected, per se, to "monitoring calls from known al-Qaeda members to people in the US". Your gibberish does not constitute such an instance; nor does your track record on these forums persuade me to take your word for anything.

 

[BeAChooser]

All you have to do is redefine the word 'war' to mean something completely different than it ever has before.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

In his book, On War, Prussian military theoretician Carl Von Clausewitz calls war the "continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means."[1] War is an interaction in which two or more militaries have a “struggle of wills”.[2]

Looks to me like the current conflict falls within that definition.

In other words, you have no evidence in support of your claim.

No, I'm simply not going to bother to try and convince you on that issue. Because frankly I don't think anything I post would convince you as nothing I post seems to be influencing you on any other issue.

Since the exchange in question was talking about professional interrogators and not soldiers, yes, the motivation our laws give to soldiers is, in fact, irrelevant to the question at hand.

You'd prefer, instead, to play with definitions. What does "is" mean?

You presented a False Dichotomy (yet another logical fallacy), suggesting that given the choice to either torture or *do nothing*

Under the situation that I described ... having just hours to break a subject and find out the location of a nuclear bomb or hundreds of thousands of people will die, I'm not presenting a false dichotomy. You'd just rather plays games with logical terms than deal with the scenario.

it's possible for people to choose to do nothing for some other reason than fear of prosecution, such as because they believe that's the morally correct course to follow.

Do you really think they would be morally correct in allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die rather than inflict temporary, non-lethal physical and mental stress on a single prisoner? If so, I think your moral compass is broken.

People who don't do things that they believe are right only because they fear prosecution are, in my experience, exceedingly rare

Well how vast is your experience compared to mine? There's no way to really know.

--but I don't hang out with a lot of far-right-wingers, so maybe you know something I don't.

You know nothing about me. But I guess you'd rather argue with insinuations about me than face the real issue of relative morality.

As to your quip about my being in denial, I'll thank you in advance not to make such personal attacks in the future.

It's not a personal attack. It's an observation based on what you've said and what I believe to be the truth about human nature.

BeAChooser - Ah yes ... another liberal completely controlled by emotion.

It's actually rather rare to find someone actually commiting a genuine Ad Hominem

Is it an Ad Hominem to call you a liberal? Is that how you feel about liberals? In a negative way? That must be, because saying you are completely controlled by emotion is not at odds with your statement that "I would be acting neither rationally, nor morally. I would be acting solely from emotion."

BeAChooser - I'm not suggesting torture in situations where you don't have good reason to suspect your *victim* ... snip ...

I think perhaps you meant to say "do" in place of the bolded "don't", otherwise you'd have me torturing every innocent person I came across.

No, "don't" is the correct word and saying that in the context of everything else I posted doesn't imply anything of the sort you suggest. You'd just rather play games with words than face the issue of relative morality.

You don't like the word "victim"? Which term would you use to define the relationship between torturer and tortured, "reluctant masochist" perhaps?

Did you also call the terrorists we were fighting in Iraq "freedom fighters"?

Regardless, you still don't know whether or not torture will extract that vital information until after you've committed torture--unless you're psychic, in which case you wouldn't need to torture, would you?

With absolute certainty? No. But then I hope you aren't as naive as some here who seem to demand absolute certainty before attempting to save a hundred thousand lives.

all that suggests is that there's a potential exception to a proven valid rule

No, it's an exception to the statement jthat there is "NO CIRCUMSTANCE that justifies torture" ... the statement justifying the rule. Proving the rule, as written, is invalid.

If it really is a "new type of war" then how on Earth would you know what "a sure way to lose" is?

Just look at what happened in Iraq. The Iraqi government tried to fight our invasion with the methods of the last war. And were demolished by forces that leftists in America (many of them in the press) were certain would be unable to defeat the Iraqi military without horrendous losses on our side (and I'm not talking about the terrorist campaign that cropped up later). Don't you remember? So call it a truism. The surest way to lose a war is fight the last one. Look around. You'll find a lot of people seem to accept that. Even in the military.

Originally Posted by Prometheus
And even in war, soldiers are not allowed to torture their prisoners.

And why does the other side in this war not respect that rule? Could it again be that you are using rules that don't fit the current circumstances?

...or perhaps it's because they're Un-American. Is that what you aspire to be?

So you equate the sort of torture we know that al-qaeda uses to our waterboarding? Is this not just another example of you believing in a moral equivalence that is ludicrous?