Waterboarding Rocks!

[Dr Adequate]

Because you folks have outlawed judiciously applying it to known terrorists?

Gather round, class, this is a rare instance of the Pre Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

 

[leftysergeant]

The best way to settle this is to first determine whethewr waterboarding is or is not torture, then to determine whether torture works. We have historical data on both counts.

It was determined after the Korean War that waterboarding was a torture technique and was used by the communists to extract false confessions to war crimes.

Torturewas widely used in the occupied territories of Europe by the Nazis in WWII. We didn't do it.

Torture was widely used in the conflicts between the French and native populationbs in Algeria and Lebannon.

Works like a hollow glass sledgehammer.

Stop it.

 

[BeAChooser]

The reason why lefty and others keep asking you to provide evidence is that you keep on refraining from providing it.

That's statement is simply untrue. The problem is that you, lefty and the others refuse to accept ANY evidence that doesn't say exactly what you want to believe.

I can prove that simply by pointing you to post #903, which is full of apparent facts that clearly indicate waterboarding worked when conventional methods did not. It's full of evidence that indicates the information which was learned by these enhanced techniques (all causing just temporary pain, discomfort or mental stress, by the way) was actionable, accurate and in some cases, literally "ticking". And undoubtedly saved many lives.

The truth, NL, is you and the others simply don't like what the CIA officers and that very specific evidence had to say, so you and the others have just ignored it or dismissed it out of hand. You don't even have the guts to proclaim that the CIA officers are lying and agree with me that in that event Obama should release the information to prove it so we can clean house in the CIA. Instead, some on your side of this debate have listed pathetic rationalizations why Obama is not punishing these people that you obviously must believe have lied to the American public ... have lied about a procedure that in the minds of many of you is apparently no less immoral (evil) than murder.

You just ignore this evidence. You don't even like what Obama's own selection for the CIA says, so you ignore it. You focus your entire dismissal on a date inconsistency between the statements about the LA tower plot being stopped by enhanced techniques and when KSM was captured ... and ignore most everything else. Yet the evidence in post #903 would seem to suggest most of the members of that tower plot were unidentified right up until the time that KSM was waterboarded and gave up that information. So in a very real sense, that plot couldn't really be stopped until KSM was waterboarded. But you just ignore this.

Rather than challenge, your side ignores the apparent fact that KSM and the other 2 terrrorist gave up NO NAMES of other terrorists who were involved in plots and still on the loose ... until after they were waterboarded. You ignore that the LA tower plot was only one of many plots that the CIA and government said were prevented because of information they claim was gained as a result of enhanced interrogation. Are you ignoring this because you can't handle the possibility that the CIA and Bush administration might be telling the truth? Have you dismissed the evidence before it is even presented because you don't like Bush and the CIA?

You also have no history where previous debates with lefty and the others are concerned on this or any other subject. So you have no idea about my frustration level where they are concerned. But I think any reader of this thread, after seeing the response of the participants on the *no torture under any circumstance because it's immoral and doesn't work* side in this debate to post #903, would conclude your side really isn't interested in finding out the real truth. You've made your minds up on emotional or partisan grounds and that's all there is too it.

Readers of this thread will also conclude that you don't care if lots of people get killed because Obama rules out a procedure that caused no real harm to people and was indeed saving lives. And even if the CIA is lying about that, then our readers will still have to conclude that most of your side don't care if the people that you believe have lied to the American people are allowed to remain in government and the CIA. They will see that all that matters to most of you is supporting Obama no matter what.

The tactic you are using is the same one used by believers in reincarnation, believers in psychic detectives, believers in conspiracy theories regarding the Kennedy assassination, and many others.

The tactic you are using is the same one used by those who tried to discredit what highly regarded military forensic pathologists and photos/x-rays suggested in the Ron Brown case. You are deliberately trying to link what is clearly credible evidence to allegations of something that you believe most people will readily accept is silly nonsense. I think that is nothing short of dishonest and a red herring at best.

Once you have presented the evidence, then those of us who have asked to see it will be able to examine and evaluate it. If it stands up to scrutiny, then your work is done; if not, you can go back and try to find some evidence which will stand up to scrutiny.

Yet, that is not what happened when I posted #903 which if full of very specific events and names. It wasn't examined. The evidence wasn't challenged. The post was either dismissed out of hand or simply ignored by every single person on your side of the debate. DA in fact was the only person to respond with more than a one-liner, and his response didn't challenge any of the specifics but instead consisted of ad hominems against me. I rest my case, NL. Your side really isn't interested in evidence.

Malcolm Nance, who was chief of training for the US Navy SERE program, describes it thusly:

Quote:
Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it...

And yet not a single one of the three terrorists who were waterboarded was permanently harmed by the experience. And yet we routinely waterboard our own special forces during training. And yet we have journalists who are now volunteering to be waterboarded ... and apparently surviving with no real harm having been done to them, either. But never mind the harm done in REAL terrorist attacks. According to your side that morally inconsequential compared to the abuse those three terrorists suffered.

Yes, waterboarding does cause discomfort and stress the individual in question. It might even make them think they are about to die. That's it's purpose. But does it do real harm? The above facts suggest not, especially when conducted in the manner and under the conditions the CIA authorized. Many things cause discomfort and distress, even pain. Shouldn't they all be labeled torture if you are to remain consistent? If so, the C.A.T. has left a lot of things off the list that are now routinely used by police (and parents) around the world when questioning suspects (and children) about heinous activitie. Have you complained?

Evidence, it should be noted, is not the same as proof.

Fine. The only way we will know for certain which side of this issue has lied, is if Obama declassifies the information (which the government must have) to do so. So why isn't he doing that if his side is right? As I've observed before (an argument you've ignored, by the way), I can see no legitimate reason. Your side has only offered rationalizations that I've easily shown are baseless or silly. No, the only reason I can see for Obama not releasing this information is that Obama knows the CIA version is correct, and knows that verifying that fact will prove he has chosen to put the American public in great danger rather than give our protectors in very limited circumstances the authorization to inflict some temporary pain and discomfort on some very bad people in order to learn vital information. He has put the COMFORT of those very bad people above the lives of perhaps millions of Americans. And it appears, so have you and the rest on your side of this debate in this thread. I leave it to readers to judge us.

 

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser - And by the way, not only the LA Tower was claimed as an example of information learned from KSM and the other al-Qaeda through torture. The government also stated that torture of these people stopped an attack on Heathrow, an attack on downtown London, an attack on our consulate in Karachi, an attack on our Marine camp in Djibouti, and broke up an al-Qaeda anthrax cell. I'd like to know if that is true. Wouldn't you?

Yes, I certainly would. So if there is any evidence to support those claims, I'd like to see it.

I don't have that evidence because if it exists, it's still secret. Obama has it, if it exists. And if those claims aren't true, he also has the evidence of that. So finding out is entirely in his hands. And so far Obama has refused to authorize release of that evidence, one way or the other. Here is your side's dilemma. When I agree that the CIA and government MIGHT be lying, and demand that Obama release the information that will let us know, your side doesn't join me but instead backs off and presents rationalizations why Obama might not be doing so. Like he wants to stay on good terms with the CIA. Sounds to me like your side of this debate and Obama are trying to cover something up, NL.

In the absence of that evidence, all we have is an unsupported claim.

No, what we have are very specific statements by numerous named and unnamed CIA and government officials as reported to us by some reasonably believable media sources. That's not the same as "unsupported". Now you can claim they are all lying. But then my response is that if Obama has the data that proves they are lying (AND HE MUST), then why doesn't he release that data? If the CIA and all of it's past AND CURRENT heads have blatantly lied about the effectiveness of enhanced methods to the American people, don't you think the American public needs to know this? Don't you think this needs to be resolved? If that's so, why hasn't a single person on your side of this debate on this thread joined me in demanding that Obama do this? Did I miss one? Why instead, have those few who have offered any comment at all, just posted excuses why Obama hasn't done this?

Strangely, the people claiming that torture has been effective in providing useful information still have not been able to provide a single comparable example.

That's simply not true. See my post #903. Respond to that post. Don't ignore it like all the rest did, NL.

 

[BeAChooser]

You claim that Kiriakou said that conventional methods were totally ineffective, i.e. that no useful information was obtained from Kiriakou through conventional methods. But as you can see if you attempt to paraphrase the article, that isn't in there.

Fine. If you want to get stuck on what *I* said, on my apparent (and inadvertent) exaggeration of what Kiriakou said in one my posts, while basically ignoring what all the other CIA sources and government sources apparently have said in articles like that in post #903, fine. I can't stop you. But I notice that you've never attacked a poster who has declared that torture has NEVER provided any information when that is not true. You've never had a negative thing to say about a single one of lefty's posts, which often contain far more outrageous blanket statements. Seems your outrage is very selective.

 

[JihadJane]

... (all causing just temporary pain, discomfort or mental stress, by the way)

... a procedure that caused no real harm to people

... And yet not a single one of the three terrorists who were waterboarded was permanently harmed by the experience.

Do you have any evidence to support these assertions?

 

[BeAChooser]

What we have is an unnamed senior official saying that KSM said that KSM only talked because he'd been water-boarded.

Do you automatically dismiss all unnamed sources? Does a source telling a reporter that he'll speak off the record automatically make what he says untrue? Or do you think all such claims are just fabrications by the media? The liberal mainstream media quotes unnamed sources all the time. So if that's what you really believe, why don't you start a thread on that and really sock it to them. Or is your outrage very selective?

What it doesn't say -- and what you still need to show -- is that because of water-boarding KSM provided useful information which enabled terrorist plots to be foiled. What you need are (1) specific examples of information he provided -- (2) describing currently in-progress terror plots -- (3) which turned out to be accurate -- (4) and which weren't already known.

Fine. All that is supplied in the article cited in post #903. Why don't you respond to it? Why hasn't any other person on your side of the debate responded to it ... other than to toss out a few ad-hominems? Could it be that you and they really aren't interested in the above when one does get around to offering evidence from a credible source that doesn't have flaws that allow you to easily negate and ignore it?

 

[Nova Land]

NovaLand, I'll respond to your posts when I get the time.

I'll get around to dealing with NL but given the volume of his posting, it may take a day or so. And besides, look how long it took him to respond to my posts. Perhaps he was just waiting for my posts ... to as you say ... "drop off the page" and "rerun" his arguments.

Take all the time you need. There is no rush. I would much rather you take your time, check your facts, and write something which reflects well upon the site. I am a very slow poster myself, so I rarely if ever complain about how long it takes others to respond to a point. I'm more interested in the content of people's posts than in the speed with which they write them.

One reason i am such a slow poster is that I like to read all the posts in a thread before replying in it, in order to consider what others have written and not to repeat unnecessarily points which have already been made. This thread grew so large so quickly that I had to relax that rule in replying the other night. But yesterday I took time to read pages 16 - 23 more carefully, and today I took time to read pages 24 to 29, so I hope to post some additional replies -- to posts from pages 15 through 17 -- later tonight or early tomorrow.

I also like to look up details related to the points I am writing, and to fact-check any significant details in what I am writing. That takes time, since I am motivated by curiosity and very often in looking up one thing one sees something related which looks interesting.

There are many sites on the internet for people interested in politics to post talking posts, jeer at those who disagree with them, and to engage in arguments where the point is winning regardless of the actual merits of one's case. That is not, in my opinion, the purpose of the Politics section of the JREF forum.

The point of skepticism is to examine matters in a way which enables us to accept true claims and reject false ones. And while James Randi (and JREF) began with a focus on the paranormal, the focus has expanded to attempt to examine -- and apply skeptical thinking -- to a wide range of areas. Politics is one of them.

In examining claims of the paranormal (and examining arguments between skeptics and non-skeptics over paranormal topics) it's easy to see a number of practices and methods which are helpful in determining what is true -- and a number of practices and methods which enable believers in false claims to hold on to their beliefs.

I encourage you to think about what skepticism means and how it works -- and to aspire to a higher standard in your posts than you at present are achieving.

Regarding your desire to bang your head against a wall, I understand how you feel. Like you, I am prone to making careless errors in my writing (which is why I try to write slowly, and to review what I have written carefully, before I post). Much of my posting in recent months has been puzzles (at a non-JREF site) and I've made frequent errors in those posts which have embarrassed me as much as I assume the errors in your posts in this thread embarrass you.

My suggestion is that you take more time and more care in reading what others in this thread have written -- and in reading and checking the sources you are relying on for information -- before posting. Better to take more time, and to post less often -- but to leave a record of posts which you can look back on a year from now without cringing.

 

[BeAChooser]

Human Events is an opinion magazine.

The sad truth is that all media today is basically opinion. You think you really get the truth watching the mainstream news or reading the NY Times? I can show you example after example where sources you now doubt would claim were credibly only provided half the story ... the half they wanted people to believe because they are actually in the business of SHAPING public opinion. Journalism is for the most part dead.

So all we can do is ask if what a given source states to be true is true ... or did the source fabricate what is stated. If you want to claim that Human Events has fabricated the material in that article don't waffle, just say it. Otherwise, we have some reason to believe that's an accurate accounting of the facts as told to them on at least one side of the story by someone they believed to be CIA agents. Which means there is another side of the story other than just the statements of those few FBI agents that your sources have reported.

Citing a piece from Human Events is like citing something in a blog post or a letter to the editor. Human Events does not do investigative journalism

You may not like his politics but Deroy Murdock has a long track record of investigating stories, interviewing people knowledgable about facts regarding those stories, collecting other information, and then presenting what he learns in fact filled, logical articles. That they may only get published in venues like Human Events and National Review, that you don't like, doesn't mean what they say isn't true. That might just mean the other venues ... the ones you think are "credible" and do so-called "investigative journalism" ... have an agenda (an opinion) and that what his article says just doesn't fit into that agenda so they won't publish it.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Do you know the Los Angeles Times never published a single article ("investigative" or otherwise) telling its readers that there was a allegation of rape, much less a credible one (FBI agents said it was credible) against Bill Clinton? There is no question such an allegation existed. Or that it was something the public should have been informed about (given that the allegation surfaced during the time of the impeachment). Wouldn't you agree? Do you know the LA Time's bias is so strong that even years after Clinton's impeachment trial, the LA Times went so far as to edit out a brief mention of the allegation that they found in an opinion piece they published by George Will. They cut it out without even telling Will they were going to do it. When he saw the edited column in the paper, he was furious and demanded that a written apology be published in their paper. The LA times ended up doing so (well hidden in the paper, of course). And you know what else? That was the FIRST and only mention (to date) of the rape allegation in the LA Times. That's, a good example, of how *credible* the mainsteam media is as regards *investigative journalism*.

And I could give you other, equally glaring examples of the bias of sources that I bet you routinely accept as truthful. For example, hardly a mainstream media source you could name told the American public the full story in the death of Ron Brown. With few exceptions, they didn't even mention to the public that expert military and civilian pathologists were expressing concern about the nature of the wound in Ron Brown's head ... that it had the appearance of a bullet wound and that what was seen in x-rays appeared to support that possibility. No, they just reported he died in a plane accident due to bad weather ... and later pilot error. Those few that did mention this (like ABC) did so very briefly (often one time) and then did what you did earlier, try to link the allegation to nonsense ... in Ron Brown case, UFOology.

So, sometimes you just have to get the facts where you find them. And if it happens to be Human Events, so be it. And based on what I've read in other articles by Deroy Murdock, most of what he reports is quite accurate. I'm not saying he gets every detail right (what journalist does?) but the vast preponderance of what he reports turns out to be quite accurate when history and other sources are finally available to make that assessment.

What you are citing is the opinion of someone who read or heard something somewhere.

No. Deroy Murdock is more than that. He often does do his own research, verifying facts and statements, and learning new information. And besides, would you like me to provide examples from the mainstream media where they report a story that they ONLY heard in some other media venue (often their competition) ... and do so without telling the reader that was their source? I could probably give you thousands of examples. Again, that doesn't automatically prove that what is reported in an article is false.

Presumably these examples were provided by someone involved in the interrogations. Who? Where did they say the things Human Events is reporting they said, and what did they actually say? Until you can answer those questions, what you have are clues to the location of evidence -- but not evidence.

Actually, I think President Bush himself may have provided many of the details listed in Murdock's and Marc Thiessen's (post #903) articles. Here: http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2006/September/20060906155503eaifas0.8319666.html . I'll agree that nothing is "proven" yet. That we haven't seen the raw evidence that will tell us either way, where the big picture is concerned. And Obama holds all the cards there.

He is only person who can clear this matter up. And it will remain muddy until he does so. But perhaps that suits his purposes ... his agenda. And don't try to pretend he doesn't have one. It may be that your FBI sources are telling the truth, but then maybe they told only part of the story (since the material in Thiessen's article contains many other details that do not seem to contradict the verifiable "facts" cited by your FBI sources. It may be that your FBI agents are just good at fabricating a consistent story that fits their agenda. It may be that Bush and the CIA sources were confused about some facts. Or maybe they willfully lied. It may be that Bush (or the authors of the articles) mixed up some details, confusing matters well telling the correct facts in other cases. It may be that the CIA sources mentioned in #903 that weren't named, didn't want to be named for very good reasons (they are active CIA agents, after all and identifying yourself as one can be career destroying).

The bottom line is that the river of truth is all muddy now and the only way to clear it up so we can see the bottom is for Obama to release the data that will prove who told the truth. Will you join me in that demand and admit that if Obama won't do that, one has a right to wonder what his motivation might be ... and to be skeptical about that motivation?

KSM, on the other hand, was taken into custody in March 2003 and water-boarded 183 times in March 2003. That doesn't leave a whole lot of time, between his arrest and the start of water-boarding, for several months of conventional interrogation.

Ok. I do apparently have this wrong. KSM clearly wasn't interrogated for months before waterboarding. I certainly can make mistakes, especially when there are so many details and conflicting things being reported and I'm at war with a dozen opponents, some of whom are blasting me when I don't respond immediately to every post that's made. I even find myself exaggerating at time (who doesn't?). Shall I go looking for exaggerations by you? But thanks from calling me on this one. I am after all interested in the truth of the matter.

But this doesn't really change things all that much. KSM was captured on March 1st (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed ) and was in US custody from that time on. The document that said he was waterboarded 183 times in March (http://ccrjustice.org/files/05-30-2005_bradbury_40pg_OLC torture memos.pdf ) states (page 8) that "The CIA used the waterboard extensively in the interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, but did so only after it became clear that standard interrogation techniques were not working." In the case of al-Nashiri, it states there was 12 days of conventional interrogation before the first waterboarding. And that waterboarding produced "notable results as early as the first day". It seems likely that at least a week (maybe two) went by before they began waterboarding KSM (since he was only waterboarded in 5 sessions overall). So in that period where undoubtedly they were applying conventional interrogation methods, KSM didn't reveal any past or on-going plot that he didn't think they already knew about, and he didn't name any names of terrorists we didn't know about. That type of information was all revealed in the next week or two of waterboarding. Again, this *evidence* would proves the effectiveness of waterboarding. IF the post #903 account is an accurate description of the facts.

Note that the above source also states that "no technique is used in the interrogation of any detainee -- no matter how valuable the information the CIA believes the detainee has -- if the medical and psychological evaluations or ongoing monitoring suggest that the detainee is likely to suffer serious harm. Again, this *evidence* just proves that for all the talk about this being *torture*, the subjects were never in any real danger of being harmed. Their condition was evaluated by doctors and other medical professionals and their condition was closely monitored as the interrogations proceeded. The risk to the terrorist was minimal compared to the risk to the intended victims of any on-going terrorist attacks.

So we come back to the issue of moral equivalence. It seems to me these interrogators had valid reasons to believe that these terrorists knew about additional ongoing plots and also still unidentified cells of terrorists who could carry them out (as well as other plots the three might not know about). They had good reason to believe such plots might come to completion at any time. KSM was telling them it would be "soon". You may disagree but I certainly see that as a ticking bomb, one that it would be irresponsible to ignore or just assume was bluster. Keep in mind that this terrorist was thought to be the mastermind in the killing of over 3000 Americans in a WMD level terrorist attack just a year and a half earlier. And that he'd been on the loose since then, presumably plotting with other terrorists some equally devastating attacks.

The truth is that you and the proponents of conventional interrogation techniques can make no promises that any additional information would have been obtained from KSM or the other terrorists over the next few weeks or even months had interrogations been restricted to conventional methods. The interrogators on hand, which we have to believe operated in good faith, judged that what these captives knew was important, was urgent, and was not obtainable by conventional mentions in a short enough timeframe ... that the enhanced methods stood a better chance of success. I don't really think you or anyone else who wasn't there is qualified or justified in second guessing that decision, until the full details have been released by Obama. Not when most of you demonstrate such a lack of moral clarity and avoidance of facts. Not when many of you are making excuses for Obama now leaving people that you must believe are liars in key national defense and intelligence positions.

 

[BeAChooser]

As a strong supporter of transparency in government, I agree with you that it would be good for as many relevant documents as possible relating to this matter to be declassified and publicly released.

You are wrong, however, that this is the only way to resolve the issue.

Is that a demand he release the information or are you merely giving lip service to the idea and then moving on to excuse his not do doing so?

The question is not whether all the evidence is available. The question is whether there is sufficient evidence available to reach a reasonable conclusion.

In this case, there is. True, we have conflicting statements. But on the one hand we have statements claiming that no useful information was obtained through the use of conventional methods. On the other hand we have statements which say that useful information was obtained through the use of conventional methods -- and these statements provide details identifying what this information was and how it was used.

I think you are mistaken. I think you are using VERY selective quote mining to support your very broad brush. I think it depends on what the word "useful" information means. Your sources don't really say that conventional interrogation of KSM and the other waterboarded terrorists led to much of anything other than information that it would appear interrogators already knew, information that terrorists thought the interrogators already knew, or information about past plots that could no longer impact what happened. I don't see that disputed.

But that's only half the story. That not where the real concern of the interrogators should be. What about the ongoing plots and the names of other terrorists still on the loose? What was learned there? We have statements from the CIA that say in that case the conventional methods weren't working but that enhanced techniques yielded such information once they were tried. And I've seen no interrogators, either conventional or enhanced, dispute that assertion. Both the past and present head of the CIA seems to support that assertion.

So I think your sources are only telling part of the story, leaving out the part about what was learned by enhanced methods ... exaggerating the overall value of what was learned by conventional methods ... because they have an agenda. That's fine. The CIA has an agenda too. Obviously. And they may be doing just the opposite ... minimizing what was learned from conventional methods to make the enhanced methods that they use seem better. We don't know which is more distorting the picture until Obama releases the raw data necessary to resolve this. There is no logical excuse that I can see for him not doing that so please stop trying to offer such excuses. Because that just reeks of partisanship.

 

[BeAChooser]

I routinely paraphrase things in my posts -- as does any good skeptic. Paraphrasing is a useful tool and an essential skill in the practice of skepticism.

So everyone knows, this particular disagreement began in post #471 when you referred back to post #136 where I originally introduced a form of the question I have been asking. In post #136, I used nothing more than the word "torture" to describe what would be done to the person who knew the information needed to stop some large terrorist plot.

Now the dictionary defines paraphrasing as a restatement which gives the same meaning in another form or which clarifies that meaning. And readers will find that in later posts I began paraphrasing my original question to try and clarify what I was getting at (so shoot me). For example in post #143 (just a few posts later), I asked "Wouldn't you be willing to apply some pain to a person if there were a 1% chance that doing so would save several hundred thousand American lives?". Over next several hundred posts, I rephrased the question again and again, all with the consistent message that something far less than what is normally pictured when the word torture comes to mind is what I meant. I used descriptions like "a little non-lethal pain". And I began focusing on waterboarding as being what I was suggesting be done to extract information in the special circumstance defined in my hypothetical.

So my complaint to you was that you chose the original wording of my question rather than the revised, paraphrased wording as it was evolving (granted, it hadn't quite gotten to the point of "temporary pain and discomfort"). I think you know that most people still think of maimed and broken bodies when they hear the very loaded word "torture". That was clearly not what I meant since I was referring to the enhanced interrogation methods; in particular waterboarding. So I think your post was an attempt to keep the word torture at the forefront rather than the more precise definition I was then offering (which has become even more precise since then). Since you are making such a big issue about the extreme importance of accuracy in posts, I would expect the same of you.

And by the way, the rest of your screed on "paraphrasing" might be best characterized as "obfuscation" and "personal attack". So I'll ignore it.

 

[BeAChooser]

So in a scenario where we have ample time, the choice is clear: we have a much greater chance of saving lives if we use conventional interrogation methods rather than torture.

And I've never suggested otherwise. What I do maintain is that often we may not know how much time we actually have before a threat materializes. That as serious as the consequences might be, we must err on the side of caution, especially if the captured terrorist is telling investigators that "soon, you will see". One of the cases described in post #903 concerned a plot that was stopped only days before it was to hatch (now maybe that's not true but only Obama can release the data to prove that claim false).

In a scenario where we have only 3 hours, the choice is more difficult

It could be difficult in a case where you have weeks before the figurative or literal bomb goes off. We already have specific past examples (post #903) where weeks of conventional interrogation are claimed to not have elicited actionable intelligence on ongoing plots or those who were involved in them. If true, why should we believe that anything would be different if additional weeks or months of conventional interrogation were spent trying to get a hardened individual like KSM to reveal what he knows about something that he doesn't think (perhaps rightly) we know? Must we rely on merely the claims of your so-called experts and your possibly biased "investigative journalists" to make this important decision?

It is possible that the CIA sources described in #903 were right in assessing that conventional techniques were going nowhere with KSM ... while the clock was possibly ticking down on the lives of many innocent people? Under that type of situation, maybe the CIA did the prudent thing. They used a method which it is claimed (and I haven't heard of anyone in the CIA coming forward to dispute that claim) quickly broke these men and caused them to start revealing information about ongoing plots and the names of their terrorist associates. I'm not prepared to dismiss those claims as readily as you and just move on. They are either true or they are a lies, and in either case the American public needs to know. So they can either revise Obama's policy, or clean the house of unreliable CIA agents. This is not something Obama can just sweep under the rug. These are the people this country is relying on to remain safe and they are either trustworthy or they are not and should be replaced.

 

[BeAChooser]

All right, let's take it day by day. There are 30 days, and we know there are 30 days, until the terrorists attack. On day 1, we are better going with conventional methods ... snip ... So we come to the end of day 29. One day left. And on day 30, we are still better off going going with conventional methods (which are known to be able to obtain useful information (BAC - not reliably in a short time)) than with torture (which is not known to be able to obtain useful information (BAC - not true if the CIA statements are accurate)).

This seems stuck on stupid. Maybe after 29 days (or even 21 days) it is time to try something different. Especially when a 100,000 lives might be extinguished on the 30th day.

 

[BeAChooser]

Nova Land - Similarly it's possible the 9-11 attack was actually a plot carried out by our own government, as some 9-11 conspiracy theorists suggest.

BeAChooser - Do you really believe that?

Nova Land - Yes. I really believe that there is no reason to believe that the 9-11 attack was carried out by our own government, and that it is mistaken to believe that it was unless substantial evidence can be provided to support that claim. Are you truly in disagreement with me on that point?

I'm still trying to figure out what you actually believe. First you said it's possible 9/11 was a plot carried out by our own government. I asked you if you believed that, and you answered "yes". Then you added there is no reason to believe that the 9-11 was carried out by our own government. I certainly hope the latter is what you really think but I'm left with a little uncertainty.

 

[BeAChooser]

The true part is that KSM was defiant before waterboarding and broken after. The false part is the (implied) claim that he provided any useful information after being broken.

No, if the "alleged" facts listed in the article linked in post #903 (the one National Review) are true, that would mean you are wrong about what you claim is the false part. And the only way to determine which, is for Obama to release whatever raw data is needed to confirm or repudiate the facts as presented in #903. Until he does that, the water will remain muddy and we won't know the truth. And no amount of spinning or obfuscation on your part will change that.

Likewise, you haven't proven torture can obtain any useful information even if given months, let alone if given only hours.

If what we needed was a confession that the captive killed John F. Kennedy, caused the Challenger to crash, or was responsible for John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, then torture is the way to go.

If you are going to be overly literal, we won't get any further in this debate. The scenario I posted would have been just as valid if I'd said a few weeks, if the facts claimed in the article I linked in post #903 are true. Because it appears that conventional techniques had not revealed information about on-going plots and the terrorists involved in them after several weeks of attempts. But in several weeks of waterboarding, such information was revealed.

Now you can keep throwing out your red herring nonsense about JFK and the Challenger and psychics and space aliens, or you can deal directly with the fact that the CIA does not appear to agree with you and your *sources*. I've heard of no one in the CIA disputing anything in post #903 (which lends some credibility to it I think). I have heard public statements from CIA heads and other top officials that seem to support the general claims about effectiveness that are made there.

Now you can claim they are all lies and liars but you don't really know that. I'm willing to admit that the CIA may have lied about the facts. That isn't beyond the realm of possibility. But maybe they didn't. Apparently you aren't even willing to admit they might not have lied, and that your sources may have misrepresented the full story. So I ask you one last time to join me in DEMANDING that Obama release whatever data is needed to determine the real story here so we can come to a real agreement and so this nation can embark on the best policy. Will you do that?

When all is said and done, the core of the issue is that we do have conflicting statements. The core is the fact that ALL the past and current heads of the CIA agree about the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation methods. The core is that CIA interrogators are alleged to have stated the facts as presented in the article linked in post #903. The core is that, as far as I know, no one in the CIA has come forward to dispute any of those facts. The core is that Obama is apparently not going to punish CIA members that if your version is correct have openly lied to the public or are at best showed terrible judgement in their approach to getting information. You can't have it both ways. Either you are right and someone needs to be punished for deceiving the public and employing useless methods, or you are wrong in which case our new policy regarding enhanced methods is a mistake. But we need Obama to release the data before we can know which.

And with that I'm done in my response to your latest set of posts. The rest of what you wrote was basically just going around and around arguing the same peripheral points that we've argued already and getting nowhere. I admit I painted some claims with too broad a brush. I admit I mixed up certain facts. If you think you scored some points, good for you. I will say that I don't need you instructing me in "probability" and that I don't think you know as much about assessing "probability" as you think.

In any case, have a good day and I look forward to your future response.

 

[JihadJane]

The interrogators on hand, which we have to believe operated in good faith, judged that what these captives knew was important, was urgent, and was not obtainable by conventional mentions in a short enough timeframe ... that the enhanced methods stood a better chance of success.

Why do we "have to believe" that the interrogators "operated in good faith"?

 

[tsig]

Because you folks have outlawed judiciously applying it to known terrorists?

Have you ever asked your self how you are in favor of pain?

 

[tsig]

That's statement is simply untrue. The problem is that you, lefty and the others refuse to accept ANY evidence that doesn't say exactly what you want to believe.

I can prove that simply by pointing you to post #903, which is full of apparent facts that clearly indicate waterboarding worked when conventional methods did not. It's full of evidence that indicates the information which was learned by these enhanced techniques (all causing just temporary pain, discomfort or mental stress, by the way) was actionable, accurate and in some cases, literally "ticking". And undoubtedly saved many lives.

The truth, NL, is you and the others simply don't like what the CIA officers and that very specific evidence had to say, so you and the others have just ignored it or dismissed it out of hand. You don't even have the guts to proclaim that the CIA officers are lying and agree with me that in that event Obama should release the information to prove it so we can clean house in the CIA. Instead, some on your side of this debate have listed pathetic rationalizations why Obama is not punishing these people that you obviously must believe have lied to the American public ... have lied about a procedure that in the minds of many of you is apparently no less immoral (evil) than murder.

You just ignore this evidence. You don't even like what Obama's own selection for the CIA says, so you ignore it. You focus your entire dismissal on a date inconsistency between the statements about the LA tower plot being stopped by enhanced techniques and when KSM was captured ... and ignore most everything else. Yet the evidence in post #903 would seem to suggest most of the members of that tower plot were unidentified right up until the time that KSM was waterboarded and gave up that information. So in a very real sense, that plot couldn't really be stopped until KSM was waterboarded. But you just ignore this.

Rather than challenge, your side ignores the apparent fact that KSM and the other 2 terrrorist gave up NO NAMES of other terrorists who were involved in plots and still on the loose ... until after they were waterboarded. You ignore that the LA tower plot was only one of many plots that the CIA and government said were prevented because of information they claim was gained as a result of enhanced interrogation. Are you ignoring this because you can't handle the possibility that the CIA and Bush administration might be telling the truth? Have you dismissed the evidence before it is even presented because you don't like Bush and the CIA?

You also have no history where previous debates with lefty and the others are concerned on this or any other subject. So you have no idea about my frustration level where they are concerned. But I think any reader of this thread, after seeing the response of the participants on the *no torture under any circumstance because it's immoral and doesn't work* side in this debate to post #903, would conclude your side really isn't interested in finding out the real truth. You've made your minds up on emotional or partisan grounds and that's all there is too it.

Readers of this thread will also conclude that you don't care if lots of people get killed because Obama rules out a procedure that caused no real harm to people and was indeed saving lives. And even if the CIA is lying about that, then our readers will still have to conclude that most of your side don't care if the people that you believe have lied to the American people are allowed to remain in government and the CIA. They will see that all that matters to most of you is supporting Obama no matter what.



The tactic you are using is the same one used by those who tried to discredit what highly regarded military forensic pathologists and photos/x-rays suggested in the Ron Brown case. You are deliberately trying to link what is clearly credible evidence to allegations of something that you believe most people will readily accept is silly nonsense. I think that is nothing short of dishonest and a red herring at best.



Yet, that is not what happened when I posted #903 which if full of very specific events and names. It wasn't examined. The evidence wasn't challenged. The post was either dismissed out of hand or simply ignored by every single person on your side of the debate. DA in fact was the only person to respond with more than a one-liner, and his response didn't challenge any of the specifics but instead consisted of ad hominems against me. I rest my case, NL. Your side really isn't interested in evidence.



And yet not a single one of the three terrorists who were waterboarded was permanently harmed by the experience. And yet we routinely waterboard our own special forces during training. And yet we have journalists who are now volunteering to be waterboarded ... and apparently surviving with no real harm having been done to them, either. But never mind the harm done in REAL terrorist attacks. According to your side that morally inconsequential compared to the abuse those three terrorists suffered.

Yes, waterboarding does cause discomfort and stress the individual in question. It might even make them think they are about to die. That's it's purpose. But does it do real harm? The above facts suggest not, especially when conducted in the manner and under the conditions the CIA authorized. Many things cause discomfort and distress, even pain. Shouldn't they all be labeled torture if you are to remain consistent? If so, the C.A.T. has left a lot of things off the list that are now routinely used by police (and parents) around the world when questioning suspects (and children) about heinous activitie. Have you complained?



Fine. The only way we will know for certain which side of this issue has lied, is if Obama declassifies the information (which the government must have) to do so. So why isn't he doing that if his side is right? As I've observed before (an argument you've ignored, by the way), I can see no legitimate reason. Your side has only offered rationalizations that I've easily shown are baseless or silly. No, the only reason I can see for Obama not releasing this information is that Obama knows the CIA version is correct, and knows that verifying that fact will prove he has chosen to put the American public in great danger rather than give our protectors in very limited circumstances the authorization to inflict some temporary pain and discomfort on some very bad people in order to learn vital information. He has put the COMFORT of those very bad people above the lives of perhaps millions of Americans. And it appears, so have you and the rest on your side of this debate in this thread. I leave it to readers to judge us.

The ends do not justify the means.

 

[applecorped]

Sometimes they do.

 

[BeAChooser]

I have pointed out that Americans alone (and they are by no means the only donor country) give more money in foreign aid than the sum you calculated, and yet the world still has problems.

Could it be that the way existing foreign aid was spent had nothing really to do with ending hunger or that the chosen (liberal) approach manifest in any existing spending to ending hunger doesn't work? Could it be that the liberals who doubtlessly ran the program siphoned off a large portion of the funds for "management" costs, much like the US government does in other programs? Could it be that government programs are just not as efficient as private aid programs like the one I linked? The fact remains you still haven't shown why my calculation is incorrect concerning the amount of money needed to feed hungry people, which you made an issue. That being the case, I can only assume my calculation is correct. In that case, we'd have to conclude that the government already has more than sufficient money, by your own admission, to solve the hunger problem. So why are you coming to me and demanding more money? Why doesn't Obama and his democrat, filibuster proof Congress just solve the problem with existing funds and shut up? Or are they, like you, all talk and bluster?