Waterboarding Rocks!

[Nova Land]

We had thunderstorms here last night, so I turned of computer and got some sleep instead of posting. It's raining now, but no lightning, so I'm going to try to catch up a little more with some older posts I feel still need replies. This won't get me caught up to the current page, so I'm going to try to stay up late tonight and do more posting to get on the same page with the rest of you. But there are a number of statements erroneous statements on previous pages which I do not think should go unchallenged.

I see that BAC has posted a number of responses to my posts. I'll read those tonight, and try to respond to them soon.

In composing these replies, I've run across some interesting items which I'll post excerpts from tonight if it turns out no one else has already posted this material.

 

[Nova Land]

post # 561, reply 1 (of 3)

We seem to be in agreement that the effectiveness of non-traditional methods needs to be proven before we attempt to use them.

My mistake. I misread what you wrote. I would agree that some non-traditional methods do need to be proven. But waterboarding isn't one of them. It is a proven technique.

So you keep saying. Unfortunately saying it doesn't make it so. If it did, astrology, dowsing, and speaking with the dead would also be proven techniques.

Now I'll grant that torture has been proven to be an effective technique for breaking people. You have provided ample evidence of that -- such as the statement by John Kiriakou. What you haven't provided is evidence that torture is effective for obtaining useful information.

In contrast, a lot of evidence has been provided that torture does not work.

Evidence torture does not work:

1. Numerous experts in interrogation have explained that in their experience torture is not useful for obtaining accurate information.

2. Numerous examples have been provided in which torture obtained incorrect information.​

Evidence torture does work:

1. Several examples have been offered in which torture is claimed to have obtained accurate information. In all of these for which adequate information was provided in which to check the claim, the claim has turned out to be false.

(NOTE: The repeated use of false examples weighs against a claim; if defenders of a claim need to use false examples it indicates true examples are difficult or impossible to find.)

2. Several vague statements have been made on behalf of the effectiveness of torture. These fall into two general categories:

(a) people who were speaking about the effectiveness of torture in breaking people;

(b) people who held the opinion that torture had been effective, but were unable of any specific examples.​

(NOTE: neither type of statement carries any significant weight.)​

The weight of the evidence is that torture is ineffective at obtaining useful information. You can't change the balance simply by repeating your assertions that it does.

And I think I can turn your statement around and say that the effectiveness of traditional methods in situations where time is of the essence needs to be proven before we rely on them when thousands of peoples lives are at risk. That was my point. Which so far you are simply ignoring.

No technique is 100% effective. The shorter the amount of time available, the greater the chance that conventional methods won't obtain the needed information.

There are techniques which will provide answers in extremely short times. Map-dowsing is one; psychic detection is a second; torture is a third. None of these, however, has been shown to be reliable in providing correct answers.

So we have a choice, and we need to decide which is more likely to provide the information we need: a technique which is is known to be generally effective (but may not work quickly enough) or a technique which is not known to be very effective (but which can provide us an incorrect answer extremely quickly).

Given an either/or choice between map-dowsing and conventional interrogation, I'd choose conventional interrogation. Wouldn't you? Even knowing there might not be enough time for conventional interrogation to obtain the needed information, I think any reasonable person would conclude the chance of failure (and people dying as a result) is greater if we rely on map-dowsing than if we rely on conventional interrogation.

Given an either/or choice between map-dowsing and conventional interrogation, I'd choose conventional interrogation. Wouldn't you? Even knowing there might not be enough time for conventional interrogation to obtain the needed information, I think any reasonable person would conclude the chance of failure (and people dying as a result) is greater if we rely on map-dowsing than if we rely on conventional interrogation.

Given an either/or choice between torture and conventional interrogation, I'd choose conventional interrogation. The reason is the same as in the previous two examples. Despite an irrational belief in the effectiveness of these methods by their devotees, none of these methods has been shown to be reliable in obtaining useful information. Each manages to come up with enough "hits" to impress devotees; but none of them, to date, has come up with evidence of success which stands up to scrutiny.

As a skeptic, I am willing to be convinced -- by evidence. And as a skeptic I expect the same standard of evidence from someone who claims torture is effective at locating ticking time bombs as from someone who claims psychic detection or map-dowsing are effective at locating ticking time bombs.

As I noted earlier, providing evidence isn't some form of punishment inflicted on people we don't like. It's how skeptics distinguish claims that are true from claims that are false. You seem to think it's only people who make claims you disagree with who need to provide evidence. No: it's anyone making a claim.

The burden on you, to show torture works, is the same as the burden on the person who believes in dowsing. Dowsers have been unable to meet that burden -- which indicates dowsing doesn't work. Torture defenders have also been so far unable to meet that burden. What does that tell us?

 

[Nova Land]

post # 561, reply 2 (of 3)

And at present there is no more evidence for the effectiveness of torture in obtaining the location of ticking time bombs than there is for the effectiveness of map-dowsers or psychic detectives in locating these things.

This is simply a lie. There is evidence, even if you don't like it.

Again, you need to learn to read more carefully. I did not say there is no evidence for the effectiveness of torture; I said there is no more evidence for the effectiveness of torture in obtaining correct information than there is for various paranormal methods.

You keep waving links as if they were proof, without digging out the examples from these links and subjecting them to scrutiny. Several of the examples which have been proffered on behalf of the effectiveness of torture have been shown to be bogus; none have been established as genuine. In this, the evidence you have offered to date is no better than the evidence offered by devotees of the paranormal -- who also want to simply wave links around, without scrutininizing the linked material.

In the absence of qualitative examination of the evidence, all we're left with is the quantity of it. And there is at least as great a quantity of evidence for psychic detection as there is for torture. If you doubt that, I'll be glad to match you -- unverified link for unverified link.

If you want to call the CIA agents (that the reputable sources I linked quoted) liars, then do so.

There's no need. John Kiriakou has stated that it is his opinion that the information obtained from waterboarding "probably" was useful but that he doesn't know of any specific examples. I believe him on that. There's nothing inherently dishonest about holding an incorrect opinion. He has honestly stated that he wasn't actually present for the water-boarding, only knows about this through what he has read and been told, and doesn't know of any examples in which water-boarding obtained useful information for foiling terrorist plots.

There were several (unnamed) CIA agents who were claimed to have told false stories regarding the torture of KSM -- for instance, that he was water-boarded only once, for 90 seconds, and then never needed to be water-boarded. When these people are identified and their actual statements provided, I'll be willing to examine the statements to see whether the error is on their part or on the part of the people claiming to quote them.

There was a link you provided to Human Events. There were several obvious factual errors in the Human Events article. Whether the inaccuracy on the part of Human Events was deliberate, or simply incompetence, I don't know. Until there is evidence they lied (i.e. knew they were telling falsehoods, and told them anyway), I think it's better to stick with what we do know, which is simply that Human Events provided incorrect information.

People make mistakes all the time. You, for example, claimed Kiriakou had said conventional methods were "totally ineffective". You claimed I added the word torture to your hypothetical in my paraphrasing of it, when it was in your original. You claimed I called conventional interrogation methods "unproven", when I said no such thing. (What I actually wrote is that non-traditional methods such as torture are unproven but conventional methods are "known to be effective".) You denied claiming that you believe torture is an effective method of obtaining information, despite having done so back on page 4. You have repeatedly misrepresented the facts regarding the interrogation of KSM. You have repeatedly misrepresented the statements and opinions of people replying to you in this thread. Does that make you a liar, or simply someone prone to errors?

I know a number of people who believe in dowsing. For the most part I don't think they're lying -- I think they're mistaken. And in general I see no reason to believe that people who believe in the power of torture are any more dishonest than people who believe in the power of dowsing.

 

[Nova Land]

If your claim that torture is an effective method for obtaining useful information is true, then the evidence should bear this out. Please lay your evidence out clearly, so that we can examine and evaluate it.

I've made no claim that torture is an effective method. I have argued that waterboarding may be effective.

Your memory is poor. Actually, you have indeed argued that. Here, for your benefit, is the hypothetical you posed back on page 4:

So tell us. If you had in your custody a person who you knew with 100% certainty was involved in a plot to detonate a nuclear weapon in an American city ... a plot where the device was already in place ... a plot where you had just hours before it was set to go off ... and this person was likely to know the location of the device ... would you torture? Or would you in your high minded view of things just let several hundred thousand Americans die?

That seems pretty clear to me. You are saying that torture would be an effective way of obtaining correct information -- more effective than any other available alternative.

But if you wish to restrict this to one particular form of torture -- water-boarding -- I have no objection. That's what I assumed we were talking about. Your quibbling over words doesn't change the fact that you still have not provided evidence that water-boarding is a reliable method of obtaining correct information.

edited to add: And it also doesn't change the fact that you seem as prone to misrepresenting your own words as you are to misrepresenting the words of others.

 

[Nova Land]

post # 566, reply 1 (of 3)

In that hypothetical, in which we have such a short time left in which to elicit information that you rule out the use of conventional interrogations methods, you have arbitrarily selected torture as the hail-mary method to use in obtaining the location of a ticking-time-bomb before it goes off.

And I'm telling you it isn't an arbitrary decision. It's a decision of last resort.

Yes, it's a decision of last resort. That has nothing to do with whether or not it is arbitrary.

Unless you can provide a good reason to choose torture as your hail-mary method rather than psychic detectives or map-dowsing, then it is arbitrary. There are as many claims that psychic detection works in obtaining useful information as there are that torture works in obtaining useful information.

To reject the claims made on behalf of psychic detectives because the examples provided don't stand up to scrutiny, but to accept the claims made on behalf of torture even though the examples provided don't stand up to scrutiny, is arbitrary. To say that it's possible torture is effective (because, even though all the examples which have been subjected to scrutiny have come up short, there are other which have not yet been subjected to scrutiny which might still be able to pass muster, is arbitrary -- unless you extend the same benefit of the doubt to psychic detection, for which there likewise are examples which have not been scrutinized. (And generally for the same reason -- the examples can't be examined because no primary source for the details has been provided).

Furthermore, believers in psychic detection specifically claim that it has been effective in locating missing objects; that's not something believers in torture have specifically claimed. So there is a non-arbitrary reason for preferring psychic detection to torture. Not a good reason -- there's no good reason to choose either -- but at least a non-arbitrary one.

...you haven't proven than any of the conventional methods will elicit information in a couple hours. But we do have indications that some methods that you call torture, like waterboarding, can elicit cooperation.

"Cooperation", yes. Correct information, no.

Furthermore, there are reports that in those situations the subjects had resisted conventional methods for weeks and even months. Yet they broke in minutes and started talking when waterboarded.

Yes, there were reports -- reports which you repeatedly cited in this thread, and which you have now acknowledged were incorrect.

 

[Nova Land]

post # 566, reply 2 (of 3)

But the use of a psychic detective is another alternative which, if successful, could elicit the information in the specified time period. So, for that matter, is map-dowsing.

Again, you resort to a dishonest debating tactic. It is dishonest to put psychic detectives and map dowsing on the same level as waterboarding in terms of credibility.

No. There's nothing dishonest about making a comparison between torture (a method which is claimed to be able to obtain information) and psychic detection (another method which is claimed to be able to obtain information).

I have said that there is no good evidence that psychic detection is a reliable method of obtaining information and there is no good evidence that torture is a reliable method of obtaining information. It is possible I am mistaken in that, but there is nothing dishonest in my making that argument.

One aim of skepticism is to set up tests which can fairly determine whether a claim is true or false. We don't use one standard which is easy to pass for claims we like and one which is hard to pass for claims we dislike. The reason we believe that x-rays are an effective way of detecting internal problems and aura readings are not is that x-ray technology is able to pass tests in which we see if it can obtain correct information and aura reading is not able to pass such tests.

In the case of torture and psychic detection, I do not see any fair standard by which you can claim torture is effective which permits you simultaneously to dismiss psychic detection. If you disagree, please demonstrate a fair standard for judging the effectiveness of these two methods which torture is able to pass but psychic detection fails. Otherwise the choice of one over the other is, indeed, arbitrary.

There are several good examples of dishonest debating tactics in this thread. When Texas asserted that the figure 183 is an extrapolation, and cited the Bradbury memo as the source for that information -- when, in fact, the Bradbury memo makes no mention of extrapolation -- that was a dishonest tactic. When Cicero tried to claim without offering evidence that the OSS used water-boarding on Germans during WW II -- and then, when challenged on the claim, offered as evidence an example in which the head of Taiwan's secret police used water-boarding on captured Japanese -- that was a dishonest debating tactic. My use of a comparison you happen to dislike is not.

 

[Nova Land]

... torture is still the best and perhaps only effective approach in such circumstances.

Interesting claim. I await your presentation of the evidence to support it.

That's up to Obama.

No, that's up to you. It's your claim; therefore it's your responsibility to find and present the evidence which supports it.

Trying to say this is up to Obama is -- to use your term -- dishonest. It implies that you are willing to decide on whether torture is effective in obtaining correct information solely on the results of these water-boardings. But if the transcripts are released, and it turns out no useful information was obtained, I doubt you would then concede, once and for all, that torture is not the best method. You would probably maintain that, while it was ineffective in this particular instance, it is still possible it would have been effective in other instances.

It is not the failure of torture to turn up useful information in any one instance which proves torture is not "the best and perhaps only effective approach ". It is the failure of torture to turn up useful information in any of the instances examined which indicates this -- especially when contrasted with the numerous confirmed examples in which conventional interrogation methods were able to obtain useful information.

Trying to blame your inability to come up with evidence to support your case on Obama not having declassified information is the same kind of tactic we see being used by various conspiracy theorists to explain their inability to provide evidence. (I don't usually visit the Conspiracy Theory section of the forum, but if you need examples of their making this kind of claim I can go there and find you some.)

 

[Nova Land]

post # 569

If waterboarding is as ineffective as NL claims, then there is no reason not to declassify the interrogations and show the American public the truth about the CIA and Bush Administration.

There are many reasons why information is classified. The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of waterboarding is not one of them.

Whatever the reasons the Bush administration had for classifying this material, either the reasons were valid (in which case it should remain classified, regardless of whether water-boarding is ineffective), the reasons were invalid (in which case the material should be be declassified, regardless of whether water-boarding is ineffective) or the reasons were valid at the time but are no longer valid (in which case the material should be declassified, regardless of whether water-boarding is ineffective).

But if Obama doesn't release the information, we can only assume it's because it casts HIS administration, HIS minions and HIS chosen policy in a bad light.

Wow! If that's the only possibility you see for why this material might remain classified, then you must have extremely limited knowledge of how our government works.

Dr Adequate has already done a good job of pointing out a few of the many other possible reasons for this, so there's no need for me to repeat what he's already done so well. But I do think it is worth pointing out how often you fail to grasp the many possibilities in a situation and assume there is only one possible explanation. This does not speak well for your analytic skills.

 

[BeAChooser]

Comparing the two and judging one to be greater than the other is setting up a moral equivalency.

So you think "greater than" means "equivalent"?

Did you actually pass your math classes?

B is more immoral than A, therefore if A can prevent B, then A is moral.

For that matter, did you pass your logic class?

No, A is still immoral, but the act of using A to prevent B is moral.

 

[boloboffin]

BAC:

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

The purveyors of the device usually start by believing their side is by definition morally superior by who they are, not by what they do. They then use selective history to cast the situation as a big-picture struggle against an evil power. This evil could be totalitarianism, or genocidal policies or some other ostentatious villainy. They then justify the atrocities of their own side by claiming it to be a lesser evil compared with allowing the evil power to have its own way - usually culminating in genocide or mass enslavement. These atrocities in this way become acts of good, not evil.

THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

 

[BeAChooser]

they are off-topic

DA, you and Upchurch were the ones who introduced the world hunger "off-topic" to this thread (see posts 1114 and 1115). But now that I've responded, all of sudden you don't want to talk about that topic?

 

[Upchurch]

So you think "greater than" means "equivalent"?

Nope, keep reading.

Did you actually pass your math classes?

Major in Physics, minor in Mathematics. I did okay.

For that matter, did you pass your logic class?

In fact, I did. Symbolic Logic. It was part of my minor in Philosophy. Liked it so much, I kept the book.

No, A is still immoral, but the act of using A to prevent B is moral.

And that is moral relativism.

 

[BeAChooser]

when I honestly asked BAC to define "moral equivalency" and spell out how it applied to my posts, he refused, claiming that the mere asking of the question on my part was sufficient information for him to conclude that I was a lost cause.

Well that's the way you paint our conversation. I don't see it the same way and I'm confident that a non-biased reader of this thread would agree with me. You act like I hadn't already defined moral equivalency on this thread when you asked that, when in fact I had multiple times. In fact, I had already explicitly told you with regards to a choice you picked in one of your attempts to defend the responses of others on this thread why your choice showed moral equivalence. And I have pointed out other statements by you that show the characteristic of viewing things though the filter of moral equivalence.

I feel no obligation to help you out of the willfully obtuse pit you've dug. If you can't see why your views show moral equivalence from what I've already posted to you and the others, I believe you are a lost cause. And I have news for you, I'm not here to save you from yourself, but to hopefully keep others from falling into that pit with you. Now if you really still don't know what the term "moral equivalence" means, I suggest you get busy and use your browser. The writing of Dennis Prager might be helpful.

 

[BeAChooser]

So I've come to understand it simply as "moral position I don't agree with"

You couldn't be more wrong, but then you haven't tried to be right.

 

[Praktik]

Does "moral equivalence" = "moral relativism"

gimme that much kurmudgeon!

 

[BeAChooser]

The majority of us here have been arguing in favor of prosecution. Have you changed your mind? Do you now favor prosecution for the crime of torture?

I've been very clear. If you are confused I suggest going back and reading my statements more carefully, Joe.

 

[BeAChooser]

@ BAC's inability to read and comprehend my (and everyone else's) posts.

I read and understood your last post. Here was my answer

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4664704&postcount=1057

which you then just ignored.

 

[Upchurch]

Does "moral equivalence" = "moral relativism"

gimme that much kurmudgeon!

No, but there is some overlap. Lots, in BAC's case.

 

[Praktik]

You couldn't be more wrong, but then you haven't tried to be right.

This is where you're wrong, cause your wrong is my right and my right is your wrong, so I have tried to be "right" but because its my "right" and therefore your "wrong", it only appears I haven't tried to be "right" to you because my right is your wrong and your right is my wrong.

You couldn't be more wrong about me never trying to be right.

 

[BeAChooser]

Either way, reported.

And I hope you also reported that it was Upchurch and a few others who introduced, not once, but several times this "off-topic" topic to this thread in a clear attempt to derail the thread and attack me as uncaring, rather than deal with the OP topic and my responses to that topic. So you are a little late in "reporting" this, Lonewulf. Or is your timing just because I had a response that utterly demolished the basis of their attack on me and embarrassed them?