Torture: Still doesn't work

[Ignignokt]

You've already posited that there exists a man who DEFINITELY has information, and that torture will DEFINITELY provide this information. I think the definite knowledge of both of these things is pretty hypothetical itself.

You are guilty of the same thing. You propose that torture is a moral action because you are A) torturing those who 'deserve' it, and B) because others are assured to die if the information is not recovered as soon as possible.

The chances of an interrogator knowing that the person deserves it and knows the information are quite slim. Is there a small chance that a person knows both of these things? Let's posit that the interrogator does have absolute knowledge. In this case, one could argue that if it's not "moral" it's at least a "lifeboat" question as you mentioned above, where the man is doomed to commit a moral failing whichever action he takes; thereby, he should take the most utilitarian action.


Why would they be slim? Why would a member of a cell not be privy to the actions of his cell? It's not as if they catch any enemy combatant in afghanistan and assume he knows the next plot in america. What happens when they catch Zarqawi's informant, courier, etc.. how are you going to disintegrate into silly skepticism.

Look, there are chances that we might throw the wrong man in jail, that doesn't mean you must abolish all laws and enforcement.

The issue is not about probability and percentages, the issue is whether One has the right to torture a member of a cell who is involved in a plot to bomb a city, i'm pretty sure that's not a fantasy and it occurs more often than not.

[Ignignokt]

I'm sure that will make up for the torture that is inflicted upon potential innocents.



And who will hold these interrogators' feet to the fire? Heck, they can't even discuss these things in normal trials... you really don't think it'd just get buried over?



How do you know he has knowledge of an attack?

Those are procedural questions, that really none of us could answer.

A man breaks into your home with a machete, why shoud you have the moral right to kill him? How do you know that he just wanted to intimidate you and take your tv?

How silly is this going to get?

[Blake]

Why would they be slim? Why would a member of a cell not be privy to the actions of his cell? It's not as if they catch any enemy combatant in afghanistan and assume he knows the next plot in america. What happens when they catch Zarqawi's informant, courier, etc.. how are you going to disintegrate into silly skepticism.

Look, there are chances that we might throw the wrong man in jail, that doesn't mean you must abolish all laws and enforcement.

The issue is not about probability and percentages, the issue is whether One has the right to torture a member of a cell who is involved in a plot to bomb a city, i'm pretty sure that's not a fantasy and it occurs more often than not.

wrongly throwing someone in jail is a far cry from wrongly strapping someone down and delivering physical and/or mental beatdowns.

[Ignignokt]

wrongly throwing someone in jail is a far cry from wrongly strapping someone down and delivering physical and/or mental beatdowns.

People get thrown in jail and recieve beatdowns and physical abuse even rape. And it's not as if the judges and the prosecutors don't know the risk of that.

[Blake]

Those are procedural questions, that really none of us could answer.

A man breaks into your home with a machete, why shoud you have the moral right to kill him? How do you know that he just wanted to intimidate you and take your tv?

How silly is this going to get?

I can't imagine anyone that believes self defense is not really a moral right.

[Ignignokt]

You've already posited that there exists a man who DEFINITELY has information, and that torture will DEFINITELY provide this information. I think the definite knowledge of both of these things is pretty hypothetical itself.

You are guilty of the same thing. You propose that torture is a moral action because you are A) torturing those who 'deserve' it, and B) because others are assured to die if the information is not recovered as soon as possible.

The chances of an interrogator knowing that the person deserves it and knows the information are quite slim. Is there a small chance that a person knows both of these things? Let's posit that the interrogator does have absolute knowledge. In this case, one could argue that if it's not "moral" it's at least a "lifeboat" question as you mentioned above, where the man is doomed to commit a moral failing whichever action he takes; thereby, he should take the most utilitarian action.


Those are not out of the possibility. If we get a hold of a second in command, he is going to be privy to details. Are you all of the sudden David Hume?

[Blake]

People get thrown in jail and recieve beatdowns and physical abuse even rape. And it's not as if the judges and the prosecutors don't know the risk of that.

I've never been to jail, but last I checked, beatdowns and rape in jail are not allowed.

[Ignignokt]

I've never been to jail, but last I checked, beatdowns and rape in jail are not allowed.

amongst who? the civil prisoners? lololol cuck

[ElNono]

Those are procedural questions, that really none of us could answer.

A man breaks into your home with a machete, why shoud you have the moral right to kill him? How do you know that he just wanted to intimidate you and take your tv?

Because you caught the person red-handed.

Should you kill a person if your neighbor tells you that person plans to break into your home with a machete?

How silly is this going to get?

[Ignignokt]

I can't imagine anyone that believes self defense is not really a moral right.

what is torture?

[Ignignokt]

Because you caught the person red-handed.

Should you kill a person if your neighbor tells you that person plans to break into your home with a machete?

How silly is this going to get?

Let me play devils advocate,

You didn't catch him in the act of killing you, you just caught him with a machete, maybe he just wanted to intimidate, not kill.

But that's the skeptical world you guys want to play with.

[ElNono]

what is torture?

A criminal way to extract information.

[ElNono]

Let me play devils advocate,

You didn't catch him in the act of killing you, you just caught him with a machete, maybe he just wanted to intimidate, not kill.

But that's the skeptical world you guys want to play with.

It's the real world. If you kill him, you'll face the consequences. You'll be charged with murder.

This isn't 24.

[Ignignokt]

A criminal way to extract information.

weed is criminal.

I'm not arguing law.

I'm arguing ethics.

Torture in self defense, what's wrong with that?

[Ignignokt]

It's the real world. If you kill him, you'll face the consequences. You'll be charged with murder.

This isn't 24.

No you don't he had a murder weapon. You just don't know whether he was intending to use it. Don't use skepticism only when it suits you.

[ElNono]

Torture in self defense, what's wrong with that?

Torture isn't self defense.

[ElNono]

No you don't he had a murder weapon. You just don't know whether he was intending to use it. Don't use skepticism only when it suits you.

If you kill him do you get charged with murder, yes or no?

Forget Law & Order. We're talking the real world here.

[Ignignokt]

Torture isn't self defense.

why is that? You're preventing an act of aggression, that's self defense.

[ElNono]

Plus your scenario has nothing to do with torture. The fact that you're trying to extract information means that you don't have said information, you only suspect the person has it.

[ElNono]

why is that? You're preventing an act of aggression, that's self defense.

How could you prevent anything, since you don't know there's any act of aggression?

[Ignignokt]

If you kill him do you get charged with murder, yes or no?

Forget Law & Order. We're talking the real world here.

I don't watch law and order. Laws are not themselves always based on correct moral premises. Jim Crow was a law. Ultimately the citizenry has to hold the law subject to morals based on the real world.

In this scenario, you ended a man's life who might not wanted to kill you.

[ElNono]

I don't watch law and order. Laws are not themselves always based on correct moral premises. Jim Crow was a law. Ultimately the citizenry has to hold the law subject to morals based on the real world.

In this scenario, you ended a man's life who might not wanted to kill you.

Jim Crow laws were eventually overturned. While they were up though, they were the law of the land, moral or not.

In this scenario, you wouldn't need any torture. The moment the guy showed up with a machete he provided all the information you needed.

Bad example.

[Ignignokt]

How could you prevent anything, since you don't know there's any act of aggression?

We're talking about a case where Intel officials have uncovered a plot, and have one of the cell agents in detainment. That's not out of the realm of reality. Does the govt not uncover plots of terrorism?

[Ignignokt]

Jim Crow laws were eventually overturned. While they were up though, they were the law of the land, moral or not.

In this scenario, you wouldn't need any torture. The moment the guy showed up with a machete he provided all the information you needed.

Bad example.

substitute crowbar for machete.

Are you saying the castle doctrine is never going to get overturned? Are you a clairevoyant?

[ElNono]

We're talking about a case where Intel officials have uncovered a plot, and have one of the cell agents in detainment. That's not out of the realm of reality. Does the govt not uncover plots of terrorism?

It's still a suspicion. That there's an alleged plot doesn't make it an act of aggression.

It's analogous to you suspecting somebody is plotting to kill you. Do you torture everyone you know because you're convinced they're out to kill you?

[ElNono]

substitute crowbar for machete.

Are you saying the castle doctrine is never going to get overturned? Are you a clairevoyant?

I'm saying that until it's overturned, it's the jurisprudence that rules. You're secured in your property, period. Illegal trespassing doesn't extend to terrorist acts. If you think it does, I want to see the legal precedence there.

[Ignignokt]

It's still a suspicion. That there's an alleged plot doesn't make it an act of aggression.

It's analogous to you suspecting somebody is plotting to kill you. Do you torture everyone you know because you're convinced they're out to kill you?

Roosevelt knowing about the Japanese attack on pearl harbor days in advance.. Is the plot not an act of aggression by which a country could decide to launch a strike ?

Do you think self defense is only limited to retalliating after the fact?

[ElNono]

Plus, again, poor example. A person showing up with a crowbar and threatening you is providing all the information you need to know.

There's no use for torture there.

[Ignignokt]

I'm saying that until it's overturned, it's the jurisprudence that rules. You're secured in your property, period. Illegal trespassing doesn't extend to terrorist acts. If you think it does, I want to see the legal precedence there.

I'm not arguing law. I'm arguing morality. Law is not always moral. The law does not apply.

If we're arguing about the morality of gay marriage, law is not important in proving for it or against it.

[ElNono]

Roosevelt knowing about the Japanese attack on pearl harbor days in advance.. Is the plot not an act of aggression by which a country could decide to launch a strike ?

No, the plot is a plot. The aggression happens when the aggressor actually commits the crime.

What are you suggesting? That we criminalize thoughts now?

How silly is this going to get?


Do you think self defense is only limited to retalliating after the fact?

Defense implies an attack. One doesn't exist without the other.

[Ignignokt]

Plus, again, poor example. A person showing up with a crowbar and threatening you is providing all the information you need to know.

There's no use for torture there.

But there would be for a gun, I wasn't implying torture.


So you located Aq documents revealing a terrorist cell plotting an act of terrorism, you capture one of the members.

That's all they information you need to know.

Maybe torture is not necessary and he will give up info, but if he doesn't, are you not part of National "Defense", and wouldn't it be right to torture for info?

[Ignignokt]

No, the plot is a plot. The aggression happens when the aggressor actually commits the crime.

What are you suggesting? That we criminalize thoughts now?

How silly is this going to get?



Defense implies an attack. One doesn't exist without the other.

How would you retalliate after you're dead?

[ElNono]

I'm not arguing law. I'm arguing morality. Law is not always moral. The law does not apply.

If we're arguing about the morality of gay marriage, law is not important in proving for it or against it.

Moral relativism varies depending on the individual. That's why we don't legislate morals and why we have a set of laws.

A society running on morals alone is a clusterfuck.

[Ignignokt]

Under El Nono's rules..

A naval blockade is not an act of aggression.

You'd have to starve first before you could retalliate since the intended consequence has yet to happen.

[Ignignokt]

Moral relativism varies depending on the individual. That's why we don't legislate morals and why we have a set of laws.

A society running on morals alone is a clusterfuck.

I'm not a moral relativist. I believe morality is based on the highest value which man's right to life, if i were to take another man's life senselessly i've contradicted my own claim to life.

In this case, terrorist caught in act of aggression, they are scheming against you and your loved one's life, you have the right to defend your right to life.

[ElNono]

But there would be for a gun, I wasn't implying torture.

Whatever it is, you don't need to torture him to know anything about why he's there or what's he gonna do. The moment he set foot there he knew the consequences, and you were informed.


So you located Aq documents revealing a terrorist cell plotting an act of terrorism, you capture one of the members.

That's all they information you need to know.

Maybe torture is not necessary and he will give up info, but if he doesn't, are you not part of National "Defense", and wouldn't it be right to torture for info?

That's not true. You know there's a plot. Now you can use legal means of intelligence gathering to learn more about the plot.

You can keep on dismissing the legal side, but the reality is that we live in a society bound to the laws. It's not optional.

The guy you picked up might or might not know shit about the plot. He might even give you shit info so you stop torturing. Did torture work? No.
Did it advance or stop the plot? Not really. So, what did you exactly gain by torturing?

[ElNono]

How would you retalliate after you're dead?

You don't have to die. You can defend yourself.

[ElNono]

Under El Nono's rules..

A naval blockade is not an act of aggression.

You'd have to starve first before you could retalliate since the intended consequence has yet to happen.

Not really. Another poor example.

It takes an action to form a naval blockade. You can act on that.

Under gtown's rules, alleged information that X country is plotting to deploy a naval blockade is grounds to attack that country.

Very similar to the failed intelligence about WMD in Iraq and the very poor "preemptive attack" doctrine.

[Ignignokt]

Whatever it is, you don't need to torture him to know anything about why he's there or what's he gonna do. The moment he set foot there he knew the consequences, and you were informed.



That's not true. You know there's a plot. Now you can use legal means of intelligence gathering to learn more about the plot.

You can keep on dismissing the legal side, but the reality is that we live in a society bound to the laws. It's not optional.

The guy you picked up might or might not know shit about the plot. He might even give you shit info so you stop torturing. Did torture work? No.
Did it advance or stop the plot? Not really. So, what did you exactly gain by torturing?


That's fine, we also can overturn said laws if they're immoral. We're doing that for DADT.


You're evidence may not be complete enough to prevent it. If it was, I wouldn't advocate torture ofcourse, spare the argument.

The guy involved in the plot would know about details because he's involved in the plot. Are you just going to ask him politely?

[Ignignokt]

Not really. Another poor example.

It takes an action to form a naval blockade. You can act on that.

Under gtown's rules, alleged information that X country is plotting to deploy a naval blockade is grounds to attack that country.

Very similar to the failed intelligence about WMD in Iraq and the very poor "preemptive attack" doctrine.

Plotting is an action.

it involves resources and gathering of financing, men, and info.

It's not as if we read the perp's mind.

[ElNono]

I'm not a moral relativist. I believe morality is based on the highest value which man's right to life, if i were to take another man's life senselessly i've contradicted my own claim to life.

In this case, terrorist caught in act of aggression, they are scheming against you and your loved one's life, you have the right to defend your right to life.

So you want to legislate morality and criminalize thoughts?

You don't think that's a slippery slope?

[Ignignokt]

Why is preemption not self defense?

The israelis preemptively attacked arab nations in the six day war. Why would you condemn someone's right to self preservation.

[ElNono]

That's fine, we also can overturn said laws if they're immoral. We're doing that for DADT.

Overturning DADT has grounds in the law, not morals.


You're evidence may not be complete enough to prevent it. If it was, I wouldn't advocate torture ofcourse, spare the argument.

The guy involved in the plot would know about details because he's involved in the plot. Are you just going to ask him politely?

You don't know that he knows. If you would, then you wouldn't need to torture him. You actually know jackshit other than whatever you found on these alleged papers in your scenario.

You can ask politely. You can try to bribe him. You can investigate his ties and connections. Heck, you might set him free so you can track him.

There's more to intelligence gathering than what you see on TV.

[Ignignokt]

So you want to legislate morality and criminalize thoughts?

You don't think that's a slippery slope?

Legislate morality? What do you think laws against murder, rape, and assault are? Aren't those moral themes.

We've only been talking about morality that violates another being's rights. We're not talking about legislating personal risks.

And a plot is no longer a thought, it is an idea being put into action.

[ElNono]

Why is preemption not self defense?

The israelis preemptively attacked arab nations in the six day war. Why would you condemn someone's right to self preservation.

Because preemption is not found in fact, and it's a huge slippery slope.

Under the guise of preemption anybody can attack anybody over some alleged information. Case in point, Iraq and the alleged WMD.

What self-preservation was saved by invading Iraq under false pretenses?

[Ignignokt]

Overturning DADT has grounds in the law, not morals.



This is an utterly ignorant argument. The bill of rights, was written under James Madison who wanted to protect Natural rights. Natural rights is a moral concept that says that man has rights which are inalienable and are based on his nature.

The intent of the law is to be grounded in moral principles for the benefit of a civil society.

Murder, Theft, etc are all moral themes. Law is not made in a vacuum.

[ElNono]

Legislate morality? What do you think laws against murder, rape, and assault are? Aren't those moral themes.

Those are legal themes too. Courts don't rule on morality, they rule on law.
Same laws that criminalize torture.


We've only been talking about morality that violates another being's rights. We're not talking about legislating personal risks.

And a plot is no longer a thought, it is an idea being put into action.

Unless you actually start putting the idea into action, it's still a thought.
If you know for a fact any of these people went out there and bought materials to carry the plot, then you can charge them with that.

In your example, you described finding some papers. That's just a thought. Could be true, could be bullshit. Warrants an investigation, nothing more.

[Ignignokt]

Because preemption is not found in fact, and it's a huge slippery slope.

Under the guise of preemption anybody can attack anybody over some alleged information. Case in point, Iraq and the alleged WMD.

What self-preservation was saved by invading Iraq under false pretenses?

You're assuming that all preemptive attacks were not grounded in fact. History has proven you wrong. We knew about the attacks on pearl harbor. We could have launched a preventative strike and we would have been justified.

[Ignignokt]

Those are legal themes too. Courts don't rule on morality, they rule on law.

And what is the basis for law? is it not ethics and morality?

[ElNono]

This is an utterly ignorant argument.

No, it's not. DADT goes against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

[Ignignokt]

No, it's not. DADT goes against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

what is that ammendment based on? Is law divorced of ethics and morality?

[ElNono]

You're assuming that all preemptive attacks were not grounded in fact. History has proven you wrong. We knew about the attacks on pearl harbor. We could have launched a preventative strike and we would have been justified.

This is a logical fallacy. Preemptive implies an action taken before the fact.

If it would be in reaction to or after the fact, then it wouldn't be preemptive anymore.

[ElNono]

And what is the basis for law? is it not ethics and morality?

The basis for law is whatever Congress determined that needed to be legislated at any given time, that doesn't go against the rights provided in the Constitution.

Can be based on a plethora of things: morality, ethics, utilitarian aspects, economy, etc.


what is that ammendment based on? Is law divorced of ethics and morality?

No, never made that claim. But law does preempts whatever moral value you have over the same topic. If congress deems torture a crime, it doesn't really matter if you think it's morally right. It's still illegal.

[Ignignokt]

The basis for law is whatever Congress determined that needed to be legislated at any given time, that doesn't go against the rights provided in the Constitution.

Can be based on a plethora of things: morality, ethics, utilitarian aspects, economy, etc.



No, never made that claim. But law does preempts whatever moral value you have over the same topic. If congress deems torture a crime, it doesn't really matter if you think it's morally right. It's still illegal.

Law's are not always moral. You have bad laws. You have dictatorships. Laws are only moral if they are based on a solid foundation of natural rights, otherwise they're tyranical. You can always revolt, or accept the fact that you are forced at gunpoint to comply.

That doesn't take away from the fact whether laws are objectively moral or not.

[Yonivore]

I have a practical question about the lifting of DADT.

If women and men aren't allowed to bunk and shower together, for obvious reasons; how does the military plan to separate those physically and sexually attracted to the same sex?

I'm attracted to women and, I understand why they wouldn't want me showering with them. Even if I minded my manners, averted my eyes, and played nice; would the woman be any more uncomfortable?

I don't see the difference with men and women being forced to shower with those who are physically attracted to the same sex.

[Ignignokt]

I have a practical question about the lifting of DADT.

If women and men aren't allowed to bunk and shower together, for obvious reasons; how does the military plan to separate those physically and sexually attracted to the same sex?

I'm attracted to women and, I understand why they wouldn't want me showering with them. Even if I minded my manners, averted my eyes, and played nice; would the woman be any more uncomfortable?

I don't see the difference with men and women being forced to shower with those who are physically attracted to the same sex.


That's a good question tho. That still doesn't mean that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve.

But tell me what you think should happen.

[ElNono]

Law's are not always moral. You have bad laws. You have dictatorships. Laws are only moral if they are based on a solid foundation of natural rights, otherwise they're tyranical. You can always revolt, or accept the fact that you are forced at gunpoint to comply.

That doesn't take away from the fact whether laws are objectively moral or not.

Your morals don't preempt the law though. The reason we have rules (laws) isn't to legislate morality, it's so everybody have a clear set of rules to live by.

If you didn't have that set of rules, then anything goes. We just wouldn't be a society if anybody did what they thought morally right.

Obviously, I disagree that there's an universal set of moral rules.

[ElNono]

I have a practical question about the lifting of DADT.

If women and men aren't allowed to bunk and shower together, for obvious reasons; how does the military plan to separate those physically and sexually attracted to the same sex?

I'm attracted to women and, I understand why they wouldn't want me showering with them. Even if I minded my manners, averted my eyes, and played nice; would the woman be any more uncomfortable?

I don't see the difference with men and women being forced to shower with those who are physically attracted to the same sex.

You're free to end your military career if it bothers you. Doesn't sound like anybody is forcing you to be there.

[Yonivore]

That's a good question tho. That still doesn't mean that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve.

But tell me what you think should happen.
I think Clinton's DADT was the best of all worlds. It allowed gays to serve their country and, they were pretty much forced to behave or be disciplined.

DADT had the same effect as separating the sexes in the showers and bunk. Face it; while the vast majority of all soldiers, straight and gay, will not be affected by this change, I think their will be enough gays that misbehave -- with each other and towards straight soldiers, and enough straights that will unnecessarily target gays for scorn and ridicule (or worse) that it will distract from the mission.

In my opinion, that's a bad thing.

I'm not sure what being openly heterosexual or homosexual has to do with fighting a war. Should have left it alone.

[Yonivore]

You're free to end your military career if it bothers you. Doesn't sound like anybody is forcing you to be there.
You're correct and, there'll be some of that.

Again, only time will tell how that affects the mission of the military.

[Blake]

Why is preemption not self defense?


lmao idiot

[ChumpDumper]

DADT had the same effect as separating the sexes in the showers and bunk.Except homosexuals were showering and bunking with straight folk.

What has changed?

Your homophobia now could have a clear target, I guess.

Also, I don't get why male homophobes think every gay man is attracted to them. Is that something you think about a lot?

[ChumpDumper]

lol misbehave

[LnGrrrR]

I think Clinton's DADT was the best of all worlds. It allowed gays to serve their country and, they were pretty much forced to behave or be disciplined.

What do you mean by "forced to behave"? All military members are forced to behave.


DADT had the same effect as separating the sexes in the showers and bunk. Face it; while the vast majority of all soldiers, straight and gay, will not be affected by this change, I think their will be enough gays that misbehave -- with each other and towards straight soldiers, and enough straights that will unnecessarily target gays for scorn and ridicule (or worse) that it will distract from the mission.

The leadership signed off on it; do you think you know better than them?

Do you think homosexuals who fear reprisal will out themselves?


I'm not sure what being openly heterosexual or homosexual has to do with fighting a war. Should have left it alone.

Why shouldn't they be openly hetero or homosexual? Given the above idea, we should've also banned people from making overtly heterosexual statements or self-identifying as hetero. Does that make sense?

[LnGrrrR]

Why is preemption not self defense?

The israelis preemptively attacked arab nations in the six day war. Why would you condemn someone's right to self preservation.

Gtown, what if I thought you were going to kill me? What if I had what I considered to be good intel? Would it be then alright for me to murder you instead?

[Yonivore]

Does that make sense?
Yes. There used to be an old adage, and I'm paraphrasing here, "If the military wanted you to have a partner, they would have issued you one." The military has a very specific mission, relationships and all they carry with them, are distractions.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes. There used to be an old adage, and I'm paraphrasing here, "If the military wanted you to have a partner, they would have issued you one." The military has a very specific mission, relationships and all they carry with them, are distractions.So serviemen and women should all be sterile orphans.

[DMX7]

Are they fucking on the job, Yoni?

[LnGrrrR]

Yes. There used to be an old adage, and I'm paraphrasing here, "If the military wanted you to have a partner, they would have issued you one." The military has a very specific mission, relationships and all they carry with them, are distractions.

I don't know about when you served, or what branch, but the AF seems to recognize that those who have partners have a different viewpoint than single people, and are sometimes able to find a better answer to a problem because of it.

I certainly wouldn't consider my wife a "distraction" from the mission. If anything, I do better at my job because of her support at home.

[ElNono]

I don't know about when you served, or what branch, but the AF seems to recognize that those who have partners have a unique mindset, and are able to bring different viewpoints to problems.

I certainly wouldn't consider my wife a "distraction" from the mission. If anything, I do better at my job because of her support at home.

Except when they're da ghey!

/yoni

[Yonivore]

Except when they're da ghey!

/yoni
You're turning into ChumpDumper, congratulations. I have another personal troll.

[Yonivore]

I don't know about when you served, or what branch, but the AF seems to recognize that those who have partners have a different viewpoint than single people, and are sometimes able to find a better answer to a problem because of it.

I certainly wouldn't consider my wife a "distraction" from the mission. If anything, I do better at my job because of her support at home.
Off topic a bit but, if you were in a situation where the objective could result in harm to your wife, that wouldn't be a distraction?

[LnGrrrR]

Off topic a bit but, if you were in a situation where the objective could result in harm to your wife, that wouldn't be a distraction?

Of course. And if a single soldier was in a situation where the objective could result in harm to his mother/father, wouldn't that be a distraction?

I'm pretty sure that the military wouldn't work well if they only allowed single childless orphans.

[LnGrrrR]

Yoni, when and what branch did you serve in?

[Yonivore]

Yoni, when and what branch did you serve in?
Who said I served in the military? And, besides, it's not germane to the discussion.

[Yonivore]

Of course. And if a single soldier was in a situation where the objective could result in harm to his mother/father, wouldn't that be a distraction?

I'm pretty sure that the military wouldn't work well if they only allowed single childless orphans.
I wouldn't want my mother or father on missions either. You're the one that suggested having your wife there wouldn't be a distraction.

[Yonivore]

I think the point I was trying to make LnGrrrR is that our relationships, or sexual orientations, or private lives -- outside the life we create in the military unit to which we belong -- is irrelevant to the mission and all this political squabbling only serves to distract from the mission.

The military sees fit to separate the sexes in bathing and bunking for what I think are very good reasons; normal heterosexual human beings have a libido and are sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

Do normal homosexuals have a libido and are they sexually attracted to the same sex?

If so, why should they be treated differently?

[ElNono]

It's only distracting if you give a shit. If you don't give a shit, then where's the distraction?

[Spurminator]

The military sees fit to separate the sexes in bathing and bunking for what I think are very good reasons; normal heterosexual human beings have a libido and are sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

Do normal homosexuals have a libido and are they sexually attracted to the same sex?

If so, why should they be treated differently?

Because allowing that segment of the population to serve in the Military takes precedent over the narcissistic discomfort a few people like you might have over the prospect of showering and bunking with them.

[Ignignokt]

lmao idiot

Cuck

[Yonivore]

It's only distracting if you give a shit. If you don't give a shit, then where's the distraction?
You're not answering the question. Or, maybe, you're suggesting a completely coed military.

Is that what you're suggesting?

[Ignignokt]

Gtown, what if I thought you were going to kill me? What if I had what I considered to be good intel? Would it be then alright for me to murder you instead?

In a civilized society you would just have to go to the proper authority since we have means of dealing with conflicts. In war, the govt's duty is to prevent foreign attacks.

Prevention can be done by preemptive strikes. You could do that, or you could needlessly sacrifice your men and women serving you by letting the enemy attack first.

There's nothing immoral about preemptive strikes.

[ElNono]

You're not answering the question.

Sure I am. This alleged "distraction" is only an issue if you give a shit about it.
And if you do, under the way the military is currently operating, then maybe you're better off it.

[Ignignokt]

It's pretty easy, you have a situation where you know beforehand that a foreign enemy will conduct a raid and invasion, it would be smarter if you just took out his military bases, landing strips, and supplies to prevent carnage. The proper role of govt is to defend it's citizenry, not to sacrifice it's citizenry on an archaic St augustine just war principle.

[Yonivore]

Because allowing that segment of the population to serve in the Military takes precedent over the narcissistic discomfort a few people like you might have over the prospect of showering and bunking with them.
I don't think anything should take precedent over the mission of the military. And, I wouldn't be any more uncomfortable showering with a gay man than I would a gay or straight woman.

You miss the point.

By lifting DADT, the military is going to be forced to deal with the issue of allowing homosexuals to shower and bunk with the same sex. It's going to happen.

And, the government is so good at resolving these issues, too.

[Yonivore]

Sure I am. This alleged "distraction" is only an issue if you give a shit about it.

And if you do, under the way the military is currently operating, then maybe you're better off it.
So, should people not give a shit about coed showers and bunks? Would that be more or less of a distraction than homosexuals bunking with the same sex? Why?

[Ignignokt]

You don't have to die. You can defend yourself.

Sure assasinations and killings always happen at high noon in a duel.

[CuckingFunt]

By lifting DADT, the military is going to be forced to deal with the issue of allowing homosexuals to shower and bunk with the same sex. It's going to happen.

It's already happening.

It's never not been happening.

[ElNono]

It's pretty easy, you have a situation where you know beforehand that a foreign enemy will conduct a raid and invasion, it would be smarter if you just took out his military bases, landing strips, and supplies to prevent carnage. The proper role of govt is to defend it's citizenry, not to sacrifice it's citizenry on an archaic St augustine just war principle.

You can have the military ready without "sacrificing the citizenry" or actively engaging the other nation over an alleged plot. Heck, it's not like the US can't actively monitor enemy bases for movement, etc.

Then again, if you had that kind of information, you wouldn't need to torture anybody.

[LnGrrrR]

I wouldn't want my mother or father on missions either. You're the one that suggested having your wife there wouldn't be a distraction.

Uhm... the military doesn't make me take my wife on missions.

[Spurminator]

By lifting DADT, the military is going to be forced to deal with the issue of allowing homosexuals to shower and bunk with the same sex. It's going to happen.

They've dealt with it already and determined that homosexuals will shower and bunk with the same sex. It's already happened.


And, the government is so good at resolving these issues, too.

Yeah from what I know about being in the Military, there's usually a lot of difficulty getting subordinates to fall in line.

[LnGrrrR]

I think the point I was trying to make LnGrrrR is that our relationships, or sexual orientations, or private lives -- outside the life we create in the military unit to which we belong -- is irrelevant to the mission and all this political squabbling only serves to distract from the mission.

Considering that this is the "Year of the Family" for the Air Force, I'd have to say that the military brass disagree with your statement.

[Yonivore]

Considering that this is the "Year of the Family" for the Air Force, I'd have to say that the military brass disagree with your statement.
Why are homosexuals going to be treated differently than heterosexuals? It's not a hard question.

[LnGrrrR]

There's nothing immoral about preemptive strikes.

What if the preemptive strike is based on bad intel?

[ElNono]

Sure assasinations and killings always happen at high noon in a duel.

You need to pick a scenario and stick with it. Where did assassination came from?

[ElNono]

Why are homosexuals going to be treated differently than heterosexuals? It's not a hard question.

How are homosexuals going to be treated differently?

[Spurminator]

Why are homosexuals going to be treated differently than heterosexuals? It's not a hard question.

:lmao at the fucking irony here.

Yeah we certainly wouldn't want to treat homosexuals and heterosexuals differently, right?

[Yonivore]

What if the preemptive strike is based on bad intel?
It's called a mistake. And, if there weren't at least two dozen other reasons for the preemptive strike, you'd have a point.

[LnGrrrR]

Why are homosexuals going to be treated differently than heterosexuals? It's not a hard question.

I already answered. Because the military sees no need to separate homosexuals from heterosexuals. Also, because it would cost a ton of money to build separate barracks. Also, because whether one is a homosexual or not isn't obvious at first sight. Also, because separating heteros/homos wouldn't really do anything, as said homo could just stay in the closet.

[Yonivore]

:lmao at the fucking irony here.
Yes, it's ironic that homosexuals have fought this long and hard only to continue to be treated differently.

[Ignignokt]

You can have the military ready without "sacrificing the citizenry" or actively engaging the other nation over an alleged plot. Heck, it's not like the US can't actively monitor enemy bases for movement, etc.

Then again, if you had that kind of information, you wouldn't need to torture anybody.

Why is that necessary? If you can minimize the loss of lives for your troops, you engage, why take the chance of sacrificing men.

[LnGrrrR]

It's called a mistake. And, if there weren't at least two dozen other reasons for the preemptive strike, you'd have a point.

Ok, so France gets bad intel saying we're going to attack them, say from torturing someone who they thought was a spy. They then start a preemptive strike by dropping a bomb on a military base.

Morally justified?

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, it's ironic that homosexuals have fought this long and hard only to continue to be treated differently.

I'm pretty sure that homosexuals would rather be able to serve openly. than worry about who they're showering and bunking with.

[ElNono]

Why is that necessary? If you can minimize the loss of lives for your troops, you engage, why take the chance of sacrificing men.

Because the intel might be bullshit. Minimizing the loss of lives of your troops is very arguable. If there was not going to be an attack at all, you actually unnecessarily jeopardized their lives.

[Ignignokt]

You need to pick a scenario and stick with it. Where did assassination came from?

You're the one saying preemptive attacks are not valid under any scenario.

[ElNono]

It's called a mistake.

So once we razed through the country we turn around and say "sorry"?

Like what we did when we invaded Iraq?

Who are you trying to fool yoni? :lol

[Spurminator]

Yes, it's ironic that homosexuals have fought this long and hard only to continue to be treated differently.

I'm sure they appreciate your support on their behalf.

[Yonivore]

I already answered. Because the military sees no need to separate homosexuals from heterosexuals. Also, because it would cost a ton of money to build separate barracks. Also, because whether one is a homosexual or not isn't obvious at first sight. Also, because separating heteros/homos wouldn't really do anything, as said homo could just stay in the closet.
All this assumes my chief concern is with heterosexuals being exposed to homosexuals. It's not.

Why should homosexuals be exposed to other homosexuals. The military separates the sexes because of the problems sexual attraction causes. And, unless you're saying homosexuals are different, in that respect, I don't see why they should be treated differently.

I think it is unfair to homosexuals to force them to shower and bunk with other homosexuals. It suggests they aren't as sexual a being as heterosexuals. That they aren't driven by the same natural urges, etc...

As far as the expense. DADT was a cheap solution. Bill Clinton recognized that.

[ElNono]

You're the one saying preemptive attacks are not valid under any scenario.

They aren't. But what you responded to was before we were discussing preemption.

[Ignignokt]

Because the intel might be bullshit. Minimizing the loss of lives of your troops is very arguable. If there was not going to be an attack at all, you actually unnecessarily jeopardized their lives.

If you intercept information from an enemy about an attack, you have to act. It's their fault for preparing for it.

[Yonivore]

I'm sure they appreciate your support on their behalf.
Well, they should.

[Spurminator]

Why should homosexuals be exposed to other homosexuals. The military separates the sexes because of the problems sexual attraction causes. And, unless you're saying homosexuals are different, in that respect, I don't see why they should be treated differently.

I think it is unfair to homosexuals to force them to shower and bunk with other homosexuals. It suggests they aren't as sexual a being as heterosexuals. That they aren't driven by the same natural urges, etc...

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Now you're just trolling. No one could be this stupid.

[Yonivore]

So once we razed through the country we turn around and say "sorry"?

Like what we did when we invaded Iraq?

Who are you trying to fool yoni? :lol
If there weren't two dozen other reason to be there, sure. But, as it is, there's nothing for which we should apologize -- aside from not doing it in 1992, possibly.

He caused a lot of misery and expense in the ensuing 12 years.

[ElNono]

If you intercept information from an enemy about an attack, you have to act. It's their fault for preparing for it.

How do you know it's not a decoy or bullshit?

You do have to react by being ready and investigating.

It's not like the US can't lock in a satellite/radar and tell right away if a plane is coming.

[LnGrrrR]

Why should homosexuals be exposed to other homosexuals.

As I said above, because the military is slow to change, and it would cost more money.


I think it is unfair to homosexuals to force them to shower and bunk with other homosexuals. It suggests they aren't as sexual a being as heterosexuals. That they aren't driven by the same natural urges, etc...

I'm pretty sure they'll get over it.


As far as the expense. DADT was a cheap solution. Bill Clinton recognized that.

DADT caused more problems than it solved. DADT wasn't very cheap when we were kicking out linguists who we had spent thousands of dollars training, right?

[Ignignokt]

They aren't. But what you responded to was before we were discussing preemption.

Why is it not valid? Why do you think you're going to be prepared to defend yourself in that situation? Do you think they're gonna tell you when they're going to come and kill you?

[Yonivore]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Now you're just trolling. No one could be this stupid.
Why is it a stupid proposition?

Are you suggesting homosexuals are so base they don't have a sense of modesty or shame? That just because they are homosexuals and have the same sexual organs they won't be embarrassed to be seen in the shower by another person? Perhaps someone they're attracted to and considering starting a relationship?

I'm not trolling. I think this is a serious issue.

[ElNono]

If there weren't two dozen other reason to be there, sure. But, as it is, there's nothing for which we should apologize -- aside from not doing it in 1992, possibly.

He caused a lot of misery and expense in the ensuing 12 years.

So we made a mistake and we shouldn't apologize. That makes more sense coming from you.

[Yonivore]

As I said above, because the military is slow to change, and it would cost more money.
Maybe they should have saved their pennies before lifting DADT.


I'm pretty sure they'll get over it.
Would you say that to a heterosexual woman forced to bunk and shower with a bunch of heterosexual males? Get over it?


DADT caused more problems than it solved. DADT wasn't very cheap when we were kicking out linguists who we had spent thousands of dollars training, right?
I disagree. I think it's only a matter of time before some modest homosexual sues for separate facilities.

Then the real fun starts.

[ElNono]

Why is it not valid? Why do you think you're going to be prepared to defend yourself in that situation? Do you think they're gonna tell you when they're going to come and kill you?

Not saying it's not valid. I didn't take it as an extension of the preemption argument, since we weren't discussing it then.

As far preemption, we've discussed this. There's a difference between the other side thinking and carrying out the act.

Already provided plenty of examples too. If I tell you outright in the middle of the street "I'm going to kill you if you don't pay what you owe", you just kill me? That makes no sense. Morally or otherwise.

You'll make yourself ready and potentially denounce the threat.

[Yonivore]

So we made a mistake and we shouldn't apologize. That makes more sense coming from you.
Invading wasn't a mistake. Relying on faulty intelligence that only supported one of over two-dozen reasons we invaded, isn't something over which I would apologize.

Feel free to go over there and beg forgiveness.

[Spurminator]

Why is it a stupid proposition?

Are you suggesting homosexuals are so base they don't have a sense of modesty or shame? That just because they are homosexuals and have the same sexual organs they won't be embarrassed to be seen in the shower by another person? Perhaps someone they're attracted to and considering starting a relationship?

I'm not trolling. I think this is a serious issue.


Someday I hope you will become friends with a homosexual person. Or at least have a conversation with one.

Maybe you need some friends who served in the Military too.

I don't think you know very many people at all, to be honest. And that's kind of sad.

[ElNono]

Invading wasn't a mistake. Relying on faulty intelligence that only supported one of over two-dozen reasons we invaded, isn't something over which I would apologize.

Much to your chagrin we invaded due to faulty intelligence. It was a costly mistake. Feel free to say sorry to the families of those fallen in that war.

[Ignignokt]

Not saying it's not valid. I didn't take it as an extension of the preemption argument, since we weren't discussing it then.

As far preemption, we've discussed this. There's a difference between the other side thinking and carrying out the act.

Already provided plenty of examples too. If I tell you outright in the middle of the street "I'm going to kill you if you don't pay what you owe", you just kill me? That makes no sense. Morally or otherwise.

You'll make yourself ready and potentially denounce the threat.

It would be valid if you vowed to kill me, ofcourse hyperbole withstanding, you ask the person if they mean what they say. Then you got to take them at their word.

In a civilized society, tho you wouldn't need that, you could just go to the cops. But if he shows up at your doorstep after being warned, you have every moral right to kill on the spot.

[Ignignokt]

Much to your chagrin we invaded due to faulty intelligence. It was a costly mistake. Feel free to say sorry to the families of those fallen in that war.

The only faulty mistake was that we occupied them and nation builded.

Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with removing a dictatorship that doesn't allow for individual and human rights. Any free country has the moral authority to remove said individual.

[ElNono]

It would be valid if you vowed to kill me, ofcourse hyperbole withstanding, you ask the person if they mean what they say. Then you got to take them at their word.

In a civilized society, tho you wouldn't need that, you could just go to the cops. But if he shows up at your doorstep after being warned, you have every moral right to kill on the spot.

Why should I wait until he shows at my doorstep. Under your preemptive doctrine I should just go get him and kill him. See how stupid that is? Morality didn't even enter the picture.

[ElNono]

The only faulty mistake was that we occupied them and nation builded.

Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with removing a dictatorship that doesn't allow for individual and human rights. Any free country has the moral authority to remove said individual.

That was the story after the WMD weren't found and obviously, you can't turn around and say "sorry, bye" (lol yoni).

We invaded under the ruse that they had WMD that they didn't have. Faulty intelligence justifying a "preemptive attack". Don't take it from me, take it from Powell that had to go sell that BS to the UN.

[Yonivore]

That was the story after the WMD weren't found and obviously, you can't turn around and say "sorry, bye" (lol yoni).

We invaded under the ruse that they had WMD that they didn't have. Faulty intelligence justifying a "preemptive attack". Don't take it from me, take it from Powell that had to go sell that BS to the UN.
Have you read the AUMF in Iraq? I linked to it in an earlier post or in another thread.

[ElNono]

Have you read the AUMF in Iraq? I linked to it in an earlier post or in another thread.

Yes, I have. That was AFTER the UN didn't buy what Powell was selling. They were right.

[CuckingFunt]

All this assumes my chief concern is with heterosexuals being exposed to homosexuals. It's not.

Why should homosexuals be exposed to other homosexuals. The military separates the sexes because of the problems sexual attraction causes. And, unless you're saying homosexuals are different, in that respect, I don't see why they should be treated differently.

I think it is unfair to homosexuals to force them to shower and bunk with other homosexuals. It suggests they aren't as sexual a being as heterosexuals. That they aren't driven by the same natural urges, etc...

As far as the expense. DADT was a cheap solution. Bill Clinton recognized that.

Holy fuck.

[Yonivore]

Yes, I have. That was AFTER the UN didn't buy what Powell was selling. They were right.
It was passed, overwhelmingly, by a bi-partisan Congress before Secretary Powell appeared before the UN and was based on several UNSC Resolutions, dating back to the cessation of hostilities in 1992.

[ElNono]

It was passed, overwhelmingly, by a bi-partisan Congress before Secretary Powell appeared before the UN and was based on several UNSC Resolutions, dating back to the cessation of hostilities in 1992.

And no new UN resolution authorizing the use of force, since the UN didn't buy what Powell was selling. Heck, Powell himself admitted later on he put up a dog and pony show on faulty intelligence. That's why the invasion was an unilateral operation from the US, UK, and two or three other shitty countries.

[Yonivore]

And no new UN resolution authorizing the use of force, since the UN didn't buy what Powell was selling. Heck, Powell himself admitted later on he put up a dog and pony show on faulty intelligence. That's why the invasion was an unilateral operation from the US, UK, and two or three other shitty countries.
It wasn't needed, there were at least three previous UNSC resolutions authorizing it. They were referenced in the AUMF in Iraq. You should read it sometime.

[ElNono]

It wasn't needed, there were at least three previous UNSC resolutions authorizing it. They were referenced in the AUMF in Iraq. You should read it sometime.

If it "wasn't needed" then Powell didn't need to go to the UN. The previous UNSC resolutions date back to Operation Desert Storm and allege a breach of the cease fire in place since 1991 (lol). Did you even read the AUMF?

[Yonivore]

If it "wasn't needed" then Powell didn't need to go to the UN.
Correct.


The previous UNSC resolutions date back to Operation Desert Storm and allege a breach of the cease fire in place since 1991 (lol).
Actually, all the UNSC resolutions don't address a breach; some, instead, authorize force in the event of a breach. There were over a dozen years of breaches on which to rely when choosing to employ the various authorizing passages from the various UNSC resolutions referenced.


Did you even read the AUMF?
Yep but, it's been awhile. I may do that.

[ElNono]

Actually, all the UNSC resolutions don't address a breach; some, instead, authorize force in the event of a breach. There were over a dozen years of breaches on which to rely when choosing to employ the various authorizing passages from the various UNSC resolutions referenced.

The reason Powell went to the UN was to get a new authorization for the use of force. It was denied.

After that fact, US and UK claimed a breach under UN Resolution 687 (1991), the cease-fire resolution from Operation Desert Storm, and conducted the hostilities under the guise they were continuing hostilities under UN Resolution 678 (1990) that authorized the use of force for Operation Desert Storm.

There, you don't need to read the AUMF now.

The two salient factors for invading Iraq at the time was the alleged possession of WMD and the alleged links to AQ. Both wrong, and both based on bad intel. Again, not my word, but Powell's.

The preemptive strike was a mistake and a waste of money and lives, which we're still paying.

[Yonivore]

The reason Powell went to the UN was to get a new authorization for the use of force. It was denied.
Obviously, it wasn't needed. And, frankly, if we had known how the UN Secretary General and many of our "ostensible" allies were violating the terms of the Oil For Food program, and allowing the Iraq Regime circumvent the spirit and word of most of those UNSC resolutions, we probably wouldn't have bothered.


After that fact, US and UK claimed a breach under UN Resolution 687 (1991), the cease-fire resolution from Operation Desert Storm, and conducted the hostilities under the guise they were continuing hostilities under UN Resolution 678 (1990) that authorized the use of force for Operation Desert Storm.
Cool by me.


There, you don't need to read the AUMF now.

The two salient factors for invading Iraq at the time was the alleged possession of WMD and the alleged links to AQ. Both wrong, and both based on bad intel. Again, not my word, but Powell's.
I disagree. There's a difference between what you see as a salient factor and the actual factors involved in the decisions to invade. But, if your simple mind won't let you see the issue was more complex than just WMD's, I'm okay with that.

Have fun with your anger.


The preemptive strike was a mistake and a waste of money and lives, which we're still paying.
I disagree.

[ElNono]

Obviously, it wasn't needed.

If it wasn't needed, he wouldn't have gone. But he did go.


I disagree. There's a difference between what you see as a salient factor and the actual factors involved in the decisions to invade.

They were certainly the salient factors. Again, not my word, but Powell's own admission, who went to sell exactly that to the UN on behalf of the administration at the time.

You can argue with Powell, who I suspect had a better idea what he was talking about than you ever did.

lol anger

[Yonivore]

If it wasn't needed, he wouldn't have gone. But he did go.
If it was needed we wouldn't have invaded. But, we did.


They were certainly the salient factors. Again, not my word, but Powell's own admission, who went to sell exactly that to the UN on behalf of the administration at the time.

You can argue with Powell, who I suspect had a better idea what he was talking about than you ever did.
I'm not the only person that disagrees with Powell. I'm okay with that.


lol anger
You're not angry about the invasion of Iraq?

[ElNono]

If it was needed we wouldn't have invaded. But, we did.

Not under the UN auspices, and under false pretenses (IMO anyways).


You're not angry about the invasion of Iraq?

No, I'm sad that a bunch of families lost their relatives over bad intel and a shitty "preemptive strike".

I think it's a situation to learn from so we don't make the same mistake in the future.

[Yonivore]

If I poured water over your feet and called it waterboarding, would that constitute torture?

My point is, there is a wide variety of practices, used over time, that have been variously called waterboarding. Some versions are torture. I'm satisfied the Bush administration did due diligence and arrived as a reasonable conclusion this version did not constitute torture.

No court has tried the question of whether or not the Bush administration's version of waterboarding constituted torture. Period.
Ten pages ago, we were still on the OP topic...

[Yonivore]

Not under the UN auspices, and under false pretenses (IMO anyways).
That's your opinion.


No, I'm sad that a bunch of families lost their relatives over bad intel and a shitty "preemptive strike".
I'm sad too. Doesn't change my position the invasion of Iraq was a legitimate and necessary action.


I think it's a situation to learn from so we don't make the same mistake in the future.
I would hope our methods of intelligence gathering are always improving. Unfortunately, the Left wants to hogtie the government and shut down or, otherwise, interfere with intelligence gathering.

[ElNono]

That's your opinion.

Yep. No less valid than yours.


I would hope our methods of intelligence gathering are always improving. Unfortunately, the Left wants to hogtie the government and shut down or, otherwise, interfere with intelligence gathering.

The "left" can't take away what was never on the table. I'm glad that as a country we're still sane enough to call waterboarding what it is: torture.

[ChumpDumper]

Ten pages ago, we were still on the OP topic...Too bad I showed several years ago that you are full of shit.

[mingus]

abortion = group of cells that aren't viable outside the human body

terrorists = human being

I don't think you will ever find a "liberal running to support terrorists", that is itself a shitty strawman argument.

There is a difference between thinking that even terrorists might have rights and actively supporting their cause.

You do see the difference between the two, yes?

what does not being viable outside the human body have to do with anything? and group of cells? we're all a group of cells. who has authority over when to say life begins? it's an arbitrary dileanation. one day you are allowed to have an abortion, and the next day you're not...what happens biologically in that small frame of time to make an abortion illegal?

anways i don't want to sidetrack. i'll never be persuaded on the issue so long as i don't have a definite answer as to when life begins, so i'll just leave it at that. i wouldn't condone anything like that when i don't even know the implications of what it is i'm condoning.

"even terrorists have rights" -- but there are times in U.S. history where rights of people have been undermined. take Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 200,000 innocent died. people who have the potential to be responsible for or are witholding info on an event of catastrophic proprtions, a mass killing event, certain human rights laws have to change if doing so can protect a lot of innocent people in this country.

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe they should have saved their pennies before lifting DADT.

You know, the military isn't a business... they get their funds authorized from Congress. And I'm pretty sure that they're more concerned with spending money to get the mission accomplished, rather than build separate barracks for homosexuals.


Would you say that to a heterosexual woman forced to bunk and shower with a bunch of heterosexual males? Get over it?

If the military required that of her, yes. She would just have to suck it up.



I disagree. I think it's only a matter of time before some modest homosexual sues for separate facilities.
Then the real fun starts.

What "real fun"? The cours will decide if they have a legitimate complaint, and will force the military to accomodate them if they win. *shrug* The military has about 500 more pressing issues than whether or not gays can bunk with straights.

[LnGrrrR]

Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with removing a dictatorship that doesn't allow for individual and human rights. Any free country has the moral authority to remove said individual.

What about if there's no way to know whether another dictator will stand up? Should we just keep knocking down dictators every decade or so?

Also, why should it be our responsibility to knock down these dictators? If the people living there don't ask for our help, and they don't feel like knocking down these dictators themselves, should we take it upon ourselves anyway?

[Ignignokt]

What about if there's no way to know whether another dictator will stand up? Should we just keep knocking down dictators every decade or so?

Also, why should it be our responsibility to knock down these dictators? If the people living there don't ask for our help, and they don't feel like knocking down these dictators themselves, should we take it upon ourselves anyway?

I didn't introduce duty ethics aka deontology into this. I'm just saying, if a free country wants to invade a dictatorship, they have a right to. And if america becomes a dictatorship where we are no longer allowed to speak up and are shut out, a free country would have the right to invade us for whatever reason, because america under a dictatorship would not speak for me nor would it be legitimate.

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't introduce duty ethics aka deontology into this. I'm just saying, if a free country wants to invade a dictatorship, they have a right to. And if america becomes a dictatorship where we are no longer allowed to speak up and are shut out, a free country would have the right to invade us for whatever reason, because america under a dictatorship would not speak for me nor would it be legitimate.

I disagree that a free country has the right to invade a dictatorship. I would only agree that a free country has the right to invade a dictatorship if there was something occuring such as genocide, or if the population specifically requested our help. Any invasion/attack leads to innocent casualties. If we are going to invade, we would have to make sure the reason for invasion outweighed any potential innocent loss of life.

[LnGrrrR]

FWIW, my SERE training defines torture as:

the systematic application of mental or physical pain so intense as to cause loss of will or loss of consciousness each and every time it is applied by captors to meet their goals

[Yonivore]

I disagree that a free country has the right to invade a dictatorship. I would only agree that a free country has the right to invade a dictatorship if there was something occuring such as genocide, or if the population specifically requested our help. Any invasion/attack leads to innocent casualties. If we are going to invade, we would have to make sure the reason for invasion outweighed any potential innocent loss of life.
What if the dictatorship was engaging in activities that threatened the stability of a region vital to our national interests?

[Yonivore]

You know, the military isn't a business... they get their funds authorized from Congress. And I'm pretty sure that they're more concerned with spending money to get the mission accomplished, rather than build separate barracks for homosexuals.
Precisely my point. If they can't afford the ensuing headaches, why lift DADT? They put it off for almost 3 years after Obama ordered it, for that very reason. After all, what needed to be done in order to lift DADT? I could have been done the day it was ordered. No?


If the military required that of her, yes. She would just have to suck it up.
Well, at least you're consistent. However, your consistency wouldn't stop the tsunami of hostile work environment lawsuits that would ensue.


What "real fun"? The cours will decide if they have a legitimate complaint, and will force the military to accomodate them if they win. *shrug* The military has about 500 more pressing issues than whether or not gays can bunk with straights.
And, how do you suppose the military will accommodate them? And, you're absolutely right, the military has about 500 more pressing issues than DADT and the fallout that may result from it being lifted. Should have been left in place.

[LnGrrrR]

What if the dictatorship was engaging in activities that threatened the stability of a region vital to our national interests?

I could see agreeing with that, provided that you could prove that the region would be unstable without our help, and that said region was absolutely vital to our national interests.

Of course, that decision wouldn't necessarily lie on a moral/immoral axis, but a realpolitik one.

[LnGrrrR]

Precisely my point. If they can't afford the ensuing headaches, why lift DADT? They put it off for almost 3 years after Obama ordered it, for that very reason. After all, what needed to be done in order to lift DADT? I could have been done the day it was ordered. No?

Except military leadership was asked whether or not they could afford the ensuring headaches, and they did a study, and found that they could. They also determined that the cost of future headaches was less than the cost of kicking out already-trained soldiers who were outed as gay.

And it wasn't done the day after it was ordered precisely because Obama talked with generals, and they said they needed time to study the effects lifting DADT would have, and time to train personnel.


Well, at least you're consistent. However, your consistency wouldn't stop the tsunami of hostile work environment lawsuits that would ensue.

Deployments are hostile work environments. Having to bunk/shower with homosexuals isn't nearly as hostile.


And, how do you suppose the military will accommodate them? And, you're absolutely right, the military has about 500 more pressing issues than DADT and the fallout that may result from it being lifted. Should have been left in place.

You seem to be ignoring that DADT was causing issues itself.

[Yonivore]

Except military leadership was asked whether or not they could afford the ensuring headaches, and they did a study, and found that they could. They also determined that the cost of future headaches was less than the cost of kicking out already-trained soldiers who were outed as gay.

And it wasn't done the day after it was ordered precisely because Obama talked with generals, and they said they needed time to study the effects lifting DADT would have, and time to train personnel.
So, it wasn't a "no-brainer?" And, of course, the military has never, ever underestimated the cost of anything, have they?


Deployments are hostile work environments. Having to bunk/shower with homosexuals isn't nearly as hostile.
You and I may share that view but, it isn't ours that matters; it's the homosexual that believes it is that matters.


You seem to be ignoring that DADT was causing issues itself.
Not ignoring it; I just think they've traded a devil they knew for one they don't. And, in the current climate of global conflict, I'm not sure we need to be risking the unintended consequences that seem to always accompany government policy changes.

[LnGrrrR]

So, it wasn't a "no-brainer?" And, of course, the military has never, ever underestimated the cost of anything, have they?

The military made cost evaluations and determined it wouldn't greatly affect mission completion. If they're wrong, they're wrong. I doubt they are though.


You and I may share that view but, it isn't ours that matters; it's the homosexual that believes it is that matters.

The homosexual can feel free to bring it to court then. Or he can get out of the military. *shrug*



Not ignoring it; I just think they've traded a devil they knew for one they don't. And, in the current climate of global conflict, I'm not sure we need to be risking the unintended consequences that seem to always accompany government policy changes.

There might be unintended consequences, but the current consequences (denying the liberty of serving openly as a homosexual, kicking out trained professionals, etc etc) seem to outweigh any potential future consequences.

[Yonivore]

The military made cost evaluations and determined it wouldn't greatly affect mission completion. If they're wrong, they're wrong. I doubt they are though.
Okay but, color me skeptical of the military being able to do anything other than kill people and break stuff very well.


The homosexual can feel free to bring it to court then. Or he can get out of the military. *shrug*
Okay. And, when the military is wrestling with how to accommodate the web of various combinations of orientations and sexes -- while trying to win a war -- we can all just *shrug* I guess.


There might be unintended consequences, but the current consequences (denying the liberty of serving openly as a homosexual, kicking out trained professionals, etc etc) seem to outweigh any potential future consequences.
Members of our military give up a lot of their liberties in order to serve. Why couldn't homosexuals just "get over it," as has been said about others being forced to accommodate a undesirable arrangement?

[ChumpDumper]

Members of our military give up a lot of their liberties in order to serve. Why couldn't homosexuals just "get over it," as has been said about others being forced to accommodate a undesirable arrangement?Couldn't married servicemen and women just get over it and abandon their families for the sake of military efficiency?

[DMX7]

Are they going to be fucking on the job, Yoni?

[Yonivore]

Are they going to be fucking on the job, Yoni?
Probably no more than heterosexuals.

[DMX7]

Probably no more than heterosexuals.

And how is that working out?

[Yonivore]

And how is that working out?
Well, at least we won't have the issue of a nuclear sub having to surface or port to off-load a pregnant sailor.

[LnGrrrR]

Okay but, color me skeptical of the military being able to do anything other than kill people and break stuff very well.

Actually, the military does a lot more than that. We have doctors, communications technicians, civil engineers, etc etc. Bases are pretty much their own community; for instance, after Katrina hit, Keesler AFB was up and running far before the town of Biloxi was.


Okay. And, when the military is wrestling with how to accommodate the web of various combinations of orientations and sexes -- while trying to win a war -- we can all just *shrug* I guess.

Do you think the military too inept to have to deal with that situation if it arises? The military can fly overseas, perform black ops and get the most wanted man in the world, but they can't devise a way to separate certain people from other people?



Members of our military give up a lot of their liberties in order to serve. Why couldn't homosexuals just "get over it," as has been said about others being forced to accommodate a undesirable arrangement?

Since you're not in the military, I'll forgive you for not understanding why we give up the liberties we do. But I can certainly tell you that not having the liberty to serve as an open hetero or homosexual is a liberty that should not be denied. The right to have that liberty far outweighs the needs to take it away.

[Yonivore]

There's another salient point... which is the legal one.

Nobody is above the law. And if there's a law criminalizing torture, then torture is a crime and must be punished as such.
So, back to the topic of the thread.

I went back to a specific comment because it reminded me of something I heard once. Took me a bit to find it but, here it is:


"Many errors, of a truth, consist merely in the application of the wrong names of things." - Spinoza
Calling the enhanced technique, known as "waterboarding," torture doesn't make it so.

Also, if there's a law criminalizing the enhanced interrogation technique, known as "waterboarding," it didn't exist before the technique was applied to detainees.

[Blake]

Calling the enhanced technique, known as "waterboarding," torture doesn't make it so.


are you going by your own waterboarding experiences?

[Yonivore]

are you going by your own waterboarding experiences?
Nope. I'm basing it on the fact there was a ton of caterwauling on the issue, from the time it became known the technique was being used until now, and, yet, not one person has been indicted, tried, or convicted for torture.

I'm basing it on the fact the Bush administration apparently did due diligence in analyzing the issue and, employing legal counsel, arrived at the conclusion (twice) the practice -- as defined by the administration and employed by their agents -- did not constitute torture. A court has yet to find that counsel in error.

Can you cite a criminal or civil case that actually looked at the facts of any of the specific applications of "waterboarding," in this context, and determined the law was broken?

Did they walk a fine line? Sure. And, I'm okay with that. But, the fact remains, the Bush administration had their legal counsel draw that line and no court has yet said the line was in the wrong place.

[ElNono]

Also, if there's a law criminalizing the enhanced interrogation technique, known as "waterboarding," it didn't exist before the technique was applied to detainees.

Sure it did. Both military and civil law predate 9/11/01, IIRC.

That's why the point was to try not to frame it as torture back then.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope. I'm basing it on the fact there was a ton of caterwauling on the issue, from the time it became known the technique was being used until now, and, yet, not one person has been indicted, tried, or convicted for torture.Several have.


I'm basing it on the fact the Bush administration apparently did due diligence in analyzing the issue and, employing legal counsel, arrived at the conclusion (twice) the practice -- as defined by the administration and employed by their agents -- did not constitute torture. A court has yet to find that counsel in error.If that's how it happened, they don't know how to do the most basic research.


Can you cite a criminal or civil case that actually looked at the facts of any of the specific applications of "waterboarding," in this context, and determined the law was broken?I did that for you years ago and you ran away. You should probably try Googling it. Tell Woo and Bybee what you found.

[Winehole23]

Even before I came into office, I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened. I think it's important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects.

[Wild Cobra]

Even before I came into office, I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened. I think it's important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects.
OMG.

O-Bomb-a attacks villages with impunity using drones, killing more innocent life than what can be called collateral damage, and he thinks he has any moral leadership?

Wow...

[Infinite_limit]

Torture doesn't work unless there is threat of death. Otherwise subject will simply offer false information for the pain to stop.

[Winehole23]

The appropriate response to this is, our enemies are going to call us evil and take any opportunity to exploit our practices to make us out to be evil.

BFD.

The problem I have is people like you and other's not being able to make the fundamental distinction between the enhanced interrogation technique we employed and the one that constitutes torture.


In a two-day presentation in Geneva, the American delegation acknowledged that the United States had tortured terrorism suspects after the Sept. 11 attacks.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/world/europe/un-commission-presses-us-on-torture.html?ref=world&_r=1

[Winehole23]

Alessio Bruni of Italy, a member of the United Nations committee, pressed the delegation to explain Appendix M of the manual, which contains special procedures for separating captives in order to prevent them from communicating. The appendix says that prisoners shall receive at least four hours of sleep a day — an amount Mr. Bruni said would be sleep deprivation over prolonged periods and unrelated to preventing communication.


Brig. Gen. Richard C. Gross, the top legal adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that reading the appendix as intended to permit sleep deprivation was a misinterpretation. Four hours is “a minimum standard; it’s not the maximum they can get,” he said, adding that the rule had to be read in the context of the rest of the manual, including a requirement for medical and legal monitoring of treatment “to ensure it is humane, legal and so forth.”


Mr. Bruni was not persuaded. He said that calling the provision a minimum standard still meant four hours a night for long periods was “permissible.” He suggested that Appendix M “be simply deleted.”


In the presentation, streamed live online from Geneva, the committee also scrutinized whether the United States had adequately investigated the C.I.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s Bush-era “rendition, detention and interrogation” program for high-level suspects linked to Al Qaeda.
A provision of the treaty, the Convention Against Torture, requires parties to investigate and provide accountability for past instances of torture. The American delegation said that the United States had investigated the C.I.A. program, and that the coming publication of a Senate Intelligence Committee report would add to the public record.


“Our goal is to move forward, but we know that to avoid falling backward, we must be willing to look backward and to come to terms with what happened in the past,” said Tom Malinowski, the assistant secretary of state for human rights.

same

[Yonivore]

According to President Obama, torture does work. Well, enhanced interrogations do, anyway.

An Interrogator Breaks His Silence (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/interrogator-breaks-his-silence_819033.html)


Candidate Obama repeatedly stated that enhanced interrogation was not only immoral and un-American, but it didn’t work. People will say anything to make it stop. Every leading interrogator and intelligence professional will tell you that “torture” never works—it produces bad intelligence.


"I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do [to end enhanced interrogation] —- not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

"But here’s what I can tell you —- that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques -— which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques– doesn’t answer the core question, which is: Could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn’t answer the broader question: Are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?"

Hmmmm... Before being President, "it never works." After becoming President and having access to the truth, "it works but, we could have gotten the information using a different technique."

So, the questions of whether or not enhanced interrogation techniques can yield good, actionable intelligence can be answered in the affirmative. Even someone who had previously been certain of the opposite, and claimed so, was convinced, once he had access to all the information.

Now, the question of whether or not the intelligence could have been secured in other, less unsavory, methods isn't quite as straightforward, is it?

Well, here's how the intelligence officer that wrote the linked report answers that question:


"I know that we couldn’t have collected the same information using standard techniques because I was an expert in using standard techniques — I used them thousands of times over two decades — and the notion that I could have convinced the detainees. . .to provide closely-held information (or any information at all) without the use of enhanced interrogation techniques is laughable. There is zero chance. Zero."

[boutons_deux]

Pussy eater logic: torture works, so he's alright with America torturing like any shit country.

[Winehole23]

Yonivore. Still parsing and defending torture .

[Yonivore]

Pussy eater logic: torture works, so he's alright with America torturing like any shit country.
I'm okay with the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the U.S., yes.

Nope, we're not anything like countries that actually torture their prisoners and detainees.

[Yonivore]

Yonivore. Still parsing and defending torture .

Defending enhanced interrogation techniques that prevented terrorism. Yep.

[Winehole23]

what got prevented? be specific, if you can, and show the link to US sanctioned torture techniques

[Yonivore]

what got prevented? be specific, if you can, and show the link to US sanctioned torture techniques
I'm simply relying on President Obama's change in rhetoric. I don't have the clearance necessary to answer your question.

[FromWayDowntown]

I remember when conservatives scoffed at semantics. If I remember correctly, that sort of word-parsing help to fuel a quixotic impeachment. But I guess when it suits your needs and is the only way to defend the indefensible, it's a pretty swell game.

[Yonivore]

I remember when conservatives scoffed at semantics. If I remember correctly, that sort of word-parsing help to fuel a quixotic impeachment. But I guess when it suits your needs and is the only way to defend the indefensible, it's a pretty swell game.

Are you suggesting there's no difference between the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the United States and actual torture?

It's not a semantics game - there is a difference; just as there are significant differences in the multitude of various techniques collectively called "waterboarding."

Just ask Attorney General Eric Holder:

Holder on Waterboarding -- Proving It’s Not Torture While Insisting It Is (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/181884/holder-waterboarding-proving-its-not-torture-while-insisting-it-andrew-c-mccarthy)

But, that's not the point of my post. As President Obama learned, once he took the Presidential Oath and became privvy to the information, the enhanced interrogation techniques DID produce good intelligence. Period.

[Winehole23]

I'm simply relying on President Obama's change in rhetoric. I don't have the clearance necessary to answer your question.Nothing but bloviation and blind faith in the vague pronouncements of government officials, as usual.

[Yonivore]

Nothing but bloviation and blind faith in the vague pronouncements of government officials, as usual.
Yeah, like I would ever have blind faith in anything President Bloviator ever said.

How do you explain the change in his rhetoric, pre- and post- Presidential Oath?

Here's how I explain it; His sources of information were expanded greatly. Just like you, before becoming President, he ignored anything that didn't come from sources that tended to agree with his narrative, ideology, or bias. Once he was President, he became exposed to the facts, many of us became aware of in less -- let's say, progressive -- news sources.

Enhanced Interrogations Worked (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html)

"Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York."

Former CIA spokesman says enhanced interrogation techniques paid dividends (http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2013/feb/harlow-cia-022813.html)

"Controversial enhanced interrogation techniques, or EITs, played an important role in the fight against the al-Qaida terrorist network, former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow told a University of Delaware Global Agenda audience Wednesday night in Mitchell Hall.

"Harlow, the opening speaker in the spring series focused on 'America’s Role in the World,' said it is an 'annoying myth' that no good came of intelligence gathered through EITs.

"'Do the math,' he said, noting that there have been no mass casualty attacks on U.S. soil for a decade."
...
Harlow said that what the CIA had before the attacks was a million piece jigsaw puzzle with no boxtop with a picture to guide them in putting the pieces together – a million-piece puzzle with another million pieces that looked like they could fit but did not. The Sept. 11 attacks, he said, were the boxtop.

"In shifting its focus to al-Qaida, the agency found evidence that a second wave of attacks was in the plans, with one terrorist already having pre-taped a celebratory video.

"Had there been a second wave, Harlow said the CIA 'would have felt that we had blood on our hands,' and the agency began work in earnest to dismantle the terrorist network.

"With the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, he said, 'results came fairly quickly.' And he reminded the audience that the trail to Abbottabad, Pakistan, where a U.S. Navy SEAL team found and killed bin Laden, began with enhanced interrogations."

[RandomGuy]

According to President Obama, torture does work. Well, enhanced interrogations do, anyway.

Obama is just as wrong as Bush was, and you are.

LOL you siding with Obama.... that is funny.

[Yonivore]

Obama is just as wrong as Bush was, and you are.

LOL you siding with Obama.... that is funny.
I didn't side with him. Again, I merely noted the change in his rhetoric after becoming President.

And, as far as him being wrong, what evidence do you have his statement, enhanced interrogation techniques produced good intelligence, is untrue (or, as you say, "wrong")?

[RandomGuy]

I didn't side with him. Again, I merely noted the change in his rhetoric after becoming President.

And, as far as him being wrong, what evidence do you have his statement, enhanced interrogation techniques produced good intelligence, is untrue (or, as you say, "wrong")?

Provided to you previously in this thread.

I can provide testimony from John McCain, whose expertise on the subject is not something I would wish on anyone.

[Winehole23]

Nowhere does Harlow say that particular EITs saved lives or thwarted plots, only that they were part of a bigger mosaic on information that "led to Osama Bin Laden in Abbotabad." Also, the math he asks us to do is fallacious. He's wrong to say there have been no terrorist attacks on the US since 2001 and wrong to ask us to conclude from that supposed absence of attacks that EITs are the reason why.

[boutons_deux]

http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bush-cheney-torture-1024x785.jpg

[DarrinS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-waterboardings-role-in-identifying-a-terrorist/2014/12/08/40bc2578-7ee2-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html

[boutons_deux]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-waterboardings-role-in-identifying-a-terrorist/2014/12/08/40bc2578-7ee2-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html

AEI scholar, of course he wants to exonerate dickhead, dubya, and all the criminals in the CIA.

[Winehole23]

Argument from expediency. The torture was justified because one bad guy was identified.

Apparently the ends justify the means. Whatever happened to morality on the right?

[mingus]

If torture or advanced interrogation methods or whatever they call them work, I don't see the point in not using them if there aren't other alternatives. These fuckers are crazy, violent human beings who'd blow up your entire neighborhood if they could. If you can get intel by sticking stuff up their bum then I've no problem with it.

[Winehole23]

there's not much evidence for that, and much that it's counterproductive. people being tortured will say anything to make it stop. people without information will lie and make stuff up.

[Yonivore]

there's not much evidence for that, and much that it's counterproductive. people being tortured will say anything to make it stop. people without information will lie and make stuff up.
Actually, there is.

All six of the former CIA Directors (Democrats included) say, unequivocally, the measures elicited actionable intelligence that 1) prevented a mass-scale attack on the West Coast and 2) led to the location of Osama bin Laden.

That alone makes the very limited use of enhanced interrogation techniques worth it for me.

[DarrinS]

If "enhanced interrogation" techniques aren't effective, it doesn't make sense that they would continue using them. Unless they just wanted to be big bad meanies to muslims.

[DarrinS]

lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMpIotpMefA

[boutons_deux]

Actually, there is.

All six of the former CIA Directors (Democrats included) say, unequivocally, the measures elicited actionable intelligence that 1) prevented a mass-scale attack on the West Coast and 2) led to the location of Osama bin Laden.

That alone makes the very limited use of enhanced interrogation techniques worth it for me.

CYA, of course they would say their torturing was effective. Do you expect them, CIA/NSA/FBI, EVER to tell the truth?

[boutons_deux]

There are already reports that drone strikes have killed 1000s of non-combattants along with the combattants, but Scarborough isn't mentioning the 6000 US military lives WASTED in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the 100Ks of Iraqi/Afgani lives "improved to death" by American bullshit, botched wars.

[Yonivore]

CYA, of course they would say their torturing was effective. Do you expect them, CIA/NSA/FBI, EVER to tell the truth?
Yes. There's a pretty extensive timeline of Congressional meetings and briefing wherein the agency says they fully informed the administration and Congress of their activities and the results. The administration has released the Yoo and Bybee memos to show they considered the implications of the activities. President Obama and former CIA Director Leon Panetta have both conceded the measures were successful in obtaining actionable intelligence.

If anyone is lying, it appears to be the politicians. Do you expect THEM to ever tell the truth?

You're placing your trust in politicians?

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, there is.

All six of the former CIA Directors (Democrats included) say, unequivocally, the measures elicited actionable intelligence that 1) prevented a mass-scale attack on the West Coast and 2) led to the location of Osama bin Laden.

That alone makes the very limited use of enhanced interrogation techniques worth it for me.Alright! Anecdotes.

So if the CIA is so proud of what they did and the results they got, why destroy the video evidence? Surely their incredibly and undeniably effective methods should be preserved and shared with any authority that wants information from anyone. Every policeman and parent should use it if they feel it is important enough. That's the standard the chicken hawks want to use, so let all the information out.

Including the videos.

Be proud.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes. There's a pretty extensive timeline of Congressional meetings and briefing wherein the agency says they fully informed the administration and Congress of their activities and the results. The administration has released the Yoo and Bybee memos to show they considered the implications of the activities. President Obama and former CIA Director Leon Panetta have both conceded the measures were successful in obtaining actionable intelligence.

If anyone is lying, it appears to be the politicians. Do you expect THEM to ever tell the truth?

You're placing your trust in politicians?Actually there's a pretty extensive timeline of the CIA agents and officials telling each other to spin the effectiveness of the torture at every opportunity, no matter what the actual effectiveness might have been.

[ChumpDumper]

If "enhanced interrogation" techniques aren't effective, it doesn't make sense that they would continue using them. Unless they just wanted to be big bad meanies to muslims.The Bush administration stopped many of the methods themselves, Darrin.

Why do you think they did that?

[CosmicCowboy]

Alright! Anecdotes.

So if the CIA is so proud of what they did and the results they got, why destroy the video evidence? Surely their incredibly and undeniably effective methods should be preserved and shared with any authority that wants information from anyone. Every policeman and parent should use it if they feel it is important enough. That's the standard the chicken hawks want to use, so let all the information out.

Including the videos.

Be proud.

Thats just chump dumb.
'
Lets release the after action videos and pictures of all the dead and maimed bodies from drone attacks and conventional combat casualties in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.while we are at it.

[Yonivore]

Alright! Anecdotes.
Provided in the CIA Director's rebuttal to the report. And, according to them, these facts have been known to Congress since the time when they were being extracted from terrorists using the techniques described -- of which, they also say, Congress was aware.


So if the CIA is so proud of what they did and the results they got, why destroy the video evidence? Surely their incredibly and undeniably effective methods should be preserved and shared with any authority that wants information from anyone.
If I had to guess -- and this is stipulating the video tapes were destroyed illegally -- they probably wanted to avoid people like you and Dianne Feinstein using it for political hay, somewhere down the road.


Every policeman and parent should use it if they feel it is important enough.
You're an idiot for equating the two.


That's the standard the chicken hawks want to use, so let all the information out.

Including the videos.

Be proud.
Strawman.

[Yonivore]

Here's an anecdote for you, Chump:

Ex-CIA counterterror chief says Pelosi ‘reinventing the truth’ about waterboarding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ex-cia-counterterror-chief-pelosi-lied-about-waterboarding/2012/04/30/gIQAQFGtrT_story.html)


In his new book, “Hard Measures,” Rodriguez reveals that he led a CIA briefing of Pelosi, where the techniques being used in the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubaida were described in detail. Her claim that she was not told about waterboarding at that briefing, he writes, “is untrue.”

“We explained that as a result of the techniques, Abu Zubaydah was compliant and providing good intelligence. We made crystal clear that authorized techniques, including waterboarding, had by then been used on Zubaydah.” Rodriguez writes that he told Pelosi everything, adding, “We held back nothing.”

How did she respond when presented with this information? Rodriguez writes that neither Pelosi nor anyone else in the briefing objected to the techniques being used. Indeed, he notes, when one member of his team described another technique that had been considered but not authorized or used, “Pelosi piped up immediately and said that in her view, use of that technique (which I will not describe) would have been ‘wrong.’ ” She raised no such concern about waterboarding, he writes. “Since she felt free to label one considered-and-rejected technique as wrong,” Rodriguez adds, “we went away with the clear impression that she harbored no such feelings about the ten tactics [including waterboarding] that we told her were in use.”

So we’re left with a “he said-she said” standoff? Not at all. Rodriguez writes that there’s contemporaneous evidence to back his account of the briefing. Six days after the meeting took place, Rodriguez reveals, “a cable went out from headquarters to the black site informing them that the briefing for the House leadership had taken place.” He explains that “[t]he cable to the field made clear that Goss and Pelosi had been briefed on the state of AZ’s interrogation, specifically including the use of the waterboard and other enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Maybe you should be asking for the release of that cable. I know I'd like to see it.

[DarrinS]

The Bush administration stopped many of the methods themselves, Darrin.

Why do you think they did that?

Diminishing returns

[CosmicCowboy]

Diminishing returns

Plus, they quit sending prisoners there. No new oranges to squeeze.

[ChumpDumper]

Thats just chump dumb.
'
Lets release the after action videos and pictures of all the dead and maimed bodies from drone attacks and conventional combat casualties in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.while we are at it.Why not?

So you're ashamed and afraid to show what we do to purportedly protect ourselves. That says it all to me.

[ChumpDumper]

Provided in the CIA Director's rebuttal to the report. And, according to them, these facts have been known to Congress since the time when they were being extracted from terrorists using the techniques described -- of which, they also say, Congress was aware.Great, did they show them the video evidence of everything working so well?



If I had to guess -- and this is stipulating the video tapes were destroyed illegally -- they probably wanted to avoid people like you and Dianne Feinstein using it for political hay, somewhere down the road.What hay would be made? It worked perfectly and so well and so legally -- those videos were the proof and they destroyed them. Kinda stupid.



You're an idiot for equating the two.


Strawman.Not at all. The only criteria for using torture was how important the information was to the torturer. You set the bar. What is your argument against using it against common criminals and badly behaving teens -- after all, you claim its perfectly safe and effective with no lasting effects whatsoever.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's an anecdote for you, Chump:

Ex-CIA counterterror chief says Pelosi ‘reinventing the truth’ about waterboarding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ex-cia-counterterror-chief-pelosi-lied-about-waterboarding/2012/04/30/gIQAQFGtrT_story.html)


Maybe you should be asking for the release of that cable. I know I'd like to see it.I know you want to make it about politics.

That's all you really care about.

I am fine with shining a light on all of it. You are not. Because you are a partisan hack.

[ChumpDumper]

Plus, they quit sending prisoners there. No new oranges to squeeze.You can torture anywhere.

[CosmicCowboy]

You can torture anywhere.

We probably still are. Just letting the Afghani's, Iraqi's Yemeni's etc. do it.

[Yonivore]

Confirmed: Pelosi Lied About CIA Briefing on Waterboarding (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/05/01/confirmed_pelosi_lied_about_cia_briefing_on_waterb oarding)


The evidence against Pelosi was so strong that her tale could only be explained one of two ways: Either (a) she was lying, or (b) a vast conspiracy had constructed a web of deceit to ensnare her. Occam's Razor revealed the truth, of course, but my column was premised on describing just how implausible the 'anti-Pelosi witch hunt' theory really was. As of that writing, we knew that two separate members of the House Intelligence Committee had personally attested (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) to her presence at a private 2002 briefing, at which EITs were thoroughly described. A contemporaneous CIA report (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/12/nancy-pelosi/cia-documents-claim-speaker-pelosi-was-told-about-/) also confirmed Pelosi's presence at the briefing, specifying that members were informed about the existence and use of these EITs. A 2007 Washington Post account (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html) corroborated these facts. And yet, Pelosi stuck to her story. She claimed that she was not -- repeat: was not -- told about any of this, further asserting that the CIA had lied by explicitly assuring her that waterboarding had not been used. In case any shadow of doubt remained, a final piece of this puzzle has fallen into place. The former CIA counterterrorism chief who conducted the briefing in question has at last spoken out (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ex-cia-counterterror-chief-pelosi-lied-about-waterboarding/2012/04/30/gIQAQFGtrT_story.html?hpid=z2):


In his new book, “Hard Measures,” Jose Rodriguez reveals that he led a CIA briefing of Pelosi, where the techniques being used in the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubaida were described in detail. Her claim that she was not told about waterboarding at that briefing, he writes, “is untrue.” “We explained that as a result of the techniques, Abu Zubaydah was compliant and providing good intelligence. We made crystal clear that authorized techniques, including waterboarding, had by then been used on Zubaydah.” Rodriguez writes that he told Pelosi everything, adding, “We held back nothing.” How did she respond when presented with this information? Rodriguez writes that neither Pelosi nor anyone else in the briefing objected to the techniques being used.

That's not merely Rodriguez's personal recollection; his memory is affirmed by yet another document:


Six days after the meeting took place, Rodriguez reveals, “a cable went out from headquarters to the black site informing them that the briefing for the House leadership had taken place.” He explains that “[t]he cable to the field made clear that Goss and Pelosi had been briefed on the state of AZ’s interrogation, specifically including the use of the waterboard and other enhanced interrogation techniques.”

To recap: Roughly one year after 9/11, Nancy Pelosi and other select members of Congress were told in great detail about a program of EITs that US interrogators were employing to wring actionable intelligence out of captured terrorists. No one objected. Years later, when Democrats were indignantly denouncing "torture" as an inexpiable sin of Bush and the Republicans, Pelosi disavowed any knowledge of the meeting she had attended. She deliberately lied about a sensitive national security question in order to score the cheapest of political points, tossing the American intelligence community under the bus in the process. This is absolutely shameful.

From the first link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) above:


Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

-- We understood what the CIA was doing.

-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.

From the second link (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/12/nancy-pelosi/cia-documents-claim-speaker-pelosi-was-told-about-/) above:


Specifically, the CIA timeline states that on Sept. 4, 2002, Pelosi and Goss received a "Briefing on EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques) including use of EITs on (alleged al-Qaida operative) Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed."

That briefing came a month after the CIA began using Justice Department-approved enhanced interrogation techniques — including the drowning simulation technique known as waterboarding — on Abu Zubaydah, according to a Justice Department memo released in March 2009.

The CIA version is backed up by Goss, who resigned from Congress in 2004 to become CIA director under President George W. Bush, a post Goss held until 2006.

From the third link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html) above:


In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

...

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey's confirmation hearings for attorney general.

[ChumpDumper]

Politics!

[RandomGuy]

Here's an anecdote for you, Chump:

Ex-CIA counterterror chief says Pelosi ‘reinventing the truth’ about waterboarding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ex-cia-counterterror-chief-pelosi-lied-about-waterboarding/2012/04/30/gIQAQFGtrT_story.html)


Maybe you should be asking for the release of that cable. I know I'd like to see it.

Unfortunately, waterboarding is the least of what is in the report.

People who apologize for torture really make me ashamed of my country. Deeply ashamed.

[Yonivore]

Unfortunately, waterboarding is the least of what is in the report.

People who apologize for torture really make me ashamed of my country. Deeply ashamed.
I'm not apologizing for torture.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/11/370022493/what-is-torture-our-beliefs-depend-in-part-on-whos-doing-it


What Is Torture? Our Beliefs Depend In Part On Who's Doing It.

Researchers are studying how nations and individuals react when they given information that members of their own group have harmed other people, such as through torture. It takes some nimble thinking.

Copyright © 2014 NPR. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

Now let's explore what we talk about when we talk about torture. This week's Senate report on U.S. interrogations is the latest stage in a decade-long debate. Americans have talked about torture in different ways, including debating whether to call it torture at all. The Bush administration avoided that language after 9/11 partly because the United States had signed on to a U.N. treaty banning torture. There may be another reason people avoid such a loaded word. Some research suggests this debate is difficult because it affects our sense of our own national identity. NPR social science correspondent Shankar Vedantam is here. Hi, Shankar.

SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Hi, Steve.

INSKEEP: What's the research?

VEDANTAM: Well, the research finds people very quickly understand that accusations of torture reflect poorly on them, and so this clashes with feelings of loyalty we have towards members of our own group.

INSKEEP: Meaning members of our own country - citizens of our own country.

VEDANTAM: Exactly, and a wide range of research finds that people often respond defensively when they're confronted with this kind of information. And we employ a variety of strategies to deal with this threatening information. I spoke with Nyla Branscombe; she's a psychologist at the University of Kansas. She told me the first response people have when they're told about their own groups carrying out torture is the first response we often have to traumatic situations or situations involving grief, which is we deny the bad thing is actually happened. In the case of torture, this often involves changing the criteria for what's considered torture. Here's Branscombe.

NYLA BRANSCOMBE: We found people change the standard, the criteria, for deciding the severity of harm-doing that's been done when it's their own group's identity that's at stake.

INSKEEP: This is something you can document in the record. The Bush administration years ago argued for calling it enhanced interrogation. Maybe it wasn't quite torture. It was something a little off to the side of torture.

VEDANTAM: That's exactly right. We've had these semantic wrestling matches for several years now - is this technique torture, or is it a stress position? You know, when it no longer becomes possible to deny that torture has happened, people then move to the next strategy, and that's to minimize the harm that's done. So we say, how can keeping somewhat awake for three or four days be torture? It's just sleep deprivation, and they can sleep it off and then they'll be fine afterwards.

The interesting thing here, Steve, is that we do this selectively, we employ these strategies only when it's our group that's responsible. Branscombe told me there's another strategy. In some ways, I think of this as a third stage of how we deal with these accusations. Once we accept that torture was carried out and that it harmed people, we then say the harm was in some ways justified. So we move the ethical goalpost.

In one study, Branscombe and colleagues in Britain asked American and British volunteers to judge torture carried out by Americans and by British. The British volunteers justified the harm that was done when the harm was carried out by British operatives. The American volunteers excuse the harm that was done when it was carried out by American operatives. Here's Branscombe again.

BRANSCOMBE: Whenever it is your national group that's said to have perpetrated this illegitimate harm, then people will attempt to justify it as one way of dealing with that threat.

INSKEEP: So the essence of this research then is that when your own country is engaged in behavior that might be considered questionable, you really have to struggle to look at that in a particular way, to look at that critically. What happens, though, Shankar Vedantam, when time passes because we're talking about things that happened after 9/11, in many cases, more than 10 years ago?

VEDANTAM: So clearly I think, Steve, with the passage of time, people are better able to come to terms with what happened because they're also able to distance themselves from what actually happened. But time and memory might also be the final defense mechanism. There was another study that I came by by Katie Rotella and Jennifer Richeson. Volunteers were told about harms perpetrated against Native Americans. The catch was some of the volunteers were told the harms were carried out by European settlers and others were told the harms were carried out by early Americans.

INSKEEP: We're talking about the Colonial period here, OK?

VEDANTAM: Exactly. Now the European settlers and the early Americans are identical, they're the same...

INSKEEP: Same people.

VEDANTAM: They're the same people. But when the volunteers were told that the perpetrators were early Americans, they were far more likely to forget the information that they had learned about the harms perpetrated against Native Americans compared to when they learned the identical information but the perpetrators were European settlers.

INSKEEP: Well, Shankar, thanks for reminding us of this.

VEDANTAM: Thanks so much, Steve.

INSKEEP: NPR's Shankar Vedantam.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not apologizing for torture.

Torture doesn't work.

Waterboarding is torture.

If you don't think so, volunteer for a few dozen sessions of it, or anything else done to the detainees in our custody.

Further, such things directly endanger Americans.

Ineffective, immoral, and outright harmful to our country.

[angrydude]

You can't have it both ways.

If the "terrorists" are so evil the only way to get information out of them is to torture them, than they're too evil to trust anything they say.

BTW, speaking of liars, the government lies. The CIA lies most of all--it's an agency of SPIES--lying is in the job description. Those former CIA directors are all paid professional liars. You can't believe a word that comes out of there mouths.

From what I've seen of that report, waterboarding is the least of what went on.

[Yonivore]

Torture doesn't work.

Waterboarding is torture.
Waterboarding resulted in actional intelligence, it worked.


If you don't think so, volunteer for a few dozen sessions of it, or anything else done to the detainees in our custody.
Why? I'm not aligned with a group responsible for the murder of 3,000 innocent people. Nor do I have knowledge of future imminent attacks or the the whereabouts of those responsible.

Those subjected to these techniques did.


Further, such things directly endanger Americans.

Ineffective, immoral, and outright harmful to our country.
Partisan reports calling those who did what they were asked to do to prevent a second wave of attacks, torturers, does more to endanger Americans and harm this country than subjecting a few terrorists to harsh interrogations.

[DarrinS]

There is a lot of sincere outrage about this report.

[RandomGuy]

Waterboarding resulted in actional intelligence, it worked.

Why? I'm not aligned with a group responsible for the murder of 3,000 innocent people. Nor do I have knowledge of future imminent attacks or the the whereabouts of those responsible.

Those subjected to these techniques did.


Partisan reports calling those who did what they were asked to do to prevent a second wave of attacks, torturers, does more to endanger Americans and harm this country than subjecting a few terrorists to harsh interrogations.


“I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence,” he said. “I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.”

In McCain’s case, he revealed in his 1999 family memoir “Faith of My Fathers” (both his father and his grandfather had been US Navy admirals), he was forced to sign a confession of "war crimes." Although many prisoners of war under torture had the same experience, and although he refused an offer of early release, McCain still sees this as a personal failing.

“Most of all,” he continued in his statement this week, “I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored.”

Sorry, I don't care which political party anybody making excuses for torture is from.

Past generations have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives for the principles that immoral persons such as yourself would have us so readily give up.

I opposed them after 9-11 and I oppose them now, I don't care if myself or my family become the victim of an attack. Somethings are greater than myself.

Don't give in to the fear, although I can't blame you for being afraid. Death is scary.

Evil more so.

[DarrinS]

There is a lot of sincere outrage about this report.

[RandomGuy]

Partisan reports calling those who did what they were asked to do to prevent a second wave of attacks, torturers, does more to endanger Americans and harm this country than subjecting a few terrorists to harsh interrogations.

Admitting and vetting the misdeeds of our government do more to provide us with moral authority than any other thing we do.

It proves to everybody that we stand for the things we say we stand for, and mean what we say.

When we do things like this, regardless of party, we make the world an arguably worse place.

Unless, of course you don't believe in basic human rights?

[Yonivore]

Admitting and vetting the misdeeds of our government do more to provide us with moral authority than any other thing we do.
When it's a one-sided partisan rehashing of old news, what purpose does it serve? What proposals were forwarded in the Senate report?


It proves to everybody that we stand for the things we say we stand for, and mean what we say.
I say it proves to the world we're a laughing stock chocked full of idiots bent on self-destruction.


When we do things like this, regardless of party, we make the world an arguably worse place.
You mean, when we witness 3,000 of our fellow citizens murdered and have the temerity to want to prevent a subsequent attack and, instead of just engaging in full-blown torture -- such as in what our enemies engaged and continue to engage -- we develop a precise and defined regimen of enhanced interrogation techniques, get them approved by the administration, and present them to a joint committee for their consideration, and then use them to gain actionable intelligence that does exactly what they were employed to do? That makes us a worse place? Worse than who? Worse than where?

It's not like we're sawing off anyone's head or throwing them from buildings or feeding them feet first through a plastics shredder.


Unless, of course you don't believe in basic human rights?
I do. I believe in the basic human right to life. I believe in the basic human right of people to expect their governments to live up to their constitutional obligations to protect its citizens against atrocities such as took place on September 11, 2001.

[boutons_deux]

When it's a one-sided partisan rehashing of old news, what purpose does it serve? What proposals were forwarded in the Senate report?


I say it proves to the world we're a laughing stock chocked full of idiots bent on self-destruction.


You mean, when we witness 3,000 of our fellow citizens murdered and have the temerity to want to prevent a subsequent attack and, instead of just engaging in full-blown torture -- such as in what our enemies engaged and continue to engage -- we develop a precise and defined regimen of enhanced interrogation techniques, get them approved by the administration, and present them to a joint committee for their consideration, and then use them to gain actionable intelligence that does exactly what they were employed to do? That makes us a worse place? Worse than who? Worse than where?

It's not like we're sawing off anyone's head or throwing them from buildings or feeding them feet first through a plastics shredder.


I do. I believe in the basic human right to life. I believe in the basic human right of people to expect their governments to live up to their constitutional obligations to protect its citizens against atrocities such as took place on September 11, 2001.

10Ks of American suffer and/or die from air pollution EVERY YEAR, but your Repug buddies and their BigCorp owners do everything they can to maintain/increase air pollution.

Repugs and BigCorps are a MUCH GREATER (MORTAL) THREAT to USA than all your paranoid fears about external threats. and of course you give Repug govt a pass for allowing 9/11 to happen.

[boutons_deux]

The Torture Report’s Hidden Fiasco: How Mark Udall Revealed a Little-noticed Smoking Gun

However, despite the risk, Udall did reveal some very important classified information anyway. And for inexplicable reasons, nobody seems to have noticed. I’m talking about information contained in the classified ”Panetta Review,” which was the document the CIA was allegedly looking for when it infiltrated the computers of the Senate staffers doing the investigation.

Udall called it a smoking gun. Here’s what he said:

The Panetta Review found that the CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Congress, the president, and the public on the efficacy of its coercive techniques.

The Brennan Response, in contrast, continues to insist that the CIA’s interrogations produced unique intelligence that saved lives. Yet the Panetta Review identifies dozens of documents that include inaccurate information used to justify the use of torture – and indicates that the inaccuracies it identifies do not represent an exhaustive list.

The Panetta Review further describes how detainees provided intelligence prior to the use of torture against them. It describes how the CIA – contrary to its own representations – often tortured detainees before trying any other approach.

It describes how the CIA tortured detainees even when less coercive methods were yielding intelligence.

The Panetta Review further identifies cases in which the CIA used coercive techniques when it had no basis for determining whether a detainee had critical intelligence at all.

In other words, CIA personnel tortured detainees to confirm they didn’t have intelligence – not because they thought they did.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/torture-reports-hidden-fiasco-how-mark-udall-revealed-little-noticed-smoking-gun?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

[boutons_deux]

CIA Director Brennan: Whether harsh interrogation worked is 'unknowable'
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2014/1211/CIA-Director-Brennan-Whether-harsh-interrogation-worked-is-unknowable-video

that's a superb defense of CIA torture! :lol

[Yonivore]

CIA Director Brennan: Whether harsh interrogation worked is 'unknowable'
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2014/1211/CIA-Director-Brennan-Whether-harsh-interrogation-worked-is-unknowable-video

that's a superb defense of CIA torture! :lol



Meh, he's trying to keep his job in an administration hostile to his agency.

Here's an interesting read on the topic:

JOHN BRENNAN’S KNOWABLE “UNKNOWABLES” (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/12/john-brennans-knowable-unknowables.php)


Brennan is being philosophically modest. Sure, it’s possible that hardcore al Qaeda members who hadn’t talked before they were waterboarded (for example) talked afterwards for reasons other than the waterboarding. Maybe, for no particular reason, they suddenly saw the error of their terrorist ways and decided to dedicate themselves to helping keep America safe.

But any reasonable person would infer a causal relationship between the waterboarding and the disclosure of useful information by hardened terrorists who previously had refused to cooperate. If this isn’t “knowable,” it’s a damn good bet.

A separate issue is whether these terrorists would eventually have spilled their guts had other methods of interrogation been used. This “counter-factual” question is inherently more speculative. However, we can be confident that the less harsh techniques used by the CIA interrogators at the outset weren’t producing useful information. I doubt that the interrogators went straight to waterboarding.

Moreover, “Jason Beale,” a longtime CIA man has said (http://www.scribd.com/doc/246578813/An-Interrogator-Breaks-His-Silence):


I know that we couldn’t have collected the same information using standard techniques because I was an expert in using standard techniques — I used them thousands of times over two decades — and the notion that I could have convinced the detainees. . .to provide closely-held information (or any information at all) without the use of enhanced interrogation techniques is laughable. There is zero chance. Zero.

Feinstein’s committee didn’t talk to “Beale” or to anyone with the CIA.

[ChumpDumper]

The fact that so much information has and continues to be collected through non-torture means makes a mockery of the anonymous CYA torturers.

If it's so great, why did the Bush administration stop it themselves?

[Yonivore]

The fact that so much information has and continues to be collected through non-torture means makes a mockery of the anonymous CYA torturers.

If it's so great, why did the Bush administration stop it themselves?
I think they've already said why, the urgency of the days right after 9/11 had passed and they had developed more effective way to gather intelligence -- not many of which involved interrogation of detainees.

[RandomGuy]

Argument from expediency. The torture was justified because one bad guy was identified.

Apparently the ends justify the means. Whatever happened to morality on the right?

They ceded their moral authority long ago. Making excuses for torture is about as low as it gets, IMO, and simply gives me another bullet point to make the case about the overall immorality of modern conservatism as understood by so many of its professed adherents.

[RandomGuy]

raping children does not bring intel nor is it done in self defense like torture.


State an ethical case for why torture is wrong.

Ethics can be defined as using reason and empathy to determine harm.

Triggering an intense amount of pain, or fear in another human being is, by any measure harmful, as I can easily empathize that such feelings are unpleasant to the point of traumatic.

[ChumpDumper]

I think they've already said why, the urgency of the days right after 9/11 had passed and they had developed more effective way to gather intelligence -- not many of which involved interrogation of detainees.So the administration just lied all those times they warned of imminent attacks?

Way to throw them under the bus.

[RandomGuy]

Actually there's a pretty extensive timeline of the CIA agents and officials telling each other to spin the effectiveness of the torture at every opportunity, no matter what the actual effectiveness might have been.


Six months before the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison broke into public view, a small and fairly obscure private association of United States Marine Corps members posted on its Web site a document on how to get enemy POWs to talk.

The document described a situation very similar to the one the United States faces in the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan: a fanatical and implacable enemy, intense pressure to achieve quick results, a brutal war in which the old rules no longer seem to apply.

Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran, the report's author, noted that despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subjects. They were nice to them.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/06/truth-extraction/303973/


Part of why Sherwood Moran became such a legendary figure among military interrogators was his cool disregard for what he termed the standard "hard-boiled" military attitude. The brutality of the fighting in the Pacific and the suicidal fanaticism of the Japanese had created a general assumption that only the sternest measures would get Japanese prisoners to divulge anything. Moran countered that in his and others' experience, strong-arm tactics simply did not work. Stripping a prisoner of his dignity, treating him as a still-dangerous threat, forcing him to stand at attention and flanking him with guards throughout his interrogation—in other words, emphasizing that "we are his to-be-respected and august enemies and conquerors"—invariably backfired. It made the prisoner "so conscious of his present position and that he was a captured soldier vs. enemy intelligence" that it "played right into [the] hands" of those who were determined not to give away anything of military importance.

In his report (written in the form of a letter of advice to interpreters newly assigned to interrogation duty) Moran stressed that he would usually begin an interrogation by taking almost the opposite tack.


I often tell a prisoner right at the start what my attitude is! I consider a prisoner (i.e. a man who has been captured and disarmed and in a perfectly safe place) as out of the war, out of the picture, and thus, in a way, not an enemy … Notice that … I used the word "safe." That is the point: get the prisoner to a safe place, where even he knows … that it is all over. Then forget, as it were, the "enemy" stuff, and the "prisoner" stuff. I tell them to forget it, telling them I am talking as a human being to a human being.

I guess, I will cede the word "work". Torture works, in the same sense that freezing your hand solid with liquid nitrogen works to drive nails into wood. It just isn't the best solution, and is actively harmful.

How about torture is far less effective than not torturing.

[Yonivore]

So the administration just lied all those times they warned of imminent attacks?

Way to throw them under the bus.
http://westchestertownhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Straw-Man_500.gif

[Yonivore]

They ceded their moral authority long ago. Making excuses for torture is about as low as it gets, IMO, and simply gives me another bullet point to make the case about the overall immorality of modern conservatism as understood by so many of its professed adherents.
"They" have yet to concede it was torture. No court has made the legal determination it was torture. "They" went through a very deliberate process to make sure their techniques were not torture. No court has found otherwise.

[ChumpDumper]

The Bush administration stopped the methods as a matter of policy -- not because any conditions had changed.

Why change a policy to forbid what you were doing if you think it's all fine and dandy?

[ChumpDumper]

"They" have yet to concede it was torture. No court has made the legal determination it was torture. "They" went through a very deliberate process to make sure their techniques were not torture. No court has found otherwise.Nothing has been brought up in court.

[Yonivore]

Ethics can be defined as using reason and empathy to determine harm.

Triggering an intense amount of pain, or fear in another human being is, by any measure harmful, as I can easily empathize that such feelings are unpleasant to the point of traumatic.
Well, you should read the various domestic and international laws you believe apply here because they all have very specific definitions for torture. Your glib use of terms such as "intense" and "pain" and "fear" are all addressed and, as Bybee demonstrated, there are levels of acceptable pain and fear that is not outlawed but merely discouraged.

So, words have meanings and you should be precise when you try to argue -- beyond the emotional -- what was done constitutes torture.

[Yonivore]

Nothing has been brought up in court.
My point, thank you.

[ChumpDumper]

My point, thank you.So your confidence in Yoo and Bybee is unfounded.

All you have is echo chamber support.

[ChumpDumper]

So how many times did Yoo and Bybee perform the techniques on detainees?

[Yonivore]

So your confidence in Yoo and Bybee is unfounded.

All you have is echo chamber support.
Actually, it's founded in the knowledge it hasn't been successfully challenged and in the fact that I understand and agree with their arguments.

[Yonivore]

So how many times did Yoo and Bybee perform the techniques on detainees?

http://westchestertownhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Straw-Man_500.gif

[ChumpDumper]

So how many times did Yoo and Bybee perform the techniques on detainees?That is a question, not a straw man. It's a fair question.

I just want to know how much hands on experience they have to be experts on the effects of these methods. I would be much more inclined to believe what they have to say if they had any experience whatsoever with these methods and the harsher methods they ruled out.


Actually, it's founded in the knowledge it hasn't been successfully challenged and in the fact that I understand and agree with their arguments.Echo chamber.

[Yonivore]

That is a question, not a straw man. It's a fair question.
What's fair about it? It's like asking a defense attorney many crimes he's committed. It's not germane to the discussion.


I just want to know how much hands on experience they have to be experts on the effects of these methods. I would be much more inclined to believe what they have to say if they had any experience whatsoever with these methods and the harsher methods they ruled out.
It's obvious you haven't read the memos or you would at the very least understand they were interpreting the law and not discussing the effects of EITs.


Echo chamber.
Your question is still a...

http://westchestertownhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Straw-Man_500.gif

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

You know, like claiming my confidence in Bybee and Yoo should be predicated on their personal experience with Enhanced Interrogation Techniques instead of on what I actually do base my confidence, their experience in the law and their well-reasoned exposition on the law vis-à-vis, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques versus torture.

[ElNono]

Well, you should read the various domestic and international laws you believe apply here because they all have very specific definitions for torture. Your glib use of terms such as "intense" and "pain" and "fear" are all addressed and, as Bybee demonstrated, there are levels of acceptable pain and fear that is not outlawed but merely discouraged.

So, words have meanings and you should be precise when you try to argue -- beyond the emotional -- what was done constitutes torture.

:lol this is actually pretty funny, because in this very same thread (page 3 and so on), 3 years ago, you made the same argument without actually knowing any of the laws. I had to actually list them to you, and when pressed on what's your definition of torture that doesn't violate any of these laws and conventions the US is a signatory of, you never responded...

The red-herring of "successful prosecution" was also tackled then. The difference is that it was actually challenged since then, but the challenges suppressed through state secrets. But the fact that it was not brought to justice, for whatever reason, has no bearing on it being legal or not. Some people get away with doing illegal stuff all the time. The fact that they don't get prosecuted doesn't make it any less illegal.

[ChumpDumper]

What's fair about it? It's like asking a defense attorney many crimes he's committed. It's not germane to the discussion.Nice of you to use crime in your comparison.



It's obvious you haven't read the memos or you would at the very least understand they were interpreting the law and not discussing the effects of EITs.I have read them. The interpretation depends in no small part on the perceived effects of the methods.



Your question is still a...Nah, does get your goat though.

You know, like claiming my confidence in Bybee and Yoo should be predicated on their personal experience with Enhanced Interrogation Techniques instead of on what I actually do base my confidence, their experience in the law and their well-reasoned exposition on the law vis-à-vis, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques versus torture.I asked a simple question. You wrongly inferred my reasoning.

It's OK, you get preemptively defensive a lot.