Torture: Still doesn't work

[RandomGuy]

Interesting new book by a guy who spent his career as a professional interrogator.

1) Torture such as waterboarding just gets you what the person thinks you want to hear.

2) Torture, such as waterboarding, is ineffective.

The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda
----------------------------------------------------------
In the new book The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda, former FBI agent and interrogator Ali Soufan says that the government missed key opportunities to prevent terrorism attacks and find Osama bin Laden sooner because of mismanaged interrogations and dysfunctional relationships within the government's counterterrorism agencies.

On Tuesday's Fresh Air, Soufan describes some of the key al-Qaida interrogations he conducted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which provided valuable intelligence to U.S. officials. During one interrogation, Soufan and his partner got Abu Jandal, bin Laden's former bodyguard, to identify several of the Sept. 11 hijackers. He also interrogated a terrorist named Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in Pakistan after Sept. 11. Soufan got Zubaydah to give up valuable information — including the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, and that Jose Padilla was plotting to detonate a dirty bomb in the United States — by using techniques that hinged on building trust and rapport with Zubaydah, withholding information and determining exactly what the terrorist knew.

"We started with Abu Zubaydah with a very simple question — asking him his name — and he responded by giving a fake name," Soufan tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "After he gave that fake name, I said, 'What if I call you Honey?' — the name which his mother nicknamed him as a child. ... We needed to shake this individual and say, 'Look, we know a lot about you. Don't lie to us.' "

Halfway through Zubaydah's interrogations, which Soufan refers to as "mental poker games," the CIA decided to take over the sessions. They brought in a private contractor to use what they called enhanced interrogation techniques with the terrorist.

"He had a different approach that [those of] us on the ground with the counterterrorism team were a little nervous about," says Soufan. "We had never done something like this in the U.S. government. ... At the time, the idea was to stop this rapport thing, stop talking to him, and try to find ways to diminish his abilities to resist. That was nudity, sleep deprivation, loud music, etc."


Enlarge
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Ali Soufan testifies from behind a black curtain and a room divider to protect his identity in 2009, during a Senate hearing to examine the Bush administration's detention and interrogation program.


Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Ali Soufan testifies from behind a black curtain and a room divider to protect his identity in 2009, during a Senate hearing to examine the Bush administration's detention and interrogation program.
Soufan says that he objected to the enhanced techniques, which eventually included waterboarding Zubaydah 83 times.

"I think the frustration part was [thinking], 'OK, we have a guy cooperating [with our methods]. Why stop? If it's working, why break it?' " he says.

Soufan also tells Terry Gross that the information received from the enhanced techniques was later distorted by some in the intelligence community.

"When there was a pushback later about enhanced interrogation techniques, we were giving alleged facts that enhanced interrogation techniques [like waterboarding] produced a lot of actionable intelligence that saved lives," he says. "We were told that Abu Zubaydah, after being waterboarded, identified Jose Padilla as the alleged dirty bomber and that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind 9/11. The problem with this [was that] these allegations were totally false, because Abu Zubaydah gave this information well before these advanced interrogation techniques were applied."

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/13/140401483/an-interrogator-writes-the-inside-story-of-9-11

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Torture got a guy who wasn't even a member of Al Qaeda to admit he was the #3 in AQ, and that Saddam and AQ were working together, both of which were patently false, and which the guy thought we wanted to hear, just so the torture would stop.

[boutons_deux]

America The Torturer, dragged down and shit-stained forever by dubya, rummy, dickhead and the rest of their oil-thirsty, blood-thirsty, criminal mob. An even shittier mob of shitbags than Tricky Dick's gang. All Repugs, of course.

[mingus]

So do mental games always work and enchanted interrogation never work?

[Yonivore]

Osama bin Laden killed: CIA admits waterboarding yielded vital information (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491509/Osama-bin-Laden-killed-CIA-admits-waterboarding-yielded-vital-information.html)

Give it up. You can scare people into telling the truth.

[ElNono]

Osama bin Laden killed: CIA admits waterboarding yielded vital information (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491509/Osama-bin-Laden-killed-CIA-admits-waterboarding-yielded-vital-information.html)

Give it up. You can scare people into telling the truth.

:lol What do you want the torturer to say Yoni? That waterboarding was a failure 99% of the time?

[Yonivore]

:lol What do you want the torturer to say Yoni? That waterboarding was a failure 99% of the time?
In the context of what was being achieved and who was being waterboarded (not tortured), a 1% return on that investment would have been acceptable. But, since only 4 people were actually subjected to the enhanced interrogation technique, 25% is the worst we could have done.

[RandomGuy]

Osama bin Laden killed: CIA admits waterboarding yielded vital information (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491509/Osama-bin-Laden-killed-CIA-admits-waterboarding-yielded-vital-information.html)

Give it up. You can scare people into telling the truth.


waterboarding yielded some of the intelligence information

You have a small point.

It works.

But it is far less effective than not torturing people, and using conventional techniques, and much more likely to get you bad information.

That is aside from the fact that it is morally repugnant.

Why are you advocating immoral, inefficient, questioning?

[RandomGuy]

In the context of what was being achieved and who was being waterboarded (not tortured), a 1% return on that investment would have been acceptable. But, since only 4 people were actually subjected to the enhanced interrogation technique, 25% is the worst we could have done.

One of the guys was subjected to waterboarding 189 times. .25/189= 0.1%

When will we decide that it doesn't work well, 101st time or...?

These people expect to be tortured, and generally are pretty resistant to it.

The guy who wrote the book in the OP was extensively trained, educated, and got much better results not using such things.

[ElNono]

One of the guys was subjected to waterboarding 189 times. .25/189= 0.1%

When will we decide that it doesn't work well, 101st time or...?


this

[ElNono]

In the context of what was being achieved and who was being waterboarded (not tortured), a 1% return on that investment would have been acceptable. But, since only 4 people were actually subjected to the enhanced interrogation technique, 25% is the worst we could have done.

waterboarding = torture, I don't care how you want to paint it.

And the consequences of doing it go well beyond whatever actionable intelligence you can gather.

[RandomGuy]

[waterboarding isn't torture]

uh-huh. Keep telling yourself that.

Some enterprising Fox journalist acted on that assumption and concluded otherwise, if memory serves.

I will buy that as soon as you subject yourself to the technique 189 times.

Until then, you coward,

shut.
the.
fuck.
up.

[RandomGuy]

waterboarding = torture, I don't care how you want to paint it.

And the consequences of doing it go well beyond whatever actionable intelligence you can gather.

Not only does it not work, it makes us into the evil country that AQ says we are.

AQ ideology is an idea, like communism, fascism, libertarianism, or western liberalism.

The main component of that idea is that the US is evil.

Fighting the idea that you are evil by being evil is straight up fucktarded.

[Yonivore]

waterboarding = torture, I don't care how you want to paint it.
I know you don't care but, the law does.

There are a myriad of practices that have been lumped into the term "waterboarding" and then, we've all been beaten over the head with a media-created narrative that the enhanced interrogation technique used by our intelligence forces constitutes torture when, in fact, it does not.

For instances, the Japanese used a form of torture, also called "waterboarding" that bears little resemblance to the enhanced interrogation technique tagged with the name "waterboarding." Their form of "waterboarding," many time resulted in the death of the person being tortured because, they would actually force the ingestion of water, bloat the victim's stomach, and strike them in their bloated stomach, often rupturing the organ and causing mortal injury.

The enhanced interrogation technique used by our intelligence forces is the identical practice used on those same intelligence forces and certain other of our military when being trained to resist, or when they are being shown how to apply, the technique.


And the consequences of doing it go well beyond whatever actionable intelligence you can gather.
I disagree and, apparently, so does the current administration. They're probably kicking themselves for categorically ruling out the availability of this interrogation technique in the future...particularly when they discovered exactly what intelligence it produced.

I'm sure it was part of that Day 1 orientation, I've described before, where Obama learned, upon assuming office, exactly how effective our anti-terrorism policies had been to that point. To his credit, he's continued the vast majority of those policies.

On this one, he took it off the table before he ever took the opportunity to understand its true effectiveness.

[ChumpDumper]

I know you don't care but, the law does.

There are a myriad of practices that have been lumped into the term "waterboarding" and then, we've all been beaten over the head with a media-created narrative that the enhanced interrogation technique used by our intelligence forces constitutes torture when, in fact, it does not.

For instances, the Japanese used a form of torture, also called "waterboarding" that bears little resemblance to the enhanced interrogation technique tagged with the name "waterboarding." Their form of "waterboarding," many time resulted in the death of the person being tortured because, they would actually force the ingestion of water, bloat the victim's stomach, and strike them in their bloated stomach, often rupturing the organ and causing mortal injury.

The enhanced interrogation technique used by our intelligence forces is the identical practice used on those same intelligence forces and certain other of our military when being trained to resist, or when they are being shown how to apply, the technique.US armed personnel have waterboarded others in the past, and it was found to be torture.


I disagree and, apparently, so does the current administration. They're probably kicking themselves for categorically ruling out the availability of this interrogation technique in the future...particularly when they discovered exactly what intelligence it produced.

I'm sure it was part of that Day 1 orientation, I've described before, where Obama learned, upon assuming office, exactly how effective our anti-terrorism policies had been to that point. To his credit, he's continued the vast majority of those policies.

On this one, he took it off the table before he ever took the opportunity to understand its true effectiveness.The Bush administration took waterboarding off the table.

lol true effectiveness

[Yonivore]

Not only does it not work, it makes us into the evil country that AQ says we are.

AQ ideology is an idea, like communism, fascism, libertarianism, or western liberalism.

The main component of that idea is that the US is evil.

Fighting the idea that you are evil by being evil is straight up fucktarded.
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.

[ChumpDumper]

The problem I have is people like your and others' not realizing that the "fun" waterboarding you refer to had already been deemed torture by the US long before its use after 2001.

[mingus]

Not only does it not work, it makes us into the evil country that AQ says we are.

AQ ideology is an idea, like communism, fascism, libertarianism, or western liberalism.

The main component of that idea is that the US is evil.

Fighting the idea that you are evil by being evil is straight up fucktarded.

they think gays are evil. they think the existance of Israel is evil. they think our open, permissive, and fair (esp. in regards to women) culture is evil. i would like to know how much waterboarding figures into the equation of how much were are viewed as evil to them.

[ChumpDumper]

they think gays are evil. they think the existance of Israel is evil. they think our open, permissive, and fair (esp. in regards to women) culture is evil. i would like to know how much waterboarding figures into the equation of how much were are viewed as evil to them.Do they really need more ammunition, especially something about which they would be right?

[mingus]

i'm going to ask this question again:

Do mental games always work and enchanced interrogation never work?

[ChumpDumper]

i'm going to ask this question again:

Do mental games always work and enchanced interrogation never work?Ask the people who actually interrogate. Oh look, there's one in the OP.

If the guy who actually did the waterboarding writes a book, I'll read it. If it's as much fun as yoni makes it out to be, why would he keep it a big secret?

[RandomGuy]

[Obama] took it off the table before he ever took the opportunity to understand its true effectiveness.

So you are going with:

http://api.ning.com/files/Iy2qdXhw77xygtNsHAmpqc8fP6sJHQXAj-vKnNDMYtu6i-cbdZRlKgQqYkVnDq-TYa8q7wKT4whizR-q6wDPyleUpaTnbF4J/emperor_palpatine.jpg

Don't underestimate the power of the dark side?


That's what you are going with? The same argument used by a movie villian?


:lmao

[Yonivore]

i'm going to ask this question again:

Do mental games always work and enchanced interrogation never work?
No.

And, I would add to that; when non-enhanced interrogation practices are employed -- and, they don't work -- you've wasted precious time. When enhanced interrogation practices are employed -- and, they do work -- you have actionable intelligence that may actually avoid the loss of life.

Also, it should be pointed out, enhanced interrogation techniques were employed on only 4 persons and, only after non-enhanced interrogation techniques failed to produce results in an environment where the interrogators believed it was imperative to elicit information on an imminent event.

[Creepn]

Why don't we use that little truth serum that makes people blurt out the truth?

[mingus]

Do they really need more ammunition, especially something about which they would be right?

reasonable torture isn't wrong if it leads to a good thing. if two guys came into my house and took my sister and i was able to catch up ton of them and the othe rone got away, i'd waterboard the shit out of him to get information on where the other guy is taking her.

[Yonivore]

Why don't we use that little truth serum that makes people blurt out the truth?
There is more risk to introducing the various pharmaceuticals (the most famous of which is sodium thiopental) into the body of a person than there is in engaging in the enhanced interrogation technique called "waterboarding."

Interaction with other chemicals already present in the body, overdose, and anaphylaxis chief among them.

Oh, and the administration of any form of drug - legal or not - considered to be a "truth serum" has been deemed to be torture.

[RandomGuy]

They're probably kicking themselves for categorically ruling out the availability of this interrogation technique in the future...particularly when they discovered exactly what intelligence it produced.

Or maybe they actually asked somebody who does interrogations for a living, like say the guy who wrote the book in the OP to tell them how effective or ineffective it is.

Waterboarding is, in fact, torture. I noticed you didn't volunteer to be subjected to it.

Do you have any quotes from professional interrogators saying that torture is effective?

[boutons_deux]

What's the US position/policy on US military and its murderous mercenaries being waterboarded?

It's OK for others to do unto us as we do unto them, right?

[ChumpDumper]

No.

And, I would add to that; when non-enhanced interrogation practices are employed -- and, they don't work -- you've wasted precious time. When enhanced interrogation practices are employed -- and, they do work -- you have actionable intelligence that may actually avoid the loss of life.

Also, it should be pointed out, enhanced interrogation techniques were employed on only 4 persons and, only after non-enhanced interrogation techniques failed to produce results in an environment where the interrogators believed it was imperative to elicit information on an imminent event.You have the full series of 24 on DVD, don't you?

[ChumpDumper]

reasonable torture isn't wrong if it leads to a good thing. if two guys came into my house and took my sister and i was able to catch up ton of them and the othe rone got away, i'd waterboard the shit out of him to get information on where the other guy is taking her.I bet you would, tough guy.

No one better mess with you.

[RandomGuy]

No.

And, I would add to that; when non-enhanced interrogation practices are employed -- and, they don't work -- you've wasted precious time. When enhanced interrogation practices are employed -- and, they do work -- you have actionable intelligence that may actually avoid the loss of life.

Also, it should be pointed out, enhanced interrogation techniques were employed on only 4 persons and, only after non-enhanced interrogation techniques failed to produce results in an environment where the interrogators believed it was imperative to elicit information on an imminent event.

More fail.

The guy who wrote the book in the OP had a pretty clear example of just how wrong that is.

Without using any torture, he was getting a good deal of information over the course of his interrogation.

Some guy showed up after waterboarding was given the green light, and the subject who was revealing all sorts of information suddenly clammed up after being waterboarded.

Valuable time was directly lost, with no information flow at all for well over a week.

You watch too many movies, and basing your perceptions of reality on some hollywood movie may be fine for you, but I kind of prefer reality.

[Yonivore]

More fail.

The guy who wrote the book in the OP had a pretty clear example of just how wrong that is.

Without using any torture, he was getting a good deal of information over the course of his interrogation.

Some guy showed up after waterboarding was given the green light, and the subject who was revealing all sorts of information suddenly clammed up after being waterboarded.

Valuable time was directly lost, with no information flow at all for well over a week.

You watch too many movies, and basing your perceptions of reality on some hollywood movie may be fine for you, but I kind of prefer reality.
That's all anecdotal and we can just agree to disagree. My opinion isn't based on Hollywood or a book written by someone with limited knowledge of the facts.

The current administration -- populated with people who did (or still do) believe as you do -- admitted through it's Central Intelligence Agency that, in fact, enhanced interrogation techniques resulted in actionable intelligence.

I was fine with the practice before that but, I would think it would at least give you and others, so situated, pause. But, if not, I'm okay with that too.

I only hope that should the need arise again, this President, or future presidents, will employ whatever methods are required to protect our interests.

[ChumpDumper]

That's all anecdotal and we can just agree to disagree. My opinion isn't based on Hollywood or a book written by someone with limited knowledge of the facts.

The current administration -- populated with people who did (or still do) believe as you do -- admitted through it's Central Intelligence Agency that, in fact, enhanced interrogation techniques resulted in actionable intelligence.And the CIA has never lied to protect itself after fucking up.

Right.


I was fine with the practice before that but, I would think it would at least give you and others, so situated, pause. But, if not, I'm okay with that too.

I only hope that should the need arise again, this President, or future presidents, will employ whatever methods are required to protect our interests.If it's so fucking great, why did Bush stop it?

Why don't police use it?

Why don't parents use it on their kids?

[boutons_deux]

Yoni believing the CIA tells the truth! :lol :lol :lol

but Yoni claiming non-CIA info is "anecdotola" hearsay :lol :lol :lol

The CIA never tells the truth and shuts up/intimidates anybody who does.

The CIA/NSA/FBI are sovereign entities, their own universes, out of reach of government oversight.

[RandomGuy]

That's all anecdotal and we can just agree to disagree. My opinion isn't based on Hollywood or a book written by someone with limited knowledge of the facts.

The current administration -- populated with people who did (or still do) believe as you do -- admitted through it's Central Intelligence Agency that, in fact, enhanced interrogation techniques resulted in actionable intelligence.

I was fine with the practice before that but, I would think it would at least give you and others, so situated, pause. But, if not, I'm okay with that too.

I only hope that should the need arise again, this President, or future presidents, will employ whatever methods are required to protect our interests.

I don't doubt it results in actionable intelligence, and no one is arguing that.

What I do doubt is that it is somehow more effective than other methods.

As for it being anecdotal, then provide a counter.

Give me a quote from ANY interrogator or intelligence professional with direct experience that says it works better than other methods.

[RandomGuy]

I also doubt its morality, efficacy be damned.

This whole argument is simply yet another example to me of conservatives making the emotionally appealing argument and ignoring logic and ethics.

Sure it is emotionally appealing to torture psychopaths, but at what cost?

[RandomGuy]

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.

The problem I have is people like you don't even know the nature of the war we are fighting and how it actually harms our cause.

The problem with the "BFD" is that when you actually do *real* evil things, then the falsehoods about how evil we are seem just that much more plausible to the people who really matter, i.e. those who are sitting on the fence and uninvolved.

Whether or not we torture people has a huge effect even to those who hate us.

One of the more interesting episodes in the book is the sheer shock of the guy being interviewed/interrogated that he was not initially tortured.

He expected it at every turn, and when it didn't appear, he just wasn't quite prepared for it, and that was exploited with some good success by the interrogator.

Imagine the shock of being told X all your life and then finding out that it was false, and that people telling you X were cynically manipulating you.

There are more than one AQ turncoats who have done exactly that, and they make *very* effective advocates.

I think the only way one can argue for this is to be completely blind to the underlying nature of the conflict..

[Yonivore]

I don't doubt it results in actionable intelligence, and no one is arguing that.

What I do doubt is that it is somehow more effective than other methods.

As for it being anecdotal, then provide a counter.

Give me a quote from ANY interrogator or intelligence professional with direct experience that says it works better than other methods.
Ex-CIA agent says 'waterboarding' worked (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/12/11/Ex-CIA-agent-says-waterboarding-worked/UPI-25711197388602/)
His personal conversion to believing it is torture, albeit effective, notwithstanding; there's your quote.

However, I don't think it's a cut and dried as you'd like to believe. Remedies to all sorts of challenges are situational. What may work better in one circumstance with a particular individual may not work as effectively as another technique in other circumstances with another individual.

That we only used this technique on four individuals when there were thousands interrogated between the beginning of hostilities and the time these enhanced techniques were abandoned, tells me there was considerable thought given to the situation and individual upon which they would be used.

Was that the right decision in every case? Apparently not. But, I'm comfortable with that. Especially knowing this was not a dangerous life-threatening technique and that our own soldiers had been subjected to it.

We can continue to disagree but, I doubt I'll be persuaded otherwise.

[Yonivore]

The problem I have is people like you don't even know the nature of the war we are fighting and how it actually harms our cause.

The problem with the "BFD" is that when you actually do *real* evil things, then the falsehoods about how evil we are seem just that much more plausible to the people who really matter, i.e. those who are sitting on the fence and uninvolved.

Whether or not we torture people has a huge effect even to those who hate us.

One of the more interesting episodes in the book is the sheer shock of the guy being interviewed/interrogated that he was not initially tortured.

He expected it at every turn, and when it didn't appear, he just wasn't quite prepared for it, and that was exploited with some good success by the interrogator.

Imagine the shock of being told X all your life and then finding out that it was false, and that people telling you X were cynically manipulating you.

There are more than one AQ turncoats who have done exactly that, and they make *very* effective advocates.

I think the only way one can argue for this is to be completely blind to the underlying nature of the conflict..
We simply disagree on this being a "real 'evil' thing."

[Blake]

If it's so fucking great, why did Bush stop it?

Why don't police use it?

Why don't parents use it on their kids?

God uses it.

good enough for me, tbh.

[mingus]

we simply disagree on this being a "real 'evil' thing."

+1

[Blake]

We simply disagree on this being a "real 'evil' thing."

have you ever been waterboarded?

[Yonivore]

have you ever been waterboarded?
Depends on what you mean by waterboarded. There are many different activities that have been, over the years, variously defined as waterboarding. So, it's possible.

To what specific definition of waterboarding do you refer? Please detail the technique from start to finish.

[cantthinkofanything]

Insert anal sex joke here.

[LnGrrrR]

i'm going to ask this question again:

Do mental games always work and enchanced interrogation never work?

Why not just ask if the US justice system "always works" while you're at it?

[LnGrrrR]

Also, it should be pointed out, enhanced interrogation techniques were employed on only 4 persons and, only after non-enhanced interrogation techniques failed to produce results in an environment where the interrogators believed it was imperative to elicit information on an imminent event.

I can understand this argument. That doesn't mean it's right to legalize it though. Keep it illegal, and if the situation was so dire, then trust the jury to overturn/nullify the case due to the extreme circumstances presented.

[LnGrrrR]

reasonable torture isn't wrong if it leads to a good thing. if two guys came into my house and took my sister and i was able to catch up ton of them and the othe rone got away, i'd waterboard the shit out of him to get information on where the other guy is taking her.

And if they killed your sister, you'd probably kill them right?

So that means that we should write it into law that if someone kills a family member of yours, you should be legally allowed to kill them.

Makes sense to me.

[LnGrrrR]

Depends on what you mean by waterboarded. There are many different activities that have been, over the years, variously defined as waterboarding. So, it's possible.

To what specific definition of waterboarding do you refer? Please detail the technique from start to finish.

Probably the one that induces a fear/sense of imminent death.

[Yonivore]

Not only because I have a great deal of affection for President Bush but also, because the writer makes a salient point I mentioned earlier.

Dubya and Me (http://theamericanscholar.org/dubya-and-me/)


In the remaining years of his presidency, I visited Bush several more times, always in the Oval Office. He was candid, but nothing like that first night. His only remark about Barack Obama was, as I recall it, “No matter who wins, when he hears what I hear every morning, it will change him.”
I recommend the entire essay, of course. It's a great read.

[Yonivore]

I can understand this argument. That doesn't mean it's right to legalize it though. Keep it illegal, and if the situation was so dire, then trust the jury to overturn/nullify the case due to the extreme circumstances presented.
Now, you're getting off into a whole other can of worms. None of this belongs in the U.S. Criminal Courts.

Also, the enhanced interrogation techniques used weren't legalized; they weren't illegal to begin with. The Justice Department was asked by the White House to study the issue and determine if the techniques -- as narrowly defined to the Justice Department by the White House -- were illegal. The Justice Department responded they were not.

No court with any jurisdiction in the matter has ever found otherwise.

[Yonivore]

Probably the one that induces a fear/sense of imminent death.
People who run red lights produce fear and a sense of imminent death in those who narrowly escape a collision with them. Should the errant driver be brought up on torture charges?

You're being intentionally obtuse about the subject. There are a whole lot of elements to determining whether or not a action constitutes torture.

This Bush administration, with the advice of counsel, asserts their enhanced interrogation techniques did not constitute torture.

That assertion has only been challenged in the court of public opinion; nowhere else.

[boutons_deux]

"The Justice Department responded they were not."

dubya's justice department was corrupt, compromised political whorehouse, giving any legal opinion the WH wanted. Gonzalez, Wu, the US AGs told to go after (non-existent) voter fraud, the US AG who was fired for imprisoning corrupt Repug Duke Cunningham, etc, etc.

shit stain after shit stain after shit stain from the dubya era Exec.

[boutons_deux]

"The Justice Department responded they were not."

dubya's justice department was corrupt, compromised political whorehouse, giving any legal opinion the WH wanted. Gonzalez, Wu, the US AGs told to go after (non-existent) voter fraud, the US AG who was fired for imprisoning corrupt Repug Duke Cunningham, etc, etc.

shit stain after shit stain after shit stain from the dubya era Exec.

[boutons_deux]

"The Justice Department responded they were not."

:lol :lol :lol :lol

Yoni referencing the dubya DoJ as some kind of legal reference! :lol :lol :lol

ashcroft (who didn't want anybody to see aluminum tits on Lady Justice), house-lawyer-as-AG gonzalez, corrupt wu, corrupt US AGs ordered to go after non-existent voter fraud (fired if when they didn't), the US AG fired because she imprisoned corrupt Repug Duke Cunningham. :lol :lol :lol

shit stain after shit stain after shit stain after shit stain from the dubya/dickhead Exec.

[mingus]

And if they killed your sister, you'd probably kill them right?

So that means that we should write it into law that if someone kills a family member of yours, you should be legally allowed to kill them.

Makes sense to me.

Can't say what I'd do in that situation being how irrational I'd be if I saw them kill my sister. But assumming all my senses were in order no I wouldn't, you're wrong. I don't believe in capital punishment it achieves nothing.

[cantthinkofanything]

Can't say what I'd do in that situation being how irrational I'd be if I saw them kill my sister. But assumming all my senses were in order no I wouldn't, you're wrong. I don't believe in capital punishment it achieves nothing.

What if in order to find your sister, you had to kill one of them?
And what if there was a 50/50 chance she was already dead?

[mingus]

How the fuck does killing someone relate to waterboarding? Theres no relation to the question you ask and waterboarding.

[Blake]

Depends on what you mean by waterboarded. There are many different activities that have been, over the years, variously defined as waterboarding. So, it's possible.

To what specific definition of waterboarding do you refer? Please detail the technique from start to finish.

The kind of waterboarding that would be used to extract information.

Have you really ever been waterboarded by someone trying to get information out of you?

[cantthinkofanything]

The kind of waterboarding that would be used to extract information.

Have you really ever been waterboarded by someone trying to get information out of you?

he was hypothetically waterboarded by two guys trying to find out why he killed his sister. keep up.

[Yonivore]

The kind of waterboarding that would be used to extract information.
That's an overly broad definition. The enhanced interrogation technique -- labeled waterboarding -- has a specific definition. It was specifically designed to stop short of being able to be legally defined -- in any body of law having jurisdiction -- as torture. Because there are people unable to differentiate the various types of waterboarding, employed over the centuries, and choose to characterize this specific variety as torture does not change the fact it isn't.


Have you really ever been waterboarded by someone trying to get information out of you?
Nope.

[ElNono]

That's an overly broad definition. The enhanced interrogation technique -- labeled waterboarding -- has a specific definition.

Please present the exact definition. Also please describe what did the torturers did to ensure they were not violating said definition. Furthermore, since you seem to be so acquainted with the legality of this procedure, explain how such definition avoid the various international human rights treaties the US is a signatory of.

[Blake]

Nope.

Thanks.

[Yonivore]

Please present the exact definition. Also please describe what did the torturers did to ensure they were not violating said definition. Furthermore, since you seem to be so acquainted with the legality of this procedure, explain how such definition avoid the various international human rights treaties the US is a signatory of.
Definition from the CIA memo instituting the practice:


In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth... During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths... The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout... You have... informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application.
The administration then made its case, in several memoranda, the technique did not constitute torture.

Yes, I know Yoo and Bybee have been demonized over their opinions. When asked to revise the standards in 2004, Acting Asst AG Daniel Levin noted (http://www.justice.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm)(about the Yoo memorandum):


While we have identified various disagreements with the August 2002 Memorandum, we have reviewed this Office's prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum.
I believe the administration did due diligence in ensuring the techniques were within the law. The worst consequence -- other than the vilification of President Bush and his administration over the issue led to four years of an Obama administration -- is that Yoo was found to have used poor judgement in his analysis.

I think it's time the critics quit screaming torture and cite specific law, treaty, or convention that has been violated and then explain why there have been no prosecutions.

So, go ahead.

[ElNono]

Definition from the CIA memo instituting the practice:

The administration then made its case, in several memoranda, the technique did not constitute torture.

That's the request from the CIA to the OLC. Bybee then signed off the controversial memo.

Quoting from Wiki:
Bybee signed that legal memorandum which defined "enhanced interrogation techniques" in ways that are regarded as torture by the Obama Justice Department,[11] Amnesty International,[12] Human Rights Watch,[13] some medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[14][15] some intelligence officials,[16] and American allies.[17] This memo has been the source of controversy and calls for his impeachment. Bybee is currently the subject of a war crimes investigation in Spain,.[18]

Apparently, there's broad consensus it is indeed torture as described on the request.


Yes, I know Yoo and Bybee have been demonized over their opinions. When asked to revise the standards in 2004, Acting Asst AG Daniel Levin noted (http://www.justice.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm)(about the Yoo memorandum):

I believe the administration did due diligence in ensuring the techniques were within the law. The worst consequence -- other than the vilification of President Bush and his administration over the issue led to four years of an Obama administration -- is that Yoo was found to have used poor judgement in his analysis.

I think it's time the critics quit screaming torture and cite specific law, treaty, or convention that has been violated and then explain why there have been no prosecutions.

So, go ahead.

Poor judgement and even incompetence isn't an excuse to violate the law. As a matter of fact, they couldn't even claim ignorance seeing they're both well versed in the laws. Furthermore, they did a complete disservice to any moral high ground this country had by virtually declaring that the US will turn around and take a shit on any treaties it signed and promised to uphold. The same treaties the US uses to make claims when they're on the other side of the fence.

Not only that, since you ask specific citations of law, there are specific laws that address torture (18 U.S.C. § 2340A) and criminalizes severe breaches to the Geneva convention (18 U.S.C. § 2441), both in armed and non-armed conflicts.

Even if you go to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, torture amounts to cruelty, assault and maltreatment, all penalized under that code (Article 93)

Not only people that take part of the act are liable, but also those that order it.

[ChumpDumper]

lol yoni claims to have been waterboarded

[ElNono]

lol yoni making claims about the legality and then not knowing a single law that applies to it

[Jacob1983]

No one has posted a clip of Shepard Smith dropping an f-bomb on fox news saying "we don't fuckin torture"?



I dare you to tell this guy that torture still doesn't work.

http://willlink.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/jack-bauer.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

How could I tell him?

[Jacob1983]

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0912/buzzkill-death-morbid-reality-sucks-buzzkill-cyanide-and-hap-demotivational-poster-1262057513.jpg

[Yonivore]

That's the request from the CIA to the OLC. Bybee then signed off the controversial memo.

Quoting from Wiki:
Bybee signed that legal memorandum which defined "enhanced interrogation techniques" in ways that are regarded as torture by the Obama Justice Department,[11] Amnesty International,[12] Human Rights Watch,[13] some medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[14][15] some intelligence officials,[16] and American allies.[17] This memo has been the source of controversy and calls for his impeachment. Bybee is currently the subject of a war crimes investigation in Spain,.[18]

Apparently, there's broad consensus it is indeed torture as described on the request.
Hmmm... Not a single court in that list.


Poor judgement and even incompetence isn't an excuse to violate the law. As a matter of fact, they couldn't even claim ignorance seeing they're both well versed in the laws. Furthermore, they did a complete disservice to any moral high ground this country had by virtually declaring that the US will turn around and take a shit on any treaties it signed and promised to uphold. The same treaties the US uses to make claims when they're on the other side of the fence.

Not only that, since you ask specific citations of law, there are specific laws that address torture (18 U.S.C. § 2340A) and criminalizes severe breaches to the Geneva convention (18 U.S.C. § 2441), both in armed and non-armed conflicts.

Even if you go to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, torture amounts to cruelty, assault and maltreatment, all penalized under that code (Article 93)

Not only people that take part of the act are liable, but also those that order it.
And, yet, you don't list one court that has found the enhanced technique, called waterboarding, is either torture or a severe breach to the Geneva convention.

You have a bunch of people claiming it is -- generally, these are people opposed to President Bush -- but, you don't have any courts that have adjudicated the issue and have said what the U.S. did, during the interrogation of those four terrorists, is either torture, a severe breach to the Geneva convention, or any other violation of any laws having jurisdiction on the matter.

[ElNono]

Hmmm... Not a single court in that list.

You won't see a court until and if they're brought to justice. Doesn't change the fact that waterbording = torture. I'll take the word of the Attn General of the US over your any day of the week.


And, yet, you don't list one court that has found the enhanced technique, called waterboarding, is either torture or a severe breach to the Geneva convention.

You don't need a court to find a specific action as torture for that action to be torture. If you think you do, please explain why you do, and how does the actions in that memo are not considered assault, cruelty or maltreatment.

That type of torture dates back to the Spanish inquisition (toca), and there isn't anything really novel about it. It was considered torture back then, and there's nothing different to it now.


You have a bunch of people claiming it is -- generally, these are people opposed to President Bush -- but, you don't have any courts that have adjudicated the issue and have said what the U.S. did, during the interrogation of those four terrorists, is either torture, a severe breach to the Geneva convention, or any other violation of any laws having jurisdiction on the matter.

Because the persons were not brought to justice. That doesn't mean that what they did was not what they did. You could kill somebody tomorrow and get away with it. It's still murder.

[ChumpDumper]

Describe your waterboarding experience, yoni.

In full.

[LnGrrrR]

Can't say what I'd do in that situation being how irrational I'd be if I saw them kill my sister. But assumming all my senses were in order no I wouldn't, you're wrong. I don't believe in capital punishment it achieves nothing.

Capital punishment achieves something, it stops people from committing a crime again, doesn't it?

Of course, I'm sure you could rationally waterboard someone. :p

And not surprisingly, you sidestepped the entire point of my post.

[LnGrrrR]

People who run red lights produce fear and a sense of imminent death in those who narrowly escape a collision with them. Should the errant driver be brought up on torture charges?

I would've assumed you understood I meant people who are explicitly trying to induce a sense of imminent death.


You're being intentionally obtuse about the subject. There are a whole lot of elements to determining whether or not a action constitutes torture.

Intentionally obtuse? From the person who tries to associate torture with a drunk driver?

Read up on what soldiers can and can't do, and whiter threatening someone with death is or isn't allowed. I don't think CIA folks should be allowed that ability.


This Bush administration, with the advice of counsel, asserts their enhanced interrogation techniques did not constitute torture.

And yet, it was considered torture throughout all of history before we used it. Funny that. I guess it's ok since as have professionals doing it, and people don't die as often when we torture them.

That assertion has only been challenged in the court of public opinion; nowhere else.[/QUOTE]

[Yonivore]

I would've assumed you understood I meant people who are explicitly trying to induce a sense of imminent death.
I don't see the difference for the afflicted.


Intentionally obtuse? From the person who tries to associate torture with a drunk driver?

Read up on what soldiers can and can't do, and whiter threatening someone with death is or isn't allowed. I don't think CIA folks should be allowed that ability.
Obviously, there's disagreement with your position.


And yet, it was considered torture throughout all of history before we used it. Funny that. I guess it's ok since as have professionals doing it, and people don't die as often when we torture them.
Again, you're lumping the enhanced interrogation technique, called waterboarding, with other practices -- some of which, I agree, were torture -- also called waterboarding, throughout history.

If you won't admit there are fundamental differences in the various applications and definitions of this practice, what's the point of arguing? Calling something "waterboarding" doesn't make it torture simply because some other practice, back in time, was also called "waterboarding."

[ElNono]

If you won't admit there are fundamental differences in the various applications and definitions of this practice, what's the point of arguing?

You never explained what those differences were. You only posted a memo.

[ChumpDumper]

Explain how you were waterboarded, yoni.

[Yonivore]

You never explained what those differences were. You only posted a memo.
Well, I did, in fact draw a distinction between the Japanese practice that often resulted in death and the practice, defined by the CIA, both called waterboarding.

I also said the Japanese practice would constitute torture. That doesn't mean everything called waterboarding constitutes torture. I then asserted the Bush administration did due diligence in supporting their case it did not.

All their detractors have done is 1) lump the enhanced interrogation technique in with all same-named practices and declared it torture, and 2) vilified anyone who made a reasonable case that it wasn't.

None of the detractors have challenged it in court and actually had the judiciary apply the law to the practice to determine if Yoo was wrong or not.

[Blake]

Explain how you were waterboarded, yoni.

[ElNono]

Well, I did, in fact draw a distinction between the Japanese practice that often resulted in death and the practice, defined by the CIA, both called waterboarding.

Are you saying that what the japanese did was not torture, death or not?

Oh, wait, you said you thought it was torture.

Maybe if we get your definition of torture then we'll understand why you don't think waterboarding is torture. What's your definition, yoni? Does it at least meet the Geneva convention standards on torture?

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni still doesn't know that the military deems the fun waterboarding illegal.

[ElNono]

Yoni still doesn't know that the military deems the fun waterboarding illegal.

[Yonivore]

Are you saying that what the japanese did was not torture, death or not?

Oh, wait, you said you thought it was torture.

Maybe if we get your definition of torture then we'll understand why you don't think waterboarding is torture. What's your definition, yoni? Does it at least meet the Geneva convention standards on torture?
Well, once again, I'm not a lawyer so, I've relied on the only legal products of this question. The 2002 memorandum that studied the issue and determined it would not be torture as defined in any body of law having jurisdiction over the application of this technique by the U.S. against detainees. And, the 2004 revision of that conclusion that said the same thing.

I would also point to the fact there is no subsequent court ruling on the specific question of whether or not the technique, as applied by the Bush administration, violated any laws.

A reasonable people could conclude that, although there are a bunch of pissed off people that didn't like the fact we were waterboarding terrorists and tried their best to have it prosecuted as a crime, no one was confident enough in that proposition to actually try the case in a court.

[Blake]

Describe your waterboarding experience, yoni.

[ElNono]

Well, once again, I'm not a lawyer so, I've relied on the only legal products of this question. The 2002 memorandum that studied the issue and determined it would not be torture as defined in any body of law having jurisdiction over the application of this technique by the U.S. against detainees. And, the 2004 revision of that conclusion that said the same thing.

I would also point to the fact there is no subsequent court ruling on the specific question of whether or not the technique, as applied by the Bush administration, violated any laws.

A reasonable people could conclude that, although there are a bunch of pissed off people that didn't like the fact we were waterboarding terrorists and tried their best to have it prosecuted as a crime, no one was confident enough in that proposition to actually try the case in a court.

:lol That is your definition of torture?

Reasonable people know that Bybee, Yoo and the Alberto Gonzalez's DOJ did a disservice to the US's credibility and moral standing in the world. And what they did is illegal under a number of laws, both military and civil.

I would find it reasonable that you supported it back then because you didn't know better. But at this point, it's simply unreasonable to keep on that position.

[Yonivore]

:lol That is your definition of torture?

Reasonable people know that Bybee, Yoo and the Alberto Gonzalez's DOJ did a disservice to the US's credibility and moral standing in the world. And what they did is illegal under a number of laws, both military and civil.
And reasonable people disagree with that characterization.


I would find it reasonable that you supported it back then because you didn't know better. But at this point, it's simply unreasonable to keep on that position.
Why? The Duelfer report stated there were precursors and the ability to ramp up production very quickly.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The quantities of WMD's we are talking about would have been as easy to hide in Iraq as it was for whoever killed Jimmy Hoffa to dispose of his body.

I think it's reasonable to still believe Iraq had WMD's back in 2003. I don't think it's reasonable to assert they still exist there. Big difference.

[ElNono]

And reasonable people disagree with that characterization.

Not that I know of. People like who?

Certainly not you.


Why? The Duelfer report stated there were precursors and the ability to ramp up production very quickly.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The quantities of WMD's we are talking about would have been as easy to hide in Iraq as it was for whoever killed Jimmy Hoffa to dispose of his body.

I think it's reasonable to still believe Iraq had WMD's back in 2003. I don't think it's reasonable to assert they still exist there. Big difference.

Wrong thread.

Where's your definition of torture?

[LnGrrrR]

I don't see the difference for the afflicted.

Obviously, there's a difference. Do we have the same punishment for those who commit murder and those who commit manslaughter, even if the result is the same?

Let's stop with the stupidity.


Obviously, there's disagreement with your position.

Noted.



Again, you're lumping the enhanced interrogation technique, called waterboarding, with other practices -- some of which, I agree, were torture -- also called waterboarding, throughout history.

Feel free to describe the great difference between the two then.

[LnGrrrR]

If your point is that the Japanese happened to kill a few people when they waterboarded, that's a pretty poor argument. The US happened to kill a few detainees during interrogations too, ya know. Does that mean we tortured those people?

[ChumpDumper]

The only one lumping here is yoni in a lame attempt to dodge describing his own waterboarding experience.

Everyone knows which waterboarding we are talking about so he needs to shut the fuck up about the remix versions and talk about the time he got waterboarded.

[Yonivore]

If your point is that the Japanese happened to kill a few people when they waterboarded, that's a pretty poor argument.
No, my point is the Japanese technique was indifferent to the effect it had on the interrogated's health.

The U.S. version was designed to not inflict any injury. It was so safe, the exact same technique was used on soldiers and intelligence officers as training.


The US happened to kill a few detainees during interrogations too, ya know. Does that mean we tortured those people?
I'm not sure I know which cases you're talking about. I do know there were detainees, already injured during combat, that were being treated while detained (I don't know if they were interrogated) and died of their combat injuries.

If a detainee died as a result of injuries inflicted during interrogation, that's not necessarily torture but, I would argue it is murder.

But, no one has claimed a detainee died while being waterboarded.

[ChumpDumper]

"It's not torture if you don't kill him!"

[ChumpDumper]

"Holding a gun to a person's head isn't torture because it doesn't inflict any injury!

I do it to my kids all the time!"

[LnGrrrR]

No, my point is the Japanese technique was indifferent to the effect it had on the interrogated's health.

The U.S. version was designed to not inflict any PHYSICAL injury. It was so safe, the exact same technique was used on soldiers and intelligence officers as training.

So it's not torture as long as the possibility of death is minimal. Is that your contention?

Edit: Does this mean that other means of getting information, such as extreme isolation, disorientation through heat/cold/sleeplessness, etc etc aren't torture either?

[ChumpDumper]

You can anally rape a detainee if you use a lot of lube!

Not torture!

[Yonivore]

So it's not torture as long as the possibility of death is minimal. Is that your contention?
Nope. We were differentiating between the Japanese version and the U.S. Version.


Edit: Does this mean that other means of getting information, such as extreme isolation, disorientation through heat/cold/sleeplessness, etc etc aren't torture either?
I don't know if they are or not; I've never looked at the issue.

[ChumpDumper]

nope. We were differentiating between the japanese version and the u.s. Version.No one cares about this.

You are the only one talking about it.

We have always been talking about the waterboarding the US did.

Nothing else.

Quit stalling.

[LnGrrrR]

Nope. We were differentiating between the Japanese version and the U.S. Version.

So what is the dividing line between "torture" and "not torture"? Is it a clear thing for you, or do you have to go by feel?

[Yonivore]

So what is the dividing line between "torture" and "not torture"? Is it a clear thing for you, or do you have to go by feel?
That's not my measure.

I've already stated, I believe the enhanced interrogation technique -- known as waterboarding -- did not constitute torture because the administration made a case that it didn't and, other than a bunch of caterwauling by Bush haters, that opinion has not been adjudicated in any court to be wrong.

All you have is a bunch of people saying it's torture because they don't like President Bush.

[LnGrrrR]

That's not my measure.

I've already stated, I believe the enhanced interrogation technique -- known as waterboarding -- did not constitute torture because the administration made a case that it didn't and, other than a bunch of caterwauling by Bush haters, that opinion has not been adjudicated in any court to be wrong.

So you don't have any opinion on torture yourself? You just think it's not torture because the Bush administration said it wasn't?

[Yonivore]

So you don't have any opinion on torture yourself? You just think it's not torture because the Bush administration said it wasn't?
Oh, I have an opinion but, my position here is based on whether or not the Bush administration successfully determined waterboarding wasn't and used the technique with successful results. They did.

No court has found otherwise.

Whether or not I believe the technique constituted torture (which I don't believe it did -- but, based less on my personal knowledge than the legal record and the assertions of those who I believe are more intelligent than any of us, in here, on the matter) is irrelevant.

I believe the administration did due diligence to satisfy themselves the technique did not violate any laws.

I believe in directing the Justice Department to undertake a painstaking review of the technique to determine if it violated any laws was more than any other administration had done, to that point, in trying to make sure they were acting within the law.

I believe the 2004 revision of Yoo's memorandum was an effort to clear the record on the matter and, in finding Yoo's conclusions would not have been affected by the current information, it did so.

I believe the use off the enhanced interrogation technique, described as waterboarding, was justified in the circumstances in which it was used.

I believe the practice produced actionable intelligence that prevented the loss of American lives.

I believe the administrations actions are vindicated by both the absence of actual court challenges to the practice and the fact the current administration's CIA director asserted the practice produced results.

That's what I believe and I don't think any of that is unreasonable.

[ChumpDumper]

There's actually legal precedent saying it's torture.

[mingus]

Capital punishment achieves something, it stops people from committing a crime again, doesn't it?

Of course, I'm sure you could rationally waterboard someone. :p

And not surprisingly, you sidestepped the entire point of my post.

again, you're wrong and you're putting words into my mouth. capital punishment achieves nothing.

and tbh i don't know what the point of your post was. it wasn't clear to me.

[Wild Cobra]

again, you're wrong and you're putting words into my mouth. capital punishment achieves nothing.

What do you mean it does nothing.

If we actually carried the sentence out in a timely fashion, and actually executed lowlife animals that cannot integrate in society, we would save several million each year.

[LnGrrrR]

again, you're wrong and you're putting words into my mouth. capital punishment achieves nothing.

It surely accomplishes something. It kills a person, thereby preventing them from committing a crime in the future.


and tbh i don't know what the point of your post was. it wasn't clear to me.

Whether or not YOU would waterboard someone has no bearing on whether or not that should be allowed. I would've thought it rather obvious.

[Yonivore]

Whether or not YOU would waterboard someone has no bearing on whether or not that should be allowed. I would've thought it rather obvious.
And, whether or not YOU would waterboard someone has no bearing on whether or not that should be allowed. I would've thought it rather obvious, as well.

Wow, see how that works?

[ChumpDumper]

You said you were waterboarded, yoni.

Describe it.

[LnGrrrR]

And, whether or not YOU would waterboard someone has no bearing on whether or not that should be allowed. I would've thought it rather obvious, as well.

Wow, see how that works?

And if I had used that as the sole basis of my argument, you might have a point. Thankfully, there's also testimony from former interrogators, legal precedent, expert opinion, etc etc on my side of the issue.

[Yonivore]

And if I had used that as the sole basis of my argument, you might have a point. Thankfully, there's also testimony from former interrogators, legal precedent, expert opinion, etc etc on my side of the issue.
There's no legal precedent that says the enhanced interrogation technique, known as waterboarding, used on detainees is either illegal or that it constitutes torture.

[ChumpDumper]

There's no legal precedent that says the enhanced interrogation technique, known as waterboarding, used on detainees is either illegal or that it constitutes torture.So, you didn't read this the first time I posted this two years ago when you didn't have me on ignore.
Here's what an actual lawyer who bothered to look things up says about the past waterboarding cases.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

By Evan Wallach
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B01

As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."

That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:

Q: Was it painful?

A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Q: Like you were drowning?

A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.

Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.
ad_icon

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.

Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law

of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.htmlYou must have blocked this out of your mind. Even gtown ran away from that thread after moving the goalposts for you.

[Blake]

You said you were waterboarded, yoni.

Describe it.

[ChumpDumper]

Meh, he can't even remember a discussion in which he actively participated.

[RandomGuy]

Give me a quote from ANY interrogator or intelligence professional with direct experience that says it works better than other methods.


Ex-CIA agent says 'waterboarding' worked (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/12/11/Ex-CIA-agent-says-waterboarding-worked/UPI-25711197388602/)
His personal conversion to believing it is torture, albeit effective, notwithstanding; there's your quote.

However, I don't think it's a cut and dried as you'd like to believe. Remedies to all sorts of challenges are situational. What may work better in one circumstance with a particular individual may not work as effectively as another technique in other circumstances with another individual.

That we only used this technique on four individuals when there were thousands interrogated between the beginning of hostilities and the time these enhanced techniques were abandoned, tells me there was considerable thought given to the situation and individual upon which they would be used.

Was that the right decision in every case? Apparently not. But, I'm comfortable with that. Especially knowing this was not a dangerous life-threatening technique and that our own soldiers had been subjected to it.

We can continue to disagree but, I doubt I'll be persuaded otherwise.

I emphasized those two words on purpose.

Nothing in the linked article say that professional thought it was more effective than conventional interrogation. There is also nothing in the link that says that the information provided wouldn't have been provided without the torture.

I have already more than acceded it can work.

That is not the question.

I am asserting that,

1) overall, torture, including waterboarding is less effective, and
2) more to the point, unnecessary and counter productive to our overall strategic interests.

The OP speaks to the 1), and more than one career diplomat and military professional will tell you 2). If you want, I will provide some quotes to that effect.

If you can't prove it is more effective than alternatives, spending time trying to legally justify an immoral act seems pointless to me.

Give me a quote from ANY interrogator or intelligence professional with direct experience that says it works better than other methods.

[Yonivore]

I emphasized those two words on purpose.

Nothing in the linked article say that professional thought it was more effective than conventional interrogation. There is also nothing in the link that says that the information provided wouldn't have been provided without the torture.

I have already more than acceded it can work.

That is not the question.

I am asserting that,

1) overall, torture, including waterboarding is less effective, and
2) more to the point, unnecessary and counter productive to our overall strategic interests.

The OP speaks to the 1), and more than one career diplomat and military professional will tell you 2). If you want, I will provide some quotes to that effect.

If you can't prove it is more effective than alternatives, spending time trying to legally justify an immoral act seems pointless to me.

Give me a quote from ANY interrogator or intelligence professional with direct experience that says it works better than other methods.
See you're cheating, like you accused others of doing to Manny in the other thread.

Fact is, I said (somewhere in this thread) the use of any technique was dependent on the situation and that enhanced interrogation might be good in one case but not in another. You ignored all that.

So, let me answer your question as directly as I can; In the case that resulted in actionable intelligence, I'd say it was better than other techniques...whether or not I have a quote stating such.

Because, as was also discussed; enhanced interrogation techniques weren't used until other methods failed so, if they waterboarded some terrorist turd who wasn't giving up actionable intelligence and then he was giving up actionable intelligence, that's better.

By the way, leave morality out. There are some that would argue war, itself, is immoral and where would that leave us?

[ChumpDumper]

You're a liar, yoni.

Lying is immoral.

[DMX7]

LMAO "enhanced interrogation"

Call it what it is, Yoni.

[ChumpDumper]

LMAO "enhanced interrogation"

Call it what it is, Yoni.Yoni says anal rape is not torture if he uses his small dick.

[Yonivore]

LMAO "enhanced interrogation"

Call it what it is, Yoni.
Waterboarding. But, it wasn't the only enhanced interrogation technique; that's why I used the broader term.

[ChumpDumper]

Waterboarding. But, it wasn't the only enhanced interrogation technique; that's why I used the broader term.The broader term is torture.

[DMX7]

The broader term is torture.

This.


Yoni says anal rape is not torture if he uses his small dick.

If it's Yoni's dick, then it probably isn't even rape. A rare instance in which I would agree with Yoni.

[Yonivore]

This.
No court has ever determined the enhanced interrogation technique, waterboarding, as defined an used by the Bush administration, to be torture. None.

The question has never been tried.

On the other side, however, the Bush administration went to great pains to make sure all their enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, were within the various bodies of law having jurisdiction.

After the 2002 Yoo memorandum came under intense criticism from those opposed to Bush's policies, it was reviewed and revised in 2004, with the same conclusion; the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, were legal.

Now, before you start citing criminal cases and other bloviations about how waterboarding is illegal and torture; be sure to carefully compare those descriptions with the one provided by the Bush administration and then, make sure the victims of those techniques are identically situated as the detainees on which waterboarding was practiced.

That's never been done.

[DMX7]

So it's fair game to waterboard U.S. troops is what you're saying, huh Yoni?

[Yonivore]

So it's fair game to waterboard U.S. troops is what you're saying, huh Yoni?
Not what I'm saying at all. I would only wish that -- the version practiced by the Bush administration -- were the worst to which our soldiers are subjected.

And, incidentally, our U.S. Troops and intelligence officer are routinely subjected to waterboarding in training.

[Ignignokt]

I bet you would, tough guy.

No one better mess with you.

Would you give up information if you were being tortured? I mean, torture can't be that bad if it aint gonna make you give up information?

[ChumpDumper]

No court has ever determined the enhanced interrogation technique, waterboarding, as defined an used by the Bush administration, to be torture. None.

The question has never been tried.Yes is has.

I posted an article describing the legal history.

Twice.

You didn't read it.

You are ignorant.


On the other side, however, the Bush administration went to great pains to make sure all their enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, were within the various bodies of law having jurisdiction.No, they didn't.

If they had they would have read the federal appeals court decision that use the word "torture" over a dozen times to describe what you are trying to characterize as harmless and fun waterboarding.


After the 2002 Yoo memorandum came under intense criticism from those opposed to Bush's policies, it was reviewed and revised in 2004, with the same conclusion; the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, were legal.Let me get this straight, the Bush administration reviewed a decision made by the Bush administration and ended up vindicating the Bush administration?

Wow.


Now, before you start citing criminal cases and other bloviations about how waterboarding is illegal and torture; be sure to carefully compare those descriptions with the one provided by the Bush administration and then, make sure the victims of those techniques are identically situated as the detainees on which waterboarding was practiced.

That's never been done.Except is has, you ignorant piece of shit.

[Ignignokt]

So it's fair game to waterboard U.S. troops is what you're saying, huh Yoni?

Hahahahaha, let's hope Alqueda just waterboards their captives instead of what they usually do.

[ChumpDumper]

Would you give up information if you were being tortured? I mean, torture can't be that bad if it aint gonna make you give up information?Never been tortured.

Have you?

Yoni says he has been waterboarded.

[Ignignokt]

Yes is has.

I posted an article describing the legal history.

Twice.

You didn't read it.

You are ignorant.

No, they didn't.

If they had they would have read the federal appeals court decision that use the word "torture" over a dozen times to describe what you are trying to characterize as harmless and fun waterboarding.Let me get this straight, the Bush administration reviewed a decision made by the Bush administration and ended up vindicating the Bush administration?

Wow.

Except is has, you ignorant piece of shit.


Would you give up info if you were tortured?

[ChumpDumper]

Would you give up info if you were tortured?Never been tortured.

Have you?

yoni says he has been waterboarded.

[Ignignokt]

Never been tortured.

Have you?

Yoni says he has been waterboarded.


Then how can you know whether it's ethical or not?

[ChumpDumper]

Then how can you know whether it's ethical or not?How do you know murder is unethical if you've never been murdered?

[Yonivore]

So it's fair game to waterboard U.S. troops is what you're saying, huh Yoni?
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.

[ChumpDumper]

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.Yeah, a court has. Period.

[Ignignokt]

Yeah, a court has. Period.

yeah courts change their positions all the time.

Why is torture in order to save lives bad?

[ChumpDumper]

yeah courts change their positions all the time.They haven't on this.


Why is torture in order to save lives bad?Why is raping children in order to save lives bad?

[DMX7]

How do you know murder is unethical if you've never been murdered?

:lol

[DMX7]

Socratic method FTW...

[Agloco]

Would you give up info if you were tortured?


Never been tortured.


Then how can you know whether it's ethical or not?


How do you know murder is unethical if you've never been murdered?

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/funny-celebrity-pictures-i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

[Yonivore]

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/funny-celebrity-pictures-i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg
:tu

[LnGrrrR]

Why is X in order to save lives bad?

Spoken by countless dictators/fascists across history.

[Ignignokt]

They haven't on this.

Why is raping children in order to save lives bad?

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


State an ethical case for why torture is wrong.

[Ignignokt]

Spoken by countless dictators/fascists across history.

Really? Unless the jews posed an existential threat and they were holding intel that would kill millions of germans.. how can you equivocate.

[Ignignokt]

How do you know murder is unethical if you've never been murdered?
I'm not the one running away from explaining why torture is evil by evading with such question.

Murder in the meaning of taking a life senselessly or for profit other than self defense or retalliation of innocent life is unethical because you deny a life to someone you that you also claim.

I illustrated a moral defense of why murder is unethical.

Why can't you do the same for torture?

[Ignignokt]

:lol

at best he deflected. At worse he's alluded that murder is wrong because it "feels" wrong.

I don't see anything that socrates would be proud of.

If he anything, he's using a pathos argument for which the sophist who were socrates opponents at the time were known for.

[DMX7]

I'm not the one running away from explaining why torture is evil by evading with such question.

Murder in the meaning of taking a life senselessly or for profit other than self defense or retalliation of innocent life is unethical because you deny a life to someone you that you also claim.

I illustrated a moral defense of why murder is unethical.

Why can't you do the same for torture?

Why is torture evil? Are you kidding? It's evil because it's torture - it's purpose is to inflict pain and distress whether or not it produces intel. More importantly, it's inflicted on people who may not even have intel to share, or worse, on people who aren't guilty or in any way associated with terrorism.

Wikileaks papers reveal plenty of innocent people at Gitmo too, so it's not just a "what if" scenario.

[Ignignokt]

Why is torture evil? Are you kidding? It's evil because it's torture

This argument lacks substance. At best it's tautological-circular argument. Please provide a valid reason why torture is unethical.

Incarceration is also inhumane, we could have convicted sex offenders that were innocent who will lose their whole life and get raped. So by the logic of the rest of your argument, we shouldn't incarcerate or rehabillitate criminals.

Chemotherapy is torture too.

Is pain a proper measure of ethics?

[LnGrrrR]

State an ethical case for why torture is wrong.

I believe we should try to treat all prisoners with dignity whenever possible. I also think that torture eradicates the ability to see another person as a person, instead of just an object. As well, there is always a chance that the person being tortured is either innocent or doesn't have information. In those instances, we are committing great pains upon a person without knowledge of whether or not they have done what we accuse them of.

[ChumpDumper]

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

Why couldn't it bring intel?

Prove that it can't.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not the one running away from explaining why torture is evil by evading with such question.

Murder in the meaning of taking a life senselessly or for profit other than self defense or retalliation of innocent life is unethical because you deny a life to someone you that you also claim.

I illustrated a moral defense of why murder is unethical.

Why can't you do the same for torture?Have you ever been murdered?

Yes or no.

[LnGrrrR]

Incarceration is also inhumane, we could have convicted sex offenders that were innocent who will lose their whole life and get raped. So by the logic of the rest of your argument, we shouldn't incarcerate or rehabillitate criminals.

If we incarcerated people who haven't been on trial, I would definitely consider that inhumane.

As well, some forms of incarceration are inhumane by themselves. I think 24 hr isolation is inhumane, and should only be undertaken when a prisoner shows a history of attacking/threatening other inmates. In these cases, the liberty of the other inmates to be safe outweighs the inhumanity of isolation. (And yes, I understand that you feel the liberty of us to be free > torturing suspected terrorists.)


Chemotherapy is torture too.

Torture that is volunteered for doesn't really fit the definition of torture as we're using it here.


Is pain a proper measure of ethics?

You'd have to define that question a bit more. For instance, I would say it would be inhumane to pee on a prisoner, even though that doesn't cause any physical pain.

[Ignignokt]

I believe we should try to treat all prisoners with dignity whenever possible. I also think that torture eradicates the ability to see another person as a person, instead of just an object. As well, there is always a chance that the person being tortured is either innocent or doesn't have information. In those instances, we are committing great pains upon a person without knowledge of whether or not they have done what we accuse them of.

We're not talking about torturing for the sake of torturing.

We're talking about preventing loss of innocent lives. When you value the life of a murderer over the lives of an innocent, you have a poor heirarchy of values that is anti life.

In this case, you have a courier for a top high level terrorist, you need to extract info, why is it wrong to use torture if all options have been exhausted..?

[DMX7]

This argument lacks substance. At best it's tautological-circular argument. Please provide a valid reason why torture is unethical.

You kind of ignored the rest of my point as to why it's unethical.


More importantly, it's inflicted on people who may not even have intel to share, or worse, on people who aren't guilty or in any way associated with terrorism.

Wikileaks papers reveal plenty of innocent people at Gitmo too, so it's not just a "what if" scenario.

[ChumpDumper]

We're not talking about torturing for the sake of torturing.

We're talking about preventing loss of innocent lives. When you value the life of a murderer over the lives of an innocent, you have a poor heirarchy of values that is anti life.

In this case, you have a courier for a top high level terrorist, you need to extract info, why is it wrong to use torture if all options have been exhausted..?Why is it wrong to rape his children in front of him to get the info?

[LnGrrrR]

We're talking about preventing loss of innocent lives. When you value the life of a murderer over the lives of an innocent, you have a poor heirarchy of values that is anti life.

Actually, we're talking about the POSSIBLE loss of innocent lives. That makes a big difference.

As DMX stated above, they have released people from GTMO, have they not? Do you think that the government is 100% infallible when it comes to who they detain?

If not, then you are willing to accept some amount of torture performed on those who are innocent.


In this case, you have a courier for a top high level terrorist, you need to extract info, why is it wrong to use torture if all options have been exhausted..?

If that's the case, why is it wrong to chop off their fingers one by one?

Heck, if we're going to use utilitarian arguments, why not just abduct his family, and chop off his daughter's fingers one by one until he tells us the info? After all, we're talking about thousands of lives compared to just one little girl.

[Ignignokt]

If we incarcerated people who haven't been on trial, I would definitely consider that inhumane.

As well, some forms of incarceration are inhumane by themselves. I think 24 hr isolation is inhumane, and should only be undertaken when a prisoner shows a history of attacking/threatening other inmates. In these cases, the liberty of the other inmates to be safe outweighs the inhumanity of isolation. (And yes, I understand that you feel the liberty of us to be free > torturing suspected terrorists.

Shooting somebody who is about to knife you would also inflict pain.

Hear we are talking about self defense. Killing another human being also would qualify as not respecting their right to life (humanity) if you put it the way. But your right to life should supercede your killer's. The people he's attacking haven't chosen to defend themselves or fight him, he's going to murder them senselessly, in this case he's denied his right as a human being. A swat sniper sees that a man is holding a gun to a hostage, he has the moral right to take him out in order to save the innocent life without due process.

[Ignignokt]

Actually, we're talking about the POSSIBLE loss of innocent lives. That makes a big difference.

As DMX stated above, they have released people from GTMO, have they not? Do you think that the government is 100% infallible when it comes to who they detain?

If not, then you are willing to accept some amount of torture performed on those who are innocent.



If that's the case, why is it wrong to chop off their fingers one by one?

Heck, if we're going to use utilitarian arguments, why not just abduct his family, and chop off his daughter's fingers one by one until he tells us the info? After all, we're talking about thousands of lives compared to just one little girl.

Regulations and laws are not infallible either, you're not arguing for their abolition either.

[Ignignokt]

Utilitarian argument this is not, this has to deal with the right to self defense. Do you have the right to your life, or is your right to life limited to the rights of your killer?

[Ignignokt]

Actually, we're talking about the POSSIBLE loss of innocent lives. That makes a big difference.

As DMX stated above, they have released people from GTMO, have they not? Do you think that the government is 100% infallible when it comes to who they detain?

If not, then you are willing to accept some amount of torture performed on those who are innocent.



If that's the case, why is it wrong to chop off their fingers one by one?

Heck, if we're going to use utilitarian arguments, why not just abduct his family, and chop off his daughter's fingers one by one until he tells us the info? After all, we're talking about thousands of lives compared to just one little girl.


Also, being in gitmo doesn't mean you're being waterboarded. That's a detainee issue, that doesn't address torture.

[ChumpDumper]

Utilitarian argument this is not, this has to deal with the right to self defense. Do you have the right to your life, or is your right to life limited to the rights of your killer?How do you know this person is a killer?

Is it in the screenplay you wrote?

[Ignignokt]

Why is it wrong to rape his children in front of him to get the info?

You'd be torturing innocents. We're not talking about raping kids, we're talking about torturing only high ranking officials who are committed to killing us.

[DMX7]

Utilitarian argument this is not, this has to deal with the right to self defense. Do you have the right to your life, or is your right to life limited to the rights of your killer?

What if your "killer" was never going to kill you and you killed him because someone else said he was, or worse, someone else was paid to say he was? Seems like this essentially happened when Afghan rebels were getting paid per "terrorist" turned over to the U.S. - I can't imagine they would just accuse anyone of being a terrorist for money. Poor desperate people would never turn over innocent peoplejust for money, would they?

[ChumpDumper]

You'd be torturing innocents. We're not talking about raping kids, we're talking about torturing only high ranking officials who are committed to killing us.How do you know the child is innocent?

And if it saves a lot of lives, what would that matter?

And how do you determine a suspected terrorist's official rank in your 24 fanfiction?

[Ignignokt]

How do you know this person is a killer?

Is it in the screenplay you wrote?

That would depend on the intel.

[Agloco]

Chemotherapy is torture too.

"Torture" entered into of ones own volition. How exactly does that relate to waterboarding?

Did you just equate medical treatment with interrogation techniques? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

That would depend on the intel.Did you take the uncorroborated word of a cab driver?

[DMX7]

You'd be torturing innocents. We're not talking about raping kids, we're talking about torturing only high ranking officials who are committed to killing us.

Only high ranking officials? So you're qualifying your statements? I thought you were pro torturing the lowly couriers too.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if a terrorist is holding a hostage at gunpoint, you have my permission to waterboard him to get him to release the hostage.

[LnGrrrR]

Also, being in gitmo doesn't mean you're being waterboarded. That's a detainee issue, that doesn't address torture.

Fair enough.


Hear we are talking about self defense. Killing another human being also would qualify as not respecting their right to life (humanity) if you put it the way. But your right to life should supercede your killer's.

I agree here. The problem I see is that you feel that anyone who should/is waterboarded is certainly guilty. You also assume that they have the information, and that the information is actionable. How are these things known?

In other words, how do you know if they're not telling you something, or if they really just don't know?

[Ignignokt]

How do you know the child is innocent?

And if it saves a lot of lives, what would that matter?

And how do you determine a suspected terrorist's official rank in your 24 fanfiction?


He's innocent because he's not a fully formed individual and is judged differently than an adult who has developed, and why would a terrorist organization trust a child to keep high ranking secrets?

I'm not arguing about targeting innocent people for torture.

[Ignignokt]

Fair enough.



I agree here. The problem I see is that you feel that anyone who should/is waterboarded is certainly guilty. You also assume that they have the information, and that the information is actionable. How are these things known?

In other words, how do you know if they're not telling you something, or if they really just don't know?

I'm not assuming all scenarios. I'm just saying, if you could prevent lives through extracting intel by torture, why is it wrong?

[DMX7]

Well, if a terrorist is holding a hostage at gunpoint, you have my permission to waterboard him to get him to release the hostage.

You have my permission to kill him.

[ChumpDumper]

He's innocent because he's not a fully formed individual and is judged differently than an adult who has developed, and why would a terrorist organization trust a child to keep high ranking secrets?Why would he not?

Children are tried as adults all the time. You're saying that is unethical.


I'm not arguing about targeting innocent people for torture.If it works and saves many lives, why not?

[Ignignokt]

Well, if a terrorist is holding a hostage at gunpoint, you have my permission to waterboard him to get him to release the hostage.

I'll leave that up to you. I wouldn't need intel in that situation.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll leave that up to you. I wouldn't need intel in that situation.You're the one who brought the situation up for no reason.

[Ignignokt]

Why would he not?

Children are tried as adults all the time.

That doesn't mean it's moral.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm not assuming all scenarios. I'm just saying, if you could prevent lives through extracting intel by torture, why is it wrong?

Because you might torture the innocent?

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't mean it's moral.According to whom?

[DMX7]

Because you might torture the innocent?

You're late to the party.

Ignignokt is busy defending why absolutely anything - including raping children - is moral/ethical if it could possibly save lives.

[ElNono]

Ahh... the good old 24 ticking time bomb scenario...

[Ignignokt]

Because you might torture the innocent?

How would a high ranking alqueda member be innocent?

[Ignignokt]

You're late to the party.

Ignignokt is busy defending why absolutely anything - including raping children - is moral/ethical if it could possibly save lives.

You're a dumbass, i never defended raping children. LOL UTSA

[Ignignokt]

According to whom?

According to human nature. Children are not capable of making rational decisions, he's not a fully formed individual where he can assess things. Ultimately reality is the final arbiter, that even the courts should be subject to.

Children have yet to conceptualize risks and they are not honored in a contract in a civil society because they are incapable of taking care of themselves without proper guidance.

[DMX7]

How would a high ranking alqueda member be innocent?

You also mentioned the lowly couriers. Don't forget about them.



You're a dumbass, i never defended raping children.

Yeah, you did. In fact, you still are. Anything is ethical/moral if it saves lives, right?

[Ignignokt]

The real question for anyone is, should you sacrifice the lives of innocent people you're bound to protect for the murderer?

What kind of morality would sacrifice whole numbers of innocents for the sake of a savage?

[ChumpDumper]

We've sacrifice many thousands of innocent people to get "savages."

You're saying any collateral damage is unethical.

[Ignignokt]

Yeah, you did. In fact, you still are. Anything is ethical/moral if it saves lives, right?

When we talk about the individual, in reality morality does not exist at the point of a gun. No one can tell anyone what they must do in order to escape death. The point of morality is to live life, not to be bound by a mystic duty to anyone else.

As far in a scenario where you're put in charge over the protection of a society, your job is to extract information.


Raping children is excessive and immoral when torture of the individual's own mind and body is enough to extract information.

It's funny that you have to set up an unrealistic scenario to evade the earlier question.

[ChumpDumper]

When we talk about the individual, in reality morality does not exist at the point of a gun. No one can tell anyone what they must do in order to escape death. The point of morality is to live life, not to be bound by a mystic duty to anyone else.

As far in a scenario where you're put in charge over the protection of a society, your job is to extract information.


Raping children is excessive and immoral when torture of the individual's own mind and body is enough to extract information.

It's funny that you have to set up an unrealistic scenario to evade the earlier question.You think your scenario is realistic?

Where has it happened outside of fiction?

What if the torture isn't enough?

[Ignignokt]

We've sacrifice many thousands of innocent people to get "savages."

You're saying any collateral damage is unethical.

Morality can only be based on the present universe, not some holy context that is unproven.

War when waged against an existential threat is going to bring collateral damage. To win a war you must win end it as soon as possible to protect your own citizens, and you should go in mind that your existance is what is at stakes.

Sending one's neighbour to sacrifice his life altruistically for others is immoral. Our troops should only be tasked to first, protect their own life, protect our life with only those goals in mind.

To put the lives of the enemy above our own troops is immoral, and evil. That's why the only good thing to do in this situation is to try to not get into that situation.

[ChumpDumper]

Morality can only be based on the present universe, not some holy context that is unproven.

War when waged against an existential threat is going to bring collateral damage. To win a war you must win end it as soon as possible to protect your own citizens, and you should go in mind that your existance is what is at stakes.

Sending one's neighbour to sacrifice his life altruistically for others is immoral. Our troops should only be tasked to first, protect their own life, protect our life with only those goals in mind.

To put the lives of the enemy above our own troops is immoral, and evil. That's why the only good thing to do in this situation is to try to not get into that situation.So killing innocent people is OK.

lol thinking every war is for one's existence

[Ignignokt]

You think your scenario is realistic?

Where has it happened outside of fiction?

What if the torture isn't enough?

You're the one presenting scenarios where raping innocent children is necessary for the survival of a country, don't tell me what fiction i'm writing.

Give me an example of your disguised attempt at evasion masked as an equally silly pathetic attempt of a situation.

[Ignignokt]

So killing innocent people is OK.

lol thinking every war is for one's existence

Prove where i said every war is an existential threat...

[Ignignokt]

In order for you to escape the question..

Why is torturing a terrorist in order to save lives unethical?

You had to present a contrived situation where one has to rape children to save individuals.


You're a clown.

Awnser my first question, or else i'm threw with arguing with your idiotic self.

[ChumpDumper]

You're the one presenting scenarios where raping innocent children is necessary for the survival of a country, don't tell me what fiction i'm writing.I'm telling you you're writing fiction.

What are you going to do about it?


Give me an example of your disguised attempt at evasion masked as an equally silly pathetic attempt of a situation.Sure, you've got a terra-ist on the Skype. You have his adult daughter in custody who has said you suck a couple of times. You want some intel from him fast. Use the scenario from your screenplay. Why not rape or torture or kill her to get him to talk?

[ChumpDumper]

In order for you to escape the question..

Why is torturing a terrorist in order to save lives unethical?

You had to present a contrived situation where one has to rape children to save individuals.


You're a clown.

Awnser my first question, or else i'm threw with arguing with your idiotic self.lol threw

You must be drunk.

You haven't even told us your screenplay scenario.

[ChumpDumper]

don't tell me what fiction i'm writing.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_S1bdNBvOURk/RpOEZzPGdfI/AAAAAAAAEJc/blbgN-wxp1I/s320/scarn.jpg

[ElNono]

The real question for anyone is, should you sacrifice the lives of innocent people you're bound to protect for the murderer?

How do you know he's the murderer?

How do you know he has vital information?

What if he repeatedly gives you bullshit info?

What if there's no immediate treat, should you torture anyways?

Should any civilian be unlawfully detained and tortured on the presumption that they might have information that could allegedly save lives?

Who makes the determination on what is or isn't allegedly credible information that warrants torturing a civilian?

Should a civilian tortured by mistake have no recourse in a court of law?

So on and so forth...

[ElNono]

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. AFAIK, there's no caveats or exclusions on "saving lives".

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not assuming all scenarios. I'm just saying, if you could prevent lives through extracting intel by torture, why is it wrong?

Because the person might be innocent?

Again, substitute "Harming a suspected terrorist's child" for "extracting intel" and see if you can make the connection.

[LnGrrrR]

Raping children is excessive and immoral when torture of the individual's own mind and body is enough to extract information.

But what about if it's not enough? Are you willing to let all those untold thousands of innocents die? It's only one child you'd have to torture, after all.

[LnGrrrR]

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. AFAIK, there's no caveats or exclusions on "saving lives".

I'm pretty sure we'd see some form of jury nullification if torture did indeed save thousands of lives. But at least we'd have the check of a jury.

[RandomGuy]

If you can't prove it is more effective than alternatives, spending time trying to legally justify an immoral act seems pointless to me.

Give me a quote from ANY interrogator or intelligence professional with direct experience that says it works better than other methods.


See you're cheating, like you accused others of doing to Manny in the other thread.

Fact is, I said (somewhere in this thread) the use of any technique was dependent on the situation and that enhanced interrogation might be good in one case but not in another. You ignored all that.

So, let me answer your question as directly as I can; In the case that resulted in actionable intelligence, I'd say it was better than other techniques...whether or not I have a quote stating such.

Because, as was also discussed; enhanced interrogation techniques weren't used until other methods failed so, if they waterboarded some terrorist turd who wasn't giving up actionable intelligence and then he was giving up actionable intelligence, that's better.

By the way, leave morality out. There are some that would argue war, itself, is immoral and where would that leave us?

So the answer to my request is:

"I can't provide any quotes from any professional interrogator who says that torture is more effective than less extreme methods of interrogation."

I will assume you are not a professional interrogator, have no training, nor experience, as either is rather rare for the general population.

That leaves us with:

1) The professional in the OP joining with lots of other professionals in saying that torture is not as effective as conventional interrogation.

2) No dissenting professional opinions contradicting that.

Trained professional with years of experience vs. internet guy with neither training, nor experience.

Not a hard call to make from a simple efficacy perspective.

That is, of course, setting aside the ethics of torture.

"It might work, don't worry about the fact that it is almost universally viewed as immoral and illegal." is not a very convincing argument.

You might find it emotionally appealing, but you certainly can't try and credibly claim you are being logical about it.

[RandomGuy]

Morality can only be based on the present universe, not some holy context that is unproven.

War when waged against an existential threat is going to bring collateral damage. To win a war you must win end it as soon as possible to protect your own citizens, and you should go in mind that your existance is what is at stakes.

Sending one's neighbour to sacrifice his life altruistically for others is immoral. Our troops should only be tasked to first, protect their own life, protect our life with only those goals in mind.

To put the lives of the enemy above our own troops is immoral, and evil. That's why the only good thing to do in this situation is to try to not get into that situation.

The underlying assumption that fatally flaws this entire assertion:

Putting the lives of the enemy as important is not compatible with saving the lives of our own troops.

This statement is directly contradicted by the current counter insurgency doctrine that states that doing things viewed poorly, such as shooting at enemies regardless of the consequences, endangers the overall mission.

[Ignignokt]

I'm telling you you're writing fiction.

What are you going to do about it?

Sure, you've got a terra-ist on the Skype. You have his adult daughter in custody who has said you suck a couple of times. You want some intel from him fast. Use the scenario from your screenplay. Why not rape or torture or kill her to get him to talk?

I wouldn't target his family. end of story.

[Ignignokt]

But what about if it's not enough? Are you willing to let all those untold thousands of innocents die? It's only one child you'd have to torture, after all.

This is an invalid question. Becuase the purpose of the question is to undermine a moral action by introducing another moral action (sacrificing an innocent victim) in order to go through with said moral action. This is indeed a lifeboat question. You don't base your ethics on lifeboat questions, you base your ethics on the real metaphysical world, man does not live in lifeboat.

To illustrate the ridiculousness of Chump's sophist proposition:

Person A: Passing progressive tax legislation is moral.

Chumpdumper: What happens if the only way to pass progressive tax legislation is to rape the daughter of the president?

Person A: Oh, progressive taxes are immoral then.



It's an invalid premise by which to undermine premise(x) because it doesn't really address the validity of premise(x), all you really are addressing is whether it's ever ok to rape kids.

[Ignignokt]

The underlying assumption that fatally flaws this entire assertion:

Putting the lives of the enemy as important is not compatible with saving the lives of our own troops.

This statement is directly contradicted by the current counter insurgency doctrine that states that doing things viewed poorly, such as shooting at enemies regardless of the consequences, endangers the overall mission.

All you did is illustrate a reason why you shouldn't nation build.

[mingus]

Can anyone explain to me why liberals vehemently support abortion and run to defend terrorists?

I know I'll get a response that tells me I'm an idiot and a retard because ad hominen attacks are a liberal favorite, but I I seriously want to understand.

[Ignignokt]

How do you know he's the murderer?

How do you know he has vital information?

What if he repeatedly gives you bullshit info?

What if there's no immediate treat, should you torture anyways?

Should any civilian be unlawfully detained and tortured on the presumption that they might have information that could allegedly save lives?

Who makes the determination on what is or isn't allegedly credible information that warrants torturing a civilian?

Should a civilian tortured by mistake have no recourse in a court of law?

So on and so forth...

You'd have to have measures in place to enforce unlawful torture of innocents, that way you'd hold the interrogator accountable.

This would force the interrogator more responsible to recieve the right intel.

[clambake]

Can anyone explain to me why liberals vehemently support abortion and run to defend terrorists?

I know I'll get a response that tells me I'm an idiot and a retard because ad hominen attacks are a liberal favorite, but I I seriously want to understand.

no one is defending terrorist. you can be a terrorist if someone says you are.

[Ignignokt]

Can anyone explain to me why liberals vehemently support abortion and run to defend terrorists?

I know I'll get a response that tells me I'm an idiot and a retard because ad hominen attacks are a liberal favorite, but I I seriously want to understand.

You'll just get a sophist rebuttal like...


If you had to abort kids to fight terrorist, would you do it?

Think about it, if you had an abortion clinic bomber on the skype, and you showed him a fetus, would you abort it in order for him to give you intel?

[Ignignokt]

Also, experts are not the final authority on morality or ethics. Those things should be subject only to the laws of human nature in relation to the universe.

[RandomGuy]

To put the lives of the enemy above our own troops is immoral, and evil.


The underlying assumption that fatally flaws this entire assertion:

Putting the lives of the enemy as important is not compatible with saving the lives of our own troops.

This statement is directly contradicted by the current counter insurgency doctrine that states that doing things viewed poorly, such as shooting at enemies regardless of the consequences, endangers the overall mission.


All you did is illustrate a reason why you shouldn't nation build.

Confirmation bias in action.

The paradox is that by placing the lives of the enemy above that of the troops you are, by expert opinion, protecing the lives of your own troops.

You have therefore asserted that protecting our troops is, in your own words, evil.

I fail to see how that paradox is a "reason why you shouldn't nation build"

If you are trying to assert that fighting counter-insurgency is difficult, so we shouldn't do it, that is a very weak position to take.

If you are trying to assert that the counter-insurgency doctrine is in itself evil because it protects our troops, that is simply dumb.

Which is it, weak argument or dumb argument? Could you clarify which you are shooting for?

[RandomGuy]

Can anyone explain to me why liberals vehemently support abortion and run to defend terrorists?

I know I'll get a response that tells me I'm an idiot and a retard because ad hominen attacks are a liberal favorite, but I I seriously want to understand.

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?

[Ignignokt]

Confirmation bias in action.

The paradox is that by placing the lives of the enemy above that of the troops you are, by expert opinion, protecing the lives of your own troops.

You have therefore asserted that protecting our troops is, in your own words, evil.

I fail to see how that paradox is a "reason why you shouldn't nation build"

If you are trying to assert that fighting counter-insurgency is difficult, so we shouldn't do it, that is a very weak position to take.

If you are trying to assert that the counter-insurgency doctrine is in itself evil because it protects our troops, that is simply dumb.

Which is it, weak argument or dumb argument? Could you clarify which you are shooting for?


No, that's invalid.

The whole concept of Nation building is to sacrifice your resources for the good of a country.

Counter insurgency is a phenomenae of an occupying force involved in nation building.

Our mission should be to remove dictatorships who are an actual existential threat and then get out.

When you have a mission set on expanding the Welfare state for another country, well yeah. The ultimate value is winning public support and putting your troops lives second to it. It's not done by putting your troops lives over public oppinion.

In this case, yes, if you intend on placating your occupied citizenry, you have to sacrifice the goal of protecting your men in order to prevent retaliation against your infantry and your mission.

But the point is, not to get in that situation.

We should never sacrifice our troops for another country. That's immoral.

[ElNono]

You'd have to have measures in place to enforce unlawful torture of innocents, that way you'd hold the interrogator accountable.

This would force the interrogator more responsible to recieve the right intel.

What do you mean? Care to elaborate?

[Ignignokt]

What do you mean? Care to elaborate?

If an interrogator is torturing an innocent man, he should be penalized, removed from his position based on whether there was negligence.

[ElNono]

Can anyone explain to me why liberals vehemently support abortion and run to defend terrorists?

Not sure what you mean by 'defending a terra-ist'.

That we don't want the US to act like a terror state because we captured an alleged terrerist doesn't mean that anybody is defending him.

Not sure what abortion has to do with it, tbh

[ElNono]

If an interrogator is torturing an innocent man, he should be penalized, removed from his position based on whether there was negligence.

The problem is that the interrogator might not be who issued the order.

The point here is that we've had cases of civilian torture with no oversight and complete immunity (and impunity). That puts us closer to the 'bad guys' than the 'good guys'. And that's a slippery slope.

[RandomGuy]

No, that's invalid.

The whole concept of Nation building is to sacrifice your resources for the good of a country.

Counter insurgency is a phenomenae of an occupying force involved in nation building.

Our mission should be to remove dictatorships who are an actual existential threat and then get out.

When you have a mission set on expanding the Welfare state for another country, well yeah. The ultimate value is winning public support and putting your troops lives second to it. It's not done by putting your troops lives over public oppinion.

In this case, yes, if you intend on placating your occupied citizenry, you have to sacrifice the goal of protecting your men in order to prevent retaliation against your infantry and your mission.

But the point is, not to get in that situation.

We should never sacrifice our troops for another country. That's immoral.

Ah, much better. Thank you.

Standing idly by when genocide is being committed is immoral as well?

[ChumpDumper]

I wouldn't target his family. end of story.And the end of all the thousands of American lives you could have saved.

Good job. :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Also, experts are not the final authority on morality or ethics.No, apparently you are the final authority on morality and ethics.

Did you get a certificate for it on the internets?

[Blake]

If an interrogator is torturing an innocent man, he should be penalized, removed from his position based on whether there was negligence.

wow, interrogating in your world sounds like a great gig. :tu

I like the part where a man doesn't really have the right to remain silent.

[Ignignokt]

No, apparently you are the final authority on morality and ethics.

Did you get a certificate for it on the internets?

Well I'm flattered, but I'm not nature or the universe for which i try to appeal to.

[Ignignokt]

wow, interrogating in your world sounds like a great gig. :tu

I like the part where a man doesn't really have the right to remain silent.

a man's right's to silence don't supersed another's right to life. If he's caught after the fact, then we can discuss law in which the state is now acting as a retalliatory agent.

[Ignignokt]

And the end of all the thousands of American lives you could have saved.

Good job. :tu

the issue is torturing enemy combatants not innocent family members.

Why don't you awnser the question i first posed?

[ChumpDumper]

Well I'm flattered, but I'm not nature or the universe for which i try to appeal to.lol nature of the universe

Did the nature of the universe write a book?

Is he on twitter?


the issue is torturing enemy combatants not innocent family members.That combatant is potentially innocent as well, and the family member might not be for all you know. I am talking about torturing innocent family members to save thousands of lives. You would rather let thousands of confirmed innocents die than give one who may or may not be innocent some temporary pain.


Why don't you awnser the question i first posed?Because there is not one set of ethics in the world. That is clearly evident here as you are willing to let thousands of innocents die if the conditions are right.

[Blake]

a man's right's to silence don't supersed another's right to life.

I disagree.

I'm not sure why anyone would be good with allowing the state to go around causing physical or mental harm to anyone in sight until the desired information is finally received.

[Ignignokt]

lol nature of the universe

Did the nature of the universe write a book?

Is he on twitter?

That combatant is potentially innocent as well, and the family member might not be for all you know. I am talking about torturing innocent family members to save thousands of lives. You would rather let thousands of confirmed innocents die than give one who may or may not be innocent some temporary pain.

Because there is not one set of ethics in the world. That is clearly evident here as you are willing to let thousands of innocents die if the conditions are right.



We're discussing torturing adults who are high level combatants. Intentionally targeting innocent ppl for torture is wrong. I'm not defending that.

[ChumpDumper]

We're discussing torturing adults who are high level combatants. Intentionally targeting innocent ppl for torture is wrong. I'm not defending that.Right, you made it clear that thousands of innocent people should die.

[Ignignokt]

Right, you made it clear that thousands of innocent people should die.

I'm not making a utlitarian argument where raping children to save lives is good.

That's your argument.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not making a utlitarian argument where raping children to save lives is good.

That's your argument.You're making an argument that thousands of innocent Americans should die because you don't want to torture someone who may be innocent.

[Ignignokt]

You're making an argument that thousands of innocent Americans should die because you don't want to torture someone who may be innocent.

there's an if.

Like i said, if it turns out that he was innocent, the interrogator should be fired, penalized, and if showed negligence he should go to jail.

The onus is on the interrogator to be dilligent.

You still haven't addressed whether torturing an enemy combatant/terrorist who has knowledge of an attack is ethically wrong, and why based on your reasoning.

You missed that oppurtunity, you don't have the capability to do so anyway, Lngrr picked up the slack for you.

[ChumpDumper]

there's an if.

Like i said, if it turns out that he was innocent, the interrogator should be fired, penalized, and if showed negligence he should go to jail.

The onus is on the interrogator to be dilligent.

You still haven't addressed whether torturing an enemy combatant/terrorist who has knowledge of an attack is ethically wrong, and why based on your reasoning.

You missed that oppurtunity, you don't have the capability to do so anyway, Lngrr picked up the slack for you.I already answered it.

You didn't like the answer.

Sorry.

lol onus

lol penalized

[Ignignokt]

I already answered it.

You didn't like the answer.

Sorry.

lol onus

lol penalized

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question.That's because it's in a different post, genius.

When someone says he has already done something, it was done before the time he says it was already done.

Do you understand that?

Answer that question. I want to be sure you understand.

[Ignignokt]

That's because it's in a different post, genius.

When someone says he has already done something, it was done before the time he says it was already done.

Do you understand that?

Answer that question. I want to be sure you understand.

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?


That's because it's in a different post, genius.

When someone says he has already done something, it was done before the time he says it was already done.

Do you understand that?

Answer that question. I want to be sure you understand.

[Ignignokt]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?That's because it's in a different post, genius.

When someone says he has already done something, it was done before the time he says it was already done.

Do you understand that?

Answer that question. I want to be sure you understand.

[Ignignokt]

That's because it's in a different post, genius.

When someone says he has already done something, it was done before the time he says it was already done.

Do you understand that?

Answer that question. I want to be sure you understand.

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?I'm sure you don't see it, but it has been given along with the reasoning. You have proved yourself incapable of understanding.

lol drama

[Ignignokt]

I'm sure you don't see it, but it has been given along with the reasoning. You have proved yourself incapable of understanding.

lol drama

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?On the contrary, I answered your question and gave very succinct reasoning. That you can't see it is your own personal tragedy. I'm sorry you haven't reached even a basic level of understanding, but it would be unethical for me to assist you further.

Keep trying though! :tu

[Ignignokt]

On the contrary, I answered your question and gave very succinct reasoning. That you can't see it is your own personal tragedy. I'm sorry you haven't reached even a basic level of understanding, but it would be unethical for me to assist you further.

Keep trying though! :tu

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?lol drama

[Ignignokt]

lol drama

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?You're too busy with your copy-and-paste drama to go back and read.

I predict you'll just copy and paste again.

You love yourself some drama.

[Ignignokt]

You're too busy with your copy-and-paste drama to go back and read.

I predict you'll just copy and paste again.

You love yourself some drama.

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?Yep, I was right.

lol drama

[LnGrrrR]

This is an invalid question. Becuase the purpose of the question is to undermine a moral action by introducing another moral action (sacrificing an innocent victim) in order to go through with said moral action. This is indeed a lifeboat question. You don't base your ethics on lifeboat questions, you base your ethics on the real metaphysical world, man does not live in lifeboat.

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.

[LnGrrrR]

Our mission should be to remove dictatorships who are an actual existential threat and then get out.

I mostly agree with this statement, with the knowledge that another, possibly worse dictator might take his/her place.

[LnGrrrR]

Like i said, if it turns out that he was innocent, the interrogator should be fired, penalized, and if showed negligence he should go to jail.

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


The onus is on the interrogator to be dilligent.

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?


You still haven't addressed whether torturing an enemy combatant/terrorist who has knowledge of an attack is ethically wrong, and why based on your reasoning.

How do you know he has knowledge of an attack?