Obama - U.S. will not torture

Slippery Slope · Jan 26, 2009

Wessexman said:
I don't think torture works or doesn't work. Clearly it can make people admit things that are true and not true. The problem is knowing the difference.

I welcome this development. I believe that one should always fight with chivalry and as a Gentlemen and torture violates that in my mind.

While I admire your integrity in this specific area I think that's a little outdated... by more than 100 years. I believe, as you do that torture both works and doesn't. Where we differ is that, I believe we should not resort to lowering our humanity on the chance that we can get actionable intel from torture. Could torture produce results that save lives? Maybe, but when you are trying to show the world you are better than X and that you lead by example, some times sacrifices must be made to maintain your position and show that the least common denominator cannot force the rest to come down to their level.

Slippery Slope · Jan 26, 2009

zimmer said:
Sorting through the revelations is all part of the job. There are trained professionals sifting it.

In a pinch, when it could cost scores of lives, I'll take an American Patriot shoving bamboo under someone's finger nails to get some info... quick like. That would be the Primo, as Secondo they could go a little more medieval, and carry on from there.

Of course they'd end up in court having to explain why they wanted to save American lives so badly. It just might happen to some unfortunate patriot one day.

So you consider saving a few lives is more important than the moral standing of our nation? What's the low cut off point for you? 1000? 100? 10? 5? 1? should we torture if it will save one life? Are you consistent with that life saving or does it only apply to torture? Are you against smoking and drinking... more people die from accidents in their home every year than the 3000 who died on 9/11...

Slippery Slope · Jan 26, 2009

zimmer said:
You see, my rationale is simple. I believe it is immoral for thousands to die because you have a terrorist in you hands that may hold the key to saving their lives.

If professional coercion is required, so be it. His choice.

You prefer to protect the temporary health of the terrorist.
I prefer to protect the lives of thousands or more of innocent citizens.

I think your choice is nothing short of immoral.

What if the person doesn't actually have the info and now you've tortured an innocent person. Are you against that or is that a "casualty of war, like being killed as an American Military Service Member?

Slippery Slope · Jan 26, 2009

MrVicchio said:
Hey, since 9/11/01 the USA has not suffered an attack on US Soil.

Let's see if the "new and nicer way" of Obama has similar results. Should AQ or another ITG hit the USA, it's not a ding on Obama, two hits and well... Bush was right.

ridiculous. The planet wasn't destroyed by a comet either, do we credit Bush for that? oh I know you're going to say, but what did Bush do to prevent that from happening? And I say, nothing. What did Bush do to prevent another attack on US soil? Started a war in Iraq? Made an ass of himself by puttin on spurs and making all sorts of cowboy threats? In other words, he did nothing that would actually make us any safer. The proof is that you can still sneak across our borders.

Slippery Slope · Jan 26, 2009

People who believe torture works only believe so because they are weak and are drawing conclusions based on their own weakness. They think torture would work because they know it wouldn't take much to get them to give up their mother. They then project that weakness on everyone one else.

Hows that you pansy ass torture advocates? :flame:

JMak · Jan 26, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
So you consider saving a few lives is more important than the moral standing of our nation?

Moral standing? You think waterboarding three people legitmately undermines US moral superiority? Bwahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

On what basis can you draw such a conclusion?

JMak · Jan 26, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
People who believe torture works only believe so because they are weak and are drawing conclusions based on their own weakness. They think torture would work because they know it wouldn't take much to get them to give up their mother. They then project that weakness on everyone one else.

Hows that you pansy ass torture advocates? :flame:

Fool, torture does work. It has resulted in deriving accurate and reliable information.

The problem here is you. You are too stupid to recognize that stating a simple fact is not an endorsement. I have stated that as well as zimmer.

So wtf is your problem? Are you just ignorant or are you deliberately ignoring what we're actually presenting?

JMak · Jan 26, 2009

EgoffTib said:
We use less barbaric methods of extraction. Do not play dumb, we both know that they exist.

Oh, please. You people have, for years now, argued that using females to interrogate Muslims or stress positions or using dogs constitutes torture. What you have failed to do is actually id what is permissable. In fact, you've worked your asses off only on telling us what is not permissable.

Yeah, I know alternative methods exist and are effective. As you plainly can see I am not advocating torture, so act dumb and pretend otherwise.

For example, this Gitmo judge who recently said a detainee had been tortured, the standard she advanced would logically have a detainee stubbing his tow resulting in triggering a cardiac attack constituting torture. It's an idiotic standard and measure.

I would imagine that I have a much firmer grasp on the true meaning of suffering than most people do.

Maybe, but irrelevant.

There is a difference in motive. At the most elementary level, though, the terrorist is an individual himself. Lowering yourself to the level of barbarism perpetuated by your enemies undermines all of the hard work that America has accomplished in setting itself up as a leader of the free world.

Fool, waterboarding a single person one time in no way lowers the US to that of AQ or Pol Pot or Hitler or any other evil. You're engaging in disgusting moral equivalencies.

Using physcially coercive methods doesn't remove the US as the leader of the free world. Hell, even engaging in isolated instances of torture wouldn't manage that.

Are you people seriously going to argue that the US's moral standing relative to North Korea, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, China, et al is going to suffer because it waterboards actual terrorists?

I guess you could get there if you want argue that waterboarding one actual terrorist is the equivalent of jailing tens of thousands of citizens (China), intentionally targetting civilians (Syria, Hezbollah), murdering via state policies hundreds of thousands of citizens (North Korea), violently cracks down on political dissidents, arming/funding terror groups (Iran).

You're dealing in disgusting moral equivalencies.

:roll:

Ikari · Jan 26, 2009

JMak said:
Fool, torture does work. It has resulted in deriving accurate and reliable information.

The problem here is you. You are too stupid to recognize that stating a simple fact is not an endorsement. I have stated that as well as zimmer.

So wtf is your problem? Are you just ignorant or are you deliberately ignoring what we're actually presenting?

Is there scientific data for that, or just Jack Bauer hearsay?

They way I see it is can torture yield correct answers? Yes, it can result in accurate information. Will torture always 100% result in accurate information? Obviously no it won't. So what is the % of information you get which is accurate and usable? That's the real question, the one that seemingly is always avoided by the pro-torture side. Because the use of torture is abhorred, and can lead to negative consequence. It can lead to the torture of innocents, misinformation, etc. So you have to ask yourself, is it worth it. And in asking that question, it's not here's one time it worked evidence anymore. Now you need statistical evidence. If you can't prove that torture statistically yields correct answers more than incorrect answers; than I see little point in employing it as an option.

I think personally that this is much like the death penalty. One the whole, it is endorsed by those seeking revenge over anything else.

Slippery Slope · Jan 26, 2009

JMak said:
Moral standing? You think waterboarding three people legitmately undermines US moral superiority? Bwahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

On what basis can you draw such a conclusion?

That it's wrong and all civilized people agree that torture is wrong and that we are a nation of high moral standard and freedom and laws and that if we do anything that goes against those ideals we degrade our position. But I realize that you bullies don't view the world from a moral point of view since being a bully isn't moral to begin with.

Slippery Slope · Jan 26, 2009

JMak said:
Fool, torture does work. It has resulted in deriving accurate and reliable information.

The problem here is you. You are too stupid to recognize that stating a simple fact is not an endorsement. I have stated that as well as zimmer.

So wtf is your problem? Are you just ignorant or are you deliberately ignoring what we're actually presenting?

Really? Go ahead and show me how stupid I am, provide me one instance where torture has worked.

American · Jan 26, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
Really? Go ahead and show me how stupid I am, provide me one instance where torture has worked.

It worked for Saddam Hussein.

zimmer · Jan 27, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
Slippery Slope said:

So you consider saving a few lives is more important than the moral standing of our nation?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I believe the short term health of a terrorist can be compromised to save lives, pain and suffering.

What's the low cut off point for you? 1000? 100? 10? 5? 1? should we torture if it will save one life?

Click to expand...

Above my pay grade... LOL
Terrorists don't set out to kill One. That's assasination. To accomplish this they'd have to take our more individuals. Like at the Pentagon, and what people understand a plane set for the Capitol.

Their MO has been maximum damage, whether it's been in Turkey, Africa, Indonesia, London, Madrid or NY.

Added to the above, each situation is unique.

Are you consistent with that life saving or does it only apply to torture?

Click to expand...

? Huh?

Are you against smoking and drinking... more people die from accidents in their home every year than the 3000 who died on 9/11...

Click to expand...

Yes, but those are accidents, not the result of terrorists.
I think some on your side are a wee bit disappointed at their team's defense on this.

It is simple: I believe torture is permissible if it will save lives from a terrorist attack. I believe it is immoral to allow innocent civilians be killed and maimed from terrorist attacks that could be otherwise prevented by softening up the terrorist through coercive means. He will heal, the innocents killed will not.

Waterboarding should be a tool in the interrogation tool kit; not considered tortue.

Slippery Slope · Jan 27, 2009

American said:
It worked for Saddam Hussein.

No it didn't.

Slippery Slope · Jan 27, 2009

zimmer said:
Absolutely. I believe the short term health of a terrorist can be compromised to save lives, pain and suffering.

You meant to say the short term health of a human being, right? Because, you first have to prove that he's a terrorist and that he's involved in some plot. But suppose that human doesn't have the information? How long should he be tortured before that is determined? Eventually he will tell you anything you want to hear.

Above my pay grade... LOL
Terrorists don't set out to kill One. That's assasination. To accomplish this they'd have to take our more individuals. Like at the Pentagon, and what people understand a plane set for the Capitol.

I'm not asking you to implement a law I'm asking your opinion.

? Huh?

I'm asking if your views of death are consistent. Obviously not.

Yes, but those are accidents, not the result of terrorists.
I think some on your side are a wee bit disappointed at their team's defense on this.

Death is death, regardless of how you were killed you're still dead. Dead from slipping in the tub is just as dead as being blown up. You apparently don't get the idea of consistent values. Either you value life or you don't. You're probably for the death penalty too.

It is simple: I believe torture is permissible if it will save lives from a terrorist attack. I believe it is immoral to allow innocent civilians be killed and maimed from terrorist attacks that could be otherwise prevented by softening up the terrorist through coercive means. He will heal, the innocents killed will not.

As I have stated many times in the past and am reaffirmed here regularly, conservatives lack the ability to empathize.

Waterboarding should be a tool in the interrogation tool kit; not considered tortue.

Why stop at water boarding? Oh, that's right, you don't. Wasn't it you that made the bamboo under the fingernails comment? :roll:

rhinefire · Jan 27, 2009

disneydude said:
Its a new day in America...and what a refreshing change of pace:

Yahoo!

Finally a President who will return integrity to the Country.

Read the fine print. Torture WILL continue. Maybe not exactlyas it was but it ain't goin' nowhere.

Shewter · Jan 27, 2009

American said:
It worked for Saddam Hussein.

Actually, if i remember correctly. He gave up more information to the interrogator that sat down, smoked a cig, and asked him about what his take on the issue was.... for what, 3 weeks untill Saddam finally got comfortable enough to let it all out?

Not saying that torture doesnt work. Just didn't happen to be the case here.

Binary_Digit · Jan 27, 2009

Dr. Doom has planted a ticking time bomb in the middle of a metropolis. You have Dr. Doom in custody, time is ticking, but he's not talking. What do you do? This is a favorite hypothetical scenario because it illustrates the utilitarian view that torture is not always black and white. But look at all the assumptions:

1. It's assumed that we know a bomb is ticking. Somehow we have learned that there is a plot to blow up a city, and that only one piece of information (the override codes) can possibly disrupt this plot.
2. It's assumed that Dr. Doom knows the override codes we need, and that we know that he knows them. Somehow we've learned enough about this plot to know - with enough certainty that we're willing to torture - who is involved and who knows what.
3. It's assumed that Dr. Doom will provide accurate information under torture, rather than stalling with bad information, and it will be timely enough to shut down the bomb safely before it blows.
4. It's assumed that Dr. Doom will not provide the accurate and timely information under any other circumstance besides torture.

Putting it all together, it seems to me you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than to run across such a clear-cut case for torture as this in the real world.

Furthermore, it's a false dilemma to suggest that the only two choices are tortured intelligence or no intelligence. There is some good evidence that empathetic interrogation is overwhelmingly the most successful:

In [Army Col. Stuart Herrington's] experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)

In 1943, Budiansky explained, Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran had published a report, now considered a classic among military interrogators. Based on a study of efforts to get Japanese POWs to talk during World War II, it reached a surprising conclusion: “successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them.” Despite dealing with hostile subjects and alien cultures, the interrogators Moran studied had been able to successfully extract information without torturing their prisoners.

Truth Extraction - The Atlantic (June 2005)

And there is good evidence that torture can actually be counterproductive if you're under a time crunch for information:

Moran's whole approach—and Hans Joachim Scharff's, too—was built on the assumption that few if any prisoners are likely to possess decisive information about imminent plans. (And as one former Marine interrogator says, even if a prisoner does have information of the "ticking bomb" variety—where the nuke is going to go off an hour from now, in the classic if overworked example—under duress or torture he is most likely to try to run out the clock by making something up rather than reveal the truth.) Rather, it is the small and seemingly inconsequential bits of evidence that prisoners may give away once they start talking—about training, weapons, commanders, tactics—that, when assembled into a larger mosaic, build up the most complete and valuable picture of the enemy's organization, intentions, and methods.

Truth Extraction - The Atlantic (June 2005)

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)

Nevermind the ethics of torture or how it affects our standing in the world, these quotes show that the core reasoning behind using torture is flawed. The overall goal is to quickly gain accurate intelligence. Torture as a means of achieving that goal is very rarely reliable, and is sometimes even counterproductive.

Sure there are exceptions, just like a broken clock is right twice a day. As for KSM, it's obvious to me that he started talking after being waterboarded. But unless the above techniques were tried first, and an honest attempt at using them failed, it can hardly be said with much certainty that torture was the only way to get him to talk.

First Thought · Jan 27, 2009

JMak said:
Fool, torture does work. It has resulted in deriving accurate and reliable information.

It has also failed to derive accurate and reliable information... So where are we now?

Obama - U.S. will not torture

Slippery Slope

Slippery Slope

Slippery Slope

Slippery Slope

Slippery Slope

JMak

JMak

JMak

Ikari

Slippery Slope

Slippery Slope

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant

Slippery Slope

Slippery Slope

rhinefire

Shewter

Binary_Digit

First Thought

Obama - U.S. will not torture

Trump Grump Whisperer

Educating the Ignorant

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency