PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Thoughts on Greenwald's argument re: torture & Bin Laden.


Pages : [1] 2

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 09:34 AM
Since the Republican spin on Osama's death is that this proves EITs were hunky dory all along, Salon's Glenn Greenwald addresses the issue pretty effectively ("The illogic of the torture debate"), as far as I'm concerned.

The core of his argument is as follows (click the link at the bottom of the OP for the whole thing):

Nobody has ever argued that brutality will never produce truthful answers. It is sometimes the case that if you torture someone long and mercilessly enough, they will tell you something you want to know. Nobody has ever denied that. In terms of the tactical aspect of the torture debate, the point has always been -- as a consensus of interrogations professionals has repeatedly said -- that there are far more effective ways to extract the truth from someone than by torturing it out of them. The fact that one can point to an instance where torture produced the desired answer proves nothing about whether there were more effective ways of obtaining it.

This highlights what has long been a glaring fallacy in many debates over War on Terror policies: that Information X was obtained after using Policy A does not prove that Policy A was necessary or effective. That's just basic logic. This fallacy asserted itself constantly in the debate over warrantless surveillance. Proponents of the Bush NSA program would point to some piece of intelligence allegedly obtained during warrantless eavesdropping as proof that the illegal program was necessary and effective; obviously, though, that fact said nothing about whether the same information would also have been discovered through legal eavesdropping, i.e., eavesdropping approved in advance by the FISA court (and indeed, legal eavesdropping [like legal interrogation tactics] is typically more effective than the illegal version because, by necessity, it is far more focused on actual suspected Terrorism plots; warrantless eavesdropping entails the unconstrained power to listen in on any communications the Government wants without having to establish its connection to Terrorism). But in all cases, the fact that some piece of intelligence was obtained by some lawless Bush/Cheney War on Terror policy (whether it be torture or warrantless eavesdropping) proves nothing about whether that policy was effective or necessary.

He concludes his argument thusly:

Criminal, morally depraved acts don't become retroactively justified by pointing to the bounty they produced.

Agree or disagree (and I of course agree), it's an important perspective to consider, and at the very least of which is grounded in logic.

Thoughts?

The link: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/04/torture/index.html

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 10:59 AM
Ya know,Giving them too much ice cream can be torture too. Where do you guys draw a line between giving the enemy pats on the back, milk, cookies and ice cream?

Man, you can only sugar coat a terrorist so far and he will in fact, laugh at you for being stupid. They really just don't care about you, me, us, any American. Why is this so hard to understand for the liberal loons?

vailpass
05-04-2011, 11:00 AM
salon.com

LMAO

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 11:05 AM
Ya know,Giving them too much ice cream can be torture too. Where do you guys draw a line between giving the enemy pats on the back, milk, cookies and ice cream?

Man, you can only sugar coat a terrorist so far and he will in fact, laugh at you for being stupid. They really just don't care about you, me, us, any American. Why is this so hard to understand for the liberal loons?

I want to know where you get this notion that any interrogation short of torture is a waste of time.

Standard interrogation has saved a ton of American lives, you don't even have to go very far back in modern history to find examples.

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 11:11 AM
I want to know where you get this notion that any interrogation short of torture is a waste of time.

Standard interrogation has saved a ton of American lives, you don't even have to go very far back in modern history to find examples.

With terrorist who really don't care if they die, or if you die, immediately?

They do not think as we do, it's the difference between apples to bastards.

I have no problem with using whatever means we need on these pathetic excuses of human beings when it comes to saving hundreds or thousands of innocent lives,of which are American lives. Even your life, Frankie and the rest of the liberal loons on this site.

God Bless the USA!:thumb:

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 11:29 AM
With terrorist who really don't care if they die, or if you die, immediately?

They do not think as we do, it's the difference between apples to bastards.

Najibullah Zazi had direct connections to al Qaeda, wanting to detonate explosives in NYC. He was arrested, plot was broken up. Regular interrogation techniques.

David Headly planned to attack the Danish newspaper that printed cartoons of Mohammed, broken up. Stopped.

Plot thwarted by four men to bomb synagogues. Broken up, stopped, using intelligence not including waterboarding.

Plan by the Jordan guy that wanted to blow up a NYC skyscraper.

Arrested seven men in North Carolina planning terrorist attacks.

Arrested several Somali American radicals training in Africa.

Arrest of several Virginians who were planning to go to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in the war.

So standard interrogation is useless against terrorism, again?

Lzen
05-04-2011, 11:32 AM
a consensus of interrogations professionals has repeatedly said -- that there are far more effective ways to extract the truth from someone than by torturing it out of them.

How is it a consensus if this is still being debated? And what, exactly, are these more effective methods?

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 11:33 AM
How is it a consensus if this is still being debated? And what, exactly, are these more effective methods?

Trace down the day that EITs were approved.

Then go back one day.

Lzen
05-04-2011, 11:35 AM
So standard interrogation is useless against terrorism, again?

I don't think anyone believes that. But what happens when standard interrogation doesn't work? What do you do when you need more info out of a suspect that you know is involved in a plot? If the standard methods are not working, would you be opposed to torture to extract the info?

I think the one thing the writer is missing here when he says this does not prove that torture was necessary. It does not disprove it either. Or am I missing something?

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 11:36 AM
Najibullah Zazi had direct connections to al Qaeda, wanting to detonate explosives in NYC. He was arrested, plot was broken up. Regular interrogation techniques.

David Headly planned to attack the Danish newspaper that printed cartoons of Mohammed, broken up. Stopped.

Plot thwarted by four men to bomb synagogues. Broken up, stopped, using intelligence not including waterboarding.

Plan by the Jordan guy that wanted to blow up a NYC skyscraper.

Arrested seven men in North Carolina planning terrorist attacks.

Arrested several Somali American radicals training in Africa.

Arrest of several Virginians who were planning to go to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in the war.

So standard interrogation is useless against terrorism, again?

Look son, just like every criminal case being different, these nutjobs are different. To a nut KSM and such, they do not care what you think, they don't care who you are and will not tell you unless put into a position to tell. Once caught, All of the others you listed were scared of dying, reason they spoke up, a chance to live and feared death more than AQ, unless they knew they would be released back to them.

Get over yourself, it's not like we done this to ALL of them.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 11:38 AM
I don't think anyone believes that. But what happens when standard interrogation doesn't work? What do you do when you need more info out of a suspect that you know is involved in a plot? If the standard methods are not working, would you be opposed to torture to extract the info?

There's no evidence on earth that I've seen (other than the fallible intuition between your ears) that proves torture is more effective at extracting information than standard interrogation.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 11:39 AM
he says this does not prove that torture was necessary. It does not disprove it either. Or am I missing something?

You're not necessarily missing anything.

But the burden of proof is on those who want to torture.

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 11:39 AM
There's no evidence on earth that I've seen (other than the fallible intuition between your ears) that proves torture is more effective at extracting information than standard interrogation.

Please stop trying to legalize, War !

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 11:40 AM
Look son, just like every criminal case being different, these nutjobs are different. To a nut KSM and such, they do not care what you think, they don't care who you are and will not tell you unless put into a position to tell. Once caught, All of the others you listed were scared of dying, reason they spoke up, a chance to live and feared death more than AQ, unless they knew they would be released back to them.

Get over yourself, it's not like we done this to ALL of them.

You've gone full retard.

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 12:00 PM
You've gone full retard.

Really ?

Ever looked in the mirror lately?

You and you liberal lunatic ways of condemning anything America does towards terrorist. You seem to stop at nothing but everyone agreeing with your views.
I can see it now next time we don't give a terrorist popcorn with his movie that he holds out telling us where the next bomb will go off, killing hundreds of lives. That's sure to get you your next "Oh Snap" moment.

Just let it go, we agree that we disagree on what is proper when comes to saving American lives in the event a terrorist such as KSM & the likes shuts up and tells you / us to die.

patteeu
05-04-2011, 12:02 PM
Nobody has ever argued that brutality will never produce truthful answers.

Greenwald is clearly not a faithful reader of ChiefsPlanet.

patteeu
05-04-2011, 12:04 PM
Najibullah Zazi had direct connections to al Qaeda, wanting to detonate explosives in NYC. He was arrested, plot was broken up. Regular interrogation techniques.

David Headly planned to attack the Danish newspaper that printed cartoons of Mohammed, broken up. Stopped.

Plot thwarted by four men to bomb synagogues. Broken up, stopped, using intelligence not including waterboarding.

Plan by the Jordan guy that wanted to blow up a NYC skyscraper.

Arrested seven men in North Carolina planning terrorist attacks.

Arrested several Somali American radicals training in Africa.

Arrest of several Virginians who were planning to go to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in the war.

So standard interrogation is useless against terrorism, again?

I don't think people have argued that harsh interrogation should be the only tool in the interrogator's arsenal.

|Zach|
05-04-2011, 12:12 PM
Really ?

Ever looked in the mirror lately?

You and you liberal lunatic ways of condemning anything America does towards terrorist. You seem to stop at nothing but everyone agreeing with your views.
I can see it now next time we don't give a terrorist popcorn with his movie that he holds out telling us where the next bomb will go off, killing hundreds of lives. That's sure to get you your next "Oh Snap" moment.

Just let it go, we agree that we disagree on what is proper when comes to saving American lives in the event a terrorist such as KSM & the likes shuts up and tells you / us to die.



Liar.

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 12:17 PM
I don't think people have argued that harsh interrogation should be the only tool in the interrogator's arsenal.

But yet this is how Direckshun wants to paint this picture?

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 12:19 PM
Liar.

Proof ?

All Direckshun has done is discredit any information that could have / did come from it .

That's his motto, you can hear his drums banging in the background.

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 12:24 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/httpswamplandtimecom20110504didtorturegettheusosamabinladenxidrssfullnationyahoo

By MASSIMO CALABRESI Massimo Calabresi – 57 mins ago

A former head of counterterrorism at the CIA, who was investigated last year by the Justice Department for the destruction of videos showing senior al-Qaeda officials being interrogated, says that the harsh questioning of terrorism suspects produced the information that eventually led to Osama bin Laden's death.

Jose Rodriguez ran the CIA's CounterTerrorism Center from 2002 to 2005 during the period when top al-Qaeda leaders Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) and Abu Faraj al-Libbi were taken into custody and subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" at secret black site prisons overseas. KSM was subjected to waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other techniques. Al Libbi was not waterboarded, but other EITs were used on him. (See pictures of the waterboarding protest.)

"Information provided by KSM and Abu Faraj al Libbi about Bin Laden's courier was the lead information that eventually led to the location of [bin Laden's] compound and the operation that led to his death," Rodriguez tells TIME in his first public interview. Rodriguez was cleared of charges in the video destruction investigation last year.

Rodriguez's assertion drew criticism from the White House. "There is no way that information obtained by [enhanced interrogation techniques] was the decisive intelligence that led us directly to bin Laden," says National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. "It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound, and reach a judgment that bin Laden was likely to be living there."

Rodriguez agrees that other events played a role in developing the intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts. And he says that despite widespread focus on KSM, al Libbi's information was the most important. "Both KSM and al Libbi were held at CIA black sites and subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques," Rodriguez says. "Abu Faraj was not waterboarded, but his information on the courier was key." (Read "Waterboarding: A Mental and Physical Trauma.")

Faraj told interrogators that the courier would only carry messages from bin Laden to the outside world every two months or so. "I realized that bin Laden was not really running his organization. You can't run an organization and have a courier who makes the rounds every two months," Rodriguez says. "So I became convinced then that this was a person who was just a figurehead and was not calling the shots, the tactical shots, of the organization. So that was significant."

While reports suggest that the information KSM provided on the courier came weeks or months after he was subjected to EITs, Rodriguez says al Libbi's tips came just one week after he was subjected to the harsh treatment.

Former Bush officials say that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques is misunderstood. "The main thing that people misunderstand about the program is it was intended to encourage compliance," says John McLaughlin, deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the period in which waterboarding was used. "It wasn't set out to torture people. It was never conceived of as a torture program." (See the top 10 notorious fugitives.)

One former senior intelligence official says that "once KSM decided resistance was unwise, he then started spilling his guts to the agency and started providing lots of info, like the noms de guerres of couriers and explaining how al-Qaeda worked." Rodriguez says, "It's a mistake to say this was about inflicting pain. These measures were about instilling a sense of hopelessness and that led them to compliance." None of the Bush officials madea clear distinction between inducing compliance and torture.

Rodriguez says the U.S. is unlikely to go back to using EITs, but he thinks they should. "We've given up on this and so much has happened that it would be very difficult for any administration to bring it back, and it's unfortunate because it's a tool that we have given up on and it will be hard for people in important positions to be able to deal with terrorists."

President Obama and his top intelligence officials believe waterboarding constitutes torture. The U.S. has prosecuted those who have used waterboarding in the past.

The White House says the debate over whether to use techniques that could constitute torture is beside the point. "This is a distraction from the broader picture, which is that this achievement [of bin Laden's death] was the result of years of painstaking work by our intelligence community that drew from multiple sources," says the White House's Vietor. "It's not fair to the scores of people who did this work over many years to suggest that this is somehow all the result of waterboarding eight years ago."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OH MY, SAY IT ISN'T SO!

Norman Einstein
05-04-2011, 12:24 PM
The Intellectual Dishonesty of Nancy Pelosi
Peter Wehner 05.03.2011 - 9:40 AM

Here’s Nancy Pelosi from a press conference on September 7, 2006:
[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.

And here’s Nancy Pelosi yesterday:
The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . .

This devastating then-and-now comparison comes to us courtesy of John Hinderaker of Power Line. It underscores the degree to which partisanship can ravage people’s fair-mindedness and, in the process, make them look like fools and hacks. Such things aren’t uncommon in politics—but what is rare is to see such intellectual dishonesty proven so conclusively.

|Zach|
05-04-2011, 12:25 PM
Proof ?

All Direckshun has done is discredit any information that could have / did come from it .

That's his motto, you can hear his drums banging in the background.
Hell there is obvious evidence still on the front page of DC. You know that when you type words they actually have meaning right? I could no doubt find post after post and thread after thread if I took any amount of time to search.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7617543&postcount=102

Your constant laziness with facts makes you look like a clown. This is a lot like the time you tried to paint me as anti religion which was just as false quite honestly offensive.

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 12:36 PM
Hell there is obvious evidence still on the front page of DC. You know that when you type words they actually have meaning right? I could no doubt find post after post and thread after thread if I took any amount of time to search.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7617543&postcount=102

Your constant laziness with facts makes you look like a clown. This is a lot like the time you tried to paint me as anti religion which was just as false quite honestly offensive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jose Rodriguez,A former head of counterterrorism at the CIA, who was investigated last year by the Justice Department for the destruction of videos showing senior al-Qaeda officials being interrogated, says that the harsh questioning of terrorism suspects produced the information that eventually led to Osama bin Laden's death.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CP 1
Dierk / Zach 0

Now This ? ( tried to paint me as anti religion ) Please explain !

kc rush
05-04-2011, 12:36 PM
Nothing a $6 million book deal wouldn't solve.


<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NKtNeIWLvIo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 12:54 PM
Really ?

Really.

Myself: We should refrain from torture.

ROYC: We need torture to save lives!

Myself: We've saved plenty of lives through standard interrogation.

ROYC: But terrorists really want to kill people.

Myself: We've saved plenty of lives from terrorists through standard interrogation.

ROYC: Yeah but what about the ones that really really want to kill people?

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 12:56 PM
I don't think people have argued that harsh interrogation should be the only tool in the interrogator's arsenal.

Torture is an arrow I'd rather keep out of our quiver altogether.

|Zach|
05-04-2011, 01:01 PM
CP 1
Dierk / Zach 0

Now This ? ( tried to paint me as anti religion ) Please explain !

Let me try and go slow Roy. Because what you posted has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We have played this game before where you start talking and don't understand what you are saying or responding to.


--------

1. You made this quote towards Direckshun "You and you liberal lunatic ways of condemning anything America does towards terrorist."

2. I saw that quote bolded it in response and called you a liar for posting it.

3. You asked for proof.

4. I responded with an example of Direckshun not condemning an action towards a terrorist and linked it. Linked here. One of what I am sure would be many links http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7617543&postcount=102

|Zach|
05-04-2011, 01:03 PM
Now This ? ( tried to paint me as anti religion ) Please explain !

You claimed I was an atheist and that Itry to discredit the word of God.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7286394&postcount=240

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 01:11 PM
Really.

Myself: We should refrain from torture.

ROYC: We need torture to save lives!

Myself: We've saved plenty of lives through standard interrogation.

ROYC: But terrorists really want to kill people.

Myself: We've saved plenty of lives from terrorists through standard interrogation.

ROYC: Yeah but what about the ones that really really want to kill people?

Your overkill is amusing, as much as my popcorn ways with your belief that none of it should be allowed, even if it means lost of lives.

Wanna try again ?

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 01:13 PM
Torture is an arrow I'd rather keep out of our quiver altogether.

Sometimes, torture is extreme interrogations, No ?

Just go ahead and admit as I have, it's best not to but in the event of saving lives in the event of war, use all available tools to your need.

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 01:15 PM
Much like the death penalty (which I don't generally view as immoral, but shouldn't be done because of the cost enhancements on the system), I thought of torture as wrong not primarily because of moral issues, but because it did not work as well as other strategies and often led to wrong results, from what I understood of it.

I do think there are times when torture can be retroactively decided as being a productive method: for instance, if torture led to the difusement of a bomb in Times Square that otherwise would have killed 4000 people, I think the torture was justified.

If torture led to the killing of Bin Laden, I think the torture was a good thing, if without the torture, Bin Laden would not have been found.

That might be a base, utilitarian philosophy on torture, but I wouldn't want anyone placed in a position of responsibility who would refuse to torture with the bomb ticking away, or with Bin Laden soon on the move.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 01:18 PM
Your overkill is amusing, as much as my popcorn ways with your belief that none of it should be allowed, even if it means lost of lives.

Wanna try again ?

You're a crazy person.

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 01:19 PM
You claimed I was an atheist and that Itry to discredit the word of God.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7286394&postcount=240

So as you posted that comment that day, it was the only time I mentioned it. IIRC, you were painting yourself as a atheist by trying to discredit my comments or responses.

I don't recall calling you an atheist since, No ?

You calling me a liar was wrong. Direckshun has painted himself into a hole that all EIT's is wrong at pretty much all cost.

He has not once came out that I know of and said I only support them in the event to saving American or innocent lives.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 01:20 PM
Much like the death penalty (which I don't generally view as immoral, but shouldn't be done because of the cost enhancements on the system), I thought of torture as wrong not primarily because of moral issues, but because it did not work as well as other strategies and often led to wrong results, from what I understood of it.

I do think there are times when torture can be retroactively decided as being a productive method: for instance, if torture led to the difusement of a bomb in Times Square that otherwise would have killed 4000 people, I think the torture was justified.

If torture led to the killing of Bin Laden, I think the torture was a good thing, if without the torture, Bin Laden would not have been found.

That might be a base, utilitarian philosophy on torture, but I wouldn't want anyone placed in a position of responsibility who would refuse to torture with the bomb ticking away, or with Bin Laden soon on the move.

"Ticking time bomb" scenarios do not exist in real life. This isn't "24."

Even if we did utilize any nuggets of intelligence from torture to glean information about Osama's whereabouts, it's clear that the vast mosaic of information we have was gleaned from old fashioned intelligence gathering. Which we captured OBL with.

If you're going to be utilitarian, at least be a good one.

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 01:21 PM
Much like the death penalty (which I don't generally view as immoral, but shouldn't be done because of the cost enhancements on the system), I thought of torture as wrong not primarily because of moral issues, but because it did not work as well as other strategies and often led to wrong results, from what I understood of it.

I do think there are times when torture can be retroactively decided as being a productive method: for instance, if torture led to the difusement of a bomb in Times Square that otherwise would have killed 4000 people, I think the torture was justified.

If torture led to the killing of Bin Laden, I think the torture was a good thing, if without the torture, Bin Laden would not have been found.

That might be a base, utilitarian philosophy on torture, but I wouldn't want anyone placed in a position of responsibility who would refuse to torture with the bomb ticking away, or with Bin Laden soon on the move.


Watch out, the lunatic left loons are in full bloom today. They are here within this thread .

Type softly! Shhhhh.....

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 01:21 PM
"Ticking time bomb" scenarios do not exist in real life. This isn't "24."

Even if we did utilize any nuggets of intelligence from torture to glean information about Osama's whereabouts, it's clear that the vast mosaic of information we have was gleaned from old fashioned intelligence gathering. Which we captured OBL with.

If you're going to be utilitarian, at least be a good one.

Dang it , too late.:clap:

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 01:22 PM
You're a crazy person.

Says the one crazier than me ?

That says a lot! Seriously!

|Zach|
05-04-2011, 01:23 PM
So as you posted that comment that day, it was the only time I mentioned it. IIRC, you were painting yourself as a atheist by trying to discredit my comments or responses.

I don't recall calling you an atheist since, No ?

You calling me a liar was wrong. Direckshun has painted himself into a hole that all EIT's is wrong at pretty much all cost.

He has not once came out that I know of and said I only support them in the event to saving American or innocent lives.

Actual facts just don'tmatter with you Roy. You are just in your own fantasy world.

-----

Roy: When did I ever paint you as anti religion?

Me: Proof

You: But I only did it once. Have I ever done it again?

:spock:

-------

Roy: Direckshun's liberal lunatic ways of condemns anything America does towards terrorist."

Me: Proof of that being false.

Roy: Responds with something that doesn't make sense.

|Zach|
05-04-2011, 01:24 PM
Do you understand what the words you type mean? Honest question.

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 01:25 PM
"Ticking time bomb" scenarios do not exist in real life. This isn't "24."

Even if we did utilize any nuggets of intelligence from torture to glean information about Osama's whereabouts, it's clear that the vast mosaic of information we have was gleaned from old fashioned intelligence gathering. Which we captured OBL with.

If you're going to be utilitarian, at least be a good one.

For these purposes, dealing with the morality question, I don't think it matters that a ticking time bomb scenario doesn't actually exist in real life.

I'm talking about the theoretical. In theory, if there is a ticking time bomb, and torture is a sure way of preventing it from killing people, then I support the use of torture in that instance.

I'm glad that the majority of information we got did not come from torture. That really doesn't surprise me, from what I (limitedly) understand about intelligence gathering.

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 01:27 PM
Watch out, the lunatic left loons are in full bloom today. They are here within this thread .

Type softly! Shhhhh.....

Your arguments seem to be pretty cartoonish, and I don't see the need for calling torture "enhanced interrogation techniques" unless you work as a press secretary for a politician.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 01:27 PM
For these purposes, dealing with the morality question, I don't think it matters that a ticking time bomb scenario doesn't actually exist in real life.

I'm talking about the theoretical. In theory, if there is a ticking time bomb, and torture is a sure way of preventing it from killing people, then I support the use of torture in that instance.

If it's purely theoretical, then you're basically saying torture is fine if we can locate unicorns with it.

The exception you're providing isn't real, it doesn't exist.

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 01:29 PM
Let me try and go slow Roy. Because what you posted has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We have played this game before where you start talking and don't understand what you are saying or responding to.


--------

1. You made this quote towards Direckshun "You and you liberal lunatic ways of condemning anything America does towards terrorist."

2. I saw that quote bolded it in response and called you a liar for posting it.

3. You asked for proof.

4. I responded with an example of Direckshun not condemning an action towards a terrorist and linked it. Linked here. One of what I am sure would be many links http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7617543&postcount=102

Does an alarm go off on your pc every time I type? Seriously?

If you would pay attention, this comment is not what he is saying. Read it .
A little more off topic, but I was actually celebrating Bin Laden's death, but not because he died, per se. I understand the concern of people who are worried that we do have some bloodlust in our veins. I'm not sure I join them in their concerns, but I think they have a reasonable concern for our collective state of mind.

I'm more happy because the guy can't kill anymore. I'd probably have been just as happy if we had him in a detention cell, or strapped him to a rocket and shot him into space.

His death is irrelevent to me. Finally neutralizing him was the goal I had all along.

It's good to seen that Direckshun is an American concerned about OBL being caught. It's how he was caught is the problem we disagree with.

We first had the typo of him saying , " Murder ". Of which I knew was a, typo. Funny, coming from him, but a typo. But his ever harping to anyone that disagrees that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" ( EIT's )
has no place in the military is absurd to some people.

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 01:30 PM
If it's purely theoretical, then you're basically saying torture is fine if we can locate unicorns with it.

The exception you're providing isn't real, it doesn't exist.

It's theoretical in the sense that I'm not arguing about a historical event. But torture exists, ticking bombs exist, people that plant them and people that try to stop them exist. The scenario is definitely plausible, if even unusual (I wouldn't go to say that that has NEVER!! happened). It's worth mentioning when talking about the boundaries of morality and torture for information gathering.

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 01:32 PM
For these purposes, dealing with the morality question, I don't think it matters that a ticking time bomb scenario doesn't actually exist in real life.

I'm talking about the theoretical. In theory, if there is a ticking time bomb, and torture is a sure way of preventing it from killing people, then I support the use of torture in that instance.

I'm glad that the majority of information we got did not come from torture. That really doesn't surprise me, from what I (limitedly) understand about intelligence gathering.

God forbid if I say this, err, wait, I pretty much did.

Blast him boys !:bang::Bartee:

|Zach|
05-04-2011, 01:33 PM
If you would pay attention, this comment is not what he is saying. Read it .



Me pay attention? That is the comment I bolded. On the followup it is the exact comment I stated outright. When someone bolds something they are doing it emphasize that comment when making a point.

So as if I didn't make it clear enough in the other post...which any other reasonable person could understand let me try again with you.

You typed to Direckshun "You and you liberal lunatic ways of condemning anything America does towards terrorist."

That sentence is completely false and I showed you as such.

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 01:36 PM
God forbid if I say this, err, wait, I pretty much did.

Blast him boys !:bang::Bartee:

I thought you were mostly talking about giving bad guys ice cream.

ROYC75
05-04-2011, 01:40 PM
I thought you were mostly talking about giving bad guys ice cream.

I think they took the ice cream away after the 1st week ?:shrug: I dunno, Maybe one of the other guys can answer this?

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 01:44 PM
I think they took the ice cream away after the 1st week ?:shrug: I dunno, Maybe one of the other guys can answer this?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wAxDMfEGhoY/TNXN6QQ0u0I/AAAAAAAAAWI/bw3_EiZUxS8/s1600/Not+Sure+if+serious.jpg

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 01:54 PM
It's theoretical in the sense that I'm not arguing about a historical event. But torture exists, ticking bombs exist, people that plant them and people that try to stop them exist. The scenario is definitely plausible, if even unusual (I wouldn't go to say that that has NEVER!! happened). It's worth mentioning when talking about the boundaries of morality and torture for information gathering.

The odds of a "ticking time bomb" scenario actually existing enough to prompt torture is within the same numerical odds as the average poll question margin of error, and should be treated as if they never exist.

|Zach|
05-04-2011, 02:08 PM
<iframe width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/B3dUfykR-_g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

patteeu
05-04-2011, 02:25 PM
Torture is an arrow I'd rather keep out of our quiver altogether.

I'm not talking about torture.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 02:57 PM
I'm not talking about torture.

I don't know why not.

Torture can yeild useful information every now and again. Why hold back?

patteeu
05-04-2011, 03:08 PM
I don't know why not.

Torture can yeild useful information every now and again. Why hold back?

Because we're talking about specific enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration.

And the point of that post was that it's not common for people to claim that enhanced techniques are the only techniques that ever work, which seemed to be the premise of your earlier post.

patteeu
05-04-2011, 03:15 PM
"Ticking time bomb" scenarios do not exist in real life. This isn't "24."

Even if we did utilize any nuggets of intelligence from torture to glean information about Osama's whereabouts, it's clear that the vast mosaic of information we have was gleaned from old fashioned intelligence gathering. Which we captured OBL with.

If you're going to be utilitarian, at least be a good one.

:spock: Ticking time bomb cases certainly do exist in real life.

patteeu
05-04-2011, 03:16 PM
Your arguments seem to be pretty cartoonish, and I don't see the need for calling torture "enhanced interrogation techniques" unless you work as a press secretary for a politician.

What's the reason for calling enhanced interrogation techniques "torture"? I could understand your argument if you were suggesting that we drop the euphemism in favor of an actual description (e.g. waterboarding, belly pat, lapel shake, etc.), but to replace it with a charged word like "torture" which doesn't even technically cover this type of activity based on the legal definition of the term seems inappropriate.

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 04:02 PM
What's the reason for calling enhanced interrogation techniques "torture"? I could understand your argument if you were suggesting that we drop the euphemism in favor of an actual description (e.g. waterboarding, belly pat, lapel shake, etc.), but to replace it with a charged word like "torture" which doesn't even technically cover this type of activity based on the legal definition of the term seems inappropriate.

I'm referring to waterboarding, which is considered torture. Enhanced interrogation techniques is a silly term for whitewashing propaganda. If waterboarding is not the activity at issue, then please tell me what is.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 04:46 PM
fbal4lif32 and I are in complete agreement.

"Enhanced interrogation," from the moment it was introduced, was Orwellian terminology for torture.

Why call it "enhanced"?

The only thing that makes it different from standard interrogation is brutality. That's the only thing enhanced about it, the physical and psychological harm we are inflicting.

Sensory deprivation until someone goes insane.

Simulated drownings.

Mock executions.

Extreme temperatures.

Coffin sized boxes, with insects.

Caking them in feces.

Beatings. Stress positions. Forced standing.

Good god, pat. Our """"interrogations"""" have a body count.

It's torture.

patteeu
05-04-2011, 04:46 PM
I'm referring to waterboarding, which is considered torture. Enhanced interrogation techniques is a silly term for whitewashing propaganda. If waterboarding is not the activity at issue, then please tell me what is.

You might consider it torture, but that's certainly not a universal perspective. I don't consider it torture in all cases. That's the point. Why exaggerate by using an incendiary term that's in dispute instead of just saying "waterboarding". Using the term "torture" is the same type of propagandizing that you say using a term like "enhanced interrogation" is.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 04:48 PM
Because we're talking about specific enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration.

And the point of that post was that it's not common for people to claim that enhanced techniques are the only techniques that ever work, which seemed to be the premise of your earlier post.

The point is, there are a ton of different techniques that could work.

Standard interrogation works as well as any.

It gives you better information than torture. And it's far less immoral and inhuman.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 04:50 PM
I don't consider it torture in all cases. That's the point. Why exaggerate by using an incendiary term that's in dispute instead of just saying "waterboarding". Using the term "torture" is the same type of propagandizing that you say using a term like "enhanced interrogation" is.

Is there anything about "enhanced interrogation" that makes it different than standard interrogation, other than its brutality?

patteeu
05-04-2011, 04:54 PM
fbal4lif32 and I are in complete agreement.

"Enhanced interrogation," from the moment it was introduced, was Orwellian terminology for torture.

Why call it "enhanced"?

The only thing that makes it different from standard interrogation is brutality. That's the only thing enhanced about it, the physical and psychological harm we are inflicting.

Sensory deprivation until someone goes insane.

Simulated drownings.

Mock executions.

Extreme temperatures.

Coffin sized boxes, with insects.

Caking them in feces.

Beatings. Stress positions. Forced standing.

Good god, pat. Our """"interrogations"""" have a body count.

It's torture.

I'm confident that this isn't correct. "Caking them in feces" is not one of the authorized enhanced interrogation techniques.

What's wrong with using an accurate description of the specific technique (e.g. waterboarding, stress positions, etc.) instead of using a loaded word that carries connotations of sadism and disfigurement?

patteeu
05-04-2011, 04:57 PM
Is there anything about "enhanced interrogation" that makes it different than standard interrogation, other than its brutality?

Sure. Better results in certain cases.

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 05:00 PM
You might consider it torture, but that's certainly not a universal perspective. I don't consider it torture in all cases. That's the point. Why exaggerate by using an incendiary term that's in dispute instead of just saying "waterboarding". Using the term "torture" is the same type of propagandizing that you say using a term like "enhanced interrogation" is.

Of course it's not a universal perspective. What is? Some people think Osama was dead in 2001, some people think Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya, and some people think waterboarding isn't torture.

Why is torture incendiary? Why can't the Bush-bootlickers just embrace it? "Yes, we tortured, but it wasn't the worst type of torture, and we did it with good intentions -- to protect you."

Torture: "the infliction of intense pain to the body or mind to punish, to extract a confession or information, or to obtain sadistic pleasure."

That's exactly what waterboarding as performed by the US was.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 05:12 PM
What's wrong with using an accurate description of the specific technique (e.g. waterboarding, stress positions, etc.) instead of using a loaded word that carries connotations of sadism and disfigurement?

People died during our interrogations, pat.

Sadism and disfigurement is necessarily going to be a part of whatever euphemism you want to employ for what is clearly torture to the sober evaluator who isn't on the GOP or Bush administration payrolls.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 05:14 PM
Sure. Better results in certain cases.

Dodge.

A clever dodge, and completely unsupported by evidence, but a dodge nonetheless.

The only difference in the TACTICS between standard interrogations and EITs is brutality. There is no other difference between them.

If that's what we're calling "enhancing"...

patteeu
05-04-2011, 05:20 PM
Of course it's not a universal perspective. What is? Some people think Osama was dead in 2001, some people think Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya, and some people think waterboarding isn't torture.

Why is torture incendiary? Why can't the Bush-bootlickers just embrace it? "Yes, we tortured, but it wasn't the worst type of torture, and we did it with good intentions -- to protect you."

Torture: "the infliction of intense pain to the body or mind to punish, to extract a confession or information, or to obtain sadistic pleasure."

That's exactly what waterboarding as performed by the US was.

What is? Calling the technique by it's name ("waterboarding") is considerably better than using a term that could just as easily apply to skinning someone alive or stretching them on a rack until their extremities are ripped off. Describing the specific technique would be even better, but some degree of shorthand makes for more manageable communication.

I'll tell you why people like you and Direckshun use "torture". It's because you can't make an effective argument using a more accurate and specifically descriptive but less emotionally charged term.

patteeu
05-04-2011, 05:24 PM
Dodge.

A clever dodge, and completely unsupported by evidence, but a dodge nonetheless.

The only difference in the TACTICS between standard interrogations and EITs is brutality. There is no other difference between them.

If that's what we're calling "enhancing"...

No, not brutality. The difference is that they work better on the psychology of the subject to create a sense of hopelessness without substantial risk of long term physical damage.

KC Dan
05-04-2011, 05:26 PM
People died during our interrogations, pat.
Link please?

patteeu
05-04-2011, 05:28 PM
People died during our interrogations, pat.

Sadism and disfigurement is necessarily going to be a part of whatever euphemism you want to employ for what is clearly torture to the sober evaluator who isn't on the GOP or Bush administration payrolls.

I don't know that that's true. Certainly there is no evidence that anyone died while being waterboarded. And while some may have died during interrogation, I've seen no compelling evidence that people died during interrogation using authorized enhanced techniques. There are always going to be unauthorized excesses during wartime and we shouldn't conflate the two.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 05:46 PM
No, not brutality. The difference is that they work better on the psychology of the subject to create a sense of hopelessness without substantial risk of long term physical damage.

What evidence is there that this hopelessness that's so important to create is better for useful intelligence?

Don't give me your bullshit intuition, either. Do you have evidence, or do you not have evidence.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 05:51 PM
Link please?

I don't know that that's true.

Military pathologists determined several detainee deaths as homicides.

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

Certainly there is no evidence that anyone died while being waterboarded. And while some may have died during interrogation, I've seen no compelling evidence that people died during interrogation using authorized enhanced techniques.

That's because anything that can be used to gather evidence were either (a.) not allowed in these interrogations to begin with, or (b.) have since been destroyed. That's not an argument in favor of everything being perfectly fine with EITs.

There are always going to be unauthorized excesses during wartime and we shouldn't conflate the two.

Exactly -- there will always be excesses from what is permitted.

Which is why standard interrogation techniques never authorized the brutal torturous techniques that became the norm under Bush: to protect the interrogators.

When you get "excessive" during standard interrogations, the result is not frequently death that opened up our expensively-trained interrogators to legal liability.

But that sure became the norm once we moved the standard into the darker, brutal techniques.

Who could have seen that coming? Other than, you know, the people who devised the regulations in the first place.

Donger
05-04-2011, 05:53 PM
It really is a good thing that realists run the world. Can you imagine if the Direckshuns of our country actually got in office?

KC Dan
05-04-2011, 06:00 PM
Military pathologists determined several detainee deaths as homicides.

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/


Thank you. There seems to be (8) homicides via this link. I know there were multiple soldiers charged with murder in Iraq/Afghanistan. So, it is not clear by this link that these (8) deaths were due to torture of some sort. Maybe just plain murder not from torture

Autopsy Reports: Natural/Iraq 11; Autopsy Reports: Accident/Iraq: 1; Autopsy Reports Homicide/Iraq: 5; Autospy Reports Homicide/Afhganistan: 3.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 06:05 PM
Thank you. There seems to be (8) homicides via this link. I know there were multiple soldiers charged with murder in Iraq/Afghanistan. So, it is not clear by this link that these (8) deaths were due to torture of some sort. Maybe just plain murder not from torture

Autopsy Reports: Natural/Iraq 11; Autopsy Reports: Accident/Iraq: 1; Autopsy Reports Homicide/Iraq: 5; Autospy Reports Homicide/Afhganistan: 3.

Yeah, you're probably right.

http://time.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/abugrahib4_gallery__470x3750_2.jpg

patteeu
05-04-2011, 06:13 PM
Military pathologists determined several detainee deaths as homicides.

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/



That's because anything that can be used to gather evidence were either (a.) not allowed in these interrogations to begin with, or (b.) have since been destroyed. That's not an argument in favor of everything being perfectly fine with EITs.



Exactly -- there will always be excesses from what is permitted.

Which is why standard interrogation techniques never authorized the brutal torturous techniques that became the norm under Bush: to protect the interrogators.

When you get "excessive" during standard interrogations, the result is not frequently death that opened up our expensively-trained interrogators to legal liability.

But that sure became the norm once we moved the standard into the darker, brutal techniques.

Who could have seen that coming? Other than, you know, the people who devised the regulations in the first place.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this data. The existence of an authorized enhanced interrogation program is not to blame when non-authorized excesses take place. I invite you to point out a specific instance where a fatality occurred as a result of an authorized enhanced interrogation technique.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 06:15 PM
The existence of an authorized enhanced interrogation program is not to blame when non-authorized excesses take place.

Wrong.

If you can reasonably expect that someone is going to cross the line at some point, which you yourself has argued "always" happens, then you CAN lay blame for drawing the line so close to a disaster waiting to happen.

Especially when you could have JUST AS EASILY drawn the line back at standard interrogation, which has a fine history of bringing in intelligence that saves lives.

Know of a lot of detainees dying under standard interrogation, pat?

patteeu
05-04-2011, 07:00 PM
Wrong.

If you can reasonably expect that someone is going to cross the line at some point, which you yourself has argued "always" happens, then you CAN lay blame for drawing the line so close to a disaster waiting to happen.

Especially when you could have JUST AS EASILY drawn the line back at standard interrogation, which has a fine history of bringing in intelligence that saves lives.

Know of a lot of detainees dying under standard interrogation, pat?

No, I'm right. There is no reason to believe that these are cases of people crossing the line from authorized enhanced interrogation to abusive interrogation. These are cases of people crossing the line from standard interrogation to abusive interrogation.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 07:03 PM
There are always going to be unauthorized excesses during wartime

There is no reason to believe that these are cases of people crossing the line from authorized enhanced interrogation to abusive interrogation.

You're pretzeling.

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 08:09 PM
What is? Calling the technique by it's name ("waterboarding") is considerably better than using a term that could just as easily apply to skinning someone alive or stretching them on a rack until their extremities are ripped off. Describing the specific technique would be even better, but some degree of shorthand makes for more manageable communication.

I'll tell you why people like you and Direckshun use "torture". It's because you can't make an effective argument using a more accurate and specifically descriptive but less emotionally charged term.

Actually, I just use it because I don't feel the need to pussyfoot around it for the sake of niceties and political correctness.

Curious person: "What's waterboarding?"
Me: "It's a form of torture: inflicting pain on someone for the purpose of getting information."
Someone with an agenda: "It's an enhanced interrogation technique! Don't call it torture! Those who call it torture have an agenda!"

I mean, really? Really? We can't call a spade a spade anymore?

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 08:14 PM
We did not kill Bin Laden! We strategically concluded his heartbeat in an intentional manner.

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 08:15 PM
They aren't conspiracy theorists! They are persons with an alternative theory of historical events.

fbal4lif32
05-04-2011, 08:16 PM
Not everything we did was torture, and not everyone was tortured, but those who we did torture were tortured.

go bowe
05-04-2011, 08:27 PM
i don't know about interrogation but i feel a sense of hopelessness when my wife questions me about where i've been...

RJ
05-04-2011, 08:40 PM
i don't know about interrogation but i feel a sense of hopelessness when my wife questions me about where i've been...


That's exactly why I no longer leave the house other than to go to work.

Mizzou_8541
05-04-2011, 08:57 PM
There's no evidence on earth that I've seen (other than the fallible intuition between your ears) that proves torture is more effective at extracting information than standard interrogation.

I would like to go through SERE school again with you in my classs. You could distract the instructors from beating the sh*t out of me by debating the merits of standard interrogation techniques.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 10:05 PM
You could distract the instructors from beating the sh*t out of me by debating the merits of standard interrogation techniques.

I'm not debating the merits of standard interrogation. Keep up, please.

Mizzou_8541
05-04-2011, 10:09 PM
I'm not debating the merits of standard interrogation. Keep up, please.

So then you do understand wateboarding works? Gotcha.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 10:15 PM
So then you do understand wateboarding works? Gotcha.

I don't even know what "works" means?

It is capable of occasionally producing intelligence?

Read the OP, I'm pretty sure I just quoted an entire argument which admitted that point, a point I never denied. Again, please keep up.

The idea that waterboarding is anything other than torture under the Orwellian name of "enhanced turd polishing" is assinine. There is no evidence I've seen that it works any better than standard interrogation.

If you can cite any, put it in the field of play.

Mizzou_8541
05-04-2011, 10:16 PM
I don't even know what "works" means?

It is capable of occasionally producing intelligence?

Read the OP, I'm pretty sure I just quoted an entire argument which admitted that point, a point I never denied. Again, please keep up.

The idea that waterboarding is anything other than torture under the Orwellian name of "enhanced turd polishing" is assinine. There is no evidence I've seen that it works any better than standard interrogation.

If you can cite any, put it in the field of play.

Which is why I would like to go back through SERE school with you...you would find out what works and what doesn't. Plus, it would be funny to see someone like you attempt it.

Direckshun
05-04-2011, 10:19 PM
Which is why I would like to go back through SERE school with you...you would find out what works and what doesn't..

I don't need SERE school to provide all the evidence I need that standard interrogation (that doesn't include torture porn's flavor of the month) yeilds actionable intelligence that has saved many American lives.

Plus, it would be funny to see someone like you attempt it.

Yes, yes, you'd like to waterboard me. How original. I'll stack that little valentine right next to all the "I want to shoot you" bullshit I get in gun control threads.

Mizzou_8541
05-04-2011, 10:30 PM
I don't need SERE school to provide all the evidence I need that standard interrogation (that doesn't include torture porn's flavor of the month) yeilds actionable intelligence that has saved many American lives.



Yes, yes, you'd like to waterboard me. How original. I'll stack that little valentine right next to all the "I want to shoot you" bullshit I get in gun control threads.

You are the definition of out of touch. Another one of the, "I have read it in a book, so clearly that trumps real life experience," crowd. Classic. You really have no clue how the world works. And, no I don't want to waterboard you, or anyone for that matter.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 12:36 AM
You are the definition of out of touch. Another one of the, "I have read it in a book, so clearly that trumps real life experience," crowd. Classic. You really have no clue how the world works.

A whole ton of bluster here, but absolutely zero substance.

When you want to make an argument, make an argument. Stop wasting bandwidth with your DaneMcCloud "I've been there so nobody's allowed to contradict me" bullshit.

Make an argument, or keep wasting your time.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:25 AM
You're pretzeling.

No, I think I'm being pretty consistent and straightforward. If we're going to talk about the practices authorized by the Bush administration, we should talk about the people who received those authorizations and the interrogations they performed under those authorizations. If, in those cases, people died, I'd be interested to hear about it. But what you're doing is pulling out examples of people who had no authorization to use the enhanced techniques crossing the line on their own. That can't be blamed on the Bush authorizations.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:27 AM
Actually, I just use it because I don't feel the need to pussyfoot around it for the sake of niceties and political correctness.

Curious person: "What's waterboarding?"
Me: "It's a form of torture: inflicting pain on someone for the purpose of getting information."
Someone with an agenda: "It's an enhanced interrogation technique! Don't call it torture! Those who call it torture have an agenda!"

I mean, really? Really? We can't call a spade a spade anymore?

You use it to inflame the passions of your listener in the same way yours have erroneously been enflamed. I get you.

We can certainly call a spade a spade, but we can't call a spade a blood-drenched tool of destruction. Let's call waterboarding waterboarding and leave the demagoguery on the shelf.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:31 AM
We did not kill Bin Laden! We strategically concluded his heartbeat in an intentional manner.

If this debate was about the death of bin Laden, I'd be using a euphemistic phrase like that and you'd be calling it a cold-blooded murder.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 05:47 AM
You use it to inflame the passions of your listener in the same way yours have erroneously been enflamed. I get you.

We can certainly call a spade a spade, but we can't call a spade a blood-drenched tool of destruction. Let's call waterboarding waterboarding and leave the demagoguery on the shelf.

Okay, let's leave demagoguery off the shelf. We'll recognize that "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a term the adminstration created to soften their acts.

Of the acts, waterboarding was one. We can call waterboarding waterboarding. But we can also recognize that it's a subset of torture techniques.

You're insisting that we not call football a sport, but either call it only football [or passively agree with the administration's use of the term 'enhanced contact physical activity']

No, football is a sport.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 05:48 AM
If this debate was about the death of bin Laden, I'd be using a euphemistic phrase like that and you'd be calling it a cold-blooded murder.

Killing suits everyone. It's simple, it's to the point, it's correct and accurate. Just like the use of torture in this discussion.

Mizzou_8541
05-05-2011, 06:32 AM
A whole ton of bluster here, but absolutely zero substance.

When you want to make an argument, make an argument. Stop wasting bandwidth with your DaneMcCloud "I've been there so nobody's allowed to contradict me" bullshit.

Make an argument, or keep wasting your time.

My argument is, I don't think traditional interrogation works as well other methods...at least in my experience. I thought that was pretty clear.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 06:43 AM
Okay, let's leave demagoguery off the shelf. We'll recognize that "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a term the adminstration created to soften their acts.

Of the acts, waterboarding was one. We can call waterboarding waterboarding. But we can also recognize that it's a subset of torture techniques.

You're insisting that we not call football a sport, but either call it only football [or passively agree with the administration's use of the term 'enhanced contact physical activity']

No, football is a sport.

No. This is wrong. We don't agree that it's a subset of torture because it isn't. You might call pro wrestling a sport and it may bear some resemblance to a sport but it's not a sport so just call it pro wrestling.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 06:45 AM
Killing suits everyone. It's simple, it's to the point, it's correct and accurate. Just like the use of torture in this discussion.

I was with you until you botched that last sentence.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 06:48 AM
My argument is, I don't think traditional interrogation works as well other methods...at least in my experience. I thought that was pretty clear.

It seemed pretty clear to me. Apparently actual experience with the subject is meaningless compared to having Glen Greenwald on your side though. :shrug:

KILLER_CLOWN
05-05-2011, 09:13 AM
Torture Whistleblower cut off mid sentence

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7MRU1MVWBsE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7MRU1MVWBsE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 09:21 AM
No. This is wrong. We don't agree that it's a subset of torture because it isn't. You might call pro wrestling a sport and it may bear some resemblance to a sport but it's not a sport so just call it pro wrestling.

If it fits the definition of torture, why can't we call it torture? Debate if it's legal, but don't debate that it doesn't fit the definition when it clearly fits the definition.

Do you accept the use of waterboarding as an "enhanced interrogation technique" right? Or is that problematic for you? Did you protest the administration's use of that categorizing? Is that something you're not really into second-guessing?

This is a silly waste of political lawyering.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 09:36 AM
I've given Black's Law dictionary's definition of torture

Here is the Oxford Dictionary: "the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something."

Here is M-W: "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure."

Dictionary.com: "the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion."

Waterboarding, correct me if I'm wrong, is when you lay someone on their back against their will and pour water into their mouth and nose. The feeling is to induce the receiver into a state of a drowning-like experience, where they can't breath and it feels severe enough that they feel as if they are dying. Sometimes lung damage occurs from the physical pain that is inflicted. The reason we did this was so that the receiver was coerced into giving information.

As I see it, all these definitions of torture have two central factors: 1) the infliction of severe pain and 2) for purpose of coercion.

Waterboarding, as used against the terrorists, was severely painful and was used in order to coerce the terrorists into giving us information about terrorist activites.

Thus, waterboarding fits torture. Isn't this common sense stuff? What's the political response? It's completely ridiculous. Say it was justified, say it was legal, but don't ignore everything about how we use language in order to make a politically correct move of complete horseshit.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 10:51 AM
If it fits the definition of torture, why can't we call it torture? Debate if it's legal, but don't debate that it doesn't fit the definition when it clearly fits the definition.

Do you accept the use of waterboarding as an "enhanced interrogation technique" right? Or is that problematic for you? Did you protest the administration's use of that categorizing? Is that something you're not really into second-guessing?

This is a silly waste of political lawyering.

It doesn't fit the definition, which is why you're wrong to use it.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-05-2011, 11:15 AM
It's only torture if it happens to you, if you feel nothing of others pain then it isn't torture.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 11:31 AM
I've given Black's Law dictionary's definition of torture

Here is the Oxford Dictionary: "the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something."

Here is M-W: "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure."

Dictionary.com: "the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion."

Waterboarding, correct me if I'm wrong, is when you lay someone on their back against their will and pour water into their mouth and nose. The feeling is to induce the receiver into a state of a drowning-like experience, where they can't breath and it feels severe enough that they feel as if they are dying. Sometimes lung damage occurs from the physical pain that is inflicted. The reason we did this was so that the receiver was coerced into giving information.

As I see it, all these definitions of torture have two central factors: 1) the infliction of severe pain and 2) for purpose of coercion.

Waterboarding, as used against the terrorists, was severely painful and was used in order to coerce the terrorists into giving us information about terrorist activites.

Thus, waterboarding fits torture. Isn't this common sense stuff? What's the political response? It's completely ridiculous. Say it was justified, say it was legal, but don't ignore everything about how we use language in order to make a politically correct move of complete horseshit.

There is no burning, crushing or wounding here. There are careful measures taken to prevent lung damage so that's a red herring too. Punishment was not a factor. Nor was sadism. So your argument, using these various definitions, rests entirely on whether or not waterboarding constitutes "severe pain", "intense pain", or "severe physical pain" and none of these are the case. Waterboarding is about mental distress, not pain. Pain is involved, but it's not the kind of excruciating pain these definitions contemplate.

Here's another, more relevant definition for you. It's from the US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html):

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

These enhanced techniques were never specifically intended to inflict any kind of severe pain or suffering. They were intended to pull the target out of his comfort zone of knowing what kind of treatment he could expect. Extensive precautions were taken to avoid injury and to avoid severe pain and suffering. These precautions distinguish the enhanced interrogation technique of waterboarding with other run-of-the-mill cases of waterboarding that might well be torture.

But even if you continue to believe that waterboarding somehow barely eeks into the most expansive definition of "torture" my argument remains. Why use a term that in "the way we use language" generally means something far more severe and sinister than this instead of just using the name of the technique? The reason, of course, is because you want to make it sound much worse than it was.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 11:38 AM
It's only torture if it happens to you, if you feel nothing of others pain then it isn't torture.

Watching my kid's soccer game on a cold, rainy spring morning is torture when it happens to me.

Saul Good
05-05-2011, 11:52 AM
It really is a good thing that realists run the world. Can you imagine if the Direckshuns of our country actually got in office?

They get into office regularly. Fortunately, they become realists when the bullets start flying.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 11:58 AM
There is no burning, crushing or wounding here.


I'm not convinced that "as from" means "exclusively" like you seem to do in that definition. "As from" seems to mean something along the lines of "for example."

There are careful measures taken to prevent lung damage so that's a red herring too.

It's not a red herring. Lung damage is a probable effect of the waterboarding. It goes to show the pain involved with the use.

Punishment was not a factor. Nor was sadism.

Coercion is the element at issue.

So your argument, using these various definitions, rests entirely on whether or not waterboarding constitutes "severe pain", "intense pain", or "severe physical pain" and none of these are the case. Waterboarding is about mental distress, not pain. Pain is involved, but it's not the kind of excruciating pain these definitions contemplate.

The element is "severe pain":: Pain, from M-W, is " localized physical suffering associated with bodily disorder (as a disease or an injury); also : a basic bodily sensation induced by a noxious stimulus, received by naked nerve endings, characterized by physical discomfort (as pricking, throbbing, or aching), and typically leading to evasive action."

Severe, from M-W, is: "[8]of a great degree"

I think a reasonable conclusion is that the feeling of drowning against one's will is a "a basic bodily sensation induced by a noxious stimulus, received by naked nerve endings, characterized by physical discomfort, and typically leading to evasive action" that is "of a great degree."

I don't think a reasonable conclusion is that the feeling of drowning against one's will is not a pain, or is an ordinary pain, like stubbing a toe or skinning a knee (which would be pains not to a great degree).

Here's another, more relevant definition for you. It's from the US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html):

These enhanced techniques were never specifically intended to inflict any kind of severe pain or suffering. They were intended to pull the target out of his comfort zone of knowing what kind of treatment he could expect. Extensive precautions were taken to avoid injury and to avoid severe pain and suffering. These precautions distinguish the enhanced interrogation technique of waterboarding with other run-of-the-mill cases of waterboarding that might well be torture.

But even if you continue to believe that waterboarding somehow barely eeks into the most expansive definition of "torture" my argument remains. Why use a term that in "the way we use language" generally means something far more severe and sinister than this instead of just using the name of the technique? The reason, of course, is because you want to make it sound much worse than it was.

I'm not seeing in the definitions I gave where there is a specific intent element to cause a kind of severe pain or suffering; instead, it's a severe pain intended to coerce. You've completely fabricated an idea that the definition requires an intent to cause severe pain. The reality is that severe pain is the element of the definition, not "intent to cause severe pain." Severe pain just is or isn't here.

In contrast to whatever you speculate my desires are, I think you want to make it sound like waterboarding is an everyday interrogation technique, but just a little more enhanced than usual. I think you want to make it sound much less worse than it was. Enhanced interrogation technique does not imply physical pain. It implies special questioning strategies, thought up by some Yale professor, not often used except in crimes of a higher order.

I don't know why you think that torture generally means something far more severe and sinister than the stimulation of drowning which had lead to lung damage. Presumably, plucking fingernails or zapping genitals is something that you consider to be torture, but you're in a cute position where you could dishonestly say that torture is only thought of as being stretched, whipped with chains, and mutiliated inch by inch, all at the same time, only. But I suspect you would be shocked if your daughters were arrested for marijuana possession, taken to the police station, laid on their backs with towels over their heads, and the officers proceeded to stimulate their drowning, albeit carefully so as not to damage their lungs (though shucks, it happened anyway). You would win a huge lawsuit for those actions. Your daughters would be psychologically tormented for years, if not for the rest of their lives.

I think your concerns of language abuse for political means are severely misplaced. And along those lines, you haven't answered my question: would you here and now criticize the adminstration's use of the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques?" Will you own up that the administration used it for the political-agenda-driven use of softening the blow of the actual actions taken?

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 12:11 PM
I'm not opposed to using the specific-intent definition from the Code, but you'll have to agree that when people use or think of the term "torture," they are not usually thinking of the U.S. Code's say on torture. They are thinking of the general definitions of torture, which is what I've been talking about. This wasn't a legal argument. This was a language argument.

I still, however, think your reasoning based on the language of the Code is a stretch.

Saul Good
05-05-2011, 12:13 PM
Some of these arguments are just silly. Waterboarding is a label that conveys a very specific meaning. 4lif is arguing that we should use a more ambiguous label to describe it. The only reasons to use a more ambiguous term would be for brevity or to editorialize it. "Waterboard" and "torture" are both one-word terms, so brevity clearly isn't the impetus behind it. To use pat's analogy, he is calling it "wrestling", and you are insisting on calling it "sports".

Direckshun is giving examples of times when techniques other than waterboarding/torture have produced a desired outcome and then acting as if that proves that standard interrogation is sufficient in all cases. In order to bolster his argument, he has assigned the absurd argument to his detractors which makes it seem as if proponents of waterboard/torture somehow oppose standard interrogation.

He's against football players wearing helmets, so he's pointing to examples of injuries being prevented by shoulder pads. Then, he's insisting that proponents of helmets want the players to be nude save helmets.

Radar Chief
05-05-2011, 12:18 PM
It's not a red herring. Lung damage is a probable effect of the waterboarding. It goes to show the pain involved with the use.

Water shouldn’t get into the lungs while WBing as the water is poured into the sinuses while the detainee is held upside down.
Sinus damage may be a possibility but lung damage shouldn’t have anything to do with it.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 12:20 PM
Some of these arguments are just silly. Waterboarding is a label that conveys a very specific meaning. 4lif is arguing that we should use a more ambiguous label to describe it. The only reasons to use a more ambiguous term would be for brevity or to editorialize it. "Waterboard" and "torture" are both one-word terms, so brevity clearly isn't the impetus behind it. To use pat's analogy, he is calling it "wrestling", and you are insisting on calling it "sports".

It's not about the syllables. Waterboarding just wasn't that commonly known before 200x. Actually, it sounds fun. "I want to go waterboarding this week in Lake Tahoe"

It's natural for something in such a case to asked to be clarified. The administration's clarification of waterboarding was an "enhanced interrogation technique" which is pretty cushy. My alternative term is "torture" because it fits the definition of torture: inflicting severe pain on someone in order to coerce them into something."

I don't think torture is ambigious. Yes, it can be broken down into many specific examples, of which waterboarding is one, but nobody is standing around wondering what torture is. We know what torture is. Like porn almost, we know it when we see it.

I take it you are opposed to the administration's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" because it was unspecific and has many more syllables. But do you at least recognize the political motivation for its use?

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 12:22 PM
Water shouldn’t get into the lungs while WBing as the water is poured into the sinuses while the detainee is held upside down.
Sinus damage may be a possibility but lung damage shouldn’t have anything to do with it.

Hasn't lung damage been shown to be an effect of waterboarding? Maybe it's not the actual water being poured but the person's reaction to the waterboarding.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 12:23 PM
I'm not convinced that "as from" means "exclusively" like you seem to do in that definition. "As from" seems to mean something along the lines of "for example."



Of course it doesn't mean "exclusively", but it does mean that those are representative examples. Nothing like that occurs during the type of waterboarding we're talking about.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 12:25 PM
Of course it doesn't mean "exclusively"

Okay, great. Next!

patteeu
05-05-2011, 12:27 PM
It's not a red herring. Lung damage is a probable effect of the waterboarding. It goes to show the pain involved with the use.

Where do you come up with this stuff? The guidelines for the enhanced technique of waterboarding required a medical expert to oversee the process to make sure that the procedure remained safe. To my knowledge, there is no indication that any of the 3 subjects of waterboarding suffered any damage to their lungs.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 12:31 PM
Where do you come up with this stuff? The guidelines for the enhanced technique of waterboarding required a medical expert to oversee the process to make sure that the procedure remained safe. To my knowledge, there is no indication that any of the 3 subjects of waterboarding suffered any damage to their lungs.

Page 6 includes testimony from a doctor stating the risk of lung damage. http://intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf#page=6

patteeu
05-05-2011, 12:34 PM
The element is "severe pain":: Pain, from M-W, is " localized physical suffering associated with bodily disorder (as a disease or an injury); also : a basic bodily sensation induced by a noxious stimulus, received by naked nerve endings, characterized by physical discomfort (as pricking, throbbing, or aching), and typically leading to evasive action."

Severe, from M-W, is: "[8]of a great degree"

I think a reasonable conclusion is that the feeling of drowning against one's will is a "a basic bodily sensation induced by a noxious stimulus, received by naked nerve endings, characterized by physical discomfort, and typically leading to evasive action" that is "of a great degree."

I don't think a reasonable conclusion is that the feeling of drowning against one's will is not a pain, or is an ordinary pain, like stubbing a toe or skinning a knee (which would be pains not to a great degree).

This is rationalization. I don't think it's reasonable at all to conclude that the feeling of drowning is severe pain. At best (from your pov), it's an arguable matter depending on how low your "severe" threshold is. Why use an ambiguous term like "torture" given the fact that we can't find agreement on a definition nor on the elements of the definition when instead you can use the actual name of the technique?

patteeu
05-05-2011, 12:39 PM
Page 6 includes testimony from a doctor stating the risk of lung damage. http://intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf#page=6

As I already mentioned, the guidelines for use of this technique required medical oversight to prevent this type of damage. The risk described on page 6 is based on an unrestricted use of waterboarding techniques. Obviously, if you pour too long, you're going to kill the subject or cause damage (e.g. to his brain as a result of oxygen deprivation). *That* would be torture. But that's not what we're talking about.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 12:48 PM
I'm not seeing in the definitions I gave where there is a specific intent element to cause a kind of severe pain or suffering; instead, it's a severe pain intended to coerce. You've completely fabricated an idea that the definition requires an intent to cause severe pain. The reality is that severe pain is the element of the definition, not "intent to cause severe pain." Severe pain just is or isn't here.

No, the language of the statute is where we get "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering".

In contrast to whatever you speculate my desires are, I think you want to make it sound like waterboarding is an everyday interrogation technique, but just a little more enhanced than usual. I think you want to make it sound much less worse than it was. Enhanced interrogation technique does not imply physical pain. It implies special questioning strategies, thought up by some Yale professor, not often used except in crimes of a higher order.

:spock: How can my use of "enhanced interrogation technique" be intended to convey the idea that we're talking about an "everyday interrogation technique"? That makes no sense. In any event, I'm perfectly willing to use the name of the technique, but as long as there are people like you out there trying to inflame passions with the use of "torture", I'll continue to remind you that it's an "enhanced technique" and not torture.

I don't know why you think that torture generally means something far more severe and sinister than the stimulation of drowning which had lead to lung damage. Presumably, plucking fingernails or zapping genitals is something that you consider to be torture, but you're in a cute position where you could dishonestly say that torture is only thought of as being stretched, whipped with chains, and mutiliated inch by inch, all at the same time, only. But I suspect you would be shocked if your daughters were arrested for marijuana possession, taken to the police station, laid on their backs with towels over their heads, and the officers proceeded to stimulate their drowning, albeit carefully so as not to damage their lungs (though shucks, it happened anyway). You would win a huge lawsuit for those actions. Your daughters would be psychologically tormented for years, if not for the rest of their lives.

I think your concerns of language abuse for political means are severely misplaced. And along those lines, you haven't answered my question: would you here and now criticize the adminstration's use of the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques?" Will you own up that the administration used it for the political-agenda-driven use of softening the blow of the actual actions taken?

I would consider anything that's intended to cause severe pain torture, not just dismemberment.

I would certainly be shocked if my daughters were subjected to illegal behavior like that.

And no, the administration deserves no criticism on that point. Their euphemism was more accurate than your exaggeration.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 12:49 PM
This is rationalization. I don't think it's reasonable at all to conclude that the feeling of drowning is severe pain. At best (from your pov), it's an arguable matter depending on how low your "severe" threshold is. Why use an ambiguous term like "torture" given the fact that we can't find agreement on a definition nor on the elements of the definition when instead you can use the actual name of the technique?

So potentially nothing could satisfy the term "torture" because there is the possibility that someone exists who wouldn't find it a greater than average pain.

Genital zapping, stretching, mutiliation thus could not all be classified as torture, under your cute rationalization, because it is all relative on how low someone's severe threshold is.

We could go on a case-by-case basis then, and ask the people who were waterboarded themselves if they felt like they went through torture. Of course, that probably wouldn't get you far, once they say "I was tortured." Or we could rely on some objective "average person" test: would the average person find going through simulated drowning a severely painful experience? And I think the average person would find it severely painful.

Do you wish to do away with the term "torture" because you convenientally find it ambigious? I bet you would, right now, with your back to the wall. But the reality is that it's here, it exists, it has meaning. I gave you five definitions from different sources all saying basically the same thing.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 12:51 PM
It's not about the syllables. Waterboarding just wasn't that commonly known before 200x. Actually, it sounds fun. "I want to go waterboarding this week in Lake Tahoe"

It's natural for something in such a case to asked to be clarified. The administration's clarification of waterboarding was an "enhanced interrogation technique" which is pretty cushy. My alternative term is "torture" because it fits the definition of torture: inflicting severe pain on someone in order to coerce them into something."

Lame argument. Whatever the case was "before 200x", the word "waterboarding" is commonly understood now, but yet you continue to insist on using the more ambiguous "torture".

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 12:52 PM
As I already mentioned, the guidelines for use of this technique required medical oversight to prevent this type of damage. The risk described on page 6 is based on an unrestricted use of waterboarding techniques. Obviously, if you pour too long, you're going to kill the subject or cause damage (e.g. to his brain as a result of oxygen deprivation). *That* would be torture. But that's not what we're talking about.

I was talking about waterboarding. You're now saying that waterboarding could be torture if done to some extent. First of all, this contradicts what you said about the pain threshold problem. Secondly, it seems ridiculous that going to death is torture in your view, but going just to the brink of death is . . . in your view, not severe pain.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 12:55 PM
So potentially nothing could satisfy the term "torture" because there is the possibility that someone exists who wouldn't find it a greater than average pain.

Genital zapping, stretching, mutiliation thus could not all be classified as torture, under your cute rationalization, because it is all relative on how low someone's severe threshold is.

We could go on a case-by-case basis then, and ask the people who were waterboarded themselves if they felt like they went through torture. Of course, that probably wouldn't get you far. Or we could rely on some objective "average person" test: would the average person find going through simulated drowning a severely painful experience? And I think the average person would find it severely painful.

Do you wish to do away with the term "torture" because you convenientally find it ambigious? I bet you would, right now, with your back to the wall. But the reality is that it's here, it exists, it has meaning. I gave you five definitions from different sources all saying basically the same thing.

No, the Bush administration made a great effort to draw the line between torture and non-torture. I'm comfortable with the line they drew. Anything on the other side of that line could be called torture, but in most cases where it's close to the line it's probably best to be more specific.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 12:58 PM
:spock: How can my use of "enhanced interrogation technique" be intended to convey the idea that we're talking about an "everyday interrogation technique"? That makes no sense. In any event, I'm perfectly willing to use the name of the technique, but as long as there are people like you out there trying to inflame passions with the use of "torture", I'll continue to remind you that it's an "enhanced technique" and not torture.

Hence the "," and the following clause. Don't forget to actually read the entire sentence.

I'm not trying to inflame passions, but I think you're trying to resist people's natural reaction to the technique. Maybe you have some guilty conscience thing going on, but like I said, you should embrace the term and say it was done in good faith.

I would consider anything that's intended to cause severe pain torture, not just dismemberment.

I would certainly be shocked if my daughters were subjected to illegal behavior like that.

And no, the administration deserves no criticism on that point. Their euphemism was more accurate than your exaggeration.

Fitting words into definitions is not exaggerating. It's being accurate. Their euphemism was created not for accuracy purposes, because enhanced interrogation technique remains vague as you would have to submit, but for political reasons.

Why are you such a coward when it comes to torture? Yes, we tortured, in good faith.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:01 PM
Lame argument. Whatever the case was "before 200x", the word "waterboarding" is commonly understood now, but yet you continue to insist on using the more ambiguous "torture".

This argument started because of Roy's use of "enhanced interrogation technique" and the beautiful "EIT" acroynm. I said we can get over that period now because everyone except the most sympathetic Bush administration bootlickers considers it torture. It's been repudiated by the United States government now.

Waterboarding is commonly understood as torture now, so if you want to insist on commonly understood terms, don't bitch about its use, just own up to it.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:04 PM
No, the Bush administration made a great effort to draw the line between torture and non-torture. I'm comfortable with the line they drew. Anything on the other side of that line could be called torture, but in most cases where it's close to the line it's probably best to be more specific.

It just doesn't make any sense that you think "enhanced interrogation technique" is specific while maintaining that "torture" is ambigious and has no relevant meaning. That position lacks all integrity.

And by the way, using the term "enhanced interrogation technique" can be just as inflammatory as "torture" because it's recognized as a whitewashing, amoral, politically correct agenda-driven bullshit. Waterboarding is also inflammatory. YOU ARE INFLAMMATORIZING EVERYONE WITH ALL YOUR WORDS.

go bowe
05-05-2011, 01:17 PM
This is rationalization. I don't think it's reasonable at all to conclude that the feeling of drowning is severe pain. At best (from your pov), it's an arguable matter depending on how low your "severe" threshold is. Why use an ambiguous term like "torture" given the fact that we can't find agreement on a definition nor on the elements of the definition when instead you can use the actual name of the technique?i dunno...

the meaning of the term torture is what it is defined as in the various sources cited...

just because someone doesn't agree with the standard commonly understood definition does not somehow make the term ambiguous...

agree, don't agree, torture is still what the definitions say it is...

and the statute is a criminal statute which requires specific intent to cause pain, it doesn't somehow prove that torture is not torture without that specific intent; it just wouldn't be a crime, but still it would be torture...

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:28 PM
Hence the "," and the following clause. Don't forget to actually read the entire sentence.

I'm not trying to inflame passions, but I think you're trying to resist people's natural reaction to the technique. Maybe you have some guilty conscience thing going on, but like I said, you should embrace the term and say it was done in good faith.

If it were really true that you weren't trying to inflame passions, then you wouldn't have a problem with using the more specific description/name of the technique (as I've indicated I'd be more than willing to agree to do). But you do have a problem with that so I have to conclude that your intent is to deceive.

Fitting words into definitions is not exaggerating. It's being accurate. Their euphemism was created not for accuracy purposes, because enhanced interrogation technique remains vague as you would have to submit, but for political reasons.

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" was created because it covers a range of something like 10 techniques that go beyond those of everyday interrogation. The people who use that phrase don't usually shy away from the use of "waterboarding".

If I call the body of water in my back yard a "lake" because it is arguably "a body of fresh or salt water of considerable size, surrounded by land", you might be misled to think that I have a more significant puddle of water back there than I actually do. If I say I've got a 30 foot diameter septic pond, you'd get a completely different picture (and some people would reasonably argue that it's not a lake at all because it's size isn't really "considerable"). Waterboarding is the septic pond of torture lakes. And yes, using "torture" is at best an exaggeration and at worst a lie.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:31 PM
This argument started because of Roy's use of "enhanced interrogation technique" and the beautiful "EIT" acroynm. I said we can get over that period now because everyone except the most sympathetic Bush administration bootlickers considers it torture. It's been repudiated by the United States government now.

Waterboarding is commonly understood as torture now, so if you want to insist on commonly understood terms, don't bitch about its use, just own up to it.

To the extent that waterboarding is commonly understood as torture, it's because people like you have been mischaracterizing it for so long. That's the power of emotionally charged words and that's why you refuse to be more accurate and less emotional.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:34 PM
If it were really true that you weren't trying to inflame passions, then you wouldn't have a problem with using the more specific description/name of the technique (as I've indicated I'd be more than willing to agree to do). But you do have a problem with that so I have to conclude that your intent is to deceive.

I'm not opposed to calling it waterboarding. I'm opposed to calling it "enhanced interrogation technique" and opposed to refusing to call it torture. NO! NOT TORTURE! ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE! I'm opposed to that.

I have no problem with calling it waterboarding because 99.5% of the everyone who matters knows that waterboarding is torture.

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" was created because it covers a range of something like 10 techniques that go beyond those of everyday interrogation. The people who use that phrase don't usually shy away from the use of "waterboarding".

If I call the body of water in my back yard a "lake" because it is arguably "a body of fresh or salt water of considerable size, surrounded by land", you might be misled to think that I have a more significant puddle of water back there than I actually do. If I say I've got a 30 foot diameter septic pond, you'd get a completely different picture (and some people would reasonably argue that it's not a lake at all because it's size isn't really "considerable"). Waterboarding is the septic pond of torture lakes. And yes, using "torture" is at best an exaggeration and at worst a lie.

Here's more the situation. We are sitting around Lake Tahoe. I say, "this is a nice lake." You say, "IT'S NOT A LAKE! Lake is such an ambigious term, bullshit bullshit bullshit. It's more correct to call it an enhanced body of water."

No, me and the rest of the world are quite find with calling it a lake, because it is a lake.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:35 PM
It just doesn't make any sense that you think "enhanced interrogation technique" is specific while maintaining that "torture" is ambigious and has no relevant meaning. That position lacks all integrity.

And by the way, using the term "enhanced interrogation technique" can be just as inflammatory as "torture" because it's recognized as a whitewashing, amoral, politically correct agenda-driven bullshit. Waterboarding is also inflammatory. YOU ARE INFLAMMATORIZING EVERYONE WITH ALL YOUR WORDS.

Let me spell it out for you since you missed it the first several times:

Torture = inaccurate (arguably, if not obviously) and ambiguous (inflammatory)
Enhanced interrogation = accurate and ambiguous (euphemistic)
Waterboarding = accurate and much less ambiguous

I've indicated many times that I'm fine with using the much less ambiguous "waterboarding" instead of "enhanced interrogation". You're the one who insists on sticking with an ambiguous and inflammatory term.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:37 PM
To the extent that waterboarding is commonly understood as torture, it's because people like you have been mischaracterizing it for so long. That's the power of emotionally charged words and that's why you refuse to be more accurate and less emotional.

That's not a mischaracterization. It fits the definition of torture. When X fits the definition of Y, we can legitimately say that X is a Y. You are sitting here saying that we can't call X a Y, even though X is a Y, but can only call X an X because calling it a Y isn't politically correct for you.

Tough shit. I don't feel bad that the definition doesn't sit well with your political goals. The whole world shouldn't have to bend to your will because you don't like it.

Adapt to language or die.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:41 PM
i dunno...

the meaning of the term torture is what it is defined as in the various sources cited...

just because someone doesn't agree with the standard commonly understood definition does not somehow make the term ambiguous...

agree, don't agree, torture is still what the definitions say it is...

and the statute is a criminal statute which requires specific intent to cause pain, it doesn't somehow prove that torture is not torture without that specific intent; it just wouldn't be a crime, but still it would be torture...

It doesn't matter what definition you use, it's ambiguous. Any term that covers everything from sadistic, slow murder to a form of waterboarding that is carefully monitored for safety is ambiguous. You're making an accuracy argument. We can agree that it's arguable that some definitions of "torture" would accurately include waterboarding. But when you're talking about an activity that is in the gray area of being only arguably described by some but not all definitions of a term, there's no reason to accept the ambiguity when a more specific description is available. Especially when the ambiguous term carries such charged connotations.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:41 PM
Let me spell it out for you since you missed it the first several times:

Torture = inaccurate (arguably, if not obviously) and ambiguous (inflammatory)
Enhanced interrogation = accurate and ambiguous (euphemistic)
Waterboarding = accurate and much less ambiguous

I've indicated many times that I'm fine with using the much less ambiguous "waterboarding" instead of "enhanced interrogation". You're the one who insists on sticking with an ambiguous and inflammatory term.

Well, Roy used enhanced interrogation technique, so apparently some people still need correcting.

I will not deride you for using enhanced interrogation technique. I will instead deride you for the other reasons.

dirk digler
05-05-2011, 01:44 PM
To the extent that waterboarding is commonly understood as torture, it's because people like you have been mischaracterizing it for so long. That's the power of emotionally charged words and that's why you refuse to be more accurate and less emotional.

Just curious if you think a SERE instructor and terror warrior is mischaracterizing it as torture?

As a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, I know the waterboard personally and intimately. Our staff was required to undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception.

I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school's interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques employed by the Army and the CIA for its terror suspects.

What is less frequently reported is that our training was designed to show how an evil totalitarian enemy would use torture at the slightest whim.

Having been subjected to this technique, I can say: It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period.

However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique - without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it.

In the media, waterboarding is called "simulated drowning," but that's a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.

Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

How much of this the victim is to endure depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim's face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs that show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia - meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:46 PM
It doesn't matter what definition you use, it's ambiguous. Any term that covers everything from sadistic, slow murder to a form of waterboarding that is carefully monitored for safety is ambiguous.

It has a very clear definition, as indicated by the definitions I presented. Just because it covers a lot of ground doesn't mean it's ambigious. We know the specific elements it entails from these definitions. 1) severe pain and 2) coercion or similar purpose.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:46 PM
I'm not opposed to calling it waterboarding. I'm opposed to calling it "enhanced interrogation technique" and opposed to refusing to call it torture. NO! NOT TORTURE! ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE! I'm opposed to that.

You're the mirror image of that which you argue against. I'm opposed to calling it torture but have no problem with enhanced interrogation because the latter is clearly accurate and the former is not. If you can't give up "torture" then I have no sympathy for your desire that others give up "enhanced technique".

I have no problem with calling it waterboarding because 99.5% of the everyone who matters knows that waterboarding is torture.

Alright, then call it waterboarding and drop the "torture" propaganda.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:48 PM
You're the mirror image of that which you argue against. I'm opposed to calling it torture but have no problem with enhanced interrogation because the latter is clearly accurate and the former is not. If you can't give up "torture" then I have no sympathy for your desire that others give up "enhanced technique".

Alright, then call it waterboarding and drop the "torture" propaganda.

Give me a compelling reason (and because you don't like it is not compelling) why I can't call a method of torture, torture.

Enhanced interrogation technique, as I showed, is less accurate than "torture." What's the definition of an enhanced interrogation technique, anyway? That's a phrase that the administration invented.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:50 PM
Just curious if you think a SERE instructor and terror warrior is mischaracterizing it as torture?

I don't have a problem with people making a long form argument about why they believe waterboarding is torture. I have a problem with people using "torture" as shorthand for the Bush administration's enhanced techniques in general or for their waterboarding technique specifically.

Do you think the SERE instructor wants to be casually referred to as a torturer instead of a SERE instructor?

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:53 PM
It has a very clear definition, as indicated by the definitions I presented. Just because it covers a lot of ground doesn't mean it's ambigious. We know the specific elements it entails from these definitions. 1) severe pain and 2) coercion or similar purpose.

I can see you're not good with definitions. Covering a lot of ground is exactly what ambiguous means. When you use a general term that covers a lot of ground, your meaning is more ambiguous than when you use a more specific term that covers very little ground. You're confusing accuracy with ambiguity.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:54 PM
I don't have a problem with people making a long form argument about why they believe waterboarding is torture. I have a problem with people using "torture" as shorthand for the Bush administration's enhanced techniques in general or for their waterboarding technique specifically.

So anytime we use torture regarding waterboarding, we have to set out a long form argument for why its torture. Yeah, nobody has that kind of time. Let's just get to the point instead of pussyfooting gymnastics that don't help the historical horseshitters that attempt to reframe everything in terms they find politically correct.

Fuck political correctness. Deal with it.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:54 PM
Give me a compelling reason (and because you don't like it is not compelling) why I can't call a method of torture, torture.

Enhanced interrogation technique, as I showed, is less accurate than "torture." What's the definition of an enhanced interrogation technique, anyway? That's a phrase that the administration invented.

You haven't shown anything. Enhanced interrogation technique is completely and inarguably accurate. It's also ambiguous.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:55 PM
I can see you're not good with definitions. Covering a lot of ground is exactly what ambiguous means. When you use a general term that covers a lot of ground, your meaning is more ambiguous than when you use a more specific term that covers very little ground. You're confusing accuracy with ambiguity.

In the sense that ambigious means unclear (which is the sense that we care about here: not that there are two or more senses interpretations), torture is not ambigious.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:56 PM
You haven't shown anything. Enhanced interrogation technique is completely and inarguably accurate. It's also ambiguous.

Where's the compelling reason?

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:57 PM
So anytime we use torture regarding waterboarding, we have to set out a long form argument for why its torture. Yeah, nobody has that kind of time.

Which is why you should use the term "waterboarding". As Saul pointed out, it's just as conveniently succinct as "torture" without the broad ambiguity. But you can't do that because you don't really have faith that "waterboarding" carries the negative connotations that you want to convey so you use "torture" instead.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 01:58 PM
Where's the compelling reason?

I've given you the reason throughout this dialog, but you apparently don't find it compelling. Your compelling drive appears to be to maximize the negative impact of your description so you prefer the ambiguous term "torture".

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:58 PM
Which is why you should use the term "waterboarding". As Saul pointed out, it's just as conveniently succinct as "torture" without the broad ambiguity. But you can't do that because you don't really have faith that "waterboarding" carries the negative connotations that you want to convey so you use "torture" instead.

I have complete faith that waterboarding is nearly universally recognized as torture by all those except the persistent Bush administration bootlickers.

I have no problem with using the term waterboarding. I have a problem with those who insist I cannot call it torture and who argue that it should be considered an enhanced interrogation technique instead.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 01:59 PM
I've given you the reason throughout this dialog, but you apparently don't find it compelling. Your compelling drive appears to be to maximize the negative impact of your description so you prefer the ambiguous term "torture".

Not compelling.

Waterboarding is a form of torture, and nearly everyone agrees, because it fits the standard definition of torture.

go bowe
05-05-2011, 02:00 PM
It doesn't matter what definition you use, it's ambiguous. Any term that covers everything from sadistic, slow murder to a form of waterboarding that is carefully monitored for safety is ambiguous. You're making an accuracy argument. We can agree that it's arguable that some definitions of "torture" would accurately include waterboarding. But when you're talking about an activity that is in the gray area of being only arguably described by some but not all definitions of a term, there's no reason to accept the ambiguity when a more specific description is available. Especially when the ambiguous term carries such charged connotations.
we'll have to disagree about whether the term torture is ambiguous, i don't see it as ambiguous at all...

isn't the use of the term torture supposed to have charged connotations? isn't that exactly why the term is used?

i see your points and i don't disagree with most of them, at one level or another...

but i agree with 4lif that waterboarding, regardless of the supposed safeguards, is a form of torture...

i suspect that a case could be made that other forms of eit are also torture, but i don't remember the specifics of what those techniques are...

my problem is that i do think waterboarding is torture and i'm not convinced waterboarding is as effective as "standard" non-enhanced interrogation techniques that have been proven over a long period of time...

but if waterboarding did aid the eventual killing of obama, er osama, then i'd have to say that i'm glad we tortured the sonofabitch...

i'd even be gratified is kalid whatshisname got himself shot in the face trying to escape...

none of which is consistent with my normal views on torture, at least on an intellectual level...

patteeu
05-05-2011, 02:00 PM
I have complete faith that waterboarding is nearly universally recognized as torture by all those except the persistent Bush administration bootlickers.

I have no problem with using the term waterboarding. I have a problem with those who insist I cannot call it torture and who argue that it should be considered an enhanced interrogation technique instead.

As long as you use "waterboarding", I won't have any reason to criticize your word selection.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 02:01 PM
I win. America wins. Integrity wins. The whole world is happy now because the horseshit politically correct fucks are destroyed and inconsequential.

YOU'RE THE INSIGINFICANT PIECE OF DUST!

patteeu
05-05-2011, 02:02 PM
we'll have to disagree about whether the term torture is ambiguous, i don't see it as ambiguous at all...


If I say that Ralph was tortured by Larry. Can you tell me what part of Ralph's body is most likely to be injured? If not, why not?

patteeu
05-05-2011, 02:03 PM
I win. America wins. Integrity wins. The whole world is happy now because the horseshit politically correct ****s are destroyed and inconsequential.

YOU'RE THE INSIGINFICANT PIECE OF DUST!

Interesting. Does your mother know about this?

go bowe
05-05-2011, 02:15 PM
If I say that Ralph was tortured by Larry. Can you tell me what part of Ralph's body is most likely to be injured? If not, why not?if ralph was tortured by larry, it wouldn't matter what part of poor ralph's body was likely to be injured...

i don't see how location of the injury, or the inability to predict the location of the injury affects whether or not what larry did to ralph is torture or not...

btw, larry clearly is an evil republican from the cheney school of humanities...

go bowe
05-05-2011, 02:17 PM
I win. America wins. Integrity wins. The whole world is happy now because the horseshit politically correct fucks are destroyed and inconsequential.

YOU'RE THE INSIGINFICANT PIECE OF DUST!
i win?

now you're starting to sound like frankie arguing with tom cash... :p :p :p

patteeu
05-05-2011, 02:20 PM
if ralph was tortured by larry, it wouldn't matter what part of poor ralph's body was likely to be injured...

i don't see how location of the injury, or the inability to predict the location of the injury affects whether or not what larry did to ralph is torture or not...

btw, larry clearly is an evil republican from the cheney school of humanities...

The point is that you don't know specifically what happened to Ralph. The reason you don't know is because the term "torture" is ambiguous. And yes, Larry was Dick Cheney's gardener before he got into the torture business.

go bowe
05-05-2011, 03:07 PM
The point is that you don't know specifically what happened to Ralph. The reason you don't know is because the term "torture" is ambiguous. And yes, Larry was Dick Cheney's gardener before he got into the torture business.
LMAO @ larry...

i just knew cheney was in up to his neck in this torture business...

Saul Good
05-05-2011, 05:12 PM
It's not about the syllables. Waterboarding just wasn't that commonly known before 200x. Actually, it sounds fun. "I want to go waterboarding this week in Lake Tahoe"

It's natural for something in such a case to asked to be clarified. The administration's clarification of waterboarding was an "enhanced interrogation technique" which is pretty cushy. My alternative term is "torture" because it fits the definition of torture: inflicting severe pain on someone in order to coerce them into something."

I don't think torture is ambigious. Yes, it can be broken down into many specific examples, of which waterboarding is one, but nobody is standing around wondering what torture is. We know what torture is. Like porn almost, we know it when we see it.

I take it you are opposed to the administration's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" because it was unspecific and has many more syllables. But do you at least recognize the political motivation for its use?

Of course I realize that "enhanced interrogation" is a politically motivated term used by supporters of waterboarding just as I recognize that "torture" is a politically motivated term by opponents.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 05:16 PM
Of course I realize that "enhanced interrogation" is a politically motivated term used by supporters of waterboarding just as I recognize that "torture" is a politically motivated term by opponents.

I'm not really that much of a Bush opponent. I just call em like I see em.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 05:17 PM
The point is that you don't know specifically what happened to Ralph. The reason you don't know is because the term "torture" is ambiguous. And yes, Larry was Dick Cheney's gardener before he got into the torture business.

"Torture?" Hmm, sounds like it's possible that Ralph was taken out to DQ for a snickers blizzard.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 05:19 PM
Interesting. Does your mother know about this?

LIAAAR!!!! LIAAAAARRRRR!!!!!!

Saul Good
05-05-2011, 05:30 PM
I have complete faith that waterboarding is nearly universally recognized as torture by all those except the persistent Bush administration bootlickers.

I have no problem with using the term waterboarding. I have a problem with those who insist I cannot call it torture and who argue that it should be considered an enhanced interrogation technique instead.

On one hand, you argue that 99.5% of people recognize waterboarding as torture. On the other hand, you argue that you don't want to call it waterboarding because not enough people understand the term.

I would submit that those who want to sway peoples opinions one way call it "EIT" and those who want to influence people to oppose it call it "torture". Those who are just being honest call it "waterboarding" and leave out the editorial.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 06:05 PM
"Torture?" Hmm, sounds like it's possible that Ralph was taken out to DQ for a snickers blizzard.

See, you don't know either. Ralph had his fingers chewed off, one by one by hungry lab rats.

Saul Good
05-05-2011, 06:20 PM
See, you don't know either. Ralph had his fingers chewed off, one by one by hungry lab rats.

That sounds much more torturous than having water poured through a towel onto your face. So much so, in fact, that using a single, ambiguous term to lump them together seems disingenuous.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 06:47 PM
I hate it when my threads take off when I'm not around.

No, I think I'm being pretty consistent and straightforward.

Mmmmneh. Not really.

Not when you're saying there's "no reason" to believe that EITs inevitably transgress into abuse, when just a few posts ago you argue that excess is inevitable.

So... explain yourself. Because you're not making sense.

If we're going to talk about the practices authorized by the Bush administration, we should talk about the people who received those authorizations and the interrogations they performed under those authorizations. If, in those cases, people died, I'd be interested to hear about it. But what you're doing is pulling out examples of people who had no authorization to use the enhanced techniques crossing the line on their own. That can't be blamed on the Bush authorizations.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

These deaths have been ruled homicides in places where EITs are permitted interrogation tactics.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 06:49 PM
My argument is, I don't think traditional interrogation works as well other methods...at least in my experience. I thought that was pretty clear.

It seemed pretty clear to me. Apparently actual experience with the subject is meaningless compared to having Glen Greenwald on your side though. :shrug:

The problem with this "in my experience" bullshit is that there are plenty of professional interrogators at the highest levels who have argued the exact opposite -- that torture is less effective than standard interrogation.

So I go with facts on the ground and reports from as many reputable sources as I can. I don't change my mind because one guy on a board claims that it's more effective.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 06:57 PM
Some of these arguments are just silly. Waterboarding is a label that conveys a very specific meaning. 4lif is arguing that we should use a more ambiguous label to describe it. The only reasons to use a more ambiguous term would be for brevity or to editorialize it. "Waterboard" and "torture" are both one-word terms, so brevity clearly isn't the impetus behind it. To use pat's analogy, he is calling it "wrestling", and you are insisting on calling it "sports".

Torture, broadly defined or not, isn't a euphemism, which "enhanced interrogation" clearly is. It's an Orwellian label invented to label more brutal measures as "enhanced."

Nothing's "enhanced" about EITs. There's not even evidence that it produced reliable information at a higher clip or more reliably than standard interrogation.

Own up to your words. If you are going to subject someone to brutal, sustained physical harm or profound, irreversible psychological damage that is capable of eliminating their sanity, you're torturing someone.

You can get information that way, sometimes. You can also get information by crushing someone's kneecaps.

Direckshun is giving examples of times when techniques other than waterboarding/torture have produced a desired outcome and then acting as if that proves that standard interrogation is sufficient in all cases. In order to bolster his argument, he has assigned the absurd argument to his detractors which makes it seem as if proponents of waterboard/torture somehow oppose standard interrogation.

Yeah, you're going to have to find a single instance where I've assigned that argument to anyone in this thread.

Until then, you can stop making shit up any time you want.

He's against football players wearing helmets, so he's pointing to examples of injuries being prevented by shoulder pads. Then, he's insisting that proponents of helmets want the players to be nude save helmets.

This thread wouldn't have been completely without another hilariously stupid analogy from Saul Good.

You complete me.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 06:58 PM
As I already mentioned, the guidelines for use of this technique required medical oversight to prevent this type of damage. The risk described on page 6 is based on an unrestricted use of waterboarding techniques. Obviously, if you pour too long, you're going to kill the subject or cause damage (e.g. to his brain as a result of oxygen deprivation). *That* would be torture. But that's not what we're talking about.

Excesses always happen in wartime, right?

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 07:00 PM
It doesn't matter what definition you use, it's ambiguous. Any term that covers everything from sadistic, slow murder to a form of waterboarding that is carefully monitored for safety is ambiguous.

No it's not, because both of the things you described are torture.

If torture accurately described sadistic murder, waterboarding, and a sane person sitting through a performance of "Ava Marie," then maybe you're having an argument.

You're attempting to make the argument that waterboarding isn't torture if I can think of things that could be worse.

You're attempting to split hairs on torture, pat. JFC.

It's not working. Not from where I sit.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 07:04 PM
I don't have a problem with people making a long form argument about why they believe waterboarding is torture. I have a problem with people using "torture" as shorthand for the Bush administration's enhanced techniques in general or for their waterboarding technique specifically.

So basically you'd like folks to refrain from the T-word regarding EITs unless it's the conclusion of an extended syllogism.

I feel like we've slipped into Taco John territory.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 07:08 PM
Of course I realize that "enhanced interrogation" is a politically motivated term used by supporters of waterboarding just as I recognize that "torture" is a politically motivated term by opponents.

It can be a politically motivated term.

So can the word liberal, as in "don't listen to him, he's liberal."

Doesn't mean the word doesn't also carry with it objective meaning that can accurately be applied to a specific circumstance.

You're trying to paint the word "torture" as if it is just a rhetorical term used to win an audience.

It's not. Torture actually exists. And the T-word should be used to describe it when it does.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 07:10 PM
I would submit that those who want to sway peoples opinions one way call it "EIT" and those who want to influence people to oppose it call it "torture". Those who are just being honest call it "waterboarding" and leave out the editorial.

I take it you're inherently opposed to taxonomy.

Jerm
05-05-2011, 07:12 PM
Torture or ETI or whatever you wanna call it is pointless because if someone is truly being tortured they'll tell you whatever the hell you wanna hear so it stops...it has an adverse effect than intended.

That's why I always chuckle when people point to KSM being the "9/11 mastermind" because he supposedly admitted to it while being tortured. Well no shit...he would've admitted to being the reincarnated spirit of Jesus Christ if it meant not being tortured.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 07:17 PM
Torture or ETI or whatever you wanna call it is pointless because if someone is truly being tortured they'll tell you whatever the hell you wanna hear so it stops...it has an adverse effect than intended.

That's why I always chuckle when people point to KSM being the "9/11 mastermind" because he supposedly admitted to it while being tortured. Well no shit...he would've admitted to being the reincarnated spirit of Jesus Christ if it meant not being tortured.

I've found that to be the general consensus among virtually all experts who aren't on a Republican or Fox News payroll.

That doesn't mean you can't occasionally get useful information out of it, but it is vastly understood that the rate at which accurate information is yeilded is higher with standard interrogation.

NOT THAT IT EVEN MATTERS

Because torture is beneathe the United States of America.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 07:27 PM
I hate it when my threads take off when I'm not around.



Mmmmneh. Not really.

Not when you're saying there's "no reason" to believe that EITs inevitably transgress into abuse, when just a few posts ago you argue that excess is inevitable.

So... explain yourself. Because you're not making sense.

I'm saying that when EITs are used in far more regulated environments than standard battlefield interrogations as they were under the Bush administration, there's no reason to believe that they will be equally prone to the inevitable but anomalous cases of abuse, much less that they would lead to even greater levels of abuse.

Situation A) An interrogation governed by the Army Field Manual on the battlefield in the immediate aftermath of a fierce battle with uncertainty about the presence of additional enemy forces and uncertainty about the security situation of your unit.

Situation B) An interrogation governed by the rules of Enhanced Interrogation taking place in a secluded black site far from the pressures of the battlefield by someone who has no personal fear for his safety or the safety of the men around him. This interrogation is monitored and videotaped.

I submit that situation A will lead to a greater level of abuse (treatment beyond that which is authorized) than situation B.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

These deaths have been ruled homicides in places where EITs are permitted interrogation tactics.

No, there is no reason to conclude that they took place under authorized EIT. You're drawing an unsupported inference.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 07:47 PM
I'm saying that when EITs are used in far more regulated environments than standard battlefield interrogations as they were under the Bush administration, there's no reason to believe that they will be equally prone to the inevitable but anomalous cases of abuse, much less that they would lead to even greater levels of abuse.

Aaaaand you've shifted.

Not terribly surprising. You either had to be shift your argument or admit to the fact that you've argued two contradicting things. I would have bet money you'd do the former.

You have officially gone from "there's no reason to believe EIT interrogators are crossing the line":

There is no reason to believe that these are cases of people crossing the line from authorized enhanced interrogation to abusive interrogation.

...to arguing that "there's no reason the EIT interrogators are crossing the line as much":

there's no reason to believe that they will be equally prone to the inevitable but anomalous cases of abuse

The key point stands: any and all interrogation will feature excesses, just as you've wisely argued at several points in this thread.

If that's the case, then we should draw the line more conservatively, not including brutal, torturous tactics that will result in even more torturous excesses. Up to and including death.

And there is no evidence that these brutal tactics yeild better results than standard interrogation.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 07:47 PM
Torture, broadly defined or not, isn't a euphemism, which "enhanced interrogation" clearly is. It's an Orwellian label invented to label more brutal measures as "enhanced."

Nothing's "enhanced" about EITs. There's not even evidence that it produced reliable information at a higher clip or more reliably than standard interrogation.

Own up to your words. If you are going to subject someone to brutal, sustained physical harm or profound, irreversible psychological damage that is capable of eliminating their sanity, you're torturing someone.

You can get information that way, sometimes. You can also get information by crushing someone's kneecaps.

I thought you were taking the position that stuff like crushing kneecaps doesn't produce information. In fact, just one post ago (#171), you said that the "experts" that form the basis for your opinion on this subject say that "torture is less effective than standard interrogation". :shrug:

patteeu
05-05-2011, 07:48 PM
Excesses always happen in wartime, right?

Yes, they do. But they're a lot less likely to happen when the extensive safeguards that the Bush administration established for the EIT program are present.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 07:49 PM
Yes, they do. But they're a lot less likely to happen when the extensive safeguards that the Bush administration established for the EIT program are present.

But they happen.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 07:50 PM
I thought you were taking the position that stuff like crushing kneecaps doesn't produce information. In fact, just one post ago (#171), you said that the "experts" that form the basis for your opinion on this subject say that "torture is less effective than standard interrogation". :shrug:

Torture is less effective. That's the broad consensus of the vast majority of experts who aren't on Republican payrolls.

That doesn't mean it's entirely ineffective. Re-read the OP, please.

But I'll take standard interrogation's ability to yeild information over kneecaps-crushing 10 times out of 10.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 07:53 PM
No it's not, because both of the things you described are torture.

If torture accurately described sadistic murder, waterboarding, and a sane person sitting through a performance of "Ava Marie," then maybe you're having an argument.

You're attempting to make the argument that waterboarding isn't torture if I can think of things that could be worse.

You're attempting to split hairs on torture, pat. JFC.

It's not working. Not from where I sit.

You're the third person to make this mistake in this thread. You're confusing the concepts of accuracy and ambiguity. I assume that by now you've read further and discovered your error.

I'm making a two part argument. (1) I'm arguing that it's not accurate to describe the specific waterboarding procedure used by the CIA in the wake of 9/11 as torture. (2) Even if we were to stipulate that "torture" is an accurate characterization, it's still ambiguous and therefore less appropriate than the name of the technique itself (unless, of course, you want to use that ambiguity for political purposes).

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 07:56 PM
Even if we were to stipulate that "torture" is an accurate characterization, it's still ambiguous and therefore less appropriate than the name of the technique itself

I get the feeling that even if torture was an accurate characterization, that would be the end of the conversation for me, but it wouldn't be for you.

Please tell me I'm being unfair.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 08:00 PM
Torture or ETI or whatever you wanna call it is pointless because if someone is truly being tortured they'll tell you whatever the hell you wanna hear so it stops...it has an adverse effect than intended.

That's why I always chuckle when people point to KSM being the "9/11 mastermind" because he supposedly admitted to it while being tortured. Well no shit...he would've admitted to being the reincarnated spirit of Jesus Christ if it meant not being tortured.

That's funny because I always chuckle when people make this particular small minded argument based on something they've heard repeated over and over even though it doesn't survive even the lightest level of scrutiny.

The thing the interrogator most wants to hear is the truth. If the truth is what it takes to make the unpleasant treatment (EIT or torture) stop, then you're right, they'll tell you the truth. If you have no way to assess the information then it's certainly possible that they'll lie to you. But if you have the ability to corroborate or otherwise evaluate the information, then lies won't buy relief. If someone breaks into your home and tortures you for the combination to your wall safe, lies aren't going to get you very far because it won't take long to figure out that the information is wrong and then you're right back where you started (with an interrogator who you've disappointed with your first effort).

patteeu
05-05-2011, 08:09 PM
Aaaaand you've shifted.

Not terribly surprising. You either had to be shift your argument or admit to the fact that you've argued two contradicting things. I would have bet money you'd do the former.

You have officially gone from "there's no reason to believe EIT interrogators are crossing the line":



...to arguing that "there's no reason the EIT interrogators are crossing the line as much":

No it's not a change in position. Those are two different types of claims but they're consistent with one another.

On the basis of the evidence that we have available, I'm sticking with the first one. I.E. There's no (evidentiary) reason to believe EIT interrogators have crossed the line.

On the basis of theory, I'll stick with the second one. I.E. There's no (theoretical) reason to believe that EIT interrogators would cross the line as much/often as standard interrogators.

If the sample size gets large enough, I assume there will be abuse in all categories, including EIT interrogations. But we don't have any evidence that such abuse took place in reality.

The key point stands: any and all interrogation will feature excesses, just as you've wisely argued at several points in this thread.

If that's the case, then we should draw the line more conservatively, not including brutal, torturous tactics that will result in even more torturous excesses. Up to and including death.

And there is no evidence that these brutal tactics yeild better results than standard interrogation.

I see no reason to adopt your conclusion that drawing a more conservative line yields better results.

And we've had plenty of testimony from people in a position to know the fruits of the Bush administration EIT program suggesting that the program yielded very valuable results so your suggestion that there is "no evidence" is ridiculous. You just aren't convinced by the evidence.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 08:16 PM
Torture is less effective. That's the broad consensus of the vast majority of experts who aren't on Republican payrolls.

That doesn't mean it's entirely ineffective. Re-read the OP, please.

But I'll take standard interrogation's ability to yeild information over kneecaps-crushing 10 times out of 10.

Leaving aside moral considerations, I'd take a full arsenal of techniques over your one-hand-tied-behind-your-back approach any day.

I'm not going to argue for torture, but you'll get better (or at a minimum, equal) results if you have all the tools available than you'll get with a limited tool set as long as you use the right tools at the right times.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 08:17 PM
I get the feeling that even if torture was an accurate characterization, that would be the end of the conversation for me, but it wouldn't be for you.

Please tell me I'm being unfair.

I'm not in favor of torture, if that's what you're questioning.

Superturtle
05-05-2011, 08:22 PM
<object width= "425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CD2LRROpph0&autoplay=1&rel=0&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=0&loop=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CD2LRROpph0&autoplay=1&rel=0&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=0&loop=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

===================================================

http://threadbombing.com/data/media/44/guy_screaming.gif

Saul Good
05-05-2011, 08:22 PM
Torture is less effective. That's the broad consensus of the vast majority of experts who aren't on Republican payrolls.

That doesn't mean it's entirely ineffective. Re-read the OP, please.

But I'll take standard interrogation's ability to yeild information over kneecaps-crushing 10 times out of 10.

Helmets may prevent fewer injuries than shoulder pads prevent, but helmets AND shoulder pads together prevent more injuries than do either shoulder pads or helmets by themselves.

Saul Good
05-05-2011, 08:28 PM
Yeah, you're going to have to find a single instance where I've assigned that argument to anyone in this thread.

Until then, you can stop making shit up any time you want.

How about your second post following the OP?

So standard interrogation is useless against terrorism, again?

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 10:30 PM
No it's not a change in position. Those are two different types of claims but they're consistent with one another.

On the basis of the evidence that we have available, I'm sticking with the first one. I.E. There's no (evidentiary) reason to believe EIT interrogators have crossed the line.

Well there's no reason we have to arrest anyone that the public knows about, the evidence simply isn't there because it's all been destroyed.

So I'd agree. As far as the public knows, we can't link anybody to have actually done anything.

But you know as well as I that excesses have occurred. You've said as much.

And so long as we know that they're occurring, we know that based on all of human history, they were even more brutal and torturous than the EITs we've already authorized.

I see no reason to adopt your conclusion that drawing a more conservative line yields better results.

I don't have to have a reason. You're the one who wants to introduce incredibly brutal interrogation methods that were previously not allowed.

You have the burden of proof why we should adopt EITs.

So, I'm waiting.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 10:31 PM
[Posting this to move the thread onto a new page so Superturtle's post can go the hell away.]

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 10:33 PM
Leaving aside moral considerations, I'd take a full arsenal of techniques over your one-hand-tied-behind-your-back approach any day.

That's the difference between us.

You see standard interrogation as unnecessarily limited, because it doesn't let us torture the piss out of people.

Standard interrogation's track record speaks for itself. I see no compelling reason to go full retard with the brutal shit.

Do you? Do you feel the reasons driving EITs to be compelling?

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 10:36 PM
I'm not in favor of torture, if that's what you're questioning.

Talk about ambiguous, pat. "Not in favor"?

Will you categorically denounce the use of torture in all circumstances of information gathering?

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 10:37 PM
Helmets may prevent fewer injuries than shoulder pads prevent, but helmets AND shoulder pads together prevent more injuries than do either shoulder pads or helmets by themselves.

LMAO

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 10:40 PM
How about your second post following the OP?

Please. The day you have to play the role of ROYC apologetic is the day I stand up for noswad.

ROYC's arguments throughout all torture threads on this board reduce our options to torture (which is big boy stuff that real men have to do to protect their precious eggs back in the nest) and ice cream. And if you're not in favor of torture, you're not man enough to be American. Or some shit, it's really hard trying to discern his points.

Go back and read his material, such as it is. Hell, you see it in this thread alone. My characterizations of his arguments are better than his characterizations of his arguments.

If I'm playing strawman with any remotely respectable commenters in this thread, please enlighten me.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 10:42 PM
Well there's no reason we have to arrest anyone that the public knows about, the evidence simply isn't there because it's all been destroyed.

So I'd agree. As far as the public knows, we can't link anybody to have actually done anything.

But you know as well as I that excesses have occurred. You've said as much.

And so long as we know that they're occurring, we know that based on all of human history, they were even more brutal and torturous than the EITs we've already authorized.

No, I haven't said that we know that excesses have occurred as a part of the EIT program. In fact, I don't believe they have.

I don't have to have a reason. You're the one who wants to introduce incredibly brutal interrogation methods that were previously not allowed.

You have the burden of proof why we should adopt EITs.

So, I'm waiting.

I think it's pretty obvious that you're wrong, but I'm willing to introduce the techniques and study the results to find out one way or the other.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 10:44 PM
[Post to push Superturtle off the page.]

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 10:46 PM
No, I haven't said that we know that excesses have occurred as a part of the EIT program. In fact, I don't believe they have.

So... excesses happen in war, except with EITs. They're the one part of warfare you're willing to hitch your wagon to the fact that there's been absolutely zero excesses.

I think it's pretty obvious that you're wrong, but I'm willing to introduce the techniques and study the results to find out one way or the other.

Been there. We already introduced the techniques and it didn't prove shit.

The results have to be so dramatic, that we as a nation must be compelled to embrace stuff that a multitude of experts definitively call torture.

And I don't see the dramatic uptick in intelligence.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 10:47 PM
That's the difference between us.

You see standard interrogation as unnecessarily limited, because it doesn't let us torture the piss out of people.

Standard interrogation's track record speaks for itself. I see no compelling reason to go full retard with the brutal shit.

Do you? Do you feel the reasons driving EITs to be compelling?

I don't agree that standard interrogation (by which I mean the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual) cover all non-torturous techniques. Given that they don't, it goes without saying that they are unnecessarily limited in some cases. They are limited for good reason when you're trying to train an entire army because it's more practical to train a limited set of tools. But for specialists, it's definitely unnecessarily limited. Not because they don't let us torture the piss out of people, but because they don't let us use additional, non-torturous techniques.

EITs were only used when standard interrogations failed. It was an escalation, not an alternative approach.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 10:48 PM
I don't agree that standard interrogation (by which I mean the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual) cover all non-torturous techniques.

The only techniques you've been advoatcting that aren't already in the Army Field Manual are more brutal techniques, right?

Is there some non-brutal technique that the AFM didn't include that you'd like to see included?

Or are you hitching your wagon only towards more brutal techniques?

KILLER_CLOWN
05-05-2011, 10:48 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that you're wrong, but I'm willing to introduce the techniques and study the results to find out one way or the other.

This is fairly simple really, if you were being tortured and you knew after a few days the interrogations would not stop until you admitted what they wanted to hear. Would you not admit to Killing JFK? Assassinating Lincoln? That your real name was Adolph Hitler if it cause the torture to stop?

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RlZ_BPzj8xc?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RlZ_BPzj8xc?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

patteeu
05-05-2011, 10:49 PM
Talk about ambiguous, pat. "Not in favor"?

Will you categorically denounce the use of torture in all circumstances of information gathering?

I can say that torture should never be authorized. I can't say that torture should never be used, but it's the kind of thing that should only be used (a) out of desperation, (b) for a greater good, and (c) with forgiveness sought afterward but no guarantee in advance that forgiveness will be granted.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 10:50 PM
I can say that torture should never be authorized. I can't say that torture should never be used, but it's the kind of thing that should only be used (a) out of desperation, (b) for a greater good, and (c) with forgiveness sought afterward but no guarantee in advance that forgiveness will be granted.

I'm going to assume that by "out of desperation," you're talking about Left Behind caliber stuff. And that you're not worshipping at the altar of Jack Bauer.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 10:55 PM
So... excesses happen in war, except with EITs. They're the one part of warfare you're willing to hitch your wagon to the fact that there's been absolutely zero excesses.

There's no evidence that any excesses have occurred so far. If it goes on long enough, there's bound to eventually be an excess. I don't see that as a good reason to limit ourselves to a more conservative position though. My theory is that the rate of excesses will be lower under EIT programs than they will be with general interrogation in the field. I'm not in favor of extending EIT to all routine interrogations. I'm in favor of continuing to closely monitor an EIT program for the use against the highest value detainees.

Been there. We already introduced the techniques and it didn't prove shit.

The results have to be so dramatic, that we as a nation must be compelled to embrace stuff that a multitude of experts definitively call torture.

And I don't see the dramatic uptick in intelligence.

Based on what I've read, people with intimate knowledge of the program say it was successful at extracting information that hadn't been disclosed under standard interrogation. That sounds like success to me.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 11:00 PM
The only techniques you've been advoatcting that aren't already in the Army Field Manual are more brutal techniques, right?

Is there some non-brutal technique that the AFM didn't include that you'd like to see included?

Or are you hitching your wagon only towards more brutal techniques?

I'd rather use the word "harsh". Most of the EIT aren't terribly harsh, but they're probably more harsh than that allowed under the Army Field Manual. For example, the Lapel Shake where you grab the guy by the lapel and pull him forcefully toward you.

I'm not an independent expert in interrogation so I'm not going to create new interrogation techniques as examples. I'm willing to live with the 10 or so EIT examples that the Bush administration came up with. Some of them may have proven to more or less effective than others. None of them are allowed under the AFM.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 11:02 PM
This is fairly simple really, if you were being tortured and you knew after a few days the interrogations would not stop until you admitted what they wanted to hear. Would you not admit to Killing JFK? Assassinating Lincoln? That your real name was Adolph Hitler if it cause the torture to stop?

I'm not advocating torture. And I'm certainly not advocating the use of an interrogation technique in a context in which it would make no sense. You don't use a hammer to saw a board in half.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 11:06 PM
There's no evidence that any excesses have occurred so far.

Yes, yes, you've made this point already. (There can't be any evidence if they destroy all the evidence, and you know this.)

You are simultaneously arguing that excesses always happen, and that they must have happened with EITs, but that they must not have.

Come to earth, pat. You need to make a coherent argument soon, because at this point we're just going around in circles.

Based on what I've read, people with intimate knowledge of the program say it was successful at extracting information that hadn't been disclosed under standard interrogation. That sounds like success to me.

1. Everybody you're talking about is (a.) liable if EITs are unequivacobly torture, and (b.) on the Bush administration payroll.

They're not reliable sources, pat.

2. There are those who argue that there's information you can earn from standard interrogations that you can never earn from EITs. Your argument goes both ways.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 11:07 PM
The difference between us:

I believe that there must be a compelling reason for EITs to be authorized.

You believe that there must be a compelling reason for them not to be.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 11:09 PM
On one hand, you argue that 99.5% of people recognize waterboarding as torture. On the other hand, you argue that you don't want to call it waterboarding because not enough people understand the term.

Now vs. Then. You're an idiot, Saul. You're too stupid to argue with. Sucking patteeu's cock won't win you an argument. It'll just get sperm in your throat. Have fun with that, but keep it in the PM-realm.

Direckshun
05-05-2011, 11:12 PM
I'd rather use the word "harsh".

ARE YOU SHITTING ME PAT.

ROFL

Seriously, this is self-parody. First, torture is too emotionally charged, and now "brutal."

bru·tal   /ˈbrutl/
Show IPA

–adjective
1. savage; cruel; inhuman: a brutal attack on the village.
2. crude; coarse: brutal language.
[B]3. harsh; ferocious: brutal criticism; brutal weather.

At some point, you should ask yourself exactly how deeply enmeshed you are in your Orwellian hole.

Most of the EIT aren't terribly harsh, but they're probably more harsh than that allowed under the Army Field Manual.

Exactly, all you are wanting to introduce is more aggression. More brutality. More physical and psychological torment.

More "enhancement."

I don't know how you hitch your wagon to that and feel whole. I really don't, on a human level.

For me, I'd be demanding black-and-white evidence that EITs reveal information 10 times better than standard methods before I even think about attaching my credibility as a human to them. I'd need to all evidence, clear as day, with my own eyes.

For you, blind faith in brutality is considerably easier.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 11:17 PM
Yes, yes, you've made this point already. (There can't be any evidence if they destroy all the evidence, and you know this.)

You are simultaneously arguing that excesses always happen, and that they must have happened with EITs, but that they must not have.

Come to earth, pat. You need to make a coherent argument soon, because at this point we're just going around in circles.


I can't make it much more clear. Excesses are inevitable, but only if the sample size gets large enough. All living things die. Death is inevitable. But that doesn't mean that because you're a living thing, you've already experienced death.

It's perfectly coherent to say that no excesses have occurred but that if the program goes on forever, eventually excesses will occur.


1. Everybody you're talking about is (a.) liable if EITs are unequivacobly torture, and (b.) on the Bush administration payroll.

They're not reliable sources, pat.

2. There are those who argue that there's information you can earn from standard interrogations that you can never earn from EITs. Your argument goes both ways.

My sources have an advantage over yours in that mine actually have knowledge of the kinds of results we got from the EIT program.

I agree that there are some cases where EIT wouldn't be the right tool and a standard technique would work better. That's why you choose the best tool for the job. But you're better off if you have all the tools available to you. Don't leave your hammer at home just because sometimes a screwdriver is the more appropriate tool.

fbal4lif32
05-05-2011, 11:24 PM
That sounds much more torturous than having water poured through a towel onto your face. So much so, in fact, that using a single, ambiguous term to lump them together seems disingenuous.

You make waterboarding sound like a ride at Oceans of Fun. But you come across as the type of guy who can't cut his lawn without a push button on the mower, yet you think you're tough because you watch John Wayne movies on AMC on the weekends.

If we want to make this all determinative by relativity, then the only thing that's torture is the worst type of torture, whatever that is.

I'm not saying waterboarding is the worst type of torture. I'm just saying it is torture. And I'm saying that because it fits the definition of torture.

Your "sounds like" analysis falls short, but that's pretty much normal for you.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 11:24 PM
ARE YOU SHITTING ME PAT.

ROFL

Seriously, this is self-parody. First, torture is too emotionally charged, and now "brutal."

bru·tal   /ˈbrutl/
Show IPA

–adjective
1. savage; cruel; inhuman: a brutal attack on the village.
2. crude; coarse: brutal language.
[B]3. harsh; ferocious: brutal criticism; brutal weather.

At some point, you should ask yourself exactly how deeply enmeshed you are in your Orwellian hole.

If you think they're equivalent words then you won't have any problem using "harsh" instead of "brutal". I use "harsh" because that's what the people who developed the program have used. I see no reason to drift to a different word.

Oh, and no, I'm not shitting you.

Exactly, all you are wanting to introduce is more aggression. More brutality. More physical and psychological torment.

More "enhancement."

I don't know how you hitch your wagon to that and feel whole. I really don't, on a human level.

For me, I'd be demanding black-and-white evidence that EITs reveal information 10 times better than standard methods before I even think about attaching my credibility as a human to them. I'd need to all evidence, clear as day, with my own eyes.

For you, blind faith in brutality is considerably easier.

How can you have black-and-white evidence before the techniques have been used? That makes no sense.

What you do have is common sense though. And common sense indicates that an advantage can be gained through the uncertainty and fear you will instill by using scary techniques (scarier than they are dangerous) that aren't mentioned in the Army Field Manual that you've been briefed on. Given that common sense proposal, I'd have to see black-and-white evidence showing that EIT won't work before I'd believe it. So let's try it and see what we get. After a while, we can evaluate the results.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 11:25 PM
You make waterboarding sound like a ride at Oceans of Fun. But you come across as the type of guy who can't cut his lawn without a push button on the mower.

If we want to make this all determinative by relativity, then the only thing that's torture is the worst type of torture, whatever that is.

I'm not saying waterboarding is the worst type of torture. I'm just saying it is torture. And I'm saying that because it fits the definition of torture.

Your "sounds like" analysis falls short, but that's pretty much normal for you.

Your takes have been thoroughly examined and we've determined that they are based on torturous logic.

Direckshun
05-06-2011, 01:46 AM
I can't make it much more clear. Excesses are inevitable, but only if the sample size gets large enough.

Says the guy who is advocating EITs as permanent policy.

Can you see where your arguments are eating each other?

My sources have an advantage over yours in that mine actually have knowledge of the kinds of results we got from the EIT program.

Erm... no. My sources are removed from the legality of the situation and are dispassionate.

Yours are on Team Torture's payroll, and have legal skin in the game. They are not reliable on those grounds alone. The fact that their opinions run counter to the vast majority of all other experts should tell you what you need to know.

Direckshun
05-06-2011, 01:52 AM
If you think they're equivalent words then you won't have any problem using "harsh" instead of "brutal".

LMAO

Who gives a shit, pat.

Who gives a shit.

What you do have is common sense though. And common sense indicates that an advantage can be gained through the uncertainty and fear you will instill by using scary techniques (scarier than they are dangerous) that aren't mentioned in the Army Field Manual that you've been briefed on. Given that common sense proposal, I'd have to see black-and-white evidence showing that EIT won't work before I'd believe it. So let's try it and see what we get. After a while, we can evaluate the results.

Advocating severly consequential policy on your intuition! Because when has that ever steered us wrong?

I know we've been going round on this subject a long time, pat, but you're derailing pretty hard.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you're basing your rationale on torture not on evidence, per se, so much as taking the word of politically unreliable sources and your motherluvin' intuition.

Whatever urgency, whatever compelling evidence, that necessitates EITs is completely absent from your argument. And that's pretty telling in the endgame.

fbal4lif32
05-06-2011, 06:11 AM
Your takes have been thoroughly examined and we've determined that they are based on torturous logic.

Your usual argument rests on waterboarding not being severe enough for your tastes [of course, you've never been waterboarded, but you can just imagine), because it's not what's usually thought of as torture and was done with precaution (doctors were in the room!), but this is a subjective take, and it leads us to go in the subjective direction of a case-by-case analysis. If you want to ask each person who was waterboarded if they were tortured, I'm all for it. My argument wins.

If you want to stick with the objective argument, you run into the definitions of severe pain, in which we'd have to ask if an average person would find the pain of being felt like they were drowning is a much greater than ordinary pain like stubbing one's toe or skinning one's knee. Since all people who get waterboarded react pretty violently to it, it must be a much greater than oridinary pain. Just ask as many of those who have been waterboarded how it felt. There, my argument wins.

Your demand that we can't use the word torture is stupid and politically motivated. It's just like demanding that a guy can't say, "I like sports." NO YOU MUST SAY WHICH SPORTS YOU LIKE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! It's so unreasonable as to dismantle the integrity of the person claiming it. You haven't given me any convincing reason why I can't call a method of torture, torture. The only reason is because you feel it does your political goals a disservice; you think the term torture is politically incorrect.

It appears you want to hinge your intergrity on such a stupid argument, and I almost feel bad on how bad this looks on your part.

mlyonsd
05-06-2011, 07:18 AM
Anyone that believes Obama wouldn't resort to EIT's if the situation presented itself after another 911 is a F'ing idiot.

stevieray
05-06-2011, 07:36 AM
Anyone that believes Obama wouldn't resort to EIT's if the situation presented itself after another 911 is a F'ing idiot.

exactly....

just the threat of waterboarding is torture.

fbal4lif32
05-06-2011, 07:52 AM
Anyone that believes Obama wouldn't resort to EIT's if the situation presented itself after another 911 is a F'ing idiot.

Enhanced interrogation techniques has been repudiated in this thread by all sides as pretty vague. Are you referring to waterboarding?

Saul Good
05-06-2011, 12:27 PM
Please. The day you have to play the role of ROYC apologetic is the day I stand up for noswad.

ROYC's arguments throughout all torture threads on this board reduce our options to torture (which is big boy stuff that real men have to do to protect their precious eggs back in the nest) and ice cream. And if you're not in favor of torture, you're not man enough to be American. Or some shit, it's really hard trying to discern his points.

Go back and read his material, such as it is. Hell, you see it in this thread alone. My characterizations of his arguments are better than his characterizations of his arguments.

If I'm playing strawman with any remotely respectable commenters in this thread, please enlighten me.

I guess you'll have to let me know which posts of yours I can and can't refer to without being called a liar.

Saul Good
05-06-2011, 12:34 PM
Now vs. Then. You're an idiot, Saul. You're too stupid to argue with. Sucking patteeu's cock won't win you an argument. It'll just get sperm in your throat. Have fun with that, but keep it in the PM-realm.

I suppose, then, that using the term "waterboarding" might not havebeen adequate a decade ago. You're the guy who used it as a reason not to use the term today.

Other than that, you seem like a bright guy. You really bring a lot to the forum. (You wouldn't happen to be a deejay, would you?)

Direckshun
05-06-2011, 02:44 PM
I guess you'll have to let me know which posts of yours I can and can't refer to without being called a liar.

Yeah, hey let me know if you want to dispute anything else I've said to you on torture, since you conveniently overlooked it.

patteeu
05-07-2011, 07:03 AM
Says the guy who is advocating EITs as permanent policy.

Can you see where your arguments are eating each other?

No, they don't eat each other. Even if the excesses occurred at the same rate under EIT and standard interrogation, I'd support EIT for the high value cases where it's more effective than standard interrogation (at least until a convincing case that the costs outweighed the benefits was made). But the excesses shouldn't occur at the same rate. There should be a lower rate of inevitable abuse under the EIT program than under standard interrogation. That makes the case for EIT even stronger.

Erm... no. My sources are removed from the legality of the situation and are dispassionate.

Yours are on Team Torture's payroll, and have legal skin in the game. They are not reliable on those grounds alone. The fact that their opinions run counter to the vast majority of all other experts should tell you what you need to know.

Your sources have two strikes against them. They generally have political agendas AND they lack broad, specific knowledge of the results of the EIT program. They're biased and uninformed.

patteeu
05-07-2011, 07:07 AM
LMAO

Who gives a shit, pat.

Who gives a shit.

OK. Seeing as how you don't give a shit, then I'll expect you to use "harsh" instead of "brutal" in the future.

Advocating severly consequential policy on your intuition! Because when has that ever steered us wrong?

I know we've been going round on this subject a long time, pat, but you're derailing pretty hard.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you're basing your rationale on torture not on evidence, per se, so much as taking the word of politically unreliable sources and your motherluvin' intuition.

Whatever urgency, whatever compelling evidence, that necessitates EITs is completely absent from your argument. And that's pretty telling in the endgame.

There is no difference between our positions on this count because there's no evidence other than the opinions of so-called experts to support your contention either. We're equal in that regard (although, as I've already pointed out, my experts actually have broad knowledge of the results of our EIT program and yours don't). The only other thing we have to go on is the fact that my position is intuitive and yours is counter-intuitive.

patteeu
05-07-2011, 07:11 AM
Your usual argument rests on waterboarding not being severe enough for your tastes [of course, you've never been waterboarded, but you can just imagine), because it's not what's usually thought of as torture and was done with precaution (doctors were in the room!), but this is a subjective take, and it leads us to go in the subjective direction of a case-by-case analysis. If you want to ask each person who was waterboarded if they were tortured, I'm all for it. My argument wins.

If you want to stick with the objective argument, you run into the definitions of severe pain, in which we'd have to ask if an average person would find the pain of being felt like they were drowning is a much greater than ordinary pain like stubbing one's toe or skinning one's knee. Since all people who get waterboarded react pretty violently to it, it must be a much greater than oridinary pain. Just ask as many of those who have been waterboarded how it felt. There, my argument wins.

Your demand that we can't use the word torture is stupid and politically motivated. It's just like demanding that a guy can't say, "I like sports." NO YOU MUST SAY WHICH SPORTS YOU LIKE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! It's so unreasonable as to dismantle the integrity of the person claiming it. You haven't given me any convincing reason why I can't call a method of torture, torture. The only reason is because you feel it does your political goals a disservice; you think the term torture is politically incorrect.

It appears you want to hinge your intergrity on such a stupid argument, and I almost feel bad on how bad this looks on your part.

Saul already pointed out that your insistence on using the term "torture" is as political as any effort to use "EIT". When you want to stop propagandizing, you'll simply say "waterboarding" and let everyone decide for themselves whether it's torture. If you were so confident that you'd win that argument, you wouldn't be so committed to blurring the distinctions between waterboarding and truely gruesome and sadistic acts by substituting "torture" for the more specific name.

mlyonsd
05-07-2011, 07:25 AM
Enhanced interrogation techniques has been repudiated in this thread by all sides as pretty vague. Are you referring to waterboarding?I'm saying Obama has repeatedly proven that his campaign rhetoric towards how Bush handled the WOT doesn't jive with his actions as president.

Placed in the same situation Bush was Obama will do exactly the same. EIT's, waterboarding, whatever.

Bush toted the water on this and sacrificed a huge political price. He took his oath seriously and did what it took to protect the population. I'm guessing Obama will do the same if heaven forbid the need arises. To this point the only difference I can see between the two is Obama was willing to lie on the campaign trail while Bush was upfront with the public.

Mizzou_8541
05-07-2011, 07:29 AM
Your usual argument rests on waterboarding not being severe enough for your tastes [of course, you've never been waterboarded, but you can just imagine), because it's not what's usually thought of as torture and was done with precaution (doctors were in the room!), but this is a subjective take, and it leads us to go in the subjective direction of a case-by-case analysis. If you want to ask each person who was waterboarded if they were tortured, I'm all for it. My argument wins.

If you want to stick with the objective argument, you run into the definitions of severe pain, in which we'd have to ask if an average person would find the pain of being felt like they were drowning is a much greater than ordinary pain like stubbing one's toe or skinning one's knee. Since all people who get waterboarded react pretty violently to it, it must be a much greater than oridinary pain. Just ask as many of those who have been waterboarded how it felt. There, my argument wins.

Your demand that we can't use the word torture is stupid and politically motivated. It's just like demanding that a guy can't say, "I like sports." NO YOU MUST SAY WHICH SPORTS YOU LIKE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! It's so unreasonable as to dismantle the integrity of the person claiming it. You haven't given me any convincing reason why I can't call a method of torture, torture. The only reason is because you feel it does your political goals a disservice; you think the term torture is politically incorrect.

It appears you want to hinge your intergrity on such a stupid argument, and I almost feel bad on how bad this looks on your part.

I have no idea what you said in this post or what you have been rambling on about in this this thread, other than your general argument. What I can say is that I have been (granted, it was training in a simulated prisoner camp) waterboarded and tortured as well as been interrogated using "standard" methods. I have also witnesses of hundreds of muj, insurgents, al-queda, detainees, whatever you want to call them, get interrogated using standard methods. While my disclaimer is that I have never an witnessed an Iraqi detainee mistreated, I can say that standard interrogation does NOT work. I simply doesn't. In fact, most of the time they laughed because they knew we couldn't do sh*t to them. This isn't anecdotal, this is the experience of almost every Marine I know...at least every sniper.

Go ahead and tell me how bad this looks on my part, or how stupid and backward I am...it's fine. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people like you who have no clue how the real world works, and you staunchly defend your ideology that was spoon fed to you out of the latest book on the NY Times best seller list. It's really sad, and I feel sorry for you.

fbal4lif32
05-07-2011, 08:21 AM
Saul already pointed out that your insistence on using the term "torture" is as political as any effort to use "EIT". When you want to stop propagandizing, you'll simply say "waterboarding" and let everyone decide for themselves whether it's torture. If you were so confident that you'd win that argument, you wouldn't be so committed to blurring the distinctions between waterboarding and truely gruesome and sadistic acts by substituting "torture" for the more specific name.

Saul pointed out nothing except his own stupidity in this thread. You're having some problem wrapping your mind around this, of which I've repeated several times: I have no problem with simply using the phrase waterboarding [and nearly everyone, including the executive, the medical community, the legal scholars, and average persons consider it torture]. I have a problem with calling it EIT as if it were not torture. You're so committed to distorting my words that you have violent reactions when they interfere with your political agenda.

fbal4lif32
05-07-2011, 08:35 AM
I have no idea what you said in this post or what you have been rambling on about in this this thread, other than your general argument. What I can say is that I have been (granted, it was training in a simulated prisoner camp) waterboarded and tortured as well as been interrogated using "standard" methods. I have also witnesses of hundreds of muj, insurgents, al-queda, detainees, whatever you want to call them, get interrogated using standard methods. While my disclaimer is that I have never an witnessed an Iraqi detainee mistreated, I can say that standard interrogation does NOT work. I simply doesn't. In fact, most of the time they laughed because they knew we couldn't do sh*t to them. This isn't anecdotal, this is the experience of almost every Marine I know...at least every sniper.

Go ahead and tell me how bad this looks on my part, or how stupid and backward I am...it's fine. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people like you who have no clue how the real world works, and you staunchly defend your ideology that was spoon fed to you out of the latest book on the NY Times best seller list. It's really sad, and I feel sorry for you.

Despite you being a degrading, condescending, ignorant jackass in this post, my own magnanimity pushes me to thank you for your service to our country.

If your experiences as a sniper in the Marines have shown that usual standard interrogation doesn't work, it doesn't make you look stupid or backward; so there's no need to aggressively put up the defense, but coyly offense, of "I'm real world, man! You stupid and backward! You get information from books!"

And your point would make a whole lot more sense in a thread where I was arguing about an ineptness of regular interrogation techniques. Sorry, this is not what the main argument was about; instead, I encourage you to read the thread and my posts with a little more care and attention, instead of your (admitted) failing to do so. This argument was mainly about whether a person (me) can call a method of torture, torture. I have been told I cannot call a method of torture, torture, because it is not politically correct. I have repeatedly taken the position that I'm unconvinced that goals of politically correct niceties should prevent me from classifying a method of torture, torture. What bothers me is that people like you have no clue what a person is really arguing, yet you come in here and think you know every person's thoughts on the subject just because you spent some time as a Marine. As great as that service is, it doesn't make you the greatest person in the world, nor does it make every argument you make necessarily relevant as a rebuttal to another person's argument.

Instead, I have offered patteeu the alternative dealing with the torture problem: embrace it. Use your post as evidence that we waterboarded in good faith. Just don't tell us that we didn't inflict seveere pain on them in order to coerce them into giving us information.

Since you were waterboarded, you would be a good source of information on an element of the definition of severe pain. Was being waterboarded subjectively for you a severe pain?

patteeu
05-07-2011, 09:49 AM
Saul pointed out nothing except his own stupidity in this thread. You're having some problem wrapping your mind around this, of which I've repeated several times: I have no problem with simply using the phrase waterboarding [and nearly everyone, including the executive, the medical community, the legal scholars, and average persons consider it torture]. I have a problem with calling it EIT as if it were not torture. You're so committed to distorting my words that you have violent reactions when they interfere with your political agenda.

Then stop calling it torture. It's really as simple as that, but so far in this thread you've refused to do so.

I think it's reasonable to call it waterboarding when it's a specific reference to that technique, but it's also reasonable to talk about EITs when it's a reference to the entire collection of authorized enhanced interrogation techniques. It's never reasonable to substitute "torture" for waterboarding or any of the other EITs.

patteeu
05-07-2011, 09:51 AM
Despite you being a degrading, condescending, ignorant jackass in this post, my own magnanimity pushes me to thank you for your service to our country.

If your experiences as a sniper in the Marines have shown that usual standard interrogation doesn't work, it doesn't make you look stupid or backward; so there's no need to aggressively put up the defense, but coyly offense, of "I'm real world, man! You stupid and backward! You get information from books!"

And your point would make a whole lot more sense in a thread where I was arguing about an ineptness of regular interrogation techniques. Sorry, this is not what the main argument was about; instead, I encourage you to read the thread and my posts with a little more care and attention, instead of your (admitted) failing to do so. This argument was mainly about whether a person (me) can call a method of torture, torture. I have been told I cannot call a method of torture, torture, because it is not politically correct. I have repeatedly taken the position that I'm unconvinced that goals of politically correct niceties should prevent me from classifying a method of torture, torture. What bothers me is that people like you have no clue what a person is really arguing, yet you come in here and think you know every person's thoughts on the subject just because you spent some time as a Marine. As great as that service is, it doesn't make you the greatest person in the world, nor does it make every argument you make necessarily relevant as a rebuttal to another person's argument.

Instead, I have offered patteeu the alternative dealing with the torture problem: embrace it. Use your post as evidence that we waterboarded in good faith. Just don't tell us that we didn't inflict seveere pain on them in order to coerce them into giving us information.

Since you were waterboarded, you would be a good source of information on an element of the definition of severe pain. Was being waterboarded subjectively for you a severe pain?

:facepalm:

If anything, calling waterboarding "torture" *is* the politically correct approach.

fbal4lif32
05-07-2011, 01:31 PM
Then stop calling it torture. It's really as simple as that, but so far in this thread you've refused to do so.

I think it's reasonable to call it waterboarding when it's a specific reference to that technique, but it's also reasonable to talk about EITs when it's a reference to the entire collection of authorized enhanced interrogation techniques. It's never reasonable to substitute "torture" for waterboarding or any of the other EITs.

It's a strange world when in our mind, we all walk around with the idea that waterboarding is torture, but we're not allowed to say it's torture because your feelings will get hurt.

Again, this might make your world a little tougher to live in, but the world has no convincing reason to bend to your desires. Waterboarding, the technique regarded around the world, by legal scholars, by doctors, by our government, is considered a method of torture. Which makes sense because it fits the definition.

Just like football is considered a sport. We're not going to bow to the political agenda of a few who demand that we not call football a sport, but can only call it football or "enhanced contact athletic game featuring pigskin."

Not going to happen. You don't like how language works? Tough problem. I'd worry about something else though. I advise against rolling the 500lb rock up the steep mountain. But you might not value your time and productivity like others.

fbal4lif32
05-07-2011, 01:33 PM
:facepalm:

If anything, calling waterboarding "torture" *is* the politically correct approach.

Demanding that the world can't call waterboarding torture is ridiculous. Your reason for doing so is because it makes your political agenda look bad. It's not politically correct.

My agenda is just that I should be able to call things by their correct definitions. It's more than political. It's just common sense.

orange
05-07-2011, 01:39 PM
Demanding that the world can't call waterboarding torture is ridiculous. Your reason for doing so is because it makes your political agenda look bad. It's not politically correct.


No, it's not just political. They started twisting the language because torture is illegal.

fbal4lif32
05-07-2011, 01:57 PM
No, it's not just political. They started twisting the language because torture is illegal.

I'll take your word for it. I don't know enough about the constitutional and legal protections we have set in place for alleged detained terrorists.

My argument is only that waterboarding is nearly universally deemed a method of torture, and that is completely fits the definition of torture, so it can definitely be legitimately called torture.

My argument is not that it was wrong to do. I could even grant that in some cases it could be right to do. I'm probably much easier going than other patteeu-opponents in that respect.

But don't tell me it's not torture and that I can't call it torture.

patteeu
05-07-2011, 03:23 PM
It's a strange world when in our mind, we all walk around with the idea that waterboarding is torture, but we're not allowed to say it's torture because your feelings will get hurt.

Again, this might make your world a little tougher to live in, but the world has no convincing reason to bend to your desires. Waterboarding, the technique regarded around the world, by legal scholars, by doctors, by our government, is considered a method of torture. Which makes sense because it fits the definition.

Just like football is considered a sport. We're not going to bow to the political agenda of a few who demand that we not call football a sport, but can only call it football or "enhanced contact athletic game featuring pigskin."

Not going to happen. You don't like how language works? Tough problem. I'd worry about something else though. I advise against rolling the 500lb rock up the steep mountain. But you might not value your time and productivity like others.

Then you were lying when you said you had no problem calling it waterboarding rather than torture. OK, fair enough. Your complaints about the use of EIT will fall on equally deaf ears.

patteeu
05-07-2011, 03:24 PM
Demanding that the world can't call waterboarding torture is ridiculous. Your reason for doing so is because it makes your political agenda look bad. It's not politically correct.

My agenda is just that I should be able to call things by their correct definitions. It's more than political. It's just common sense.

Your agenda is clear. I've already described it. Embrace your political correctness because denials are transparent.

patteeu
05-07-2011, 03:25 PM
No, it's not just political. They started twisting the language because torture is illegal.

Torture is illegal. Waterboarding under the strict guidelines of the EIT program was not.

patteeu
05-07-2011, 03:28 PM
I'll take your word for it. I don't know enough about the constitutional and legal protections we have set in place for alleged detained terrorists.

My argument is only that waterboarding is nearly universally deemed a method of torture, and that is completely fits the definition of torture, so it can definitely be legitimately called torture.

My argument is not that it was wrong to do. I could even grant that in some cases it could be right to do. I'm probably much easier going than other patteeu-opponents in that respect.

But don't tell me it's not torture and that I can't call it torture.

Orange is right. Torture is illegal. I assume that your position is that we torture our own troops in SERE training when we waterboard them. How perplexing!

KILLER_CLOWN
05-07-2011, 03:30 PM
I assume that your position is that we torture our own troops in SERE training when we waterboard them. How perplexing!

Ventura thinks so.

fbal4lif32
05-07-2011, 10:02 PM
Then you were lying when you said you had no problem calling it waterboarding rather than torture. OK, fair enough. Your complaints about the use of EIT will fall on equally deaf ears.

I don't have a problem with that. Are you just pretending to be stupid? I don't have a problem with calling football, football or calling football, a sport. Can you make this analogy? Don't tell me I can't call football, a sport. The analogy section of your brain needs work. And by work, I mean a ****ing lobotomy. It's like watching a one year old jam a star block into the square cutout. It's not going to fit jackass. But at least that kid is just one. Your problem is that your head is so stuck up the collective asses of the Bush administration's policies you can't think clearly. It doesn't matter that the practice has been repudiated against our country's morals. **** that! You have a bleeding c*nt for the Bush administration and you're going to bleed it over everyone who uses correct terms.

**** yourself. **** your ****ing political correct self you ****ing jackass. **** you. A cowardly jackass whose only values are to protect the politically correct terminology of a repudiated political regime is dead to me.

You'd sit here and defend Osama bin Laden if it meant the Bush administration looked better for you. That's how far you would go. Just admit it: You wish bin Laden were still alive and killing Americans on Obama's watch just so you could say it stopped happening under Bush.

fbal4lif32
05-07-2011, 10:05 PM
Orange is right. Torture is illegal. I assume that your position is that we torture our own troops in SERE training when we waterboard them. How perplexing!

How many times do I need to put the definition out there for you? Jesus Christ, the definition has two elements: "severe pain in order to coerce." We inflict severe pain on our troops, but there's no torture because we are not coercing them for anything, like information. The troops voluntarily sign up for service.

Do you make these posts in batman pajamas and eat Fruit Loops between them? Will your next post feature something so moronic and stupidly left field? If so, just write it in a diary and save everything the fucking headache of seeing your horseshit.

go bowe
05-07-2011, 10:23 PM
i'm glad to see that this is still a friendly conversation...

fbal4lif32
05-07-2011, 10:25 PM
i'm glad to see that this is still a friendly conversation...

I'm sorry, I don't feel compelled to make friends with people who tell me I can't use correct words because it endangers their political agenda. And by sorry, I mean "meh."