Pres' Obama excuses CIA torture

[SkyDekker 1,141]

I am convinced now. I think we should also allow police forces to torture suspects who they think might not be telling the truth. If it works on terrorists, it must also work on murderers, thiefs, adulterers etc.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I am convinced now. I think we should also allow police forces to torture suspects who they think might not be telling the truth. If it works on terrorists, it must also work on murderers, thiefs, adulterers etc.

You can twist this into anything you want to justify your position, as can I. the difference between you and I is you will use any extreem example to help you feel you are correct in your position. I will not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,141]

You mean the part where he says that any information that may have been obtained was not important to national security?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

You mean the part where he says that any information that may have been obtained was not important to national security?

Ya

this part

Quote

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.


and this part


High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,141]

And as Blair said, there is no way of knowing whether they would have gotten that information without torture.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

And as Blair said, there is no way of knowing whether they would have gotten that information without torture.

Quote

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

So, he gave them the info and then they did it anyway?

Come on baby, lets do the twist.
Come on bbbaaaaaabbbbyyyyyyyy, let do the twist.

...........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

You mean the part where he says that any information that may have been obtained was not important to national security?

Ya

this part

Quote

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.


and this part


High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

And this part

Quote

The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.

"We do not need these techniques to keep America safe." - Adm. Dennis Blair USN

Besides which, they are clearly illegal under our treaty obligations (and hence under the US Constitution).

You DO believe in the US Constitution, don't you?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You mean the part where he says that any information that may have been obtained was not important to national security?

Ya

this part

Quote

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.


and this part


High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

And this part

Quote

The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.

"We do not need these techniques to keep America safe." - Adm. Dennis Blair USN

Besides which, they are clearly illegal under our treaty obligations (and hence under the US Constitution).

You DO believe in the US Constitution, don't you?

Hi kallend

Still posting under an assumed name? Cool

Ya I do, and you still like to make claims that your opions are some kind of facts. Now that is not cool

But, since your support of claims that is does not work are not debunked I understand you need to change the direction of the thread.

take care kallend

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I don't think that prosecuting people who lose elections is very good for the nation either, unless what they've done is very horrible and criminal. Then it'd be wrong not to.

Serious question: do you think South Africa would be better off today if they had prosecuted FW DeKlerk? Do you think that they are better off for having tried to prosecute PW Botha?

I think that engaging in prosecution against political leaders for decisions they made in office is likely to be extremely polarizing, and further widen rifts in this nation. It also threatens to become a deeply politicized "trial" where facts take a back seat political beliefs and actual guilt or innocence takes a back seat to the court of public opinion.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I am convinced now. I think we should also allow police forces to torture suspects who they think might not be telling the truth. If it works on terrorists, it must also work on murderers, thiefs, adulterers etc.

I don't think that the enhanced interrogation techniques are/were a good idea. But throwing out silliness like that isn't really very useful.

The situations are not comparable at all. It's unlikely that those common criminals would possess knowledge that would save thousands (or more) lives.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

The situations are not comparable at all. It's unlikely that those common criminals would possess knowledge that would save thousands (or more) lives.

fair enough, I agree. So at what number of lives possibly saved is torture justified? When it could possibly save 2 lives? 20 lives? 100 lives?

[billvon 2,427]

>So at what number of lives possibly saved is torture justified? When it
>could possibly save 2 lives? 20 lives? 100 lives?

That's an "ends justify the means" argument there. The worse the possible harm, the more you are justified in doing.

So take it to the extreme. You have a terrorist in custody, and there's a ticking atomic bomb somewhere that will kill thousands. You torture him and he won't talk. So you pick up his wife to convince him.

What's OK then? Rape her in front of him? Throw acid in her face? Cut off her fingers, if that's the only way to make him talk? Is it OK to just "make her uncomfortable" if it will save a few people, but OK to do more if there are thousands at stake?

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

That's an "ends justify the means" argument there.

I agree. the response was that the situations were different, cause in the terrorist scenario possibly thousands could be saved. So then my question was.....at what number of lives is it justified.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>So at what number of lives possibly saved is torture justified? When it
>could possibly save 2 lives? 20 lives? 100 lives?

That's an "ends justify the means" argument there. The worse the possible harm, the more you are justified in doing.

So take it to the extreme. You have a terrorist in custody, and there's a ticking atomic bomb somewhere that will kill thousands. You torture him and he won't talk. So you pick up his wife to convince him.

What's OK then? Rape her in front of him? Throw acid in her face? Cut off her fingers, if that's the only way to make him talk? Is it OK to just "make her uncomfortable" if it will save a few people, but OK to do more if there are thousands at stake?

As long as we're creating extreme thought problems, let's make him a terrorist that you know for certain is responsible for decapitating your brother, and put the ticking atomic bomb at your childrens' school.

Again, I'm not saying I support the techniques under discussion here.

But, I think there is a point at which a reasonable person is going to decide that extreme measures are justified. I don't want the government doing those things for several reasons, chief among them that I don't trust the government to exercise such drastic power wisely, well, or even accurately.

That doesn't mean that I can't imagine a hypothetical scenario where I'd say a reasonable person could legitimately decide to use those techniques, or others even more severe.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,427]

>let's make him a terrorist that you know for certain is responsible for
>decapitating your brother, and put the ticking atomic bomb at your
>childrens' school.

OK. I still wouldn't throw acid in his wife's face, or condone someone else doing that.

> I don't want the government doing those things for several reasons . . .

Then we agree there.

>That doesn't mean that I can't imagine a hypothetical scenario where
>I'd say a reasonable person could legitimately decide to use those
>techniques, or others even more severe.

Problem there is that you then have to be OK with such techniques being used (mistakenly, perhaps) on those you love.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>That doesn't mean that I can't imagine a hypothetical scenario where
>I'd say a reasonable person could legitimately decide to use those
>techniques, or others even more severe.

Problem there is that you then have to be OK with such techniques being used (mistakenly, perhaps) on those you love.

Remember that in our hypothetical we are sure, without error, that we've got the right guy.

To make it easier, we'd have to be torturing him, or else we'd have to make the wife also be an error-free terrorist.

Besides, if we've got Kaiser Szoze there, he's going to kill the wife himself.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,427]

>Remember that in our hypothetical we are sure, without error, that
>we've got the right guy.

That's not the hypothetical I posed, because we're never sure, and indeed we are often wrong. The example I used was just that you had a known terrorist that _might_ have some info, but he isn't talking. The parallel example is the now-familiar "well, we found this guy on a battlefield, he sure as hell isn't innocent!"

>To make it easier, we'd have to be torturing him, or else we'd have
>to make the wife also be an error-free terrorist.

Why does his guilt or innocence matter in that case? The initial argument that torture is acceptable if it can save X people. Why does it matter if the person being tortured is innocent or not?

Or is there a revenge element in this?

>Besides, if we've got Kaiser Szoze there, he's going to kill the
>wife himself.

He's not going to talk anyway, and he's going to kill _you_ eventually.

[jcd11235 0]

Why would you advocate using torture in such a situation when other interrogation methods have proven to be more effective?

[nerdgirl] has previously posted on the subject of a ticking time bomb here:

Under the notional scenario you posited, I would want the most effective interrogation method used, i.e., *not* torture. Traditional interrogation methods have been shown to work under extreme circumstances, e.g., the real-world “ticking time bomb scenario”:

“[Jack] Cloonan [32-year FBI veteran, whose experience included counterintelligence, counterterrorism, the Joint Terrorism Task Force] and a New York Police Department detective secured actionable intelligence from a suspect in the foiled millennium-bombing plot in just six hours on December 30, 1999 -- by following FBI procedure, and by encouraging a suspect to pray during his Ramadan fast. The suspect even agreed to place calls to his confederates, which led to their speedy arrests.”

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Why would you advocate using torture in such a situation when other interrogation methods have proven to be more effective?

I wouldn't. Have they?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Why would you advocate using torture in such a situation when other interrogation methods have proven to be more effective?

I wouldn't. Have they?

Yes, they have. (See the edit of my previous post, as well as the post to which I linked.)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think that prosecuting people who lose elections is very good for the nation either, unless what they've done is very horrible and criminal. Then it'd be wrong not to.

Serious question: do you think South Africa would be better off today if they had prosecuted FW DeKlerk? Do you think that they are better off for having tried to prosecute PW Botha?

I think that engaging in prosecution against political leaders for decisions they made in office is likely to be extremely polarizing, and further widen rifts in this nation. It also threatens to become a deeply politicized "trial" where facts take a back seat political beliefs and actual guilt or innocence takes a back seat to the court of public opinion.

I think that we are all better off if people who commit atrocities are held accountable...no matter what their status in society.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[nerdgirl 0]

The argument for waterboarding is that it supposedly gets information that cannot be gotten by other means, right?

If you have to waterboard someone 183 times and still don’t have useful information, does that suggest it is an effective technique?

One of the arguments is that torture will produce quick results in situations in which lives may be at risk (that’s the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario). If it’s done 183 times over a month is that ‘ticking time bomb’?

If someone brings you a reserve to repack 183 times in a row because he’s had 183 malfunctions in 183 jumps – while that might be a great client from a capitalist perspective – is that indicative of an effective, good packing technique for the main? (Especially if you’ve got 60 years of evidence that says there are better ways of packing that do work and that have worked, even in real ‘ticking time bomb’ situations.)

ADM Blair’s statement:

Quote

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

is not untrue.

I suspect that you’re reading that the “High value information” was a result of waterboarding, etc. That’s not what the memo’s language says. It says the three acknowledged detainees, (Khalid Sheik Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd Nashiri) who former DCI Gen Hayden, USAF (ret) acknowledged were waterboarded, etc. also provided high value information. Hayden acknowledged that information was obtained *before* they were waterboarded. The most important, “high value” information and most quickly obtained information from KSM seems to have come from his laptop computer. His laptop. More details in my post from last year. (Please note that those statements are references to Defenselink.mil transcripts and to direct statements from practicing operators.)

Now maybe ADM Blair did intend your interpretation. (Or whoever wrote the memo; the likelihood that he *wrote* the memo is close to zero. A member of his staff in all liklihood wrote it, he signed it, and it was sent off to public affairs.) Suspect a more reasonable and more likely explanation is that it was recognized as being unclear when it went through public affairs review.

Nothing’s changed to support claims of effectiveness. There's still no evidence of effectiveness.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

And this part

Quote

The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.

"We do not need these techniques to keep America safe." - Adm. Dennis Blair USN

Besides which, they are clearly illegal under our treaty obligations (and hence under the US Constitution).

You DO believe in the US Constitution, don't you?

Ya I do, and you still like to make claims that your opions are some kind of facts. Now that is not cool

But, since your support of claims that is does not work are not debunked I understand you need to change the direction of the thread.

You are really confused, aren't you?

The bolded statement came from Admiral Blair.

The US IS a signatory to the treaty, and therefore it becomes "Supreme law of the land" according to the Constitution that you claim to support. That isn't opinion.

When it comes to opinion, Blair's trumps yours every time.

So, for that matter, does nerdgirl's.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[sundevil777 94]

Do you think that congressional intelligence committee members that were briefed in detail about 30 times on the interrogations should be prosecuted? This would include the liberal darlings Rep Nancy Pelosi, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, and Rep. Jane Harman.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Do you think that congressional intelligence committee members that were briefed in detail about 30 times on the interrogations should be prosecuted? This would include the liberal darlings Rep Nancy Pelosi, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, and Rep. Jane Harman.

How is receiving a classified briefing a culpable offense? What would they be charged with?