Approving 'alternative interrogation methods' - Page 12 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JonL · #**166** 04-26-2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Fair enough.

IF it were so ineffective, why would it have gone on for centuries?

This is a very poor rationale for anything. For how many centuries did people attribute illness to evil spirits before microbes were discovered? I believe it was you who alluded to the superstition of religion (an allusion with which I completely agree). Even today, that superstition holds considerable sway over people's and entire governments' actions. So since the superstition of religion has existed for longer than recorded history, it must be right.

Honus · #**167** 04-26-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

If your only argument is that you can't see where it has saved American lives, you can now say that I have proven it...

Such a short sentence, yet so many errors.

Error 1: Who said that my only argument was that I can't see where torture saved American lives? Even if it saved American lives, we would still need to know the harm caused by the use of torture. For example, how many American lives have been lost because we have lost the support of would-be allies while simultaneously helping al Qaeda recruit new people?

Error 2: It is more than a stretch to claim that you have proven anything merely by citing Brent Bozelle's website. I am not saying that everything on his website is false, just that his website is so completely biased, it is not proof of anything.

Error 3: Bush bragged about foiling the alleged Los Angeles plot before KSM was captured. Here is part of an article discussing the timeline:

Quote:

...What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.
How could Sheikh Mohammed's water-boarded confession have prevented the Library Tower attack if the Bush administration "broke up" that attack during the previous year? It couldn't, of course. Conceivably the Bush administration, or at least parts of the Bush administration, didn't realize until Sheikh Mohammed confessed under torture that it had already broken up a plot to blow up the Library Tower about which it knew nothing. Stranger things have happened. But the plot was already a dead letter. If foiling the Library Tower plot was the reason to water-board Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then that water-boarding was more than cruel and unjust. It was a waste of water...

http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

That article is by Tim Noah. I do not know how objective he is, but he cites original sources and therefore has more credibility than Brent Bozelle, IMHO.

aklim · #**168** 04-26-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonL

This is a very poor rationale for anything. For how many centuries did people attribute illness to evil spirits before microbes were discovered? I believe it was you who alluded to the superstition of religion (an allusion with which I completely agree). Even today, that superstition holds considerable sway over people's and entire governments' actions. So since the superstition of religion has existed for longer than recorded history, it must be right.

I'm not placing a moral judgment on right or wrong here. My point is that why would anyone do it if there was no payoff? Would YOU want to be the idiot that goes to your boss and say "Hey, I got this hot titbit......" and have it proven wrong again and again? Well, lets say you say that you are a sadist and love to torture people. Fair enough. What about your boss and his boss and his boss? Surely at some point it will hit someone who ISN'T sadist and only cares about results.

You do realize that many a resistance cell in WWII was broken by the Germans by having a "friendly chat" with captured resistance members. So why would they have done it then an further on in other conflicts if there was nothing to be gained?

aklim · #**169** 04-26-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Even if it saved American lives, we would still need to know the harm caused by the use of torture. For example, how many American lives have been lost because we have lost the support of would-be allies while simultaneously helping al Qaeda recruit new people?

Fair question. How do we evaluate that? By our "allies" deserting us?

–verb (used with object) 2. to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.

4. a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose
What does this mean? Very simply put, they are NOT your BFF. We have a common cause today, we are friends. Tomorrow, when things change, "Nice knowing you.". Go to a bar with a roll of C-notes and say "Drinks are on me". As long as the money holds, you have plenty of friends. When it is done and you need cab fare home, well.....Or something we used to drink to in kollege

Here's to you and here's to me
Best of Friends we'll ever be
But if by chance we disagree
Here's to me and the fawk with you

In essence, if we had something to give, they will be at the trough. If not, too bad, too sad.

Honus · #**170** 04-26-2009, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

...In essence, if we had something to give, they will be at the trough. If not, too bad, too sad.

History does not back you up.

JonL · #**171** 04-26-2009, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I'm not placing a moral judgment on right or wrong here. My point is that why would anyone do it if there was no payoff? Would YOU want to be the idiot that goes to your boss and say "Hey, I got this hot titbit......" and have it proven wrong again and again? Well, lets say you say that you are a sadist and love to torture people. Fair enough. What about your boss and his boss and his boss? Surely at some point it will hit someone who ISN'T sadist and only cares about results.

You do realize that many a resistance cell in WWII was broken by the Germans by having a "friendly chat" with captured resistance members. So why would they have done it then an further on in other conflicts if there was nothing to be gained?

More really weak argument. I'm not even debating (in this and my previous post) if torture "works." I'm simply pointing out that your argument is simply ludicrous. It amounts to "because that's the way we've always done it." There have to be many, many examples through history of people doing things for generations or centuries thinking it was "right," only because no one ever bothered to objectively analyze the results.

raymr · #**172** 04-26-2009, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonL

More really weak argument. I'm not even debating (in this and my previous post) if torture "works." I'm simply pointing out that your argument is simply ludicrous. It amounts to "because that's the way we've always done it." There have to be many, many examples through history of people doing things for generations or centuries thinking it was "right," only because no one ever bothered to objectively analyze the results.

It doesn't ALWAYS work, but I betcha it SOMETIMES works, and in situations where national security is at stake, thats good enough.

cmbdiesel · #**173** 04-26-2009, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

It doesn't ALWAYS work, but I betcha it SOMETIMES works, and in situations where national security is at stake, thats good enough.

Not good enough for me.

Maybe the police could use torture too. It could save a life.

Honus · #**174** 04-26-2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

It doesn't ALWAYS work, but I betcha it SOMETIMES works, and in situations where national security is at stake, thats good enough.

When national security is at stake, I prefer tactics that are known to be reliable. I'm not convinced that torture meets that definition. McCain, for example, says that when the torture got too much for him to bear, he started giving the Vietnamese all sorts of bogus information, anything to make it stop.

While I think it was wrong for us to torture prisoners, the most serious allegation I've heard is that we tortured them to try to make them give "information" linking Saddam to 9/11. It is also alleged that we used some of the same tactics the Chinese and Soviets used to get prisoners to give answers supportive of the governments' propaganda efforts. Think about that for a minute.

aklim · #**175** 04-26-2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

History does not back you up.

In what sense? The other countries do not have their own agendas when doing something that benefits you?

aklim · #**176** 04-26-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonL

More really weak argument. I'm not even debating (in this and my previous post) if torture "works." I'm simply pointing out that your argument is simply ludicrous. It amounts to "because that's the way we've always done it." There have to be many, many examples through history of people doing things for generations or centuries thinking it was "right," only because no one ever bothered to objectively analyze the results.

I am not arguing it from the standpoint that we have always done it. I am saying that it has produced results which is why it is still being used today. Granted that the results are not perfect but what alternative is there when you want information in that speed?

aklim · #**177** 04-26-2009, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

When national security is at stake, I prefer tactics that are known to be reliable. I'm not convinced that torture meets that definition.

McCain, for example, says that when the torture got too much for him to bear, he started giving the Vietnamese all sorts of bogus information, anything to make it stop.

While I think it was wrong for us to torture prisoners, the most serious allegation I've heard is that we tortured them to try to make them give "information" linking Saddam to 9/11. It is also alleged that we used some of the same tactics the Chinese and Soviets used to get prisoners to give answers supportive of the governments' propaganda efforts. Think about that for a minute.

Even if those reliable tactics take long enough where the information is worthless?

So he says. But lets assume that he is telling the truth. Did other servicemen also do the same or did they at some point give useful information?

That is a whole different story.

tankdriver · #**178** 04-26-2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Even if those reliable tactics take long enough where the information is worthless?

How do you know how long reliable tactics take vis a vis the enhanced methods?

Quote:

So he says. But lets assume that he is telling the truth. Did other servicemen also do the same or did they at some point give useful information?

Irrelevant. If someone is being tortured, the incentive is to talk, not to tell the truth.

aklim · #**179** 04-26-2009, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

How do you know how long reliable tactics take vis a vis the enhanced methods?

Irrelevant. If someone is being tortured, the incentive is to talk, not to tell the truth.

Do you believe that in life you can have it all? Accuracy and high speed at the same time? There is always a trade off

Perhaps so but a good interrogator should know how to cross check things and not just simply keep beating to beat the prisoner. He should also know when there is nothing more to give.