Waterboarding: the courage of his commitment stands - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Txjake · #1 06-03-2010, 11:16 AM

Bush in speech says if he had to do it over he would still waterboard KSM to save lives.

GOOD MAN

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/06/id_do_it_again_former_presiden.html

davidmash · #2 06-03-2010, 12:33 PM

Ali Soufan

Quote:

"From my experience -- and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence -- I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' " Soufan noted in his written statement.

Quote:

"People were given misinformation, half-truths and false claims of successes; and reluctant intelligence officers were given instructions and assurances from higher authorities," Soufan testified.

McCain on Torture

Quote:

“One of the things that kept us going when I was in prison in North Vietnam was that we knew that if the situation were reversed, that we would not be doing to our captors what they were doing to us,” he said.

Quote:

“I want to tell you. Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney all think it is O.K.,” Mr. McCain told the diners in Boone. “They have one thing in common. They don’t understand the military and the culture of this nation. If they did, they could never condone such behavior.”

Personally, I'll take the word of two people who have been there and done that over some poser who served in a sheltered NG unit never to see combat.

aklim · #3 06-03-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Ali Soufan

McCain on Torture

Personally, I'll take the word of two people who have been there and done that over some poser who served in a sheltered NG unit never to see combat.

Reading the link, I can't seem to find where Ali said that torture, or EIT was 100% ineffective as far as gathering information. If you want to make the case that it should not be relied on as the only way to get information, I could see that. However, should it be off the table? I don't think so. Much like the sledgehammer I have. I don't use it to drive a small tack into the wall but I think I will keep it as an option should other tools fail.

McCain? WGAS about what he has to say? He was shot down and kept in a camp. EIT or torture seemed to get some cooperation there from the standpoint it broke soldiers into "confessing" crimes for propaganda and I'm sure other things.

He approved controversial methods. What do you think he is going to say? "Oh, sorry! I made an oopsie."

davidmash · #4 06-03-2010, 12:52 PM

Nothing is 100%

Quote:

Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told members of a key Senate Judiciary subcommittee that such "techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable and harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda."

McCain lied about torture to get elected. While I do not respect him for lying to get into office, I do agree with his actual beliefs.

aklim · #5 06-03-2010, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Nothing is 100%

McCain lied about torture to get elected. While I do not respect him for lying to get into office, I do agree with his actual beliefs.

That being the case, as I said, it should be an option not the first thing they try.

And you know they are his actual beliefs how? You know they are not just fluff to make people like him, how? I think it is more accurate to say that you are using him to give your opinion credibility. Politicians were once ranked one step above prostitutes for a reason.

davidmash · #6 06-03-2010, 01:14 PM

Not sure why someone would want to do something that is ineffective.

I believe they were his views because he was saying them when he had nothing to gain from it and he has been against torture for as long as I can remember. He only swapped his view when it was politically expedient to do so.

aklim · #7 06-03-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Not sure why someone would want to do something that is ineffective.

I believe they were his views because he was saying them when he had nothing to gain from it and he has been against torture for as long as I can remember. He only swapped his view when it was politically expedient to do so.

As I said, just because it doesn't work 100% of the time doesn't mean it might not have an application at some point. Much like the sledgehammer. It has no application most of the time but once in a while, it is useful. Why throw it away?

Made you mention his name favorably, did it not? At least mitigated his lies so there was some gain to it. In any case, he was not an interrogator. He was the interrogatEE. More importantly, he is a politician. Who knows what truth they tell mixed with what lies? They lie on a daily basis. As I was saying, if he wasn't such a liar and on the receiving end of the torture, I'd say it has some validity.

tonkovich · #8 06-03-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

Bush in speech says if he had to do it over he would still waterboard KSM to save lives.

GOOD MAN

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/06/id_do_it_again_former_presiden.html

yes, the bill of rights, geneva convention... all wrong. thanks for clearing that up for us. now, about those wmds?

Txjake · #9 06-03-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

yes, the bill of rights, geneva convention... all wrong. thanks for clearing that up for us. now, about those wmds?

the bill of rights has NOTHING to do with non US citizens. the Geneva Convention deals with uniformed soldiers of a county with whom the signatories are at war with, again, does not apply. WMDs? WGAF?

aklim · #10 06-03-2010, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

the bill of rights has NOTHING to do with non US citizens. the Geneva Convention deals with uniformed soldiers of a county with whom the signatories are at war with, again, does not apply. WMDs? WGAF?

I think he was talking about the WMDs that the rest of the world also believed he had. The ones that caused the ruckus because he failed to live up to his contract. Those ones.

tonkovich · #11 06-03-2010, 02:42 PM

people who have the courage to follow their own convictions do not blindly follow whomever is leading them (or feeding them information). and they see the bill of rights and geneva convention as noble guides for living.

or, you have the milgram experiment.

Milgram experiment

The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level etc.[1]
The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.[2]
The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the question: "Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?" In other words, "Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?" Milgram's testing suggested that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs.
Contents [hide]
1 The experiment
2 Results
3 Ethics
4 Interpretations
4.1 Alternative interpretations
5 Replications and variations
5.1 Milgram's variations
5.2 Replications
5.3 Other variations
6 Alleged real-life examples
7 Media depictions
8 In legend
9 See also
10 Notes
11 References
12 External links
[edit]The experiment

Milgram Experiment advertisement
Three people take part in the experiment: "experimenter"; "learner" ("victim"); and "teacher" (participant). Only the "teacher" is an actual participant, i.e., unaware about the actual setup, while the "learner" is a confederate of the experimenter. The role of the experimenter was played by a stern, impassive biology teacher dressed in a grey technician's coat, and the victim (learner) was played by a 47-year-old Irish-American[dubious – discuss] accountant trained to act for the role. The "teacher" and the "learner" were told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment helping his study of memory and learning in different situations.[1]
The subject was given the title teacher, and the confederate, learner. The participants drew lots to 'determine' their roles. Unknown to them, both slips said "teacher", and the actor claimed to have the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the participant would always be the "teacher". At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.[1]
The "teacher" was given an electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair.[1]
The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.[1]
At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.[1]
If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:[1]
Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.
If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.[1]
[edit]Results

Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors as to what they thought would be the results. All of the poll respondents believed that only a few (average 1.2%) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1]
In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Only one participant steadfastly refused to administer shocks below the 300-volt level.[1]
Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:
The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.
Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.[3]
The original Simulated Shock Generator and Event Recorder, or shock box, is located in the Archives of the History of American Psychology.
Later, Prof. Milgram and other psychologists performed variations of the experiment throughout the world, with similar results[4] although unlike the Yale experiment,[dubious – discuss] resistance to the experimenter was reported anecdotally elsewhere.[5] Milgram later investigated the effect of the experiment's locale on obedience levels by holding an experiment in an unregistered, backstreet office in a bustling city, as opposed to at Yale, a respectable university. The level of obedience, "although somewhat reduced, was not significantly lower." What made more of a difference was the proximity of the "learner" and the experimenter. There were also variations tested involving groups.
Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61–66 percent, regardless of time or place.[6][7][verification needed]
There is a little-known coda to the Milgram Experiment, reported by Philip Zimbardo: none of the participants who refused to administer the final shocks insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim without requesting permission to leave, as per Milgram's notes and recollections, when Zimbardo asked him about that point.[8]
Milgram created a documentary film titled Obedience showing the experiment and its results. He also produced a series of five social psychology films, some of which dealt with his experiments.[9]
In 1981, Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr wrote that The Milgram Experiment and the later Stanford prison experiment led by Zimbardo at Stanford University were frightening in their implications about the danger lurking in human nature's dark side.[10]
[edit]

cmbdiesel · #12 06-03-2010, 03:07 PM

W will never read something that long...

davidmash · #13 06-03-2010, 03:11 PM

I thought they were the WDM's that the rest of the world believed he had based on the faulty and contrived intelligence that the Bush administration presented. I guess I was mistaken.

aklim · #14 06-03-2010, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I thought they were the WDM's that the rest of the world believed he had based on the faulty and contrived intelligence that the Bush administration presented. I guess I was mistaken.

My history might be wrong but I thought Bush wasn't even President when the WMD issues originally came up. IIRC, he was supposed to provide UNFETTERED ACCESS to all inspectors. He played his games with the inspectors which led up to this mess. Later on, the Bush admin just took every scrap of information whether reliable or unreliable and tacked his name onto it. Even the UN Arms inspector David Kay felt there was something there and was confident till he had to backpedal after he came up empty handed.

One needs to ask, if he had provided the access that he was supposed to, would Bush with his paranoia have even been able to make it stick had the inspectors declared it clean?

tonkovich · #15 06-03-2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

W will never read something that long...

pity.

(sorry to eat up all the bandwidth)