Cheney : Dunking in water is a "no-brainer"

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Pens1566
So why the law for something so extraordinarily rare??? It seems to me that if it's necessary to save lives, it will/would be done regardless of the law.

That's my whole point. Keep it on the down low and if rare threats arrise requiring such or any other methods, do it, and accept the consequences. I sorta agree with Rainsford that sanctioning such methods are bad news.. not for the exact same reasons though. Besides weakening our poltical position and image as a champion of human rights....Mainly it weakens your leverage when enemy knows how far you will go... they can prepare themselves for such eventualities.

Yep, and that is the problem with the detainee act. It lets the president decide when it is/isn't necessary. Not that he's done anything that would make 63% of the population trust him either.

Too ambiguous and COULD be used in any case, not just the extremes. Better to make it illegal. This is more of a PR hit than anything else, and we're just not very good at PR.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's torture. It's illegal. No more ambiguity. Done.

Should police be allowed to waterboard a suspect (which is all they are until proven guilty) to save someones life?

We're better than that. At least we used to be.

Seconded.

Palehorse, there are many problems with your position, not the least of which is a fundamental difference in our views on the morality of torture, aka 'harsher techniques'.

But I notice how you switch without any notice from the 'ticking bomb' exception into where any 'high level' prisoner automatically qualifies for that treatment.

Suddenly, it's not just a ticking bomb, it's any other info that might have use which could possibly save our troops' lives in operations, which begins to mean almost anything.

I also note that in all your denials of the torture being widespread, you fail to note the practice of extraordinary rendition, such as the innocent Canadian the US kidnapped as his flight stopped at New York on the way to Canada, and sent him to Syria for torture. Gee, sorry. Your system allows for turture I think it's wrong, and I think it's got way too many ways to let situations 'borrow' from the exceptions, and finally the experts challenge the usefulness of the info from torture, though that is not my objection to it.

We're not entitled to all the information these people have. We are allowed to infiltrate, to trick, to spy, to intercept, to bribe, to persuade, to entice info. Not to torture for it.

So, you actually believe that the real experts lobbied for ultimately ineffective collection methods?

The bottom line is that everyone draws a different line in the sand and calls it the line that shouldn't be crossed.

I believe that there are methods of gaining information that may not be "fun" or "comfortable" for the detainee, such as the "fear of drowning" caused during water-boarding. Many people agree with me. Therefore, it's obvious that I (we) draw the line much higher than you do in terms of harshness.

so be it.

Last info I remember from the professionals in the FBI was that "extreme measures" were more often than not counter productive. And you still haven't addressed whether the military supports these methods or not. Might the JAGs have something to say about this that is pertinent? Don't worry, I know the answer I just want you to admit it.

 

[Craig234]

Keep it on the down low and if rare threats arrise requiring such or any other methods, do it, and accept the consequences.

I can't agree with this. If we think it's ok, we need to stand up and do it the right way. We should not have a half-ass system where people are expected to do something which is in a gray area legally putting them at risk. A second problem with it is that condoning some 'down low' opens the door to far more and worse, for the wrong reasons.

Analogy: imagine if we made some foreign policy activities ok on the 'down low'. The next thing you know, you have Reagan selling missiles to Iran for hostages, funding terrorists in Nicaragua, and supporting a policy of death squads in El Salvador.

It's a little like our prohibition on assassination. After JFK, it wasn't very kosher to say it's an ok policy - but then you have things like the 0 for 50 attempts to bomb Saddam that just killed a lot of civilians and left the government twisting words to lie about the purpose of the bombings. If you want to do it, do it up front - if not, don't do it.

Policies get made around fantasy scenarios like the benefit to assassinating Hitler, and get implemented around far worse scenarios, like Nixon's having Chilean President Allende assassinated, in part after Pepsi, his former employer, called him complaining about nationalization of their facilities.

 

[Pens1566]

Has anyone come up with what he meant, if not waterboarding???? Snow is still denying it. Does Gitmo have a lap-pool we don't know about for the inmates?

 

[Moonbeam]

Cheney has other proirities.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Keep it on the down low and if rare threats arrise requiring such or any other methods, do it, and accept the consequences.

I can't agree with this. If we think it's ok, we need to stand up and do it the right way. We should not have a half-ass system where people are expected to do something which is in a gray area legally putting them at risk. A second problem with it is that condoning some 'down low' opens the door to far more and worse, for the wrong reasons.

Analogy: imagine if we made some foreign policy activities ok on the 'down low'. The next thing you know, you have Reagan selling missiles to Iran for hostages, funding terrorists in Nicaragua, and supporting a policy of death squads in El Salvador.

It's a little like our prohibition on assassination. After JFK, it wasn't very kosher to say it's an ok policy - but then you have things like the 0 for 50 attempts to bomb Saddam that just killed a lot of civilians and left the government twisting words to lie about the purpose of the bombings. If you want to do it, do it up front - if not, don't do it.

Policies get made around fantasy scenarios like the benefit to assassinating Hitler, and get implemented around far worse scenarios, like Nixon's having Chilean President Allende assassinated, in part after Pepsi, his former employer, called him complaining about nationalization of their facilities.

I've already got most you hypocrites to admit there ther would be situations where you'd even torture so likewise this idea of falting the means to an ends won't wash. Sometimes in rare circumstance you break the law because it's the right thing to do at that point in time. If CIA agent stopped 100kilos of U235 entering US via information gotten though torture no one would falt him. At the same time fishing expeditions should be prosecuted to full exent of the law and not condoned..

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's torture. It's illegal. No more ambiguity. Done.

Should police be allowed to waterboard a suspect (which is all they are until proven guilty) to save someones life?

We're better than that. At least we used to be.

Seconded.

Palehorse, there are many problems with your position, not the least of which is a fundamental difference in our views on the morality of torture, aka 'harsher techniques'.

But I notice how you switch without any notice from the 'ticking bomb' exception into where any 'high level' prisoner automatically qualifies for that treatment.

Suddenly, it's not just a ticking bomb, it's any other info that might have use which could possibly save our troops' lives in operations, which begins to mean almost anything.

I also note that in all your denials of the torture being widespread, you fail to note the practice of extraordinary rendition, such as the innocent Canadian the US kidnapped as his flight stopped at New York on the way to Canada, and sent him to Syria for torture. Gee, sorry. Your system allows for turture I think it's wrong, and I think it's got way too many ways to let situations 'borrow' from the exceptions, and finally the experts challenge the usefulness of the info from torture, though that is not my objection to it.

We're not entitled to all the information these people have. We are allowed to infiltrate, to trick, to spy, to intercept, to bribe, to persuade, to entice info. Not to torture for it.

So, you actually believe that the real experts lobbied for ultimately ineffective collection methods?

The bottom line is that everyone draws a different line in the sand and calls it the line that shouldn't be crossed.

I believe that there are methods of gaining information that may not be "fun" or "comfortable" for the detainee, such as the "fear of drowning" caused during water-boarding. Many people agree with me. Therefore, it's obvious that I (we) draw the line much higher than you do in terms of harshness.

so be it.

Last info I remember from the professionals in the FBI was that "extreme measures" were more often than not counter productive. And you still haven't addressed whether the military supports these methods or not. Might the JAGs have something to say about this that is pertinent? Don't worry, I know the answer I just want you to admit it.

1) The FBI are some of the worst interrogators in the business. They can't even perform basic questioning techniques properly. I also think that the Direct Questioning and Good Cop/Bad Cop techniques may be the only approaches they know. FBI interrogators are nearly useless... and they certainly love to get in the way! I'm pretty sure that none of them know the meaning of the word "rapport"...

2) Go read the official FM 2-22.3 and tell me if you see any instructions in there with regards to harsher methods. That manual is the new official instruction/reference book used to train military interrogators.

3) You don't know any of "the answers," regardless of how many times you may have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express...

 

[Craig234]

[So, you actually believe that the real experts lobbied for ultimately ineffective collection methods? That doesnt make any sense; especially in a time when the entire intelligence gathering system is under severe scrutiny. The systems are being changed to make all of our collection efforts more effective and more efficient, so why would the real experts (not the CNN/Faux guests) ask for permission to do something that doesnt even work that well? Answer: they didnt... so the methods must work in some cases, right?

The bottom line is that everyone draws a different line in the sand and calls it the line that shouldn't be crossed.

I believe that there are methods of gaining information that may not be "fun" or "comfortable" for the detainee, such as the "fear of drowning" caused during water-boarding. Many people agree with me. Therefore, it's obvious that I (we) draw the line much higher than you do in terms of harshness.

so be it.

First, you commit a basic fallacy in assuming that the 'experts' who lobby for the right to torture are somehow immune to any mistakes either in their judgement or their motives. All kinds of people lobby for all kinds of things that cause problems for all kinds of reasons. You can't win the argument without facts, just with this indirect implication.

The fact is that 'real experts' broadly report it as ineffective, and you need to deal with the facts to respond.

Second, morality is always dicey in a political discussion, but note that we take our exact discussion and put you in the role of Nazi and me in the role I'm in and it wouldn't change a thing. Your comments about the 'people have different opinions' inability to prove one side is right doesn't prove you are right by any means.

I acknowledge that at the end of the day, my moral argument cannot be more than my opinion, but it's important nonetheless as it's not only the only thing between you and immoral torture, but the only thing between the government interning Japanese, or injecting syphilis into blacks, or sterilizing 'undesirable people' or more.

The moral argument isn't always right - there are those, for example, who would ban all alchohol from society, who would ban all nudity in movies, etc. (I could cite more extreme examples if those seem like good ideas). All I can do is to say that I see the torture as wrong, and you as lacking solid moral values by supporting it, and why.

However, I do object to your disengenuous sugar coating of your position with spin words by calling things designed to be so painful as to overwhelm the person's ability to choose whether to speak or not as simply being 'not comfortable'. At least be honest.

My definition, as I've said before: any measures taken not for legitimate security needs, but rather for the purpose of causing discomfort or pain to the degree of overwheming a person's ability to choose whether to speak, are torture and should be illegal.

 

[Craig234]

I've already got most you hypocrites to admit there ther would be situations where you'd even torture so likewise this idea of falting the means to an ends won't wash. Sometimes in rare circumstance you break the law because it's the right thing to do at that point in time. If CIA agent stopped 100kilos of U235 entering US via information gotten though torture no one would falt him. At the same time fishing expeditions should be prosecuted to full exent of the law and not condoned..

Excuse me, but you are a liar right off for the 'hypocrite' name-calling. Second, you have not seen me condone torture; if I did, it would more resemble Clinton's approval by a judge than your half-ass 'down low' system leaving the interrogators outside the law and vulnerable to punishment.

f CIA agent stopped 100kilos of U235 entering US via information gotten though torture no one would falt him.

I do.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
However, I do object to your disengenuous sugar coating of your position with spin words by calling things designed to be so painful as to overwhelm the person's ability to choose whether to speak or not as simply being 'not comfortable'. At least be honest.

My definition, as I've said before: any measures taken not for legitimate security needs, but rather for the purpose of causing discomfort or pain to the degree of overwheming a person's ability to choose whether to speak, are torture and should be illegal.

The bottom line is that you and I have different ideas and definitions for what may or may not constitute "torture," and neither of us will change their mind here. I know that I won't because I actually think about this issue 24/7, and I've done all the required soulsearching already. I have drawn a line, it's simply different than yours.

And yes, water-boarding is nothing more than the overwhelming fear of drowning. That fear is what leads someone to speak. Fear itself is one of nature's fastest, most humane, and most effective motivators.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's torture. It's illegal. No more ambiguity. Done.

Should police be allowed to waterboard a suspect (which is all they are until proven guilty) to save someones life?

We're better than that. At least we used to be.

Seconded.

Palehorse, there are many problems with your position, not the least of which is a fundamental difference in our views on the morality of torture, aka 'harsher techniques'.

But I notice how you switch without any notice from the 'ticking bomb' exception into where any 'high level' prisoner automatically qualifies for that treatment.

Suddenly, it's not just a ticking bomb, it's any other info that might have use which could possibly save our troops' lives in operations, which begins to mean almost anything.

I also note that in all your denials of the torture being widespread, you fail to note the practice of extraordinary rendition, such as the innocent Canadian the US kidnapped as his flight stopped at New York on the way to Canada, and sent him to Syria for torture. Gee, sorry. Your system allows for turture I think it's wrong, and I think it's got way too many ways to let situations 'borrow' from the exceptions, and finally the experts challenge the usefulness of the info from torture, though that is not my objection to it.

We're not entitled to all the information these people have. We are allowed to infiltrate, to trick, to spy, to intercept, to bribe, to persuade, to entice info. Not to torture for it.

So, you actually believe that the real experts lobbied for ultimately ineffective collection methods?

The bottom line is that everyone draws a different line in the sand and calls it the line that shouldn't be crossed.

I believe that there are methods of gaining information that may not be "fun" or "comfortable" for the detainee, such as the "fear of drowning" caused during water-boarding. Many people agree with me. Therefore, it's obvious that I (we) draw the line much higher than you do in terms of harshness.

so be it.

Last info I remember from the professionals in the FBI was that "extreme measures" were more often than not counter productive. And you still haven't addressed whether the military supports these methods or not. Might the JAGs have something to say about this that is pertinent? Don't worry, I know the answer I just want you to admit it.

1) The FBI are some of the worst interrogators in the business. They can't even perform basic questioning techniques properly. I also think that the Direct Questioning and Good Cop/Bad Cop techniques may be the only approaches they know. FBI interrogators are nearly useless... and they certainly love to get in the way! I'm pretty sure that none of them know the meaning of the word "rapport"...

2) Go read the official FM 2-22.3 and tell me if you see any instructions in there with regards to harsher methods. That manual is the new official instruction/reference book used to train military interrogators.

3) You don't know any of "the answers," regardless of how many times you may have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express...

Since you're in the military, what is their official opinion on waterboarding??? Now's your chance to prove its more than just a BF2 clan you belong to.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Cheney has other proirities.

Shredding his papers apparently.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Craig234

Keep it on the down low and if rare threats arrise requiring such or any other methods, do it, and accept the consequences.

I can't agree with this. If we think it's ok, we need to stand up and do it the right way. We should not have a half-ass system where people are expected to do something which is in a gray area legally putting them at risk. A second problem with it is that condoning some 'down low' opens the door to far more and worse, for the wrong reasons.

Analogy: imagine if we made some foreign policy activities ok on the 'down low'. The next thing you know, you have Reagan selling missiles to Iran for hostages, funding terrorists in Nicaragua, and supporting a policy of death squads in El Salvador.

It's a little like our prohibition on assassination. After JFK, it wasn't very kosher to say it's an ok policy - but then you have things like the 0 for 50 attempts to bomb Saddam that just killed a lot of civilians and left the government twisting words to lie about the purpose of the bombings. If you want to do it, do it up front - if not, don't do it.

Policies get made around fantasy scenarios like the benefit to assassinating Hitler, and get implemented around far worse scenarios, like Nixon's having Chilean President Allende assassinated, in part after Pepsi, his former employer, called him complaining about nationalization of their facilities.

I've already got most you hypocrites to admit there ther would be situations where you'd even torture so likewise this idea of falting the means to an ends won't wash. Sometimes in rare circumstance you break the law because it's the right thing to do at that point in time. If CIA agent stopped 100kilos of U235 entering US via information gotten though torture no one would falt him. At the same time fishing expeditions should be prosecuted to full exent of the law and not condoned..

You lack the principles that make up your nation. You do not deserve to live in it. If you can live with that it's your business and your free choice.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Craig234

Keep it on the down low and if rare threats arrise requiring such or any other methods, do it, and accept the consequences.

I can't agree with this. If we think it's ok, we need to stand up and do it the right way. We should not have a half-ass system where people are expected to do something which is in a gray area legally putting them at risk. A second problem with it is that condoning some 'down low' opens the door to far more and worse, for the wrong reasons.

Analogy: imagine if we made some foreign policy activities ok on the 'down low'. The next thing you know, you have Reagan selling missiles to Iran for hostages, funding terrorists in Nicaragua, and supporting a policy of death squads in El Salvador.

It's a little like our prohibition on assassination. After JFK, it wasn't very kosher to say it's an ok policy - but then you have things like the 0 for 50 attempts to bomb Saddam that just killed a lot of civilians and left the government twisting words to lie about the purpose of the bombings. If you want to do it, do it up front - if not, don't do it.

Policies get made around fantasy scenarios like the benefit to assassinating Hitler, and get implemented around far worse scenarios, like Nixon's having Chilean President Allende assassinated, in part after Pepsi, his former employer, called him complaining about nationalization of their facilities.

I've already got most you hypocrites to admit there ther would be situations where you'd even torture so likewise this idea of falting the means to an ends won't wash. Sometimes in rare circumstance you break the law because it's the right thing to do at that point in time. If CIA agent stopped 100kilos of U235 entering US via information gotten though torture no one would falt him. At the same time fishing expeditions should be prosecuted to full exent of the law and not condoned..

You lack the principles that make up your nation. You do not deserve to live in it. If you can live with that it's your business and your free choice.

What?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, what? I object to the argument that torture should be permitted in EVERY case because people might support it in SOME cases. Under CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, (say, the very unlikely ticking time bomb scenario) I could understand why an interrogator might torture someone, hell, I might even be able to do it myself if the stakes were high enough. But again, that doesn't seem like a good basis for a general policy, does it? This has nothing to do with living in fantasy land or enjoying an "armchair quarterback" position, it's about the argument that pro-torture folks always put forward that since torture might become acceptable in the most extreme circumstances, it makes sense to permit it to be used as a general interrogation technique.

but you see, that's where you're wrong. I can assure you that the harsh techniques are seldom used. they are not the norm. I have a colleague who participated in over 1200 interrogations in Iraq, and none of them went beyond the standard interrogation methods listed in the older unclassified FM34-52 or even the newer 2-22.3. Those, like you, who believe that the new Detainee Act applies to general interrogations are wrong in that assumption. Tens of thousands of interrogations take place every year wherein none of the somewhat "harsher" techniques are utilized. Techniques, such as water-boarding, ARE reserved for the very rare cases wherein guilt of the detainee is beyond question, and the potential information is critical to the success of missions, or in saving lives.

The left would have you believe that dur to the passing of this new Act, the techniques will now be used on street corners around the globe by inadequately trained Privates who have a chip on their shoulder and some sort of need to hurt others. That is an outright falicy. Knowing the truth of the matter, firsthand, is the very reason that Isupport the Detainee Act. This is also the reason that it's very difficult to debate the issue with people who don't know the reality of the situation.

Knowing the reality does not make me "better" than anyone, but it certainly allows me to be better informed on this subject. You can either accept that, or not. I could care less...

I'm 100% confident that "harsh" interrogation techniques are not the norm. The vast majority of people conducting interrogations are not sadists, I doubt they'd enjoy causing pain and suffering if it wasn't necessary. However, my concern is that the policy itself is too far reaching. You seem to be misunderstanding my position (probably because you have this idea of what all "liberals" think), it's not that this means everybody will be tortured all the time for no good reason, it's that it allows "harsh techniques" under too broad circumstances...there is nothing limiting waterboarding to ticking time bomb scenarios, so the argument that SOME circumstances should permit torture is not really a valid one unless the regulations permitting the torture DO limit it to those specific scenarios. Thats was the only point I was trying to make above. If we're going to argue what specific circumstances make torture permissible, at least let's be honest and not resort to "everyone will be tortured all the time" or "A NUCLEAR WEAPON IS SET TO GO OFF IN NYC IN 2 HOURS UNLESS JACK BAUER CAN STOP IT" kind of fantasy scenarios to make our point. I realize you did not, in fact, do that in your post, that's just what I was trying to say above.

As for "knowing the reality", I think you need to get over yourself. Like much of life, the debate on this issue isn't a matter of being "misinformed" or "better informed", people who fully understand the facts involved can come to much different conclusions. Thinking that everyone who has access to "The Reality" must come to the same conclusion you do assumes your logic and reasoning skills are beyond question...and no offense, but *I'm* not that sure of my own, and I'm positive I'm smarter than you I'm kidding, but hopefully you get my point...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234
However, I do object to your disengenuous sugar coating of your position with spin words by calling things designed to be so painful as to overwhelm the person's ability to choose whether to speak or not as simply being 'not comfortable'. At least be honest.

My definition, as I've said before: any measures taken not for legitimate security needs, but rather for the purpose of causing discomfort or pain to the degree of overwheming a person's ability to choose whether to speak, are torture and should be illegal.

The bottom line is that you and I have different ideas and definitions for what may or may not constitute "torture," and neither of us will change their mind here. I know that I won't because I actually think about this issue 24/7, and I've done all the required soulsearching already. I have drawn a line, it's simply different than yours.

Obviously we all draw different lines on issues like this, which makes your repeated suggestions that people who don't approve of torture simply don't know the facts fairly odd to say the least.

And yes, water-boarding is nothing more than the overwhelming fear of drowning. That fear is what leads someone to speak. Fear itself is one of nature's fastest, most humane, and most effective motivators.

You think causing fear is "humane" by definition? Fear can cause psychological scars that far outlast any physical trauma fear based torture might avoid. I can imagine quite a few ways to cause fear that make a beating with a rubber hose seem humane by comparison.

But your statement brings up a question of why you think this type of questioning is so effective...if it causes "overwhelming fear", how can it be an effective way to gather GOOD intelligence? After all, the goal isn't to "lead someone to speak", it's to lead someone to give you USEFUL information. If you put someone in a position of overwhelming fear, they will, by definition, say or do almost anything to get it to stop. But unless I'm missing something, the technique provides them little reason to provide you with GOOD information. In order to validate the truth of the information you gather, you need a level of information that makes the interrogation a lot less useful. And as you stated, if it's only used for high value targets and important and/or time sensitive information, validating the usefulness of the information seems difficult at best.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Craig234

Keep it on the down low and if rare threats arrise requiring such or any other methods, do it, and accept the consequences.

I can't agree with this. If we think it's ok, we need to stand up and do it the right way. We should not have a half-ass system where people are expected to do something which is in a gray area legally putting them at risk. A second problem with it is that condoning some 'down low' opens the door to far more and worse, for the wrong reasons.

Analogy: imagine if we made some foreign policy activities ok on the 'down low'. The next thing you know, you have Reagan selling missiles to Iran for hostages, funding terrorists in Nicaragua, and supporting a policy of death squads in El Salvador.

It's a little like our prohibition on assassination. After JFK, it wasn't very kosher to say it's an ok policy - but then you have things like the 0 for 50 attempts to bomb Saddam that just killed a lot of civilians and left the government twisting words to lie about the purpose of the bombings. If you want to do it, do it up front - if not, don't do it.

Policies get made around fantasy scenarios like the benefit to assassinating Hitler, and get implemented around far worse scenarios, like Nixon's having Chilean President Allende assassinated, in part after Pepsi, his former employer, called him complaining about nationalization of their facilities.

I've already got most you hypocrites to admit there ther would be situations where you'd even torture so likewise this idea of falting the means to an ends won't wash. Sometimes in rare circumstance you break the law because it's the right thing to do at that point in time. If CIA agent stopped 100kilos of U235 entering US via information gotten though torture no one would falt him. At the same time fishing expeditions should be prosecuted to full exent of the law and not condoned..

You lack the principles that make up your nation. You do not deserve to live in it. If you can live with that it's your business and your free choice.

What?

Nowhere does it state in the Constitution that you can or should cart people off to be tortured. It does however state, several times, that people should not be deprived of life or liberty without due process.

What I said stands.