• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Waterboarding is torture,' says Obama

Boo Radley said:
yes, it is effective at getting confessions. As you point out, even the innocent will confess.

That, however, is not information gathering. I suggest you not only do some homework, but read and understand what I have said.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...

It's effective at getting information, as well. You're not going to rat out your unit, without being turtured, first...right? Or will you just sell them out for a pack of oreos and a glass of milk?
 
apdst said:
It's effective at getting information, as well. You're not going to rat out your unit, without being turtured, first...right? Or will you just sell them out for a pack of oreos and a glass of milk?
Click to expand...

And yet, we've gotten better intel without torture and misinformation with torture. I have provided links along the way.

Your silly attempt at humor doesn't change the facts.
 
Boo Radley said:
And yet, we've gotten better intel without torture and misinformation with torture. I have provided links along the way.

Your silly attempt at humor doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...

Prove it, my friend.
 
apdst said:
I'll ask again: Do you think that a hardcore terrorist is going to think to himself, "gee, they've been so nice to me, that I'm going to tell them everything I know"?

Tell us what you think.



Right and signing those confessions equates to treason against the United States. Are you saying that you would voluntarily commit treason, or would they have to make you do it?

I seriously doubt you can relate, but would you endager the lives of the other members of your military unit, without being tortured first? Or, are you going to keep the information to yourself, until they beat it out of you?
Click to expand...

those prisoners signed false confessions. so much for torture being effective. what don't you get about this? torture someone enough, they'll say ANYTHING.

anyway...here you go:

1. Torture and cruel treatment yield unreliable results.

No systematic study has ever shown that the infliction of torture or coercion elicits reliable information or actionable intelligence. According to the U.S. Army’s own field manual on interrogation, published in September 2006, torture “is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the [human intelligence] collector wants to hear.” As veteran FBI interrogator Joe Navarro put it, “the only thing torture guarantees you is pain.”

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/our-work/law-and-security/torture-on-tv/less-safe/
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
those prisoners signed false confessions. so much for torture being effective. what don't you get about this? torture someone enough, they'll say ANYTHING.
Click to expand...

They committed treason. I would say that torture was very effective in this instance.

The point is, a coke and a smile isn't going to convince a highly motivate, hard-core terrorist to tell what he knows.

That being a fact, how do you propose we extract information from these people, or do you propose that wouldn't shouldn't even try and remain intel-deficient?
 
apdst said:
New paper articles, in this case, don't prove your case.
Click to expand...

We have experts in the field speaking and actual, verifiable examples like al Libi. You're just hanging on because you don't want to believe the evidence.
 
apdst said:
New paper articles, in this case, don't prove your case.
Click to expand...

BTW, I've at least offered some evidence. Do you have any that it works? Be carefully, my links show whate the Bush team presented prove not to be the case. ;)
 
jasonxe said:
cookies give you more intel then torture. I'll talk if they gave me cookies or give me a option between the two. The again, im a cookie whore.
Click to expand...
I thought I heard you had blue fur.
 
apdst said:
There is no evidence that it's unrealiable. Quite the contrary.

Every single prisoner that served at the Hanoi Hilton signed a confession admitting to comitting war crimes against the North Vietnamese, so don't insult our intelligence by saying that torture doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Did they commit war crimes against the NV?
Cause I don't think its being said the torture is unreliable in getting people to say what you think you want to hear. AfaIct, the issue about whether or not it's the best method for finding out information.
 
jasonxe said:
cookies give you more intel then torture. I'll talk if they gave me cookies or give me a option between the two. The again, im a cookie whore.
Click to expand...

You made me think of this:


A former FBI interrogator told a Canadian radio show that cookies are more effective than torture in getting information from terrorists. Torture sessions only take longer and it get more useless information

Read more: FBI interrogator says cookies more effective than torture
 
StillBallin75 said:
Yes, generally psychological methods are the most effective form of interrogation - playing a mental chess game with the prisoner. In most cases of physical torture, the individual will simply say whatever it takes to get you to stop torturing him, which is why it's so notoriously unreliable. That's what most CIA case officers will tell you.
Click to expand...

Can you give me something more concrete than psychological methods? Run through an example for me. I am ready to believe that other forms of interrogation that work but how effective are they as a percentage to something like water boarding? Water boarding has worked but I am sure that it is only reliable to a certain degree. Is there something else more reliable to a greater degree? I am all for a better way but I don't see anything working in most cases. A lot of these guys are just not going to talk.
 
jambalaya said:
Can you give me something more concrete than psychological methods? Run through an example for me. I am ready to believe that other forms of interrogation that work but how effective are they as a percentage to something like water boarding? Water boarding has worked but I am sure that it is only reliable to a certain degree. Is there something else more reliable to a greater degree? I am all for a better way but I don't see anything working in most cases. A lot of these guys are just not going to talk.
Click to expand...

how do you know waterboarding has worked? al Libi gave misinformation. What the WH gave as examples of success proved not to be what they said they were. So, what makes you say it worked?
 
Boo Radley said:
how do you know waterboarding has worked? al Libi gave misinformation. What the WH gave as examples of success proved not to be what they said they were. So, what makes you say it worked?
Click to expand...

Just google and you'll find claims like this one: 'Waterboarding worked' says former MI5 head - Telegraph

And this is from a person who is against using the technique. If you don't want to believe it EVER worked that is your perogative. If you think you can debunk every claim that vital intelligence was obtained from waterboarding go ahead. But I don't think you can definitively do so.
 
apdst said:
I guess that's why it's [torture] been practice for the past few thousand years; because it's so ineffective.
Click to expand...
It's been in practice because:

1. Those practicing it enjoy hurting others (sadists), and

2. It can provide whatever false confession that the practitioner desires (which pretty much explains the Bush regime's use of it).

Time and time again, people with actual experience with interrogating terror suspects and actual experience and knowledge about the effectiveness of torture techniques have come out to explain that they are ineffective and that their use threatens national security more than it helps.

An FBI Interrogator on the Effectiveness of Torture
Click to expand...


So, based upon an intellectual analysis of the issue, the only reason one could support torture is either ignorance, or numbers 1 or 2 above.
 
apdst said:
You're right and torture shouldn't be the first option, however it shouldn't ruled out as an option, either.
Click to expand...
Indeed. If the prisoner will not willingly provide the false information you need, then you'll probably have to torture him to get it.
 
Krhazy said:
Of course waterboarding is torture. Denying that is totally idiotic. Instead, people should argue that torture is permissible in rare instances. For example, denying that torture is appropriate when you know that a suspect has information about an imminent threat [...]
Click to expand...
But the only way for you to know that he knows that information is to torture him.

Then, even if he doesn't know the information, he will make something up, which will not only prove that you were correct to torture him, but that the torture was successful. Even if you don't find any WMD's :lamo
 
apdst said:
There is no evidence that it's [torture] unrealiable. Quite the contrary.

Every single prisoner that served at the Hanoi Hilton signed a confession admitting to comitting war crimes against the North Vietnamese, so don't insult our intelligence by saying that torture doesn't work. [...]
Click to expand...
Thank you for an excellent example proving that torture is an excellent tool for eliciting false confessions/information :lamo
 
TheDemSocialist said:
[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Read full article here: [/FONT]'Waterboarding is torture,' says Obama - CSMonitor.com
[FONT=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Is this a campaign stunt to gain support? Yes. Do i agree with what he has to say about water boarding? Absolutely. I also believe it is torture..[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thoughts?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Comments?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Response? [/FONT]


[/LEFT]
Click to expand...

Though I'm usually socially conservative, I can see waterboarding as torture. It makes the person feel like they're drowning. Would you say that feeling like you're drowning isn't tortuous/nightmarish?

I say it is torture.

HOWEVER, if this is the best option of torture in order to extract info from people who wish to kill as many of us as they can, then so be it. I'll support it to save lives but seriously people, don't say it isn't what it is: torture.
 
jambalaya said:
Boo Radley said:
how do you know waterboarding has worked? al Libi gave misinformation. What the WH gave as examples of success proved not to be what they said they were. So, what makes you say it worked?
Click to expand...
Just google and you'll find claims like this one: 'Waterboarding worked' says former MI5 head - Telegraph

And this is from a person who is against using the technique. If you don't want to believe it EVER worked that is your perogative.
Click to expand...
Strawman

jambalaya said:
[...] If you think you can debunk every claim that vital intelligence was obtained from waterboarding go ahead. But I don't think you can definitively do so.
Click to expand...
To debunk every claim would likely be an impossible task, simply from a logistics perspective (access to classified info), so you challenge is illogical.

However, considering those subjected to waterboarding have not been charged with a crime, have not had an evidentiary hearing, and in many cases (with detainees in general) have been found to be innocent or of mistaken identity, what percentage of effectiveness would you require of waterboarding in order to support it?

How many innocent people must be subjected to it before the blind squirrels get lucky and find a nut, thereby justifying in the minds of some?

And if it works well on detainees, why not use it on citizens? After all, lives could be saved, correct?
 
jambalaya said:
Just google and you'll find claims like this one: 'Waterboarding worked' says former MI5 head - Telegraph

And this is from a person who is against using the technique. If you don't want to believe it EVER worked that is your perogative. If you think you can debunk every claim that vital intelligence was obtained from waterboarding go ahead. But I don't think you can definitively do so.
Click to expand...

yes, I've seen the claims. What I notice is that they don't give any examples of where it worked, nothing we can verify. I can give you an example, a verifiable example of where it got us misinformation that we used to our detriment: al Libi.

If it was a sucessful as this claim you link suggests, why can not one example equal to mine be given? I also wonder why you don't ask them to prove they had success? Why debunk something that hasn't even been supported by actual evidence yet?

BTW, I don't use the word ever. To be ineffective it does not have to never lead to information. It's that all or nothing thinking that gets us into so much trouble. You have to study things for a period of time, compare it with other methods, and determine the most effective versus the least effective. The litature says torture is the least effective way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom