• 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!

Obama - U.S. will not torture

Captain America said:
An interrogator I know that contracted to work in Iraq told me that they do not use torture techniques because it usually results in bad intel that could cost American lives.

That's what he told me.

I'm just sayin'....
Click to expand...

If you don't have time for a coffee and a smoke, a few nights for Ahmed the Terrorist not to sleep on it, to enjoy AC/DC, Ozzy, KISS, get the sauna-arctic treatment, then you'd just sit there and let him be... stonewalling.?
 
MrVicchio said:
I have friends that say otherwise...

Damn so where does that leave us?
Click to expand...

I guess we'll just have to rely on the experts who have gone public against torture. You know, actually employees of the government who came out saying the data they got was unreliable. Forgive me but the "My friend said..." argument doesn't fly here on DP. That goes for both of you.
 
zimmer said:
Oh yes.
Is this another academic theory that sounds good on paper but wilts under the harsh light of reality?
Click to expand...

No. It's the words of people who've actually conducted torture and cohesive methods. Try again.

Me thinks so, because to claim man can withstand torture and not reveal vital info has been blown to shreds with some terrorists we have captured... and I don't consider water boarding torture. Loud music... sleep deprivation... hot-cold syndrome either.
Click to expand...

Source? Let me guess? Waterboarding.org? Or better yet The Bush administration?

You can feel good about terrorists being protected as innocent civilians are executed.
Click to expand...

Conservative emotional rhetoric ignored. Save it for abortion commercials.

I suspect the terrorists of the world like your kind and encourage you and Obama's type.
Click to expand...

Incoherent babel ignored for the sake of debate.

Tell me, is it moral to not do everything humanly possible to spare innocent men, women and children from a terrorists attack?
Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion ignored.

If the answer is "yes" then we side together. If not, then you seem to think a terrorists short term health is more important. Broken bones and ripped skin heals. Dead is dead.
Click to expand...

More plea to emotional rhetoric ignored.

It may seem cold, but these are the types of decisions Obama must make. Do we protect terrorists or innocent civilians?
Click to expand...

Fourth attempt to the 'what if' mentality of so called 'compassionate' Conservatives. Here zimmer. I'll give you a tip. Why don't you provide some sort of evidence that torture does work other then the obviously unbiased resourceful 'Waterboarding.org' who depends on hearsay from unverifiable sources to make it's argument. Till then here's a tissue :

w_toro_blk.jpg


Go cry about those we might be able to save because of torture to somebody else.
 
Indy said:
I guess we'll just have to rely on the experts who have gone public against torture. You know, actually employees of the government who came out saying the data they got was unreliable. Forgive me but the "My friend said..." argument doesn't fly here on DP. That goes for both of you.
Click to expand...

I have friends serving over in Iraq in various capacities, right now. They say sometimes.. they get information that they need and the only way to have done so was to use "harsh methods". But that's not the point, I was basically making the same point you were at the end of your statement...
 
MrVicchio said:
I have friends serving over in Iraq in various capacities, right now. They say sometimes.. they get information that they need and the only way to have done so was to use "harsh methods". But that's not the point, I was basically making the same point you were at the end of your statement...
Click to expand...

Hearsay is such a funny thing. I mean I have no way of knowing whether you're making these friends up to support your point. But here. I'll support my point by providing the words of somebody who we can both be assured does exist :

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."
Click to expand...
 
MrVicchio said:
I have friends serving over in Iraq in various capacities, right now. They say sometimes.. they get information that they need and the only way to have done so was to use "harsh methods". But that's not the point, I was basically making the same point you were at the end of your statement...
Click to expand...

How would you feel about Iraqi's using torture on your friends? Is it not better to be the better person sometimes and rise above the mentality "we are just doing what they are doing". When we fall to their level, it makes us no better. I do not agree with torture and by us doing it, and some being proud of it, only leaves our men and women serving there more vulnerable to those kind of tactics.
 
americanwoman said:
How would you feel about Iraqi's using torture on your friends? Is it not better to be the better person sometimes and rise above the mentality "we are just doing what they are doing". When we fall to their level, it makes us no better. I do not agree with torture and by us doing it, and some being proud of it, only leaves our men and women serving there more vulnerable to those kind of tactics.
Click to expand...
You serve a false logic up, that if we're nice they'll be nice.


This is a video released by Al-Ansar Media Battalion and features very comprehensive collection of messages from different insurgents and leaders of terrorists groups operating in Middle East, in particular Iraq. Video is very graphic and disturbing, involving abuse of a US soldier, stoning of young girl and mission of a suicide bomber.

In their speech, the terrorist leaders praise those who kill US soldiers and their allies and thank them for joy and relief their killing brings to the Muslims.

Bodies of abused US soldiers are shown dead in puddles of blood and a hand of another person is shown holding a severed head that belonged to one of beheaded, dead soldiers. The genital area of a soldier with his head cut off appears to be exposed, possibly in order to humiliate and abuse his dead body. The area is purposefully blurred out. The accompanying caption suggests that this is the fate that will befall n everyone who dares to violate the honor of Muslim sisters.
Click to expand...
Terrorists Abusing US Soldier in Iraq (graphic video) | Best Gore
 
This nonsense that somehow our alleged torture of detainees at Gitmo will in turn result in our troops being similarly tortured is just that...nonsense. Our enemies are going to torture our troops...it's what they do. The US had no history of torturing military combatant detainees prior to WWII or even Vietnam, yet, our soldiers were tortured nonetheless.

This bunk nonsense presumes, again, as usual, that the US deserves the treatment she receives. It's the typical Blame America blather that is typical of the American left.
 
zimmer said:
Waterboarding worked. It busted an attack in planning. Saving lives. That makes several of your points not only moot, but false.
Click to expand...
It's possible that several things you think I said may have been rendered moot.
However, I did not say that it never works. Rather, I compared it to other methods and pointed out that it's unreliable.
From the CIA's 'Kubark' manual
Interrogatees who are withholding but who feel qualms of guilt and a secret desire to yield are likely to become intractable if made to endure pain. The reason is that they can then interpret the pain as punishment and hence as expiation. There are also persons who enjoy pain and its anticipation and who will keep back information that they might otherwise divulge if they are given reason to expect that withholding will result in the punishment that they want. Persons of considerable moral or intellectual stature often find in pain inflicted by others a confirmation of the belief that they are in the hands of inferiors, and their resolve not to submit is strengthened.
Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex "admissions" that take still longer to disprove. KUBARK is especially vulnerable to such tactics because the interrogation is conducted for the sake of information and not for police purposes.
If an interrogatee is caused to suffer pain rather late in the interrogation process and after other tactics have failed, he is almost certain to conclude that the interrogator is becoming desperate. He may then decide that if he can just hold out against this final assault, he will win the struggle and his freedom. And he is likely to be right. Interrogatees who have withstood pain are more difficult to handle by other methods. The effect has been not to repress the subject but to restore his confidence and maturity.
​
zimmer said:
I'm not saying this should be standard practice, but in a pinch the option shouldn't be yanked off the table. There might be a time it is necessary.
Click to expand...
Well there might be time when it's necessary to throw them a tea party with crumpets. Therefore we should always have some Assam and crumpets on hand.

That's not enough of an analysis. The long term, big picture cost / benefit needs looking at as well. What are the costs of maintaining this for some once in a blue moon rare event?
zimmer said:
What then?
Click to expand...
I make up a different hypothetical situation.
Your hypothetical situations aren't at issue here. We are talking about the real world.
zimmer said:
Sorry (insert city), we just didn't feel we could rough-up Ahmed the Terrorist in an attempt to save the lives of your citizens. Ask Obama.
Click to expand...
Sorry (insert city), we just felt we needed to rough-up Ahmed the Terrorist in an attempt to save the lives of your citizens and he gave us phony intel that wasted our time and efforts to save you. Ask Zimmer.

zimmer said:
As for Jack Bauer moments (I don't watch 24 by the way), if somebody suggested terrorists would fly planes into the WTC, Pentagon and had one planned for the Capitol... people like you would have claimed it was too fantastic and I should go back to my TV fantasies.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Sheesh, can we get some intellectual honesty up in here? hatuey, arguing that torture has worked to successfully derive accurate and reliable data/information is not an argument that torture will always result in deriving accurate and reliable data/information. It simply means that torture does work.

I don't think that Zimmer would and I am not arguing that torture always works. We're simply stating the obvious...that it does work.

Since some of us are now playing the appealing to authority game, here's my card:

A former CIA agent who participated in interrogations of terror suspects said Tuesday that the controversial interrogation technique of "waterboarding" has saved lives, but he considers the method torture and now opposes its use.

The former agent, who said he participated in the Abu Zubayda interrogation but not his waterboarding, said the CIA decided to waterboard the al Qaeda operative only after he was "wholly uncooperative" for weeks and refused to answer questions.

All that changed -- and Zubayda reportedly had a divine revelation -- after 30 to 35 seconds of waterboarding, Kiriakou said he learned from the CIA agents who performed the technique.

The terror suspect, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly gave up information that indirectly led to the the 2003 raid in Pakistan yielding the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged planner of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Kiriakou said.
Click to expand...

Again, this is not an endorsement to use torture to interrogate anyone. It's simply citing the fact that torture does work.

Can we move past this very simple, indisputable point?

If you wanna argue that while torture does work it is too problemattic to rely on as a practice, then do so. But don't torture the simple points I or zimmer are making.

If you wanna argue that there are less physically coercive techniques to be used that will ellicit accurate and reliable data, then argue that, but don't caricature my or zimmer's arguments.

Simon seems particularly concerned with portraying our intelligence offices and national security personnel as buffoons who would not at all attempt to corroborate a detainee's statements before apologizing to a city that has been attacked for chasing down false leads. :roll: But he says he's talking about the real world.

Pfffft!

Lastly, Hatuey...I have told you this before...

No. It's the words of people who've actually conducted torture and cohesive methods.
Click to expand...

You mean "coercive," not "cohesive." Get the terminology right.
 
zimmer said:
If you make it illegal, you make it illegal for all situations. And then you have the scenario I illustrated and got vilified for. Primo, Secondo...

Some Patriot will have to answer to the courts for protecting innocent civilians.

There was nothing wrong with the way things were. We don't torture, but the option should be left open.

It seems the Obama pacifists are writing the operating procedures.
Click to expand...
You are already giving into barbarity and I care nothing for Obama.
 
Hatuey...
Gesundheit.

No. It's the words of people who've actually conducted torture and cohesive methods. Try again.
Click to expand...
You're going to deny torture works?
Never works?
Not worthy as a last ditch effort?

CANOE -- CNEWS - Canada: CIA director defends waterboarding
CIA director defends waterboarding
The United States insists it has not engaged in waterboarding during interrogations in the last five years.

However, CIA Director Michael Hayden said coercive techniques and other harsh tactics were useful in the campaign against terror.

Hayden is due to replaced by former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta as President-elect Barack Obama's CIA director.
Click to expand...


Source? Let me guess? Waterboarding.org? Or better yet The Bush administration?
Click to expand...
Cute.
Waterboarding works:
The Blotter
How the CIA Broke the 9/11 Attacks Mastermind

Conservative emotional rhetoric ignored. Save it for abortion commercials.
Click to expand...

Incoherent babel ignored for the sake of debate.
Click to expand...
You can feel good. Some day a patriot might have to break the law to save lives.

Appeal to emotion ignored.
Click to expand...
You are a compassionate individual. Your choices reveal it.

More plea to emotional rhetoric ignored.
Click to expand...
This was a choice you made. Placing terrorists temporary health above innocent civilians.



Fourth attempt to the 'what if' mentality of so called 'compassionate' Conservatives. Here zimmer. I'll give you a tip. Why don't you provide some sort of evidence that torture does work other then the obviously unbiased resourceful 'Waterboarding.org' who depends on hearsay from unverifiable sources to make it's argument. Till then here's a tissue :
Click to expand...
See above. Pt. 1


Go cry about those we might be able to save because of torture to somebody else.
Click to expand...
Phew. To me that's a sick mentality. Spare a terrorists so innocent people can be maimed or perish.

How humane.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Phew. To me that's a sick mentality. Spare a terrorists so innocent people can be maimed or perish.

How humane.
Click to expand...

Are terrorists not people, too? Or are you a proponent of such logic as "Well they do it, we might as well do it too"? Hold yourself and your country to a higher standard.
 
EgoffTib said:
Are terrorists not people, too? Or are you a proponent of such logic as "Well they do it, we might as well do it too"? Hold yourself and your country to a higher standard.
Click to expand...
They are terrorists. Rabid dogs cloaked in a human facade.

If innocent lives can be saved through professional coercion, if that is the last alternative, I believe it to be moral to put that individual through temporary discomfort of pain and-or drugs to get that info.

Anything else is immoral.
For that reason, the option should be on the table.
 
EgoffTib said:
Your disregard for human suffering puts you in to that category as well. Here, have a treat.
Click to expand...

It is all in an effort to stop human suffering.

You my friend, have no regard for innocent life. You would prefer to spare a terrorist temporary discomfort and allow hundreds, thousand, millions to die.

Your answer is a Dukakis moment.

Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?

DUKAKIS: No, I don't,...
Click to expand...

May I call you Dukakis?
 
zimmer said:
It is all in an effort to stop human suffering.
Click to expand...
Causing human suffering to relieve human suffering accomplishes nothing.

You my friend, have no regard for innocent life. You would prefer to spare a terrorist temporary discomfort and allow hundreds, thousand, millions to die.
Click to expand...
Temporary discomfort? Your naivete is showing. When have we had someone in interrogation who held information that could have saved thousands or millions of lives, and we let those people die because we did not use torture?
 
MrVicchio said:
Temporary discomfort? Your naivete is showing. When have we had someone in interrogation who held information that could have saved thousands or millions of lives, and we let those people die because we did not use torture?
Click to expand...

PFFT! We see that all the time......on TV.

Homer Simpson: So it must be true!
 
EgoffTib said:
Causing human suffering to relieve human suffering accomplishes nothing.

Temporary discomfort? Your naivete is showing. When have we had someone in interrogation who held information that could have saved thousands or millions of lives, and we let those people die because we did not use torture?
Click to expand...

Torture works. Not perfectly, but it works. People are "broken". I've cited cases here, so let's get that fact straight. You might not like it because it blows your theory to shreds... but it works.

Now, causing one individual some suffering vs. hundreds, thousands, millions dead and suffering accomplishes nothing? One in discomfort vs. Innocent dead? Nothing?

Sorry, does not compute. Your result is immoral.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Torture works.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Quoting the CIA Director, who was under Bush's thumb, does not pass for evidence. Next are you going to quote Tenet? :roll:

Next?
 
ADK_Forever said:
Wrong again. Quoting the CIA Director, who was under Bush's thumb, does not pass for evidence. Next are you going to quote Tenet? :roll:

Next?
Click to expand...
It is absolutely ridiculous to say torture does not work. 0% success rate? Hell one Khalid Sheikh Mohammed coughed up vital info. So it has worked vunderfully during the war on terror.

The argument is really one of is it moral? The answer is yes, if it's the last resort and will save lives. To do otherwise would be immoral.

Waterboarding Success Stories: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Library Tower | waterboarding.org
ABC News reporter Brian Ross credited waterboarding for the crucial information used to avert the destruction of Library Tower.

ROSS: That has happened in some cases where the material that's been given has not been accurate, has been essentially to stop the torture. In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the information was very valuable, particularly names and addresses of people who were involved with al Qaeda in this country and in Europe. And in one particular plot, which would involve an airline attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles, known as the Library Tower.
Click to expand...
 
zimmer said:
It is absolutely ridiculous to say torture does not work. 0% success rate? Hell one Khalid Sheikh Mohammed coughed up vital info. So it has worked vunderfully during the war on terror.

The argument is really one of is it moral? The answer is yes, if it's the last resort and will save lives. To do otherwise would be immoral.

Waterboarding Success Stories: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Library Tower | waterboarding.org
Click to expand...

A visiting US counter-terrorism specialist, Malcolm Nance, said in Sydney that elements of Mr Bush's account seemed odd. He said shoe bombs would typically be used to blow up an aircraft in midair, rather than breach the cockpit door of a passenger jet.

Rohan Gunaratna, head of terrorism research at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore, also downplayed Mr Bush's claims.

He said intelligence reports had confirmed that a leading member of Jemaah Islamiah, Hambali, was asked to assist hijack plots but the plans to target California never progressed past "the very early stages".
Click to expand...

Bush seizes on al-Qaeda plot to hit Los Angeles - World - smh.com.au
 
zimmer said:
Torture works. Not perfectly, but it works. People are "broken". I've cited cases here, so let's get that fact straight. You might not like it because it blows your theory to shreds... but it works.

Now, causing one individual some suffering vs. hundreds, thousands, millions dead and suffering accomplishes nothing? One in discomfort vs. Innocent dead? Nothing?

Sorry, does not compute. Your result is immoral.
Click to expand...

Your avoidance of my question has been noted.
 
EgoffTib said:
Your disregard for human suffering puts you in to that category as well. Here, have a treat.
Click to expand...

I see, so we should avoid inflicting any pain, some pain, a lot of pain on terrorists because to inflict such pain would impose some level of suffering. Okay.

But then, what about the innocent civilians that are targetted by terrorists who will suffer and will die?

You're not a decisionmaker and you're not responsible for public safety, so I can see how easy it is for you talk in such abstracts about human suffering.

Me, otoh, I acknowledge that elected officials have a duty to protect the public and as such that duty to his constituents is far greater than his duty not to inflict some level of pain on a person seeking to kill his constituents.

Do you feel that there is no difference between a terrorist seeking to kill civilians and those civilians at risk of being killed by said terrorist?
 
JMak said:
I see, so we should avoid inflicting any pain, some pain, a lot of pain on terrorists because to inflict such pain would impose some level of suffering. Okay.

But then, what about the innocent civilians that are targetted by terrorists who will suffer and will die?
Click to expand...
We use less barbaric methods of extraction. Do not play dumb, we both know that they exist.

You're not a decisionmaker and you're not responsible for public safety, so I can see how easy it is for you talk in such abstracts about human suffering.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that I have a much firmer grasp on the true meaning of suffering than most people do.

Do you feel that there is no difference between a terrorist seeking to kill civilians and those civilians at risk of being killed by said terrorist?
Click to expand...
There is a difference in motive. At the most elementary level, though, the terrorist is an individual himself. Lowering yourself to the level of barbarism perpetuated by your enemies undermines all of the hard work that America has accomplished in setting itself up as a leader of the free world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom