• 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!

United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

What is GITMO about?

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
Empirica said:
Let's suppose the sources that convinced you of this were reliable and absolutely no useful information was ever obtained from waterboarding these POWs, then why were so many subjected to it, so many times and for so many years?

Were the military and intelligence people who performed these waterboardings too stupid to realize this technic failed to serve it's purpose or were they cruel sadistic sociopaths who simply enjoyed to make others suffer or possibly some reason I have overlooked?
Click to expand...

Just some support:

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."

'Enhanced interrogations' don't work, ex-FBI agent tells panel - CNN


Republican Sen. John McCain is ripping presidential candidates in his party who insist waterboarding is an effective technique for interrogating suspected terrorists.

The Arizona lawmaker—who was tortured himself while a prisoner of war in Vietnam — said the controversial practice was both illegal and ineffective on Monday evening.

“Very disappointed by statements at SC GOP debate supporting waterboarding,” he tweeted. “Waterboarding is torture.”



Read more: John McCain rips GOP presidential candidates* Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann on waterboarding* - NY Daily News

A report released Monday by an Irish neuroscience researcher pointed out that methods used by CIA officials to torture terrorist suspects in hopes of gleaning useful information were as problematic as domestic critics said they were.

The report, published in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences, takes several shots at the Bush administration’s insistence that interrogation methods such as waterboarding, were productive in retrieving information, and that they were harmless to recipients.

Professor Shane O’Mara of Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience said the backing by CIA officials and former Vice President Dick Cheney was based on “folk psychology” and not science. The report laid out a lengthy argument that techniques CIA officials used to torture suspects affected brain function, making memories inaccurate and in some cases causing permanent brain damage.

Editorial: Study shows torture ineffective - Aurora Sentinel: Editorials

The CIA later provided the Washington Post a letter from CIA Director Penetta to Senator McCain that confirms that enhanced interrogation techniques did not help and may have hindered the search for Bin Laden by producing false information during interrogations. In the letter CIA Director Panetta wrote Senator McCain that

we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting. In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.[97]

Enhanced interrogation techniques - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now there are books on this at librarys that offer much more. The interent is less able to pull those up, or at least I am. But there is much written on torture and waterboarding concerning the unreliablity of it.
 
Water boarding does not qualify as a standard everyday garden variety textbook torture technique, because it lacks several of the key elements.

First, there is no pain involved, no physical damage inflicted on the body and no permanent disfigurements or lifelong disabilities.

Water boarding simply involves inflicting terror into the mind of the subject by effectively simulating the sensation of drowning.

There is very little risk of injury or death providing the subject doesn't suffer from any unknown ailments such as a heart condition or aneurysm.

Basically, the poor jihadist just gets the bejeebers scared out of him after which time he can get up and walk out under his own power with little more than a wet head.
 
Empirica said:
Water boarding does not qualify as a standard everyday garden variety textbook torture technique, because it lacks several of the key elements.

First, there is no pain involved, no physical damage inflicted on the body and no permanent disfigurements or lifelong disabilities.

Water boarding simply involves inflicting terror into the mind of the subject by effectively simulating the sensation of drowning.

There is very little risk of injury or death providing the subject doesn't suffer from any unknown ailments such as a heart condition or aneurysm.

Basically, the poor jihadist just gets the bejeebers scared out of him after which time he can get up and walk out under his own power with little more than a wet head.
Click to expand...

Ever been waterboarded? Just curious
(Disclaimer: I've never been subjected to water boarding)
 
Empirica said:
Water boarding does not qualify as a standard everyday garden variety textbook torture technique, because it lacks several of the key elements.

First, there is no pain involved, no physical damage inflicted on the body and no permanent disfigurements or lifelong disabilities.

Water boarding simply involves inflicting terror into the mind of the subject by effectively simulating the sensation of drowning.

There is very little risk of injury or death providing the subject doesn't suffer from any unknown ailments such as a heart condition or aneurysm.

Basically, the poor jihadist just gets the bejeebers scared out of him after which time he can get up and walk out under his own power with little more than a wet head.
Click to expand...
Yet the key part here is the mental aspect.

All physical interrogation/torture is just a method to reach the mental, which is where the information is stored.

And as a general rule, you can never be sure whether the information gathered in such ways – by scaring the person into talking – is accurate or simply fabricated just to make it STOP.
 
The Mark said:
Yet the key part here is the mental aspect.

All physical interrogation/torture is just a method to reach the mental, which is where the information is stored.

And as a general rule, you can never be sure whether the information gathered in such ways – by scaring the person into talking – is accurate or simply fabricated just to make it STOP.
Click to expand...
If they were relying on that one piece of information alone you would be correct, but these people are experts who have been doing this for a very long time.

They are able to validate this information by connecting bits and pieces of information gathered from multiple sources all over the world to form logical conclusions.

These people are simply doing their job, which is to seek out the enemies of the United States and foil their plans in an effort to save american lives if at all possible.

I do not look at them as sociopaths with an evil desire to cause suffering and pain, but as patriotic dedicated professionals whose job is keeping us safe and alive.

This has always gone on in times of war except now the 21st century democrats have placed the success of their party above security and safety by politicizing this issue.
 
Harshaw said:
As it happens, I may be wrong about the prisoner of war status of all the prisoners at Abu Ghraib; some of them were, but apparently not all.

Still, as I said, the abuses were crimes in their own right; they had nothing to do with their legal status, and the perpetrators were tried, convicted, and punished.

In any case, your link doesn't show or even allege anything which even approaches the crimes at Abu Ghraib, and if they happened, they're being officially investigated as misconduct. This isn't showing anything like us claiming to have a free hand to do whatever we want because they have no legal status. In fact, the incidents show the contrary.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that worse things were done at Abu Ghraib and at "rendition" sites in other countries.
 
Empirica said:
Water boarding does not qualify as a standard everyday garden variety textbook torture technique, because it lacks several of the key elements.

First, there is no pain involved, no physical damage inflicted on the body and no permanent disfigurements or lifelong disabilities.

Water boarding simply involves inflicting terror into the mind of the subject by effectively simulating the sensation of drowning.

There is very little risk of injury or death providing the subject doesn't suffer from any unknown ailments such as a heart condition or aneurysm.

Basically, the poor jihadist just gets the bejeebers scared out of him after which time he can get up and walk out under his own power with little more than a wet head.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that. First, have you ever drowned? It is not only scary as hell, but painful. Also, the CIA has stated that this is more damaging than regular torture. These techniques stay with the person for years and years, some never recovering.

You started out asking a fair question, and I'm willing to deal with it that way. but when you devolve into the poor jihadist nonsense you lose that credibility I gave you. It isn't about them, but about us. When we prosecute our own soliders, denounce others for using this technique, and then somehow find the nerve to say it isn't torture when we don't want it framed that way? Well. that's just too much hypocracy, and takes any high ground we may hold away. We are different than our enemy, and we should always behave that way, adhere to our ideals, to our laws.
 
USA --> STFU ==> UN

:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
I have no doubt that worse things were done at Abu Ghraib and at "rendition" sites in other countries.
Click to expand...

You may, but it doesn't have much to do with anything I was saying.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't buy that. First, have you ever drowned? It is not only scary as hell, but painful. Also, the CIA has stated that this is more damaging than regular torture. These techniques stay with the person for years and years, some never recovering.

You started out asking a fair question, and I'm willing to deal with it that way. but when you devolve into the poor jihadist nonsense you lose that credibility I gave you. It isn't about them, but about us. When we prosecute our own soliders, denounce others for using this technique, and then somehow find the nerve to say it isn't torture when we don't want it framed that way? Well. that's just too much hypocracy, and takes any high ground we may hold away. We are different than our enemy, and we should always behave that way, adhere to our ideals, to our laws.
Click to expand...
Western civilization is dealing with savages who have no appreciation or respect for civility.

In fact, these savages view western/christian humanitarian principles as a weakness to be exploited.

To ensure victory and minimize loss of life, every enemy must be dealt with according to each's individual dynamics.

The policies the left proposes for terrorism would extend the duration of war and increase casualties on both sides.

Considering your blind liberal party-line loyalty, I don't expect you will be able to grasp this otherwise obvious reality.
 
Empirica said:
Western civilization is dealing with savages who have no appreciation or respect for civility..
Click to expand...

And innocent people whom it imprisons and tortures (sometimes to death by some accounts). Hardly demonstrating our civility well here are we? Even from a purely military standpoint it makes no sense to do this. If you take the people of Afghanistan as an example: These people are primarily illiterate and somewhat apolitical (something like 5% of Afghans have heard of the attacks on the world trade center). Say one or two members of a small village are abducted and tortured for 5 years or so, then released and allowed to return home. Later that year the village holds a Shura in which they must decide whether to support the insurgency or the Afghan government/coalition forces, who do you think they will support? (Given that both exert a heavy toll for non compliance)

We made similar mistakes when we where fighting the IRA and often extracted confessions from bombing suspects using torture, this led to innocent people being imprisoned (for 15 years in one of the more high-profile cases) while the guilty where free to carry out more bombings.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
And if we become them in order to fight them, where does that leave us?
Click to expand...

Why does everyone say this? We haven't "become them"; we're nowhere close to "being them" and we're never going to be. And no one advocates that we do.

But what it means is that THEIR tactics necessitate that we do things we'd rather not do because there's no other way to fight them. That's what the rules of warfare were designed to avoid. It's THEY who are breaking them. We wouldn't have to do some of the things we do if they didn't, and that's exactly what's contemplated in the GC and other treaties on the conduct of war. If the enemy follows them, war is less horrible and you reward them by reciprocating. But the enemy doesn't follow them, you do things THEY make you have to do (such as when you can't tell the difference between combatant and civilian).

And no, this is not "savagery." This is war. War is horrible. That's why everyone should play by the rules.

It never fails to astound me that people don't grasp this, and some actually do think it's OK for this enemy to disregard all the rules the GC set up.
 
Harshaw said:
Why does everyone say this? We haven't "become them"; we're nowhere close to "being them" and we're never going to be. And no one advocates that we do.

But what it means is that THEIR tactics necessitate that we do things we'd rather not do because there's no other way to fight them. That's what the rules of warfare were designed to avoid. It's THEY who are breaking them. We wouldn't have to do some of the things we do if they didn't, and that's exactly what's contemplated in the GC and other treaties on the conduct of war. If the enemy follows them, war is less horrible and you reward them by reciprocating. But the enemy doesn't follow them, you do things THEY make you have to do (such as when you can't tell the difference between combatant and civilian).

And no, this is not "savagery." This is war. War is horrible. That's why everyone should play by the rules.

It never fails to astound me that people don't grasp this, and some actually do think it's OK for this enemy to disregard all the rules the GC set up.
Click to expand...

I'm astounded (and somewhat horrified) that people think its ok to abduct and torture innocent people but then again I'm just weird. Also if you don't apply to GC then you lose the right to criticize your enemy for not applying it
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
I'm astounded (and somewhat horrified) that people think its ok to abduct and torture innocent people but then again I'm just weird.
Click to expand...
In the one case, because they assume they are guilty, and in the other, because they dare not assume they are innocent, under the circumstances.

That is the nature of the conflict.


Edit: too clarify.

In the first case, I have no say, though I would discourage the torture if possible.

In the second case, I tend to think torture unacceptable, and worse, inefficient/ineffective...but admit that I have only peripheral knowledge regarding its application.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
And if we become them in order to fight them, where does that leave us?
Click to expand...
Well...for starters...a helluva lot smaller mess to clean up in downtown NYC...
 
Empirica said:
Western civilization is dealing with savages who have no appreciation or respect for civility.

In fact, these savages view western/christian humanitarian principles as a weakness to be exploited.

To ensure victory and minimize loss of life, every enemy must be dealt with according to each's individual dynamics.

The policies the left proposes for terrorism would extend the duration of war and increase casualties on both sides.

Considering your blind liberal party-line loyalty, I don't expect you will be able to grasp this otherwise obvious reality.
Click to expand...

Whether you're correct about them is another issue. As I keep saying this is about us. They have no ability to defeat us. terrorist are largely, as Conrad put it, insects among men. We are better than insects. And while insects can sting, we should have no desire to become insects.

I also believe your conclusions are faulty. There is no evidence that anything has been shorted or any lives saved due to torture. I know we want to believe it has, and with any evidence provided, too many are willing to just accept that it has. But, evidence really is required. It is just as possible that our actions have inspried more to join the fight and thus prolong the war, and cause more deaths than we'd have seen otherwise. Both require evidence, but some are not asking for any, and are too willing to accpet what they want to believe.

Also, just for your edification, I oppose torture regardless of party. It's plainly immoral and against all the values I grew up on. So, if you have a problem with my belief, do understand it is my belief. Torture is simply, plainly wrong. Moral, good, law abiding people do not support torture of anyone.
 
Red_Dave said:
I'm astounded (and somewhat horrified) that people think its ok to abduct and torture innocent people but then again I'm just weird. Also if you don't apply to GC then you lose the right to criticize your enemy for not applying it
Click to expand...

Show me where I said that. Ever.

No, it's NOT implied by my post unless you're an idiot. I'm astounded and horrified at what seems to be a stupefying general lack of critical thinking and reading comprehension. But it appears to be the matter of course around here.
 
Harshaw said:
Show me where I said that. Ever.

No, it's NOT implied by my post unless you're an idiot. I'm astounded and horrified at what seems to be a stupefying general lack of critical thinking and reading comprehension. But it appears to be the matter of course around here.
Click to expand...

Well blatantly you have, because that is what has taken place in GITMO and that is what you have defended here without one word of criticism or regret.
 
Red_Dave said:
Well blatantly you have, because that is what has taken place in GITMO and that is what you have defended here without one word of criticism or regret.
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, no it hasn't taken place at Gitmo. There's been no "torture" and 77% of the inmates have been released.

For another, throughout this thread, I've explained exactly what I meant by all of it, including both items in the last sentence, and why the enemy makes it unavoidable for some "innocents" to be swept up.

If you haven't bothered to read through the thread and you've leaped to mighty, disgusting conclusions, despite my having said a great deal to the contrary, that's your own mighty failure.
 
Empirica said:
Western civilization is dealing with savages who have no appreciation or respect for civility.

In fact, these savages view western/christian humanitarian principles as a weakness to be exploited.

To ensure victory and minimize loss of life, every enemy must be dealt with according to each's individual dynamics.

The policies the left proposes for terrorism would extend the duration of war and increase casualties on both sides.

Considering your blind liberal party-line loyalty, I don't expect you will be able to grasp this otherwise obvious reality.
Click to expand...

Do we best deal with savages by becoming savages ourselves?
 
Red_Dave said:
And innocent people whom it imprisons and tortures (sometimes to death by some accounts). Hardly demonstrating our civility well here are we? Even from a purely military standpoint it makes no sense to do this. If you take the people of Afghanistan as an example: These people are primarily illiterate and somewhat apolitical (something like 5% of Afghans have heard of the attacks on the world trade center). Say one or two members of a small village are abducted and tortured for 5 years or so, then released and allowed to return home. Later that year the village holds a Shura in which they must decide whether to support the insurgency or the Afghan government/coalition forces, who do you think they will support? (Given that both exert a heavy toll for non compliance)

We made similar mistakes when we where fighting the IRA and often extracted confessions from bombing suspects using torture, this led to innocent people being imprisoned (for 15 years in one of the more high-profile cases) while the guilty where free to carry out more bombings.
Click to expand...
Red_Dave said:
Well blatantly you have, because that is what has taken place in GITMO and that is what you have defended here without one word of criticism or regret.
Click to expand...
Paschendale said:
And if we become them in order to fight them, where does that leave us?
Click to expand...
Boo Radley said:
Whether you're correct about them is another issue. As I keep saying this is about us. They have no ability to defeat us. terrorist are largely, as Conrad put it, insects among men. We are better than insects. And while insects can sting, we should have no desire to become insects.

I also believe your conclusions are faulty. There is no evidence that anything has been shorted or any lives saved due to torture. I know we want to believe it has, and with any evidence provided, too many are willing to just accept that it has. But, evidence really is required. It is just as possible that our actions have inspried more to join the fight and thus prolong the war, and cause more deaths than we'd have seen otherwise. Both require evidence, but some are not asking for any, and are too willing to accpet what they want to believe.

Also, just for your edification, I oppose torture regardless of party. It's plainly immoral and against all the values I grew up on. So, if you have a problem with my belief, do understand it is my belief. Torture is simply, plainly wrong. Moral, good, law abiding people do not support torture of anyone.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
War by it's nature is a savage, ruthless, barbaric, immoral element of the human race that's popularity doesn't appear to be diminishing and any attempts to civilize it is an endeavor of futility unless everyone is in agreement.

Of course, such an agreement would signal the end of the practice of war all together___You can't mud wrestle with a pig without getting dirty therefore the only way to not get dirty is to not mud wrestle with a pig__Get it?!



Boo Radley said:
How so? There is no evidence that being them stops such things.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that it doesn't__When lives are on the line, it is better to be wrong than dead__The best way to evaluate your conviction is to personalize your conviction__Of course honesty is the key element to evaluating the conviction in question.

If your child had fallen into the hands of radical extremist who announced their intention to behead her/him, and someone who might possibly have information that could save your child's life was about to be water-boarded, would you tell them to stop or proceed?
 
Empirica said:
War by it's nature is a savage, ruthless, barbaric, immoral element of the human race that's popularity doesn't appear to be diminishing and any attempts to civilize it is an endeavor of futility unless everyone is in agreement.

Of course, such an agreement would signal the end of the practice of war all together___You can't mud wrestle with a pig without getting dirty therefore the only way to not get dirty is to not mud wrestle with a pig__Get it?!
Click to expand...

It is one thing to do something horrible in the heat of battle. it is another thing to be reomved from that heat, in a cell, and to deliberately plan to violate someone. At that point you are not in with the pig, you're the **** the pig steps on.

Again, it is about us, our values, or morals, or belief in rule of law and humanity. We cannot denounce others for doing what we do.

There is no evidence that it doesn't__When lives are on the line, it is better to be wrong than dead__The best way to evaluate your conviction is to personalize your conviction__Of course honesty is the key element to evaluating the conviction in question.

If your child had fallen into the hands of radical extremist who announced their intention to behead her/him, and someone who might possibly have information that could save your child's life was about to be water-boarded, would you tell them to stop or proceed?
Click to expand...

There si a lot of evidence that si unrealiable. In fact, all the evidence says it is unrealiable. there is virtually nothing in any study or writings on torture that doesn't say it is especially effective at getting confessions, even from the innocent, but that it is unrealiable for gathering information.

Unlike claims that it is effective, not only is there a ton of evidence to support it is not effective, we can point to a recent example al Libi. He was tortured and gave us false information that was used as part of the rationale for invading iraq. It is a concrete and verifiable example. Notice those who support torture not only can't present anything equal, but don't even ask for it before being convinved that it works.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom