• 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!

Senate panel releases scathing report on CIA interrogation...

JasperL said:
We charged them with a crime for waterboarding U.S. soldiers. Are you saying it's not a problem if we do it? And it wasn't just the Japanese - I linked earlier to a legal analysis that demonstrates we've always considered waterboarding torture, and a crime, across more than a century, in various cases, from wars to domestically, done by U.S. soldiers or to them, etc. There was no question until 2002 or so whether it was torture - it was considered obviously torture, period.
Click to expand...

Well, the premise of that statement is false. Waterboarding was known as "The Third Degree" in common parlance in the 1930s and 1940s (and the origin of the phrase "giving him the third degree"). It was only removed from fuse n domestic policing in the 1940s, but says nothing of its legal use in the military against saboteurs and non-uniformed combatants.

And the core issue remains - that killing is part of war does not speak AT ALL to whether or not torture is morally justifiable or acceptable. We've separated those issues for our entire history as far as I can tell, but you're lumping them into the same moral question. If torture is justifiable because it falls short of killing, then you've opened a very large barn door.
Click to expand...

And no, we don't. In both cases the use has to be warranted. It is SOMETIMES warranted to kill a person in wartime but that doesn't mean it is warranted at all times to kill people in war time. Likewise the use of EIT is not warranted in all cases because it is war time, but that doesn't mean it is always unwarranted in wartime.

Also, the left is trying to use Japanese interrogation methods and the Japanese War crime Tribunals as evidence that the US saw waterboarding as a capital offense after WWII... but this is more abject stupidity. Nobody was hung for waterboarding. When a Japanese defendant was sentenced to be executed the sentence was for, in all case, atrocities they had committed during the war such as the Rape of Nanking. Some were given prison sentences for using waterboarding but that was because waterboarding was outlawed for use on POWs who qualified for GC protections.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh, bub, this is about you. Obviously I do NOT believe the ends justify the means...but you keep finding all sorts of justifications for the means.

That is the point.
Click to expand...



Oh, so you would let a great many people die? So much for all that touted morality.

Ends....not people, huh? :lol:

 
Objective Voice said:
I don't think it will be the Obama Administration that will do anything. I think worst case, the International community will start demanding people from the GW Bush Administration be brought up on war crimes.
Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:
Which international community?
Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:
Any group of countries whose governments believed that the GW Bush Administration did was wrong/in violation of international law. Think Nuremberg Trials after WWII. Not saying I agree with that, just saying that the findings from such a report could have international backlash.
Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:
2) Most nations would consider beheadings to be far worse than any act of torture (mainly because it's their people - Europeans as well as Americans - who are being beheaded).

The only nations that might get in an uproar over this are the Saudis and the UAE and their hands are so clean here either. Nonetheless, if people across the world start complaining loud enough condemning America for our torturous deeds especially if world leaders take this up to the U.N., we might see some pressure to do something about this besides publishing a torture report.
Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:
That's not happening because our interrogation methods here are a joke compared to the rest of the world. It's like the pot calling the corningware black.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...then perhaps you might want to review this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...officials-demand-prosecutions-us-torture.html
 
MMC said:
Oh, so you would let a great many people die? So much for all that touted morality.

Ends not people, huh? :lol:
Click to expand...
It is an absurd assumption, it is the stuff of "soap operas".......and it is still all a desperate attempt to justify torture.
 
JasperL said:
The question whether our government has the green light for torture (if it works perhaps) is far more than 'hyped morality.' It gets to a core value of the country.
Click to expand...

Yes for them, it is more than touting morality. Not so much for leftists of the common denominator. :lol:

Besides this issue here.....what else do we do that shows the core value of the Country?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I always find it amusing that folks like yourself will double down on lost arguments by comparing the success of the PPACA to torture.

Reductio ad absurdum.
Click to expand...

That's a straw man, or you didn't understand in the least, or more likely you didn't want to under stand.

Claiming the enhanced interrogation methods justification was and example of 'the ends justifies the means', the parallel I'm drawing is that it's the same 'the ends justifies the means' applied to ObamaCare.

Think about it.

Either 'the ends justifies the means' is not the way to do things, or it is. If not, both the enhanced interrogation methods and ObamaCare are on shaky ground, and if so, then both are on more solid ground, at least from the justification / mentality aspect.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is an absurd assumption, it is the stuff of "soap operas".......and it is still all a desperate attempt to justify torture.
Click to expand...

There are only two choices.....saving lives or torturing a terrorist. There is no middle ground with which you are looking for. You certainly can say I don't want to play that way, but that's the way it is. There is no other option.....well, there is one other and that would be to run away from the hard choice to make.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, the premise of that statement is false. Waterboarding was known as "The Third Degree" in common parlance in the 1930s and 1940s (and the origin of the phrase "giving him the third degree"). It was only removed from fuse n domestic policing in the 1940s, but says nothing of its legal use in the military against saboteurs and non-uniformed combatants.
Click to expand...

I'm not following the point. We also lynched people back then. And....

And no, we don't. In both cases the use has to be warranted. It is SOMETIMES warranted to kill a person in wartime but that doesn't mean it is warranted at all times to kill people in war time. Likewise the use of EIT is not warranted in all cases because it is war time, but that doesn't mean it is always unwarranted in wartime.
Click to expand...

It's just a long way around the question.

Also, the left is trying to use Japanese interrogation methods and the Japanese War crime Tribunals as evidence that the US saw waterboarding as a capital offense after WWII... but this is more abject stupidity. Nobody was hung for waterboarding. When a Japanese defendant was sentenced to be executed the sentence was for, in all case, atrocities they had committed during the war such as the Rape of Nanking. Some were given prison sentences for using waterboarding but that was because waterboarding was outlawed for use on POWs who qualified for GC protections.
Click to expand...

I'm not "the left" and I don't see anyone calling themselves "the left" in this thread. If someone somewhere other than in this discussion is using the execution of a very few Japanese as the example, bring it up with them. I've referred only to the low level grunts we prosecuted, and who along with our allies sent thousands to jail for crimes including waterboarding - i.e. torture.

And as I've said, if the legal issue is the big question, then let's all get our our code, case books, treaties and start citing that instead of discussing the moral issue, or how well torture might work. It's probably legal in dictatorships and in those countries that don't sign onto our civilized treaties. And....

Bottom line is whether the lawyers create a legal box to put torture into when we want to do it is a moot point for this discussion.
 
MMC said:
There are only two choices.....saving lives or torturing a terrorist. [There is no middle ground with which you are looking for. You certainly can say I don't want to play that way, but that's the way it is. There is no other option.....well, there is one other and that would be to run away from the hard choice to make.
Click to expand...
You, dearest, are operating in an alternative universe, the very soap opera you earlier rejected, you have created a black and white world.....all in an attempt to justify your belief in torture.
 
eohrnberger said:
That's a straw man, or you didn't understand in the least, or more likely you didn't want to under stand.

Claiming the enhanced interrogation methods justification was and example of 'the ends justifies the means', the parallel I'm drawing is that it's the same 'the ends justifies the means' applied to ObamaCare.

Think about it.

Either 'the ends justifies the means' is not the way to do things, or it is. If not, both the enhanced interrogation methods and ObamaCare are on shaky ground, and if so, then both are on more solid ground, at least from the justification / mentality aspect.
Click to expand...

Every single policy question of any significance whatsoever requires determining if the "ends justify the means." Every single one. You're grasping at very wispy straws there.
 
JasperL said:
Every single policy question of any significance whatsoever requires determining if the "ends justify the means." Every single one. You're grasping at very wispy straws there.
Click to expand...

And here I was thinking that 'the ends justifies the means' is very much the wrong way to go about creating and passing public policy, legislation, and regulation.

With the 'ends justifies the means' mentality, you very easily, far too easily, get government abuse of power and government overreach. None of which is really the correct and proper way to get things done.
 
eohrnberger said:
That's a straw man, or you didn't understand in the least, or more likely you didn't want to under stand.

Claiming the enhanced interrogation methods justification was and example of 'the ends justifies the means', the parallel I'm drawing is that it's the same 'the ends justifies the means' applied to ObamaCare.

Think about it.

Either 'the ends justifies the means' is not the way to do things, or it is. If not, both the enhanced interrogation methods and ObamaCare are on shaky ground, and if so, then both are on more solid ground, at least from the justification / mentality aspect.
Click to expand...
All one can do when someone presents an absurd comparison (torture is to mandatory HI as is information is to reduced noncoverge)....is to point out the absurdity of the comparison.
 
eohrnberger said:
And here I was thinking that 'the ends justifies the means' is very much the wrong way to go about creating and passing public policy, legislation, and regulation.

With the 'ends justifies the means' mentality, you very easily, far too easily, get government abuse of power and government overreach. None of which is really the correct and proper way to get things done.
Click to expand...

It's not right or wrong, it's just how public policy decisions are made. Pick a policy choice, any policy choice, and there is some weighing of the benefits/ends versus the costs/means.

If you want to make a proper analogy and draw equivalencies between the means required to implement ACA and torture, that would be good.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
All one can do when someone presents an absurd comparison (torture is to mandatory HI as is information is to reduced noncoverge)....is to point out the absurdity of the comparison.
Click to expand...

Again, you miss the point I was making.

The 'ends justifies the means' criticism is not only applicable to the enhanced interrogation methods. Criticism of this method of doing things extends to the ObamaCare equally well, if you consider how tortured the bills language and how tortured the process with which it was passed.

I'm criticizing that method of operation. Not making a comparison between EIMs and ObamaCare.

With your willful ignoring of this point, I can only assume that liberal / progressives using 'the ends justifies the means' is perfect acceptable to you, however, when others use the same, it's totally objectionable. Rather inconsistent, I'd say.

I'd further add that a cost / benefit analysis is not the same thing as adopting 'the ends justifies the means' method of operation.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You, dearest, are operating in an alternative universe, the very soap opera you earlier rejected, you have created a black and white world.....all in an attempt to justify your belief in torture.
Click to expand...

Awww, aint that sweet. We can understand you not wanting to show those true colors.
therethere.gif


Now my lil affectionate one, you know Nana says that if you afraid to play the game. Then there is no reason for you to be in it.
werd.gif
 
JasperL said:
OK, how does the information get released without "sensationalizing" it?

And if ISIS cuts of heads because it was revealed that we waterboarded people, which the world already knew, then the problem isn't the revelation but the act.
Click to expand...

How indeed..

{“The fact that the policies revealed in this report were authorized at a high level within the U.S. government provides no excuse whatsoever,” Emmerson said in a statement. “Indeed, it reinforces the need for criminal accountability.”
He added that as a signatory to the U.N. Convention Against Torture, the U.S. is legally obligated to prosecute acts of torture and enforced disappearance if there is sufficient evidence to to bring about a case.
International law does not permit individuals who carried out torture to dismiss liability because they were acting on orders. And, Emmerson said, “States are not free to maintain or permit impunity for these grave crimes.”}

Horrors Of Torture Report Could Mean International Legal Cases Against Participants | ThinkProgress
 
JasperL said:
Well, thanks for that. No need to take your views seriously when you're so obviously partisan.
Click to expand...

Did I question the motives of the GLORIOUS PEOPLES PARTY?

lol.
 
Kobie said:
That's pants-fryingly absurd.
Click to expand...

Oh? What do you see as the motive of the GLORIOUS PEOPLES PARTY in this? As pointed out, other than the ThinkProgress crowd, Americans don't much care. So why did the democrats drop this little turd in the punch bowl?
 
JasperL said:
I'm not following the point. We also lynched people back then.
Click to expand...

You are the one arguing that waterboarding was considered a crime until 2002. I am pointing out you're ignorant or using bad sources or both.


I'm not "the left" and I don't see anyone calling themselves "the left" in this thread.
Click to expand...

In this thread you are taking the common argument of the Left so for now, here it is a distinction without a difference.

If someone somewhere other than in this discussion is using the execution of a very few Japanese as the example, bring it up with them. I've referred only to the low level grunts we prosecuted, and who along with our allies sent thousands to jail for crimes including waterboarding - i.e. torture.
Click to expand...

No, as I pointed out, there were strict rules for interrogations of lawful combatant POWs. Among other things the use of various forms of EIT were illegal for use on this classification of POW. So anyone who was brought up on charges of waterboarding were indicted on those guidelines.

And as I've said, if the legal issue is the big question, then let's all get our our code, case books, treaties and start citing that instead of discussing the moral issue, or how well torture might work. It's probably legal in dictatorships and in those countries that don't sign onto our civilized treaties.
Click to expand...

THese civilized treaties you speak of were meant to ensure that enemy combatants wore uniforms so as to differentiate them from the civilian population. If you fought fair and differentiated yourself from civilians you were to be awarded a level of protection while in custody including not being subjected to harsh interrogations. The Japanese did not follow these protocols and in cases like the Bataan death march proved themselves to be subhuman in their treatment of POWs and in the case of the Rape of Nanking showed to be just generally animals.

Bottom line is whether the lawyers create a legal box to put torture into when we want to do it is a moot point for this discussion.
Click to expand...

No, the point is that you are miss-characterizing the War Crimes trials of Japanese soldiers to try and fit them to your ideology. The reality of why these people were put on trial has more to do with the protections they were required to extend POWs, and does nothing to prove your assertion that it shows we thought all waterboarding was criminal.

For instance, a Japaneses soldier couldn't be tried in a military court for murder for shooting a US soldier during the course of a battle. But if he shot a US soldier who was a POW he would be hanged. The reason it is a crime has more to do with the setting than the act.
 
Last edited:
Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the English saying, "the ends justify the means",[SUP][1][/SUP] meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.[SUP][2]
[/SUP]
Click to expand...
Consequentialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most certainly is not the same as
Cost–benefit analysis (CBA), sometimes called benefit–cost analysis (BCA), is a systematic approach to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives that satisfy transactions, activities or functional requirements for a business. It is a technique that is used to determine options that provide the best approach for the adoption and practice in terms of benefits in labor, time and cost savings etc. (David, Ngulube and Dube, 2013). The CBA is also defined as a systematic process for calculating and comparing benefits and costs of a project, decision or government policy (hereafter, "project").
Broadly, CBA has two purposes:

  1. To determine if it is a sound investment/decision (justification/feasibility),
  2. To provide a basis for comparing projects. It involves comparing the total expected cost of each option against the total expected benefits, to see whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and by how much.[SUP][1][/SUP]
CBA is related to, but distinct from cost-effectiveness analysis. In CBA, benefits and costs are expressed in monetary terms, and are adjusted for the time value of money, so that all flows of benefits and flows of project costs over time (which tend to occur at different points in time) are expressed on a common basis in terms of their "net present value."
Closely related, but slightly different, formal techniques include cost-effectiveness analysis, cost–utility analysis, risk–benefit analysis, economic impact analysis, fiscal impact analysis, and Social return on investment (SROI) analysis.
Click to expand...
Cost–benefit analysis


Consequentialism is the 'dam the torpedos, full speed ahead', where as the cost-benefit analysis more certainly isn't that. Should the CBA come out and not make sense, the action won't be taken. Consequentialism attempts to justify incorrect, improper, abusing means for getting something done, none of which should be viewed as acceptable, especially in the arena of public policy, legislation and regulation.
 
jmotivator said:
You are the one arguing that waterboarding was considered a crime until 2002. I am pointing out your are ignorant or using bad sources or both.




In this thread you are taking the common argument of the Left so for now, here it is a distinction without a difference.



No, as I pointed out, there were strict rules for interrogations of lawful combatant POWs. Among other things the use of various forms of EIT were illegal for use on this classification of POW. So anyone who was brought up on charges of waterboarding were indicted on those guidelines.



THese civilized treaties you speak of were meant to ensure that enemy combatants wore uniforms so as to differentiate them from the civilian population. If you fought fair and differentiated yourself from civilians you were to be awarded a level of protection while in custody including not being subjected to harsh interrogations. The Japanese did not follow these protocols and in cases like the Bataan death march proved themselves to be subhuman in their treatment of POWs and in the case of the Rape of Nanking showed to be just generally animals.



No, the point is that you are miss-characterizing the War Crimes trials of Japanese soldiers to try and fit them to your ideology. The reality of why these people were put on trial has more to do with the protections they were required to extend POWs, and does nothing to prove your assertion that it shows we thought all waterboarding was criminal.

For instance, a Japaneses soldier couldn't be tried in a military court for murder for shooting a US soldier during the course of a battle. But if he shot a US soldier who was a POW he would be hanged. The reason it is a crime has more to do with the setting than the act.
Click to expand...

Just summarize one point for me: are you saying that we should treat terrorist, who we've labeled not as military combatants and in fact have pushed hard not to, as POW's?
 
JasperL said:
As I recall, ISIS and AQ were active, and killing Americans, long before the Democrats released the report.

And you're still shooting the messenger.
Click to expand...

When the messenger bears such a striking resemblance to Josef Goebbels, that seems an appropriate response.

If it's treason to reveal what happened, surely the acts revealed were also treasonous.
Click to expand...

This would work better if you had some clue what treason actually is.
 
JasperL said:
The problem is the CIA has a history of self serving lies, over many years, with regard to the program and its results. So the defense is "The CIA says the CIA got great info from using the waterboard, ergo, we must conclude that the information about the awesomeness of CIA actions verified by CIA is correct!"
Click to expand...

Circular logic - I could make the same argument about Senate Democrats.

This isn't a unitary CIA saying this - it is political appointees from both Parties who have been put in charge of the CIA over the course of more than a decade saying this.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
When the messenger bears such a striking resemblance to Josef Goebbels, that seems an appropriate response.
Click to expand...

:) thank you for demonstrating the intellectual vacuity of your position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom