• 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

This is the typical Lib response too.

No. It's called a sensible response to a biased source being passed off as proof of your own bias. But I'll progress.

If you had noticed the opening paragraph, it cites an ABC reporter. Not good enough for you?

Not really. It's hearsay in the context that argument was given. He heard it from his sources.

My guess is you didn't get that far.

TILT!

Try again.

Here. Zimmer. I'll give you a clue of why waterboarding torture doesn't work :

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)

Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea

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."

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.
 
Why didn't we use torture during WWII?
Is it because the WWII people were liberal pansies fighting a wussy enemy?

Even if 'torture' 'works' sometimes, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of it. Even a little poking around in shows that it's not a recommended route to go when one wants accurate reliable information.
Kubark - Google Search
 
Hey, since 9/11/01 the USA has not suffered an attack on US Soil.
This is because I finally changed my underwear. It's absolute proof that changing my underwear prevents terrorist attacks.
 
This is because I finally changed my underwear. It's absolute proof that changing my underwear prevents terrorist attacks.

God damn, finally someone understands the concept of specious reasoning. I knew someone else had to know about this. Fact is that we didn't suffer a lot from terrorist attacks on our soil, they happened every once in awhile but not with great frequency. So we're not even outside one standard deviation and people proclaim this as good. For the love of all that is holy, would these people please take a few science and statistics courses. You have to get a few sigma away before you can state anything with confidence, and you have to be able to prove causality. Just being within the standard time between terrorist attacks doesn't mean a law has worked. And guess what? We're gonna have another terrorist attack here at some point. It will happen, while there are things we can do (reasonable) to lower the rate, that rate will never be zero. Deal with it. No reason that we should start sacrificing our freedom and liberty for "safety".
 
I was just about to source that here, but you beat me to it. Those people being quoted on torture are former military personnel who have actually interrogated people during wartime. While the torture mongers get their ideas from James Bond.

Yeah, you might get lucky once in a while and actually get some good information, but:

1. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
2. If they give accurate information under torture, they would have given it without torture. (sourced above)
 
Here. Zimmer. I'll give you a clue of why waterboarding torture doesn't work :

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)
Oh yes.
Is this another academic theory that sounds good on paper but wilts under the harsh light of reality?

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.

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

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

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

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.

It may seem cold, but these are the types of decisions Obama must make. Do we protect terrorists or innocent civilians?
 
Last edited:
Oh yes.
Is this another academic theory that sounds good on paper but wilts under the harsh light of reality?
You know, it would help if you actually READ the source. Here are those 'acedemics' you're talking about:

- retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans.

- 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

I think it's YOUR academic theory that is wilting under the harsh light of reality.
 
Oh yes.
Is this another academic theory that sounds good on paper but wilts under the harsh light of reality?

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.

I'll tell you that if you tortured me, I'd admit to being the Queen of England if that's what you wanted. Sure maybe sometimes you get a truth, but how often is what you get truth? I'd be screaming whatever it was you wanted to hear to make it stop. I doubt it's that reliable, and if military officers are making claim that it's not reliable then I'm gonna go with them. They probably have a lot more experience with this than you.
 
God damn, finally someone understands the concept of specious reasoning. I knew someone else had to know about this. Fact is that we didn't suffer a lot from terrorist attacks on our soil, they happened every once in awhile but not with great frequency. So we're not even outside one standard deviation and people proclaim this as good. For the love of all that is holy, would these people please take a few science and statistics courses. You have to get a few sigma away before you can state anything with confidence, and you have to be able to prove causality. Just being within the standard time between terrorist attacks doesn't mean a law has worked. And guess what? We're gonna have another terrorist attack here at some point. It will happen, while there are things we can do (reasonable) to lower the rate, that rate will never be zero. Deal with it. No reason that we should start sacrificing our freedom and liberty for "safety".


So your point is that the failure of terrorists to successfully launch a terror attack here in the US is just by chance? That the government's actions and behavior had nothing to do with it?

And can we please stop with the cliche about sacrificing liberty? There is no grant of universal and uninfringed liberty. There has always been and always will be a strong tension between public safety and liberty and we see that in our own Constitution and the amendments attached to it.
 
So your point is that the failure of terrorists to successfully launch a terror attack here in the US is just by chance? That the government's actions and behavior had nothing to do with it?

No, I'm saying that if we average a terrorist attack every 10 or 11 years or so, that 8 years after an attack claiming the changed laws have prevented new attacks is an unprovable statement since you are not outside the standard deviation. Do people even take statistics anymore?

And can we please stop with the cliche about sacrificing liberty?

No, the defense of liberty has always been an important duty of freemen.

There is no grant of universal and uninfringed liberty. There has always been and always will be a strong tension between public safety and liberty and we see that in our own Constitution and the amendments attached to it.

So you're good with gun control. K.
 
Last edited:
God damn, finally someone understands the concept of specious reasoning. I knew someone else had to know about this. Fact is that we didn't suffer a lot from terrorist attacks on our soil, they happened every once in awhile but not with great frequency. So we're not even outside one standard deviation and people proclaim this as good. For the love of all that is holy, would these people please take a few science and statistics courses. You have to get a few sigma away before you can state anything with confidence, and you have to be able to prove causality. Just being within the standard time between terrorist attacks doesn't mean a law has worked. And guess what? We're gonna have another terrorist attack here at some point. It will happen, while there are things we can do (reasonable) to lower the rate, that rate will never be zero. Deal with it. No reason that we should start sacrificing our freedom and liberty for "safety".

You do realize that all Embassies are considered US soil don't you?
 
You do realize that all Embassies are considered US soil don't you?

:rofl

You walked right into that one. So, we haven't been attacked on US soil for... less than a year. Good job Bush.

Attack Against U.S. Embassy In Yemen Blamed on Al-Qaeda

Attackers used vehicle bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons to mount a coordinated assault on the U.S. Embassy here Wednesday, leaving 10 guards and civilians dead outside the main gate but failing to breach the walled compound. No Americans were killed.
 
Yeah well you know what they say. You snooze you loose. :2wave:

Some of us have to make abstracts for DAMOP.
 
No, I'm saying that if we average a terrorist attack every 10 or 11 years or so, that 8 years after an attack claiming the changed laws have prevented new attacks is an unprovable statement since you are not outside the standard deviation. Do people even take statistics anymore?

I see. So there's no possibility whatsoever that the CIA or NSA caught whiff of a planned attack and then successfully thwart said planned attack by using tools or taking advantage of changes to the law? None?

I'm not claiming that the new laws have prevented attacks. They might or might not have.

But you're completely dismissing the possibility which, imo, is absurd.

No, the defense of liberty has always been an important duty of freemen.

Miss the point, much? You're behaving as though the US Constitution intended universal and uninfringed liberty. That simply is not true.

So you're good with gun control. K.

Yes, I am. A right to bear arms is not a right from government regulations on the possession of those arms. Just like the right to free speech ain't a right to libel or slander someone. Just like the 4th Amendment right provides protections from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Don't pretend that American liberty is completely free of infringement or was intended to be free from government interference.
 
INTRODUCING...
The Department of Feathers and Bubbles.
Dept. Motto: curia advisari vult (The court wishes to be advised)

And what happens when we catch Osama?
Or another individual who may have info about a terrorist attack that will kill thousands?

I guess we can fall back on the Clinton created tool... Rendition.

Or we'll just send Obama and Biden in their to talk their ears off.
Maybe we could send Hillary in a Phyllis Diller outfit with bubbles and feathers... then again that's probably too harsh and would fall under torture.

So true! An how will Al Queda's plotters interpret this Executive order?

Could they safely assume that since only the Army Field Manual will be used as a guide to their interrogation, that their organization is safe from penetration just after any single terrorist attack on American soil? In other words will this incite such an attack?


...
 
I see. So there's no possibility whatsoever that the CIA or NSA caught whiff of a planned attack and then successfully thwart said planned attack by using tools or taking advantage of changes to the law? None?

I'm not claiming that the new laws have prevented attacks. They might or might not have.

But you're completely dismissing the possibility which, imo, is absurd.

No, you're not reading what I write. I'm not dismissing the agencies efficiency. I'm saying the new laws and abilities granted can not be said with any amount of confidence to have caused a change in the rates of attacks over what we previously had. They can not be credited with keeping us "safe", there's no proof they've had an impact over what we already have.

Miss the point, much? You're behaving as though the US Constitution intended universal and uninfringed liberty. That simply is not true.

The limit to our rights and liberty is the rights and liberties of others.

Yes, I am. A right to bear arms is not a right from government regulations on the possession of those arms.

Yes it is.

Just like the right to free speech ain't a right to libel or slander someone.

That's due to infringement upon someone's rights.

Just like the 4th Amendment right provides protections from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Yes, yes it does.

Don't pretend that American liberty is completely free of infringement or was intended to be free from government interference.

Government can involve itself once the rights of another has become involved. But don't pretend that American liberty is completely at the mercy of the government or was intended to be dominated by the government at its discretion.
 
Is this another academic theory that sounds good on paper but wilts under the harsh light of reality?
It's the other way around. Experienced hands are saying that torture's not reliable. Armchair generals and Jack Bauer fans are the ones who're promoting the option.
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.
That statement defeats itself. No need for me to comment further.
You can feel good about terrorists being protected as innocent civilians are executed.
Tell me, is it moral to not do everything humanly possible to spare innocent men, women and children from a terrorists attack?
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.
Saying it's about suspects well-being shows you're missing the point. What you seem to be refusing to ask yourself is about the relative efficacy of techniques.
"Tell me, is it moral to not use the best methods available to spare innocent men, women and children from a terrorists attack?"
It may seem cold, but these are the types of decisions Obama must make. Do we protect terrorists or innocent civilians?
It may seem a stupid question with an obvious answer, but it's the type of decision Obama must make. Do we use our best methods for obtaining information or do we use less reliable ones?
 
JMAK,

We've already covered that we were being attacked this whole time. The last one was Sep. 2008 for god's sake. Let me put it this way: THE POLICIES WERE A FAILURE.
 
JMAK,
We've already covered that we were being attacked this whole time. The last one was Sep. 2008 for god's sake. Let me put it this way: THE POLICIES WERE A FAILURE.
Well, there were a couple of times or so I forgot to change my underwear.
 
No, you're not reading what I write. I'm not dismissing the agencies efficiency. I'm saying the new laws and abilities granted can not be said with any amount of confidence to have caused a change in the rates of attacks over what we previously had. They can not be credited with keeping us "safe", there's no proof they've had an impact over what we already have.

I am reading what you posted. Don't act foolish.

Now you've shifted the goal posts from stopping any attacks to changing the rates of attacks. No one has argued that the new laws and the tools they've provided changed the rate of terror attacks. The argument is that the new laws and tools have enhanced law enforcement's ability to and the ability of intelligence agencies to detect, investigate, and ultimately, stop attacks.

The limit to our rights and liberty is the rights and liberties of others.

:roll:

Still dealing in cliches, eh? Our constitutional form of government neither affirms this nor grants this unlimited liberty.

Yes it is.

Not according to the framers.

That's due to infringement upon someone's rights.

Oh? There's a right not to libeled or slandered?

Yes, yes it does.

Hence, you recognize then that our liberty is subject to government infringement. Therefore, you know that our liberty rights are not unlimited. So why are you arguing that they are?

Government can involve itself once the rights of another has become involved. But don't pretend that American liberty is completely at the mercy of the government or was intended to be dominated by the government at its discretion.

I am pretending neither. Now you are not reading what I have posted....errrr...you're deliberately misrepresenting my earlier comments.

I said that "There is no grant of universal and uninfringed liberty. There has always been and always will be a strong tension between public safety and liberty and we see that in our own Constitution and the amendments attached to it."

Deal with that, otherwise, shut up!
 
JMAK,

We've already covered that we were being attacked this whole time. The last one was Sep. 2008 for god's sake. Let me put it this way: THE POLICIES WERE A FAILURE.

Yeah, yeah, :roll: I saw the blunder of citing "US soil". The fact remains that we have not seen another terror attack here in the US.

Even so, has anyone considered/compared that to Clinton's watch? WTC 1; Khobar, two US embassies, USS Cole, etc., etc. versus post-9/11? I mean, if you want to play games with semantics like US soil, don't you kinda have to consider actual events?
 
It's the other way around. Experienced hands are saying that torture's not reliable. Armchair generals and Jack Bauer fans are the ones who're promoting the option.
That statement defeats itself. No need for me to comment further.
Saying it's about suspects well-being shows you're missing the point. What you seem to be refusing to ask yourself is about the relative efficacy of techniques.
"Tell me, is it moral to not use the best methods available to spare innocent men, women and children from a terrorists attack?"

It may seem a stupid question with an obvious answer, but it's the type of decision Obama must make. Do we use our best methods for obtaining information or do we use less reliable ones?
Simon,

Waterboarding worked. It busted an attack in planning. Saving lives. That makes several of your points not only moot, but false.

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.

What then?

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.

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.

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom