• 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!

Conservative radio host gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

Do you seriously think they're going to rat when they are not afraid of death? Especially considering ratting out a cause in which they are prepared to die for?

Think about it.

Do you seriously think they're NOT going to rat when they are not afraid of death?

Think about it.

Suicidal people, from my experience aren't exactly clear thinkers. Your hoping to generalize something which you cannot. Please move on.
 
Do you seriously think they're NOT going to rat when they are not afraid of death?

Think about it.

Suicidal people, from my experience aren't exactly clear thinkers. Your hoping to generalize something which you cannot. Please move on.

The problem is,the one you obviously choose to ignore, is when people are scared of dying they will say anything to get it to stop. Therefore the assinine justification for torture flies out the window.

They will "rat" on their own mother to get it to stop.

Get it?
 
Or, how about what % of Muslims hate America because of the torture that they utilize in their interrogation techniques?

This is definitely something to consider when making public policy. That is, its a cost-benefit analysis.
 
I ate a bible once. But in my defense I was very hungry and thought it was a really fancy phone book.

I hear the gold lacing tastes like lemon. Did you think so? ;)
 
why should I bother?
Because it's the case you are making, that's why. Are you afraid you are going to see just how full of holes it is and be forced to rethink your stance on the issue?

We all know how it ends. Its not 100% and anything but that is too low for you. Even if it was 100% you'd reject it on other grounds. Its pointless to debate this aspect with you. Not that there is enough data available to justify any such certainty. Torture isn't exactly something you make public, successfull or not.
Sure, don't substantiate your case because I simply won't change my mind. That's a good reason for not validating your position. The bottom line here is that you cannot substantiate your case with evidence. You have simply decided in your mind that you have no problem with torture for whatever reason. But it's not because you know it's effective. You don't know that at all because there is no evidence to substantiate it. I'll not speculate as to what your real reasons are because they are irrelevant to be honest. It's a personal choice that you've made and that's all that really matters at this point.

Yet you rely on nothing but your personal subjective morals which are nothing more than the summation of hypothetical situations derived from logic and/or intuition and/or experience.
No, you are quite wrong. None of my reasons for rejecting torture are hypothetical. Here is what I know to be well established fact:
  • Torture is illegal.
  • We have tortured individuals needlessly and then released them in Afghanistan.
  • We have killed detainees with torture.
  • Torture is barbaric.
  • Torture is ineffective. There are far more credible experts who agree with me on this than there are that disagree.
  • There is no available evidence to support the notion that torture is effective.

Are you scared that you may find fault in your position?
Not at all.
 
Last edited:
interesting tangent but still a red-herring.

prove what? What have I said that requires proof? Or are you having trouble following my posts?

You claimed that torture worked. It only actually "works" if it is more effective than other techniques, otherwise saying that it works is misleading. I can pound a nail with a rock. It "works". Using a hammer is alot more effective.
 
The problem is,the one you obviously choose to ignore, is when people are scared of dying they will say anything to get it to stop. Therefore the assinine justification for torture flies out the window.

They will "rat" on their own mother to get it to stop.

Get it?

And this is a definite flaw. But what part of "its worked before" isn't clear to you? You're a couple pages behind golden. Please catch up.
 
And if you can't give them then you can't make a case against it. Especially so because it has worked in the past.

You absolutely can. I don't have to prove a negative in order to start from a reliable position. The sheer lack of evidence alone is enough to make my case. We've tortured many, many people since the this war began and we have what, one or two instances of "actionable information" that can be referenced.

Your argument isn't valid.
 
And this is a definite flaw. But what part of "its worked before" isn't clear to you? You're a couple pages behind golden. Please catch up.

What part of "once or twice out of 50 or 100" doesn't validate your position that "torture works" isn't clear to you? It only means it very rarely ever works and is almost always ineffective.

There are plenty of experts in the field who have already given weighted, experienced counters to your argument, many more in fact than those who actually attempt to validate your argument. Yet, you don't seem interested in their opinion. Are you simply unaware of them? Have you not done your research? If you have then why have you disregarded them? If not, then why haven't you tried to educate yourself on the issue?
 
Last edited:
You claimed that torture worked. It only actually "works" if it is more effective than other techniques, otherwise saying that it works is misleading. I can pound a nail with a rock. It "works". Using a hammer is alot more effective.

If a hammer is available then obviously you should use the hammer, but a rock works too. But the discussion we are describing goes something like this: if you don't pound the nail in then you believe you are in danger of dying or being seriously injured. There's a rock next to you but maybe you can find a hammer. What do you do?
 
If a hammer is available then obviously you should use the hammer, but a rock works too. But the discussion we are describing goes something like this: if you don't pound the nail in then you believe you are in danger of dying or being seriously injured. There's a rock next to you but maybe you can find a hammer. What do you do?

Except in this case, the hammer is the easiest available tool.
 
You absolutely can. I don't have to prove a negative in order to start from a reliable position.
the default position in this case is "I don't know". Not "no".

The sheer lack of evidence alone is enough to make my case. We've tortured many, many people since the this war began and we have what, one or two instances of "actionable information" that can be referenced.
so because these unelaborated examples of torture produced no actionable info that means it doesn't work. In which cases did the people actually have knowledge? In which cases didn't they? How was it determined?

You've abstracted to the point of absurdity. Obviously if you use the wrong tool for the wrong job you will have piss poor results. But that doesn't mean that your tool is bad. It means you are stupid for using it in that manner.
 
Except in this case, the hammer is the easiest available tool.

I've acknowledged that. What you dodge is answering what you do when you don't have a hammer.

I'd use a rock. You'd run around like a headless chicken hoping a hammer materializes in front of you.
 
Last edited:
I've acknowledged that. What you dodge is answering what you do when you don't have a hammer.

I am thankful that will not be the case in this topic. The hammer is in the toolbox of every law enforcement agency in the country. We can use the hammer, proven to work for many years, and entirely uncontroversial, and broadly considered moral, or we can hit things with a rock, which might or might not work better, might or might not make us safer, and is controversial, and is largely considered immoral.
 
I am thankful that will not be the case in this topic. The hammer is in the toolbox of every law enforcement agency in the country. We can use the hammer, proven to work for many years, and entirely uncontroversial, and broadly considered moral, or we can hit things with a rock, which might or might not work better, might or might not make us safer, and is controversial, and is largely considered immoral.

Sorry to shatter your fantasy but your toolbox isn't always full.
 
Sorry to shatter your fantasy but your toolbox isn't always full.

When it comes to not using torture, it is always full, with everything but that rock.
 
Sorry to shatter your fantasy but your toolbox isn't always full.

You are much better than this, scourge. You and I have been on the opposite sides of many arguments, but many times I have respected your opinion because you offered substance. This isn't one of those times. You are much better than Truth Detector, and his insults, covert attacks, name calling, and overall jerkiness. I ask you to prove me right on that. Most likely, I will really hate your answers to the questions, but if given the way I know you can give them, you will have my respect. Just give your honest opinion, and leave it at that. I might not agree with it, but I will give it a serious listen if it the kind of response I know that you have in you. Deal?
 
the default position in this case is "I don't know". Not "no".

so because these unelaborated examples of torture produced no actionable info that means it doesn't work. In which cases did the people actually have knowledge? In which cases didn't they? How was it determined?
Autopsy reports reveal homicides of detainees in U.S. custody.
FBI Records: Reprocessed Documents.
This was part of a FOIA request that revealed the several incidents of homicide of detainees in custody from abuse and from interrogations. The second link has a lot of interesting documentation about U.S. interrogations.
Lewis E. Welshofer Jr. Killed an Iraqi general during an investigation while torturing him.
Human Rights First Releases First Comprehensive Report on Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody
The Cases

To illustrate both the failures in investigation and in accountability, “Command’s Responsibility” describes more than 20 cases in detail. Among the cases is that of Manadel al-Jamadi, whose death became public during the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal when photographs depicting prison guards giving the thumbs-up over his body were released; to date, no U.S. military or intelligence official has been punished criminally in connection with Jamadi’s death.

The cases also include that of Abed Hamed Mowhoush, a former Iraqi general beaten by U.S. Army, CIA and other non-military forces, stuffed into a sleeping bag, wrapped with electrical cord, and suffocated to death. In the recently concluded trial of a low-level military officer charged in Mowhoush’s death, the officer received a written reprimand, a fine, and 60 days with his movements limited to his work, home, and church.

And they include cases like that of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, in which investigative failures have made accountability impossible. Hatab was killed while in U.S. custody at a camp close to Nasiriyah. Although a U.S. Army medical examiner found that Hatab had died of strangulation, the evidence that would have been required to secure accountability for his death – Hatab’s body – was rendered unusable in court. Hatab’s internal organs were left exposed on an airport tarmac for hours and the organs were destroyed; the throat bone that would have supported the Army medical examiner’s findings of strangulation was never found.

“Death is a given in wartime,” Pearlstein said. “But this isn’t about death in the heat of battle; this is about how we treat those already at the mercy of U.S. forces. It’s about who is responsible for the policy and practice of the United States.”

The report concludes: “As long as the accountability gap exists, there will be little incentive for military command to correct bad behavior, or for civilian leadership to adopt policies that follow the law. As long as that gap exists, the problem of torture and abuse will remain.”
Interrogator Says U.S. Approved Handling of Detainee Who Died. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Passaro"]David Passaro[/ame], what a patriot, just doing his best in the "post 9/11 reality" to save lives.
The events at issue unfolded after Passaro arrived in May 2003 at the Army's firebase in Asadabad, Afghanistan, a few miles from the Pakistani border. The base came under frequent assault from rockets and mortars through the late spring, and on June 17 a Special Forces patrol from the base was disabled in a land-mine attack.

The next day, Wali -- who apparently heard that military personnel were looking for him -- surrendered at the front gate. Passaro, who was assigned to interrogate suspected terrorists detained by CIA and special operations forces, met with Wali on June 19 and 20. McNamara has said that at the time, Passaro believed Wali "knew the locations of more rockets and land mines" and wanted to extract information that he thought would save lives. On June 21, Wali was pronounced dead in his cell at the base.

The U.S. attorney in North Carolina did not accuse Passaro of murder, but of assault with his hands, feet and a dangerous weapon -- a flashlight. He also promised to produce witnesses to the interrogation from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division.


The Death of an Iraqi Prisoner. Here's a great example of torture at work.
Jamadi was interrogated there for nearly an hour and a half. Eyewitnesses interviewed by CIA investigators say Jamadi was seated and stripped, and cold water was poured over him. A Navy SEAL said at one point, the interrogator leaned into a pressure point on Jamadi's chest with his foreman.

Jamadi was then moved to Abu Ghraib for further interrogation. At the prison, MPs stretched Jamadi's arms directly behind him and shackled his wrists to window bars. If the arms bear the full weight of the body, the position can be extremely painful. But MPs later told CIA investigators that Jamadi had been given enough slack to kneel or stand.

During this new round of questioning by CIA agents, Jamadi slumped forward, with his weight on his shackled wrists. MPs, while trying to reposition Jamadi, discovered he was dead. His death occurred within five-and-a-half hours of his capture.

Death Ruled a 'Homicide'

Nearly two years later, the CIA is still investigating Jamadi's death. A military autopsy labeled his death a homicide, due to "blunt force trauma to the torso complicated by compromised respiration."

Autopsy photos show lacerations and multiple bruises on Jamadi's feet, thighs and arms. His most significant injuries -- five broken ribs -- are not visible in the photos. There were no bruises in that area, leading military medical examiners to say that the fractures were probably caused by a slow, deliberate application of force, such as someone kneeling on his chest.
I'll let you digest this information, I can get you more, but I'd hope you would actually takes steps to educate yourself on this issue a bit.

I'd like to assume that everyone we tortured had information we needed, we're America. We don't torture innocent people, do we?

You're not actually forming a successful rebuttal with this tactic of yours.

You've abstracted to the point of absurdity. Obviously if you use the wrong tool for the wrong job you will have piss poor results. But that doesn't mean that your tool is bad. It means you are stupid for using it in that manner.
That doesn't even make sense. Torture is not simply a "tool" to be used. It's a vile, dehumanizing act that violates human rights and is repugnant on all levels. Your dismissive and simplistic description of this practice does not actually serve as any kind of logical argument.
 
Last edited:
What was that Grateful Heart said about "screaming"?

Yep. No debate going on here. But thanks for sharing! :2wave:

Exactly.

Some fools mistake heated rants on Internet message boards for 'debate.' Some mistake heated rants by the likes of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow for 'debate.'

Obama has no intention of going after Bush and Cheney on torture.

Congress has no intention of going after Bush and Cheney on torture.

The international community has no intention of going after Bush and Cheney on torture.

Despite those clear facts, millions of partisan hacks on the Internet seem to be living under the delusion that someone, somewhere, will be prosecuting Bush and Cheney for torture.

And they tell us to pull our heads out of our arses... Funny.

:2wave:
 
Exactly.

Some fools mistake heated rants on Internet message boards for 'debate.' Some mistake heated rants by the likes of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow for 'debate.'

Obama has no intention of going after Bush and Cheney on torture.

Congress has no intention of going after Bush and Cheney on torture.

The international community has no intention of going after Bush and Cheney on torture.

Despite those clear facts, millions of partisan hacks on the Internet seem to be living under the delusion that someone, somewhere, will be prosecuting Bush and Cheney for torture.

And they tell us to pull our heads out of our arses... Funny.

:2wave:

Proof? Or are you just making it up?
 
Exactly.

Some fools mistake heated rants on Internet message boards for 'debate.' Some mistake heated rants by the likes of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow for 'debate.'

Obama has no intention of going after Bush and Cheney on torture.

Congress has no intention of going after Bush and Cheney on torture.

The international community has no intention of going after Bush and Cheney on torture.

Despite those clear facts, millions of partisan hacks on the Internet seem to be living under the delusion that someone, somewhere, will be prosecuting Bush and Cheney for torture.

And they tell us to pull our heads out of our arses... Funny.

:2wave:

Yes well that person has been thread banned now. Care to debate my points? Or are you just going to foist the theory that "no prosecution means no crime?" You seem to be proliferating this idea that if Bush or Cheney isn't prosecuted then there is no problem, that the subject isn't worth debating.

I think what you're engaging in is sticking your head in the sand and blowing smoke out your ass with your insistence this is a non-issue because nobody has issued an arrest warrant for George Bush.

We have tortured people, we have killed people while doing it. Our government turned the dogs loose to do this. Vicarious liability. It applies here and should go as far up the chain as is justified in order to hold those who were complicit responsible.
 
Last edited:
You are much better than this, scourge. You and I have been on the opposite sides of many arguments, but many times I have respected your opinion because you offered substance. This isn't one of those times. You are much better than Truth Detector, and his insults, covert attacks, name calling, and overall jerkiness. I ask you to prove me right on that. Most likely, I will really hate your answers to the questions, but if given the way I know you can give them, you will have my respect. Just give your honest opinion, and leave it at that. I might not agree with it, but I will give it a serious listen if it the kind of response I know that you have in you. Deal?

With respect to what specifically do you think I am being dishonest or disingenuous?
 
Autopsy reports reveal homicides of detainees in U.S. custody.
FBI Records: Reprocessed Documents.
This was part of a FOIA request that revealed the several incidents of homicide of detainees in custody from abuse and from interrogations. The second link has a lot of interesting documentation about U.S. interrogations.
Lewis E. Welshofer Jr. Killed an Iraqi general during an investigation while torturing him.
Human Rights First Releases First Comprehensive Report on Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody

Interrogator Says U.S. Approved Handling of Detainee Who Died. David Passaro, what a patriot, just doing his best in the "post 9/11 reality" to save lives.



The Death of an Iraqi Prisoner. Here's a great example of torture at work.

I'll let you digest this information, I can get you more, but I'd hope you would actually takes steps to educate yourself on this issue a bit.

I'd like to assume that everyone we tortured had information we needed, we're America. We don't torture innocent people, do we?

You're not actually forming a successful rebuttal with this tactic of yours.


That doesn't even make sense. Torture is not simply a "tool" to be used. It's a vile, dehumanizing act that violates human rights and is repugnant on all levels. Your dismissive and simplistic description of this practice does not actually serve as any kind of logical argument.

:doh Each was an example of murder and extra-judicial action. None of it was apparently within the confines of the law consistent with due process and open to public or private scrutiny or oversight which is WHAT I AM ADVOCATING. I have never advocated willy-nilly EIM or any method in which a sleeping bag and electrical cord are used to suffocate a victim by strangulation or shackles are used to impart physical lacerations on a suspect.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom