• 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!

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison

Nanten Janubi said:
But...does anyone consider it a preferred method? I believe it is considered one of the last resorts, used extremely rarely- considering that probably tens of thousands of individuals in Iraq and Afghanistan have been questioned at some point or another over the last decade, I would imagine waterboarding (to say nothing of torture) has been performed on far less than even 1% of the subjects. It seems to be another tool in the toolbox, used extremely rarely at best. Not the standard welcome-to-this-interrogation-before-we-get-started-put-this-over-your-head that many like to imagine it to be.



I would imagine for effectiveness.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that's true. It has been proven repeatedly to be largely ineffective, especially compared to other methods. As for who it was applied, to, I'm not sure we can say with certainty the percentage. We know a couple died in AFghanistan, and it appears at elast one of them was likely innocent with nothing to share. We know that al Libi gave us misinformation and that we used it in our rationale for invading Iraq. We've been told KSm gave us information, but we've seen nothing specific. What we do know is he and our interogators tell us he gave a lot of misinformation, and that we did not get the OBL intel until long after the IET stopped. This suggests more traditional methods got the intel the EIT did not.

The litasture says tortureis great for confessions, regardless of guilt. However, the vast majority of litature says it is not effective in getting information. Other methods are considerably much more effective. Now, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so one can never say never. But, when you add it's ineffectiveness with the moral and legal issues, it should be something avoided.
 
Grant said:
Of course it's a matter of belief because you refuse to believe those who were actually there and saw the results and are instead following the word of a person with no involvement whatsoever. That is clearly what you have chosen to believe.


Yu really shuld follow your own advice.

The evidence is clear and those who participated have been quite straightforward, apart from Panetta who tried to obfuscate a little, just what they did and what the results were. You may believe these people are lying, but that is only your belief. So far there is no one who was directly involved who denied what happened.
Click to expand...

Again, it is not who we believe. If you accept what anyone says, you are easily fooled. Instead, they must present evidence to support factual claims. There are people who like and trust me, but if I said I could fly, I would expect them to show that could. No one has presented anything that we can verify or examine. And when some have tried, it has proven false. As what we have seen is false, exactly why would you trust them?
 
Boo Radley said:
This suggests more traditional methods got the intel the EIT did not
Click to expand...

"waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information:" john helgerson's report, released by eric holder on the monday preceding aug 29, 2009

hey, with reasoning like that who needs links (from new south wales)

LOL!

The litasture says
Click to expand...

the vast majority of litature says
Click to expand...

dept chair, huh?
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't believe that's true. It has been proven repeatedly to be largely ineffective, especially compared to other methods. As for who it was applied, to, I'm not sure we can say with certainty the percentage. We know a couple died in AFghanistan, and it appears at elast one of them was likely innocent with nothing to share. We know that al Libi gave us misinformation and that we used it in our rationale for invading Iraq. We've been told KSm gave us information, but we've seen nothing specific. What we do know is he and our interogators tell us he gave a lot of misinformation, and that we did not get the OBL intel until long after the IET stopped. This suggests more traditional methods got the intel the EIT did not.
Click to expand...

But, how you would know? Most people that work in intelligence, who have a larger understanding of what information is about than the rest of the world, don't have knowledge (let alone complete knowledge) of the who said what and by what means. How do you know?

The litasture says tortureis great for confessions, regardless of guilt. However, the vast majority of litature says it is not effective in getting information. Other methods are considerably much more effective. Now, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so one can never say never. But, when you add it's ineffectiveness with the moral and legal issues, it should be something avoided.
Click to expand...

In some situations it would be effective and in the vast majority of them it would not be. And, in the vast majority of cases, it is not used. Do you have any of this literature available? From a nonbiased source?
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, it is not who we believe. If you accept what anyone says, you are easily fooled. Instead, they must present evidence to support factual claims. There are people who like and trust me, but if I said I could fly, I would expect them to show that could. No one has presented anything that we can verify or examine. And when some have tried, it has proven false. As what we have seen is false, exactly why would you trust them?
Click to expand...


You want it all on tape then?

And everything from now on, in order to satisfy you, must be on video and notarized. Confessions won't do.

So I suppose you are one of those who believe Osama is still alive then and Obama should have shown his notarized long form birth certificate from day one.
 
Michael Hayden on CNN just moments ago (the bin Laden special is airing as we speak), just said something about how he understands if people don't want their country doing that type of stuff, but that "no one" he knows would say it was ineffective. Then they had an Air Force HUMINT guy offer what seemed like a counterpoint, saying that coercion is emphatically not the best way to get information, and that virtually all of his colleagues agree. However, that's not a refutation, because Hayden didn't say it was the best way. I think my opinion that it is effective in a very limited way, under a very specific criteria withstands what both of them said.

Oftentimes when this debate is raised, I'm reminded of a Kathryn Schultz quote: "Often, our beliefs about what is factually right and our beliefs about what is morally right are entirely inextricable." What's so wrong with saying "I'm against waterboarding, but I understand it can be effective in certain situations, even if they're very rare. I still am against it for moral reasons"? Why do people seem to be incapable of separating the two?
 
Oftentimes when this debate is raised, I'm reminded of a Kathryn Schultz quote: "Often, our beliefs about what is factually right and our beliefs about what is morally right are entirely inextricable." What's so wrong with saying "I'm against waterboarding, but I understand it can be effective in certain situations, even if they're very rare. I still am against it for moral reasons"? Why do people seem to be incapable of separating the two?
Click to expand...

That is a legitimate argument and one more persuasive than it not working at all.

However I believe waterboarding should be used on 100% of terrorists, just in case they have anything of value to say. They deserve no GC rights whatsoever.
 
I disagree, simply because there are easier and more effective ways to procure information in most cases. In many cases, subjects will respond to positive feedback (the carrot, as opposed to the stick). It's a lot easier to get someone to share information by giving them desserts (and that really happened), than to waterboard them or even put them in stress positions or put them under emotional and psychological duress. Also, it holds the possibility of running them as an agent in the future, which those other methods preclude.

I'm just all about the pragmatism.
 
Nanten Janubi said:
I disagree, simply because there are easier and more effective ways to procure information in most cases. In many cases, subjects will respond to positive feedback (the carrot, as opposed to the stick). It's a lot easier to get someone to share information by giving them desserts (and that really happened), than to waterboard them or even put them in stress positions or put them under emotional and psychological duress. Also, it holds the possibility of running them as an agent in the future, which those other methods preclude.

I'm just all about the pragmatism.
Click to expand...

I am as well. But I say whatever works. Any human rights they once might had disappears once they adopt terrorism.
 
Grant said:
You want it all on tape then?

And everything from now on, in order to satisfy you, must be on video and notarized. Confessions won't do.

So I suppose you are one of those who believe Osama is still alive then and Obama should have shown his notarized long form birth certificate from day one.
Click to expand...

I want verifiable evidence. We ahd no problem finding and presenting evidence of where it was not effective. Look no farther than al Libi giving us misinformation that we used to justify invading Iraq. It's verifiable, documented and there for all to see. Are you suggesting that only information that disproves your position can eb given? I find that hard to beleive, if it exists.
 
Boo Radley said:
I want verifiable evidence. We ahd no problem finding and presenting evidence of where it was not effective. Look no farther than al Libi giving us misinformation that we used to justify invading Iraq. It's verifiable, documented and there for all to see. Are you suggesting that only information that disproves your position can eb given? I find that hard to beleive, if it exists.
Click to expand...

So you were a birther then?

Do you want to see the photos of OBL?
 
Grant said:
So you were a birther then?

Do you want to see the photos of OBL?
Click to expand...

Nope. I saw Obam's birth certificate way back when, the legal and accepted certificate. If you could provide anything as equal, as verifiable, you'd be doing something not done yet. Again, all you have to do is match what we have of torture not working.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. I saw Obam's birth certificate way back when, the legal and accepted certificate. If you could provide anything as equal, as verifiable, you'd be doing something not done yet. Again, all you have to do is match what we have of torture not working.
Click to expand...

But there were many who didn't believe the small certificate because the serial numbers weren't there. You accepted it at face value??

What about the photos of OBL? Will you insist on seeing those before you believe he is dead?

Should Obama have released these photos immediately in order to satisfy skeptics like yourself?
 
Boo Radley said:
It's verifiable, documented and there for all to see.
Click to expand...

yup

the ig report

that's why eric holder released it

preeminent source, baby!

but only after the eit's

which came before the assassination

good thinking, sydney
 
Grant said:
But there were many who didn't believe the small certificate because the serial numbers weren't there. You accepted it at face value??

What about the photos of OBL? Will you insist on seeing those before you believe he is dead?

Should Obama have released these photos immediately in order to satisfy skeptics like yourself?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. It was there for all to see. Physical, verifiable, and clear. Belief never has anything to do with it.

There is enough evidence with OBL. It was a ophysical act in which all sides, including AQ agree it happened. DNA taken. and it has much more than has been offered with EIT. All you have are people's word. No phyiscal evidence, and more importantly no examples at all. nothing anyone can look at all. And yet, you accept it without asking a single question, even with evidence that that what they've given us was wrong, factually.
 
Boo Radley said:
It was a ophysical act in which all sides, including AQ agree it happened.
Click to expand...

yup, and eric holder's doj concedes eit's transformed ksm

preeminent source---the words endorsed by the ag

All you have are people's word.
Click to expand...

LOL!

you've SEEN ubl's dna test?
 
Boo Radley said:
Doesn't matter. It was there for all to see. Physical, verifiable, and clear. Belief never has anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't there for all to see. You are mistaken. That is why Obama eventually showed the necessary long form. Your criteria for acceptance of the word of politicians would seem to depend on the party they belong to. Would that be true?
There is enough evidence with OBL.
Click to expand...

Such as what?
It was a physical act in which all sides, including AQ agree it happened.
Click to expand...

So you'll accept the statement of known terrorists before you accept the word of your own government? The United States has changed dramatically since they fought together in WWII. I doubt many Americans would have used Tojo or Hitler for references.
DNA taken.
Click to expand...

Did you see it taken?

and it has much more than has been offered with EIT. All you have are people's word. No phyiscal evidence, and more importantly no examples at all. nothing anyone can look at all. And yet, you accept it without asking a single question, even with evidence that that what they've given us was wrong, factually.
Click to expand...

The same is true on OBL. Just people's word. But you seem to find the word of some people more reliable than others, and dependent entirely on their party affiliation.
 
Grant said:
No, it wasn't there for all to see. You are mistaken. That is why Obama eventually showed the necessary long form. Your criteria for acceptance of the word of politicians would seem to depend on the party they belong to. Would that be true?
Click to expand...

But it was. Obama met the same standard as every other candidate. It was there to be seen.

Such as what?
Click to expand...

Soliders, family, admission from AQ, DNA, pictures that have been seen by some, so on and so forth. It isn't a claim without any example given or anythign that can be verified by anyone.

So you'll accept the statement of known terrorists before you accept the word of your own government? The United States has changed dramatically since they fought together in WWII. I doubt many Americans would have used Tojo or Hitler for references.
Click to expand...

Gioes against insterest. Yes. They are part of the picture. if it were just them, and they had an interest in making us think he was dead, no. But that's not the case now is it?


Did you see it taken?
Click to expand...

Don't have to. There is a chain of evidence and not likley to honestly doubted.

The same is true on OBL. Just people's word. But you seem to find the word of some people more reliable than others, and dependent entirely on their party affiliation.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Not just one groups word, but mulitple peoples. Not just the US interrogators, but with OBL, the government, soliders, aq, relatives, and so on. Surely you can see the dfiference?
 
Boo Radley said:
Soliders, family, admission from AQ
Click to expand...

yup, it's a lot like the agents and ig's and ag's, as well as the concession from doj

eit's, baby---they transformed ksm from avowed and truculent enemy to langley's preeminent source

Gioes (sic) against insterest.
Click to expand...

just like eric holder on eit's

Surely you can see the dfiference (sic)?
Click to expand...

LOL!

think much?
 
The Prof said:
yup, it's a lot like the agents and ig's and ag's, as well as the concession from doj

eit's, baby---they transformed ksm from avowed and truculent enemy to langley's preeminent source



just like eric holder on eit's



LOL!

think much?
Click to expand...

I don't expect you to think too much as I scare you so. But, it isn't agaisnt holder's interest. That's just a fact. :coffeepap
 
LOL!

not against holder's interest to confess that eit's transformed ksm into langley's preeminent source

hey, with reasoning like that, who needs links (to sydney)

boo!
 
The Prof said:
LOL!

not against holder's interest to confess that eit's transformed ksm into langley's preeminent source

hey, with reasoning like that, who needs links (to sydney)

boo!
Click to expand...

Then link what he gave. It should be easy. Why not just link what he gave. :coffeepap
 
the ig report released by holder's doj on the monday preceding aug 29, 2009?

LOL!

where ya been?

in sydney?
 
I think you backed yourself into a corner here, Boo. Like I said, it's okay to admit that waterboarding or even torture can or could be effective in very rare situations. You won't catch on fire, start listening to Limbaugh, or have to attend a Jesus Camp. It is, quite honestly, the most rational opinion to hold. And, in fact, you can still oppose it on strong moral grounds. But to say something is never, ever effective is as silly as saying something is 100% always effective: very likely, neither are true.
 
Nanten Janubi said:
I think you backed yourself into a corner here, Boo. Like I said, it's okay to admit that waterboarding or even torture can or could be effective in very rare situations. You won't catch on fire, start listening to Limbaugh, or have to attend a Jesus Camp. It is, quite honestly, the most rational opinion to hold. And, in fact, you can still oppose it on strong moral grounds. But to say something is never, ever effective is as silly as saying something is 100% always effective: very likely, neither are true.
Click to expand...

No corner. A broke clock is right twice a day, but we wouldn't say it effectively keeps the time. And I have never used the word never. It would be legally and morally wrong even if effective, but as it is overall not effective, that means it is also not smart to use it.

For the record, I've listened to Limbaugh, and as a kid, I went to the Baptist church camps every summer. ;)

:coffeepap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom