• 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!

CIA enhanced interigation docs released. Cheney responds

Redress said:
Soldiers are American citizens.

Every action we take has risk for civilians. To be safe, we would have to close our borders, and expand our military to totally guard and control those borders. This is obviously a bad idea, but with our borders not being closed, we greatly increase the chance of Americans being killed. Every action we take overseas is likely to have some element of risk for civilians at home. That does not mean we should not take those actions overseas.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to uphold and defend the American system and American ideals. To scrap our system of laws because it might mean a little added risk to us would be, to my mind, akin to pissing on the sacrifices made by those who died defending our system of laws.
Click to expand...

Since we can't seal our borders and expand our military, we are forced to depend on the clandestine services to do things that may not always be that pretty, in the interest of protecting the country.
 
formerroadie said:
That is completely and utterly unprovable.
Click to expand...

Intel is crucial to military units. A lack of that intel will cost lives on the battlefield. That's an irrefutable fact.
 
apdst said:
Since we can't seal our borders and expand our military, we are forced to depend on the clandestine services to do things that may not always be that pretty, in the interest of protecting the country.
Click to expand...

And doing so pissed on the sacrifice made by those who defended our system of laws and our ideals.
 
Enhanced interrogation methods may produce useful information, but at the expense of a virtuous reputation. Such a reputation is instrumental to securing the good will of our allies and those countries we occupy.
 
Last edited:
braindrain said:
So we would have had more honor if we would have let them attack us and kill innocent civillians all the while knowing that we could have stoped it by using those methods. I wonder if you would have felt the same way if one of the attacks that was prevented would have killed someone in your family.
Click to expand...

YES. A person will tell you that he's the queen of england if you torutured him long enough.

I'm sorry, but we live in a dangerous world, and unfortunately people die... noone gets out of this life alive either way. You can't trade freedom for security because eventually everyone is guilty.

Also, if you torture your enemies, you are inviting your enemies to 'return the favor'... So, if you can't stand for providing prisoners of war with some sort of dignity then you'll be come a monster.

apdst said:
Since we can't seal our borders and expand our military, we are forced to depend on the clandestine services to do things that may not always be that pretty, in the interest of protecting the country.
Click to expand...

Very machivellian... evil for good, makes people corrupt and the 'good' that was intended ends up lost, or at a greater cost then doing the good the whole way through.

I don't expect to change the way things operate in that sense, but more to point out the flaw in the logic. I mean, if you could blow up a building with a few thousand people in order to kill a dictator... then it would be worth nuking a city to save the world... right?? Killing the 90% so that top benefit of the top 10%? Where does it end?

Morality Games said:
Enhanced interrogation methods may produce useful information, but at the expense of a virtuous reputation. Such a reputation is instrumental to securing the good will of our allies and those countries we occupy.
Click to expand...

LOL... kinda like that one guy who under 'enhanced interrogation' (re:torture) took credit for the bombing of a building that was builit 3 years after he had been in custody...

Really... a person will say abosolutely anything you want them to say if you 'interrogate' them hard enough and long enough. Make them feel like they are on the verge of death for days at a time and I bet you could get some pretty incriminating evidence.
 
apdst said:
Intel is crucial to military units. A lack of that intel will cost lives on the battlefield. That's an irrefutable fact.
Click to expand...

Woah woah woah... you're comparing apples and oranges here...

Now, on a battlefield, or a warzone and you capture someone that you know has information... you were already going to kill him anyway, so make him talk before... whatever... not to mention the intel provided from other sources... With all the drones, sattelites, and all sorts of technologies that provide information on the ground.

That's a different story from getting the guy to a detention centre, likely in another country, and any information provided is likely to be 'stale'... not to mention how long it takes you to get the guy to 'crack'. Also not mentioning what people will say to get the torture to stop.
 
apdst said:
you can't place your moral tone above the lives of other Americans.
Click to expand...

Thats it right there. The basic selfish selflessnes of liberalism that invent things like "forced" charity. The entire idea that your "honor" is worth more than countless innocents illustrates that selfishness. If you cant take the hit then stay on the sidelines. We should at least appreciate those who do take the hit for us.
 
akyron said:
Thats it right there. The basic selfish selflessnes of liberalism that invent things like "forced" charity. The entire idea that your "honor" is worth more than countless innocents illustrates that selfishness. If you cant take the hit then stay on the sidelines. We should at least appreciate those who do take the hit for us.
Click to expand...

Let's not delude ourselves... the world is NOT a safe place, even with a cop on every street corner would not make things any safer... some woould rightfully argue it'd make things MORE dangerous.

So, if the evils that get done in the name of 'protecting' our country wind up destroying the country and what it stands for, is that 'worth it'??

Safety at the barrel of a gun is not my idea of safety... and it's definately not an idea of freedom. Freedom requires the use of guns, but mostly they are holstered.

Innocent people will die all the time... this cannot be prevented no matter how much 'safety' is in place. "For your protection" is the sales pitch of a tyrant, and I've yet to be shown a benevolant tyrant.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Let's not delude ourselves... the world is NOT a safe place, even with a cop on every street corner would not make things any safer... some woould rightfully argue it'd make things MORE dangerous..
Click to expand...

More Policing Does Matter – Recent Findings from Objective Empirical Research

"the focus of this discussion has been on crime rates and policing. Our view is that with the right leadership and direction, each additional officer we deploy will reduce crime."


Over a dozen studies/references addressed in that.

BmanMcfly said:
Innocent people will die all the time... this cannot be prevented no matter how much 'safety' is in place..
Click to expand...

Everyone dies except maybe Santa and Highlander just fyi.
That doesnt mean we let the dice roll where terrorism and crime is concerned.

We do the best we can because ....well the alternative sucks even more..

If you dont believe cop presence makes a difference punch someone in the head in front of one and see what happens.

You dont even have to do anything but be a jerk and get arrrested in the DC area.

Attorney arrested
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
More Policing Does Matter – Recent Findings from Objective Empirical Research

"the focus of this discussion has been on crime rates and policing. Our view is that with the right leadership and direction, each additional officer we deploy will reduce crime."


Over a dozen studies/references addressed in that.
Click to expand...

No no, I do get your point... however, there are limits. I mean, at a certain point there are more cops then there are crimes to cope with and so all the 'excess' cops just spend their time writing tickets.

Everyone dies except maybe Santa and Highlander just fyi.
That doesnt mean we let the dice roll where terrorism and crime is concerned.

We do the best we can because ....well the alternative sucks even more..

If you dont believe cop presence makes a difference punch someone in the head in front of one and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Obviously cops have a tough job to keep the streets safe as they can... I'm not saying get rid of cops altogether... what I'm saying is that there has to be limits on how many cops for a given population, because the increase in police presence goes beyond the safety that's provided... especially when cops get into the 'gang mentality' and start abusing their powers... once that happens with a huge police presence... What's left?

You dont even have to do anything but be a jerk and get arrrested in the DC area.

Attorney arrested
Click to expand...

So you know what it's like to live in a police state. Just shut up and do as your told, then the worst you gotta deal with is getting a ticket.
 
I'm still skeptical about the notion that torture actually saved lives or produced crucial intelligence. I'm not saying that it didn't. However, we have not seen proof that torture did in fact save lives. Personally, I'm pretty skeptical of any claims about policy effectiveness without randomized trials. From the reports, we know that torture was not randomized and was probably applied to the detainees that could provide the most intelligence despite the method used to elicit the intelligence. Moreover, the detainees were subjected to traditional interrogation methods as well as torture in a short time period. From a scientific perspective, we must conclude that we are very uncertain about the effects of torture on eliciting intelligence. I guess folks will disagree about whether we should use torture, if it is proven effective. However, I don't think we know that torture is proven effective given the current information that we have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom