Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

I don't believe I ever insinuated that - I was simply stating a fact.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Obama also hasn't ended the wars going on.
That doesn't mean he's in agreeance with them.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

I understand that by U.S law it (waterboarding) is not classed as torture but you origionally asked wether I considered it to be torture or not and the answer was yes.


Kind of makes two of your next points contradict eachother

Really

Fear of death by drowning perhaps? Natural instinct.

How, pray tell would you remove one's fear of death. I dont imagine prisoners believe their captors every word? You would not ever really know what to expect in that situation. Also if someone is not scared of dying, as in I have 'removed their fear' and then I strap a car battery to their bollocks then it is not torture because I have removed his fear of death right? :ohreilly: Instilling fear of death is mental pain which is as bad as if not worse than physical pain.


Bearing in mind I consider waterboarding as torture lets not. If you tell someone you are about to torture them, then torture them, then you are torturing them.

I realise that I am picking apart what U.S law says here more than anything but I thought our opinions were the whole point of the thread? So you know I dont mean to seem like I am personally digging at you but you just got me started is all ;)

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

I don't understand why you are trying to put words in my mouth. I was simply stating a fact concerning what President Obama did in regard to the interrogation techniques. I did not pass judgment or state what his opinion was on the matter, but simply stated a fact.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

It's that the fact has no purpose in the conversation and just seemed like a complete attempt to "slander" him by saying he hasn't taken an opposing stance to Bush.

I'm not a giant Obama-fan, but I'm just getting sick of the constant (not on these boards, in general) needless pointing out of things to do with Obama, that took place during Bush's "reign".

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Well, then I am happy to bear the brunt of your misdirected anger.

Certainly Obama is taking a different stance than the Bush Administration, although I am not quite sure if it is opposite. I do believe the fact that Obama has put these kinds of tactics in reserve (most likely for a situation that we have talked about previously) is important to this conversation.

Surprisingly, I actually like Obama, although I rarely agree with him on most policy issues. I still think it is important to be critical when evaluating the course he is taking our country, though. I don't think this interrogation / torture debate is quite as black and white as some make it out to be. Certainly it is an easy discussion to have in a time of peace (or at least the appearance of peace). But, when a country is under attack, and a war is being waged, the rules of the game change, they always have, and practically speaking, they always will. This does not make what is done right or wrong, but we must be able to address these practical challenges that will inevitably be faced, and not an ideal situation.

Edit: And if you don't wish to have a conversation concerning the future, and Obama's role, then let us have a conversation concerning the past, and Bush's role. The events of 9/11 were quite startling at the time. Now, in retrospect, they seem less-so, but let us look back. It was the largest attack on American soil in the history of our country in terms of lives lost, and it dealt a serious blow to our financial and economic markets and greater stability. The former administration, faced with an enemy they knew little about, had a necessity to gain intelligence on this enemy. It was apparent that the terrorists had infiltrated our country, and it was difficult to ascertain quite how far that infiltration went.

Another attack on American soil, on par with the attacks of 9/11, would not have only brought down the world's confidence in America's physical protection, but it would have also sent our domestic economy into a severe recession or depression. In turn, this would have sent the world economy into a severe downturn, leading to great instability. This was a very serious and real potential outcome.

It seems that a reasonable leader, given the duty to protect our citizens with the full might of our power, while also protecting our liberties, would indeed sacrifice the liberties (that we would bestow upon) of an enemy combatant to save thousands of American lives and perhaps the greater economic stability of the world. This seems rational and reasonable. Is it right? Perhaps, perhaps not. But if one looks throughout history the liberties of a few have always been compromised in order to sustain the liberties of many. Again, is that right? Perhaps, but it is what it is. And we've only touched the surface with this discussion, which I think is very complex, and not at all easy.

I have personally not passed judgement one way or another, as I do not believe all the evidence is readily available to us, and I also believe we must give history more time to bear out fact from fiction.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Ric, my statements were about the legality of waterboarding and it's definition as torture, not whether or not you can personally define it as torture. I apologize if I confused the two. Anyone can view waterboarding as torture if they like, and I can subjectively disagree with your subjective definition, but the only concrete idea that the law can act on it is the legal definition of torture. My intent was not to contradict the validity of our personal opinion, only that the issue is not as legally black and white and it is in your opinion.

Thats where we come into an interesting conumdrum when it coms to waterboarding: Waterboarding was defined as torture or more clearly as illegal interrogation techniques in the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and banned from use, but yet waterboarding is not technically an illegal act. Meaning: you can not prosecute someone if they follow the steps laid out in the memos. At least that's what I took from skimming through the Act. I did not read it in it's entirety, so I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong on that account if I missed misread something.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

I think I already discussed and clarified the statement you decided to cherry pick in multiple paragraphs in my discussion with Manasecret. But if I must, let me correct it to reflect my opinion.

"...the problem that existing techniques were not likely working, IMO"

Can we get back to the substance of the argument now, instead of playing gotcha games with sentences taken out of context when several paragraphs of context are available?

And I'll agree, with what we currently know about the use and results of the waterboarding, they were used on 3 high level enemy agents and at least part of it's use was to interrogate regarding ties to Iraq. Also, most of the evidence regarding the intent Iraq related questioning is based on opinion and anecdotes, and not hard facts or incriminating documents. As you know, there are almost just as many opinions and anecotes on the other side of this argument. You can choose to believe who you like. I choose to not fully believe anyone until we know more.

Also, considering Iraq's proven ties to various world terror group and the detainees sharing hate for America, I don't think the purpose of the waterboarding was necessarily an attempt to gain false evidence as you have supposed before, but instead it could have arguably been a reasonable line of questioning knowing what they knew at the time, as ethnocentric as that was. It wasn't until later the adminstration figured out that Islamic sects hated each other almost as much as they hated us.

But thats all we know. Most of the enlightening evidence in regards to this case is likely still under lock and key. We know how many times the detainees were waterboarded, and who was waterboardd, but we don't know the full line of questioning associated or the intent of it. We also don't know of any results other than that of the questioning regarding Iraq.

I reserve my judgement until we see more transparency regarding this results of the full range of interrogations and their results. Considering we've basically destroyed any level of secrecy regarding these methods, and our own president has condemned the previous adminstration as torturers, I fail to see any honest reason why the vast majority of these memos and documents haven't been released. Any potential national security theats resulting from their release have been realized, IMO.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

If waterboarding is legally wishy-washy whether it's torture or not, how was the U.S. then able to try and execute some Japanese for torture including waterboarding?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...litics_3554687

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

I'll word it like you did then...

I belive that torture didn't have any positive impact on American national security, and know that it ruined our reputation with our allies and gave enemies another reason to attack us. Judging from most news reports that are out there, the testimony of Ali Soufan, and our presidents own words I think thisis a fair conclusion to come to. However, I'll hold my judgement for when there is more transparancy also.

I think that alternative methods of gathering intelegence other then using something that is defined as torture worked and kept us safe from attacks on our homeland for a very long time. I'm sure the intelegence was reported to the president August 6th 2001 was done without using torture. And could have easilly been used to prevent most of everything that had happend conflict wise between 9-11-2001 and now. But, once again I'll hold my judgement for when there is more transparany and the hearings are over too.

I think if there was clear evidence for Cheany to point out that it did work, and did save lives.. He would have brought it up by now, or someone would have. But who knows, maybe someone will step up and come to the hearings who actually participated in it and tell the truth about it.

And even if the methods worked to some extent, I'd still be in disagreement with using those methods (especially waterboarding) since we know about its history and where it originated.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Wow, ive never seen a thread jump to 3 pages so fast. I must say, im impressed.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

Manasecret, the key to the statements you quoted are that they waterboarded along with other techniques. The other methods may have played a significant factor to the executions, depending on what they are. I know the Japanese did far more heinous activities than waterboard. Even beyond thosse questions, laws can change and often do in 50 or so years. The legal definition of torture as I still understand it remains as I've described, unless someone has a more recent informaton (it does get confusing).


Game, good well thought out and fair minded post! I only have two challenges to your overall high quality comments.

1) No one is arguing that other interrogation methods don't work. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be used at all. But no method is full proof and individuals are different. Some break like a 6th grader in th Vice Principles office, and others would spit in the face of Batman himself. I'm for using the least extreme method available that can get the information we need to protect ourselves as long as it fits in with the legal definitions.

2) I think you may be confusing what I mean by evidence.
As we've stated, much of the potential evidence is still classified. Not even Dick Cheney can declassify these documents anymore. Witness evidence is one thing, but as long as there are redacted and classified documents still sitting under lock and key that directly address the results of the interrogations, I still think the argument remains open.

Other than that I think you make very very valid arguments. I remain undecided, but I certainly sympathize with your viewpoint.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

You want to try keeping up with it, there are about 5 different conversations going on discussing several topics and I think a few people are getting things out of context in the confusion. I for one have read some posts and had an entirely different reaction to it than the people or person that it may have been directed at. I have read some of the replies and thought to myself 'how does that in any way pertain to what the previous guy was saying?' but it's starting to gain some clarity at least.


:lol: True, very true, I could not have put it better myself.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...and-Loses.html

Don't know the radio personality, but he undergoes waterboarding to see if it is torture or not.

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
 

This depends on your definition of working.

-If working means you you can get someone to admit to something thay may or may not be true to help build a case to kill more people..
-If working is sending a message of fear to other countries about being caught by us..
-If working is pissing off your enemies and making an example of people..

Then torture works. And I think that's the reason it survived over time, not because of how reliable the information is. But because it creates this shield of intimidation, and it makes people say anything that you want them to say (given that you've clued them off to what you want them to say).

So if you're saying that the fact that it gives reliable information is why it survived, then I disagree and ask you to show me proof.