Between Obama and the New York Times... they are.
A foreign agent acting as the President wouldn't be as damaging as this administration. They wouldn't dare be so bold and wreckless.
Waterboarding prevented 9/11 style attack in L.A!
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
Between Obama and the New York Times... they are.
A foreign agent acting as the President wouldn't be as damaging as this administration. They wouldn't dare be so bold and wreckless.
yea, i'm sure they were playing barney with a doctor on hand for this guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/w...photos-of-dead-may-indicate-graver-abuse.html
luxuryrules
Dedicated LVC Member
Actually, you could have stopped without any of the above - you'll notice I wasn't arguing any of the alleged Rove & company comments because I know they are just allegations. I agree, it may have been a straw man, but you took the bait and not me
The assumption made by myself and the author was simply that KSM was more instrumental to the plot and thus, his capture had already foiled it - I hadn't noted the clarification that it led to the capture of Hambali. See, all you had to do was point out the details that I missed to point out that I am mistaken (you watching, Cal? Shag actually proved me wrong).
Now here is the more interesting question which I presented above and I can't help but notice that you & Cal have both ignored. Why use waterboarding when there are more humane and effective techniques available? There's simply no excuse for unnecessary brutality and by going down that road we have continued to lose our moral compass. America can do so much better.
I haven't read the whole article yet, but at a glance, I immediately saw that it said ABU GHRAIB.
Perhaps you didn't know this, but what went on at Abu Ghraib WAS illegal. It was not done by the CIA. The people involved WERE PROSECUTED and JAILED.
It is NOT what we are talking about in this thread.
You're presenting it means you either are intentionally misleading or simply confused.
The "more humane and effective" techniques take longer. If there is a time constant, more immediate techniques should be called for. Also, the memo mentions that at least AZ (and I think KSM) were openly hostile and contemptuous during the traditional interrogations. So, they felt a a need to ratchet things up. Waterboarding provided a means to do just that.
The fact is that these memos are cherry picked; we don't know the full effect of the waterboarding. We only know one side of the story but don't have the info to get an idea of the full picture. Hence the need to release other memos. We don't know if it was "unnecessary brutality" or if it was in fact necessary.
And don't give me that crap about "losing our moral compass". These guys don't fall under any legal jurisdiction that would prevent this, so their is no legal justification for not waterboarding. And, considering their habitual evil actions, there is no moral justification for restraining from waterboarding. If we were to go out of our way to treat these guys with decency at the expense of human life, we would have lost our moral compass.
Isn't upholding the constitution the most important responsibility charged to the government?
We are allowed to question our government and our governments actions - that doesn't show 'hate' of our country. If questioning these actions by our government is 'hate' then I would have to argue that Rush Limbaugh's hope that Obama's policies fail is also 'hate', because it is also 'questioning' the government.
I don't think either of those actions show hatred towards our country, questioning the interrogation tactics or Rush's hope that Obama's policies fail. If we, the American people, don't question, and find out what has really happened, or question our leaders if we don't agree with them, then in some ways we probably aren't any better than the people who we label as our enemies.
Only 6 people within congress knew of these activities, not the entire congress, because of reasons of national security. Pelosi was one of them. I think they should be held accountable as well as the President and Vice President. I have never been a Pelosi fan. And I really don't like that she is speaker... There are many better candidates for that job.
Not all of it - I read full accounts - to tell you the truth, I know I don't have the 'stomach' for that, I turn away.
So Cal, during recent international conflicts invading soldiers raped civilian women - and then killed them, and their children.
Certainly crimes similar to the beheading of Daniel Berg.
Would you condone 'enhanced interrogation' tactics used by the North Vietnamese at that point to find out where the invading US soldiers might next attack their women and children?
So, Cal, why don't you just post links to 9 samples - I think since 'countless' attacks and terrorist cells were disrupted, showing us links to a single digit number is quite reasonable. I really don't need to see 'countless' - 9 is plenty. If you post 9, I'll give the rest, all the way to countless... I know the previous administration often refers to 'countless' but they don't seem to ever provide 'countless' details on the attacks that were specifically discovered and halted because of these 'tactics'.
And you can continue to blame this administration - but it was the Bush administration that was ordered to turn over this information in 2006, the memos that authorized the extreme interrogation tactics, as well as the photos mentioned above. That is when the federal courts found in favor of the ACLU and informed the Bush administration they they had to turn over this information. The Obama administration is complying with the court's 2 year old decision. It is part of the current administration's policy to not continue dragging out the inevitable. The previous executive branch lost the legal battle, and now the current one is doing what they were ordered to do in 2006.
And I do agree with Luxury...
We are America, we can do so much better. We don't lower ourselves to what others do, we are Americans. We should never go down that path, even with the ticking bomb at our door. Heck, the Israelis have condemned waterboarding, specifically, and they have lived with that 'ticking bomb' since 1948.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
In the government they like to cheat...just as they have cheated for every olympics since the cold war when the Russians were winning due to steroids..America decide to join in ad make an even more powerful steroid....there no sense in the government..they have the rulebook and they burn it as long as it saves or gives them more money.
Not suprisingly, you are perpetuating a lie. The constitution, in no way, conflicts with this. But you can make the vague and ominous insinuation that it does to play of peoples emotion.
The burden of proof is on you to show specifically how these actions conflict with the constitution. The statement you make here is too vague to be provable or disprovable and is thus, not a valid point.
Protections from the bill of rights do not apply to people not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution (it doesn't govern the world), so you really cannot use any of the 1st ten amendments. Your only other option is to show that the Bush administration overstepped it's constitutional authority here.
Cal was not saying anything even reasonably close to implying that questioning the government shows "hate" of our country, and you know that! Could you please stop mischaracterizing!!! Michael Moore has more honesty and integrity then you.
More arbitrary busywork to frustrate any honest and open discourse. All you are doing here is attempting to move the goalposts. again.
What we did was morally justified. It is offensive that you would try to imply otherwise. We didn't in any way "lower ourselves". We did what was moral and what was realistic you are simply attempting to dishonestly and speciously moralize when, if fact, the action you support is utterly without moral justification. It ignores reality and flies in the face or morality and justice by placing the concerns for decent treatment of a vile and evil person over the countless lives of innocents.
ah, shag, I was answering Cal's suppostion that:
Saving American lives from foreign acts of aggression is possibly the most important responsibly charged to the federal government.
I think that upholding the constitution the most important responsibility charged to the government.
Nothing to do with waterboarding- everything to do with Cal's statement.
I even quoted it...
Sorry if you got confused.
My response was regarding this statement of Cal's, regarding whether or not waterboarding was 'worth doing'...
So, yes it's worth doing.
No, it doesn't represent an abandonment of our values.
Framing the issue as such has been an effective tool used by those that hate our country.
So, how does exposing these acts by the media and having people ask the question 'could this be an abandonment of our values' not equal 'questioning the government'?No, it doesn't represent an abandonment of our values.
Framing the issue as such has been an effective tool used by those that hate our country.
It appears that Cal is labeling citizens who equate these 'intensive interrogation' tactics with an 'abandonment of our values' as people who 'hate our country.' Just because they question the morality of our government's actions doesn't mean they hate our country.
So, what makes 'countless' then shag - four? I can count to four - so that isn't 'countless'.
Waterboarding was popular during the inquisition, and was practiced earlier - in the 'dark ages.' During the age of enlightenment, its practice was banned - as being 'morally repugnant'.
I am glad to see shag that you wish to return to dark ages - or maybe that really moral time - the inquisition.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Really, really dumb. The people living with the ticking bomb are the Arabs, given that Israel has nuclear weapons.
Please post the link that proves that the Israelis have condemned waterboarding.
First off, do you have any proof to back up your assertions about when waterboarding was and/or wasn't accepted? Was and/or wasn't accepted by whom? All of society?
All you are doing here is making baseless generalizations and exagurating to mischaracterize.
I spelled out my moral argument. Instead of providing a moral argument of your own, you have distorted and mischaracterized my moral argument in an effort to dishonestly ostracize it.
The burden of proof is on you to morally justify your view here. The best you have offered are vague platitudes appealing to some undefined "higher standard" that only serve as specious moralizing of ideals in an attempt to rationalize your ignoring of reality. You don't morally justify something by appealing to an ideal. You morally justify something by showing that it is right, or at least, more right then the alternatives availiable.
What you are doing is ignoring the moral behavior of the AZ and KSM (and the people associated with them) and only focusing on morality of the actions of their captors. that does not a moral argument make.
But, it is a classic egalitarian tactic based, ultimately in illusions and faith rather then reality and reason. I would expect nothing less from you.
It is interesting that you talk about the inquisition; they were justifying their actions by putting themselves above others and holding themselves to a vague "higher standard" too.
The ticking time bomb refers to things such as terrorist bombs in a school. You capture a terrorist - you know there is going to be an 'event' and you try to get information from the terrorist concerning the event - time, place, type...
Israel has had to 'deal' with this type of activity since it inception.
Judgment on the Interrogation Methods applied by the GSS
And, I am sorry - I went by the article that used this as source - the Israeli Supreme Court condemns playing loud music, hooding prisoners, sleep deprivation, cuffing in uncomfortable positions as being torture - but the Israel Supreme Court did not mention waterboarding.
I guess the article 'assumed' that if hooding a prisoner was considered inhumane torture than certainly waterboarding would be... but waterboarding isn't mentioned in the court's decision.
I should have gone to the source... sorry...
So, I guess the other things - playing purple dinosaur music loudly would be considered torture by the Israeli court.
Here is the article at NPR about the history of waterboarding
Here is a paper on the subject
I am not ignoring the moral behavior of the AZ and KSM, they have no moral sense at all. However, they are human, no matter how far removed it may seem. Their lack of morality shouldn't create an additional lack of morality in others. Or humanity. There are humane ways of getting information, just as reliable as torture, since torture is notoriously unreliable.
Again, a quick note-
using the historic definition of waterboarding is misleading. It is not being done the same way or with the same kind of brutal severity as it has been done in the past. The purpose of it is quite clear, not to cause pain and make the torturee wish for it to stop, but because the perception of the West is weak and terrorist know that they have the upper hand, it is to give them a sense of powerless and introduce the unknown.
Also, waterboarding is merely ONE of the interrogation techniques that are being considered waterboarding. I repeat, it is only ONE of the techniques that was apparently only used on three terrorists. Why don't we shift the focus a bit more proportionally and focus on the other techniques that are being included as well?
using the historic definition of waterboarding is misleading. It is not being done the same way or with the same kind of brutal severity as it has been done in the past. The purpose of it is quite clear, not to cause pain and make the torturee wish for it to stop, but because the perception of the West is weak and terrorist know that they have the upper hand, it is to give them a sense of powerless and introduce the unknown.
Also, waterboarding is merely ONE of the interrogation techniques that are being considered waterboarding. I repeat, it is only ONE of the techniques that was apparently only used on three terrorists. Why don't we shift the focus a bit more proportionally and focus on the other techniques that are being included as well?
If all the waterboarding was being used for was to make terrorist feel powerless and introduce something 'unknown' why do it 6 times a day for a month? And why use a technique that is and has been on shaky moral ground?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Your link doesn't work. Not surprising.
cia and torture and who justified it.
and yes, some were charged in abu graib over SOME things were thought to be illegal, and some things have still gone without charges. an interesting show was S.O.P.
all the low end grunts who were charged but nobody above who would have known and/or ordered it.
same sh!t to me.
and i put the other story up at the beginning since your's seem to be lacking some details.
Maybe we should wait until we know that for certain before repeating it as fact.
That's only justified if the conclusion drawn puts liberals and/or dems in a bad light. From this thread...
It is, apparently, OK when it might put Republican's (and specifically, Bush) in a bad light.
You either don't understand what I am saying, or are intentionally mischaracterizing and misrepresenting, which would be common for you.
You keep functioning under the assumption that waterboarding shows a lack of morality in the people conducting and the people approving it. If you can't look past your own assumptions in a debate, you cannot have an honest debate. That assumption is not accepted by all in this debate and has not been justified logically by any type of argument. When asked to cite a reason for your assumption, you simply cite your assumption as a reason. in doing that you are simply assuming the truth of the conclusion you want to reach. Can you say "circular reasoning"?
You need to get over your assumption of equal worth. The habitual evil actions of these people negate that concept. But what you are doing is reversing the logical burden of proof, due to your egalitarian faith, placing it on any departure from equal treatment so that an obligation to equal treatment is prima facie. From a moral (not legal) point of view, this is absurdly unrealistic.
In the real world unequal differences are the norm, so it is natural to believe that it is reasonable to treat people as unequals. If you think otherwise, you have to justify that, and do it with more then just circular reasoning based in feelings. In order to do that, you need to point to a specific (not vague, like simply "being human") shared quality that would justify that recognition as equal. These people's unequal moral worth discredits any appeal to equal consideration.
That is not to say that their is not a legal justification for equal treatment under the law. From there you get, procedural rights through due process and equal protections under the law to help insure that the justice system is blind (as much as it reasonably can be) and that peoples rights are secured. But these cases fall outside of any legal jurisdiction, so that rational doesn't apply. Those legal justifications are also, not moral arguments claiming that people have equal worth.
In addition to the realistic and rational moral view that people, in general, do not have equal worth and that it is the exceptions to that rule that have to be justified, there is also the ideal of justice that re-enforces the waterboarding of AZ and KSM.
The justice nature of an action is determined by weather or not it secures for people what they deserve. The earliest definition of justice, by Plato, sets this out, and justice, as an ideal (cosmic justice) is about the only thing from Plato's views that most other concepts still conform to in some fashion (except for Rawls, who's equivocation is given undue weight). AZ and KSM are moral monsters that do not have the equal worth of the countless thousands of people who would be killed if these people were not captured and intel was (presumably) not gained from them through waterboarding. In fact, considering these two peoples history of evil, most any physical torture of them, even resulting in death, would be justified under the ideal of justice (cosmic justice). They would be getting what they deserve, given their habitual evil actions, character, etc. Also, the intel gained from the waterboarding would (presumably) prevent the injustice of much pain, suffering and death wrought on countless people if these two were not waterboarded. So there is a negative and a positive justification for waterboarding AZ and KSM under the ideal of cosmic justice.
So, I have given you a reasonable argument that has two components; a realistic and rational moral aspect and a cosmic justice aspect. You have yet to offer anything that could conceivable rationally counter any of that. All you have offered is emotional appeals through allusions to a vague "higher standard" and disingenuous indignation to justify your false assumptions. Those false assumptions are based in feeling and emotion, not reason. As John Stuart Mill points out, that basis in emotion makes your views immune to reason :
So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in feelings, it gains rather than loses in stability by having a prepoderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse if fares in argumentative context, the more persuaded are its adherents that their feeling must have some deeper ground, which the argument does not reach.
You are claiming the moral high ground here based on your assumptions. You need to provide a reasonable justification of your assumptions. Specifically, you need to provide a specific shared quality that would justify the recognition of all humans as equal to logically counter the moral argument I laid out. To counter the cosmic justice aspect argument, you need to show how not waterboarding them would secure as well, if not better both some degree of justice for those two and prevent the injustice of pain, suffering and death on a large number of others... unless you wanna argue Rawls equivocation of justice, which is what I expect (and kinda hope) that you do.You like sci-fi... there is also the "Spock justification" from Wrath of Kahn; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Sorry Foss - I don't know what happened - here is the link again...
Next time how about saying 'your link doesn't work - want to try again?' rather than accusing me...
Shag and Cal, but we do have proof - unlike the article about the people who were threatening the AIG executives. There wasn't any proof in that article on why those people were doing that, or even who those people were.
Here is link to the US Department of Justice Memo to John Rizzo, Senior Deputy General Counsel for the CIA - dated May 30, 2005 - it states (on the bottom of page 37)
The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah. IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id. at 91.
Here are the guidelines that the CIA was 'suppose to use' when using waterboarding, that was in the first compellation of memos I posted from the Assistant Attorney General to John Rizzo...(link again) page 52
You have also informed us that the waterboard inay be approved for use with a given detainee only during, at most, one single 30 day period, and that during that period, the waterboard technique may be used on no more than five days. We further understand that in any 24-hour period, interrogators may use no inore than two "sessions" of the waterboard on a subject-with a "session" defined to mean the time that the detainee is strapped to the waterboard-and that no session may last more than two hours.
So, it certainly states in the top secret documents how many times, the time frame and who was waterboarded. And it also states what the guidelines were for waterboarding suspects.
It seems like pretty good 'proof'.
What other information do you need?
You are repeating your mischaracterization from that thread in an attempt to misdirect in this thread. We are not going to rehash that thread. The point is, in that post, you were imploring prudence; specifically waiting until all the info came out. You are not holding to that standard in this thread. All the info has not come out, and you are passing judgment. It demonstrates a hypocritical double standard on your part.
In fact, by trying to justify that, you are demonstrating that, for you, standards are completely arbitrary; simply a means to rationalize things to fit into your politics. You standards can be discarded at a moments notice to rationalize your political views.
As you are either failing to, or unable to acknowledge, that the "proof" is cherry picked and, according to Cheney and others, there are other memos that would give a more accurate picture of the whole thing. Specifically, what has been largely left out was the results of the information gathered in that interrogation. What we have right now is a one sided presentation of the facts from the Obama administration.
Shag, I might not understand what you are saying...
So, let's start out with
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It doesn't state that all US Citizens are created equal - it states that all men are created equal.
So, our Declaration of Independence is absurdly unrealistic?
Did the framers create a scale of 'equal worth' placing some more equal than others?
Should we subject some men to actions that we would not subject others too?
What these men did was abhorrent, but, however odd it is, the framers created an ideal that does not create a caste of 'worth'. And that ideal doesn't limit itself to just US Citizens, we look at the equation of 'man', not 'citizen'.
It is what has driven this nation to try to uphold those same rights the world over. That a man in Afghanistan has those same unalienable Rights.
You like sci-fi... there is also the "Spock justification" from Wrath of Kahn; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Spock willing gave his life - he believed in the needs of the many outweighed his needs.
The only information I have been working with is the fact we did waterboard detainees, how many times we did waterboard them, and the fact that it exceed even our own guidelines.
The information that has apparently been left out, according to Cheney, is the fact that the waterboarding resulted in information that prevented further attacks on the US. There is nothing that Cheney or the others have stated that indicates they refute the fact the waterboarding took place this many times.
They have been basically stating that the ends justified the means.
My point is that the means aren't justified. And even within our own government's guidelines we overstepped the bounds of how the CIA was allowed to use these tactics.
So, not only do I believe these tactics are morally wrong, the government would also declare them as 'wrong' because they exceeded what they felt was 'reasonable' for this type of interrogation. If you read the memos - they would have allowed waterboarding for 10 times. You wouldn't waterboard anyone outside of one 31 day period, and within that 31 day period you would be allowed to waterboard someone up to 5 days, with a maximum of 2 times per day. So - that looks like a max of 10 times. I could be getting something out of sequence - it is government techno babble that I am trying to decipher...