Waterboarding prevented 9/11 style attack in L.A!

[shagdrum]

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?

I figured you would go here first.

First, that argument spelled out in the constitution is only concerned with the aspect of rights, not general worth. It is making the argument to justify the exception to the general rule that people are unequal by pointing out that they have certian equal rights.


Second, if you go on in the argument, it states that Governments are constructed to secure those rights. Governments can only secure the rights of those that they govern; their citizens. Governments cannot secure the rights of people governed by other Governments. You assertion that, "[our nation has tried] to uphold those same rights the world over. That a man in Afghanistan has those same unalienable Rights" is absurdly irrational and unrealistic. Can you give specifics where our nation has attempted to uphold those specific rights? Or are you just making baseless assertions again? Also, it is not the purview of our government (or do we have it in our means) to secure the rights of People in Afghanistan.

Third, the idea of Natural Rights, as spelled out in the Declaration Of Independence claims that all men are created equal. that does not lead to equal worth. If I go out and kill a family of 4, I have less worth then, say, Mother Theresa. The point is, people may start out being created equal, but that doesn't mean that they have equality of worth as they live their lives. Their actions, the consequences of those actions, their intentions in those taking those actions, their character, habits, etc. all serve to change their worth.

In short, the idea of equal rights due to creation in God's image as spelled out in the Declaration doesn't negate the claim that, in general, humans don't have equal worth. The DOI is spelling out a specific exception to that rule that has realistic limits that are recognized in the DOI. It is also talking about the state of people only when they are created, not throughout their lives, when the actions and circumstances of their lives effect their worth.

Not surprisingly, instead of providing a rational argument to back up your claim, you are trying to discredit mine. In order to do that, you generalizing my argument where I am being specific and mischaracterizing my argument to set up a straw man. So, what you have countered is not my argument. If you truely don't understand it, then ask questions and make an attempt to understand it.

That fact that you, instead, jump right into trying to discredit it indicates that you either assume that you already understand it or are not interested in understanding it. The fact that you are mischarcterizing my argument indicates that you either unknowingly don't understand it, or are intentionally trying to set up a straw man. So, which is it? Are simply being rude and don't care to understand the argument; only wanting to discredit it? Or are you just so ignorant that you don't realize you don't understand it?

Spock willing gave his life - he believed in the needs of the many outweighed his needs.

The willingness of the individual is not relevant to the logic spelled out; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Weather or not the "one" is willing doesn't have any effect on the logic in the argument.

 

[shagdrum]

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.

No, they have been saying to release all the information so that the people can decide if the ends justify the means.

To state, in a derisive manner that someone is arguing that "the ends justify the means" as a means of disproving the argument is to use a thought-terminating cliché to dismiss any dissent. It is not an honest or reasonable argument.

It this case, what you are ignoring is that the consequences of an actions play a very big part in determining the morality of the action. Certain consequences morally justify certain actions. But you are trying to imply an absolute, when you don't have enough info to make that judgment. The waterboarding may not be warranted by the consequences, but we don't know yet. The waterboarding we did is comparatively mild compared to waterboarding in the past and other more extreme interrogation methods. The fact that we waterboard our own men as a means of training (and that is not the harshest thing we do to them, by far) further demonstrates the comparative mildness of the action. It would not take much in the way of consequences to justify that.

What you are doing is disingenuously exaggerating and irrationally moralizing to make the waterboarding seem worse then it is. Given your history on this forum, and specifically your dishonest double standard, there is very little doubt that if Obama had been the one to initiate the waterboarding, you would be defending it and would have no problem with it. You values and standards are clearly arbitrary when it comes to politics and are determined by which side benefits and/or suffers by the standard.

My point is that the means aren't justified.

And you have yet to provide anything other then assertions and specious moralizing to back up your assertion. You haven't provided a credible argument.

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.

We don't know that. These were guidelines and exceptions can be made. We don't know if exceptions were specifically authorized or not, given the lack of information. We need more information to make any definitive moral judgments, but you have already made your judgment without adequate information. That is called prejudice.

 

[foxpaws]

First, that argument spelled out in the constitution is only concerned with the aspect of rights, not general worth. It is making the argument to justify the exception to the general rule that people are unequal by pointing out that they have certian equal rights.

I never went to the Constitution, I stayed with the Declaration.

The document where the founding fathers declared why they were going to form a new state - why they were 'allowed' to do that.

One of the reasons was that under English law all men were 'not' created equal. British society created 'levels' of worth within that society.

Our founding fathers wanted to start with a concept that 'all men are created equal'. In our case it concerned the fact that we aren't equal under British law. Because of that we were going to create a better state - one where the universal ideal that 'all men are created equal' would stand first.

So, already the founding fathers took that concept across national boundaries. They stated that the British system was wrong by not allowing that all men were created equal.

Third, the idea of Natural Rights, as spelled out in the Declaration Of Independence claims that all men are created equal. that does not lead to equal worth. If I go out and kill a family of 4, I have less worth then, say, Mother Theresa. The point is, people may start out being created equal, but that doesn't mean that they have equality of worth as they live their lives. Their actions, the consequences of those actions, their intentions in those taking those actions, their character, habits, etc. all serve to change their worth.

By creating a separate justice system, the founding fathers created a system of guilt and innocence - but guilt and innocence do not equate to 'worth' or 'equality'.

It was decided that because of 'guilt' of a crime a man is no longer allowed to practice his unalienable rights. We don't however deprive him of his 'equal' status. Otherwise we would be bestowing it, unbestowing it, and rebestowing it as a prisoner moved through the system. He would be 'equal' before the verdict, 'unequal' after the verdict, and then once his sentence was served 'equal' again.

Your rights may be removed because of your actions - but the idea of being an 'equal' entity doesn't change.

And yes Shag - I might not understand your argument - can you state it in one sentence?

Oh, in the 'Spock' question it did have to do with 'willingness' or sacrifice. The crew would not have allowed Spock to give his life to save theirs, they were not in accordance with the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Spock willingly sacrificed himself. He alone felt that the needs of the many outweighed 'his needs', not a generic 'one's' needs. He would not have asked Scotty to make the sacrifice - in fact, he pushed Scotty out of the way so he could save the ship. He didn't do what would have made more sense - take a vulcan crew member that was lower ranking, and therefore less 'needed,' to go into the warp drive core and fix it. That would have followed the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. If Spock believed that then he would have taken the 'one' that would have least affected the needs of the many if they are required to die. The crew was more adversely affected by Spock dying then if a low ranking 'red shirt' had been forced to make the sacrifice and die while saving the ship. Spock didn't believe that statement.

And, you don't really follow this - for instance many people's lives could be adversely affected if an abortion is not allowed. The mother, the father, the siblings could all be far worse off if the abortion is not allowed, but you believe that the needs of the fetus (the one) outweigh the needs of the many (the child's family).

 

[foxpaws]

No, they have been saying to release all the information so that the people can decide if the ends justify the means.
Is that what this thread boils down to? Does the action taken justify the results achieved?

So, the action here - the fact these two men were waterboarded 266 times - really isn't in question right? Or is it?

It seems that what is in question is whether the information gathered during the waterboarding justified that action. And, does that action qualify as something the US should be engaging in?

Is that where you are heading?

I figure I really don't understand where you are heading in this argument shag - so, I am asking questions...

Oh, and just in case anyone has missed this regarding the whole timeline here...

So, the article that started the thread stated that a 9/11 style attack on Los Angeles was averted because of information gathered from waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed - correct?

After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

The May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that details what happened in this regard was written by then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury to John A. Rizzo, the senior deputy general counsel for the CIA.​

KSM was waterboarded in March of 2003, from the same memo that the CNSNews refers to above.

However, the attacks on Los Angeles were planned for 2002.

How did waterboarding KSM in 2003 stop the attacks that were scheduled to happen in 2002?

Are we able to now go back in time? Wow - all of our problems are solved. The US Government has a time machine - woo hoo!

 

[fossten]

Fox, quit cherrypicking Shag's responses. He's owning you by pointing out your mischaracterizations and you just ignore them and press on with the dishonesty. You're always a stickler for not responding to every point, so why don't you practice what you preach.

 

[foxpaws]

Fox, quit cherrypicking Shag's responses. He's owning you by pointing out your mischaracterizations and you just ignore them and press on with the dishonesty. You're always a stickler for not responding to every point, so why don't you practice what you preach.

When he quits cherry picking me

We both write way too much...

 

[luxuryrules]

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.

You've been watching too much 24. The situations in which we must "beat the information out of the guy before it's too late" are almost all fictional.
In reality, sleep deprivation will work with almost 100% success in a two week period (surely you've taken some psychology classes, as you seem to have a pretty good grasp of a number of other fields). More importantly, sleep deprivation is far less likely to result in bad intel, because the subject is not trying to avoid pain; rather, they are simply so disoriented they cannot coherently put together a lie.

You beat me hard enough and I will swear to you that I am Kevin Spacey, even when you and I both know that I am not.

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.

You know what, that's true. We don't know if it was necessary or not. And still you promote it, without knowing all the facts. Do you just like causing agony in other people?

 

[Calabrio]

This catty-one line bullcrap is really getting tiresome.
From all sides.

If a post doesn't contribute to the conversation, it's going to get deleted- at least for a little while until things become a bit more civil.
It's impossible to have any kind of discussion in here with the the trolling and the deliberate agitators.