Obama releases the "Torture Memos" - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-26-2009, 03:55 PM   #136
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post

C'mon. If I were the pro-torture side I'd be a little concerned that the advocates need to jump to obvious logical fallacies in order to argue their case.
I did not claim the techniques in question worked or didn't work. Someone else made a claim, and I asked for more information to back up that claim. If your going to make a claim that it works or doesn't work, you should be concerned about backing that claim up with information.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 04:21 PM   #137
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
There was an attack on the World Trade Centre one month or so into Clinton's first term (February 1993), about seven months earlier than 9/11 occurred in Bush's first term. In both instances there wasn't another attack on home soil for the remainder of their presidencies, yet all we hear about from some people is that Bush's security policies helped prevent another attack. But where is the credit for the Clinton administration in preventing an attack?

Al Quada is believed to have been involved in attacks on US troops in Somalia in 1993. There was the attack on a US Air Force base in Saudi Arabia in the summer of 1996, US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were bombed with hundreds of people killed in the summer of 1998, A US warship near Yemen was attacked in 2000 with dozens killed. All specifically US targets, all attacked by Al Quada during the Clinton administration.

How did the Clinton administration respond? How many Al Quada members did they capture or kill? How did the Bush administration respond? How many members of Al Quada did they capture or kill?
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 04:23 PM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
I did not claim the techniques in question worked or didn't work. Someone else made a claim, and I asked for more information to back up that claim. If your going to make a claim that it works or doesn't work, you should be concerned about backing that claim up with information.
Wrong, the positive and negative sides of an argument do not have equal burdens- the positive side has the burden of proof. If they can't make that for whatever reason, the negatives win the argument.

The side making a positive claim (we need to do X) always always always needs to first produce evidence supporting that claim. Dieman and Irvine pointed out that the ticking bomb scenario advocates worry about has never happened, so you're trying to skip that and ask for evidence that it won't work.

Also, you still made an appeal to popularity.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 04:34 PM   #139
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
False, the positive and negative sides of an argument do not have equal burdens- the positive side has the burden of proof. If they can't make that for whatever reason, the negatives win the argument.
Doesn't matter. If you make a claim, any claim, you should have information to back up that claim.

Quote:
The side making a positive claim (we need to do X) always always always needs to first produce evidence supporting that claim.
So, whats the evidence that we need to "stop certain interigation techniques"?

Quote:
Dieman and Irvine pointed out that the ticking bomb scenario never happened, so you're trying to skip that and ask for evidence that it won't work.
No, I'm questioning their claim that the scenario has never happened.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 05:03 PM   #140
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post

So, whats the evidence that we need to "stop certain interigation techniques"?



because they're illegal. for a wide variety of reasons.

but that's the bottom line. EVERYONE defines waterboarding as torture, now and throughout history.

if you want to change the rules you must provide the proof that the rules need changing. the burden of proof is on those who felt that what was already legal -- and has been used by Western Civilization in the face of totalitarian regimes -- was ineffective. we already know that the story that KSM was wateroboarded twice and then started to talk was a lie because he was waterboarded 83 times in March of 2003. the only credibly disrupted plot was a somewhat planned attack on the L.A. Towers in 2002, but that was disrupted before the capture of KSM and Zubdayah.

there is no evidence that information was attained through waterboarding that was unobtainable by other, legal means.

the burden of proof is on YOU if you want to change what has already been established.

further, we get into very dark territory when it comes to these claims that torture "worked" -- which is sick to begin with because the debate about torture should have nothing to do with it's efficacy -- because those who have authorized and then carried out illegal torture now have a vested interest to lie in order to prove their necessity.

people scream about slippery slopes when it comes to same-sex marriage -- incest! polygamy! goats! -- and yet they fail to see perhaps the best possible example of a slippery slope. after waterboarding, why not chop of a finger? the guy will survive, it won't cause any permanent damage to vital organs, and hey, it might be really effective.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 05:04 PM   #141
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I'll give you a scenario.

As emergency crews already race towards the Pentagon and stunned Americans watch the Twin Towers collapsing, a suspected 4th hijacked commercial passenger jet is headed towards Washington D.C.

You have minutes to decide.
Does President Irvine sacrifice the innocent passengers and crew to potentially save a greater lose of life on the ground and possibly the destruction of the White House or Capital Building or not?

Of course we know what actually happened. But shooting down the jet, as awful and hard a choice as that would have been, would have been THE CORRECT choice.

The CIA or Bush Administration faced another hard choice as we started to capture high-level members of al-Qaeda. Given that we haven't had another attack I'd say they made THE CORRECT choice.

Anything else is only speculation. You might be right... or tragically wrong.


what does this have to do with creating a policy of torturing detainees?

nothing.

but i suppose only you can handle the truth?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 05:07 PM   #142
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Doesn't matter. If you make a claim, any claim, you should have information to back up that claim.
Let me quote from the site I linked earlier, about Burden of Proof:

Quote:
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
This hypothetical example parallels us rather closely.

Asserting that the torture advocates have failed to cite any instance of a ticking bomb situation is a self-evident fact. Using the lack of proof that torture isn't effective to support torture (like when you said "I would agree with you if it has actually been proven that such techniques are ineffective") is just like using the lack of proof that psychic powers don't exist to support their existence.

Quote:
So, whats the evidence that we need to "stop certain interigation techniques"?
No one needs to prove why we should stop, when the case to start in the first place has never been made.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 05:39 PM   #143
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
I think Obama has made it quite clear what he meant by change: change in the economy, change in foreign policy, change in issues like torture. He's made the differences between his administration and the last quite clear.
You're right. No one on the Right disputes his authority as president and as commander-in-chief to make changes in all these areas as he deems necessary.

Change the policy, clarify the law -- but what purpose does a retro-inquisition serve?
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 05:49 PM   #144
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post

Asserting that the torture advocates have failed to cite any instance of a ticking bomb situation is a self-evident fact.
How do you know?

In the real world, it does not matter what side of the debate your on, you have to support your position. Everyone in the Presidents cabinet, or advising a military commander in the field uses information to support taking an action, not taking an action etc. They don't say, well Mr. President, I'm on the negative side of the debate, I don't have to explain why we should not do this.


Quote:
No one needs to prove why we should stop, when the case to start in the first place has never been made.
How do you know that the case has never been made? For what interigation techniques has the case been made or not made?
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 06:12 PM   #145
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
because they're illegal. for a wide variety of reasons.
How do you know that the interigation techniques used by the Bush administration were in fact illegal?

Quote:
if you want to change the rules you must provide the proof that the rules need changing. the burden of proof is on those who felt that what was already legal -- and has been used by Western Civilization in the face of totalitarian regimes -- was ineffective.
How do you know a change occured? Are you claiming that such interigation techniques were never used by the CIA in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, in any circumstance?



Quote:
there is no evidence that information was attained through waterboarding that was unobtainable by other, legal means.
How do you know? Even some former CIA agents who are against such interigation techniques agree that we can't know the answer to this question for sure until all the information is released.


Quote:
the burden of proof is on YOU if you want to change what has already been established.

further, we get into very dark territory when it comes to these claims that torture "worked" -- which is sick to begin with because the debate about torture should have nothing to do with it's efficacy -- because those who have authorized and then carried out illegal torture now have a vested interest to lie in order to prove their necessity.

people scream about slippery slopes when it comes to same-sex marriage -- incest! polygamy! goats! -- and yet they fail to see perhaps the best possible example of a slippery slope. after waterboarding, why not chop of a finger? the guy will survive, it won't cause any permanent damage to vital organs, and hey, it might be really effective.
Again, what matters is whether such interigation techniques can save lives where other techniques are unable to.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 06:45 PM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
How do you know that the interigation techniques used by the Bush administration were in fact illegal?

because they were, in fact, illegal. it was designated as illegal over 40 years ago during the Vietnam War in response to the fact that the Viet Cong would waterboard American POWs, including John McCain.

it is through the memos written by Bybee and Yoo that they tried to alter the definition and understanding of waterboarding that's stood since at least the Spanish-American war.


Quote:
How do you know a change occured? Are you claiming that such interigation techniques were never used by the CIA in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, in any circumstance?
if it was done, it was illegal, and it was NEVER official US policy as it became during the Bush administration.

hence, the Bush administration's need for the memos.

http://documents.nytimes.com/report-...treatment#p=72


Quote:
How do you know? Even some former CIA agents who are against such interigation techniques agree that we can't know the answer to this question for sure until all the information is released.

how do you know? show me the specific plots that were disrupted, the actionable intelligence, and the link to Al-Qaeda that waterboarding alone could produce.

the burden of proof is on you. if this technique is so valuable, surely it won't be hard to convince others to change the law?

likewise, if the case for going to war is so compelling, then surely you won't need to torture someone in order to create yet another rationale for going to war.


Quote:
Again, what matters is whether such interigation techniques can save lives where other techniques are unable to.

no. what matters is that we adhere to the rule of law even when it's hard to do so. why stop at waterboarding? let's chop off fingers, toes, testicles. if it "works," we should do it.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 06:47 PM   #147
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
]
Change the policy, clarify the law -- but what purpose does a retro-inquisition serve?

it demonstrates that we're serious about not torturing, that we don't allow people to torture in our name, and that we punish those who do.

it keeps the sadists out, and it keeps the adults in.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 07:12 PM   #148
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
because they were, in fact, illegal. it was designated as illegal over 40 years ago during the Vietnam War in response to the fact that the Viet Cong would waterboard American POWs, including John McCain.

it is through the memos written by Bybee and Yoo that they tried to alter the definition and understanding of waterboarding that's stood since at least the Spanish-American war.
Well, obviously not everyone is convinced that what the Bush administration did in regards to interigation techniques was illegal.

Quote:
how do you know? show me the specific plots that were disrupted, the actionable intelligence, and the link to Al-Qaeda that waterboarding alone could produce.
I don't.
I'm not claiming that such interigation techniques successfully did any of that.

Quote:
likewise, if the case for going to war is so compelling, then surely you won't need to torture someone in order to create yet another rationale for going to war.
This decision to go to war had already been made and approved by congress and supported by a majority of the US public. It was already the policy of the United States to remove Saddam from power, prior to Bush being elected President in 2000.


Quote:
no. what matters is that we adhere to the rule of law even when it's hard to do so. why stop at waterboarding? let's chop off fingers, toes, testicles. if it "works," we should do it.
The Presidents first priority is to protect the nation.

Again, what do you think of what Abraham Lincoln said below?

Quote:
"measures otherwise unconstitutional might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation"

Abraham Lincoln
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 07:17 PM   #149
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
because they're illegal. for a wide variety of reasons.

but that's the bottom line. EVERYONE defines waterboarding as torture, now and throughout history.
Indeed.

Quote:
From his signing statement ratifying the UN Convention on Torture from 1984:

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

My italics. Reagan was admant [sic] about prosecuting torture, but also prosecuting inhuman treatment that some might claim was not full-on torture. Now go read National Review or The Weekly Standard. And look what has happened to conservatism in America.
The BRAD BLOG : Reagan's Torture Convention Signing Statement: 'Abhorrent Practice,' 'Prosecute Torturers or Extradite to Other Countries for Prosecution'
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 07:33 PM   #150
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
How do you know?
Citing a real-life ticking bomb situation sometime in the last 8 years would literally be the first thing out of Dick Cheney's mouth to justify torture. Every arrested crackpot in Florida who dreamed about dismantling the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches has been paraded as a Great Victory in the War on Terror. ...So why can't anyone name a time here? Such sudden modesty!

Quote:
In the real world, it does not matter what side of the debate your on, you have to support your position. Everyone in the Presidents cabinet, or advising a military commander in the field uses information to support taking an action, not taking an action etc. They don't say, well Mr. President, I'm on the negative side of the debate, I don't have to explain why we should not do this.

How do you know that the case has never been made? For what interigation techniques has the case been made or not made?
President: Honey! Look, I have psychic powers!
Wife: Ok, where's the proof?
President: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF I DON'T THEREFORE YOU MUST BELIEVE ME
Wife: Security!
__________________

__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com