Obama releases the "Torture Memos"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
911 happened after Bush got a daily briefing that said BinLaden determined to hit U S

Rice said before Congress we had no idea they wanted to use planes to hit buildings, after there had been written reports that said the very same thing.

Bin Ladin had been determined to strike the United States since the early to mid-1990s. What did the Clinton administration do in response? Was it more or less than the Bush administration has done over the past 8 years?

Why would they want to do this?
because they are completely incompetent.

If that were the case, the Bush administration would not have been re-elected by the FIRST popular vote majority since 1988!

they were not fit to governed before 911 and failed - big time. they could not even read the memos.

Bin Ladin first struck against the United States during the Clinton Administration. Was Clinton and his cabinet not fit to govern because they failed after several years to catch Bin Ladin or destroy or seriously degrade his organization Al Quada? Were they not able to read the memos either?
 
Not once has our intelligence community been in such a situation where torturing a prisoner provided information that shut down a "ticking time bomb" situation. Not once. It's a Hollywood pipe dream.

Again, I would agree with you if it has actually been proven that such techniques are ineffective. I don't know if that is the case though. Can you actually prove that not even one person's life has been saved through extreme interigation technique's?

Would it really be the moral thing to do, to not waterboard an individual even IF by waterboarding that individual you could obtain information that could save one persons life? Again, this assuming such a technique works.

Because BushCo have shown themselves to be morally suspect in other ways?

Explain.

Because they wanted answers (whether true or not) to questions that would help paint the push for war in a better light?

They did not release this information, Obama did.

Personally, I feel that one of the big factors they went to torture was this: they wanted to show the enemy that we're not as soft as they think we are. That we'll get just as dirty as you guys would. Not scared by all our high tech toys? Well guess what, one on one, we're not afraid to get down and dirty on you, either. Oh sure, we're not complete savages who'll behead you, but we sure as hell don't mind dabbling in some of the tried and true techniques of some of the more brutal regimes out there.

Whether they got credible information was probably a distant secondary benefit in their minds (you don't waterboard someone 83 times because you think he's just about to crack, you waterboard someone 83 times to teach him a lesson).

Well, how would uncaptured Al Quada have any idea what is happening to someone in captivity whom the United States has no intention of releasing, and keeps the interigation techniques used against them classified?

I've not seen anything which shows Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell decided to use certain interigation techniques to simply punish or teach someone a lesson. Again, it serves no purpose to do that.
 
I understand that the CIA uses only handcrafted American-made waterboards.

Does the anti-torture crowd ever stop to think of the jobs that will be lost due to your delicate, highly sensitive nature?

Imagine your conundrum if these were union jobs.
 
this is ghastly. and INDY, you are sinking into a swamp when you can't offer anything other than cheap insults because, again, you have nothing to offer other than your hatred of "liberals."

it's simple -- it doesn't matter of torture "works" or not, it is still torture. and proving that torture "works" is entirely on the shoulders of people who want to tear up the Constitution, increase the power of the executive, and adopt the tactics of the Khamer Rouge and the Imperialist Japanese so that they can fabricate a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda (something that no pro-torture poster has even gone near). you were dead wrong historically INDY. you need to prove that these illegal techniques are necessary. and you'll need to get a better legal team than Bybee and Yoo who offered up the equivalent in legal advice.
 
How would you justify letting a child, a thousand children, a million children, die, because you were unwilling to allow an interigation technique to be used on a terrorist that could retrieve intelligence to prevent such a disaster?

Lets just say for the moment that waterboarding does work and could save millions of people in certain situations. Are you really going to value preventing the extreme discomfort for a few minutes on a single individual over the entire lives of millions of people?




let's say for a moment that an asteroid the size of Texas were hurtling towards the earth, and the only thing you could do to stop it would be to send a team of expert oil drillers on a space ship to the asteroid so they could dig deep into it's core and drop a nuclear weapon and blow up the asteroid. there's a likely chance that the crew will not make it back to earth are you willing to sacrifice those people?

i am. you know why? because that scenario has as much basis in reality as the one you've just constructed.

there has never, EVER, been a ticking time bomb. the scenario you described has not ever happened.

so come back to reality when you're done masturbating to episodes of "24."

and, suddenly from STING, a concern for human life? amazing.
 
there has never, EVER, been a ticking time bomb. the scenario you described has not ever happened.

You know for a fact that not a single human life has ever been saved in history through such interigation techniques? Source?


and, suddenly from STING, a concern for human life? amazing.

Hey, I'm NOT the one who thinks that Human Life would be safer and better off with Saddam's regime still in power.
 
let's say for a moment that an asteroid the size of Texas were hurtling towards the earth, and the only thing you could do to stop it would be to send a team of expert oil drillers on a space ship to the asteroid so they could dig deep into it's core and drop a nuclear weapon and blow up the asteroid. there's a likely chance that the crew will not make it back to earth are you willing to sacrifice those people?

i am. you know why? because that scenario has as much basis in reality as the one you've just constructed.
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.
 
You know for a fact that not a single human life has ever been saved in history through such interigation techniques? Source?

Shifting the burden of proof.

If that were the case, the Bush administration would not have been re-elected by the FIRST popular vote majority since 1988!

Appeal to popularity.

Again, I would agree with you if it has actually been proven that such techniques are ineffective. I don't know if that is the case though. Can you actually prove that not even one person's life has been saved through extreme interigation technique's?

Shifting the burden of proof.

C'mon. :sigh: 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.
 
this is ghastly.
This was a joke. When The Daily Show does a bit with one of its faux reporters in front of a closed waterboard factory -- just remember where you heard it first.
it's simple -- it doesn't matter if torture "works" or not, it is still torture.

Let's substitute "torture" with the Obama rallying cry of "change" for a moment shall we.

-- It doesn't matter if change works or not, it is still change.

Silly isn't it? Especially since the definition of "change" can vacillate as often as "torture" now can.
 
This was a joke. When The Daily Show does a bit with one of its faux reporters in front of a closed waterboard factory -- just remember where you heard it first.


Let's substitute "torture" with the Obama rallying cry of "change" for a moment shall we.

-- It doesn't matter if change works or not, it is still change.

Silly isn't it? Especially since the definition of "change" can vacillate as often as "torture" now can.

I don't think we signed a UN treaty against change.
 
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.

Hold on. You're saying "anything else" is speculation when you're SPECULATING that Bush was right because we haven't had another attack?

That doesn't make any sense. You know why? Maybe ... just maybe ... there was not going to be another attack, regardless of whether or not we tortured.

Crazy, isn't it?
 
Let's substitute "torture" with the Obama rallying cry of "change" for a moment shall we.

-- It doesn't matter if change works or not, it is still change.

Silly isn't it? Especially since the definition of "change" can vacillate as often as "torture" now can.

The only people vacillating the definition of torture are people like you and STING.

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.
 
Hold on. You're saying "anything else" is speculation when you're SPECULATING that Bush was right because we haven't had another attack?

That doesn't make any sense. You know why? Maybe ... just maybe ... there was not going to be another attack, regardless of whether or not we tortured.

Crazy, isn't it?

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?
 
C'mon. :sigh: 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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

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"?

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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:

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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.


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?
 
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?

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?



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.


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.
 
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.


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...services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=72


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.


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. :up:
 
]
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.
 
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.

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.

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.


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?

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

Abraham Lincoln
 
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.

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'
 
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!

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!
 
Back
Top Bottom