News Conservative talk show host waterboarded

[seycyrus]

Because the soldiers are volunteers in the procedure and the terrorists are not. This seems too obvious to need stating.

Obvious? The exact OPPOSITE is obvious, in fact. You cannot define torture by whether or not the prisoner/detainee/person volunteers for it!

That would open the door wide open for virtually ANYTHING to be defined as torture.

 

[DaveC426913]

The bad faith lies in the fact that you are not consistent in your application of the proof you require.

An odd definition of bad faith. I can see you calling me on that, sure, but I think you were overeacting as a defensive measure.

Right. The fact that terrorists do, in fact, employ torture, needed to be verified. Ridiculous. I expect to see a similar call for *proof* on every statement that others make in every thread you participate in.

Get over yourself.

I proved that terrorist torture in numerous videos. You responded in a dismissive manner to the early ones, but ignored the later. Silence.

I didn't dismiss them, I merely pointed out that it wasn't as as strong as it appeared from the list you provided.

Tell me. How has your world view changed since you learned that terrorists torture people?

Asking for clarification of what your opponent is referring to, the frequency and type, is not tantamount to thinking it doesn't happen. We have to be on the same page.


Asking for clarification, and refusing granting points of argument simply because the opponent pretends something is ridiculous is what discussions are all about.

Yes I'm being critical. You are demanding close scrutiny every time you act like it is ridiculous to question anything you claim.

Perhaps if you didn't resort to bombastic behaviour so much, you wouldn't feel your arguments are getting overly criticized. Bomabastic behavoir - resorting to emotion - is definitely arguing in bad faith.

You may not agree with or like what I'm saying but I am remaining as rational and level-headed as possible.

 

[DaveC426913]

Obvious? The exact OPPOSITE is obvious, in fact. You cannot define torture by whether or not the prisoner/detainee/person volunteers for it!

That would open the door wide open for virtually ANYTHING to be defined as torture.

Good point.

So we're back to defining torture.

 

[seycyrus]

An odd definition of bad faith. I can see you calling me on that, sure, but I think you were overeacting as a defensive measure.

What exactly is your defintion of arguing in good faith?

I define it as understanding the "gist" of your opponents argument even if they were to make a typo or an unintended omission. Something along those lines. If the gist is not understood, questions are raised for clarification but raising objections simply because your opponent is arguing the opposing point, is arguing in bad faith.

Get over yourself.

You first!

I didn't dismiss them, I merely pointed out that it wasn't as as strong as it appeared from the list you provided.

As mentioned, the "list" was carried over from a "list" generated in a discussion with another poster, BY another poster. the list was never offered as a "Comprehensive and all-encompassing list of torture methods in the 20th and 21st century."

Asking for clarification of what your opponent is referring to, the frequency and type, is not tantamount to thinking it doesn't happen. We have to be on the same page.

The claim was made that terrorists do not torture. You did not question this claim. Rather you chose to scrutinize the arguments I used to counter this claim (and others), in this thread. You made dismissive comments about my early links, but chose to remain silent regarding the latter ones.

Yes I'm being critical. You are demanding close scrutiny every time you act like it is ridiculous to question anything you claim.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, it is the employment of an obvious double standard, that is ridiculous.

[Perhaps if you didn't resort to bombastic behaviour so much, you wouldn't feel your arguments are getting overly criticized. Bomabastic behavoir - resorting to emotion - is definitely arguing in bad faith.

I'm going to accept your argument in good faith, and not question your usage of the word bombastic", after all I understand the point you are trying to make. However, I refuse your claim that my use of sarcasm detracts from the nobility of my method of argument.

You may not agree with or like what I'm saying but I am remaining as rational and level-headed as possible.

Have I commented on your level of rationale, or your level-headedness? Or is this merely a thinly veiled "gotcha"?

The fact that you have the gall to imply that I am anything beside level-headed and rationale is demonstrative of the fact that you are the one who does not like your arguments questioned even if the interrogation is but one iota of that you subject onto others.

 

[seycyrus]

Good point.

So we're back to defining torture.

Perhaps you would care to demonstrate how we can continue this discussion without resorting to hypotheticals?

 

[BobG]

Good point.

So we're back to defining torture.

Good point.

Is being forced to watch someone else receive pain torture?

For instance, is it torture to force a father to watch his kids be raped via a TV signal? (The TV signal being necessary since you could fake the physical abuse to the kids and never inflict any physical pain on anyone. For that matter, wouldn't it be possible to actually rape the kids without leaving any permanent physical damage?)

How about drilling a hole in someone's tooth, as long as you filled it back in after the interrogation was done? Thousands of people, even everyday civilians, voluntarily submit to that procedure (although most would prefer novocaine first).

I don't think you can rely solely on the physical consequences of the action when defining torture. I think you have to consider the psychological affects, as well.

Tell me the obvious reasons why my point about how if the U.S waterboards thousands of our millitary soldiers its not called torture until it is used on only 3 terrorists. And calling it silly won't satisfy me for an answer.

Because your argument relies solely on the physical part of torture.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Obvious? The exact OPPOSITE is obvious, in fact. You cannot define torture by whether or not the prisoner/detainee/person volunteers for it!

That would open the door wide open for virtually ANYTHING to be defined as torture.

The point is not with regard to defining torture. Go ahead and call it torture. Legally if the person freely and voluntarily submits to such treatment it can not be defined as a crime unless legislation is passed which defines any torture under any circumstance as a crime. Outside of killing someone there is little that the law defines as illegal when a person volunteers to undergo it. Conversely most anything done to a person against their will is defined as illegal.

I don't see the problem and agree with Dave that the difference is rather obvious.

 

[wittgenstein]

The reasons why a volunteer undergoing waterboarding is different than a forced waterboarding.
1. The volunteer can ( and knows that he can) at any moment say stop and it will stop.
2. The volunteer knows that the person doing the waterboarding is on his side. He trusts him.
Ask yourself," would you prefer to be waterboarded by your mother or Bin Laden? Or do you still claim that there is no difference?

 

[Proton Soup]

hmm, this is all a bit crazy. what some call torture, others might call a romantic evening. or music. etc.

 

[mheslep]

The reasons why a volunteer undergoing waterboarding is different than a forced waterboarding.
1. The volunteer can ( and knows that he can) at any moment say stop and it will stop.

I don't believe that is true for US SERE training. It is closely supervised by professionals, but I seriously doubt it ends on the first whim of the individual, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.

2. The volunteer knows that the person doing the waterboarding is on his side. He trusts him.

The question posed up thread first by Russ and https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2228882&postcount=168", is not whether there is any difference, but whether or not it is acceptable to water board some US military personnel as part of their training.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't believe that is true for US SERE training. It is closely supervised by professionals, but I seriously doubt it ends on the first whim of the individual, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.

Yes, technically all participants are allowed to "tap out" though depending on the circumstances of the excersize they may be removed from the respective program for having done so. Whether or not this constitutes a decision made under duress is debatable and whether or not such policies are always and strictly adhered to in practice are irrelevant to the legality or ethical acceptability of such practices.

The question posed up thread first by Russ and https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2228882&postcount=168", is not whether there is any difference, but whether or not it is acceptable to water board some US military personnel as part of their training.

If a person agrees to such treatment and is given the full ability to suspend such treatment if they feel it necessary without any undue pressure to undergo it then it is absolutely legal and, in my opinion, acceptable. Question of what constitutes 'undue pressure' is wholely aside and irrelavent to official policy.

 

[wittgenstein]

"I proved that terrorist torture in numerous videos."
seycyrus
Unrelated to the current debate. Or are you saying that when your enemy uses evil behavior then you are allowed to be evil. So during World War 2 the USA should have been allowed to turn the population of entire countrys into slave labor because the Nazi's did?

 

[drankin]

We may be missing the forest for the trees here. Waterboarding is torture. But very low on the scale of tortures. It is more psychological than physical in the sense that there is no permanent physical damage. This is important to note. Whether you get good info or bad info depends on the person being tortured. You may have a subject that requires waterboarding in order to divulge information. You CAN get quality intel from it. And if the cicumstances are such that human lives can be saved by this intel, then it is warranted, IMO. I am more concerned about preserving innocent life than preserving a known terrorists ability to sleep soundly at night.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We may be missing the forest for the trees here. Waterboarding is torture. But very low on the scale of tortures. It is more psychological than physical in the sense that there is no permanent physical damage. This is important to note. Whether you get good info or bad info depends on the person being tortured. You may have a subject that requires waterboarding in order to divulge information. You CAN get quality intel from it. And if the cicumstances are such that human lives can be saved by this intel, then it is warranted, IMO. I am more concerned about preserving innocent life than preserving a known terrorists ability to sleep soundly at night.

How about preserving the ability of an interrogator to sleep soundly at night? Or the American people? It is not only those who are tortured that are subject to negative effects of the practice. If expert commentators on the subject are correct torture is a goldmine as a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations so are we really able to sleep better knowing that people are being tortured on behalf of our supposed safety?

And if we are unlikely to attract flies with honey I think we are less likely to attract them with a flyswatter.

 

[kyleb]

Whether you get good info or bad info depends on the person being tortured. You may have a subject that requires waterboarding in order to divulge information. You CAN get quality intel from it.

Are you speaking from experience here? If so, please elaborate. Or otherwise, how have you come to these conclusions?

 

[drankin]

How about preserving the ability of an interrogator to sleep soundly at night? Or the American people? It is not only those who are tortured that are subject to negative effects of the practice. If expert commentators on the subject are correct torture is a goldmine as a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations so are we really able to sleep better knowing that people are being tortured on behalf of our supposed safety?

And if we are unlikely to attract flies with honey I think we are less likely to attract them with a flyswatter.

Under certain dire circumstances it is warranted (talking non-lethal, non-maiming, practices). I am not condoning routine torture of anyone, anytime. If the circumstances are as such that we need the intel ASAP to prevent an attack and we have a "terrorist" in custody that we know has the information, should we hold off, let an impending attack(s) be carried out, because we don't want them to use how we prevented the attack as a recruiting tool?

BTW, the recruiting tool argument is not very convincing. If anything, it is a deterrent. We show the enemy at what lengths we will go to save lifes.

 

[drankin]

Are you speaking from experience here? If so, please elaborate. Or otherwise, how have you come to these conclusions?

Actually, yes, I am speaking from experience. I led a shady life during my youth. I was able to get reliable information from others by subjecting them to severe discomfort and indimidation. Not proud of it, but IT WORKED.

 

[wittgenstein]

"hmm, this is all a bit crazy. what some call torture, others might call a romantic evening. or music. etc."
Proton Soup
I'm confused by your response. Are you saying
1. If your mother was forced to waterboard you she would purposely inflict the same amount of pain as Bin Laden would?
OR
2. If your mother waterboarded you, you would consider it a romantic evening?

 

[Proton Soup]

"hmm, this is all a bit crazy. what some call torture, others might call a romantic evening. or music. etc."
Proton Soup
I'm confused by your response. Are you saying
1. If your mother was forced to waterboard you she would purposely inflict the same amount of pain as Bin Laden would?
OR
2. If your mother waterboarded you, you would consider it a romantic evening?

no

 

[kyleb]

Actually, yes, I am speaking from experience. I led a shady life during my youth. I was able to get reliable information from others by subjecting them to severe discomfort and indimidation. Not proud of it, but IT WORKED.

How can you be sure torture was required for retrieving information in those instances rather than just for indulging a sadistic desire?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Under certain dire circumstances it is warranted (talking non-lethal, non-maiming, practices). I am not condoning routine torture of anyone, anytime. If the circumstances are as such that we need the intel ASAP to prevent an attack and we have a "terrorist" in custody that we know has the information, should we hold off, let an impending attack(s) be carried out, because we don't want them to use how we prevented the attack as a recruiting tool?

I must admit that under certain circumstances I may well find it hard to hold to idealist ethics in the face of the consequences for taking the moral high ground. But what do those ethics really mean if they are to be shucked when they become inconvenient?
Its a hard question that we will likely wrestle with for the rest of humanities existence. This isn't really the point of debate though. The practice you describe is not the practice in reality. Terrorists are/were being subjected to 'torture' in circumstances of non-imminent danger (so far as we know anyway).

BTW, the recruiting tool argument is not very convincing. If anything, it is a deterrent. We show the enemy at what lengths we will go to save lifes.

Has the enemys determination in showing us what lengths to which they will go for their cause detered the US in anyway?




Edit: Oops.. misquoted Drankin (as Mehslep). Sorry about that.

 

[drankin]

Has the enemys determination in showing us what lengths to which they will go for their cause detered the US in anyway?

I think it has. This whole argument is proof of that. You are talking about limiting our ability to access information that can save our own citizens so that our enemies don't have a "recruiting tool".

A looks a lot like appeasement so as not to make them mad at us. Fear of retribution at the cost of our own peoples lives. Historically, appeasement doesn't work so well anyhow.

 

[BobG]

Under certain dire circumstances it is warranted (talking non-lethal, non-maiming, practices). I am not condoning routine torture of anyone, anytime. If the circumstances are as such that we need the intel ASAP to prevent an attack and we have a "terrorist" in custody that we know has the information, should we hold off, let an impending attack(s) be carried out, because we don't want them to use how we prevented the attack as a recruiting tool?

This needs a little clarification. There are those who recognize that there might be a situation where someone would inflict torture for a good reason even though they know it's illegal (such as John McCain, for example). That's different than legalizing torture based on the remote chance that that situation will come up in our lifetimes. You base your laws and regulations on situations that are likely to occur - not on rare exceptions that will never occur in most interrogators' lifetimes.

 

[drankin]

This needs a little clarification. There are those who recognize that there might be a situation where someone would inflict torture for a good reason even though they know it's illegal (such as John McCain, for example). That's different than legalizing torture based on the remote chance that that situation will come up in our lifetimes. You base your laws and regulations on situations that are likely to occur - not on rare exceptions that will never occur in most interrogators' lifetimes.

I believe we should have laws that allow this under strict circumstances. It should not be a general policy with the detainees.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think it has. This whole argument is proof of that.

Sorry. I don't see the idea of holding to a 'higher standard' of ethics as a capitulation to terrorists. Terrorists still attack nations and nations still seek to stop and undermine terrorists. No one seems to have gotten any message across with regard to "how far they are willing to go".

You are talking about limiting our ability to access information that can save our own citizens so that our enemies don't have a "recruiting tool".

Seems like a catch 22. We torture to stop terrorist attacks but by torturing we fuel more terrorist attacks (so long as you accept that this actually does fuel more terrorist attacks of course).

A looks a lot like appeasement so as not to make them mad at us. Fear of retribution at the cost of our own peoples lives. Historically, appeasement doesn't work so well anyhow.

Depends on what you call 'appeasement'. To reiterate I don't see how not torturing terrorist suspects is any sort of capitulation (or appeasement).

 

[DaveC426913]

by torturing we fuel more terrorist attacks

Actually, I think this is the bigger issue.

Torturing doesn't fuel terrorist attacks. What fuels terrorist attacks is meddling in the affairs of their countries/cultures/nations in the first place.

Torture is a symptom of a nation that is stuck on the school playground trying to be the biggest bully, promoting, participating in and validating hatred and violence. It never occurs to the nation that, if they spent 1% of their war budget on peace and communication, the whole world would be a better place.

And we the people enable this by picking at the small issues: "Don't torture" and missing the big issues: "Don't war."

 

[wbrad320]

I disagree with the idea that it's the voluntary aspect of waterboarding that determines whether it's torture. An analogy I would use is the idea that our millitary would not allow soldiers to volunter to have a finger cut off and re-sown because that would be considerd torture. If a person's voluntary consent is required for it to not be torture than what about other involuntary forms of punishment? By the standard of voluntary consent could prison time also be considerd torture?

 

[NeoDevin]

I disagree with the idea that it's the voluntary aspect of waterboarding that determines whether it's torture. An analogy I would use is the idea that our millitary would not allow soldiers to volunter to have a finger cut off and re-sown because that would be considerd torture. If a person's voluntary consent is required for it to not be torture than what about other involuntary forms of punishment? By the standard of voluntary consent could prison time also be considerd torture?

Nice straw man you've erected. No one has claimed that the only criteria be that it's involuntary.

 

[wbrad320]

Because the soldiers are volunteers in the procedure and the terrorists are not. This seems too obvious to need stating.

Here is where the voluntary consent argument originated

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here is where the voluntary consent argument originated

I posted the argument some time ago. And its not about what defines torture but what defines the legality of the practice.