Log in

View Full Version : Bush vetoes anti-torture bill?



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Paris
03-13-2008, 04:41 PM
Just one name or instance where torture worked would have me concede this point. Only one is fine.

The French/Algiers war is in dispute as to whether torture worked, primarily because the torturers themselves admitted the info they gained was useless or of little use compared to that gained by implanted informants. That win was attributed directly to the torture practices for a very long time.

We train people to resist torture because they need the mental steeliness in order to stay sane and come home to report back any info gained while in captivity. It is expected that when tortured, people will say just about anything.

24 is a tv show. It doesn't work that way in real life.

Paris
03-13-2008, 04:42 PM
oh, and I forgot, if the discussion bother you that much, feel free to leave.

Who me? I at least have a leg to stand on./:O

I'm fine with the discussion. It is ignorance on the part of unskilled debaters that I have issue with.

jester214
03-13-2008, 05:11 PM
Who me? I at least have a leg to stand on./:O

Yeah You. The person who said this discussion is "pissing me off".

Lunarobverse
03-13-2008, 05:21 PM
Who me? I at least have a leg to stand on./:O

I'm fine with the discussion. It is ignorance on the part of unskilled debaters that I have issue with.

I'll admit that torture pisses me off, as does discussing torture as if it were a reasonable topic about which reasonable people might reasonably disagree.

But the discussion itself is fun in part because being "anti-torture" automatically gives me the moral high ground, and seeing the crizazy flip-flops and tortured (forgive me, couldn't help myself) logic of the "pro-torture" side is as amusing as the topic for which they argue is sickening.

jester214
03-13-2008, 05:40 PM
For the life of me I couldn't think of his name until I remembered the guy that he gave information on; Hambali.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; there is one example to get started.

jester214
03-13-2008, 05:41 PM
I'll admit that torture pisses me off, as does discussing torture as if it were a reasonable topic about which reasonable people might reasonably disagree.

But the discussion itself is fun in part because being "anti-torture" automatically gives me the moral high ground, and seeing the crizazy flip-flops and tortured (forgive me, couldn't help myself) logic of the "pro-torture" side is as amusing as the topic for which they argue is sickening.

How have I "flip-flopped"?

Paris
03-13-2008, 05:45 PM
Yeah You. The person who said this discussion is "pissing me off".
:rotfl:

Hey Jester, What's a nice guy like you doing hanging out in a place like this?

jester214
03-13-2008, 05:53 PM
Oh yeah I can't beleive I forgot... One of our esteemed presidential nominess admitted that he broke under torture and gave up military information. The esteemed Sen. John McCain.

That's two examples of torture working... Will you be conceding the point now or later?

Paris
03-13-2008, 06:10 PM
For the life of me I couldn't think of his name until I remembered the guy that he gave information on; Hambali.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; there is one example to get started.

Oh, yes. I see your point. That act of coercive interrogation helped to quell the insurgency. (oh, wait. never mind)

Oh, maybe it was that we were able to find and bring to justice Osamba Bin Laden! (oh, again, never mind)

Was it that we were able to stop Al Queda in Iraq from the information gain from KSM? (Hmmmmmm...Help me out here)

Isn't KSM the guy Osama Bin Laden claimed was his chauffer? Didn't OBL publicly and loudly state that KSM was mastermind of nothing and merely a personal servant to OBL? Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/05/13/ING6VPNVBN1.DTL)

Wasn't Hambali caught by the Thai police? That had noting to do with torture performed on KSM. The Thai police did all the work on that one (at least according to news articles published at the time). *I love the Google*;D

Keep trying, Jester. You're getting warmer:P.

jester214
03-13-2008, 06:24 PM
Oh, yes. I see your point. That act of coercive interrogation helped to quell the insurgency. (oh, wait. never mind)

Oh, maybe it was that we were able to find and bring to justice Osamba Bin Laden! (oh, again, never mind)

Was it that we were able to stop Al Queda in Iraq from the information gain from KSM? (Hmmmmmm...Help me out here)

Isn't KSM the guy Osama Bin Laden claimed was his chauffer? Didn't OBL publicly and loudly state that KSM was mastermind of nothing and merely a personal servant to OBL? Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/05/13/ING6VPNVBN1.DTL)

Wasn't Hambali caught by the Thai police? That had noting to do with torture performed on KSM. The Thai police did all the work on that one (at least according to news articles published at the time). *I love the Google*;D

Keep trying, Jester. You're getting warmer:P.

I really don't know why I bothered I knew you would deny it, now give me you excuses for Sen. McCain.

What do you think OBL would say? "Oh shit you guys guy one of my top people". The guy had a letter from OBL after he had taken cover. I'm sure most people keep up communication with their chauffer after they've gone hiding from the world...

He was arrested by the Thai police... If you think they found him by themselves then you're crazy... The Thai police are some of the most corrupt police in the world, they wouldn't have even looked for him with pressure and a bribe would have sent them away. But all that doesn't matter because it was a well known joint Thai-CIA task force.

Admit that you made a mistake in saying that it hasn't ever worked and we'll forget all about you conceding your point...

Paris
03-13-2008, 06:26 PM
Oh yeah I can't beleive I forgot... One of our esteemed presidential nominess admitted that he broke under torture and gave up military information. The esteemed Sen. John McCain.

That's two examples of torture working... Will you be conceding the point now or later?

Re-read what I wrote. What good came of it? What lives were saved?

I believe I wrote that it is expected that people will talk when tortured. Now you are being dumb.

What good came of it? One good thing. Just one. I cited a better (and debatable) example with the French/ Algiers war. There was actual evidence at the time that supported the use of torture leading to victory for the French. It was just later refuted by the torturers themselves as being ineffective and inaccurate.

There may be examples of lives being saved and wars won through the direct use of torture. I'm coming up with nothing that was a benefit in the long term. Ultimately, torture is a medieval practice that post enlightenment era humans should place behind them.

Some of the greatest accomplishments in history were accomplished through peaceful means. Ghandi liberated India. Through peaceful demonstration, the eastern block nations declared independence from the USSR. Kosovo peacefully declared independence from Serbia.

This is the future of humanity. We don't need to bash each other's brains in over ideology. We might not see real planetary peace in our lifetime, but we are well on our way. Try not to be part of the problem, but part of the solution.

Paris out.

Lunarobverse
03-13-2008, 06:28 PM
Oh, jester214, you are a gem. I really wish I could argue against you forever. It's endlessly amusing, and practically a college-level course in all the ways people argue poorly. Truly, this is still vastly amusing for me. Don't ever change.

This, for example:


How have I "flip-flopped"?

I've already called you out for picking out little pieces of longer posts and trying to use them to distract from your losing the larger argument, and yet you just did it again!

And yet, I know your type. If I don't respond to it, you'll beat me over the head (rhetorically, of course) and insist that I ignored it on purpose and keep coming back to it to try to demonstrate that you've won some point in the debate.

So before moving on and pointing out that you've completely ignored my long post, as well as the other points I made in the post you took this one small complaint from, I'll just draw your attention to a simple fact: I never said that it was you that flip-flopped, my friend. What I did was use the phrase "flip-flop" to describe the mental gyrations that people have to use to defend torture while still trying to appear to be decent, rational human beings. But since I'm talking in vague language, it's not clear if I'm talking about you specifically or the "pro-torture" folk as a whole.

And, c'mon, seriously? That's the best you can do? Picking out one little phrase I used in general and trying to take offense and force me to come up with examples and thereby divert the argument from torure? That is a meager response to the counter-arguments I and others have been making to the position that you've taken. Really tiny response, in fact.

So ya gonna respond to my larger points or what?

jester214
03-13-2008, 06:28 PM
and when I say joint task force that's giving the That's a lot more credit than they deserve.

jester214
03-13-2008, 06:31 PM
Re-read what I wrote. What good came of it? What lives were saved?

I believe I wrote that it is expected that people will talk when tortured. Now you are being dumb.

What good came of it? One good thing. Just one. I cited a better (and debatable) example with the French/ Algiers war. There was actual evidence at the time that supported the use of torture leading to victory for the French. It was just later refuted by the torturers themselves as being ineffective and inaccurate.

There may be examples of lives being saved and wars won through the direct use of torture. I'm coming up with nothing that was a benefit in the long term. Ultimately, torture is a medieval practice that post enlightenment era humans should place behind them.

Some of the greatest accomplishments in history were accomplished through peaceful means. Ghandi liberated India. Through peaceful demonstration, the eastern block nations declared independence from the USSR. Kosovo peacefully declared independence from Serbia.

This is the future of humanity. We don't need to bash each other's brains in over ideology. We might not see real planetary peace in our lifetime, but we are well on our way. Try not to be part of the problem, but part of the solution.

Paris out.

Post number 102.

"Just one name or instance where torture worked would have me concede this point. Only one is fine."

jester214
03-13-2008, 06:39 PM
Oh, jester214, you are a gem. I really wish I could argue against you forever. It's endlessly amusing, and practically a college-level course in all the ways people argue poorly. Truly, this is still vastly amusing for me. Don't ever change.

This, for example:

I've already called you out for picking out little pieces of longer posts and trying to use them to distract from your losing the larger argument, and yet you just did it again!

And yet, I know your type. If I don't respond to it, you'll beat me over the head (rhetorically, of course) and insist that I ignored it on purpose and keep coming back to it to try to demonstrate that you've won some point in the debate.

So before moving on and pointing out that you've completely ignored my long post, as well as the other points I made in the post you took this one small complaint from, I'll just draw your attention to a simple fact: I never said that it was you that flip-flopped, my friend. What I did was use the phrase "flip-flop" to describe the mental gyrations that people have to use to defend torture while still trying to appear to be decent, rational human beings. But since I'm talking in vague language, it's not clear if I'm talking about you specifically or the "pro-torture" folk as a whole.

And, c'mon, seriously? That's the best you can do? Picking out one little phrase I used in general and trying to take offense and force me to come up with examples and thereby divert the argument from torure? That is a meager response to the counter-arguments I and others have been making to the position that you've taken. Really tiny response, in fact.

So ya gonna respond to my larger points or what?

You know my type? I've already answered stuff you stated and you didn't respons, I don't remember beating you over the head with it. I assume that you, like me, sometimes miss a post.

You actually said the "pro torture side" was "flip-flopping"... Well I'm pretty much the only one that could really be considered "pro torture" in the last 2-3 pages, so who exactly was that directed at?

I picked it out because I don't like being accused of something that I don't think I did, if that's not rational what is?

I'm not sure what long post I missed, but please direct me to it and I promise I'll answer.

I love all the little gems like you who call me "nitpicky" but then blast me for not responding to "their" points... I'm responding to three people at once attacking my "side", forgive me if I somehow miss something you call important.

Lunarobverse
03-13-2008, 06:42 PM
Oh yeah I can't beleive I forgot... One of our esteemed presidential nominess admitted that he broke under torture and gave up military information. The esteemed Sen. John McCain.

That's two examples of torture working... Will you be conceding the point now or later?

McCain gave false confessions to being a "pirate" and "criminal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) but I don't find any documentation that he gave up factual intelligence. Links, please?

And the forced confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Riduan Isamuddin a.k.a. Hambali were to previous failed plots, not actionable intelligence. I'm sure that the Bush Administration would've trumpeted from the rooftops any actual, future, planned attack that either of those might have been involved in. But the only information they gave up, under torture, is confessing to previously known plots.

You're battin' .1000, jester214.

jester214
03-13-2008, 06:53 PM
McCain gave false confessions to being a "pirate" and "criminal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) but I don't find any documentation that he gave up factual intelligence. Links, please?

And the forced confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Riduan Isamuddin a.k.a. Hambali were to previous failed plots, not actionable intelligence. I'm sure that the Bush Administration would've trumpeted from the rooftops any actual, future, planned attack that either of those might have been involved in. But the only information they gave up, under torture, is confessing to previously known plots.

You're battin' .1000, jester214.

McCain has stated that he in fact gave up information beyond his name, rank, and serial number after being tortured... The fact that he also provided false information doesn't negate the fact that under torture he gave up other factual information that he wasn't supposed to do.

Vice Admiral James Stockdale filed charges against two other navy officers who he claimed gave information to the enemy during his time as a POW in vietnam. (this is the guy that you should be using in arguments that torture doesn't work).

KSM gave information to the CIA which led to the arrest of Hambali. Hambali was planning an attack on a summit that President Bush was going to attend... Hmm... sounds like something got stopped...

jester214
03-13-2008, 06:57 PM
Heres the McCain link... http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml

Lunarobverse
03-13-2008, 07:03 PM
Wow, the McCain link was so wrong you had to post it twice!

From the article you linked to:

"The information was of no real use to the Vietnamese, but the Code of Conduct for American Prisoners of War orders us to refrain from providing any information beyond our names, rank and serial number."

That's McCain talking, by the way. Did you read it before posting it twice?

Lunarobverse
03-13-2008, 07:05 PM
McCain has stated that he in fact gave up information beyond his name, rank, and serial number after being tortured... The fact that he also provided false information doesn't negate the fact that under torture he gave up other factual information that he wasn't supposed to do.

Vice Admiral James Stockdale filed charges against two other navy officers who he claimed gave information to the enemy during his time as a POW in vietnam. (this is the guy that you should be using in arguments that torture doesn't work).

KSM gave information to the CIA which led to the arrest of Hambali. Hambali was planning an attack on a summit that President Bush was going to attend... Hmm... sounds like something got stopped...

(My emphasis added) Hmm... that must be some new definition of the phrase "worked" or "working" of which I was previously unaware.

jester214
03-13-2008, 07:11 PM
Wow, the McCain link was so wrong you had to post it twice!

From the article you linked to:

"The information was of no real use to the Vietnamese, but the Code of Conduct for American Prisoners of War orders us to refrain from providing any information beyond our names, rank and serial number."

That's McCain talking, by the way. Did you read it before posting it twice?

McCain told them information he wasn't supposed to. At first he refused to do this. After they tortured him, he told.

They wanted information he wouldn't give, they tortured him, and he proceeded to give them the CORRECT information. How is that not working.

Paris said in post #102 "Just one name or instance where torture worked would have me concede this point. Only one is fine."

I gave her two that did that.

Why am I even trying? All you have done is made comments on what I am saying instead of making an argument, which is one of the thing YOU critisize me of doing... how hypocritical is that?

jester214
03-13-2008, 07:14 PM
Oh and I like how you picked McCain out of the three points listed in post #118, I thought only I picked out pieces of an argument... another thing you criticized me of... My head is starting to hurt reading your contradictions, I'm going to take a break for the evening.

Lunarobverse
03-13-2008, 07:38 PM
McCain told them information he wasn't supposed to. At first he refused to do this. After they tortured him, he told.

They wanted information he wouldn't give, they tortured him, and he proceeded to give them the CORRECT information. How is that not working.

Paris said in post #102 "Just one name or instance where torture worked would have me concede this point. Only one is fine."

I gave her two that did that.

Why am I even trying? All you have done is made comments on what I am saying instead of making an argument, which is one of the thing YOU critisize me of doing... how hypocritical is that?

Seriously, you're so cute! I want to pinch your cheeks!

It's not "working" because the information was of no value to his captors. It didn't materially affect the war, it didn't cost or save lives, and no military, social, or economic value was gained from them getting it.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed gave information that led to the arrest of Riduan Isamuddin, who was planning an attack on a conference in Thailand. See how easy it is? I just conceded your point! That's how adults do things, clever jester214.

So when do I get to waterboard you? I'm totally holding you to that, by the way. We'll find out for ourselves whether waterboarding is torture or not.

jester214
03-14-2008, 01:20 PM
Seriously, you're so cute! I want to pinch your cheeks!

It's not "working" because the information was of no value to his captors. It didn't materially affect the war, it didn't cost or save lives, and no military, social, or economic value was gained from them getting it.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed gave information that led to the arrest of Riduan Isamuddin, who was planning an attack on a conference in Thailand. See how easy it is? I just conceded your point! That's how adults do things, clever jester214.

So when do I get to waterboard you? I'm totally holding you to that, by the way. We'll find out for ourselves whether waterboarding is torture or not.

Answer me this... Did it or did it not get him to reveal true information that he would have otherwise not revealed?

I'm glad you conceded it, if you watch carefully or go read all of my posts, you may get to see me do it...

I guess next time I get out to Portland... although I had a discussion about this with a coworker the other day, he's on your side by the way, and he wants to try waterboarding on me now...

Lunarobverse
03-14-2008, 02:13 PM
Answer me this... Did it or did it not get him to reveal true information that he would have otherwise not revealed?

I'm glad you conceded it, if you watch carefully or go read all of my posts, you may get to see me do it...

I guess next time I get out to Portland... although I had a discussion about this with a coworker the other day, he's on your side by the way, and he wants to try waterboarding on me now...

Yes, McCain, while under torture, chose to give non-valuable information to his enemies. If you're still gonna call that "working" then I get to challenge whether it was torture that caused KSM to give information that led to Hambali's capture, or if it was other legal methods. I conceded the point, even though it was not my assertion to begin with, to continue the discussion, but if you're going to be an ass...

If you'd like to concede any of the many points against the use of torture you've made in this thread, or any false or unproven assertions you've made, that would be a good start. ;D

jester214
03-14-2008, 02:19 PM
Yes, McCain, while under torture, chose to give non-valuable information to his enemies. If you're still gonna call that "working" then I get to challenge whether it was torture that caused KSM to give information that led to Hambali's capture, or if it was other legal methods. I conceded the point, even though it was not my assertion to begin with, to continue the discussion, but if you're going to be an ass...

If you'd like to concede any of the many points against the use of torture you've made in this thread, or any false or unproven assertions you've made, that would be a good start. ;D

Ahh he chose to give up information that he wasn't supposed to, ok... It worked, he chose to give up the information rather than be tortured! I guess we're just not going to agree at all on this point.

"And the forced confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Riduan Isamuddin a.k.a. Hambali were to previous failed plots, not actionable intelligence". You told me I was wrong has can you say that it wasn't your assertion. I wasn't trying to be an ass Mr. "Oh you're such a gem, oh let me pinch those cute little cheeks"...

I think all my points are valid and have an argument for all of them... tell me a false assertion or an unproven assertion that I've presented as fact and I will gladly concede them.

If you think for some reason I can't admit I was wrong, just go look at my recent posts in other threads...

Lunarobverse
03-14-2008, 02:44 PM
I think all my points are valid and have an argument for all of them... tell me a false assertion or an unproven assertion that I've presented as fact and I will gladly concede them.

If you think for some reason I can't admit I was wrong, just go look at my recent posts in other threads...

On McCain, yes, we are not going to agree. We agree on the facts as presented but our interpretations are different. You think that any information at all is evidence of torture working; I think for torture to "work" that some value must come from it's use.

And that's not to concede the argument - that torture is a valid means of preventing crimes, that torture is something an honorable nation or person should choose to use, that experts decry the overall value of torture in the use of gaining intelligence when comprared to more humane methods, that torture is disallowed in the treatment of the people incarcerated in the dungeons of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram, whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture or not... and on and on and on. I conceded one point to see what you would do with it.

I conceded the point on KSM/Hambali as a courtesy because there are many factors that we do not have direct knowledge of. I conceded it even though someone else said that even one example of torture "working" would suffice for them. That was not my statement but I agreed to accept your example on its face as a gentleman.

Links, please, to any reversals you've made... }:D I don't do other people's research for them.

Casual Observer
03-14-2008, 06:29 PM
I personally think it's better to get some false information with the right information than get none at all.

Oh, that's just fucking brilliant. You should get a Nobel Prize for that one. That explains your entire pseudo-logic fallacy right there.

This thread is done.

jester214
03-14-2008, 07:35 PM
Oh, that's just fucking brilliant. You should get a Nobel Prize for that one. That explains your entire pseudo-logic fallacy right there.

This thread is done.

actually this thread is running pretty fine... and it will continue to run fine...