# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  "The US Does Not Torture"

## Oneironaut Zero

Torture:





> Torture is defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture 
> 
> the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession" 
> wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn





Waterboarding, subjection to freezing temperatures, prolonged periods without food, the (occasional, and not officially promoted) stripping down of detainees. These are a few techniques that have been declared as having been used in getting information from detainees, many times in combination with one another. The entire list of techniques has not been disclosed. 

Is it right that the President steadfastly claims, time and time again, that the "U.S. Does not torture," and that, whenever speaking about it publicly, he will never mention the techniques, even though some of them are public information (which the public must read about, themselves), simply referring to it as the "questioning and interrogation" of detainees? Do you see this as misleading the public?

[Edit: This is not really to raise the discussion on whether or not torturing detainees is justified - simply on whether or not telling the public that torture is not being used is ethical.]

----------


## Universal Mind

I think those techniques are more about creating the fear of what's coming next than they are about creating actual pain.  Waterboarding makes detainees think they are going to drown if they don't give up information about terrorist attacks in the making.  Prolonged periods without food makes them think they will never eat again if they don't give up necessary information.  It's about deterring silence by causing worry about what's around the corner.  I don't think it falls under the definition of torture.  However, if the government is using torture against terrorists and keeping it a secret to minimize backlash, I understand.  

I see arguments for and against the use of torture, but the terrorists will never have my sympathy, no matter what terrible things are done to them.  Caring about how terrorists feel will never be a deciding factor for me on the issue.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

UM, please re-read the definitions of torture that I posted in my OP. Torture is a much broader term than one exclusive to physical pain. That is a very large part of my point. Saying someone is not being tortured, while only referring to a _part_ of the definition of the term, while making no distinction apparent, is a misrepresentation.

And, as I said, this has nothing to do with sympathy or hatred for the terrorists. That is a non-issue, on this one. It is about the throwing around of the simplified statement "The US does not torture." Nothing more.

----------


## skysaw

By the accepted definition, the US tortures. There is no other way to interpret the information.

----------


## Universal Mind

> UM, please re-read the definitions of torture that I posted in my OP. Torture is a much broader term than one exclusive to physical pain. That is a very large part of my point. Saying someone is not being tortured, while only referring to a _part_ of the definition of the term, while making no distinction apparent, is a misrepresentation.



I read the definition, and I already knew it.  The word "severe" is part of it, and that word is severely subjective.  It does not say that the inducement of physical or mental pain at all qualifies as torture.  I am saying that the terrorist detainees are given just enough physical or mental pain to speak because they fear what is around the corner.  Preventing what could happen in the mysterious turn of events is what is used to induce the giving of information, not the avoidance of the mental or physical pain at a present moment.  Being subjected to cold temperatures, for example, is not so bad right at first.  It gets worse and worse the longer you are exposed to it.  What gets the terrorists talking is the fear that they are going to be left in the cold.  That example illustrates what I am talking about.  It is not severe pain that is getting them to talk.  It is the avoidance of future severe pain that does the trick.  





> And, as I said, this has nothing to do with sympathy or hatred for the terrorists. That is a non-issue, on this one.



I was just adding side commentary when I addressed that.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> I read the definition, and I already knew it.  The word "severe" is part of it, and that word is severely subjective.  It does not say that the inducement of physical or mental pain at all qualifies as torture.  I am saying that the terrorist detainees are given just enough physical or mental pain to speak because they fear what is around the corner.  Preventing what could happen in the mysterious turn of events is what is used to induce the giving of information, not the avoidance of the mental or physical pain at a present moment.  Being subjected to cold temperatures, for example, is not so bad right at first.  It gets worse and worse the longer you are exposed to it.  What gets the terrorists talking is the fear that they are going to be left in the cold.  That example illustrates what I am talking about.



I understand what you're saying, but I think you're giving an arbitrary pardon on just how bad those situations can be, one that also has not been clarified in the declaration that "We do not torture." In short, I think that's a stretch of faith for you to assume that the techniques are somehow stopped before the detainee feels (at the very least) severe mental suffering.

If I'm being interrogated by someone, and they employ techniques to make me feel like I am going to be left in a freezer until I get hypothermia and/or die, I would be in a state of severe mental suffering. Likewise, if they dunk my head over and over, for long periods of time, and make me feel the possibility that if I don't say something, anything, they are going to drown me, I would be in a state of severe mental suffering.






> I was just adding side commentary when I addressed that.



Fair enough. 

But, to add to that, how many of the wrongly accused do you think they put through these techniques, trying to get information that the detainee just doesn't have? Do you have sympathy for them, when they 'crack' and admit to being an Al Qaeda operative, when it's not true, to avoid any more "intense interrogation," or do you think it's just a justified liability, in the name of the war on terror?

----------


## Alric

Well the government has pretty much admited to using torture, and they have done so more than a few times. The real question is have they gone to far in the torturing of people or are they doing just enough to get their answers and not enough to do a lot of harm to the person.

For that question I would say, yes they have gone to far. Making someone feel like they are going to die is horrible. Not only that but its a long drawn out process. Making someone think they will drown is cruel. Infact things like that are far worse than simply beating them up.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I understand what you're saying, but I think you're giving an arbitrary pardon on just how bad those situations can be, one that also has not been clarified in the declaration that "We do not torture." In short, I think that's a stretch of faith for you to assume that the techniques are somehow stopped before the detainee feels (at the very least) severe mental suffering.
> 
> If I'm being interrogated by someone, and they employ techniques to make me feel like I am going to be left in a freezer until I get hypothermia and/or die, I would be in a state of severe mental suffering. Likewise, if they dunk my head over and over, for long periods of time, and make me feel the possibility that if I don't say something, anything, they are going to drown me, I would be in a state of severe mental suffering.



The level of severe mental suffering resulting from worry about what is about to happen would be within their grasp to control, so it could not get more extreme than they allow it.  If they are capable of allowing it to happen, it cannot be too severe.  I don't think the worry of what is coming next when they can call off what would be coming next qualifies as severe mental pain.  If it were, then all police interrogations could be considered torture, and so could all criminal trials.  





> But, to add to that, how many of the wrongly accused do you think they put through these techniques, trying to get information that the detainee just doesn't have? Do you have sympathy for them, when they 'crack' and admit to being an Al Qaeda operative, when it's not true, to avoid any more "intense interrogation," or do you think it's just a justified liability, in the name of the war on terror?



You really have a point on that.  What I am saying is based on the assumption that the government is only using its interrogation resources on people whom they really have great reason to interrogate, such as people who shot at them and people who were found in Al Qaeda training camps and groups of fighters, as well as people that sufficient intelligence says are members of Al Qaeda or other enemy combatants.  The other extreme, which I am not saying you think is the case, would be picking random people off the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan and scaring the Bejesus out of them to find out what they know.  That would be torture, and it would be an atrocity.  There is a grey area between the two extremes, and in that grey area is what I would consider recklessness with the possibility with severe pain.  The law considers recklessness to be as serious as actual intent, and so do I.  I would consider that torture.  

This issue reminds me of the scene in _Pulp Fiction_ when Marseilles says, "We don't want to think.  We want to know.  Get the dogs on his ass and find out exactly what he knows."  Doing that based on what ifs and probably's would be torture.  But using strong intelligence to find enemy combatants and then putting controllable fear in them so they will avoid the perceived coming of torture does not qualify as torture, in my opinion.  If a person is falsely detained once in a while and has "the dogs on his ass" and he has no idea what to say and is therefore horrified, that is absolutely terrible, but it would still be the case that the government was not trying to induce that state and was not using torture as a policy.  The government would, to the best of its knowledge, not even be using torture accidentally.  But the issue of how strong the intelligence on those detainees is does create a fuzzy area.

----------


## R.D.735

In terms of the definitions accepted by most civil societies and explicitly stated in the Geneva Conventions, I think the act of torture has been used by the administration.

It is very difficult, however, to argue that the U.S. does _not_ torture. As has been mentioned, most of the interrogation methods used are secret, and by Executive Privilege(as nebulous a legal principle as any), are completely shielded from congressional or judicial review.

One can only argue that the common definitions of torture are too strict, and there isn't a lot of room to argue on that point without getting into meaningless hypothetical cases.

I think torture should be strictly defined for just this reason. It is far better to quench the temptation to use violent or abusive interrogation techniques than to deal with the grave consequences of not doing so.

----------


## Alric

Like you said torture is clearly defined. The only people argueing that the common definitions of torture is to strict, are the ones who wish to use torture. Even if it may only just be a bit, and for good reason.

Even if you have no plans on killing someone, if you abuse them to the point where they think you will kill them, that is torture. If you yell at someone and say, "Tell us what you know or we will kill you!" That might be a grey area. If you stick a gun into their mouth and yell, "Tell us what you know or we will kill you!" That is torture, even if the gun is not loaded and you have no plans on killing them.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Like you said torture is clearly defined. The only people argueing that the common definitions of torture is to strict, are the ones who wish to use torture. Even if it may only just be a bit, and for good reason.



That is not true.  Many people support the current techniques but are against smashing their testicles with hammers and putting their faces in fire ant beds.  





> Even if you have no plans on killing someone, if you abuse them to the point where they think you will kill them, that is torture. If you yell at someone and say, "Tell us what you know or we will kill you!" That might be a grey area. If you stick a gun into their mouth and yell, "Tell us what you know or we will kill you!" That is torture, even if the gun is not loaded and you have no plans on killing them.



As I said, that would be torturous for a person that has no way out of it.  It is not torture for somebody who only has to stop being evil for a moment and reveal the very important information he has no right to hide.  If he refuses to stop being evil and deals with horror, he is responsible for it.  What we do is legitimate.  From there, it is a matter of what he does to himself.  It is not like he has no choice but to withhold the information about mass killings.

----------


## Alric

Thats when people start lying just to have it stop. Which doesn't really help anyone and a big reason some people don't support torture even though they have no problems with harming others. Of course the other way of thinking is that no matter what they did they are still human and do to that stuff to any human is wrong.

Either way torture is torture. Which is what this topic is about. There is no trying to spin it, that they are doing it to themself or they deserve it. Its about what we do and they should be upfront with it. If they think they are right, they have nothing to hide.

----------


## Howie

Torture will happen with or without our (citizens) consent. Torture will continue with or without us knowing how much, or to what extent.
That is my opinion.
 :Dead Horse:  disclaimer <-- No jack ass was harmed with this emoticon!

----------


## Universal Mind

> Thats when people start lying just to have it stop. Which doesn't really help anyone and a big reason some people don't support torture even though they have no problems with harming others.



That's why part of the process is to tell them that what they are saying is going to be checked out.  

But Howie is probably right.  For all we know, the government has butcher knives up their asses and is following Medieval instruction manuals and we will never know.

----------


## Moonbeam

> But Howie is probably right. For all we know, the government has butcher knives up their asses and is following Medieval instruction manuals and we will never know.



I wouldn't be surprised, and I'm sure they could find a way to justify it.

----------


## Moonbeam

> In other words the eye is falling



I have no idea what you're talking about, but if you're saying this country is going fascist right before our eyes, I agree.

(Mystic 7--how did you do that?  Now it looks like I have precognition, cool.)

----------


## Mystic7

> This is not really to raise the discussion on whether or not torturing detainees is justified - simply on whether or not telling the public that torture is not being used is ethical.



Well basically torture is unpleasant. Once you allow people to be tortured legally then you open the gate for torture to be an acceptable thing to do to another human being. Which is just silly.

Second it's not so much that the public is not being told. It's more because they don't know what to do about the control of corporations and government and are just memorized by the empire building enslaving them while they try to keep their head above water, and are fairly ignorant of what the policies crafted are actually suggesting. But since torture is being legalized people are beginning to realize things are changing around them and that this cannot sustain itself for long.

This is all part of the exposure and failure of the old system. What is carefully designed in terms of empire building over many years, is now in the process of collapse. In other words the eye is falling.

If bush wants to say your an enemy combatant. He can legally take any American, have their citizenship and rights taken, detained and tortured. Under the recent terrorism laws. They are designed more for dictatorship of the American people rather than for terrorism.

This is a fairly bad move and it's in the process of collapsing as a result. As the corruption is getting obvious and what use to work as a control mechanism is failing. Eventually this is going to get rid of the corruption as people will not be interested in sustaining something so fear based and obviously unfair.

----------


## Mystic7

> I have no idea what you're talking about, but if you're saying this country is going fascist right before our eyes, I agree.



Once again it's not that it's going fascist, so much as changing conditions, one of them namely the internet, exposes the fascism present as it begins to struggle over the people to maintain the control. In the meantime it is failing more and more every day. Youtube is a devastating blow to television. And they bleed funds in a desperate struggle to attempt to hide this problem as a horrific drop in viewers and loss of revenue, threatens the very source they used to perpetrate their content.

People may not understand what is happening or how good it is and what change is coming. But I can say that the crumbling of the old fascist empire is now certain. You are seeing a stable systematic destruction of fascism.

While this may appear as an increase in fascism to some. It is only because where it was not seen before. Now it becomes obvious.

----------


## Moonbeam

> While this may appear as an increase in fascism to some. It is only because where it was not seen before. Now it becomes obvious.



That is a very optimistic way of looking at it and I hope you're right.

----------


## Universal Mind

What would be the best way to get terrorists to reveal terrorist attacks in the making?

----------


## R.D.735

Although I'm no expert, I've read several accounts from interrogators, both current and former, that the most effective method is to gain the favor of the potential informant, by such ordinary means as conversation, having lunch with him, and interrogating him non-aggressively every day.

If one wants to get information _quickly_, to prevent an imminent attack, torture can provide information quickly, but it's a huge gamble that it will be accurate. If it isn't, the prisoner isn't likely to provide any reliable intelligence all, no matter what else is attempted.

The best information for preventing imminent attacks does not come from prisoners, but from civilians and informants sympathetic to us, who can provide reliable information and provide it quickly.

----------


## shark!

yeah of course they torture.  there are fucking pictures of it.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Although I'm no expert, I've read several accounts from interrogators, both current and former, that the most effective method is to gain the favor of the potential informant, by such ordinary means as conversation, having lunch with him, and interrogating him non-aggressively every day.



I don't think that is the majority view of interrogators.  It seems like it would be really bizarre if somebody who wants to commit suicide in order to kill you would tell you about his plans just because you had lunch with him and did a lot of hanging out with him.  I don't think Saddam Hussein was found in a hole in the desert because some investigators buddied up with somebody close to Hussein.  I see a significant possibility that when that information was revealed, the person talking had a butcher knife up his ass.  

I think I pretty much agree with the other stuff you wrote.  





> yeah of course they torture. there are fucking pictures of it.



Wow, you can even see Bush and Petraeus in that photograph.  Okay, I'm sold.  The U.S. government obviously has a torture policy.

----------


## juroara

> What would be the best way to get terrorists to reveal terrorist attacks in the making?



lets imagine that you are a terrorist. except in your perspective, you're a hero and a martyr. you believe you are in a holy war, and you're on the side of heaven, everyone else, on the side of hell. death means nothing to you because life on all ends has lost its value.

you're not afraid to die and you probably hate life to begin with 

do you think threatening a terrorist with death is how you win information? 

violence does not lead to solutions. torment a terrorist and in the long run you get, more terrorists. kill a terrorist and you get, another terrorist ready to die and kill for revenge. its a never ending cycle when hatred is involved, and when hatred is involved - such as in terrorism *extreme hate for a perceived enemy* - violence never solves the issue. it may only temporarily weaken the terrorists, but in the long run the ordeal will just leave a bitter resentment in the area which breeds a new generation of terrorists years later

the hard part, and the moral choice would be - to show this terrorist why it is beneficial to him to release information. thats the hard part, but the only way to beat terrorism.

using torture, regardless of how much you might hate a person, is something a terrorist would do.

currently, Bush's idea is you blow up terrorists and they magically disappear. some how over looking that using brute force pisses people off, and that all terrorists have one thing in common - they are pissed off people.

a better way to defeat terrorism is to remove what created it. and thats a cultural situation, not a leader. not saying the leader isn't dangerous, but simply saying that in the long run terrorism will remain regardless of what leader is killed

----------


## Universal Mind

Juroara, I was asking what is the best way to get a terrorist (who is already a terrorist) to talk, not what isn't.

Also, the threat of death and the threat of suffering are two different things.

----------


## NeAvO

> Obviously you were right when you said that you have given this thread "just mere glances". The next time you comment, you should consider actually reading what people have said first.



If you actually read what I said first, you'll notice that didn't comment on whether America tortures or not, I just said this debate won't work because some people's opinions might be biased.

----------


## Universal Mind

> If you actually read what I said first, you'll notice that didn't comment on whether America tortures or not, I just said this debate won't work because some people's opinions might be biased.



You said the debate won't work, yet it has been working.  And one of the major supporters of U.S. foreign policy has said that the U.S. might have a secret torture policy.  I recommend reading the thread.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Hopefully this is the last big one. We really did get off track here, so I'll try to pull it together.





> What I was claiming I never said is that I pick a side and make a _point_ to stay with it because of a "vested interest" or a "technicality" or "talking points".  That was the nature of your characterization.  That is how you described it.  You were suggesting that I hold to a side and am not dissuaded by counterlogic.  But I absolutely do pick the side I think is more logical and usually end up staying with it because I seem to have been right that it is the more logical side, and I am usually very opinionated through the whole process.  However, you showed a very clear exception to that.  You posted a quote of mine where I said that my mind was being changed back and forth.  My mind does get changed when somebody convinces me that the other side is right, and that seemed to be what you were saying I don't do.  You just illustrated a situation where I did.



*"I almost always take a side and squint my eyes at the other one."*

You said "almost always. I said "usually," so I don't know exactly how my showing a situation where you changed your mind was relevant. And I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt by not saying that the explanation you just gave isn't 100&#37; truthful, but that is how I've interpreted that quote, when you first said it, and it seems to be the way that you often debate (again, just IMO). I can't say much about your explanation though because (not saying this is your frame of mind but) even *if* you just picked a side and stuck with it, for any reason, _any_ biased person (were it the case) could give the same explanation you just did when you said "But I absolutely do pick the side I think is more logical and usually end up staying with it because I seem to have been right that it is the more logical side, and I am usually very opinionated through the whole process."

But you are right that this isn't, and shouldn't be, a personal argument. I never meant it to be as such. But, when I'm trying to provide evidence toward a certain possibility and 90% of it is slapped away as "insufficient or insubstantial" by someone whose opinion I believe (and have heard admitted, when you were speaking with NeAvO) is biased, without that person even feeling they have to provide even a _shred_ of counter-evidence other than saying "Well it just wouldn't happen that way," it gets frustrating. When there is no one to moderate such a debate then basically, there is no one that can touch you, if you dismiss all evidence that is not irrefutable, even if the refute is merely arbitrary and has no objective evidence to support it.





> 1) I never claimed that we are in some sort of internet court.  I have said that you have made claims about stuff that could not possibly be disproven.  All I can do is know what your evidence is and critique it.  
> 
> 2) I was also saying that by certain proof standards your evidence would not make it to court in order to illustrate the lack of evidence.  But you yourself have said that your case is not proven.  To tell you the truth, I don't even know what we are arguing about at this point.  
> 
> 3) We both think the existence of black sites and secret U.S. torture policy might be real and that there is evidence of them but that neither has been conclusively proven.  What is the disagreement?



1) Well with your being "one of the major supporters of U.S. foreign policy" how could I possibly expect your critique of evidence to be unbiased? Sure, you've given a vaguely positive response to like 1 of a dozen or so elements that I've posted, which was probably the most undeniable, but the rest you have dismissed by either calling the reports biased, the sources insufficient, or assuming the "most-likely true" intent of quotes made by officials...none of which have been properly-supported critiques. 

2) I don't know that my evidence would not be supported in court. Please provide evidence for that statement. The disagreement comes from how you can wave-away all evidence that could be _possibly_ deflated with un-evidenced rhetoric, , as many D.A.s and prosecutors actually make very lavish careers on doing (which I'm not going to accuse you of using, but ask that you back your claims of "what is insubstantial or irrelevant evidence with some real support).

3) If that is truly your stance then, before now, you have been so vague about that that I'm actually kind of confused, now. But oh well, if you honestly consider that there is evidence (hopefully that goes beyond that 1 or so article that you gave a positive response to), then I'll just take that and continue moving forward. But to go back to what you were saying before, if you DO believe that we should investigate the possibilities, such as I do, I would honestly like to see you do some research and post your findings too. Many of the things I posted could have been found in the references section of the first wikipedia articles I posted. I don't think you have been investigating the possibilities like you say you should. And it takes forever to do this kind of shit on my own.






> Criminals get pissed when they get put through the cycle, and they lash out against the system they had to deal with.  Their words are not credible.  He might be telling the truth, but I am far from convinced of it.



That quote from Zubaida came from Cofer Black. Not Zubaida himself. As far as we know, Black (having the credentials he has) might have had inside information that proves the claim. Who knows? But it would be a stretch to argue that this information came about because of Zubaida's words, so I'm not sure what you meant by this one.





> It's not about whether you were trying to.  It's that you said they would.  My interpretation was that you were saying they already do and that if you asked them, they would tell you.  I am saying that is irrelevant because this forum is the lucid dreaming version of MoveOn.org.



I said I would find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't. And this is in regards to your method of dismissing evidence, not of political bias. There are people in here that are great debaters, and I'd find it unfair to assume that, just because they may not agree with you on content, that they would lie about whether or not your dismissal of evidence is fair, just to side with me. Not to say it wouldn't happen, but say it is irrelevant is simply not true. If I was debating illogically, I would _want_ people to let me know, other than just the person I was debating against. You get me?





> There has been an Abu Ghraib investigation, and nobody higher up has been charged.  It was just the young knuckleheads who took the silly pictures that have been charged.



If I'm not mistaken, there was a huge scandal about how it was believed that many higher-authorities got away scott-free by letting the blame fall solely on those "young knuckle-heads." I'll look some more into that later on, because I honestly don't remember.





> The articles you posted earlier said the U.S. is in charge of the "black sites", and Abu Ghraib is not a "black site".  I am still unclear on the relevance of black sites if torture governments are not supposedly running them....



According to wikipedia: "In Iraq, *Abu Ghraib* was disclosed as also working as a *black site*, and was the center of an extensive prisoner abuse scandal." 

Of course, no one is expected to rely only on wikipedia for information, so I am still digging to add more support for this claim. As of yet, though, there are more details in the "ghost prisoners" article that I already posted.

Also, I don't remember stating anything that pointed directly at who was running the supposed black sites. I've seen speculation that labels both the CIA and other governments. I don't know which one would be correct. I'm only stating what I find as I find it.
 




> And please tell me what our big disagreement is supposed to be at this point.  We have agreed on about thirty things now, including the fact that evidence of black sites and torture exist but that the evidence is inconclusive.



Honestly, I think our main disagreement was that you are looking for me to bring proof, and I have only been bringing evidence. You have agreed on 1 or 2 pieces of evidence that I have brought up, and dismissed everything else. If you are dismissing them as "inconclusive" then you are dismissing them as "proof" and not "evidence." Evidence, by definition, is inconclusive. It is a piece of a piece of a puzzle that supports a claim. Please don't continue to mix up the two.

But, again, you're right, as much of this lengthy tangent was brought about by my frustration, but I would hate to keep it going, so I'd like to try to get back on track.

----------


## legs2021

> If I'm not mistaken, there was a huge scandal about how it was believed that many higher-authorities got away scott-free by letting the blame fall solely on those "young knuckle-heads." I'll look some more into that later on, because I honestly don't remember.



I think that when one is given absolute power (such as the people in the scandal you mentioned), one will abuse absolute power.  There have been studies done on the subject and unfortunately "evidence" brought forth by the media.  No, I don't agree that the "higher-ups" should be allowed to get away with pinning it on the guards at Abu Ghraib because they knew what was going to happen when they granted those guards absolute power.

Because people are given orders to gather information "by any means necessary" they will have officially turned any investigation into a glorified "Witch Hunt".  Which is also why people will become either fearful enough or pissed off enough to admit to whatever they are being charged with thus granting the Investigator MORE absolute power.  

I'm not sure how much actual information was brought to light by the techniques that had been blasted all over the media here in the US, but I'm fairly convinced that it was all information that the detainee's THOUGHT the Investigators wanted to hear.  

I believe that we (the US) are not the only countries employing torture techniques to gather information from POW's.  I also believe that statements such as "by any means necessary" should not be used and absolute power should never be granted in times of war.  But, alas, I couldn't say or even imagine what I would do if ever granted absolute power.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

I agree with pretty much all of that.^

Especially with the last bit. I think it's very important to take note of subtle phrases and "cowboy speak" such as "by any means necessary" or "No Limits" aggressive, relentless, worldwide pursuit of any terrorist who threatens us is the only way to go and is the bottom line" or anything that amounts to it. On one hand, we have rhetoric that works to show how agressively we need-to-be and/or are persuing suspected terrorists. On the other hand, we have articles that say what grounds we can not cross. We already have had many incidents where articles that do just that have been violated, in the persuit of terrorists, so I just don't think it's ever right to dismiss the possibility of someone with absolute power abusing that absolute power, simply by saying they are "playing by the rules," _especially_ when all attempts to varify that they are playing by the rules are thwarted or overturned. 

Yes:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~Lord Acton.

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where laws end, tyranny begins." ~William Pitt the Elder.

Neither is _always_ true, but both are true often enough to _always_ consider.

----------


## Universal Mind

> *"I almost always take a side and squint my eyes at the other one."*
> 
> You said "almost always. I said "usually," so I don't know exactly how my showing a situation where you changed your mind was relevant. And I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt by not saying that the explanation you just gave isn't 100&#37; truthful, but that is how I've interpreted that quote, when you first said it, and it seems to be the way that you often debate (again, just IMO). I can't say much about your explanation though because (not saying this is your frame of mind but) even *if* you just picked a side and stuck with it, for any reason, _any_ biased person (were it the case) could give the same explanation you just did when you said "But I absolutely do pick the side I think is more logical and usually end up staying with it because I seem to have been right that it is the more logical side, and I am usually very opinionated through the whole process."



Again, I do usually pick a side and squint my eyes at the other one.  That is because of what seems logical to me and what does not.  But what I don't do is that in the context of doing it _because_ of a "vested interest" that is shaped by "technicalities" and "talking points".  That is what I never said I did.  You were trying to construe my position as some sort of lawyer thing where I just take a side and then rationalize my ass off because I see it as some kind of mercenary commitment I have made, which I don't do and never said I do.  I side with what I think is logical, as you illustrated with the post about how the debate on site rules about supportive drug talk had me changing my mind back and forth.  





> But you are right that this isn't, and shouldn't be, a personal argument. I never meant it to be as such. But, when I'm trying to provide evidence toward a certain possibility and 90% of it is slapped away as "insufficient or insubstantial" by someone whose opinion I believe (and have heard admitted, when you were speaking with NeAvO) is biased, without that person even feeling they have to provide even a _shred_ of counter-evidence other than saying "Well it just wouldn't happen that way," it gets frustrating. When there is no one to moderate such a debate then basically, there is no one that can touch you, if you dismiss all evidence that is not irrefutable, even if the refute is merely arbitrary and has no objective evidence to support it.



It was not even about slapping it away from you.  I was asking you what the other evidence was.  So we got into this superpost debate about all kinds of things, including my personal intentions as a debater, and THEN you actually gave me the evidence I was asking about.  That was all I wanted in the first place.  You talked about something you yourself said you were not even sure of, and I asked what other evidence for it there is, and the result was all of this when your four or so links were what actually answered the question.  Those links talked about anonymous witnesses.  There's the answer.  It is not enough to convince me that the existence of black sites is real, just like it admittedly is not enough to convince you of it (Do you remember correcting me when I said you claim it's true?), but it was the answer to my simple question.  When I come across what seems like a far fetched claim that it is impossible to disprove (hence the Bigfoot analogy), I like knowing what the evidence is.  Getting, "Now you disprove it," doesn't cut it for me.  





> 1) Well with your being "one of the major supporters of U.S. foreign policy" how could I possibly expect your critique of evidence to be unbiased? Sure, you've given a vaguely positive response to like 1 of a dozen or so elements that I've posted, which was probably the most undeniable, but the rest you have dismissed by either calling the reports biased, the sources insufficient, or assuming the "most-likely true" intent of quotes made by officials...none of which have been properly-supported critiques.



I am just not ready to jump to conclusions.  You said the same about yourself, didn't you?  And my "positive response" has been that black sites might exist, that there are some specific forms of evidence of their existence, and that the U.S. might have a secret torture policy.  I have very much agreed with you on the fact that the U.S. uses harsh interrogation methods.  Those are the big issues we have been talking about, right?  





> 2) I don't know that my evidence would not be supported in court. Please provide evidence for that statement. The disagreement comes from how you can wave-away all evidence that could be _possibly_ deflated with un-evidenced rhetoric, , as many D.A.s and prosecutors actually make very lavish careers on doing (which I'm not going to accuse you of using, but ask that you back your claims of "what is insubstantial or irrelevant evidence with some real support).



As for the existence of black sites, hearsay is worth nothing in court, especially double hearsay, and especially when the witnesses are not even identified, much less available for testimony.  As for torture, as defined by the Geneva Convention, the testimony of terrorists would not get any court too far, and it would not be enough for a trial.  And for the reasons I have stated many times, the tactics the government admits to using do not qualify as "torture" under the Geneva Convention definition.  





> 3) If that is truly your stance then, before now, you have been so vague about that that I'm actually kind of confused, now. But oh well, if you honestly consider that there is evidence (hopefully that goes beyond that 1 or so article that you gave a positive response to), then I'll just take that and continue moving forward. But to go back to what you were saying before, if you DO believe that we should investigate the possibilities, such as I do, I would honestly like to see you do some research and post your findings too. Many of the things I posted could have been found in the references section of the first wikipedia articles I posted. I don't think you have been investigating the possibilities like you say you should. And it takes forever to do this kind of shit on my own.



It is true because you finally talked about the anonymous witnesses, or at least posted links about them.  Again, all I was asking for was what other evidence there was.  We're there now.  Thank you.  But that evidence is not enough to convince me.  I would be extremely naive if it were.  And the comments the officials you quoted were not enough to convince me that they were talking about black sites or what qualifies as torture under the Geneva Convention.  As far as I know, you are with me on that.   





> That quote from Zubaida came from Cofer Black. Not Zubaida himself. As far as we know, Black (having the credentials he has) might have had inside information that proves the claim. Who knows? But it would be a stretch to argue that this information came about because of Zubaida's words, so I'm not sure what you meant by this one.



I just looked at the Watshington Post article again.  The paragraph that made the Zubaida shooting claim was not a Cofer Black quote.  It was just the Post reporter saying it as fact.  It may be a fact, but it was allegedly Zubaida's Pakistani captors that did that to him, not Americans at an American run "black site.  





> I said I would find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't. And this is in regards to your method of dismissing evidence, not of political bias. There are people in here that are great debaters, and I'd find it unfair to assume that, just because they may not agree with you on content, that they would lie about whether or not your dismissal of evidence is fair, just to side with me. Not to say it wouldn't happen, but say it is irrelevant is simply not true. If I was debating illogically, I would _want_ people to let me know, other than just the person I was debating against. You get me?



I don't want to get into character issues about the liberals who post here.  I will just say that I know what my intentions and true beliefs are.  If you and whoever else don't, then that is something I am used to.  And there is a difference between complete dismissal of evidence and saying that evidence is vastly insufficient.  I already said there is some evidence, so why are we even still talking about this?  





> If I'm not mistaken, there was a huge scandal about how it was believed that many higher-authorities got away scott-free by letting the blame fall solely on those "young knuckle-heads." I'll look some more into that later on, because I honestly don't remember.



Sure, there is all kinds of talk and assumption and accusations that even go as far as getting alien conspiracies into the hysteria.  But there have been no other charges.  You and I both know that there are plenty of fringe leftists out there who will say anything to make the U.S. look bad.  It does not qualify as significant evidence.  





> According to wikipedia: "In Iraq, *Abu Ghraib* was disclosed as also working as a *black site*, and was the center of an extensive prisoner abuse scandal." 
> 
> Of course, no one is expected to rely only on wikipedia for information, so I am still digging to add more support for this claim. As of yet, though, there are more details in the "ghost prisoners" article that I already posted.
> 
> Also, I don't remember stating anything that pointed directly at who was running the supposed black sites. I've seen speculation that labels both the CIA and other governments. I don't know which one would be correct. I'm only stating what I find as I find it.



The articles you posted said the U.S. government does not admit to the existence of black sites, so it would be really strange if Wikipedia could just spew it off as fact and be sure of it.  Abu Ghraib is a prison that existed under the Hussein regime.  It is a well known location in Iraq.  





> Honestly, I think our main disagreement was that you are looking for me to bring proof, and I have only been bringing evidence. You have agreed on 1 or 2 pieces of evidence that I have brought up, and dismissed everything else. If you are dismissing them as "inconclusive" then you are dismissing them as "proof" and not "evidence." Evidence, by definition, is inconclusive. It is a piece of a piece of a puzzle that supports a claim. Please don't continue to mix up the two.



I corrected my use of the word "proof" way back and clarified that I was talking about "evidence".  I have done that more than once.  I have also agreed that you have articles saying anonymous witnesses have made claims.  I saw the articles.  I agree with you.  I agree that Cofer Black apparently said what he apparently said.  I agree that the U.S. uses harsh interrogation methods.  I agree that black sites might exist.  I agree that the U.S. might use secret torture policies.  I just don't think the evidence is that strong, but you do, though we both agree that the existence of black sites and secret U.S. torture policies might be real but have not been proven to be real.  So we only disagree with how strong the evidence is, which we both agree exists, and we agree that the evidence is not conclusive.  We have been typing some pretty long posts over such a minor disagreement.  

I think that when I asked what other evidence there is for somebody else's claim that major military secret black sites exist and that _they_ know about such a big time and potentially explosively controversial military secret, you took that as some kind of personal attack.  You reacted as though I was saying, "Oneironaut, you are a loonie.  Ha ha, you believe in black sites!  You don't have shit for proof, so you suck!"  Really, all I was saying was, "What is _their_  basis for that wild and impossible to disprove claim?"  But I perhaps at times asked it in the form of, "What do _you_ have that says what their basis is?"





> But, again, you're right, as much of this lengthy tangent was brought about by my frustration, but I would hate to keep it going, so I'd like to try to get back on track.



Sounds good.  We agree too much for any more of this shit.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> You were trying to construe my position as some sort of lawyer thing where I just take a side and then rationalize my ass off because I see it as some kind of mercenary commitment I have made



It simply seemed that way, to me, but I am willing to put it aside so we can continue.





> Really, all I was saying was, "What is their  basis for that wild and impossible to disprove claim?" But I perhaps at times asked it in the form of, "What do you have that says what their basis is?"... We have been typing some pretty long posts over such a minor disagreement.



True enough. Because of the way your opinions have been voiced, I figured you were dismissing most of what I was saying/posting as not enough to even consider them evidence, but I suppose you were saying that it just wasn't enough to convince you of the claim. I was really unclear on that until the last few posts. Perhaps I just misread you.





> I have very much agreed with you on the fact that the U.S. uses harsh interrogation methods. Those are the big issues we have been talking about, right?



And I would like to take it further and try to investigate evidence that the U.S. uses tactics that are more harsh than the ones they have openly admitted to. Related text: ACLU on Extraordinary Rendition and case subjects





> I just looked at the Watshington Post article again. The paragraph that made the Zubaida shooting claim was not a Cofer Black quote. It was just the Post reporter saying it as fact.



You're absolutely right. I just went back and double-checked. My mistake. I will try to find out if anything supports that claim. However, as the U.S. has been working (somewhat) closely with Pakistan, and in light of all of the allegations of these secret CIA flights (and Cofer Black's _actual_ statement that we "give them to other people so they can kick the [explative] out of them") there is (some) _reason_ to believe that the Pakistani government was doing the (alleged) torture for _us._ This is something that should be looked into, further.





> Sure, there is all kinds of talk and assumption and accusations that even go as far as getting alien conspiracies into the hysteria.



This was a Pentagon report drafted in 2003. Read the synopsis and the attached .pdf - Excerpts of this report were also published in the _Wall Street Journal_. (Report also posted on legal news sites such as news.findlaw.com and further discussed by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (item #3).





> The articles you posted said the U.S. government does not admit to the existence of black sites, so it would be really strange if Wikipedia could just spew it off as fact and be sure of it. Abu Ghraib is a prison that existed under the Hussein regime. It is a well known location in Iraq.



I think you're confused on this one. A black site is not necessarily a site whose location is unknown. What is unknown is its being used for secret/covert operations. If the White House had a secret program running to where they were torturing suspected terrorists in the basement, the White House would be what qualifies as a Black Site.

----------


## Universal Mind

Okay, I think we're closer to being on the same page.  There are just a few key things worth discussing now.  





> And I would like to take it further and try to investigate evidence that the U.S. uses tactics that are more harsh than the ones they have openly admitted to. Related text: ACLU on Extraordinary Rendition and case subjects



I will say ahead of time that the ACLU's claims may be true.  But remember that the page is about law suits in which the ACLU is going to be representing those possible terrorists, which means that the information on that page is coming straight from the attorneys for the plaintiffs.  





> However, as the U.S. has been working (somewhat) closely with Pakistan, and in light of all of the allegations of these secret CIA flights (and Cofer Black's _actual_ statement that we "give them to other people so they can kick the [explative] out of them") there is (some) _reason_ to believe that the Pakistani government was doing the (alleged) torture for _us._ This is something that should be looked into, further.



We are both the political version of agnostics on that.  When there is more solid information, I would love to look at it.  





> This was a Pentagon report drafted in 2003. Read the synopsis and the attached .pdf - Excerpts of this report were also published in the _Wall Street Journal_. (Report also posted on legal news sites such as news.findlaw.com and further discussed by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (item #3).



Wow, that does make it look like the chief counsel to the Defense Department gave recommendations of exactly the type of stuff that happened at Abu Ghraib.  That is excellent evidence that the Defense Department ordered the actions.  Maybe the secretary decided against the use of the tactics but somebody lower down decided to use them because he was given reason to believe the methods are effective.  Something is definitely very fishy there.  

I still don't think scaring terrorists with things they can get out of by doing what is right is torture.  When I see strong enough evidence of the use of iron maidens and melting syrofoam on skin, I will definitely say that the government is engaging in torture.  I will also say the U.S. government is has a secret torture policy when there is strong enough evidence that officials are ordering that terrorists are made to think that those things are going to happen and cannot stop it by doing anything reasonable.  But scaring people with dogs and getting them naked so they will say what they can and should say does not seem to be torture under the Geneva Convention definition, if that is what is happening.  It would still be odd that the government condemned Abu Ghraib and denied that higher ups ordered what happened if they did if what all did happen was not "torture".  

I also think that maybe Abu Ghraib was something the government decided to throw at the public so everybody would go nuts over it and paint the U.S. interrogation methods picture with barking dogs and naked men to distract everybody away from the faces in fire ant beds and butcher knives up people's asses.  Just a speculation.  





> I think you're confused on this one. A black site is not necessarily a site whose location is unknown. What is unknown is its being used for secret/covert operations. If the White House had a secret program running to where they were torturing suspected terrorists in the basement, the White House would be what qualifies as a Black Site.



Oh, I thought black sites were supposed to have secret locations.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...cret+locations

Maybe that is supposed to be a common theme of them but not part of the definition.  The government definitely does not provide the public with all of the details of what goes on at the interrogation sites, though they do give what they claim to be descriptions of the general and accepted methods.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

New developments:

Hill Panel Agrees to Bar CIA Waterboarding

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

A link posted by Kromoh, in another thread:

Torture of Iraqi P.O.W.s

----------

