SeanRenaud's tags:
SeanRenaud reads (4):
This is continued from http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/80386/The-Bush-admin-on-torture-in-their-own-words encase anybody is new to this.  This is to a one on one debate between bloc and stopmediabias for the purpose of defining torture and what is acceptable forms of interrogation.  It will also specifically cover the practices of the Bush administration and discuss the morality of those actions and how they effect our democracy and society.
 
They will be taking turns responding to each other and each gets two direct questions per post to keep things both flowing and ideally without novel like posts.  As the moderator I will be deleting posts that I find to be either devoid of subsance i.e.  Bush is a stupid dummy head, liberals eat babies, personal attacks ie. blochead or well I can't think of anything remotely clever right now, or if you entirely dodged whatever question was being asked of you.
 
If a fact is questioned, please quote sources.  The right or left leaning of a site does not dismiss the information withing, especaily if they are primarily facts and figures not he said she said.  That said the more neutral a source the higher it ranks. so Ihatebush.com=Ilickbush but both are below brittanica.com, so on and so forth. 
 
I'd like a response from each of you that I have covered what you require before the debate starts.


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • bloc said on Jul 29, 2007....
    "This is to a one on one debate between bloc and stopmediabias for the purpose of defining torture and what is acceptable forms of interrogation. "

    I would also like to discuss the Bush admins policies specifically and how they relate to our democracy, society, etc. Basically, are Bush's policies wrong and immoral? Other than that, everything sounds good and I'm ready to go.

    Maybe change the title to something like "Torture and America"
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 29, 2007....
    Is this better?
  • stopmediabias said on Jul 29, 2007....
    Ok, everything is fine here,
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 29, 2007....
    Good, once bloc returns and confirms you guys can start in.
  • silverwhisper said on Jul 30, 2007....
    sean, i'm just checking in b/c i'd like to watch the debate.

    ed
  • bloc said on Jul 30, 2007....
    I'd like to start with the ground work. SMB, should the government be allowed to torture people in situations other than the ticking time bomb? For the sake of argument, assume that the definition of torture is one that you accept. 
  • stopmediabias said on Jul 30, 2007....

     No

  • bloc said on Jul 30, 2007....
    great, we're on the same page so far. Do you consider any of these techniques torture?

    1. Waterboarding
    2. sleep deprivation
    3. sensory deprivation
    4. induced hypothermia or "cold cell"
  • stopmediabias said on Jul 30, 2007....

         It is my opinion that everyone in the world is different and every situation is different especially in a war.  A 17 year old Iraqi kid that has been bullied into believing Americans are monsters is far different from a hardcore Al Qaeda member. 

    So my answer is No but connected is the statement above which implies there are no absolutes.  Induced hypothermia may be torture to a teenager but not to a hardcore Al Qaeda guy. 

  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 30, 2007....
    You dodged the question.  He gave you a list of four things to define as torture or not.  Wether or not torture is sometimes justified is what lies in the gray area.  Aside from maybe varying medical conditions (flickering the lights could be torture to someone with eplepsy but it would just annoy me.)  I could go on and on.  What is an isn't torture is an absolute.
     
    Another example would be deadly force.  There are situations (self defense, war, execution) where deadly force is justified but what is and isn't deadly force is pretty much written in stone, one again barring various medical conditions, a punch to the nose would be deadly force if somebody was a bleeder (the medical term escapes me at the moment.)
     
    In short please answer the question.
  • stopmediabias said on Jul 30, 2007....

     Let me clarify:

    "Do you consider any of these techniques torture?"

      A midguided teenager versus an experienced Al Queda would have different techniques of persuation put on them, some I would consider torture and others no.  You want me to say aboslutlely "no," I won't because it is a rhetorical question.

    With that said, for the sake of debate I will answer straight, No I do not consider any of the above mentioned techniques torture.

    One other thing:  "Whether or not torture is sometimes justified is what lies in the gray area."  -moderators words

    We haven't actually gotten  to the debate as to whether the above things mentioned are torture and you as the "moderator" have implied they are.  Lets keep it neutral moderator-man.

  • bloc said on Jul 30, 2007....
    I think we're having semantic issues, but I think we can go on without immediate clarification. 

    Which of those techniques would you allow for "hardcore Al Qaeda"? For what other classification of people would these techniques be permissible? 
  • bloc said on Jul 30, 2007....
    my previous comment was started before I read your most recent comment. You answered the first question already :)

    I'll wait for an answer to the second and follow up with one more. Do you seriously believe that keeping someone in freezing cold until they get hypothermia is not torture? Seriously?
  • stopmediabias said on Jul 30, 2007....

    Interesting because don't we induce hypothermia on our own men in different forms of training?

    Induced hyporthermia short of it being life threatening is harsh but does not fall under what I consider torture.  I trust our military knows the line and when not to cross it.

  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 30, 2007....
    I disagree, but bottom line is that if bloc doesn't see it as a problem then there is no problem :-).  Carry on gentlemen.
  • bloc said on Jul 30, 2007....
    There is a huge difference between those that choose to subject themselves to something (soldiers in training, bdsm, etc) and those that are prisoners. 

    Here's a better way to put it. If it's ok to do it because our military does it for training is it ok to do it to normal criminals in prison. If we catch a drug addicted can we use waterboarding and induced hypothermia in order to catch the drug dealer?

    Second, what about sleep deprivation? Is it torture to prevent someone for sleeping for an entire year? What if it's only 1 hour of sleep a night for an entire year?
  • stopmediabias said on Jul 30, 2007....

    Ok, you make a valid point as far as choosing versus forced, as far as the effect.  The point I was trying to make is a basis of torture or not torture is based whether our men can handle it in training.  If 100 of our men can handle harsh treatment then so can a person who is being interrogated.  Yes there is the mental anguish of not knowing how long the enemy is holding them in these conditions but is that actually torture. 

    "If it's ok to do it because our military does it for training is it ok to do it to normal criminals in prison. If we catch a drug addicted can we use waterboarding and induced hypothermia in order to catch the drug dealer?"

    This is a terrible comparison, drug dealers aren't blowing innocent people up.

    "Second, what about sleep deprivation? Is it torture to prevent someone for sleeping for an entire year? What if it's only 1 hour of sleep a night for an entire year?"
     
    First of all it is impossible to prevent someone from sleeping for an entire year.  Second, do I care or consider it torture if the enemy does not get to sleep, No I don't.
     
     I think we can go back and forth on what is and isn't exceptable so let me see if I can clarify because I think we are on the same page.
     
    My side is yes these things are terrible and yes members of our military and other agencies have crossed the line.  But it is not representative of the entire military or America.  If someone went to far they will or have been prosecuted.
     
     
  • bloc said on Jul 30, 2007....
    "This is a terrible comparison, drug dealers aren't blowing innocent people up."

    Torture is torture regardless of the person being tortured. You can claim that ti's justified torture, but not that it's isn't torture based on the person being subjected to it. This is what sean was saying in his comment.

    "My side is yes these things are terrible and yes members of our military and other agencies have crossed the line. But it is not representative of the entire military or America. If someone went to far they will or have been prosecuted."

    I'm unclear on your use of the phrase "crossed the line". Do you believe that induced hypothermia or waterboarding are techniques that cross the line and that those that did it or ordered it should be prosecuted?

    I want to go back to hypothermia and waterboarding for a moment, and whether they are or are not torture. Our government and many highly respected people have unequivocally called these techniques torture in the past when done to americans. In fact a japanese officer was convicted of torture by the US after waterboarding and American soldier. Are you telling me that this wasn't torture and that this japanese officer committed no crime?
  • stopmediabias said on Jul 30, 2007....

      Our military is trained on how much a prisoner can handle.  Waterboarding under controlled situations is not torture.  -This is what I mean by "crossing the line":  I will concede that members of our military and other agencies have gone to far in their interrogations.  The Manadel Jamadi case you showed in the ice picture.  He was hung by his arms and beaten and died.  These members of the CIA and the military who allowed this should be prosecuted.  At the same time these rogue members are not representative of America.

    "In fact a japanese officer was convicted of torture by the US after waterboarding and American soldier. Are you telling me that this wasn't torture and that this japanese officer committed no crime?"

    Our soldiers are not the Japanese and it is not the same technique.  If you compare an interrogation by the Japanese versus by the Americans you will discover the Japanese side is much harsher.  Our servicepeople are trained in this stuff and know how to use it effectively to get information and at the same time do not go into the rhelm of what is torture.  Out of the thousands of people in the military, if a handfull of animals get out of control,does that warrant:  Bush Authorizes Torture- In a headline?

  • bloc said on Jul 30, 2007....
    I'm really baffled by your last reply. I fail to see a difference between our waterboarding and that of the japanese. In fact, you've given no specific distinctions other than assertions which seem to be wishful thinking at best. 

    What distinguishes lawful waterboarding from unlawful waterboarding? Basically your saying that it's ok when American's waterboard someone but not ok when someone else does, and the only justification you give is that american's are better. That is not a convincing argument. 

    CIA agents have said that waterboarding, the way they do it, will break someone in a matter of seconds and that the person being tortured will beg to confess. Why, Because they believe they will die of drowning and that fear of immediate death is the torture. I see no distinction between that fear when caused by an American and you haven't given one. 

    My second question is simple. Is it ever ok for other countries to waterboard americans? Even americans that aren't soldiers?
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 30, 2007....
    While I understand SMB's stance that what actions are required to gain compliance from one individual are different from what might be required for others and bloc's stance that milk and cookis aren't required for humane treatment it seems you guys are largely arguing semantics so if it's not to big a hassle it seems that we need to either A have an established definition of torture (for the purposes of this conversation) of B understand what each of you mean when you use the term.
  • D6fer said on Jul 31, 2007....
    just stopped by to mark this....carry on  ;)
  • bloc said on Jul 31, 2007....
    My gripe isn't the definition of torture, but the seemingly inconsistent application of it. Why is waterboarding by an american ok, but waterboarding by a japanese soldier torture? 

    "Our soldiers are not the Japanese and it is not the same technique"

    This needs to be more than an assertion since it is the same technique. He wants it both ways. He can't reasonably claim that all the historical accounts and statements about waterboarding being torture are false yet he needs to claim tha waterboarding isn't torture because the Bush admin has ordered it. 

    It's a corner he's painted himself into.
  • stopmediabias said on Jul 31, 2007....

    http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Waterboarding-Definition-Wikipedia24dec05.htm

    In the article above it says: "There are several different varieties of interrogation techniques referred to as waterboarding"

    After you read this article (which is not friendly to the actual technique) you will see there are different types of waterboarding. 

    If your asking me whether Khalid Shaik Mohammed spending two minutes of pure terror thinking and feeling as if he is going to drown, no I do not consider that torture.  Yes it is harsh but it doesn't under the definition of torture:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

    Torture, according to international law, is "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 or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."[1]

    Now when you click on "suffering" (because I think waterboarding fits more into suffering rather than "severe pain") it will say from mild to insufferable.  If we actually follow this then there is no form a interrogation that we can do.  Mild suffering is considered torture?  That's what I have a hard time with.  Where I am able to sleep at night is because trust our military.  I don't believe our military personal would take any interrogation to a degree beyond what is really torture.

  • bloc said on Jul 31, 2007....
    We're going in circles so I'll try to end this portion of the disagreement. You're arguing that it's not torture because the US is doing it. You haven't given any specifics that have explained how our waterboarding is fundamentally different than waterboarding done to americans in the past which has been clearly called torture. Are you suggesting that you are OK with some forms of waterboarding being done to Americans? Let me restate this question. Are you saying that it's ok for other countries to waterboard americans in the same manner that our military is using? What about putting americans in cold cells and dumping water on them every now and then until they get hypothermia? What about forcing them to go without sleep for extended periods of time?

    In essence, are you saying that it's ok for other countries to use the same techniques our military is using against american citizens?
  • bloc said on Jul 31, 2007....
    Here is the description of waterboarding from the link you give.

    "The technique is designed to be both psychological and physical. The psychological effect is that the victim is led to believe that he or she is being executed. This reinforces the interrogator's control and makes the victim experience mortal fear. The physical effects are extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints on the struggling victim."

    They then go on to say

    "Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated "a number of people" who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including "water-boarding," in which a suspect is bound and immersed in water until he nearly drowns. An interview for the New Yorker states:

    He argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. "The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience," he said"


    For my second question, please explain why the technique used by the CIA isn't torture in comparison to ones used against Americans in previous wars.


  • stopmediabias said on Jul 31, 2007....
    I can't repeat myself anymore, you are indirectly stating that you don't trust Americans.  I'm not going to keep reiterating the same things over and over.  You think it's torture and I don't, that's it. 
     
    Here is the irony of the debate and this is what makes me scream.  People such as yourself will agree that torture is a big no-no.  So by stating that you must agree that all torture is bad and would want to get rid of all torture no matter who is doing it. 
     
    The attention of the torture issue:  Now, I don't believe waterboarding or the other terrible things are torture so from my point of view I see papers like the New York Times cry about waterboarding when actual torture is happening all over the world.  There are terrible stories of torture everywhere and yet all the attention goes on America.  Before we took Saddam down, Iraq was the one of the most notorious countries for the worst kinds of torture and some of the men we are supposedly torturing have probably really and truly tortured people.  The New York Times could sell just as many papers on that as they did on the Abu Graab story. 
     
    Also, this ridiculous notion of: Are you suggesting that you are OK with some forms of waterboarding being done to Americans?
     
    Are you really serious?  If only we could be so lucky as to be waterboarded.  Americans throughout history have been subject to worst kinds of torture imaginable.  Lets see, two minutes of simulated drowning or having my eyeballs burned with cigarette butts, hmmm. 
     
    Next, have you seen the actual process of waterboarding or the other techniques mentioned?  Have you talked to the men who perform such techniques?  Have you talked to the people who train others on how to use such techniques?   Maybe you should, they are our brothers and fathers and friends and co-workers.    
     
    I'm guessing you will answer no to the above questions as would I. So how can me make rational decisions on programs we know very little about?  We can read all negative crap in the news that portray Americans as villians and the terrorists as the poor innocent victims.  We have gotten a lot of intelligence from subjects we have interrogated and this is a war we are fighting against a bunch of animals. 
     
    Yes, I did dodge the questions.  
     
  • bloc said on Jul 31, 2007....
    "You think it's torture and I don't, that's it."

    No it isn't. You have yet to give a specific reason why our waterboarding technique isn't torture while those we've called torture in the past are torture. What makes one technique torture and the other not? I know the answer, there is no difference. 

    "Now, I don't believe waterboarding or the other terrible things are torture so from my point of view .."

    This seems to contradict what you said earlier. I reread it and realized that you never gave a clear answer. Are you saying that in the past the americans that were waterboarded were not tortured? Are you saying that the japanese officer did nothing wrong when he waterboarded american soldier?

    Why did you dodge? Is it ok for other countries to waterboard americans? 
  • bloc said on Jul 31, 2007....
    "Next, have you seen the actual process of waterboarding or the other techniques mentioned?"


    yes

    "Have you talked to the men who perform such techniques?"

    no


    "Have you talked to the people who train others on how to use such techniques?"


    Are we now training people to torture? I didn't realize we were.


    " Maybe you should, they are our brothers and fathers and friends and co-workers"


    This is false. My brothers, fathers, and friends are not torturers. I've been in the military and I can assure you that none of my friends in the military were torturers and that while I was in the rules on this were very clear. torture was not allowed.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 31, 2007....
    Once again I feel compelled to step in.  SMB you need to define what torture is, at the very least for the purposes of this conversation.  The defintion of torture doesn't change based on who is the victim.  Nor does the definition of deadly force, the question is when is it justified.
     
     
  • D6fer said on Aug 01, 2007....
    I find this whole debate silly.......The reason we opposed the japanese using waterboarding was purely a position that one would expect any country to take to protect it's people.....you don't negotiate from center....if you believe you do, then I would like to sell you a car!
     
    Sorry to butt in......I don't see an agreement in sight....and the moderator seems to lean to the left on this one.
  • stopmediabias said on Aug 01, 2007....

    I defined what torture is: "any act which causes severe pain or suffering......etc...."

    <"You think it's torture and I don't, that's it."
    No it isn't. You have yet to give a specific reason why our waterboarding technique isn't torture while those we've called torture in the past are torture. What makes one technique torture and the other not? I know the answer, there is no difference. 
    "Now, I don't believe waterboarding or the other terrible things are torture so from my point of view .."
    This seems to contradict what you said earlier. I reread it and realized that you never gave a clear answer. Are you saying that in the past the americans that were waterboarded were not tortured? Are you saying that the japanese officer did nothing wrong when he waterboarded american soldier? >

    You've lost me here:  READ ABOUT WATERBOARDING, some countries dunk people upside down in the water until they nearly drown, some spray in the face with water, The Chinese drip water, there are many different techniques of waterboarding.  Americans policy has always been we do not condone torture so the system of waterboarding that we are using is not torture, if it is people will be prosecuted.  I don't wanna see Americans even go to war, interrogated, tortured, etc...and If I know the Japanese, yes Americans were tortured when they were waterboarded.

    So lets see your proof of the actual process of waterboarding by Americans in this war on terror.  Without the use of some ridiculously liberal source.

    "Are we now training people to torture? I didn't realize we were."

    I'm not going to answer this because it is another hate-America statement that shows you trust Liberal media more than you do the American military.


     

  • bloc said on Aug 01, 2007....
    "Americans policy has always been we do not condone torture so the system of waterboarding that we are using is not torture, if it is people will be prosecuted. I don't wanna see Americans even go to war, interrogated, tortured, etc...and If I know the Japanese, yes Americans were tortured when they were waterboarded."

    This is bigotry, not an answer. You are claiming that it's not torture simply because americans are doing it and that it is torture if a japanese person does it. 

    You clearly aren't going to answer so I'll leave it for the readers to decide. 

    You still haven't answered the most important question. Is it ok for other countries to use the same waterboarding technique as the CIA on americans? Please answer this.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2007....
    Ok, let's pause here for a moment.  While I think that definitions should be black and white (like most things in the world) you two are circling the question.  Which seems to largely be the basis for the entire conversation.  That said we haven't heard any questions from SMB so we are going to cut this conversation for a moment and let SMB go on the offensive.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2007....
    Ok, let's pause here for a moment.  While I think that definitions should be black and white (like most things in the world) you two are circling the question.  Which seems to largely be the basis for the entire conversation.  That said we haven't heard any questions from SMB so we are going to cut this conversation for a moment and let SMB go on the offensive.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2007....
    Ok, let's pause here for a moment.  While I think that definitions should be black and white (like most things in the world) you two are circling the question.  Which seems to largely be the basis for the entire conversation.  That said we haven't heard any questions from SMB so we are going to cut this conversation for a moment and let SMB go on the offensive.
  • bloc said on Aug 01, 2007....
    I just want that one question answered. If the techniques we are using are OK then is it also OK for other countries to use them on Americans?
  • bloc said on Aug 01, 2007....
    Wow, what's up with the duplicating comments these days?
  • stopmediabias said on Aug 01, 2007....

    Is there an echo in here....

    Bloc I answered the question (from my comments above):

    <<Also, this ridiculous notion of: (quote from you)Are you suggesting that you are OK with some forms of waterboarding being done to Americans?
     
    Are you really serious?  If only we could be so lucky as to be waterboarded.  Americans throughout history have been subject to the worst kinds of torture imaginable.  Lets see, two minutes of simulated drowning or having my eyeballs burned with cigarette butts, hmmm>>
     
    When America actually uses military force it is generally with really bad people who could give a shit about international law or the geneva convention.
     
     
     
     
  • stopmediabias said on Aug 01, 2007....
    Ok, In this round I would like (if ok with moderator) to give bloc the last word before I start my questions, because I threw my two cents in when a pause was called.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2007....
    That's fine, I was just trying to let you ask for a bit.  For the most part I'm staying out of things as much as I can.
  • bloc said on Aug 01, 2007....
    You still didn't answer the question. Is it OK for other countries to use the current CIA techniques on americans? This is fundamental to our discussion. 

    I'm not trying to be a hard ass, I'm trying to understand your point of view. I believe these techniques are immoral, are torture, and are a crime. You believe that these techniques are OK in the way that the CIA are using them so I'm trying to find out  where else you think these techniques are OK and why or why not.

    I'm trying to lay down a groundwork of our views before getting into the actions of the Bush Admin. 
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 02, 2007....
    don't mind me, just bumping this so that it stays current.

    ed
  • stopmediabias said on Aug 02, 2007....

    If it is done in the manner that legal Americans do then yes, it is ok for this to be done to Americans, our soldiers are tough bastards and can (because they've endured it in training) handle it.  But this is such a ridiculous notion because to the enemy we are dealing with these interrogation techniques are mild. 

    With that, my first question to you is what is your definition of torture?  This can be a one sentence or a several paragraph answer.

     

     

  • bloc said on Aug 05, 2007....
    "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" source I'm on a mini vacation so I may not get to respond as often as usual.
  • stopmediabias said on Aug 05, 2007....

    So we are both are on the same page as far as the definition of torture.  How I think we differentiate is; what can be construed as "severe pain" or "severe suffering."  Parts of the elite media have now watered down that specific defintion to mean "discomfort" can be defined as severe pain or suffering. 

    If we accept this and allow people to speculate on things that should be a matter of national security it will seriously harm our ability to gather intelligence.  How would you interogate high-level men who have information that could thwart attacks and possibly save lives?  I'm asking this assuming you would not use any of the above techniques you believe are torture.

    If you don't respond quickly I get it, I get busy also, so take your time.

  • bloc said on Aug 05, 2007....
    "How would you interogate high-level men who have information that could thwart attacks and possibly save lives?"

    The same way we did it when we were fighting the evil empire (the soviets), and the nazis, and the in vietnam. We didn't have any problems defeating those two without legalizing torture.

    "How I think we differentiate is; what can be construed as "severe pain" or "severe suffering." Parts of the elite media have now watered down that specific defintion to mean "discomfort" can be defined as severe pain or suffering. "

    I don't mean to be rude, but this is a meaningless statement because you didn't give any specifics or examples. Did I water down the meaning? I believe very strongly that keeping a person naked for days or months in a freezing cold dark cell until they get hypothermia to be a clear case of severe suffering. Is that watered down?
  • bloc said on Aug 05, 2007....
    Here is a very detailed look at your question regarding interrogation techniques. I hope you'll take the time to read it.
  • bloc said on Aug 05, 2007....
    Here are some more thoughts on the definition of torture. 

    First an account for a US soldier tortured in vietnam

    Things started with long sessions of standing immobile around the clock; next I was put on my knees for three, four, six hours at a time. This went on for days. It was the first phase, sort of a limbering-up session to wear me out and take the edge off my powers of reasoning. 
    ...
    The guards stuffed a rag in my mouth with the rod, then, after putting another rag over my face, they slowly poured the water on it until all I was breathing was water vapor. I could feel my lungs going tight with fluid and felt like I was drowning. I thrashed in panic as darkness took over. As I passed out, thinking I was dying, I remember thanking God that we had made a stand against this kind of society."

    source

    Next is an account from a US soldier tortured by japanese.

    "I was given what they call the water cure. I was put on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. A towel was wrapped around my face and water was poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start all over again. I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death." 
    source

    Next an account for another US soldier on his training experience.

    "Our trainers were careful to instruct us on the Geneva Conventions and which interrogation techniques were covered and which were illegal. I have a very clear memory of what they said about waterboarding. As I recall, water boarding was classified as torture and was a violation of the Geneva Conventions. They told us about the technique for the simple reason that the North Vietnamese used it on American Forces. They wanted us to know about that technique in case we were ever captured by "scumbags who didn't respect the Geneva Conventions." There were no demonstrations; it was considered too traumatic.
    I'm not making this up. The military trainers at our Survival School had nothing but contempt for techniques like this, and we were taught that they were international criminal offenses." source

    Our country very clearly believed that these techniques were torture before Bush. This is not some conspiracy by the media or some pacifists attempts and watering down the definition of torture. These are first hand accounts from american soldiers who were either tortured by these same techniques or were taught that they were torture by the military. 
  • stopmediabias said on Aug 07, 2007....
    "I don't mean to be rude, but this is a meaningless statement because you didn't give any specifics or examples. Did I water down the meaning? I believe very strongly that keeping a person naked for days or months in a freezing cold dark cell until they get hypothermia to be a clear case of severe suffering. Is that watered down?"
     
    Yes you do:), I said the "media" waters it down.  What this means is the media picks definitions of torture to fit their agenda.  Example: a defintion of torture quoted above-

    Torture, according to international law, is "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 or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."[1]

     Now if you are the media who wants everyone in the world to think George Bush and Dick Cheney are bad evil people, couldn't you use the definition above to define any means of harsh interrogation as torture.  Mild suffering and intimidation is torture now?
     
    I read the torture account, if I'm clear you trying to compare years and years of pure hellish and relentless torture, including a type of waterboarding, with our harsh interrogations?  This is insulting.      
     
    We are getting no where here.  You can site all these things and you still cannot prove the Americans present day policy includes torture.  And siting the few rogue Americans like in Abu Graib doesn't count because these are few cases not representative of our policy.  If you come up with Liberals and Conservatives that say waterboarding is torture I'll come up with the same that say just the opposite.
     
    If your outdated interrogation techniques work then why aren't we using them?  Why waterboard?  Is it because our President is evil or because we are dealing with people who give up nothing without harsh interrogations? 
     
     
     
  • bloc said on Aug 07, 2007....
    "You can site all these things and you still cannot prove the Americans present day policy includes torture."

    I haven't gotten to the Bush Admin yet. I'm trying to establish the basics. I've quoted americans that have been waterboarded Do you consider those accounts torture or not? Notice that they are almost identical to the technique used by the CIA.

    A couple of other points. You said that it's Ok for other countries to use the same techniques on american soldiers. I did not ask about soldiers specifically, but about americans in general. We have tortured many civilians and many innocent people. I'm sure it was by mistake, but if it's acceptable for us to make these mistakes is it not also acceptable for other countries to make those mistakes with americans? 

    Also, you said that you trust the military. Most torture is done by the CIA not the military. In fact, Yoo (one of the legal architects of Bush's torture policy) argued that the military shouldn't be allowed to torture because he didn't trust them to be able to control themselves. He thought it should be limited to the CIA. Do you trust the CIA to use these techniques? 

    "If your outdated interrogation techniques work then why aren't we using them? Why waterboard? Is it because our President is evil or because we are dealing with people who give up nothing without harsh interrogations?"

    1. I can't answer why the Bush admin does what they do. 
    2. Why Waterboard? Same answer as above. 
    3. I don't believe that torture produces effective intel. You have yet to prove that it does. 
  • stopmediabias said on Aug 08, 2007....

    It is time to let the folks decide, we are going around in circles.  You ask me questions based on statements you cannot prove.  I think what we are missing here is this is an un-winnable argrument for either side because we are talking about things that are highly classified.  Information either filtered and leaked to the media is generally unreliable. 

    You say: "I don't believe that torture produces effective intel. You have yet to prove that it does." 

    First of all there is no "torture" and secondly didn't Kalid S. Mohamed (don't give a shit about spelling) give up a boat load of information or should I say "effective intel"?

    The debate here is defining torture and acceptable forms of interrogation.  You can't prove our present day interrogation techniques are torture and are the present-day policy of the Bush Administration.

     

  • D6fer said on Aug 09, 2007....
    I think opinions are going to fall as they did before your debate.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 09, 2007....
    i think you're right, d6. but i'm curious about an assertion smb made about information leaked to the media being unreliable: how would one be able to make that statement w/out a basis for comparison? and wouldn't the same apply to the information presented by the pentagon?

    ed
  • bloc said on Aug 09, 2007....
    I'm not trying to win anything. I am trying to understand the rationale behind your point of view. Unfortunately I can't understand your point of view even things we talk about in the abstract. You've said things that seem to contradict about what is and isn't torture. You imply that it is torture when americans are waterboarded in japan or vietnam, but you then claim that waterboarding by Bush isn't torture. I don't understand. 

    You say that I can't prove Bush's policies. First, I haven't tried yet. I wanted to come to an understanding of these techniques in the abstract before we got to the Bush policies specifically. When are these certain techniques allowed and when aren't they? If they aren't torture then were they not torture when done to Americans in the past? 

    Second, I can prove some of his policies because we do have some of the memos

    Third, we can't prove a lot of things because Bush is doing them in secret. Is this democratic? We all know that this is an issue about our core values as a society, shouldn't it be open for discussion in a democracy? Bush refuses to answer simple questions regarding this topic and that is a major part of the problem.

    Lastly, I want to talk about the guy that was tortured to death in abu ghraib. You mentioned it before and said that it was a terrible crime. My question to you, why hasn't anyone been prosecuted? Bush is the executive and the commander in chief. He is the single person responsible for ensuring that our laws are enforced! Having been in the military I am certain that they can find out who was there and carried out the interrogation. You ask us to trust that Bush isn't torturing, but I don't see how we can if he is completely uninterested in prosecuting people that you and I both agree are torturers. 

    @d6
    your comment regarding japanese waterboarding doesn't make any sense. Do you believe that it was ok when americans were waterboarded? We prosecuted a japanese officer for waterboarding an american, do you believe we should reverse that prosecution? 

    At the end of the day I haven't found a defender of Bush's policies that can present a consistent view. The same techniques that Bush is using have long been called torture when done to americans by very conservative people including the Reagan administration. It isn't liberals that believe that waterboarding and induced hypothermia are torture. It was almost every administration up until Bush. Now, suddenly, we're supposed to believe that it isn't torture and to totally forget the past? My moral compass doesn't turn 180 degrees depending on who the torturer is. 

    I'd like to conclude with a quote that I believe sums up what we've seen here.

    "It is more convenient for people not to care. By and large, they are far more prepared to accept official explanations than to take the trouble to find out what is really going on. For, if they found out, their consciences might require them to do something about it. "


  • silverwhisper said on Aug 09, 2007....
    am i alone in thinking that in smb's last comment, he assumes his conclusion that america does not engage in torture, period?

    ed
  • stopmediabias said on Aug 10, 2007....

    If I may make one final rebutt then I will let Bloc have the final word.

    There are several instances where disgruntled people, or people with a strong agenda have misrepresented the facts when they went public with what they know about certain things, example is the Haditha story. 

    "You imply that it is torture when Americans are waterboarded in japan or vietnam, but you then claim that waterboarding by Bush isn't torture. I don't understand." 

    So for some reason I cannot get my point across, I don't know if it is me or you but I'll try again one last time.  You sourced a story of a man brutally tortured in Vietnam for years, we as Americans do not do that as a general policy.  The V who were torturing this American did not think of, were not taught, or just plain didn't give a shit about the Geneva Convention.  We Americans always have the Geneva Convention on the table, and we may bend the rules, but I don't believe this is by definition torture.   "Severe pain and Suffering" can be interpreted to fit the nature of the enemy we are fighting. 
     
    What is the difference between waterboarding by the V and waterboarding by Americans?  Let me answer this question with a hypothetical:  If you had to choose who to be waterboarded by, would you choose the V or Americans?  Of course you are going to say the Americans, why?  We are a source for good in the world and as a general rule do not torture people. 
     
     
    "Third, we can't prove a lot of things because Bush is doing them in secret. Is this democratic? We all know that this is an issue about our core values as a society, shouldn't it be open for discussion in a democracy? Bush refuses to answer simple questions regarding this topic and that is a major part of the problem."
     
    I don't care about how dreadfully secret The Bush Administration is, the main point is we cannot get all the facts because we are talking about something that is a matter of national security.  Being that we don't have all the facts then blabbing waterboarding is torture to whole world probably doesn't help much.  Numerous media outlets around the world hammer on every little detail and turn it into a negative and you guys wonder why so secretive.  We are in an ongoing struggle right now, secrecy is one of our allies because if we as ordinary Americans know something then so does the enemy.
     
    I will concede that waterboarding is teedering on the edge of what could be construed as extreme suffering, but based on the overall record of our military and how overall Americans act, no it's not torture.  There are liberals who don't believe waterboarding is torture, who cares it's a difference of opinion.  And if the enemy gets more brutal then we have to adjust the severity of how we do things.  Who would have ever imagined back during the Carter days that Islamic wackos would blow schools and kill school children, these people are beyond hope.
     
    ("memos" link couldn't get anywhere)
     
    I care about America and believe that if we are torturing people then people who are doing and ordered it will be punished.  For that reason I don't care, I think there a lot of other far more troublesome things in the world to focus on right now.
     
    V-
  • D6fer said on Aug 11, 2007....
    bloc.....I'm not really sure if everyone on my side of this debate feels this way or not.....but for me it all comes down to a matter of context of the situation.....in the case of the war on terror, I feel that we are absolutely on the right side of what is morally right in what we are trying to achieve......the muslims in this case are trying to eradicate us.....what is the alternative that they offer us?....we all become devout muslims and denounce our religions (or lack thereof).....so personally, I really don't care what methods they use to get pertinent information.
    In the case of WWII and the Japanese....we know that they used torture...and in my opinion, I'm sure we did as well.....I would bet that we have used it in every war....only difference is that now days information is much easier to come by....and more and more americans don't seem to view patriotism the same way they did 40 or 50 years ago.....I think there were more willing participants in the cover up.....I also believe that the geneva convention is worthless in that there will always be countries that won't follow it....and it will always be anyone we are up against....I think that it was implemented as a tool of well meaning individuals bent on ridding the world of war by making it nearly impossible to fight......I believe it is the goal of the left in this country to make all wars end in some kind of stalemate....anyone?
  • bloc said on Aug 11, 2007....
    "I also believe that the geneva convention is worthless in that there will always be countries that won't follow it....and it will always be anyone we are up against"

    This is telling. Notice how he's already decided that anyone that america is against is automatically terrible. By definition american is always justified in whatever it does.

    "I also believe that the geneva convention is worthless in that there will always be countries that won't follow it"

    Does this make all laws worthless?

    "I believe it is the goal of the left in this country to make all wars end in some kind of stalemate....anyone?"

    LOL, yeah, I wanted WWII to be a tie, LOL
  • bloc said on Aug 13, 2007....
    some more info on this subject. Keep in mind this was an AMERICAN CITIZEN

    Jose Padilla had no history of mental illness when President Bush ordered him detained in 2002 as a suspected Al Qaeda operative. But he does now.

    The Muslim convert was subjected to prison conditions and interrogation techniques that took him past the breaking point, mental health experts say.

    Two psychiatrists and a psychologist who conducted detailed personal examinations of Mr. Padilla on behalf of his defense lawyers say his extended detention and interrogation at the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., left him with severe mental disabilities. All three say he may never recover.

    source
  • D6fer said on Aug 14, 2007....

    yeah....funny thing bloc.....I believe in America....I believe we are a just nation

    we can't change the past....WWII ended the way it did....thank god......Ever since Viet Nam (A war we were winning when the left threw in the towel for us)......this has been the trend....we can't win as long as the political left has any say in it whatsoever.

    Two psychiatrists and a psychologist who conducted detailed personal examinations of Mr. Padilla on behalf of his defense lawyers

     

  • D6fer said on Aug 14, 2007....

    I got cut off.....what I was going to say was:

    The above statement says it all in my book!

     

  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2007....
    Am I the only son bitch without a book?
  • bloc said on Aug 14, 2007....
    hehe, don't get the fantasy book d6 i reading. You'll think all kinds of crazy things, things like "we were winning in vietnam"!

    Notice that no definition of "winning" is ever given. 
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2007....
    Killing more of them than they were of us.
     
    Being forced to retreat less often.
     
    Holding more territory than the other guy.
     
    Having lost less battles.
     
    That kind of stuff. 
     
     
  • bloc said on Aug 14, 2007....
    this is the problem with lots of wars. If the goal is to kill or destroy then yes, we were winning, but that wasn't the goal just like it isn't the goal in Iraq.

    In vietnam our government told a big lie (amongst many) that we were fighting for the people of vietnam and helping them defend themselves from the evil communists. Our goal was to create a capitalistic economy run by the people of vietnam and that the communists were a small minority or were merely agents of the soviets; that the vietnam people were on our side. When you setup goals like this then the definition of winning isn't killing the people you are supposed to be helping! If we weren't trying to help "them" then the other big lie comes tumbling down. That is the lie that our wars aren't aggressive and oppressive actions meant to impose our will on other people. That we don't give a fuck about democracy as long as the little fish countries do our bidding. Either way, one of the pillars of d6's world view has to come down, if we are to remain logical. 

    We hear very similar bullshit about Iraq. "if only we would let loose our military we'd be able to win". How would killing more Iraqis get us closer to a democratic society run by Iraqis when there are two factions engaged in a civil war? 

    Real life isn't G.I. Joe
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2007....
    It seemed to hold the world together just fine until sometime in the middle of the twentieth century. 
     
    I do believe we were fighting communism in 'Nam and with arming Saddam.  Was this at least in part about imposing our will on the rest of the world.  Undoubtedly.  We were trying mostly to help ourselves.  Very rarely (a strong argument can be made for never) do human beings perform truly selfless acts.
     
    The French didn't help us gain our independence out of the goodness of their hearts.  They just wanted to weaken the Brits.  Hell we didn't join either of the World War II because we felt bad about what was happening to the Jews.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find a nation that entered a war for completely or even mostly unselfish reasons.
     
    If real life was G.I. Joe things would be either a lot better or a lot worse.  I mean wars would be fought entirely between about two dozen people, with usually less than 6 active on any given side.  When somebody died it would be a huge event and mostly just really cool machines would get blown up. 
     
    Either that or you know, we'd be stuck in an endless war with the Soviets who had access to really cool weapons and were real keen on using them.
  • bloc said on Aug 14, 2007....
    "I do believe we were fighting communism"

    You mean that we were fighting the people of vietnam to stop them from having the government they wanted for themselves. We were fighting to prevent democracy! However, politicians have to buid support for wars and they usually appeal to noble ideals. This is bullshit, but you can't blame the media or liberals for asking why these politicians aren't living up to their own bullshit.
  • bloc said on Aug 14, 2007....
    btw, when I say something like "you can't blame the ..." I'm using "you" in the general sense. I don't mean you, seanrenaud, :)
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2007....
    "You mean that we were fighting the people of vietnam to stop them from having the government they wanted for themselves. We were fighting to prevent democracy! "
     
    Same difference really.  I likewise don't believe that we went to war with Iraq for the oil.  I think it was a combination of good intentions, not wanting Saddam to have WMD's, quite probably reminding some of the little dictator nations that they remain soverign because we allow it, and a healthy dose of "you tried to hurt my daddy!"   Thing is that life in the current modern world is based around oil.  If oil is truly running out as many people believe (myself included, I think the ambiogenesis theory is bullshit, but hopefully it isn't) then people are going to start going to war for oil.  And it will be justified because the options are likely in many cases to be 1. allow your nation to starve (I highly doubt we could farm and ship enough food to feed our nation without oil at this point or hell the immediately forseeable future) 2.  Go to war, get some oil.
     
     
    "However, politicians have to buid support for wars and they usually appeal to noble ideals. This is bullshit, but you can't blame the media or liberals for asking why these politicians aren't living up to their own bullshit. "
     
    Problem is, the average person is deeply stupid.  I think this was rather concretely proven when Obama damn near commited political seppuku by saying he'd be willing to invade Pakistan IF they refuse to find and destroy KNOWN terrorist cells on their own.  Telling the truth really doesn't work to for some (to me) unfathomable and terrifying reason.
  • bloc said on Aug 14, 2007....
    your options are missing an important option.
    3. learn how to replace oil as an energy source.


  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2007....
     
    Which isn't an option in the current world, nor the forseeable future.
     
    Don't get me wrong that needs to be a goal, a damned important one right the fuck now.  I mean Manhattan Project level of importance. 
     
    Thing is that the forseeable future doesn't realistically contain an alternative energy source.  There is a good deal of promising technology, but nothing immediate.
  • bloc said on Aug 14, 2007....
    I disagree. We have tons of options for alternatives and don't think it would take us long to adjust if we were serious. Nuclear power is always an option, it may not be ideal, but it sounds a whole lot better than the wars for oil idea.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2007....
    Nuclear cars?  Hell we can hardly get electric cars to consistently handle the kinds of loads we put on our vehicles. 
     
    I doubt that jet propulsion is even possible with out you know, jet fuel. 
     
    Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be around to see the world go into oil wars (which if alternatives aren't found could very easily start in the next thirty years.)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory Depending of course on how bad peope let it get before going crazy.  I was too young to remember the 1980 shortage, but I've heard stories.
     
    Our infastructure is far to large to change overnight, or even realitvely quickly.  There would be A LOT of work to be done. 
     
    To be fair though I really really hope your right and I'm just being pointlessly paranoid.
  • bloc said on Aug 14, 2007....
    hydrogen cars! Hydrogen is a fuel source, it's an energy carrier so we could run hydrogen cars but generate the energy from anything including nuclear and solar/wind/etc.


  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2007....
    Last I checked we couldn't get the technology for reliable hydrogen cars, you know, into the car.
  • bloc said on Aug 14, 2007....
    I haven't heard that, but I haven't kept up with it either. However, that is a single technical hurdle which doesn't seem to justify your pessimism on our ability to get off oil :)
  • stopmediabias said on Aug 14, 2007....

    Sean-The "Peak Oil" nonsense is kind silly in this country because no matter how much oil we actually find the whacko environmentalists will start suing to prevent us from getting it.

    Bloc-If we had invaded North Vietnam and slaughtered all of the communists would Vietnam be a better place today? 

  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2007....
    Last I heard they were still having major problems gettin hydrogen cells small enough to be put in vehicles.  But they may have over come it.  That said there is still a lot of work to be done in other sectors.  Hell its hard to convince people that nuclear power is safe.  It's like religion, no amount of facts and figures mean anything to anybody.  There was Cherynobyl though. 
     
    The peak oil isn't nonsense, the enviromentalists would shut up, or be shut up if we COULDN'T get oil from other nations because those nations ran out. 
  • bloc said on Aug 14, 2007....
    Most of the vietnamese were communists, even in the south. I personally believe that genocide is wrong, but maybe you have a different opinion.

    Your point about peak oil doesn't make any sense. Even if there are nutty environmentalists that doesn't mean that "peak oil" is nonsense. 
  • D6fer said on Aug 14, 2007....
    here's one answer to the gas issue. source
  • bloc said on Aug 15, 2007....
    that's a cool car. I definitely think we can create a car that doesn't require gas. We may need to build more nuclear facilities, which I'm a bit skeptical of, but we really really need to look at some conservation. We are way too excessive in our consumption.
  • D6fer said on Aug 15, 2007....
    We have all kinds of wind that is virtually untapped....funny thing is....now some environmentalists oppose it.....apparently there are some extremely stupid birds that move so slow that they cant make it through the blades.....or they are not really environmentalists....just anti-american nut jobs, trying to undermine our progress....could be either....I don't know
  • bloc said on Aug 15, 2007....
    there are always a few nutjobs. They can be ignored in most cases because they have no real power. You often, and unfortunately, conflate the nutjobs with anyone you disagree with which is a shame.

Comment on "Moderated Debate: Torture and America"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

just thought i'd throw this up in the air and see if i get any biters....
A thought provoking take on Bush's speech last night.

"The reason he put it this way, I infer, is that if he describes what was done to McCain as torture, he has incriminated himself for war crimes."...
Valdimir Cheney...




SoulCast ... the boring-a-tron.




...
"According to the Bush administration's definition of torture, McCain was therefore not tortured"...

Subscribe to the SoulCast Newsletter To Receive the Best Uncensored Blogs About Love, Sex, Relationships, God, Politics, and More.


Ever wonder what people really think and how they really live?

Read about the real lives of regular people like you whose powerful moving blogs will make you smile, cry, emotional, and warm inside.

Your FREE SoulCast newsletter is just moments away. Receive your first feel-good blog by entering your email address below.

First Name:
Your Email:


You can unsubscribe at any time with one click. We NEVER sell or share your email address with anyone. Period. close