Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Well there has to be a middle ground, we shouldn't torture or befriend these people.> As an interrogator, you can appear to befriend someone without actually doing so.
Originally Posted By ecdc And BTW, while I really admire DAR for evaluating some comments and changing his perspective, even before he did that at least his position made sense and fit within his own moral framework, even though I disagreed. DAR made it clear he doesn't care one iota about these guys and doesn't feel bad if they're tortured. Frankly, it's a position I'm sympathetic to. My issue was about the efficacy of it and our own morality. Even if he hadn't changed his perspective and explained why he feels like it's still moral, I'd disagree but could respect him because it made sense. DAR's position had far more integrity than this current neocon semantics and moral ambiguity game. "Oh it's not torture, but even if it is, at least it's not bad torture. Oh, and it saves lives. You guys don't want to save lives. Traitors. What's that? The people doing it say it doesn't work as effectively as traditional methods? [Fingers in ears] La la lalalalalalalala! I'm not listening! Oh, here's a link to National Review that says it does work. They know more than the people doing the torture. Why are you insulting the CIA? Don't you love America? I guess you don't. You like seeing our soldiers dragged burning through the streets. That's a shame. I guess I just love America more than you." The tactics couldn't be more obvious, and they only work on people gullible enough to believe our democratically elected leadership is a "tyranny" that's going to take away their guns and redistribute their "wealth" to gay abortionist-loving terrorists harvested from stem-cells.
Originally Posted By piperlynne >>>>that's going to take away their guns and redistribute their "wealth" to gay abortionist-loving terrorists harvested from stem-cells.<<<< LMAO!!!!!!!! OMG, I just spit out my starbucks before it came out of my nose.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Meanwhile, while you all claim the evil Bush administration tortured people just for kicks, our CIA guys are ducking for cover, making us less safe. Congratulations on your moral and intellectual superiority. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042102969.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...969.html</a>
Originally Posted By piperlynne >>Meanwhile, while you all claim the evil Bush administration tortured people just for kicks, our CIA guys are ducking for cover, making us less safe. Congratulations on your moral and intellectual superiority.<< Which one of us exactly claimed that this was done "just for kicks"?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>while you all claim the evil Bush administration tortured people just for kicks<< More nonsense. No one said any such thing. But you've been distorting people's arguments in this thread for several posts now. If that's the way you want to play it, don't bellyache about it when it happens to you next time. To quote the article: >>America will be better off, in the long run, for Obama's decision to expose the past practice of torture and ban its future use.<< That is exactly the point.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Which one of us exactly claimed that this was done "just for kicks"? << No one. Just like no one insulted the troops or the CIA agents involved, or mom, apple pie, or Chevrolet. But it's easy to fling that charge out there to distract. It is distorting and denigrating what people say and it's dismissive of whatever points people bring up. The three "D"s Doug is always accusing others of doing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan ("But they staaarted it!" Doug will shout from the distance...) And the beat goes on.
Originally Posted By piperlynne AND back to the OP questions: >>1. Did you ever imagine it was so many times to one person?<< In one month? No, 183 seems a little excessive (ok well, you know how I feel, so it all seems excessive) >>2. How many times do you think you can put one person through the same thing before they become immune to its effects, ie is the 183rd time as effective as the 1st?<< Do I think you become immune to a sense of drowning? No. I think that will cause psychological panic and fear that you are going to die at any time. >>3. Does this new information change your opinion of the effectiveness and/or necessity of waterboarding?<< No, I never thought it was necessary and I still don't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh If I'm a zealot for my stance, I guess President Clinton is as well, as he implicity allowed for the use of torture in extreme situations: "Let’s take the best case, OK. You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that’s the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or water-boarding him or otherwise working him over. If they really believed that that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternate proposal. We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don’t need blanket advance approval for blanket torture. They can draw a statute much more narrowly, which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No one said any such thing.> You've said it wasn't necessary. And you've implied they should have known it wasn't necessary. Why do you think they did it?
Originally Posted By piperlynne #1 I don't agree with Former President Clinton's stance in that the US should use torture as an option in any case #2 Lets get more of that interview shall we? (and NOTE: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court") Clinton was then asked whether he was saying there "would be more responsibility afterward for what was done." He replied: "Yeah, well, the president could take personal responsibility for it. But you do it on a case-by-case basis, and there'd be some review of it." "If they really believe the time comes when the only way they can get a reliable piece of information is to beat it out of someone or put a drug in their body to talk it out of 'em, then they can present it to the Foreign Intelligence Court, or some other court, just under the same circumstances we do with wiretaps. Post facto…. " Again. . don't agree with the PostFacto thing. But note that he's saying that if that decison IS made, responsibility needs to be taken for that decision. "But I think if you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Convention and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we're gonna be in real trouble." Agree with this one.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<No one said any such thing.>> <You've said it wasn't necessary. And you've implied they should have known it wasn't necessary. Why do you think they did it?> I don't think Bush and co. authorized it because they're eeeeeevil, or any such nonsense. Certainly not "for kicks." I think they did so because they thought they could get good intelligence out of it. However, they a). either neglected to ask for or dismissed what any number of interrogators could have told them about the efficacy of torture vs. other methods, and b). didn't sufficiently weigh the possible damage to the country when it was revealed, as surely it would be some day, and c). forgot what this country is supposed to stand for and were willing to sacrifice principle and morality for (phantom) expedience. So they approved it because they thought (erroneously) that the possible upside outweighed the possible downside. That's not a crude good/evil stance, but some of us actually are capable of nuance in our reasoning, you know. No one said they did it "for kicks," yet that's how you distorted the position.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Agree with this one.> Well, I agree with both. I think it's unwise to rule out harsh interrogation techniques, or even torture, in all circumstances.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>No one said they did it "for kicks," yet that's how you distorted the position.<< And then more goalpost moving by switching from "they did it for kicks" to "you've said it wasn't necessary." Cause saying torture isn't a necessary way to gather intel is the same as saying Bush did it for kicks. Sure.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I apologize for my misunderstanding, and modify my earlier statement: Meanwhile, while you all claim the Bush administration tortured people just because they were too stupid to listen to good advice, our CIA guys are ducking for cover, making us less safe. Congratulations on your moral and intellectual superiority.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And you've implied they should have known it wasn't necessary. Why do you think they did it?<< Because this administration prided itself on it's "gut." Truthiness was how they made many decisions - we think it's true so it must be so. That's what's led to such gems as "I looked into Putin's soul..." and "Iraq is a central front in the war on terror." I don't think Bush is lying when he says that about Iraq. I just think he's a simple-minded incompetent fool who sees Saddam and bin Laden and thinks, "Hey, they're both bad guys, they're both Arab. They probably have something in common. Maybe they even know each other." So we tortured people for an Iraq-Al Qaeda link that didn't exist because Bush and Cheney were certain there must've been one because, well, they said so.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Congratulations on your moral and intellectual superiority.<< Thank you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Thanks for the apology, but... again, no one said "too stupid." Stop it, please. And your own link concludes with Ignatius saying "America will be better off, in the long run, for Obama's decision to expose the past practice of torture and ban its future use. But meanwhile, the country is fighting a war, and it needs to take care that the sunlight of exposure doesn't blind its shadow warriors. " In other words, it's a good thing Obama is doing, but he should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Who could disagree with that? He also says "Disclosure of the torture memos may have been necessary, as part of an overdue campaign to change America's image in the world. But nobody should pretend that the disclosures weren't costly to CIA morale and effectiveness. " but that it not the same thing as concluding (as you do) that it makes us less safe. It means the CIA may need to change the way it does business in order to do its job. That's not the same thing. Okay, I've responded to your link. Ever going to respond to mine? The one that calls the false claims of torture efficacy what they are?
