Torture or "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

[David]

@DavidL: way to ignore 90% of my points. I ask that you respond to the rest of my post. Perhaps you can't?

You haven't even responded soundly to any of my posts. Please highlight which point you would like me to respond to. As far as I know, I have responded to all your points, which are of primary importance, not secondary importance, which then would be another debate issue. There are too many assumptive posts to even begin to extract what I need to respond to.

Again, even with this post, you have claimed that I "ignored 90%" of your posts. That's a mere assumption with no backing evidence. Seriously, having a sound debate means you make your arguments with a succession of logic, based on a main statement. Most arguments you have put forward have not followed logic, and based on an overriding assumption, and insult. You seem to make personal attacking comments when you can't respond with a sound argument, so if you can't make a sound argument or a non-insinuating argument, then don't. So, if you could please present one flawless argument, I'd be happy to respond to that.

BTW, you clearly intended to go off-topic with your comment on the "lame leftist cliche", which clearly was not necessary. You didn't even need to make that comment, so if you can't provide a sound argument (flawless), you've just brought this onto yourself.

 

[Cosmic]

Sorry, I misse dsome of the parts you quoted from my post. They were mixe din with some quotes from PBI.

Hows abouts you stop dodging everything we say with your dumb remarks like "It's impossible to prove that" and other such crap.

First hand witnesses override secondary sources. Any historian would agree.

Cite your first hand witness that says something to the contrary, I want real proof, not some friend's friend who told you one night when he was drunk. I want a link from a reputable source, since you don't like Wikipedia. It has to either be .edu or .gov, nothing else.

Military analysts can provide a possible outcome of deaths, yet we will never know that exact amount.

How many decimal places do you want the answer to, professor?

You choose Wikipedia as one of your main sources; no need to make any further comment.

If you weren't dodging the point strategically, then you would respond as if the data were true and then point out the reputability of the source.

Again, you voice too many assumptions. 1. necessity of flaming the US for Germany (you assume I don't have an opinion on that)

You brought up Hiroshima on this thread, even though it's the lesser of two things would could be considered sins by the United States. I quote: "early the US military isn't there to genuinely save lives. Take World War Two for example. Innocent Japanese civilians were killed as part of the government's scheme to end WW2". You did not mention our bombing of german civilians, which was a much greater figure by all accounts. The A-bomb killed 200,000 japs, according to your unprovable statistics which you provided on the last page. However, all account show that many times more Germans were killed than at the two A0bomb sites. the reason why cited Hiroshima is because it's over-glorified by america haters. The left sees that as the "Custer's last stand" against american Imperialism.

2. "over-glorifying the use of a weapon which you do not like" (prove that I have said I don't like the weapon)

I assure you, it's VEEEEERY easy to tell that you don't like it.

3. "it was necessary" (how can you say that killing innocent civilians is necessary to save US lives?).

How can you say that those innocent civilians weren't going to be warriors if we invaded? Proof? I want a reputable source, that's a .gov or a .edu, that says that they would not have engaged in uniformness urban warfare like the terrorists in Iraq.

Who said I despise Germany? The German system has changed; the US hasn't.

Proof? I want a reputable, .edu or .gov source that says that the United States has not changed at all since the 40s. The fact that Harry s, Truman is no longer the president of the united states is proof enough that america is doing things differently.

The German approach has changed; the US hasn't.

Proof?

The German ideology has changed; the US hasn't.

Proof?

The US seems to continue to voice "better you than us".

Proof?

Of course it's fair; USA just had the ideology of "better you than us", and is evident even after the war during nuclear testing in the Pacific.

Proof?

USA did not have to go to war, but chose to after being attacked.

What the hell? We were attacked by the Japanese. Thus they started the war. How the heck can you blame us for that?

Germany had failed with the development of the A-Bomb. The natural ingredient of heavy water need to sustain the bomb's creation was not able to be transported over the lake (can't remember name) to the main bomb site, hence Germany was out of the nuclear race much early in the 40's.

And who says that they couldn't move the facility then?

But really, your argument is basically trying to bash at my statements by turning the "prove that" statement back onto me.

Proof?

I am arguing the logic of your statements, which is what debate is about.

In a debate, you never, ever, ever tell someone that their argument is illogical. what you do is you prove it to them with facts, not just by saying it.

You haven't even responded soundly to any of my posts.

Define "soundly". Anyway, last I checked, you were not the judge of the debate.

 

[David]

Hows abouts you stop dodging everything we say with your dumb remarks like "It's impossible to prove that" and other such crap.

Why? You haven't made your arguments with logic. If I am making "dumb remarks", then you have not said a word of logic yet.

Cite your first hand witness that says something to the contrary, I want real proof, not some friend's friend who told you one night when he was drunk. I want a link from a reputable source, since you don't like Wikipedia. It has to either be .edu or .gov, nothing else.

Again, the first point about "friends friend" is just assumption. I gave my link way back in the debate. http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm

How many decimal places do you want the answer to, professor?

Hardly the point I was making. Analysts could be +/- 50% off. Unless the event happened, there is a high level of uncertainty. To answer your question, 0 decimal places. We don't consider half people in the count.

If you weren't dodging the point strategically, then you would respond as if the data were true and then point out the reputability of the source.

Lol, guessing you never took history classes. Wikipedia is the secondary source, or a medium of information. The stats may have been calculated by a reputable source, but using the secondary source isn't good argumentation.

You brought up Hiroshima on this thread, even though it's the lesser of two things would could be considered sins by the United States. I quote: "early the US military isn't there to genuinely save lives. Take World War Two for example. Innocent Japanese civilians were killed as part of the government's scheme to end WW2". You did not mention our bombing of german civilians, which was a much greater figure by all accounts. The A-bomb killed 200,000 japs, according to your unprovable statistics which you provided on the last page. However, all account show that many times more Germans were killed than at the two A0bomb sites. the reason why cited Hiroshima is because it's over-glorified by america haters. The left sees that as the "Custer's last stand" against american Imperialism.

I brought it into the debate with reason, to counter-attack your flawed first argument. You seem to go out of everyone's way and "attempt" to justify it with illogical arguments.

I assure you, it's VEEEEERY easy to tell that you don't like it.

You clearly do not seem to accept a differing view, nor do you understand where I am coming from. If you did, then you would not have made those insinuating comments. You can never assure me, merely assume.

How can you say that those innocent civilians weren't going to be warriors if we invaded? Proof? I want a reputable source, that's a .gov or a .edu, that says that they would not have engaged in uniformness urban warfare like the terrorists in Iraq.

Logic falls short with your argument, again. My argument was based on what actually happened; your response is based on assumption, which evidence isn't necessary.

Proof? I want a reputable, .edu or .gov source that says that the United States has not changed at all since the 40s. The fact that Harry s, Truman is no longer the president of the united states is proof enough that america is doing things differently.

Germany was ruled by the National Socialist German Workers' Party, where they have different ideologies to the modern Christian Democratic Union of Germany. USA is currently Democratic and so was Truman. Historically, the Democrats and Republics have shared some similar views, however in Germany, those two sides are opposed in ideology.

The German approach has changed; the US hasn't.

Proof?

You don't see Germany supporting wars, whereas USA has definitely stuck their nose into other country's issues, eg. Iraq War; it was declared over, but troops still remain, only out of suspicion.

The German ideology has changed; the US hasn't.

Proof?

Same as the government claim.

The US seems to continue to voice "better you than us".

Proof?

This is by historical observation, as evident in WW2. Truman preferred if it were the Japanese who died, not US soldiers.

Of course it's fair; USA just had the ideology of "better you than us", and is evident even after the war during nuclear testing in the Pacific.

Proof?

Why test in the Pacific then?

USA did not have to go to war, but chose to after being attacked.

What the hell? We were attacked by the Japanese. Thus they started the war. How the heck can you blame us for that?

Funny how you tend to say "us" or "we". You don't stand up for the whole of USA. I don't blame the US for fighting; it was a good choice, but it's just a choice.

Germany had failed with the development of the A-Bomb. The natural ingredient of heavy water need to sustain the bomb's creation was not able to be transported over the lake (can't remember name) to the main bomb site, hence Germany was out of the nuclear race much early in the 40's.

And who says that they couldn't move the facility then?

Yeah, so they're going to move a whole mountain across the river or they're going move half the country onto a small mountain. Logic falls short there.

But really, your argument is basically trying to bash at my statements by turning the "prove that" statement back onto me.

Proof?

Observation; I see that you don't like my argumentation, but that's just a personal response which you're trying to make.

I am arguing the logic of your statements, which is what debate is about.

In a debate, you never, ever, ever tell someone that their argument is illogical. what you do is you prove it to them with facts, not just by saying it.

Are you deluded? In a debate you must have one underlying statement and form logical arguments from that, which follow each other without flaw. You've repeatedly made flawed arguments, irrelevant arguments and are based on an assumption. How can one not intervene?

You haven't even responded soundly to any of my posts.

Define "soundly". Anyway, last I checked, you were not the judge of the debate.

Princeton defines "sound" as "reasoned: logically valid", which your arguments are not. I'm not the judge, but if you make that comment, then you must provide who is the judge, otherwise there isn't a judge.

 

[Cosmic]

Okay, here's some logic for 'ya:

You keep bashing Truman for making a decision where you have the complete and total benefit of hindsight and he does not. He had two options before him which were being told to him by his top military advisors. the first was to invade Japan from the ground. Military estimates scores a sum of millions of casualties on both sides if that happened. The other choice was to use a new weapon on one city which, through shock, would deliver the victory through less casualties. He chose the latter.

What you are doing is lampooning him for killing innocent civilians. However, at the time, there was the unknown fact of how many would die. He made a choice which was a more direct means of killing civilians, but according to his data, would kill less. Otherwise, they would die from countless firebombings, air raids, and urban warfare over an invasion.

Also, I must point out another flaw in your logic. you claim that we have no means of knowing how many would die if there was an invasion. due to that, there is no standard to compare the invasion with, thus you are the only man in the room with any reputable numbers, according to your logic. However, the problem is that it doesn't work that way. We are analyzing a decision and its wisdom based on the time. As we have the benefit of hindsight - what has happened in between then and now - we cannot judge it any differently and come out with an analysis on the character of Truman. Your point by this debate is that America is greedy in valuing its own lives only. It is my stance that at the time of the incident, there was no way that Truman could have known the exact number of dead. Thus, the wisdom of his decision, by a mix of your logic is mine, of the two choices given to Truman, he chose the one that seemed more appealing at the time.

My conclusion, then, is simple. Truman acted perfectly based on the information in front of him at that day. Thus, he cannot be lampooned for valuing american lives over others, as he did not have the information we have today on this matter. Fact: 200,000 Japanese were killed on that day. Fact: According to military analysts, much more could have died. How is this an act of pigheadedness on the part of America? Furthermore, if Truman is an imperialist, how does that make George Bush an Imperialist?

 

[katy perry is hot]

To be quite honest, I support Truman's decision on Hiroshima. Although I'm failing to see how that has anything to do with the topic.

 

[Cosmic]

To be quite honest, I support Truman's decision on Hiroshima. Although I'm failing to see how that has anything to do with the topic.

Someone said that it was a good example of American imperialism and Americans valuing American lives over foreigners. It was on the second page somewhere.

 

[David]

You keep bashing Truman for making a decision where you have the complete and total benefit of hindsight and he does not. He had two options before him which were being told to him by his top military advisors. the first was to invade Japan from the ground. Military estimates scores a sum of millions of casualties on both sides if that happened. The other choice was to use a new weapon on one city which, through shock, would deliver the victory through less casualties. He chose the latter.

I agree, historically. All are facts, so the need of repeating the events is low.

What you are doing is lampooning him for killing innocent civilians. However, at the time, there was the unknown fact of how many would die. He made a choice which was a more direct means of killing civilians, but according to his data, would kill less. Otherwise, they would die from countless firebombings, air raids, and urban warfare over an invasion.

How does this not correlate with "better you than us"? Logically, it was either 200,000 Japanese dead or a possible 5 million US dead.

Also, I must point out another flaw in your logic. you claim that we have no means of knowing how many would die if there was an invasion. due to that, there is no standard to compare the invasion with, thus you are the only man in the room with any reputable numbers, according to your logic. However, the problem is that it doesn't work that way. We are analyzing a decision and its wisdom based on the time. As we have the benefit of hindsight - what has happened in between then and now - we cannot judge it any differently and come out with an analysis on the character of Truman.

There is always doubt in calculating the "not seen before". Military analysts made an assumption based on calculations. Calculations or not, it's still an assumption; high probability, but still some doubt. It happens every day, and evidently, people get it wrong, eg. why do bridges fall (eg. Tacoma Narrows Bridge) in high winds? Because engineers miscalculated how much wind the bridge could withstand. They made an assumption, but carried on with only that and it was destroyed. Ironically enough, this was during the 1950's, so who's to say that military analysts couldn't have gotten their statistics completely wrong?

Your point by this debate is that America is greedy in valuing its own lives only.

Um, you've just missed the whole point. My underlying point is that your first statement is based on assumptions, so any further points you make do not follow logic. You've just gone out of anyone's way and criticized the unnecessary, thus making this whole topic go off topic. I brought it up to support my point, you've just taken it as a whole new point. I've brought it up as a secondary support, not a primary support, so there is a difference in what my point is.

It is my stance that at the time of the incident, there was no way that Truman could have known the exact number of dead. Thus, the wisdom of his decision, by a mix of your logic is mine, of the two choices given to Truman, he chose the one that seemed more appealing at the time.

Already confirmed and rebutted above.

My conclusion, then, is simple. Truman acted perfectly based on the information in front of him at that day. Thus, he cannot be lampooned for valuing american lives over others, as he did not have the information we have today on this matter. Fact: 200,000 Japanese were killed on that day.

I agree; just a historical fact.

Fact: According to military analysts, much more could have died.

That's a fact, but are the actual statistics facts? No, which is what should be of more concern.

How is this an act of pigheadedness on the part of America? Furthermore, if Truman is an imperialist, how does that make George Bush an Imperialist?

Again, those two questions don't lead to your overall statement, especially the last, so I don't see the need to respond.

@DavidL: way to ignore 90% of my points. I ask that you respond to the rest of my post. Perhaps you can't?

Let me throw this back at you. Just 3 or 4 posts up, I've made a whole range of points which haven't been rebutted. I would like to see some form of counter-argument or at least some recognition of the points.

Do you not agree that your first post had some assumptions and thus mislead your whole argument?

 

[Cosmic]

You sound quite eager to end this discussion concerning Hiroshima, so I propose this conclusion:

1. Harry Truman acted on the information before him and made a decision which he felt best honored the lives of the involved parties, being the United States, Japan, and any other nations which may have joined in the fray if there had been a ground invasion.

2. The exact results of any alternatives to Hiroshima cannot be proven as it is completely hypothetical. Thus, the decision cannot be evaluated as life-saving or life destroying

3. The following analysis of my original post you quoted is to be accepted by both me (Cosmic) and you (DavidL):

"Our military is out there to save lives." — This cannot be proven. It is the job of the military to save lives, but in some cases some members of the military may not succeed or have ulterior motives.

"session on a terrorist can save one american" — the word "American" can be substituted by "civilian" or "allied military personnel."

"Which do you value more, bearded terrorist or innocent civilians?" — This statement does not take into account the fact that bearded terrorists may not be the only subjects of torture.

4. That the post "@DavidL: way to ignore 90% of my points. I ask that you respond to the rest of my post. Perhaps you can't?" was accidentally posted by myself (Cosmic) because I didn't see several parts of the message you posted. Some quotes addressed at someone else were mixed in there so I missed it. I apologize.

 

[David]

You sound quite eager to end this discussion concerning Hiroshima, so I propose this conclusion:

Apart from the fact that it's way off topic, you used Hiroshima in a completely different context, so I don't see the need for me to defend or attack anymore.

1. Harry Truman acted on the information before him and made a decision which he felt best honored the lives of the involved parties, being the United States, Japan, and any other nations which may have joined in the fray if there had been a ground invasion.

That's true, but was the information given to him reliable, or accurate? Questionable, as with my above example of Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

2. The exact results of any alternatives to Hiroshima cannot be proven as it is completely hypothetical. Thus, the decision cannot be evaluated as life-saving or life destroying

One of my points to counter-attack your logic.

3. The following analysis of my original post you quoted is to be accepted by both me (Cosmic) and you (DavidL):

"Our military is out there to save lives." — This cannot be proven. It is the job of the military to save lives, but in some cases some members of the military may not succeed or have ulterior motives.

"session on a terrorist can save one american" — the word "American" can be substituted by "civilian" or "allied military personnel."

"Which do you value more, bearded terrorist or innocent civilians?" — This statement does not take into account the fact that bearded terrorists may not be the only subjects of torture.

I have stressed on this point.

4. That the post "@DavidL: way to ignore 90% of my points. I ask that you respond to the rest of my post. Perhaps you can't?" was accidentally posted by myself (Cosmic) because I didn't see several parts of the message you posted. Some quotes addressed at someone else were mixed in there so I missed it. I apologize.

Ok, but you haven't answered my final question.

Do you not agree that your first post had some assumptions and thus mislead your whole argument?

 

[Cosmic]

Do you not agree that your first post had some assumptions and thus mislead your whole argument?

I addressed that in point 3.

 

[David]

Do you not agree that your first post had some assumptions and thus mislead your whole argument?

I addressed that in point 3.

This:

This statement does not take into account the fact that bearded terrorists may not be the only subjects of torture.

doesn't really answer my question. In your original argument, related to the topic, you clearly emphasized that the only or primary group of torture related victims must be bearded terrorists (which then again is also not true as the use of "bearded" makes the phrase stereotypical). This doesn't hold much truth, as you immediately relate torture to terrorists, which isn't always the case. Do you agree, or not? That is my point.

 

[Cosmic]

The rules of war wouldn't allow us to torture anyone but terrorists, as they don'y apply to warriors who don't wear any sort of uniform.

 

[katy perry is hot]

The rules of war wouldn't allow us to torture anyone but terrorists, as they don'y apply to warriors who don't wear any sort of uniform.

Actually the rules of war don't allow us to torture ANYONE. Check the army operations manual.

 

[Cosmic]

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

to qualify as a Prisoner of War you have to be a lawful combatant. If you break the rules of war, for example fighting without a uniform, then you become an unlawful combatant.

Also, interesting case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush

I do think that the terrorists at gitmo should be treated generally well, however if we have to use 'Enhanced Interrogation' to get information which can save lives, then we should do so.

 

[katy perry is hot]

I just spent a few minutes trying to find it, but was unable to. There was a NY times article from last year that detailed all the types of torture we used on suspects at Gitmo, and there were some that I supported, and some that I was against. For example, waterboarding, should under no circumstances, be used. At all. An enhanced interrogation method is not throwing someone on a table and simulating drowning to make him give up information, because we know the truth is, people will just say whatever they can to get out of it. Cosmic, if I came to your house, knocked you out, and you woke up tied up in my basement and I started burning your testicles in acid asking for you to tell me information on Al-queda activities (note I do not accept "I don't know" as an answer, as these interrogators did not), would you sit there and take it or would you just say anything to make me stop? You need to think in their shoes. I used to have the same blind support of the government in this too, but after information started to come out, I stopped. (I was also convinced by a member of my old forum, who's actually registered here, Caladhiel). Anyway that's beside the point. I can support sensory deprivation. I hate to use this example, but like on 24, when they put the Secretary of Defense's son in those goggles and played extremely loud pinging noises. That's a real interrogation technique. One that is not abusive and medevil and plain disgusting in nature. Things like they did to one of the top al-queda guys, I forget his name, but they put him in a cramped cell and simulated that insects and spiders were in there, which he had a fear of, and it scared the fuck out of him and he gave up information. That's how you do an interrogation. Blindly sitting there and saying "Oh well it must work so let's let the CIA do whatever the fuck they want and not regulate or supervise them" is not going to do us any good. There are plenty of other methods that were detailed in that article, I just have to do some searching. If you look at the methods I support in this post, you'll learn that they are primarily things which break someone down, but cause no pain or physical abuse. That's how you interrogate someone. My uncle was a federal agent for 30 years, I have a few other cops in my family, and they all are against waterboarding. Anyone who has actually studied interrogation and knows about it would not support waterboarding. Dick Cheney does not count.

 

[Cosmic]

If other methods that are less barbaric will work, then that's completely fine with me. I just want the military/CIA to do their best to save lives.

 

[katy perry is hot]

If other methods that are less barbaric will work, then that's completely fine with me. I just want the military/CIA to do their best to save lives.

But their best has to be overseen and transparent. That didn't happen during the Bush years.

 

[David]

The rules of war wouldn't allow us to torture anyone but terrorists, as they don'y apply to warriors who don't wear any sort of uniform.

How does this case correlate with your statement: http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=47510 ?

And also, under the "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984", torture is not allowed, namely Article 2:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

and also:

Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.

So basically, torture is against International law, and if a person of a country chooses to do so, whether government or civilian, they will be subjected to the country's criminal law charges.

 

[Cosmic]

How does this case correlate with your statement: http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=47510 ?

Civilians are protected by the rules of war.

And also, under the "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984", torture is not allowed, namely Article 2:

That treaty also outlaws mental torture, which is something Irviding and myself both approve of to the extent that Irviding cite din his above post. also I don't see proof from your link that the U.S. ratified that treaty.

 

[David]

How does this case correlate with your statement: http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=47510 ?

Civilians are protected by the rules of war.

The man was seen as a terrorist, so by that assumption came the resulting torture, which was unjustified.

And also, under the "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984", torture is not allowed, namely Article 2:

That treaty also outlaws mental torture, which is something Irviding and myself both approve of to the extent that Irviding cite din his above post. also I don't see proof from your link that the U.S. ratified that treaty.

Here's your proof: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetail ... =4&lang=en