Originally posted by simplicio
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Waterboard This...
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI would say waterboarding is the euphemism, because they did far more things than waterboarding. They got downright medieval, and even implications of weird sexual perversion, sadomasochism and rape. But everyone uses PR term waterboarding like that's supposed to be the real issue.
Waterboarding is not always wrong, we waterboard service members for training, so it is not absolutely wrong. And torture is not necessarily ineffective, it can and does produce results.
There is a continuum, the benign techniques of interrogation to use of long sessions of questioning which the police use today, harsher techniques of bright lights, then techniques ruled illegal such as third degree techniques (sleep deprivations of forty eight hours, repeatedly hanging, beatings, hunger).
I think the arguments against torture largely hinge on questions of morality, arguments for it hinge largely on pragmatism.
Comment
-
Originally posted by simplicio View PostWaterboarding is probably the most well known of the techniques used, it is putting a towel over the face and pouring water over it, for the purpose of drowning. It plays the central role in discussions about torture because it does lay bare all the ambiguities and controversies over torture.
Waterboarding is not always wrong, we waterboard service members for training, so it is not absolutely wrong. And torture is not necessarily ineffective, it can and does produce results.
There is a continuum, the benign techniques of interrogation to use of long sessions of questioning which the police use today, harsher techniques of bright lights, then techniques ruled illegal such as third degree techniques (sleep deprivations of forty eight hours, repeatedly hanging, beatings, hunger).
I think the arguments against torture largely hinge on questions of morality, arguments for it hinge largely on pragmatism.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostThe bold is absolutely false and I can't believe there are those still using that canard. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the person getting tortured is going to say whatever his torturer wants to hear to get them to stop. In spite of CIA talking points to justify it, this has been debunked by experts. Harsh police interrogations haven't always been reliable either, and have been shown to get false confessions just based on psychological tactics, much less physical pain. I advise you to read the senate report on torture. But it's a long one.
It is like the difference between killing and murder, killing is not absolutely or objectively wrong, the discussions involve the dividing lime between killing and murder.
The use of waterboarding in training, to prepare airmen for any possible torture they may face, has some advocates. In that capacity it is not used as an interrogation technique.
We allow some techniques in police interrogations, effective means to induce confessions.
I am not advocating the harsh interrogation techniques, but noting the continuum makes it hard to define the line between legal and illegal, moral and immoral. Keeping a suspect up a half hour past his bedtime is hardly harsh and coercive, but 36 hours without sleep is. Five hours between meals is not harsh but 36 hours without food has been deemed illegal and immoral. It is for these reasons that I think the topic will always be evolving, just as punishments for crimes change with the times; traitors are no longer drawn and quartered.
I have read a bit on it, because I remember the discussions on it when McCain was the (almost) sole voice against it. At the time, I disagreed with McCain. I have since changed my stance. The reasons and well as the reasoning behind errors are important, they give insight on how to choose a right course of action.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI would say waterboarding is the euphemism, because they did far more things than waterboarding. They got downright medieval, and even implications of weird sexual perversion, sadomasochism and rape. But everyone uses PR term waterboarding like that's supposed to be the real issue.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostIn spite of CIA talking points to justify it, this has been debunked by experts.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is just false, they did work and often. You want experts, read James Mitchell's book, and he was an expert. They got a lot of actionable intelligence. Of course the Senate was going to come to a different conclusion - no one at that point was going to justify it on any level.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIf the evidence so clearly supports the CIA, why did they shred it?
That is from the perspective of the potential victim. From the perspective of the perpetrators, it yields false data sometimes. People do confess to things not true, there have been several cases of prisoners freed on DNA evidence in spite of the coerced confession. And those examples do not use the most extreme forms lf coercion
I would guess that the documents were shredded to obscure how widespread it was.Last edited by simplicio; 01-26-2020, 07:42 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is just false, they did work and often. You want experts, read James Mitchell's book, and he was an expert. They got a lot of actionable intelligence. Of course the Senate was going to come to a different conclusion - no one at that point was going to justify it on any level.
The DB:
Sounds to me like a bit of conflict of interest.Last edited by seanD; 01-26-2020, 09:36 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIf the evidence so clearly supports the CIA, why did they shred it?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostThe senate report states that info they received from the program wasn't unique from the info they got from other intelligence sources such as from that unconstitutional method the Patriot Act. Assuming Mitchell isn't just an intelligence shill or was flailing to save his own behind, you would have to cite specific claims Mitchell makes that contradict that report to convince me otherwise.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOf course there were black sites where some of this other stuff happened.Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:53 PM
|
22 responses
108 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 07:05 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 10:34 AM
|
20 responses
82 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 05:49 PM | ||
Started by Ronson, 05-05-2024, 08:45 AM
|
9 responses
81 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:19 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 01:19 PM
|
27 responses
225 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by KingsGambit
Yesterday, 08:59 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-03-2024, 12:23 PM
|
161 responses
682 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 05:51 PM |
Comment