NationStates Jolt Archive

(Apologies in advance if this has been posted already.)


House votes to outlaw CIA waterboarding

By Thomas Ferraro
Thu Dec 13, 4:29 PM ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defying a White House veto threat, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on Thursday to outlaw harsh interrogation methods, such as simulated drowning, that the CIA has used against suspected terrorists.

On a largely party line vote of 222-199, the Democratic-led House approved a measure to require intelligence agents to comply with the Army Field Manual, which bans torture in compliance with the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.

The measure, part of a sweeping intelligence bill, passed amid a congressional probe into the recent disclosure that the CIA destroyed videotapes of al Qaeda suspects undergoing waterboarding, a simulated drowning.

Many countries, U.S. lawmakers and human rights groups have accused the United States of torturing terror suspects since the September 11 attacks.

President George W. Bush says the United States does not torture, but the administration will not disclose what interrogation methods it has approved for the CIA.

In threatening to veto the House-passed measure, which now awaits Senate action, the White House argued it would prevent the United States from conducting "lawful interrogations of senior al Qaeda terrorists."

House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer countered that the current administration had blurred the line "between legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tactics and torture."

"There is no doubt our international reputation has suffered and been stained as a result," Hoyer told colleagues.

Backers of harsh interrogation say it is needed to pry vital information out of enemy combatants. But critics say torture is inhumane and such information is often unreliable.

The CIA has told lawmakers they stopped waterboarding a few years ago, aides say.

The overall intelligence authorization bill that contains the interrogation provision faces another fight in the closely-divided, Democratic-led Senate.

The Army Field Manual provides 19 approved interrogation methods. They include isolating prisoners, allowing American interrogators to pose as representing another country and the "good-cop, bad-cop" interviewing technique.

It prohibits eight methods, including waterboarding.

source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071213/pl_nm/security_usa_torture_dc)


It's a start, at least. :)

If no information can be gained form torture, then who needs it?

A better method: threaten the terrorists with a vat of dog slobber and pig defecation.

Now just to see if the Senate will step up, enough to override a veto at least. I'm not holding my breath but this is refreshing.

Yes yes yes! Finally!

If no information can be gained form torture, then who needs it?

A better method: threaten the terrorists with a vat of dog slobber and pig defecation.

You honestly think that's gonna get to them? It's just humiliating, no one's ever going to give you information from it.

You honestly think that's gonna get to them? It's just humiliating, no one's ever going to give you information from it.

Threaten, and yes, I believe it would be much more effective than physical torture. Surely you know how those people feel about it? Remember the taxi-drivers who would not take dogs because it would be "unholy"?

This will have no effect. If Congress has to outlaw every possible form of brutal torture, they will be at it forever - consider that there are other "interrogation methods" that are still classified, and if they're anything like the torture / mock execution that waterboarding is, they're probably pretty gruesome.

This shit won't stop until there is transparency and accountability in the government. Anybody who knew about the waterboarding and kept quiet should be convicted of treason. Anybody who performed the waterboarding or authorized its use should be executed, preferrably by an extended waterboarding session.

Threaten, and yes, I believe it would be much more effective than physical torture. Surely you know how those people feel about it? Remember the taxi-drivers who would not take dogs because it would be "unholy"?

I'm a Muslim, and it doesn't matter that much to me. If I'm fighting for something I believe in, it's nothing. In their cases, fighting the West is their cause, and I have little doubt they would have no problem withstanding a light form of humiliation.

I'm a Muslim, and it doesn't matter that much to me. If I'm fighting for something I believe in, it's nothing. In their cases, fighting the West is their cause, and I have little doubt they would have no problem withstanding a light form of humiliation.

They obviously think different than you. After all, I do not expect you believe in getting 99 virgins for killing infidels, do you?

They obviously think different than you. After all, I do not expect you believe in getting 99 virgins for killing infidels, do you?

No I don't believe it, but that's not relevant. The Quran doesn't say you go to hell for touching dogs or anything like that.

No I don't believe it, but that's not relevant. The Quran doesn't say you go to hell for touching dogs or anything like that.

...And it says you get virgins for killing those of another faith?

The summary title of the thread on my sideboard came up "House votes to outlaw CIA". That would have been interesting.

The summary title of the thread on my sideboard came up "House votes to outlaw CIA". That would have been interesting.

LMAO! :D

This will have no effect. If Congress has to outlaw every possible form of brutal torture, they will be at it forever - consider that there are other "interrogation methods" that are still classified, and if they're anything like the torture / mock execution that waterboarding is, they're probably pretty gruesome.

This shit won't stop until there is transparency and accountability in the government. Anybody who knew about the waterboarding and kept quiet should be convicted of treason. Anybody who performed the waterboarding or authorized its use should be executed, preferrably by an extended waterboarding session.

So you support the DP, glad to know where you stand.

Good for them, about time.

You can blame the Chinese for the original idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_water_torture

:p

...And it says you get virgins for killing those of another faith?

It says heaven's good.

It says heaven's good.

I do not believe you have filled the chasm in my mind known as "ignorance" with anything other then hot air. I dare not cross it until you have corrected the situation.

My friend, please; answer directly.

I do not believe you have filled the chasm in my mind known as "ignorance" with anything other then hot air. I dare not cross it until you have corrected the situation.

My friend, please; answer directly.

What he meant to say is that virgins are good.
Mebbe..

I do not believe you have filled the chasm in my mind known as "ignorance" with anything other then hot air. I dare not cross it until you have corrected the situation.

My friend, please; answer directly.

Not as far as I know.

No I don't believe it, but that's not relevant. The Quran doesn't say you go to hell for touching dogs or anything like that.


It does say you are unclean, and if you are unclean (that is you are then not permitted to cleanse yourself as prescribed by the hadith) you cannot pray and if you cannot pray you cannot hope to enter Heaven.

Not as far as I know.

It does say that if you are killed in battle agains't the non-believer you will go to Heaven, and it does discuss virgins in the upper levels of heaven (which martyrs go to).

You can blame the Chinese for the original idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_water_torture

:p

There is no evidence that this form of torture was ever used by the Chinese.

Knight takes Bishop!

Not as far as I know.

There you have it. These extremists obviously have beliefs aberrant from the "normal" Muslim.

It does say you are unclean, and if you are unclean (that is you are then not permitted to cleanse yourself as prescribed by the hadith) you cannot pray and if you cannot pray you cannot hope to enter Heaven.

If it is in the hadith, then I am under no obligation to follow it.

It does say that if you are killed in battle agains't the non-believer you will go to Heaven, and it does discuss virgins in the upper levels of heaven (which martyrs go to).

I'm not sure, I'm no Quranic scholar, are you?

Knight takes Bishop!

I'm Chinese, we quite capable of being the most horrible people when we want to. :p

In any case, even if torture were OK, Waterboarding should still be banned on the grounds that the name makes it sound so damn fun... and it isn't.

Well if I was a candidate, this would be perfect ammo to prove that my opponent wasn't interested in protecting lives so much as being PC.

They have no rights and this should be invalid. If you have to cut someone's eyes out to get information, then do it. Waterboarding has already proven to be extremely effective and have saved numerous lives. This is a cowardly and shameful and the reason why democrats are even less trustworthy than republicans.

Well if I was a candidate, this would be perfect ammo to prove that my opponent wasn't interested in protecting lives so much as being PC.

Become a monster to fight a monster, eh?

They have no rights and this should be invalid.

Isn't the idea of basic human rights that they are both basic... and rights? Rights are generally inalienable.

If you have to cut someone's eyes out to get information, then do it. Waterboarding has already proven to be extremely effective and have saved numerous lives.

Source please? Because all the evidence I've heard suggests that information given through torture is prone to inaccuracy.

This is a cowardly and shameful and the reason why democrats are even less trustworthy than republicans.

Morality is cowardly now? Moral courage must be the best oxymoron ever.

Well if I was a candidate

The rest of your post shows clearly why it's a good thing that you're not.

Torture should be used for entertainment purposes only. *nod*

Torture should be used for entertainment purposes only. *nod*

Like Japanese entertainment shows?

Like Japanese entertainment shows?

An excellent example.

Source please? Because all the evidence I've heard suggests that information given through torture is prone to inaccuracy.




http://waterboarding.org/success_story


http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/09/bombshell_abc_i_2.php

This is a silly question that should've been asked already, but if they don't do it anyway, why are they--The White House and the CIA--objecting at all? They should be perfectly fine with it, especially since even if THEY don't do it, it'll prevent those in the FUTURE from doing it.

I see no reason to object unless they really are doing it.

This is a silly question that should've been asked already, but if they don't do it anyway, why are they--The White House and the CIA--objecting at all? They should be perfectly fine with it, especially since even if THEY don't do it, it'll prevent those in the FUTURE from doing it.

I see no reason to object unless they really are doing it.

Because they wish to reserve the right to do it like in cases ive cited in the post above.

http://waterboarding.org/success_story


http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/09/bombshell_abc_i_2.php

I hope you're not citing these as success stories in earnest:

The waterboarding of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is often cited as one of the major waterboarding "success stories". ABC News reporter Brian Ross credited waterboarding for the crucial information used to avert the destruction of Library Tower.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 — after the plot was discovered, after the plot was "derailed", after the pilot of the plane was captured. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed could not have "provided valuable information and saved lives" when all aspects of the plot were well-known and the attack had been foiled prior to his capture.

Since the second link concerns itself with ABC reporting the success, which is debunked in the first link, I'm hoping you're being humorous?

Because they wish to reserve the right to do it like in cases ive cited in the post above.

No, seriously, why?

I hope you're not citing these as success stories in earnest:





Since the second link concerns itself with ABC reporting the success, which is debunked in the first link, I'm hoping you're being humorous?


Error on my part, ive heard from many sources that it had been sucessful and just googled the closest one without reading it carefully enough lol

Error on my part, ive heard from many sources that it had been sucessful and just googled the closest one without reading it carefully enough lol

Look at it this way: you're acknowledging your mistake and correcting it. That's a hell of a lot more than most do around here.

So you support the DP, glad to know where you stand.
I don't really support the death penalty, or if I do, only in cases of government agents committing extraordinary abuses of power.

Well if I was a candidate, this would be perfect ammo to prove that my opponent wasn't interested in protecting lives so much as being PC.

They have no rights and this should be invalid. If you have to cut someone's eyes out to get information, then do it. Waterboarding has already proven to be extremely effective and have saved numerous lives. This is a cowardly and shameful and the reason why democrats are even less trustworthy than republicans.

Offing Bush and Cheney in 2001 would have saved lives, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. Waterboarding, if anything, endangers lives. This scandal is giving terrorists hundreds of new recruits.

Well if I was a candidate, this would be perfect ammo to prove that my opponent wasn't interested in protecting lives so much as being PC.

They have no rights and this should be invalid. If you have to cut someone's eyes out to get information, then do it. Waterboarding has already proven to be extremely effective and have saved numerous lives. This is a cowardly and shameful and the reason why democrats are even less trustworthy than republicans.

So you'd sell out what are supposed to be American values to get coerced confessions?

Good to know that the principles that this country is supposed to stand for are worth so little to you... some people I guess would sell their souls to save their hides.

Personally, I think it's appalling that our government engages in this low behavior. We're supposed to be better than that. If our country doesn't stand for anything good, then why bother defending it?

Good to know that the principles that this country is supposed to stand for are worth so little to you... some people I guess would sell their souls to PRETEND TO save their hides.

Fixed, since torture does not work.

(Apologies in advance if this has been posted already.)




source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071213/pl_nm/security_usa_torture_dc)


It's a start, at least. :)

Another national industry that will be privatized and outsourced to some country where they don't mind torture, as long as it gets paid for. Doesn't Blackwater do interrogaton?

Took long enough.

Fixed, since torture does not work.

Whether or not it works (it doesn't) isn't really that important to me. Even if it did work, I would be against using it, because I don't want my country doing that kind of shit.

I do believe that in order for principles to be meaningful, you have to be willing to sacrifice for them.

Whether or not it works (it doesn't) isn't really that important to me. Even if it did work, I would be against using it, because I don't want my country doing that kind of shit.

I do believe that in order for principles to be meaningful, you have to be willing to sacrifice for them.

True, true, was just trying to help. Regardless, it speaks volumes about the inhumanity of some people that there's an actual DEBATE on this.

True, true, was just trying to help. Regardless, it speaks volumes about the inhumanity of some people that there's an actual DEBATE on this.

Indeed. It should never be an option, torture just goes against all that is good and just, anyone who values liberty and justice should find torture abhorrent.

Now just to see if the Senate will step up, enough to override a veto at least. I'm not holding my breath but this is refreshing.

Lol!

Good. Nuff said.

Lol!

Oh, you're a bad, bad person! :D

I despise the idea of torture, but then, I'm a pansy liberal who despises the idea of jails.

To say that torture never works seems to me a specious way of going about banning it. I am aware of the qualified torturers who state that it is an unreliable way of getting information, that persuasion is more effective.

I simply find it impossible to believe that torture never works, that there is no situation where physical pain and apprehension of death will make a suspect disclose information. (I nod to the argument that fabricated information can be more damaging than no information at all.)

A civilized society must not condone torture, let alone actively do it. We're big enough and strong enough to take our lumps -- virtuous behaviour wouldn't count for anything if it didn't involve some sacrifice. We can't expect to win every time ... not if we're going to be the good guys anyway.

Anybody should be able to recognize how ridiculous the argument that it doesn't work is. People give false confessions all the time, without torture involved. They are simply pointing to examples where people being tortured give false answers, which happens regardless. It's all media propaganda. Torture does work and so long as they have zero rights under the U.S. constitution, they should be able to do whatever they want to terrorists.

Anyone that's ever beaten up one person to get information or get them to confess about something knows that torture and violence work. Eight years old know that torture works, but not people who seem to think the New York Times is an authority on anything.

Torture does work and so long as they have zero rights under the U.S. constitution.

See, now, that's kinda the problem.

Anyone that's ever beaten up one person to get information or get them to confess about something knows that torture and violence work.

Why do I have the feeling you got beat up a lot

The problem? They have no rights under the U.S. constitution, or even the meaningless Geneva Conventions.

And you think that because you are obviously not very smart. It's usually those that turn into the leftist losers who get beat up on the playground, not the kids who like physical activity and sports like I did. I was always in great shape and knew how to defend myself. I never got picked on.

I was referring to a couple incidents when I was younger where I beat up kids to get them to tell me who stole something or to admit that they did.

The problem? They have no rights under the U.S. constitution

Fail.


And you think that because you are obviously not very smart. It's usually the leftist losers who get beat up on the playground, not the kids who like physical activity and sports like I did. I was always in great shape and knew how to defend myself.

I was referring to a couple incidents when I was younger where I beat up kids to get them to tell me who stole something or to admit that they did.

Oh that's right, I forgot, on the internet, everybody's a manly man. Even the women.

Especially the women. Let me guess, actually, before we continue down this line. You're also a lawyer, a surgeon, been in the military (twice), and can beat up chuck norris with your eyes closed and one hand tied behind your back.

Oh, you're also an astronaut, buddhist monk, theologen, engineer and could have been president of the united states, if you wanted to, but instead chose to dedicate your life to curing cancer. Which you did. Last week.

That's not going to work. It's not exactly uncommon.

You have honestly never seen someone get beat up to get information or to get them to admit they did something?

The problem? They have no rights under the U.S. constitution, or even the meaningless Geneva Conventions.

And you think that because you are obviously not very smart. It's usually those that turn into the leftist losers who get beat up on the playground, not the kids who like physical activity and sports like I did. I was always in great shape and knew how to defend myself. I never got picked on.

I was referring to a couple incidents when I was younger where I beat up kids to get them to tell me who stole something or to admit that they did.

hahahahaahahahaha....I've had a bad day but when I see drivel like this it makes me giggle and it gets better. Torture is, by and large, considered to be a poor way to get information. You are more likely to get false information through torture than otherwise. And, please..."you think that because you are obviously not smart"? Are you serious? *sigh*

That research is completely biased bullshit. Once again, they use examples of people lying who had already lied without torture. It's pure propaganda.

Common sense should tell you that torture works. Ask yourself what you would do in that situation. Would you hold back what you know or give them the information to get it to stop? Torture works. It may not in every single case, but it will work.

Common sense should tell you that torture works. Ask yourself what you would do in that situation. Would you hold back what you know or give them the information to get it to stop? Torture works. It may not in every single case, but it will work.

Common sense might also tell you that "telling the truth" and "not saying anything" are not the only two options.

It's very telling that in your case the thought apparently has not occured to you.

That research is completely biased bullshit. Once again, they use examples of people lying who had already lied without torture. It's pure propaganda.

Common sense should tell you that torture works. Ask yourself what you would do in that situation. Would you hold back what you know or give them the information to get it to stop? Torture works. It may not in every single case, but it will work.

Yea, and that's what I'm saying. That research isn't biased bullshit. What you do under torture? Give someone false information to send them on a wild goose chase and, at the same time, get the torture to stop or cooperate? Common sense tells you that torture produces a lot of bullshit.

Anybody should be able to recognize how ridiculous the argument that it doesn't work is. People give false confessions all the time, without torture involved. They are simply pointing to examples where people being tortured give false answers, which happens regardless. It's all media propaganda. Torture does work and so long as they have zero rights under the U.S. constitution, they should be able to do whatever they want to terrorists.

Exactly what I expected from you. America über alles. :rolleyes:

Which is why is torture and interrogation are a long process. Virtually no one tells you what you want to know right away, they always lie. Doing what you need to do to get the information is what we are talking about.

For example, if you are on the battlefield and you need to know information right way, I think you should be able to shoot the prisoner in the leg or arm to get them to talk.

Punishment for lies is all part of the process. Lying means more torture until they tell the truth.

Which is why is torture and interrogation are a long process. Virtually no one tells you what you want to know right away, they always lie.

It's also remarkably telling that the hypothetical "justification" for torture always begins "an atomic bomb is about to blow up..." You certainly talk big for a 17 year old.

I guess you didn't work as an age guesser at the carnival. I'm sure you were an excellent clown though.

1:Which is why is torture and interrogation are a long process.

2:For example, if you are on the battlefield and you need to know information right way, I think you should be able to shoot the prisoner in the leg or arm to get them to talk.

3:Punishment for lies is all part of the process. Lying means more torture until they tell the truth.

One of those does not belong with the other. And, assuming if you are given enough time torture can draw out truths, there are other, more accurate, more morally acceptable methods to do so, as well.

I guess you didn't work as an age guesser at the carnival. I'm sure you were an excellent clown though.Don't need to guess if they have ID.

We are talking different situations.

Getting information on a terrorist leader, location of bases and what not can be a very long process.

Getting immediate information where you don't have the time for waterboarding and what not is another.

I guess you didn't work as an age guesser at the carnival.

My estimate was based upon your ability to form a cohesive and logical argument, and most likely educational background that would lead into those abilities.

If I were wrong, I sincerely hope I over-estimated in your case, because if not...that's just sad.

That research is completely biased bullshit. Once again, they use examples of people lying who had already lied without torture. It's pure propaganda.

Common sense should tell you that torture works. Ask yourself what you would do in that situation. Would you hold back what you know or give them the information to get it to stop? Torture works. It may not in every single case, but it will work.
Fail.
Common sense is inferior to empirical evidence.

Which is why is torture and interrogation are a long process. Virtually no one tells you what you want to know right away, they always lie. Doing what you need to do to get the information is what we are talking about.

For example, if you are on the battlefield and you need to know information right way, I think you should be able to shoot the prisoner in the leg or arm to get them to talk.

Punishment for lies is all part of the process. Lying means more torture until they tell the truth.
Fail.
You contradict yourself-- first you say that torture is a long process, and then you claim that you can use it on the battlefield and get reliable information right away.

But please try again.

Oh I forgot, you can't be educated and still understand the need for torture. My mistake.

There is plenty of evidence that torture works if you actually look. I'm not going to start posting websites and citing books though, do your own homework. I've read the arguments against it and it's always the same bs that people lied. That happens without torture as well. Recognizing that people sometimes lie when they are tortured is not evidence that torture doesn't work. It's that simple.

Oh I forgot, you can't be educated and still understand the need for torture. My mistake.

yes, you can.

well educated on the other hand...that requires a special level of double think.

The type of people you are referring to may have a Ph.D., but don't know how to change a tire or replace a fuse. That is my experience with self-proclaimed intellectuals who call themselves well educated. Describe yourself?

Being formally educated and being intelligent are very different things. And I have a college degree, not that my beliefs weren't exactly the same before Intro to Psychology.

Which is why is torture and interrogation are a long process. Virtually no one tells you what you want to know right away, they always lie.

Do you have any kind of basis for that assertion?

You really need to stop making assumptions. Here's two you are making:


All detainees are terrorists (disproved by the release of detainees)
All terrorists are not US citizens. (ie have no protection by the Constitution.)


Doing what you need to do to get the information is what we are talking about.

The End Justifies the Means is what you are talking about. The credo of dictators. "My country can torture the citizens of other countries, but if they did that to ours we'd kick their ass."

Punishment for lies is all part of the process. Lying means more torture until they tell the truth.

If you think your "needs must" argument is strengthened by appealing to justice (punishment is founded on a definition of right and wrong) ... you're sadly mistaken.

The type of people you are referring to may have a Ph.D., but don't know how to change a tire or replace a fuse. That is my experience with self-proclaimed intellectuals who call themselves well educated. Describe yourself?

Being formally educated and being intelligent are very different things. And I have a college degree, not that my beliefs weren't exactly the same before Intro to Psychology.

A degree in what and from where?

Also, you're saying that an intro-level course makes you an expert in a subject? :headbang:

Once again, do we start citing books for every claim we make? Honestly, do you want to do that? It's basic knowledge that torture is a process.

The cases we are talking about is in reference to foreign terrorists, never domestic. They can't torture because of U.S. law, we are talking about those
who have zero rights under US or international law.

You act as if the end justifies the means is some kind of insult. Not everyone believes that.

Oh I forgot, you can't be educated and still understand the need for torture. My mistake.

What do you think when you see someone in the street, talking to nobody?

Well, that's how you come across when you make replies to "Them," the whole thread, everyone but you. You come across as a complete nutter.

You mean like Galileo? That's what they tell everyone who doesn't conform to one idea about how things are. I'm telling you that you are wrong, not a lunatic.

Being formally educated and being intelligent are very different things. And I have a college degree, not that my beliefs weren't exactly the same before Intro to Psychology.

Oh, intro to psychology. I didn't know you took an intro course. I obviously bow down to your vast knowledge gained in psychology 101.

If only there were a truth pill that would make torture advocates admit their actual wish.

They'd go like this:

"I WANT TO SEE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T ME GETTING HURT FOR NO REASON WHILE I PRETEND TO GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE SECURITY OF MY COUNTRY WHICH THE ACTIVITY I'M FOND OF ACTUALLY HARMS!"

What bugs me here is the lack of fairness.

For example, I happen to own a bathtub and am paid up on my water bill as of a couple days ago. I'm also located within 100mi of half a dozen military installations, and yet, should the CIA have to contract out their waterboarding, I already *know* they won't even read my proposal. It's a rigged game, I say. :(

Oh, intro to psychology. I didn't know you took an intro course. I obviously bow down to your vast knowledge gained in psychology 101.

*chuckles* It's like suggesting taking CS 101 gives you the info you need to write an operating system.

You mean like Galileo? That's what they tell everyone who doesn't conform to one idea about how things are. I'm telling you that you are wrong, not a lunatic.

You comparing yourself to Galileo is like comparing Charles Manson to Gandhi.

It was an example. College classes didn't change the way I believed. I had my own opinions, I don't need to parrot a leftist sociology professors, which seems to be the norm. The whole acting like a superior intellect is just not going to work, sorry.

You mean like Galileo? That's what they tell everyone who doesn't conform to one idea about how things are. I'm telling you that you are wrong, not a lunatic.

yeah, cause you're a real galileo. Except for the part where Galileo studied, researched, checked, cross checked, painstakingly examined and then came up with his theories, at great personal risk to himself. Whereas you sit on a forum and advocate brutal treatment of people, in a way that places yourself at no risk for such treatment, and claim you are correct because, apparently, you say so.

yeah, you're really like galileo.

Oh, intro to psychology. I didn't know you took an intro course. I obviously bow down to your vast knowledge gained in psychology 101.

Yeah man! Intro courses are all you need!
Why'd you waste all that time in Law School when you could have just taken Intro to Constitutional Law or US History 101 and learned just as much?
Seriously, man, what were you thinking?

it's too bad in all that time taking into to psychology...he never took a law course.

It was an example. College classes didn't change the way I believed. I had my own opinions, I don't need to parrot a leftist sociology professors, which seems to be the norm. The whole acting like a superior intellect is just not going to work, sorry.

You're right. You should stop trying to act like a superior intellect. It's not working.

Once again, I'm simply making an example that people with a brain cell can understand.

Everyone called Galileo crazy for not changing his opinion because it wasn't popular. That's the way I always see it in these debates. Torture works, I'm not going to change my opinion because it's not politically correct or popular with the press.

It was an example. College classes didn't change the way I believed. I had my own opinions

You're a shining example of the educational system "I knew what I believed was right, and I wasn't about to let no fancy book learning convince me otherwise!"

Want to compare yourself to galileo again?

It was an example. College classes didn't change the way I believed. I had my own opinions, I don't need to parrot a leftist sociology professors, which seems to be the norm. The whole acting like a superior intellect is just not going to work, sorry.
Wait, if you didn't to college to learn and consider new ideas, why the hell did you go at all?


yeah, cause you're a real galileo. Except for the part where Galileo studied, researched, checked, cross checked, painstakingly examined and then came up with his theories, at great personal risk to himself. Whereas you sit on a forum and advocate brutal treatment of people, in a way that places yourself at no risk for such treatment, and claim you are correct because, apparently, you say so.

yeah, you're really like galileo.

Proof by assertion! He asserts something, and that makes it true!

A doctorate in anything does not make you smart. You look at the liberal arts faculty of any major university and you realize that quickly.

And talk about reaching. I went to college to study and to get a degree, not to just accept my professors opinion on everything.

Are you telling me that being influenced and adopting the opinions of a bunch of college educators is what the point in going to college is? Anyone with a mind of his own has already adopted a political ideology by the time they are 18.

Once again, I'm simply making an example that people with a brain cell can understand.

Quite right. People with a brain cell would probably find it a working comparison.

Someone with any more than that easily sees why it falls flat on its face.

Once again, I'm simply making an example that people with a brain cell can understand.

Everyone called Galileo crazy for not changing his opinion because it wasn't popular. That's the way I always see it in these debates. Torture works, I'm not going to change my opinion because it's not politically correct or popular with the press.

If you're going to pander to people with only one brain cell, you should probably take it somewhere else. Those of us who have several million realize that inanity of your arguments.

Edit: Damn you Art.

Everyone called Galileo crazy for not changing his opinion because it wasn't popular.Charles Manson isn't popular either. Plenty people call him crazy too.

Wait, if you didn't to college to learn and consider new ideas, why the hell did you go at all?

To get a job, obviously. It's regrettably what a college education has become these days.

Once again, I'm simply making an example that people with a brain cell can understand.

Everyone called Galileo crazy for not changing his opinion because it wasn't popular. That's the way I always see it in these debates. Torture works, I'm not going to change my opinion because it's not politically correct or popular with the press.

The difference is that Galileo didn't just make assertions. He provided evidence for his claims. You, on the other hand, will not change your opinion no matter what evidence you are presented with.

Not taking into account evidence when forming your opinions is incredibly stupid.

Once again, do we start citing books for every claim we make? Honestly, do you want to do that? It's basic knowledge that torture is a process.

Interrogation is a process. And you make the massive assumption that once caught, detainees never co-operate.

Basic knowledge is what one gets in primary school, and I'm starting to think that your knowledge doesn't even reach that standard.

The cases we are talking about is in reference to foreign terrorists, never domestic. They can't torture because of U.S. law, we are talking about those who have zero rights under US or international law.

Oh brother. Stop digging.

International law only protects the rights of U.S. citizens? In what kind of Fox fantasy world is that true?

You act as if the end justifies the means is some kind of insult. Not everyone believes that.

Oh, you're talking to me now? Do please use the quote button, even if you snip out the content ... it's in your own interest not to be just be replying to thin air.

Let's reserve that question for a bit later. You've made a big mess you need to clean up first.

To get a job, obviously. It's regrettably what a college education has become these days.

:(
Too true. Nobody considers knowledge itself a worthy pursuit anymore.

Are you telling me that being influenced and adopting the opinions of a bunch of a college educator is what the point in going to college is? Anyone with a mind of his own has already adopted a political ideology by the time they are 18.But only a fool will leave it unchanged when parts of it are disproven.

:(
Too true. Nobody considers knowledge itself a worthy pursuit anymore.

It's regrettably but true. There's quite a bit of consternation in the physics department, because an alarming percentage of physics students have no intention of pursuing higher learning. Most of us are planning to hit the job market.

But true it is that "you're dumb" isn't a valid debate, so here goes.

Your positions are crude and lack sophistication. Your arguments about law are factually incorrect and completely ungrounded. You vacillate between arguments so fast that it's entirely unclear that even you know entirely what you're talking about. You argue from assertion without providing any proof to your claims, and attempt to counter oppositional sources by merely stating they're "wrong" without any justification. you speak from anicdote and not evidence, and dismiss counter claims not through any logical reason or sound argument, but because you happen to disagree, yet provide no reason for any of us to believe that your opinion is valid, logical, well thought out, or even worth listening to, in the slightest.

In other words, and at risk to reverting back to juvenile behavior, fail.

That's the whole point. They never disproved anything I believed.

I was always a fan of Machiavelli, not Ghandi. I was the person that pointed out that Abu Ghraib was a manufactured scandal and no worse than hazing at a college frat in class. Professors don't like to be contradicted, they are bullies and they proved that to me.

I learned how worthless a college education in the liberal arts field really is.

A doctorate in anything does not make you smart. You look at the liberal arts faculty of any major university and you realize that quickly.

And talk about reaching. I went to college to study and to get a degree, not to just accept my professors opinion on everything.

Are you telling me that being influenced and adopting the opinions of a bunch of a college educator is what the point in going to college is? Anyone with a mind of his own has already adopted a political ideology by the time they are 18.
Apparently you went to a crappy university then because the political science professors at my university generally know their shit back and forth if they've a doctorate. But they also realize the importance of using actual facts which, apparently, you don't need because nothing is going to change your opinion, as you've already stated in this thread. I'm not calling you crazy, I'm calling you ignorant and illogical.

Are you telling me that being influenced and adopting the opinions of a bunch of a college educator is what the point in going to college is? Anyone with a mind of his own has already adopted a political ideology by the time they are 18.

And anyone who has an open mind recognizes that by the age of 18...he might not know nearly enough about the world to make such a political ideology well founded or logically sound

So yeah, most form opinions by 18, and most of them realize, later in life, at at the age of 18, they really didn't know a whole lot, and are willing to recognize this, and re-evaluate their positions.

Only a fool would consider everything he thought of as 18 worthy of enduring the years.

A fool, or a 19 year old.

But true it is that "you're dumb" isn't a valid debate, so here goes.

Your positions are crude and lack sophistication. Your arguments about law are factually incorrect and completely ungrounded. You vacillate between arguments so fast that it's entirely unclear that even you know entirely what you're talking about. You argue from assertion without providing any proof to your claims, and attempt to counter oppositional sources by merely stating they're "wrong" without any justification. you speak from anicdote and not evidence, and dismiss counter claims not through any logical reason or sound argument, but because you happen to disagree, yet provide no reason for any of us to believe that your opinion is valid, logical, well thought out, or even worth listening to, in the slightest.

In other words, and at risk to reverting back to juvenile behavior, fail.

Anecdote.

I learned how worthless a college education in the liberal arts field really is.

Ah, you forget that many of us actually aspire to worthlessness, and thoroughly enjoy it. My liberal arts degree bought me a sinecure that makes the sloth look like the cheetah by comparison. Tell me I didn't do well. :p

I was the person that pointed out that Abu Ghraib was a manufactured scandal and no worse than hazing at a college frat in class.

*chuckles*

Professors don't like to be contradicted, they are bullies and they proved that to me.

I've found most professors don't like ignorant ideologes with poorly thought out positions wasting the time of the class.

But of course, Abu Gharib scandal was in 2004. If you were in class then, even if you were a senior then, this makes you at most...23, 24.

That explains a whole lot. The "I'm an adult now!" 20something bravely striking out against the world so full of his own self confidence, and not much else.

Anecdote.

if yu axpect mi speling two bee gode yu ar vere rong

Ah, you forget that many of us actually aspire to worthlessness, and thoroughly enjoy it. My liberal arts degree bought me a sinecure that makes the sloth look like the cheetah by comparison. Tell me I didn't do well. :p

Hey, how about you and I discuss the House bill, like the sensible people we are? I think HSH PE has bitten off more than he can chew ...

Yeah well if you want to just be a sloth or go to college for the social scene, people should surely study philosophy, because you surely won't learn anything at any university I've seen. It's all hippies and leftist tools teaching the courses, no realists whatsoever.

*chuckles*



I've found most professors don't like ignorant ideologes with poorly thought out positions wasting the time of the class.


Indeed, I find that a lot of professors don't really mind contradiction, given that it doesn't disrupt class, and given that it's actually well thought out and supported by evidence.

Now, you're unlikely to change their minds, because they have quite a lot of education and have done a lot of research in their fields-- and are therefore likely to have opinions that are quite sophisticated and match up to the evidence-- but that's another issue.

if yu axpect mi speling two bee gode yu ar vere rongBad Neo Art. There is no room for creativity in a spelling bee! :mad:

That explains a whole lot. The "I'm an adult now!" 20something bravely striking out against the world so full of his own self confidence, and not much else.

Hey, don't diss the collective. 24 is above the median age of NSGers, surely?

Indeed, I find that a lot of professors don't really mind contradiction, given that it doesn't disrupt class, and given that it's actually well thought out and supported by evidence. I got asked whether I hated my favorite professor while I was still at UVA, because I kept questioning what he told us. He laughed when I told him that.

Yeah well if you want to just be a sloth or go to college for the social scene, people should surely study philosophy, because you surely won't learn anything at any university I've seen. It's all hippies and leftist tools teaching the courses, no realists whatsoever.

There's a reason college professors are only "hippies and leftists" and no realists.

They're educated. Why would you expect educated people to put forth such foolish ideologies? Sure, there are exceptions, but those tend to people people who formed their positions in spite of their education, not because of it.

if yu axpect mi speling two bee gode yu ar vere rong

Can you blame a guy for wanting to be helpful? You're all doing such a good job that there's nothing for me to really address.

OT: A d20 Spycraft game's been announced on the D&D forum I TGed you a while back. It will likely start after New Year's, but registration's open for the limited number of available slots.

Hey, don't diss the collective. 24 is above the median age of NSGers, surely?I haven't even reached that yet... :(

Hey, don't diss the collective. 24 is above the median age of NSGers, surely?

Aye, it's in fact older than I am by a few years. It's not the age that's the issue, it's the fact that many people graduating out of college have become quite, shall we say, sophomoric?

OT: A d20 Spycraft game's been announced on the D&D forum I TGed you a while back. It will likely start after New Year's, but registration's open for the limited number of available slots.

yes, I saw that, probably going to register this weekend once I look up what spycraft is

I haven't even reached that yet... :(

Age is a factor only in the individual case. When I was 20, I'd have been crushed like a bug in this forum ... I was very ideological. Heck, I'd have been Troll of the Year!

You do fine. :)

Age is a factor only in the individual case. When I was 20, I'd have been crushed like a bug in this forum ... I was very ideological. Heck, I'd have been Troll of the Year!

You do fine. :)Ah, when I was twenty, I was involved in the Lingerie Thread. Those were the days...

No, it's because tenure is controlled by the same intellectual intolerance that is taught. It's all the same political ideology that controls everything.

I'll give you an example.

The Abu Ghraib, there was no essay to be written, it was a clear case if you think that humiliation was torture. I said no, my professor said yes. Then she called me a fascist and a racist for disagreeing

That's the standard answer when it comes to any kind of discussion regarding issues like this, anyone that's honest knows that as well. That's how they deal with situations with this. You have to agree or you are crazy and/or a Nazi. And I say they because from my own experience, professors tend to be formally educated idiots who think Western leaders are satan and Castro is a role model.

yes, I saw that, probably going to register this weekend once I look up what spycraft is

The wikipedia article is actually quite thorough. We have a .pdf of the book that will likely be circulated once Chargen officially starts.

Age is a factor only in the individual case. When I was 20, I'd have been crushed like a bug in this forum ... I was very ideological. Heck, I'd have been Troll of the Year!

You do fine. :)

*Picks up boot, looks down* I'm twenty now. *Puts boot back down onto bug*

:D

The Abu Ghraib, there was no essay to be written, it was a clear case if you think that humiliation was torture. I said no, my professor said yes. Then she called me a fascist and a racist for disagreeingI've read plenty of your posts, so I think she called you a fascist and a racist because of a lot more than just your position on Abu Ghraib.

No, it's because tenure is controlled by the same intellectual intolerance that is taught. It's all the same political ideology that controls everything.

I'll give you an example.

The Abu Ghraib, there was no essay to be written, it was a clear case if you think that humiliation was torture. I said no, my professor said yes. Then she called me a fascist and a racist for disagreeing.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how it went.

Yes, I wasn't quiet in class. I didn't just accept the politically correct bullshit, so that's the treatment you get.

Yeah, that's basically what happened. Now that's one example. You just apply to that a hundred other incidents and you have the reason why college means nothing anymore. It's a paycheck for Castro lovers and terrorist apologists.

No, it's because tenure is controlled by the same intellectual intolerance that is taught. It's all the same political ideology that controls everything.

I'll give you an example.

The Abu Ghraib, there was no essay to be written, it was a clear case if you think that humiliation was torture. I said no, my professor said yes. Then she called me a fascist and a racist for disagreeing

That's the standard answer when it comes to any kind of discussion regarding issues like this, anyone that's honest knows that as well. That's how they deal with situations with this. You have to agree or you are crazy and/or a Nazi. And I say they because from my own experience, professors tend to be formally educated idiots who think Western leaders are satan and Castro is a role model.

Dunno about Satan, but his spokespeople can be quite the role models.

Yeah well if you want to just be a sloth or go to college for the social scene, people should surely study philosophy, because you surely won't learn anything at any university I've seen. It's all hippies and leftist tools teaching the courses, no realists whatsoever.

Way ahead of you, although I do like to think I learned a thing or two. :p Either way, most of my professors were either lawyers, doctors, scientists or authors specializing in some topic or other, rather than stereotypical lifelong academics lacking any real-world experience. Only one that I can recall was a hardline leftist, and she spent 3/4 of each year in France on sabbatical, so I didn't see much of her. :)

Edit: On topic: the bill mentioned in the OP looks like a sure veto to me, if it even makes it that far. Bush has long lost his fear of the veto pen. :p

No, it's because tenure is controlled by the same intellectual intolerance that is taught. It's all the same political ideology that controls everything.


It's a conspiracy! Don your tinfoil hats!

Yes, I wasn't quiet in class. I didn't just accept the politically correct bullshit, so that's the treatment you get.Birds of a feather flock together. If you make comments that attempt to whitewash racist history and promote extremist measures against crime, don't be surprised when people take a hint and consider you a racist or fascist.

Yes, I wasn't quiet in class. I didn't just accept the politically correct bullshit, so that's the treatment you get.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how it happened.

Yes, I wasn't quiet in class. I didn't just accept the politically correct bullshit, so that's the treatment you get.

Yeah, that's basically what happened. Now that's one example. You just apply to that a hundred other incidents and you have the reason why college means nothing anymore. It's a paycheck for Castro lovers and terrorist apologists.

So, you came to school with lots of opinions...where did you get those opinions in the first place? Who taught you the difference between right and wrong, bullshit and truth?

Edit: On topic: the bill mentioned in the OP looks like a sure veto to me, if it even makes it that far. Bush has long lost his fear of the veto pen. :p

I do wonder why they didn't just make a simple bill, saying that the CIA must comply with the Army Field Manual.

Then, to defend the assertion "the United States does not torture" it would be necessary to explain either (a) Why the field manual is wrong, or (b) why the CIA should be above the law as passed by House and Congress.

That's way hard.

As it is, Bush can veto the bill and say it's because of other provisions which are vaguely worded, etc.

Why does the legislature pass such damn complicated bills? To save on paperwork or something?

Umm, life? Every person develops their opinions through experience. Everyone of substance, others just accept the word of others.

I do wonder why they didn't just make a simple bill, saying that the CIA must comply with the Army Field Manual.


Then bush as supreme commander changes the field manual, because he can.

Can't change a law, however.

Umm, life? Every person develops their opinions through experience.

And what, exactly, is your experience with water boarding?

It's a conspiracy! Don your tinfoil hats!

Yeah. People who are prone to paranoia probably shouldn't lumber into a thread, say stupid and inflammatory things, then try to answer them all at once.

Poor management of a psychiatric condition, is what that is.

Umm, life? Every person develops their opinions through experience. Everyone of substance, others just accept the word of others.
The lies we tell ourselves...:rolleyes:

Then bush as supreme commander changes the field manual, because he can.

Unless he's going to make that manual secret (ha-ha, how to train officers then?) ... that doesn't work.

He'd need to write in permissible forms of torture, if he wants the CIA to still be able to torture.

Can't change a law, however.

Hopefully, the signing statements don't ever have effect. *nod*

Yeah. People who are prone to paranoia probably shouldn't lumber into a thread, say stupid and inflammatory things, then try to answer them all at once.

Poor management of a psychiatric condition, is what that is.

Exactly. Deal with one thing at a time, think of a plan of execution, then do it. The more things you try to do at once the stronger your brainwaves are, and that makes it easier for the aliens to track you.

And we all know what happens then.

Exactly. Deal with one thing at a time, think of a plan of execution, then do it. The more things you try to do at once the stronger your brainwaves are, and that makes it easier for the aliens to track you.

And we all know what happens then.

Profit!

I grow tired of this game. HSH, you're mine to beat!

And for that purpose, allow me to apply on you my best-known move...

***Shakespeare, I summon you, bard.***

***Brutus's Honor***

Friends, Americans, posters, lend me your eyes.
I come to praise torture, not to attack it.
The evil that things do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones.
So let it be with torture. The noble HSH
Hath told you torture is acceptable.
If it is so, it is a great tool,
And your government should use it.
Here, under leave of HSH and the rest—
For HSH is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men—
Come I to speak on torture's behalf.
It is said ineffective, by the CIA even.
But HSH says it is acceptable,
And HSH is an honorable man.
It hath hurt innocent captives throughout the times
With no data gained to prevent a kill.
Does this in torture seem effective?
On the matter of time, it's slower than death.
Effectiveness should be made of faster stuff.
Yet HSH says it is acceptable,
And HSH is an honorable man.
You all did see that in Abu Ghraib
There were actions to rape tantamount,
Which terrorist recruiters do use. Was this effective?
Yet HSH says it is acceptable,
And, sure, he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what HSH spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did refuse it once, not without cause.
What cause causes you then to support it?
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me.
My heart is in the coffin there with sanity,
And I must pause till it come back to me. (weeps)

So Neo are you of the opinion that you can't have an opinion on waterboarding unless you experience it?

Doesn't work pal.

So Neo are you of the opinion that you can't have an opinion on waterboarding unless you experience it?

Doesn't work pal.

You're the one who said your positions come from experience. I merely question what experience of torture you have to form opinions of it.

Oops, did you forget your own argument again?

I grow tired of this game. HSH, you're mine to beat!

Oh, get a room.
(/joke!)


EDIT AFTER 2 READS THROUGH:That is good stuff, but not a debating tactic.
As in the Shakespeare, it addresses the audience, to win them over.

Yes, a good debate is addressed to the audience, but we're hardly swayed by Brutus to start with.

The idea of announcing your debating tactic is very interesting too.

So Neo are you of the opinion that you can't have an opinion on waterboarding unless you experience it?

Doesn't work pal.

I applaud your use of another poster's name. Makes you a lot more understandable, even though your fu is still weak.

Don't let me distract you now. Concentrate, because Neo has a strong answer. I advise a retraction.

That's just babble that has no purpose.

You develop opinions through life experiences and what you perceive of certain things.

I have never been waterboarded, but I support using torture as a means to get information from terrorists because everything I've ever read or seen has given be the opinion that you have to be brutal with such people

That's just babble that has no purpose.

You develop opinions through life experiences and what you perceive of certain things.

I have never been waterboarded, but I support using torture as a means to get information from terrorists because everything I've ever read or seen has given be the opinion that you have to be brutal with such people

ahh, "such people". So, what's your experience with terrorists?

That is just ridiculous. You read anything or study anything about Islamic terrorists and you have to realize that there is no way to deal with them except to appease, which is feeding your friend to the alligator or to kill, that's it.

You tell me why you think terrorists should not be tortured.

You tell me why you think terrorists should not be tortured.because we're supposed to be better than them?

Oh, get a room.
(/joke!)


EDIT AFTER 2 READS THROUGH:That is good stuff, but not a debating tactic.
As in the Shakespeare, it addresses the audience, to win them over.

Yes, a good debate is addressed to the audience, but we're hardly swayed by Brutus to start with.

The idea of announcing your debating tactic is very interesting too.

You don't understand. This is a debating tactic, but not in the way you think: It's a trick to demonstrate my superiority in relation to my opponent by showing that, even bound by the rules of my maneuver, I can still make a point, due to the strength of my point and the weakness of his. As for the idea of announcing, it's also a second "handicap"... And I like anime. ;)

That is just ridiculous. You read anything or study anything about Islamic terrorists and you have to realize that there is no way to deal with them except to appease, which is feeding your friend to the alligator or to kill, that's it.

You tell me why you think terrorists should not be tortured.

Well, since you can't discipline yourself to say who you are addressing, I'll reply with THE POST IMMEDIATELY BEFORE YOUR SECOND TO THIS THREAD, your first today.

We're coming full circle. You have made no progress, despite all the red herrings and meaningless swill about the source of intellectual authority.

You replied to me, at post #54, to mine at #53. You did not address the bolded part, and I claim precedence over Neo Art, not because I'm better than him, but because I was debating you first.

I despise the idea of torture, but then, I'm a pansy liberal who despises the idea of jails.

To say that torture never works seems to me a specious way of going about banning it. I am aware of the qualified torturers who state that it is an unreliable way of getting information, that persuasion is more effective.

I simply find it impossible to believe that torture never works, that there is no situation where physical pain and apprehension of death will make a suspect disclose information. (I nod to the argument that fabricated information can be more damaging than no information at all.)

A civilized society must not condone torture, let alone actively do it. We're big enough and strong enough to take our lumps -- virtuous behaviour wouldn't count for anything if it didn't involve some sacrifice. We can't expect to win every time ... not if we're going to be the good guys anyway.

You tell me why you think terrorists should not be tortured.

Ah, a set-up for another one of my tricks.

***List of seven, equal beginnings.***

***7th Flush***

Because you do not know for sure that they are actual terrorists.

Because it helps actual terrorists recruit more to their cause.

Because it has been pointed out as ineffective by the CIA itself.

Because it takes more time to torture than to apply other more reliable methods.

Because you're supposed to be better than the monsters you claim to fight.

Because it has much more of a chance to generate wrong info than normal techniques.

Because of those and so many other reasons that you're not willing to admit.

You don't understand. This is a debating tactic, but not in the way you think: It's a trick to demonstrate my superiority in relation to my opponent by showing that, even bound by the rules of my maneuver, I can still make a point, due to the strength of my point and the weakness of his. As for the idea of announcing, it's also a second "handicap"... And I like anime. ;)

I understand well enough. I repeat: you are addressing the audience.

Do you really think that a paraphrase of Shakespeare will convince HSH of your superiority?

I understand well enough. I repeat: you are addressing the audience.

Do you really think that a paraphrase of Shakespeare will convince HSH of your superiority?

I'm going to assume here that you know that the true purpose of a debate is seldom to convince your opponent, but usually to convince your audience. Furthermore, I enjoy this game, and it gives me a chance to, yes, flaunt myself. If Neo Art is our "swordsman", using an analogy with fighting, I'm the guy that dances during the fight and yet puts up a great fight. ;)

HSH PE, if you can avoid being distracted by those making fun of you, I wouldn't mind returning to this point.

I asserted that torture can work, and it seems intuitive to me. Some people avoid the dentist, for crying out loud, and that level of pain isn't even accompanied by threats or intent to hurt. (Oh, unless it's a Sadistic Dentist, but they cost extra ;) )

Obviously, it can work to extract information. I assert that governments shouldn't do it, bullies shouldn't do it, and criminals shouldn't do it. They should all be treated equally harshly if they do.

If this seems wide of the point to you, we could discuss the advantages as opposed to the disadvantages of torture ... whether it serves the interests of the USA to torture prisoners.

This is an ethical issue, which can be argued in the abstract.
This, however, is a practical issue, which will require the weighing of sources of information.

Both of these seem like valid approaches to me, though I prefer the first since I think best in abstracts.

(I would appreciate if you could put "BSB" somewhere in the post, if you choose to reply to me.)

I'm going to assume here that you know that the true purpose of a debate is seldom to convince your opponent, but usually to convince your audience.

I do. I think it's fair to say that the audience (at least, the vocal members of such) were convinced already ... politeness forbids me to say what of exactly.

Furthermore, I enjoy this game, and it gives me a chance to, yes, flaunt myself. If Neo Art is our "swordsman", using an analogy with fighting, I'm the guy that dances during the fight and yet puts up a great fight. ;)

Do you have a debating tactic called "Friday Night Special" ...?

I think our opponent just used it ... on himself.

HSH PE, if you can avoid being distracted by those making fun of you, I wouldn't mind returning to this point.

I asserted that torture can work, and it seems intuitive to me. Some people avoid the dentist, for crying out loud, and that level of pain isn't even accompanied by threats or intent to hurt. (Oh, unless it's a Sadistic Dentist, but they cost extra ;) )

Obviously, it can work to extract information. I assert that governments shouldn't do it, bullies shouldn't do it, and criminals shouldn't do it. They should all be treated equally harshly if they do.


Well, of course it can work. It just doesn't reliably work, especially in that the information is not reliable.

I mean, saying "please" can work. It's just unlikely.

I'm the guy that dances during the fight and yet puts up a great fight. ;)
a swashbuckler. :cool:

I do. I think it's fair to say that the audience (at least, the vocal members of such) were convinced already ... politeness forbids me to say what of exactly.



Do you have a debating tactic called "Friday Night Special" ...?

I think our opponent just used it ... on himself.

Again, even if the audience is convinced, not only there may be silent unconvinced ones, but also I enjoy the debate. A "joie de lutte" if you will.

As for such a debate tactic... No, not that I know of. To what post do you refer, and what do you describe it as?

You tell me why you think terrorists should not be tortured.

1) because he might not be a terrorist

2) because it's illegal

3) because its usefulness is questionable at best

4) because even if it does work it may not be any more efficient than other methods

5) because doing so inspires more hate for the united states and makes terrorist recruiting easier

6) because all it does is show the terrorists that our intelligence gathering methods are so poor that we can't stop them unless we capture someone to torture

7) because fear of torture, instead of being a deterrent, makes possible terrorists even less willing to get caught and more willing to use desperate and violent reasons to avoid it

8) because in doing so we lose the respect of the international community which makes them hesitant to allow us to conduct intelligence gathering in their country/with their resources, ultimitly harming our intelligence gathering efforts

9) because it creates a risk to our own captured POWs because those angry at our treatment of prisoners are more willing to exact the same torture on our own people

10) because we are better than terrorists.

There we go, 10 reasons. I shall not be surprised if you do not respond to them.

a swashbuckler. :cool:

EXACTLY! My whole goal here is to become the Jack Sparrow of the NSG debates! :D

Again, even if the audience is convinced, not only there may be silent unconvinced ones, but also I enjoy the debate. A "joie de lutte" if you will.

As for such a debate tactic... No, not that I know of. To what post do you refer, and what do you describe it as?

AFAIK, a Friday Night Special is a very cheap and unreliable handgun. Bought to be used once. I refer to the fact that HSH appears to have quit for now.

*bows*

1) because he might not be a terrorist

2) because it's illegal

3) because its usefulness is questionable at best

4) because even if it does work it may not be any more efficient than other methods

5) because doing so inspires more hate for the united states and makes terrorist recruiting easier

6) because all it does is show the terrorists that our intelligence gathering methods are so poor that we can't stop them unless we capture someone to torture

7) because fear of torture, instead of being a deterrent, makes possible terrorists even less willing to get caught and more willing to use desperate and violent reasons to avoid it

8) because in doing so we lose the respect of the international community which makes them hesitant to allow us to conduct intelligence gathering in their country/with their resources, ultimitly harming our intelligence gathering efforts

9) because it creates a risk to our own captured POWs because those angry at our treatment of prisoners are more willing to exact the same torture on our own people

10) because we are better than terrorists.

There we go, 10 reasons. I shall not be surprised if you do not respond to them.

Ladies and gentlemen, here we see Neo Art's move, 10th Strike!

AFAIK, a Friday Night Special is a very cheap and unreliable handgun. Bought to be used once. I refer to the fact that HSH appears to have quit for now.

*bows*

Oh, right. Yeah, I don't use it, but I just call it "turning tail and running". ;)

Purely as an exercise in establishing to what extent we agree, I will weight these reasons according to my own opinion.

5 is "compelling reason", 0 is "not very important" or "irrelevant," -5 is "bad reason."

1) because he might not be a terrorist
............................................................................5
2) because it's illegal
............................................................................0
3) because its usefulness is questionable at best
............................................................................3
4) because even if it does work it may not be any more efficient than other methods
............................................................................-2
5) because doing so inspires more hate for the united states and makes terrorist recruiting easier
............................................................................5
6) because all it does is show the terrorists that our intelligence gathering methods are so poor that we can't stop them unless we capture someone to torture
............................................................................4
7) because fear of torture, instead of being a deterrent, makes possible terrorists even less willing to get caught and more willing to use desperate and violent reasons to avoid it
............................................................................5
8) because in doing so we lose the respect of the international community which makes them hesitant to allow us to conduct intelligence gathering in their country/with their resources, ultimitly harming our intelligence gathering efforts
............................................................................3
9) because it creates a risk to our own captured POWs because those angry at our treatment of prisoners are more willing to exact the same torture on our own people
............................................................................4
10) because we are better than terrorists.
............................................................................5
There we go, 10 reasons. I shall not be surprised if you do not respond to them.

As you see, I agree overwhelmingly with you. The only basis for disagreement is point #4, "even if it does work it may not be any more efficient than other methods" ... it may be effective where other methods fail.

As you see, I agree overwhelmingly with you. The only basis for disagreement is point #4, "even if it does work it may not be any more efficient than other methods" ... it may be effective where other methods fail.

#3 and #4 go hand in hand. #3 is "it doesn't work". One can respond "yes it does" to which I reply "even if it does work to some extent, that doesn't mean it works better than OTHER methods"

You also say that "it's illegal" is irrelevant. That is, of course, a matter of opinion. However, as an attorney, and one who has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, I find "it's illegal" to be a VERY compelling argument, and one that goes along with #10 "we are better than terrorists" primarily because we value human rights, whereas they do not.

"1) because he might not be a terrorist"

Just another one of those muslim tourists who stumbled onto a battlefield and picked up a weapon before being captured. Like the poor innocent souls suffering in Gitmo.

"2) because it's illegal"

Complete bullshit. Terrorists have zero rights under international law, they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions or anything else. They could be lined up and shot and nothing could be done about it by anyone.

"3) because its usefulness is questionable at best"

Completely wrong. Waterboarding has been proven to be extremely effective.

"4) because even if it does work it may not be any more efficient than other methods"

Just nonsense.

"5) because doing so inspires more hate for the united states and makes terrorist recruiting easier"

So we should set policy on what makes other people happy? That's just the worst nonsense I've ever read.

"6) because all it does is show the terrorists that our intelligence gathering methods are so poor that we can't stop them unless we capture someone to torture"

WHAT? I don't even know where to start. You think not using torture makes us look anything but weak to jihadists?

"7) because fear of torture, instead of being a deterrent, makes possible terrorists even less willing to get caught and more willing to use desperate and violent reasons to avoid it"

That's bullshit. Torture isn't the first thing used. People are interrogated and then tortured.

"8) because in doing so we lose the respect of the international community which makes them hesitant to allow us to conduct intelligence gathering in their country/with their resources, ultimitly harming our intelligence gathering efforts"

Once again, no one should set policy based on what makes other people happy.

"9) because it creates a risk to our own captured POWs because those angry at our treatment of prisoners are more willing to exact the same torture on our own people"

They already do it.

"10) because we are better than terrorists."

That's just weakness there. Should we not have gone to war ever because we were above such things? Just set back and let everyone walk all over us with a smug grin on our face. Humans are animals, animals aren't pacifists, they kill the weak because they threaten everyone else.

Snip.

Still waiting for your reply to MY posts.

Obviously, it can work to extract information. I assert that governments shouldn't do it, bullies shouldn't do it, and criminals shouldn't do it. They should all be treated equally harshly if they do.

Well, of course it can work. It just doesn't reliably work, especially in that the information is not reliable.

I mean, saying "please" can work. It's just unlikely.

Saying "please" can indeed work. It might be a long process of "saying please," but persuading your enemy to be your friend pays far more dividend than being cruel to them, their will broken but still your undoubted enemy. Instead of having to know the right question to extract the information ("Where on the ship is the bomb hidden?") ... the convert volunteers anything they think might be helpful.

It's like the difference between testimony in court, and the conversation between friends. The testimony is compelled, and only constitutes specific answers to specific questions. The conversation is on the basis of mutual benefit, and can wander into any area.

The number of defectors on both sides of the Cold War, who provided extremely valuable information to their new "friends" ... shows that "saying please" is well worth a go.

Still waiting for your reply to MY posts.

Ooh, HSH came back! I hadn't expected that.

Perhaps it was your "turning and running" goad that did it.

"1) because he might not be a terrorist"

Just another one of those muslim tourists who stumbled onto a battlefield and picked up a weapon before being captured. Like the poor innocent souls suffering in Gitmo.

"2) because it's illegal"

Complete bullshit. Terrorists have zero rights under international law, they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions or anything else. They could be lined up and shot and nothing could be done about it by anyone.

"3) because its usefulness is questionable at best"

Completely wrong. Waterboarding has been proven to be extremely effective.

"4) because even if it does work it may not be any more efficient than other methods"

Just nonsense.

"5) because doing so inspires more hate for the united states and makes terrorist recruiting easier"

So we should set policy on what makes other people happy? That's just the worst nonsense I've ever read.

"6) because all it does is show the terrorists that our intelligence gathering methods are so poor that we can't stop them unless we capture someone to torture"

WHAT? I don't even know where to start. You think not using torture makes us look anything but weak to jihadists?

"7) because fear of torture, instead of being a deterrent, makes possible terrorists even less willing to get caught and more willing to use desperate and violent reasons to avoid it"

That's bullshit. Torture isn't the first thing used. People are interrogated and then tortured.

"8) because in doing so we lose the respect of the international community which makes them hesitant to allow us to conduct intelligence gathering in their country/with their resources, ultimitly harming our intelligence gathering efforts"

Once again, no one should set policy based on what makes other people happy.

"9) because it creates a risk to our own captured POWs because those angry at our treatment of prisoners are more willing to exact the same torture on our own people"

They already do it.

"10) because we are better than terrorists."

That's just weakness there. Should we not have gone to war ever because we were above such things? Just set back and let everyone walk all over us with a smug grin on our face. Humans are animals, animals aren't pacifists, they kill the weak because they threaten everyone else.

Wow, what a monument to complete and utter failure.

Ooh, HSH came back! I hadn't expected that.

Perhaps it was your "turning and running" goad that did it.

I don't know about that; Given how afraid of me he seems to be (after all he's trying not to see my posts for a few pages now) I'd think it was a coincidence.

AFAIK, a Friday Night Special is a very cheap and unreliable handgun. Bought to be used once. I refer to the fact that HSH appears to have quit for now.

*bows*

the term you are looking for is saturday night special.

Saying "please" can indeed work. It might be a long process of "saying please," but persuading your enemy to be your friend pays far more dividend than being cruel to them, their will broken but still your undoubted enemy. Instead of having to know the right question to extract the information ("Where on the ship is the bomb hidden?") ... the convert volunteers anything they think might be helpful.

It's like the difference between testimony in court, and the conversation between friends. The testimony is compelled, and only constitutes specific answers to specific questions. The conversation is on the basis of mutual benefit, and can wander into any area.

The number of defectors on both sides of the Cold War, who provided extremely valuable information to their new "friends" ... shows that "saying please" is well worth a go.

You're looking too far into it. I didn't mean it as in "be nice," I meant just adding the word "please" to your request for information. :p

It's still certainly worth a go, especially given how there's not really any downside, but the point I was making is that just because something can work, doesn't mean it's reliable or effective.

Heikoku, what questions are those? My comments are general for the most part. What specifically do you want to say?

Heikoku, what questions are those? My comments are general for the most part. What specifically do you want to say?

I'm daring you to answer, specifically, the Shakespeare post I made in this thread. It has, after all, your name on it.

#3 and #4 go hand in hand. #3 is "it doesn't work". One can respond "yes it does" to which I reply "even if it does work to some extent, that doesn't mean it works better than OTHER methods"

Horses for courses. Can you deny that there might be a situation where it would work, and all more humane methods would fail?

On a side note, you could have made more of #3. The lower relability (probability of lying) of the information gained could be positively harmful. For instance, an airstrike on a "lolly factory" which turns out to really be a lolly factory because an interogee lied that it was making chemical weapons.

You also say that "it's illegal" is irrelevant. That is, of course, a matter of opinion. However, as an attorney, and one who has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, I find "it's illegal" to be a VERY compelling argument, and one that goes along with #10 "we are better than terrorists" primarily because we value human rights, whereas they do not.

The reason I rated that "irrelevant" is that we are discussing the absolute value of torture. If we are to make a clear judgement of whether we should torture, we cannot rely on "how things are already." Your point amounts to "it should be that way because it is that way."

I would utterly agree that the CIA must follow the law. When they break the law (as they do) they defend themselves very well with the argument "you have to trust us because we could mess you up real bad." In a perfect world, I'd abolish secret government agencies of all sorts. Failing that, they must be accountable to government, and follow some kind of law even if it's not the law which binds police or the military.

I take it as a mark of respect for my opinion that you cite your qualifications. I know you don't do that often. Yet, I will continue to speak as an armchair god, who can remake the law to serve justice as I see it, without damaging the respect which tradition accords to the law.

Most of your other points were very strong. #7, the probability that enemies will fight to the death to avoid capture, I hadn't even considered.

the term you are looking for is saturday night special.

Dang. Would have been a sweet joke, considering it isn't saturday night yet.

You are crying about me not responding to that poem?

Ok, it sucks. Happy?

Heikoku stop now,
Against him, this tactic's too
Sophisticated.

Yeah, sophisticated.

There are fewer things more useless than poetry or abstract art. It's all fuel for idiocy. Just look at it's most fervent admirers.

I do have to point out that if you're discussing what you think the law should be, "it's illegal" is irrelevant, because that's saying "it should be illegal because it's currently illegal."

But other than that, the law is very important.

Yeah, sophisticated.

There are fewer things more useless than poetry or abstract art. It's all fuel for idiocy. Just look at it's most fervent admirers.

I do think the point
Has flown right over his head
not at all surprised

You are crying about me not responding to that poem?

Ok, it sucks. Happy?

Shakespeare sucks. Wow, you are really gaining my respect here.

I would not say so.
One should convey arguments
In artful haiku.

I do have to point out that if you're discussing what you think the law should be, "it's illegal" is irrelevant, because that's saying "it should be illegal because it's currently illegal."

But other than that, the law is very important.

Thankyou, PC.

It's a fine distinction, and in other contexts "the CIA and military must follow the government's law" makes a lot of sense.

Being unimpressed by a terrible bunch of sentences thrown together by him means that I said Shakespeare sucks?

Not at all. I happen to like Shakespeare, especially Hamlet.

I do have to point out that if you're discussing what you think the law should be, "it's illegal" is irrelevant, because that's saying "it should be illegal because it's currently illegal."

I'm not merely discussing what the law should be. I am discussing why the united states should not torture, both from an ethical, practical, and legal perspective. One reason is that torture is illegal.

One reason why the US should not torture is that doing so is illegal. Now if the law were to change, that argument would be invalid. But the law has not, yet, changed, and until such time, a good reason for the US not to torture is that the law forbids it.

I would not say so.
One should convey arguments
In artful haiku.

terrorists rejoice
when we abandon our laws
and become like them

Is there no truer
Victory for evil when
Good men do such wrongs?

What law?

Governing bodies
Are bound by the laws that they
Swear oaths to uphold

You are crying about me not responding to that poem?

Ok, it sucks. Happy?

1- It's not a poem, though I'm not surprised you lack the culture to tell.

2- You couldn't build anything like a defense against it.

3- I'm laughing. At you.

1- It's not a poem, though I'm not surprised you lack the culture to tell.

2- You couldn't build anything like a defense against it.

3- I'm laughing. At you.

You should have made your
response in the form of an
artsy haiku, yeah?

What kind of defense? It's just nonsense. It didn't even occur to me to respond to ridiculous verses, but ok.

There once was a man named Heikoku who didn't have a clue. He thought he was witty, but he's just another useless lefty.

You should have made your
response in the form of an
artsy haiku, yeah?

I do think that he
will not get it unless I
make it all simple.

You should have made your
response in the form of an
artsy haiku, yeah?

What is going on
Why are we writing haiku
I am confused

This thread just
got so much better
haiku lol

What kind of defense? It's just nonsense.

There once was a man named Heikoku who didn't have a clue. He thought he was witty, but he's just another useless lefty.

That you have no retort to my point except to try to criticize its form - which I used EXACTLY to demonstrate the by now obvious superiority I have in relation to you when it comes to arguing - only shows that you're unable to even grasp the basest concepts behind a debate, let alone win one against me.

What is that you want to know Mr. Heikoku?

This thread just
got so much better
haiku lol

I'm making it clear:
It's the Deus Maneuver
If it catches on.

What is that you want to know Mr. Heikoku?

From you, I have nothing to learn but how NOT to act.

What kind of defense? It's just nonsense. It didn't even occur to me to respond to ridiculous verses, but ok.

There once was a man named Heikoku who didn't have a clue. He thought he was witty, but he's just another useless lefty.

Here posts a troll named Prince Eric
Whose views are very barbaric
And try as he might
to prove that he's right
His posts are always pathetic



Anybody want to try a sonnet? :D

I'm making it clear:
It's the Deus Maneuver
If it catches on.

Sorry Malum but
Haikus have been my trick for
A bit of time now.

Sorry Malum but
Haikus have been my trick for
A bit of time now.

I'll give you your due
Poetic form with debate
Is your thing to do.

But getting others
To Haiku along with us
Is just my doing.

You seem to keep saying that I'm running from you, I just want to know what exactly you think I'm afraid to answer? Ask directly.

And Pirated Corsairs, go put on your elf ears and talk about LOTR. There's no need to keep responding for the sake of just responding.

Here posts a troll named Prince Eric
Whose views are very barbaric
And try as he might
to prove that he's right
His posts are always pathetic



Anybody want to try a sonnet? :D

I might try my hand
At a blank verse debate post
But cheating, it feels.

Sorry Malum but
Haikus have been my trick for
A bit of time now.

Sorry to offend
Your haiku is sub-standard
There is no nature

Sorry to offend
Your haiku is sub-standard
There is no nature

There's no helping it
I use haikus to make points
but mountains are nice.

I'll give you your due
Poetic form with debate
Is your thing to do.

But getting others
To Haiku along with us
Is just my doing.

It's all fair enough
if you refer to group moves
that would be a first.

There's no helping it
I use haikus to make points
but mountains are nice.

Was not to offend
But to say, the style is quite
unconventional

Was not to offend
But to say, the style is quite
unconventional

Oh I admit but
I only do it sometimes
like right about now.

It's all fair enough
if you refer to group moves
that would be a first.

Not so, others are
The Cheese Treatment, a good
and delicious move.

Spamming in haiku
The form is so deceiving
Boughs without fruit

I just went back over the thread. Second time through, it looks a lot like HSH Prince Eric succeeded in damaging any sensible discussion on this subject.

Rather a shame.

So I repeat: it makes no sense to say that torture NEVER yields useful information. In some cases it can gain information where no other method will.

I'm still curious why such a simple piece of legislation needs to be freighted with other measures. "The CIA should be bound by the Army rules in dealing with prisoners" is a such a simple yet profound act, it should stand on its own.

No wonder the voting record of members of Congress is so contradictory, even for the best. No wonder they can point to a clause, which disadvantages their electorate or costs too much or obstructs some other legislation, and say "this is why I voted not to outlaw baby-eating."

Any better links for a full description of the bill that this is a part of? I don't want to read the whole thing. I just want to see what the Democrat House is offering on intelligence powers.

But if you outlaw baby-eating, what will we do with all the delicious babies? :(

But if you outlaw baby-eating, what will we do with all the delicious babies? :(

Methane. For cars.

Revhead 1: Shit, my baby needs a rebore. Ma torque is way down.
Revhead 2: Hey, try this additive. Doubles your gas supply!

Revhead 1: What's in it?
Revhead 2: *reads label* It says Soybean Extract.

Revhead 1: Oh yeah! Fartin' hurricanes man! Where do I buy some?

But if you outlaw baby-eating, what will we do with all the delicious babies? :(

Hillary would starve to death, that's for sure.

*runs*

It's a start, at least. :)
Good, torture is useless in getting information out of somebody.

Though I do think that torture would make a great capital punishment for criminals. Death and prision may not phase them, but having their balls electrocuted or being forced to shit themselves into dehydration ought to teach them to fear the state.

Good, torture is useless in getting information out of somebody.

Though I do think that torture would make a great capital punishment for criminals. Death and prision may not phase them, but having their balls electrocuted or being forced to shit themselves into dehydration ought to teach them to fear the state.

Sure, just as long as, in case of a wrong "guilty" verdict being found out, the jury, judge and prosecutors get the same treatment.

But if you outlaw baby-eating, what will we do with all the delicious babies? :(We can still make baby-leather handbags and whatnot. Just read up on "A Modest Proposal" for more ideas.