Artful Dodger: A fair trial.

Artful Dodger: The US entertains black holes round the globe, strange flights carry people who disapear in there. Then there are estimations of maybe 100 people died in interrogations in Irak and Afghanistan. To be specific, wouldn't that be the job o a trial?

gogul:  When people speak about actions that qualify as torture, I need to know what specific actions you are talking about because torture to some is listening to loud music over and over.  My neighbors do that and it's lawful here up to 10pm.  So if you speak of torture, you gotta be specific.

Torture is a crime in the US, no matter where it happens. In January, Chucky Taylor, the son on Charles Taylor, was sentenced in Florida to 97 years prison for torture in Liberia. If it comes to US-torturer, US states secrets have priority, the law didn't count much under Obama so far, these trials could be a treat to the national security, so Obama. To me this means the same as if he would say that if we uncover these problems, people will stop trusting the US-government.

(V):  nope and nope and nope.   And I won't waste any more time with you on it. 

GTCharlie: And human bEiNgS have developed the ability to choose and not be bound by animal fear and flight.. Not to act like animals trapped in a corner lashing out.

Czuch: So, we can say the same of USA people that get killed or tortured?

slippery slope.....

Artful Dodger: Only three people.. have you definite proof of that? And what of the other illegal methods of gaining info, which the USA gov and judicial say are illegal to use on their people??

Artful Dodger: Nope.. I answered. And so did Czuch.. and if you agree with Czuch that you needed no moral ground to start using waterboarding, etc then you've dumped your morality full stop.

You cannot have it both ways... only tyrants try that and they fail..

Czuch: So Czuch... you've just blown the reasons you say America started the Iraq war on. Moral high ground.

So we can now say that you finally admit it was an illegal war.

ok????

Übergeek 바둑이:   water boarding has worked every time.   It's not nuns that are captured on the battle field.  It's enemy combatants.  And in all the thousands that have been captured, only three have been water boarded.  And in those cases,  information that was vital to the safety of others was obtained. 

We can create any scenario we want to discredit water boarding.  But the reality is this:  it hasn't been used since 2003 and when used, it was used only on those well-known for their terrorists activities.   In all seriousness, I don't want water boarding to be used as a routine tactic against the enemy.  But I don't want it completely removed from the tool box either.

Notice that beheadings is not being discussed amongst the terrorists with some on one side saying it's a useful tool and others saying it's too cruel.  No, they video tape it and post it on the web. 

I also wouldn't want law enforcement to use this technique without serious parameters.  There are too many loose cannons out there.  But if I had a guy in my custody and I knew that he had info on where one of my grand kids were, the police better hurry.   I may go to jail for it, but I won't stand by and do nothing.   What if I'm wrong about this guy?   I don't act recklessly.   But I will err on the side of my family's welfare.  Every time.

Übergeek 바둑이: But they(we) all do anyways, we humans hide behind self righteous stuff as though we're so civilized. We(the good guys,, the side God is on) never will stoop to bad behavior) and the terrorists say the same thing also but the ugly truth is everyone does what ever it takes to win, and always has.. ever study chimpanzee tribe behavior? humans are just a higher form

Artful Dodger:

> Because one of the arguments for water boarding is that it is to be used
> only as a last resort and only when there is good reason to believe that
> lives are at stake. I have no sympathy for people who want to kills us.

In other words, information obtained under duress is acceptable in order to save human life. It might be inadmissible in court, but it is acceptable because human life has been saved. The right to life of the victims takes precedence over the human rights of the prisoner. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. Waterboard first, ask questions later, because human lives are at stake.

Then, waterboarding has failed and the suspect is still refusing to give us information. It is time for the hot irons and psychotropic drug injections. Since the "method of last resort" failed, should we find another "last resort" after that?

I find the argument that waterboarding is rather benign as somewhat shallow. Who decides what harmful means? A doctor working for the Pentagon tells us that waterboarding is no more harmful than falling in the deep end of the swimming pool and wading to the edge of the pool. Another psychiatrist comes out and tells us that the spychological damage could leave a person scarred for life. Should we wait 50 years and then ask victims how they feel?

On the other hand, the military has sent a clear message to other people around the world. If the military can use dubious interrogation tactics, so can everyone else. Somewhere in the world somebody will be waterboarded and when somebody asks why a government will manufacture evidence and say the person was guilty. We will have to live with that as an acceptable risk.

Terrorist around the world will say "Look at what the American military did. They torture people." Then waterboarding will become a symbol under which terrorists will justify their actions, just as Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay are used in terrorist propaganda.

Czuch:  Exactly.  I want the military to have all the tools they need to keep me safe.  But if Obama keeps it up, we'll have to Mirandize the enemy on the battle field. 

Here's me:  "You have the right to remain silent.  You have the right to an attorney.  If you cannot afford on, one will be appointed to you.  Please remember that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.  Do you understand these rights as I've explained them?  Oh and one more thing:  Would you like fries with that?"

Übergeek 바둑이:

Case 1:
The police have caught a thief suspected of a string of
robberies at convenience stores. Since he has refused to confess to his
crimes during interrogation, the police decide to waterboard him to
elicit a confession. He confesses to his crimes and goes to jail.

Waterboarding should not be used to obtain confessions to a crime.  No lives are at stake here.

Case 2:
A
suspected serial killer has refused to confess to his crimes during
normal police interrogation. The police decide to use waterboarding to
make the serial killer confess and disclose the location of dead
victims that have not been found by the police. He confesses and is
sentenced to death.

Same as above

Case 3:
A child serial rapist has
abducted a child. If the police do not find the child it could die. The
police caught the suspect and decide to waterboard him. The suspect
discloses the location of the child and is sent to jail.

Yes, water board the pervert and then let the crowd beat the living crap out of him (after you accidently leave his cell door open).  Some jerk knows the whereabouts of my granddaughter I'm going to start taking off fingers. 

Case 4:
A
communist agitator has been organizing workers to join unions. He is
also suspected of organizing demostrations against the government. The
military capture this man and waterboard him to make him disclose the
location of his associates. The man confesses and he and all his
associates are sent to prison.

Same as number one.  No to waterboarding.

Case 5:
A man is supected of
being a member of the communist party and organizing guerrilla
operations against the government. He is captured and waterboarded to
make him disclose the location of the guerrilla command and all of his
revolutionary comrades. He confesses and is sent to prison. His
comrades were never found.

It depends on whether or not there is an immediate dangers to innocent people.  If you join a guerrilla organization intent on harming the US, and you get caught, don't expect tea and crumpets. 

Case 6:
An radical anarchist is
suspected of carrying out bombings against banks. This has disrupted
the businesses of banks and cost millions in property damage. He
confesses to his crimes during waterboarding and is sent to prison.

No.  Same as case 1

Case 7:
A
man is suspected of being a member of Al Qaida and of having
information in a bombing that could leave hundreds of people dead. He
is subjected to waterboarding, but refuses to confess claiming that he
is innocent. During the course of investigation it is found that he is
indeed innocent and he is set free.

Yes to water boarding.  It's not like they just would randomly pull some guy out of a crowd.  There was good reason to suspect him.  You can't know he's innocent until after a full investigation.   But when lives are at stake, you do what you have to do.  Waterboarding is simply unpleasant.  For some, a trip to the dentist is worse.

I divided my cases as follows:

Case 1: a common criminal
Case 2: a dangerous criminal with no victims in imminent danger
Case 3: a dangerous criminal with a victim in imminent danger
Case 4: a political prisoner not implicated in acts of terrorism
Case 5: a political prisoner suspected of acts against the government
Case 6: a political prisoner commiting acts of terrorism
Case 7: a suspected terrorist who is later found innocent

So my questions are:

If
waterboarding is not torture, why are the police and other law
enforcement agencies not allowed to use it when interrogating prisoners
(cases 1, 2 and 3)?

Because one of the arguments for water boarding is that it is to be used only as a last resort and only when there is good reason to believe that lives are at stake.  I have no sympathy for people who want to kills us.  A bank robber, once caught, poses no more threat.

Why is waterboarding not used to put extremely dangerous criminals away (case 2)?

See the previous answer.

Is waterboarding acceptable to save a human life (see case 3)?

Of course it is.  So is removing some dudes fingers.   Maybe a few other parts too. 

Is waterboarding acceptable for undesirable political views or political prisoners (case 4)?

No

Is waterboarding acceptable for any military action involving guerrilla warfare or insurgents (case 5)?

If lives are at stake -- yes

Are all forms of terrorism (including mere economic terrorism) a good reason to use waterboarding (case 6)?

If lives are at stake, yes. 

What do we do is somebody is subjected to waterboarding and is later found innocent (case 7)?

Buy him ice cream.  Let's face it, they don't pull nuns out of the convent and water board them.  If you join a terrorists organization, and then are suspected of doing something that jeopardizes the lives of others, don't complain when given a bath upside down.  Here's a concept:  get a good job, don't join a terrorist group bent on hurting others. 

I
find that waterboarding is one of those areas that some people see as
black and white, and other see as grey. I am curious to see some
opinions.

(V): Call it what you will, but the fact remains that none of it would be used at all, just the threat would be enough, all they have to do is cooperate, its their own fault, any technique gets used against them.

Unlike beheading Dan Pearl, which is done simply for the fun of it, our interrogations are for a purpose, and can be avoided with cooperation.

(V): no, you didn't answer the question posed. You ducked again. I already know the answer anyway. So it doesn't matter.

(V): Even God is bound (or so they say) by the laws of physical science as they are bound from the moment of creation when all that is was decided to be.


Models don't work Czuch...







Now you have me confused again, with your contradictions..... models dont work except God created a model at creation that bound?????

Übergeek 바둑이: If waterboarding fails it is likely that either nothing else would or the subject has no real information.

Übergeek 바둑이: Waterboarding is not acceptable to get a confession, because people will confess to anything to avoid....

But getting intel is a different story, you cannot make up good intel just to avoid....

(V): And hate creates pain.

(V): So when did someone decide the American spirit has become so weak that it needs to behave as it once said was so wrong??




911

Übergeek 바둑이: I know. police are prosecuted for over using violence and prosecuted and sent to jail.

If a criminal hurts someone they are sent to jail. I've never heard of someone being above the law.. even God is bound (or so they say) by the laws of physical science as they are bound from the moment of creation when all that is was decided to be.

Now if God has to obey the laws, I can see no exception!!

And it appears that the CIA were no longer considered a trustworthy source of intelligence. A total lack of trust in intelligence!!

So.. that made those high up afraid.. they then used that fear to justify torture. And because a certain amount of programming involving "us and them" was inbred into the American political system it created an ability to say "them".

I thought we were all classed as humans.

And it appears that the CIA were no longer considered a trustworthy source of intelligence. A total lack of trust in intelligence!!

So.. that made those high up afraid.. they then used that fear to justify torture. And because a certain amount of programming involving "us and them" was inbred into the American political system it created an ability to say "them".

I thought we</i> were all classed as humans.

(V):
What I am trying to get to in my posts is that if we say that waterboarding is not torture, then it is an acceptable interrogation technique and should be used whenever the state decides it is suitable. I want to see those who defend or oppose waterboarding make some good arguments answering my questions. I see some of us claiming a high moral ground, but if waterboarding saves lives, then should it be acceptable? Those who support waterboarding have said that it is OK to go even further, but is there a limit? When does waterboarding (or other similar techniques) become or stop being acceptable?

Übergeek 바둑이: Doing it causes suffering, suffering creates hate.

And hate creates pain. So how is it a cure is what I wonder!!

Czuch: Well if your self justified, justify yourself. Others have been capable and have one won the fight without breaking the principles that they are fighting for.

So.. tell me. Why can't America?

You've signed all the conventions, taking part and pursued war criminals and tried them without all this 'torture' business, and then much bigger criminals then you have now for much of the same things that you now justify..

... So when did someone decide the American spirit has become so weak that it needs to behave as it once said was so wrong??

Case 1:
The police have caught a thief suspected of a string of robberies at convenience stores. Since he has refused to confess to his crimes during interrogation, the police decide to waterboard him to elicit a confession. He confesses to his crimes and goes to jail.

Case 2:
A suspected serial killer has refused to confess to his crimes during normal police interrogation. The police decide to use waterboarding to make the serial killer confess and disclose the location of dead victims that have not been found by the police. He confesses and is sentenced to death.

Case 3:
A child serial rapist has abducted a child. If the police do not find the child it could die. The police caught the suspect and decide to waterboard him. The suspect discloses the location of the child and is sent to jail.

Case 4:
A communist agitator has been organizing workers to join unions. He is also suspected of organizing demostrations against the government. The military capture this man and waterboard him to make him disclose the location of his associates. The man confesses and he and all his associates are sent to prison.

Case 5:
A man is supected of being a member of the communist party and organizing guerrilla operations against the government. He is captured and waterboarded to make him disclose the location of the guerrilla command and all of his revolutionary comrades. He confesses and is sent to prison. His comrades were never found.

Case 6:
An radical anarchist is suspected of carrying out bombings against banks. This has disrupted the businesses of banks and cost millions in property damage. He confesses to his crimes during waterboarding and is sent to prison.

Case 7:
A man is suspected of being a member of Al Qaida and of having information in a bombing that could leave hundreds of people dead. He is subjected to waterboarding, but refuses to confess claiming that he is innocent. During the course of investigation it is found that he is indeed innocent and he is set free.

I divided my cases as follows:

Case 1: a common criminal
Case 2: a dangerous criminal with no victims in imminent danger
Case 3: a dangerous criminal with a victim in imminent danger
Case 4: a political prisoner not implicated in acts of terrorism
Case 5: a political prisoner suspected of acts against the government
Case 6: a political prisoner commiting acts of terrorism
Case 7: a suspected terrorist who is later found innocent

So my questions are:

If waterboarding is not torture, why are the police and other law enforcement agencies not allowed to use it when interrogating prisoners (cases 1, 2 and 3)?

Why is waterboarding not used to put extremely dangerous criminals away (case 2)?

Is waterboarding acceptable to save a human life (see case 3)?

Is waterboarding acceptable for undesirable political views or political prisoners (case 4)?

Is waterboarding acceptable for any military action involving guerrilla warfare or insurgents (case 5)?

Are all forms of terrorism (including mere economic terrorism) a good reason to use waterboarding (case 6)?

What do we do is somebody is subjected to waterboarding and is later found innocent (case 7)?

I find that waterboarding is one of those areas that some people see as black and white, and other see as grey. I am curious to see some opinions.

(V): I dont need or want any moral high ground... you would be the one watching your family get slaughtered while chanting to yourself, "I am better than them" "I am better then them" "I am better than them"....

Did we all survive the finance crisis? Maybe today economics understand that people have nothing to do with the finance sector. Stop the stress, nothing happened. Nothing? Oh, some homeless more, some other messed up countries. Thank you!

Intel need to certain that a captured suspect has important infos. If it comes to these waterboarded 'victims', what lead to this act? Wouldn't that show if pressure was justified? If it's true that the intel paperwork around Guantanamo is in complete disorder it influences my opinion in favor of these 'non status' people in there of course.

Czuch: And you tell me that your model doesn't fit yet you use it.

It's the old teaspoon problem... what is it?

Czuch: No.. not trickle down... you put a price on the cost of one humans head, it then becomes a standard excuse.

... Now, read your history about tyrants and what they thought... a slippery slope that opens the path to the abyss.

.. And it's this kind of attitude that opens up the problem of moral high ground.

... you ain't got any.

(V): So much can be dependent on little things, like whether somone is having a bad day or not. And us being humans.. can you predict accurately how someone will react?




Thats exactly why i dont trust mere mortals to make subjective choices in the micro management of my life.... I will stick with a good model, and update every so often, thank you

Czuch: You know your intel guys are taught to not give up info. Such training includes waterboarding simulation to make it so they don't give up info. That's how your guys who used it knew how to use it.

(V): It's a slippery slope when you've broken the moral ground you base your activities on.




here you go again.... trickle down is no good except when it works for you, and slippery slopes are a good argument, but only when it is to defend your own beliefs

Übergeek 바둑이: Just like a person who is an adrenaline junkie knows that he will likely die in some sort of an accident some day, so too do our military know that if they get caught behind the lines spying, that their lives are pretty much over, its just part of the job really I say a big yes to the thumb screws if some bad guy has some intel we need! What nobody mentions is that all these people have to do is give up their intel and guess what... NO TORTURE, back to the cushy cell with their Koran and silly diet!!!!

Czuch: Models don't work Czuch... they are based on a fixed unmoving world. As you know.. we are in orbit. And being subjective.. the laws of gravity change perspective in as much that time is distorted.

You know your GPS is reliant on constant daily updates to the clocks on the satellites due to the difference in time from living in 1G and zero G.

And as one political commentator said. So much can be dependent on little things, like whether somone is having a bad day or not. And us being humans.. can you predict accurately how someone will react?

Artful Dodger: Nope, I answered. And if you had read up on why waterboarding was used (as I said .. due to a lack of trust in intelligence) you'd have my reply easily from my answers.

And Art.. There are times in your life when you cannot break trust. The Official Secrets Act (OSA) is one of them.. being a lawyer is another case, etc. I made a sincere promise and I intend to keep it!!!

But in respect, that is beside the point.

You want more clue's (I'm gonna make you stretch your grey stuff) ... Pan roams and that's all you get.


And Übergeek 바둑이 got the main point and the point you all seem to miss. It's a slippery slope when you've broken the moral ground you base your activities on.

Case 1:
A terrorist has been captured by American intelligence officers. There is strong reason to believe that this member of Al Qaida has information about a bombing that could leave hundreds of people dead. Since benign interrogation techniques failed, waterboarding is used to obtain information and protect the safety of the American public. Protecting the American public takes precedence over the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture.

Case 2:
Iranian intelligence have captured an American intelligence officer doing reconnaisance at a suspected nuclear facility. Iranians belive that a military strike is imminent and that hundreds of Iranians would be killed. Since benign interrogation techniques failed, the Iranians use waterboarding to obtain information from the American agent. Protecting the Iranian public from the largest army in the world and the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction takes precedence over the Geneva Convention and the UN CAT.

In case 1 Americans are threatened by terrorists bent on acts of destruction. In case 2 Iranians feel threatened by American military might. Americans believe it is their right to protect themselves from terrorists. Iranians belive that they have the right to pursue nuclear deterrent as a way to protect themselves (something that the US has had since WW II).

The question is, if waterboarding was used in both cases, who is right? Both sides feel threatened. Is waterboarding OK if our side does it, and wrong when our enemies use it?

Like somebody said earlier, the enemy plays hard ball. Is this not a slippery slope? If waterboarding fails, should we pull out the dusty old rack and the thumb screws?

(V): Then who gets to decide what is a correct interpretation of the law needed due to lack of trust in intelligence??



LOL... that is exactly the same type of question I have for your socialism.... in regards to types of regulation etc

There are many situations where things get a bit subjective... I have asked you many times, without an answer i remember, who gets to decide?

thats the problem i have with a lot of it... it often comes down to one persons subjective views... and you dont like it when that view is someone like Cheney...and i dont like it when its you telling us how things should be..... thats why I prefer models, and then let it alone... subjectivity is only good when everyone agrees!

(V): Other ways to get info without the need for torture. A certain police force use it quite often


Really? What are they then?

Because it seems like to me that you are accusing us of torturing people just for the fun of it????


I do remember when we had some MPs taking naked pictures with dogs etc... but I dont consider this torture, I can guarantee you that our CIA has way better things to do with their time than to torture people just for the fun of it

(V):  You're avoiding the question.   If other methods failed to yield any information, and you had very strong reason to believe that your family/friends/fellow soldiers very lives were at stake and that the terrorist had information that could save lives, would you let other die, or water board?

You have two choices and only two. 

A-Water board to get the intel

B-No waterboarding under any circumstances even if it means loved ones may die.

A or B?

Please answer.   What are you going to do?

Artful Dodger: *sigh* Not everyone uses the same methods Art. Not everyone is trusted.. as in this case due to lack of trust in intelligence!!

(V):  Or a convenient way to avoid the question.  BTW, I figured you'd fail this little test.  The correct answer to my question would have pointed out that water boarding is a last course of interrogation and used only when other methods (such as your "secret" method) have failed.  That said, your answer to my question has to assume that those "secret" methods of yours would failed.  Because Jules, in point of fact, if those secret methods did actually work, then there would be no need to water board anyone.  It's only when other measures fail that water boarding is used. 

Now to the crux of the matter:  If all else fails you, and your family, friends, comrades' lives are at stake, and IF you have nothing left but to try the drastic step of water boarding, do you put other lives at risk for some nonsense such as higher ground or do you do the right thing and water board?

Me?  I'm a Jack Bower fan.  Some dude knows some intel that could bring harm to my family etc, I'm going right to well placed electrodes and gonna turn up the juice. 

One thing...

If the rules of the Geneva Convention don't apply to all by certain US 'models' created to deal with a lack in trust of intelligence.... Then who gets to decide what is a correct interpretation of the law needed due to lack of trust in intelligence??

Any answers?

Artful Dodger: That would in part require me to betray a trust.

Such I would consider as equal to breaking the OSA!