Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 06:04:18 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:50:23 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


1 - The "dirty hands" dilemma which is really a cost/benefit analysis.
The usual circumstances are the "ticking bomb" scenario in which a bomb
is set to go off and kill thousands of people - the cost of harming one
human life to save thousands of human lives is defensible and/or
excusable. This argument basically states that while morally
indefensible, the end result justifies the means.
If, in truth, there were a "ticking bomb", the torture argument does
become hazier, but the reality is that scenario is extremely rare, and
doesn't apply in this case. This was torture used for plain old
"ordinary" intelligence. When you put people in a violent situation,
there will be torture, and illegal killings. That can be put down as
"**** happens", but when you allow torture as policy, you place this
country on the same level as Pinochet's Chile, Stalin's Soviet Union,
Hitler's Germany...

To me, it isn't whether torture works or not, it's about what it says
about us. We're ****in' barbarians.

The argument is a valid one - how often would it happen is a major
component of this debate and one that should be recognized as a valid
counter argument.

However, the counter argument dismisses the main point and dodges the
hard question - what if. The problem, from my perspective, is scale.
The example of a single event with the potential of killing thousands
is a little extreme, but it has happened and it isn't a stretch of
imagination to understand that more may have been in the offing.

The examples you presented also dodge the main question - Hitler,
Stalin and Pinochet used torture as a political instrument and not as
a technique to gain military intelligence to assess potential threats
- Dershowitz also makes that distinction and argues that there is a
moral imperative to protect the lives of citizens - another way to put
it is that a single evil to benefit the common good, while morally
questionable, is defensible and excusable. At it's heart, that is the
argument - can torture be defended as being a valid technique when
time and lack of intelligence is of the essence.

To me, the term "torture" has been expanded beyond any common sense.
The International Conventions proscribe the use of almost all
cohersive tactics - even those that are relatively benign such as
hallucinogens, "truth" serums and other passive techniques (sleep
deprivation, sound/light, etc.). That just seems to me, in this day
and age of advanced medical technology, that these types of cohersive
tactics should be considered as a valid intelligence tool and should
be used to gain intelligence not available via normal methods.

I think we are losing sight of the forest for the trees. Before you
determine if one should ban different interrogation techniques, you
first have to determine what are effective interrogation techniques that
will provide valuable information.

From what I have read from former CIA operatives and British MI5,
techniques such as waterboarding DO NOT and HAVE NOT provided good
reliable intelligence. They provide an lots of information, but it
tied up valuable resources following up on false information provided to
stop the waterboarding. If you waterboard most people, they will tell
you anything you want, just to stop the waterboarding. It is not
necessarily good information. If you want a confession, waterboarding
works great. I know if I was waterboarded, I would tell you about 100's
of terrorist activities that were in the works. I would admit to being
the lost Beatle, and would swear that I thought Harry and Donnie were
decent human beings.

Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:49:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:



Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

I've seen more than one CIA operative say that the FBI interrogators
are the best in the world at extracting useful information.
The FBI interrogators don't torture.
There is no debate to be had.
Any discussion about torture is political smoke and mirrors.
Or mental masturbation.
Our founding fathers settled the issue long ago when they created
the U.S. Constitution.
And if waterboarding were tested in the U.S Supreme Court, with
everybody out sick except justice Scalia, I have no doubt he would
rule it unconstitutional.
Well, geez, I hope so, anyway.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:49:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:


Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

I've seen more than one CIA operative say that the FBI interrogators
are the best in the world at extracting useful information.
The FBI interrogators don't torture.
There is no debate to be had.
Any discussion about torture is political smoke and mirrors.
Or mental masturbation.
Our founding fathers settled the issue long ago when they created
the U.S. Constitution.
And if waterboarding were tested in the U.S Supreme Court, with
everybody out sick except justice Scalia, I have no doubt he would
rule it unconstitutional.
Well, geez, I hope so, anyway.

--Vic

I think you understood the point I was trying to make. Many people are
debating if we should use waterboarding , is it considered torture and
if it is torture should we do it anyway.

My point is that the question is really moot. Most people agree that
torture does not provide valuable information. No matter what anyone
says, if you are being waterboarded, it is torture. If you are not
going to get any accurate information why waste your time, why provide
your enemies and friends with justification to question the U.S. moral
fiber, why provide the Islamic extremist a valuable recruiting tool to
expand their members who are determined to attack the west and the US.
I can not figure out why our leaders in the military, the CIA and the
administration allowed this to go on. I am just very disappointed by
all of it, and everyone involved, including Bush and Chaney.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:43:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:



I think you understood the point I was trying to make. Many people are
debating if we should use waterboarding , is it considered torture and
if it is torture should we do it anyway.

I did. We're on the same wavelength. Whatever that means
technically, let's not go there. We agree.

My point is that the question is really moot. Most people agree that
torture does not provide valuable information. No matter what anyone
says, if you are being waterboarded, it is torture. If you are not
going to get any accurate information why waste your time, why provide
your enemies and friends with justification to question the U.S. moral
fiber, why provide the Islamic extremist a valuable recruiting tool to
expand their members who are determined to attack the west and the US.
I can not figure out why our leaders in the military, the CIA and the
administration allowed this to go on. I am just very disappointed by
all of it, and everyone involved, including Bush and Chaney.

As am I. And I'll throw in all the spineless Dem worms with that
crowd.
I'm conflicted on how/if to proceed with prosecutions.
On the one hand I want an example set, so torture is never considered
again, because once it's countenanced not a one of us is immune from
it.
On the other hand who needs more domestic turmoil for the likes of
those worthless ragheads that were tortured.
Though I reject torture, nobody deserved it more.
From what we've been told anyway. Which is an entire other problem -
lawlessness being cloaked by "state secrecy."
Forces larger than us will determine what comes of it.
Anything but a whitewash will satisfy me, so long as torture is
rejected, finally and irrevocably.
Part of this problem is the acceptance of the notion of the
"Imperial Presidency."
That should be laid to rest too.
Having a constitutional lawyer as President might help there.
But who knows? Seems like getting the WH gig comes with an
air hose to stick in your ear and inflate your head.

--Vic

On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:13:00 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:43:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:



I think you understood the point I was trying to make. Many people are
debating if we should use waterboarding , is it considered torture and
if it is torture should we do it anyway.

I did. We're on the same wavelength. Whatever that means
technically, let's not go there. We agree.

My point is that the question is really moot. Most people agree that
torture does not provide valuable information. No matter what anyone
says, if you are being waterboarded, it is torture. If you are not
going to get any accurate information why waste your time, why provide
your enemies and friends with justification to question the U.S. moral
fiber, why provide the Islamic extremist a valuable recruiting tool to
expand their members who are determined to attack the west and the US.
I can not figure out why our leaders in the military, the CIA and the
administration allowed this to go on. I am just very disappointed by
all of it, and everyone involved, including Bush and Chaney.

As am I. And I'll throw in all the spineless Dem worms with that
crowd.
I'm conflicted on how/if to proceed with prosecutions.
On the one hand I want an example set, so torture is never considered
again, because once it's countenanced not a one of us is immune from
it.
On the other hand who needs more domestic turmoil for the likes of
those worthless ragheads that were tortured.
Though I reject torture, nobody deserved it more.
From what we've been told anyway. Which is an entire other problem -
lawlessness being cloaked by "state secrecy."
Forces larger than us will determine what comes of it.
Anything but a whitewash will satisfy me, so long as torture is
rejected, finally and irrevocably.
Part of this problem is the acceptance of the notion of the
"Imperial Presidency."
That should be laid to rest too.
Having a constitutional lawyer as President might help there.
But who knows? Seems like getting the WH gig comes with an
air hose to stick in your ear and inflate your head.

--Vic

I think Obama is pretty confident already and less likely to have
smoke blown up his ass.

Cheney had a permanent tube installed in W's ass so he could blow
anytime. Swear I saw smoke coming out of W's ears once when Cheney
was sitting beside him.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:49:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

Good point.

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:49:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

Good point.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...ing/index.html

All I know is as soon as I heard the water sloshing around in the
bucket, I would have confessed to every terrorist attack committed in
the last 50 yrs. I would also provide them the details of every
terrorist attack we were planning, we might be planning or that we will
plan in the future. Whatever you want to know, I will tell you.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:22:21 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:49:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

Good point.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...ing/index.html

All I know is as soon as I heard the water sloshing around in the
bucket, I would have confessed to every terrorist attack committed in
the last 50 yrs. I would also provide them the details of every
terrorist attack we were planning, we might be planning or that we will
plan in the future. Whatever you want to know, I will tell you.

Jesse Ventura asked for an hour with Cheney and a waterboard and
promised he could get Cheney to confess to the Sharon Tate murders.

The technique has been used by many to force false confessions for use
as propaganda. I believe this is what was behind Cheney's support.

He wanted to force a confession that Iraq and bin Laden were in
cahoots prior to our invading Iraq.

"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...
snip
I know if I was waterboarded, I would tell you about 100's
of terrorist activities that were in the works. I would admit to being
the lost Beatle, and would swear that I thought Harry and Donnie were
decent human beings.

snip --
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.


Sounds like waterboarding might do you some good...we might finally get some
truth out of you.

On May 13, 3:21*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in messagenews:1pKdnYINmKNdXJfXnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@gigan ews.com...
snip
* I know if I was waterboarded, I would tell you about 100's

of terrorist activities that were in the works. *I would admit to being
the lost Beatle, and would swear that I thought Harry and Donnie were
decent human beings.

snip --
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

Sounds like waterboarding might do you some good...we might finally get some
truth out of you.

Hoooboy, Harry's lover Don talking about truth.....