Padilla Convicted of Terrorism Support

[Dieval]

Quote by: Mia Well then, why not scrap the whole no torture idea completely? Use it on all suspects of any crime? All people who might have knowledge of any crime. Other countries do, they seem to find it effective and satisfying, so why not?

Torture(and by torture, I don't mean cutting off hands, etc..KSM was waterboarded with medical personal standing by) doesn't work in all cases, but to say that it will never work is incorrect(I know you didn't say that, but someone in this thread said as much). I don't advocate using such means all the time, but incases such as KSM where you know he has info and if you don't apply the right amount of preasure he's not going to say a word, and many more people could die because of it. Do you want preventable deaths on your hands?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee And you know this how?

There's an article from the Archives: Chicago Tribune which says :

Quote by: article Moral and legal aspects aside, conventional wisdom is that torture simply isn’t practical: that someone who is being tortured will say anything to make the torture stop, and that information gleaned through torture is therefore not reliable. Some former military and intelligence officers say, however, that physically aggressive interrogation techniques that some human-rights groups consider torture can be effective in the short term. When asked for specifics, the technique they cite is “waterboarding,” in which water is poured over a subject’s face to create the sensation of drowning. Consider Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 39-year-old former Al Qaeda operative who was the Sept. 11 mastermind and bearer of many Al Qaeda secrets. If anyone had a motive for remaining silent, it was the man known to terrorism investigators as “KSM.” But not long after his capture in Pakistan, in March 2003, KSM began to talk. He ultimately had so much to say that more than 100 footnoted references to the CIA’s interrogations of KSM are contained in the final report of the commission that investigated Sept. 11. Not that everything KSM said was believable. But much of his information checked out in separate questioning of other captured Al Qaeda figures. What made KSM decide to talk? The answer may be waterboarding, to which KSM was subjected on at least one occasion, according to various accounts. Intelligence operatives say that while waterboarding can break through a suspect’s initial resistance, it isn’t effective for long-term interrogation. Once a suspect begins to communicate, however, an interrogation specialist can put into action a wide range of far more subtle techniques, which include playing to a subject’s ego or pretending to be his friend. It could not be learned exactly when KSM was waterboarded or whether the technique was used more than once. But only 12 days after being captured in Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, KSM made his first reported major revelation.

To get to this article, you have to search their archived pages, (December 1 - 31, 2005 for KSM), but it apparently costs to view the actual article, but you're more than welcome to check it out.

If you just look at the abstract of the article, for free, you get :

Quote by: abstract On May 15, KSM began divulging something of the inner workings of Al Qaeda. From that point onward, according to the commission's footnotes, KSM became a veritable fountain of information.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval There's an article from the Archives: Chicago Tribune which says :

While it may be possible that some valuable information was obtained by this incidence of torture, your article makes no such claim. I suspect that if something really of importance was obtained, we'd have heard about it, since bush is desperate for some proof of success. In any case, your link doesn't say how much time, money, and GI lives were expended checking out all the chaff that was obtained in addition to the "footnoted references". Also, how many innocent people or those with no information to reveal were tortured as well? I simply don't believe that torture by America has been shown to be worth the costs or the damage to our credibility and moral standing throughout the rest of the world.

[Mia]

Quote by: Dieval Torture(and by torture, I don't mean cutting off hands, etc..KSM was waterboarded with medical personal standing by) doesn't work in all cases, but to say that it will never work is incorrect(I know you didn't say that, but someone in this thread said as much). I don't advocate using such means all the time, but incases such as KSM where you know he has info and if you don't apply the right amount of preasure he's not going to say a word, and many more people could die because of it. Do you want preventable deaths on your hands?

I do understand what you're saying, but to accept torture in one area opens it up to others.

There are many instances that can be given where torture would save lives IF it actually produces the truth and IF the person even KNOWS the truth.

Which is a secondary problem. Too often, we;d be torturing people who'd say anything to make it stop, truth or not, whatever we wanted to hear.

Torture me and I'll eventually say the moon is made of green cheese if that's what it takes.

Look at some of the inhabitants of Gitmo, they are there because someone took a bribe for information. A different, but related matter.

In countries that employ torture often, people who may or may not know anything undergo it on mere suspicion. A lot are tortured for no reason at all, and as a secondary fallout, OTHER innocent people are subsequently tortured or convicted based on coerced 'testimony'.

I just can't get behind it.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Mia I do understand what you're saying, but to accept torture in one area opens it up to others. There are many instances that can be given where torture would save lives IF it actually produces the truth and IF the person even KNOWS the truth. Which is a secondary problem. Too often, we;d be torturing people who'd say anything to make it stop, truth or not, whatever we wanted to hear. Torture me and I'll eventually say the moon is made of green cheese if that's what it takes. Look at some of the inhabitants of Gitmo, they are there because someone took a bribe for information. A different, but related matter. In countries that employ torture often, people who may or may not know anything undergo it on mere suspicion. A lot are tortured for no reason at all, and as a secondary fallout, OTHER innocent people are subsequently tortured or convicted based on coerced 'testimony'. I just can't get behind it.

"Torture" should not be used in every circumstance, but in cases such as KSM....if applying a bit of force to him has the potential to save thousands of lives, I vote for the lives.

[Mia]

Honestly, emotionally, I do too. There are all kinds of forms of torture, in varying degrees, and there is no government that doesn't employ some. But my support of it in certain cases hinges on a hypothetical: that we know we have the right person, that we know he has the information we want, and that it will produce the desired result.

But that hypothetical doesn't translate to reality. If I may take an example from a movie that purported to depict real events: in The Good Shepherd, they were torturing, the 'mild' kind you're talking about, a supposed Russian defector.

Actually, they had the fake one already, but believed in him for some reason. When the real one showed up, they did not believe him and employed a variety of methods trying to glean from him what they thought was the truth, and he kept repeating the ACTUAL truth, that he was who he said he was.

One thing they did was give him LSD, and he became psychotic and jumped out the window to his death.

In this case, their use of torture did not yield them any information, and in fact caused the death of a truthful person that they could have used.

Had he NOT jumped out the window, continued torture and his refusal to change his story may have resulted in turning the torture onto the fake one, and perhaps he would have cracked, and they would have had the result they wanted.

But it highlights one of the many problems with using torture, imo.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Mia Honestly, emotionally, I do too. There are all kinds of forms of torture, in varying degrees, and there is no government that doesn't employ some. But my support of it in certain cases hinges on a hypothetical: that we know we have the right person, that we know he has the information we want, and that it will produce the desired result. But that hypothetical doesn't translate to reality. If I may take an example from a movie that purported to depict real events: in The Good Shepherd, they were torturing, the 'mild' kind you're talking about, a supposed Russian defector. Actually, they had the fake one already, but believed in him for some reason. When the real one showed up, they did not believe him and employed a variety of methods trying to glean from him what they thought was the truth, and he kept repeating the ACTUAL truth, that he was who he said he was. One thing they did was give him LSD, and he became psychotic and jumped out the window to his death. In this case, their use of torture did not yield them any information, and in fact caused the death of a truthful person that they could have used. Had he NOT jumped out the window, continued torture and his refusal to change his story may have resulted in turning the torture onto the fake one, and perhaps he would have cracked, and they would have had the result they wanted. But it highlights one of the many problems with using torture, imo.

I can understand the fears associated with what you saw in the movie and the potential for what may occur in RL, but what you saw was still just a movie, based on real events, but still just a movie. The movie also took place 40+ years ago as well(I haven't seen it...fell asleep..but I digress) and times and circumstances have changed. On high value targets, who definitely have information that could save lives(such as KSM), I think that making them talk is preferable to having people die. Again, I don't believe this should be applied to everyone, but there are people who clearly have valueable information.

[Mia]

Whether it was actual events, was it not realistic? Can you not see that taking place in RL?

[The Decider]

Quote by: Dieval "Torture" should not be used in every circumstance, but in cases such as KSM....if applying a bit of force to him has the potential to save thousands of lives, I vote for the lives.

John McCain, a victim of severe torture, considers waterboarding torture, not "torture." He's an expert, Dieval, not you. He knows full well that other countries will use American arguments for torture against our troops and civilians in the future.

Furthermore, KSM's case is still shrouded in secrecy. We don't know exactly how the waterboarding occurred or how many times it was administered. Nor do we know if other techniques were applied. No one has conducted a full-scale investigation of the matter. Any information you provide about KSM comes from the CIA itself, an agency with a spotty track record on truth-telling and accuracy. In other words, you have no idea what took place in the CIA interrogations or even how the Al Qaeda information was actually obtained.

We do know that US military codes prohibit waterboarding. We do know that US military tribunals have prosecuted Japanese war criminals for waterboarding. We do know that any activity that produces the sensation of "imminent death"--like waterboarding does--violates the US legal definition of torture:

Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

US CODE: Title 18,2340. Definitions

A Reporter at Large: The Black Sites: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com

John McCain's Viewpoint: Torture's Terrible Toll - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

[Dieval]

Quote by: The Decider He's an expert, Dieval, not you.

I never claimed to be an expert. What I did claim was that it works.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Dieval I never claimed to be an expert. What I did claim was that it works.

No, you claim that an unnamed source within the CIA is telling the truth about the KSM waterboarding interrogation. Your blind trust of an unverified CIA claim is less than convincing.

[Dieval]

Quote by: The Decider No, you claim that an unnamed source within the CIA is telling the truth about the KSM waterboarding interrogation. Your blind trust of an unverified CIA claim is less than convincing.

Nice try, but you have yet to disprove the claim.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval Nice try, but you have yet to disprove the claim.

Yeah, sure, we all know that all claims are to be accepted as true until proven otherwise. Especially claims by our government, which as we all know never lies and when it does it's only for our own good.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee Yeah, sure, we all know that all claims are to be accepted as true until proven otherwise.

Isn't that the way this game works? I make a claim. You don't agree with it, so you try to disprove it?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval Isn't that the way this game works? I make a claim. You don't agree with it, so you try to disprove it?

Ok, I'll quote you:

Quote by: Dieval ...I'll step up...where's your proof? If you're going to make allegations against the President of the US of A, you could atleast post some proof.

No one needs proof, it's up to you to disprove the claim.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee Ok, I'll quote you: No one needs proof, it's up to you to disprove the claim.

When you post a topic, are you not supposed to provide proof?
When I say "make a claim", that means providing proof.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval When you post a topic, are you not supposed to provide proof? When I say "make a claim", that means providing proof.

Look, it's pretty simple.

Someone says bush is a criminal, you say they need to prove that claim.

You make a claim about an unnamed source, but say it's up to someone else to disprove your claim.

Hypocrite.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee You make a claim about an unnamed source, but say it's up to someone else to disprove your claim.

I made a claim backed up by an article. No hypocrisy there.

Quote by: Zeebadee Hypocrite.

Wow, name calling...how big of you...:rolleyes:

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval I made a claim backed up by an article. No hypocrisy there.

No, you repeated a claim made in an article that agreed with your agenda. When asked to prove your claim, you said it was up to others to disprove it.

Quote by: Dieval Wow, name calling...how big of you...:rolleyes:

If the shoe fits.......

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee No, you repeated a claim made in an article that agreed with your agenda. When asked to prove your claim, you said it was up to others to disprove it. If the shoe fits.......

I'm done with your whining and name calling. :rolleyes:
Get back on track if you want to continue.