Posted on 04/20/2016 2:16:09 PM PDT by markomalley
Other than a Bush-era executive order, I don't know of any justification for torture of an enemy by U.S. forces.
As I pointed out in post 15, equivocating on the word "torture" does not make a valid argument. Either by "torture" you mean anything that an enemy may not happen to like, such as being kept in captivity (which as an aside included very awful conditions in the civil war), or you mean something they do not like that is so awful that it must never ever be done even as punishment to an unlawful combatant in a case that could save innocent life. In the first case, other Presidents have authorized torture. If the second then you have the burden to show why its so awful to do to the terrorists when we even used to do it to our own elite soldiers in training. Or if you think that it is somewhere in between it still falls short of the second case, and thus your argument is in ruins because the second case is exactly what you must show. And I am too smart to be fooled by equivocations. Sorry ;-).
They should have something similar to the MRI experience...that lasts for hours. I think everything done to them should remain secret so they can only expect the worst.
But whatever we do....it should involve hogs.
> What is your perspective on its use in interrogating terrorists?
Having been through it, I can say nothing brings on panic faster, but then when it’s over, you have a coughing fit and clear your lungs for for about a minute. A minute later you are fine and fully recovered, with no lasting effects except the memory that you don’t want to go through it again.
It should be the interrogation technique of first choice.
And you would get information to protect American lives by kissing the a**es of terrorists or maybe just asking sweetly? Who is the idiot in this—not Trump
“As I pointed out in post 15, equivocating on the word “torture” does not make a valid argument.”
I had completely forgotten about the old “post 15” rule - the one where you make a statement and later cite the statement as a source of high credibility.
The brief and the short of it is this: you and Trump are planning to torture some enemies, real or imagined.
What could go wrong with that?
It is hard to respond to your line of thinking in a favorable way. I refer you to an segment of Wikipedia’s waterboarding article:
All special operations units in all branches of the U.S. military and the CIA’s Special Activities Division[148] employ the use of waterboarding as part of survival school (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training, to psychologically prepare soldiers for the possibility of being captured by enemy forces.[149] John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under President Bush stated that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding as part of SERE training prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.[150] Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg, former head of Psychological Services for the Air Force SERE School has stated in testimony before the U.S. Senate's Committee on Armed Services that there are fundamental differences between SERE training and what occurs in real world settings.[151] Dr. Ogrisseg further states that his experience is limited to SERE training, but that he did not believe waterboarding to be productive in either setting.[152]
Jane Mayer wrote for The New Yorker:
According to the SERE affiliate and two other sources familiar with the program, after September 11th several psychologists versed in SERE techniques began advising interrogators at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. Some of these psychologists essentially “tried to reverse-engineer” the SERE program, as the affiliate put it. “They took good knowledge and used it in a bad way”, another of the sources said. Interrogators and BSCT members at Guantánamo adopted coercive techniques similar to those employed in the SERE program.[153]
and continues to report:
many of the interrogation methods used in SERE training seem to have been applied at Guantánamo.[153]
However, according to a declassified Justice Department memo attempting to justify torture which references a still-classified report of the CIA Inspector General on the CIA’s use of waterboarding, among other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, the CIA applied waterboarding to detainees “in a different manner” than the technique used in SERE training:
The difference was in the manner in which the detainees’ breathing was obstructed. At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion, the subject's airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency interrogator ... applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee’s mouth and nose. One of the psychiatrist / interrogators acknowledged that the Agency's use of the technique is different from that used in SERE training because it is ‘for real’ and is more poignant and convincing.[154]
According to the DOJ memo, the IG Report observed that the CIA’s Office of Medical Services (OMS) stated that “the experience of the SERE psychologist / interrogators on the waterboard was probably misrepresented at the time, as the SERE waterboard experience is so different from the subsequent Agency usage as to make it almost irrelevant” and that “[c]onsequently, according to OMS, there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.”[154]
I’m also a SERE graduate.
You’ve been watching too much TV.
I'll answer the question if it is not rhetorical.
In related news, Governor Kasich, when asked if he likes water boarding, replied no, but he thinks that being pulled behind a boat on an inner tube is “neat-o”.
I'm not following your line of thinking in support of torture here.
The point illustrated in post 15 was not to appeal to my own authority. It was pointing to a logical equivocation fallacy in the what seems to be the core argument made against waterboarding terrorists in my experience.
As I think the point I made there sound, and I think you have run afoul of that point, and being that it is accessible to all, I invite any who wish to take issue with it and show me a real error in my reasoning or understanding to do so.
Please understand, I see post 15 as making an extremely elementary point. So much so I look forward to seeing it challenged with bemused wonder, as if someone wanted to argue that 1 +1 = 3.
Glad America does not depend on you for safety.
A. Waterboarding’s not torture.
B. If torture has a possibility of yielding essential information, especially if the target of said torture is an illegal combatant, yes, by all means, us it. It works.
“Please understand, I see post 15 as making an extremely elementary point. So much so I look forward to seeing it challenged with bemused wonder, as if someone wanted to argue that 1 +1 = 3.”
I don’t even know what you are talking about.
Other than you have a hankering to see the federal government torture some people.
I am sorry, but if you mean by "torture" that which our enemies do not like, but we have even done to some of our own soldiers, without the slightest protest that I have heard from any so far including yourself...well then how can one object unless their position is that one must not do anything to one's enemies that they do not like.
On the other hand, if you mean by "torture" the kind of thing that is unspeakably barbaric and cruel and that we would never do to our own elite soldiers as part of their training because it was simply inhumane, then you have to exclude waterboarding, so your statement becomes false.
Hopefully, you can start to see how your logic is flawed. If not, I can't help you. God bless, it has been a real pleasure easily defeating you in debate.
“If torture has a possibility of yielding essential information, especially if the target of said torture is an illegal combatant, yes, by all means, us it. It works.”
Just curious, why do you say “especially if the target of said torture is an illegal combatant . . .”
Why not torture a legal combatant? Do you have any qualms about protecting Americans from attacks from legal combatants?
“God bless, it has been a real pleasure easily defeating you in debate.”
I’ll say this, you are smarter than the average bear.
You really don’t know much about the Laws of Land Warfare, do you?
“Glad America does not depend on you for safety.”
The best thing for you to do is place your trust in Donald Trump and his announced intentions of cutting some really, really sweet deals with the Russians and the Red Chinese.
“You really don’t know much about the Laws of Land Warfare, do you?”
I was just asking a question.
I didn’t think there would be anything wrong with asking a question.
It is my impression that torturing people is against the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.