Torture vs. Interrogation

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Oh wait, I thought we were talking about the previous accounts of torture.
I didn't know this was yet another "Obama's not different" thread.

I think that comment was a little less than fair. I simply wanted to point out that Obama has not absolved the use of these tactics, but rather suspended their practice, with the possibility of reinstating them if he deems it necessary in the future.

[Professor S]

I think this whole debate has taken a very poor turn. It seems that people no longer want to debate the merits of arguments, but instead simply want to make blanket statements of opinion pretending to be fact. Ending comments with "Period" or "This is that and thats it" don't make your opinion any more valid, especially when the evidence that would answer the debate is still classified. So far we've only seen exactly what they want you to see, and I find it hard to come to a conclusion when half of the evidence may be under lock and key.

This is a complex issue for the reasons I've illustrated in previous posts in this thread, and it would become even more complex if we are ever attacked again. Can you feel strongly? Yes, but to claim this is black and white doesn't reflect enlightenment, it only frees you from having to think about the subject any further.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I think this whole debate has taken a very poor turn. It seems that people no longer want to debate the merits of arguments, but instead simply want to make blanket statements of opinion pretending to be fact.

Getting rid of enhanced interrogation techniques does not sudden erase the problem that existing techniques were not working.

The only time I heard of a legit situation where the "existing techniques" not working, is when they were pushing harder and harder to get a non existent link between Iraq and 9-11. Care to share with us some other factual situations in which less image-destroying teqniques didn't help, but torture helped?

If not, why were you making a blanket statement of opinion pretending that it is a fact?

[KillerGremlin]

Obviously torture does work otherwise this wouldn't be a debate. This part of the issue I never understood. However, torture does not work well and it is not ethical.

What is the difference between torture and interrogation...a whole bunch of gray area I suppose and a lot of slippery slope arguments.

I do agree that we need stricter regulation. But who watches the CIA?

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

What is the difference between torture and interrogation...a whole bunch of gray area I suppose and a lot of slippery slope arguments.

I do agree that we need stricter regulation. But who watches the CIA?

Honestly, you're right about the big grey area. But I think if we were going to torture, don't use something that the world has long known to be torture.. or something that our own country complained about being done to us before.

If you're going to bend the rules to get info, then do something that's technically not covered by the rules to begin with. So if you get caught, then you can say "I didn't know it was torture! Sorry we will never do it again!"... instead of being caught red handed doing something that has been done before.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

What is the difference between torture and interrogation...a whole bunch of gray area I suppose and a lot of slippery slope arguments.

Really?
I mean, I know people are going to say "blah blah blah dictionary blah blah blah" to me - but this is what the two mean.

Interrogation:
1. the act of interrogating; questioning.
2. an instance of being interrogated: He seemed shaken after his interrogation.
3. a question; inquiry.
4. a written list of questions.
5. an interrogation point; question mark.

Torture
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

The only time I heard of a legit situation where the "existing techniques" not working, is when they were pushing harder and harder to get a non existent link between Iraq and 9-11. Care to share with us some other factual situations in which less image-destroying teqniques didn't help, but torture helped?

If not, why were you making a blanket statement of opinion pretending that it is a fact?

I think I already discussed and clarified the statement you decided to cherry pick in multiple paragraphs in my discussion with Manasecret. But if I must, let me correct it to reflect my opinion.

"...the problem that existing techniques were not likely working, IMO"

Can we get back to the substance of the argument now, instead of playing gotcha games with sentences taken out of context when several paragraphs of context are available?

And I'll agree, with what we currently know about the use and results of the waterboarding, they were used on 3 high level enemy agents and at least part of it's use was to interrogate regarding ties to Iraq. Also, most of the evidence regarding the intent Iraq related questioning is based on opinion and anecdotes, and not hard facts or incriminating documents. As you know, there are almost just as many opinions and anecotes on the other side of this argument. You can choose to believe who you like. I choose to not fully believe anyone until we know more.

Also, considering Iraq's proven ties to various world terror group and the detainees sharing hate for America, I don't think the purpose of the waterboarding was necessarily an attempt to gain false evidence as you have supposed before, but instead it could have arguably been a reasonable line of questioning knowing what they knew at the time, as ethnocentric as that was. It wasn't until later the adminstration figured out that Islamic sects hated each other almost as much as they hated us.

But thats all we know. Most of the enlightening evidence in regards to this case is likely still under lock and key. We know how many times the detainees were waterboarded, and who was waterboardd, but we don't know the full line of questioning associated or the intent of it. We also don't know of any results other than that of the questioning regarding Iraq.

I reserve my judgement until we see more transparency regarding this results of the full range of interrogations and their results. Considering we've basically destroyed any level of secrecy regarding these methods, and our own president has condemned the previous adminstration as torturers, I fail to see any honest reason why the vast majority of these memos and documents haven't been released. Any potential national security theats resulting from their release have been realized, IMO.

[TheGame]

I'll word it like you did then...

I belive that torture didn't have any positive impact on American national security, and know that it ruined our reputation with our allies and gave enemies another reason to attack us. Judging from most news reports that are out there, the testimony of Ali Soufan, and our presidents own words I think thisis a fair conclusion to come to. However, I'll hold my judgement for when there is more transparancy also.

I think that alternative methods of gathering intelegence other then using something that is defined as torture worked and kept us safe from attacks on our homeland for a very long time. I'm sure the intelegence was reported to the president August 6th 2001 was done without using torture. And could have easilly been used to prevent most of everything that had happend conflict wise between 9-11-2001 and now. But, once again I'll hold my judgement for when there is more transparany and the hearings are over too.

I think if there was clear evidence for Cheany to point out that it did work, and did save lives.. He would have brought it up by now, or someone would have. But who knows, maybe someone will step up and come to the hearings who actually participated in it and tell the truth about it.

And even if the methods worked to some extent, I'd still be in disagreement with using those methods (especially waterboarding) since we know about its history and where it originated.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Bond

I think that comment was a little less than fair. I simply wanted to point out that Obama has not absolved the use of these tactics, but rather suspended their practice, with the possibility of reinstating them if he deems it necessary in the future.

He hasn't absolved them yet because nobody "high up" (Other than, you know - the U.N) has deemed these tactics to be torture yet. So if he is able to do these things in the future and get his scapegoats, why wouldn't he?

Not to mention it would be in relatively poor taste for a newly appointed President to jump right up and say "Yes, what my predecessor did was torture."

Just because Obama hasn't absolved it, doesn't mean it still isn't torture.
Hell, even if the US government decided it's not torture - that doesn't mean it's not torture.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Just because Obama hasn't absolved it, doesn't mean it still isn't torture.
Hell, even if the US government decided it's not torture - that doesn't mean it's not torture.

I don't believe I ever insinuated that - I was simply stating a fact.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Bond

I don't believe I ever insinuated that - I was simply stating a fact.

Obama also hasn't ended the wars going on.
That doesn't mean he's in agreeance with them.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Obama also hasn't ended the wars going on.
That doesn't mean he's in agreeance with them.

I don't understand why you are trying to put words in my mouth. I was simply stating a fact concerning what President Obama did in regard to the interrogation techniques. I did not pass judgment or state what his opinion was on the matter, but simply stated a fact.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Bond

I don't understand why you are trying to put words in my mouth. I was simply stating a fact concerning what President Obama did in regard to the interrogation techniques. I did not pass judgment or state what his opinion was on the matter, but simply stated a fact.

It's that the fact has no purpose in the conversation and just seemed like a complete attempt to "slander" him by saying he hasn't taken an opposing stance to Bush.

I'm not a giant Obama-fan, but I'm just getting sick of the constant (not on these boards, in general) needless pointing out of things to do with Obama, that took place during Bush's "reign".

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

It's that the fact has no purpose in the conversation and just seemed like a complete attempt to "slander" him by saying he hasn't taken an opposing stance to Bush.

I'm not a giant Obama-fan, but I'm just getting sick of the constant (not on these boards, in general) needless pointing out of things to do with Obama, that took place during Bush's "reign".

Well, then I am happy to bear the brunt of your misdirected anger.

Certainly Obama is taking a different stance than the Bush Administration, although I am not quite sure if it is opposite. I do believe the fact that Obama has put these kinds of tactics in reserve (most likely for a situation that we have talked about previously) is important to this conversation.

Surprisingly, I actually like Obama, although I rarely agree with him on most policy issues. I still think it is important to be critical when evaluating the course he is taking our country, though. I don't think this interrogation / torture debate is quite as black and white as some make it out to be. Certainly it is an easy discussion to have in a time of peace (or at least the appearance of peace). But, when a country is under attack, and a war is being waged, the rules of the game change, they always have, and practically speaking, they always will. This does not make what is done right or wrong, but we must be able to address these practical challenges that will inevitably be faced, and not an ideal situation.

Edit: And if you don't wish to have a conversation concerning the future, and Obama's role, then let us have a conversation concerning the past, and Bush's role. The events of 9/11 were quite startling at the time. Now, in retrospect, they seem less-so, but let us look back. It was the largest attack on American soil in the history of our country in terms of lives lost, and it dealt a serious blow to our financial and economic markets and greater stability. The former administration, faced with an enemy they knew little about, had a necessity to gain intelligence on this enemy. It was apparent that the terrorists had infiltrated our country, and it was difficult to ascertain quite how far that infiltration went.

Another attack on American soil, on par with the attacks of 9/11, would not have only brought down the world's confidence in America's physical protection, but it would have also sent our domestic economy into a severe recession or depression. In turn, this would have sent the world economy into a severe downturn, leading to great instability. This was a very serious and real potential outcome.

It seems that a reasonable leader, given the duty to protect our citizens with the full might of our power, while also protecting our liberties, would indeed sacrifice the liberties (that we would bestow upon) of an enemy combatant to save thousands of American lives and perhaps the greater economic stability of the world. This seems rational and reasonable. Is it right? Perhaps, perhaps not. But if one looks throughout history the liberties of a few have always been compromised in order to sustain the liberties of many. Again, is that right? Perhaps, but it is what it is. And we've only touched the surface with this discussion, which I think is very complex, and not at all easy.

I have personally not passed judgement one way or another, as I do not believe all the evidence is readily available to us, and I also believe we must give history more time to bear out fact from fiction.