Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Originally Posted by NeAvO

If you actually read what I said first, you'll notice that didn't comment on whether America tortures or not, I just said this debate won't work because some people's opinions might be biased.

You said the debate won't work, yet it has been working. And one of the major supporters of U.S. foreign policy has said that the U.S. might have a secret torture policy. I recommend reading the thread.

Hopefully this is the last big one. We really did get off track here, so I'll try to pull it together.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What I was claiming I never said is that I pick a side and make a point to stay with it because of a "vested interest" or a "technicality" or "talking points". That was the nature of your characterization. That is how you described it. You were suggesting that I hold to a side and am not dissuaded by counterlogic. But I absolutely do pick the side I think is more logical and usually end up staying with it because I seem to have been right that it is the more logical side, and I am usually very opinionated through the whole process. However, you showed a very clear exception to that. You posted a quote of mine where I said that my mind was being changed back and forth. My mind does get changed when somebody convinces me that the other side is right, and that seemed to be what you were saying I don't do. You just illustrated a situation where I did.

"I almost always take a side and squint my eyes at the other one."

You said "almost always. I said "usually," so I don't know exactly how my showing a situation where you changed your mind was relevant. And I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt by not saying that the explanation you just gave isn't 100% truthful, but that is how I've interpreted that quote, when you first said it, and it seems to be the way that you often debate (again, just IMO). I can't say much about your explanation though because (not saying this is your frame of mind but) even if you just picked a side and stuck with it, for any reason, any biased person (were it the case) could give the same explanation you just did when you said "But I absolutely do pick the side I think is more logical and usually end up staying with it because I seem to have been right that it is the more logical side, and I am usually very opinionated through the whole process."

But you are right that this isn't, and shouldn't be, a personal argument. I never meant it to be as such. But, when I'm trying to provide evidence toward a certain possibility and 90% of it is slapped away as "insufficient or insubstantial" by someone whose opinion I believe (and have heard admitted, when you were speaking with NeAvO) is biased, without that person even feeling they have to provide even a shred of counter-evidence other than saying "Well it just wouldn't happen that way," it gets frustrating. When there is no one to moderate such a debate then basically, there is no one that can touch you, if you dismiss all evidence that is not irrefutable, even if the refute is merely arbitrary and has no objective evidence to support it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

1) I never claimed that we are in some sort of internet court. I have said that you have made claims about stuff that could not possibly be disproven. All I can do is know what your evidence is and critique it.

2) I was also saying that by certain proof standards your evidence would not make it to court in order to illustrate the lack of evidence. But you yourself have said that your case is not proven. To tell you the truth, I don't even know what we are arguing about at this point.

3) We both think the existence of black sites and secret U.S. torture policy might be real and that there is evidence of them but that neither has been conclusively proven. What is the disagreement?

1) Well with your being "one of the major supporters of U.S. foreign policy" how could I possibly expect your critique of evidence to be unbiased? Sure, you've given a vaguely positive response to like 1 of a dozen or so elements that I've posted, which was probably the most undeniable, but the rest you have dismissed by either calling the reports biased, the sources insufficient, or assuming the "most-likely true" intent of quotes made by officials...none of which have been properly-supported critiques.

2) I don't know that my evidence would not be supported in court. Please provide evidence for that statement. The disagreement comes from how you can wave-away all evidence that could be possibly deflated with un-evidenced rhetoric, , as many D.A.s and prosecutors actually make very lavish careers on doing (which I'm not going to accuse you of using, but ask that you back your claims of "what is insubstantial or irrelevant evidence with some real support).

3) If that is truly your stance then, before now, you have been so vague about that that I'm actually kind of confused, now. But oh well, if you honestly consider that there is evidence (hopefully that goes beyond that 1 or so article that you gave a positive response to), then I'll just take that and continue moving forward. But to go back to what you were saying before, if you DO believe that we should investigate the possibilities, such as I do, I would honestly like to see you do some research and post your findings too. Many of the things I posted could have been found in the references section of the first wikipedia articles I posted. I don't think you have been investigating the possibilities like you say you should. And it takes forever to do this kind of shit on my own.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Criminals get pissed when they get put through the cycle, and they lash out against the system they had to deal with. Their words are not credible. He might be telling the truth, but I am far from convinced of it.

That quote from Zubaida came from Cofer Black. Not Zubaida himself. As far as we know, Black (having the credentials he has) might have had inside information that proves the claim. Who knows? But it would be a stretch to argue that this information came about because of Zubaida's words, so I'm not sure what you meant by this one.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's not about whether you were trying to. It's that you said they would. My interpretation was that you were saying they already do and that if you asked them, they would tell you. I am saying that is irrelevant because this forum is the lucid dreaming version of MoveOn.org.

I said I would find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't. And this is in regards to your method of dismissing evidence, not of political bias. There are people in here that are great debaters, and I'd find it unfair to assume that, just because they may not agree with you on content, that they would lie about whether or not your dismissal of evidence is fair, just to side with me. Not to say it wouldn't happen, but say it is irrelevant is simply not true. If I was debating illogically, I would want people to let me know, other than just the person I was debating against. You get me?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There has been an Abu Ghraib investigation, and nobody higher up has been charged. It was just the young knuckleheads who took the silly pictures that have been charged.

If I'm not mistaken, there was a huge scandal about how it was believed that many higher-authorities got away scott-free by letting the blame fall solely on those "young knuckle-heads." I'll look some more into that later on, because I honestly don't remember.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The articles you posted earlier said the U.S. is in charge of the "black sites", and Abu Ghraib is not a "black site". I am still unclear on the relevance of black sites if torture governments are not supposedly running them....

According to wikipedia: "In Iraq, Abu Ghraib was disclosed as also working as a black site, and was the center of an extensive prisoner abuse scandal."

Of course, no one is expected to rely only on wikipedia for information, so I am still digging to add more support for this claim. As of yet, though, there are more details in the "ghost prisoners" article that I already posted.

Also, I don't remember stating anything that pointed directly at who was running the supposed black sites. I've seen speculation that labels both the CIA and other governments. I don't know which one would be correct. I'm only stating what I find as I find it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And please tell me what our big disagreement is supposed to be at this point. We have agreed on about thirty things now, including the fact that evidence of black sites and torture exist but that the evidence is inconclusive.

Honestly, I think our main disagreement was that you are looking for me to bring proof, and I have only been bringing evidence. You have agreed on 1 or 2 pieces of evidence that I have brought up, and dismissed everything else. If you are dismissing them as "inconclusive" then you are dismissing them as "proof" and not "evidence." Evidence, by definition, is inconclusive. It is a piece of a piece of a puzzle that supports a claim. Please don't continue to mix up the two.

But, again, you're right, as much of this lengthy tangent was brought about by my frustration, but I would hate to keep it going, so I'd like to try to get back on track.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If I'm not mistaken, there was a huge scandal about how it was believed that many higher-authorities got away scott-free by letting the blame fall solely on those "young knuckle-heads." I'll look some more into that later on, because I honestly don't remember.

I think that when one is given absolute power (such as the people in the scandal you mentioned), one will abuse absolute power. There have been studies done on the subject and unfortunately "evidence" brought forth by the media. No, I don't agree that the "higher-ups" should be allowed to get away with pinning it on the guards at Abu Ghraib because they knew what was going to happen when they granted those guards absolute power.

Because people are given orders to gather information "by any means necessary" they will have officially turned any investigation into a glorified "Witch Hunt". Which is also why people will become either fearful enough or pissed off enough to admit to whatever they are being charged with thus granting the Investigator MORE absolute power.

I'm not sure how much actual information was brought to light by the techniques that had been blasted all over the media here in the US, but I'm fairly convinced that it was all information that the detainee's THOUGHT the Investigators wanted to hear.

I believe that we (the US) are not the only countries employing torture techniques to gather information from POW's. I also believe that statements such as "by any means necessary" should not be used and absolute power should never be granted in times of war. But, alas, I couldn't say or even imagine what I would do if ever granted absolute power.

I agree with pretty much all of that.^

Especially with the last bit. I think it's very important to take note of subtle phrases and "cowboy speak" such as "by any means necessary" or "No Limits" aggressive, relentless, worldwide pursuit of any terrorist who threatens us is the only way to go and is the bottom line" or anything that amounts to it. On one hand, we have rhetoric that works to show how agressively we need-to-be and/or are persuing suspected terrorists. On the other hand, we have articles that say what grounds we can not cross. We already have had many incidents where articles that do just that have been violated, in the persuit of terrorists, so I just don't think it's ever right to dismiss the possibility of someone with absolute power abusing that absolute power, simply by saying they are "playing by the rules," especially when all attempts to varify that they are playing by the rules are thwarted or overturned.

Yes:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~Lord Acton.

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where laws end, tyranny begins." ~William Pitt the Elder.

Neither is always true, but both are true often enough to always consider.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

"I almost always take a side and squint my eyes at the other one."

You said "almost always. I said "usually," so I don't know exactly how my showing a situation where you changed your mind was relevant. And I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt by not saying that the explanation you just gave isn't 100% truthful, but that is how I've interpreted that quote, when you first said it, and it seems to be the way that you often debate (again, just IMO). I can't say much about your explanation though because (not saying this is your frame of mind but) even if you just picked a side and stuck with it, for any reason, any biased person (were it the case) could give the same explanation you just did when you said "But I absolutely do pick the side I think is more logical and usually end up staying with it because I seem to have been right that it is the more logical side, and I am usually very opinionated through the whole process."

Again, I do usually pick a side and squint my eyes at the other one. That is because of what seems logical to me and what does not. But what I don't do is that in the context of doing it because of a "vested interest" that is shaped by "technicalities" and "talking points". That is what I never said I did. You were trying to construe my position as some sort of lawyer thing where I just take a side and then rationalize my ass off because I see it as some kind of mercenary commitment I have made, which I don't do and never said I do. I side with what I think is logical, as you illustrated with the post about how the debate on site rules about supportive drug talk had me changing my mind back and forth.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But you are right that this isn't, and shouldn't be, a personal argument. I never meant it to be as such. But, when I'm trying to provide evidence toward a certain possibility and 90% of it is slapped away as "insufficient or insubstantial" by someone whose opinion I believe (and have heard admitted, when you were speaking with NeAvO) is biased, without that person even feeling they have to provide even a shred of counter-evidence other than saying "Well it just wouldn't happen that way," it gets frustrating. When there is no one to moderate such a debate then basically, there is no one that can touch you, if you dismiss all evidence that is not irrefutable, even if the refute is merely arbitrary and has no objective evidence to support it.

It was not even about slapping it away from you. I was asking you what the other evidence was. So we got into this superpost debate about all kinds of things, including my personal intentions as a debater, and THEN you actually gave me the evidence I was asking about. That was all I wanted in the first place. You talked about something you yourself said you were not even sure of, and I asked what other evidence for it there is, and the result was all of this when your four or so links were what actually answered the question. Those links talked about anonymous witnesses. There's the answer. It is not enough to convince me that the existence of black sites is real, just like it admittedly is not enough to convince you of it (Do you remember correcting me when I said you claim it's true?), but it was the answer to my simple question. When I come across what seems like a far fetched claim that it is impossible to disprove (hence the Bigfoot analogy), I like knowing what the evidence is. Getting, "Now you disprove it," doesn't cut it for me.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

1) Well with your being "one of the major supporters of U.S. foreign policy" how could I possibly expect your critique of evidence to be unbiased? Sure, you've given a vaguely positive response to like 1 of a dozen or so elements that I've posted, which was probably the most undeniable, but the rest you have dismissed by either calling the reports biased, the sources insufficient, or assuming the "most-likely true" intent of quotes made by officials...none of which have been properly-supported critiques.

I am just not ready to jump to conclusions. You said the same about yourself, didn't you? And my "positive response" has been that black sites might exist, that there are some specific forms of evidence of their existence, and that the U.S. might have a secret torture policy. I have very much agreed with you on the fact that the U.S. uses harsh interrogation methods. Those are the big issues we have been talking about, right?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

2) I don't know that my evidence would not be supported in court. Please provide evidence for that statement. The disagreement comes from how you can wave-away all evidence that could be possibly deflated with un-evidenced rhetoric, , as many D.A.s and prosecutors actually make very lavish careers on doing (which I'm not going to accuse you of using, but ask that you back your claims of "what is insubstantial or irrelevant evidence with some real support).

As for the existence of black sites, hearsay is worth nothing in court, especially double hearsay, and especially when the witnesses are not even identified, much less available for testimony. As for torture, as defined by the Geneva Convention, the testimony of terrorists would not get any court too far, and it would not be enough for a trial. And for the reasons I have stated many times, the tactics the government admits to using do not qualify as "torture" under the Geneva Convention definition.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

3) If that is truly your stance then, before now, you have been so vague about that that I'm actually kind of confused, now. But oh well, if you honestly consider that there is evidence (hopefully that goes beyond that 1 or so article that you gave a positive response to), then I'll just take that and continue moving forward. But to go back to what you were saying before, if you DO believe that we should investigate the possibilities, such as I do, I would honestly like to see you do some research and post your findings too. Many of the things I posted could have been found in the references section of the first wikipedia articles I posted. I don't think you have been investigating the possibilities like you say you should. And it takes forever to do this kind of shit on my own.

It is true because you finally talked about the anonymous witnesses, or at least posted links about them. Again, all I was asking for was what other evidence there was. We're there now. Thank you. But that evidence is not enough to convince me. I would be extremely naive if it were. And the comments the officials you quoted were not enough to convince me that they were talking about black sites or what qualifies as torture under the Geneva Convention. As far as I know, you are with me on that.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That quote from Zubaida came from Cofer Black. Not Zubaida himself. As far as we know, Black (having the credentials he has) might have had inside information that proves the claim. Who knows? But it would be a stretch to argue that this information came about because of Zubaida's words, so I'm not sure what you meant by this one.

I just looked at the Watshington Post article again. The paragraph that made the Zubaida shooting claim was not a Cofer Black quote. It was just the Post reporter saying it as fact. It may be a fact, but it was allegedly Zubaida's Pakistani captors that did that to him, not Americans at an American run "black site.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I said I would find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't. And this is in regards to your method of dismissing evidence, not of political bias. There are people in here that are great debaters, and I'd find it unfair to assume that, just because they may not agree with you on content, that they would lie about whether or not your dismissal of evidence is fair, just to side with me. Not to say it wouldn't happen, but say it is irrelevant is simply not true. If I was debating illogically, I would want people to let me know, other than just the person I was debating against. You get me?

I don't want to get into character issues about the liberals who post here. I will just say that I know what my intentions and true beliefs are. If you and whoever else don't, then that is something I am used to. And there is a difference between complete dismissal of evidence and saying that evidence is vastly insufficient. I already said there is some evidence, so why are we even still talking about this?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If I'm not mistaken, there was a huge scandal about how it was believed that many higher-authorities got away scott-free by letting the blame fall solely on those "young knuckle-heads." I'll look some more into that later on, because I honestly don't remember.

Sure, there is all kinds of talk and assumption and accusations that even go as far as getting alien conspiracies into the hysteria. But there have been no other charges. You and I both know that there are plenty of fringe leftists out there who will say anything to make the U.S. look bad. It does not qualify as significant evidence.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

According to wikipedia: "In Iraq, Abu Ghraib was disclosed as also working as a black site, and was the center of an extensive prisoner abuse scandal."

Of course, no one is expected to rely only on wikipedia for information, so I am still digging to add more support for this claim. As of yet, though, there are more details in the "ghost prisoners" article that I already posted.

Also, I don't remember stating anything that pointed directly at who was running the supposed black sites. I've seen speculation that labels both the CIA and other governments. I don't know which one would be correct. I'm only stating what I find as I find it.

The articles you posted said the U.S. government does not admit to the existence of black sites, so it would be really strange if Wikipedia could just spew it off as fact and be sure of it. Abu Ghraib is a prison that existed under the Hussein regime. It is a well known location in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Honestly, I think our main disagreement was that you are looking for me to bring proof, and I have only been bringing evidence. You have agreed on 1 or 2 pieces of evidence that I have brought up, and dismissed everything else. If you are dismissing them as "inconclusive" then you are dismissing them as "proof" and not "evidence." Evidence, by definition, is inconclusive. It is a piece of a piece of a puzzle that supports a claim. Please don't continue to mix up the two.

I corrected my use of the word "proof" way back and clarified that I was talking about "evidence". I have done that more than once. I have also agreed that you have articles saying anonymous witnesses have made claims. I saw the articles. I agree with you. I agree that Cofer Black apparently said what he apparently said. I agree that the U.S. uses harsh interrogation methods. I agree that black sites might exist. I agree that the U.S. might use secret torture policies. I just don't think the evidence is that strong, but you do, though we both agree that the existence of black sites and secret U.S. torture policies might be real but have not been proven to be real. So we only disagree with how strong the evidence is, which we both agree exists, and we agree that the evidence is not conclusive. We have been typing some pretty long posts over such a minor disagreement.

I think that when I asked what other evidence there is for somebody else's claim that major military secret black sites exist and that they know about such a big time and potentially explosively controversial military secret, you took that as some kind of personal attack. You reacted as though I was saying, "Oneironaut, you are a loonie. Ha ha, you believe in black sites! You don't have shit for proof, so you suck!" Really, all I was saying was, "What is their basis for that wild and impossible to disprove claim?" But I perhaps at times asked it in the form of, "What do you have that says what their basis is?"

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But, again, you're right, as much of this lengthy tangent was brought about by my frustration, but I would hate to keep it going, so I'd like to try to get back on track.

Sounds good. We agree too much for any more of this shit.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You were trying to construe my position as some sort of lawyer thing where I just take a side and then rationalize my ass off because I see it as some kind of mercenary commitment I have made

It simply seemed that way, to me, but I am willing to put it aside so we can continue.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Really, all I was saying was, "What is their basis for that wild and impossible to disprove claim?" But I perhaps at times asked it in the form of, "What do you have that says what their basis is?"... We have been typing some pretty long posts over such a minor disagreement.

True enough. Because of the way your opinions have been voiced, I figured you were dismissing most of what I was saying/posting as not enough to even consider them evidence, but I suppose you were saying that it just wasn't enough to convince you of the claim. I was really unclear on that until the last few posts. Perhaps I just misread you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have very much agreed with you on the fact that the U.S. uses harsh interrogation methods. Those are the big issues we have been talking about, right?

And I would like to take it further and try to investigate evidence that the U.S. uses tactics that are more harsh than the ones they have openly admitted to. Related text: ACLU on Extraordinary Rendition and case subjects

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I just looked at the Watshington Post article again. The paragraph that made the Zubaida shooting claim was not a Cofer Black quote. It was just the Post reporter saying it as fact.

You're absolutely right. I just went back and double-checked. My mistake. I will try to find out if anything supports that claim. However, as the U.S. has been working (somewhat) closely with Pakistan, and in light of all of the allegations of these secret CIA flights (and Cofer Black's actual statement that we "give them to other people so they can kick the [explative] out of them") there is (some) reason to believe that the Pakistani government was doing the (alleged) torture for us. This is something that should be looked into, further.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Sure, there is all kinds of talk and assumption and accusations that even go as far as getting alien conspiracies into the hysteria.

This was a Pentagon report drafted in 2003. Read the synopsis and the attached .pdf - Excerpts of this report were also published in the Wall Street Journal. (Report also posted on legal news sites such as news.findlaw.com and further discussed by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (item #3).

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The articles you posted said the U.S. government does not admit to the existence of black sites, so it would be really strange if Wikipedia could just spew it off as fact and be sure of it. Abu Ghraib is a prison that existed under the Hussein regime. It is a well known location in Iraq.

I think you're confused on this one. A black site is not necessarily a site whose location is unknown. What is unknown is its being used for secret/covert operations. If the White House had a secret program running to where they were torturing suspected terrorists in the basement, the White House would be what qualifies as a Black Site.

Okay, I think we're closer to being on the same page. There are just a few key things worth discussing now.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And I would like to take it further and try to investigate evidence that the U.S. uses tactics that are more harsh than the ones they have openly admitted to. Related text: ACLU on Extraordinary Rendition and case subjects

I will say ahead of time that the ACLU's claims may be true. But remember that the page is about law suits in which the ACLU is going to be representing those possible terrorists, which means that the information on that page is coming straight from the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

However, as the U.S. has been working (somewhat) closely with Pakistan, and in light of all of the allegations of these secret CIA flights (and Cofer Black's actual statement that we "give them to other people so they can kick the [explative] out of them") there is (some) reason to believe that the Pakistani government was doing the (alleged) torture for us. This is something that should be looked into, further.

We are both the political version of agnostics on that. When there is more solid information, I would love to look at it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This was a Pentagon report drafted in 2003. Read the synopsis and the attached .pdf - Excerpts of this report were also published in the Wall Street Journal. (Report also posted on legal news sites such as news.findlaw.com and further discussed by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (item #3).

Wow, that does make it look like the chief counsel to the Defense Department gave recommendations of exactly the type of stuff that happened at Abu Ghraib. That is excellent evidence that the Defense Department ordered the actions. Maybe the secretary decided against the use of the tactics but somebody lower down decided to use them because he was given reason to believe the methods are effective. Something is definitely very fishy there.

I still don't think scaring terrorists with things they can get out of by doing what is right is torture. When I see strong enough evidence of the use of iron maidens and melting syrofoam on skin, I will definitely say that the government is engaging in torture. I will also say the U.S. government is has a secret torture policy when there is strong enough evidence that officials are ordering that terrorists are made to think that those things are going to happen and cannot stop it by doing anything reasonable. But scaring people with dogs and getting them naked so they will say what they can and should say does not seem to be torture under the Geneva Convention definition, if that is what is happening. It would still be odd that the government condemned Abu Ghraib and denied that higher ups ordered what happened if they did if what all did happen was not "torture".

I also think that maybe Abu Ghraib was something the government decided to throw at the public so everybody would go nuts over it and paint the U.S. interrogation methods picture with barking dogs and naked men to distract everybody away from the faces in fire ant beds and butcher knives up people's asses. Just a speculation.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I think you're confused on this one. A black site is not necessarily a site whose location is unknown. What is unknown is its being used for secret/covert operations. If the White House had a secret program running to where they were torturing suspected terrorists in the basement, the White House would be what qualifies as a Black Site.

Oh, I thought black sites were supposed to have secret locations.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...cret+locations

Maybe that is supposed to be a common theme of them but not part of the definition. The government definitely does not provide the public with all of the details of what goes on at the interrogation sites, though they do give what they claim to be descriptions of the general and accepted methods.

New developments:

Hill Panel Agrees to Bar CIA Waterboarding

A link posted by Kromoh, in another thread:

Torture of Iraqi P.O.W.s