Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

UM, are you really so scared of terrorists that you are willing to compromise the most basic human rights and every principle that this country should stand for just to feel a little safer? I think any one of our odds of being killed in traffic are much, much greater than a terrorist ever getting us. It's just not something I worry about a lot. Yes, a horrible thing happened, but they got really lucky, we were really stupid, and they are obviously so incompetent they really aren't much of a danger.

They are nothing but primitives who happen to be sitting on something that makes us want to deal with them and give them huge sums of money. If they didn't have oil, they would have nothing. If we put all the resources into alternative energy that we've spent on the stupid wars and "Homeland Security"*, they would go back to being nothing but starving nomads living on piles of sand and useless goo, begging us for food, and they'd go back to being more concerned with killing each other than us.

A little off topic maybe; but relevant, I think. I just don't feel like they are enough of a threat to compromise on something like torturing people. I think all the fear-spreading is a tactic of politicians. They might get lucky once in a great while, but overall the danger is minimal to any individual person.


*Which is a joke; did you see the latest statistics about the tests of airline security--bombs getting thru like 50-75% of the time? I know from personal experience if I forget to take a knife out of my purse, I can get on the plane no problem, but they are really worried about my lip gloss and mascara for some incomprehensible reason. Bunch of fucking retards.)

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

"That extremely biased opinion piece?" You do realize that those quotes were pulled from 3 different sources, right? Did you read the articles, the first time I posted them?

But if you were looking a little closer, you'd realize that I wasn't trying to "prove" anything, with that last post. I was simply providing evidence. I could have sworn I said that. My reason for doing so was so that you could also provide evidence that the U.S. was not torturing. If you can't provide any evidence that would match the facts that are stated in the above quotes (and there are quite a few there) then the scales of "whether there is reason to believe the U.S. is aiding/supporting/endorsing torture or not" should tip, in any open-mind to the side that proposes that they are.

If you have evidence to the contrary, that rivals the facts presented above, then it is only fair that the scales tip in the opposite direction.

So...do you?

I already told you that I cannot prove it is not happening. You are the one trying to point out to me that there is "evidence" that it is happening, yet I have not really seen any evidence yet. All I have seen is one big collective opinion piece (I don't care how many biased journalists are talking out of their asses. You presented it all together as a piece a few posts back.) that says there are European media claims and an investigation. That does not cut it. If there are media reports of Bigfoot and an "investigation", will that "tip" you to the side that Bigfoot exists? I hope not. Give me something so I can analyze it. The burden is not on me to prove a negative. I cannot give you much evidence that Santa Claus does not exist either. I can only debunk supposed evidence that he does. What evidence do you have that Santa Claus does not exist? Show me what you've got.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The purpose and usage of the black sites can only be inferred by reasoning. Why would such sites be built, and why would they be secret? Where are the targets of CIA kidnappings sent? The CIA maintains the sites, and legal opinions from 2004 promoting the CIA's torture techniques were recently publicized in the NYT. The truth can only be inferred, but not proven as long as the sites remain off limits to oversight. How strong does the circumstantial evidence have to be in order to justify the conclusion that torture occurs at those sites?

If those sites are "covert", as even the biased journalism put it, how do you know they exist?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, are you really so scared of terrorists that you are willing to compromise the most basic human rights and every principle that this country should stand for just to feel a little safer? I think any one of our odds of being killed in traffic are much, much greater than a terrorist ever getting us. It's just not something I worry about a lot. Yes, a horrible thing happened, but they got really lucky, we were really stupid, and they are obviously so incompetent they really aren't much of a danger.

They are nothing but primitives who happen to be sitting on something that makes us want to deal with them and give them huge sums of money. If they didn't have oil, they would have nothing. If we put all the resources into alternative energy that we've spent on the stupid wars and "Homeland Security"*, they would go back to being nothing but starving nomads living on piles of sand and useless goo, begging us for food, and they'd go back to being more concerned with killing each other than us.

A little off topic maybe; but relevant, I think. I just don't feel like they are enough of a threat to compromise on something like torturing people. I think all the fear-spreading is a tactic of politicians. They might get lucky once in a great while, but overall the danger is minimal to any individual person.

*Which is a joke; did you see the latest statistics about the tests of airline security--bombs getting thru like 50-75% of the time? I know from personal experience if I forget to take a knife out of my purse, I can get on the plane no problem, but they are really worried about my lip gloss and mascara for some incomprehensible reason. Bunch of fucking retards.)

We are dealing with large groups that are working on getting their hands on weapons that can kill thousands and in some cases millions of people at once. The Hussein regime used such a weapon in a terrorist attack. That is why we have taken down two governments. Governments are major power and access sources. We are dealing with something very serious.

Remember that I never said I think we should have a policy of torture. I just said that I do not have the slightest trace of sympathy for terrorists. I wish them absolutely the worst. But I also think that having a policy of true torture would be bad politics.

How did you get your knife past the metal detector?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I already told you that I cannot prove it is not happening. You are the one trying to point out to me that there is "evidence" that it is happening, yet I have not really seen any evidence yet. All I have seen is one big collective opinion piece (I don't care how many biased journalists are talking out of their asses. You presented it all together as a piece a few posts back.) that says there are European media claims and an investigation. That does not cut it. If there are media reports of Bigfoot and an "investigation", will that "tip" you to the side that Bigfoot exists? I hope not. Give me something so I can analyze it. The burden is not on me to prove a negative. I cannot give you much evidence that Santa Claus does not exist either. I can only debunk supposed evidence that he does. What evidence do you have that Santa Claus does not exist? Show me what you've got.

Oh, God. *sighs*

Once again. I've never asked for "proof" that it is not happening, so I don't even know why you keep using that (for lack of a better word) misdirection. Yes, I am trying to point out to you that there is evidence. More evidence than you have that it is not happening. Since the beginning of this thread, I think I've done a pretty good job of arguing that that there is evidence toward the possibility that it is happening, and yet yours has pretty much been the voice of stark disbelief. You have argued everything from "We do not torture," to "we do not have a torture policy" to anything of the like. And you say that you don't have any sort of burden of proof? Why not? Because you are the one that believes we don't, and it's up to me to prove you wrong? That removes any sort of intellectual responsibility, to prove the claim, from you? On what grounds? The grounds that you believe the official statement that we don't torture? Or that we don't render suspected terrorists to other places to be tortured?

I am simply advocating the possibility, and evidence to support that possibility. You have, so far, been advocating the dissent. On what grounds is the burden of "proof" on me?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Oh, God. *sighs*

Once again. I've never asked for "proof" that it is not happening, so I don't even know why you keep using that (for lack of a better word) misdirection. Yes, I am trying to point out to you that there is evidence. More evidence than you have that it is not happening. Since the beginning of this thread, I think I've done a pretty good job of arguing that that there is evidence toward the possibility that it is happening, and yet yours has pretty much been the voice of stark disbelief. You have argued everything from "We do not torture," to "we do not have a torture policy" to anything of the like. And you say that you don't have any sort of burden of proof? Why not? Because you are the one that believes we don't, and it's up to me to prove you wrong? That removes any sort of intellectual responsibility, to prove the claim, from you? On what grounds? The grounds that you believe the official statement that we don't torture? Or that we don't render suspected terrorists to other places to be tortured?

I am simply advocating the possibility, and evidence to support that possibility. You have, so far, been advocating the dissent. On what grounds is the burden of "proof" on me?

Oh, excuse my use of the word "proof" instead of "evidence". I cannot provide evidence that terrorists are not being sent to covert interrogation locations to be tortured. But that is very trivial in light of the fact that the burden of evidence is on you. So I will ask you again. What else do you have? All I have seen is some biased journalism that claims that some European media outlets made claims and that there is an investigation. What else do you have? The "evidence" you have so far also applies to the existence of Bigfoot. Do you have even more evidence that Bigfoot does not exist? You are talking about an irrelevant level of "evidence".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, excuse my use of the word "proof" instead of "evidence". I cannot provide evidence that terrorists are not being sent to covert interrogation locations to be tortured. But that is very trivial in light of the fact that the burden of evidence is on you. So I will ask you again. What else do you have? All I have seen is some biased journalism that claims that some European media outlets made claims and that there is an investigation. What else do you have? The "evidence" you have so far also applies to the existence of Bigfoot. Do you have even more evidence that Bigfoot does not exist? You are talking about an irrelevant level of "evidence".

Lol. I love it. The same argument over and over.

And I ask, again: Why is the "burden," objectively, on me? I forget.

My position is that there is evidence that the U.S. supports torture, and it seems that you are the only one holding fast to the idea that there isn't. Your argument basically boils down to "convince me," which is impossible to do when someone refuses to be convinced. I could be making the stance that the moon has a gravitational pull and, to someone that refuses to consider it, no matter what argument is presented, it is impossible to "convince" them that there is evidence. You've been fighting in religion/spirituality too long. The position that the U.S. does not support torture is much harder to defend, logically, than the position that "God" (Bigfoot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) does not exist.

In the case of Bigfoot (forgive me while I roll my eyes), I have (and have presented) much more evidence toward the theory that the U.S. supports the torture of suspected terrorists than there is evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. I don't see how you can, respectfully, insult my intelligence by even implying otherwise.

Reuters (the source from where the U.S. defense of rendition, in my posts, comes from) is a credited source that is used for many stories by everyone from CNN, to MSNBC, to FOXNews. But if you choose to discredit them because of their input on this subject, alone, that is your prerogative.

So, again..why is the "burden" on me? Because you disagree? Because the Administration has said something that you agree with, and so the "burden" is on me, to convince you of otherwise, and not on the both of us to provide evidence for our claims? I find that kind of ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Lol. I love it. The same argument over and over.

Oh, you understand it? Then why do you keep dodging it?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And I ask, again: Why is the "burden," objectively, on me? I forget.

What happened to your "over and over" claim?

The burden is on the person claiming there is evidence of a positive, not on the person asking what that evidence is. The burden is not on a person to give evidence of a negative, especially when he is not even claiming the negative. Review my Bigfoot example.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

My position is that there is evidence that the U.S. supports torture, and it seems that you are the only one holding fast to the idea that there isn't. Your argument basically boils down to "convince me," which is impossible to do when someone refuses to be convinced. I could be making the stance that the moon has a gravitational pull and, to someone that refuses to consider it, no matter what argument is presented, it is impossible to "convince" them that there is evidence. You've been fighting in religion/spirituality too long. The position that the U.S. does not support torture is much harder to defend, logically, than the position that "God" (Bigfoot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) does not exist.

No, not on the general issue of whether the U.S. has a torture policy at all. We already covered the issue of whether or not threatening reasonably avoidable torture is torture itself and whether sending somebody to a place where something could happen is the same as engaging in that something.

I keep asking you specifically about these so called "black sites". What evidence do you have of their existence other than some biased journalism saying that some European media outlets claim they exist and that there is "an investigation"? How many times do I need to ask that question before you finally answer it? It is not my responsibility to provide evidence of a negative. If that is all you've got, then tell me what evidence those media outlets have. How sure are they? Are they competitive outlets that have something to lose if they make up stuff? I am talking about where what you posted got its information. All you posted was some assertion. Tell me about the nature of the media reports your link talked about. You are claiming there is evidence of a positive, so I am asking what that evidence is. What is that evidence?

Telling me to give evidence otherwise does not qualify. That would be like if I said there is evidence of Bigfoot and told you to give me evidence to the contrary. Yes, I will make that argument until you admit that the burden of evidence is on the person saying he has evidence that something exists. You are talking about covert interrogation locations. What could I possibly say to provide evidence that they do not exist? Nothing. All I can do is deal with your supposed evidence. That is why I keep asking what that evidence is. Why won't you tell me?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, you understand it? Then why do you keep dodging it?

I dodged it? When? That's a positive you are claiming. Provide evidence for it. If I'm not mistaken, I asked a question to try to figure out why you figured your argument was valid. If that's "dodging" in your mind, maybe you and I have a disagreement on the definition.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What happened to your "over and over" claim?

The burden is on the person claiming there is evidence of a positive, not on the person asking what that evidence is. The burden is not on a person to give evidence of a negative, especially when he is not even claiming the negative. Review my Bigfoot example.

I'm going to call bullshit on that one (though I'm sure you're not used to many people doing so). Guess what. I am alive. You're going to tell me I'm not? And then you're going to tell me that the burden is on me to prove to you I'm alive, because you are more convinced of the contrary? Hilarious. (And no, you are not "not even claiming the negative". Your stance has not been, "Well, hmm..maybe we do torture...I'd just like to see some more evidence." Your stance has been "I don't think we torture. Convince me of otherwise." Period. If I'm slipping on this one, then anyone reading this thread is invited to tell me that I'm wrong, and I'll honestly consider it.)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am saying that the terrorist detainees are given just enough physical or mental pain to speak because they fear what is around the corner. Preventing what could happen in the mysterious turn of events is what is used to induce the giving of information, not the avoidance of the mental or physical pain at a present moment. Being subjected to cold temperatures, for example, is not so bad right at first. It gets worse and worse the longer you are exposed to it. What gets the terrorists talking is the fear that they are going to be left in the cold. That example illustrates what I am talking about. It is not severe pain that is getting them to talk. It is the avoidance of future severe pain that does the trick.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What we do is legitimate.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's why part of the process is to tell them that what they are saying is going to be checked out.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Although I'm no expert, I've read several accounts from interrogators, both current and former, that the most effective method is to gain the favor of the potential informant, by such ordinary means as conversation, having lunch with him, and interrogating him non-aggressively every day.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think that is the majority view of interrogators.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The people we have in captivity are known to be members of terrorist organizations and/or part of terrorist plots/attacks that have happened or were/are in the making.

Just a few. You are making positives in all of these statements. Would it be most intelligent for me to refuse to take any of them into consideration and tell you to "provide more evidence" for them? If so, then please do.

"I think my daughter may be really intelligent for her age."

"I don't really think she is. I don't know for certain, but I don't think she is."

"What?! She's been getting nothing but praise from her teachers, and they are thinking about skipping her ahead a grade."

"All that tells me is that some radical, biased teacher is probably giving her good grades. That is not evidence that she's really intelligent for her age."

"WTF? Ok, then...If you 'aren't sure, but doubt it,' then provide some evidence that backs that stance."

"What? I don't have to. You're the one that says she's intelligent for her age. It's you're burden to provide evidence to me."

"I just told you that they her teachers are always talking about her, and they are thinking about skipping her ahead a grade."

"I just told you that that means nothing. What else do you have?"

I feel that that is pretty much what our conversation has deteriorated into.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I keep asking you specifically about these so called "black sites". What evidence do you have of their existence other than some biased journalism saying that some European media outlets claim they exist and that there is "an investigation"? How many times do I need to ask that question before you finally answer it?

When have you, once, "specifically", asked me about "black sites?"

And what sort of evidence would you be willing to accept as evidence. (Remember, if you are looking for satellite images, or actual coordinates, you are asking for proof, which I have never claimed to have.)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are they competitive outlets that have something to lose if they make up stuff? I am talking about where what you posted got its information. All you posted was some assertion. Tell me about the nature of the media reports your link talked about. You are claiming there is evidence of a positive, so I am asking what that evidence is. What is that evidence?

Is the United States government not a competitive outlet that has something to lose if they make stuff up? The only evidence that you have that the evidence I have posted is insufficient (which is....wait for it...a positive claim on your part) is that the Administration told you they do not torture. That is sufficient evidence to discredit the evidence that I have presented so far? Really?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That would be like if I said there is evidence of Bigfoot and told you to give me evidence to the contrary.

What you just said is "That would be like if I said there is evidence of Bigfoot and told you to give me evidence that there is not evidence of Bigfoot." If I believed that the evidence you gave is insufficient, I should be able to provide sufficient evidence that the evidence you gave is not really evidence. That is not an unreasonable condition. If someone says "no, that evidence doesn't suffice" then they should be able to provide evidence that that evidence doesn't suffice. Yours is a completely unrealistic argument, trying to shift all responsibility to the person that you disagree with. You're (or you should be) better than that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, I will make that argument until you admit that the burden of evidence is on the person saying he has evidence that something exists. You are talking about covert interrogation locations. What could I possibly say to provide evidence that they do not exist? Nothing. All I can do is deal with your supposed evidence. That is why I keep asking what that evidence is. Why won't you tell me?

I've just listed many sources that have cited those locations as existing. Credible sources. Sources that (yes, without proof) it is still reasonable to doubt. I have never stated that they were 100% infallible. But they are credible to the point where, if they are fallible, you should be able to provide an argument as to why and/or how they are, because, yes, that would be another positive claim on your part.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We are dealing with large groups that are working on getting their hands on weapons that can kill thousands and in some cases millions of people at once. The Hussein regime used such a weapon in a terrorist attack. That is why we have taken down two governments. Governments are major power and access sources. We are dealing with something very serious.

We made Hussein, just like we've made lots of tyrants. I figured the only reason they thought he had WMD is because they gave them to him. Then again, we don't usually attack people who really have WMD, so that theory didn't seem quite right either.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How did you get your knife past the metal detector?

Well I didn't do it on purpose; I have one of those multi-tool knives, with a few blades and a pair of pliers and a corkscrew, etc. I had it in the side pocket of my purse and I forgot about it. I nearly shit a brick I realized it was in there (I have a thread here somewhere, with a picture of it.) I guess they just would have taken it away from me, but it would have been a bummer. I think that was the time they kept interrogating me about lip gloss; I had to deny like 5 times I was trying to carry lip gloss. Then one time it was mascara; they kept asking me if I had any mascara. I was like, "Does it count if it's already on my eyelashes (you dumb MF's)? I guess I wear too much make-up, I look like I could take over a plane with it. I was going to call somebody and tell them about the knife incident, but I was afraid I'd just get into trouble or something.