Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

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 Oneironaut

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.

Yes, you never answered the question in your previous posts. Look at all of the posts you left today. Your answer is in none of them. That is conclusive proof.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.)

Good grief, Oneironaut, where are you getting this stuff? Again, I DO NOT CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY! I just have not been convinced of the notion yet because you have not argued anything except that some biased journalism links say that some European news outlets say that the military has COVERT "black sites". So my response is, "Uh, what evidence do you have that it is true?" and you keep putting bizarre words in my mouth about how I claim it is automatically false. I am not claiming it is false. I am asking you how the Hell you figure it is probably true.

And you are alive. Dead people can't type.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.

Teachers work with your daughter every day in an intellectual capacity. They also would lose their jobs if they told you she is doing well if she is several grades behind on reading level and cannot do basic math. Their assessment is excellent evidence. Saying, "Oh, some guy says that some guys say that the U.S. has black sites where they know terrorists will be tortured," does not cut it for me. Where in the Hell do they get that information? I am used to news reports that back up what they claim. Sorry. Yeah, it increases the likelihood that it is true, but it is pretty weak, and it is not enough to call for me to prove a negative. The fact that the burden is not on somebody to prove a negative is a rule of law and debate. That is because proving a negative mere assertion that does not contain a contradiction is impossible.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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

That's all I've been asking you about for the past seven or so posts.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Some European media outlets claim we take terrorists to sites in countries where some people are tortured even though the people working for us are told not to torture the terrorists?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am not even sure the terrorists are being taken to the "black sites". I just gave you the benefit of the doubt on that and argued in hypothetical terms. It looks like the only proof that they are even being taken to those sites is that the media has made claims and there is "an investigation", and that's only if that truth stretching journalist is telling the truth about even that. That is not proof that the terrorists are being taken to the black sites.

That is what I keep talking about, and you keep going back to the stuff about general torture and other things. I am just asking you what the backup of whatever European media outlets referred to in your links is. Notice that I said, "I am not even sure the terrorists are being taken to 'black sites'." That shows you right there that I am not saying the claim is false. I am just saying I am not convinced. For some reason, you keep assuming I am saying the claim is flat out false, and you keep challenging me to argue that it is false. There is no way to disprove a negative like that. That is why I keep using the Bigfoot analogy.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.)

Anything. Just what the supposed news outlets claim is their reason for stating it would do something. So far, it just looks like a wild assertion. I have only seen pure statements with no rationale.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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?

Dude, get off the torture in general stuff for now. I am talking about these "black sites". I have been concentrating on that for more than a page now. I already said I am not sure if the U.S. has a secret torture policy. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the option I clicked in your poll. I still am not sure. I even said in this thread that the government might have gotten some of its information by having butcher knives up people's asses. I have only said that your arguments have not proven that Bush was incorrect in saying the U.S. does not have a torture policy. That's it. But in my last few posts, I have been specifically asking about evidence for the existence of top secret black sites.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.

What evidence have I given? I am just asking you what your evidence is. Mere assertion about something supposedly top secret does not cut it for me. If a news outlet supposedly says the U.S. has secret interrogation sites, which they reportedly call "black sites", I want to know where in the Hell they get that and what other evidence there might be other than their mere assertion. THAT IS ALL I AM ASKING.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.

Okay, so some sources basically say, "The United States has covert 'black sites' where terrorists are sent to be tortured in defiance of the Geneva Convention and in defiance of publicly claimed policy. Even though it is top secret U.S. military information, we know about it. We are not going to tell you how we know, but we know. It is true. You have our assertion. There it is." Sorry, I can't go on that. That is just a game of one person's word against another's, and it is not convincing. If Fox News said, "The U.S. military has secret locations in Poland and other countries where they take terrorists and give them massages and ice cream so they will talk," my response to be, "Top secret? Then how do you figure?" I would be asking the same question. When people talk about covert military policies, they have explaining to do. If that's all you've got, then okay. There we go.

Yes, you never answered the question in your previous posts. Look at all of the posts you left today. Your answer is in none of them. That is conclusive proof.

Look at all of your previous posts. There is one (that I admit, I didn't recall when making my last post) that you even mentioned black sites, specifically. Even in that, the only thing that you explicitly said is that you were not convinced that these black sites existed. Question? What Question are you talking about? The only time you stated a Question that specifically referred to the black sites, was when you asked R.D.735. Aside from that, when talking to me, you only asked for "evidence that "it" was going on." I didn't know the "it" that you were talking about was the black sites, specifically. I thought you were talking about was the torture topic, which, you might recall, is what the thread is based on.

Good grief, Oneironaut, where are you getting this stuff? Again, I DO NOT CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY! I just have not been convinced of the notion yet because you have not argued anything except that some biased journalism links say that some European news outlets say that the military has COVERT "black sites". So my response is, "Uh, what evidence do you have that it is true?" and you keep putting bizarre words in my mouth about how I claim it is automatically false. I am not claiming it is false. I am asking you how the Hell you figure it is probably true.

And your assertion that the journalism I have posted is biased overrides the notion that the American government's self-pardon is biased how?

CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons - Washington Post

Bush: CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons

Originally Posted by Excerpt

Secret prisons, alternative interrogation methods and military tribunals are integral to keeping Americans safe, Bush said Wednesday.

U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations - Washington Post

Originally Posted by Excerpt

At a Sept. 26 joint hearing of the House and Senate intelligence committees, Cofer Black, then head of the CIA Counterterrorist Center, spoke cryptically about the agency's new forms of "operational flexibility" in dealing with suspected terrorists. "This is a very highly classified area, but I have to say that all you need to know: There was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11," Black said. "After 9/11 the gloves come off."

According to one official who has been directly involved in rendering captives into foreign hands, the understanding is, "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them." Some countries are known to use mind-altering drugs such as sodium pentathol, said other officials involved in the process.

Abu Zubaida, who is believed to be the most important al Qaeda member in detention, was shot in the groin during his apprehension in Pakistan in March. National security officials suggested that Zubaida's painkillers were used selectively in the beginning of his captivity. He is now said to be cooperating, and his information has led to the apprehension of other al Qaeda members.

Secret CIA Center in Jordan - News24

Originally Posted by Excerpt

Jerusalem - The Central Intelligence Agency is interrogating senior al-Qaeda operatives at a secret detention centre in Jordan, an Israeli newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing international intelligence sources.

Isn't Israel one of our allies?

Swiss Paper Claims Proof of Secret US Torture Camps - Australian Broadcasting Company

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And you are alive. Dead people can't type.

Lol. Again, UM. It was a hypothetical. An analogy. Hypothetically speaking, if someone was dumb enough to make the argument that I wasn't alive (say they figured they were dreaming, and I wasn't real), according to your logic, my stating that "yes I am" alive would put the burden of proof on me, to prove that I was alive, and not on them, because they were stating a negative.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Saying, "Oh, some guy says that some guys say that the U.S. has black sites where they know terrorists will be tortured," does not cut it for me. Where in the Hell do they get that information? I am used to news reports that back up what they claim. Sorry. Yeah, it increases the likelihood that it is true, but it is pretty weak, and it is not enough to call for me to prove a negative. The fact that the burden is not on somebody to prove a negative is a rule of law and debate. That is because proving a negative mere assertion that does not contain a contradiction is impossible.

See the above links.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's all I've been asking you about for the past seven or so posts.

Again, by your simply mentioning them, I had no idea you were actually calling me out to prove that they existed. I think you're exaggerating a bit on this one.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is what I keep talking about, and you keep going back to the stuff about general torture and other things. I am just asking you what the backup of whatever European media outlets referred to in your links is. Notice that I said, "I am not even sure the terrorists are being taken to 'black sites'." That shows you right there that I am not saying the claim is false. I am just saying I am not convinced. For some reason, you keep assuming I am saying the claim is flat out false, and you keep challenging me to argue that it is false. There is no way to disprove a negative like that. That is why I keep using the Bigfoot analogy.

See above links. I don't propose (or, honestly, know if it's possible) to "convince" you that the sites exist. I, personally, have no proof that they exist. But I think I've posted enough sources to provide some evidence to the claim.

Originally Posted by UM

Anything. Just what the supposed news outlets claim is their reason for stating it would do something. So far, it just looks like a wild assertion. I have only seen pure statements with no rationale.

See links. And unless you call every news station that you've ever seen any story aired on, and ask them "why they are stating such things," then I see a double standard, when it comes to this story.

Originally Posted by UM

Dude, get off the torture in general stuff for now. I am talking about these "black sites". I have been concentrating on that for more than a page now. I already said I am not sure if the U.S. has a secret torture policy. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the option I clicked in your poll. I still am not sure. I even said in this thread that the government might have gotten some of its information by having butcher knives up people's asses. I have only said that your arguments have not proven that Bush was incorrect in saying the U.S. does not have a torture policy. That's it. But in my last few posts, I have been specifically asking about evidence for the existence of top secret black sites.

This whole thread is about "torture in general stuff" and I'm not going to repeat (ok, so I am) that you haven't asked me for any evidence of black sites. You've simply said you "had no evidence that they existed."

Originally Posted by UM

What evidence have I given? I am just asking you what your evidence is. Mere assertion about something supposedly top secret does not cut it for me. If a news outlet supposedly says the U.S. has secret interrogation sites, which they reportedly call "black sites", I want to know where in the Hell they get that and what other evidence there might be other than their mere assertion. THAT IS ALL I AM ASKING.

All I can give you so far are the links above. If I never saw Saddam Hussein being captured, on television, and simply read about it in the newspaper (remember, all we had were newspapers at one time), it would be completely illogical for me to say "I don't believe this is article is evidence that this actually happened. I'm not going to accept this as evidence until I know why this paper printed this story, and what other evidence they have to the claim that he was caught, besides citing some officials that confirm it."

Originally Posted by UM

Okay, so some sources basically say, "The United States has covert 'black sites' where terrorists are sent to be tortured in defiance of the Geneva Convention and in defiance of publicly claimed policy. Even though it is top secret U.S. military information, we know about it. We are not going to tell you how we know, but we know. It is true. You have our assertion. There it is." Sorry, I can't go on that. That is just a game of one person's word against another's, and it is not convincing. If Fox News said, "The U.S. military has secret locations in Poland and other countries where they take terrorists and give them massages and ice cream so they will talk," my response to be, "Top secret? Then how do you figure?" I would be asking the same question. When people talk about covert military policies, they have explaining to do. If that's all you've got, then okay. There we go.

Well, the above is all I have so far. Though I can't say that I expect anything more than a "that's not evidence" reply. I hope that you would at least acknowledge that there is more to it than the "biased European journalism" that I stated before. I apologize if I seemed to have put words in your mouth that you didn't say, but I find your stubbornness to accept anything, so far, even when I don't believe that you have an argument against it as such, as evidence that you believe to the contrary. Nothing more. That's just an assumption on my part. But, judging by your actions, I find it hard to believe that anyone reading this thread would disagree with me.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That's just an assumption on my part. But, judging by your actions, I find it hard to believe that anyone reading this thread would disagree with me.

You would be right.

UM, it's so obvious. You are really stretching it. You make it into a word game and an argument of logic (it's not like he's trying to prove the existence of god or something--the burden of proof is not quite as high because the claim is not that extraordinary).

It's obvious that you don't mind if a few innocent people get tortured in the quest to make us "safe". You should just say so, instead of trying to twist it so it looks like it might not even be happening. That's fascist nazi double-speak stuff. You should be able to just talk about the implications, since we all know it is happening.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Look at all of your previous posts. There is one (that I admit, I didn't recall when making my last post) that you even mentioned black sites, specifically. Even in that, the only thing that you explicitly said is that you were not convinced that these black sites existed. Question? What Question are you talking about? The only time you stated a Question that specifically referred to the black sites, was when you asked R.D.735. Aside from that, when talking to me, you only asked for "evidence that "it" was going on." I didn't know the "it" that you were talking about was the black sites, specifically. I thought you were talking about was the torture topic, which, you might recall, is what the thread is based on.

The thread started out as a discussion about U.S. torture policy in general. But in recent pages, you started harping on this subtopic about how the U.S. supposedly sends terrorist prisoners to sites where they know the prisoners will be tortured. So I started talking to you about that specifically. In doing so, I said that I am not convinced that that is actually happening because I have not seen enough evidence of it. So that became the topic of our conversation. I used the term "black sites" at first, and I kept talking about your articles that said other reports said that the U.S. has been sending the prisoners to covert locations where terrorists are to be tortured. I merely asked you what other evidence you had of that difficult pill to swallow, and now we are having mile long post arguments over it. However, you did answer the question in your last post, via links. I think the links are full of anonymous hearsay, but it is added evidence of the claim.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And your assertion that the journalism I have posted is biased overrides the notion that the American government's self-pardon is biased how?

I never said it did. I like knowing the governmen't rationale on claims also.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Lol. Again, UM. It was a hypothetical. An analogy. Hypothetically speaking, if someone was dumb enough to make the argument that I wasn't alive (say they figured they were dreaming, and I wasn't real), according to your logic, my stating that "yes I am" alive would put the burden of proof on me, to prove that I was alive, and not on them, because they were stating a negative.

Good point. I didn't mention that exception. A person who initiates an argument and makes a claim in doing so has a burden of proof/evidence also. If you are minding your own business and somebody tells you you don't exist, you don't even have the burden of talking to him. But as soon as you join the argument and say, "Yes I do," then it is on you to prove your point. If I start a, "God Does Not Exist," thread in the Religion forum, I do have a responsibility to argue my point. But if somebody else starts a, "God Does Exist," thread, I am not out of line for saying, "You claim something exists. Now prove your point."

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Again, by your simply mentioning them, I had no idea you were actually calling me out to prove that they existed. I think you're exaggerating a bit on this one.

We had a spinoff conversation, which you initiated and later reposted your initiation. I never suggested I was going back to the general topic I thought we had covered pretty thoroughly. I thought my recurring use of language about opinion pieces and what other evidence you have was an indication that I had not changed my topic.

I wasn't even really challenging you. I was just asking you what other evidence there is. When people claim something as bold as that they have figured out major government secrets, I want to know how they figure. It is a perfectly legitimate question.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

See above links. I don't propose (or, honestly, know if it's possible) to "convince" you that the sites exist. I, personally, have no proof that they exist. But I think I've posted enough sources to provide some evidence to the claim.

My major question is really what in the world their evidence is. I can find plenty of sources saying the government operated on aliens in Roswell in the 40's, but that is the sort of thing where I can't just take a reporter's word for it. The news sources I use would never dream of making such an extreme claim without explaining themselves and providing as much evidence as possible.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

See links. And unless you call every news station that you've ever seen any story aired on, and ask them "why they are stating such things," then I see a double standard, when it comes to this story.

Like I said, they back up their claims, and I only get my news from major companies who have the world to lose if they make things up. If my local news teams claim somebody was murdered or that a bank is being sued, they are talking about things that are verifiable or falsifiable. If the world news teams I get information from claim that a soldier was killed or that a senator is resigning, they are claiming something easily verifiable or falsifiable. However, if any of them claim that the Mississippi governor has a top secret terrorist base one mile below Rio, my eyes are going to get very big, and I am going to want to know where they get such a wild claim. I can assure you that I would be asking where they get that if they ever claimed it. Some pills are much harder to swallow than others. A person's claim that he has figured out such an enormous and potentially controversial secret of the United States military is going to raise my skepticism and questions about how it is known. So I have only been asking you what that evidence is. It was not meant to be an attack on you or anything personal.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This whole thread is about "torture in general stuff" and I'm not going to repeat (ok, so I am) that you haven't asked me for any evidence of black sites. You've simply said you "had no evidence that they existed."

I did, though I apparently didn't use that exact term in the posts where instead of using a statement to pose the issue I used questions to pose the issue.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

All I can give you so far are the links above. If I never saw Saddam Hussein being captured, on television, and simply read about it in the newspaper (remember, all we had were newspapers at one time), it would be completely illogical for me to say "I don't believe this is article is evidence that this actually happened. I'm not going to accept this as evidence until I know why this paper printed this story, and what other evidence they have to the claim that he was caught, besides citing some officials that confirm it."

Good example. We have photographs, videos, overt witnesses, documents, trial records, a death certificate, and lots of other pieces of evidence that Saddam Hussein was captured. If I heard for the first time that Saddam Hussein was captured, and I only (at first) came across an op ed journalist saying that some European news outlets said that Saddam Hussein was captured but that it is a major military secret, I would definitely be asking why they are claiming that and what other evidence there is for it. You can count on that. If government officials confirmed it and their names were printed, that would add a substantial level of credibility to the claim.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Well, the above is all I have so far. Though I can't say that I expect anything more than a "that's not evidence" reply. I hope that you would at least acknowledge that there is more to it than the "biased European journalism" that I stated before. I apologize if I seemed to have put words in your mouth that you didn't say, but I find your stubbornness to accept anything, so far, even when I don't believe that you have an argument against it as such, as evidence that you believe to the contrary. Nothing more. That's just an assumption on my part. But, judging by your actions, I find it hard to believe that anyone reading this thread would disagree with me.

Then make sure you read this post so you can see otherwise. I question how closely you read my other posts. But you did add some links of the news people making the claim. It looks like their best evidence is the statements of people they will not personally identify. Some of those sources do have a lot to lose for making stuff up, but their claims on this are of the sort of thing that would be hard to falsify, probably impossible. And if they are telling the truth about their anonymous sources, I question those sources still. One of the sources said that all of the members of Congress review what happens at those sites, and I find that especially hard to believe. I don't see how Democrats in Congress could even know of such a thing without using it to tear Bush a new a*hole. It is what they live for. But you did answer my question, and those links do add a significant level of credibility to the claim that black sites exist. But for the legitimate reasons I just stated, it is not enough to convince me.

Also, aren't those sites supposedly run by the U.S. and not the governments of the countries of their locations? I thought at first you were saying the terrorists were being handed over to other governments for questioning, but your links seem to say that it is the U.S. that is supposed to be in charge of the sites. If those sites exist and are U.S. run, then the fact that the terrorists are in torture countries is not evidence that those terrorists are being tortured.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You would be right.

UM, it's so obvious. You are really stretching it. You make it into a word game and an argument of logic (it's not like he's trying to prove the existence of god or something--the burden of proof is not quite as high because the claim is not that extraordinary).

The claim is not that extraordinary? Wrong. When reporters claim that they have figured out an atomic bomb of controversy potential secret of the U.S. military and having nothing to back it up other than supposedly some unnamed witnesses, it is an extraordinary claim. When Oneironaut says it's true, he has explaining to do. I don't claim that it is definitely not true. I just wanted to know what the evidence for the majorly extraordinary claim is. I hope you caught that point in my posts, if you actually have been reading my posts.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

It's obvious that you don't mind if a few innocent people get tortured in the quest to make us "safe". You should just say so, instead of trying to twist it so it looks like it might not even be happening. That's fascist nazi double-speak stuff. You should be able to just talk about the implications, since we all know it is happening.

Now you are really starting to lose your marbles. You just accused me, without backing up your claim, of having a horrifically evil mentality. Do you even realize that? I don't mind if a few innocent people get tortured? Where do you get that bizarre accusation? I have said that the U.S. does not have a torture policy, as far as I know, and that I don't think we should have one. Are you really reading my posts? I think torture policy is bad politics, but I did say that I have no sympathy for the terrorists if they are secretly being tortured. My big time concern for the innocent is exactly what has me hating terrorists and wanting to stop them. Even if torture were necessary and it could not happen without a few innocent people getting caught in the wheel, I would absolutely hate it for the innocent. I would very much mind, even if I believed it to be necessary, which I don't. Read more carefully. The people I think have a lack of concern for the innocent are the people who put tons more energy into taking up for terrorists than they put into condemning them.