Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Ok. It took me that mile to try to touch on everything you said. I don't like leaving any of my bases uncovered. I'm sure you can relate. Let's bring it back down to size. I will have to make a few quotes, though, to catch everything in one basket, so this will seem longer than it really is, because of the quotes.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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 Universal Mind

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 Universal Mind

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If government officials confirmed it and their names were printed, that would add a substantial level of credibility to the claim.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

I quoted all of that to quote these:

Originally Posted by Excerpt from the Washington Post

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."

More on the context from Cofer Black can be found here.

More on Cofer Black, himself, can be found here.

Originally Posted by Excerpt from CNN

Secret prisons, alternative interrogation methods and military tribunals are integral to keeping Americans safe, Bush (The President of the United States) said Wednesday.

[Emphases mine]

These are not stories from fringe journalists. They are from major news organizations that are, and have always been, allegedly-credible sources of information in American society.

"Anonymous sources?" "Those they will not personally identify?" "Where they got their information?" "IF government officials confirmed it and their names were printed?"

I have to say that I'm wondering how closely you read the articles I posted.

Another official that has a bad taste in his mouth about our current policies: Former FBI Agent Dan Coleman

Originally Posted by Excerpt

"It was astounding to me after ... 9/11 that we were so ready to give up our laws, our values and everything in order to defend ourselves," he said. "We can't do that. It's wrong."

Detaining "enemy combatants" at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without giving them access to legal counsel is wrong not only for moral but also practical reasons, says Coleman.

If detainees were given access to lawyers from the start, some might have cut deals and offered useful information, he said. And forced admissions are by no means foolproof.

"Any information that's obtained by coercion is suspect," he said. "Because if someone is abusing you physically or psychologically, you pretty much say anything to get them to stop."

Coleman speaks from experience: Before 9/11, when there was a prize al Qaeda catch, he would handle the interrogation.

Patience was key to his interrogation methods: Building up trust. Working the relationship. Always in pursuit of the ultimate prize -- information.

"Get them to the point, in the intelligence world, where they commit treason," he said.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

When Oneironaut says it's true, he has explaining to do.

Now who's putting words in who's mouth?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Now who's putting words in who's mouth?

Oh, sorry. That came out the wrong way. When Oneironaut speaks supportively of sources that say it's true, he has explaining to do. More importantly, the sources have explaining to do. I was questioning them much more than I was questioning you.

The sources you posted did use the statements of anonymous witnesses. They admitted it. That is why the links I was talking about yesterday were stretching things by reporting it as factual. It turns out that the news outlets really were just saying that certain unnamed witnesses made claims about "black sites". So the reporters in those links were not being entirely honest.

Coleman and Black seem to be talking about using harsh interrogation methods, which I definitely believe exist. The government admits it very freely and very publicly. "Kicking the *%&# out of them" is most likely a metaphor for that. But as I said in the early pages of this thread, I don't think the methods the government has admitted to qualify as "torture".

However, you just quoted CNN as quoting Bush in saying that "secret prisons" are necessary. That is the strongest piece of evidence you have presented. But what he said does not mean we have the "black sites" where terrorists are being interrogated through torturous means in other countries. One of your links said Condoleeza Rice has denied their existence. Why would Rice deny their existence while Bush says they exist? It could only be that they are not talking about the same thing. By "secret prisons", I have been talking about prisons that the government would not admit the existence of to the public. That is what the links yesterday and most of the links today talked about. If the president admits a prison exists, it is "secret" only in terms of details, but not in that it exists at all. Your links yesterday were talking about a type of prison that the government denies even exists at all. Bush is apparently talking about prisons that admittedly exist but that have locations and actions that are kept secret from the public. That is how it seems, but as I have said, those "black sites" might exist. It is not inconceivable, and I can definitely see why they would. Though for the reasons I have given, it has not been proven to me. But yes, you have provided evidence for their existence.

However, if the U.S. is running those sites even though they are in other countries, how would their existence prove that torture is happening at them? Again, I am not saying torture is not happening at them. I can see the government putting terrorists' faces in ant beds and the rest of their bodies in Medieval torture devices. I even think there is a high likelihood of it. The fact that we found Saddam Hussein in a hole in the desert makes me really wonder what is going on behind closed doors. I also suspect that the Abu Ghraib incident might have been a distraction the government intentionally threw at the country so everybody would be wrapped up in a low level of oppression and be distracted away from what is really happening. But with the evidence so far, if I were on a jury, I would find the government not guilty. That does not mean I am convinced that they are innocent.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

. I hope you caught that point in my posts, if you actually have been reading my posts.

Well I'm trying. I may miss the point sometimes.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

but I did say that I have no sympathy for the terrorists if they are secretly being tortured.

I just don't think that they're having fair trials or any trials at all, so they may be innocent. Despite the fact that they shouldn't be tortured even if they are guilty, but I guess that is not what we are talking about.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Now you are really starting to lose your marbles. You just accused me, without backing up your claim, of having a horrifically evil mentality.

I realized later that you would think that I was saying that. I didn't really mean to call you a fascist nazi, but I do think you use lawyer-talk to obscure and confuse the issue.

Sorry. I hate reading long posts, as much as the next person, but sometimes you leave me no choice, because there is so much to respond to. Lol.

Black:
"Because if someone is abusing you physically or psychologically, you pretty much say anything to get them to stop."

Coleman:
"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."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Coleman and Black seem to be talking about using harsh interrogation methods, which I definitely believe exist. The government admits it very freely and very publicly. "Kicking the *%&# out of them" is most likely a metaphor for that. But as I said in the early pages of this thread, I don't think the methods the government has admitted to qualify as "torture".

The government, as far as I know, hasn't even admitted to so much as head-slapping. It is suspected and rumored, but they have not admitted to that. Your assessment that "Kicking the *%&&# out of them" is mostly likely a metaphor" for accepted measures of interrogation is, in fact, an assumption. You are assuming that it is most likely. I asked you if you had anything to back it up, and you said: "Yes, he is a government official who would have his life turned upside down if he leaked real torture tactics..." But if his statement wasn't so vague that it could be easily misconstrued, you couldn't even make that argument. However, in the context of everything else that I've been presenting, it does serve as a slight bit of evidence toward the speculation of black sites, as there is nothing countering that peripheral evidence.

As does this:

Originally Posted by Black

"No Limits" aggressive, relentless, worldwide pursuit of any terrorist who threatens us is the only way to go and is the bottom line.

Moving on:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"...when the government has a supposed no torture policy plus a Geneva Convention to follow."

Like the provisions they had, to follow a policy of getting a congressional warrant for wiretapping? We all know how well they stuck to that one.

Memorandum on the Geneva Conventions

Bybee memo

Originally Posted by Excerpt

"Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." The memo also concluded that for purely mental pain to constitute torture it "must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years."

Leaves a lot of wiggle-room for acts not to be "officially" categorized as torture, doesn't it? (At least) 2 problems with this: 1) Do you have any idea of the amount of physical torment I could put you through, without "being equivalent to the pain accompanying such things as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death?" 2) When you're psychologically tormenting someone, do you have some kind of gauge that tells you, in that person's specific situation, how long their psychological harm will last? If so, how exactly does that work?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So you would find them liable (Of having black sites, that is.) in civil court but not guilty in criminal court. In criminal court, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In civil court, the standard is "more probable than not". You apparently think that burden of proof has been met. Based on what you have shown, I don't think you are out of your mind for thinking that. But I don't think it has been met.

Well, judging by what information that we have (which includes pictures getting out from Abu Ghraib, declaration that secret prisons exist, a governmental willingness to bypass legislation that ties the administration to the responsibility of getting a congressional warrant before wiretapping Americans, countless accounts of prisoner's being held saying they were tortured, documentation outlining a willingness for government factions to circumvent present laws for any particular purpose, testimony (albeit vague) testimony from government officials that we "send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them" and that "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 (where one of the alleged black sites are) in March," and a stockpile of evidence) I would say that probability stacks up that the "need to know basis" concept (which has been in place in American Government for as long as it's been around) still applies. Secrets are kept and lies are told. If the government wasn't able to justify a policy of lying to the people, we would know everything that they were doing, all the time. And we couldn't have that, now, could we?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

...but I do think you use lawyer-talk to obscure and confuse the issue.

No offense, but I do have to agree with Moonbeam on this one. If there is one thing you've said in the past, that I will never forget, is that you admit to "usually picking one side and just sticking with it." I feel that if you have a vested interest in something, you can very effectively fight for that side. That's not, fundamentally, a bad thing, but sometimes I think you slip into "technicalities" and "talking points." It's really hard to debate when (somehow) the burden of proof is on me, and I'm supposed to "convince" someone that slaps away the majority of evidence as "that's not good enough." It would be like being a prosecutor in a courtroom with no judge or jury, and a defense attorney that just says "that's not good enough" when evidence is presented. I think that if we had more people actually engaged in this conversation we could get some more outside opinion on who's stance is actually gaining some sort of ground.