Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

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

The sources you posted did use the statements of anonymous witnesses. They admitted it.

Very true, and I have never denied that. My point was that you said that that was all that they used, which was simply not true.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

I misunderstand the logic on this one. The link about agent Black was posted yesterday, and other links were saying (which, I agree, is questionable) 'certain intelligence officials" (loosely put) were cited. This is nothing definitive, absolutely, but to say that they were not being entirely honest, without evidence that these officials did not say this, is not entirely honest.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"Kicking the *%&# out of them" is most likely a metaphor for that.

Wow. That's a stretch. Do you have anything to back up that theory?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

In which one did Rice say that they didn't exist? Not implying she didn't say it, but I would hate to have to go back through all of them to find the one you're speaking of.
But I think you are throwing an awful lot of assumption in there. If we have torture prisons, worldwide, and rumor is starting to spread about their existence, what do you think would be more plausible; the President would completely deny that any such prisons exist, or that he would say that secret prisons exist, but they "aren't what you think?" Honestly think about that one. Which would be the most intelligent way to keep a torturous agenda a secret?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

That's fair enough, but I see both flaw and reason in that. To convict someone of such, on a jury, where there is actual consequence, takes much more conviction that simply having an inconsequential opinion. Have I read enough information to have an opinion that "Operation Northwoods" was actually proposed? Yes. Do I feel that, only based on what I read, I would be willing to convict the Administration of that time on it, and have them face the penalties of whatever a charge like that would carry, if I didn't have either proof or 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?' No. That still wouldn't change the fact that I have more reason (by way of research) to believe that it was proposed, than I have that it wasn't proposed.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Very true, and I have never denied that. My point was that you said that that was all that they used, which was simply not true.

What else did they use to confirm the existence of black sites? I am not talking about harsh interrogation methods in general. Nobody denies that those exist.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I misunderstand the logic on this one. The link about agent Black was posted yesterday, and other links were saying (which, I agree, is questionable) 'certain intelligence officials" (loosely put) were cited. This is nothing definitive, absolutely, but to say that they were not being entirely honest, without evidence that these officials did not say this, is not entirely honest.

I was talking about the links that just said straight up that the U.S. had black sites, as if they were reporting the current weather. You quoted them in a post yesterday. Black talked about the harshness of interrogation methods but did not say that black sites exist.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Wow. That's a stretch. Do you have anything to back up that theory?

Yes, he is a government official who would have his life turned upside down if he leaked real torture tactics when the government has a supposed no torture policy plus a Geneva Convention to follow.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

In which one did Rice say that they didn't exist? Not implying she didn't say it, but I would hate to have to go back through all of them to find the one you're speaking of.

I think it was in the first one. She apparently denied the existence of prisons in other countries used for the purpose of torturing prisoners when she was being pressed on the issue of secret prisons. That is a denial, but now that I think about it, it is more like a partial denial. There is another Washington Post article that talks about her denials, and it too makes it seem that Rice's denials are very slippery, as if she had a lawyer telling her how to respond to questions about the existence of secret prisons, which she would do one way or the other.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120202024.html

That aspect could be used as more evidence for the notion that secret prisons exist. But it is only minorly circumstantial.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But I think you are throwing an awful lot of assumption in there. If we have torture prisons, worldwide, and rumor is starting to spread about their existence, what do you think would be more plausible; the President would completely deny that any such prisons exist, or that he would say that secret prisons exist, but they "aren't what you think?" Honestly think about that one. Which would be the most intelligent way to keep a torturous agenda a secret?

I am not assuming anything. I am only talking about probability. The term "secret prison" has more than one possible meaning. It could mean prisons that nobody knows about, and it could mean prisons in which what happens in them is secret. If he were talking about the former, he could no longer call them secret prisons because he would have revealed the fact of their existence to the public. Then again, the term could also mean prisons that have undisclosed locations but that the government admits exist. That is not the impression I got from what are described as "black sites".

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That's fair enough, but I see both flaw and reason in that. To convict someone of such, on a jury, where there is actual consequence, takes much more conviction that simply having an inconsequential opinion. Have I read enough information to have an opinion that "Operation Northwoods" was actually proposed? Yes. Do I feel that, only based on what I read, I would be willing to convict the Administration of that time on it, and have them face the penalties of whatever a charge like that would carry, if I didn't have either proof or 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?' No. That still wouldn't change the fact that I have more reason (by way of research) to believe that it was proposed, than I have that it wasn't proposed.

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. Also, the case rests on news reporters who claim that they have talked to unnamed others who claim that the black sites exist. That is hearsay from unidentified witnesses, and double hearsay in some of the articles, and it does not meet any of the hearsay exceptions. It would not be admissible in court even if the witnesses were identified. That is why the black sites issue would not even make it into court based on the evidence you have shown. However, it does raise my suspicions personally.

I still don't understand the relevance of the black sites. They are supposedly U.S. controlled, so how is their existence in torture allowing countries proof that torture is used at them? That is the issue that got us into this part of the debate about U.S. torture policy in general.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.

The government has admitted to as much as sleep deprivation and waterboarding, both of which are very harsh. If you were waterboarded right now for thirty minutes, it would ruin your weekend. He could have easily been talking about that sort of thing. Maybe he was not, but I have not seen the evidence that he was not. So I am still in a state of not seeing the existence of black sites or the use of "torture" proven sufficiently.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.

And look at how the shit hit the fan over it. Officials generally want to avoid such scandal. People also generally want to avoid leaking government secrets for all kinds of reasons. That does not mean that is what always happens, but remember that I am talking about probabilities and lacks of proof.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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?

That is a more extreme definition than the one you originally posted. That is the one we were debating. But with that higher bar definition of torture, then I would definitely say that waterboarding and sleep deprivation do not qualify as "torture" under that definition. But like I keep saying, harsh methods are used. What is it you are trying to get me to say?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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?

Sorry, but I'm not ready to take the words of terrorists. Their testimony is worth zero. You will agree if they ever try to blow up your town.

Abu Ghraib, as far as we know, was a fraternity hazing committed by a few idiots very low on the totem pole. It is not proof of corruption in government policy. We have been over that.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.

What????????? When did I ever say that? It goes completely against my stance on debate. If I ever said that, I was making fun of the absurd claim you are making. That's another major accusation, and I challenge you to post that quote and tell me where you got it. You have a responsibility to do so now that you have made that accusation. You've got the wrong person. If I thought like that, I would be a rich as Hell trial attorney. For your information, I decided not to be a trial attorney because I hate that kind of thinking so much. I will tell you right now that you will not find a serious quote of my saying such a thing. That is your most bizarre personal accusation yet. If you really want to get into my personal motivations in this, I can start talking about what I think yours are. But I suggest that we keep this debate about the issues and not each other. Do you think you can manage that?

The defense attorney stance you just characterized is actually the stance all of them take, although most of them have things to add to it. It is the center of all defenses. A defense says, "You made an accusation, now prove it." I have said many times that "torture" might be a secret U.S. policy and that "black sites" might exist. But I have also said that it has not been proven. Proving that black sites and U.S. government torture policies do not exist would be like proving that Uraguay does not have a terrorist training camp under the Himalayas. So most of what I can say to somebody who claims that there probably is would be, "Oh yeah? Why do you think that?" And then I can talk about the evidence presented. But the idea that any of us could come up with our own evidence for the nonexistence of such a thing is very unrealistic.

As for getting people to agree with you here, I'm sure that would be really hard. There have been like four people in the history of this forum with conservative foreign policy views. I don't go by polls to judge political truth any way, so it makes no difference to me if you get a thousand people to agree with you. I will judge the truth by logic and not by an opinion pole in liberal territory.

Don't forget about this question...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I still don't understand the relevance of the black sites. They are supposedly U.S. controlled, so how is their existence in torture allowing countries proof that torture is used at them? That is the issue that got us into this part of the debate about U.S. torture policy in general.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I agree, if UM were really trying to discuss things instead of just regurgitate fox news talking points, why doesn't he ever join in discussions about how America's economy is being destroyed by bankers?

Let me know when you want to join this debate.

To answer your question about me, and not the actual debate issues, it is because some absurd accusations are more interesting to talk about than others. Stop regurgitating voodoo card talking points. (If you are going to make us strange stuff about me, I am going to make up strange stuff about you.)

The New Yorker has an interesting article about the black sites. Perhaps there are some things in it that can provide something of substance to debate.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...3fa_fact_mayer

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.

I agree, if UM were really trying to discuss things instead of just regurgitate fox news talking points, why doesn't he ever join in discussions about how America's economy is being destroyed by bankers?