Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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

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

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

So...do you?

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

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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

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

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did you get your knife past the metal detector?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

Oh, God. *sighs*

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

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How did you get your knife past the metal detector?

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

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Oh, God. *sighs*

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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

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

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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

What happened to your "over and over" claim?

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

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What happened to your "over and over" claim?

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

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What we do is legitimate.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

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

Originally Posted by 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

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 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?

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

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?

Ok (and believe me, I hate to even bring it up, because you were giving me a compliment at the time that you said it, which I really appreciate. I don't mean it as any sort of personal attack at all (so don't take it personally), but this is the side of you that I think I've been debating against, in this discussion).

Your post in the Drug Discussion thread, but the specific paragraph is here:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I honestly think this might be the most intelligent debate I have ever seen on this site. I almost always take a side and squint my eyes at the other one, but this discussion has had me changing my mind back and forth about 12 times. Oneironaut, you need to be promoted from moderator to site attorney. You have absolutely kicked ass at arguing the site's position on the issue.

[Emphasis mine.]

And you don't even have to worry about stating my personal investments. I will do it for you. I believe, wholeheartedly, that if there is a chance that we are being lied to by our government, we should make stead-fast, dilligent and meticulous attempts to investigate the claim. I do not believe on pardoning any government (given the history of government, in general) simply because they claim that they are doing everything by the books. Does that about cover it? It should, because that is my only personal investment in looking for evidence to the torture claims.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Exactly right. Except, in a court of law, it would be up to a third-party to decide which part of the debate (the prosecution or the defense) is presenting the stronger case (because, yes, they both have to present a case). In your mind (and in your posts) you are playing defense/judge/jury. You are not only playing defense by countering however many of my points as you possibly can, but you are playing judge/jury by telling me which points don't even qualify as evidence. Had this been a real court of law, you would not have the luxury of doing both. We are basically doing what a prosecutor and D.A. would do if there were no judge and jury in the courtroom: we are going back and forth against each other, ad nauseum. We could go on forever, and who would decide who is presenting the stronger case. Do you get me?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Originally Posted by Cofer Black

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.

That is from the man (that you were just speaking of), himself. Based on that testimony, he is on record as stating that something happened to Zubaida that goes well above waterboarding for thirty minutes. Is he lying? I don't know. Was this an act of U.S. order? I don't know. Is it evidence (given the context of all that has been presented) that should be given consideration? I think so.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

As for getting people to agree with you here

This is exactly the kind of illogic that I'm talking about. I'm not trying to get people to agree with me. I don't want people to just agree with me. I want people to look at the cases that we both of have made, objectively, and decide for themselves who has presented a stronger case. That you would even try to spin it any other way, I think, highlights your playing "bulletproof D.A." instead of trying to actually provide a logical defense.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Don't forget about this question...

If I'm not mistaken, the links I posted suggest that some (not all) of these sites were CIA operated.

Judge: Bush Violated Geneva Conventions

Abu Ghraib. The portion of Abu Ghraib where the infamous abuse took place was, officially, controlled by the Iraqi government. Until we have evidence that the abuse was the result of only this one group of 19 individuals, it is not logical to exonerate the rest of the military personnel, there. I'm not saying that anyone else is guilty, but until some sort of formal investigation concludes that only this group has been responsible (coincidentally, the only group from which photos were leaked), I think it's important not to pardon the possibility that others might have been treating the detainees the same way.

New Light Shed on CIA's Black Site Prisons

U.N. Torture Experts Want to See Secret U.S. Jails
I feel that all of the red-tape and deterrent, if these sites were so legitimate, is more than slightly suspicious.

Get Details on New 'Secret Flights' Allegations

Justices Refuse To Hear German Man's Claims He was Abducted, Tortured By CIA So, even in the case of mistaken identity, a free man cannot even hope for any sort of legal procedure (which should be his right) to hear his allegations of torture by the CIA.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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

Very interesting article, so far. (I'm not all the way through it yet, though. I will comment on it, more, later.)

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Ok (and believe me, I hate to even bring it up, because you were giving me a compliment at the time that you said it, which I really appreciate. I don't mean it as any sort of personal attack at all (so don't take it personally), but this is the side of you that I think I've been debating against, in this discussion).

Your post in the Drug Discussion thread, but the specific paragraph is here:

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

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And you don't even have to worry about stating my personal investments. I will do it for you. I believe, wholeheartedly, that if there is a chance that we are being lied to by our government, we should make stead-fast, dilligent and meticulous attempts to investigate the claim. I do not believe on pardoning any government (given the history of government, in general) simply because they claim that they are doing everything by the books. Does that about cover it? It should, because that is my only personal investment in looking for evidence to the torture claims.

I am all for keeping the government in check. But I also understand why certain foreign policy measures have to be kept a secret. We just have to make sure the government does not go too far. When we find out they do, we can vote them out of office.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Exactly right. Except, in a court of law, it would be up to a third-party to decide which part of the debate (the prosecution or the defense) is presenting the stronger case (because, yes, they both have to present a case). In your mind (and in your posts) you are playing defense/judge/jury. You are not only playing defense by countering however many of my points as you possibly can, but you are playing judge/jury by telling me which points don't even qualify as evidence. Had this been a real court of law, you would not have the luxury of doing both. We are basically doing what a prosecutor and D.A. would do if there were no judge and jury in the courtroom: we are going back and forth against each other, ad nauseum. We could go on forever, and who would decide who is presenting the stronger case. Do you get me?

I never claimed that we are in some sort of internet court. I have said that you have made claims about stuff that could not possibly be disproven. All I can do is know what your evidence is and critique it. Who would decide who has the stronger case? I wasn't planning on asking anybody. If we did that, which I have no interest in doing, it would have to be somebody who would not be biased, and you know the political ideological nature of this forum. Do you think debates here need judges? This is the internet, not a court room. But the fact that a person making a claim has the responsibility of proving/supporting the claim is a matter of logic that applies to both court and internet debate. I was also saying that by certain proof standards your evidence would not make it to court in order to illustrate the lack of evidence. But you yourself have said that your case is not proven. To tell you the truth, I don't even know what we are arguing about at this point. We both think the existence of black sites and secret U.S. torture policy might be real and that there is evidence of them but that neither has been conclusively proven. What is the disagreement?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That is from the man (that you were just speaking of), himself. Based on that testimony, he is on record as stating that something happened to Zubaida that goes well above waterboarding for thirty minutes. Is he lying? I don't know. Was this an act of U.S. order? I don't know. Is it evidence (given the context of all that has been presented) that should be given consideration? I think so.

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

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This is exactly the kind of illogic that I'm talking about. I'm not trying to get people to agree with me. I don't want people to just agree with me. I want people to look at the cases that we both of have made, objectively, and decide for themselves who has presented a stronger case. That you would even try to spin it any other way, I think, highlights your playing "bulletproof D.A." instead of trying to actually provide a logical defense.

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

I am still lost on what our big disagreement is at this point. We seem to have different grey area levels of uncertainty, and that's all.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If I'm not mistaken, the links I posted suggest that some (not all) of these sites were CIA operated.

Judge: Bush Violated Geneva Conventions

Abu Ghraib. The portion of Abu Ghraib where the infamous abuse took place was, officially, controlled by the Iraqi government. Until we have evidence that the abuse was the result of only this one group of 19 individuals, it is not logical to exonerate the rest of the military personnel, there. I'm not saying that anyone else is guilty, but until some sort of formal investigation concludes that only this group has been responsible (coincidentally, the only group from which photos were leaked), I think it's important not to pardon the possibility that others might have been treating the detainees the same way.

New Light Shed on CIA's Black Site Prisons

U.N. Torture Experts Want to See Secret U.S. Jails
I feel that all of the red-tape and deterrent, if these sites were so legitimate, is more than slightly suspicious.

Get Details on New 'Secret Flights' Allegations

Justices Refuse To Hear German Man's Claims He was Abducted, Tortured By CIA So, even in the case of mistaken identity, a free man cannot even hope for any sort of legal procedure (which should be his right) to hear his allegations of torture by the CIA.

Very interesting article, so far. (I'm not all the way through it yet, though. I will comment on it, more, later.)

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

The articles you posted earlier said the U.S. is in charge of the "black sites", and Abu Ghraib is not a "black site". I am still unclear on the relevance of black sites if torture governments are not supposedly running them. Your point that got us into this very long argument where I am not even sure what we majorly disagree on was that the black sites are in torture countries and that that suggests that the terrorist prisoners are being tortured. That is where we really are in the conversation, though we have gone down all kinds of roads in the process. What do you say at this point is the relevance of the supposed existence of black sites in torture countries?

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

I've been looking through this thread, just mere glances. I'm not taking any side in here whether the US tortures or not, I'm not going to answer.

I just think that this "debate" ain't going to work because *and I'm saying this as HYPOTHETICAL* the highly patriotic members on here aren't going to believe if the US tortures. Or in the case that they have to admit that the US does indeed torture, they will have to believe that there was a good "cause" for it because according to them their country can't do no wrong ect.

So it won't work.

Originally Posted by NeAvO

I've been looking through this thread, just mere glances. I'm not taking any side in here whether the US tortures or not, I'm not going to answer.

I just think that this "debate" ain't going to work because *and I'm saying this as HYPOTHETICAL* the highly patriotic members on here aren't going to believe if the US tortures. Or in the case that they have to admit that the US does indeed torture, they will have to believe that there was a good "cause" for it because according to them their country can't do no wrong ect.

So it won't work.

Obviously you were right when you said that you have given this thread "just mere glances". The next time you comment, you should consider actually reading what people have said first.