Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
High Value Information
Topic Started: Apr 21 2009, 05:45 PM (912 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1&hp
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
Bump
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Isn't that interesting.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I hear a lot, when the handwringers are interviewed on NPR, that it's been "proven" that torture has never, in the history of mankind, worked, and that's a scientific fact, and so whether we should do it is a moot point since it's just useless.

I always chuckle when self-evident truth (like that torture can and does work) is just denied away by soft-science "proof" that allows people to believe what they want to believe.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Apr 21 2009, 11:38 PM
Quote:
 
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
So the bottom line is not whether or not it works, nor whether or not it saves American lives, nor whether or not it is most expedient and effective, nor whether or not it is ethical/moral/legal, but whether or not it is good PR?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Maybe we should try to capture the children of these Queda operatives. Imagine what information we could get if we severed a little girls fingers and toes in view of her father?

After all, it's all about efficacy, isn't it?

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Apr 22 2009, 01:14 AM
QuirtEvans
Apr 21 2009, 11:38 PM
Quote:
 
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
So the bottom line is not whether or not it works, nor whether or not it saves American lives, nor whether or not it is most expedient and effective, nor whether or not it is ethical/moral/legal, but whether or not it is good PR?
The "bottom line" of whether it works or not was addressed in Blair's quote - ie there's no way of knowing. Like most ideologues, I guess you read what you want to.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Horace
Apr 21 2009, 07:52 PM
I hear a lot, when the handwringers are interviewed on NPR, that it's been "proven" that torture has never, in the history of mankind, worked, and that's a scientific fact, and so whether we should do it is a moot point since it's just useless.

I always chuckle when self-evident truth (like that torture can and does work) is just denied away by soft-science "proof" that allows people to believe what they want to believe.
Really? How arrogant of you. Suppose a group of SERE trainers told you the same thing?

Quote:
 
some veteran trainers from the SERE program itself had warned in internal memorandums that, morality aside, the methods were ineffective.

* * * *

In late 2001, about a half-dozen SERE trainers, according to a report released Tuesday night by the Senate Armed Services Committee, began raising stark warning about plans by both the military and the C.I.A. to use the SERE methods in interrogations.

In December 2001, Lt. Col. Daniel J. Baumgartner of the Air Force, who oversaw SERE training, cautioned in one memo that physical pressure was “less reliable” than other interrogation methods, could backfire by increasing a prisoner’s resistance and would have an “intolerable public and political backlash when discovered.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html?hp

Maybe you just deny away the evidence from people with more experience than you and believe what you want to believe.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Apr 22 2009, 01:14 AM
QuirtEvans
Apr 21 2009, 11:38 PM
Quote:
 
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
So the bottom line is not whether or not it works, nor whether or not it saves American lives, nor whether or not it is most expedient and effective, nor whether or not it is ethical/moral/legal, but whether or not it is good PR?
He understands the concept of balancing more than one factor. "[T]he damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us". So, the bottom line is not whether or not it works ....or whether or not it saves American lives ... or whether or not it is the most expedient/moral/legal ... or whether it's good PR ... it's a weighted consideration of all of those factors. (As well as several more that you conveniently forgot.)
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Apr 22 2009, 02:27 AM
Maybe we should try to capture the children of these Queda operatives. Imagine what information we could get if we severed a little girls fingers and toes in view of her father?

After all, it's all about efficacy, isn't it?

Indeed, go after their families. After all, they'e just is guilty as the operatives.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
jon-nyc
Apr 22 2009, 02:27 AM
Maybe we should try to capture the children of these Queda operatives. Imagine what information we could get if we severed a little girls fingers and toes in view of her father?

After all, it's all about efficacy, isn't it?

You've just explained why what we did doesn't even qualify as torture. What you've described is torture - and well within the norm of what those we are fighting would and have done.

I find it interesting that running a little water over someone's nose, or blindfolding someone and putting a harmless caterpillar on them will cause such a cry about "torture" from people who sit on their hands when news of an American soldier having his head cut off, his body soaked in gasoline and set on fire, and then the charred corpse dragged through the streets is reported.

It's been proven that the information obtained by these techniques saved countless numbers of lives. Good. F*ck what the rest of the world thinks. Someone has to have the backbone to fight for civilization, and if we have to run a little water over the noses of a few people to do it, those who don't like it can eat sh!t and die.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
(time=1240404922
Maybe you just deny away the evidence from people with more experience than you and believe what you want to believe.
I'm not talking about modern american military forms of "torture", I'm talking about all forms of torture, through history. I've heard it claimed that it has been proven never, in the history of manking, to have worked. I'm too lazy to read the article and don't know what it says.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
jon-nyc
Apr 22 2009, 02:27 AM
Maybe we should try to capture the children of these Queda operatives. Imagine what information we could get if we severed a little girls fingers and toes in view of her father?

After all, it's all about efficacy, isn't it?

When did your check to MoveOn.org clear? :)

Strawman alert warning: the kid is innocent. KSM is not. He forfeited his right not to be water boarded, or kept in a small cell, or questioned for several days while standing, when he commanded a group that drove planes into buildings with office workers in them (who also have innocent kids), and then refused his moral obligation to spill the beans when captured. His interrogators have a moral obligation to get him to talk.

Not that it is relevant to the principled moral question, but AQ leaders would seem willing to sacrifice family members in the delusion that they will be rewarded by Allah in heaven, so your tactic would not seem efficacious in this particular case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jeff
Apr 22 2009, 02:37 PM
the kid is innocent. KSM is not. He forfeited his right not to be water boarded, or kept in a small cell, or questioned for several days while standing, when he commanded a group that drove planes into buildings with office workers in them (who also have innocent kids), and then refused his moral obligation to spill the beans when captured.
Exactly how do you know that?

Moreover, it's not just that we've violated his rights. It's that we damage our own interests and hurt ourselves by acting contrary to our principles. We've told you that many, many times ... but since that's not an argument you can respond to, you have to focus on the bad guy.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Phlebas
Apr 22 2009, 03:05 AM
ivorythumper
Apr 22 2009, 01:14 AM
QuirtEvans
Apr 21 2009, 11:38 PM
Quote:
 
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
So the bottom line is not whether or not it works, nor whether or not it saves American lives, nor whether or not it is most expedient and effective, nor whether or not it is ethical/moral/legal, but whether or not it is good PR?
The "bottom line" of whether it works or not was addressed in Blair's quote - ie there's no way of knowing. Like most ideologues, I guess you read what you want to.
Evidently, like most ideologues, you lack reading comprehension. "The bottom line" refers to what the basis for his judgment is.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Apr 22 2009, 04:59 AM
ivorythumper
Apr 22 2009, 01:14 AM
QuirtEvans
Apr 21 2009, 11:38 PM
Quote:
 
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
So the bottom line is not whether or not it works, nor whether or not it saves American lives, nor whether or not it is most expedient and effective, nor whether or not it is ethical/moral/legal, but whether or not it is good PR?
He understands the concept of balancing more than one factor. "[T]he damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us". So, the bottom line is not whether or not it works ....or whether or not it saves American lives ... or whether or not it is the most expedient/moral/legal ... or whether it's good PR ... it's a weighted consideration of all of those factors. (As well as several more that you conveniently forgot.)
That is one way to read it, unfortunately it is not what he seems to have actually said.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Apr 22 2009, 02:43 PM
it's not just that we've violated his rights. It's that we damage our own interests and hurt ourselves by acting contrary to our principles. We've told you that many, many times ... but since that's not an argument you can respond to, you have to focus on the bad guy.
(1) We haven't violated his rights. You have never argued otherwise. You just assert it. KSM has forfeited his right to be treated nicely in interrogation because of his actions. Even the UN accepts coercive interrogation (sleeplessness, cold rooms, psychological terror) as legitimate to get needed information. There is a dispute here of degree, not kind, over the exact methods allowed. You have never ever even tried to address this. Not once. To do so would eviscerate your position.

(2) You have never argued that we violated "our principles". You just asserted it, as if you win the debate by default by throwing around the word "torture". I think we violate our principles if we do not stand up for freedom and protect innocent life by physically destroying the AQ network due to philosophical and moral confusion and general stupidity. Please look at the pictures of a few hundred of the victims of the WTC attack along with the memorial letters from their kin and friends. They must be on the web somewhere. I saw the real thing. Then let's discuss what "principles" we are referring to, your legal abstractions or reality.

(3) I do not focus on the bad guy. You do - by claiming his alleged "rights" are more important than the rights of his innocent victims.


Coercive interrogation of KSM got loads of specific actionable intelligence that he immorally and stubbornly would not have coughed up otherwise. This has been reported in many many places, from the liberal NYTimes to the more liberal New Yorker. You need to explain why his right to nice treatment is more important than the rights of his innocent victims. You have never ever even tried to make this argument, probably because you can't without relying on the canard that "torture doesn't work".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Renauda
Apr 22 2009, 05:37 AM
jon-nyc
Apr 22 2009, 02:27 AM
Maybe we should try to capture the children of these Queda operatives. Imagine what information we could get if we severed a little girls fingers and toes in view of her father?

After all, it's all about efficacy, isn't it?

Indeed, go after their families. After all, they'e just is guilty as the operatives.
Damn right!

During the Cold War, the KGB was much, much more effective in the ME, than were the Americans. My favorite story concerns the Beirut hostages...when the first Russian was kidnapped, it wasn't but a day or two when one of the ringleaders of the plot strolled out of his home one morning, only to find his brother's head in a basket. The basket also contained a list of his immediate family and a promise to wipe his family name from the face of the earth, should he continue to hold Russian hostages.

The hostage was released as a "good will gesture".

Thirteenth century mindsets require thirteenth century tactics.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jeff
Apr 22 2009, 03:24 PM
QuirtEvans
Apr 22 2009, 02:43 PM
it's not just that we've violated his rights. It's that we damage our own interests and hurt ourselves by acting contrary to our principles. We've told you that many, many times ... but since that's not an argument you can respond to, you have to focus on the bad guy.
(1) We haven't violated his rights. You have never argued otherwise. You just assert it. KSM has forfeited his right to be treated nicely in interrogation because of his actions.


Coercive interrogation of KSM got loads of specific actionable intelligence that he immorally and stubbornly would not have coughed up otherwise. This has been reported in many many places, from the liberal NYTimes to the more liberal New Yorker. You need to explain why his right to nice treatment is more important than the rights of his innocent victims. You have never ever even tried to make this argument, probably because you can't without relying on the canard that "torture doesn't work".
You haven't argued that KSM has forfeited his rights to be treated nicely. You've just asserted it.

Quote:
 
You have never argued that we violated "our principles". You just asserted it, as if you win the debate by default by throwing around the word "torture".


You've never argued that we violate our principles if we do not stand up for freedom and protect innocent life by physically destroying the AQ network. You've just asserted it.

It's comical that you don't see that the things you toss around apply equally to you.

Seriously, if you want to make stupid points, this isn't a discussion, it's just mud-slinging. I would have thought you were smarter than that.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jeff
Apr 22 2009, 02:37 PM
jon-nyc
Apr 22 2009, 02:27 AM
Maybe we should try to capture the children of these Queda operatives. Imagine what information we could get if we severed a little girls fingers and toes in view of her father?

After all, it's all about efficacy, isn't it?

When did your check to MoveOn.org clear? :)

Strawman alert warning: the kid is innocent. KSM is not. He forfeited his right not to be water boarded, or kept in a small cell, or questioned for several days while standing, when he commanded a group that drove planes into buildings with office workers in them (who also have innocent kids), and then refused his moral obligation to spill the beans when captured. His interrogators have a moral obligation to get him to talk.

Not that it is relevant to the principled moral question, but AQ leaders would seem willing to sacrifice family members in the delusion that they will be rewarded by Allah in heaven, so your tactic would not seem efficacious in this particular case.
My post is in response to the argument that torture is ok because it is effective. No straw man there.

You seem to be arguing a different principle, that torture is ok if the party is guilty. Perhaps one could be sentenced to torture?



In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
jon-nyc
Apr 22 2009, 05:04 PM
Jeff
Apr 22 2009, 02:37 PM
jon-nyc
Apr 22 2009, 02:27 AM
Maybe we should try to capture the children of these Queda operatives. Imagine what information we could get if we severed a little girls fingers and toes in view of her father?

After all, it's all about efficacy, isn't it?

When did your check to MoveOn.org clear? :)

Strawman alert warning: the kid is innocent. KSM is not. He forfeited his right not to be water boarded, or kept in a small cell, or questioned for several days while standing, when he commanded a group that drove planes into buildings with office workers in them (who also have innocent kids), and then refused his moral obligation to spill the beans when captured. His interrogators have a moral obligation to get him to talk.

Not that it is relevant to the principled moral question, but AQ leaders would seem willing to sacrifice family members in the delusion that they will be rewarded by Allah in heaven, so your tactic would not seem efficacious in this particular case.
My post is in response to the argument that torture is ok because it is effective. No straw man there.

You seem to be arguing a different principle, that torture is ok if the party is guilty. Perhaps one could be sentenced to torture?



Yeah, he ignored that point, too.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Apr 22 2009, 04:49 PM
I would have thought you were smarter than that.
Ditto.

Perhaps you could address the point that international law *already* allows forms of coercion - sleeplessness, psychological terror, cold, binding - that intuitively sound like "torture" to my ear, but are not *called* impermissible torture under international law. Adding waterboarding or not is a matter of degree, not kind.

Repeating (a) "torture is wrong" and (b) "torture doesn't work" over and over is not an argument. Torture clearly does work, and has for 2000 years, and international law already permits torture (people just engage in the PR fiction that the physical coercion already allowed under international law is not "torture" to make themselves feel better and avoid philosophical clarity).

I did post about 15 pages of further explanation a few months back at WTF. Near as I can tell, no one has ever addressed my arguments, much less tried to disprove them. They just kept repeating (a) and (b) without support, generally in a tone of great and increasing indignation, as you have above, as if in wonder that not everyone thought (a) and (b) were insights of deep wisdom.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
jon-nyc
Apr 22 2009, 05:04 PM
that torture is ok if the party is guilty. Perhaps one could be sentenced to torture?



This makes no sense. Torture is not a morally legitimate punishment for a crime. It can be avoided, even by a captured KSM, simply by telling the truth. Guilt of a certain type removed the moral right not to be tortured for information essential to save innocent life. It can still be avoided by providing the proper information, no matter how guilty.

KSM's guilt removes his right to keep certain information private.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jeff
Apr 22 2009, 05:57 PM
QuirtEvans
Apr 22 2009, 04:49 PM
I would have thought you were smarter than that.
Ditto.

Perhaps you could address the point that international law *already* allows forms of coercion - sleeplessness, psychological terror, cold, binding - that intuitively sound like "torture" to my ear, but are not *called* impermissible torture under international law. Adding waterboarding or not is a matter of degree, not kind.

Repeating (a) "torture is wrong" and (b) "torture doesn't work" over and over is not an argument. Torture clearly does work, and has for 2000 years, and international law already permits torture (people just engage in the PR fiction that the physical coercion already allowed under international law is not "torture" to make themselves feel better and avoid philosophical clarity).

I did post about 15 pages of further explanation a few months back at WTF. Near as I can tell, no one has ever addressed my arguments, much less tried to disprove them. They just kept repeating (a) and (b) without support, generally in a tone of great and increasing indignation, as you have above, as if in wonder that not everyone thought (a) and (b) were insights of deep wisdom.
Jeffrey, if you're not going to read what I've already written, there's no point continuing this.

Start with what SERE trainers ... who know more about torture than you or I ... say about its effectiveness. I quoted it above. It's patently ridiculous for you to insist that "[t]orture clearly does work, and has for 2000 years," when they disagree.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3