What Is Torture?

[judgeposer]

The treaties/rules/regulations regarding treatment of POW's in no way applies to non-uniformed combatants whom are not part of any army, recognized or not.


The debate goes completely out the window when dealing with suicidal fanatics bent on targeting civilians. The mistake comes when they are allowed to surrender in any way that does not involve their assuming room temperature.

Not true - but that's another discussion/thread.

I'm not sure who mentioned POWs or POW status that sparked this assertion, but I hope it wasn't in reply to my posting the definition of torture as provided in the UN's Convention Against Torture. If it was, that document binds signatory nations, of which the United States is one. The US Executive signed the treaty, and the US Senate ratified it. It is international AND domestic law now - at least for us in the United States. That document doesn't -at least as its central aim- distinguish the various types of "combatants," because it doesn't need it. Its foremost concern is to define torture, and to bind nations who sign not to commit torturous acts/behavior. This binding agreement applies to the signatory country's behavior at all times, not in certain conflicts, let alone when fighting a certain type of enemy.

Your assertion seems to take issue with how we classify those combatants with whom we engage in Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether they receive POW status, as defined in the Geneva Conventions. That consideration/question doesn't apply here, to this discussion, which tried to pin down a definition of torture, then sought to answer the question of whether waterboading constitutes torture.

The sort of enemy we engage might matter for questions like whether we can hold them indefinitely, or without access to Article III courts, or without habeas corpus rights, but their status doesn't matter any to the question of whether they might be submitted to torture.

[ilikemyusername]

torture, this is what it is.
except waterboarding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

[Bulldog_916]

I see waterboarding as torture. First off, the enemy doesnt know whether or not you're going to let them live, really. We've allowed people to die after being waterboarded, it has happened, not by drowning or asphyxia, but by pneumonia after having been waterboarded multiple times. This has been revealed by officials of the former administration. It is torture if it inflicts permanent damage either mentally or physically on the person being tortured. Being almost drowned several times a day will inflict mental damage, there's really no other objective way to look at it. You could say "yea but they could train for that." Not even Navy Seals really train for almost being drowned because you cant get that close without seriously endangering your life or your health. They train to stay calm and put drowning off as long as they physically can. Information coming from the tortured party is always going to be suspect because they are under duress when they say it, they just want to say something in order to get the duress to stop. It isnt effective, plain and straight. We dont need more terrorists because we decide to use unproven techniques to try and do what we could do without utilizing said techniques and probably more effectively. It's stupid to believe that waterboarding is an effective interrogation tool especially since we decried it as torture when it was used on our guys in Vietnam (The fact that John McCain of all people would cry for impartiality on Bush and Co. about this after shit like this was done to his comrades shows just how far his brain has deteriorated since 2000.). We look like out and out hypocrites now and that cant be good for international relations.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...tthew-Alexander

[TheScotsman]

President Bill Clinton signs Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD-39) approving a rendition program proposed by the CIA.

September 13, 1995: Muslim Militant Rendered by CIA in Croatia, Then Killed in Egypt

Talaat Fouad Qassem, 38, a known leader of the Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (the Islamic Group), an Egyptian extremist organization, is arrested and detained in Croatia as he travels to Bosnia from Denmark, where he has been been living after being granted political asylum.
He is suspected of clandestine support of terrorist operations, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing February 26, 1993. He also allegedly led mujaheddin efforts in Bosnia since 1990. In a joint operation, he is arrested by Croatian intelligence agents and handed over to the CIA. Qassem is then interrogated by US officials aboard a US ship off the Croatian coast in the Adriatic Sea and sent to Egypt, which has a rendition agreement with the US of Summer 1995. An Egyptian military tribunal has already sentenced him to death in absentia, and he is executed soon after he arrives.




I guess Bill Clinton needs to be tried for kidnapping and murder by that same standard.


Oooopppsss I forgot.... we only worry about the republicans, never the more corrupt democrats, sorry.


Abu G. stupidity=abuse, and being not fit for duty. It was not torture.

Waterboarding isn't torture, and even if it is, there are times when the outcome will justify the means. How can anyone say the rights of a terrorist to not feel a little wet outweigh the rights of a normal innocent civilian to survive? that's bloody daft!

[judgeposer]

I see waterboarding as torture. First off, the enemy doesnt know whether or not you're going to let them live, really. We've allowed people to die after being waterboarded, it has happened, not by drowning or asphyxia, but by pneumonia after having been waterboarded multiple times. This has been revealed by officials of the former administration. It is torture if it inflicts permanent damage either mentally or physically on the person being tortured. Being almost drowned several times a day will inflict mental damage, there's really no other objective way to look at it. You could say "yea but they could train for that." Not even Navy Seals really train for almost being drowned because you cant get that close without seriously endangering your life or your health. They train to stay calm and put drowning off as long as they physically can. Information coming from the tortured party is always going to be suspect because they are under duress when they say it, they just want to say something in order to get the duress to stop. It isnt effective, plain and straight. We dont need more terrorists because we decide to use unproven techniques to try and do what we could do without utilizing said techniques and probably more effectively. It's stupid to believe that waterboarding is an effective interrogation tool especially since we decried it as torture when it was used on our guys in Vietnam (The fact that John McCain of all people would cry for impartiality on Bush and Co. about this after shit like this was done to his comrades shows just how far his brain has deteriorated since 2000.). We look like out and out hypocrites now and that cant be good for international relations.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...tthew-Alexander

First, I agree with nearly everything here, but, keep in mind that the definition you employ is closer to the Bush Administration's theory that torture must result in some lasting damage, like organ failure, but that anything short of that standard does not amount to torture. Whereas, the internationally accepted definition, including what binds the actions of the United States (i.e. the UN Convention Against Torture) uses lesser standard, as something that merely induces severe mental or physical pain, to define torture.

[judgeposer]

[...]
Oooopppsss I forgot.... we only worry about the republicans, never the more corrupt democrats, sorry.


Abu G. stupidity=abuse, and being not fit for duty. It was not torture.

Waterboarding isn't torture, and even if it is, there are times when the outcome will justify the means. How can anyone say the rights of a terrorist to not feel a little wet outweigh the rights of a normal innocent civilian to survive? that's bloody daft!

We might be able to implicate President Clinton as using torture and other unacceptable interrogation means too, surely - that I agree with.

I'm not sure how we can, however, conclude that stupidity cannot lead to or produce torture.

Second, according to those accepted definitions, how do you distinguish waterboarding as not torture - we're still waiting on this clarification. Put another way, in what way does waterboarding not inflict severe pain or suffering?

"[A] little wet..." ---hmm, ok. If that's what you think waterboarding does, then I can see how you can conclude that it isn't torture. Along those same likes, however, why do we think that getting terrorists "a little wet" will produce any good, actionable intelligence? It seems to me that getting someone wet won't produce anything more that just that...

[Canon]

I see waterboarding as torture. First off, the enemy doesnt know whether or not you're going to let them live, really. We've allowed people to die after being waterboarded, it has happened, not by drowning or asphyxia, but by pneumonia after having been waterboarded multiple times. This has been revealed by officials of the former administration. It is torture if it inflicts permanent damage either mentally or physically on the person being tortured. Being almost drowned several times a day will inflict mental damage, there's really no other objective way to look at it. You could say "yea but they could train for that." Not even Navy Seals really train for almost being drowned because you cant get that close without seriously endangering your life or your health. They train to stay calm and put drowning off as long as they physically can. Information coming from the tortured party is always going to be suspect because they are under duress when they say it, they just want to say something in order to get the duress to stop. It isnt effective, plain and straight. We dont need more terrorists because we decide to use unproven techniques to try and do what we could do without utilizing said techniques and probably more effectively. It's stupid to believe that waterboarding is an effective interrogation tool especially since we decried it as torture when it was used on our guys in Vietnam (The fact that John McCain of all people would cry for impartiality on Bush and Co. about this after shit like this was done to his comrades shows just how far his brain has deteriorated since 2000.). We look like out and out hypocrites now and that cant be good for international relations.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...tthew-Alexander

i cant speak for the navy seals but i do know 2 things. PJ's (air force spec ops) are drowned as part of their training. and from my understanding of the air forces training you have to be waterboarded before you can do it to others. i believe S.E.R.E (another air force spec ops) and some other spec ops are waterboarded as part of their training.

[Bulldog_916]

I see waterboarding as torture. First off, the enemy doesnt know whether or not you're going to let them live, really. We've allowed people to die after being waterboarded, it has happened, not by drowning or asphyxia, but by pneumonia after having been waterboarded multiple times. This has been revealed by officials of the former administration. It is torture if it inflicts permanent damage either mentally or physically on the person being tortured. Being almost drowned several times a day will inflict mental damage, there's really no other objective way to look at it. You could say "yea but they could train for that." Not even Navy Seals really train for almost being drowned because you cant get that close without seriously endangering your life or your health. They train to stay calm and put drowning off as long as they physically can. Information coming from the tortured party is always going to be suspect because they are under duress when they say it, they just want to say something in order to get the duress to stop. It isnt effective, plain and straight. We dont need more terrorists because we decide to use unproven techniques to try and do what we could do without utilizing said techniques and probably more effectively. It's stupid to believe that waterboarding is an effective interrogation tool especially since we decried it as torture when it was used on our guys in Vietnam (The fact that John McCain of all people would cry for impartiality on Bush and Co. about this after shit like this was done to his comrades shows just how far his brain has deteriorated since 2000.). We look like out and out hypocrites now and that cant be good for international relations.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...tthew-Alexander

First, I agree with nearly everything here, but, keep in mind that the definition you employ is closer to the Bush Administration's theory that torture must result in some lasting damage, like organ failure, but that anything short of that standard does not amount to torture. Whereas, the internationally accepted definition, including what binds the actions of the United States (i.e. the UN Convention Against Torture) uses lesser standard, as something that merely induces severe mental or physical pain, to define torture.

Let it be said that I agree with the UN definition of torture then and adjust my definition accordingly. Thank you.

[Charley]

torture dose not work innocent ppl admit to crimes to make it stop guilty ppl lie to make it stop. give me 5 minutes with almost any of you and I can have a recorded confession of you admitting to planning 911, being the real JFK assassin, and kidnapping the Lindbergh baby.

[Vladimir]

torture dose not work innocent ppl admit to crimes to make it stop guilty ppl lie to make it stop. give me 5 minutes with almost any of you and I can have a recorded confession of you admitting to planning 911, being the real JFK assassin, and kidnapping the Lindbergh baby.

It seems a lot of people whose job it is to save lives would disagree with you. I'm putting my money on them. No offense, but its their job. I'd put my money on you for whatever it is that you do.

[Bulldog_916]

torture dose not work innocent ppl admit to crimes to make it stop guilty ppl lie to make it stop. give me 5 minutes with almost any of you and I can have a recorded confession of you admitting to planning 911, being the real JFK assassin, and kidnapping the Lindbergh baby.

It seems a lot of people whose job it is to save lives would disagree with you. I'm putting my money on them. No offense, but its their job. I'd put my money on you for whatever it is that you do.

Who are these people? So far all I've heard is lawyers say that it's possible to illicit a confession by using enhanced interrogation. They say nothing of its legality. No interrogators have come forward saying "Look, torture works okay, and we need to keep doing it if we're going to prevent more 9/11's." Most of the ones that have come forward have been saying "Look, the torture method might work, but we've got other tactics that work as well, if not better than using enhanced interrogation. We're going to keep using those."

[Vladimir]

Who are these people? So far all I've heard is lawyers say that it's possible to illicit a confession by using enhanced interrogation. They say nothing of its legality. No interrogators have come forward saying "Look, torture works okay, and we need to keep doing it if we're going to prevent more 9/11's." Most of the ones that have come forward have been saying "Look, the torture method might work, but we've got other tactics that work as well, if not better than using enhanced interrogation. We're going to keep using those."

Think about it. If torture didn't work, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Bulldog_916]

That's not true at all. You could be fed bullshit information and it would take weeks if not months to find out whether or not it was right. By the time you figure out whether or not it was right, the intel is not useful, then you're left to go back and say "3 times out of 10 it was effective." The game is always changing, you want to figure out the PATTERN of how it's changing, not the next change. Because by the time you adjust your tactics to deal with this change, the next one is already in. You dont figure out patterns on spot information you drown out of someone. You figure it out by gleening good intelligence using good tactics. If it takes longer, then so be it, but you find the pattern and that's the important thing. That's what helps you determine how to find the enemy and break them. We didnt have the military advantage over Japan until we figured out their cipher codes. We wont be able to defeat terrorists by becoming terrorists. It wont work.

[Vladimir]

That's not true at all. You could be fed bullshit information and it would take weeks if not months to find out whether or not it was right. By the time you figure out whether or not it was right, the intel is not useful, then you're left to go back and say "3 times out of 10 it was effective." The game is always changing, you want to figure out the PATTERN of how it's changing, not the next change. Because by the time you adjust your tactics to deal with this change, the next one is already in. You dont figure out patterns on spot information you drown out of someone. You figure it out by gleening good intelligence using good tactics. If it takes longer, then so be it, but you find the pattern and that's the important thing. That's what helps you determine how to find the enemy and break them. We didnt have the military advantage over Japan until we figured out their cipher codes. We wont be able to defeat terrorists by becoming terrorists. It wont work.

Says the.... I don't know what you do but I imagine it isn't military intelligence. Look all I'm saying is you want a batch of aggregate tested for quality, you come to me. You want a good action movie made you go to Bruce Willis. And you want the country safe you go to the Military Intelligence guys.

[judgeposer]

It seems a lot of people whose job it is to save lives would disagree with you. I'm putting my money on them. No offense, but its their job. I'd put my money on you for whatever it is that you do.

Among that camp of people whose job it is to save, but more so protect our lives, are those who agree that torture is ineffective. Robert Baer, a former CIA officer on which George Clooney's character in Syriana was based, has written rather prolifically on its ineffectiveness. He recently appeared on Bill Maher's Real Time to explain why: http://www.disinfo.com/content/story.php?t...ure-Doesnt-Work.

Who are these people? So far all I've heard is lawyers say that it's possible to illicit a confession by using enhanced interrogation. They say nothing of its legality. No interrogators have come forward saying "Look, torture works okay, and we need to keep doing it if we're going to prevent more 9/11's." Most of the ones that have come forward have been saying "Look, the torture method might work, but we've got other tactics that work as well, if not better than using enhanced interrogation. We're going to keep using those."

Lawyers say a lot of things! - that's for sure. I've read some, perhaps experts on the topic, say that it is legal, others claim that it isn't. The isn't a consensus on nearly anything in the field of law, but on the topic of torture's legality in international law, there's little room for debate: it's illegal. The fact that Bush Administration lawyers worked so tirelessly on the famed "Torture Memos" attests to the Administration's desire to find room around the law's explicitness. While well written (I think), those memos pain to amply distinguish techniques like waterboarding from torture, something our domestic law had up until then settled on as a torture technique. After all, we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for utilizing it during WWII.

I'm not one to recommend documentaries, but, check out Taxi to the Dark Side, which features numerous lawyers and former military interrogators, some of whom tortured. Their opinions on the matter answer some of these questions.

Think about it. If torture didn't work, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Doesn't a debate on a topic usually indicate a lack of agreement? I think the fact that we're having one -debate or conversation- about torture's effectiveness shows that we're not yet resolved on the matter.

[Vladimir]

It seems a lot of people whose job it is to save lives would disagree with you. I'm putting my money on them. No offense, but its their job. I'd put my money on you for whatever it is that you do.

Among that camp of people whose job it is to save, but more so protect our lives, are those who agree that torture is ineffective. Robert Baer, a former CIA officer on which George Clooney's character in Syriana was based, has written rather prolifically on its ineffectiveness. He recently appeared on Bill Maher's Real Time to explain why: http://www.disinfo.com/content/story.php?t...ure-Doesnt-Work.

What is the best way to smoke your hookah?

We aren't all going to have the same answer. The method will be different for everyone, and worse yet it will be different with every hookah. Just because my method fails with someone's QT hardly invalidates my method.

[Bulldog_916]

It seems a lot of people whose job it is to save lives would disagree with you. I'm putting my money on them. No offense, but its their job. I'd put my money on you for whatever it is that you do.

Among that camp of people whose job it is to save, but more so protect our lives, are those who agree that torture is ineffective. Robert Baer, a former CIA officer on which George Clooney's character in Syriana was based, has written rather prolifically on its ineffectiveness. He recently appeared on Bill Maher's Real Time to explain why: http://www.disinfo.com/content/story.php?t...ure-Doesnt-Work.

What is the best way to smoke your hookah?

We aren't all going to have the same answer. The method will be different for everyone, and worse yet it will be different with every hookah. Just because my method fails with someone's QT hardly invalidates my method.

We're talking about whether or not to cause someone extreme pain or mental anguish in the name of getting information that could be retrieved using other methods, not whether or not you should poke small holes in your Egyptian bowl. International law makes the method illegal under conventions the United States signed and agreed to.

The fact that you're saying it's a matter of personal preference shows that you dont give much weight to the thought that the United States could have committed war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. I have to give some weight to that thought because as a citizen of the country, I get painted with the same brush as the torturers do.

[sjcrain]

It's also worth mentioning that among the people who "keep us safe" there's significant disagreement over the effectiveness of extreme techniques.

As a general rule, the military and the FBI have repeatedly said that coercive tactics yielded much poorer results than cooperative tactics. These are the tactics that led to the capture of Saddam and the killing of Zarqawi. The CIA consistently advocates coercive (putting it lightly) tactics and provides anecdotal evidence that they work. Now, I will accept that there are likely some examples that the CIA cannot share due to national security reasons, however, I call bullshit when they can't talk about even one documented instance of the effectiveness of extreme techniques.

The military psychologists who developed many of the techniques used by both groups defend their effectiveness, but also agreed that the harsher tactics, if known about, would damage the American image abroad.

Personally, I believe that our success in all of our current operating theaters hinges far more on political capital than military strength. Most of our commanders (at least publicly) agree on this. We're at the stage where we really need to rebuild our image in order to gain more international credibility.

I'd be all for torture in limited cases where it really was the only option, however, it seems that those cases are few and far between. The ticking time bomb scenario has yet to surface, and indiscriminate use of extreme techniques does us no good on the international stage.

[joytron]

protected since 911?


where's bin laden?

[sjcrain]

protected since 911?


where's bin laden?

Where else? Playing cards in Atlantis with Tupac, Amelia, Elvis and Biggie.

[Vladimir]

We're talking about whether or not to cause someone extreme pain or mental anguish in the name of getting information that could be retrieved using other methods, not whether or not you should poke small holes in your Egyptian bowl. International law makes the method illegal under conventions the United States signed and agreed to.

The fact that you're saying it's a matter of personal preference shows that you dont give much weight to the thought that the United States could have committed war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. I have to give some weight to that thought because as a citizen of the country, I get painted with the same brush as the torturers do.

First off I'm not saying its a matter of personal preference. How I pack my bowl is an adequate analogy because it isn't a matter of personal preference, it is how it works for ME and MY BOWL. It isn't, well I could do it your way, its I get the best result this way. No two individuals will respond identically, and no two interrogators are going to work identically. Just because three guys come out and say there are better ways than water-boarding doesn't mean water boarding isn't effective.

The United States did not commit War Crimes under the Geneva Convention as terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Convention. We may have fudged on some other conventions (though the whole argument of Waterboarding being torture is still up in the air, and we are forgetting our even more popular methods of "torture", playing loud music and putting people in cold rooms... burrrr). The fact of the matter is you don't win wars by playing by the rules. Look at any war, I used to agree with you but the historical fact is you DON'T WIN that way. We used to be savages because we wouldn't line up in straight lines and volley lead at the British, we weren't "playing fair." We firebombed in WWII, people don't realize the nukes were nothing, our firebomb campaigns killed way more civilians and you know what it's ugly, and it sucks. It shouldn't have to happen. But welcome back to the real world, it DOES happen, war is a reality, and if we fight it we better go ahead and win it. It's an ugly business, but so is annihilation.

No one ever said war is fun, nice, or clean. It's an ugly business, it has always been an ugly business, and it will always be an ugly business. Frankly hiding behind civilians is only making it an uglier business. Blaming the United States for adapting to that situation is asinine.

[judgeposer]

It seems a lot of people whose job it is to save lives would disagree with you. I'm putting my money on them. No offense, but its their job. I'd put my money on you for whatever it is that you do.

Among that camp of people whose job it is to save, but more so protect our lives, are those who agree that torture is ineffective. Robert Baer, a former CIA officer on which George Clooney's character in Syriana was based, has written rather prolifically on its ineffectiveness. He recently appeared on Bill Maher's Real Time to explain why: http://www.disinfo.com/content/story.php?t...ure-Doesnt-Work.

What is the best way to smoke your hookah?

We aren't all going to have the same answer. The method will be different for everyone, and worse yet it will be different with every hookah. Just because my method fails with someone's QT hardly invalidates my method.

It's not a question of invalid methods, the question is about legitimate, productive methods. Yes, to complete your analogy, there are effective and ineffective ways of setting up a rig, just as there are effective and in-or less-effective ways to interrogate. All this former CIA officers says is that torture doesn't work - not that it isn't a valid method of interrogation, just that it has not produced reliable, actionable intelligence, at least at a cost justifying it. Even conceding that it works on some, in his assessment, we should take that it generally does not produce the results its proponents often highlight. Combining this with its illegality with respect to international and domestic law, normatively speaking, we should not torture.

The only debate to be had really, is on the question of whether waterboarding constitutes torture - I think it does, but I suppose reasonable minds can differ on this assessment.

The United States did not commit War Crimes under the Geneva Convention as terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Convention. We may have fudged on some other conventions (though the whole argument of Waterboarding being torture is still up in the air, and we are forgetting our even more popular methods of "torture", playing loud music and putting people in cold rooms... burrrr). The fact of the matter is you don't win wars by playing by the rules. Look at any war, I used to agree with you but the historical fact is you DON'T WIN that way. We used to be savages because we wouldn't line up in straight lines and volley lead at the British, we weren't "playing fair." We firebombed in WWII, people don't realize the nukes were nothing, our firebomb campaigns killed way more civilians and you know what it's ugly, and it sucks. It shouldn't have to happen. But welcome back to the real world, it DOES happen, war is a reality, and if we fight it we better go ahead and win it. It's an ugly business, but so is annihilation.

No one ever said war is fun, nice, or clean. It's an ugly business, it has always been an ugly business, and it will always be an ugly business. Frankly hiding behind civilians is only making it an uglier business. Blaming the United States for adapting to that situation is asinine.

First, the United States does not have to engage in a conflict with another signatory nation of the Geneva Conventions to be bound by them. Similarly, the United States can violate the Geneva Conventions in a conflict even if the conflict is with a party not named or not otherwise countenanced by the Conventions. The Conventions bind the behavior of the signatory nations, period. It isn't a contract among the signatory nations, it is a promise by the signatory nations to operate in conflicts of any kind, with whomever, according to certain rules. That's how law operates: your obedience to the law doesn't depend on everyone else's obedience. Similarly, your disobedience isn't allowable because others disobey the law.

For your bit "The fact of the matter is you don't win wars by playing by the rules," I call BS, foremost because I don't think those who've replied against torture think the opposite, but because their claims were NORMATIVE - "should." In other words, the United States should not resort to torture. Does it, and do other nations? - Yes, of course, but that's a factual claim, not a normative one. Put simply, answering to someone making a claim of "should" that it happens anyhow, doesn't adequately address the claim. It doesn't deny the claim, in other words. I'm a realist enough to know that the United States and many other countries, who too champion human rights, etc., engage in deplorable war tactics, but...that doesn't undercut the criticism/claim that we shouldn't do those things.

Also, even if we say that no war was won by following the rules, we cannot necessary conclude that winning a war is impossible by following the rules. Your claim on this point isn't logical. Edited May 7, 2009 by judgeposer

[TheScotsman]

It seems a lot of people whose job it is to save lives would disagree with you. I'm putting my money on them. No offense, but its their job. I'd put my money on you for whatever it is that you do.

Among that camp of people whose job it is to save, but more so protect our lives, are those who agree that torture is ineffective. Robert Baer, a former CIA officer on which George Clooney's character in Syriana was based, has written rather prolifically on its ineffectiveness. He recently appeared on Bill Maher's Real Time to explain why: http://www.disinfo.com/content/story.php?t...ure-Doesnt-Work.

What is the best way to smoke your hookah?

We aren't all going to have the same answer. The method will be different for everyone, and worse yet it will be different with every hookah. Just because my method fails with someone's QT hardly invalidates my method.

It's not a question of invalid methods, the question is about legitimate, productive methods. Yes, to complete your analogy, there are effective and ineffective ways of setting up a rig, just as there are effective and in-or less-effective ways to interrogate. All this former CIA officers says is that torture doesn't work - not that it isn't a valid method of interrogation, just that it has not produced reliable, actionable intelligence, at least at a cost justifying it. Even conceding that it works on some, in his assessment, we should take that it generally does not produce the results its proponents often highlight. Combining this with its illegality with respect to international and domestic law, normatively speaking, we should not torture.

The only debate to be had really, is on the question of whether waterboarding constitutes torture - I think it does, but I suppose reasonable minds can differ on this assessment.

The United States did not commit War Crimes under the Geneva Convention as terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Convention. We may have fudged on some other conventions (though the whole argument of Waterboarding being torture is still up in the air, and we are forgetting our even more popular methods of "torture", playing loud music and putting people in cold rooms... burrrr). The fact of the matter is you don't win wars by playing by the rules. Look at any war, I used to agree with you but the historical fact is you DON'T WIN that way. We used to be savages because we wouldn't line up in straight lines and volley lead at the British, we weren't "playing fair." We firebombed in WWII, people don't realize the nukes were nothing, our firebomb campaigns killed way more civilians and you know what it's ugly, and it sucks. It shouldn't have to happen. But welcome back to the real world, it DOES happen, war is a reality, and if we fight it we better go ahead and win it. It's an ugly business, but so is annihilation.

No one ever said war is fun, nice, or clean. It's an ugly business, it has always been an ugly business, and it will always be an ugly business. Frankly hiding behind civilians is only making it an uglier business. Blaming the United States for adapting to that situation is asinine.

First, the United States does not have to engage in a conflict with another signatory nation of the Geneva Conventions to be bound by them. Similarly, the United States can violate the Geneva Conventions in a conflict even if the conflict is with a party not named or not otherwise countenanced by the Conventions. The Conventions bind the behavior of the signatory nations, period. It isn't a contract among the signatory nations, it is a promise by the signatory nations to operate in conflicts of any kind, with whomever, according to certain rules. That's how law operates: your obedience to the law doesn't depend on everyone else's obedience. Similarly, your disobedience isn't allowable because others disobey the law.

For your bit "The fact of the matter is you don't win wars by playing by the rules," I call BS, foremost because I don't think those who've replied against torture think the opposite, but because their claims were NORMATIVE - "should." In other words, the United States should not resort to torture. Does it, and do other nations? - Yes, of course, but that's a factual claim, not a normative one. Put simply, answering to someone making a claim of "should" that it happens anyhow, doesn't adequately address the claim. It doesn't deny the claim, in other words. I'm a realist enough to know that the United States and many other countries, who too champion human rights, etc., engage in deplorable war tactics, but...that doesn't undercut the criticism/claim that we shouldn't do those things.

Also, even if we say that no war was won by following the rules, we cannot necessary conclude that winning a war is impossible by following the rules. Your claim on this point isn't logical.

Name just one war won without any of what you call violations of "Geneva Conventions"? Hmmm.... I'm not coming up with one. Let's make it easier, name one war where information obtained through a violation has not resulted in a victory?

Word games don't win wars either.

Something else to keep you honked off at the military... In spite of the Hauge Peace Conferences of 1899/1909 U.S. sniper, and SOC units operating against terrorist targets (and pirates of recent) employ expanding ammunition... (that oh-so-sweet 168 gr matchking for 7.62x51, and the 230 gr "black talon" JHP for Sig. There were rumors of a 50BMG matchking type JHP, and a 69gp matchking for 5.56) I guess we no longer have to worry about waterboarding a few pirates... they were saved from such fate by the UDT!

[judgeposer]

First, the United States does not have to engage in a conflict with another signatory nation of the Geneva Conventions to be bound by them. Similarly, the United States can violate the Geneva Conventions in a conflict even if the conflict is with a party not named or not otherwise countenanced by the Conventions. The Conventions bind the behavior of the signatory nations, period. It isn't a contract among the signatory nations, it is a promise by the signatory nations to operate in conflicts of any kind, with whomever, according to certain rules. That's how law operates: your obedience to the law doesn't depend on everyone else's obedience. Similarly, your disobedience isn't allowable because others disobey the law.

For your bit "The fact of the matter is you don't win wars by playing by the rules," I call BS, foremost because I don't think those who've replied against torture think the opposite, but because their claims were NORMATIVE - "should." In other words, the United States should not resort to torture. Does it, and do other nations? - Yes, of course, but that's a factual claim, not a normative one. Put simply, answering to someone making a claim of "should" that it happens anyhow, doesn't adequately address the claim. It doesn't deny the claim, in other words. I'm a realist enough to know that the United States and many other countries, who too champion human rights, etc., engage in deplorable war tactics, but...that doesn't undercut the criticism/claim that we shouldn't do those things.

Also, even if we say that no war was won by following the rules, we cannot necessary conclude that winning a war is impossible by following the rules. Your claim on this point isn't logical.

Name just one war won without any of what you call violations of "Geneva Conventions"? Hmmm.... I'm not coming up with one. Let's make it easier, name one war where information obtained through a violation has not resulted in a victory?

Word games don't win wars either.

Something else to keep you honked off at the military... In spite of the Hauge Peace Conferences of 1899/1909 U.S. sniper, and SOC units operating against terrorist targets (and pirates of recent) employ expanding ammunition... (that oh-so-sweet 168 gr matchking for 7.62x51, and the 230 gr "black talon" JHP for Sig. There were rumors of a 50BMG matchking type JHP, and a 69gp matchking for 5.56) I guess we no longer have to worry about waterboarding a few pirates... they were saved from such fate by the UDT!

I find myself at a loss for a response because you seem to have either not read or misread my previous post. In that post, I intended to battle the idea that "you don't win wars by playing by the rules," proven, if at all, by the assertion that no wars have been won this way. That argument isn't logical was my foremost point. It does not follow from the fact (which I have assumed true) that no wars have been won by following the rules, that wars cannot be won from following the rules. It is a simple non sequitor - it does not follow. Put more simply, the taken to be true assertion that 'no wars have been won by following the rules' tells us nothing about what will happen if we do follow the rules. It's important to note that the assertion I'm contending with is not 'we cannot win wars by following the rules,' which would mean something entirely different from 'no wars have been won by following the rules.' It's not a word game -sorry- it's logic. It's how we reason, or, really, how we reason properly.

Perhaps you can see now why your question of me to "[n]ame just one war won without any of what you call violations of "Geneva Conventions"?" is a fool's errand. It misses the point entirely. I did not allege that there were wars without Geneva Convention violations, so, in this sense I'm in no way obliged to substantiate a claim I didn't make. For your second question of me, supposedly the easier, to "name one war where information obtained through a violation has not resulted in a victory?,"too misses the same point, for the same reason. Of course information obtained through violation of the Geneva Conventions might lead to victory. Where does this realization get us?

Allow me to clarify something since I believe your harping on the Geneva Conventions portion of my reply misapprehends the point I made. My response made clear that the Conventions bind the signatory nations regardless of the enemies they face because the the Conventions are not an agreement among the nations so much as they are promises by the nations to act a certain way during military conflicts. To that end, it doesn't matter with respect to the conduct of the United States that the terrorists we now engage were not a party to the Geneva Conventions. To repeat a portion of my post (because I cannot say it better than this): That's how law operates: your obedience to the law doesn't depend on everyone else's obedience. Similarly, your disobedience isn't allowable because others disobey the law.

"honked off at the military," no. Please don't paint me as someone less reverent or respectful of our military than I really am simply because I don't agree -or see any reasonable agreement to be had- with how someone arrived at a conclusion. An invalid conclusion is an invalid conclusion, no matter whether that conclusion expresses something "noble."

My points here are of elemental logic, not some rhetorical game. It matters how we arrive at a conclusion because at jeopardy is the conclusion itself.

I will add though, that some of the comments on this thread go way beyond the pale of what needs to be argued. On the matter of torture, the Bush Administration (I voted for Bush twice, btw) took great pain to argue that the definition of torture was actually more strict (and thus excluded methods like waterboarding) than what we understood to be the internationally accepted or domestically accepted definition. In other words, the thrust of the Adminstration's argument was not that we were not bound by laws governing torture, but rather that the laws permitted "advanced interrogation methods," like waterboarding. Thus, it isn't necessary to argue that we have to break the rules to win - for its part, even the Bush Administration (in its formal work and publishing) didn't even argue that. They just argued about the substance of those rules. So, arguments about not following the rules so that we can "win," attempts to argue something far more extreme than even the most hawkish members of the Administration ever did. It isn't necessary to do so. You can argue the point more reasonably in another way.

[Vladimir]

Again, it doesn't matter if someone signed the Geneva Convention or not, you or correct. But the Geneva Convention is not a universal document that protects everyone. It does not protect un-uniformed terrorists hiding amongst civilians and using children as shields. There are other treaties we have doubtlessly signed on to that might protect them, but no one has tried to cite them yet. I probably should as the International Studies major, but I have no need to since I would disagree with them anyway. There shouldn't be anything that protects a terrorist. A terrorist is a new kind of evil, we have never seen something like this before (to the degree we do today) and the fact that anyone has any interest in trying to protect an individual who would willingly strap explosives to a young child's body... well it boggles my mind.

To that end I'm not a supporter of torture, I would prefer we send them to hell as fast as possible.