Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 17, 2014 17:20:20 GMT -5
Pearl Harbour was the event that propelled you guys into WWII. Gotta go for now. BBL Well, yeah, lol. I have just never heard an allegation before that the bomb was dropped as "payback" for that. If there is any opinion out there to that effect I am curious to hear it.
I think it is totally wrong, btw, but I am curious.
Seems to me Operation Meetinghouse, on the night of March 9-10, 1945 over Tokyo, would be more than enough to avenge the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Up to 100,000 Japanese citizens were killed during the bombing of Tokyo that night. Night of 9-10 Mar, Operation Meetinghouse: 279 B-29 bombers dropped incendiary bombs and destroyed 267,000 buildings and homes or 41 square kilometers of Tokyo. Americans estimated 88,000 killed, 41,000 injured, and 1,000,000 displaced. Tokyo Fire Department estimated 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department estimated 124,711 casualties and 286,358 destroyed buildings and homes.Bombing of Tokyo and Other Cities
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 17, 2014 19:52:53 GMT -5
I watched the full interview. It's an interesting "other side of the story". Although I don't agree with torture on principle, I could see why this would (at the very least) cast some doubt on the veracity of the Senate report. i see more reason to doubt the critics of the report. after all, they have a LOT more to lose. I'm not saying the report is "crap" a la Mr. Cheney. I'm saying that Dr. Mitchell raises a number of specific, legitimate criticisms. He goes into more detail about who did and didn't find the intel that was collected to be of value, and he strongly contests the assertion that interrogators went in guns blazing as soon as possible. He points out how the report counts "waterboarding instances", which is a gross distortion if true. He gives two compelling themes on how quotations and memorandums were misrepresented by the report. He points to declassified CIA documents written by CIA analysts that had no affiliation with the torture program who clearly made use of the intel. He also succeeds, for better or for worse, at making it sound as though there were two tiers of torture (EIT) administrators: the professionals, and the non-professionals. Finally, although I agree with you that the subjects of the report have more to lose (although not "a LOT" more, as you assert, since as Dr. Mitchell rightly points out, everything the CIA did was legal), the man does score some points on his "it was a report in search of a foregone conclusion" thesis. I'm not saying the report necessarily came to the wrong conclusions, I'm saying that I believe Dr. Mitchell when he claims it isn't a fair report. Unfortunately there really doesn't seem to be such a thing these days with a single political party as a backer. Even a party "on the side of angels" is compelled to lie, distort, and cherry pick to make their argument more salable to the public.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2014 20:15:12 GMT -5
i see more reason to doubt the critics of the report. after all, they have a LOT more to lose. I'm not saying the report is "crap" a la Mr. Cheney. I'm saying that Dr. Mitchell raises a number of specific, legitimate criticisms. He goes into more detail about who did and didn't find the intel that was collected to be of value, and he strongly contests the assertion that interrogators went in guns blazing as soon as possible. He points out how the report counts "waterboarding instances", which is a gross distortion if true. He gives two compelling themes on how quotations and memorandums were misrepresented by the report. He points to declassified CIA documents written by CIA analysts that had no affiliation with the torture program who clearly made use of the intel. He also succeeds, for better or for worse, at making it sound as though there were two tiers of torture (EIT) administrators: the professionals, and the non-professionals. Finally, although I agree with you that the subjects of the report have more to lose (although not "a LOT" more, as you assert, since as Dr. Mitchell rightly points out, everything the CIA did was legal), the man does score some points on his "it was a report in search of a foregone conclusion" thesis. I'm not saying the report necessarily came to the wrong conclusions, I'm saying that I believe Dr. Mitchell when he claims it isn't a fair report. Unfortunately there really doesn't seem to be such a thing these days with a single political party as a backer. Even a party "on the side of angels" is compelled to lie, distort, and cherry pick to make their argument more salable to the public. i long ago concluded that when it comes to torture, "legal" is meaningless. but even if it were true that what was done was authorized was legal, we still have to contend with the 100+ that died during interrogation. i am curious as to how mitchell would respond to that. what possible justification could there be for killing people during interrogation. and then there is the little problem of these techniques developed for "high value" suspects being used on NO VALUE suspects, and whole slew of other problems. like you, i don't really even like battling on this turf. everyone should just agree that torture is wrong under all circumstances. but since we can't seem to agree to that (not you and i, but the societies in which we live), i am forced to argue this pragmatically. fortunately, there is a rather compelling pragmatic argument against torture, as well. so i think it loses every argument. and yes, i would happily debate that with mitchell.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2014 20:18:32 GMT -5
as to the fairness of the report, i agree. i think the report was far too fair to the torture program. unless, of course, you can identify the fact that over 100 people died during interrogation in that summary document.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 2:13:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 20:48:21 GMT -5
The Jews and Russians were already safe, victory had already been declared with Germany. (Thank you New Orleans war museum) The 2 bombs killed at least 129,000 Japanese, most of whom were civilians, and left radiation poisoning for generations to come. This was in retaliation for 2,403 deaths at Pearl Harbour. If dropping the atom bomb is considered rational then so was 9/11. What about the hundreds of thousands of lives SAVED by not having to invade Japan? While most of the casualties would have been Japanese as well (projected to be far more that 129,000) There were also expected to be over 100,000 American casualties.
Also- I am not aware of any evidence that this was in any way retaliation for Pearl Harbor. I am curious, where are you getting that from?
Dem I am not making myself clear. I'm not talking about a specific theory. Pearl Harbour was the States excuse for getting into the war and going to war with Japan, once at war all was fair as they say. In the same way the terrorists are at war with the States because of military actions taken by the States in their homelands. And all of this refers back to your original comment agreeing that the terrorists were monsters that had done the worst thing ever to your country. You can't call people monsters for fighting back when you are at war with them. There is an argument that straight out killing people is not as monstrous as torturing them. In this case it is the Americans that clearly committed torture.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 0:41:58 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 18, 2014 2:55:14 GMT -5
What about the hundreds of thousands of lives SAVED by not having to invade Japan? While most of the casualties would have been Japanese as well (projected to be far more that 129,000) There were also expected to be over 100,000 American casualties.
Also- I am not aware of any evidence that this was in any way retaliation for Pearl Harbor. I am curious, where are you getting that from?
... There is an argument that straight out killing people is not as monstrous as torturing them. ... Good luck making that argument with LWOPP proponents.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 18, 2014 4:33:44 GMT -5
I'm not saying the report is "crap" a la Mr. Cheney. I'm saying that Dr. Mitchell raises a number of specific, legitimate criticisms. He goes into more detail about who did and didn't find the intel that was collected to be of value, and he strongly contests the assertion that interrogators went in guns blazing as soon as possible. He points out how the report counts "waterboarding instances", which is a gross distortion if true. He gives two compelling themes on how quotations and memorandums were misrepresented by the report. He points to declassified CIA documents written by CIA analysts that had no affiliation with the torture program who clearly made use of the intel. He also succeeds, for better or for worse, at making it sound as though there were two tiers of torture (EIT) administrators: the professionals, and the non-professionals. Finally, although I agree with you that the subjects of the report have more to lose (although not "a LOT" more, as you assert, since as Dr. Mitchell rightly points out, everything the CIA did was legal), the man does score some points on his "it was a report in search of a foregone conclusion" thesis. I'm not saying the report necessarily came to the wrong conclusions, I'm saying that I believe Dr. Mitchell when he claims it isn't a fair report. Unfortunately there really doesn't seem to be such a thing these days with a single political party as a backer. Even a party "on the side of angels" is compelled to lie, distort, and cherry pick to make their argument more salable to the public. i long ago concluded that when it comes to torture, "legal" is meaningless. but even if it were true that what was done was authorized was legal, we still have to contend with the 100+ that died during interrogation. i am curious as to how mitchell would respond to that. what possible justification could there be for killing people during interrogation. and then there is the little problem of these techniques developed for "high value" suspects being used on NO VALUE suspects, and whole slew of other problems. like you, i don't really even like battling on this turf. everyone should just agree that torture is wrong under all circumstances. but since we can't seem to agree to that (not you and i, but the societies in which we live), i am forced to argue this pragmatically. fortunately, there is a rather compelling pragmatic argument against torture, as well. so i think it loses every argument. and yes, i would happily debate that with mitchell. The debate wouldn't go as smoothly as you think it would. To win, all Dr. Mitchell would need is one compelling instance where non-torturous interrogation techniques administered by competent professionals clearly failed to procure any usable intel, but where torture brought home the bacon. Just one. You could try claiming the suspect would ultimately have cracked under standard interrogation, but you'd lose the argument. Dr. Mitchell was there, in the thick of things. You or a hundred interrogation experts who weren't there could lob "He'd eventually have cracked." hypotheticals to your hearts' content, you'd come out looking like clueless ideologues. Mitchell would surely win the debate on those grounds. Suppose you instead conceded the point by admitting, "OK, so we wouldn't have saved those particular American lives, but statistically speaking we would have saved these lives... yada yada... with near-certainty we would have saved these lives... yada yada... and thus for the sake of the greater good..." Although these are the "correct", logical grounds on which to debate torture pragmatically, you wrongly presume the public is always swayed by logical arguments. While it may be true that "in general" non-torturous techniques are more effective, and that the US's torture campaign featured in recruitment propaganda for al Qaeda, these are little more than vagaries and hypotheticals to the average observer. They aren't the concrete "here are the lives I saved" kind of argument that Dr. Mitchell could make. In reality, you'd find yourself cast as the ivory tower expert, bartering this group of lives for that, sacrificing one specific group of people to save a greater-but-indeterminate number of lives elsewhere with some imperfect probability. Dr. Mitchell could sit back and watch you self destruct with your statistical/hypothetical argument. Every once in a while he'd simply need to lean forward and say "Yeah, but I saved Mary Johnson at 123 Main Street, where the dirty bomb would have gone off. Can you name one specific person you'd save?" And since you couldn't, your logical arguments might as well be armpit farts for all the public will care. Any way you slice it, there's no way a debate between you and Dr. Mitchell would turn out well for your side of the argument. At best, you'd hold your ground by convincing everybody already on your side not to defect. At worst you'd make America significantly more appreciative of Dr. Mitchell's efforts. That's not an indictment of your debate abilities or of the quality of your argument, it's simply the way the public perceives these things. as to the fairness of the report, i agree. i think the report was far too fair to the torture program. unless, of course, you can identify the fact that over 100 people died during interrogation in that summary document. Dr. Mitchell tacitly argues that torture was divided into two tiers: torture administered by professionals, and torture administered by non-professionals. He goes out of his way during the interview to point out lavish protections instituted during the "professional" sessions: numerous doctors and psychologists on staff, by-the-book operations, ER team at the ready, dozens of men in the room, full and explicit approval of all techniques used. He doesn't mention the hundred deaths, but he does claim that he and several other doctors reported "every violation" they witnessed (Dr. Mitchell is in fact anonymously cited by the report as the man who "raised serious objections" here and there), and he somewhat successfully manages to divorce the "non-professional" torture (and resultant deaths) from the "professional" variety. I know your argument is that authorization of torture generally constitutes an "atrocity-generating situation", and I won't dispute that it may be so. However, from a pragmatic viewpoint there certainly isn't a slam-dunk case that torture always entails some "non-professional" torture, since the obvious counterargument by Mitchell, Cheney et al. is that the situation can be remedied through better training (and more of it) for professional torturers. In a sense, the Bush administration tried to make this argument years ago in their "few bad apples" campaign. It fell apart when it became obvious the problem was significantly greater than "a few" bad apples. In contrast, Dr. Mitchell's argument is limited to the existence of "good" (professional) torture, and "bad" (unprofessional) torture, and that the CIA simply needs more training, expertise, internal oversight, etc. to guarantee that the good torture proceeds while the bad torture doesn't. That's an extraordinarily difficult argument to combat. I'll leave my analysis at that since it seems I've penned a short novella at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 2:13:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 8:32:31 GMT -5
Dem I am not making myself clear. I'm not talking about a specific theory. Pearl Harbour was the States excuse for getting into the war and going to war with Japan, once at war all was fair as they say. In the same way the terrorists are at war with the States because of military actions taken by the States in their homelands. And all of this refers back to your original comment agreeing that the terrorists were monsters that had done the worst thing ever to your country. You can't call people monsters for fighting back when you are at war with them. There is an argument that straight out killing people is not as monstrous as torturing them. In this case it is the Americans that clearly committed torture. OK, thanks for clarifying. I also don't buy into the theory that FDR "allowed" Pearl Harbor to be bombed (which I don't think you are specifically alleging), but it did indeed get us into the war. Germany helped, by declaring war on the United States before FDR spun around after the DoW on Japan.
So, let's say the vast and amorphous Middle East Terror Tentacles did consider themselves at war with the US, and that 9-11 was a well landed attack by them in that war. At that point is the US not justified in fighting a war as well? Why are they being bad mouthed for their little drone pin pricks and special forces attacks on them? I think they are being a bit tepid in their response. Note that I am NOT advocating the use of torture, which I believe is bad policy and counter-productive. I understand it, but I don't advocate it.
BTW- I don't think that 9-11 was the "worst thing ever" to befall the United States. Not a good day, to be sure, but there have been far worse.
I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about the torture.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 2:13:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 8:59:51 GMT -5
So the States attacks them in their homeland, they fight back on American soil and now anything the States does is justified? So anyone the States attacks is supposed to roll over and take it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 2:13:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 9:34:51 GMT -5
So the States attacks them in their homeland, they fight back on American soil and now anything the States does is justified? So anyone the States attacks is supposed to roll over and take it? Any strategist who expected that would be a failed strategist indeed. However, expecting further attacks and general acts of war the responsible thing to do is to prosecute said war to the fullest extent possible, is it not? The same argument goes for the enemy then.
(Note: I am not advocating torture. For one thing, it is counter productive, especially for a free society)
But you aren't condemning it either, or any of the decisions that led up to it's use. Despite these denials about excusing the torture you are very much reading as an apologist for it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 2:13:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 10:33:26 GMT -5
I understand what you are claiming. But I don't see what is difficult to understand. Cheney has been clear he and his cohorts decided that being at war justified the torture. Many have made the same decision. There isn't really any question of why it happened. The question is do we consider it acceptable for our governments to behave this way on our behalf. Because living in democracies we each personally own a piece of the responsibility for all the actions of our governments. I don't want to have any involvement in any way with torturing people.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 12:31:55 GMT -5
i long ago concluded that when it comes to torture, "legal" is meaningless. but even if it were true that what was done was authorized was legal, we still have to contend with the 100+ that died during interrogation. i am curious as to how mitchell would respond to that. what possible justification could there be for killing people during interrogation. and then there is the little problem of these techniques developed for "high value" suspects being used on NO VALUE suspects, and whole slew of other problems. like you, i don't really even like battling on this turf. everyone should just agree that torture is wrong under all circumstances. but since we can't seem to agree to that (not you and i, but the societies in which we live), i am forced to argue this pragmatically. fortunately, there is a rather compelling pragmatic argument against torture, as well. so i think it loses every argument. and yes, i would happily debate that with mitchell. The debate wouldn't go as smoothly as you think it would. To win, all Dr. Mitchell would need is one compelling instance where non-torturous interrogation techniques administered by competent professionals clearly failed to procure any usable intel, but where torture brought home the bacon. Just one. You could try claiming the suspect would ultimately have cracked under standard interrogation, but you'd lose the argument. Dr. Mitchell was there, in the thick of things. You or a hundred interrogation experts who weren't there could lob "He'd eventually have cracked." hypotheticals to your hearts' content, you'd come out looking like clueless ideologues. Mitchell would surely win the debate on those grounds. Suppose you instead conceded the point by admitting, "OK, so we wouldn't have saved those particular American lives, but statistically speaking we would have saved these lives... yada yada... with near-certainty we would have saved these lives... yada yada... and thus for the sake of the greater good..." Although these are the "correct", logical grounds on which to debate torture pragmatically, you wrongly presume the public is always swayed by logical arguments. While it may be true that "in general" non-torturous techniques are more effective, and that the US's torture campaign featured in recruitment propaganda for al Qaeda, these are little more than vagaries and hypotheticals to the average observer. They aren't the concrete "here are the lives I saved" kind of argument that Dr. Mitchell could make. In reality, you'd find yourself cast as the ivory tower expert, bartering this group of lives for that, sacrificing one specific group of people to save a greater-but-indeterminate number of lives elsewhere with some imperfect probability. Dr. Mitchell could sit back and watch you self destruct with your statistical/hypothetical argument. Every once in a while he'd simply need to lean forward and say "Yeah, but I saved Mary Johnson at 123 Main Street, where the dirty bomb would have gone off. Can you name one specific person you'd save?" And since you couldn't, your logical arguments might as well be armpit farts for all the public will care. Any way you slice it, there's no way a debate between you and Dr. Mitchell would turn out well for your side of the argument. At best, you'd hold your ground by convincing everybody already on your side not to defect. At worst you'd make America significantly more appreciative of Dr. Mitchell's efforts. That's not an indictment of your debate abilities or of the quality of your argument, it's simply the way the public perceives these things. as to the fairness of the report, i agree. i think the report was far too fair to the torture program. unless, of course, you can identify the fact that over 100 people died during interrogation in that summary document. Dr. Mitchell tacitly argues that torture was divided into two tiers: torture administered by professionals, and torture administered by non-professionals. He goes out of his way during the interview to point out lavish protections instituted during the "professional" sessions: numerous doctors and psychologists on staff, by-the-book operations, ER team at the ready, dozens of men in the room, full and explicit approval of all techniques used. He doesn't mention the hundred deaths, but he does claim that he and several other doctors reported "every violation" they witnessed (Dr. Mitchell is in fact anonymously cited by the report as the man who "raised serious objections" here and there), and he somewhat successfully manages to divorce the "non-professional" torture (and resultant deaths) from the "professional" variety. I know your argument is that authorization of torture generally constitutes an "atrocity-generating situation", and I won't dispute that it may be so. However, from a pragmatic viewpoint there certainly isn't a slam-dunk case that torture always entails some "non-professional" torture, since the obvious counterargument by Mitchell, Cheney et al. is that the situation can be remedied through better training (and more of it) for professional torturers. In a sense, the Bush administration tried to make this argument years ago in their "few bad apples" campaign. It fell apart when it became obvious the problem was significantly greater than "a few" bad apples. In contrast, Dr. Mitchell's argument is limited to the existence of "good" (professional) torture, and "bad" (unprofessional) torture, and that the CIA simply needs more training, expertise, internal oversight, etc. to guarantee that the good torture proceeds while the bad torture doesn't. That's an extraordinarily difficult argument to combat. I'll leave my analysis at that since it seems I've penned a short novella at this point. Virgil: i am not going to address this post unless i can do so point by point. but i will say this ONE THING: your argument about Mitchell is flawed at several levels. Mitchell not only has to prove that the intel is actionable, but that it could not be got any other way. that is actually not a provable thing, so there is no way for him to win that argument. now, i will fully admit that there are those that will THINK he has won that argument. but that is only because that don't really understand the argument, or are making a separate argument. furthermore, i think it is important to consider what the goals of interrogation are. it is not simply to get information. for example, getting a suspect's Saag Paneer recipe is not going to meet the "24" standard for "exigent circumstances" which justify torture from a moral perspective. in order to meet that rather high hurdle, Mitchell must show not only that he got intelligence, but it is of the type and scope that actually saved lives. that is for a SPECIFIC case of torture. when torture is applied more generally, the bar is EVEN HIGHER. you must show that the GENERAL CASE of torture does more good than harm. and i know of NO proof that the SYSTEM of torture meets this standard. in order to do so, you would have to weigh whatever loss of life, moral standing, and money has gone into the program against what life, moral standing, and money was SAVED by the program. so, we have 100+ lives lost due to torture, we have the indefinite detainment of individuals who were held on insufficient grounds (some whom are STILL BEING HELD) against international law, and our own constitution, and we have the billions spent administering this program, against- WHAT? what has Mitchell given us? nothing, basically. nothing of any consequence. no, Virgil, i think Mitchell loses. he will not get away with the narrow argument for torture that you describe. not with anyone versed on the subject to any degree.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 12:36:08 GMT -5
I understand what you are claiming. But I don't see what is difficult to understand. Cheney has been clear he and his cohorts decided that being at war justified the torture. Many have made the same decision. There isn't really any question of why it happened. The question is do we consider it acceptable for our governments to behave this way on our behalf. Because living in democracies we each personally own a piece of the responsibility for all the actions of our governments. I don't want to have any involvement in any way with torturing people. that is not actually what Cheney said. what he said is far worse, in his interview on FOX. what he essentially said is "what they did on 911 was torture. what we did was not". that is a statement of revenge and retribution- which is, imo, about half of what this program was about. it was basically counterterrorism. and this is what i would expect from a kneejerk reactionary like Cheney. however, what i did NOT expect is that he had been carrying around this idea since 1978. that surprised me. he is a really bitter, small, and mean bastard. edit: Cheney's argument fails at many levels, btw. we can start with "they". the 911 bombers were mostly Saudi militants. of the 1000 or so people that were subjected to our program of indefinite detention and torture, basically none were Saudi, and few were militants. so, who is this "they"? it is so poorly defined that what Cheney and co did was set up an atrocity generating situation. this is very well articulated in "Taxi to the Darkside" which basically got everything right, as did the torture report. Cheney has a reputation for blowing a lot of fluff at the media, and he is doing so now. he should not have been trusted or believed in the first place, and he should REALLY not be believed now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 2:13:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 12:42:20 GMT -5
I've never liked Cheney, but that interview convinced me he is an evil man.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 12:45:03 GMT -5
Virgil- one last thing. there were no "experts" in the torture program. the program was terminated in 1978. nobody who was PART OF THAT PROGRAM was still in the CIA in 2002. the so-called experts, like Mitchell, were experts in SURVIVING torture, not administering it.
i think Mitchell is a complete and utter fraud trying to avoid being sent to the gallows. not that he doesn't believe his own rubbish. he certainly appears to. no better than your average sociopath in that respect, an no more moral than one, either.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 12:45:49 GMT -5
I've never liked Cheney, but that interview convinced me he is an evil man. he is the most evil American that i have ever encountered that is not behind bars. i would love to see that fixed.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 18, 2014 16:44:37 GMT -5
Virgil: i am not going to address this post unless i can do so point by point. but i will say this ONE THING: your argument about Mitchell is flawed at several levels. Mitchell not only has to prove that the intel is actionable, but that it could not be got any other way. that is actually not a provable thing, so there is no way for him to win that argument. now, i will fully admit that there are those that will THINK he has won that argument. but that is only because that don't really understand the argument, or are making a separate argument. furthermore, i think it is important to consider what the goals of interrogation are. it is not simply to get information. for example, getting a suspect's Saag Paneer recipe is not going to meet the "24" standard for "exigent circumstances" which justify torture from a moral perspective. in order to meet that rather high hurdle, Mitchell must show not only that he got intelligence, but it is of the type and scope that actually saved lives. that is for a SPECIFIC case of torture. when torture is applied more generally, the bar is EVEN HIGHER. you must show that the GENERAL CASE of torture does more good than harm. and i know of NO proof that the SYSTEM of torture meets this standard. in order to do so, you would have to weigh whatever loss of life, moral standing, and money has gone into the program against what life, moral standing, and money was SAVED by the program. so, we have 100+ lives lost due to torture, we have the indefinite detainment of individuals who were held on insufficient grounds (some whom are STILL BEING HELD) against international law, and our own constitution, and we have the billions spent administering this program, against- WHAT? what has Mitchell given us? nothing, basically. nothing of any consequence. no, Virgil, i think Mitchell loses. he will not get away with the narrow argument for torture that you describe. not with anyone versed on the subject to any degree. I agree with you that Dr. Mitchell's "here is what I got" would have to at least aspire to the "24" standard, but I don't share your belief that the public at large would require indisputable rock-solid proof of a ticking time bomb. I also suspect that Mitchell could in fact procure such a tidbit to the public's satisfaction. As for there being no possible way for Dr. Mitchell to prove the intel couldn't have been extracted by other means, you're mistakenly assuming the public would place the burden of proof on Mitchell. The reality would be exactly the opposite. Since Mitchell was the one in the fray and the one who produced the goods, the burden would be on those challenging his methods to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they could extract the same intel. I don't care how logical placing the burden of proof on the challengers may or may not be. We're talking about who wins a public debate, not about who makes the most logical argument. As for the "general" case, you're again arguing as though logic had something to do with this. Try that in a public debate and see how far it gets you. Try countering "I saved Mary Beth at 123 Main Street" with "we need to weigh hypothetical loss of life, moral standing, money, etc." and see how well that turns out for you. Dr. Mitchell would hand you your fanny. Even if you could make a valid statistical argument that scrapping the torture program would have saved ten billion dollars and "almost certainly" saved a thousand lives with all things factored in, the "I saved Mary Beth" card would still trump your hand. If the public had the slightest respect for a few billion dollars or a thousand lives "hypothetically" over one single, specific individual with a name, do you think Bowe Bergdahl would have had the slightest bit of support from any quarter? Pres. Obama had to break the law to make that deal work, and at least 50% of Americans still believe it was the right thing to do. Any of the impassioned "But it was the right thing to do." pro-Bergdahl arguments I guarantee you can be repurposed into pro-Mary Beth arguments, and Mary Beth is a far more sympathetic character than Bergdahl. Virgil- one last thing. there were no "experts" in the torture program. the program was terminated in 1978. nobody who was PART OF THAT PROGRAM was still in the CIA in 2002. the so-called experts, like Mitchell, were experts in SURVIVING torture, not administering it. i think Mitchell is a complete and utter fraud trying to avoid being sent to the gallows. not that he doesn't believe his own rubbish. he certainly appears to. no better than your average sociopath in that respect, an no more moral than one, either. You're splitting hairs with Dr. Mitchell's expertise. He's a trained psychologist. He knew what the regulations did and didn't permit, and he respected those limits. He knew how the enemy would resist interrogation techniques. He knew the subject's background and history. He was able to conduct his work competently and with professional detachment. Per his statements in the interview, he saw torture only as an option of last resort. As far as I'm concerned, these are the only qualifications anyone needs to be an "expert" in torture. I've never liked Cheney, but that interview convinced me he is an evil man. he is the most evil American that i have ever encountered that is not behind bars. i would love to see that fixed. W... B- But... Aren't you forgetting Paul? (with apologies to Paul )
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 18, 2014 19:17:02 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 19:34:04 GMT -5
Virgil- one last thing. there were no "experts" in the torture program. the program was terminated in 1978. nobody who was PART OF THAT PROGRAM was still in the CIA in 2002. the so-called experts, like Mitchell, were experts in SURVIVING torture, not administering it. i think Mitchell is a complete and utter fraud trying to avoid being sent to the gallows. not that he doesn't believe his own rubbish. he certainly appears to. no better than your average sociopath in that respect, an no more moral than one, either. You're splitting hairs with Dr. Mitchell's expertise. He's a trained psychologist. He knew what the regulations did and didn't permit, and he respected those limits. He knew how the enemy would resist interrogation techniques. He knew the subject's background and history. He was able to conduct his work competently and with professional detachment. Per his statements in the interview, he saw torture only as an option of last resort. As far as I'm concerned, these are the only qualifications anyone needs to be an "expert" in torture. he is the most evil American that i have ever encountered that is not behind bars. i would love to see that fixed. W... B- But... Aren't you forgetting Paul? (with apologies to Paul ) not nice. i actually LIKE Paul, and i find him moral, albeit misguided. no, i only find those that are DIRECTLY responsible for the hurt, pain and death of others (or for creating the circumstances where that is a KNOWN outcome) to be worthy of my hatred, and worthy of being called evil. nobody on this board even comes close to that standard. they are just 1's and 0's. and i am not splitting hairs. Mitchell had no torture training, and nobody in the CIA or DOD did either. they had to learn it as they went. and that is why over 10% of their captors ended up dying. not much you can get out of a dead guy, is there? there is one thing torture is good for: getting false testimony. other than that, the standard methods work better, if you have the time. the report shows we had the time. there were no imminent plots, and therefore, no exigent circumstances. our torture was wrong. we should just admit to it, never do it again, and get on with life.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 19:36:17 GMT -5
Virgil:
that post was too long to comment on coherently. i split it in two. i apologize in advance for that, but you are making it very difficult. could you PLEASE reply to my individual posts, rather than grouping them in one huge post?
TYIA
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 19:42:16 GMT -5
Virgil: i am not going to address this post unless i can do so point by point. but i will say this ONE THING: your argument about Mitchell is flawed at several levels. Mitchell not only has to prove that the intel is actionable, but that it could not be got any other way. that is actually not a provable thing, so there is no way for him to win that argument. now, i will fully admit that there are those that will THINK he has won that argument. but that is only because that don't really understand the argument, or are making a separate argument. furthermore, i think it is important to consider what the goals of interrogation are. it is not simply to get information. for example, getting a suspect's Saag Paneer recipe is not going to meet the "24" standard for "exigent circumstances" which justify torture from a moral perspective. in order to meet that rather high hurdle, Mitchell must show not only that he got intelligence, but it is of the type and scope that actually saved lives. that is for a SPECIFIC case of torture. when torture is applied more generally, the bar is EVEN HIGHER. you must show that the GENERAL CASE of torture does more good than harm. and i know of NO proof that the SYSTEM of torture meets this standard. in order to do so, you would have to weigh whatever loss of life, moral standing, and money has gone into the program against what life, moral standing, and money was SAVED by the program. so, we have 100+ lives lost due to torture, we have the indefinite detainment of individuals who were held on insufficient grounds (some whom are STILL BEING HELD) against international law, and our own constitution, and we have the billions spent administering this program, against- WHAT? what has Mitchell given us? nothing, basically. nothing of any consequence. no, Virgil, i think Mitchell loses. he will not get away with the narrow argument for torture that you describe. not with anyone versed on the subject to any degree. I agree with you that Dr. Mitchell's "here is what I got" would have to at least aspire to the "24" standard, but I don't share your belief that the public at large would require indisputable rock-solid proof of a ticking time bomb. I also suspect that Mitchell could in fact procure such a tidbit to the public's satisfaction. As for there being no possible way for Dr. Mitchell to prove the intel couldn't have been extracted by other means, you're mistakenly assuming the public would place the burden of proof on Mitchell. The reality would be exactly the opposite. Since Mitchell was the one in the fray and the one who produced the goods, the burden would be on those challenging his methods to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they could extract the same intel. I don't care how logical placing the burden of proof on the challengers may or may not be. We're talking about who wins a public debate, not about who makes the most logical argument. As for the "general" case, you're again arguing as though logic had something to do with this. Try that in a public debate and see how far it gets you. Try countering "I saved Mary Beth at 123 Main Street" with "we need to weigh hypothetical loss of life, moral standing, money, etc." and see how well that turns out for you. Dr. Mitchell would hand you your fanny. Even if you could make a valid statistical argument that scrapping the torture program would have saved ten billion dollars and "almost certainly" saved a thousand lives with all things factored in, the "I saved Mary Beth" card would still trump your hand. If the public had the slightest respect for a few billion dollars or a thousand lives "hypothetically" over one single, specific individual with a name, do you think Bowe Bergdahl would have had the slightest bit of support from any quarter? Pres. Obama had to break the law to make that deal work, and at least 50% of Americans still believe it was the right thing to do. Any of the impassioned "But it was the right thing to do." pro-Bergdahl arguments I guarantee you can be repurposed into pro-Mary Beth arguments, and Mary Beth is a far more sympathetic character than Bergdahl. not sure what Bergdahl has to do with any of this, so i am skipping that last paragraph. 1) i don't care what he could prove to the public. we were talking about him debating with ME. the moral case for torture is built upon exigent circumstances. those circumstances require IMMINENT THREAT- not possible threat, not way off in the future threat, IMMINENT. the reason is that the entire case for torture is built on the idea that there is no time to use standard (and more effective) techniques. idiots like Mitchell ignore the history of interrogation in their argument. but i don't. 2) ibid. the public is not part of this argument. they have already shown both of us that they don't care about the details OR the facts. 3) ibid. not interested in the PUBLIC debate. i am assuming i would lose that. fear sells better than logic. that is how we got INTO this mess in the first place. you said i would not fare well with Mitchell. i disagree. i could argue that little bitch into a corner. whether the public thought i won is of no concern to me whatsoever. couldn't care less, honestly. so long as a get a copy of the DVD, i am ready to roll.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 18, 2014 19:53:44 GMT -5
OK, sure. If the debate takes place in a closet somewhere and doesn't have to resonate with your countrymen, you'd win it handily. That's not what I figured you meant by "debate".
I mention Mr. Bergdahl because he's a contemporary example of why saving one specific individual directly is worth more to the public than saving hundreds of lives and millions of dollars indirectly. Dr. Mitchell has the "direct" argument in this case, hence he'd win a public debate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2014 0:29:01 GMT -5
OK, sure. If the debate takes place in a closet somewhere and doesn't have to resonate with your countrymen, you'd win it handily. That's not what I figured you meant by "debate". I mention Mr. Bergdahl because he's a contemporary example of why saving one specific individual directly is worth more to the public than saving hundreds of lives and millions of dollars indirectly. Dr. Mitchell has the "direct" argument in this case, hence he'd win a public debate. i don't think Bergdahl is worth much, which is why i dismissed the argument. i have kinda given up on the public. they believe the "24" mythology. it is not real, but they believe it. it is hard to fight belief. but beliefs can be slowly eroded by the truth over time. a good example is the Saddam/911 connection. most people believed it in 2003. they don't believe it now. another example is the viable weapons program in Iraq idea. that was widely believed in 2003, as well. it is not believed now. most people thought that gays should not be allowed to marry in 2003. they believe that they should now. i am pretty confident that people will think torture is wrong in all instances- but it might take a decade or more. then again, i thought that people would think the DP was wrong, and have it outlawed by now, and it is still here, so clearly some things take more time than others.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 19, 2014 6:26:17 GMT -5
You seem to be under the bizarre assumption that all--or even most--shifts in societal attitudes are for the better. I believe the DSM officially classifies that as Progressivist Misapprehension Syndrome (PMS).
As for your countrymen thinking torture is wrong in all instances sometime soon, don't hold your breath.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2014 11:57:54 GMT -5
You seem to be under the bizarre assumption that all--or even most--shifts in societal attitudes are for the better. I believe the DSM officially classifies that as Progressivist Misapprehension Syndrome (PMS). As for your countrymen thinking torture is wrong in all instances sometime soon, don't hold your breath. i have the ironclad, unshakable belief that the truth will prevail, Virgil. and i think the DSMV dropped that one. can't find it in my copy. time for an update. for the record, i don't consider myself progressive. i am a libertarian. i don't think people should be tortured not only because it is ineffective, but because it is wrong. you know that. we have had this discussion many many times. and i know you feel precisely the same way. so, we are really arguing about window treatments at this point. what society thinks matters very little to me. i mean, sure- it BUGS me. but i would rather be right, and let others be wrong, than waste my time and emotional energy trying to convince them. like i say- the truth is a steady force. i am confident that it will win out. if you aren't, that is fine, i guess. but i can't imagine how that makes your life any better.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 19, 2014 12:51:28 GMT -5
You seem to be under the bizarre assumption that all--or even most--shifts in societal attitudes are for the better. I believe the DSM officially classifies that as Progressivist Misapprehension Syndrome (PMS). As for your countrymen thinking torture is wrong in all instances sometime soon, don't hold your breath. i have the ironclad, unshakable belief that the truth will prevail, Virgil. and i think the DSMV dropped that one. can't find it in my copy. time for an update. for the record, i don't consider myself progressive. i am a libertarian. i don't think people should be tortured not only because it is ineffective, but because it is wrong. you know that. we have had this discussion many many times. and i know you feel precisely the same way. so, we are really arguing about window treatments at this point. what society thinks matters very little to me. i mean, sure- it BUGS me. but i would rather be right, and let others be wrong, than waste my time and emotional energy trying to convince them. like i say- the truth is a steady force. i am confident that it will win out. if you aren't, that is fine, i guess. but i can't imagine how that makes your life any better. It doesn't necessarily make my life better, but it does tend to help it comport with reality.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2014 12:57:16 GMT -5
i have the ironclad, unshakable belief that the truth will prevail, Virgil. and i think the DSMV dropped that one. can't find it in my copy. time for an update. for the record, i don't consider myself progressive. i am a libertarian. i don't think people should be tortured not only because it is ineffective, but because it is wrong. you know that. we have had this discussion many many times. and i know you feel precisely the same way. so, we are really arguing about window treatments at this point. what society thinks matters very little to me. i mean, sure- it BUGS me. but i would rather be right, and let others be wrong, than waste my time and emotional energy trying to convince them. like i say- the truth is a steady force. i am confident that it will win out. if you aren't, that is fine, i guess. but i can't imagine how that makes your life any better. It doesn't necessarily make my life better, but it does tend to help it comport with reality. here is the thing, Virgil. 10 years ago, i would never have guessed that 33 states would have given gays the right to marry. NEVER. i would have not guessed that THREE would have done it. so, that turned out to be quite cynical. when confronted with the TRUTH: that people are denied equal rights under law: the American public capitulated to a higher ideal than their superficial "ick" of gays. and yes, i really think that. ditto for torture. if it can be shown as unproductive, it will fall. the only thing that is keeping it viable is the idea that it "works".
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 19, 2014 18:57:58 GMT -5
It doesn't necessarily make my life better, but it does tend to help it comport with reality. here is the thing, Virgil. 10 years ago, i would never have guessed that 33 states would have given gays the right to marry. NEVER. i would have not guessed that THREE would have done it. so, that turned out to be quite cynical. when confronted with the TRUTH: that people are denied equal rights under law: the American public capitulated to a higher ideal than their superficial "ick" of gays. and yes, i really think that. ditto for torture. if it can be shown as unproductive, it will fall. the only thing that is keeping it viable is the idea that it "works". Wow! That's how you remember that happening? gaymarriage.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000030
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 19, 2014 19:03:02 GMT -5
It doesn't necessarily make my life better, but it does tend to help it comport with reality. here is the thing, Virgil. 10 years ago, i would never have guessed that 33 states would have given gays the right to marry. NEVER. i would have not guessed that THREE would have done it. so, that turned out to be quite cynical. when confronted with the TRUTH: that people are denied equal rights under law: the American public capitulated to a higher ideal than their superficial "ick" of gays. and yes, i really think that. ditto for torture. if it can be shown as unproductive, it will fall. the only thing that is keeping it viable is the idea that it "works". Suffice it to say that I consider both the gay "marriage" issue and the ready embrace of torture to be symptoms of moral decay. Furthermore, your arguments attempting to tie those to "truth" have no rational basis to them. Different topic. Different thread. When the next 9/11 happens or a dirty bomb goes off in NYC, killing 50,000 people, we shall see how Americans' ideals play out.
|
|