Donald Trump: I'd bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The articles I provided, from CIA officials who were there when it happened, said it did work. This guy was not involved in those who were investigated.

In May 2011 the CIA chief said waterboarding led to OBL. It is in all of the media outlets. He was the lead at the time.

3 years later a senate committee comes back says no it did not. Who are we to believe? The ones who were there or the ones paid to create a report?

So they were fine with it until this committee it seems....whose career did it tank?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The articles I provided, from CIA officials who were there when it happened, said it did work. This guy was not involved in those who were investigated.

The same CIA that was determined to have been lying and falsely representing the effectiveness of torture to the public? That CIA?

In May 2011 the CIA chief said waterboarding led to OBL. It is in all of the media outlets. He was the lead at the time.

He was lying.

3 years later a senate committee comes back says no it did not. Who are we to believe? The ones who were there or the ones paid to create a report?

So they were fine with it until this committee it seems....whose career did it tank?

Considering the proven scientific accuracy of torture being an ineffective means of gathering intelligence, I'd say that the report is the one to be believed and not one guy from the CIA with a vested interested in allowing the CIA to continue to perform torture.

What you are doing here is like going to the head of the DEA and asking him if he thinks that marijuana is bad for you and should be kept illegal.

originally posted by: GuacBowlMerchant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

When the terrorist strikes there will be no moderators to save you.

It's cool. Considering that the odds of dying in a terrorist attack in the US (especially Muslim terrorist attacks) are slim to none, I won't stay up at night worrying about this.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: UKTruth

You're basically saying your ignore facts and instead embrace assumptions. That's what's called ignorance.

No I am saying dont jump to conclusions on some of the facts. Once again I will repeat myself.
There is no evidence that torture never works.

The question should be WHY was torture pushed by the Bush presidency. When it's known to illicit false confessions, known to provide unreliable intel, and even Gitmo was pushing against it saying it's ineffective and not illegal. Why was it pushed regardless?

You only push for torture when you need confessions, not truth. Confessions justify action when truth does not.

But again... Republicans don't care about truth. They are the party of ignorance. And they don't care about being ignorant.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The articles I provided, from CIA officials who were there when it happened, said it did work. This guy was not involved in those who were investigated.

The same CIA that was determined to have been lying and falsely representing the effectiveness of torture to the public? That CIA?

In May 2011 the CIA chief said waterboarding led to OBL. It is in all of the media outlets. He was the lead at the time.

He was lying.

3 years later a senate committee comes back says no it did not. Who are we to believe? The ones who were there or the ones paid to create a report?

So they were fine with it until this committee it seems....whose career did it tank?

Considering the proven scientific accuracy of torture being an ineffective means of gathering intelligence, I'd say that the report is the one to be believed and not one guy from the CIA with a vested interested in allowing the CIA to continue to perform torture.

What you are doing here is like going to the head of the DEA and asking him if he thinks that marijuana is bad for you and should be kept illegal.

How amusing. Anyone who shows an article referencing a claim that torture worked is wrong and the article written off. However the ones that say it doesn't work are 'proof'.
How often we see the same tactics from the extreme left.
It no longer works.
You can't provide any proof that torture never works because there is none. There is only opinion.
Your 'scientific' facts are bunk. You only need to read through some of the links posted to see the complete lack of scientific method.

a reply to: UKTruth

Er, one is written by someone with a vested interest in saying the techniques work, and the other is a scientific inquiry/analysis. They aren't equal articles. It's like comparing what the WSJ says to something written by Harvard.

You asked for proof, you were given proof. Now you're rejecting it and saying spiel about the "extreme left."
I fail to see how being against torture makes you "extreme left."
Is torture some right wing sacred cow?

a reply to: UKTruth

Question for you. If the head of the DEA told you that marijuana should remain illegal and classified as a schedule 1 drug, would you believe him?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: UKTruth

Er, one is written by someone with a vested interest in saying the techniques work, and the other is a scientific inquiry/analysis. They aren't equal articles. It's like comparing what the WSJ says to something written by Harvard.

You asked for proof, you were given proof. Now you're rejecting it and saying spiel about the "extreme left."
I fail to see how being against torture makes you "extreme left."
Is torture some right wing sacred cow?

As I said I reject your proof because in my opinion it is not proof against what I am arguing. I read the 'scientific' paper and it is not scientific at all. It fails on the most basic of criteria. Besides, it is not claiming that torture never works. Have you read it?

Do you know the people who wrote all those articles/research linked? How do you know they have no vested interest? In any case, vested interest is not proof someone is lying or teling the truth. You are jumping to conclusions - it's called selective exposure. If you position your argument by weighing up all sides of the argument and explaining why you come down on one side of it, then fine.
Then you have an educated opinion (not proof though). To be fair you may have done this outside this article, but I always reject claims of absolute proof on something so complex and not fully understood based on google searches. As I said it just screams selective exposure.

My 'extreme left' comment relates to the practice of dismissing anything and everything as wrong if it does not fit the required narrative, yet claiming undeniable proof based on selected linked google articles - something I've noted many times (and it is primarily extremists on the left who do this). It had nothing to do with torture as was very clear in my post (jumping to condemn and creating another non existent argument, by the way, is another common trait of the extreme left).

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Question for you. If the head of the DEA told you that marijuana should remain illegal and classified as a schedule 1 drug, would you believe him?

No. But, not for the reasons I think you are eluding to. You should probably just make your point.

a reply to: UKTruth

I've already made my points. You just don't want to listen to me or accept my evidence.

Though I'm curious where YOUR evidence is that torture is effective?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I've already made my points. You just don't want to listen to me or accept my evidence.

Though I'm curious where YOUR evidence is that torture is effective?

I have not said that torture is effective. Another poster linked some articles, but you don't want to listen.

I do accept your evidence and have spent the time over the last hour or so reading through some of it. I just don't accept a conclusion that torture never works. There simply is not enough evidence to claim that. Many of the papers linked, even if you ignore the flaws in the science, actually say that torture can work in certain circumstances. They are also all littered with disclaimers about what can and can't be concluded.

My position is simple. There is no proof that torture never works. On that basis, I am supportive of it continuing as long as the subject of the torture is proven to be a terrorist who has committed murder.

I think the only point I would at least draw back on is whether inaccurate information leads to the deaths of innocents at a greater rate than accurate information saves. Unfortunately that is also not known at this time.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I've already made my points. You just don't want to listen to me or accept my evidence.

Though I'm curious where YOUR evidence is that torture is effective?

I have not said that torture is effective. Another poster linked some articles, but of course you just don't want to listen.

No, another poster posted a link to the director of the CIA's opinion on if it was effective or not. That's the only evidence I've received in support of torture.

I do accept your evidence and have spent the time over the last hour or so reading through some of it. I just don't accept a conclusion that torture never works. There simply is not enough evidence to claim that. Many of the papers linked, even if you ignore the flaws in the science, actually say that torture can work in certain circumstances. They are also all littered with disclaimers about what can and can't be concluded.

Perhaps that is a tad hyperbolic. Torture DOES work if the person you are torturing really is guilty and the person happens to know something you are seeking information on. The problem is that there is no way to determine guilt with torture.

My position is simple. There is no proof that torture never works. On that basis, I am supportive of it continuing as long as the subject of the torture is proven to be a terrorist who has committed murder.

So we have to try him in a court of law THEN torture him? After all, innocent until proven guilty right? Of course then we violate the "no cruel and unusual punishments" clause in the 8th Amendment.

I think the only point I would at least draw back on is whether inaccurate information leads to the deaths of innocents at a greater rate than accurate information saves. Unfortunately that is also not known at this time.

I think that we should just not torture people and play it safe. Why worry about these things when we can do more humane things that work themselves?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I've already made my points. You just don't want to listen to me or accept my evidence.

Though I'm curious where YOUR evidence is that torture is effective?

I have not said that torture is effective. Another poster linked some articles, but of course you just don't want to listen.

No, another poster posted a link to the director of the CIA's opinion on if it was effective or not. That's the only evidence I've received in support of torture.

I do accept your evidence and have spent the time over the last hour or so reading through some of it. I just don't accept a conclusion that torture never works. There simply is not enough evidence to claim that. Many of the papers linked, even if you ignore the flaws in the science, actually say that torture can work in certain circumstances. They are also all littered with disclaimers about what can and can't be concluded.

Perhaps that is a tad hyperbolic. Torture DOES work if the person you are torturing really is guilty and the person happens to know something you are seeking information on. The problem is that there is no way to determine guilt with torture.

My position is simple. There is no proof that torture never works. On that basis, I am supportive of it continuing as long as the subject of the torture is proven to be a terrorist who has committed murder.

So we have to try him in a court of law THEN torture him? After all, innocent until proven guilty right? Of course then we violate the "no cruel and unusual punishments" clause in the 8th Amendment.

I think the only point I would at least draw back on is whether inaccurate information leads to the deaths of innocents at a greater rate than accurate information saves. Unfortunately that is also not known at this time.

I think that we should just not torture people and play it safe. Why worry about these things when we can do more humane things that work themselves?

So I would less easily write off all the views of the CIA. That's probably a whole other discussion though.
I would not be for torture before a trial found a suspect guilty. I don't agree with torture based on presumed guilt.
Of course if a more humane tactic works, use it, and use it first. I have no problem with that view.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I've already made my points. You just don't want to listen to me or accept my evidence.

Though I'm curious where YOUR evidence is that torture is effective?

I have not said that torture is effective. Another poster linked some articles, but of course you just don't want to listen.

No, another poster posted a link to the director of the CIA's opinion on if it was effective or not. That's the only evidence I've received in support of torture.

I do accept your evidence and have spent the time over the last hour or so reading through some of it. I just don't accept a conclusion that torture never works. There simply is not enough evidence to claim that. Many of the papers linked, even if you ignore the flaws in the science, actually say that torture can work in certain circumstances. They are also all littered with disclaimers about what can and can't be concluded.

Perhaps that is a tad hyperbolic. Torture DOES work if the person you are torturing really is guilty and the person happens to know something you are seeking information on. The problem is that there is no way to determine guilt with torture.

My position is simple. There is no proof that torture never works. On that basis, I am supportive of it continuing as long as the subject of the torture is proven to be a terrorist who has committed murder.

So we have to try him in a court of law THEN torture him? After all, innocent until proven guilty right? Of course then we violate the "no cruel and unusual punishments" clause in the 8th Amendment.

I think the only point I would at least draw back on is whether inaccurate information leads to the deaths of innocents at a greater rate than accurate information saves. Unfortunately that is also not known at this time.

I think that we should just not torture people and play it safe. Why worry about these things when we can do more humane things that work themselves?

So I would less easily write off all the views of the CIA. That's probably a whole other discussion though.

I find that government employees, especially ones that are heads of government organizations aren't exactly trustworthy when it comes to scientific accuracy. They tend to promote the narrative that supports their goals and desires and ignore any scientific evidence that suggests that would be the wrong course of action. That is why I made the comparison to the head of the DEA, who consistently says that marijuana is dangerous and has no medical benefit despite the entire country disagreeing with him.

Heck the report on the CIA's torture program completely contradicts the CIA director's claims about the effectiveness of torture and DIRECTLY denied that information gained from torture led to the capture of OBL. So this is further corroboration to what I'm saying.

I would not be for torture before a trial found a suspect guilty. I don't agree with torture based on presumed guilt.

But like I pointed out, then you butt up against the 8th Amendment.

Of course if a more humane tactic works, use it, and use it first. I have no problem with that view.

Well at least we can agree with something.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I've already made my points. You just don't want to listen to me or accept my evidence.

Though I'm curious where YOUR evidence is that torture is effective?

I have not said that torture is effective. Another poster linked some articles, but of course you just don't want to listen.

No, another poster posted a link to the director of the CIA's opinion on if it was effective or not. That's the only evidence I've received in support of torture.

I do accept your evidence and have spent the time over the last hour or so reading through some of it. I just don't accept a conclusion that torture never works. There simply is not enough evidence to claim that. Many of the papers linked, even if you ignore the flaws in the science, actually say that torture can work in certain circumstances. They are also all littered with disclaimers about what can and can't be concluded.

Perhaps that is a tad hyperbolic. Torture DOES work if the person you are torturing really is guilty and the person happens to know something you are seeking information on. The problem is that there is no way to determine guilt with torture.

My position is simple. There is no proof that torture never works. On that basis, I am supportive of it continuing as long as the subject of the torture is proven to be a terrorist who has committed murder.

So we have to try him in a court of law THEN torture him? After all, innocent until proven guilty right? Of course then we violate the "no cruel and unusual punishments" clause in the 8th Amendment.

I think the only point I would at least draw back on is whether inaccurate information leads to the deaths of innocents at a greater rate than accurate information saves. Unfortunately that is also not known at this time.

I think that we should just not torture people and play it safe. Why worry about these things when we can do more humane things that work themselves?

So I would less easily write off all the views of the CIA. That's probably a whole other discussion though.

I find that government employees, especially ones that are heads of government organizations aren't exactly trustworthy when it comes to scientific accuracy. They tend to promote the narrative that supports their goals and desires and ignore any scientific evidence that suggests that would be the wrong course of action. That is why I made the comparison to the head of the DEA, who consistently says that marijuana is dangerous and has no medical benefit despite the entire country disagreeing with him.

Heck the report on the CIA's torture program completely contradicts the CIA director's claims about the effectiveness of torture and DIRECTLY denied that information gained from torture led to the capture of OBL. So this is further corroboration to what I'm saying.

I would not be for torture before a trial found a suspect guilty. I don't agree with torture based on presumed guilt.

But like I pointed out, then you butt up against the 8th Amendment.

Of course if a more humane tactic works, use it, and use it first. I have no problem with that view.

Well at least we can agree with something.

Well this is we could get into somehting completely different. I have a view on the application of the consitution and bill or rights, including the 8th amendment, that I would hazard a guess does not align with yours! I have a limit that if crossed means I do do not believe human rights are applicable.

In terms of the CIA, let me just say that I am as sure as I can be that they lie and also sometimes tell the truth. Problem is one can never be sure which is which. I guess they like it that way.

April 10, 2016

The Director of the CIA says that he would never allow Waterboarding, or other "Enhanced Interrogation" techniques under his watch, regardless of who the President is.

Source: www.msn.com...

Well, I guess CIA Director Bennan will have to find a public sector job after Donald Trump is sworn in.

-cwm

a reply to: carewemust

He's a wimp..allenwestrepublic.com...