Glenn Greenwald on the ridiculous pro-torture story the Washington Post is pushing now.
Who are the Post’s sources for this full-scale vindication of Dick Cheney’s defense of torture? “Two sources who described the sessions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much information about detainee confinement remains classified”; “one former senior intelligence official said this week after being asked about the effect of waterboarding”; “one former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of how the interrogations were carried out said”; “One former agency official.” It’s unclear how much overlap there is in that orgy of pro-Cheney anonymity, but there is not a single on-the-record source to corroborate the Torture-Saved-Us-From-Mass-Death narrative, nor is there even a shred of information about the motives or views of these “officials.”
Pre-Iraq Invasion Story Redux. Wankers.
I can’t wait to hear what torture expert Liz Cheney thinks of this on the Sunday Very Serious People Shows.
So is Glenn saying that these sources should be ‘outed’?
Shorter WaPo:
Dick Cheney said it; we believe it; that settles it.
So is Glenn saying that these sources should be ‘outed’?
I know you’re not very good a reading beyond the headlines SF, but no, he’s saying that the WaPo should not have based such a story on such questionable sources.
So is Glenn saying that these sources should be ‘outed’?
Were you listening to The Dude’s story?
“So is Glenn saying that these sources should be ‘outed’?”
No.
Was that so hard? He’s saying the post is pushing bullshit based on anonymous sources and framing it as airtight fact.
Farris,
Do you agree with Ronald Reagan and international law that torture is a heinous act and that anyone who practices it should go to prison, no matter what the excuse given? Do you agree that anyone who would practice torture on a helpless prisoner, no matter what he is accused of, is a sick, perverted criminal and that common human ethics, not to mention Christianity and federal law, prohibit any such act?
Just so we’re clear on whether you have a conscience.
The WAPO advocates torture, wars of choice and corporate astroturfing but the Tim Grahamites pretend they’re “liberal”
Repack, I don’t think we should ever torture, but I also don’t think waterboarding rises to that level. The word “torture” should be reserved for the really heinous stuff: dismemberment, beheading, and the like.
“But Farris, how would YOU feel if you were waterboarded?!?”
it would certainly be unpleasant, unbearable, horrific, altogther terrible and painful Something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. But then again, so would a Lady Gaga concert.
SaveFarris: it would certainly be unpleasant, unbearable, horrific, altogther terrible and painful
And you don’t see that as a description of torture? No, of course you don’t. Because you, like most wingnuts, aren’t getting any further than “Bush/Cheney ordered it and I cannot ever consider that they could have done anything wrong.”
I don’t think we should ever torture, but I also don’t think waterboarding rises to that level.
Then was the United States wrong to prosecute those who waterboarded prisoners in WWII? Which is it Farris? Was the US wrong then, or wrong now?
Or are your morals so totally relative that the US was right in both contradictory cases?
Farris,
Even though everyone who has been waterboarded says it’s torture, you have the luxury of denying their experience because it hasn’t been done to you. Why do you feel that your lack of experience in this regard makes you a better judge of the treatment than those who have experienced it? Why would waterboarding be classified as torture in every international document related to the outlawing of torture?
How about a week of being forced to stand up without sleep, chained to the ceiling? How about having your head smashed against a wall repeatedly? How about the prisoners who DIED UNDER QUESTIONING? Does a fatal degree of physical abuse amount to torture in your world?
I also don’t think waterboarding rises to that level. The word “torture” should be reserved for the really heinous stuff: dismemberment, beheading, and the like.
oh, good lord.
So torture is only torture if it leads to immediate death?
Then was the United States wrong to prosecute those who waterboarded prisoners in WWII?
We didn’t. Waterboarding was the least of the crimes commited by those we prosecuted in WWII. We were much more interested in the breaking and severing of limbs, burning flesh, forced starvation, rape, and other atrocities. Waterboarding, while not pleasent, doesn’t rise to that level.
Even though everyone who has been waterboarded says it’s torture…
So has everyone that’s tried to leave the Dodger Stadium parking lot after a game.
Sorry, but Mancow is not a reliable witness. As I said, I have no doubt it’s unpleasant and I certainly wouldn’t want to experience it. But if you can’t differentiate between a temporary unpleasant experience and someone shoving hot pokers into your crotch, well, we may be at an impasse.
So has everyone that’s tried to leave the Dodger Stadium parking lot after a game.
Because if it takes too long, they die a horrible death? Whatever the limit of stupid is in the universe, you have approached it more closely than modern science believes possible.
Obviously the only way for you to understand waterboarding is to undergo it yourself. Let me know when you are free for a demo, and I will have you confessing to the Lincoln assassination as well as agreeing that it is torture, and we will have settled the argument.
Ever try explaining gravity to someone who is totally puzzled by the fact that the people on the opposite side of the world aren’t falling off? There’s just no basis for trying to have a conversation with them. The basic understanding of fundamental reality just isn’t there.
Talking with Farris about torture is the same thing. Easier to describe color to a blind man.
Did anybody here actually read the article? People are bitching about “anonymous” sources (of course, many big stories are based upon anonymous sources, so I don’t see what the big deal is other than that it offends Sockpuppet Greenwald’s left-wing sensibilities because it doesn’t line up with his idiotic point of view) but there’s part of the article that says the following:
John L. Helgerson, the former CIA inspector general who investigated the agency’s detention and interrogation program, said his work did not put him in “a position to reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods.” “Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information,” he said in an interview.
There’s somebody on the record.
As for the techniques used, if some of you want to argue that they should never be used, fine. Do so. But spare us all the moral superiority nonsense. The one thing you cannot argue with any legitimacy is that these techniques did not work. You can’t. So give it up, because it is pointless. It worked.
You may also feel that we could have gotten the same information tickling their feet or using normal police interrogation methods. We’ll never know. What we do know is that what we did do, again, worked.
Ah, conservative “morality.” I can’t believe that there is even a discussion over the effectiveness of being evil, because I can’t get past the fact that torture is as evil an act as humanity has ever conceived and that it has no place anywhere in the world, but especially here.
Whether or not it “works” is immaterial to the fact that it is illegal no matter what justification is given, that it is a heinous and immoral act that violates every American value, that it robs the torturer of his own humanity, and that it makes us no better than those we claim moral superiority over.
Murder, kidnapping and rape work very well for some ends, but that does not make them legal or moral. The people who tortured Jesus to death had the legal right to do so, and they knew that crucifixion was a reliable means of impressing would-be rebels, or in your words, it was effective. Had you been in the crowd at Calvary, you would have been cheering for the Romans and poking Our Lord with a sharp stick.
because I can’t get past the fact that torture is as evil an act as humanity has ever conceived and that it has no place anywhere in the world, but especially here.
Except the problem is, leaving somebody in a cold room, giving them a slap or telling them mean things is not “torture.” If you want to focus solely on the act of waterboarding, by all means, do so. But even there, you’re calling it “torture” with this wide open umbrella and that is wrong.
The methods used by the CIA were carefully carried out and monitored so as not to inflict the “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” that falls under the definition of “torture.” In fact, the methods used were culled from US Military “Survival Evasion Resistance Escape” (SERE) training programs. From the period of 1992-2001, over 26,000 men and women were SERE trained. Using your logic, the United States military “tortured” 26,000 of their own.
Of course, the left has been screeching, “That’s different! That’s different!” but nobody has actually offered up and reasonable explanation of how “different” it is, and the very people who have been involved with SERE training have said the techniques do not vary.
As for what Jesus endured, that was predestined to happen as He was taking upon the sins of the world, so I’m not sure how you were able to intertwine that with waterboarding. It’s people such as yourself who would have been calling Jesus a “freak” and “wackjob” for claiming that the path to eternal life goes through Him and nobody else.
Jay: but nobody has actually offered up and reasonable explanation of how “different” it is,
A participant in SERE, no matter how difficult the treatment may get, knows that they are not going to be killed or permanently disabled.
A person being tortured does not know that.
it would certainly be unpleasant, unbearable, horrific, altogether terrible and painful Something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. But then again, so would a Lady Gaga concert.
Apparently there is no Geneva convention for torturing humor.
In fact, the methods used were culled from US Military “Survival Evasion Resistance Escape” (SERE) training programs.
And where did they get the idea, Jay? Why did they include waterboarding?
Here’s whatone SERE instructor had to say about waterboarding in Congressional testimony.
He’s probably wrong, though. I’m sure Jay knows more about it than he does.
And Quaker, I could provide articles by those involved with SERE training that approve of it. What is your point?
I could provide articles by those involved with SERE training that approve of it. What is your point?
My point? That you’re once again full of old shoes. You haul out the tired argument that if SERE exposed members of our own military to waterboarding, it can’t possibly be torture.
I provide you evidence to the contrary: A highly decorated U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and SERE instructor who says, yes, waterboarding is torture.
Perhaps I was correct in my assumption. Maybe you do know more about it than Chief Petty Officer Nance.
Also, I repeat my first question: How did waterboarding become part of the SERE program?
I provide you evidence to the contrary: A highly decorated U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and SERE instructor who says, yes, waterboarding is torture.
So you’re engaging in the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. “So and so said it is torture, therefore it must be torture.”
This is the best you can do? Again, what is your point? If I find one person who says something different than Nance, then what?
Also, I repeat my first question: How did waterboarding become part of the SERE program?
I have no idea. It’s irrelevant.
sockpuppet Greenwald’s left-wing sensibilities
Fascinating how an obvious civil libertarian, by vocation and avocation, usually gets pegged as a lefty by Goldwater’s “kooks”. I’ve also been told by these people that Raimondo, Rockwell, and Paul are also lefties. Apparently anything can be rationalized if you’re on the side of ‘wingnut Jesus’.
So you’re engaging in the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. “So and so said it is torture, therefore it must be torture.”
No, I’m engaging the logical fallacy of appealing to first-hand experience. “So and so has actually experienced waterboarding and said it is torture.”
I can believe him or you.
How did waterboarding become part of the SERE program?
I have no idea. It’s irrelevant.
It’s highly relevant. The creators of the SERE program identified waterboarding as a form of–you guessed it–torture practiced by despotic regimes through history. The program sought to give members of our military sufficient experience to withstand such tactics. It’s included in SERE because it’s torture.
No, I’m engaging the logical fallacy of appealing to first-hand experience. “So and so has actually experienced waterboarding and said it is torture.”
I can believe him or you.
Quaker, it’s called an “appeal to authority.” It is a logical fallacy.
Source A (Nance) says ________
Source A (Nance) is authoritative
Therefore, _________ is true
If you choose to say, “I disagree” because of what Nance says, fine. But you’re sitting there saying, “Well, you’re wrong because Nance says its torture” and that his opinion outweighs whatever anybody else says.
And like I said, all it takes is for me to produce one person who either took part or instructed SERE training to say it isn’t torture and then what? What is your response to that?
Quaker, it’s called an “appeal to authority.” It is a logical fallacy.
Jay, it’s called “another of Jay’s silly games” and I’m not playing.
You say waterboarding can’t possibly be torture because our military did it to Americans. One of the men who actually applied the technique says yes, it is torture.
But you’re sitting there saying, “Well, you’re wrong because Nance says its torture” and that his opinion outweighs whatever anybody else says.
No, I’m saying Nance’s opinion outweighs what you say. He has experienced waterboarding firsthand.
Jay, it’s called “another of Jay’s silly games” and I’m not playing.
No, I’m the one that isn’t playing. Try to debate an issue on the merits yourself instead of pointing to somebody and saying, “But he said _______” and declaring victory.
You say waterboarding can’t possibly be torture because our military did it to Americans. One of the men who actually applied the technique says yes, it is torture.
And there are others who say it is not. You keep conveniently ignoring this point.
No, I’m saying Nance’s opinion outweighs what you say. He has experienced waterboarding firsthand.
Yes, and I’ve read about others who have gone through the same thing and they disagree that it is torture. So you still haven’t done anything other than waste time.
Try to debate an issue on the merits yourself instead of pointing to somebody and saying, “But he said _______” and declaring victory.
Holy cats, Jay. The man has first hand experience–and not just once, but hundreds of instances. If you have the same experience, then perhaps I will count your opinion as equal to his.
You want to go down the rabbit hole of high-school debate? There’s a reason “appeal to authority” classifies certain logical fallacies. It’s because some arguments erroneously imply that the “authority” in question is qualified to offer an opinion.
In the instance of CPO Nance, I don’t think we have that problem, do you?
And there are others who say it is not. You keep conveniently ignoring this point.
I’m giving your argument all the credence it deserves. You keep asserting these contrary opinions. Let’s see them and compare them with CPO Nance’s testimony.
Jay logic suggests that there are no slippery slopes (as Ms. England suggests), bin Laden may have been right (the “there are others who say it is not” argument), and that Jesus is one ruthless mofo (Mohammed’s goin straight to hell). Is this is what they mean by “postmodernism”? Carry on.
The man has first hand experience–and not just once, but hundreds of instances. If you have the same experience, then perhaps I will count your opinion as equal to his.
I never claimed I had the same experience so this is (another) an irrelevant comment.
You want to go down the rabbit hole of high-school debate?
No, I want you to debate an issue with some intellectual honesty and with your own views and analysis instead of relying on what somebody else thinks. If all you’re going to do is say, “Well CPO Nance says it’s torture so nyahh nyahh!” then don’t waste my time. But also don’t expect me to accept that as a valid argument. It matters not if CPO Nance’s view is authoritative because in order for his viewpoint to be the one that is acceptable (and therefore render your appeal to his authority to be valid), his view needs to be supported amongst the many (in this case, tens of thousands) of those who have also been part of SERE training.
You keep asserting these contrary opinions. Let’s see them and compare them with CPO Nance’s testimony.
There’s nothing to compare. One is going to say that it is not torture. The other says it is. What is there to compare? I’m not getting yanked into a side issue. Focus on what we’re discussing and try to discuss it without having to
Jay, you made this assertion:
the methods used were culled from US Military “Survival Evasion Resistance Escape” (SERE) training programs. From the period of 1992-2001, over 26,000 men and women were SERE trained. Using your logic, the United States military “tortured” 26,000 of their own.
Of course, the left has been screeching, “That’s different! That’s different!” but nobody has actually offered up and reasonable explanation of how “different” it is, and the very people who have been involved with SERE training have said the techniques do not vary.
First, you’re violating youw own standard of evidence–you’re referring to an “authority” because of their firsthand experience with the matters under discussion.
Second, by your (ahem) tortured logic, one commits a logical fallacy every time one refers to the experience of another person. That’s nonsense.
It matters not if CPO Nance’s view is authoritative because in order for his viewpoint to be the one that is acceptable (and therefore render your appeal to his authority to be valid), his view needs to be supported amongst the many (in this case, tens of thousands) of those who have also been part of SERE training.
His experience isn’t valid unless all the others who have had the same experience agree?
Great God we’re through the looking glass for sure! The Mighty Jay offers speculation based on nothing at all but can’t be countered by someone who actually knows what he’s talking about unless everyone else agrees!
One is going to say that it is not torture. The other says it is. What is there to compare? I’m not getting yanked into a side issue.
Wait! What? You’ve said again and again that there are other SERE instructors who say waterboarding isn’t torture, but now actually looking at what any of these people have to say is a “side issue”?
Don’t dary to lecture me about “intelluctual honesty.” You wouldn’t know it if it sat on you.
Second, by your (ahem) tortured logic, one commits a logical fallacy every time one refers to the experience of another person. That’s nonsense.
Wrong, that is not what I said. At all. Crikey.
Go here and educate yourself on the fallacy of appealing to authority:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Pay close to attention to the 6 points and come to an understanding as to why relying solely on Nance’s viewpoint is not valid in declaring your point of view to be correct.
YOUR LOGIC would dictate that somebody could say the towers on 9/11 were destroyed not by airplanes but by explosive demolitions and why? Because of bunch of architects and engineers said so.
His experience isn’t valid unless all the others who have had the same experience agree?
Dude, do you know how to read? I didn’t say his EXPERIENCE wasn’t valid. I said his VIEWPOINT (or CONCLUSION) isn’t valid simply because he says so. Who else amongst those who have either been SERE instructors or have gone through SERE training have lined up with him to declare that he is right?
You’ve said again and again that there are other SERE instructors who say waterboarding isn’t torture, but now actually looking at what any of these people have to say is a “side issue”?
“Yes, it is torture.”
“No, it is not torture.”
What the fuck is it that you need to examine amongst the differing opinions?
Let me know when you have some thoughts of your own on the matter.
YOUR LOGIC would dictate that somebody could say the towers on 9/11 were destroyed not by airplanes but by explosive demolitions and why? Because of bunch of architects and engineers said so.
Incredible!
The analog to my argument would be: A demolition expert says the towers could have been destroyed with explosives because he has experience blowing up 100-story towers!
And like I said, all it takes is for me to produce one person who either took part or instructed SERE training to say it isn’t torture and then what? What is your response to that?
So which is it? You can’t find any written accounts to back you up? Or you’re just too lazy to look for them?
Heck, I’ll even spot you one, Jay. I’ll give you the name of an ex-SERE instructor who says waterboarding isn’t torture: Oliver North.
Me? I’ll stick with CPO Nance.
Incredible!
The analog to my argument would be: A demolition expert says the towers could have been destroyed with explosives because he has experience blowing up 100-story towers!
Face slap.
Whatever dude.
Heck, I’ll even spot you one, Jay. I’ll give you the name of an ex-SERE instructor who says waterboarding isn’t torture: Oliver North.
Me? I’ll stick with CPO Nance.
Wonderful for you. Like I said, let me know when you have some of your own thoughts on the matter.
Jay, would you consider being chained to the ceiling and kept awake for a week “torture?”
Some of the detainees DIED under “questioning.” Would that amount to torture?
Would a judge in any court in America accept a confession obtained by these methods? If not, why not?
Go here and educate yourself on the fallacy of appealing to authority:
From Jay’s own link:
Is CPO Nance not a legitimate authority on waterboarding, Jay?
Some of the detainees DIED under “questioning.” Would that amount to torture?
OK, but one of Those Guys who died was a dangerously Muslim cab driver.
Beating a guy to death with a flashlight saved countless American lives!
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
I can’t resist. Jay, you’ve achieved Jay Tea’s level of stupid. Congratulations.
As for the techniques used, if some of you want to argue that they should never be used, fine. Do so. But spare us all the moral superiority nonsense. The one thing you cannot argue with any legitimacy is that these techniques did not work. You can’t. So give it up, because it is pointless. It worked.
…Did you just outright admit that the ends justify the means*? That’s the reasoning of a sociopathic madman. Maybe you should take a good long look at yourself.
*Assuming, of course, that the ends are what you claim they are. But really, when was the last time you were right on ANYTHING?