Another victory in the US's fight for our freedom

[cantdog]

I belong to Amnesty International. My position is, no torture. For any reason. I don't bother to make good arguments that torture photos deter enemy enlistment, because I'm not going to have any torture photos.

Why are you pointing to good arguments of that sort, if you don't advocate following up on those good arguments? Is it just for fun?

Last time I accused you of playing logical games for fun, I was being unfair. How's the weather today on that, Joe?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
I belong to Amnesty International. My position is, no torture. For any reason. I don't bother to make good arguments that torture photos deter enemy enlistment, because I'm not going to have any torture photos.

Why are you pointing to good arguments of that sort, if you don't advocate following up on those good arguments? Is it just for fun?

Last time I accused you of playing logical games for fun, I was being unfair. How's the weather today on that, Joe?

1) Someone made a post saying that torture is unproductive in that it aids the enemy in compelling people to join up and fight.
2) I said that there are strong arguments that can be made for the effectiveness of images of torture in the deterring of that very thing (and, there are).
3) You start talking about how torture doesn't do any of that stuff and how to think it might is "idiotic".
4) I respond as best I can explaining briefly that, academically and practically, no... images of torture have always been very effective. How its not a question of whether they work, but how well and what are the reprocussions.
5) Somehow you assume that my defending the effectivness of images of torture in miltary operations (basic PsyOps stuff, really) is my defending... what? Torture itself? Photos of torture?

Look, I feel weird just having to make this as obvious as I apparently must (because I really get annoyed when people assume there is no practical point to arguments like these, saying that they're just for someone's own mental masturbation):

I'm not for nuclear weapons, but if we're talking about killing a lot of people, we have to admit its effectiveness.

I'm not for insider trading, but if we're talking about making a lot of money on the stock exchange, we have to admit to its effectiveness.

I'm not for torture, presently, or pictures of it, but if we're talking about attacking enemy moral and affecting things with psychological operations, then we have to admit to its effectiveness as well.

It is the height of intellectual suicide to tuck one's head in the sand and say "Well, I don't agree with a particular practice, so therefore it MUST be ineffective! Yeah, that's good logic!" Admitting to the effectiveness of a thing isn't endorsing its use any more than a scientific discovery of a lot of energy in a nucleus is advocating nuking the Japanese. If we ought not use torture on moral or humanitarian grounds, that's fine, but to say "don't use it" because its "not effective" is either ignorance or fraud.

How's the weather where you are?

 

[cantdog]

Gotcha. I love sentences.

 

[thebullet]

Joe W. said:
I don't know of any facts, long-established or otherwise, on the accuracy of torture sufficient to say "its often wrong".

Joe, just because you don't know the facts, doesn't make it not so. The Supreme Court decision that made confessions obtained through torture illegal gave the notorious inaccuracy of such confessions as one of the primary reasons for banning such practice.

And Joe, what are you, a barbarian or a civilized man? Torture is wrong!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by thebullet
Joe, just because you don't know the facts, doesn't make it not so. The Supreme Court decision that made confessions obtained through torture illegal gave the notorious inaccuracy of such confessions as one of the primary reasons for banning such practice.

And just because I don't know them, doesn't make them so, either. To be fair, the statment was honest. Neither the affirming nor denying of effectiveness-statements is confirmed by it. Past that, though... the jury's still out on whether it is effective as an information-gathering tool; less so, though on whether its useful for intimidation (general consensus, it works just fine for that).

One of the hardest things about studies into torture have been the natural limitation of "we can test it". It makes conclusive statements like "more often" very hard to substantiate.

And Joe, what are you, a barbarian or a civilized man? Torture is wrong!

O.k., I haven't said otherwise.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Joe, you are a shitstick!

There’s nothing wrong with that. It all depends on the kind of shitstick you are.

There are those who stir up the shit so that others can’t help but smell the stink, and become aware of how offal the shit is.

Then, there are those shitsticks who merely stir up the shit to raise a stink.

I fear that you are one of the latter kinds of shitsick, Joe,

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Virtual_Burlesque
Joe, you are a shitstick!

There’s nothing wrong with that. It all depends on the kind of shitstick you are.

There are those who stir up the shit so that others can’t help but smell the stink, and become aware of how offal the shit is.

Then, there are those shitsticks who merely stir up the shit to raise a stink.

I fear that you are one of the latter kinds of shitsick, Joe,

I don't know about any of that.

I just think it'd be a terrible thing for someone to have passed through here and maybe read "torture isn't effective, that's why we shouldn't use it" and go off and actually believe that when, honestly, there are much better and more solid reasons to advocate its lack of use.

Ignorance and the propogation of ignorance is a terrible, terrible thing.

And if that means I have to occasionally get into arguments with people who are willing to pass it along, knowingly or unknowingly, then so be it--really. I'm not losing any sleep over correcting someone who says something that is "not the whole story" or "just plain wrong".

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . I just think it'd be a terrible thing for someone to have passed through here and maybe read "torture isn't effective, that's why we shouldn't use it" and go off and actually believe that when, honestly, there are much better and more solid reasons to advocate its lack of use . . . .

I would be perfectly willing to have that be the case, since this administration can't seem to come up with any Christian Values that tell them not to resort to torturing, if that would have kept them from donning their torturer's hood.

As it was, no one in this conversation was making that the crucx of their argument, Joe.

They were merely adding on -- IN ADDITION TO EVERY OTHER REASON -- the Supreme Court included that reason as a one of the reasons behind their ruling against admitting evidence obtained by torture.

Of course, at some point, the discussion narrowed down to that one point. There were whole posts that you could quote that did not include the rest of the argument. So,LOGICALLY, you took it that that was their entire argument.


When you teach debating, do you insist that in every sentence, the students must include every point in their argument, even when they are merely expanding upon a single point?

If so, no wonder your studens can't argue to your satisfaction.


You are a shitstick, Joe. Number 2 variety.

 

[KarenAM]

Torture is illegal in the United States. Period.

Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Virtual_Burlesque
I would be perfectly willing to have that be the case, since this administration can't seem to come up with any Christian Values that tell them not to resort to torturing, if that would have kept them from donning their torturer's hood.

I have nothing intelligent to say about this administration or their intentions, concerning this discussion. I'm only talking about what is and isn't true concerning torture.

As it was, no one in this conversation was making that the crucx of their argument, Joe.

O.k. Never said that they were.

They were merely adding on -- IN ADDITION TO EVERY OTHER REASON -- the Supreme Court included that reason as a one of the reasons behind their ruling against admitting evidence obtained by torture.

Not true. Please re-read. As an example of what has been said, I think the big part of it was that images of torture have no damaging effect on the enemy [sic] and to believe otherwise was idiotic. That's just not true. They do have effect in that regard. It would be unwise for people to believe otherwise.

Of course, at some point, the discussion narrowed down to that one point. There were whole posts that you could quote that did not include the rest of the argument.

I guess. I recall saying that I would like to see how they came to their recent decision before passing judgement on their intentions (wanting to see the reasons for the decision). That's about it. Then, a whole seperate discussion about how torture is ineffective and the like came about.

So,LOGICALLY, you took it that that was their entire argument.

No. I argued with the part I disagreed with, for what I believe to be very good reasons. There really isn't anything wrong with that.

When you teach debating, do you insist that in every sentence, the students must include every point in their argument, even when they are merely expanding upon a single point?

I don't teach debate. I teach Logic. There is a difference. I do teach, however, that an assertion must be backed with respect to necessity. possiblity, and impossibility. For instance, if Bush says that "These people are declaring war on our freedom"... that, though emotive and intense, isn't actually technically true and it would serve them to engage in arguments with a repeated reference to the foundations of their point. "War on freedom" is a phrase that, patently, just isn't true. "Its idiotic to believe that the enemy will have enlistment decline or be negatively affected by images of torture" is also untrue.

If so, no wonder your studens can't argue to your satisfaction.

Some can, some can't. There are "A's", there are "F's". The ones that do better understand the fragile nature of language and how one little tiny untruism "its idiotic" can lead to a whole succession of incorrect conclusions.

You are a shitstick, Joe. Number 2 variety.

If you say so. But, and this is as honest as I can be, I'd like for you to show me--quote me if necessary--how. Not to be argumentative, but because if you truly believe that I'd like a chance to see it from your perspective a bit. I'd like to know if its because you essentially don't like that I'm not saying "torture blows" or if its because of, specifically, somewhere where I've committed myself to fallacy or error.

 

[cantdog]

Al-Jazira showed the photos a great deal. Perhaps they dissuaded people from joining the insurgents.

PsyOps or no, our DOD people didn't think it was having an effect we would have liked. They made a lot of moves on al-Jazira to lay off the constant barrage of torture photos. Maybe they just didn't believe the PsyOps, because they heard people getting pissed off.

Al-Jazira also shows the mutilated bodies of DU kids and of bombing victim civilians. I can't believe they do this to deter participation in the insurgency. Au contraire. I conclude they are not against the idea of people joining together to throw out the occupier, and because I don't imagine they're too awfully flip-floppy on it, I bet they imagined the torture photos would piss people off, too.

Both sides seem to feel the photos were political dynamite, bad for the occupier and good for pissing people off. Remember that the insurgents need willing supporters in the populace, not just more people to use the $6 AKs. People who just hide the fighters, feed them, look the other way when they steal something do not risk the torture cell so much.

I conclude that the photos were a mistake for the occupying power. I conclude that the torture was, also, but not just on that basis. I've read the official whitewashing report.

Abu Ghraib was under constant attack. Rockets, mortars, raids. There were not sufficient staff to deal with this and carry out simultaneously the subtle business of scientific interrogation, which should have been done in a secure rear area.

I doubt the subtle and calculated long-term techniques you speak of were suited to the conditions there. So did the commander, so did the Intelligence people and their commander. (That's according to the report, and previously, according to the sources used by Hersh.)

But at no time did the evidence that torture, per se, was taking place cause anyone at any level to say we would forthwith stop it.

It's too widespread for that. The Swedes have told you about the people who were flown to torture facilities overseas from Swedish custody. There are numerous sources for that besides the Swedish government, too. Pentagon memos, for instance, and sources in DOD who spoke with Hersh. Rummy himself dodged Kennedy's questions on the matter.

They don't undertake to stop any of the torture, not in Gitmo, nor in Iraq, in Afghanistan, nor in Saudi Arabia and the other places where potential torturees are disappeared to. Instead, memos hedging the definition of what constitutes real torture are issued from our new Attorney General, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, by the way. His senior staffer is the one in this article advising the bench to make a ruling enabling evidence taken through torture.

That's because they support it.

It's us/them thinking. Enemies must lose, they must hurt, they must die, they must suffer. Thus it is.

Perhaps I don't have anything intelligent to say about it either, but that's the way it seems to me, after reading the official report, Hersh's book, and many others. I've skimmed the Red Cross article and read the Amnesty reports about Gitmo, too, which far predate the photos out of Abu Ghraib.

I don't insist they admit a thing, but they must be sure it doesn't happen any more. This country does not require the services of an attorney general who supports torture or a member of his staff who supports torture-derived evidence. We don't require any of it. Whether or not it scares off insurgents.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
Al-Jazira showed the photos a great deal. Perhaps they dissuaded people from joining the insurgents.

PsyOps or no, our DOD people didn't think it was having an effect we would have liked.

I think the media backlash had a lot to do with it. The people don't appear to want that kind of practice going on, on any side--regardless what Ashcroft said.

Perhaps I don't have anything intelligent to say about it either, but that's the way it seems to me, after reading the official report, Hersh's book, and many others. I've skimmed the Red Cross article and read the Amnesty reports about Gitmo, too, which far predate the photos out of Abu Ghraib.

I haven't read Hersh's book. I know he broke the story, but I have less of a reason to look for his opinion or research on the nature of the effectiveness or lack of the image of torture than I do more academic sources. Not that he's not a good reporter... if I want the story on the scandal he covered, I'll look to him. But that's not really relavent to my point.

I don't insist they admit a thing, but they must be sure it doesn't happen any more. This country does not require the services of an attorney general who supports torture or a member of his staff who supports torture-derived evidence. We don't require any of it. Whether or not it scares off insurgents.

Technically, this country requires the services of whatever this country votes for... I think its likely that we, as a people, don't want someone who supports torture--but I can't really be certain of that. I don't know. I can't speak intelligently about that.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Joe,

I am not about to waste my weekend off trying to piece together your veg-o-matic chopped arguments. (If your point is refuted, you merely segment it into eight pieces and claim each is still valid,) Mostly because I am certain this is your version of trolling. (Or as I more pungently prefer to call it, being a shitstick.)

Just the one main point that was being disputed, whether images of torture have . . . [a] damaging effect on the enemy.

Accept it or not, I don’t care. I have a Saturday off, and I am going out, for a change.

Of course! The photographs are documentary evidence of the damage done to that particular prisoner.

Beyond that, there are at least two kinds of enemy. The pusillanimous poltroons who will fall back at the first taste of danger, and those with a little more steel in their spine and (usually) justice in their cause, who will take despicable conduct by an enemy as a challenge.

Every photograph of an Iraqi prisoner humiliated undoubted causes a couple hundred people to decide not to do anything to cross these monsters. At the same time, each photograph, no doubt, also inspires another hundred people to join with anyone who will offer them the opportunity to hit back in an effective way at these monsters. And there undoubtedly are thousands of people who were not moved to either extreme, but undoubtedly has some effect which will color their behavior in the future.

Out of the population of a country the size of Iraq, not to mention all the other Islamic nations watching, just how much damage must we do to our nation’s honour and prestige before you will acknowledge damage.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Virtual_Burlesque
Joe,

I am not about to waste my weekend off trying to piece together your veg-o-matic chopped arguments. (If your point is refuted, you merely segment it into eight pieces and claim each is still valid,) Mostly because I am certain this is your version of trolling. (Or as I more pungently prefer to call it, being a shitstick.)

I think you're being very negative, offensive, and unfair. I haven't been trying to do anything more than figure out what is so and what isn't. You can either respect that or you can't. I'm not trying to goad you into anything, I genuinely am curious about what you're talking about because I, honestly, don't understand.

My arguments aren't chopped anything. They are coherant and clear (at least I try and make them that way). I'm not trying to troll anything, I have friends here and have a lot of respect and love for this place. I wouldn't be here if I didn't.

Just the one main point that was being disputed, whether images of torture have . . . [a] damaging effect on the enemy.

Accept it or not, I don’t care. I have a Saturday off, and I am going out, for a change.

The quote mentions "undoubtably for this there is that"... I'm not sure about that. But beyond all of that, I must not be seeing your point. That wasn't quoting me. It was interesting.

I guess it just seems like you want to be judgemental and throw insults at people you think don't tote your party line. I haven't made any morals judgements about torture at all. I, personally, think it a horrible thing. But thinking it horrible doesn't mean I can turn a blind eye and say "it doesn't work"--for reasons I've given. My dad worked with PsyOps, my sister did Bosnia and intelligence work, my brother in law was on the more aggressive end of ops work there, Psych has a number of good studies into the effects of verious kinds of torture.

Past that, the quote is emotive and persuasive, but doesn't offer up much in the way of "why". Undoubtably, it says, tons of people will take up arms... that's possible. I'd be curious to see how many and why. Like I said, its interesting, but ultimately spicy prose.

It does have strong effects. More importantly, and on topic, the fear of torture is an amazingly effective thing (more reliably than torture itself).

You call explaining yourself a waste. I call it a necessary thing, if we're to understand each other.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I mean, if you're offended, I'm sorry. I don't know why. What is it you want me to say? What opinion would you like me to have?

 

[cantdog]

I think the media backlash had a lot to do with it. The people don't appear to want that kind of practice going on, on any side--regardless what Ashcroft said.

There was precious little media backlash, in my evaluation, and precious little backlash of any stripe.

A report was produced by a committee, and to gather its evidence it held congressional hearings. Most key witnesses ducked, either testifying without being under oath, or not showing up at all, citing executive privilege. Not much backlash about that either.

The congress is a majority GOP body, hence the report was a whitewash of the GOP administration. It nevertheless painted a picture of institutionalized torture, and not just at Abu Ghraib. The report was out on the shelves of bookstores prior to the election, but...

The democratic "opposition" candidate echoed the Bush administration line on the abuses: they were a few bad apples, I'm not going to talk about them. The press, seeing neither candidate having any other view of the matter, stopped talking about it too. Except in the lefty press, and, in rebuttal, the righty punditry.

A neat job of closing off debate. You have to do that in this country. America always means well, even if "mistakes are made." The impression in the muslim world, though, is otherwise.

The paragraph of my post to which you append this comment was speaking of the broadcasts by al-Jazira. The press you speak of did not do anything about the al-Jazira broadcasts except mention that they were happening. That ain't backlash. The state department and DOD were trying to stop al-Jazira, not the press.

I haven't read Hersh's book. I know he broke the story, but I have less of a reason to look for his opinion or research on the nature of the effectiveness or lack of the image of torture than I do more academic sources. Not that he's not a good reporter... if I want the story on the scandal he covered, I'll look to him. But that's not really relavent to my point.

Fine. Have you read the Abu Ghraib commission report? It's long, man. Or the report by the Red Cross? Or any Amnesty International or Americas Watch or Human Rights Watch reports on the same issue?

Um, no.

Technically, this country requires the services of whatever this country votes for... I think its likely that we, as a people, don't want someone who supports torture--but I can't really be certain of that. I don't know. I can't speak intelligently about that.

I think it's ruddy likely too. Leave it at that.

No one votes for the attorneys general or the staff they appoint. If the people's vote means we need them, which I find incredible, then that criterion fails here. There was no people's vote to elect Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle, and no congressional confirmation of Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle. We can't be needing him on that score.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
There was precious little media backlash, in my evaluation, and precious little backlash of any stripe.

We must be listening to different news... it was heavily lambasted and railed about where I am. I guess some places... didn't have news? Different news? I don't know.

Regardless, I more or less just didn't have much to say about your post. Little of it had much to do with what I was talking about. I still, quite confidantly, stand by my assertion that strong arguments (good ones) can be made for the effectiveness of torture and moreso for the effectiveness of the fear of it; and believe that holding the position that such effectiveness exists based on those things does not constitute "idiocy".

Fine. Have you read the Abu Ghraib commission report? It's long, man. Or the report by the Red Cross? Or any Amnesty International or Americas Watch or Human Rights Watch reports on the same issue?

Um, no.

Hold on.... I have to be sure I get this right.

You did not just ignorantly assume what I have and haven't read, did you? As smartly as you tout off here and there, you couldn't have done that.

You did?

Why would you do that if not to antagonize?

Why be that much of a mother fucker?

Or, did I read the succession of "did you?"s followed by "Um, no." inaccurately?

No one votes for the attorneys general or the staff they appoint. If the people's vote means we need them, which I find incredible, then that criterion fails here. There was no people's vote to elect Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle, and no congressional confirmation of Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle. We can't be needing him on that score.

Not literally "votes", votes as advocacy. I'll clarify:

Arguably, this country needs whatever it is this country agrees to need--that would be another way to put it. Assuming the approval ratings for it are high enough, its hard to make the statement "We're not served by X"... when we're asking for a serving of X. That was my point on that matter.