Caught In A Lie - Torture's Smoking Gun

[luke warm]

Although Mike is trying to hijack the thread and misdirect our attention, the issue is not now nor has it ever been simply the CIA.

i think his point is that the past administration has been accused of doing things executively that other (and present) administrations have done and do delegatorily (via cia and others)

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

This is simply tacky. Not only did P.O. not say this, but no one else did, either, and it is the same cheap logic fallacy as asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?", as it presumes that torture prevents Americans from dying.

i think you're wrong here, although i don't have time to look for it... didn't he say the end does not justify the means? and if so, how does that differ from what mike said?

[Winstonm]

i think his point is that the past administration has been accused of doing things executively that other (and present) administrations have done and do delegatorily (via cia and others

 

Then why did the CIA ask for legal protection? Regardless, the issue was not about simply the CIA. Mike is trying to twist the argument that the CIA initiated the torture, as they have done in the past, and therefore the last administration did nothing that other administrations have done.

 

This is a bogus claim and simply misdirection.

 

When it comes to systemic SERE-type torture as an approved U.S. interrogation method, Mike's claim is simply untrue.

 

didn't he say the end does not justify the means? and if so, how does that differ from what mike said?

 

The clear inference in Mike's translation is that without going against our values Americans would die when that has clearly never been shown as a fact, and has in fact been challenged by interrogation experts as untrue.

 

The discussion went like this.

A) I am against torture.

B) Would you torture to save lives?

A) No

B) Then you would let Americans die before you would torture?

 

There error was in answering the first question - would you torture to save lives. Everything past that was nonsense, spin, and misdirection.

[Lobowolf]

i think his point is that the past administration has been accused of doing things executively that other (and present) administrations have done and do delegatorily (via cia and others

 

Then why did the CIA ask for legal protection? Regardless, the issue was not about simply the CIA. Mike is trying to twist the argument that the CIA initiated the torture, as they have done in the past, and therefore the last administration did nothing that other administrations have done.

 

This is a bogus claim and simply misdirection.

 

When it comes to systemic SERE-type torture as an approved U.S. interrogation method, Mike's claim is simply untrue.

 

didn't he say the end does not justify the means? and if so, how does that differ from what mike said?

 

The clear inference in Mike's translation is that without going against our values Americans would die when that has clearly never been shown as a fact, and has in fact been challenged by interrogation experts as untrue.

 

The discussion went like this.

A) I am against torture.

B) Would you torture to save lives?

A) No

B) Then you would let Americans die before you would torture?

 

There error was in answering the first question - would you torture to save lives. Everything past that was nonsense, spin, and misdirection.

Actually, it wasn't put as Question 1; Question 2 (if you're talking about the subthread involving him and me). Just to ensure that nothing is lost in the translation, it went exactly like this:

 

Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true?  If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11.

 

No.

 

I object to the characterization of any of it as "error," "nonsense," "spin," or "misdirection." He gave a straight answer based on principle to a straight (tough) question. Props to him.

[Winstonm]

I object to the characterization of any of it as "error," "nonsense," "spin," or "misdirection." He gave a straight answer based on principle to a straight (tough) question.

 

The misdirection is a ploy Mike often uses and has done so once again. The question you asked and quote was a non-sensical thought experiment that should not have been answered - it was misdirection in its own right - and that was bad enough. But to paraphrase that quote and use it as some kind of proof of a position is more that nonsense - it's shabby.

 

BTW, you forgot to produce the entire exchange:

 

Of course Cheney, Rice, and the other torturers claim that torture produced results and that "the ends justified the means." But a person willing to torture is surely a person willing to lie

 

Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true?  If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11

 

No.

 

His position, clearly stated, was that people who torture are surely willing to lie. You asked an irrelevant question that is nothing but a thought experiment to change the subject. That was bad enough, but Mike twisted that into something even more sinister - that P.O.'s positions was to allow Americans to die to protect certain values. And by assuming Americans would die the false assumption is made that torture prevents Americans from dying and PO would allow it to happen - which all seems to prove P.O.'s basic premise that torture supporters are willing to lie. B)

[Lobowolf]

I object to the characterization of any of it as "error," "nonsense," "spin," or "misdirection." He gave a straight answer based on principle to a straight (tough) question.

 

The misdirection is a ploy Mike often uses and has done so once again. The question you quote is a non-sensical thought experiment that should not have been answered - it is misdirection - and then to paraphrase that quote and use it as some kind of proof of a position is more that nonsense - it's shabby.

In what sense (sorry) is the question non-sensical?

[Winstonm]

I object to the characterization of any of it as "error," "nonsense," "spin," or "misdirection." He gave a straight answer based on principle to a straight (tough) question.

 

The misdirection is a ploy Mike often uses and has done so once again. The question you quote is a non-sensical thought experiment that should not have been answered - it is misdirection - and then to paraphrase that quote and use it as some kind of proof of a position is more that nonsense - it's shabby.

In what sense (sorry) is the question non-sensical?

Answered above.

[PassedOut]

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

This is simply tacky. Not only did P.O. not say this, but no one else did, either, and it is the same cheap logic fallacy as asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?", as it presumes that torture prevents Americans from dying.

i think you're wrong here, although i don't have time to look for it... didn't he say the end does not justify the means? and if so, how does that differ from what mike said?

I said:

 

It's true that the opinion I expressed about Cheney and Rice is not germane to  my views on torture. I just don't believe that our country's principles should be sacrificed for expediency, even if doing so would make us a little safer.

Although it seems absurd to some, many people do put principle ahead of complete safety. Folks in my neck of the woods insist that the second amendment confers the right to own any type of firearm, even though some innocent Americans will die for the sake of that principle. I own rifles and handguns myself.

 

If preserving safety were the most important goal, we wouldn't have guns and we wouldn't have fast cars.

 

By torturing people, the Bush administration contends (in word and deed) that the fundamental principles of our country are not worth preserving in the face of risk. But I believe that our principles are worth risking American lives to maintain. That's the basic difference between my thinking and that of Cheney and Bush and their apologists.

 

In fact, though, I don't believe that they value safety as much as they pretend. Otherwise they would be trying to reduce the number of high-powered rifles and cheap handguns sold.

 

I do believe that Cheney and Bush and that group use the "we made you safer by torturing muslims" argument to appeal to the block of voters that they (and I) call "the pants-pissers." Those are people who are quite willing to sacrifice principle for a feeling of safety.

[luke warm]

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

This is simply tacky. Not only did P.O. not say this, but no one else did, either, and it is the same cheap logic fallacy as asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?", as it presumes that torture prevents Americans from dying.

i think you're wrong here, although i don't have time to look for it... didn't he say the end does not justify the means? and if so, how does that differ from what mike said?

I said:

 

It's true that the opinion I expressed about Cheney and Rice is not germane to  my views on torture. I just don't believe that our country's principles should be sacrificed for expediency, even if doing so would make us a little safer.

Although it seems absurd to some, many people do put principle ahead of complete safety.

i'm not disagreeing with you, i agree philosophically with your conclusion... i was just trying to straighten out winston's take on the whole thing

[PassedOut]

Interesting piece by columnist Ross Douthat today: Cheney for President

A large swath of the political class wants to avoid the torture debate. The Obama administration backed into it last week, and obviously wants to back right out again.

 

But the argument isn’t going away. It will be with us as long as the threat of terrorism endures. And where the Bush administration’s interrogation programs are concerned, we’ve heard too much to just “look forward,” as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.

 

Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.

 

But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out.

Looks like more and more folks want to get this out in the open and sorted out.

[y66]

Wow. Ross Douthat can write.

 

“Real conservatism,” in this narrative, means a particular strain of right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress positions, uninterested in social policy and dismissive of libertarian qualms about the national-security state. And Dick Cheney happens to be its diamond-hard distillation. The former vice-president kept his distance from the Bush administration’s attempts at domestic reform, and he had little time for the idealistic, religiously infused side of his boss’s policy agenda. He was for tax cuts at home and pre-emptive warfare overseas; anything else he seemed to disdain as sentimentalism.

 

This is precisely the sort of conservatism that’s ascendant in today’s much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party’s grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability.

Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt are rolling over in their graves.

[Al_U_Card]

When the guy in the white hat leads the posse out and it has one or two rowdies in it, there can still be a claim to legitimacy when the bad guys are brought in (mostly alive).... :)

 

 

When the posse is all wearing black hats.....time to determine who is chasing whom. :)

[Lobowolf]

Ronald Regan and Teddy Roosevelt are rolling over in their graves.

Indeed they are. But don't think Kennedy hasn't been for 35 years, too.

[PassedOut]

Ronald Regan and Teddy Roosevelt are rolling over in their graves.

Indeed they are. But don't think Kennedy hasn't been for 35 years, too.

To my eyes, the republicans today apply a much more rigid ideology than they did in the past: in fact, the ideology just described by Ross Douthat.

 

So, almost by default, the democrats, who do not do so, get the nod these days from those of us who can see that our problems are not (always) amenable to those ideological solutions.

[y66]

Indeed they are. But don't think Kennedy hasn't been for 35 years, too.

So, Lobowolf, it seems you are an idealist after all. Never doubted it. :)

[Winstonm]

But I believe that our principles are worth risking American lives to maintain. That's the basic difference between my thinking and that of Cheney and Bush and their apologists.

 

 

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

 

I will let the readers decide for themselves if these two quotes express the same sentiments.

[Lobowolf]

Awwww, Winston, at least make it interesting.

 

 

 

Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true?  If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11.

 

No.

 

*******

 

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

[luke warm]

 

Awwww, Winston, at least make it interesting.

 

 

 

Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true?   If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11.

 

No.

 

*******

 

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

stop it, you're confusing me

[jdonn]

But I believe that our principles are worth risking American lives to maintain. That's the basic difference between my thinking and that of Cheney and Bush and their apologists.

 

 

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

 

I will let the readers decide for themselves if these two quotes express the same sentiments.

I do not think "risking American lives" is the same as "letting Americans die". The first is sending a fireman into a burning house. The second is failing to send in another fireman to save him when he gets in trouble.

[Lobowolf]

I'm all for saving lives, but it should be noted that darn near everyone is in favor of policies that are directly linked to the deaths of lots of Americans, and for reasons much less noble than a moral opposition to torture (convenience, for instance).

 

Shall we take a vote on whether or not to lower the speed limit to 50?

[mike777]

Interesting piece by columnist Ross Douthat today: Cheney for President

A large swath of the political class wants to avoid the torture debate. The Obama administration backed into it last week, and obviously wants to back right out again.

 

But the argument isn’t going away. It will be with us as long as the threat of terrorism endures. And where the Bush administration’s interrogation programs are concerned, we’ve heard too much to just “look forward,” as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.

 

Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.

 

But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out.

Looks like more and more folks want to get this out in the open and sorted out.

Excellent discussion regarding standing by principles, principles including those against torture. The issue is not whether our current and past tactics are effective in gathering useful information but rather if these tactics violate the law or American Principles.

 

Hopefully today our Defense agencies and our Intelligent gathering agencies are standing up for all of the principles that America stands for not just some.

 

 

"Looks like more and more folks want to get this out in the open and sorted out."

 

Well said, lets follow the law and all of the evidence when it comes to those who break the law or violate American Principles. Lets just not have a few showtrials and only follow some of the evidence.

 

Lets just not focus only on those who admit they waterboarded, lets follow all the evidence of those who break the law and violate American Principles. Otherwise we end up with a few showtrials and a huge coverup.

 

As for Bush, Cheney, Tenet and other heads of our Intelligent agencies they have admitted they knew and approved waterboarding. They do not deny they did it! Does anyone really believe there are not tens or hundreds more who knew about this and did not object. They even admit they went into Iraq for the wrong reason. There were no weapons of mass destruction!

 

 

 

"Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true? If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11."

 

BTW lets not lose focus here, waterboarding is not the only tactic that we should be discussing when it comes to preserving the Law and American Principles. Lets follow all of the law and American Principles and not get sidetracked.

[luke warm]

BTW lets not lose focus here, waterboarding is not the only tactic that we should be discussing when it comes to preserving the Law and American Principles. Lets follow all of the law and American Principles and not get sidetracked.

you're right, of course... but, to paraphrase c.s. lewis, it would be something like going to the dentist because your tooth hurts... that'd be ok if all he did was fix or pull the tooth, but dentists like to poke around in there... before you know it he's got a whole list of things he needs to fix in your mouth

[mike777]

BTW lets not lose focus here, waterboarding is not the only tactic that we should be discussing when it comes to preserving the Law and American Principles. Lets follow all of the law and American Principles and not get sidetracked.

you're right, of course... but, to paraphrase c.s. lewis, it would be something like going to the dentist because your tooth hurts... that'd be ok if all he did was fix or pull the tooth, but dentists like to poke around in there... before you know it he's got a whole list of things he needs to fix in your mouth

I just went to the Dentist today, they poked around for two hours and said I was good to go.....hopefully so is the USA :)

[Winstonm]

I'm all for saving lives, but it should be noted that darn near everyone is in favor of policies that are directly linked to the deaths of lots of Americans, and for reasons much less noble than a moral opposition to torture (convenience, for instance).

 

We need to make clear that "policies" and "laws" are not the same thing. It may be policy not negotiate with Iran until they agree to stop their nuclear program - not matter how stupid that policy is, it is not illegal and no one should ge to jail for having that policy.

 

Torture is clearly illegal, not only a violation of international laws but of U.S. Federal law. It is statutory - thus, not policy.

 

BTW, the speed limits are also statutory laws - they are not policy. The only policy I know that is killing millions of Americans is the policy to allow 40 million Americans to go without health insurance.

[Winstonm]

But I believe that our principles are worth risking American lives to maintain. That's the basic difference between my thinking and that of Cheney and Bush and their apologists.

 

 

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

 

I will let the readers decide for themselves if these two quotes express the same sentiments.

I do not think "risking American lives" is the same as "letting Americans die". The first is sending a fireman into a burning house. The second is failing to send in another fireman to save him when he gets in trouble.

I appreciate the input. I didn't think it would cause such a furor as it is absolutely plain to me that the statements are not really even close in meaning.