Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
  1. #1 Believe Me, Itís Torture 
    Senior Member hampshirebrit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    TehYuk
    Posts
    3,727
    Hitchens on waterboading.

    Give the guy some credit. He submitted to it in researching the article.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...hitchens200808

    He didn't hold out that long, but I wonder how many of us would have held out longer.

    Not that many, I reckon.

    I'm ambivalent on the subject. There is nothing I would like more than to see Osama 'n' friends undergo this, provided they are the real deal, and provided it means they give up quality information.

    But I think we need to be sure that they really are the real deal, that they really are Osama 'n' friends beyond a reasonable doubt, first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by hampshirebrit View Post
    Hitchens on waterboading.

    Give the guy some credit. He submitted to it in researching the article.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...hitchens200808

    He didn't hold out that long, but I wonder how many of us would have held out longer.

    Not that many, I reckon.

    I'm ambivalent on the subject. There is nothing I would like more than to see Osama 'n' friends undergo this, provided they are the real deal, and provided it means they give up quality information.

    But I think we need to be sure that they really are the real deal, that they really are Osama 'n' friends beyond a reasonable doubt, first.
    I view this a tad differently than as appeared to be stated by you. I don't want to see anybody go through this procedure as a form of punishment (okay...maybe I do, but I don't want to see it as official U.S. policy). I view waterboarding as a form of potential evidence gathering. If it is believed by a preponderance of the evidence that the information will lead to information vital to our national security, then do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member hampshirebrit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    TehYuk
    Posts
    3,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    I view this a tad differently than as appeared to be stated by you. I don't want to see anybody go through this procedure as a form of punishment (okay...maybe I do, but I don't want to see it as official U.S. policy). I view waterboarding as a form of potential evidence gathering. If it is believed by a preponderance of the evidence that the information will lead to information vital to our national security, then do it.
    Then I would say that our views are not divergent, in that case.

    Just make sure the perp really is the perp first, by non-extreme means.

    In other words, just because you pick up some auslander raghead who is in the wrong place at the wrong time, don't use such techniques on him, not at least without some other probable cause.

    Also keep in mind what Hitch says... any confession thus obtained is highly likely to lead to junk evidence, or shaky evidence, at best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    I would say that anything that a Navy Seals endures would not be considered torture by our military and prisoner standards. Comparatively, a Seal that goes thru frigid waters for several hours in training would gladly trade that for a water-boarding exercise.

    Hitchens is an old fart; the muzzies that have gotten water-boarded are much younger. A 30 or 40 year age differential makes a big difference don't you think?
    Last edited by lacarnut; 07-27-2008 at 02:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member hampshirebrit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    TehYuk
    Posts
    3,727
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    I would say that anything that a Navy Seals endures would not be considered torture by our military and prisoner standards. Comparatively, a Seal that goes thru frigid waters for several hours in training would gladly trade that for a water-boarding exercise.

    Hitchens is an old fart; the muzzies that have gotten water-boarded are much younger. A 30 or 40 year age differential makes a big difference don't you think?
    Both you and I are old farts. Let's face it, we both drive old fart cars.

    And you're right, a 30-40 age differential does make a big difference.

    But the bigger differential is presumed guilt or lack of it.

    If I knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the 20 y/o wannabe I'd just detained was in posession of good grade intel then I would work him thoroughly to get that intel.

    I would work him if he was 30, or 40, or 50, or 60 or beyond, if I thought it would futher my cause, if it would save British or American lives, or Iraqi lives, for that matter.

    As old a fart as Hitchens is, he makes the valid point that this "work" should only be undertaken when you have good, probable cause that you will get results.

    If you have good cause, then it's interrogation. If you do not, then it is torture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by hampshirebrit View Post
    Both you and I are old farts. Let's face it, we both drive old fart cars.

    And you're right, a 30-40 age differential does make a big difference.

    But the bigger differential is presumed guilt or lack of it.

    If I knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the 20 y/o wannabe I'd just detained was in posession of good grade intel then I would work him thoroughly to get that intel.

    I would work him if he was 30, or 40, or 50, or 60 or beyond, if I thought it would futher my cause, if it would save British or American lives, or Iraqi lives, for that matter.

    As old a fart as Hitchens is, he makes the valid point that this "work" should only be undertaken when you have good, probable cause that you will get results.

    If you have good cause, then it's interrogation. If you do not, then it is torture.
    Do you agree with that standard? Or do you require beyond reasonable doubt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by hampshirebrit View Post
    Both you and I are old farts. Let's face it, we both drive old fart cars.

    And you're right, a 30-40 age differential does make a big difference.

    But the bigger differential is presumed guilt or lack of it.

    If I knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the 20 y/o wannabe I'd just detained was in posession of good grade intel then I would work him thoroughly to get that intel.

    I would work him if he was 30, or 40, or 50, or 60 or beyond, if I thought it would futher my cause, if it would save British or American lives, or Iraqi lives, for that matter.

    As old a fart as Hitchens is, he makes the valid point that this "work" should only be undertaken when you have good, probable cause that you will get results.

    If you have good cause, then it's interrogation. If you do not, then it is torture.
    I agree with that plus this type of interrogation should be used by trained experts in that field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member hampshirebrit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    TehYuk
    Posts
    3,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    Do you agree with that standard? Or do you require beyond reasonable doubt?
    You're the attorney, not me.

    As far as I know, in the US, probable cause is applied when detaining a suspect, and reasonable doubt is applied when convicting one, once detained. The two are not interchangable.

    But from my limited knowledge, in layman's terms, if I had good reason (and it better be good) to think that Johnny Wannabe has high level intel, then I would waterboard him to extract it from him, to the point where either I got the intel, or he required de-fib.

    In return for my government's largesse in allowing me to make such a judgement, I would make sure that my grounds for thinking he has this intel were sound, and were likely to stand up in a court of law.

    In other words, for me, waterboarding would be the very last resort, i.e. something I would not go to first, and something I would go to last, reluctantly.

    I guess I would not be a good waterboarder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by hampshirebrit View Post
    You're the attorney, not me.

    As far as I know, in the US, probable cause is applied when detaining a suspect, and reasonable doubt is applied when convicting one, once detained. The two are not interchangable.

    But from my limited knowledge, in layman's terms, if I had good reason (and it better be good) to think that Johnny Wannabe has high level intel, then I would waterboard him to extract it from him, to the point where either I got the intel, or he required de-fib.

    In return for my government's largesse in allowing me to make such a judgement, I would make sure that my grounds for thinking he has this intel were sound, and were likely to stand up in a court of law.

    In other words, for me, waterboarding would be the very last resort, i.e. something I would not go to first, and something I would go to last, reluctantly.

    I guess I would not be a good waterboarder.
    I asked your thoughts only because you've referenced two different standards. I think your understanding of the the two terms is correct. I just wanted to see where you fell on the standard to be used in order to engage in torture. (Actually, I don't know the standard that is used in convicting terrorists in our military courts, but you've certainly articulated properly the standard to be used in regular criminal courts.

    I'm find with preponderance of the evidence standard...more likely than not he is a terrorist with possession of intel that would directly benefit our cause and which may either save lives, or bring to justice those responsible for the taking of lives in the context of terrorism. I'm not necessarily comfortable with using that intel in a court of law...but I am comfortable with using it in the context of prosecuting a war and using any info gathered from that to help in that endeavor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by hampshirebrit View Post
    You're the attorney, not me.

    As far as I know, in the US, probable cause is applied when detaining a suspect, and reasonable doubt is applied when convicting one, once detained. The two are not interchangable.

    But from my limited knowledge, in layman's terms, if I had good reason (and it better be good) to think that Johnny Wannabe has high level intel, then I would waterboard him to extract it from him, to the point where either I got the intel, or he required de-fib.

    In return for my government's largesse in allowing me to make such a judgement, I would make sure that my grounds for thinking he has this intel were sound, and were likely to stand up in a court of law.

    In other words, for me, waterboarding would be the very last resort, i.e. something I would not go to first, and something I would go to last, reluctantly.

    I guess I would not be a good waterboarder.
    The probability that reasonable doubt had crossed that threshold would make all systems go for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •