Iraq: Haliburton Employers gang rape an employee.

[cxt]

Val

Mine was reading what people that have used the techniques in the field--such as the guys you mention that said it was "necessery."
Listening to experts that have used it succesfully and more objective people that are more concerned with saving lives than parroting PC opinions on ethics---as all to many people are wont to do.

I also work with people that have been waterboarded as part of their military training---heck I even listened to a local DJ getting waterboarded on the air---didn't hurt him, nor did it keep him from doing his job for the rest of the day/week etc.

As such I draw a distinction between it and "real" torture which at a minmium involves considerable physical injury and pain.

"A sure thing"

Nope---please refer BACK to my earlierr question on "chances"
Besides in CONTEXT with your statement---waterboarding or torture if you want to use the term STILL could just be the lesser of two evils--not good--but the best that could be done at the time.

"and I'm telling you, I was using the connotation of disregarding"

And I'm telling YOU that I neither use it in that way nor agree to the frameing of it in that context.
In context of how I'm using it---more specifically:

A- I don't "disregard harm to the detainees" I simply don't see it as harm in any noteworthy fashion.

B-I "discount" it---as in I hold a murderers comfort to be less important than saving innocent lives.

"Downsides"

Maybe---but we were not talking "downsides" I asked you about CHANCES.
Several times now you have mentined the "chances" of either somebody having information or it working---since peoples lives are in the balance----its only fair to establish some idea of what percentage chance it has to be to be worth trying to save a persons life????
90% 80% 60% 30% 10% 5%
At what point is it no longer worth you time and effort to save a human being???
At what point would you feel the chance to save the life of someone you love or your own life be to small to take??

Ok, and if you must discuss "downsides" since the "downside" here is causeing discomfort to mass murderer---I don't see much "downside" at all.

"if you can produce credible experts I will in fact change my mind."

Ok--YOU-YOURSELF posted an example of people that not only used waterboarding----they used to capture several major terrorist--and they said it was "NECESSARY"

What more do you need?--it was one of YOUR sources.

(and no, an appeal to authority does not stop with ones personal skills)

"You want to beleive the man when he says it necessary but not belive him when he says it torture."

And YOU "want to belive him when he says its torture" but NOT when he says its "necessary."

As YOU ask--"How is this anything but willful disregard for evidence YOU don't like?"

"What would convince YOU that waterboarding ISNT torture?"

I would guess about as much as it would take to convience you that it wasnt.
From my perspective---your not a bit less inflexible or "ridged" in your thinking that I am----the difference is that I less willing to let innocent people die for the comfort and coddling of mass murderers

OK then lets:

"weigh the value of human life against suffering"

How much "suffering" is a human life worth??

A little? Some? None?

Lets play it out---instead of these CIA brutes that captured Abu Zubayah--what do YOU do to get the information that according to the guys you posted considered "necessary."

Same situation they were in--what would you have done?

Seriously Val---WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?

Fan out your plan for getting needed information from these killers.

[Valkenar]

Mine was reading what people that have used the techniques in the field--such as the guys you mention that said it was "necessery."

Can you point me at some of these readings? I did you the courtesy of pointing you towards some of my sources.

Listening to experts that have used it succesfully and more objective people that are more concerned with saving lives than parroting PC opinions on ethics---as all to many people are wont to do.

On what basis are you impugning the objectivity of the people I posted? What makes them less objective?

I also work with people that have been waterboarded as part of their military training---heck I even listened to a local DJ getting waterboarded on the air---didn't hurt him, nor did it keep him from doing his job for the rest of the day/week etc.

So you don't think there's a difference between a voluntarily undergoing some form of waterboarding and having it done forcibly? I am also somewhat doubtful that the procedure is performed with the same level of intensity.

And I'm telling YOU that I neither use it in that way nor agree to the frameing of it in that context.

Fine, since you only seem to comprehend the "lesser value" sense of the word "discount" you use it that way, and I'll continue using the word disregard.

A- I don't "disregard harm to the detainees" I simply don't see it as harm in any noteworthy fashion.

What do you think "disregard" mean? You're saying you don't think it's noteworthy. You are showing no regard for the harm caused. That is disregarding it.

Maybe---but we were not talking "downsides" I asked you about CHANCES.

Of course we're talking about downsides. If there were no downside there wouldn't even be a question that it's the right thing to do. Alternatively, if you were assured of success then there wouldn't be a question (actually I think there would, but I'll leave that be for the sake of discussion). The only reason chance matters is because there is a downside combined with a chance of success. If you take either one out of the picture, then there's no issue.

its only fair to establish some idea of what percentage chance it has to be to be worth trying to save a persons life????
90% 80% 60% 30% 10% 5%

Did you not read my post? I gave you a number (99%) and asked you to give yours. I'll make up another number for you. Given the downside of torturing a person, I would want to see at least an 75% chance of success. If there was no downside, than any chance of success would be enough. So how about it, what's your number?

Ok, and if you must discuss "downsides" since the "downside" here is causeing discomfort to mass murderer---I don't see much "downside" at all.

I know you don't. And that is why I say you are disregarding the harm to the person being tortured. That harm is very real, you just don't care about it because you feel the person has given up their humanity ticket. Is that correct?

Ok--YOU-YOURSELF posted an example of people that not only used waterboarding----they used to capture several major terrorist--and they said it was "NECESSARY"

What more do you need?--it was one of YOUR sources.

And YOU "want to belive him when he says its torture" but NOT when he says its "necessary."

So you would accept that water boarding is torture, but necessary then?

As YOU ask--"How is this anything but willful disregard for evidence YOU don't like?"

Because there's a difference between a question of fact and a question of efficacy. "Is a cat a mammal?" is a question of fact. "Do we want to use cats to keep the rat population down" is a question of efficacy. Compare to "Is waterboarding torture?" and "Do we want to use waterboarding to gather life-saving information"

"What would convince YOU that waterboarding ISNT torture?"

I would guess about as much as it would take to convience you that it wasnt.

This doesn't answer the question. I told you that sufficient testimony from credible experts would be enough for me. You, however, implied that being convinced was impossible. Instead of trying reverse it, just answer the question. Is there any way for you to be convinced?

How much "suffering" is a human life worth??

A little? Some? None?

Some. You didn't answer my other question (about the kidneys), but that's okay, I'll ask another one. Would you yourself consent to being tortured if there were a 50% chance it would save one random stranger's life?

Same situation they were in--what would you have done?

Seriously Val---WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?

Very likely not tortured anybody.

Fan out your plan for getting needed information from these killers.

Regular interrogation sans torture. If that's not enough, well that's the price of ethical decision-making. Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something that's bad for me and better for someone I don't like.

[cxt]

Val

Well since I have been reading on this/similar issues since long before the topic came up---I really can't tell you all of them.
But I could always use a few of YOURS--such as the guys YOU posted that claim it was "necessery"---after all, they used waterboarding, it worked and they say we need to do it.

"On what bais are you inpuning the objectivity of the peope I posted?"

Val--please get a grip--where did I single out either you or the people you posted as lacking in objectivity?????
I made a general statement about people that operate from aOC base rather than objectvity---if you "feel" that cuts too close to you and the people that share your opinion---well I can't help that.

"So don't you think there is a difference between voluntarily undergoing some form of waterboarding"

Nope, since in CONTEXT, I was looking at the supposed harms of doing it---since it didn't hurt them--I can't see why it would be any more harmful to anyone else.

"Since you only seem to comprehend"

"Comprehend" just fine---its preceisly why I use/see/understand the term has different meanings and thus I refuse to frame in the in-accurate loaded fashion you choose.

"You are showing no regard for the harm caused"
A- As mentioned I see no "harms" caused

B-As explained I simply care LESS for the discomfort of mass murderers than I do for the saving of innocent lives.

"the harm is very real"

Is it??????

Heck even IJ could not come up with but a very few highly suspect studies that even pointed to ant actual harms--if you can do better---PLEASE present the proofs.

"So you would accept it as torture then?"

If YOU'LL accept it as "necessary"

As mentioend YOU want to believe the guy when he says it "torture" but not when he says is "necessary."

"efficacy

The word was "NECESSARY" not "efficacy"-------again, the people YOU QUOTE AS SUPPORTIVE EXPERTS SAY ITS "NECESSARY"

Argue the "efficacy" with them--not me.

"I told you that sufficent testimony from credible experts would be enough for me."

Ok--lets think this through.

YOU POSTED them so we can assume you consider then "credible"
They say is "necessary"
Yet hear you are still trying to argue that it should not be used.
When someone decides to argue against their OWN evidence---the only possible explaintion is that bias and ideology is driving their...well.. lets just call it "thinking.

In answer to your question--there is as much chance that I wil change my position as you will change yours.

"Would you consent to be tortured if there was a 50% chance to save some stranges life?"

In the context of waterboarding--ABSOLUTLY.

In fact if you would personally sign a contract to donate YOUR "kidney" to a random person on the wait list---I'll let YOU waterboard me.
We can toss a coin----you lose the toss--you have to donate the kidney---you win--you get to keep it.
Either way you still get to waterboard me.

What do you say Val???? Shall we call a legal expert and set up???

Im sure that we can find someone close to both of us that could do the actual waterboarding---or someone you trust to watch it happen.
Could probably get someone on the site to supervise the actual event.

What do you say????????

"That is the price for ethcial decsion making. Somtimes doing the right thing means doing something that is bad for me and better for someone else."

Well how-freaking-noble.

Of course in this case--its not "bad for YOU" at all---its "bad" for the all the innocent victems of that guys mass murder plots.

And its "better" for the mass murderer that does not have go thu discomfort and stress.

So essentially you get to keep polishing up your ethics--like a miser polishing his gold in saftey and comfort--while innocent people pay with their very lives for your "oh-so-noble" stance.

Like I said prior--that is not ethical--thats closer to meglomania.

[Valkenar]

Well since I have been reading on this/similar issues since long before the topic came up---I really can't tell you all of them.

Forget "all", how about... 2? Maybe 3?

Nope, since in CONTEXT, I was looking at the supposed harms of doing it---since it didn't hurt them--I can't see why it would be any more harmful to anyone else.

Well, frankly I'm amazed. If you don't see an emotional difference between self-inflicted discomfort and that done forcibly by someone else... well there's just nothing I can say to that. Fortunately, it's not really central to my argument.

"You are showing no regard for the harm caused"
A- As mentioned I see no "harms" caused

Let's keep trying to be very clear here. I was talking about the harm caused by torture. Let me try to clarify a few things:

Does psychological trauma exists?
Does psychological trauma constitute harm to a person?
Does torture inflict psychological trauma?
Can psychological trauma be inflicted without permanent physical damage?

Remember, in this one particular section I'm talking about torture, whatever that means to you, regardless of whether water boarding is torture or not.

Ok--lets think this through.

YOU POSTED them so we can assume you consider then "credible"
They say is "necessary"

What is it you think he means by necessary? My interpretation is that there's no other way to get the information. And you know what, that's believable. I can believe that torture can occasionally retrieve information that wouldn't be accessible any other way. That's my understanding of what he means by necessary.

That said, this man is an expert in his field, but ethics is not his field. I would expect him to have a better-than-average insight into whether water boarding is torture or not. I would not expect him to have better-than-average insight into whether it's morally permissible to harm a person to get information.

In answer to your question--there is as much chance that I wil change my position as you will change yours.

That is not an answer to the question. Why not answer it for yourself without reference to me? You should be able to describe what kind of evidence you find persuasive without resorting to making it contingent on what you think is going on in my head.

In the context of waterboarding--ABSOLUTLY.

I was speaking outside the context of water boarding.
I'll repeat the question:

Would you consent to be tortured if there was a 50% chance to save a stranger's life?

This is torture by whatever definition you would use, and I understand that your definition does not include water boarding.

Either way you still get to waterboard me.

I have absolutely no interest in hurting you. In fact, I would go through a great deal of trouble to prevent you from being water boarded, if the situation arose.

Besides, you're the one that believes life trumps all. Under that theory, you should be giving up your kidney, shouldn't you? Why not?

[cxt]

Val

Sorry, but lets do the important one first.

Were talking about WATERBOARDING here--you asked me if I would be willing to accpet being "tortured" for "50%" chance to save someones life.
I said "yes" and proposed a "put your money where your mouth is" way to settle the sincerity of our relative postions.
Instead of agreeing---the noble paragon of ethics that you are
Instead you NOW SWITCH THE BASIS OF THE DISCUSSION UTTERLY BY REMOVING WATERBOARDING AS "TORTURE."

So waterboarding ISN'T "torture" now?????????

Un-fing-be-livable---after spending PAGES saying "waterboarding IS torture" like a Chatty Kathy doll pulling its own string---heck you even proposed a situaion where I would agree that it was torture......you now say--and I quote.

"I was speaking outside the context of waterboarding."

So instead of some nameless faceless innocent person--when ITS YOU that might have to endure some pain--THEN waterboarding is no longer torture----and a "50-50" chance is too much of a risk for you to take.

Your willing to sit safe and warm and dry---and allow innocent people to DIE--rather than cause a mass murderer any degree of stress.
But when its no longer utterly hypothetical---then the story changes.
I present a picture perfect situation to test both your ethical fortitude AND your cock-eyed "chance theory" and you can't say "no" fast enough.

I step up and say "yes, waterboard me if it could save a life" ................ and you dither and spin and offer spineless excuses

I think we can pretty much move on from any assertion that you operate from ANY actual ethical position here Val.

Narcissim--not "ethics" is where this comes from.

(And BTW me just donating a kidney---that would not show anything about the WATERBAORDING discussion we are haveing would it???......The discussion is on would you WATERBOARD to save innocent lives----you say no--because your too ethical to do so and because the "chance" is too low..so the only way to settle that is to present a situation with waterboarding AND personal risk/chance to highlight how you really feel.)

Ok the rest of it..

"forget all, how about 2 or 3?"

Since I'm using the SAME guys as you yourself invoked as support--how about just the same one you used?

Besides--what possible use would knowing that do you?---you going to call the Marine that had it done to him?
You going to send angry letters to the people in the military that told me their opinion?

"emotional differnce"

Ah, so we have moved from the level of actual PHYSICAL harms to "emotional" ones....pllleeeassseee.
How exactly are we to establish "emotional" harms and how exactly can I verify that someone is indeed "emotionally harmed?????
Can't wait to hear this.

I STILL see no actual, proven harms from waterboarding--but please if you can do better than the claims made by IJ patisens please do so.
Show them to me--fan them out.

"What do think he means by "nescessary"

I think he means that at the time he needed to use waterboarding to capture bad guys and save lives-----how do YOU read it?

"The man is an expert in his field, but ethics is not his field"

Good Lord and little catfishes Val--first you bitch moan and whine that I "impuned" people for taking a PC supposedly ethical stance instead of objective people trying to save lives THEN you go and bitch moan and whine that the guy in YOUR example is a guy out trying to save lives and is not an "ethicsist."

Sheesh........why don't you get your ideas/concept in line then get back to me OK???

"Why not answer for yourself"

I already have--its YOU I'm showing the error of his ways."
I'm giving an honest answer----I'm as willing as you to change my mind.
The ONLY way that is a problem is if your fibbing about you being open to change.

And I think you are-at least your willing to ignore your own support--quoted by you--that say waterboarding is "necessary."
If YOU don't belive your OWN evidence and support---then how serious could you possibly be about being open to change your mind??????

[Valkenar]

Val
So waterboarding ISN'T "torture" now?????????

I never said any such thing. What I said was that in that one particular context I was leaving the issue of water boarding aside to focus on the other issue. As I have been doing for several posts I'm trying to clarify the two different discussions we have going on.

1. Is water boarding torture?

and completely seperately

2. Is it wrong to torture terrorists?

We need to talk about them seperately or we're going to continue going round in circles. I'm trying to be very clear when I'm talking about water boarding and when I'm not. I recognize that you don't agree water boarding is torture. That is why, when I am talking about torture, I try to leave water boarding out, because we don't agree there. I haven't changed my mind about water boarding.

However, if you do not wish to discuss torture until the water boarding issue is resolved, that's okay with me. But that means sticking entirely to the question of whether water boarding is torture or not and not talking about whether's it's necessary or not from that point on. Whether water boarding is torture or not is completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of whether torture is necessary or ethical.

If you think you can discuss whether water boarding is torture or not without returning to the topic of whether it's necessary, then please address the evidence I posted and give reasons why it's not convincing. Currently it appears that you consider the CIA team leader a credible person. that you think the poll is without value and that the war crimes trials don't address water-boarding sufficiently.

You can also go ahead and post your own counter-evidence. I've done so, and I can post some more if you like, but I think it's your turn to support your argument or admit that you can't.

I present a picture perfect situation to test both your ethical fortitude AND your cock-eyed "chance theory" and you can't say "no" fast enough.

No, first, I'm not interested in seeing you come to harm. Second, I'm not interested in a pissing contest. Third, your situation completely misses the point.

Besides--what possible use would knowing that do you?

So you see no benefit in supporting one's arguments with evidence? Look I can claim that I talked to God himself and he told me that water boarding is torture. If you want to say "I have secret evidence that I won't share" fine, then you should just take my word for it that God says water boarding is torture.

Ah, so we have moved from the level of actual PHYSICAL harms to "emotional" ones....pllleeeassseee.

So can I take that to mean that you don't believe in psychological or emotional trauma? Just yes or not would be fine.

How exactly are we to establish "emotional" harms and how exactly can I verify that someone is indeed "emotionally harmed?????

It's possible for someone to be raped or molested without being put in physical pain. It's still pretty widely recognized as a devastating emotional harm. Would you protest that it's impossible to verify that emotional harm?

I think he means that at the time he needed to use waterboarding to get what he needed to capture bad guys and save lives-----how do YOU read it?

I will agree, for the sake of discussion, that he needed water boarding for that specific purpose. So we are in agreement. Now do you agree that water boarding is torture?

Good Lord and little catfishes Val--first you bitch moan and whine that I "impuned" people for taking a PC supposedly ethical stance

False. I said "On what basis are you impugning the objectivity of the people I posted? What makes them less objective?" Hardly bitching, moaning or whining.

I'm giving an honest answer----I'm a willing as you to change my mind.
The ONLY way that is a problem is if your fibbing about you being open to change.

If I'm to believe that you're as willing to change your mind then I would conclude that you will change your mind if I post evidence from numerous sources. I have done that (10 different links supporting my position). You have not changed your mind, and thus I can only conclude that the conditions under which your mind might change are not the same as mine. Therefore, your answer is no answer at all, since clearly what will change my mind, will not change yours.

Anyhow, this is a pointless line of discussion, as you are unwilling to state in clear terms, as I did, what sort of thing you would find convincing.

[cxt]

Val

Come on dude----spinning only makes it worse.

You proved/showed that as long as you can sit back in comfort and safety you are perfectly willing to let innocent people DIE so you bask in the reflection of your "ethics"-----"ethics" which place the comfort of a mass murderer as superior in value to innocent people very lives.

EXCEPT of course when YOU might have to pony up and take a "chance" yourself.......disappointing, but not really unexpected.

You claim that waterboarding is torture---you even got me to conceed a situtaion where I would agree that is torture---the only way to exempt waterboading from my offer is to just give it up and admit your full of it.
If its "torture" then there is no reason to exampt it from my offer---other than your lack of regard for intellectual rigor.
If its NOT "torture" and therefore exempt from my offer---then there is no reason NOT to use it on terrorists.

You pick one and get back to me.

"pissing contest.......compeletly misses the point"

No and no--already explained it---in detail....it fits the criteria of both our stances---you just don't like it because it shows your true colors.

"So you see no point in supporting ones arguments with evidence"

No, I already presented "evidence" YOURS in fact.

What I "see no point" in is handing you a list of what I read and from where---would do you no good and does not help me--you won't accept YOUR OWN GUYS STATEMENTS as "evidence" why would you accept anyone elses??????

"So I can take that mean you don't belive in psychological tramua"

You can take that to mean exactly what I ALREADY SAID----explain to me how to go about proving it or testing that a given terrorist is suffering from such "trauma" and how can I check to see if he is fakeing it and how can I establish that waterboarding CAUSED it and not something else......then show exactly why should I care--for all I know the screams of his victems horrific deaths is stressing him out at night and not waterboardin gat all.

See this is why I hate using any kind of quote---you took that utterly out of context--I already answered it and you STILL spun it into a BS question........why should I bother if your won't actually read what I say??????

"its possible for someone to be raped or molested without being in put in physical pain"

Wow and I thought IJ was ponderous in his logic---ok fine, sure, its possible....NOW prove to me that being WATERBOARDED---you know the actual topic of our discusion is identical to the trauma of being "raped."

Sheesh.

BTW--since your oh so concerned about "trauma" do you think the people burned alive on 9/11 experienced any "trauma."
Please explain exactly why you are so UNCONCERNED about MORE innocent people gong thu the SAME "trauma.????"

The guys that waterboarded Abu Z cared--cared enough to do everything they could to prevent that sort of "trauma" to other----you on the other hand are only concerned wiht the "trauma" of mass murderers--AGAIN, not the most "ethical" of stances.

"Now do you agree that waterboarding"

ALREADY agreeed that---THIS WOULD BE 3 xs NOW--if you agree that its "necessary" then I agree we can call it "torture"
Sheesh--for gods sake PLEASE READ MY POSTS.
I honestly don't mind that you so disagree with my logic---I do find it reprehensable that you don't bother to read what I actually write

"False"

Nope not "false"---you objected to a comparision of people of people that were either objective people interested in saving lives or people parroting PC ethics.
Clearly the focus was on the implication that they could not be one and the same--or that those I essentially labels "PC parrots" could not be objective-----whew......thus when YOU drew such a hard distinction in that YOUR OWN source was not an expert in ethics it was YOU that essentially suggested THEY could not either be "objective" or for that matter caring about the ethics-----essentially you took MY position...then objected to it--while violating your OWN intial objection.

Dude if you can't keep track of your own arguements and protestations please don't ask me to explain them to you.......just take course or 5 in rhetoric.

"if I post numerous sources"

That is probabaly the crux of the matter--to YOU what is important is how many people TELL you what to think and feel---to ME is all about critical thinking and harsh, objective evaluatio of what I'm told.

If what I'm being told does not make sense--can't pass logical tests--disagrees with what other experts say----then I question it and am suspsicous of it.

You on the other hand, just count the number of people that say something then adopt it as "your" postion---essentially a herd mentality.

"Unwilling to state in clear terms"

Whose kidding whom here Val???

You refuse to accept the opinion of the very guys YOU offered in support.
The SAME guys that stated waterboarding was "necessary"
If you refuse to belive your OWN guys---what can I possibly say that wil sway you?????

BTW, show me something that can stand up to a bit of critical questioning and thought and you might "convince" me.

If you can't--you won't.