CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Our great moral leader thinks that his definition of torture is shared by all who love America. Problem is that the answer is very subjective. Look at Senator John McCain. Clearly a hawk, but having been really tortured, he wants no part of it. Exactly what is and is not torture rests somewhere between tickling and skinning alive. Within this gray area is also the urgency to save innocent lives -vs- what we would normally do. Our enemies need to know we will bend our rules (the ones they don't follow anyway) to defeat cowardly fanatics if we have no other choice to save innocent lives and this does NOT mean we abandon or principles of decency. Terrorism has no rules, no bounds and no limits in its natural form. If we hold back too much, more innocents will be beheaded, crucified and burned alive because we won't recognize irredeemable evil.
It's a poor set of choices, but I believe we have called it as well as we can.
Another problem is that some of the types of torture between tickling and skinning alive have been shown to be completely ineffective in the war on terror. Refer to the Senate Intelligence Senate Committee report.
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions"
One may notice that this international definition of torture is not only vague, but somewhat self-contradictory. The definitional fuzziness was by design as a specific definition would be subject to those who can breach the spirit of the law by loopholing the letter of the law.
Since war necessarily entails great suffering and (ideally) has a defined objective, one would expect that inflicting suffering to achieve the defined objective, thus bringing a sooner end to the suffering inherent to war, would be justified.
I don't believe this means a government should officially sanction torture. Like other ideals that bend during the strife of war, torture should ideally be abolished. It would then be a matter of whether to forgive specific cases of it rather than a matter of daily course.
Generally torture has been found to be ineffective as it provides false positives for intelligence. But people have gotten a lot better at it, so this may have changed. Also, the definition of torture has broadened, so effective methods which may not have previously been considered torture, may be now. Solitary confinement, which is perfectly acceptable in American prisons as punishment, becomes torture on the battlefield if the purpose is extracting information. While this enhanced interrogation method may work well to break the will of the subject, pulling fingernails is still likely to elicit whatever the subject believes will stop the pain.
Well... the Senate Intelligence Committee Study on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program report indicated that "enhanced interrogation" has been completely ineffective in gathering credible and actionable intelligence.
There exists strong rebuttal to the conclusions put forth in the summary version of the report.
Of the nine SSCI members voting to approve the report seven were democrats. Every Republican on the SSCI, save one, voted against approval of the final version that was released. Not so bi-partisan after all.
That's true. They said the study was "ideologically motivated" and that the program "developed significant intelligence that helped us identify and capture important al-Qa'ida terrorists".
"The fact that the CIA's Detention and Interrogation program developed significant intelligence that helped us identify and capture important al-Qa'ida terrorists, disrupt their ongoing plotting, and take down Usama Bin Ladin[sic] is incontrovertible. Claims included in this report that assert the contrary are simply wrong." McConnell and Chambliss.
They just make empty claims of fact without criticizing the methods of data collection or the logic which led to the conclusion in the report.
The study being ideologically motivated explains why the accounts of force feeding were listed as torture rather than an attempt to counter hunger strikes. Force feeding orally becomes very dangerous so anal force feeding becomes necessary to maintain the safety of ones staff while forcefully maintaining the nutrition requirements of the captive. This torture label and lack of context is enough to at least cast suspicion on the report.
The study being ideologically motivated explains why the accounts of force feeding were listed as torture rather than an attempt to counter hunger strikes. Force feeding orally becomes very dangerous so anal force feeding becomes necessary to maintain the safety of ones staff while forcefully maintaining the nutrition requirements of the captive. This torture label and lack of context is enough to at least cast suspicion on the report.
This would make sense, if the medical practice of force feeding involved rectal feeding. The process that medical facilities use is enteral feeding, not rectal feeding. Injecting food into the rectum serves no purpose. There will be no absorption of nutrients taking place. There is no backwards peristalsis either.
Ideological bias similarly explains how force feeding is lumped in with rectal feeding (which was used on 2 detainees) as simply torture. While rectal feeding may not provide much (though some) nutrition, it may serve to dissuade hunger strikes. Again it was used on 2.
While rectal feeding may not provide much (though some) nutrition, it may serve to dissuade hunger strikes. Again it was used on 2.
It provides basically no nutrition (other than water and certain soluble electrolytes). If you are going to argue for the medical relevance of something, learn the science behind it.
The actual method of force feeding is enteral feeding. If they had used that against hunger strikes, then that would not be classified as torture.
I guess as long as we only torture people by two's, everything will be fine.
The body can rectally absorb "end-products of normal digestion".
I haven't argued that there was no torture. I am saying that the bias is there and this makes the document suspect. I suspect, for example, that it is not telling the whole story.
The body can rectally absorb "end-products of normal digestion".
Let me quote myself: "other than water and certain soluble electrolytes"
By the way, since there is no reverse peristalsis, the absorption rate is also much lower in the rectum than the colon itself. There is no reason to justify rectal feeding over enteral feeding.
In addition, introduction of undigested waste into the rectum or colon can cause dumping syndrome which involves pain and diarrhea.
I haven't argued that there was no torture. I am saying that the bias is there and this makes the document suspect. I suspect, for example, that it is not telling the whole story.
Where is the bias?
You still have not shown how or why rectal feeding is the medical technique used to force feed those on hunger strikes. I have already explained to you that the actual technique is enteral feeding because it allows for the digestion of nutrients.
Since it was not used to force feed those on hunger strikes, what other purpose did it serve?
If it is not telling the entire story, then the Republicans on that committee, who had access to the rest of the data, could have cited it in their rebuttal. All they did was make the claim that there was bias without providing any support.
If it is not telling the entire story, then the Republicans on that committee, who had access to the rest of the data, could have cited it in their rebuttal
Showing exactly what intel was successfully collected and acted on with success would undoubtedly require releasing even more classified information. Depending on the nature of the intel, it may not have been possible to say more than "we collected important intel". Again, this isn't a denial of torture, it's just consideration of what's not being said.
Showing exactly what intel was successfully collected and acted on with success would undoubtedly require releasing even more classified information. Depending on the nature of the intel, it may not have been possible to say more than "we collected important intel". Again, this isn't a denial of torture, it's just consideration of what's not being said.
They claimed that the significant intel collected led to the capture of Osama Bin Laden. This seems to differ from the official CIA account.
What's to concede? I don't know the official CIA account. I know it won't be the whole story as things well need to remain classified. It's strange that you would think the Senate Intelligence Committee Study tells the whole story when there is intel involved. The fact that a large number of the committee members have a particular bias is just one reason to think there are aspects left out.
What's to concede? I don't know the official CIA account. I know it won't be the whole story as things well need to remain classified. It's strange that you would think the Senate Intelligence Committee Study tells the whole story when there is intel involved.
If you don't know it, you can look it up.
The CIA account does not need to tell the whole story. They identified the key piece of intelligence that lead to the capture of Bin Laden. It had nothing to do with McConnell's claims.
The fact that a large number of the committee members have a particular bias is just one reason to think there are aspects left out.
How is it a fact when you have not been able to shown incidence of bias? You just assume it be fact due to your personal bias.
While anal force feeding done on two occasions can be shown to be basicly for torture (to dissuade hunger strikes), putting them in the same category of torture with any other force feeding (which would be necessary) shows bias.
Edit:
A cursory search for the capture of bin laden shows that interrogations independently corroborated the name of the courier, al -kuwaiti. That was key to finding him.
While anal force feeding done on two occasions can be shown to be basicly for torture (to dissuade hunger strikes), putting them in the same category of torture with any other force feeding (which would be necessary) shows bias.
No one claimed enteral feeding was torture. The report claims rectal feeding is torture and notes that it was used at least twice. It also includes numerous other instances of torture.
I am guessing you are going to claim the other types of torture claims are biased as well. Since your claim for rectal feeding failed, what method are you going to argue against next?
Of course, your new claim will also not be supported by a source because the other side of the committee does not want to risk national security.
A cursory search for the capture of bin laden shows that interrogations independently corroborated the name of the courier, al -kuwaiti. That was key to finding him.
Yes. A cursory search will probably get you the original CIA claim that the torture of Hassan Ghul provided the key intelligence to capturing Bin Laden.
Turns out he cooperated and gave the information before being tortured. This is revealed in the CIA's own records. I guess they just wanted to reward him for cooperating.
No, a cursory search found that knowledge of al-kuwaiti was obtained back in 02 and other info concerning him was collected by interrogators. This included but was not limited to Ghul.
But lets take your position here. Ever since the CIA and other government agencies got the green light from Bush, they have been using advanced interrogation methods. Not because they work though. In fact the CIA and others have used up resources, money, and risked political backlash to carry out enhanced interrogation and it doesn't even work. The perpetrators of these methods must be sadistic (how else to explain the prevalence of methods that are so useless?), but no one acted this way until they got the official go.
This position strains credulity, but tell me if this is not essentially your argument.
EDIT:
Additionally, under the Clinton administration we put money and resources into the rendition program, essentially exporting enhanced interrogation methods to countries that had no qualms. There is a long history for these methods, even though they are completely ineffective...
No, a cursory search found that knowledge of al-kuwaiti was obtained back in 02 and other info concerning him was collected by interrogators. This included but was not limited to Ghul.
Yes. He gave up a lot of information under standard interrogation including information about Ghul.
After that, they decided to move him to Gitmo(?) and used enhanced interrogation instead. Got nothing from that.
But lets take your position here. Ever since the CIA and other government agencies got the green light from Bush, they have been using advanced interrogation methods. Not because they work though. In fact the CIA and others have used up resources, money, and risked political backlash to carry out enhanced interrogation and it doesn't even work. The perpetrators of these methods must be sadistic (how else to explain the prevalence of methods that are so useless?), but no one acted this way until they got the official go.
They do not have to be sadistic, they just have to have faith in the method. Faith does not have to be based on empiricism as evidenced by your faith in torture and your faith in the bias of the committee members simply because they identify with a political party.
In fact, many bureaucratic programs are funded based on faith/unsubstantiated reasoning rather than empirical data.
PS: Some of the interrogators were probably sadistic, or at least pushed to the point of sadism. If you just search for some of the stories regarding abuse of prisoners of war, you will find some indications of sadism.
This position strains credulity, but tell me if this is not essentially your argument.
By the way. It sounds like your position is "they did it before, so it must work".
I guess evaluating evidence just strains credulity too much.
how else to explain the prevalence of methods that are so useless?
Reason for use explained above.
It is not exactly prevalent either. Enhanced interrogation was the response to 911. The US might not have a good human rights record, but it was not as bad before 911. The terrorists won. They terrorized Americans into giving up many values domestically and internationally.
Additionally, under the Clinton administration we put money and resources into the rendition program, essentially exporting enhanced interrogation methods to countries that had no qualms. There is a long history for these methods, even though they are completely ineffective...
The first known case in the US was under the Reagan Administration. Much like Bush and Clinton, the excuse was that it was necessary for national security. I have no idea what percentage of cases obtained significant intel, but I doubt it would be high considering how many studies (by biased organizations obviously) note the ineffectiveness of torture.
used enhanced interrogation instead. Got nothing from that
This is statement illuminates the issue. The intel community gathers all kinds of intel all the time, learning with time what works best. They almost never tell anyone without the need to know, what they get. They are even less likely to tell anyone how they got it. You cannot assume that they got nothing. Nor are you in a position to evaluate the evidence.
In fact, many bureaucratic programs are funded based on faith/unsubstantiated reasoning rather than empirical data
That's true. But how do you suppose the intel community justified funding the interrogation methods that we had been exporting for years? "Our Egyptian friends never got actionable intelligence from sleep deprivation, but lets try it". If the excuse is that it is necessary for national security, do you suppose that information relevant to national security had been previously discovered through said means? And if the info is relevant to national security, do you suppose it's classified; or in a public report?
This is statement illuminates the issue. The intel community gathers all kinds of intel all the time, learning with time what works best. They almost never tell anyone without the need to know, what they get. They are even less likely to tell anyone how they got it. You cannot assume that they got nothing. Nor are you in a position to evaluate the evidence.
This actually illuminates the issue further.
It seems like you have never heard of oversight committees or declassification...
That's true. But how do you suppose the intel community justified funding the interrogation methods that we had been exporting for years? "Our Egyptian friends never got actionable intelligence from sleep deprivation, but lets try it". If the excuse is that it is necessary for national security, do you suppose that information relevant to national security had been previously discovered through said means? And if the info is relevant to national security, do you suppose it's classified; or in a public report?
I guess you have never heard of 911. That was the justification for enhanced methods conducted by the US.
Many reports are declassified after some time. Oversight committees even receive redacted classified reports regarding effectiveness of said programs to justify funding. A public report on the effectiveness of torture can evaluate the credibility of a piece of intelligence regarding the location of a dead terrorist. Not much point to keep classifying the means for finding Bin Laden since he is already dead...
The immediate need for actionable intelligence was the proximate cause.
I actually explained this earlier. Terror (fear) makes people give up their values.
I know a lot of things are declassified all the time, but the actual means by which we successfully collect intelligence is released more rarely.
Actually... pretty much everything becomes declassified after some period of time, by EO. The longest held secrets are only 75 years old if there is some super special reason to keep it a secret.
Strong partisan rebuttal claiming Democratic bias and significant intelligence gathering without any proof does not amount to much. Rebutting for the sake of partisanship means nothing. One of the only Republicans who has been non-partisan in this matter has been McCain.
For example, partisanship prevents many Republican politicians from even admitting that the War in Iraq was initiated for dubious reasons. Actively engaging in partisanship for the sake of partisanship is a useless endeavor.
Let us assume that the report was inaccurate and biased. That leaves us with several other sources like those from the United States Army Field Manual, Amnesty International, the UN, OMCT, and history.