The Blinders of Dick Cheney's Patriotism - Comments Page 8

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 326 - Bliffle

  May 25, 2009 at 5:25 pm

  Thanks for the citation, Dan. Here's my take on it:
  
  " John [McCain] thinks waterboarding is torture; Bud [Day] and I [Thorsness] believe it is harsh treatment, but not torture. Other POWs would have varying opinions. I don't claim to be right; we just disagree."
  
  So it's just a 'belief', a sort of guess, on Thorsness' part. He doesn't illuminate what separates torture from harsh treatment, in his view.
  
  Then he provides this interesting theory:
  
  " But as someone who has been severely tortured over an extended time, my first hand view on torture is this:
  
  Torture, when used by an expert, can produce useful, truthful information. I base that on my experience. I believe that during torture, there is a narrow "window of truth" as pain (often multiple kinds) is increased. Beyond that point, if torture increases, the person breaks, or dies if he continues to resist. "
  
  Now two public figures who were sceptical (about waterboarding being torture), Christopher Hitchens and that DJ "mancow" both declared that waterboarding WAS torture upon being (briefly) waterboarded.
  
  That seems to define waterboarding as torture, indeed, because the consequent follows from the Thorsness supplied antecedent that "Torture, when used by an expert, can produce useful, truthful information. "
  
  And this coheres with my earlier assertion that "it is a contradiction to say that WB is NOT torture and then expect to extract information from a prisoner by applying WB", the corollary of which is that one applies WB because they believe it to be an efficacious torture for eliciting information.
  
  So, IMO, while Thorsness consciously regards WB as NOT torture, his underlying theory defines WB as torture.
  
  Now I'll advance the type of common slander that is so beloved on BC, so it should be welcomed with enthiusiasm: Thorsness' article is published on Powerline which a well-known rightwing outfit that advances ultra-conservative ideas with vigor. That may explain why they chose a statement by Thorsness, or it may signify that Thorsness is an advocate of the same political views.
  
  I wonder if John McCain, Bud Day or Thorsness were ever waterboarded themselves?
  
  

• 327 - Clavos

  May 25, 2009 at 6:11 pm

  Published on Powerline though it is, I believe every word of Thorsness' account.
  
  When I was in Vietnam, (1965 and 1966), we were already beginning to hear stories like the one Thorsness tell. All of us expected that, were we ever to be captured, we would be tortured.
  

• 328 - Clavos

  May 25, 2009 at 6:12 pm

  BTW, Thanks, Dan(Miller), for the link.

• 329 - Cindy

  May 25, 2009 at 6:17 pm

  Jesse Ventura: You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour, and I'll Have Him Confess to the Sharon Tate Murders
  
  The link is to a Video interview on Larry King.
  
  Ventura, an ex-Navy SEAL was 'waterboarded' as part of SERE training. "Ventura makes no bones about it. Waterboarding is torture."

• 330 - Dan(Miller)

  May 25, 2009 at 6:19 pm

  Bliffle,
  
  First, the perceptions of Mr. Thorsness appear to be based on his personal experiences as one tortured* over a period of years; in that respect, his perceptions may well be better grounded than mine or those of anyone else around here.
  
  Second, as I understand your analysis, an interrogation technique which is successful in obtaining valid and useful information from someone reluctant to provide it is, ipso facto, torture. I must therefore suppose that obtaining such information from an informant by paying him money is torture. As a corollary, the more money the more dastardly the torture.
  
  I hereby volunteer to be tortured in that fashion; I am very strong willed and very reticent, so it will cost quite a lot.
  
  Alas, I very much doubt that I have any information for which you or anyone else would be willing to pay me even an insultingly small amount.
  
  Dan(Miller)
  
  *Please note that I did not enclose in quotation marks the word torture in this context.

• 331 - Cindy

  May 25, 2009 at 6:33 pm

  I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't called into question by anyone. And I've no reason to doubt Thorsness' account of his own torture.
  
  However, I suspect Thorsness' might consider 'waterboarding' torture if it was done to US military members. Just as everyone else like him did when the US executed Japanese war criminals for 'waterboarding' US POWs.
  
  Correction: U.S. actually did execute Japanese soldiers for waterboarding
  
  "We -- our country executed Japanese soldiers who water- boarded American POWs. We executed them for the same crime that we are now committing ourselves. How do you defend that?" --Paul Begala

• 332 - Cindy

  May 25, 2009 at 6:50 pm

  Dan(Miller) is clearly being amusing. As I could never believe, not in a million years, that he can't differentiate that there are various methods used to interrogate people and that only the ones involving the creation of agony or pain are intended to be discussed in a conversation about torture.
  
  The very question (for some of you) in fact, is whether or not the agony was great enough to warrant calling it torture. Prof. Bliffle logically asks...well if you didn't think it would cause agony so great as to get a result, then why would you even do it?
  
  That this is so in no way suggests there are not other interrogation techniques that do not involve torture or that every interrogation technique is torture. But Dan(miller) knows that. That fails as one of your funnier routines Dan(Miller); it suffers from lack of believability.

• 333 - Clavos

  May 25, 2009 at 6:55 pm

  The question as to whether or not waterboarding is torture is a red herring.
  
  The real question is "Are there ever any circumstances under which the use of torture is justified."
  
  My answer: Yes.

• 334 - Cindy

  May 25, 2009 at 6:56 pm

  #331 was semi-directed to Clav. (The first paragraph anyway.)

• 335 - Bliffle

  May 25, 2009 at 8:01 pm

  Dan says:
  
  "Second, as I understand your analysis..."
  
  IMO you understand my analysis, but then you draw an unwarranted conclusion. You probably don't like my conclusion, IMO.
  

• 336 - Bliffle

  May 25, 2009 at 8:52 pm

  Let's take a look at Dans comment, which he no doubt thinks is quite witty:
  
  "#330 - Dan(Miller)
  May 25, 2009 at 6:19 pm
  
  Bliffle,
  
  First, the perceptions of Mr. Thorsness appear to be based on his personal experiences as one tortured* over a period of years; in that respect, his perceptions may well be better grounded than mine or those of anyone else around here.
  
  So my question remains: was Thorsness waterboarded so that we may get the benefit of his perceptions?
  
  Second, as I understand your analysis, an interrogation technique which is successful in obtaining valid and useful information from someone reluctant to provide it is, ipso facto, torture.
  
  Nonsense. This is a transparent distortion. The remainder of your comment is invalid and silly.
  
  

• 337 - roger nowosielski

  May 26, 2009 at 10:01 am

  Dan (Miller)/Bliffle:
  
  #325: James Bond movie wasn't the point of the remark, so I don't see why you found it necessary to go off on a tangent to speak of the complexities in real life. Point well taken, though.
  
  # 326:
  
  "Second, as I understand your analysis, an interrogation technique which is successful in obtaining valid and useful information from someone reluctant to provide it is, ipso facto, torture." (Dan Miller)
  
  "Nonsense. This is a transparent distortion. The remainder of your comment is invalid and silly." (bliffle)
  
  Far from nonsense! That was the "apparent" import/intent of numerous remarks and/or rhetorical questions paused by the author. (Don't make me pull them out, especially since you know they're there.)
  
  What is "transparent" about this whole thing is a clumsy attempt on the author's part to set a trap. At last, it becomes TRULY apparent that since the ploy didn't work, the author finally disavows himself from the intended meaning and claims innocence in that he had been intentionally
  misunderstood, whereas the intention to mislead and to trip people has all along been none other than the author's.
  
  My question, bliffle, is? Did you really believe that some minds on BC were going to fall for this ploy rather than call you on your bluff? If you did, that's rather naive of you. And if you didn't, the question remain: Why bother play these silly, childish game rather than getting to the chase.
  
  So finally, since the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, would you care to elaborate on the implications of your new and improved proposition - and I'm referring here specifically your objection that Dan's interpretation of your position was, to say the least, inaccurate,
  
  In particular, since you now tend to agree that not only torture is useful in eliciting needed information but other techniques as well, then what follows from there? What is your position, exactly, and what are its implications? There is only so far one can go with rhetorical questions. A proposition of some sort stands in dire need to be articulated.
  
  The inquiring minds want to know.
  
  

• 338 - roger nowosielski

  May 26, 2009 at 10:03 am

  Reference in #337 should be to #336.