Here’s a simple fact for torture advocates like Derek Foley to consider: Not only is torture morally abhorrent, but it’s counterproductive. Once a suspect is tortured, it may prove difficult or impossible to prosecute him:
The United States is relying on evidence obtained by torture to prove that it can continue to imprison indefinitely a young man arrested as an adolescent in Afghanistan six and a half years ago, according to documents filed with a federal district court.
Mohammed Jawad may have been as young as 12 years old when he was seized by Afghan police and turned over to U.S. authorities in December 2002, according to a recent letter from the Afghan attorney general, who is requesting his return. Jawad is accused of throwing a hand grenade into a U.S. military vehicle and injuring two servicemen and their translator. But the primary evidence against him — his own confessions — were obtained by torture. Although the U.S. military commission created by President George W. Bush eventually charged him with war crimes for the attack in October 2007 — almost six years after the crime — a judge ruled in October 2008 that because they were tortured, his confessions were unreliable and inadmissible.
-
Prosecution of this guy in the American system wasn’t exactly the point in the first place.
I ain’t sayin’, I’m just sayin’. It’s a lot easier to just look the other way.
-
The information obtained from waterboarding suspects wasn’t to get a confession to prosecute them, but rather to obtain information from an upcoming attack.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed anyone?
The information was reliable and potentially save thousands of lives. All because we waterboarded 3 terrorists. Weigh the pros and cons. Thousands of lives vs putting terrorists through a scary and uncomfortable situation.
-
“Derek Foley is, of course, lying once again.
The facts prove conclusively that the US broke up the Library Tower plot to which Derek refers, months before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured”
There was another attack planned. In the Gitmo post on my site, note how I mentioned that it was the second attack, not the first.
Again, you have a fatal flaw to your argument, and again, I prove that I am in fact telling the truth, thus making you look like a whiney child.
-
When? 2004
and instead of quoting irrelevant parts of my post, why not post the portion that I was talking about:
“Khalid Mohammed’s subsequent capture in Pakistan in March 2003 revealed still more details which, we now know, enabled the Bush administration to foil a second wave of suicide attacks directed at Los Angeles.”
Some other sources since you didn’t like that one:
“It’s great being a lying wingnut like Derek Foley. No, it really is. Nothing you say can ever be disproved”
Actually, nothing I say can be disproved because everything I say is fact. I do not make a statement without having solid evidence behind what I say. Of course, you neglect everything I say and take the contradictory route, calling my claim a lie without providing ample evidence to prove it to be so.
When can I start to call you a liar? You have misquoted me, straw manned me, and called me a liar which I have proven to be false time and time again.
“He doesn’t know how not to lie.”
Is it irony that you believe everything to be a lie except your own views? If anyone is to be pointing fingers, it would be me.
“Derek’s claim that there were two plots to fly a plane into the Library Tower is completely unsupported by any factual evidence.”
Hey, check it out: A LIE.
-
“President George W. Bush stated unequivocally that the supposed Library Tower plot was foiled in 2002.”
Are you seriously so dense you cannot distinguish between the two plots? Check the sources, they all agree that there was a second plot which was foiled.
“Theses links are simply other bloggers repeating the same claim that Derek made. And they, like Derek, also are unable to explain how the capture of KSM in 2003 could lead to the foiling of a plot in 200”
Missed the cns news one. Hold up:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949
Maybe I should give less sources so I don’t repeat.
“two of them are identical”
Tis the backlash of having multiple sources. You think you are ctrl c ctrl v ‘ing one but really you missed the c so you are pasting the same link. My apologies, but I provided the CNS News link above.
“Then Derek Foley can certainly provide evidence that there were two separate plots to fly a plane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.”
Check the CNS News link.
“Of course, you neglect everything I say and take the contradictory route, calling my claim a lie without providing ample evidence to prove it to be so.
Derek Foley is lying yet again.”
You just proved my point.
“I have never misquoted him.”
Really? So misquoting my post to exclude the part where it talks about the second wave of LA attacks being foiled by Khalid Mohammed’s interrogation then saying “and that quote agrees with the timeline that proves that the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could not possibly have led to the foiling of the alleged Library Tower plot.”
I believe this is just another lie by MB. This hypocrisy is killing me inside.
-
““Agreement” isn’t evidence.”
Never claimed it was, but having three sources that all say the same thing definitely builds its credibility. The sources are evidence, their agreement merely supports the evidence.
“That “CNS News link” provides no evidence — it merely repeats the claim.”
Uh, isn’t that evidence? A respected news source making the same claim? What is evidence to you? You want to interrogate Khalid Mohammed? Moving goalpost.
TERRY: “Derek has yet to provide evidence of a misquote.”
ME: “instead of quoting irrelevant parts of my post, why not post the portion that I was talking about:
“Khalid Mohammed’s subsequent capture in Pakistan in March 2003 revealed still more details which, we now know, enabled the Bush administration to foil a second wave of suicide attacks directed at Los Angeles.””
misquote. Again, you are lying.
-
“Derek still claims that agreement is evidence”
That they agree with me is evidence that I am telling the truth. Evidence that there were indeed a second round of attacks planned is shown by their presentation of the information. Again, moving goalpost. You just love the logical fallacies.
“They provide no actual evidence that supports that claim.”
Again, moving goalpost. A respected news source, along with the CIA, are both sources of information and can be counted as evidence.
“It’s a report of a claim being made.”
Yet they too are reporting it as true. Does that make CNS News a liar too?
“He has yet to cite any example in which I quoted him saying something he did not say. ”
I never said that you attributed something to me that I did not say (even though you have done it before straw man). I said you misquoted me, aka you quoted the wrong portion of my post in order to twist my words.
And for the millionth time, you have yet to disprove anything I have said. It makes you look like a whiney baby. I quite enjoy it
-
“All it is evidence of is that these sources are all repeating the same claim that Derek is parroting. ”
Exactly. Evidence.
“All that is presented is the bare claim, with no supporting factual evidence.”
So really, anything I present can be said to be a claim, and not proof. Hence why your argument is illogical, as it uses the moving goalpost fallacy. You have to believe someone, but by your standard, we can believe no one. At least so long as I am using them as a source.
“When did I attribute something to Derek that he did not say?”
Go back through the comments and look for where I addressed you as “strawman”
“quoted Derek’s exact words — but because he doesn’t like the fact that I quoted those words, it must have been a “misquote”.”
The fact that you tried to use my quote as proof of something, that I didn’t say there was a second attack planned, it was a misquote. You neglected to post the portion where I talked about the second attack.
-
“He thinks that he can take a single word of one of my statememts and claim that it is proof of his claims.”
Not your word, but that others are repeating the same info I am. You have yet to show that my information was proven false by anyone else, and you have yet to repudiate the claim by your own means as well. If you think I am lying, you must also accept that they are lying as well.
“Which is, of course, not what I said”
It is what you were eluding to. There is absolutely no way I could provide the amount of information that you require for my claim to be accepted as truth. Regardless of my reasoning, which you continue to ignore, you demand that I provide nonexistent studies to back up my claim, even though I already explain that I do not need to.
“Evasion noted. When did I attribute something to Derek that he did not say? ”
No evasion, I am merely noting that you can read and I told you where to go through. I have called you strawman more than once.
“I quoted Derek’s exact words, just not in the exact way he wanted to be quoted.”
You quoted the wrong words and claimed they were proof that I didn’t mention the second attack. A few sentences later in my post, you can see that I did in fact mention the second attack. You deliberately chose to quote the part that didn’t mention the second attack to try and weasel your way to a point.
-
Not your word, but that others are repeating the same info I am.
In Derek Foley’s muddled, confused little mind, when someone else says the same things you do, that’s proof. Actual facts are not required — only repetition of an unsupported claim.
You have yet to show that my information was proven false by anyone else…
That’s because Derek Foley hasn’t provided a single scrap of “information” to support his claim that there was a second plot to fly a plane into the Library Tower. All he has done is to demonstrate that others have repeated that same claim — also without providing a single scrap of “information” to support the claim.
It’s not my responsibility to disprove Derek’s claim. It is his responsibility to prove it. And that is what Derek is running from.
There is absolutely no way I could provide the amount of information that you require for my claim to be accepted as truth. Regardless of my reasoning, which you continue to ignore, you demand that I provide nonexistent studies to back up my claim, even though I already explain that I do not need to.
Let’s review:
1) Derek Foley made a very specific claim about the frequency of laryngospasm.
2) Derek Foley admits that he has no proof to back up his claim.
3) Therefore, Derek says, we should all accept his claim as Revealed Truth — just because he says so!
No evasion…
Derek is lying again. Of course he is evading the question.
When did I attribute something to Derek that he did not say?
Watch him evade this question again, folks.
You quoted the wrong words
Why were they “the wrong words”? BECAUSE! DEREK! SAYS! SO!
Derek still cannot explain why quoting his exact words is a “misquote”.
Haiti Relief
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Proudly Hosted By
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://thinkingmeat.net/2009/06/24/another-reason-to-eschew-torture/trackback