Iraq: Haliburton Employers gang rape an employee.

[cxt]

IJ

Is it?

Your claim is that waterboarding helps recruit more terrorists-----you speak as if that were established fact.
Its not "absurd" to ask for the proofs of peoples claims.

If its fact please PRODUCE the proofs-----if its merely OPINION--then please refer to it as such.......please do not frame opinions as facts.

2-I NEVER claimed that McCain was--I merely pointed out that he is only one voice/opinion and that opinions varied about waterboarding being torture.
Some people say it is....some people say its not.

3-To use YOUR lines if your really so far out of touch that you are unaware of the captures of high level and not so high level terrorists by using waterboarding then as YOU say "if you cannot grasp them on your own (there) is no reason to begin explaining it."

Tell you what though--IF you'll conceed the point I'll do YOUR legwork for you and post the exact people....what do you say?????

4- I'm not trying to "keep the discussion limited to waterboarding" the discussion IS ABOUT WATERBOARDING--didn't start there--but that is where its been since December of 07.

If you want to expand the discussion I have no problems doing so.....I simply request that you start another thread for that purpose....dealing specifcally with THOSE ISSUES.

5-Its sadly not just "a bare few"--they are frighteningly everywhere.

One forum recently even had a serious detailed discussion on how exactly to kill homosexuals---what manner of death was more correct....such as throwing them off high buildings or hanging.
Really freaked me out--and should scare the bejeeus out of people.

Again IJ--for a really smart guy your dislike of me makes you say the most rediculous of things.

What I "think" is that when mass murdering zealots take the time to SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICTLY list the reasons they hate and kill-----its a good idea to listen, it gives you concrete insight into their evil and perverted worldview--insight that if understood can be used to help stamp them out.

AGAIN, OBL and his ilk hate MANY things far worse than waterboarding-----fornication, homosexuality, gay marriage, drinking, gender mixing, danceing--etc BUT no mention of waterboarding.
So if the argument is "wateboarding helps them recruit" then there are a raft of things that "help them recruit" FAR MORE than waterboarding.
But I hear no pleas from you to stop any of THOSE to prevent them from recruitng.

6-Nope your reading it inncorrectly---at this point I'm going to have to say purposely.

Your fundamental point is RECRUITING---that we should not do things----even if they work to help catch these evil people--BECAUSE IT HELPS THEM RECRUIT.

That being YOUR "recruitment" argument--then logically we should also not be doing ANYTHING ELSE that drives hate and recruitment.

Since you clearly not in favor of that----"recruitment" CAN"T be your real concern.

Or to phrase it another way----your ONLY concerend about "recruitment" when it comes to waterboarding.

Anything ELSE that help them recruit--no matter how much they hate it--no matter how much they SAY they hate it, preach against it, use to whip their murderous ilk into a frenzy ---THAT stuff you simply want to ignore.

Like I said, a pretty weak line of ahm....."reasoning"---the more so coming from you, I generally an safe in expecting better

Oh, BTW, if your comfortable reduceing the saving of innocent human lives and the deeply seated and deeply scary worldview of murderous religious zealots to comaprisions of chosing either "soda or ice cream" then I clearly am not the one that is "unteachable."

Mores the pity.

As far as "goodbye" goes---if you can't stand the heat--then perhaps it would be best....for you....to leave the kitchen.

[IJ]

Yawn. Unteachable. I have better things to do, like watch my toenails grow, so, yes, the manner in which we fight terrorism can't conceivably affect our image and our image can't affect recruitment, and also, if someone suggests thinking twice before undertaking controversial methods of interrogation, they're required to subjugate gays and convert to islam for consistency's sake. Spot on, brother.

[cxt]

IJ

I'd agree with you IJ---but then we would BOTH be wrong.

BTW--that is not even close to what I suggested.

I point this out merely for the sake of accuracy......."accuracy" being a ethicial concept that you seem little acquainted with...........I would have thought that someone so concerned with ethics would hold accuracy in higher regard.

No doubt were I mass murdering terrorist with the blood on innocents on my hands, you would be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that I was well treated and to make damn sure that what I said was reported accurately........but since I'm just a fellow citizen that happens to disagree with you----then of course no such standards of basic conduct need apply.

If you spent half as much time addressing posits raised as you do hiding behind a smokescreen of juvenile put-downs and hyperbole...........the "de-fault" setting for the ideologically driven when confronted with informed, reasoned dissent BTW........then you might actually learn to more closely question your error ridden, demon haunted, worldview.

(BTW if you don't get the "demon haunted" world sub-reference--just PM me and I'll gladly help you out.)

I pause for your SOP "gasp" of surprise at the
suggestion that you might possibly have anything to learn about any given issue.

Until then, I leave you to the sleep of the rightous as the rest of us have to deal with the ceaseless nightmare that is our miserable, well deserved lot in life....for daring to hold postions and opinions contrary to your own.

[IJ]

One word:

Olanzaprine.

Think about it.

[Valkenar]

When I left this thread, CXT asked some legit questions, so I'll try to answer those.

Clearly you have a choice in waterboarding--which you clearly see as torture---and just a clearly you choose the "hardened terrorist" OVER the "innocent little girl."
...
Or put another way---Why is the mental and emotional comfort of a "harded terrorist" worth more than the very LIFE of an "innocent little girl????"

I don't think that it is clear that you have such a choice. You don't have the simple question of whether to save a girl and or show mercy on a terrorist. Torturing a captive (who hasn't yet been convicted of anything, most likely) is nowhere near certain to provide information that might save anyone.

To put it mathetically, Value of torture = (Amount of Good * Likelihood of Good) - (Amount of Bad * Likelihood of Bad). I don't see that as coming out to a positive number.

Once again, the disagreement we have here isn't about whether a terrorist's comfort is more important than an innocent's life. It's about how bad water boarding is and how likely it is to save lives.

Why should such a system of "ethics" as that be used/embraced/considered as superior to other ethical systems?

Well how do you personally evaluate ethical systems? There are different methods of comparing them, and until we agree on things like the purpose and goals of an ethical system it doesn't make much sense to discuss their various qualities as systems.

Appealing to the common "humanity" of each would seem at best to delibrately ignore the very real difference with each "human" and at worst to suggest that such distinctions are essentially meaningless in the scope of their "human" commonality.

I don't see it this way. I do think that a person's humanity is what makes them worthy of ethical consideration. What is your opinion on why a person merits any ethical consideration? What makes an innocent important? I have my reasons for valuing innocent life, but I am curious what yours is.

[Bill Glasheen]

To put it mathetically, Value of torture = (Amount of Good * Likelihood of Good) - (Amount of Bad * Likelihood of Bad). I don't see that as coming out to a positive number.

That is as eloquent and precise an expression of this point of view as I have seen. Well done.

The only thing I would ask you to do is to look at the statistical distribution of such numbers under any set of conditions. It could be that on average the result is negative, but we have enough outlier cases such that human behavior would typically respond in an "illogical" fashion.

- Bill

[cxt]

Val

Again, that is an assumption that waterboarding IS in fact "torture."
Since I do not belive it to be, and I belive that is not physically injurious--although mentally/emotinally stressful to be sure........I don't think the "equation" method is all that accurate.

A= "its not really torture"

B= "does not real harm"

C= "Likely hood of bad is significatly reduced"

D = "its worked well in the past"

A+D - B - C

With apologies to math itself for the above --that is my view of more "positve" formula.

Besides--the "positve" mathmatical outcome depends on what "weight" you give to innocent human life.

If you "weight" innocent human life the SAME as non-physical, non-injurious emotiona/mental stress then it comes as you put it "non-positive."
If you "weight" innocent human life as being MORE/GREATER value than non-injurious, mental and physical stress--then the equation yeilds a VERY different outcome.

The questiuon is how much do you value innocent human life?

I asked you first.

But it DOES--I'm just wanting to see the ethical constuction for why the comfort of a hardend mass murdering terrorist is be held in greater reagrd than they very life of an innocent person.

NOT trying to trap you---far from it---I hear/read people makeing what they take to be highly noble stances on this issue all the time---but I seldom see/read/hear anyone actually explaining it in detail----oh they "belive" it with all their hearts---they just IMO, don't see to taking a hard look at the implications and what exactly they "really" belive.

As I see it, being "human" is the lowest common denominator.
We are ALL "human".......Hitler and Mother Teresa were BOTH human.....Ted Bundy and my little sister are both "human"........the guys that killed all their classmates at Columbine and the people they killed were "human."

I don't consider them in the same fashion---do you?

IMO behavior trumps or should trump our supposed "common humanity."

Its not "common" nor is everyone "humane." Mores the pity.

[cxt]

IJ

Thought you already said "goodbye"

Are you offering to write me a scip sans actually meeting me and doing a full work-up??????

Sounds like a sloppy meds policy to me....unless of course your the local "Dr. Feelgood."

Or did I miss the latest AMA alert---you know the one where "disagreement with IJ" is now a listed indicator of instabilty???

I guess if anything I UNDERSHOT just how seriously you take yourself.

[Valkenar]

If you "weight" innocent human life the SAME as non-physical, non-injurious emotiona/mental stress then it comes as you put it "non-positive."
If you "weight" innocent human life as being MORE/GREATER value than non-injurious, mental and physical stress--then the equation yeilds a VERY different outcome.

The questiuon is how much do you value innocent human life?

I'll make up some numbers, but honestly it's sort of impossible to really put hard numbers on the value of human life. Sorry, but I can't rank every possible experience on a scale and assign ethics points. But here's an example with some made up numbers that somewhat reflect my thinking.

Again, a caveat: These numbers are totally made up and meant to illustrate my point. I'm not going to defend the valuation of a life vs well-being because ultimately I'm not able to quantify it. Newtonian physics is a good model but breaks down past a certain point. Similarly, the calculation of value of life is helpful model, but ultimately breaks down when you try to get too precise about it.

One average person's life: 100 points.
One terrorist's long-term well-being: 4 points.
Chance of saving average person's life via torture: 2%
Chance of damaging torture victim's long-term well-being via torture: 80%

Thus, using my formula, 100 * .02 - 4 * .8 = -1.2. Torture is bad.

You disagree with my evaluation of the chances, I understand that. What I've shown here though is that despite valuing innocent life more highly than the well-being of a terrorist, I still don't think torture is right. And it's because I don't think torture is often effective and I do think it causes long-term damage.

We disagree on a few fundamental points:

Is water boarding torture? I say yes, you say no.
How effective is torture at gaining life-saving information? I say extremely rarely, you say quite frequently.

So you can stop saying that I'm valuing terrorists more than innocent life, because that's not what's going on.

As I see it, being "human" is the lowest common denominator.
...
I don't consider them in the same fashion---do you?
IMO behavior trumps or should trump our supposed "common humanity."

The same? No, but I don't utterly discount them either. Basic humanity is the common denominator and I'm okay with that. Even good will do terrible things when put under the right kinds of pressure. I feel fortunate not to have been born into a situation where I was taught to hate and kill for a belief. If I had been, who's to say that I'd be any different? A lot of people reject that kind of thinking, instead wanting to believe that they're just such inherently good people they could never do anything reprehensible. I don't buy it. As high as my horse may be, it's not high enough to declare myself innately superior to everyone else just because I'm lucky enough to be born in middle-class America.

All of this is very different from saying that terrorists are redeemable. 99% of the time, they aren't. So we may need to imprison or kill them. But if your dog gets rabies you put it down as humanely as possible, you don't take that as a sign that the dog is an evil beast.

P.S.
I still need quoting for things to be clear. Consider me an idiot if you like, but scrolling up and down trying to match up paragraphs makes following your posts very difficult for me. I don't understand why you're so reluctant to do so.

[cxt]

Val

Not asking you too--as you say its an impossibly hard thing to quantify.

Just pointing out that depending on how much a given person values human life in general and inncoent people in particular it will or should effect the result of the "equation."

That is two sperate arguements:

1-Would be "is waterboarding torture?"

I say its not---in fact I'd go so far as to say that refering to it as "torture" trivalizes ACTUAL torture as well.

2-"Is it effective?"

And I say its self-evidently effective given the high profile captures made because of it---and there may well be many more we don't yet know because of ongoing actions.

And here we run into a problem---since we don't know the whole number of useages we don't/can't run a model on just how successful it has been....we can guess we can speculate......but we don't know.

As far as "valueing terrorist more than innocents"--didn't you say that you wouldn't torture to save one life????
Sure its a complex question--but if I recall the statement corrrectly that would mean you put the rights of a terrorist not to feel pain ahead of the right of an inncoent person to life itself.

"The same? No but I don't discount them either"

Neither do I--I just draw a line between where appeals to the "common humanity" of mass murdering zealots carries much weight.

"I don't buy it, as high as my horse might be its not enough to declace myself innately superior to everyone else"

Where on earth did you get the sense that I was doing that????
I NEVER so much as suggested that I considered myself "superior" in terms of worth.

I did sugget that if choices have to be made--IMO a mass murdering terrorist should be worth less than that of an innocent person.

"but if your dog gets rabies you put it down as humanily as possible, you don't take it a sign the dog is an evil beast"

In read that it seems your more irked at my use of the word "evil" than you are about actually killing terrorist????

If so why is that?-----the end result is the same....dead terrorists.

I have little trouble casting a person that would hang people just because they are gay, fly planes into bldgs full of unaware innocent people etc as being "evil."

I judge by their acts--only God can know what is in their hearts.

P.S.

I'm "reluctent" for several reasons.

1-All to often using the quote things reduces the conversation to out of context paragraphs----instead of looking at the overall thrust of a post---we end up quibbling over just a little part of it.

2-I honestly belive that people should be able to rememebr what they post--I seriously don't understand how you can tyoe a whole post and not recall what you said.
Plus, if I do forget, I don't have any trouble looking it up.

3-I get erratic results everytime I try it---most of the time its actually more effective for me to re-type the whol equote than it is for me to use the function itself.

[Valkenar]

Val
And I say its self-evidently effective given the high profile captures made because of it---and there may well be many more we don't yet know because of ongoing actions.

I suspect that the high profile nature of those captures makes them more salient to you and creates a falsely high impression of their frequency. This is a pretty common thing and it's really hard to resist the urge to connect one huge thing to a pattern. It's the same reason a person will play the lottery because they've heard of people winning fortunes. It's amazingly rare, but it's publicized enough to give people the idea that it's happening a lot. Generally, the human mind has trouble (emotionally and subconsciously) distinguishing repeated exposure to one significant even from single exposure to multiple events.

And here we run into a problem---since we don't know the whole number of useages we don't/can't run a model on just how successful it has been....we can guess we can speculate......but we don't know.

Sure, and from what I've read and intuit, torture, in realistic situations, isn't likely to be that effective. In other words, if you torture 50 people to get information you'll be lucky to get usable information out of one.

As far as "valueing terrorist more than innocents"--didn't you say that you wouldn't torture to save one life????

If I did, I meant it in the context of reality. In the abstract you can weigh one life over another, given a situation where there's a captive who may or may not be able to provide information and may or may not break under torture and may or may not give a convincing lie, I don't consider it ethically wise to use torture.

Neither do I--I just draw a line between where appeals to the "common humanity" of mass murdering zealots carries much weight.

That sounds like discounting them to me.

I did sugget that if choices have to be made--IMO a mass murdering terrorist should be worth less than that of an innocent person.

Unfortunately you don't get a straightforward choice like that. All you get is a chance of success. You believe that chance is large enough to justify an otherwise unethical action, I believe that chance is too low.

I have little trouble casting a person that would hang people just because they are gay, fly planes into bldgs full of unaware innocent people etc as being "evil."

I judge by their acts--only God can know what is in their hearts.

Well it's all well and good to disavow knowledge of their minds, but the way you describe these things, it very much seems like you consider these people sort of alien and different in a way that goes beyond simple upbringing. Maybe that's not so and you are simply doing a utility calculation. But what is it that makes it bad to hurt a person? And how does that thing go away if the person has committed a heinous act? I will certainly agree that when people commit crimes, but to my mind that's a purely logistical matter.

In other words, hurting a person is always a bad thing, it's just that it might be a worse thing to not hurt the person. Does that make sense? To draw an analogy, it's always bad to have your arm cut off, but if you have gangrene, it's better to have your arm cut off than die. As it relates to the issue at hand, it sounds very much like you think that the fact someone is a terrorist makes it no longer a bad thing to torture them. That is where I disagree and connect it with the epithet "evil."

1-All to often using the quote things reduces the conversation to out of context paragraphs----instead of looking at the overall thrust of a post---we end up quibbling over just a little part of it.

Any argument is composed of the statements it is made up of. You can't really argue against any but the simplest of positions without discussing the supporting points in detail. I understand that sometimes people get focused on some small aspect that was never intended to be the primary focus of a post, but ignoring the detail doesn't work either. Anyhow, you do seem to be replying directly to different paragraphs, they just aren't there for me to see conveniently.

2-I honestly belive that people should be able to rememebr what they post--I seriously don't understand how you can tyoe a whole post and not recall what you said.
Plus, if I do forget, I don't have any trouble looking it up.

Okay, well unfortunately I just don't have that kind of memory. Seriously, right now composing this paragraph, I know what I've said above but if you ask me what paragraph 3 is about without looking, I have no idea. Maybe you can, and that's commendable, but if I write 5-7 paragraphs on different points over the course of 20-30 minutes, I will never remember the exact order I said things in. And if a week passes, forget about it. I can tell you what I argued, but not specifically what I said. I don't remember sports stats, quotes, or other kinds of random details like that either. Just not how my mind works.

3-I get erratic results everytime I try it---most of the time its actually more effective for me to re-type the whol equote than it is for me to use the function itself.

Huh, that's odd. Generally I just click quote, then proceed down the post, breaking it up into conceptual pieces I want to respond to, typing in the quote and /quote tags. Sometimes if it's a long post I just cut and post the whole thing into a notepad and put in the tags that way. I do find that clicking the quote button is pretty much useless and never works right. But manually doing [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (without spaces) always seems to do what I want.

[cxt]

Val

And I "suspect" that you are discounting the success because they don't tally with your pre-chosen outlook on them.
Its "pretty hard to resist" discounting anything that does not fit the pattern one has already decided upon.

Humans are not so much "rational" animals as they are "rationalizing" animals---since you have already decided that waterboarding does not work well and shouldn't be done in any case---you going the other way.

Hey, its just a logical as you suggestion that I was doing the same thing.

2-Again, that assumes that waterboarding IS "torture" I don't think it is.
Besides depending on how good the information might be---getting it out of 1 of 50 people might be worth it.

3-Wasn't knocking you for saying it---just trying to keep things in context.
If you fundemenatlly see a persons right NOT to be caused pain as trumping life itself for someone else---then that effect the discussion.

I know people that refuse to kill under any circumstance what-so-ever--including to save another persons life.

While I appplaud their dedication to their convictions---as a person whose life they judge as being unworthy of breaking their ethical stance.......I not only object to it---it can't help but effect the discussion and its implications.

4-You don't see a difference between "discounting" and "drawing a line"-----even taken litterally the word "discount" really means "less than" not the "worth zero" implication your using.

In CONTEXT--choseing between the 2 lives ie "terrorist" vs "innocent person" yes, I find more value in the lifeof the innocent person

5-Actually yes we do get often get a "strightforward choice" like that.

In any case its pretty much beside the point to your stance.

As you say:

" you belive the chance is enough to justify and unethical action, I belive that they chance is too low."

A-I don't think waterboarding is "unethical" from the get go.
You do, so its not really a question of "chances" is it???

B-What level of "chance' you consider acceptable with human life in the balance?

At what point does a living breathing human being cease to be worthy of a "chance???????

90%?? 80%? 75% 10%???

If you had cancer and the drug that might save you only works 10% of the time---would you refuse to take the medication becasue the "chance" was too low?
How about if it was your mother or you wife?? or your child??

6-Nope, not all, I don't consider them "evil" because they are "different."
They are evil because they do evil things.

No I think it ok to WATERBOARD a terrorist---not sure that I would feel the same if we were cutting off fingers or stuffing red hot irons in places I don't want to think about.

Then again I might.

If you recall, one of my orignal points was if you really belived that human life was nearly sacred then you might be forced to torture in order to preserve it.....life itself trumping pain in that case.

It becomes a question of just how important life really is to somebody.

I don't think waterboarding is torture, I think it works and therefore I don't have a problem with it.

[Valkenar]

Hey, its just a logical as you suggestion that I was doing the same thing.

Yes, that's true. It is easy to believe what supports your other beliefs. But I've done some research into it and found things that supports my points (expert testimony, and anecdotes from victims of it). I posted a link, maybe you can do the same.

I know people that refuse to kill under any circumstance what-so-ever--including to save another persons life.

Well, I'm not that person. I can envision scenarios where killing is the best option. That doesn't mean the killing is a good thing, just not the worst thing available at the time.

4-You don't see a difference between "discounting" and "drawing a line"-----even taken litterally the word "discount" really means "less than" not the "worth zero" implication your using.

In context discount meant "to leave out of account; disregard" - dictionary.com. Either way it seems you are disregarding the well-being of the person tortured.

A-I don't think waterboarding is "unethical" from the get go.
You do, so its not really a question of "chances" is it???

Right. There's two different questions here:

Is waterboarding torture?
Is it ethical to incorporate torture into your treatment of detainess?

I say yes and no, respectively, while you say no and... maybe?

If you had cancer and the drug that might save you only works 10% of the time---would you refuse to take the medication becasue the "chance" was too low?

Depends what the downside is. If I have to torture someone for that medication, then no I wouldn't do it. If I had to torture someone who stole that medication from me? Probably still no.

How about if it was your mother or you wife?? or your child??

Turn it around: would you consent to having your wife tortured if she stole a medication from someone that had only a 1% chance of saving them?

I don't think waterboarding is torture, I think it works and therefore I don't have a problem with it.

Okay let's try to be precise about what we're talking about. We should talk about the two questions seperately, that is whether waterboarding is torture and whether torture works.

I believe waterboarding is torture. From the description of it and from experts who have seen it performed and know about the subject.

"waterboarding is a torture technique – period".
- Malcolm Nance, US terrorism advisor
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... 115549.ece

"A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... 115549.ece
- Malcolm Nance, US terrorism advisor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 50_pf.html

"It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture,"
John McCain
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110507P.shtml

"69 percent of us citizens say technique is torture; "
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"US national intelligence chief Mike McConnell has said the interrogation technique of water-boarding "would be torture" if he were subjected to it."
"Mr McConnell said it would also be torture if water-boarding, which involves simulated drowning, resulted in water entering a detainee's lungs"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7185648.stm

In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... 115549.ece

A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231

Two witnesses with substantial military experience told a U.S. House subcommittee in no uncertain terms today that waterboarding is not only torture but an ineffective method of obtaining information from terrorism suspects. A third military witness on active duty was expected to testify but was barred from doing so by the Pentagon
http://www.abajournal.com/news/waterboa ... ouse_pane/

"There's just no doubt in my mind — under any set of rules — waterboarding is torture," Tom Ridge said Friday in an interview with the Associated Press. Ridge had offered the same opinion earlier in the day to members of the American Bar Association at a homeland security conference.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323968,00.html

What is your response to this?

[cxt]

Val


I have done my research and in my opinion waterboarding is not torture----and even if it was, not sure that I would have a problem with it.
Torture in my mind is a far more serious thing the discomfort of waterboarding.

"That does not mean that its a good thing, just not the worst thing available at the time"

Lets leave aside for the momment that that answer has almost nothiing to do with the example I used---and just look at the answer itself.
Why could not torture in general and waterboarding NOT ALSO be "just not the worst thing at the time?"
Human life vs human pain.
Which is more important--which has greater value in the scheme of things??
Is it "worse" to allow someone to die or to cause someone pain?

Nope--when you "discount" say a jacket is FREE or worthless?
Or is it simply worth LESS than it was??????
Which in CONTEXT means that a terrrorist's comfort and dignity might be resonably considered of lesser value than life itself to another.

"Depends on what the downside is"

Nope, again NOT THE QUESTION--IN CONTEXT--WITH THAT QUESTION WE ARE DISCUSSING "CHANCES" NOT DOWNSIDES OR EVEN TORTURE PER-SE
Sorry for "yelling" but your spinning.
The question asked was at what percentage point do you consider saving a human life worth a "chance?"
And you failed to answer it---in fact you did everything you could NOT TO ANSWER--up to and including changeing the basis of the question itself----makeing it seem like something it was not.

Now you list some people that think waterboarding is torture.
Ok, lets think this thu----if I were post a list of people that think ITS NOT torture---are you going to change your mind?
Of course your not----so lets leave the appeal to authority arguments in the "fallacy box where they belong.

More specifically:

IN YOUR OWN POST---you mention that the:

"leader of the CIA team that captured the first major Al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah says that waterboarding is torture BUT NECESSARY" (emp mine)

So even in your cherry picked selections, there seems to opinions that it not only works---but that its "NECESSARY."
And that is just in your OWN quotes.

"69% of US citizens say its torture"

A-I don't know that poll is in any fashion accurate----

B-Currently MOST of the USA is NOT in favor of gay marriage---does that make gay marriage wrong?????
So the opinion of the general public are not only suspect---they most certainly differ from what one might think.
If a 1000 people say a foolish thing its STILL a foolish thing.

C-In the war crimes trials, I think if you check, you'll find that the people commiting "war crimes" did considrably MORE than "just" waterboarding...its framed as if that is only thing they were doing---and I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

In any case, the bottom line here IMO is that people taking an overly convultuted stance on this issue do so with little logic behind them---its almost a form of narcissim.

Essentially they are saying:

"I value your very life as LESS important than my own personal code of ethics."

My position would be more logically stated:

"I don't want to hurt anyone, but if by your actions you have placed me in position where I have to choose between saving innocent people and causeing you some discomfort/mental and emotional stress etc---then I'm afraid that I'm going to have to do exactly that."

I'm going to do that because I consider human life to have a value greater than myown code of ethics--and certainly greater than a terrorist right not to be stressed.

[Valkenar]

I have done my research and in my opinion waterboarding is not torture----and even if it was, not sure that I would have a problem with it.

What did your research consist of? Mine consisted of getting opinions on people who know more about it than I do and reading accounts of the process from both sides.

Why could not torture in general and waterboarding NOT ALSO be "just not the worst thing at the time?"
Human life vs human pain.
Which is more important--which has greater value in the scheme of things??
Is it "worse" to allow someone to die or to cause someone pain?

Here again I think we're running up against a fundamental disagreement. You want to phrase it in terms of a sure thing. That you clearly have the opportunity to cause pain or to allow death. An important part of my argument is that you don't have that clear opportunity. You can disagree that torture is unlikely to produce a positive result, but there's no sense in framing the question in terms of "which is worse" when your two options aren't consonant with reality. The way you are phrasing it comes across to me as being as unrealistic as asking "Would you rather kill a mugger with your magic death touch or have him tear out your spine with his toes?"

Of course I'd rather win via death touch, and of course death is worse than pain. The problem is that the dichotomy you're setting up is fundamentally flawed.

Nope--when you "discount" say a jacket is FREE or worthless?
Or is it simply worth LESS than it was??????

No. I was the one who used the word discount, and I'm telling you, I was using the connotation of disregarding. You can use the word "discount" however you want, but I am now using the word disregard instead since you didn't understand what I meant by discount.

So to repeat myself, it seems you are completely disregarding the harm to the detainees.

Nope, again NOT THE QUESTION--IN CONTEXT--WITH THAT QUESTION WE ARE DISCUSSING "CHANCES" NOT DOWNSIDES OR EVEN TORTURE PER-SE

The downside is critically important. With your medicine analogy, there's no obvious reason *not* to try it. Under your analogy, as I understood it, I'm guaranteed to die without the medicine and I might live with it, but there's absolutely no drawback to trying. By contrast, in a real-life torture situation, the drawback to trying torture is that you've then tortured a human being. You might get something good out of it (a life saved) too, but you've also paid a price.

In your analogy there is no price to be paid for taking a chance. In reality, there is a price to be paid for taking a chance on torture.

The question asked was at what percentage point do you consider saving a human life worth a "chance?"
And you failed to answer it---in fact you did everything you could NOT TO ANSWER--up to and including changeing the basis of the question itself----makeing it seem like something it was not.

Huh? Look, I can't establish a concrete percentage point just as I can't perfectly evaluate the ethical value. You seemed to understand that concept, so why are you demanding a hard and fast cut-off point now? If you want me to make one up, I'll say 99%. There you go. Now it's your turn, at what percentage point is it not worth torturing someone for lifesaving information? If torturing someone has a one in a billion chances of working, is it worth it?

Ok, lets think this thu----if I were post a list of people that think ITS NOT torture---are you going to change your mind?
Of course your not----so lets leave the appeal to authority arguments in the "fallacy box where they belong.

Actually if you can produce credible experts, I will in fact change my mind. I changed my opinion on gun control when faced with convincing evidence and argumentation. I keep an open mind and am willing to chance my opinions.

Bear in mind appeal to authority is an argumentative flaw when it's an appeal to one's own authority. Expert testimony from third parties is not the same as appeal to authority error. I'm not saying you should take my word for it because I'm an expert. I'm saying here are a bunch of experts who agree.

So even in your cherry picked selections, there seems to opinions that it not only works---but that its "NECESSARY."
And that is just in your OWN quotes.

I liked that one especially because I thought it would appeal to you. As I expected, you want to believe the man when he says it's necessary, but not believe him that it's torture. Which is it? Is he a credible expert, or not? You can't have it both ways, choosing only the part that fits your world view and ignoring the rest. How is this anything but willful disregard for evidence that you don't like?

B-Currently MOST of the USA is NOT in favor of gay marriage---does that make gay marriage wrong?????
So the opinion of the general public are not only suspect---they most certainly differ from what one might think.
If a 1000 people say a foolish thing its STILL a foolish thing.

Nope, a poll is not a great indicator of truth. I threw that in there as one piece of information among many. I think a poll has some value but is far from being damning evidence.

What would convince you that waterboarding is torture? Is there any way that could happen or are you just deciding that your imagination is sufficient proof that it's not? It sounds like you're saying "I know what waterboarding involves and that wouldn't be torture to me" and on the basis of that assumption, have adopted a rigid stance.

Furthermore it sounds like you're saying that you simply refuse to be convinced. If that's the case, fine, but there's no point in having any further discussion on the topic. It seems you're unwilling to back up your opinion with anything more than confident assertions that waterboarding isn't torture. Unfortunately, your word on that is not convincing to me. I have no reason to think that you know more about it than the people who I've quoted here and in previous posts.

Essentially they are saying:

"I value your very life as LESS important than my own personal code of ethics."

What I'm saying that under my code of ethics the value of life has to be weighed against the value of suffering. Waterboarding fits into your system of ethics and in this case you think the ethical thing to do is to take the chance on saving a life. You aren't sacrificing your code of ethics at all, you're simply making the ethical choice as you perceive it, just as I am.

Consider this: Would you consent to have one your kidneys taken out in order to have a small chance at saving one random stranger's life? I'm going to assume that you would not, but if I'm mistaken the rest of this paragraph is meaningless. Similarly, I would not consent to torture as a policy. In both cases we're deciding that the cost is worth more than the chance at saving a life.