RealGun
Member
pax said:
I see that as fairly straightforward. They don't want to be impeached if they find it necessary to authorize torture, believing it to be in the country's best interest at the time.
BUSH: "We do not torture."
- Thread starter Ezekiel
- Start date
- Status
I see that as fairly straightforward. They don't want to be impeached if they find it necessary to authorize torture, believing it to be in the country's best interest at the time.
Other countries that engage in torture show ample evidence by way of scars, deformities, missing digits and limbs, burned or decapitated corpses, etc., all readily evident without autopsy. And the best autopsy can do is suggest torture???
hmmmm.......
Per the MSNBC.com story linked by rick_reno....................If there are documentable, provable cases of actual torture, then people need to be held accountable for that.
But the answer is not in passing very broad, vague laws that would make telling an inmate he looks fat, smells bad, or that his mullah dresses him funny into a crime.
hillbilly
But the answer is not in passing very broad, vague laws that would make telling an inmate he looks fat, smells bad, or that his mullah dresses him funny into a crime.
hillbilly
I posted a dictionary definition of torture earlier:
Is it your argument that subjecting someone to conditions that cause him to "pull[] his own hair out throughout the night" is not deliberate infliction of physical or mental suffering?
Is it your position that leaving someone in severe heat with no source of water is safe and does not cause suffering?
When the FBI agent in that declassified document wrote "I did observe treatment that was not only aggressive, but personally very upsetting, [...] these techniques were being employed by the military, government contract employees and REDACTED." do you believe that he has never been to a prison and is only describing normal prison conditions?
Suppose, arguendo, we adopt an idiosyncratic definition of the word torture that only involves bodily mutilation. We will call inflicting suffering in such a way that doesn't leave marks "fnorture". Is it OK with you if fnorture is used to extract confessions in the US? Why or why not?
Another documented instance of the US gov using torture, excuse me, I mean "enhanced interrogation techniques."
McCain, Hegal, Grant, Warner...combat veterans, all opposed to giving the CIA special dispensation to torture detainees.
Is torture an effective anti-terror tactic?
Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.) said on NBC's 'Today' show Monday that torture should not be a part of any U.S. policy.
"Look at the other side of it, if the United States of America is torturing people, or treating them in a cruel or inhumane fashion, then it hurts our image dramatically throughout the world. ... It doesn't work and it harms our image very badly," he said.
Retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs, an MSNBC analyst, joined MSNBC's Chris Jansing on Monday to discuss torture, its effectiveness and what tactics he believes are most useful.
"At the end of the day, it's very easy to distinguish between the right thing and the wrong thing to do. If you do the wrong thing, you're not going to get any positive payoff from it and it's going to be of at some great cost," Jacobs said. "We get much more information if we treat people properly."
That means that there is a fine line of how aggressive an interrogator can be, said Jacobs, who recently visited the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay and served in Vietnam.
"You need to be aggressive to get the information you want, but if you treat people inhumanely, they're just going to tell you what they think you want to hear," he said. "They'll do anything just to get the mistreatment to stop, so you get nothing from mistreatment."
***
You'll get the world's enmity. You'll get a a tarnished image of the US around the world.
We are now being told that we can no longer afford the freedoms that we once heralded before the world.
McCain, Hegal, Grant, Warner...combat veterans, all opposed to giving the CIA special dispensation to torture detainees.
Is torture an effective anti-terror tactic?
Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.) said on NBC's 'Today' show Monday that torture should not be a part of any U.S. policy.
"Look at the other side of it, if the United States of America is torturing people, or treating them in a cruel or inhumane fashion, then it hurts our image dramatically throughout the world. ... It doesn't work and it harms our image very badly," he said.
Retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs, an MSNBC analyst, joined MSNBC's Chris Jansing on Monday to discuss torture, its effectiveness and what tactics he believes are most useful.
"At the end of the day, it's very easy to distinguish between the right thing and the wrong thing to do. If you do the wrong thing, you're not going to get any positive payoff from it and it's going to be of at some great cost," Jacobs said. "We get much more information if we treat people properly."
That means that there is a fine line of how aggressive an interrogator can be, said Jacobs, who recently visited the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay and served in Vietnam.
"You need to be aggressive to get the information you want, but if you treat people inhumanely, they're just going to tell you what they think you want to hear," he said. "They'll do anything just to get the mistreatment to stop, so you get nothing from mistreatment."
***
You'll get the world's enmity. You'll get a a tarnished image of the US around the world.
We are now being told that we can no longer afford the freedoms that we once heralded before the world.
Last edited:
jefnvk
Member
Does anyone have the bill number, so I can read it myself to see what it is outlawing.
If it is truly outlawing treating any prisoner in a 'degrading' manner, it is probably bleeding-heart crap that should be thrown out. If it outlaws chopping off prisoner's fingers, it probably has some merits.
If it is truly outlawing treating any prisoner in a 'degrading' manner, it is probably bleeding-heart crap that should be thrown out. If it outlaws chopping off prisoner's fingers, it probably has some merits.
Undoubtedly put forward by bleeding hearts like Senators McCain, Hagel, Warner, General Colin Powell, and General John Shalikashvili.
But hey, what do they know about serving in the military, fighting wars, getting captured, getting tortured, getting wounded? How could they possibly think that they know more about such an issue than, say, Dick Cheney, especially given Cheney's vast experience in uniform, shouldering a weapon, and killing communists with his bare hands. (Hint: Cheney managed to dodge the draft during Nam.)
Turns out the anti-torture legislation is modeled on the US Army Field Manual.
Well how about them apples? Bleeding-heart liberal leftwing commie pinko fags have infiltrated the US Army and are now writing their field manuals!
Sheesh...commies everywhere.
If the FBI discovered that a 100KT nuke had been planted in Washington DC and they caught one of the guys who knew where it was would they TORTURE him to find out where it was?
Would some intangible ethic that says that causing physical or psychological pain to get information is wrong be worth the destruction of a city and possibly millions of people?
What would our illustrious congress critters say if the FBI came to them and said a NUKE is going off in 1 hour in DC but we can stop it if we torture the guy who planted it?
What would the American people say if they knew that a city could have been saved if only the FBI had been allowed to torture the terrorist that planted the bomb?
My bet is the congress critters blathering on about the evils of torture would be ordering the FBI to torture the hell out of the guy - to do what ever it takes - and then they'd be hauling ass out of DC and making sure no one knew there was a nuke there so the roads wouldn't be clogged and prevent their escape.
My bet is that 9 out of 10 Americans would say go ahead and torture the sucker if that's what it takes to save the city.
Would some intangible ethic that says that causing physical or psychological pain to get information is wrong be worth the destruction of a city and possibly millions of people?
What would our illustrious congress critters say if the FBI came to them and said a NUKE is going off in 1 hour in DC but we can stop it if we torture the guy who planted it?
What would the American people say if they knew that a city could have been saved if only the FBI had been allowed to torture the terrorist that planted the bomb?
My bet is the congress critters blathering on about the evils of torture would be ordering the FBI to torture the hell out of the guy - to do what ever it takes - and then they'd be hauling ass out of DC and making sure no one knew there was a nuke there so the roads wouldn't be clogged and prevent their escape.
My bet is that 9 out of 10 Americans would say go ahead and torture the sucker if that's what it takes to save the city.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
Werewolf said:
That would be public opinion, not necessarily right.
kimbernut
Member
Bring it on home
Must we wait on possible millions? What about a platoon ,a squad,your niece or nephew,son or daughter"s life on the line? Where do we draw the line.We are at war folks-we best fight it like we mean it whatever it takes.
Must we wait on possible millions? What about a platoon ,a squad,your niece or nephew,son or daughter"s life on the line? Where do we draw the line.We are at war folks-we best fight it like we mean it whatever it takes.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
kimbernut said:
One of Nine...
But it would be right to let the city die then?DerbyFal said:
Rather than torture a source of information that could prevent it? :banghead:Please - and I'm not being sarcastic - justify your position that a moral imperative trumps the lives of millions.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
God's Will...
You either try to follow it or not. What is death but yet another chapter?
You either try to follow it or not. What is death but yet another chapter?
Werewolf wrote:
People who embrace torture always trot out this tired old argument.
Can you name even one such instance where torture was used to prevent an atomic bomb from going off in an American city? No, of course not.
Claire Wolfe answered this argument.
"Oh &^%$#ing baloney. An interrogator who was actually in a situation like that would probably use every possible method to get the information and damn the personal consequences to himself. He'd break any law and history could judge him hero or villain.
"But using that almost absurdly theoretical argument to justify national policies of isolating and tormenting hundreds, maybe thousands, of hapless men dragged in off the streets of Iraq or Afghanistan -- men who may be completely innocent of any crime -- is just unspeakable. Men like John Yoo, men like Alberto Gonzales, men like George W. Bush are just slapping the veneer of education on top of sub-medieval moral values. They deny that torture is torture ("Oh now; it's just a 'stress position' or 'discomfort.'"). They advocate cruelties to others that they themselves (war criminals, one and all) would be horrified to endure. (They'd scream for their rights -- and for a lawyer -- if anyone treated them as they so eagerly wish to treat others.) And then they close their eyes when their absurdly dramatic Hollywood scenario of interrogation leads to this. And this.
"(The latter link may be the best report I've ever seen/heard NPR do. It's certainly one of the most savage and heartbreaking stories, focusing on one death, one man, one act of torture among many. Even if the prisoner was what his captors claimed, he deserved a fair trial, not a brutal death.)
"I'm astonished that any sophisticated, civilized nation tolerates such a foul crew leaders and aparatchiks. Torture is not what Americans do. Torture is not what America does. Not as national policy. Not as wink-wink, nod-nod. Torturers are the enemy. Who on earth can't see that?"
I agree with her up to the very end. The fact is, it appears to me that America now embraces torture as policy, just as it now deploys chemical weapons against Iraqis as policy.
Apparently, when "they" use chemical weapons, it's a crime against humanity. When "we" use chemical weapons, it's "spreading freedom and democracy."
People who embrace torture always trot out this tired old argument.
Can you name even one such instance where torture was used to prevent an atomic bomb from going off in an American city? No, of course not.
Claire Wolfe answered this argument.
"Oh &^%$#ing baloney. An interrogator who was actually in a situation like that would probably use every possible method to get the information and damn the personal consequences to himself. He'd break any law and history could judge him hero or villain.
"But using that almost absurdly theoretical argument to justify national policies of isolating and tormenting hundreds, maybe thousands, of hapless men dragged in off the streets of Iraq or Afghanistan -- men who may be completely innocent of any crime -- is just unspeakable. Men like John Yoo, men like Alberto Gonzales, men like George W. Bush are just slapping the veneer of education on top of sub-medieval moral values. They deny that torture is torture ("Oh now; it's just a 'stress position' or 'discomfort.'"). They advocate cruelties to others that they themselves (war criminals, one and all) would be horrified to endure. (They'd scream for their rights -- and for a lawyer -- if anyone treated them as they so eagerly wish to treat others.) And then they close their eyes when their absurdly dramatic Hollywood scenario of interrogation leads to this. And this.
"(The latter link may be the best report I've ever seen/heard NPR do. It's certainly one of the most savage and heartbreaking stories, focusing on one death, one man, one act of torture among many. Even if the prisoner was what his captors claimed, he deserved a fair trial, not a brutal death.)
"I'm astonished that any sophisticated, civilized nation tolerates such a foul crew leaders and aparatchiks. Torture is not what Americans do. Torture is not what America does. Not as national policy. Not as wink-wink, nod-nod. Torturers are the enemy. Who on earth can't see that?"
I agree with her up to the very end. The fact is, it appears to me that America now embraces torture as policy, just as it now deploys chemical weapons against Iraqis as policy.
Apparently, when "they" use chemical weapons, it's a crime against humanity. When "we" use chemical weapons, it's "spreading freedom and democracy."
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Sorry pal. White phosphorus (used mainly for illumination and occasionally as a fire bomb) doesn't qualify as a chemical weapon. At least, not among rational people. Maybe among the Bush haters, though...
No A/C, loud music, and suggestively dressed women don't constitute torture either. (Sounds a lot like my college years, in fact.) Yet the Bush haters love to trumpet that sort of mistreatment (sic) at Gitmo as if it were torture. It isn't.
The abuses at Abu Ghraib were bad, no question about it. But that isn't policy, and it was never condoned. The participants are being punished for their crimes.
There are some sob stories out there about foreigners who were deported back to their home country. But the abuse they receive at the hands of their own government isn't Bush's fault. No matter how much the leftists wish it, this simply doesn't make the US a "torture nation".
Then there are those tin-foil rumors about "secret CIA torture camps". Feel free to believe in them if you wish. I don't.
I'm still waiting for compelling evidence of bona fide torture by the US. Anyone?
No A/C, loud music, and suggestively dressed women don't constitute torture either. (Sounds a lot like my college years, in fact.) Yet the Bush haters love to trumpet that sort of mistreatment (sic) at Gitmo as if it were torture. It isn't.
The abuses at Abu Ghraib were bad, no question about it. But that isn't policy, and it was never condoned. The participants are being punished for their crimes.
There are some sob stories out there about foreigners who were deported back to their home country. But the abuse they receive at the hands of their own government isn't Bush's fault. No matter how much the leftists wish it, this simply doesn't make the US a "torture nation".
Then there are those tin-foil rumors about "secret CIA torture camps". Feel free to believe in them if you wish. I don't.
I'm still waiting for compelling evidence of bona fide torture by the US. Anyone?
So if it is GOD's will then man has no free will and if man tortures then it's god's will he torture's and - oh hell - I give up...Derby FALs said:
[snort] God's Will - what a cop out!
Your position seems to me to be that doing a small evil that results in a greater good is not justified. How can it be wrong to kill or torture one man to save many men?
Ezekiel
Member
Butting in...
Historically, such is almost always "how it starts"...
----------------------
As in my initial post, I'm concerned about many things, but mostly perception in this instance. In a nutshell, perceived moral superiority is extremely important to our interests both at home and abroad. Regardless of what has actually occurred, an outright blanket denial of wrongdoing seems "beneath" the Presidency. Better to say nothing if your position is justifiable.
Of course, we could easily be committing atrocities that are NOT justifiable, and this merely creates plausible deniability for our "fearless leader"...
BAH.
Historically, such is almost always "how it starts"...
----------------------
As in my initial post, I'm concerned about many things, but mostly perception in this instance. In a nutshell, perceived moral superiority is extremely important to our interests both at home and abroad. Regardless of what has actually occurred, an outright blanket denial of wrongdoing seems "beneath" the Presidency. Better to say nothing if your position is justifiable.
Of course, we could easily be committing atrocities that are NOT justifiable, and this merely creates plausible deniability for our "fearless leader"...
BAH.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
Werewolf said:
We may have a different God. My God's Will is done no matter how it turns out. Man does have free will to do good or evil. We will all answer to Him on Judgement Day and unless The Return is during our lifetime we are all going to die.
CAnnoneer
Member
The reality is that everyone draws the line someplace. Having a law may be a good way to have a "collective line" on this issue, just like it is on any other.
But, we also must consider the intended and unintended consequences, both positive and negative. For example, depending on the wording, it may be so restrictive that it would be virtually impossible legally to interrogate prisoners, or even keep them under lock and key. On the other hand, having a law like that is a good way to show our commitment to retain our core values even in the face of such novel problems, and also provide us with a legal and political highground. Finally, it may help improve the treatment of our own prisoners, at least among those enemy elements that do not customarily saw heads off while yelling "Allah Akbar!" (not that there are that many such).
Putting aside the legal issues, let's recognize that every interrogator can still opt to break a law and use torture methods if the stakes are sufficiently high. That brings us back to where my post started, namely everyone ultimately draws his own line someplace, legal or not.
But, we also must consider the intended and unintended consequences, both positive and negative. For example, depending on the wording, it may be so restrictive that it would be virtually impossible legally to interrogate prisoners, or even keep them under lock and key. On the other hand, having a law like that is a good way to show our commitment to retain our core values even in the face of such novel problems, and also provide us with a legal and political highground. Finally, it may help improve the treatment of our own prisoners, at least among those enemy elements that do not customarily saw heads off while yelling "Allah Akbar!" (not that there are that many such).
Putting aside the legal issues, let's recognize that every interrogator can still opt to break a law and use torture methods if the stakes are sufficiently high. That brings us back to where my post started, namely everyone ultimately draws his own line someplace, legal or not.
Last edited:
jefnvk
Member
Well, then, you wouldn't mind showing me the text of the bill, then, right? If you are so positive, you'd just show it to me, instead of trying to turn my argument around, wouldn't you?
I don't take any argument on blind faith.
and don't forget, the REDACTED parts are the parts that are the most shocking/egregious - that's why they were redacted.
But yeah, Kurush, why DO you hate america so much? I'll bet you have a commie flag at your house.
But when it's said and done, hillbilly may be right, nevertheless. A bill that is overly BROAD, and/or VAGUE/AMBIGUOUS in its definitions is a bad idea (if that is in fact the case). Torture should be defined by the BILL before it's nuances are tweaked by the courts later. If the BILL is lacking in completeness or descriptiveness, it should be vetoed. If is is not lacking (i.e. if it provides a fair definition of torture, beyond simple sleep deprivation or climate control failures), then there's no reason to veto it. Legislators can and do define things well oftentimes in legislation (oftentimes not also), if they put their minds to it (actually, the staff does). If the bill has vague definitions, that that supports the theory that it's a political hack job, and ought to be vetoed.
But yeah, Kurush, why DO you hate america so much? I'll bet you have a commie flag at your house.
But when it's said and done, hillbilly may be right, nevertheless. A bill that is overly BROAD, and/or VAGUE/AMBIGUOUS in its definitions is a bad idea (if that is in fact the case). Torture should be defined by the BILL before it's nuances are tweaked by the courts later. If the BILL is lacking in completeness or descriptiveness, it should be vetoed. If is is not lacking (i.e. if it provides a fair definition of torture, beyond simple sleep deprivation or climate control failures), then there's no reason to veto it. Legislators can and do define things well oftentimes in legislation (oftentimes not also), if they put their minds to it (actually, the staff does). If the bill has vague definitions, that that supports the theory that it's a political hack job, and ought to be vetoed.
Aguila Blanca
Member
None whatsoever. But a body of evidence that we turn suspected terrorists over to various allies for interrogation. This allows us "plausible deniability."R.H. Lee said:
"What, the United States torture poor old Abduhl? Shucks, no ... we'd never do a terrible thing like that. We just thought he'd be more comfortable among his own people so we turned him over to the Egyptians/Pakistanis/___ and let them handle the questioning.
"No, we have no idea why he died unexpectedly within 6 hours after we gave them custody. Next question?"
NHBB
Member
blah
Aguila Blanca
Member
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."R.H. Lee said:
Mr. Lee, please excuse me if I find it exceedingly ironic that you accuse Kurush of being biased, when you steadfastly deny what all of us know. You ask for documentation, and when it is provided you denigrate the sources. Then you try to remove the problem by limiting the definition of "torture" to eliminate the best documented of the forms of torture employed by or on behalf of the United States.
As Ann Landers used to write, "Wake up and smell the coffee."
Compelling evidence? Where have you been the last two years? Living in a cave? Is your TV locked on the FAUX News channel?
I already posted the links. If you are too intellectually lazy to examine the evidence, then that is your problem.
The torture was described by FBI agents in memo back to FBI HQ. "Torture" is the word that they used. Did you bother to even read the declassified US gov documents on the matter? You know, the ones that are heavily redacted, i.e., sanitized for your protection?
Since Torturegate broke, there have been at least 10 official military investigations since then. We know for a fact that it is the continuing practice of American operatives to seize "suspected terrorists" and take them, without any meaningful legal review, to interrogation centres in south-east Asia, old gulags in formerly-communist European countries, and the torture chambers of Egypt, Jordan, and other friendly despotic client states. We know that they've snatched people off the streets of Europe and even the US, and sent them to God-knows-where so that God-knows-what can be inflicted on them. No due process, no warrants, held without contact with their families or lawyers. Sometimes - years later - they are released - "whoops, wrong man, so sorry." They have even done that to US citizens.
Also documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Committee of the Red Cross, the Schlesinger Commission, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror by Mark Danner, The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib by Karen J. Greenberg, The Abu Ghraib Investigations: The Official Independent Panel and Pentagon Reports on the Shocking Prisoner Abuse in Iraq by Strasser and Whitney, the Jones/Fay Investigation (commissioned by the Pentagon, detailing specific abuses in graphic detail), the report by General Taguba*, and National Public Radio.
And remember all those horrid photos from Abu Ghraib prison? There are even worse photos that the government is still sitting on even though on 26 September 2005 a federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to release them.
Specifically, the detaines have been subjected to waterboarding, beaten, hung by wrists, and shocked by security forces of the US gov and/or its local Iraqi client state.
RHLee writes:
Lee, do your homework and you will find out in numerous individual cases of torture, the victims often had fresh scars or bruises.
What do you need? A signed, notarized statement by Bush to Rummy saying "I hereby authorize youto torture whoever you feel like"?
You know one efefct of using torture? The victim says ANYTHING he thinks you want to hear in order to get you to stop.
See Bush administration's torture policy increasingly under fire
Finally, intelligence and military officers argue that abuse and torture are likely to produce bogus intelligence because prisoners will say whatever they think their interrogators want to hear to stop the abuse.
Lies, torture, aggression, denial, intellectual dishonesty and bogus self-serving rationalizations served up by people whose thinking process has been so Nazified over the years they can't see reality when it's staring them in the face.
***
*I had earlier in this thread misidentified this as the "Sanchez Report."
- Status
