|
More news links:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUKN1627971620090416?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aWdlo4rB9Uic&refer=us
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/torture.cia.immunity/
Here's an interesting article I just read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-bush-administration
Obama releases Bush torture memos
Insects, sleep deprivation and waterboarding among approved techniques by the Bush administration
+ Show Spoiler [ Actual article] +
Barack Obama today released four top secret memos that allowed the CIA under the Bush administration to torture al-Qaida and other suspects held at Guantánamo and secret detention centres round the world.
But, in an accompanying statement, Obama ruled out prosecutions against those who had been involved. It is a "time for reflection, not retribution," he said.
The memos provide an insight into the techniques used by the CIA and the legal basis on which the Bush administration gave the go-ahead.
In the first of the memos, dated 1 August 2002, the justice department gave the go-ahead to John Rizzo, then acting general counsel to the CIA, for operatives to move to the "increased pressure phase" in interrogating an al-Qaida suspect.
Ten techniques are approved, listed as: attention grasp, walling (in which the suspect could be pushed into a wall), a facial hold, a facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, sleep deprivation, insects placed in a confinement box (the suspect had a fear of insects) and the waterboard. In the latter, "the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner........produces the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic'."
'Walling' involved use of a plastic neck collar to slam suspects into a specially-built wall that the CIA said made the impact sound worse than it actually was. Other methods include food deprivation.
The techniques were applied to at least 14 suspects.
The Bush administration, in particular former vice-president Dick Cheney, claimed that waterboarding did not amount to torture but the Obama adminstration has ruled that it is. Obama ordered the closure of Guantánamo and the CIA secret detention sites abroad.
In spite of that, civil rights organisations have been disappointed by a series of rulings by the Obama administration that have protected a lot of material relating to Guantánamo and the sites abroad. The release of the memos today reversed that trend, though there will be unhappiness over the immunity from prosecution.
Obama, in a statement from the White House, said: "In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carrying out their duties relying in good faith upon the legal advice from the department of justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."
Anthony Romero, the ACLU executive director, said: "President Obama's assertion that there should not be prosecutions of government officials who may have committed crimes before a thorough investigation has been carried out is simply untenable."
The ACLU described the legal basis for torture as spurious.
Echoing the president, the attorney-general, Eric Holder, reiterated that there would be no prosecution of CIA operatives working within the guidelines set by the Bush administration."It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the justice department," Holder said.
The director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, told CIA employees that "this is not the end of the road on these issues", apparently in expectation of Congressional inquiries and court actions abroad. He promised legal and financial help for any CIA employees who faced such action.
In Spain, the chances of court action against six senior Bush administration members over the torture receded today after a ruling by the attorney-general, Candido Conde-Pumpido.
He said that any such action should be heard in a US court rather than a Spanish one, and that he would not allow Spain's legal system to be used as a plaything for political ends.
"If there is a reason to file a complaint against these people, it should be done before local courts with jurisdiction, in other words in the United States," he told reporters.
Spanish human rights lawyers last month asked Judge Baltasar Garzón, who indicted the former Chilean president Augusto Pinochet in 1998, to consider filing charges against the former US attorney-general, Alberto Gonzales, and five others.
TL:DR version
Obama released four top secret memos that allowed the CIA under the Bush administration to torture al-Qaida and other suspects held at Guantánamo and secret detention centres round the world.
Ten approved techniques:
- attention grasp
- walling (in which the suspect could be pushed into a wall)
- a facial hold
- a facial slap
- cramped confinement
- wall standing
- week-long sleep deprivation source
- insects placed in a confinement box (the suspect had a fear of insects)
- waterboard - "the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner........produces the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic'."
But, in an accompanying statement, Obama ruled out prosecutions against those who had been involved. It is a "time for reflection, not retribution," he said.
O_O
|
|
|
Dominican Republic463 Posts
Yeah the bolded part was a big wtf, why are they releasing these if there is not intention of prosecuting?
|
I don't know what attention grab is, but the rest of them didn't seem that bad to me :3
|
I just pulled consecutive allnighters, and I never ever want to not sleep ever again 
So sleep deprivation is definitely a big gg for me
|
On April 17 2009 09:00 Folca wrote:
Wow.
+1
|
United States22883 Posts
This is pretty fucking dirty by Obama. Not shady, but it should be pretty clear to everyone (it was clear during the election too) that he's from the Chicago political machine. I've always thought it was absurd that people questioned his toughness; anyone that gets through big city politics knows how to handle themselves.
|
The waterboarding stuff was in prison break. Theyd put a plastic film over the nose and mouth and then drop water on it. And the torturee convulsioned, didnt really get what it was about o.O
Oh and i thought a week long of deprivation is enough to leave anyone permanently really fucked in the brain, if not dead. I dont understand the reasoning behind it. Might as well shoot him in the head and hope he only ends up retarded and not dead, then hell really talk lol.
|
|
|
On April 17 2009 09:10 aRod wrote:
The secrecy is over
no, not so much
|
On April 17 2009 08:59 Cambium wrote:But, in an accompanying statement, Obama ruled out prosecutions against those who had been involved. It is a "time for reflection, not retribution," he said.
This is something i would have expected from the Bush Administration.
I guess "change" cant come without compromises... *sigh*
|
On April 17 2009 09:15 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 08:59 Cambium wrote:But, in an accompanying statement, Obama ruled out prosecutions against those who had been involved. It is a "time for reflection, not retribution," he said. This is something i would have expected from the Bush Administration. I guess "change" cant come without compromises... *sigh*
If you didn't expect it from the Obama administration then you haven't been paying attention for the past year and a half.
|
Obama also voted to renew the Patriot Act.
He is no messiah.
|
United States42673 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:05 Cloud wrote:
The waterboarding stuff was in prison break. Theyd put a plastic film over the nose and mouth and then drop water on it. And the torturee convulsioned, didnt really get what it was about o.O
Oh and i thought a week long of deprivation is enough to leave anyone permanently really fucked in the brain, if not dead. I dont understand the reasoning behind it. Might as well shoot him in the head and hope he only ends up retarded and not dead, then hell really talk lol.
It tricks the brain into believing you're drowning, swamping you with uncontrollable panic. It's basically the same trick as trapping you in a box with insects for the phobia guy, it's just fear of drowning isn't a phobia because it's not irrational.
|
Dominican Republic463 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:21 HeadBangaa wrote:
Obama also voted to renew the Patriot Act.
He is no messiah.
Source by any chance?
|
On April 17 2009 09:12 Mindcrime wrote:no, not so much
Let me clarify, the secrecy concerning the previous administration's role in guantanimo relating to torcher is fading.
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
|
On April 17 2009 09:28 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 09:12 Mindcrime wrote:On April 17 2009 09:10 aRod wrote:
The secrecy is over no, not so much Let me clarify, the secrecy concerning the previous administration's role in guantanimo relating to torcher is fading.
lol
|
United States22883 Posts
It seems like it took more effort for you to create that link than it did for me to Google and paste it.
|
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict.
|
On April 17 2009 09:33 Jibba wrote:It seems like it took more effort for you to create that link than it did for me to Google and paste it.
But then how do you express your contempt of being forced to google for someone else's laziness?
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario
+ Show Spoiler +Some human rights organisations, professional and academic experts, and military and intelligence leaders, have absolutely rejected the idea that torture is ever legal or acceptable, even in a so-called ticking bomb situation.[1] [4] They have expressed grave concern about the way the dramatic force and artificially simple moral answers the ticking bomb thought-experiment seems to offer, have manipulated and distorted the legal and moral perceptions, reasoning and judgment of both the general population and military and law enforcement officials. They reject the proposition, implicit or explicit, that certain acts of torture are justifiable, even desirable. They believe that simplistic responses to the scenario may lead well-intentioned societies down a slippery slope to legalised and systematic torture. They point out that no evidence of any real-life situation meeting all the criteria to constitute a pure ticking bomb scenario has ever been presented to the public, and that such a situation is highly unlikely.
The distorting and misleading nature of the scenario is in part due to the fact that it is most often presented in a manner that keeps many of its assumptions hidden. Once exposed, it becomes clear that the scenario is either wildly unrealistic or that any exception to the prohibition of torture would be much more widespread than the proponent of the scenario originally suggested. The scenario thereby manipulates moral and ethical judgment by obscuring the true moral cost of tolerating any act of torture. Critics emphasize the similarities between the absolute prohibition and taboo of torture, and those that apply to other international crimes such as slavery and genocide. Critics also emphasize that international law is unequivocal: the prohibition of torture is subject to no exception of any kind. Every act of torture is an international crime. In the words of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, quoting a leading US case, "the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."[5]
For instance, it is asked whether torture would be limited to suspects, or whether one could torture the family and friends of a suspect to make him compliant. According to John Yoo (the former Department of Justice official who wrote memos justifying President Bush's policies on torture) this would be legally permissible, including crushing the testicles of the person’s child to obtain information.[6] If we imagine that officials might attempt to justify torture of people whose phone numbers happened to be in a suspect's mobile phone or agenda-book, in their desperation to find useful information, the range of possible victims of "ticking bomb" torture becomes much wider.
Another point is the notorious unreliability of the information gathered, e.g. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.
The biggest objection is the notion that innocent suspects could be subjected to torture as a result of this "the end justifies the means" debate.
Despite the fact that it's a horribly written Wikipedia entry, it covers most of the problems. The last two parts are really most important in actually debating it, imo. I don't think there's any evidence that torture leads to better information gathering.
|
Obama wants to know what you're reading.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/17/MNH515C1KK.DTL
President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general has endorsed an extension of the law that allows federal agents to demand Americans' library and bookstore records as part of terrorism probes, dismaying a national group of independent booksellers.
Eric Holder said at his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he supports renewing a section of the USA Patriot Act that allows FBI agents investigating international terrorism or espionage to seek records from businesses, libraries and bookstores. If not renewed by Congress, the provision will expire at the end of 2009.
The searches must be authorized by a court that meets secretly and has approved the government's requests in nearly all cases, according to congressional reports. The target of the search does not have to be suspected of terrorism or any other crime. A permanent gag order that accompanies each search prohibits the business or library from telling anyone about it.
Holder said he realizes the provision has been controversial and he will seek more information from department staff before making a final decision, if confirmed as attorney general. He didn't elaborate on his support for the law, but said at another point in the hearing that his top priority would be to protect Americans from terrorism, using "every available tactic ... within the letter and spirit of the Constitution."
"I was disappointed" that Holder supports the bookstore and library searches, "although maybe not entirely surprised," Chris Finan, spokesman for the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, said Friday.
The provision Holder wants Congress to renew, known as Section 215, "gives the government far too much power to conduct fishing expeditions in the records of bookstore customers and library patrons," Finan said. "We never expected that the change of administration would mean we had any less of a fight on our hands."
Finan said the Justice Department has told Congress that it conducted only 42 searches nationwide from 2004 through 2007, the last year covered by congressional reports. The law does not require the department to describe the targets of the searches, and Finan said no breakdowns on bookstore or library searches are available because of the gag orders.
Organizations of librarians and booksellers have denounced the law as an assault on reader privacy. Some libraries have posted signs warning patrons that their records are subject to government inspection, and many librarians now destroy files on borrowers who have returned their books.
Opponents of the Patriot Act provision have lobbied Congress to require that agents seeking such records obtain grand jury subpoenas, based on evidence of wrongdoing, and defend them before a judge if the record-keeper objected. So far, their efforts have failed.
Finan said the American Booksellers Association, which represents 2,000 independent bookstores, and allied groups of librarians, publishers and writers will instead try to soften the law along the lines of legislation that Obama supported in the Senate last year.
Carried by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., the bill would have allowed agents to obtain records of customers and library patrons only if they were actually suspected of terrorism, and would have authorized court challenges by keepers of the records.
|
United States24678 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict.
Torture rarely accomplishes its purposes. All you would get out of torturing people is self-gratification, and that is not an acceptable justification.
|
United States42673 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict.
I believe it's very contextual. Enemy soldiers should always be treated with deference for example, simply because they've done nothing wrong, they're just on the wrong side. You'd want your guys to be treated with respect if captured, theirs are no difference.
Spies and terrorists are a different matter and if their country refuses to acknowledge them then they're fair game. Torture shouldn't be a routine matter but I believe it can be justified. That said, it's not all that useful. Torture makes the victim say whatever answer he believes will make the torture stop, not necessarily the truth.
|
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict.
Hardly any of the people confined at Guantanamo have been prosecuted or convicted of anything, with little evidence to even support them being locked up. Just that is already bad enough, topping it of with torture is just brutish and uncivilized behavior, unbecoming of a democratic nation that should show at least some respect towards human rights.
I'm appalled by the decision, as well as the poor choice of words, by Obama of not prosecuting the people responsible. Can't say I'm surprised though.
|
Eh
Torture has always been a part of human nature
If the US government wasn't secretly torturing people, THEN i would be scared
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
I know like 5 people who were tortured for a full while, they have scars, cigs burns, all kinds of shit, and what America does is pussy honestly lmao. If those people really did attack you guys then why not chop a leg off or something, god.
|
wow torture is necessary sometimes
|
On April 17 2009 09:32 Ry-Masta-T wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 09:28 aRod wrote:On April 17 2009 09:12 Mindcrime wrote:On April 17 2009 09:10 aRod wrote:
The secrecy is over no, not so much Let me clarify, the secrecy concerning the previous administration's role in guantanimo relating to torcher is fading. lol
The United States supreme court voted and declared the actions in guantanimo violated the geneva convention's standards of torture and that these standards should be applied to the detainees in guantanimo. They are torture by international definitions we agreed with.
Is there worse torture? Yeah of course.
|
You say torture they say interrogation until we get a all bearing truth serum that makes it 100% impossible to lie there will always be torture in any government to some degree to get information.
|
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here?
|
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then?
A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion.
|
isn't evidence inadmissible if it was gathered by torturing someone? what's the point?
the bookstore thing is pretty bad, yeah, but headbangaa is just trolling so whatever
|
On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion.
Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion.
Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty.
|
United States42673 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here?
Phobia. An irrational fear.
|
United States24678 Posts
Being afraid of some insects isn't all that irrational....
Even most of you who are like 'who cares' would be scared shitless in many insect-related situations.
|
|
|
On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty.
I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate).
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict.
Your ID fits your well.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate).
Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
|
On April 17 2009 10:13 micronesia wrote:
Being afraid of some insects isn't all that irrational....
Even most of you who are like 'who cares' would be scared shitless in many insect-related situations.
Agreed on the second part but to be fair they're not going to put him in a confined area with bugs that are actually dangerous. They just want to scare the shit out of him, not actually risk killing him. I don't really want to imagine what that was like though, I've got the same phobia as that guy.
|
On April 17 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? Phobia. An irrational fear.
What if it wasn't a phobia. It was like Red fire ants or something of the sort? You know scorpions....
|
United States24678 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:27 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? Phobia. An irrational fear. What if it wasn't a phobia. It was like Red fire ants or something of the sort? You know scorpions....
Then that wouldn't be a mental torture; it would be a physical one. They could cut to the chase and just start punching the guy/gal in the face.
|
On April 17 2009 10:23 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying I agree with the practice. I make no judgement on it because I do not have enough information, and neither do you or the general media.
It's really more of an opinion based in whether you believe in the individual, or you believe in the collective, if we're to believe the limited information we've been given. If you believe in the individual, you say that no one should ever have their rights infringed by the government, no matter what the cost. If you believe in the collective, you might think "If 100 people are captured without trial, 99 of them are innocent, but 1 of them would have lead to the murder of over 100 people, then it's immediately worth it."
Personally, I believe in the individual because I've been raised in a culture which celebrates the individual, and I don't really care if I get murdered by terrorists or not. But at the same time, because I'm white, and was born in Canada, I know it's just about impossible to be captured by CSIS and sent to some country to be tortured. In that respect, I don't really care what happens to some strangers, and it saves the lives of other strangers so strictly speaking numbers, it seems more moral to go with the result that protects the most people.
Thinking about it though, I don't think I'd approve of torture in that scenario either, so I guess I do care.
|
Waterboarding doesn't trick the mind into thinking you are drowning. You are drowning. It has been a form of water torture since the invention of torture.
The whole new name 'Waterboarding' and the description is language manipulation Orwellian style.
|
[QUOTE]On April 17 2009 09:42 Kwark wrote:
[QUOTE]On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
[quote]Torture makes the victim say whatever answer he believes will make the torture stop, not necessarily the truth.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing stopping the torture from resuming.
|
In Obama's defense, the guy has to make *some* exceptions to maintain broad bipartisan support. Otherwise he risks isolating himself completely and incurring the wrath of a very dedicated opposition constituency.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:37 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:23 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying I agree with the practice. I make no judgement on it because I do not have enough information, and neither do you or the general media.
You don't but then you write 2 more paragraphs? I'm confused.
If I'm not to have an opinion why are we even discussing this matter.
It's really more of an opinion based in whether you believe in the individual, or you believe in the collective, if we're to believe the limited information we've been given. If you believe in the individual, you say that no one should ever have their rights infringed by the government, no matter what the cost. If you believe in the collective, you might think "If 100 people are captured without trial, 99 of them are innocent, but 1 of them would have lead to the murder of over 100 people, then it's immediately worth it."
No it's not lol. People are not apples or bananas, you can't do counting them as if you were inside a grocery store picking rot ones, just not to ruin a box. We have come a long way since that I would like to believe. Tortures are not to be used, that's why countries do this big fancy meetings and sign papers, to come to an agreenment in topics, such as this one.
Personally, I believe in the individual because I've been raised in a culture which celebrates the individual, and I don't really care if I get murdered by terrorists or not. But at the same time, because I'm white, and was born in Canada, I know it's just about impossible to be captured by CSIS and sent to some country to be tortured. In that respect, I don't really care what happens to some strangers, and it saves the lives of other strangers so strictly speaking numbers, it seems more moral to go with the result that protects the most people.
Non sequitur.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:47 latent wrote:
In Obama's defense, the guy has to make *some* exceptions to maintain broad bipartisan support. Otherwise he risks isolating himself completely and incurring the wrath of a very dedicated opposition constituency.
And so the world walks.
|
Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
I'm not talking about arbitrarily picking people up off the street. I'm glad you took a few words I said and made a scenario that is way off base and something that no sane person would do. I'm a measure twice cut once kind of guy meaning that I think the most important factor in war is intel. Nothing would be done without extensive / reliable recon.
I think torture is perfectly acceptable when you know that they know something that you need to know in order to prevent something terrible from happening. This isn't something for gut feelings or hunches or pulling names out of an address book or like you said randomly pulling people off the street.
|
On April 17 2009 10:29 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:27 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 17 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? Phobia. An irrational fear. What if it wasn't a phobia. It was like Red fire ants or something of the sort? You know scorpions.... Then that wouldn't be a mental torture; it would be a physical one. They could cut to the chase and just start punching the guy/gal in the face.
But how would they know their phobia in the first place?
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:58 Tyrant wrote:Show nested quote +
Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
I'm not talking about arbitrarily picking people up off the street. I'm glad you took a few words I said and made a scenario that is way off base and something that no sane person would do. I'm a measure twice cut once kind of guy meaning that I think the most important factor in war is intel. Nothing would be done without extensive / reliable recon. I think torture is perfectly acceptable when you know that they know something that you need to know in order to prevent something terrible from happening. This isn't something for gut feelings or hunches or pulling names out of an address book or like you said randomly pulling people off the street.
It's not a totally different scenario. The scenario is skipping a fair trial on a human being.
|
On April 17 2009 09:33 Jibba wrote:It seems like it took more effort for you to create that link than it did for me to Google and paste it.
That's the point of lmgtfy, it's to make people feel stupid for asking where to find something when you could just google it and find it that easily.
|
United States24678 Posts
On April 17 2009 11:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:29 micronesia wrote:On April 17 2009 10:27 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 17 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? Phobia. An irrational fear. What if it wasn't a phobia. It was like Red fire ants or something of the sort? You know scorpions.... Then that wouldn't be a mental torture; it would be a physical one. They could cut to the chase and just start punching the guy/gal in the face. But how would they know their phobia in the first place?
Er, I don't understand what you are getting at.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:58 Tyrant wrote:Show nested quote +
Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
I'm not talking about arbitrarily picking people up off the street. I'm glad you took a few words I said and made a scenario that is way off base and something that no sane person would do. I'm a measure twice cut once kind of guy meaning that I think the most important factor in war is intel. Nothing would be done without extensive / reliable recon. I think torture is perfectly acceptable when you know that they know something that you need to know in order to prevent something terrible from happening. This isn't something for gut feelings or hunches or pulling names out of an address book or like you said randomly pulling people off the street.
I do not know a lot about American law, but doesn't this shit all over the Bill of Rights? lol
|
On April 17 2009 11:12 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 11:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 17 2009 10:29 micronesia wrote:On April 17 2009 10:27 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 17 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? Phobia. An irrational fear. What if it wasn't a phobia. It was like Red fire ants or something of the sort? You know scorpions.... Then that wouldn't be a mental torture; it would be a physical one. They could cut to the chase and just start punching the guy/gal in the face. But how would they know their phobia in the first place? Er, I don't understand what you are getting at.
Ok, if the insect torture was a mental thing, how did our government know they had a phobia to insects. Which brings me to asking, what kind of insects?
|
On April 17 2009 11:15 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:58 Tyrant wrote:
Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
I'm not talking about arbitrarily picking people up off the street. I'm glad you took a few words I said and made a scenario that is way off base and something that no sane person would do. I'm a measure twice cut once kind of guy meaning that I think the most important factor in war is intel. Nothing would be done without extensive / reliable recon. I think torture is perfectly acceptable when you know that they know something that you need to know in order to prevent something terrible from happening. This isn't something for gut feelings or hunches or pulling names out of an address book or like you said randomly pulling people off the street. I do not know a lot about American law, but doesn't this shit all over the Bill of Rights? lol
yes
|
On April 17 2009 10:48 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:37 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:23 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying I agree with the practice. I make no judgement on it because I do not have enough information, and neither do you or the general media. You don't but then you write 2 more paragraphs? I'm confused. If I'm not to have an opinion why are we even discussing this matter. Show nested quote +
It's really more of an opinion based in whether you believe in the individual, or you believe in the collective, if we're to believe the limited information we've been given. If you believe in the individual, you say that no one should ever have their rights infringed by the government, no matter what the cost. If you believe in the collective, you might think "If 100 people are captured without trial, 99 of them are innocent, but 1 of them would have lead to the murder of over 100 people, then it's immediately worth it."
No it's not lol. People are not apples or bananas, you can't do counting them as if you were inside a grocery store picking rot ones, just not to ruin a box. We have come a long way since that I would like to believe. Tortures are not to be used, that's why countries do this big fancy meetings and sign papers, to come to an agreenment in topics, such as this one. Show nested quote +
Personally, I believe in the individual because I've been raised in a culture which celebrates the individual, and I don't really care if I get murdered by terrorists or not. But at the same time, because I'm white, and was born in Canada, I know it's just about impossible to be captured by CSIS and sent to some country to be tortured. In that respect, I don't really care what happens to some strangers, and it saves the lives of other strangers so strictly speaking numbers, it seems more moral to go with the result that protects the most people.
Non sequitur.
Something can be discussed without profusely picking a side. This isn't your high school debate club 
I think you're very ethnocentric to say that. I think you'll find in different cultures, opposite opinions about the individual and the collective exist.
|
Somehow reminds me of "24".
Torture is never the "right thing to do" by law, but under certain circumstances, it has to be done.
|
On April 17 2009 11:25 Fishball wrote:
Somehow reminds me of "24".
Torture is never the "right thing to do" by law, but under certain circumstances, it has to be done.
If you want bad intelligence?
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On April 17 2009 11:23 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:48 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:37 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:23 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying I agree with the practice. I make no judgement on it because I do not have enough information, and neither do you or the general media. You don't but then you write 2 more paragraphs? I'm confused. If I'm not to have an opinion why are we even discussing this matter.
It's really more of an opinion based in whether you believe in the individual, or you believe in the collective, if we're to believe the limited information we've been given. If you believe in the individual, you say that no one should ever have their rights infringed by the government, no matter what the cost. If you believe in the collective, you might think "If 100 people are captured without trial, 99 of them are innocent, but 1 of them would have lead to the murder of over 100 people, then it's immediately worth it."
No it's not lol. People are not apples or bananas, you can't do counting them as if you were inside a grocery store picking rot ones, just not to ruin a box. We have come a long way since that I would like to believe. Tortures are not to be used, that's why countries do this big fancy meetings and sign papers, to come to an agreenment in topics, such as this one.
Personally, I believe in the individual because I've been raised in a culture which celebrates the individual, and I don't really care if I get murdered by terrorists or not. But at the same time, because I'm white, and was born in Canada, I know it's just about impossible to be captured by CSIS and sent to some country to be tortured. In that respect, I don't really care what happens to some strangers, and it saves the lives of other strangers so strictly speaking numbers, it seems more moral to go with the result that protects the most people.
Non sequitur. Something can be discussed without profusely picking a side. This isn't your high school debate club I think you're very ethnocentric to say that. I think you'll find in different cultures, opposite opinions about the individual and the collective exist.
Well in this matter, you either torture them or you don't. You give them a trial or you don't.
There's no "torturing them a little" here. So, what are your picks?
How am I ethnocentric? I find that insulting and I don't see when I made any comment that made me look like one.
|
Jesus, I'm glad this shit is being put to an end.
|
On April 17 2009 11:28 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 11:23 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:48 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:37 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:23 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying I agree with the practice. I make no judgement on it because I do not have enough information, and neither do you or the general media. You don't but then you write 2 more paragraphs? I'm confused. If I'm not to have an opinion why are we even discussing this matter.
It's really more of an opinion based in whether you believe in the individual, or you believe in the collective, if we're to believe the limited information we've been given. If you believe in the individual, you say that no one should ever have their rights infringed by the government, no matter what the cost. If you believe in the collective, you might think "If 100 people are captured without trial, 99 of them are innocent, but 1 of them would have lead to the murder of over 100 people, then it's immediately worth it."
No it's not lol. People are not apples or bananas, you can't do counting them as if you were inside a grocery store picking rot ones, just not to ruin a box. We have come a long way since that I would like to believe. Tortures are not to be used, that's why countries do this big fancy meetings and sign papers, to come to an agreenment in topics, such as this one.
Personally, I believe in the individual because I've been raised in a culture which celebrates the individual, and I don't really care if I get murdered by terrorists or not. But at the same time, because I'm white, and was born in Canada, I know it's just about impossible to be captured by CSIS and sent to some country to be tortured. In that respect, I don't really care what happens to some strangers, and it saves the lives of other strangers so strictly speaking numbers, it seems more moral to go with the result that protects the most people.
Non sequitur. Something can be discussed without profusely picking a side. This isn't your high school debate club I think you're very ethnocentric to say that. I think you'll find in different cultures, opposite opinions about the individual and the collective exist. Well in this matter, you either torture them or you don't. You give them a trial or you don't. There's no "torturing them a little" here. So, what are your picks? How am I ethnocentric? I find that insulting and I don't see when I made any comment that made me look like one.
Your view is as short sighted as those you're picking out. I really don't think you understand both sides of the debate and why there is a debate at all. Ticking bomb scenario. Time is a factor. It's not as simple as either party believes. Much smarter, more informed people than anyone here have debated this issue for a very long time without a set in stone consensus. I'm not criticising you for your stance, but you really shouldn't try to paint this issue so black and white.
As for those cheering or criticising Obama... You might want to look into Bagram and what his DoJ has to say about it. Might give you cause for concern or help you understand why there are no prosecutions...
|
I think what Obama did is something similar to that of the pardon of Richard Nixon. Although prosecution is clearly warranted, it would be probably become more damaging to further inquire into the true nature of the torture. Additionally, dragging US top officials through the mud will not help much either in world opinion. While doing nothing is also damaging, a prolonged trial could just further inflame those already hating the US. His statement is provocative and I also believe it is the correct decision.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 17 2009 12:14 Coca Cola Classic wrote:
I think what Obama did is something similar to that of the pardon of Richard Nixon. Although prosecution is clearly warranted, it would be probably become more damaging to further inquire into the true nature of the torture. Additionally, dragging US top officials through the mud will not help much either in world opinion. While doing nothing is also damaging, a prolonged trial could just further inflame those already hating the US. His statement is provocative and I also believe it is the correct decision.
It's not at all the same as what Ford did for Nixon. These were secret memos, he could have kept them secret. He made them public for political leverage for the entire party.
|
On April 17 2009 12:21 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 12:14 Coca Cola Classic wrote:
I think what Obama did is something similar to that of the pardon of Richard Nixon. Although prosecution is clearly warranted, it would be probably become more damaging to further inquire into the true nature of the torture. Additionally, dragging US top officials through the mud will not help much either in world opinion. While doing nothing is also damaging, a prolonged trial could just further inflame those already hating the US. His statement is provocative and I also believe it is the correct decision. It's not at all the same as what Ford did for Nixon. These were secret memos, he could have kept them secret. He made them public for political leverage for the entire party.
This is pretty much right on the dot.
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
Obama did the sane thing. Actually releasing those memos and closing down Gitmo is a bid deal, and that's what really matters.
Prosecution would not have helped. What's done is done. Perhaps the torturers will be prosecuted later.
I actually agree with the full spectrum of his actions here.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On April 17 2009 12:01 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 11:28 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 11:23 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:48 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:37 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:23 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying I agree with the practice. I make no judgement on it because I do not have enough information, and neither do you or the general media. You don't but then you write 2 more paragraphs? I'm confused. If I'm not to have an opinion why are we even discussing this matter.
It's really more of an opinion based in whether you believe in the individual, or you believe in the collective, if we're to believe the limited information we've been given. If you believe in the individual, you say that no one should ever have their rights infringed by the government, no matter what the cost. If you believe in the collective, you might think "If 100 people are captured without trial, 99 of them are innocent, but 1 of them would have lead to the murder of over 100 people, then it's immediately worth it."
No it's not lol. People are not apples or bananas, you can't do counting them as if you were inside a grocery store picking rot ones, just not to ruin a box. We have come a long way since that I would like to believe. Tortures are not to be used, that's why countries do this big fancy meetings and sign papers, to come to an agreenment in topics, such as this one.
Personally, I believe in the individual because I've been raised in a culture which celebrates the individual, and I don't really care if I get murdered by terrorists or not. But at the same time, because I'm white, and was born in Canada, I know it's just about impossible to be captured by CSIS and sent to some country to be tortured. In that respect, I don't really care what happens to some strangers, and it saves the lives of other strangers so strictly speaking numbers, it seems more moral to go with the result that protects the most people.
Non sequitur. Something can be discussed without profusely picking a side. This isn't your high school debate club I think you're very ethnocentric to say that. I think you'll find in different cultures, opposite opinions about the individual and the collective exist. Well in this matter, you either torture them or you don't. You give them a trial or you don't. There's no "torturing them a little" here. So, what are your picks? How am I ethnocentric? I find that insulting and I don't see when I made any comment that made me look like one. Your view is as short sighted as those you're picking out. I really don't think you understand both sides of the debate and why there is a debate at all. Ticking bomb scenario. Time is a factor. It's not as simple as either party believes. Much smarter, more informed people than anyone here have debated this issue for a very long time without a set in stone consensus. I'm not criticising you for your stance, but you really shouldn't try to paint this issue so black and white. As for those cheering or criticising Obama... You might want to look into Bagram and what his DoJ has to say about it. Might give you cause for concern or help you understand why there are no prosecutions...
lol please, take your 24 terrorism fear somewhere else.
Ticking time bomb scenarios are nothing but a fictional "what if" used to justify and act against human rights. Those scenarios barely happens, so if we were to talk about numbers like so many of you like to do, you have another point in favor of those against torture.
You also seem to be forgetting this was the Bush administration, weapons of mass destructions that never appeared and nothing lead to thinking they every existed in the first place.
You must be coherent with your own laws, if you leave them to a super vague interpretation or you totally shit over them, what's left of it?
“Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law”
|
US Military expenditures for 2007: 653 billion department of defense alone, (estimates in total usually 1 trillion +).
GNP of Afghanistan in 2000 (pre-US Occupation): 3.1 billion. (Source: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selectionbasicFast.asp)
Hey look, we spend 300 times more money on military than all of Afghanistan's GNP! Even by the most conservative estimates, the war on terror alone has 38 billion allocated towards it. We still seem to spend 10 times the amount of money, much less human resources and technology, than all of Afghanistan had when Al Qaeda still had power there.
Can we really not defeat Al Qaeda without having to use torture?
On April 17 2009 12:01 Brett wrote:
Your view is as short sighted as those you're picking out. I really don't think you understand both sides of the debate and why there is a debate at all. Ticking bomb scenario. Time is a factor. It's not as simple as either party believes. Much smarter, more informed people than anyone here have debated this issue for a very long time without a set in stone consensus. I'm not criticising you for your stance, but you really shouldn't try to paint this issue so black and white.
As for those cheering or criticising Obama... You might want to look into Bagram and what his DoJ has to say about it. Might give you cause for concern or help you understand why there are no prosecutions...
Citing smart people to back up a point is silly. Remember the last time everyone made this argument when the Soviet Union still existed. Take a look at Kennedy's administration. Full of Ivy league scholars and whiz kids and smart people like that. MacNamara anyone? And everyone in the administration was like "HMMM I THINK THE VIETNAM WILL JOIN RED CHINA WE MUST STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING. Ticking time bomb!" The time bomb never ticked. In fact we later uncovered evidence that showed the time bomb never really existed. And the Soviet Union / Chinese have had a millionfold more resources than the modern day "terrorists" ever had.
This goes back all the way through US (and human) history, from fear of Soviet and Chinese saboteurs in the Cold War to fear of the Japanese immigrants in the WWII era to fear of the Southern European newcomers in the post-Reconstruction era to the fear of Native Americans in the pre-modern era to the fear of English sympathizers in the post-Revolution era to the fear of Spanish and French agents in the new Americas from the day our country was born. How many times have these threats been real? Well they all were real, they were all just stupendously overexaggerated, and paranoia kills.
|
On April 17 2009 12:41 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 12:01 Brett wrote:On April 17 2009 11:28 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 11:23 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:48 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:37 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:23 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote:
[quote]
and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then?
A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying I agree with the practice. I make no judgement on it because I do not have enough information, and neither do you or the general media. You don't but then you write 2 more paragraphs? I'm confused. If I'm not to have an opinion why are we even discussing this matter.
It's really more of an opinion based in whether you believe in the individual, or you believe in the collective, if we're to believe the limited information we've been given. If you believe in the individual, you say that no one should ever have their rights infringed by the government, no matter what the cost. If you believe in the collective, you might think "If 100 people are captured without trial, 99 of them are innocent, but 1 of them would have lead to the murder of over 100 people, then it's immediately worth it."
No it's not lol. People are not apples or bananas, you can't do counting them as if you were inside a grocery store picking rot ones, just not to ruin a box. We have come a long way since that I would like to believe. Tortures are not to be used, that's why countries do this big fancy meetings and sign papers, to come to an agreenment in topics, such as this one.
Personally, I believe in the individual because I've been raised in a culture which celebrates the individual, and I don't really care if I get murdered by terrorists or not. But at the same time, because I'm white, and was born in Canada, I know it's just about impossible to be captured by CSIS and sent to some country to be tortured. In that respect, I don't really care what happens to some strangers, and it saves the lives of other strangers so strictly speaking numbers, it seems more moral to go with the result that protects the most people.
Non sequitur. Something can be discussed without profusely picking a side. This isn't your high school debate club I think you're very ethnocentric to say that. I think you'll find in different cultures, opposite opinions about the individual and the collective exist. Well in this matter, you either torture them or you don't. You give them a trial or you don't. There's no "torturing them a little" here. So, what are your picks? How am I ethnocentric? I find that insulting and I don't see when I made any comment that made me look like one. Your view is as short sighted as those you're picking out. I really don't think you understand both sides of the debate and why there is a debate at all. Ticking bomb scenario. Time is a factor. It's not as simple as either party believes. Much smarter, more informed people than anyone here have debated this issue for a very long time without a set in stone consensus. I'm not criticising you for your stance, but you really shouldn't try to paint this issue so black and white. As for those cheering or criticising Obama... You might want to look into Bagram and what his DoJ has to say about it. Might give you cause for concern or help you understand why there are no prosecutions... lol please, take your 24 terrorism fear somewhere else. Ticking time bomb scenarios are nothing but a fictional "what if" used to justify and act against human rights. Those scenarios barely happens, so if we were to talk about numbers like so many of you like to do, you have another point in favor of those against torture. You also seem to be forgetting this was the Bush administration, weapons of mass destructions that never appeared and nothing lead to thinking they every existed in the first place. You must be coherent with your own laws, if you leave them to a super vague interpretation or you totally shit over them, what's left of it? “Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law”
What? 24? I've never watched a fucking episode of that show. Don't be a twit.
The ticking bomb scenario is a fictional scenario. And it is purposely SIMPLISTIC. BUT THAT IS THE POINT; IT'S AN ILLUSTRATION . And holy balls have you missed the whole issue. Did you not read that I said you're over simplifying the debate? You've done it again.
Time is one of the main factors that complicates the debate. Those in support of torture pose that time is a factor in getting the necessary information before it is acted upon or before the window of opportunity is shut. The criminal justice system is incredibly slow, and there are just as many individuals involved in the criminal justice system whose rights are as important as those of the person who may be subjected to torture. That is but one facet of the argument which you clearly have failed to even consider.
Before you go spouting off at the mouth (fingers?) about my views, let me tell you this: I'm against torture, but I'm ultimately against it because it has been used contrary to the rule of law. The difference is I can admit that it's not as simple as "torture or dont torture" and "trial or no trial". Don't be so naive.
What does it being the Bush administration have to do with any point I made? If anything, you're again showing your ignorance. Like I said, Go and look at Bagram and what OBAMA's DoJ has to say about the subject.
In case you're too daft: they're (Obama's DoJ) challenging the applicability of the Boudameine (sp) ruling to Bagram because they want to be able to, essentially, abduct foreign nationals, move them to Bagram, hold them indefinitely contra to habeus corpus and do who knows what the fuck ever they do to that person to get information. FFS, they even adopted the Bush administration's arguments.
Your final quote is about the only thing of value in that post and I wholeheartedly agree with it. Rule of law.
|
On April 17 2009 12:41 HonestTea wrote:
Obama did the sane thing. Actually releasing those memos and closing down Gitmo is a bid deal, and that's what really matters.
Prosecution would not have helped. What's done is done. Perhaps the torturers will be prosecuted later.
I actually agree with the full spectrum of his actions here.
Actually Obama still opened a large loophole for future torture by the US government well through the policies. When he closed down Gitmo and issued bans on torture, he only banned current forms of torture meaning that newer methods would still be legal. It's doubtful that any of the torturers will get any serious punishments.
|
On April 17 2009 13:02 SerpentFlame wrote:US Military expenditures for 2007: 653 billion department of defense alone, (estimates in total usually 1 trillion +). GNP of Afghanistan in 2000 (pre-US Occupation): 3.1 billion. (Source: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selectionbasicFast.asp)Hey look, we spend 300 times more money on military than all of Afghanistan's GNP! Even by the most conservative estimates, the war on terror alone has 38 billion allocated towards it. We still seem to spend 10 times the amount of money, much less human resources and technology, than all of Afghanistan had when Al Qaeda still had power there. Can we really not defeat Al Qaeda without having to use torture? Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 12:01 Brett wrote:
Your view is as short sighted as those you're picking out. I really don't think you understand both sides of the debate and why there is a debate at all. Ticking bomb scenario. Time is a factor. It's not as simple as either party believes. Much smarter, more informed people than anyone here have debated this issue for a very long time without a set in stone consensus. I'm not criticising you for your stance, but you really shouldn't try to paint this issue so black and white.
As for those cheering or criticising Obama... You might want to look into Bagram and what his DoJ has to say about it. Might give you cause for concern or help you understand why there are no prosecutions... Citing smart people to back up a point is silly. Remember the last time everyone made this argument when the Soviet Union still existed. Take a look at Kennedy's administration. Full of Ivy league scholars and whiz kids and smart people like that. MacNamara anyone? And everyone in the administration was like "HMMM I THINK THE VIETNAM WILL JOIN RED CHINA WE MUST STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING. Ticking time bomb!" The time bomb never ticked. In fact we later uncovered evidence that showed the time bomb never really existed. And the Soviet Union / Chinese have had a millionfold more resources than the modern day "terrorists" ever had. This goes back all the way through US (and human) history, from fear of Soviet and Chinese saboteurs in the Cold War to fear of the Japanese immigrants in the WWII era to fear of the Southern European newcomers in the post-Reconstruction era to the fear of Native Americans in the pre-modern era to the fear of English sympathizers in the post-Revolution era to the fear of Spanish and French agents in the new Americas from the day our country was born. How many times have these threats been real? Well they all were real, they were all just stupendously overexaggerated, and paranoia kills.
I never said I disagreed or criticised him for his ultimate stance. I think you'll find we actually agree. But he's making plenty of comments, spouting rhetoric and criticising others for their views. He's throwing plenty of 'lol' at everyone who disagrees rather than making any sort of considered argument; it's stupid.
|
@ Brett:
The difference is I can admit that it's not as simple as "torture or dont torture" and "trial or no trial"
Perhaps i am being naive and stupid here, but what exactly is so complex about torture? I honestly don't see where the grey area is. I think it is agreed by now that:
a) Torture is morally wrong
b) Torture is ineffective (for extracting accurate information)
From there on it it seems to be rather black and white.
And just for the sake of clarity: Definition from Oxford Eng Dictionary:
+ Show Spoiler +Torture: The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion
Please elaborate/enlighten me about your position.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 17 2009 14:48 Railxp wrote:
b) Torture is ineffective (for extracting accurate information)
Inconsistent, and dangerous if you rely on it as your only source of information. But it's possible that the FBI has enough resources to cover all bases, including false positives. You can also triangulate through various sources to confirm information. Say you torture 10 prisoners and get confessions out of all of them, but 9 are lying to end the torture and only 1 knows something (and we assume torture WILL make him confess, but that is disputable too.) As long as you can prepare/check for all 10 stories, it'll work out.
That would be the utilitarian argument for it (which I disagree with) - that the information could very well be wrong, but you can afford for it to be wrong as long as you're testing other possible alternatives.
There is still the ethical component, and the many other problems associated with violating codes of conduct with prisoners (such as our own soldiers being tortured.)
I think Brett's point is valid though. It's more grey than most people think, and it's easy to make moral judgments on an internet forum, but it's not so easy when you're actually held accountable if an attack goes off.
|
I dont know about you guys, but I dont think no matter how fucked up Obama handled any situation. You know that Mccain would be way worse.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
attention brett:
NO ONE FUCKING CARES ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON OTHER PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO ARGUE. TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS THREAD AND LEAVE YOUR STUPID BULLSHIT AT THE DOOR. DO NOT GET PERSONAL AND DO NOT PRETEND SOMEONE ELSE IS "ARGUING WRONG". YOU ARE NOT HERE TO WIN THE ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO ONE FUCKING CARES.
that is all
|
I think drugging is better in getting information than torture..
Edit: personal life forget it ^_^
By the way, torture is so crude...
|
|
|
On April 17 2009 12:37 Cambium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 12:21 Jibba wrote:On April 17 2009 12:14 Coca Cola Classic wrote:
I think what Obama did is something similar to that of the pardon of Richard Nixon. Although prosecution is clearly warranted, it would be probably become more damaging to further inquire into the true nature of the torture. Additionally, dragging US top officials through the mud will not help much either in world opinion. While doing nothing is also damaging, a prolonged trial could just further inflame those already hating the US. His statement is provocative and I also believe it is the correct decision. It's not at all the same as what Ford did for Nixon. These were secret memos, he could have kept them secret. He made them public for political leverage for the entire party. This is pretty much right on the dot.
So close that it is the dot.
|
And yet you all ignore that the people being detained don't qualify to be protected under the geneva convention, so the conditions breaking the genev.
Technically speaking we should prosecute them under afgan/iraqi law, but because it is nearly impossible to have any proof of what the people have done. I've talked to lots of marines who have served tours, and they will shoot at you until you kick down the door, and then they profess that it was his brother that was shooting at you.
Torture shouldn't be done.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On April 17 2009 13:39 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 12:41 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 12:01 Brett wrote:On April 17 2009 11:28 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 11:23 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:48 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:37 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:23 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 17 2009 10:17 Chef wrote:On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote:
[quote]
Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion.
Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying I agree with the practice. I make no judgement on it because I do not have enough information, and neither do you or the general media. You don't but then you write 2 more paragraphs? I'm confused. If I'm not to have an opinion why are we even discussing this matter.
It's really more of an opinion based in whether you believe in the individual, or you believe in the collective, if we're to believe the limited information we've been given. If you believe in the individual, you say that no one should ever have their rights infringed by the government, no matter what the cost. If you believe in the collective, you might think "If 100 people are captured without trial, 99 of them are innocent, but 1 of them would have lead to the murder of over 100 people, then it's immediately worth it."
No it's not lol. People are not apples or bananas, you can't do counting them as if you were inside a grocery store picking rot ones, just not to ruin a box. We have come a long way since that I would like to believe. Tortures are not to be used, that's why countries do this big fancy meetings and sign papers, to come to an agreenment in topics, such as this one.
Personally, I believe in the individual because I've been raised in a culture which celebrates the individual, and I don't really care if I get murdered by terrorists or not. But at the same time, because I'm white, and was born in Canada, I know it's just about impossible to be captured by CSIS and sent to some country to be tortured. In that respect, I don't really care what happens to some strangers, and it saves the lives of other strangers so strictly speaking numbers, it seems more moral to go with the result that protects the most people.
Non sequitur. Something can be discussed without profusely picking a side. This isn't your high school debate club I think you're very ethnocentric to say that. I think you'll find in different cultures, opposite opinions about the individual and the collective exist. Well in this matter, you either torture them or you don't. You give them a trial or you don't. There's no "torturing them a little" here. So, what are your picks? How am I ethnocentric? I find that insulting and I don't see when I made any comment that made me look like one. Your view is as short sighted as those you're picking out. I really don't think you understand both sides of the debate and why there is a debate at all. Ticking bomb scenario. Time is a factor. It's not as simple as either party believes. Much smarter, more informed people than anyone here have debated this issue for a very long time without a set in stone consensus. I'm not criticising you for your stance, but you really shouldn't try to paint this issue so black and white. As for those cheering or criticising Obama... You might want to look into Bagram and what his DoJ has to say about it. Might give you cause for concern or help you understand why there are no prosecutions... lol please, take your 24 terrorism fear somewhere else. Ticking time bomb scenarios are nothing but a fictional "what if" used to justify and act against human rights. Those scenarios barely happens, so if we were to talk about numbers like so many of you like to do, you have another point in favor of those against torture. You also seem to be forgetting this was the Bush administration, weapons of mass destructions that never appeared and nothing lead to thinking they every existed in the first place. You must be coherent with your own laws, if you leave them to a super vague interpretation or you totally shit over them, what's left of it? “Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law” What? 24? I've never watched a fucking episode of that show. Don't be a twit. The ticking bomb scenario is a fictional scenario. And it is purposely SIMPLISTIC. BUT THAT IS THE POINT; IT'S AN ILLUSTRATION . And holy balls have you missed the whole issue. Did you not read that I said you're over simplifying the debate? You've done it again. Time is one of the main factors that complicates the debate. Those in support of torture pose that time is a factor in getting the necessary information before it is acted upon or before the window of opportunity is shut. The criminal justice system is incredibly slow, and there are just as many individuals involved in the criminal justice system whose rights are as important as those of the person who may be subjected to torture. That is but one facet of the argument which you clearly have failed to even consider. Before you go spouting off at the mouth (fingers?) about my views, let me tell you this: I'm against torture, but I'm ultimately against it because it has been used contrary to the rule of law. The difference is I can admit that it's not as simple as "torture or dont torture" and "trial or no trial". Don't be so naive. What does it being the Bush administration have to do with any point I made? If anything, you're again showing your ignorance. Like I said, Go and look at Bagram and what OBAMA's DoJ has to say about the subject.In case you're too daft: they're (Obama's DoJ) challenging the applicability of the Boudameine (sp) ruling to Bagram because they want to be able to, essentially, abduct foreign nationals, move them to Bagram, hold them indefinitely contra to habeus corpus and do who knows what the fuck ever they do to that person to get information. FFS, they even adopted the Bush administration's arguments. Your final quote is about the only thing of value in that post and I wholeheartedly agree with it. Rule of law.
That's exactly my point. How are you enforce a law that is based on subjective determinations. When is the bomb ticking? This is a very manipulable thing and have seen rules that follow the same enemy spotting criteria before. Most immigration rules that follow the "subject looks suspicious" argument have proven to be nothing but an excuse for officer to abuse other human beings.
How can you enforce a law that breaks lots of international pacts and national laws?
The ticking bomb argument is nothing but a slippery slope, that takes a few exceptions to the rule, blows it out of proportion and creates panic and paranoia in the people of one country to abuse the power and go feinting on the rules that protect the people.
Being in the Bush administration has to do with the argument. I barely watch American TV channels and the first thing you realize after 9/11 is how the government (with the help of the media of course) manipulated people's fears to enforce the patriotic act which we known what critics has received from all human rights organizations.
Honestly, go check some numbers experts on terrorism give: the ticking bomb scenario is very very uncommon, and giving authorities an excuse to torture harms people's life more, than whatever threat the government or the media tells you is knocking at your door.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On April 17 2009 13:02 SerpentFlame wrote:
Take a look at Kennedy's administration. Full of Ivy league scholars and whiz kids and smart people like that. MacNamara anyone? And everyone in the administration was like "HMMM I THINK THE VIETNAM WILL JOIN RED CHINA WE MUST STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING. Ticking time bomb!" The time bomb never ticked. In fact we later uncovered evidence that showed the time bomb never really existed. And the Soviet Union / Chinese have had a millionfold more resources than the modern day "terrorists" ever had.
This goes back all the way through US (and human) history, from fear of Soviet and Chinese saboteurs in the Cold War to fear of the Japanese immigrants in the WWII era to fear of the Southern European newcomers in the post-Reconstruction era to the fear of Native Americans in the pre-modern era to the fear of English sympathizers in the post-Revolution era to the fear of Spanish and French agents in the new Americas from the day our country was born. How many times have these threats been real? Well they all were real, they were all just stupendously overexaggerated, and paranoia kills.
Thank you.
|
On April 17 2009 16:10 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
And yet you all ignore that the people being detained don't qualify to be protected under the geneva convention, so the conditions breaking the genev.
Technically speaking we should prosecute them under afgan/iraqi law, but because it is nearly impossible to have any proof of what the people have done. I've talked to lots of marines who have served tours, and they will shoot at you until you kick down the door, and then they profess that it was his brother that was shooting at you.
Torture shouldn't be done.
no one's ignoring that fact, that fact is just immaterial. just because they are unlawful combatants doesn't it make it morally or ethically right to torture them for the bad intelligence you'll get.
|
well it's a big shock that he's doing this... I think normal people know that their government is doing this sort of thing but chose to let it go on since they want proportionate force to be used on this War on Terror, but this, just spewing it out I don't know how the public will take this.
|
On April 17 2009 14:48 Railxp wrote:@ Brett: Show nested quote +The difference is I can admit that it's not as simple as "torture or dont torture" and "trial or no trial" Perhaps i am being naive and stupid here, but what exactly is so complex about torture? I honestly don't see where the grey area is. I think it is agreed by now that: a) Torture is morally wrong b) Torture is ineffective (for extracting accurate information) From there on it it seems to be rather black and white. And just for the sake of clarity: Definition from Oxford Eng Dictionary: + Show Spoiler +Torture: The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion Please elaborate/enlighten me about your position.
In response to a)
Torture is normatively wrong. I would agree with that; It's very difficult to argue against it with any weight.
But does it continue to be morally wrong when the torture may result in information that saves thousands of lives? This is a theoretical argument, fully of many ifs or buts, I understand that. Consider it from the perspective of those in power: Is it morally wrong to fail to exercise an executive power available to you when facing the prospect of large scale carnage? I could easily argue that it is. Particularly in democratic nation states where the executive is readily held accountable for what occurs. It's also hard for people in power to sit around and say "yes, I would let thousands die rather than torture an individual/a select few". They would ultimately have to justify that to the families of those who die and the public at large. This is the position that those in power face.
Now some may counter as above, that they're chasing ghosts, they're insecure/paranoid whatever. And then the retort is 'well, what have we disrupted by being so proactive? How do you quantify that?' then people anti torture retort 'where do you draw the line?' and so the argument wheel turns. (I'm being very simplistic here because I'm heading out in 5 mins, I'll happily write more later if you want me to expand on this).
In response to b)
Why is it ineffective? Because you get some false confessions? They are not entirely useless when viewed outside of the moral vacuum. Like Jibba espoused: To what degree is it ineffective, particularly when used in conjunction with the many other information gather techniques?
Not everyone will be innocent. What value do you place on the information gained from those who you torture and DO possess such information?
Again, I'm being simplistic because I'm short on time. But these are arguments that are expounded upon by a great deal of writers.
I ultimately conclude that torture is wrong. My hat is tipped in that direction because I believe in the rule of law. However, I don't come to that conclusion lightly, and when someone responds to other people's opinions (which are contrary to their own) with 'lol'... That I don't need to expand upon.
|
On April 17 2009 15:42 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
attention brett:
NO ONE FUCKING CARES ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON OTHER PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO ARGUE. TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS THREAD AND LEAVE YOUR STUPID BULLSHIT AT THE DOOR. DO NOT GET PERSONAL AND DO NOT PRETEND SOMEONE ELSE IS "ARGUING WRONG". YOU ARE NOT HERE TO WIN THE ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO ONE FUCKING CARES.
that is all
Nobody cares about quality of argument on this forum? FUCKING news to me. If people are encouraged/allowed to post with 'lol' as a response, this place will degrade into 4chan.
Settle the fuck down.
|
On April 17 2009 12:21 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 12:14 Coca Cola Classic wrote:
I think what Obama did is something similar to that of the pardon of Richard Nixon. Although prosecution is clearly warranted, it would be probably become more damaging to further inquire into the true nature of the torture. Additionally, dragging US top officials through the mud will not help much either in world opinion. While doing nothing is also damaging, a prolonged trial could just further inflame those already hating the US. His statement is provocative and I also believe it is the correct decision. It's not at all the same as what Ford did for Nixon. These were secret memos, he could have kept them secret. He made them public for political leverage for the entire party.
According to what I've read, a lot of his decision not to prosecute was based on the fact that, under the Bush administration, these actions were officially sanctioned. At the time, these people had official approval to do what they were doing. It may have been wrong, but I think Obama is right not to seek to punish people who were acting according to government policies. To focus on dismantling that governmental framework and building another one that will not make the same mistakes or allow people to take such actions ever again is the right course of action imo. Keep moving forward.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On April 17 2009 16:38 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 15:42 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
attention brett:
NO ONE FUCKING CARES ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON OTHER PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO ARGUE. TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS THREAD AND LEAVE YOUR STUPID BULLSHIT AT THE DOOR. DO NOT GET PERSONAL AND DO NOT PRETEND SOMEONE ELSE IS "ARGUING WRONG". YOU ARE NOT HERE TO WIN THE ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO ONE FUCKING CARES.
that is all Nobody cares about quality of argument on this forum? FUCKING news to me. If people are encouraged/allowed to post with 'lol' as a response, this place will degrade into 4chan. Settle the fuck down.
yeah cool man fight the fucking power!!!!
see you in a week, next one's permanent. mind your fucking manners, especially when a moderator tells you to. what do you think moderators are here for, benign suggestions we sincerely hope you will take to heart?
edit: for anyone curious, this is not the first time Brett has wandered into a discussion thread intent on calling everyone stupid. I understand arguments can get heated, but there has to be a limit in place or this place will degenerate into a cesspool of armchair intellectuals engaging in overly-verbose battles over nothing
|
I think Brett's point is valid though. It's more grey than most people think, and it's easy to make moral judgments on an internet forum, but it's not so easy when you're actually held accountable if an attack goes off. No, it isn't more grey than most people think; its more black and white that most people think, that's the problem. Sophistry based upon dishonest, but difficult to detect fallacies does not make an issue morally relative. Torture goes against the fundamental assumptions which comprise both of the major western legal traditions. Our society is ordered in a fundamental way as a rejection of the possibility of outside coercion (especially from government), that's why our system of land tenure and ownership are exclusive. The entire move from a feudal system to one of modern ownership was done specifically to limit the ability of the state to do such things, and the integrity of the rule of law was designed to prevent it from just uprooting people without trials and put them into special prisons.
This had nothing to do with the status or standing of the person, it was the entire movement of legal thought from roughly the French revolution until now.
This shit is grey? No it isn't. Its even more than the black letter of the law, and more than the spirit of a statute or a bill. Its the ENTIRE FOCUS OF WESTERN SOCIETY.
The pardoning of G. W. Bush similarly wasn't a 'neutral' action which let bygones be bygones. Criminal (and to a certain extent tort) law is designed to be a punitive force designed to deter people from doing something. In this case, the deterrence would be against completely ignoring the constitution, which seems like a fairly valid use of the law. Letting someone get away with actions this egregious completely violates both constitutional principles and constitutional content. If he's innocent, let a trial decide that. If he's not, let him pay the price that the law prescribes.
|
On April 17 2009 15:10 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 14:48 Railxp wrote:
b) Torture is ineffective (for extracting accurate information)
Inconsistent, and dangerous if you rely on it as your only source of information. But it's possible that the FBI has enough resources to cover all bases, including false positives. You can also triangulate through various sources to confirm information. Say you torture 10 prisoners and get confessions out of all of them, but 9 are lying to end the torture and only 1 knows something (and we assume torture WILL make him confess, but that is disputable too.) As long as you can prepare/check for all 10 stories, it'll work out. That would be the utilitarian argument for it (which I disagree with) - that the information could very well be wrong, but you can afford for it to be wrong as long as you're testing other possible alternatives. There is still the ethical component, and the many other problems associated with violating codes of conduct with prisoners (such as our own soldiers being tortured.)
I am interested in attacking the utilitarian argument because once that is gone....i don't see any other reason there would be for torture.
Regarding triangulating information or using info gained from torture to verify other info:
The purpose for doing this is to get the truth. But since we know that there is humongous incentive to lie under torture, it would be LAST on my list for getting accurate info. If the guy being tortured was innocent, he would claim "i dont know" and when that doesn't work, make up something so that the pain would stop. If the guy being tortured was indeed a terrorist and planned part of the attack, he would ALSO lie (say target location is the white house instead of the pentagon, or claim attack will be a week from now instead of tomorrow.) In either scenario, theres no way to get any solid confirmation details. I think this undermines the torture for verification idea.
***
The other option is to torture for initial information, which you can then follow up leads and verify info gained from that.
In this scenario, if info gained from torture is false, at best you are lead on a goose chase and end up wasting resources. At worse, you go all out and kidnap many many innocent people and torturing them too just to justify confirmation bias. In the name of protection, you destroy your own country (lives as well as global image).
In the other scenario, if the info gained from torture is true, you would still have to verify it because it is unreliable. At best, one person suffers plenty of physical pain, and the torturer becomes emotionally traumatized, and you save thousands of lives. At worse, you don't believe what he said, and go out to torture even more innocent people to get a confirmation.
TL;DR:
_________________ Believe info ____________Dont believe info
Lie under torture:-----| Many Innocents Die --------- Many Innocents Die
Truth under torture --| Utilitarian Justified ----------- Many Innocents Die
Here the utilitarian argument implodes on itself, because this is NOT efficient at all, and does not serve the "greatest good for greatest number of people" because you are much more likely to get everything wrong and to fuck someone up that to get anything right. Moreover, THERE IS NO REASON TO NOT BELIEVE. If you don't believe in the answer, there would be no torture in the first place.
The only thing to gain out of torture seems to be vengeance, and we all know vengeance doesn't save lives, it costs more lives actually
.If you would allow a rather poor metaphor: it is like looking for your keys in the freezer where you know it probably isn't to begin with. Counter productive, waste of time, minimal chance of finding what you want.
I think this defends my previous point B, but please point out the holes in it if you find any.
***
It's more grey than most people think, and it's easy to make moral judgments on an internet forum, but it's not so easy when you're actually held accountable if an attack goes off.
Moral judgments are universal, you cant just decide to leave them at the door when you go out to get dirty. And, while we are evaluating PURELY from a one dimensional, moral point of view....its not really the guard who is evil if he doesn't know and fails to catch a trespassing murderer. Its still the murderer's fault for killing people.
And, to take a real (and sensitive) example, after 911, people weren't out there witch hunting for CIA/NSA/FBI agents who failed to prevent it, the mob was out there hunting for anyone with a turban and a beard. Even the media focused its attacks primarily on The Public Enemy.
So no, the guards are not really held accountable at all in the big scheme of things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Brett:
I would distinguish between the moral and the normative, but that is another debate in itself. (Not want go there)
Instead: Your argument against point A seems to be the utilitarian argument, which i have addressed above.
Edit: Aww mods doing their job tempbanned him before he got to address my points. i guess i will have to await someone else to test the validity of my arguments. and now i also need someone else to respond so i can boost my post count and hopefully get a cute zergling icon in the near future.
|
so whats with all the talk about not punishing the people who carried out the orders??? Why is nobody even asking to punish those who passed / created this bill??
Of course, punishing high-ranking government officials is a taboo, even if they pass bills which violate human rights.... disgusting 8[
|
I heard on NPR earlier the insect thing was for a certain inmate who had a phobia of bugs and they got some exotic looking caterpillar and told him it was poisonous when it wasn't.
|
On April 17 2009 09:02 SwaY- wrote:
Yeah the bolded part was a big wtf, why are they releasing these if there is not intention of prosecuting?
because its all part of the show sheep
|
I think its good that obama shows what Bush has done behind everyones back! It is not Bush his fault imho. Because there is a whole secretary that does things too right? The american president is not a dictator.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
- even if you omit all moral arguments or whether torture can be effective or not - today there are infinitely better ways of obtaining information. There are other options that are obtain more reliable information and more effectively ranging from pharmacology, functional MRIs all the way to microelectronic implants and good old fashioned social engineering.
- releasing the memos? who knows what's really going on behind that..
- insects I can manage, now they start throwing in arachnids I know I will lose it lol.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 17 2009 16:52 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 16:38 Brett wrote:On April 17 2009 15:42 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
attention brett:
NO ONE FUCKING CARES ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON OTHER PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO ARGUE. TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS THREAD AND LEAVE YOUR STUPID BULLSHIT AT THE DOOR. DO NOT GET PERSONAL AND DO NOT PRETEND SOMEONE ELSE IS "ARGUING WRONG". YOU ARE NOT HERE TO WIN THE ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO ONE FUCKING CARES.
that is all Nobody cares about quality of argument on this forum? FUCKING news to me. If people are encouraged/allowed to post with 'lol' as a response, this place will degrade into 4chan. Settle the fuck down. yeah cool man fight the fucking power!!!! see you in a week, next one's permanent. mind your fucking manners, especially when a moderator tells you to. what do you think moderators are here for, benign suggestions we sincerely hope you will take to heart? edit: for anyone curious, this is not the first time Brett has wandered into a discussion thread intent on calling everyone stupid. I understand arguments can get heated, but there has to be a limit in place or this place will degenerate into a cesspool of armchair intellectuals engaging in overly-verbose battles over nothing ![[image loading]](http://www.yellowchrome.org/tlnethreads.jpg) - you were weak to ban him though : ) - anyway since when you worried about manners? Just look at your own caps and language man, you almost single handily imposed the style in this forum lol (ok, ok unfair, I take that last part back)
|
On April 17 2009 09:04 never_toss wrote:+1
meh.
difficulty caring'
its not like that wasnt already known
|
|
|
Considering this, I'd say that list over there in the OP is just a cover for the real stuff that goes on. There's always more to the story, especially when it comes to supposed "governmental" confessions, trying to convince you they're being transparent. If they really were transparent, this stuff wouldn't happen in the first place.
It's not just Bush either. It's not just Guantanamo. For officials to kid around with " unlawful enemy combatant's" lives like that and get away with it, even if it wasn't an ordered thing, the higher tops at multiple intelligence agencies would have to at least be guilty by complicity or negligence. The president and it's cabinet aren't the only ones involved, not like it's Bush and Cheney themselves at those secret prisons crushing a detainee's child's scrotum with pliers. Perhaps they weren't even the originators of these orders. But it doesn't matter. There's a long chain of command to go through, they were all aware of it, and they were all compliant.
The ticking bomb scenario is only pretext to do this sort of thing. Once you sell out to evil, you're fine with your own family being tortured if it needs to be. Please don't fall for it. Torture is completely useless for information gathering, and these ticking bomb scenarios 99% of the time don't even exist (except in 24). You may see it as justifiable "if it saves lives", but it doesn't. All it does is degrade the value of human lives, and give government yet another power. Not just over foreign "terrorists", but over you as well. Did you know you could be labelled an "unlawful enemy combatant" anytime, and be put to the same practices as them? Don't have to be a foreigner, anyone can be a terrorist in the eyes of the not-so-Patriot Act.
There's absolutely no excuse for torture. None. Stop supporting it. Thank you.
|
On April 17 2009 09:21 HeadBangaa wrote:
Obama also voted to renew the Patriot Act.
He is no messiah.
No he is not the messiah.
He's the fuckign president, and he actualy seems to get stuff done.
HE IS NOT THE MESSIAH, HE'S A VERY NAUGHTY BOY!
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 17 2009 17:23 L wrote:
Its the ENTIRE FOCUS OF WESTERN SOCIETY.
Yet every single country in Western society involved in conflict engages in it, besides Germany. Spain does it, UK does it, DST (Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire) is brilliant at it. So don't just talk about it in terms of theory or some mythical idea of civil "Western society," because all countries are bad, and they all violate international rules of conduct. In the real world, the only thing you can speak of is relative degrees.
|
Who cares, the only people at Guantanamo deserve whatever they get
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 17 2009 17:41 Railxp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 15:10 Jibba wrote:On April 17 2009 14:48 Railxp wrote:
b) Torture is ineffective (for extracting accurate information)
Inconsistent, and dangerous if you rely on it as your only source of information. But it's possible that the FBI has enough resources to cover all bases, including false positives. You can also triangulate through various sources to confirm information. Say you torture 10 prisoners and get confessions out of all of them, but 9 are lying to end the torture and only 1 knows something (and we assume torture WILL make him confess, but that is disputable too.) As long as you can prepare/check for all 10 stories, it'll work out. That would be the utilitarian argument for it (which I disagree with) - that the information could very well be wrong, but you can afford for it to be wrong as long as you're testing other possible alternatives. There is still the ethical component, and the many other problems associated with violating codes of conduct with prisoners (such as our own soldiers being tortured.) I am interested in attacking the utilitarian argument because once that is gone....i don't see any other reason there would be for torture. Regarding triangulating information or using info gained from torture to verify other info: The purpose for doing this is to get the truth. But since we know that there is humongous incentive to lie under torture, it would be LAST on my list for getting accurate info. If the guy being tortured was innocent, he would claim "i dont know" and when that doesn't work, make up something so that the pain would stop. If the guy being tortured was indeed a terrorist and planned part of the attack, he would ALSO lie (say target location is the white house instead of the pentagon, or claim attack will be a week from now instead of tomorrow.) In either scenario, theres no way to get any solid confirmation details. I think this undermines the torture for verification idea. If you have another piece of evidence, either obtained from another victim (I believe they are victims) or some other source, and they seem to match up, you can start to confirm the legitimacy of their testimony. That's how it would work. This goes the same for torture for initial information. And yes, it does lead to wasted resources.
In the other scenario, if the info gained from torture is true, you would still have to verify it because it is unreliable. At best, one person suffers plenty of physical pain, and the torturer becomes emotionally traumatized, and you save thousands of lives. At worse, you don't believe what he said, and go out to torture even more innocent people to get a confirmation. Hold on a second. What if you know the person is a dangerous criminal? Gitmo is a bad example because of the ridiculous way we detained people, but I'm sure there are facilities filled with only known "terrorists." Are you arguing against torture in the case where it harms innocents or arguing against the act of torture itself?
Here the utilitarian argument implodes on itself, because this is NOT efficient at all, and does not serve the "greatest good for greatest number of people" because you are much more likely to get everything wrong and to fuck someone up that to get anything right.
Right, it's not efficient, but it doesn't need to be. If they're wrong 9 out of 10 times, but have the resources to test all 10, what should they do (only in this cost/benefit analysis, not speaking ethically.) Now an argument like Physician made is better, because it could be argued that out of all the intelligence gathering services involving prisoners, torture is less effective than other means, and once you fuck someone up through torture, the answers you get in the other tests (like MRIs) becomes unreliable.
If you don't believe in the answer, there would be no torture in the first place. I don't know that much about the practices, but I would assume that torture is primarily for the people who won't speak in the first place. It's not that they don't believe the answer, it's that they don't get an answer. Anyone that's willing to talk can be led in circles until they contradict or prove themselves.
The only thing to gain out of torture seems to be vengeance, and we all know vengeance doesn't save lives, it costs more lives actually I wouldn't call it vengeance, since I don't think interrogators become that emotionally involved, but I understand your point and agree with it. The point of torture is to prevent violence, but torture may simply perpetuate it and cause retaliation.
If you would allow a rather poor metaphor: it is like looking for your keys in the freezer where you know it probably isn't to begin with. Counter productive, waste of time, minimal chance of finding what you want. The counter argument might be that if you've tried everything else, or if you've got 10 of your friends helping you look, it can't hurt. It could though.
Moral judgments are universal, you cant just decide to leave them at the door when you go out to get dirty.
You're arguing morality, they're arguing effectiveness or might even go as far as to say that if it's within one's power to prevent violence, it's immoral not to do so. That's a slippery slope though. And I'm not sure how you would live in this world if you subscribed to a black/white view of ethics and only chose to live by that which passes as ethical. The act of war is to intentionally injure other human beings, yet we talk about things like the "Good War." Torturing animals is cruel, but we all love penicillin and safety belts. If you choose not to partake in anything immoral, then what's left? That's why it's grey and not black/white.
its not really the guard who is evil if he doesn't know and fails to catch a trespassing murderer. Its still the murderer's fault for killing people.
I think many people expect the government to use any means necessary to protect its citizens. The blame is not solely placed on the murderer, as we've seen with decries of the CIA/FBI after 9/11. They could have prevented it, and they didn't, so they're blamed for it.
Depending on your take of ethics, it's ethically wrong (I agree with this) but what you need to prove is that it's irrational. There's good arguments for that, just as there are against any utilitarian argument, but I still think you need to give some credit to the people making these decisions under huge amounts of pressure and in ridiculous circumstances. These people aren't dumb, and they're not "bad" people.
|
On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here?
And why did he tell them he had a fear of insects?
|
On April 17 2009 23:25 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? And why did he tell them he had a fear of insects?
Maybe they found this out from torturing another detainee D:
|
i don't see anything wrong with this, these people are terrorists after all.
|
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote:
I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him.
I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict.
the problem is most of these guys are suspected terrorists....and are legally, innocent till proven guilty. another point is that a lot of the guys that are willing to fuck up america are already prepared to die. they are not gonna give you accurate information and may even intentionally give you false information or at the very least just say anything to make you stop.
|
Yet every single country in Western society involved in conflict engages in it, besides Germany. Spain does it, UK does it, DST (Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire) is brilliant at it. So don't just talk about it in terms of theory or some mythical idea of civil "Western society," because all countries are bad, and they all violate international rules of conduct. In the real world, the only thing you can speak of is relative degrees. The fact that things are done does not validate them. Slavery was justified using some of the same arguments. The fact that there IS a market for humans even today does not make the concept relative. In terms of torture, its existence in the west is exclusively within spheres with very little accountability, and are obviously purposely hidden to eschew accountability. This properly hints that even those who are committing the actions recognize the ramifications of people learning of their actions. Why hide these things instead of justify them using the same bullshit 'relative degree' business you're using here? Oh, because they recognize that its quite difficult to directly oppose one's society's own axioms.
I really don't see this as an issue of relative degree at all unless you're willing to rethink pretty much the entire western legal tradition. There's a point at which all the flexibility in the world within a tradition fails to account for an action within it, and this is one of those points.
Due process has the intrinsic value of being non-corrosive in terms of tradition. When the tradition becomes mutated as to accept multiple and consistent breaches of due process, you lose the stability and predictive value of the tradition. In this case, the main 'loss' is suffered by the constitution itself. If the document (which includes, in my mind, the framework of interpretation surrounding it) is flawed to the point where substantial breach is the proper course of action, then it should be re-drafted. If it is not then someone should be on trial. A trial does not mean a conviction: it means someone is held accountable.
That's what the rule of law is. It is not an arbitrary judgement, it is the rule of a process; A very long line of legal reasoning would have it put as the process stemming from a central rule of recognition.
Assume western legal thought would more readily accept vengeance as a method of executing a policy of deterrence rather than flat out accepting torture as a method of obtaining information. The concept and application of penal sanctions is far more compatible in that manner. Even then, the process by which such an action would be instigated would have to flow from the 'rule of recognition' in the easiest of methods to application. Essentially one would need to show that the president's actions carry more weight in the rule of recognition than the constitution itself, which would both drastically alter the format of American government, and serve to render the oath the president to serve the constitution into a farce wherein a giant bows to a midget.
From both a purely procedural as well as a moral standpoint this has been a horrendous series of events.
these people are terrorists after all. Prove it. That's the job of our courts. If I put you in jail because I suspect you of being a terrorist because you clearly know nothing about the American legal system, and you protest that you're innocent, it won't really matter if you don't get your day in court.
That's why we have due process.
|
On April 18 2009 02:43 gophillies3939 wrote:
i don't see anything wrong with this, these people are terrorists after all.
Are they?
Good documentary about torture:
|
On April 18 2009 02:43 gophillies3939 wrote:
i don't see anything wrong with this, these people are terrorists after all.
|
question:
i thought obama released these because they were going to be released under freedom of information act since the ACLU was projected to win their lawsuit? if the ACLU was going to win anyway, why the uproar?
|
I'm kind of confused, didn't every1 know that we they were torturing terrorists? what is so surprising? not saying I agree with it but I don't see why every1 is so surprised.
|
On April 17 2009 11:15 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 10:58 Tyrant wrote:
Yeah and since all this is subjective and there's no trial I could kidnap any immigrant in the airport that "looks dangerous", say that he's a threat to my country and torture.
I'm not talking about arbitrarily picking people up off the street. I'm glad you took a few words I said and made a scenario that is way off base and something that no sane person would do. I'm a measure twice cut once kind of guy meaning that I think the most important factor in war is intel. Nothing would be done without extensive / reliable recon. I think torture is perfectly acceptable when you know that they know something that you need to know in order to prevent something terrible from happening. This isn't something for gut feelings or hunches or pulling names out of an address book or like you said randomly pulling people off the street. I do not know a lot about American law, but doesn't this shit all over the Bill of Rights? lol
Actually, the American Bill of Rights only applies to American citizens, and has no bearing on citizens of other countries, them being outside it's jurisdiction, as it were. However, it is clearly against the spirit and dream of the founding fathers in creating the United States.
I would oppose most of these forms of torture, as I like to keep less power in the hands of the government. I mean, if our central government hadn't gotten so much power, I doubt we'd ever have been in the situation where other countries hated us so much. It's not our prosperity and culture they hate, it's what past governments have done. If we had just stayed at home a lot sooner than now, I think there'd be a lot less problems. At least, that's what I think, it's kinda too late to try now...
|
United States13896 Posts
On April 18 2009 13:47 lokiM wrote:
I'm kind of confused, didn't every1 know that we they were torturing terrorists? what is so surprising? not saying I agree with it but I don't see why every1 is so surprised.
I think you're totally missing the point of what's going on in this thread. It's been common knowledge that the U.S. had been torturing detainees for some time. This doesn't stop people from arguing about it or the current administrations handling of it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
admittedly, this is welcoming news (or at any rate excitable news) because of the drop-bomb-on-gop aspect, as everyone pretty much expects what was in the memo, and the only thing to respond to is the need of a response. the most significant effect here is a political one.
nevertheless, i dont think it is simply a politically calculated move. there is a legitimate demand for clear facts on the issue, and the release of the memos is a gesture of openness and reasonableness, two things that was in short supply. it will at least bolster goodwill.
prosecuting the people is an impossible task anyway, since this is not a matter of individual initiatives, it is difficult to assign culpability, and most likely any sort of heavy punishment will just single out certain individuals for show and political theatre. expected in movies, not sensible in practice.
obama is a fine political tactician, i just dont think he has the connections, or had the connections
|
again, why are people spinning this a political move by obama? the ACLU was going to win its case and the documents were going to be released anyway, if it's a political move from obama it's for somehow taking credit for something that he was going to have to do anyway
|
So who ultimately decides whether prosecutions will be carried out?
|
Regarding torture, there is universal jurisdiction over the matter (and if i recall correctly, the US has signed and ratified the UN Convention against Torture). So really anyone anywhere in the world can prosecute them (e.g. Judge Garzon in Spain).
|
konadora
Singapore66161 Posts
|
On April 18 2009 15:44 sigma_x wrote:
Regarding torture, there is universal jurisdiction over the matter (and if i recall correctly, the US has signed and ratified the UN Convention against Torture). So really anyone anywhere in the world can prosecute them (e.g. Judge Garzon in Spain).
Not with the power that is Bill O'Reilly who is boycotting the country. What match is a country with a $1,439 trillion GDP against a man with his own show on Fox news?
|
placing inmates in rooms full of insects and "attention grasping" them is small potatoes. they should be extracting some teeth or smashing testicles if they really want to get info.
|
Those methods of torture suck. That's not even torture for god's sake: putting soaked cloth on a person to cause him discomfort? Bush should not be getting heat for this at all. There are so many better methods like:
-cutting off body parts like fingers, ears, nose, eyelids....
-threatening to cut off balls or cock (this usually works, if it doesn't then cut em off)
-depriving of senses: putting a black hood on head, then leaving them in a very uncomfortable position tied up in a freezing room
-then of course almost killing them then reviving them, like drowning in a bucket of water and pulling out at the last second
-burning them or causing great pain in any other fashion
etc..
Compared to this, bush was a humanitarian
|
On April 18 2009 02:43 gophillies3939 wrote:
i don't see anything wrong with this, these people are terrorists after all.
It's like saying it's right for them to fuck up people's lives because they are terrorists after all.
Then it's all good right?
|
United States42673 Posts
On April 20 2009 03:43 Hyperbola wrote:
Those methods of torture suck. That's not even torture for god's sake: putting soaked cloth on a person to cause him discomfort? Bush should not be getting heat for this at all. There are so many better methods like
- almost killing them then reviving them, like drowning in a bucket of water and pulling out at the last second
Compared to this, bush was a humanitarian
The soaked cloth isn't just there to make them slightly wet. It's there to drown them. The extreme torture method you're describing is the one they were doing.
|
um fyi the vast majority of people, even in gitmo, are not terriorists. and the US cant prove it, or they would put them on trail. that is why there ARE no trials, because the US knows that they would be shams.
although, its hard to argue with most americans, that anyone of Islamic faith ISNT a terrorist. so i wont get into it i guess.
edit: ya they call it waterboarding to make it sound like a Sport, like "hey, wanna go waterboarding in Miami this weekend?" but it should be called "simulated drowning". cause when youre dragged out of your cell, in the middle of the night, after being kept awake for 5 days, Blindfolded, strapped to a table- with a wet cloth straped all over your face- then have water poored over your mouth for 1-2 minutes, ever 20 seconds, for an hour- you might think you were being drowned.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
I really wish all of you poeople who defend torture would have to actually watch people get tortured. The only reason you are not against it is because you can't understand it fully.
Take a serious look at yourself and consider what kind of person you are when you feel that torturing innocent people is ok. If someone you knew or loved would get tortured you would be in the front line of all demonstrations.
There is NO way you can guarantee that innocents won't get tortured if you chose to torture prisoners.
There is NO way to guarantee that the information you're getting is true.
There is NO valid reason for torture at all. The only reasons people have for it anger and sadism and frustration of not being able to take it out on someone.
|
On April 21 2009 20:49 StarBrift wrote:
...
Take a serious look at yourself and consider what kind of person you are when you feel that torturing innocent people is ok.
...
There is NO way you can guarantee that innocents won't get tortured if you chose to torture prisoners.
The only way to torture innocent prisoners is if innocent people go to jail.
There is NO way of guarenteeing innocent people are not imprisoned if you chose to imprison anybody.
Take a serious look at yourself and consider what kind of person you are when you feel that imprisoning innocent people is ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.mrwsecure.com/market/images/T/Taxi%20to%20the%20Dark%20Side%20DVD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/americafuckyeah.jpg)
