|
On May 16 2009 11:44 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 11:17 Aegraen wrote:
Perhaps so, but I wonder why the left always thinks the right is brainwashed when the media is at about a 9.5:1 ratio of left to right. Do you seriously have to convert to that crap when you fail at rebuttal with facts and at least coherent thoughts. This is more directed to the overly whiny left who always rail against 'the massive conservative right conspiracy' bullarky, which anyone with any sort of reasoning skills can see is about as likely as the world coming together to hold hands and sing kumbayah over a fire roasting marshmellows; afterwards groping each other and finally ending in a huge orgyfest. Likely scenario = 0%, does not compute. FYI man, it's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously in this thread. Your statements are getting more erratic, increasingly generalized, and often are little more than cheap potshots at some imaginary "left." The problems in this country do not arise from right vs. left or democrat vs. republican or liberal vs. conservative, no matter how much some people wish that were true. what an awesome 1000th post 
Where exactly do the problems come from then? Some of the most right on the spectrum actually like to uphold US laws, such as immigration enforcement, aren't out to cut whatever they don't like from the constitution that is a right (16th amendment needs to go, that is no right...), and are actually in favor of what the US was founded upon, and as.
What the left increasingly does comes right from the playbook of Marx and Alinsky. I'm sure you think all GOP are 'right', when in fact, most are actually 'left' and RINO's. (Republicans in name only). Even Putin from Russia told us not to put blind faith in the omnipotence of government in the economy. What else do you need....as a reminder there were 3 republicans who voted for the stimulus. One all ready left the party, and the other two are as liberal as liberal democrats, thus RINO.
You tell me, who has more integrity: Jeff Sessions vice Nancy Pelosi. Jim DeMint vice Rengel. Tom Coburn vice Tom Daschle/Jack Murtha/(I can list about 100 + names here).
I'm interested to hear what you believe the problem is...the problem is there are two competing visions for America. One grounded in the foundation, our founding fathers, and the idea of individualism, limited government (Federalism), and a reduction in spending and taxing (The most far of the right (Which I am apart of)), and illegal immigration enforcement. On the other side you have, nationalizing and controlling the economy, your healthcare, limiting your free speech rights (Fairness Doctrine), secret ballots gone (Card check), zero immigration enforcement and actually giving illegals more rights than citizens (Many go with upwards of 3-4+ DUI's and receive little to no punishment where as if you're a citizen you are 3 strikes and out (20+ years) and I can document case after case of this for you), taking away your weapons, taxing you ever increasing amounts to spend for their 'distopian' fantasies, I could go on here...
Which world would you rather live in...
|
On May 16 2009 11:46 jeppew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 11:36 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 11:28 jeppew wrote:On May 16 2009 11:17 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 10:17 Promises wrote:On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:
[quote]
The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be?
[quote]
Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours?
[quote]
I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think?
[quote]
We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically.
e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands. Particularly dumb reply by the way. He made a fairly stupid post calling you a monster. You replied by saying you only "called liberals for what they were", which in your mind, is pussies. He called you for what "the thought you were", which is a monster. Edit: To adress the last post: basically I feel any kind of name calling to the party your discussing with is void. Either win by arguments (altho often thats not possible because people will stay by there beliefs either trough different definitions, not comprehending or sheer stubbornness) or just leave it be. Perhaps so, but I wonder why the left always thinks the right is brainwashed when the media is at about a 9.5:1 ratio of left to right. Do you seriously have to convert to that crap when you fail at rebuttal with facts and at least coherent thoughts. This is more directed to the overly whiny left who always rail against 'the massive conservative right conspiracy' bullarky, which anyone with any sort of reasoning skills can see is about as likely as the world coming together to hold hands and sing kumbayah over a fire roasting marshmellows; afterwards groping each other and finally ending in a huge orgyfest. Likely scenario = 0%, does not compute. who mentioned 'the massive conservative right conspiracy'? also, you did compute a probability, so it did infact compute. edit: though i doubt there was much computing done to get that figure, it was probably pulled out of thin air. Geeze man, get out a little? That little quip was sarcasm. Anyways, the 'brainwashed' implies conspiracy, at least it is associated with it in the US. Which is absurd on every foundation imaginable. The left always denigrates to that though. 'You're an idiot, you're brainwashed, you're st0000pid, you're a fundamentalist/creationist pig (As if there aren't atheist conservatives/libertarians), you're a nutjob (Who doesn't view libertarians as this, since we have an innate distrust of the government, which is good!), etc.' Heard it all. While we do exchange blows with the left, the right is at least much more tempered, and we generally don't tell the other side to go fucking die, that is unless you try and take away the 2nd amendment, but then you brought that on yourself. "we generally don't tell the other side to go fucking die" i disagree, but it would be pretty hard to prove which side throws around insults the most. and about the second amendment, what about nations that doesn't have an armed populace?
Well all you have to do is read HuffPo, follow Code Pink, watch just about any collegiate campus 'protest / rally' (Remember the infamous pro-hamas, pro-palestine rallies), Prop 8 GLTB violence, DailyKos, etc.
Now, look at: Hotair, Pajamas, MichelleMalkin, those guys who go out in favor of illegal immigration enforcement (Forget the group name at the moment), and then look at the tax day tea parties (no violence, civil, and no police involvement quite the contrary compared to the other sides rallies and protests).
Anyways, those nations without an armed populace...well you see how much strife occurs because of Coups, and other governmental atrocities avoided by having that good ol' 2nd Amendment. Make em' think twice.
|
On May 16 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote:
Where exactly do the problems come from then? Some of the most right on the spectrum actually like to uphold US laws, such as immigration enforcement, aren't out to cut whatever they don't like from the constitution that is a right (16th amendment needs to go, that is no right...), and are actually in favor of what the US was founded upon, and as.
This is a loaded statement that implies those not on the right of the political spectrum wish to pick apart the constitution (I think this is what you are trying to insinuate...). I think this is a phenomenon (that of slowly eroding constitutional rights) that has only really begun with the past administration, and may or not be continuing with the current one. Time will tell.
What the left increasingly does comes right from the playbook of Marx and Alinsky. I'm sure you think all GOP are 'right', when in fact, most are actually 'left' and RINO's. (Republicans in name only). Even Putin from Russia told us not to put blind faith in the omnipotence of government in the economy. What else do you need....as a reminder there were 3 republicans who voted for the stimulus. One all ready left the party, and the other two are as liberal as liberal democrats, thus RINO.
a) I don't think the GOP is in line with many of the old standard conservative principles, so don't put words in my mouth. Example: Bush administration's expansion of gov't.
You tell me, who has more integrity: Jeff Sessions vice Nancy Pelosi. Jim DeMint vice Rengel. Tom Coburn vice Tom Daschle/Jack Murtha/(I can list about 100 + names here).
I guess the difference between you and me is that I think almost all of them are full of shit, not just the democrats.
I'm interested to hear what you believe the problem is...the problem is there are two competing visions for America. One grounded in the foundation, our founding fathers, and the idea of individualism, limited government (Federalism), and a reduction in spending and taxing (The most far of the right (Which I am apart of)), and illegal immigration enforcement. On the other side you have, nationalizing and controlling the economy, your healthcare, limiting your free speech rights (Fairness Doctrine), secret ballots gone (Card check), zero immigration enforcement and actually giving illegals more rights than citizens (Many go with upwards of 3-4+ DUI's and receive little to no punishment where as if you're a citizen you are 3 strikes and out (20+ years) and I can document case after case of this for you), taking away your weapons, taxing you ever increasing amounts to spend for their 'distopian' fantasies, I could go on here...
Which world would you rather live in...
This is perhaps beside the point, but I would argue that there are more than two visions for the future of the country. What you have presented are only the most extreme examples, both of which are most likely unrealistic futures. To answer your trailing question, I would say "neither."
The other thing I do not agree with is the notion that because something was the idea of the founding fathers means it is obviously the right thing to do today, or that because it is in the Constitution it is some infallible truth. It's pretty common to see arguments presented as such, e.g. your post(s).
So you ask where I think the problems of our country today arise. First, we should ask: what are the problems, anyway? Here is my list: dependence on foreign energy, poor system of education, environmental degradation//overuse of resources, and corporate involvement in government. You will perhaps disagree with all or some of this list. I think these problems are a symptom of industrial society itself, and that our current form of government is only somewhat capable of fixing them, due to misallocation of funds/priorities, bureaucracy, and catering to interests; and because it may not even be where the solution lies in the first place. The symptoms of these problems manifest themselves in the forms of ineffective bipartisan legislation, poverty, crime, war, corruption, etc. etc.
|
On May 16 2009 12:02 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 11:46 jeppew wrote:On May 16 2009 11:36 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 11:28 jeppew wrote:On May 16 2009 11:17 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 10:17 Promises wrote:On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:
[quote]
Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example?
You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said.
Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture.
I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works.
I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture?
Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands. Particularly dumb reply by the way. He made a fairly stupid post calling you a monster. You replied by saying you only "called liberals for what they were", which in your mind, is pussies. He called you for what "the thought you were", which is a monster. Edit: To adress the last post: basically I feel any kind of name calling to the party your discussing with is void. Either win by arguments (altho often thats not possible because people will stay by there beliefs either trough different definitions, not comprehending or sheer stubbornness) or just leave it be. Perhaps so, but I wonder why the left always thinks the right is brainwashed when the media is at about a 9.5:1 ratio of left to right. Do you seriously have to convert to that crap when you fail at rebuttal with facts and at least coherent thoughts. This is more directed to the overly whiny left who always rail against 'the massive conservative right conspiracy' bullarky, which anyone with any sort of reasoning skills can see is about as likely as the world coming together to hold hands and sing kumbayah over a fire roasting marshmellows; afterwards groping each other and finally ending in a huge orgyfest. Likely scenario = 0%, does not compute. who mentioned 'the massive conservative right conspiracy'? also, you did compute a probability, so it did infact compute. edit: though i doubt there was much computing done to get that figure, it was probably pulled out of thin air. Geeze man, get out a little? That little quip was sarcasm. Anyways, the 'brainwashed' implies conspiracy, at least it is associated with it in the US. Which is absurd on every foundation imaginable. The left always denigrates to that though. 'You're an idiot, you're brainwashed, you're st0000pid, you're a fundamentalist/creationist pig (As if there aren't atheist conservatives/libertarians), you're a nutjob (Who doesn't view libertarians as this, since we have an innate distrust of the government, which is good!), etc.' Heard it all. While we do exchange blows with the left, the right is at least much more tempered, and we generally don't tell the other side to go fucking die, that is unless you try and take away the 2nd amendment, but then you brought that on yourself. "we generally don't tell the other side to go fucking die" i disagree, but it would be pretty hard to prove which side throws around insults the most. and about the second amendment, what about nations that doesn't have an armed populace? Well all you have to do is read HuffPo, follow Code Pink, watch just about any collegiate campus 'protest / rally' (Remember the infamous pro-hamas, pro-palestine rallies), Prop 8 GLTB violence, DailyKos, etc. Now, look at: Hotair, Pajamas, MichelleMalkin, those guys who go out in favor of illegal immigration enforcement (Forget the group name at the moment), and then look at the tax day tea parties (no violence, civil, and no police involvement quite the contrary compared to the other sides rallies and protests). Anyways, those nations without an armed populace...well you see how much strife occurs because of Coups, and other governmental atrocities avoided by having that good ol' 2nd Amendment. Make em' think twice.
young people tend to be abit more stupid and violent and very "passionate" about their political views, student rallies doesn't really have a great history of being peaceful, regardless of wich side of the political debate they're on.
i can't say i'm that familiar with all those examples you mentioned to comment on them though.
a coup's succes or failure depends on which side the military's on, nowadays the public would need some really great armaments and co-ordination to be able to put up a decent fight with its military forces, especially in the developed nations.
but back when the american constitution was written it was a completly different thing though, getting the same equipment as the brittish army wasn't something impossible, and general war tactics was to form a line, shoot and reload faster then the enemy. And strategically the militia would have the support of the local populace and would have a much easier time moving about and aquiring supplies.
i do not think that the threat of armed uprising is what is keeping western goverments in check, the goverment isn't some detached inhuman entity who's only will is to rule you with an iron fist. the army and the goverment is generally formed by people.
Most western nations have strict gun laws and they do not suffer under some opressive regime because they couldn't shoot back. there's no need to put a gun to the politicians heads to make them follow up on their promises, that politician used to be "bob from down the street".
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On May 15 2009 13:33 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 05:03 Physician wrote:
Aegraen, a question since you seem to know your stuff, has "waterboarding" ever being torture, for the military that is? Has the US military ever called it torture in the past? Has it ever been illegal? awaiting answer..
|
Yes, has "waterboarding" ever being torture?
|
I don't have time for a full length rebuttal at the moment, but earlier Aegraen tried referencing a paper called Educing Information, Interrogation: Science and Art Foundations for the future (available here). Curious that he never performed anything more than a quick glance at the document in an effort to find some quotes that might support his case. If he actually took the time to read it properly he would've stumbled upon this passage occuring in the key findings of the section entitled "Approaching Truth: Behavioral Science Lessons on Educing Information from Human Sources".
The potential mechanisms and effects of using coercive techniques or torture for gaining accurate, useful information from an uncooperative source are much more complex than is commonly assumed. There is little or no research to indicate whether such techniques succeed in the manner and contexts in which they are applied. Anecdotal accounts and opinions based on personal experiences are mixed, but the preponderance of reports seems to weigh against their effectiveness.
In other words, his own source disagrees with him and flat out states that torture (or even coercive techniques) do not work.
|
On May 16 2009 11:17 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 10:17 Promises wrote:On May 16 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 08:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 16 2009 05:58 Xenixx wrote:What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law. The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be? So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause. Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours? Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be. I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think? Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people. We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically. e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf. Yeah the constitution can be amended. I don't think the constitution should be used as justification for things. Obama wanted to ban assault weapons (don't know what the case is with this now), and people said that it was unconstitutional, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to ban them. Shouldn't the reason to allow assault rifles to be owned be based upon deaths related to assault rifles, for example? You're arguing that all religious fanatics are willing to blow themselves up for their cause? That's what Aegraen was saying. If I misinterpreted what Aegraen was trying to say then ignore what I said. Torture is severe mental or physical pain. Fear isn't necessarily torture. I know what you're saying, that torture has produced results. I don't doubt that it has but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it has, and on a consistent basis. You and Aegraen still haven't given any evidence for the effectiveness of torture. Meaning that you don't torture people who have no information, and that it actually works. I know we don't live in a perfect world but that is not justification for anything. What is the justification for torture? Edit: Spelling. You assume the people we use 'coercive' techniques on are in fact, innocent. This is fallacious. If you have access to any college library, be it online, or B&M do some research. The apparatus' in fact, extensively background, perview, and other ways check to verify that those interrogated have specific knowledge to be extracted. Our Intelligence professionals are extremely, smart do not under estimate or belittle their intelligence. They don't do it for 'fun' 'giggles', etc. this is serious fucking business, and we take it that way. It serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of America and its citizens. Sure, there are probably a few that are outside that perview, but the vast majority of collectors, clandestine operators, etc. are not that type of person. Consistency doesn't matter. People here do not understand intelligence collection methods. As long as it does work, and has, it will and should be used to extract information otherwise unattainable, even if its not 100% successful. Each specific method of extraction, such as MASINT and COMINT serve their purposes, rarely overlapping, and always performing extremely specific functions. It isn't like the information you can obtain from HUMINT can always be obtained by any other sources. When you're talking about high level operatives within terrorist cells this information is ONLY obtainable by interrogation. Reality is justification, for; reality. Sure, you may not like waterboarding, but it serves its purpose. I do not see waterboarding as torture. Torture is not black and white. To some it is, some it isn't. If we go by your strict definitions, then mental duress is now classed as torture, so, can I please sue the Military for torturing me in my duties? Or, better yet, sue that teacher for torture who puts undue emotional scars by singling me out because I'm the only conservative/libertarian in the classroom and makes me feel uncomfortable (just like those poor poor Al'Qaeda who were thrown in a box/room with insects he didn't like). Again, this is isn't civilian life. You can't think like a civilian, people will, and do get killed for that. Edit: Please don't talk about the US Constitution and why it is written as it was. You do not understand governmental history and their functions. The 2nd amendment is there for the people to keep power, as it was intended, and for the government to be precarious towards the population. The government should fear the people; not the other way around. The other way around always leads to Despotism. I like my AR-10 and Sig Sauer, its my right. I like to call your method of thinking, shallow and narrow-minded. Why, one of the countries who has a no gun stance (laws), and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the world (This being ireland). Not only that, philosophically, and as the overall governmental processes, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (this is pretty much 99% of the people), serves the purpose to limit the governments power which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm going to the toilets to puck, and I will be back in one second to tell you that I hate you. I hope you are an idiot. Because otherwise you are a monster. Shame on you. Why is it only liberals who defame their opposites? Did I call any liberals here a monster? Did I say I hate them? I call you for what you are. Did I call anyone an idiot when they clearly have at least some grasp of the situation and aren't only leaning on platitudes? I guess I'm a monster too. Heard it all. The hypocrisy of the left knows no boundries folks. I'd like to see the Obamanots try to take my weapons from me; from my cold dead hands. Particularly dumb reply by the way. He made a fairly stupid post calling you a monster. You replied by saying you only "called liberals for what they were", which in your mind, is pussies. He called you for what "the thought you were", which is a monster. Edit: To adress the last post: basically I feel any kind of name calling to the party your discussing with is void. Either win by arguments (altho often thats not possible because people will stay by there beliefs either trough different definitions, not comprehending or sheer stubbornness) or just leave it be. Perhaps so, but I wonder why the left always thinks the right is brainwashed when the media is at about a 9.5:1 ratio of left to right. Do you seriously have to convert to that crap when you fail at rebuttal with facts and at least coherent thoughts. This is more directed to the overly whiny left who always rail against 'the massive conservative right conspiracy' bullarky, which anyone with any sort of reasoning skills can see is about as likely as the world coming together to hold hands and sing kumbayah over a fire roasting marshmellows; afterwards groping each other and finally ending in a huge orgyfest. Likely scenario = 0%, does not compute.
I think I get what you mean roughly, also about all the dumb-ass comments saying everyone thats right-wing is retarded, but countering by saying all the liberals are pussies isnt exactly game-winning stuff. If a guy has an animal farm and he's protecting all the cute little rabbits and whatnot from wolves and foxes trying to get in and eat them, and while doing so risks his own life, and everyone just goes "hey! animal cruelty is WRONG!" I understand he gets a bit sceptical if people actually understand whats happening. Then again, I think most people's concern is weather all the animals getting clubbered by the guy are actually intending harm, and... well I cant fit in torture in this analogy but basically: is torture in any way usefull.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 16 2009 15:45 Syntax Lost wrote:I don't have time for a full length rebuttal at the moment, but earlier Aegraen tried referencing a paper called Educing Information, Interrogation: Science and Art Foundations for the future (available here). Curious that he never performed anything more than a quick glance at the document in an effort to find some quotes that might support his case. If he actually took the time to read it properly he would've stumbled upon this passage occuring in the key findings of the section entitled "Approaching Truth: Behavioral Science Lessons on Educing Information from Human Sources". Show nested quote +The potential mechanisms and effects of using coercive techniques or torture for gaining accurate, useful information from an uncooperative source are much more complex than is commonly assumed. There is little or no research to indicate whether such techniques succeed in the manner and contexts in which they are applied. Anecdotal accounts and opinions based on personal experiences are mixed, but the preponderance of reports seems to weigh against their effectiveness. In other words, his own source disagrees with him and flat out states that torture (or even coercive techniques) do not work.
That's the only major recent American research on torture, and the one I was referencing earlier. I have yet to see evidence that would support a utilitarian conclusion.
|
On May 16 2009 03:24 Aegraen wrote:
You do know that there were only a few who owned slaves correct?
Even if we take your claim at face value, are we to think that slavery is okay if only a few people owned slaves? Nevermind the denounciations against emancipation or a failure to do anything about the rights of slaves.
Does, the Bill of Rights sound like a document ridden with racism, or that of the Constitution?
Well, there is that three fifths part... But that aside, I didn't claim that the American constitution was racist, I did claim that the American founding fathers were. I referred to the constitution being a legal and procedural document, which like many other constitutions, is precisely what it is.
I suppose you would rather assuage the fact that you do not like seeing freedom for all, not discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, etc. Let's not even go into Government sanctioned discrimination and racism (Affirmative Action, quotas, perception, and other ludicrous things). The Founder's of my country were some of the wisest men in all of history building on the backs of classical liberals such as Edmund Burke, John Locke, Adam Smith, and human history and human nature.
By modern standards, the American founding fathers would be considered appalling with regards to their human rights record by the standard of any civilised nation. That aside, they did have some good ideas, but they're hardly the "holy" figures you seem to hold them up to be.
Lest we remind you that during that time period most of the world owned slaves, and even now many countries in Africa still have slaves.
Ad populum fallacy.
I didn't set out to write a thesis.
People have many times in this thread given evidence to support their claims, something you have not done at all. You have simply handwaved away or completely ignored any points made contrary to your position. Anybody active in higher academic life will know the importance of supporting their position with credible evidence and for someone studying Intelligence, one would think that you would have access to a wealth of sources to support your position. This is your field of study after all. You do realise that if you could provide credible evidence for any of your claims, you would present a far more convincing argument, right?
There have been many works in support of differing techniques, their pitfalls, and the opposite side. The opposite side to using some forms of coercive measures, has no clear line or thought on how to extract information from unwilling persons.
That's funny, one of your references disagrees with completely. (See previous post.)
A correlative can be found in Law Enforcement where according to Ariel Neuman and Daniel Salinas-Serrano "Heavily emphasis rapport building as the main tool for interrogators, it appears that without some underyling fear interrogations will rarely succeed (emphasis added)." Now, you couple that with radical religious extremists who willingly strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up. I would like to hear some form of interrogation methods that would extract the needed information that is uncoercive.
Even if we take your source at face value (given your presentation of your second source, I really don't have much inclination since there's no way to verify its claims), it's a massive leap of logic to go from the fact that interrogations require fear to be effective to torture is an effective means of interrogation.
Now, I understand many of you are against it purely for moral reasons, however we are in war, and in times of war it is a be killed or kill arena. There isn't time for the black and white world that civilians languish in. We know that without some underlying premise of fear that you will never get any information elicited, or educed from terrorists.
You have provided zero evidence so far to support this assertion.
Think about it for a second. If you were caught, and had no premise of harm, or put in some uncomfortable situations what would be your reasoning for giving up information? That is everything against human nature. Think about it when you a kid, and you knew something your sibling didn't and they kept asking you to tell them (We all know the I know something you don't jig), did they ever tell you? Nope. Now, that is the mildest form of 'secretive information' and they won't even tell you. How did you educe that information from them? Extrapolate that to hardened fundamentalists, and you can never expect to get any information from them.
Oh puh-lease. Complete non-sequitur. Your argument is literally, "It's hard to extract information from religious fanatics, therefore torture is effective and necessary." Are police interrogations completely ineffective given that they are unable to torture anybody? They often need to deal with hardened criminals. Are they just wasting their time?
The issue with torture is that it corrupts whatever information you can educe from your suspect. How do you think the Spanish Inquisition was so effective in obtaining confessions?
According to Robert Coulam in 'Approaches to Interrogation in the struggle against Terrorism: Considerations of cost and benefit', "Whether we like it or not, coercion might be more 'effective' than other methods in some circumstances." Those saying that coercive measures do not work, are wrong. The anecdotal and ad hoc evidence supports the case that coercive techniques do in fact work. However, in such a field as this, we will never be able to fully understand how effective any one method may be, but we can certainly deduce the ineffectiveness of methods.
(I bolded your quote.)
Did you actually read the text that you're referencing here? The very next few sentences read:
Your source wrote
Unfortunately, much of the current debate in this area proceeds as if we actually knew what those circumstances were. In fact, we do not, beyond anecdotal evidence adduced ad hoc.
This lack of understanding presents a troubling diffi culty. Coercion may be the “lesser evil” when it can prevent imminent assaults on national security that are substantially out of proportion to the costs of using coercion. But if other interrogation approaches are available that would more effectively obtain needed information — e.g., more informed or skillful methods — then we are descending into an ethical and security abyss if we use coercion in ignorance of all its implications. While our understanding will never be so complete as to make any of these choices easy or simple, we face a compelling security imperative to expand our knowledge about interrogation approaches. We should not simply assume that greater use of coercion will make interrogations more effective.
Seriously, I think you're just engaging in quote mining and hoping nobody will check and call you on it.
Robert Coulam also opines "....strictly operational level a general reputation for ruthlessness might make suspects more responsive in an interrogation setting, even if brutality in fact is never used."
The rest of the section reads...
To our knowledge this belief rests on casual empiricism and has never been rigorously tested. The absence of such tests is one reason for the continuing debate over whether suspects (a) give useful information when they fear coercion, (b) to avoid coercion, simply tell interrogators what they think the interrogators want to hear, or (c) exhibit a mix of responses, depending on a variety of factors (e.g., personality, context, training, skill of the interrogator, and others). Examination of historical data might provide some indications of how suspects actually behave.
In other words, the author is pondering over the question over whether coercion is effective, not reaching any conclusions. If you read further into the document you will see the conclusions which I quoted in my previous post.
Further reading yield some more interesting conclusions which I think we should read together.
Aegraen source also wrote
U.S. personnel have used a limited number of interrogation techniques over the past half-century, but virtually none of them — or their underlying assumptions — are based on scientifi c research or have even been subjected to scientific or systematic inquiry or evaluation.
The accuracy of educed information can be compromised by the manner in which it is obtained. The effects of many common stress and duress techniques are known to impair various aspects of a person's cognitive functioning, including those functions necessary to retrieve and produce accurate, useful information.
Psychological theory and some (indirectly) related research suggest that coercion or pressure can actually increase a source’s resistance and determination not to comply. Although pain is commonly assumed to facilitate compliance, there is no available scientifi c or systematic research to suggest that coercion can, will, or has provided accurate useful information from otherwise uncooperative sources.
Honestly, I ought to thank you for the reference. I didn't have to go any further to illustrate the ineffectiveness of torture. Furthermore, it's worth nothing that these conclusions also fit with what we saw with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being waterboarded 183 times in one month.
The only goal in mind for the IC is for the preservation of Americans and America. The phantom moral compass in times of war, which in fact, the US has never had, nor any other country is the pursuit of nothingness. It is difficult for civilians to understand the stresses endured, of the battlefield, working to protect the country and its citizens, and the daily barrage of never knowing if you may live or die. The only guide in war, is survival.
Yes, let's not let those irritating socialist liberal things called facts and evidence get in the way for our crusade for survival.
Moreover, the rigid scientific study you expect, simply does not exist as such as mathematics, biology, physiology, and astronomy for the work we do is dynamic, ever changing, and based on human instincts, human nature, sociology, etc. There will never be a consensus of what works, and doesn't work, because each situation is different, and different techniques work in different situations.
Puh-lease. Engineers deal with extremely complicated issues all the time and often don't reach a consensus over what works either. They can, however, back up their work with evidence though and do so routinely.
You know, you could use the same arguments above to defend the effectiveness of crystal healing. After all, human bodies are dynamic and ever changing with complex interactions between various parts including the brain. There will never be a consensus on what works because everyone is different and what works is different. Therefore crystal healing works.
Seriously, if it were so obvious that torture was an effective method for obtaining information, the studies would be trivial to conduct since it is supposedly work so well.
I stand on the side of survival and preservation; realism. You stand on the side of ideology; faerie tales of some intrinsic utopia that is a figment of your imagination.
You have a bizarre definition of realism given that you have no concept of logic or evidence.
More to come later...
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
- Waterboarding is torture, and it has been against the law in the United States for 111 years.
In the 1898 Spanish-American War, American soldiers used the "water cure" against guerrilla fighters. They were court-martialed and found guilty.
In 1968, The Washington Post published a photo of an American soldier waterboarding a captured Vietnamese soldier. That soldier was court-martialed and found guilty.
In 1947 the United States tried a Japanese officer for war crimes for waterboarding an American citizen and sentenced him to 15 years of hard labor.
In 1983, Texas' San Jacinto County Sheriff James Parker was charged and convicted by President Ronald Reagan's Department of Justice for waterboarding prisoners to obtain confessions.
|
On May 17 2009 04:23 Syntax Lost wrote:Show nested quote +I stand on the side of survival and preservation; realism. You stand on the side of ideology; faerie tales of some intrinsic utopia that is a figment of your imagination. You have a bizarre definition of realism given that you have no concept of logic or evidence. More to come later...
Lol good point. Great post Syntax.
On May 16 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote:
I'm interested to hear what you believe the problem is...the problem is there are two competing visions for America. One grounded in the foundation, our founding fathers,
On May 16 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote:
and illegal immigration enforcement.
They were illegal immigrants!!!!!!
(HEAD A SPLODE)
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
U.S. Constitution, Amendment VIII:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
Three major treaties that the United States has signed and unambiguously ratified prohibit the United States from subjecting prisoners in the War on Terror to this kind of treatment. First, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which the Senate unanimously ratified in 1955, prohibits the parties to the treaty from acts upon prisoners including “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”[18] Second, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Senate ratified in 1992, states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[19] Third, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, which the Senate ratified in 1994, provides that “[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction,”[20] and that “[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[21]
The United States has enacted statutes prohibiting torture and cruel or inhuman treatment. It is these statutes which make waterboarding illegal.[22] The four principal statutes which Congress has adopted to implement the provisions of the foregoing treaties are the Torture Act,[23] the War Crimes Act,[24],and the laws entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government”[25] and “Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[26] The first two statutes are criminal laws while the latter two statutes extend civil rights to any person in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world.
The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]
The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]
The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.
legal references enumerated can be found at:
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/
+ Show Spoiler +specifically for: Aegraen
a mission statement reminder ~
The United States Coast Guard is the nation's primary maritime
operating agency. We protect life and property at sea, enforce
federal laws and treaties, preserve marine natural resources,
and promote national security interests. As one of the nation's
five Armed Forces, it is our military character--our organization
and discipline, our command, control and communications
structure, and our multi-mission surface and air capabilities--
which enables us to perform our civil duties within the
Department of Transportation, as well as function in the
Department of the Navy when Congress or the President so
directs. The Coast Guard hallmark is quality service to the
public."
Semper Paratus
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
- if we engage in this practice ourselves, we invite our enemies to treat our captured soldiers likewise
- if our government adopts the position that waterboarding is legal, then we will have given up the right to prosecute our enemies for subjecting our soldiers to this treatment.
- if in the event that we were to obtain information from a prisoner by means of waterboarding, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute the prisoner because coerced confessions and any evidence obtained by means of a coerced confession are constitutionally inadmissible, despite provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act which purport to preserve the admissibility of coerced confessions.
|
wow awesome research physician, +1
really there is ZERO reason for torture. It is Immoral, It is against the Law, and it does not Work.
Fails the argument from morality, the argument from law, and the utility argument.
|
Syntax Lost and Physician I bow my head for thee. Amazing, amazing research.
|
I'm quite sure Aegraen is a troll.
|
On May 16 2009 09:24 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 09:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 16 2009 09:14 zizou21 wrote:
dude biff please stop posting in this thread I am really sorry, but I feel I should react when someone says it's completely normal to torture people. The whole thing is fucking surreal. You yet again fail to grasp that I'm not advocated across the border 'torture'. I don't find waterboarding torture. It is not harmful in any way shape or form. Ask just about every military personnel subjected to it..It is nothing, but perception and the way perception plays on your fears. I am against torture as employed by Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, NKVD, VC, Pol Pot, Japanese doctors and scientists in WWII, etc. Coercive techniques are not torture, though however subjective the word is, you probably believe throwing someone in a room filled with benign spiders as torture if someone has arachnophobia. So, yea, I am I guess a 'monster' according to you, even though I'm not hurting a single person, yet in the process I am potentially saving many, and if only one, makes it worth it.
"Torture: Physical or moral pain inflicted to someone to make him reveal something he refuses to say." That's from the Robert, main french dictionary.
Saying that it's not torture for you doesn't change anything. This is torture. Don't escape the moral problem by playing with words.
Now.
I will tell you: because you seem unable to understand the moral issue, I will try to explain you the problem another way:
Your country is losing its soul. Nobody believe that you fight for something good, because you behave exctly the same way that the "evil terrorist" you have against you. US have been behaving like a terrorist country over the six last year, breaking international rules, doing an illegal war for private interest, lying to its own people, torturing people, killing countless innocents.
You think it doesn't matter because what you only focus on is your security. But you are wrong. For every innocent you kill, for every people you torture, for every country you invade, you create thousand of ennemies, of "terrorist" who hate you and will fight you.
You can't imagine the harm Bush era has done to America. America have never been very popular, but now its mostly hated all around the world. You are wrong to think it's not a problem. It's a huge problem. It's your number one problem. Everybody want you down. Even Britons now hate america. I know it, I live in London. You pronounce the word US, and people think about Guantanamo, about torture, about all this shit.
If you don't behave better than Taleban, I don't see why people should wish you to win this war. I personnaly don't really think I do.
You believe in force. That doesn't work. That has basically never worked.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On May 17 2009 05:53 Uligor wrote:
I'm quite sure Aegraen is a troll.
And a bad one. His posts are filled with fanaticism and logical fallacies. He only answers to the posts he wants, and to the parts he feels like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
