EPT"Did you know? Just answer my question, did you know? Go do your homework!" Doesn't even answer.
This girl said nothing. ;(
Condoleezza Rice on "torture" / waterboarding. - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
"Did you know? Just answer my question, did you know? Go do your homework!" Doesn't even answer. This girl said nothing. ;( | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
One would guess that if the catholic inquisition thought it was torture, the modern world would agree, guess not. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 17 2009 08:40 Biff The Understudy wrote: "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. When did America behead those we are fighting against? When did Americans target civilians specifically? When was the last time we took Journalists hostage? I could go on..... I can't believe anyone can make the leap that because we waterboard, we are terrorist, or even near their level of unscrupulous atrocities. We aren't losing our soul. In case you forgot, we got attacked. That's fine, the world can hate us like it hates Israel. I would rather have security then the good will of other countries. That's fine, it's no wonder, Europe is increasingly becoming a Muslim controlled continent so its no wonder you would think like that. I'm sure you hate Israel also. PS: Last I checked everyone still flocks to America to live...now, since we are apparently so bad, what is the reasons for the mass immigration to America? I'm not even going to bother to point out the rest, because obviously your entrenched hatred of America will never become undone, just like my incipid disposition towards the French and most of western Europe. | ||
|
FortuneSyn
1826 Posts
I don't think I've ever had more anger towards a poster than this guy. Yet, I can't help myself coming back and reading more... edit: OK there it is... edit2: this guy is definetly trolling. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 17 2009 10:18 L wrote: As glad as I am that Aegraen has been completely shamed out of this thread, if he wasn't lying and is indeed the type of person that the USA recruits into their intelligence agencies then we're in big trouble. I'm not ashamed at all, nor am I lying. | ||
|
Jusciax
Lithuania588 Posts
Well you fucking should be. | ||
|
jeppew
Sweden471 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Do not lose your humanity! Because when you do, you'll be treated like animals. No, like garbage. That is the slippery slope of moral relativism. One day, it's waterboarding. The next, something slightly worse. And on it goes. That assuming waterboarding is all they've done, which it isn't, but I'm not going to argue that. Point is, do not throw away that which makes you human! | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 17 2009 13:01 Yurebis wrote: My two cents: I could care less what the terminology for torture is. I ask for one thing, and one thing only: Do not lose your humanity! Because when you do, you'll be treated like animals. No, like garbage. That is the slippery slope of moral relativism. One day, it's waterboarding. The next, something slightly worse. And on it goes. That assuming waterboarding is all they've done, which it isn't, but I'm not going to argue that. Point is, do not throw away that which makes you human! Lets hope the waterboarding water isn't fluoridated, cause that'd be really fucked up and dangerous. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32274 Posts
On May 17 2009 10:22 Aegraen wrote: PS: Last I checked everyone still flocks to America to live...now, since we are apparently so bad, what is the reasons for the mass immigration to America? On May 14 2009 09:03 IntoTheWow wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent On May 17 2009 10:22 Aegraen wrote: I'm not even going to bother to point out the rest, because obviously your entrenched hatred of America will never become undone, just like my incipid disposition towards the French and most of western Europe. lol. America torturing people during war times could hardly be the reason someone hate's your country. It's something that should logically change, nothing else. You like blowing things out of proportion to help your arguments. I think people dislike more the fact that this kind of practice is going and it's defended by people like you, than that it happened in the past. At least the former would show a change. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 17 2009 15:02 Jibba wrote: Lets hope the waterboarding water isn't fluoridated, cause that'd be really fucked up and dangerous. kinda funny, but really? really? lolz | ||
|
Syntax Lost
Finland86 Posts
Bwahahaha! I like how you've completely skipped over my post which illustrates your dishonest quote mining earlier. | ||
|
zizou21
United States3683 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
I was still hoping. Then I'm just sad for you, and scared for the future of your country. | ||
|
Syntax Lost
Finland86 Posts
On May 16 2009 03:44 Aegraen wrote: Firstly, we are in two wars. One we were attacked, not sure if you know, but 9/11 may ring a bell. Second, was for many reasons. I will point out the proxy war Saddam waged against the US. However, you won't hear any of it. You'll just put your fingers in your ears and say 'lalalalala' real loud and pretend it never happened. Did you know Saddam was giving and offering to any suicide bomber to blow themselves up against the US 25,000$? Evidence? Or is this based again on your say so, like *everything* else you've claimed in this thread? The proper recourse in your eyes would be? Wait until he completes what he wants, launches, wait for the dead to pile up, then attack? Sorry, but threats to the US should be dealt with. In my political views, we should not meddle in any international affairs, and let countries handle themselves, but as soon as they have any open hostilities towards the US and its citizens you better be extra careful. The point that simply goes above neo-con heads is that safety is dependent on stability. The unfortunate side-effect of recent US foreign policy is that they've been basically ratcheting stability down a lot. The net effect of this is that in the long run, the US will create more problems for themselves than what they solve. Do you remember the claims before the Iraq war that the Iraqis would welcome them with open arms. Now six years after the invasion the US is reduced to bribing their enemies (check here) in order to maintain stability (with the side effect of arming them. Just let that sink in for a moment, US foreign policy has been so successful that they need to bribe their enemies. Honestly, is there any greater admission of failure? Then how come UNSCOM says the direct opposite? Why also, would he hide from UN inspectors? This was asked earlier, but let me remind you: Where is the report? There's a distinctive pattern to your responses in that you're always ready to cherry pick quotes from people that you think you can argue with, but completely ignore anything where someone asks you to back up your claim and you run a risk of being caught out in your dishonesty. 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. So, it's not torture because you say so? Well, at least you're consistent with this claim... Though if some were to say that it's not torture to leave someone to be gang-raped in a Turkish prison, then it's not torture? People have answered this issue before, but I would like add one more thing: read the report by Dr. Keller. I'll post what I find most relevant: Dr. Keller wrote: Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse. Do you know anybody who has PTSD? Do you know what it's like? Aegraen continues: I'm sure talking to Al'Qaeda and giving them crimpets will make them spill the beans. Black-and-white fallacy. 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. I guess gang-rape in a Turkish prison wouldn't be torture either, so long as you don't suffer any physical harm... I asked this earlier, but it's worth repeating and I'll ask it again: If it's not torture, why do you expect it to break the will of religious fanatics? Uligor wrote: I'm quite sure Aegraen is a troll. After seeing his cherry picking of posts, his cowardly refusal to address points directed at him when he knows that he can't answer them and his quote mining; I think it's safe to either say that he's either completely dishonest, or failed at reading comprehension. Xenixx wrote: 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? Well there are the references that have been posted showing that it's ineffective. Do you need more? | ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
On May 17 2009 10:18 L wrote: As glad as I am that Aegraen has been completely shamed out of this thread, if he wasn't lying and is indeed the type of person that the USA recruits into their intelligence agencies then we're in big trouble. there is no "type of person" cus that would imply personality. The best agent/soldier always is the one who can be brainwashed/indoctrinated/shaped the most. Obviously Aegraen fits the bill. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
This part in particular shocked and distrubed me. I have real problems with the idea that it is ok to torure if "nessisary" for the defence of the state. "The treaty had a specific provision stating that nothing, not even war, justifies torture. Congress removed that provision when drafting the 1994 law against torture, thereby permitting someone accused of violating the statute to invoke the long-established defense of necessity." Entire transcript: "Sen. Patrick Leahy wants an independent commission to investigate them. Rep. John Conyers wants the Obama Justice Department to prosecute them. Liberal lawyers want to disbar them, and the media maligns them. What did the Justice Department attorneys at George W. Bush's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) -- John Yoo and Jay Bybee -- do to garner such scorn? They analyzed a 1994 criminal statute prohibiting torture when the CIA asked for legal guidance on interrogation techniques for a high-level al Qaeda detainee (Abu Zubaydah). In the mid-1980s, when I supervised the legality of apprehending terrorists to stand trial, I relied on a decades-old Supreme Court standard: Our capture and treatment could not "shock the conscience" of the court. The OLC lawyers, however, were not asked what treatment was legal to preserve a prosecution. They were asked what treatment was legal for a detainee who they were told had knowledge of future attacks on Americans. The 1994 law was passed pursuant to an international treaty, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. The law's definition of torture is circular. Torture under that law means "severe physical or mental pain or suffering," which in turn means "prolonged mental harm," which must be caused by one of four prohibited acts. The only relevant one to the CIA inquiry was threatening or inflicting "severe physical pain or suffering." What is "prolonged mental suffering"? The term appears nowhere else in the U.S. Code. Congress required, in order for there to be a violation of the law, that an interrogator specifically intend that the detainee suffer prolonged physical or mental suffering as a result of the prohibited conduct. Just knowing a person could be injured from the interrogation method is not a violation under Supreme Court rulings interpreting "specific intent" in other criminal statutes. In the summer of 2002, the CIA outlined 10 interrogation methods that would be used only on Abu Zubaydah, who it told the lawyers was "one of the highest ranking members of" al Qaeda, serving as "Usama Bin Laden's senior lieutenant." According to the CIA, Zubaydah had "been involved in every major" al Qaeda terrorist operation including 9/11, and was "planning future terrorist attacks" against U.S. interests. Most importantly, the lawyers were told that Zubaydah -- who was well-versed in American interrogation techniques, having written al Qaeda's manual on the subject -- "displays no signs of willingness" to provide information and "has come to expect that no physical harm will be done to him." When the usual interrogation methods were used, he had maintained his "unabated desire to kill Americans and Jews." The CIA and Department of Justice lawyers had two options: continue questioning Zubaydah by a process that had not worked or escalate the interrogation techniques in compliance with U.S. law. They chose the latter. The Justice Department lawyers wrote two opinions totaling 54 pages. One went to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the other to the CIA general counsel. Both memos noted that the legislative history of the 1994 torture statute was "scant." Neither house of Congress had hearings, debates or amendments, or provided clarification about terms such as "severe" or "prolonged mental harm." There is no record of Rep. Jerrold Nadler -- who now calls for impeachment and a criminal investigation of the lawyers -- trying to make any act (e.g., waterboarding) illegal, or attempting to lessen the specific intent standard. The Gonzales memo analyzed "torture" under American and international law. It noted that our courts, under a civil statute, have interpreted "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering to require extreme acts: The person had to be shot, beaten or raped, threatened with death or removal of extremities, or denied medical care. One federal court distinguished between torture and acts that were "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment." So have international courts. The European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978) specifically found that wall standing (to produce muscle fatigue), hooding, and sleep and food deprivation were not torture. The U.N. treaty defined torture as "severe pain and suffering." The Justice Department witness for the Senate treaty hearings testified that "[t]orture is understood to be barbaric cruelty . . . the mere mention of which sends chills down one's spine." He gave examples of "the needle under the fingernail, the application of electrical shock to the genital area, the piercing of eyeballs. . . ." Mental torture was an act "designed to damage and destroy the human personality." The treaty had a specific provision stating that nothing, not even war, justifies torture. Congress removed that provision when drafting the 1994 law against torture, thereby permitting someone accused of violating the statute to invoke the long-established defense of necessity. The memo to the CIA discussed 10 requested interrogation techniques and how each should be limited so as not to violate the statute. The lawyers warned that no procedure could be used that "interferes with the proper healing of Zubaydah's wound," which he incurred during capture. They observed that all the techniques, including waterboarding, were used on our military trainees, and that the CIA had conducted an "extensive inquiry" with experts and psychologists. But now, safe in ivory towers eight years removed from 9/11, critics demand criminalization of the techniques and the prosecution or disbarment of the lawyers who advised the CIA. Contrary to columnist Frank Rich's uninformed accusation in the New York Times that the lawyers "proposed using" the techniques, they did no such thing. They were asked to provide legal guidance on whether the CIA's proposed methods violated the law. Then there is Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who declared that "waterboarding will almost certainly be deemed illegal if put under judicial scrutiny," depending on which "of several possibly applicable legal standards" apply. Does he know the Senate rejected a bill in 2006 to make waterboarding illegal? That fact alone negates criminalization of the act. So quick to condemn, Mr. Robinson later replied to a TV interview question that he did not know how long sleep deprivation could go before it was "immoral." It is "a nuance," he said. Yet the CIA asked those OLC lawyers to figure out exactly where that nuance stopped in the context of preventing another attack. There should be a rule that all persons proposing investigation, prosecution or disbarment must read the two memos and all underlying documents and then draft a dissenting analysis. Ms. Toensing was chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. " | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 17 2009 15:02 Jibba wrote: Lets hope the waterboarding water isn't fluoridated, cause that'd be really fucked up and dangerous. minus 2 point for digression plus 4 points for funny | ||
| ||
