Condoleezza Rice on "torture" / waterboarding.

On May 14 2009 04:20 r.Evo wrote:

"By definition, if it was authorized by the president it did not violate our obligations against torture.."

On May 14 2009 04:34 MeriaDoKk wrote:
:O in that movie Frost/Nixon one line is really similar to this one, don't know if that really happened (that phrase) but it came to my mind while reading this.

On May 14 2009 04:58 JWD wrote:
I watched this video a while ago and, though the questioner probably has a good point, I actually thought Condi handled the situation pretty well (in terms of her demeanor and composure). I get the sense that the student was hoping to film some outrageous reaction, or at least catch her in a gaffe - but Condi has probably fielded these kinds of questions from people much more intimidating than a college freshman.

Something to understand about this video is that it was filmed at a faculty dinner here at Stanford - freshman dorms hold these events once a quarter, and students are asked to invite professors to dinner. Condi accepted one of this student's dorm-mates's invitation to this event (or maybe even this student's invitation), so it kind of sucks that he decided to take it as an opportunity to grill her about torture. Condi has to accept the burden/responsibility for the decisions she made while Secretary of State, but it just occurs to me that it's sort of sad to be invited to a friendly dinner as someone's professor, attend, and then have to deal with attacks on your policy record and, implicitly I think, your character.

On May 14 2009 05:07 Railxp wrote:
it sucks to be her, but i think she deserves to be grilled over a, or even every meal regarding policy issues because college freshmen are going to be the people who will continue to suffer from the backlash and reputation that USA is evil because it tortures detainees. If she had the balls (lawl) to run for public office, to think that you can make the right decisions for tens of thousands of people, she should know that this stuff is part of the job description.

On May 14 2009 05:32 Alizee- wrote:


Your line of thinking scares me, you seem to justify that even if people do things wrong if they're a smooth talking politician and can bullshit their way through questions that its ok. I think the fact of the matter is is that if you helped to perpetrate policy and criminal activity that very few Americans find to be ok then yes you're boned, you shouldn't be let off the hook. Bush and Cheney are gone, so now we just go back to our invisible bubble of security and pretend like everything is ok? You seem to be disillusioned to the fact of what politicians have done in the past 5+ years. Its like inviting Cheney to an event and not asking him the hard hitting questions and instead saying hey that guy was the vice president let's just ask scripted bullshit questions because we don't really give a shit.

On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote:


Dumb people are dumb.

Do you know those held at those facilities were ENEMY COMBATANTS. Now, my misinformed Hong Kongan (however, you wish to describe yourself), go read the Geneva Conventions on 1A) Enemy Combatants 2A) Torture/POW Treatment.

Every country, is legally allowed to 'execute' Enemy Combatants. They have zero rights, and zero rights under our Constitution, which is explicitly only for US Citizens. The Constitution is not a world Constitution, it is a US Constitution.

So, I say to you, fine sir; shove it up where the sun doesn't shine.

On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote:
Dumb people are dumb.

On May 14 2009 06:04 seppolevne wrote:


"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" - Third Geneva Convention, Part 3, Section 1, Article 17-20.

No rights? I think that's what the Geneva convention is.

On May 14 2009 06:04 seppolevne wrote:
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" - Third Geneva Convention, Part 3, Section 1, Article 17-20.

No rights? I think that's what the Geneva convention is.

On May 14 2009 06:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote:



To my knowledge, the geneva convention refers to prisoners of war, not enemy combatants. So as they weren't US citizens they had no rights and as they were combatants and not pow's they had no rights.


Edit: I believe this was how the government justified it.

On May 14 2009 06:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
To my knowledge, the geneva convention refers to prisoners of war, not enemy combatants. So as they weren't US citizens they had no rights and as they were combatants and not pow's they had no rights.

On May 14 2009 06:35 r.Evo wrote:
Question. What -IS- the answer to the "homework question"? What kept them from holding the trials? ;p

On May 14 2009 06:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
I find it extremly funny that her argument is identical to the one used in thread on the old nazi guy.
"Bush told us to turture them so of course it wasn't illegal" versus "Hitler ordered the death camps, so standing guard there was not illegal and should not be punishable".
*sighs* sometimes humans make me sick to my stomach.

On May 14 2009 06:04 seppolevne wrote:


"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" - Third Geneva Convention, Part 3, Section 1, Article 17-20.

No rights? I think that's what the Geneva convention is.

On May 14 2009 06:44 Aegraen wrote:
----------------

Now, how again are Al'Qaeda and the Taliban POW? They are not. They are Enemy Combatants.

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Many of the insurgents within Iraq, are mercenaries by Geneva Conventions definition. I will outline the important part. They are for all intents and purposes Enemy Combatants; these are the people being held. I repeat, NOT POW.

On May 14 2009 06:12 Zato-1 wrote:

This man speaks the truth. There's also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Article 5.

* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

On May 14 2009 06:46 Archerofaiur wrote:


You can word wrangle all you want. Torture is still wrong.

On May 14 2009 06:07 VIB wrote:
I've got to admit. As much as the intellectual value of the TL general forums are as low as it can be. The irony it causes if often entertaining.

On May 14 2009 06:49 Aegraen wrote:
I'm not word wrangling anything. This is the Geneva Conventions. There is no moral compass in times of War! You either, are killed, or get killed. You have to extract all possible information by any means necessary.

I would rather be alive than dead. Also, if you think what happened to the detainees as torture, then there were many persons subjected to torture on the Fear Factor.

On May 14 2009 06:55 Archerofaiur wrote:


Its still wrong. Im sorry im not going to play mind games with you. If you have to do it then you say "ok we have to torture". We have to do something wrong to protect ourselves. You don't pretend its something else.

On May 14 2009 07:10 Aegraen wrote:
You don't understand what Torture is. We waterboard our own special forces. It is not torture. Listening to loud music for 20 hours is not torture. Being put in a box with insects your scared of is not torture.

On May 14 2009 07:10 Aegraen wrote:
Do you even know what countries did in WWI / II / Vietnam (Viet Cong), etc? You do know US shot and killed those who surrendered on the beaches of Normandy.

In times of war the only thing that guides you, is survival, and abiding by the geneva conventions if able to (See: Normandy).

You are the only one who is putting the US on the proverbial "Pussy Pedestal". We are the moral compass of the world because of our domestic life, not because of what we do during War.

On May 14 2009 07:16 Archerofaiur wrote:


Main Entry: Tor·ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining
Source: http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/torture





The arguement is "Did America Torture?" not "Was it nessisary?"

On May 14 2009 07:10 Aegraen wrote:


You don't understand what Torture is. We waterboard our own special forces. It is not torture. Listening to loud music for 20 hours is not torture. Being put in a box with insects your scared of is not torture.

Torture is having bamboo shoved up your fingernails. Torture is breaking your bones. Torture is watching them kill your fellow soldiers. Torture is many things, and what happened at Guantanamo is not torture.

Do you even know what countries did in WWI / II / Vietnam (Viet Cong), etc? You do know US shot and killed those who surrendered on the beaches of Normandy.

In times of war the only thing that guides you, is survival, and abiding by the geneva conventions if able to (See: Normandy).

You are the only one who is putting the US on the proverbial "Pussy Pedestal". We are the moral compass of the world because of our domestic life, not because of what we do during War.

On May 14 2009 07:25 VegeTerran wrote:


do you really believe the crap you're writing?

On May 14 2009 07:32 Aegraen wrote:
Of course a liberal socialist would say such things. Protip: Robin Hood is a story.

On May 14 2009 07:35 Archerofaiur wrote:


Darn commies with there idealistic whatnows.

On May 14 2009 06:07 VIB wrote:
I've got to admit. As much as the intellectual value of the TL general forums are as low as it can be. The irony it causes if often entertaining.

On May 14 2009 07:25 Archerofaiur wrote:
Do I believe words mean what the dictionary says they mean?

Yes

On May 14 2009 07:10 Aegraen wrote:


You don't understand what Torture is. We waterboard our own special forces. It is not torture. Listening to loud music for 20 hours is not torture. Being put in a box with insects your scared of is not torture.

Torture is having bamboo shoved up your fingernails. Torture is breaking your bones. Torture is watching them kill your fellow soldiers. Torture is many things, and what happened at Guantanamo is not torture.

Do you even know what countries did in WWI / II / Vietnam (Viet Cong), etc? You do know US shot and killed those who surrendered on the beaches of Normandy.

In times of war the only thing that guides you, is survival, and abiding by the geneva conventions if able to (See: Normandy).

You are the only one who is putting the US on the proverbial "Pussy Pedestal". We are the moral compass of the world because of our domestic life, not because of what we do during War.

On May 14 2009 07:32 Aegraen wrote:


Of course a liberal socialist would say such things. Protip: Robin Hood is a story.

On May 14 2009 07:10 Aegraen wrote:


You don't understand what Torture is. We waterboard our own special forces. It is not torture. Listening to loud music for 20 hours is not torture. Being put in a box with insects your scared of is not torture.

Torture is having bamboo shoved up your fingernails. Torture is breaking your bones. Torture is watching them kill your fellow soldiers. Torture is many things, and what happened at Guantanamo is not torture.

Do you even know what countries did in WWI / II / Vietnam (Viet Cong), etc? You do know US shot and killed those who surrendered on the beaches of Normandy.

In times of war the only thing that guides you, is survival, and abiding by the geneva conventions if able to (See: Normandy).

You are the only one who is putting the US on the proverbial "Pussy Pedestal". We are the moral compass of the world because of our domestic life, not because of what we do during War.

On May 14 2009 08:17 StarBrift wrote:


Only in America could this be an insult :D.

Your previous goverment tortured people. This is not up for discussion. Unless you're a O'Reilly / Hannity fanboy you should be thoroughly ashamed about some of the things you just said. The funny thing is that you keep telling yourself nothing is wrong with it. You're unaware of the fact that "waterboarding" gives you the feeling of death by drowning? You start to panic within seconds and it might kill you if done wrong.

Look at the facts here. Everyone who supports waterboarding are right wing nutjobs who claim to be fighting for their country. How many of them actually served in the military? The answer is NONE. No person who has seen war and (possibly) torture up front will ever defend it. The only way you can defend torture is if you're sitting infront of your TV in the suburbs stuffing your fat face with crisps and worrying about colesterol all day. The only way you can defend it is if your world is so narrow that you can't imagine the effects of it and how it makes a mockery of living in a progressive society.

People like you spend their whole lives trying to validate their own beliefs instead of opening their eyes and admitting they're wrong sometimes. I sincerely hope you can get past your narrow world view some day.

On May 14 2009 06:12 Zato-1 wrote:

This man speaks the truth. There's also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Article 5.

* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

On May 14 2009 07:52 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Waterboarding is very much a method of torture. I can't see how you fail to comprehend that.

Torture is ALWAYS wrong. Arguing that it's okay by using some kind of loophole in the conventions is also wrong.

On May 14 2009 08:43 Aegraen wrote:


I am in the military. According to my government I'm an extremist, and I could give two flying fucks, because I exist for the government to be scared, not the other way around. That is why we have a 2nd amendment, and why my founders fought so hard for it. Governments should always be afraid of their denizens. (Yes, I'm one of those guys who doesn't want amnesty and actually have border enforcement and ICE do their job, yes I'm pro-life, and yes, I'm a conservative/libertarian in the military).

Waterboarding is not torture. Everyone in the world has become such sissy babies, but yet cry foul when it breaks their preconceived notions. Guess, what they do much worse things on FEAR FACTOR and many other TV shows. You have no idea what torture is.

Also, those crying about 'lawyer speak' and what not. Read the Geneva Conventions, its quite clear, now I know its hard to actually accept the truth when its layed in front of you, but as good logical people you should know when you're right and wrong, correct? You cannot accept one part of the conventions and reject another, its an all or nothing document, capiche?

Those held at guantanomo are from the battlefield. They are not POW, they are according to the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' or 'enemy combatants'. They have no rights, you affording them some abstract 'human rights' is shouting 'fuck you' right in the face of every soldier and their families who have to fight these pieces of trash who use civilians as shields and wear no uniforms and strike civilians rather than militarily.

Only liberals could ever view terrorist / enemy combatant scum with greater regard than those serving my country and their families. DISGRACEFUL. These are people killing our soldiers and civilians, wake up.

On May 14 2009 08:43 Aegraen wrote:


I am in the military.

Those held at guantanomo are from the battlefield. They are not POW, they are according to the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' or 'enemy combatants'.

On May 14 2009 08:45 Jibba wrote:

And who's army enforces UDHR? The problem with that and the Geneva Convention is that no one gives a damn. There's not a single country that can hold another country accountable for violating those agreements, because every single country violates them, with possible exception of Germany because they're still guilt tripping over WW2. The only reason France stopped used torture was because they found it to be ineffective, and this only occurred decades after the Geneva Convention was signed.

So talking about this in real terms and not just theories, you can't bring up official codes because none of the codes are followed and none of them even make sense. Official US War Crime code (Title 18 sec. 2441) states that inflicting "serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants" is in violation of the law of war. What exactly is the purpose of war if not to inflict serious bodily injury? The entire thing makes no sense.

I'm not saying it's admissible - I just wrote a theory paper on how war damages the "body" - but I think you need to look at it in realistic terms. You don't torture because it's immoral, ineffective and endangers your own combatants. You don't choose not to torture because of a ridiculous idealistic piece of paper that was agreed upon to earn politicians' favor in their respective elections.

Unfortunately, we don't really know the extent of Rice's duties as NSC advisor but I'm sure she's responsible for many of the poor decisions that were made. Then again, she was an expert on the fucking East Germany and the Soviet Union, so she shouldn't have been an advisor to begin with. Looking back, it seems she was very much a legacy product of the earlier Bush.

On May 14 2009 08:51 Aegraen wrote:


It's so ineffective, yet we haven't been attacked since 9/11.

On May 14 2009 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote:
Heres a philosophical question.



Can something be wrong AND nessisary?

On May 14 2009 08:51 Jibba wrote:
Position?

This is completely false. The reason Gitmo and other secret facilities exist is so that citizens and visitors can be extradited beyond the jurisdiction of US law. There are some combatants held there because places like Bagram got filled up, but there were a good number of US citizens held there as well.

(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

On May 14 2009 08:53 Archerofaiur wrote:


I have an Anti-Polar Bear Rock to sell you.

On May 14 2009 08:55 Vharox wrote:

No.

But things can be wrong but necessary though.

On May 14 2009 08:57 Jibba wrote:


"Severe mental pain or suffering" meaning "the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality."

I'm not sure how you can personally regard water boarding as non-torture, but legally I would say it is.

On May 14 2009 08:58 Archerofaiur wrote:



?

On May 14 2009 08:51 Aegraen wrote:


It's so ineffective, yet we haven't been attacked since 9/11.

On May 14 2009 08:51 Aegraen wrote:


It's so ineffective, yet we haven't been attacked since 9/11.

"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 matter 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."

On May 14 2009 09:01 Aegraen wrote:


Soon we'll be saying Spanking is torture. We (The west), as become so pussified to what is, and is not 'physical and mental pain'. Torture used to have the connotation of 'severe' that being; Dragged by a horse, Iron Maiden, broken bones, malnurishment, et al. Now, it has become so ridiculous now that things are included such as; loud music, phobias, perceptions, etc. We have become a parody of past generations.

I can't wait to see what we classify as torture in another 100 years.

On May 14 2009 08:57 Aegraen wrote:

I have a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. (Lets see if you get this reference)

On May 14 2009 09:07 Jibba wrote:

You sound a lot like Roland Weary.

On May 14 2009 09:11 Archerofaiur wrote:


Lol ill bite. Whats the reference?

On May 14 2009 09:01 Aegraen wrote:


Soon we'll be saying Spanking is torture. We (The west), as become so pussified to what is, and is not 'physical and mental pain'. Torture used to have the connotation of 'severe' that being; Dragged by a horse, Iron Maiden, broken bones, malnurishment, et al. Now, it has become so ridiculous now that things are included such as; loud music, phobias, perceptions, etc. We have become a parody of past generations.

I can't wait to see what we classify as torture in another 100 years.

On May 14 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:
We used waterboarding to obtain information that uncovered a plot that was in the process (soon to be executed) to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

On May 14 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:


We used waterboarding to obtain information that uncovered a plot that was in the process (soon to be executed) to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

While I am in agreement that nothing is 100%, there are techniques that are essential and should never be ruled out in times of war. Even if the information we get is 'inaccurate' or false, its called 'trust, but verify' in the words of Ronald Reagan.

While the first pieces of information you get may be 'inaccurate' there are breaking points, and eventually he will start to give you accurate information if you promise 'rewards'. Human nature.

Of course this won't work on strong nationalistic persons, but then again they are the minority.

On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here

On May 14 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:


We used waterboarding to obtain information that uncovered a plot that was in the process (soon to be executed) to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

While I am in agreement that nothing is 100%, there are techniques that are essential and should never be ruled out in times of war. Even if the information we get is 'inaccurate' or false, its called 'trust, but verify' in the words of Ronald Reagan.

While the first pieces of information you get may be 'inaccurate' there are breaking points, and eventually he will start to give you accurate information if you promise 'rewards'. Human nature.

Of course this won't work on strong nationalistic persons, but then again they are the minority.

On May 14 2009 09:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:


Yes, there is. Torture is ALWAYS wrong. No matter what.

On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here

On May 14 2009 09:36 Xenixx wrote:


yeah its wrong

but thats not the right answer kiddo

if you take the moral high ground and thats all you have then youre a damn blind fool and if you dont pay for it someone else will

outlawing torture isnt solving the problem with human nature

On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:


This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it.

On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:


This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it.

On May 14 2009 09:38 Aegraen wrote:
Truth. The moral high ground will get you killed, and if not you, someone else.

On May 14 2009 09:40 Aegraen wrote:


Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it?

Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie.

Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality.

On May 14 2009 09:41 Wohmfg wrote:


You're talking about reality, and torture being "pussified", but have you been tortured?

On May 14 2009 09:40 Archerofaiur wrote:



And who gave you that authority to declare that?

On May 14 2009 09:36 Aegraen wrote:
All the socialists and free-spirits are out in force in this thread.

Rupbar, it's pretty easy to verify information you receive. US Intelligence (The apparatus) is not small, and information can be passed from collector to consumer very quickly and acted upon. The turn around time to verification is very short. After a couple of times of giving inaccurate information, they'll break eventually.

I don't consider torture what you do, doesn't mean I'm 'cruel'. I'm not breaking any bones, making people go deaf, throwing them in Iron Maidens, cutting them, etc. If you don't see how pussied you guys have gotten, compared to the east well, you will wake up one day when Russia is once again knocking at your door and you'll want to play buddy and buddy and appease like Europe always does.

You guys have to get past this faerie non-sense.

On May 14 2009 09:44 Xenixx wrote:


we've all been 'tortured' in the military liberal puss puss, i've never been through so much hazing, testosterone induced environments anywhere else

the mental stress is 'torture'

the physical stress is 'torture'

On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:


This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it.

I am pointing out that he is confusing the nature of this discussion, which is something that humans do all the time. I thought what I am declaring here is pretty obvious unless you think there is a middle ground with torture (which there isn't, that's like demanding all convicts should only serve out half of their penalty because they disagree with the judge).

On May 14 2009 09:48 Xenixx wrote:


I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong.

On May 14 2009 09:46 Wohmfg wrote:


Did you just call me a liberal puss puss?

On May 14 2009 06:18 KlaCkoN wrote:
I find it extremly funny that her argument is identical to the one used in thread on the old nazi guy.
"Bush told us to turture them so of course it wasn't illegal" versus "Hitler ordered the death camps, so standing guard there was not illegal and should not be punishable".
*sighs* sometimes humans make me sick to my stomach.

On May 14 2009 09:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:


The reason that you may torture someone innocent is reason enough for me to say it's wrong EVERY TIME. I believe there are other means to a better end.

On May 14 2009 09:40 Aegraen wrote:


Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it?

Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie.

Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality.

On May 14 2009 09:58 Xenixx wrote:


why would i be torturing an innocent person? and please, i have been waiting this whole thread for this particular argument to come up, enlighten me as to what better method to extract information there is than torture?

again i didnt say it wasnt wrong, i want you to understand its not the right answer here

On May 14 2009 10:04 TS-Rupbar wrote:


According to Jibba, France found torture to be ineffective. What stops tortured people from giving out false information?

Gathering evidence through other, usual, means of investigation are more accurate and more humane alternatives.

EDIT: Torture is also used to get confessions, not only information.

On May 14 2009 10:10 IntoTheWow wrote:


lol, how good is to get a confession via torture? It defeats the purpose of a confession.

On May 14 2009 10:04 TS-Rupbar wrote:


According to Jibba, France found torture to be ineffective. What stops tortured people from giving out false information?

Gathering evidence through other, usual, means of investigation are more accurate and more humane alternatives.

EDIT: Torture is also used to get confessions, not only information.

On May 14 2009 09:40 Aegraen wrote:


Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it?

Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie.

Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality.

On May 14 2009 10:20 Xenixx wrote:


answer my question in your next post please, what other method is better than torture for extracting information? torture has been #1 on that list for as long as humans have discovered its usefulness. so come up with a name of those other, usual, means of investigation that are more accurate

torture is very risky, very taxing, if it wasnt producing efficient results... would a technologically advanced country like the US use it?

i also have an opinion why France in the 20th century may have found torture to be ineffective but i think there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, so no need to talk about it again

On May 14 2009 07:32 Aegraen wrote:


Of course a liberal socialist would say such things. Protip: Robin Hood is a story.

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ruling

"As to the laws of war, to the majority these necessarily include the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, each of which require more protections than the military commission provides. The UCMJ, Art. 36 (b), which requires that rules applied in courts-martial and military commissions be "uniform insofar as practicable." Stevens found several substantial deviations, including:

* The defendant and the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to view certain evidence used against the defendant; the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to discuss certain evidence with the defendant;
* Evidence judged to have any probative value may be admitted, including hearsay, unsworn live testimony, and statements gathered through torture; and
* Appeals are not heard by courts, but only within the Executive Branch (with an exception not here relevant).

These deviations made the commissions violate the UCMJ.

The majority also found that the procedures in question violate the "at least" applicable Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It found that the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Conventions did not apply:

1. It erroneously relied on Johnson v. Eisentrager, which does not legally control in Hamdan's case because there was then no deviation between the procedures used in the tribunal and those used in courts-martial;
2. It erroneously ruled that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because Art. 3 affords minimal protection to combatants "in the territory of" a signatory; and
3. Those minimal protections include being tried by a "regularly constituted court," which the military commission is not.

Because the military commission does not meet the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of the Geneva Convention, it violates the laws of war and therefore cannot be used to try Hamdan."

On May 14 2009 10:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:


Gathering evidence through empirical investigations is more accurate and more humane. I googled "torture, false, information" and got this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03shane.html

"His question is only underscored by a 1956 article, “Communist Interrogation,” in The Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, recently turned up by the Intelligence Science Board, which advises the spy agencies. Written by doctors working as Defense Department consultants, Lawrence E. Hinkle Jr. and Harold G. Wolff, the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information."

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/article995921.ece

"As a retired CIA intelligence analyst, I am appalled by the use of torture both because it is morally wrong and against our international obligations, but also because one cannot trust any information or confessions gained by these methods."

Why USA uses torture despite being a developed country is perhaps because people think it's good to beat their kids. Look at Aegraen. He's sure no pussy. Torturing people is so fucking manly.

the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information.

On May 14 2009 10:58 dybydx wrote:
besides, the average GI Joe doesnt know what it feels like to be waterboarded, how would they know its torture?

On May 14 2009 11:00 Xenixx wrote:


The torture in question is the mild types of 'torture' that the soviets and some(in this thread) americans believed wasn't in violation of the convention or simply wasn't regarded as torture.



which perfectly leads me into the point i wanted to make here, there is no better method than torture. what we have here is nations striving to find a loophole in the convention to still produce results because nothing else will, if i torture you with no remorse you will provide me with the information i set out for. that means no regard to any convention of nations. such torture is largely unused in todays day and age. so with that being said my original point stands--to help you understand, imagine torture from the roman times, if you can, google that, thats torture that produces results, torture is #1 on that list man thats the reality here and thats why developed nations use torture still

this article also only illuminates the idea that it is possible/plausible that the subject being tortured is going to be put in a position to just say anything, its as i expected really, because thats always a possibility with or without torture, empirical questioning doesn't eliminate the possibility because its more humane if you need an example look at the police force, you couldn't get O.J. Simpson to admit guilt why would a supposed terrorist? a man willing to strap death onto his body and take his enemies life with this sacrifice?

and of course its worth it to say that theres always exceptions, you might get that 1 rambo or a squad of guys that are resistant to torture, fundamentalists might fall under this category but who knows i didnt torture any or had any results on my desk in the morning that were questionnable

well i'm used to the hypocrisy in my country so when the nukes fly good riddance to all of us(humans).

Aegrean is trying to tackle another argument, which really is something I believe in, this age the people in the developed countries are weak in my view, you can't argue against that, its one of the downsides from evolution, we lose that predatory instinct i think but thats besides the point of this argument, so lets not discuss it further

On May 14 2009 10:20 Frits wrote:


First of all, there is never any case where someone is about to die and we have to torture someone to get the password or some movie bullshit. It's not a fair analogy.

Second, stop pretending to know what I am about to say. You have the moral reasoning of someone completely different from me. You present the world as some kind of ongoing battle of good versus evil which is completely different from my perspective. You completely ignore the societal implications of allowing torture, I think that's pretty shortsighted. Do you even realize how what you brand as evil is allowed to exist in the first place? Even if you think torture is morally justifiable, I am pretty sure you have no clue as to how effective it really is (nor do I) so don't even try to argue about this.

And branding anyone against torture as a liberal is complete childish nonsense, McCain is not a liberal, as are many opposed to torture. Is this really necessary? As if a liberal point of view would be less valid.

On May 14 2009 10:33 LaLuSh wrote:


Idiot. Ever wonder how fucking insensitive and out of touch with reality you come off arguing about definitions of torture in the manner you do?

For reference you should watch the movie "Hotel Rwanda", and see the defintion of genocide being argued while at least half a million people are slaughtered. Your comments are as contradictory to common sense and out of touch with reality as those in the movie.

And I will have you know, that you conviently omitted Article 3 of the geneva convention:



Any person detained is at minimum guaranteed the rights in Article 3. They can expect to be treated humanely, as well as being tried by a "regularly constituted court". Not some bullshit military commision invented by Bush.

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if you would stop using the term enemy combatant. As it's a term invented by the Bush administration and as it infact creates confusion, since "enemy combatants" may indeed have rights according to the geneva convention. Enemy combatants fall into two cathegories; either lawful or unlawful enemy combatants.

And to conclude: unlawful enemy combatants and non-combatants (popularly referred to only as enemy combatants in the United States) do at the very least enjoy the rights of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590006?OpenDocument

I know Article 3 was originally designed for securing combatants' rights in civil wars. But if the US refuses any other type of classification, they are infact bound apply this one.

The Supreme Court has on several occasions ruled that the Geneva Convetion, in specific article 3, can be applied to detainees held by the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

"In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (29 June 2006) the US Supreme Court did not rule on the subject of unlawful combatant status but did reaffirm that the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions. Most notably it said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of detainees, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror."




The Bush Administration's 5-6 years of legal filibustering does not allow for nor does it raise any remotely valid question of "legal greyzones" in regards to the definition of torture or the rights of detainees. It is just that: legal filibustering, bureaucracy, a catch 22; call it what you will. Most of all it makes you look like a fucking fool invoking definitions and throwing around socialist slanders as a means of justifying something inherently wrong. Water boarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, exposion to phobias, being detained without trial etc. Not strictly defined as torture? Oh come on, man! This has nothing to do with being liberal or socialist. It's common sense!

It may take your legal system another half a decade to catch up and revise history. Meanwhile I'm sure you'll still be arguing defintions... To what avail?

*edit: Sorry for personal insults etc directed towards Aegraen. Easily get fired up when people start throwing definitions around.

On May 14 2009 11:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:


If I don't have the information you set out for and you torture me without remorse, I will give you false information to make you stop. The conventions are there for a reason and it's ignorant of nations to disregard them. The romans used such means because they were fucking idiots (not well developed). Everyone thinks they were, so your point is invalid.

Empirical means make results if the subject to torture doesn't have the information. It is also more humane regardless if he has it or not. A person being tortured has something to gain by giving the right information (the torture stops). A person who committed a crime with a harsh sentence does not.

I think evolution has made us strong. Care for other people is a strength and not a weakness. You're heartless if you don't think so.

On May 14 2009 11:22 Last Romantic wrote:
edit: Oh curious I didn't know about the Rumsfeld ruling.

That being said, torturing them to protect the rest of America is, I feel, morally questionable but ultimately beneficial for our welfare. While many criticize the moral failings of the Bush administration, one must understand the reasoning behind their decision in this case. The torture memos and other quasilegal executive orders had only one goal: to defend the American people. There is no alternative agenda - I doubt Bush gets jollies from waterboarding people, and I'm sure the administration knew how unpopular such tactics would be. Risking so much political capital to protect the United States is one of the few things I respect about the past government.

On May 14 2009 11:22 Last Romantic wrote:
edit: Oh curious I didn't know about the Rumsfeld ruling.

That being said, torturing them to protect the rest of America is, I feel, morally questionable but ultimately beneficial for our welfare. While many criticize the moral failings of the Bush administration, one must understand the reasoning behind their decision in this case. The torture memos and other quasilegal executive orders had only one goal: to defend the American people. There is no alternative agenda - I doubt Bush gets jollies from waterboarding people, and I'm sure the administration knew how unpopular such tactics would be. Risking so much political capital to protect the United States is one of the few things I respect about the past government.

Risking so much political capital to protect the United States is one of the few things I respect about the past government.

On May 14 2009 12:28 L wrote:
There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin.

On May 14 2009 12:28 L wrote:
There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin.

On May 14 2009 12:32 Licmyobelisk wrote:



Sure sir, please, I support the statement


@ xenixx, three more post and you're a zealot brethren :D

No there isn't. In casualties 9/11 was worse than Pearl Harbor. The people we are fighting are unorthodox, so the tactics and strategies employed must also be. Sure, we can be timid and politicize war, but that is how you lose wars.

Are you saying we should just give up and let them win because it suddenly is difficult

Anyways, I'm sure your stance would be to wage wars politically not militarily.

On May 14 2009 12:32 Licmyobelisk wrote:



Sure sir, please, I support the statement


@ xenixx, three more post and you're a zealot brethren :D

On May 14 2009 11:04 Xenixx wrote:


dont insult the intelligence of american soldiers chief, the same way your genius ass figured it out with pure imagination it was torture might be the same way a 'GI JOE' does

On May 14 2009 11:12 Aegraen wrote:


First off it's not a ticking time bomb scenario. Not every way to gather intelligence has another correlative to extract that information. For example, you can extract information from clandestine operations (known as HUMINT), where there are no other means to gather the same information. The same correlative can be drawn. How are you going to know about a plot that a select few know about? SIGINT? Nope. ELINT? Nope. MASINT? Nope. COMINT? about a one in a billion chance. IMINT? Nope. (Just for the record, my college major is in Intelligence Studies, and I work in an Intelligence field)

Also, I do not consider waterboarding torture, where you do. So, when I say torture, it implicitly means things like what the VC employed, Pol Pot, NKVD, SS, etc. McCain is as liberal as any democrat. He is a RINO! Proposing socialist-lite idea's and promoting near the same things as Obama makes you...not a liberal? Please, you are intelligent, you can look past the little designations next to their name right? The 2 witches of the NE are liberals also, I have no idea why the GOP lets them stay in the party or any RINOS for that matter. They should all be booted out!

Good vs Evil? Nope. Self-preservation? Yes. Do I think Islam is a fucked up religion and all the people wishing death to the US to die? Hell yes, and I'll do everything I can to see that day to fruition. That goes for anyone seeking to do physical harm to the US, or its citizens here and abroad. We went in and annihilated the Barbary Pirates when they were attacking our merchants, and citizens. This is no different.

There is no moral compass, and high ground when in war. You do what you have to do to survive. Every soldier knows this. You have most likely never served, so you don't understand.

You ignore the societal impacts of not using every means to achieve victory. Do I condone horrendous acts I call torture? Hell no. There is a line to be drawn, but waterboarding is not where that line is at. US Special Forces, get waterboarded. Do they get their legs broken, or bamboo shoved up their fingernails, or tied to horses and their tendons ripped, or malnurished, et al I could go on. No, no no because we in the military know what is, and is not torture, however subjective the word is.

Yes, I will brand anyone against using quote on quote 'torture' as a liberal because 90% posting are from Sweden (Socialists galore) and the rest have this hard on for some imaginary moral compass in times of war which are exactly how liberals are.

Yes, to me a liberal viewpoint is invalid. Taking over banks, private companies, branding conservatives extremists, trashing the constitution, yes, all invalid!

1776 American signing off.

On May 14 2009 14:01 Jibba wrote:

It's funny that you're speaking as if all military personal share a common perception of war and stance on the world. All of the military people (from the Army and Marines) I know are liberals and are very much concerned with ethics and the practice of war. The fact that you're so gung ho about it makes me wonder what you've actually done.

On May 14 2009 13:56 Jibba wrote:

American soldiers don't conduct torture, intelligence officers do, and there's a large and growing sentiment among the CIA, FBI and Pentagon services that it's not doing any good. The only thing in support of it is when the DoD says their methods stopped terrorist attacks, but there's no way to actually verify that it's true. You may look at it as a "use any means available" type of thing, except that torture damages the other routes for information gathering with undue mental stress, which is often what leads to the intelligence being poor.

Not only is it costly to investigate the shitty information, but it's extremely unlikely that the people captured (if they are indeed confirmed combatants) will know enough to be useful. AQ is much more sophisticated than people realize. Almost everyone who carried out 9/11 had no knowledge of what was taking place beyond their own specialized role (like the bank robbery in Dark Knight D: )so torturing them would have achieved very little, and the rule of thumb is that you have 24 hours once receiving the information to actually intercept an attack before the plan is completely changed. Even if you catch one cog and gather a minute detail (which then has to be verified), the plan can be adapted or abandoned very quickly.

Good intelligence comes from covert operations, not bullying and muscle. This raises completely different ethical problems (like whether it's justified for an infiltrated officer to kill in order to remain in cover) but at least there's fewer questions of effectiveness. Ethically, torture is obviously wrong. Taking a consequentialist approach, torture is also a very poor method.

On May 14 2009 14:13 Jibba wrote:
So what are you? Army Cpl? PO3? AF?

BTW, I'm sure this will piss you off, but fighting in a war doesn't teach you how to wage it. That's a much larger discussion, but I hope you understand that.

On May 14 2009 14:17 Aegraen wrote:


The 3 instances of waterboarding have been conducted on Top level Al'Qaeda, not lowly suicide bombers. You don't 'torture' those guys, you do the top levels. That is how we foiled a few plots.

DCI, still endorses the practice, because the IC knows it is effective, but you don't widespread use it. It's on select cases where you have the best chance of getting actionable intelligence. You do know Cheney was the CIA director in the 90s right? This fool we have as director now has never served one day in any intelligence capacity and it'll show, mark my words.

What do you mean you can't verify if it stopped it? You get intelligence, and you disseminate to the consumer. The consumer then acts on the intelligence. If the intelligence is accurate, there is a great chance we stopped it. It is very easy for an analyst and the consumer to tell if the intelligence was crucial and vital and stopped whatever plot. You're acting like the specific consumer requirement for the intelligence is spread out amongst some large spectrum. That is false. That is not how DCI, TARIA, FBI, NSA, and the other apparatus' work. We have something called PINO that gives general guidelines, and the consumer then dileneates the requirements down to the collector who disseminates it back to the consumer through the analyst.

You act as if we're uneducated neanderthals running around with our heads cut off not knowing if the intelligence we act upon is effective or not. Most in the community have their masters, and our analysts are the best in the world (At least, tactically, our strategic intelligence capabilities have severely diminished since the Cold War, sadly).

On May 14 2009 14:23 Aegraen wrote:


PO3, soon to be PO2 working on my masters in intelligence.

I wouldn't say that, at least not on a micro scale. Ingenuity is what the GI is known for. All you have to do is look at every war America waged, and it is the GI who has won it through ingenuity. Whether it was making makeshift metal components for shermans in the hedgerows of Normandy, to improvising in the streets of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, to cave crawlers in WW2 and Vietnam.

On a macro scale, you are correct in part. During the war, you don't have much chance to change your doctrine, however, afterwards analysing the outcome and battles, you can change your doctrines in specific terrain, etc. Learning through experience.

Doesn't piss me off at all. Now, if you support Obama, that does

On May 14 2009 15:08 Last Romantic wrote:
:> as an aside, I wonder how you think our President is doing.

On May 14 2009 13:56 Jibba wrote:

American soldiers don't conduct torture, intelligence officers do, and there's a large and growing sentiment among the CIA, FBI and Pentagon services that it's not doing any good. The only thing in support of it is when the DoD says their methods stopped terrorist attacks, but there's no way to actually verify that it's true. You may look at it as a "use any means available" type of thing, except that torture damages the other routes for information gathering with undue mental stress, which is often what leads to the intelligence being poor.

Not only is it costly to investigate the shitty information, but it's extremely unlikely that the people captured (if they are indeed confirmed combatants) will know enough to be useful. AQ is much more sophisticated than people realize. Almost everyone who carried out 9/11 had no knowledge of what was taking place beyond their own specialized role (like the bank robbery in Dark Knight D: )so torturing them would have achieved very little, and the rule of thumb is that you have 24 hours once receiving the information to actually intercept an attack before the plan is completely changed. Even if you catch one cog and gather a minute detail (which then has to be verified), the plan can be adapted or abandoned very quickly.

Good intelligence comes from covert operations, not bullying and muscle. This raises completely different ethical problems (like whether it's justified for an infiltrated officer to kill in order to remain in cover) but at least there's fewer questions of effectiveness. Ethically, torture is obviously wrong. Taking a consequentialist approach, torture is also a very poor method.

On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote:


Dumb people are dumb.

Do you know those held at those facilities were ENEMY COMBATANTS. Now, my misinformed Hong Kongan (however, you wish to describe yourself), go read the Geneva Conventions on 1A) Enemy Combatants 2A) Torture/POW Treatment.

Every country, is legally allowed to 'execute' Enemy Combatants. They have zero rights, and zero rights under our Constitution, which is explicitly only for US Citizens. The Constitution is not a world Constitution, it is a US Constitution.

So, I say to you, fine sir; shove it up where the sun doesn't shine.

On May 14 2009 09:44 Xenixx wrote:


we've all been 'tortured' in the military liberal puss puss, i've never been through so much hazing, testosterone induced environments anywhere else

the mental stress is 'torture'

the physical stress is 'torture'

On May 14 2009 04:21 Jathin wrote:
Ah, authorized by the president -- therefore not illegal. It's all so clear now, thanks Condi!

On May 14 2009 23:05 FortuneSyn wrote:
Are you all still arguing against this Agraean guy? Seriously, ignore him and just hope he dies in a war.

On May 14 2009 22:26 NiTenIchiRyu wrote:

So what you're basically trying to say is that there is no legislation on Human Rights. Furthermore, you do not possess any rights under any constitution other than your own so your argument fails.

On May 14 2009 23:34 Velr wrote:
Why? He enlisted, he practically gave up his free will to be able to die for his country fighting against mukdips if his beloved president says so...

On May 14 2009 08:53 Archerofaiur wrote:


I have an Anti-Polar Bear Rock to sell you.

On May 14 2009 23:40 Aegraen wrote:


You forfeit your abstract 'human rights', given by whom and what is unknown, when you enter the battlefield through proxies, wearing no uniform, belonging to no national army, militia, or other recognized entity, and start shooting at US Soldiers and civillians. These people deserve no rights.

Even the VC at least wore uniforms, had a unified structure and command, and fell under POW status.

What about my arguement fails again? They are not US citizens, thus they do not get the rights afforded by the US Constitution. That is pretty simple to grasp.

On May 14 2009 23:41 Jibba wrote:
Because in the few posts Agraean has made, he's shown himself to be far more intelligent than you have in your 710, even if I wholly disagree with him.

On May 14 2009 23:54 Jibba wrote:
The idea of universal human rights is frivolous, but I think you're wrong in criticizing their tactics, even if its understandable given the threats they pose to your fellow enlisted men. Honor is a relative thing, and it goes out the door when your side is losing.


This really depends on a few things. The Constitution covers people on US soil, so Gitmo detainees who have been extradited from within the US (there's been plenty from around here, Dearborn MI) do have rights. Places like Bagram are strictly filled with captured fighters, but the Supreme Court found habeus corpus does apply to unlawful/enemy combatants at Gitmo (which had its meaning changed under Bush anyways), so I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this. Justice Kennedy is a liberal puss puss?

On May 14 2009 14:01 Jibba wrote:

It's funny that you're speaking as if all military personal share a common perception of war and stance on the world. All of the military people (from the Army and Marines) I know are liberals and are very much concerned with ethics and the practice of war. The fact that you're so gung ho about it makes me wonder what you've actually done.

On May 15 2009 00:02 Aegraen wrote:


I agree. They employ unorthodox tactics, but my point was, by doing so, any 'abstract rights' they might have had according to other posters was thrown out the window the second they started to fight that way. Secondly, when we go after them we are portrayed as inhumane because there will always be civilian casualties when they mix within the civilian ranks, wear no uniforms, and use civilians as shields. The media around the world is so disgustingly biased it's a puke fest. (Frankly, I don't care what the world thinks, the safety of myself, my family, and my country is hell of a lot more important than the impressions of my country by other countries)

I didn't say the puss puss comment, though I thought it was hilarious and fitting. I think its absurd to expect US soldiers do conduct law enforcement tapings of 'crime scenes' on the battlefield. This is WAR! not the streets of east LA. I hate how the left always see's every conflict as a law enforcement issue. It's absurd, and puts US servicemen in tremendous harm. Let us conduct our operations without your politicized non-sense and preconceived notions.

On May 14 2009 23:56 Aegraen wrote:



I'm used to it though. These are the same code pink fanatics, collegiate hooligans, ACORN house busting, Union arm wrangling bleeding heart liberals I have to deal with all the time. I've heard every pejorative in the dictionary thrown at me. Doesn't bother me one iota, because I actually believe in the founding ideals of America and that is far more important than having to lambast the hysterical left all the time. (Though it is fun at times making them eat their words)

On May 15 2009 00:08 Jibba wrote:
Why are you making it such a partisan issue? Aside from the stance of neo-cons, who have a stake in promoting its effectiveness since they gave the orders to use it, I don't really see how it's a partisan issue. The people you mentioned are all deeply religious conservatives, with exception to Paul who is adamantly against torture, so I assume you come from that camp?

On May 14 2009 18:40 7mk wrote:


OOoh god, the American people has been pussified so badly that people consider military training torture.
Seriously how can you say that is torture and then say "well but waterboarding isnt anything"
wow youre out of touch with the world.


"which perfectly leads me into the point i wanted to make here, there is no better method than torture. what we have here is nations striving to find a loophole in the convention to still produce results because nothing else will, if i torture you with no remorse you will provide me with the information i set out for"
... says the guy who knows 100% torture will always get results based on......
hm
a lot of imagination I suppose


Did you know there's interrogations you can do by talking to people - ones which are actually very effective, as soon as they come to realise you understand their culture they don't watch you as the devil anymore and are much more likely to cooperate

On May 15 2009 00:41 ZeaL. wrote:


You are part of why it sucks to live in this country. Half of this country despises the other half for completely manufactured reasons that are often contradictory. I'm guessing you're against "socialism" and national health care because the government can't do anything efficiently or correctly, but then you turn around and trust the government to torture the correct people for information and do it correctly to obtain quality information?

On May 15 2009 00:43 Aegraen wrote:


No, I'm not religious. Religion has nothing to do with it. They are aligned to my values, and vote accordingly. They actually vote in favor of Federalism, Originalism, and for a limited government.

I'm a conservative/libertarian so why wouldn't I align and endorse them? I want the fair tax, I want to abolish SS and Medicare, I want to privatize more of the school system, I want less federal government intrusion. I do not want East Germany circa 1952. I want this republic, not a mobocracy. I want what our founders fought for, and built, and intended for this country. I want that!

Individuals are infinitely more wise in spending their money, then the government spending their money.

Anyways, that was a little tangent, but you see, I don't classify as waterboarding torture, so what I call torture is not what you call it. When you say torture I think of Pol Pot, VC, NKVD, Inquisition, Gulogs, etc. Not this weak sissified version of what we now call torture (Such as loud metal music (RAWWWR, I actually listen to this go go Melo D / Black metal, phobias, perception, etc.).

On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote:
They have zero rights, and zero rights under our Constitution, which is explicitly only for US Citizens.

On May 15 2009 00:43 Aegraen wrote:Anyways, that was a little tangent, but you see, I don't classify as waterboarding torture, so what I call torture is not what you call it. When you say torture I think of Pol Pot, VC, NKVD, Inquisition, Gulogs, etc. Not this weak sissified version of what we now call torture (Such as loud metal music (RAWWWR, I actually listen to this go go Melo D / Black metal, phobias, perception, etc.).

On May 14 2009 23:50 Aegraen wrote:
Unlike you, and most Americans, I actually have high regard for my founding fathers, their intentions, and what they stood for.

On May 15 2009 00:41 ZeaL. wrote:


You are part of why it sucks to live in this country. Half of this country despises the other half for completely manufactured reasons that are often contradictory. I'm guessing you're against "socialism" and national health care because the government can't do anything efficiently or correctly, but then you turn around and trust the government to torture the correct people for information and do it correctly to obtain quality information?

On May 15 2009 01:10 Syntax Lost wrote:


It's strange that people often forget that the American Constitution is nothing more than a legal and procedural document and their founding fathers were racist slave-owners.

On May 14 2009 23:40 Aegraen wrote:
What about my arguement fails again? They are not US citizens, thus they do not get the rights afforded by the US Constitution. That is pretty simple to grasp.