|
Bombshell? Probably not, but it will be interesting if the media keeps pressing if anything else will surface. This centers around Pelosi saying the CIA gave her faulty information regarding Waterboarding and if it had performed the technique on suspected terrorists. Which would be regarded as torture under International, and U.S. laws.
July 8 (Bloomberg) -- Six Democrats on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee said the head of the CIA admitted the agency misled Congress since 2001 about “significant actions.”
The lawmakers’ letter said Panetta’s recent testimony disclosed concealment by the CIA that is “similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods.” The intelligence committee regularly receives private briefings from U.S. officials.
Full Article
+ Show Spoiler +
July 8 (Bloomberg) -- Six Democrats on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee said the head of the CIA admitted the agency misled Congress since 2001 about “significant actions.”
In a letter to CIA Director Leon Panetta, the six members said he had “recently” testified that “top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress” and “misled members” from 2001 until this week.
The letter, released today, didn’t describe what CIA actions were at issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Republicans have been feuding over her claim that the CIA misled Congress in 2002 about harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists.
The letter called on Panetta to “publicly correct” his May 15 statement that “it is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.”
Separately, the House committee’s chairman, Democrat Silvestre Reyes of Texas, said in a statement tonight that “in rare instances’’ CIA officers “have not adhered to the high standards’’ that the agency sets for “truthfulness in reporting’’ to Congress.
Praise for Panetta
Reyes, who wasn’t among the six lawmakers who signed the letter to Panetta, praised the CIA chief’s “recent efforts to bring issues to the committee’s attention’’ that “had not been previously conveyed’’ to it.
Reyes was blunter in a July 7 letter to the panel’s top Republican, saying that the CIA had lied to the committee at least once.
Information Panetta gave the panel June 24 “brought to light significant information on the inadequacy of reporting to the committee,’’ Reyes wrote to Representative Pete Hoekstra of Michigan.
The information provided by Panetta “led me to conclude that this committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notification and (in at least once case) was affirmatively lied to,’’ Reyes said in a letter, first reported by Congressional Quarterly.
The disclosures came on the eve of a scheduled House debate on an intelligence spending measure. It would expand the number of lawmakers who must be notified of covert intelligence operations from eight congressional leaders to more than 35 members of House and Senate intelligence panels.
Pelosi’s Charge
In May, Pelosi charged that when she was a member of the House intelligence panel, the spy agency gave her misleading and inaccurate information whether it had waterboarded suspected terrorists. The CIA has acknowledged that it used the interrogation technique on three detainees suspected of being al-Qaeda operatives to simulate the sensation of drowning.
House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio has challenged Pelosi to either produce evidence to support her claim or retract her assertion that the CIA “misrepresented every step of the way” its use of harsh interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists.
The lawmakers’ letter said Panetta’s recent testimony disclosed concealment by the CIA that is “similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods.” The intelligence committee regularly receives private briefings from U.S. officials.
CIA spokesman George Little said in a statement that Panetta “stands by his May 15 statement” because “it is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress” and that “Director Panetta’s actions back that up.”
The agency went to the panel with the new information, the agency’s statement said.
“As the letter from these six representatives notes, it was the CIA that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees,” Little said.
The letter was signed by Democrats Anna Eshoo of California, John Tierney of Massachusetts, Rush Holt of New Jersey, Mike Thompson of California, Alcee Hastings of Florida and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.
To contact the reporter on this story: James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net .
Source, Source
|
Seems obvious now, but it's good they came clean.
This whole waterboarding issue needs to wrap up though, we either need to punish the people who knew about it/ordered it, not punish them, or move on. Why does it take so long to investigate and decide what happened and what to do?
|
oh god.
inc massive political debate.
Thanks for the headsup *puts on armor* this could get interesting.
|
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless
|
On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless
Lol, you read wrong.
It can't exactly be harmless if it counts as torture.
And......... there's the problem with it, it's torture.
|
On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless
It's harmless if you dont mind people making you feel like you're going to drown in order to extract information from you that you may or may not have after being detained without question.
|
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
Drowning people isn't torture?
|
On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless
you should watch a few youtube videos of people volunteering to be waterboarded. None of them last more than 15seconds before panicing and demanding to stop. Seems like torture to me.
|
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
It could do damage. They admitted to having a doctor present at every situation. Any form of interrogation where a doctor is present means that there is physical harm capabilities. You can literally choke to death if done for an extended period of time (read: still less then a minute)
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
Because you actually are drowning them...
Yes their is a small amount of physical damage done and A LOT of mental damage..
not sure if I said that right.. im high.
also I can tell your a republican just to point that out.. amirite?
|
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=93858
-----
here's a (bad) example which I'm randomly trying to think of:
waterboarding -> drowning
as
tasing -> electrocuting
sure it "might not" kill you, but I wouldn't want to be tased or waterboarded repeatedly regardless. You'd probably be begging for death after that.
|
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
there are actually a bunch of youtube videos of people subjecting themselves to waterboarding (such as Christopher Hitchens). it's absolutely horrific.
if you don't want to go watch youtube videos, here's a good way to think of it: imagine if someone injected you with some serum that causes your nervous system to misreact and you literally felt like you were on fire. You'd writhe in agony and try to find some way to put it out, but nothing would work, the pain would continue until the serum ran out. again, even though there's no "physical damage" being causes by the "fire serum" i just described, its inflicting significant pain on the victim.
in fact, things like the imaginary "fire serum" and waterboarding are actually MUCH worse than torture that inflicts "actual physical damage" because the torturers can continue the procedure indefinitely without any worry of you dying. i can't imagine how awful it must be knowing that you'd be subjected to long periods of waterboarding DAILY until you gave some piece of information.
imagine if you were innocent and didn't actually know anything! eesh! :[
|
I don't even see why the fuck all this "torture" qualification shit matters
we should be treating all prisoners HUMANELY
now there may be certain exceptions where getting information is clearly going to save lives and we know the information is there, but these were not the cases in which waterboarding was being used
|
seems that waterboarding is a lot worse then i thought, so i can see why people have a problem with it. I guess to me it depends on the situation, honestly, if we take a situation like the 'war on terrorism' where there is so much covert activity, and a country like the states has to protect its own citizens and interests, i fully expect them to use torture and i honestly cant even imagine any other scenario regardless of whether its right or wrong.
Take this situation for example, lets imagine the CIA in pakistan captures some high level al-qeida (no idea how to spell this) dude. Now this dude is obviously going to have a lot of information about what his group is doing, information about future planned terrorist attacks, and the CIA having this information would be able to prevent attacks and save lives of their citizens, as well as potentially capture other enemies. Now in this situation i dont even think its a question of what to do, in fact i would say they are OBLIGATED to do whatever is necessary to gain this information as this is their main purpose. I've never understood what is that people get all up in arms about, this is how intelligence works, every country does this, every group, faction, you name it, its pretty much unavoidable. Its not even realistic or reasonable to expect otherwise.
Now that being said, the obvious problem is if you give any groups the right to torture, especially groups who are obligated to hide information from the public, how do you then guarantee that torture is only being used in the "right" circumstances? Of course there is no way to guarantee it, but at the same time you cant blanket ban it and say "even if this person holds information that would have a huge impact on the interests of our country, we will not cause him any pain or anguish because that would be wrong." This would be an insane way to conduct affairs.
I could write another few pages elaborating on this but its already a wall of text so ill just leave it there, and if anything doesnt make sense ill clarify upon request
edit: Lol no im not a republican in fact i hate republican. In fact i hate most political ideological groups because most of them are bullshit. I dont fully agree with every policy of any party i have yet to encounter, but if i had to say something i would say i lean much more towards liberalism on most issues
|
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
Watch the countless videos about this. One of the more effective ways of interrogating our enemies is to be nice to them. A majority of them were raised and lead to believe that America (and her allies) are cruel, terrible people. You might be surprised the kind of information you get once they realize this simply isnt true.
Sure, some of them are batshit insane and there is nothign you can do about it. But do some research, you might be surprised.
edit: Yes i said 'you might be surprised' twice.
|
daz a problem is there is/was no clear basis for deciding who should be "interrogated"
oh, u clearly don't. so nm that
so anyways I still don't think torture is the right way to extract information.
hell, I think bribing them and letting them go is a preferrable method. if they don't respond to that they probably aren't going to respond to torture either.
|
On July 09 2009 15:44 HuskyTheHusky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there Watch the countless videos about this. One of the more effective ways of interrogating our enemies is to be nice to them. A majority of them were raised and lead to believe that America (and her allies) are cruel, terrible people. You might be surprised the kind of information you get once they realize this simply isnt true. Sure, some of them are batshit insane and there is nothign you can do about it. But do some research, you might be surprised. edit: Yes i said 'you might be surprised' twice.
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true.
|
On July 09 2009 15:47 travis wrote:
daz a problem is there is/was no clear basis for deciding who should be "interrogated"
oh, u clearly don't. so nm that
so anyways I still don't think torture is the right way to extract information.
hell, I think bribing them and letting them go is a preferrable method. if they don't respond to that they probably aren't going to respond to torture either.
i dont get the first part of this post but as for the part about bribing them that actually sounds reasonable and is probably correct but if i was some CIA dude i wouldnt be willing to risk 'national security' on it
|
yeah the first part was part of a larger post, but i realized i missed part of yours and i edited most of it out
|
for anyone curious, search on Youtube for water boarding. You can find videos of people doing it themselves as well as some radio / gov't people doing it. It's pretty fucked
|
On July 09 2009 15:43 daz wrote:
seems that waterboarding is a lot worse then i thought, so i can see why people have a problem with it. I guess to me it depends on the situation, honestly, if we take a situation like the 'war on terrorism' where there is so much covert activity, and a country like the states has to protect its own citizens and interests, i fully expect them to use torture and i honestly cant even imagine any other scenario regardless of whether its right or wrong.
Take this situation for example, lets imagine the CIA in pakistan captures some high level al-qeida (no idea how to spell this) dude. Now this dude is obviously going to have a lot of information about what his group is doing, information about future planned terrorist attacks, and the CIA having this information would be able to prevent attacks and save lives of their citizens, as well as potentially capture other enemies. Now in this situation i dont even think its a question of what to do, in fact i would say they are OBLIGATED to do whatever is necessary to gain this information as this is their main purpose. I've never understood what is that people get all up in arms about, this is how intelligence works, every country does this, every group, faction, you name it, its pretty much unavoidable. Its not even realistic or reasonable to expect otherwise.
Yes except a lot of terrorist groups make it so no one person has THAT much information on any particular thing. Also from a country like the US its pretty hypocritical to use torture when we are supposed to be "the good guys" but the real problem is the world isn't black and white like movies where the good guys play clean and win so thats why they do this. The US is just a bit better and more secretive about what they do to try to uphold their image.
|
On July 09 2009 15:48 daz wrote:
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true.
If you're willing to chase up pretty good examples (both casses and testimonials from interrogators) that your statements aren't wholly accurate, read on. Abu Jandal (as outlined by Ali Soufan and Ropert Mcfadden), Mohammad Ibahim (The key Baath Party Official who gave up Saddam's location as outlined by Eric Maddox in Mission:Black List #1) and an unnamed by key leader of the Sunni insurgency with connections to Al-Quaeda who was convinced to give up al-Zarqawi's location with soft-interrogation (as outlined by Matthew Alexander, one of the Authors of How to Break A Terrorist: The U.S Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq).
All of those cover different figures with different loyalties, levels of fanatacism and indicates how much of it is brokered in real life concerns and/or stereotypes which are easiest broken by soft interrogation as opposed to torture. If anything, the fact their beleifs are so strongly hold makes the eventual breaking of the characters through soft means even more powerful - since there is no perceived bruality that can be seen as an injustice by the captive. With Abu Jandal in particular - he was a greatly feared man and hated the US captors ideologically on sight. That only meant however that when he was broken - and it was done through simple manipulation, that he was willing to give up even more information because of the shift in the foundations of his world view.
|
On July 09 2009 16:38 HaXxorIzed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 15:48 daz wrote:
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true. If you're willing to chase up pretty good examples (both casses and testimonials from interrogators) that your statements aren't wholly accurate, read on. Abu Jandal (as outlined by Ali Soufan and Ropert Mcfadden), Mohammad Ibahim (The key Baath Party Official who gave up Saddam's location as outlined by Eric Maddox in Mission:Black List #1) and an unnamed by key leader of the Sunni insurgency with connections to Al-Quaeda who was convinced to give up al-Zarqawi's location with soft-interrogation (as outlined by Matthew Alexander, one of the Authors of H ow to Break A Terrorist: The U.S Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq). All of those cover different figures with different loyalties, levels of fanatacism and indicates how much of it is brokered in real life concerns and/or stereotypes which are easiest broken by soft interrogation as opposed to torture. If anything, the fact their beleifs are so strongly hold makes the eventual breaking of the characters through soft means even more powerful - since there is no perceived bruality that can be seen as an injustice by the captive. With Abu Jandal in particular - he was a greatly feared man and hated the US captors ideologically on sight. That only meant however that when he was broken - and it was done through simple manipulation, that he was willing to give up even more information because of the shift in the foundations of his world view.
i guess im willing to accept that this is possible but from my life experience and the things that i've read or heard ive found that people who hold beliefs especially religious beliefs at the fundamelist level are pretty much impervious to rational explanations and logical persuasion. i mean its pretty much a prerequisite that you are willing to ignore logic and ration to even get yourself to that point and i dont understand how to go about persuading someone who is impervious to logical thinking. I'll have to read up some of these examples that you've posted when i have more time because im seriously having a hard time imagining someone 'shifting the worldview' of a diehard religious fanatic
|
The CIA takes the fall once again. Isn't it odd that when the US government fucks up it's always because they were given the wrong information rather than them making the wrong choice based on that information. 9-11, The US entering the war in Iraq and now this.
Either the CIA is full of twats that think up ways to do evil to America in the name of America, or they're genuinely wrong all the time .....or they're political scapegoats sent into the desert to carry away the sins of the politicians that fucked up royally in foreign politics.
----
On July 09 2009 15:43 daz wrote:
seems that waterboarding is a lot worse then i thought, so i can see why people have a problem with it. I guess to me it depends on the situation, honestly, if we take a situation like the 'war on terrorism' where there is so much covert activity, and a country like the states has to protect its own citizens and interests, i fully expect them to use torture and i honestly cant even imagine any other scenario regardless of whether its right or wrong.
You assume that torture is actually a good way of extracting information. The inquisition had most of it's prisoners subjected to torture and pretty much all of them confessed of what they were accused of. So someone gets accused of being a witch, she gets tortured and admits that she's a witch and a servant of the devil. She might as well have confessed that she's a spaghetti monster. So torture is an iffy way to get intelligence at the very least.
Take this situation for example, lets imagine the CIA in pakistan captures some high level al-qeida (no idea how to spell this) dude. Now this dude is obviously going to have a lot of information about what his group is doing, information about future planned terrorist attacks, and the CIA having this information would be able to prevent attacks and save lives of their citizens, as well as potentially capture other enemies. Now in this situation i dont even think its a question of what to do, in fact i would say they are OBLIGATED to do whatever is necessary to gain this information as this is their main purpose. I've never understood what is that people get all up in arms about, this is how intelligence works, every country does this, every group, faction, you name it, its pretty much unavoidable. Its not even realistic or reasonable to expect otherwise.
Does intelligence work that way ? Does every country do it ? Or are you trying to rationalize an act that is obviously evil by saying the entire human herd does it.
Related youtube bit
+ Show Spoiler +
And again, how do they know that that dude is in fact a high ranking al quaida dude ? If they have found out through torturing some other guy, is the information valid ? Of course you can verify that he is an al quaida "illegal combatant" by torturing him. After you break him. He'll tell you anything you want and point out his friends as accomplices.
Torture willfully inflicts harm to another person and as an instrument of getting information it is unreliable at best. This makes it both evil and useless and that's just a horrible combination.
Edit:lay out
|
On July 09 2009 15:17 eXigent. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless you should watch a few youtube videos of people volunteering to be waterboarded. None of them last more than 15seconds before panicing and demanding to stop. Seems like torture to me.
That's not true. I posted a video from youtube in the waterboarding thread where a guy goes 25 minutes.
Not that its right to do it or anything. Buuut it is definitely doable for more than 15 seconds lol.
|
This debate about waterboarding and it's effectiveness will go on forever. Talking nice to people is no more effective than waterboarding, and in many cases isn't as effective.
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. Lastly, waterboarding was performed on the 3 highest ranking members of Al'Qaida, not the lowly guy strapping bombs to himself. If you don't think the 3 highest members of Al'Qaida are guilty of terrorism well, you have to believe that terrorism doesn't exist and that borders on the insane.
In regards to the 'six democrats' who just now come forward with no evidence, but their word. Why would anyone believe them? Why do they not have evidence? Remember, this is all about waterboarding, you can easily blackout TS/SCI/S/C documentation enough where it doesn't give away classified information, but yet shows adequate proof to back up their claims. I think it's pretty obvious the political motivation behind this. I for one, don't believe a word from them without any substantive proof. (You would think they would disclose Panetta's testimony with corrobative evidence)
The CIA has done this country a great service, especially during the Cold War. Sure, I don't agree with them starting proxy wars, and instigating and supporting coup's without the direct support of the people, but if you can point out other instances for me where the CIA has directly lied to Congress in the past I would like to see it, because in all my research I have yet to uncover anything like that.
PS: You should change the title of your thread it's highly misleading. It should read 'Six Democrats claim CIA mislead them'
|
Human rights 0
CIA 1
There a powerful organization, Obama HAS to step in publicly.
but I have little faith in US politics as of late soo......
|
On July 09 2009 19:24 Vharox wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 15:17 eXigent. wrote:On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless you should watch a few youtube videos of people volunteering to be waterboarded. None of them last more than 15seconds before panicing and demanding to stop. Seems like torture to me. That's not true. I posted a video from youtube in the waterboarding thread where a guy goes 25 minutes. Not that its right to do it or anything. Buuut it is definitely doable for more than 15 seconds lol.
Um maybe because that person is fully prepared and has been through training?
|
On July 09 2009 19:24 Vharox wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 15:17 eXigent. wrote:On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless you should watch a few youtube videos of people volunteering to be waterboarded. None of them last more than 15seconds before panicing and demanding to stop. Seems like torture to me. That's not true. I posted a video from youtube in the waterboarding thread where a guy goes 25 minutes. Not that its right to do it or anything. Buuut it is definitely doable for more than 15 seconds lol.
Of course there are people who, either naturally or through training, can take it for longer periods, just as there are people who won't talk even if you beat them to death. But in general, people don't particularly enjoy the feeling of being drowned.
|
Waterboarding proven to give false information anyways ~_~ What good is made up shit for the army?
|
On July 10 2009 02:20 MiniRoman wrote:
Waterboarding proven to give false information anyways ~_~ What good is made up shit for the army?
Well, they can use it to mislead the congress.
|
|
|
On July 10 2009 02:20 MiniRoman wrote:
Torture has proven to give false information anyways ~_~ What good is made up shit for the army?
Corrected.
|
On July 09 2009 19:01 Eeevil wrote:The CIA takes the fall once again. Isn't it odd that when the US government fucks up it's always because they were given the wrong information rather than them making the wrong choice based on that information. 9-11, The US entering the war in Iraq and now this. Either the CIA is full of twats that think up ways to do evil to America in the name of America, or they're genuinely wrong all the time .....or they're political scapegoats sent into the desert to carry away the sins of the politicians that fucked up royally in foreign politics. ---- Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 15:43 daz wrote:
seems that waterboarding is a lot worse then i thought, so i can see why people have a problem with it. I guess to me it depends on the situation, honestly, if we take a situation like the 'war on terrorism' where there is so much covert activity, and a country like the states has to protect its own citizens and interests, i fully expect them to use torture and i honestly cant even imagine any other scenario regardless of whether its right or wrong. You assume that torture is actually a good way of extracting information. The inquisition had most of it's prisoners subjected to torture and pretty much all of them confessed of what they were accused of. So someone gets accused of being a witch, she gets tortured and admits that she's a witch and a servant of the devil. She might as well have confessed that she's a spaghetti monster. So torture is an iffy way to get intelligence at the very least. Show nested quote +
Take this situation for example, lets imagine the CIA in pakistan captures some high level al-qeida (no idea how to spell this) dude. Now this dude is obviously going to have a lot of information about what his group is doing, information about future planned terrorist attacks, and the CIA having this information would be able to prevent attacks and save lives of their citizens, as well as potentially capture other enemies. Now in this situation i dont even think its a question of what to do, in fact i would say they are OBLIGATED to do whatever is necessary to gain this information as this is their main purpose. I've never understood what is that people get all up in arms about, this is how intelligence works, every country does this, every group, faction, you name it, its pretty much unavoidable. Its not even realistic or reasonable to expect otherwise.
Does intelligence work that way ? Does every country do it ? Or are you trying to rationalize an act that is obviously evil by saying the entire human herd does it. Related youtube bit + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg And again, how do they know that that dude is in fact a high ranking al quaida dude ? If they have found out through torturing some other guy, is the information valid ? Of course you can verify that he is an al quaida "illegal combatant" by torturing him. After you break him. He'll tell you anything you want and point out his friends as accomplices. Torture willfully inflicts harm to another person and as an instrument of getting information it is unreliable at best. This makes it both evil and useless and that's just a horrible combination. Edit:lay out
yes intelligence does work that way. Yes every country does it. This is how the world works, if all of these people are so ready and willing to kill each other to promote their interests why do you think they would be above torture? No im not trying to rationalize an evil act, i agree it is evil and i have no need to rationalize it because i dont think torture is morally right. However that doesn't change the fact that for nations/governments/political ideological groups with power who fight each other it is a necessary tool in the real world. I also fail to see how that youtube bit is relevant to any of this.
And i guess your right, they cant ever really know that anybody is in fact a high ranking al quaida dude. I guess they should just let them go about their business and just fucking go home. But that would be fucking insanity. I fail to see your point. I mean have you considered that they have discovered he is a high ranking al quaida dude through information NOT obtained by torture? Are you assuming that torture is the ONLY method of gathering information that they have? If you assume that, and you still argue against torture, then you are basically saying we shouldnt even bother trying to capture these people.
Now as i think some people have pointed out earlier in this thread, all of these arguments i have made only work assuming that torture IS an effective method of extracting information. I realize that this is simply an assumption and i realize that it could be wrong, and if it is then of course most of my points are invalid, however I think it is a reasonable assumption, and i make it because it the people who are actually in the business of extracting information seem to use it as a valid technique, and who am i to argue with the pros?
|
None of you should be talking about how intelligence apparatus work. You all have not a single clue.
If you can legitimately answer me these questions, then you may have some semblance of relevancy and creedence.
What is OSINT?
What is SIGINT?
What is IMINT?
What is COMINT?
What is ELINT?
When would you employ these methods and how effective would each be against say North Korea vs Al'Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan?
Do you know what a dead drop is?
I think I am the only person on these boards who actually works and studies in an intelligence capacity. The amount of ignorance displayed about actual intelligence work on this board is astonishing. Waterboarding I can assure you, accounted for less than 0.0001% of all intelligence gathered.
To those questioning whether they are combatants or not, and how do we know? Well, it's quite simple when US soldier's are getting shot at and they then take them into custody (Pro tip: The Army has to go by the Army Field Interrogation Manual, which is pretty much a joke) and they then let the intelligence apparatus' take over.
Lastly, we can debate the merits of waterboarding all you want whether on morality (Which, there is none in a time of war. If you think the US has held a higher moral of standard in times of war I would think twice. A little research would show you are wrong, case in point: D-Day WWII. No prisoners.) , or effectiveness. Why do you think the US let the Japanese and German scientists get off so easily after WWII? They committed untold atrocities, but the US so valued their research and it indeed proved to be useful. While disgusting as it is, when you are faced with life and death morality tends to get thrown out the window.
|
The whole ticking time bomb situation thing is utter bullshit. It has never happened before and never will happen. There is not excuse to torture anyone ever. Even if we "know" they have info, if we torture them to get it, how do we know that what we have gotten from them is true?
Torture is the biggest piece of shit ever.
Also, water boarding is torture. If you don't agree, you are an idiot who feels that drowning is no worse than a stubbed toe.
|
On July 10 2009 04:54 Trezeguet23 wrote:
The whole ticking time bomb situation thing is utter bullshit. It has never happened before and never will happen. There is not excuse to torture anyone ever. Even if we "know" they have info, if we torture them to get it, how do we know that what we have gotten from them is true?
Torture is the biggest piece of shit ever.
Also, water boarding is torture. If you don't agree, you are an idiot who feels that drowning is no worse than a stubbed toe.
/sigh This is what I mean.
How do you know the information you receive using any method is ever true? It's called VERIFICATION.
Geeze.
|
On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions.
When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions?
|
On July 10 2009 04:54 Trezeguet23 wrote:
The whole ticking time bomb situation thing is utter bullshit. It has never happened before and never will happen. There is not excuse to torture anyone ever. Even if we "know" they have info, if we torture them to get it, how do we know that what we have gotten from them is true?
Torture is the biggest piece of shit ever.
Also, water boarding is torture. If you don't agree, you are an idiot who feels that drowning is no worse than a stubbed toe.
what is such utter bullshit about it? is it so incredibly impossible to imagine that lets say one of the terrorists involved in planning 9/11 could have been captured. Why is that so impossible? Members of these organizations are being captured regularly. I think it is not only possible but in fact highly likely that some of them are involved in plans to harm the united states. I mean if they arent then what the fuck are they doing in terrorist organizations anyway. What do you think these people do all day?
|
On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions?
Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status
Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC]
Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC]
Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC]
For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) 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 rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) 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.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
|
On July 10 2009 05:15 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions? Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC] Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC]
That doesn't look any of the Geneva Conventions to me.
For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) 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 rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) 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.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Again, when did the desire for monetary gain become the prime motivator?
|
On July 10 2009 05:14 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 04:54 Trezeguet23 wrote:
The whole ticking time bomb situation thing is utter bullshit. It has never happened before and never will happen. There is not excuse to torture anyone ever. Even if we "know" they have info, if we torture them to get it, how do we know that what we have gotten from them is true?
Torture is the biggest piece of shit ever.
Also, water boarding is torture. If you don't agree, you are an idiot who feels that drowning is no worse than a stubbed toe. what is such utter bullshit about it? is it so incredibly impossible to imagine that lets say one of the terrorists involved in planning 9/11 could have been captured. Why is that so impossible? Members of these organizations are being captured regularly. I think it is not only possible but in fact highly likely that some of them are involved in plans to harm the united states. I mean if they arent then what the fuck are they doing in terrorist organizations anyway. What do you think these people do all day?
from what i've heard and read the time bomb situation is just not realistic, it isn't 24 jack bauer situations going on out there, and even if it were torture wouldn't be the best method because it takes a long time to break someone down, sleep deprivation, doing water boarding over and over like they did previously 150+ times or whatever other methods, slapping people around, throwing them against walls takes time. it is faster to outsmart the person you are interrogating and i would say usually more reliable, cops also don't torture or coerce people because it doesn't yield reliable information, and can force false confessions despite not being admissible, they use their experience, smarts, and sometimes lies/bluffs to get information. also, i believe the enhanced interrogation techniques had only been used for a few years, and have not been used since 2005, or at least the implementation was repealed.
this guy had testified at the senate judiciary hearings on enhanced interrogation techniques, actually a good video which is probably on cspan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html
|
On July 10 2009 05:32 XoXiDe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:14 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 04:54 Trezeguet23 wrote:
The whole ticking time bomb situation thing is utter bullshit. It has never happened before and never will happen. There is not excuse to torture anyone ever. Even if we "know" they have info, if we torture them to get it, how do we know that what we have gotten from them is true?
Torture is the biggest piece of shit ever.
Also, water boarding is torture. If you don't agree, you are an idiot who feels that drowning is no worse than a stubbed toe. what is such utter bullshit about it? is it so incredibly impossible to imagine that lets say one of the terrorists involved in planning 9/11 could have been captured. Why is that so impossible? Members of these organizations are being captured regularly. I think it is not only possible but in fact highly likely that some of them are involved in plans to harm the united states. I mean if they arent then what the fuck are they doing in terrorist organizations anyway. What do you think these people do all day? from what i've heard and read the time bomb situation is just not realistic, it isn't 24 jack bauer situations going on out there, and even if it were torture wouldn't be the best method because it takes a long time to break someone down, sleep deprivation, doing water boarding over and over like they did previously 150+ times or whatever other methods, slapping people around, throwing them against walls takes time. it is faster to outsmart the person you are interrogating and i would say usually more reliable, cops also don't torture or coerce people because it doesn't yield reliable information, and can force false confessions despite not being admissible, they use their experience, smarts, and sometimes lies/bluffs to get information. also, i believe the enhanced interrogation techniques had only been used for a few years, and have not been used since 2005, or at least the implementation was repealed. this guy had testified at the senate judiciary hearings on enhanced interrogation techniques, actually a good video which is probably on cspan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html
i think you guys are nitpicking. obviously the exact situation of a ticking time bomb jack bauer TV type of shit is unrealistic but if you are saying that its unrealistic for people involved in an organization whose main purpose is to do harm to a country to have knowledge about plans said organization has to do damage to said country, then i dont know what the fuck is wrong with you
|
On July 10 2009 05:36 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:32 XoXiDe wrote:On July 10 2009 05:14 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 04:54 Trezeguet23 wrote:
The whole ticking time bomb situation thing is utter bullshit. It has never happened before and never will happen. There is not excuse to torture anyone ever. Even if we "know" they have info, if we torture them to get it, how do we know that what we have gotten from them is true?
Torture is the biggest piece of shit ever.
Also, water boarding is torture. If you don't agree, you are an idiot who feels that drowning is no worse than a stubbed toe. what is such utter bullshit about it? is it so incredibly impossible to imagine that lets say one of the terrorists involved in planning 9/11 could have been captured. Why is that so impossible? Members of these organizations are being captured regularly. I think it is not only possible but in fact highly likely that some of them are involved in plans to harm the united states. I mean if they arent then what the fuck are they doing in terrorist organizations anyway. What do you think these people do all day? from what i've heard and read the time bomb situation is just not realistic, it isn't 24 jack bauer situations going on out there, and even if it were torture wouldn't be the best method because it takes a long time to break someone down, sleep deprivation, doing water boarding over and over like they did previously 150+ times or whatever other methods, slapping people around, throwing them against walls takes time. it is faster to outsmart the person you are interrogating and i would say usually more reliable, cops also don't torture or coerce people because it doesn't yield reliable information, and can force false confessions despite not being admissible, they use their experience, smarts, and sometimes lies/bluffs to get information. also, i believe the enhanced interrogation techniques had only been used for a few years, and have not been used since 2005, or at least the implementation was repealed. this guy had testified at the senate judiciary hearings on enhanced interrogation techniques, actually a good video which is probably on cspan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html i think you guys are nitpicking. obviously the exact situation of a ticking time bomb jack bauer TV type of shit is unrealistic but if you are saying that its unrealistic for people involved in an organization whose main purpose is to do harm to a country to have knowledge about plans said organization has to do damage to said country, then i dont know what the fuck is wrong with you
hm im not arguing with you if they actually had information, i dont think thats the issue, they may or may not, its how they got that information and whether or not it was useful.
|
On July 10 2009 05:32 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:15 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions? Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC] Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] That doesn't look any of the Geneva Conventions to me.Show nested quote +For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) 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 rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) 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.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Again, when did the desire for monetary gain become the prime motivator?
I'm not sure you realize, but every terrorists family gets paid quite well upon their death. Monetary gain isn't the sole motivator, but it does play a role. In any event, the point stands in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions the insurgents we face in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered Mercenaries and as such have no legal rights in international law.
The abstract notion of universal rights when confronted with life and death simply do not exist. To treat the battlefield as a crime scene is both ludicrous and a cause for mutinize insurrection among our own troops because you are putting them in needless harm. We are fighting a WAR on the battlefield not prancing around in smocks playing CSI.
|
On July 10 2009 05:41 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:32 Mindcrime wrote:On July 10 2009 05:15 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions? Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC] Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] That doesn't look any of the Geneva Conventions to me.For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) 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 rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) 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.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Again, when did the desire for monetary gain become the prime motivator? I'm not sure you realize, but every terrorists family gets paid quite well upon their death. Monetary gain isn't the sole motivator, but it does play a role.
You are asserting that every insurgent has some benefactor who will pay his family well upon his death? And that this is a major motivator? Do you have proof of this? There are mercenaries in the area, but there is absolutely no reason to think it is the norm.
In any event, the point stands in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions the insurgents we face in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered Mercenaries and as such have no legal rights in international law.
You said the Geneva Conventions denied mercenaries such rights, but you didn't quote the Geneva Conventions. Where in the Geneva Conventions is this said about mercenaries?
|
On July 10 2009 05:52 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:41 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:32 Mindcrime wrote:On July 10 2009 05:15 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions? Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC] Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] That doesn't look any of the Geneva Conventions to me.For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) 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 rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) 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.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Again, when did the desire for monetary gain become the prime motivator? I'm not sure you realize, but every terrorists family gets paid quite well upon their death. Monetary gain isn't the sole motivator, but it does play a role. You are asserting that every insurgent has some benefactor who will pay his family well upon his death? And that this is a major motivator? Do you have proof of this? There are mercenaries in the area, but there is absolutely no reason to think it is the norm. Show nested quote +In any event, the point stands in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions the insurgents we face in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered Mercenaries and as such have no legal rights in international law. You said the Geneva Conventions denied mercenaries such rights, but you didn't quote the Geneva Conventions. Where in the Geneva Conventions is this said about mercenaries?
Do I have to hand-hold you? The only rights in the Geneva Convention are levied upon Prisoners of War. The conventions explicitly make clear who is eligible to be a POW. The Conventions aren't that long, I'm sure someone as smart as yourself can peruse the document and come to the same conclusion, the only conclusion within the Conventions.
P.S. You are biased in that you are basing the definition of Mercenary on the arbitrary usage in the dictionary. The Conventions clearly define the term mercenary. If you cannot clearly understand what is being conveyed, then that's your fault not mine.
|
On July 09 2009 15:00 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless It's harmless if you dont mind people making you feel like you're going to drown in order to extract information from you that you may or may not have after being detained without question.
Harmless? I guess you were ironic but anyways, here goes
It's maybe harmless physically at first, but you will surely experience mental distress after the event in form of anxiety/depression. Maybe PTSD too
This anxiety will produce an increased production of chatecholamins (fight/flight hormones) in your body which in the long run will damage you physically. So no it's not harmless
|
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
Waterboarding is a pretty gross euphanism. It should be called "monitored drowning". Or maybe we can call electrocution "conduction therapy".
|
On July 10 2009 02:04 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 19:24 Vharox wrote:On July 09 2009 15:17 eXigent. wrote:On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless you should watch a few youtube videos of people volunteering to be waterboarded. None of them last more than 15seconds before panicing and demanding to stop. Seems like torture to me. That's not true. I posted a video from youtube in the waterboarding thread where a guy goes 25 minutes. Not that its right to do it or anything. Buuut it is definitely doable for more than 15 seconds lol. Um maybe because that person is fully prepared and has been through training?
On July 10 2009 02:19 B1nary wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 19:24 Vharox wrote:On July 09 2009 15:17 eXigent. wrote:On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote:
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless you should watch a few youtube videos of people volunteering to be waterboarded. None of them last more than 15seconds before panicing and demanding to stop. Seems like torture to me. That's not true. I posted a video from youtube in the waterboarding thread where a guy goes 25 minutes. Not that its right to do it or anything. Buuut it is definitely doable for more than 15 seconds lol. Of course there are people who, either naturally or through training, can take it for longer periods, just as there are people who won't talk even if you beat them to death. But in general, people don't particularly enjoy the feeling of being drowned.
That wasn't my point?
|
drumroll please
On July 10 2009 04:51 Aegraen wrote:
None of you should be talking about how intelligence apparatus work. You all have not a single clue.
I think I am the only person on these boards who actually works and studies in an intelligence capacity. The amount of ignorance displayed about actual intelligence work on this board is astonishing. Waterboarding I can assure you, accounted for less than 0.0001% of all intelligence gathered.
and there we have it
|
Well if you consider all the knowledge mankind has attained since the dawn of time, he's probably right that less than 0.0001% of that came from someone waterboarding someone else
|
On July 10 2009 06:00 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 05:52 Mindcrime wrote:On July 10 2009 05:41 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:32 Mindcrime wrote:On July 10 2009 05:15 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions? Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC] Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC] That doesn't look any of the Geneva Conventions to me.For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) 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 rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) 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.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Again, when did the desire for monetary gain become the prime motivator? I'm not sure you realize, but every terrorists family gets paid quite well upon their death. Monetary gain isn't the sole motivator, but it does play a role. You are asserting that every insurgent has some benefactor who will pay his family well upon his death? And that this is a major motivator? Do you have proof of this? There are mercenaries in the area, but there is absolutely no reason to think it is the norm. In any event, the point stands in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions the insurgents we face in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered Mercenaries and as such have no legal rights in international law. You said the Geneva Conventions denied mercenaries such rights, but you didn't quote the Geneva Conventions. Where in the Geneva Conventions is this said about mercenaries? Do I have to hand-hold you? The only rights in the Geneva Convention are levied upon Prisoners of War. The conventions explicitly make clear who is eligible to be a POW. The Conventions aren't that long, I'm sure someone as smart as yourself can peruse the document and come to the same conclusion, the only conclusion within the Conventions.
I'm looking at the Geneva Conventions ratified by the US and not seeing the word "mercenary" or "mercenaries" anywhere. I hope you're not referring to some irrelevant treaty not ratified by the US. However...
Convention 3, Article 5
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Simply declaring that someone who has not been before a tribunal is a mercenary or "unlawful combatant" is against the law.
And we've also got GC 4 Article 5 which refutes your "no rights" assertion.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
P.S. You are biased in that you are basing the definition of Mercenary on the arbitrary usage in the dictionary. The Conventions clearly define the term mercenary. If you cannot clearly understand what is being conveyed, then that's your fault not mine.
In both of those definitions you posted, private gain being the motivator was a necessity in both. If you're not fighting for private gain then you're not a fucking mercenary.
|
On July 10 2009 06:15 travis wrote:drumroll please Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 04:51 Aegraen wrote:
None of you should be talking about how intelligence apparatus work. You all have not a single clue.
I think I am the only person on these boards who actually works and studies in an intelligence capacity. The amount of ignorance displayed about actual intelligence work on this board is astonishing. Waterboarding I can assure you, accounted for less than 0.0001% of all intelligence gathered.
and there we have it
You are quite aware that the context was within the whole intelligence community? Waterboarding isn't a measure to be used as I've said earlier, on those of lesser stature and hierachy.
Most intel that is gathered comes from OSINT. HUMINT specifically within interrogation methods accounts on the whole for quite the low amount however, what is gathered is extremely coveted and valuable because often times that is the only means in which to acquire the information. COMINT, SIGINT, MASINT, ELINT, OSINT, TELINT, etc. cannot achieve the means to acquire said information.
As I've put it before, do not talk about such things in which you have limited to no understanding, to be quite blunt.
|
Major props to Panetta. I really love that guy, as does just about everyone else.
He ran a very nice lecture series with his wife at Montery CSU. He brought together great minds for the series, my favorites are the ones with James Carville. Everyone from Bill O'Reily to Obama thinks he is an amazing individual, one of the few appointees no one complained about. Its really big of him to admit the CIA's faults and problems.
|
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right.
|
On July 10 2009 06:19 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 06:15 travis wrote:drumroll please On July 10 2009 04:51 Aegraen wrote:
None of you should be talking about how intelligence apparatus work. You all have not a single clue.
I think I am the only person on these boards who actually works and studies in an intelligence capacity. The amount of ignorance displayed about actual intelligence work on this board is astonishing. Waterboarding I can assure you, accounted for less than 0.0001% of all intelligence gathered.
and there we have it You are quite aware that the context was within the whole intelligence community? Waterboarding isn't a measure to be used as I've said earlier, on those of lesser stature and hierachy. Most intel that is gathered comes from OSINT. HUMINT specifically within interrogation methods accounts on the whole for quite the low amount however, what is gathered is extremely coveted and valuable because often times that is the only means in which to acquire the information. COMINT, SIGINT, MASINT, ELINT, OSINT, TELINT, etc. cannot achieve the means to acquire said information. As I've put it before, do not talk about such things in which you have limited to no understanding, to be quite blunt.
my point is that we have a million other ways to get information
we shouldn't be torturing people based upon speculation and theories of what might be learned.
not to mention waterboarding wasn't even the only technique used on people.
You tell me not to talk about such things in which I have limited understanding.
I understand torture just fine, and I understand what it means for our intelligence agencies to endorse it.
The people that are torturing in these situations are motivated by more than just a desire to get information. You can't torture someone over and over without having intense hatred for the person, or desire to see them suffer.
The U.S. spends more money on intelligence gathering than any other nation in the world. We have the most sophisticated equipment, training, etc. We do not need to be setting a precedent of torturing based on speculation. It's fucking terrible!.
CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on two top al Qaeda suspects, according to a Bush-era Justice Department memo released by the Obama administration.
Interrogators also waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. Mohammed is believed to be the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
fucking disgusting.
|
On July 10 2009 06:32 L wrote:
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right.
yeah it started off as a debate with me and aegrean totally just hijacked this shit. i give the guy props for being so inflammatory
|
this waterboarding stuff is horrible and its definitely torture..
|
On July 10 2009 07:10 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 06:32 L wrote:
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right. yeah it started off as a debate with me and aegrean totally just hijacked this shit. i give the guy props for being so inflammatory
I only appear to be inflammatory when I'm surrounded by those on the left of the political aisle. Those over at Redstate, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, and those within the IC understand what it takes in a time of WAR to use every tool at our disposal to keep America safe.
Travis is the same type of person who would be shouting from the rooftoops to treat Nazi's like we would those under arrest at a police station. That type of thinking would have caused us to lose WWII.
We wouldn't have had to go through this prolonged Iraq situation, if Clinton had acted upon the INTELLIGENCE he received when Saudi Arabia had Bin Laden on a platter ready for us on multiple occasions.
I'm sure travis wouldn't be singing the same tune if it was his family's life that was extinguished. Morality has a time and place, just remember, these are the same people Obama let out of Gitmo who ended up going back and fighting for the same cells we captured them from.
It reminds me of the scene in Private Ryan where the wussy let the Nazi go naively thinking he was going to meander himself back to the Allies and surrender himself, instead he just takes the blindfold off and runs back to German lines where he later ends up fighting against that same platoon. War calls for tough decisions, everything isn't black and white as much as you would love it to be so.
|
On July 10 2009 07:29 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 07:10 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 06:32 L wrote:
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right. yeah it started off as a debate with me and aegrean totally just hijacked this shit. i give the guy props for being so inflammatory I only appear to be inflammatory when I'm surrounded by those on the left of the political aisle. Those over at Redstate, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, and those within the IC understand what it takes in a time of WAR to use every tool at our disposal to keep America safe. Travis is the same type of person who would be shouting from the rooftoops to treat Nazi's like we would those under arrest at a police station. That type of thinking would have caused us to lose WWII.
I would suggest we treat prisoners morally regardless of their actions or beliefs.
We wouldn't have had to go through this prolonged Iraq situation, if Clinton had acted upon the INTELLIGENCE he received when Saudi Arabia had Bin Laden on a platter ready for us on multiple occasions.
or if we didn't go into iraq in the first place
I'm sure travis wouldn't be singing the same tune if it was his family's life that was extinguished. Morality has a time and place, just remember, these are the same people Obama let out of Gitmo who ended up going back and fighting for the same cells we captured them from.
morality is not black and white and sometimes a seemingly evil deed can be done for the greater good, but that is an inherit part of morality. morality has a time and a place and that time and place is now and always.
It reminds me of the scene in Private Ryan where the wussy let the Nazi go naively thinking he was going to meander himself back to the Allies and surrender himself, instead he just takes the blindfold off and runs back to German lines where he later ends up fighting against that same platoon. War calls for tough decisions, everything isn't black and white as much as you would love it to be so.
and this makes it clear you don't know what my position is.
|
On July 10 2009 07:50 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 07:29 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 07:10 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 06:32 L wrote:
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right. yeah it started off as a debate with me and aegrean totally just hijacked this shit. i give the guy props for being so inflammatory I only appear to be inflammatory when I'm surrounded by those on the left of the political aisle. Those over at Redstate, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, and those within the IC understand what it takes in a time of WAR to use every tool at our disposal to keep America safe. Travis is the same type of person who would be shouting from the rooftoops to treat Nazi's like we would those under arrest at a police station. That type of thinking would have caused us to lose WWII. I would suggest we treat prisoners morally regardless of their actions or beliefs. Show nested quote +
We wouldn't have had to go through this prolonged Iraq situation, if Clinton had acted upon the INTELLIGENCE he received when Saudi Arabia had Bin Laden on a platter ready for us on multiple occasions.
or if we didn't go into iraq in the first place Show nested quote +
I'm sure travis wouldn't be singing the same tune if it was his family's life that was extinguished. Morality has a time and place, just remember, these are the same people Obama let out of Gitmo who ended up going back and fighting for the same cells we captured them from.
morality is not black and white and sometimes a seemingly evil deed can be done for the greater good, but that is an inherit part of morality. morality has a time and a place and that time and place is now and always. Show nested quote +
It reminds me of the scene in Private Ryan where the wussy let the Nazi go naively thinking he was going to meander himself back to the Allies and surrender himself, instead he just takes the blindfold off and runs back to German lines where he later ends up fighting against that same platoon. War calls for tough decisions, everything isn't black and white as much as you would love it to be so.
and this makes it clear you don't know what my position is.
I know full well what your position is. You would have done the same thing as in the movie. You wouldn't have made the tough call to shoot him instead you would have let him return to his compatriots to fight another day and kill more of your fellow soldiers.
The whole point to the scenario is that in a time of war there is no morality. You do what you have to, to survive. There is no utopian morality to uphold. Morality matters not when you are dead. If you truly do not believe what disntinguishes ourselves from them then I would suggest looking up female genitalia mutilation, honor killings, patriachal society where women are subserviant, stonings to death, and many other abhorrent things. You see, what seperates ourselves in a time of war, is that we don't target civilians, we don't hide behind civilians, and we don't behead our adversaries and prance around with it.
Morality is a peacetime/civilian endeavor that everyone should strive to best live by. You also have no understanding of intelligence methods. You say there is a million other ways to obtain this information because of our highly advanced technology. That is patently false. If you knew anything about MASINT (Which is what mostly employs the latest and greatest), you would know that EACH method is used SPECIFICALLY for different types of information. For example, you can't expect to use Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) and gather information about the latest telemetry readings from the latest N.K. missle launches. You wouldn't expect to use Imagery Intelligence and obtain conversation recordings.
In order to extract the information that only top level operatives know you have to use methods that are very precise and specific. You have to evaluate each situation as being unique and tailor the needs to that situation. You wouldn't ever use those methods on low level operatives, or even mid-level. It is specifically used on the upper echelon members precisely because they hold the most valuable information. In fact, it would be the last method to employ after exhausting other routes.
It's abundantly clear that no one understands how the IC works, which is to be expected, there aren't that many of us. It is quite hilarious to see some absurd comments come out, but then again I guess that is the general thought of the civilian population when they have no idea how the Intelligence apparatus' work. Ignorance begets ignorance I suppose.
|
On July 10 2009 08:12 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 07:50 travis wrote:On July 10 2009 07:29 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 07:10 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 06:32 L wrote:
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right. yeah it started off as a debate with me and aegrean totally just hijacked this shit. i give the guy props for being so inflammatory I only appear to be inflammatory when I'm surrounded by those on the left of the political aisle. Those over at Redstate, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, and those within the IC understand what it takes in a time of WAR to use every tool at our disposal to keep America safe. Travis is the same type of person who would be shouting from the rooftoops to treat Nazi's like we would those under arrest at a police station. That type of thinking would have caused us to lose WWII. I would suggest we treat prisoners morally regardless of their actions or beliefs.
We wouldn't have had to go through this prolonged Iraq situation, if Clinton had acted upon the INTELLIGENCE he received when Saudi Arabia had Bin Laden on a platter ready for us on multiple occasions.
or if we didn't go into iraq in the first place
I'm sure travis wouldn't be singing the same tune if it was his family's life that was extinguished. Morality has a time and place, just remember, these are the same people Obama let out of Gitmo who ended up going back and fighting for the same cells we captured them from.
morality is not black and white and sometimes a seemingly evil deed can be done for the greater good, but that is an inherit part of morality. morality has a time and a place and that time and place is now and always.
It reminds me of the scene in Private Ryan where the wussy let the Nazi go naively thinking he was going to meander himself back to the Allies and surrender himself, instead he just takes the blindfold off and runs back to German lines where he later ends up fighting against that same platoon. War calls for tough decisions, everything isn't black and white as much as you would love it to be so.
and this makes it clear you don't know what my position is. It's abundantly clear that no one understands how the IC works, which is to be expected, there aren't that many of us. It is quite hilarious to see some absurd comments come out, but then again I guess that is the general thought of the civilian population when they have no idea how the Intelligence apparatus' work. Ignorance begets ignorance I suppose.
And instead of explaining it you come off as an elitist douchebag.
Just saying how it looks like. Calling people ignorant while not explaining a damn thing makes you look like a gigantic troll.
|
On July 10 2009 08:30 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 08:12 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 07:50 travis wrote:On July 10 2009 07:29 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 07:10 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 06:32 L wrote:
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right. yeah it started off as a debate with me and aegrean totally just hijacked this shit. i give the guy props for being so inflammatory I only appear to be inflammatory when I'm surrounded by those on the left of the political aisle. Those over at Redstate, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, and those within the IC understand what it takes in a time of WAR to use every tool at our disposal to keep America safe. Travis is the same type of person who would be shouting from the rooftoops to treat Nazi's like we would those under arrest at a police station. That type of thinking would have caused us to lose WWII. I would suggest we treat prisoners morally regardless of their actions or beliefs.
We wouldn't have had to go through this prolonged Iraq situation, if Clinton had acted upon the INTELLIGENCE he received when Saudi Arabia had Bin Laden on a platter ready for us on multiple occasions.
or if we didn't go into iraq in the first place
I'm sure travis wouldn't be singing the same tune if it was his family's life that was extinguished. Morality has a time and place, just remember, these are the same people Obama let out of Gitmo who ended up going back and fighting for the same cells we captured them from.
morality is not black and white and sometimes a seemingly evil deed can be done for the greater good, but that is an inherit part of morality. morality has a time and a place and that time and place is now and always.
It reminds me of the scene in Private Ryan where the wussy let the Nazi go naively thinking he was going to meander himself back to the Allies and surrender himself, instead he just takes the blindfold off and runs back to German lines where he later ends up fighting against that same platoon. War calls for tough decisions, everything isn't black and white as much as you would love it to be so.
and this makes it clear you don't know what my position is. It's abundantly clear that no one understands how the IC works, which is to be expected, there aren't that many of us. It is quite hilarious to see some absurd comments come out, but then again I guess that is the general thought of the civilian population when they have no idea how the Intelligence apparatus' work. Ignorance begets ignorance I suppose. And instead of explaining it you come off as an elitist douchebag. Just saying how it looks like. Calling people ignorant while not explaining a damn thing makes you look like a gigantic troll.
I have explained it within this thread and in the thread last month. Over several occasions have I explained the methods used and when to use them and how effective each method is for specific cases. No one listens. Most drone on and on about morality this and that in wartime and then people spout off 'technology' and a million different ways to get information even when I explain that you just can't willy nilly go use telemetry techniques to probe the minds of leaders and obtain their plans.
|
On July 10 2009 07:29 Aegraen wrote:
I only appear to be inflammatory when I'm surrounded by those on the left of the political aisle. Those over at Redstate, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, and those within the IC understand what it takes in a time of WAR to use every tool at our disposal to keep America safe.
Yet your WAR(tm) rhetoric makes no sense whatsoever. You compare people on the left side to (amongst others) the intelligence community(if that's what IC means). Do you need to have a right wing view to get into the IC ?
Travis is the same type of person who would be shouting from the rooftoops to treat Nazi's like we would those under arrest at a police station. That type of thinking would have caused us to lose WWII.
Did you know that there was a German Wehrmacht run towards the west at the end of WWII. Especially by officers. Because western allies treated their POWs so much better than the Soviets. Good POW treatment leads to easier capture. At the eastern front, where German pows had very low life expectancy they fought to the last man. In the west it was like "I get captured, but i'll probably live" Most real POW suffering caused at the western front was caused by the logistic problems they had because they had so many damn POWs.
We wouldn't have had to go through this prolonged Iraq situation, if Clinton had acted upon the INTELLIGENCE he received when Saudi Arabia had Bin Laden on a platter ready for us on multiple occasions.
OSINT tells me that there is no connection between al qaida and Saddam. In fact there is pretty much consensus on there being no link whatsoever. But yeah opening up a second front in Iraq without cause makes strategic sense for sure. You're talking about getting things done, but I only saw a few conservatives making a mess out of things. You cannot tie the Iraq war to Clinton when Cheney/Bush are holding all the ropes.
I'm sure travis wouldn't be singing the same tune if it was his family's life that was extinguished. Morality has a time and place, just remember, these are the same people Obama let out of Gitmo who ended up going back and fighting for the same cells we captured them from.
Oh great, please don't just attack Travis, involve his family too. And I'm sure Travis' family have a much higher chance of dying of old age, heart attack, cancer, traffic, stuff falling down, tripping, sports accidents, mexican flu, other types of flu, hiv, random illnesses I cannot bother to name, stuff stuck in throat, falling of high places, accidental cuts, unintentional gunshot wounds, struck by lightning, airplane crash, infected wounds, slipping in the bath and breaking your neck or being hit by an asteroid than they would of dying in a terrorist attack. Let's keep this discussion out of obvious  fantasyland.
It reminds me of the scene in Private Ryan where the wussy let the Nazi go naively thinking he was going to meander himself back to the Allies and surrender himself, instead he just takes the blindfold off and runs back to German lines where he later ends up fighting against that same platoon. War calls for tough decisions, everything isn't black and white as much as you would love it to be so.
Are you high ? Where did we go from torture ro setting people free ? I think you took a wrong turn at Obama and just kept going right from there on.
In fantasy land, on July 10 2009 07:29 Travis wrote:
Don't torture these people, in fact I pity them so much that they should be set free
In the real world, this is not a quote.
|
On July 10 2009 08:12 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 07:50 travis wrote:On July 10 2009 07:29 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 07:10 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 06:32 L wrote:
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right. yeah it started off as a debate with me and aegrean totally just hijacked this shit. i give the guy props for being so inflammatory I only appear to be inflammatory when I'm surrounded by those on the left of the political aisle. Those over at Redstate, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, and those within the IC understand what it takes in a time of WAR to use every tool at our disposal to keep America safe. Travis is the same type of person who would be shouting from the rooftoops to treat Nazi's like we would those under arrest at a police station. That type of thinking would have caused us to lose WWII. I would suggest we treat prisoners morally regardless of their actions or beliefs.
We wouldn't have had to go through this prolonged Iraq situation, if Clinton had acted upon the INTELLIGENCE he received when Saudi Arabia had Bin Laden on a platter ready for us on multiple occasions.
or if we didn't go into iraq in the first place
I'm sure travis wouldn't be singing the same tune if it was his family's life that was extinguished. Morality has a time and place, just remember, these are the same people Obama let out of Gitmo who ended up going back and fighting for the same cells we captured them from.
morality is not black and white and sometimes a seemingly evil deed can be done for the greater good, but that is an inherit part of morality. morality has a time and a place and that time and place is now and always.
It reminds me of the scene in Private Ryan where the wussy let the Nazi go naively thinking he was going to meander himself back to the Allies and surrender himself, instead he just takes the blindfold off and runs back to German lines where he later ends up fighting against that same platoon. War calls for tough decisions, everything isn't black and white as much as you would love it to be so.
and this makes it clear you don't know what my position is. I know full well what your position is. You would have done the same thing as in the movie. You wouldn't have made the tough call to shoot him instead you would have let him return to his compatriots to fight another day and kill more of your fellow soldiers. The whole point to the scenario is that in a time of war there is no morality. You do what you have to, to survive. There is no utopian morality to uphold. Morality matters not when you are dead. If you truly do not believe what disntinguishes ourselves from them then I would suggest looking up female genitalia mutilation, honor killings, patriachal society where women are subserviant, stonings to death, and many other abhorrent things. You see, what seperates ourselves in a time of war, is that we don't target civilians, we don't hide behind civilians, and we don't behead our adversaries and prance around with it.
time of war? you mean ALWAYS? that is your view isn't it? these people are terrorists and so when dealing with them we are always in a time of war? "you do what you have to to survive", what a fucking joke. pre-emptive strikes are not about survival, and that's what torture is. torture is offensive in nature, not defensive. you can twist it all you want, but to claim torture is defensive you have to ignore what it is that is actually happening when you torture a prisoner.
and yes you are correct about what I would have done were I soldier in that situation. but I wouldn't be in that situation in the first place.
Morality is a peacetime/civilian endeavor that everyone should strive to best live by.
that is so ignorant and disgusting, on so many levels.
it's views like this that lead to things like napalm, and land mines, and atomic bombs being dropped on cities, and torture.
You also have no understanding of intelligence methods. You say there is a million other ways to obtain this information because of our highly advanced technology. That is patently false. If you knew anything about MASINT (Which is what mostly employs the latest and greatest), you would know that EACH method is used SPECIFICALLY for different types of information. For example, you can't expect to use Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) and gather information about the latest telemetry readings from the latest N.K. missle launches. You wouldn't expect to use Imagery Intelligence and obtain conversation recordings.
How does this paragraph make what I said wrong?
In order to extract the information that only top level operatives know you have to use methods that are very precise and specific. You have to evaluate each situation as being unique and tailor the needs to that situation. You wouldn't ever use those methods on low level operatives, or even mid-level. It is specifically used on the upper echelon members precisely because they hold the most valuable information. In fact, it would be the last method to employ after exhausting other routes.
so waterboarding someone 100+ times is precise and specific? are you fucking kidding me?
you keep telling yourself this shit
It's abundantly clear that no one understands how the IC works, which is to be expected, there aren't that many of us. It is quite hilarious to see some absurd comments come out, but then again I guess that is the general thought of the civilian population when they have no idea how the Intelligence apparatus' work. Ignorance begets ignorance I suppose.
what you don't seem to realize is that torture is torture and no amount of twisting words justifies it. even when done with knowledge that it will save lives it's still wrong, though arguably justifiable. but clearly it was not being done with any more than speculations of possible information.
the IC does not get billions of tax payer dollars to torture people. that isn't why we fund it. torturing people IS NOT PART OF THEIR JOB
IC gets so much funding so we can get as much information as possible without doing shit like that!
|
aegraen the "wartime" you speak of goes on every hour of every day
|
We wouldn't have had to go through this prolonged Iraq situation, if Clinton had acted upon the INTELLIGENCE he received when Saudi Arabia had Bin Laden on a platter ready for us on multiple occasion
The fact that you connect the war in Iraq to Bin Laden deeply discredits your position. We could have avoided Iraq regardless of Bin Laden. For someone that supposedly works and studies the field of intelligence I am surprised you bother suggesting this.
The whole point to the scenario is that in a time of war there is no morality
You site the Geneva conventions and then proclaim there is no morality in war? Was that not one of the biggest lessons of WWII? That statement 1) completely contradicts any earlier arguments siting the Geneva Conventions, 2) ignores the current counter-insurgent military strategy being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, 3) ignores the legal questions that have arisen about the use of torture by the US.
The obvious contradictions and lack of awareness of even mainstream issues makes me wonder if you are a complete troll. It really worries me that you supposedly work in the intelligence community. Maybe that is the problem...
|
|
|
My personal thoughts on this issue is that waterboarding is torture. You're being drowned and smothered at the same time, and I think we should stop the practice. When you're in that state, you'll say anything to get the experience to stop.
Waterboarding is good for getting information, but not getting the right information. When you put someone in the position to say anything it's not entirely credible or beneficial considering they will admit to anything. If I'm entirely certain you could waterboard anyone enough, you could get them to admit to whatever you want.
But that's just me.
|
You are correct. Not only was this guy referring to something that didn't exist rather than referring to John Yoo's unwise legal advise to Bush, he avoids the fact that the legal advice has been seriously discredited.
|
On July 10 2009 07:29 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 07:10 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 06:32 L wrote:
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right. yeah it started off as a debate with me and aegrean totally just hijacked this shit. i give the guy props for being so inflammatory ... I only appear to be inflammatory when I'm surrounded by those on the left of the political aisle. Those over at Redstate, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, and those within the IC understand ...
Lulz retard flag. If you're actually serious about what you're talking about, I don't know what to say.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 09 2009 16:46 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 16:38 HaXxorIzed wrote:On July 09 2009 15:48 daz wrote:
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true. If you're willing to chase up pretty good examples (both casses and testimonials from interrogators) that your statements aren't wholly accurate, read on. Abu Jandal (as outlined by Ali Soufan and Ropert Mcfadden), Mohammad Ibahim (The key Baath Party Official who gave up Saddam's location as outlined by Eric Maddox in Mission:Black List #1) and an unnamed by key leader of the Sunni insurgency with connections to Al-Quaeda who was convinced to give up al-Zarqawi's location with soft-interrogation (as outlined by Matthew Alexander, one of the Authors of H ow to Break A Terrorist: The U.S Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq). All of those cover different figures with different loyalties, levels of fanatacism and indicates how much of it is brokered in real life concerns and/or stereotypes which are easiest broken by soft interrogation as opposed to torture. If anything, the fact their beleifs are so strongly hold makes the eventual breaking of the characters through soft means even more powerful - since there is no perceived bruality that can be seen as an injustice by the captive. With Abu Jandal in particular - he was a greatly feared man and hated the US captors ideologically on sight. That only meant however that when he was broken - and it was done through simple manipulation, that he was willing to give up even more information because of the shift in the foundations of his world view. i guess im willing to accept that this is possible but from my life experience and the things that i've read or heard ive found that people who hold beliefs especially religious beliefs at the fundamelist level are pretty much impervious to rational explanations and logical persuasion. i mean its pretty much a prerequisite that you are willing to ignore logic and ration to even get yourself to that point and i dont understand how to go about persuading someone who is impervious to logical thinking. I'll have to read up some of these examples that you've posted when i have more time because im seriously having a hard time imagining someone 'shifting the worldview' of a diehard religious fanatic
I'm getting the feeling that you think these ' terrorists ' are some bad people and their doing all this shit for their religion..
What you don't understand is these " terrorists " just want people from the US to gtfo of their country...
I've talked to many Iraqi men and women from my city and they tell me ALL they want is to deal with their own land and no interference.
|
Just because the USA won practically almost every it was involved in doesnt mean they were right all the time.
Yes, war is something horrible, and in war people lose their minds and do evil things, thats why war is horrible and if we can end these practices we will be walking a huge step toward ending them at all.
|
On July 10 2009 11:45 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 07:29 Aegraen wrote:On July 10 2009 07:10 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 06:32 L wrote:
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.
I was right. yeah it started off as a debate with me and aegrean totally just hijacked this shit. i give the guy props for being so inflammatory ... I only appear to be inflammatory when I'm surrounded by those on the left of the political aisle. Those over at Redstate, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, and those within the IC understand ... Lulz retard flag. If you're actually serious about what you're talking about, I don't know what to say.
Yea I loled hard. Of all the names to drop..
|
On July 10 2009 14:32 Clasic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 16:46 daz wrote:On July 09 2009 16:38 HaXxorIzed wrote:On July 09 2009 15:48 daz wrote:
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true. If you're willing to chase up pretty good examples (both casses and testimonials from interrogators) that your statements aren't wholly accurate, read on. Abu Jandal (as outlined by Ali Soufan and Ropert Mcfadden), Mohammad Ibahim (The key Baath Party Official who gave up Saddam's location as outlined by Eric Maddox in Mission:Black List #1) and an unnamed by key leader of the Sunni insurgency with connections to Al-Quaeda who was convinced to give up al-Zarqawi's location with soft-interrogation (as outlined by Matthew Alexander, one of the Authors of H ow to Break A Terrorist: The U.S Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq). All of those cover different figures with different loyalties, levels of fanatacism and indicates how much of it is brokered in real life concerns and/or stereotypes which are easiest broken by soft interrogation as opposed to torture. If anything, the fact their beleifs are so strongly hold makes the eventual breaking of the characters through soft means even more powerful - since there is no perceived bruality that can be seen as an injustice by the captive. With Abu Jandal in particular - he was a greatly feared man and hated the US captors ideologically on sight. That only meant however that when he was broken - and it was done through simple manipulation, that he was willing to give up even more information because of the shift in the foundations of his world view. i guess im willing to accept that this is possible but from my life experience and the things that i've read or heard ive found that people who hold beliefs especially religious beliefs at the fundamelist level are pretty much impervious to rational explanations and logical persuasion. i mean its pretty much a prerequisite that you are willing to ignore logic and ration to even get yourself to that point and i dont understand how to go about persuading someone who is impervious to logical thinking. I'll have to read up some of these examples that you've posted when i have more time because im seriously having a hard time imagining someone 'shifting the worldview' of a diehard religious fanatic I'm getting the feeling that you think these ' terrorists ' are some bad people and their doing all this shit for their religion.. What you don't understand is these " terrorists " just want people from the US to gtfo of their country... I've talked to many Iraqi men and women from my city and they tell me ALL they want is to deal with their own land and no interference.
i think osama bin laden would disagree with you
|
Osama Bin Laden is not speaking for any country. He has(d) nothing to do with Iraq, at least not until the USA (and others) made that connection up/believed in that connection.
The term Terrorist is used way to broad and would need further specification. Some are actually *resistance fighters* while others are really just terorists that just want to wreak havoc.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 10 2009 16:59 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 14:32 Clasic wrote:On July 09 2009 16:46 daz wrote:On July 09 2009 16:38 HaXxorIzed wrote:On July 09 2009 15:48 daz wrote:
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true. If you're willing to chase up pretty good examples (both casses and testimonials from interrogators) that your statements aren't wholly accurate, read on. Abu Jandal (as outlined by Ali Soufan and Ropert Mcfadden), Mohammad Ibahim (The key Baath Party Official who gave up Saddam's location as outlined by Eric Maddox in Mission:Black List #1) and an unnamed by key leader of the Sunni insurgency with connections to Al-Quaeda who was convinced to give up al-Zarqawi's location with soft-interrogation (as outlined by Matthew Alexander, one of the Authors of H ow to Break A Terrorist: The U.S Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq). All of those cover different figures with different loyalties, levels of fanatacism and indicates how much of it is brokered in real life concerns and/or stereotypes which are easiest broken by soft interrogation as opposed to torture. If anything, the fact their beleifs are so strongly hold makes the eventual breaking of the characters through soft means even more powerful - since there is no perceived bruality that can be seen as an injustice by the captive. With Abu Jandal in particular - he was a greatly feared man and hated the US captors ideologically on sight. That only meant however that when he was broken - and it was done through simple manipulation, that he was willing to give up even more information because of the shift in the foundations of his world view. i guess im willing to accept that this is possible but from my life experience and the things that i've read or heard ive found that people who hold beliefs especially religious beliefs at the fundamelist level are pretty much impervious to rational explanations and logical persuasion. i mean its pretty much a prerequisite that you are willing to ignore logic and ration to even get yourself to that point and i dont understand how to go about persuading someone who is impervious to logical thinking. I'll have to read up some of these examples that you've posted when i have more time because im seriously having a hard time imagining someone 'shifting the worldview' of a diehard religious fanatic I'm getting the feeling that you think these ' terrorists ' are some bad people and their doing all this shit for their religion.. What you don't understand is these " terrorists " just want people from the US to gtfo of their country... I've talked to many Iraqi men and women from my city and they tell me ALL they want is to deal with their own land and no interference. i think osama bin laden would disagree with you
You think Bin Laden did this just for the fun of it? Because he hates the US for no reason?
lol..
It was in between the Afghan/Russian war were the US started wanting to " help " and get involved as usual..
and most of the people said " get out of our country we can handle our own problems " and of course.. the US doesn't listen and now we have the " War Against Terror " which is failing hard, just like every other US war.
|
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
Waterboarding is real torture. The worst part about torture is the psycological scars. People getting tortured can never live a normal life again because they are messed up in their heads. Exactly this also applies to waterboarding. Yes its true, you wont die or loose an arm or something, but you sure will have mental issues afterwards.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 10 2009 18:00 Ota Solgryn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there Waterboarding is real torture. The worst part about torture is the psycological scars. People getting tortured can never live a normal life again because they are messed up in their heads. Exactly this also applies to waterboarding. Yes its true, you wont die or loose an arm or something, but you sure will have mental issues afterwards.
My dad is friends with a guy who got tortured.. and the " psychological scars " part isn't true in a lot of cases actually.. like.. the person I know got a huge scar from when they ripped the rope or w/e he was tied with from his arms and they did that on purpose..
He has red scars all over his neck and his face turns red a lot because of the torture.. I'm not really sure.
But this man is the happiest guy I know.. like, his car can be towed right infront of his face and he will still be happy.
Just because you have gotten tortured doesn't mean the rest of your life will be fucked forever..
|
Uhm...
Being happy when your car gets towed... And you think thats normal?
No, torture has not to fuck up your life forever, but it has a high chance of chanigng your behavior for the rest of your live...
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 10 2009 18:35 Velr wrote:
Uhm...
Being happy when your car gets towed... And you think thats normal?
No, torture has not to fuck up your life forever, but it has a high chance of chanigng your behavior for the rest of your live...
I was just saying that to explain how happy of a person he is...
he isn't going to be like, YAY, I GOT TO PAY 50$ !!!
|
On July 10 2009 18:35 Velr wrote:
Uhm...
Being happy when your car gets towed... And you think thats normal?
No, torture has not to fuck up your life forever, but it has a high chance of chanigng your behavior for the rest of your live...
He obviously meant that the guy is just grateful to be alive. lol...
|
On July 10 2009 17:33 Clasic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 16:59 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 14:32 Clasic wrote:On July 09 2009 16:46 daz wrote:On July 09 2009 16:38 HaXxorIzed wrote:On July 09 2009 15:48 daz wrote:
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true. If you're willing to chase up pretty good examples (both casses and testimonials from interrogators) that your statements aren't wholly accurate, read on. Abu Jandal (as outlined by Ali Soufan and Ropert Mcfadden), Mohammad Ibahim (The key Baath Party Official who gave up Saddam's location as outlined by Eric Maddox in Mission:Black List #1) and an unnamed by key leader of the Sunni insurgency with connections to Al-Quaeda who was convinced to give up al-Zarqawi's location with soft-interrogation (as outlined by Matthew Alexander, one of the Authors of H ow to Break A Terrorist: The U.S Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq). All of those cover different figures with different loyalties, levels of fanatacism and indicates how much of it is brokered in real life concerns and/or stereotypes which are easiest broken by soft interrogation as opposed to torture. If anything, the fact their beleifs are so strongly hold makes the eventual breaking of the characters through soft means even more powerful - since there is no perceived bruality that can be seen as an injustice by the captive. With Abu Jandal in particular - he was a greatly feared man and hated the US captors ideologically on sight. That only meant however that when he was broken - and it was done through simple manipulation, that he was willing to give up even more information because of the shift in the foundations of his world view. i guess im willing to accept that this is possible but from my life experience and the things that i've read or heard ive found that people who hold beliefs especially religious beliefs at the fundamelist level are pretty much impervious to rational explanations and logical persuasion. i mean its pretty much a prerequisite that you are willing to ignore logic and ration to even get yourself to that point and i dont understand how to go about persuading someone who is impervious to logical thinking. I'll have to read up some of these examples that you've posted when i have more time because im seriously having a hard time imagining someone 'shifting the worldview' of a diehard religious fanatic I'm getting the feeling that you think these ' terrorists ' are some bad people and their doing all this shit for their religion.. What you don't understand is these " terrorists " just want people from the US to gtfo of their country... I've talked to many Iraqi men and women from my city and they tell me ALL they want is to deal with their own land and no interference. i think osama bin laden would disagree with you You think Bin Laden did this just for the fun of it? Because he hates the US for no reason? lol.. It was in between the Afghan/Russian war were the US started wanting to " help " and get involved as usual.. and most of the people said " get out of our country we can handle our own problems " and of course.. the US doesn't listen and now we have the " War Against Terror " which is failing hard, just like every other US war.
Wow I'm glad you summed that up into one sentence so nicely. Who can argue that fact...
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 10 2009 21:37 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 17:33 Clasic wrote:On July 10 2009 16:59 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 14:32 Clasic wrote:On July 09 2009 16:46 daz wrote:On July 09 2009 16:38 HaXxorIzed wrote:On July 09 2009 15:48 daz wrote:
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true. If you're willing to chase up pretty good examples (both casses and testimonials from interrogators) that your statements aren't wholly accurate, read on. Abu Jandal (as outlined by Ali Soufan and Ropert Mcfadden), Mohammad Ibahim (The key Baath Party Official who gave up Saddam's location as outlined by Eric Maddox in Mission:Black List #1) and an unnamed by key leader of the Sunni insurgency with connections to Al-Quaeda who was convinced to give up al-Zarqawi's location with soft-interrogation (as outlined by Matthew Alexander, one of the Authors of H ow to Break A Terrorist: The U.S Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq). All of those cover different figures with different loyalties, levels of fanatacism and indicates how much of it is brokered in real life concerns and/or stereotypes which are easiest broken by soft interrogation as opposed to torture. If anything, the fact their beleifs are so strongly hold makes the eventual breaking of the characters through soft means even more powerful - since there is no perceived bruality that can be seen as an injustice by the captive. With Abu Jandal in particular - he was a greatly feared man and hated the US captors ideologically on sight. That only meant however that when he was broken - and it was done through simple manipulation, that he was willing to give up even more information because of the shift in the foundations of his world view. i guess im willing to accept that this is possible but from my life experience and the things that i've read or heard ive found that people who hold beliefs especially religious beliefs at the fundamelist level are pretty much impervious to rational explanations and logical persuasion. i mean its pretty much a prerequisite that you are willing to ignore logic and ration to even get yourself to that point and i dont understand how to go about persuading someone who is impervious to logical thinking. I'll have to read up some of these examples that you've posted when i have more time because im seriously having a hard time imagining someone 'shifting the worldview' of a diehard religious fanatic I'm getting the feeling that you think these ' terrorists ' are some bad people and their doing all this shit for their religion.. What you don't understand is these " terrorists " just want people from the US to gtfo of their country... I've talked to many Iraqi men and women from my city and they tell me ALL they want is to deal with their own land and no interference. i think osama bin laden would disagree with you You think Bin Laden did this just for the fun of it? Because he hates the US for no reason? lol.. It was in between the Afghan/Russian war were the US started wanting to " help " and get involved as usual.. and most of the people said " get out of our country we can handle our own problems " and of course.. the US doesn't listen and now we have the " War Against Terror " which is failing hard, just like every other US war. Wow I'm glad you summed that up into one sentence so nicely. Who can argue that fact...
dick cheney.....
|
On July 10 2009 18:28 Clasic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 18:00 Ota Solgryn wrote:On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there Waterboarding is real torture. The worst part about torture is the psycological scars. People getting tortured can never live a normal life again because they are messed up in their heads. Exactly this also applies to waterboarding. Yes its true, you wont die or loose an arm or something, but you sure will have mental issues afterwards. My dad is friends with a guy who got tortured.. and the " psychological scars " part isn't true in a lot of cases actually.. like.. the person I know got a huge scar from when they ripped the rope or w/e he was tied with from his arms and they did that on purpose.. He has red scars all over his neck and his face turns red a lot because of the torture.. I'm not really sure. But this man is the happiest guy I know.. like, his car can be towed right infront of his face and he will still be happy. Just because you have gotten tortured doesn't mean the rest of your life will be fucked forever..
wow so you know one person that got tortured and think everybody lives that way after they were tortured? Actually, I know a person whose entire family got killed in concentration camps during WWII and he's one of the happiest persons I know. If I used your logic here, the holocaust probably wasn't so bad for the jews...
|
United States20661 Posts
We are winning (have effectively won) in Iraq.
As for Afghanistan, it's a hard call.
Anyway, I feel Eisenhower's decision to approve so much congressional oversight over Intelligence is coming back to hurt nat'l security; Pelosi is shamelessly abusing the Speaker office to preserve her political career.
Journal's column on this encapsulates my feelings far better than I could myself.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 11 2009 03:15 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 18:28 Clasic wrote:On July 10 2009 18:00 Ota Solgryn wrote:On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there Waterboarding is real torture. The worst part about torture is the psycological scars. People getting tortured can never live a normal life again because they are messed up in their heads. Exactly this also applies to waterboarding. Yes its true, you wont die or loose an arm or something, but you sure will have mental issues afterwards. My dad is friends with a guy who got tortured.. and the " psychological scars " part isn't true in a lot of cases actually.. like.. the person I know got a huge scar from when they ripped the rope or w/e he was tied with from his arms and they did that on purpose.. He has red scars all over his neck and his face turns red a lot because of the torture.. I'm not really sure. But this man is the happiest guy I know.. like, his car can be towed right infront of his face and he will still be happy. Just because you have gotten tortured doesn't mean the rest of your life will be fucked forever.. wow so you know one person that got tortured and think everybody lives that way after they were tortured? Actually, I know a person whose entire family got killed in concentration camps during WWII and he's one of the happiest persons I know. If I used your logic here, the holocaust probably wasn't so bad for the jews...
What I'm trying to say is that their isn't that much physiological damage done... god damn.. of course it all depends on person to person..
|
Well, looks like Aegraen's back on the subject of torture after getting his ass thoroughly kicked during the debate in the Condoleezza and Conservatives waterboarding themselves threads where demonstrated that he's either dishonest, or failed high school reading comprehension (and probably both).
But once again, we see him repeating the same lines as before, hoping that repeating the same BS over and over again and simultaneously ignoring any evidence provided to the contrary like a five year-old putting his fingers in his years and shouting "Lalalala! I can't hear you," in hopes that his dogged refusal to look facts in the face will win through. Remember that this individual has a past history of dishonesty on TL and especially on the subject of torture (see the Condoleezza thread where he was caught quote mining) so there is absolutely no reason to take any of his claims at face value. There are no references to support his position, only his wild claims of expertise on the subject which I'm about as inclined to believe as the old homeless man on the street wearing a tinfoil hat who blabbers incoherently on mind-control rays.
Nevertheless, let us don our overalls and thick rubber boots and wade our way through the BS which make up Aegraen's posts.
On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
This debate about waterboarding and it's effectiveness will go on forever. Talking nice to people is no more effective than waterboarding, and in many cases isn't as effective.
Blantantly false. We've gone over this before; there is no credible evidence to show that torture is effective. At all. You can go back to the previous two threads and search for my posts and see for yourself. I cite my sources (and Aegraen has never rebutted them).
Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions.
Here we see Aegraen go through his usual mental gymnastics to try to support that torture was performed lawfully. It's a tired routine that we've seen before and shot down, but like  Rock, Aegraen has decided to stick to the routine no matter what happens.
Not too long ago, in the Condoleezza thread, in a pair of posts made by Physician once wrote (and were never answered by Aegraen)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." 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
I would just like to add what the US Supreme Court has to say about the matter of whether detainees have any rights or not...
The article wrote:
[T]he Supreme Court ruled today that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court and that congressional legislation has failed to provide a reasonable substitute for such a hearing.
Aegraen continues...
None of you should be talking about how intelligence apparatus work.
You all have not a single clue.
If you can legitimately answer me these questions, then you may have
some semblance of relevancy and creedence.
What is OSINT?
What is SIGINT?
What is IMINT?
What is COMINT?
What is ELINT?
When would you employ these methods and how effective would each be against say North Korea vs Al'Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan?
Do you know what a dead drop is?
I think I am the only person on these boards who actually works and studies in an intelligence capacity. The amount of ignorance displayed about actual intelligence work on this board is astonishing.
Seriously, from which right-wing blog did you get your degree from? I've never seen a single credible source cited by you in an honest manner on TL. Ever. If I was living in the US, and you really were working/studying in intelligence, I'd be fucking scared since you've obviously no concept of integrity.
To those questioning whether they are combatants or not, and how do we know? Well, it's quite simple when US soldier's are getting shot at and they then take them into custody (Pro tip: The Army has to go by the Army Field Interrogation Manual, which is pretty much a
joke) and they then let the intelligence apparatus' take over.
Yeah, it's not like the army has ever been wrong... Ever... At all...
Lastly, we can debate the merits of waterboarding all you want whether on morality (Which, there is none in a time of war. If you think the US has held a higher moral of standard in times of war I would think twice. A little research would show you are wrong, case in
point: D-Day WWII. No prisoners.) , or effectiveness. Why do you think the US let the Japanese and German scientists get off so easily after WWII? They committed untold atrocities, but the US so valued their research and it indeed proved to be useful. While disgusting as it is,
when you are faced with life and death morality tends to get thrown out the window.
So, since the US has done wrong things in the past, it's okay to do them now too? Seriously? Guess we shouldn't put anybody on trial for kidnapping either, since slavery was once condoned too...
Once upon a time Physician illustrated why it's a bad idea
to torture
- 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.
Of course, I'm sure this entire line of reasoning goes flying over your head because "this is war, you know. We're men and we need to get the job done. Rar."
Aegraen continues...
I only appear to be inflammatory when I'm surrounded by those on the left of the political aisle. Those over at Redstate, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, and those within the IC understand what it takes in a time of WAR to use every tool at our disposal to keep America safe.
Well, at least we know where you've received your education.
We wouldn't have had to go through this prolonged Iraq situation, if Clinton had acted upon the INTELLIGENCE he received when Saudi Arabia had Bin Laden on a platter ready for us on multiple occasions.
Two points.
1) Iraq and Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with each other until after the US invaded.
2) Usual right-wing bullshit about Clinton.
It's abundantly clear that no one understands how the IC works, which is to be expected, there aren't that many of us. It is quite hilarious to see some absurd comments come out, but then again I guess that is the general thought of the civilian population when they have no idea how the Intelligence apparatus' work. Ignorance begets ignorance I suppose.
You're honestly so full of shit, I can't see how anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together could take you seriously.
|
An eye for an eye.
But Lies are not healthy for our country BUSH
|
The Holocaust...wasn't..that bad for the Jews? *twitch* *twitch*
Putting any blatantly stupid comments aside.....
The news media in general has been fucked in the USA for so long it's not even funny. The fact that the media hasn't even tried to cover any REAL news for the past two (if not more) decades doesn't even surprise me any more. The fact that the CIA even came "clean" does. Hell, that's more out of place than an albino at a Black Panthers Rally. It disturbs me that my nations media is more concerned about J-Lo's twins or Paris Hilton's brainlessness than tortue, government corruption, scandal, rape, arson, world events, and pudding! (ya, that last one was to see if you were awake...)
I am sick of tuning into the BBC for news....
|
oh, and syntax lost. you sir, win.
|
|
|
How do you win a war on "terror?"
|
simple
you declare peace on terror.
|
Jesse Ventura said some pretty interesting things about waterboarding and his experience with it, "in case" he became a POW.
|
Syntax lost, your post is worthy of great praise and I think it should be the end of this troll-fest Agraen, once again, created (though a small part of me really wants to see a genuine attempt at an answer).
Seriously, you deserve a beta key!
|
On July 11 2009 04:30 Clasic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2009 03:15 Mandalor wrote:On July 10 2009 18:28 Clasic wrote:On July 10 2009 18:00 Ota Solgryn wrote:On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there Waterboarding is real torture. The worst part about torture is the psycological scars. People getting tortured can never live a normal life again because they are messed up in their heads. Exactly this also applies to waterboarding. Yes its true, you wont die or loose an arm or something, but you sure will have mental issues afterwards. My dad is friends with a guy who got tortured.. and the " psychological scars " part isn't true in a lot of cases actually.. like.. the person I know got a huge scar from when they ripped the rope or w/e he was tied with from his arms and they did that on purpose.. He has red scars all over his neck and his face turns red a lot because of the torture.. I'm not really sure. But this man is the happiest guy I know.. like, his car can be towed right infront of his face and he will still be happy. Just because you have gotten tortured doesn't mean the rest of your life will be fucked forever.. wow so you know one person that got tortured and think everybody lives that way after they were tortured? Actually, I know a person whose entire family got killed in concentration camps during WWII and he's one of the happiest persons I know. If I used your logic here, the holocaust probably wasn't so bad for the jews... What I'm trying to say is that their isn't that much physiological damage done... god damn.. of course it all depends on person to person..
And what I'm trying to say is that psychological damage can be a lot worse than physiological damage.
|
On July 10 2009 17:33 Clasic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 16:59 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 14:32 Clasic wrote:On July 09 2009 16:46 daz wrote:On July 09 2009 16:38 HaXxorIzed wrote:On July 09 2009 15:48 daz wrote:
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true. If you're willing to chase up pretty good examples (both casses and testimonials from interrogators) that your statements aren't wholly accurate, read on. Abu Jandal (as outlined by Ali Soufan and Ropert Mcfadden), Mohammad Ibahim (The key Baath Party Official who gave up Saddam's location as outlined by Eric Maddox in Mission:Black List #1) and an unnamed by key leader of the Sunni insurgency with connections to Al-Quaeda who was convinced to give up al-Zarqawi's location with soft-interrogation (as outlined by Matthew Alexander, one of the Authors of H ow to Break A Terrorist: The U.S Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq). All of those cover different figures with different loyalties, levels of fanatacism and indicates how much of it is brokered in real life concerns and/or stereotypes which are easiest broken by soft interrogation as opposed to torture. If anything, the fact their beleifs are so strongly hold makes the eventual breaking of the characters through soft means even more powerful - since there is no perceived bruality that can be seen as an injustice by the captive. With Abu Jandal in particular - he was a greatly feared man and hated the US captors ideologically on sight. That only meant however that when he was broken - and it was done through simple manipulation, that he was willing to give up even more information because of the shift in the foundations of his world view. i guess im willing to accept that this is possible but from my life experience and the things that i've read or heard ive found that people who hold beliefs especially religious beliefs at the fundamelist level are pretty much impervious to rational explanations and logical persuasion. i mean its pretty much a prerequisite that you are willing to ignore logic and ration to even get yourself to that point and i dont understand how to go about persuading someone who is impervious to logical thinking. I'll have to read up some of these examples that you've posted when i have more time because im seriously having a hard time imagining someone 'shifting the worldview' of a diehard religious fanatic I'm getting the feeling that you think these ' terrorists ' are some bad people and their doing all this shit for their religion.. What you don't understand is these " terrorists " just want people from the US to gtfo of their country... I've talked to many Iraqi men and women from my city and they tell me ALL they want is to deal with their own land and no interference. i think osama bin laden would disagree with you You think Bin Laden did this just for the fun of it? Because he hates the US for no reason? lol.. It was in between the Afghan/Russian war were the US started wanting to " help " and get involved as usual.. and most of the people said " get out of our country we can handle our own problems " and of course.. the US doesn't listen and now we have the " War Against Terror " which is failing hard, just like every other US war.
he hates the US for a reason, and the reasons are his insane religious beliefs.
as for the afghan/russia war and the US involvement, how do you think afghanistan beat the russians, by throwing rocks? No they did it because the United States supplied them with arms, without those arms they wouldnt have stood a chance. im pretty sure osama bin laden isnt upset at the US for giving him the weapons they used to win the war
|
On July 11 2009 12:02 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 17:33 Clasic wrote:On July 10 2009 16:59 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 14:32 Clasic wrote:On July 09 2009 16:46 daz wrote:On July 09 2009 16:38 HaXxorIzed wrote:On July 09 2009 15:48 daz wrote:
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true. If you're willing to chase up pretty good examples (both casses and testimonials from interrogators) that your statements aren't wholly accurate, read on. Abu Jandal (as outlined by Ali Soufan and Ropert Mcfadden), Mohammad Ibahim (The key Baath Party Official who gave up Saddam's location as outlined by Eric Maddox in Mission:Black List #1) and an unnamed by key leader of the Sunni insurgency with connections to Al-Quaeda who was convinced to give up al-Zarqawi's location with soft-interrogation (as outlined by Matthew Alexander, one of the Authors of H ow to Break A Terrorist: The U.S Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq). All of those cover different figures with different loyalties, levels of fanatacism and indicates how much of it is brokered in real life concerns and/or stereotypes which are easiest broken by soft interrogation as opposed to torture. If anything, the fact their beleifs are so strongly hold makes the eventual breaking of the characters through soft means even more powerful - since there is no perceived bruality that can be seen as an injustice by the captive. With Abu Jandal in particular - he was a greatly feared man and hated the US captors ideologically on sight. That only meant however that when he was broken - and it was done through simple manipulation, that he was willing to give up even more information because of the shift in the foundations of his world view. i guess im willing to accept that this is possible but from my life experience and the things that i've read or heard ive found that people who hold beliefs especially religious beliefs at the fundamelist level are pretty much impervious to rational explanations and logical persuasion. i mean its pretty much a prerequisite that you are willing to ignore logic and ration to even get yourself to that point and i dont understand how to go about persuading someone who is impervious to logical thinking. I'll have to read up some of these examples that you've posted when i have more time because im seriously having a hard time imagining someone 'shifting the worldview' of a diehard religious fanatic I'm getting the feeling that you think these ' terrorists ' are some bad people and their doing all this shit for their religion.. What you don't understand is these " terrorists " just want people from the US to gtfo of their country... I've talked to many Iraqi men and women from my city and they tell me ALL they want is to deal with their own land and no interference. i think osama bin laden would disagree with you You think Bin Laden did this just for the fun of it? Because he hates the US for no reason? lol.. It was in between the Afghan/Russian war were the US started wanting to " help " and get involved as usual.. and most of the people said " get out of our country we can handle our own problems " and of course.. the US doesn't listen and now we have the " War Against Terror " which is failing hard, just like every other US war. he hates the US for a reason, and the reasons are his insane religious beliefs. as for the afghan/russia war and the US involvement, how do you think afghanistan beat the russians, by throwing rocks? No they did it because the United States supplied them with arms, without those arms they wouldnt have stood a chance. im pretty sure osama bin laden isnt upset at the US for giving him the weapons they used to win the war
Stop. Oh dear god, stop while you're behind.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 11 2009 12:02 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2009 17:33 Clasic wrote:On July 10 2009 16:59 daz wrote:On July 10 2009 14:32 Clasic wrote:On July 09 2009 16:46 daz wrote:On July 09 2009 16:38 HaXxorIzed wrote:On July 09 2009 15:48 daz wrote:
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true. If you're willing to chase up pretty good examples (both casses and testimonials from interrogators) that your statements aren't wholly accurate, read on. Abu Jandal (as outlined by Ali Soufan and Ropert Mcfadden), Mohammad Ibahim (The key Baath Party Official who gave up Saddam's location as outlined by Eric Maddox in Mission:Black List #1) and an unnamed by key leader of the Sunni insurgency with connections to Al-Quaeda who was convinced to give up al-Zarqawi's location with soft-interrogation (as outlined by Matthew Alexander, one of the Authors of H ow to Break A Terrorist: The U.S Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq). All of those cover different figures with different loyalties, levels of fanatacism and indicates how much of it is brokered in real life concerns and/or stereotypes which are easiest broken by soft interrogation as opposed to torture. If anything, the fact their beleifs are so strongly hold makes the eventual breaking of the characters through soft means even more powerful - since there is no perceived bruality that can be seen as an injustice by the captive. With Abu Jandal in particular - he was a greatly feared man and hated the US captors ideologically on sight. That only meant however that when he was broken - and it was done through simple manipulation, that he was willing to give up even more information because of the shift in the foundations of his world view. i guess im willing to accept that this is possible but from my life experience and the things that i've read or heard ive found that people who hold beliefs especially religious beliefs at the fundamelist level are pretty much impervious to rational explanations and logical persuasion. i mean its pretty much a prerequisite that you are willing to ignore logic and ration to even get yourself to that point and i dont understand how to go about persuading someone who is impervious to logical thinking. I'll have to read up some of these examples that you've posted when i have more time because im seriously having a hard time imagining someone 'shifting the worldview' of a diehard religious fanatic I'm getting the feeling that you think these ' terrorists ' are some bad people and their doing all this shit for their religion.. What you don't understand is these " terrorists " just want people from the US to gtfo of their country... I've talked to many Iraqi men and women from my city and they tell me ALL they want is to deal with their own land and no interference. i think osama bin laden would disagree with you You think Bin Laden did this just for the fun of it? Because he hates the US for no reason? lol.. It was in between the Afghan/Russian war were the US started wanting to " help " and get involved as usual.. and most of the people said " get out of our country we can handle our own problems " and of course.. the US doesn't listen and now we have the " War Against Terror " which is failing hard, just like every other US war. he hates the US for a reason, and the reasons are his insane religious beliefs. as for the afghan/russia war and the US involvement, how do you think afghanistan beat the russians, by throwing rocks? No they did it because the United States supplied them with arms, without those arms they wouldnt have stood a chance. im pretty sure osama bin laden isnt upset at the US for giving him the weapons they used to win the war
LMAO @ religious beliefs hahahah.. that actually made me laugh.
You realize religion has nothing to do with why they hate America? They don't like America because it keeps on butting in.. America trys to be aggressive.. and hopefully that will stop when we get a better president.....
I understand the afghan/russia part but you do realize that the people fighting off the Russians had pretty much all other Arab country behind them? Saudi Arabia would of supplied them with enough guns to defend themselves..
The people fighting off the Russians even said themselves that they don't want the US to help.. and what does it do!? help.
|
Also to add, Afghanistan is inherently a VERY difficult place to wage war in. As a result, the writing was on the wall for the Russian forces despite the inherent advantage on paper. And of course, after Afghanistan wins the war, the US steps in and demands for certain privileges to pay back their supposed war debts. o_O
|
all the other arab countries couldnt and this is the most important part DIDNT do shit. the war was won with american guns. Even if Saudi Arabia wanted to supply afghanistan with guns where the fuck do you think those guns would have come from? Ill tell you where, they came from Osama bin Laden who was a billionaire Saudi who got guns from America and shipped them over.
And as for them not liking america because america keeps butting in this is 100% true and i agree with you. American foreign policy is absolutely the cause of terrorism. However this doesnt make normal rational people strap bombs to their chests and fly planes into buildings. The middle east isnt the only area that is a victim of invasive american foreign policy. In fact the country i am from, Serbia, was bombed to shit by the united states and i have yet to hear about any serbian suicide bombers.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 11 2009 14:11 daz wrote:
all the other arab countries couldnt and this is the most important part DIDNT do shit. the war was won with american guns. Even if Saudi Arabia wanted to supply afghanistan with guns where the fuck do you think those guns would have come from? Ill tell you where, they came from Osama bin Laden who was a billionaire Saudi who got guns from America and shipped them over.
And as for them not liking america because america keeps butting in this is 100% true and i agree with you. American foreign policy is absolutely the cause of terrorism. However this doesnt make normal rational people strap bombs to their chests and fly planes into buildings. The middle east isnt the only area that is a victim of invasive american foreign policy. In fact the country i am from, Serbia, was bombed to shit by the united states and i have yet to hear about any serbian suicide bombers.
Lies.. Saudi Arabia was all ready planning to help lawl.
And Bin Laden wasn't a billionaire as a matter of fact and he never was..
Every other Arab country would of helped because it risked invasion of their own country's.
Also people overuse the whole " strap a bomb to their chest and blow shit up " line way too much... Its against the Qur'an to kill yourself in any way for any reason just like most other religions and the people who do that aren't really Muslims their just retarded as fuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
