NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to hear it justified. That's all.

It has been confirmed that actions which some cosider torture are ging on there. My question is. How do you justify this?

I recall a republican on here claiming that torture could not be happening because of a drug called 'Versed' or something. It's now been confirmed to be happening and they dried up suspiciously.

So given this wonder-drug, what is the need for abuse? If you are holding terrorists then have it be a prison, no more no less. Unless there is a government desire to torture people of course.

I'd also like to pick up on a side issue here. I have seen at least one member make the repeated (and apparently serious) claim that we are in a 'war to the death'.

How do you infer this? If it were a war to the death 9/11 would have been a nuke, or a major anthrax attack. Not a suicide attack with a few civil jets. And, on my main point, why not just kill all the Guantanamo prisoners if this is the case? Far simpler and since you want to lure the terrorists into reckless acton so you can kill them off it'll certainly have an effect.

It's unjustifiable.

How do you infer this? If it were a war to the death 9/11 would have been a nuke, or a major anthrax attack. Not a suicide attack with a few civil jets.

Or even a mass hijacking of every plane over the United States at that time. If they truly had the capacity for a war to the death, they would have been able to do that.

I'd like to hear it justified. That's all.

It has been confirmed that actions which some cosider torture are ging on there. My question is. How do you justify this?

I recall a republican on here claiming that torture could not be happening because of a drug called 'Versed' or something. It's now been confirmed to be happening and they dried up suspiciously.

So given this wonder-drug, what is the need for abuse? If you are holding terrorists then have it be a prison, no more no less. Unless there is a government desire to torture people of course.

I'd also like to pick up on a side issue here. I have seen at least one member make the repeated (and apparently serious) claim that we are in a 'war to the death'.

How do you infer this? If it were a war to the death 9/11 would have been a nuke, or a major anthrax attack. Not a suicide attack with a few civil jets. And, on my main point, why not just kill all the Guantanamo prisoners if this is the case? Far simpler and since you want to lure the terrorists into reckless acton so you can kill them off it'll certainly have an effect.

It's not just Versed, and I didn't just dry up.

It's Versed in combination with methamphetamine.

It makes anyone talk, and it's not a wonder drug. Versed is used in nearly every outpatient surgical procedure because it calms the patient before any further anesthesia, and it eliminates any memory of what goes on while you're under it. Versed's properties were first used in childbirth, where doctors noticed that no matter how great the pain of childbirth, the women had no memory of it afterwards.

I don't believe that the majority of people at Guantanamo have been "tortured". And according to the standards of Amnesty International, merely detaining someone and asking them questions is considered threatening enough and mentally strenuous enough to qualify as torture under UNCAT.

I believe that the majority were interrogated using this combination of drugs. That in itself is a violation of UNCAT. That's why we knew we could confidently release 240 of them. And how we got information on Khalid Sheik Mohammed (who himself apparently talked after a short session using that technique).

Yes, it is war to the knife. I'm not making that up - Osama has declared it over and over again. And no, they didn't have WMD back on 9-11 and couldn't get any. Also, it wasn't until recently that Osama got approval from religious leaders to use WMD - he wanted moral and ethical backing for annihilating us.

And no, the targets will not be military. They will be civilian, by express intent. And no, I'm not making that up.

Perhaps you should read everything he's written. Have it translated for you by more than one Arabic speaker, and compare the translations. Then compare that to the jihad writings of the First Crusade.

There will be no quarter, no surrender, no negotiation. No taking of prisoners.

BTW, the Americans captured in Afghanistan by al-Q forces during Operation Anaconda were killed immediately in accordance with that policy. They aren't taking prisoners.

Right now, we're in a lull. A temporary decrease in "operational tempo".

But they still exist. And they can wait until they get something more lethal than a few airliners.

And then they'll come for us. Just as Osama has preached.

It's unjustifiable.


Seconded..

Anyone who thinks they can will only be rationalizing. It can't be justified.

Also, it wasn't until recently that Osama got approval from religious leaders to use WMD - he wanted moral and ethical backing for annihilating us.

And no, the targets will not be military. They will be civilian, by express intent. And no, I'm not making that up.
I doubt religious leaders would back up civilian attacks. During jihad, an attack on innocent civilians is a one-way ticket to hell.

http://web1.caryacademy.org/chemistry/rushin/StudentProjects/CompoundWebSites/1998/Versed/illegal_use.htm

Some initial information on Versed, for the uninitiated.

http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000100.html

Yes, it is war to the knife. I'm not making that up - Osama has declared it over and over again.

And because one crazed old Arab declares it to be war to the death it becomes so.

As I understand it the materials to make, say Anthrax are easy to get hold of. Remember the 'mobile labs' in Iraq? So how could he not, if he had this drive to destroy the West create a few bottles of Anthrax and deploy them on a train or bus in New York, in DC and a couple of other cities?

On the drugs. I'll quote you as best I can recall.

"You would believe that the interrogator is your best friend...tell him everything...no memory afterwards...no need for physical tecqniques at all."

All of those are terms YOU used to talk it up. So if it's not a miracle drug why talk it up as one?

And because one crazed old Arab declares it to be war to the death it becomes so.

As I understand it the materials to make, say Anthrax are easy to get hold of. Remember the 'mobile labs' in Iraq? So how could he not, if he had this drive to destroy the West create a few bottles of Anthrax and deploy them on a train or bus in New York, in DC and a couple of other cities?

It's not as easy to get hold of as you say. Nor is it as easy to produce as you say. And once produced, definitely not easy to turn into the correct powder size with the correct coating so that the spores are not killed by contact with sunlight.

It was hard enough for Iraqis with an industrial facility and hundreds of scientists to produce 1800 gallons of anthrax. Anthrax which we found dumped in a ditch after our most recent invasion - dumped there without Saddam's knowledge in 1993 by his chief of bioweapons, Taha.

Some of the anthrax made and used in the recent letter incidents is apparently high quality - and some of it is not. It's not as easy as you think to make anthrax.

Additionally, anthrax is of limited use - although the powder itself is dangerous, it is not considered transmissible as a disease - you won't get it from being around the victims.

Smallpox would be much better.

Osama is not the only one writing these things. It is a movement. And it has many adherents.

Even if the odds are very small that they get hold of something like smallpox, it is only a matter of time, given their numbers. Only a matter of time.

According to the religious ruling Osama received, it's not only OK to kill every non-Muslim - man, woman, and child - by any means - without warning - it's also OK for them to, as a natural by-product, accidentally kill millions of pious Muslims.

As long as the main goal is accomplished.

And you think it's OK for us to let the guys at Guantanamo go now? We've already let go 240 - and I bet we knew for sure after the interrogations that those 240 were innocent.

As for the rest, IMHO they are too dangerous to release. It's war, and you don't release prisoners during a war.

"You would believe that the interrogator is your best friend...tell him everything...no memory afterwards...no need for physical tecqniques at all."

All of those are terms YOU used to talk it up. So if it's not a miracle drug why talk it up as one?

It does work in that fashion. But that is not a "miracle". That's your term.

Seconded..

Anyone who thinks they can will only be rationalizing. It can't be justified.



Hmmm, torture is a tricky thing. Do any of you know in how many wars and how many countries our POWs have been tortured? Go watch the movie "Faith of my Fathers". Now, what we are possibly doing in GITMO is to prevent terrorist attacks on civillians. That is the only way terrorists work is by scaring people of a country and making them spend less and less time out of their homes to slow the economy. A slow economy means not a lot of sales which reduces the amount of money our gov't gets. That is a very bad thing because our gov't protects us.

So, to keep the people outside spending money they have to feel safe and actually BE safe. How else do you think we get our information from terrorists? Its not like they are a gov't where you can send a mole to go look at some papers in a cabinet in the capital to find out what their plans are. All they do is talk. Its all oral. So you have to finess the information out of them. The wrong kind of torture can make them shut up or make them lie to you. The best kind of torture are the methods that do do any damage to them physically, but mentally instead.

If you have ever watched "Mithbusters", on one of their episodes they tested the Chinese water torture. In a couple of hours the test victim was scared, crying, and would have done anything to get out of it if she were truely being tortured.

You may call it injust all you like, but that is the only sure way to get all of the information from terrorists because you dont know what all of the terrorists sound like on cel phones, now do you?

Just what abuse are you trying to justify? Making them listen to rap music and asking a few questions. Look at some facts instead of joining the chic hate america clan.

It's war, and you don't release prisoners during a war.

It helps if you have "prisoners" on hand. Remember, they're not prisoners, 'cause they weren't soldiers. They're "detainees", 'cause they're allegedly "enemy combatants". And apparently, you can.

It helps if you have "prisoners" on hand. Remember, they're not prisoners, 'cause they weren't soldiers. They're "detainees", 'cause they're allegedly "enemy combatants". And apparently, you can.

Only after you're sure they're not a combatant.

To do that, you have to ask a few questions, and be sure of the facts.

We've released 240. So something must be working.

But you generally don't release uniformed soldiers, or people you have determined to be real combatants, and not just people with guns who happened to be walking by.

Can you name any Axis POWs who were released and sent home during WW II because we felt like being nice?

Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a military tribunal. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.

And what possible "abuse" is there?

y'know, there's not point in justifying it to you. You won't believe what we have to say anyway. So on that note i'll say this: So what if they use torture? There are degrees to everything, and if it's not to the degree of Saddam era torture, then we're still morally superior to the insurgents who lop ppls heads off. That's my opinion and you're not going to change it.

If a hand full of U.S. Green Berets entered another country and engaged in an operation that resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians, would that give the government of that country the right to randomly yank people off the streets of New York, Los Angeles, Washington, etc. and throw them into prison, subject them to torture and deny them the right to legal council?

Only after you're sure they're not a combatant.

To do that, you have to ask a few questions, and be sure of the facts.

We've released 240. So something must be working.

But you generally don't release uniformed soldiers, or people you have determined to be real combatants, and not just people with guns who happened to be walking by.

Can you name any Axis POWs who were released and sent home during WW II because we felt like being nice?


Uhm..actually yes I can.

About 2000 German troops were actually allowed to stay here, and naturalize after WW2.
They didnt defect, they were POW's.

They were used as labor during the war, and were quite popular with the local ladies, (all blonde wavy hair, and muscles tanned from paving roads and such)

Justify asking for justification. It sounds like your trying to justify your own political beleifes in this case, which is really rather unjustifiable when your bashing the justification of some other parties actions.
We SHOULD be watching out for the people in tinfoil hats. Theyre part of...The Order. :eek:

y'know, there's not point in justifying it to you. You won't believe what we have to say anyway. So on that note i'll say this: So what if they use torture? There are degrees to everything, and if it's not to the degree of Saddam era torture, then we're still morally superior to the insurgents who lop ppls heads off. That's my opinion and you're not going to change it.

To be morally superior to someone, you must have morals that are, indeed, superior.

That means, to be better than a guy who tortures someone, you cant do it too.

It doesnt matter "how badly" you do it.

Its like being "a little pregnant".

You are, or are not.

You call gitmo torture? Doubt in prisoners in past wars were treated so well. Has anyone died there? I havent heard of any reports of that. Most of you that cry torture are either anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-American. If your not either of those and still call it torture then you are a pacifist moron.

I think they should do whatever they need to do to get information out of these clowns. Most of these guys would cut your head off with a rusty saw if they had a chance. Bet anyone calling foul would change there mind if one of there relatives were killed by these people. One last thing. We are still at war. Remember that...

You call gitmo torture? Doubt in prisoners in past wars were treated so well. Has anyone died there? I havent heard of any reports of that. Most of you that cry torture are either anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-American. If your not either of those and still call it torture then you are a pacifist moron.

I think they should do whatever they need to do to get information out of these clowns. Most of these guys would cut your head off with a rusty saw if they had a chance. Bet anyone calling foul would change there mind if one of there relatives were killed by these people. One last thing. We are still at war. Remember that...
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

No prisoners have died in Guantanamo and I think that the reason is all the attention being given to the prison. Which is good. You know. Murder = bad. The idea that "these people" will cut off your head so we better torture them first is one of the most absurd justifications for torture that I've ever heard. Yes, some men are evil and will cut off your head. And yes, there are some other villains who will imprison you without telling you why and torture you until the WMD's fall out your ass.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9695

And what is really so very wrong with Amnesty's plan:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-recs-torture-eng
Surely, most of us can agree on at least 6 of these 12. Can't we?

This is a war. There is no need for justification.

I'll repeat, this is a war

This is a war. There is no need for justification.

I'll repeat, this is a war

That requires some justification.

There is no justification. I will not engage in the act of justifing a violation of basic human rights.

<snip>

It makes anyone talk, and it's not a wonder drug. Versed is used in nearly every outpatient surgical procedure because it calms the patient before any further anesthesia, and it eliminates any memory of what goes on while you're under it. Versed's properties were first used in childbirth, where doctors noticed that no matter how great the pain of childbirth, the women had no memory of it afterwards.

<snip>


I am recovering from orthopedic surgery where Versed was used in combination with a nerve block. It didn't hurt at all and I have little memory of the procedure. I just hope I didn't talk too much...

I agree with the rest of your statement, WL.

You call gitmo torture? Doubt in prisoners in past wars were treated so well. Has anyone died there? I havent heard of any reports of that. Most of you that cry torture are either anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-American. If your not either of those and still call it torture then you are a pacifist moron.

I think they should do whatever they need to do to get information out of these clowns. Most of these guys would cut your head off with a rusty saw if they had a chance. Bet anyone calling foul would change there mind if one of there relatives were killed by these people. One last thing. We are still at war. Remember that...

Who is at war with who? The U.S. against terrorists? Then who are the terrorists? Any one with a funny accent in Iraq or Afghanistan?

That requires some justification.
How about...
Saddam was a nutter and needed to be 'removed from office', ASAP.

And before you say "So is Bush", I should point out that Bush is at least somewhat selective in who he imprisons without just cause, and attempts to keep the tourture to a minimum level. That and he doesnt tourture the US Olympic soccer team for losing.
If you werent planning on saying 'So is Bush', please accept my apologies for lumping you in with the other %95 of NS who would have.

How about...
Saddam was a nutter and needed to be 'removed from office', ASAP.

And before you say "So is Bush", I should point out that Bush is at least somewhat selective in who he imprisons without just cause, and attempts to keep the tourture to a minimum level. That and he doesnt tourture the US Olympic soccer team for losing.
If you werent planning on saying 'So is Bush', please accept my apologies for lumping you in with the other %95 of NS who would have.

If the only reason for invading Iraq was to get rid of Saddam Hussein don't you think there would have been better ways to do it than an all out invasion? Why not stage a coup or an assassination? I mean if you want to get rid of a snake in the garden do you burn down the entire garden to do it?

There is no abuse. Period.

http://www.gitmocookbook.com/

They are fed well, in fact fed better than some US citizens.

Also, each detainee also has his own furnished room and the servicemen have to treat them and their little Korans with kid gloves.

The stupid media, leftist NGO's and "human rights groups that let N. Korea and Sudan go" blow Gitmo way out of proportion. It's better than the detainment of every Muslim in the US or suspension of Habeas Corpus. The problem is that the West has become too soft and has forgotten history to know what a real gulag is anymore.