NationStates Jolt Archive

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,384885,00.html
Last week, Italy formally asked the United States for the extradition of a number of CIA agents in connection with a Milan kidnapping.

A while ago we had a thread about the Washington Post reporting about the "Black Sites".
I confidently predicted that this would become a huge scandal, that the American people, or at least the American opposition would not simply take having this crap hidden from them.

Turns out I was wrong. Absolutely nothing happened. Which is outrageous. And not only that, apparently they are seriously considering whether the CIA should be bound by "Don't Torture"-Rules at all.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,384163,00.html
Human rights activists around the world who live under repressive regimes have long looked to this country for leadership; our government, flawed as it is, has launched crusades against human rights abusers abroad and helped prevent terrible suffering by demanding that torture stop. Now we are facing a new world: one in which the most powerful country on the planet publicly declares itself above the laws that have protected individuals everywhere from disappearance, torture and murder. It is a sad and dark moment, in which the hostis humani generis, the enemy of all humankind, speaks with the voice of the United States government.
You would think the idea that the US is the enemy of all mankind was AQ talk, or at least some wingnut European...but this is Sara Miles, an experienced human rights lawyer.

So we know these camps exist, we know Abu Ghraib happened, we know the US government defines enemies in new ways to allow them to be tortured or mistreated, and we know about "rendition".
It's pretty obvious that torture is considered okay by the administration.

So how can that be? How can the US populace, which has for so long understood Human Rights and the proper treatmen of all people to be absolutely vital, just let this happen?

Note: For the poll, when I say "Americans", I mean people from the USA.

You forgot the options for those that fall in both of those categories. :(

So how can that be? How can the US populace, which has for so long understood Human Rights and the proper treatmen of all people to be absolutely vital, just let this happen?
It has been happening for years. If anything, the rest of the world is just relieved that you're finally starting to notice it.

You forgot the options for those that fall in both of those categories. :(
Bugger. I always do forget someone...well, I guess you have to decide for one of them.

Bugger. I always do forget someone...well, I guess you have to decide for one of them.Meh, might as well go American on this one... :p

YAY HYPOCRISY! long live the police state.... OH NO ITS JOHNY"S STORM TROOPERS COME TO GET ME! *screams and shouts of a person being dragged away*

I think that, for the most part, it's because most Americans (like most people everywhere) don't worry much about the big picture.

They worry about their job, their family and their belongings, and to hell with anything else.

There are blantant and numerous exceptions to this, but in the mind of the average American, the thought regarding these "Black Camps" probably runs along the lines of 'Well, it's just terrorists that are being tortured...'

Fortunatley, there are many in America who will not stand for it. Bush has threatened to veto the anti-torture legislation if exemptions for the CIA are not included.

If he does veto it, expect an outcry not seen in America in quite some time...

...(I hope :( )

Under the right torture I bet we could get Bush to claim to be an atheist.

Any evidence got under it isn't too reliable. Heck eye witness accounts are individual testimonies are unreliable enough as it is tourture evidence shouldn't be part of trials.

As for camps I'm not sadistic myself I don't get any enjoyment from it sad to see the American government is...

Because when it's used, it's used on people we will never see in a place most of us will never visit.

Out of sight, out of mind. Until someone rubs our noses in it, we Americans tend to ignore that which is different. See the long fiight for civil rights for Blacks, lynching, and race riots.

Because when it's used, it's used on people we will never see in a place most of us will never visit.
Then why the constant push for countries to liberalise, to outlaw torture, to safeguard human rights?

Then why the constant push for countries to liberalise, to outlaw torture, to safeguard human rights?
'tis easier to see the speck in another's eye than the log in your own.

Then why the constant push for countries to liberalise, to outlaw torture, to safeguard human rights?

Good question

As much as I would like to think torture is usefull to extract vital information and that it doesnt matter what you do to terrorist ...and I would be wrong on both counts...Its about time the powers that be got off their pragmatic collective ass and realised that the US stands for alot of things and TORTURE of ANY prisoner is not one of them . I have thought alot about this and aside from the fact its just wrong on many levels , the political and practical effects of torturing prisoners for what ever reason strongly overcome any results the torture may produce . You just have to find a better way to get the info you need .
The reason the " black sites " never became a big deal are many . There is no info showing them to be gulags , concentration camps or any thing of the sort ..except the imaginings of chicken littles everywhere . They are " secret " to protect the governments where they are located from retaliation from the terrorist ...the press had no right to reveal the locations and arguably the existance of them. The leaking of the info itself was a crime ...the US has declared war on terrorism and as we speak is at war . You do not leak secrets during a time of war unless of course you do not mind bullets ripping into your heart during your breif stay before the firing squad . The CIA in fact has started the proccess to find the source of the leak and procecute them . Its not going to be the same as the political case against the so called leaker of the identity of the agent that never was .
This is a true case of leaking a war time secret . The CIA agent was not . In fact her identity was well known ...hence the lack of an indictable offence .

I hit Other. Mainly because of circumstances, for me torture is acceptable if you have:

A: Proof hes one of the higher up on Bin Ladens Hierarchy.
B: Hes being in-cooperative even at gunpoint.
C: Intel is time critical.

I only condone torture in a battlezone, not in some "black site".

If Bush Vetos the anti-torture bill, somethings gonna burn.

The problem with torture is its a catch 22. If someone is a terrorist its alright to torture them, but if not its not alright. But the only way to find out if theyre a terrorist is to torture them, so you have to torture people to see if its ok to torture them.

Course if it was bin laden its probly ok.

I'm against torture for reasons that have already been mentioned. It's inhuman and unreliable.

BTW what are the exact legal definitions for "torture" and "terrorist" in the US?

A: Proof hes one of the higher up on Bin Ladens Hierarchy.

I only condone torture in a battlezone, not in some "black site".proof in a Batlezone??

I can Imagine how reliable would that proof be...

and FYI we caugh #2 and #3 a few times...maybe we letting him go...and catching him again... before he makes it far :D

I'm against torture for reasons that have already been mentioned. It's inhuman and unreliable.

BTW what are the exact legal definitions for "torture" and "terrorist" in the US?
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations:
"...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

The U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) described a terrorist act as one which was: "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target."

# USA PATRIOT Act: "...acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" (SEC. 802.)

SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism)

proof in a Batlezone??

I can Imagine how reliable would that proof be...
-snip-

Well, I think of it this way - not that I know from expierence - but shouldn't the field commanders have some sort of picture..album? of the higher ups in Al-queda? Thats what I meant, they put a face to one of the big'ums and need some damn info.

# USA PATRIOT Act: "...acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" (SEC. 802.)

interesting...even the US Patriot act defines Bush as a Terrorist...

even more proof that:
Bush is a Terrorist

The invasion of Iraq WAS dangerous to human life and WAS in violation of Iraqi crminal Law.

Administering torture, under any circumstances, makes you a douchebag.
If we torture suspected douchebags, to make them give us names and places of other douchebags, we are no better than they.

Not surprising that one of the more outspoken people against this, is John McCain.

Republican.

Quick history quiz....

What did John MCain do during Nam?

So how can that be? How can the US populace, which has for so long understood Human Rights and the proper treatmen of all people to be absolutely vital, just let this happen?


1. US citizens do not have what I call the "social welfare responsibility" gene that Europeans assume that everyone has.
2. While we might have been keen on "wearing a white hat" in order to represent the "good guys", the act of 9-11 changed all that. Since then, most Americans (and I'm talking about the typical American on the street - not Democrats or Republicans or talking pundits) assume that if you're any kind of Islamic opponent of the US (doesn't matter if you're al-Qaeda or not) then your life is forfeit.

Note the dearth of US protesters on the streets of Washington DC, clamoring for the rights of detainees in Guantanamo.

Maybe we don't care because they started all of this. Maybe we don't care because they made it very, very, very clear that they aren't going to abide by any rules - that they will kill innocents at random and be gleeful about it - that they will take prisoners only to slit their throats on television - that they will make innocent women beg for their lives on the Internet - and that they do those things not because of any outrage we might commit in this war, but solely because they view us as far less than human already because we are infidels.

And their philosophical center, such as it is, revolves around the words of a man who says that their primary goal is to wipe out Western civilization by any means.

Ever wonder why the average American doesn't care if they live or die? It's rather generous of us that we didn't start off by using thermonuclear weapons - that we didn't massacre whole populations - that we didn't build industrial slaughterhouses like the Nazis - that we didn't stomp their religion out of existence and force people to abandon their religion - that we didn't open huge re-education camps - that we allowed them to write their own Constitutions.

You should be well aware that whatever abuses and atrocities that have been committed to this date are minimal because the US has actually shown restraint in comparison to the mood we felt in the immeidate aftermath of 9-11.

The next time something that big happens here, I suggest that you all hide in a fallout shelter until we're finished killing them - because the American public will not tolerate another act like that - it is politically unacceptable here. Any American President who does not respond with force will be bounced out of office in his underwear.

# USA PATRIOT Act: "...acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" (SEC. 802.)

Hmmm, that means anyone involved in cases of wife battery and child abuse can be classified as terrorists? Cooool.

The real problem is that it can then be expanded to just about cover anyone convicted of violent crime. True, the mugger should get a nice prison term, but I get a little fuzzy when it comes to sending him to some black site in the middle of nowhere without legal recourse.

It has been happening for years. If anything, the rest of the world is just relieved that you're finally starting to notice it.

Hear, hear!

- that we didn't build industrial slaughterhouses like the Nazis - that we didn't stomp their religion out of existence and force people to abandon their religion - that we didn't open huge re-education camps - that we allowed them to write their own Constitutions.
*snip*

Again though, here is the comparison with the Nazis. No one is claiming you are as bad or worse then they are. They should not be held up as a barometer of how well you are doing. Espousing "Well, we're not a bad as they were" doesn't make your argument for you!

As the bastion of liberty, freedom and the beacon of democracy... surely you should hold yourselves to a higher account then.... "Well, at least we're not as bad as the Nazis".

Ever wonder why the average American doesn't care if they live or die? It's rather generous of us that we didn't start off by using thermonuclear weapons - that we didn't massacre whole populations - that we didn't build industrial slaughterhouses like the Nazis - that we didn't stomp their religion out of existence and force people to abandon their religion - that we didn't open huge re-education camps - that we allowed them to write their own Constitutions.

You should be well aware that whatever abuses and atrocities that have been committed to this date are minimal because the US has actually shown restraint in comparison to the mood we felt in the immeidate aftermath of 9-11.

"The bad things we do aren't as bad as they could conceivably be, therefore they're not bad" or "At least we're better than the Nazis!".

Oh, the stupidity of the "argument." :rolleyes:

Again though, here is the comparison with the Nazis. No one is claiming you are as bad or worse then they are. They should not be held up as a barometer of how well you are doing. Espousing "Well, we're not a bad as they were" doesn't make your argument for you!

As the bastion of liberty, freedom and the beacon of democracy... surely you should hold yourselves to a higher account then.... "Well, at least we're not as bad as the Nazis".

The point I'm making is that considering the reaction on the street here in America to the 9-11 attacks (which radically changed our worldview towards Islamic extremists of any ilk), you're lucky that we're showing any restraint at all.

And the restraint will disappear if there's just one more major attack in the US.

The point I'm making is that considering the reaction on the street here in America to the 9-11 attacks (which radically changed our worldview towards Islamic extremists of any ilk), you're lucky that we're showing any restraint at all.

And the restraint will disappear if there's just one more major attack in the US.

Restraint? What restraint? Who would you unleash against? The phantom terrorists you have been chasing around the globe now for nigh on 5 years? Or would you actually go back TO AFGHANISTAN TO FIND BIN LADEN!!!

"Quick, lets nuke sumthin'"
"What?"
"I dunno.... sumthin'... there! That thing's moving!"
*BOOM*

Again though, here is the comparison with the Nazis. No one is claiming you are as bad or worse then they are. They should not be held up as a barometer of how well you are doing. Espousing "Well, we're not a bad as they were" doesn't make your argument for you!

As the bastion of liberty, freedom and the beacon of democracy... surely you should hold yourselves to a higher account then.... "Well, at least we're not as bad as the Nazis".


Some of us still do.

Wich is why some of us are so pissed off at the idea of using torture on detainees, or even the idea of having "detainees", and not "convicted criminals."

Some of us are disgusted by the actions of our President, and Congress.
Americans like to think we are still the "good guys", and that invading a third world country with lies and deceit as an exscuse, is deplorable.

Okay. Just because some torture bill forbids something, or the Europeans and lawyers don't like it, doesn't make it torture.

For example: sleep depreivation, stress postitions, water boarding, even getting smacked around a little, I don't think are "torture".

electrodes to genitals, breaking bones, sawing off limbs, that kind of thing is torture. But the CIA and what not won't do this crap anyway, however the torture bill is still too restrictive. The CIA needs more freedom to use interrogation methods without being bound by ridiculous restrictions. These are not good people, and we won't "torture" with or without the Bill.


Oh and torture definitly does work. If you know they know, torture pretty much always works.
"Oh but they'll make stuff up". Well, then they never knew in the first place and no interrogation will work anyway.

electrodes to genitals, breaking bones, sawing off limbs, that kind of thing is torture. But the CIA and what not won't do this crap anyway, however the torture bill is still too restrictive.

Ummm.... the CIA has beaten several people to death during interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq...

I must post this because if I dont post this I might never figure it out.
How come that all of the posts I read on NS that has to do with politics is focused on the U.S.? With the exception of the riots in France everything I read is:
Why does the U.S. do this?
Why does'nt the U.S. do that?
How come Bush is such a douche-bag?
Maybe I'm just reading the wrong posts. Maybe there are people out there who don't hate the U.S.
But I doubt it.:(

-Snip-
Didn't I see you in the Christian Politics thread telling us what Jesus would do?

I must post this because if I dont post this I might never figure it out.
How come that all of the posts I read on NS that has to do with politics is focused on the U.S.? With the exception of the riots in France everything I read is:
Why does the U.S. do this?
Why does'nt the U.S. do that?
How come Bush is such a douche-bag?
Maybe I'm just reading the wrong posts. Maybe there are people out there who don't hate the U.S.
But I doubt it.:(

Maybe you should travel to Ottawa for a week. See how many people call you a douchebag just for being an American.

Oh and torture definitly does work. If you know they know, torture pretty much always works.
"Oh but they'll make stuff up". Well, then they never knew in the first place and no interrogation will work anyway.
"If you know they know"... then why torture? Other avenues would have picked up on what they 'know' already, if the intell services are doing their jobs.

Torture doesn't give reliable, credible evidence. To be sure you need 100% accuracy- you don't get that with torture.

And on top of that, torture not only dehumanises a possible innocent, but also dehumanises the torturer... I know of no one that would be willing to torture another human being.

I must post this because if I dont post this I might never figure it out.
How come that all of the posts I read on NS that has to do with politics is focused on the U.S.? With the exception of the riots in France everything I read is:
Why does the U.S. do this?
Why does'nt the U.S. do that?
How come Bush is such a douche-bag?
Maybe I'm just reading the wrong posts. Maybe there are people out there who don't hate the U.S.
But I doubt it.:(
Because they are the flavour of the month. If NS was around 15 yrs ago, it would be about the US/USSR.

That and the majority of people here are US based- hell, a lot of threads are suited only to US politics. If you don't know internal US politics, you keep out of them! :D

Torture doesn't give reliable, credible evidence. To be sure you need 100% accuracy- you don't get that with torture.

Nothing gives you 100% accuracy. Also, there are methods that include deception that some will consider torture, while most will not.

Deception is the most effective form of interrogation, bar none.

Evidence isn't credible unless it's been multiply sourced, regardless of how you got them to tell you.

And, torture has been known to work on some (but not all) individuals.

I think that, for the most part, it's because most Americans (like most people everywhere) don't worry much about the big picture.

They worry about their job, their family and their belongings, and to hell with anything else.

There are blantant and numerous exceptions to this, but in the mind of the average American, the thought regarding these "Black Camps" probably runs along the lines of 'Well, it's just terrorists that are being tortured...'

Fortunatley, there are many in America who will not stand for it. Bush has threatened to veto the anti-torture legislation if exemptions for the CIA are not included.

If he does veto it, expect an outcry not seen in America in quite some time...

...(I hope :( )

I say we americans take it up where the french left off...large scale rebellion and rioting...If he vetoes it we BETTER riot or I will have lost all respect for the people and government of this nation...and to think I was happy the USNA voiced interest in me...

Hmmm, that means anyone involved in cases of wife battery and child abuse can be classified as terrorists? Cooool.Yup...anyone hitting others in a Bar Brawl...he is liable to win a Redsox Guldstream trip...all expenses paid :D

I must post this because if I dont post this I might never figure it out.
How come that all of the posts I read on NS that has to do with politics is focused on the U.S.? With the exception of the riots in France everything I read is:
Why does the U.S. do this?
Why does'nt the U.S. do that?
How come Bush is such a douche-bag?
Maybe I'm just reading the wrong posts. Maybe there are people out there who don't hate the U.S.
But I doubt it.:(
Are you another one of those people who compares criticism of government policy to hate? If it makes you feel any better I don't hate America.. anymore than I hate everyone else... damn people!

I say we americans take it up where the french left off...large scale rebellion and rioting...If he vetoes it we BETTER riot or I will have lost all respect for the people and government of this nation...and to think I was happy the USNA voiced interest in me...

Maybe you'll be rioting all by yourself.

Nothing gives you 100% accuracy. Also, there are methods that include deception that some will consider torture, while most will not.
I disagree. Intelligence gives 100% accuracy.

Deception is the most effective form of interrogation, bar none.

Evidence isn't credible unless it's been multiply sourced, regardless of how you got them to tell you.

Exactly. Torture is the last resort and shows that other avenues have failed. And if your intelligence services have failed you, then you are in the dark as to what the wo/man knows. Therefore you are shooting blindly into the night hoping to hit something and get lucky.


And, torture has been known to work on some (but not all) individuals.
Really? I would say it confirms what they already knew. In which case, torture was unnecessary in the first place.

Maybe there are people out there who don't hate the U.S.
But I doubt it.:(some wanted 4 more years of Bush...some love to be hated. (or maybe they are just ignorant of the real World )

Either way...close to 50% US voters fucked up...

I disagree. Intelligence gives 100% accuracy.

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Where do you suppose you get "intelligence"?

Really? I would say it confirms what they already knew. In which case, torture was unnecessary in the first place.

When Khalid Sheik Muhammed (the #3 Al-Qaeda man) was captured in Pakistan, he was taken immediately to Diego Garcia and waterboarded. That is, repeatedly nearly drowned until he talked.

It took three attempts (about 5 minutes) to get him to talk. They needed to know the names and locations of everyone he knew in the al-Q network before that information became useless.

He squealed like a pig. And his information was extremely accurate - and was new information that we didn't have before.

Maybe you'll be rioting all by yourself.
Hah! Im not that stupid. I wouldnt take part unless it turned into a civil war or something but I wish some people would riot. Itd show that everyone in the US isnt an apathetic, GOP toteing, douche bag(bar most of the people on NS even the republicans).

Hah! Im not that stupid. I wouldnt take part unless it turned into a civil war or something but I wish some people would riot. Itd show that everyone in the US isnt an apathetic, GOP toteing, douche bag(bar most of the people on NS even the republicans).
Maybe you should move to San Francisco.

In a part of Scotland during their period of witch hunting, one magistrate boasted of a 96% confession rate to witchcraft when torture/sleep deprivation was applied. If torture was in any way reliable, all the evidence seems to suggest that witches were indeed rampant in Early Modern Europe, and it was only this silly thing called "human rights" that stopped the rightful burning of thousands of old widows. Nowadays, unchecked, they must be even more common. Don't forget your garlic when you leave home! Oh wait...that's for vampires >.>

Maybe you should move to San Francisco.
Meh. Im going to move to some place that has all the technology of the current day but lives peacefully and in harmony(call me a hippie DO IT!). THen again I believe we(the US) have corrupted every corner of the world...

Meh. Im going to move to some place that has all the technology of the current day but lives peacefully and in harmony(call me a hippie DO IT!). THen again I believe we(the US) have corrupted every corner of the world...

Shhh...Is there a black van parked outside your house? They are always watching...watching...watching...

In a part of Scotland during their period of witch hunting, one magistrate boasted of a 96% confession rate to witchcraft when torture/sleep deprivation was applied. If torture was in any way reliable, all the evidence seems to suggest that witches were indeed rampant in Early Modern Europe, and it was only this silly thing called "human rights" that stopped the rightful burning of thousands of old widows. Nowadays, unchecked, they must be even more common. Don't forget your garlic when you leave home! Oh wait...that's for vampires >.>

Depends on the torturer, and the tortured.

And the nature of the torture. Some things that Europeans regard as "torture" are far removed from the days of hot irons and the rack.

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Where do you suppose you get "intelligence"?


Via intelligence services.. spies.. infiltration... radio/internet chatter... ringing any bells?

i.e NOT THROUGH TORTURE.


When Khalid Sheik Muhammed (the #3 Al-Qaeda man) was captured in Pakistan, he was taken immediately to Diego Garcia and waterboarded. That is, repeatedly nearly drowned until he talked.

It took three attempts (about 5 minutes) to get him to talk. They needed to know the names and locations of everyone he knew in the al-Q network before that information became useless.

He squealed like a pig. And his information was extremely accurate - and was new information that we didn't have before.
Thats interesting.... the Nazis did the same thing to Resistance members in the Polish ghettos.

Well done on proclaiming to be nothing like the Nazis!

Hah! Im not that stupid. I wouldnt take part unless it turned into a civil war or something but I wish some people would riot. Itd show that everyone in the US isnt an apathetic, GOP toteing, douche bag(bar most of the people on NS even the republicans).

Actually, the first thing I say to myself when I see a buch of people rioting is "What a bunch of doucebags.":p

Via intelligence services.. spies.. infiltration... radio/internet chatter... ringing any bells?

i.e NOT THROUGH TORTURE.

Thats interesting.... the Nazis did the same thing to Resistance members in the Polish ghettos.

Well done on proclaiming to be nothing like the Nazis!

Hey, it worked EXTREMELY well with Khalid Sheik Muhammed. Captured more guys with more of those interesting al-Qaeda laptops...

We already get information through the other sources, but those are not 100% either. Torture is just another tool in the kit.

You're pretty naive to believe that the methods you listed for intelligence gathering are 100% for anyone.

Pretty soon, you'll go back to the US Secretary of State who told Franklin Roosevelt that "gentlemen do not open each other's mail!"

Thats interesting.... the Nazis did the same thing to Resistance members in the Polish ghettos.

Well done on proclaiming to be nothing like the Nazis!

OMFG!!! The Nazi's also had a good economy and believed that Germany was the best nation on earth! That means tha all conservatives are Nazis!


And I think the Nazis went a little farther than waterboarding. :rolleyes:

In a part of Scotland during their period of witch hunting, one magistrate boasted of a 96% confession rate to witchcraft when torture/sleep deprivation was applied. If torture was in any way reliable, all the evidence seems to suggest that witches were indeed rampant in Early Modern Europe, and it was only this silly thing called "human rights" that stopped the rightful burning of thousands of old widows. Nowadays, unchecked, they must be even more common. Don't forget your garlic when you leave home! Oh wait...that's for vampires >.>


That proves my point. You can get anyone to say anything. Which includes the names of all their terrorists buddies. :p

OMFG!!! The Nazi's also had a good economy and believed that Germany was the best nation on earth! That means tha all conservatives are Nazis!

And I think the Nazis went a little farther than waterboarding. :rolleyes:

Their most effective torture technique was "the swings".

Have the prisoner squat and place his hands on his feet. Run an iron bar behind the knees and use cuffs to shackle his wrists to his ankles.

Pick the prisoner up by the bar, and place the ends of the bar in a wooden frame made for the purpose, allowing the prisoner to "swing".

Using a short whip, beat the prisoner until they are spinning around the bar. The pain of the whipping, along with the strain on the joints and the pain of not being able to unbend your back is enormous.

Occasionally take a break to revive the prisoner. While the prisoner is upside down, you can also pour water in their nose to give them the sensation of drowning (without actually drowning).

People have lasted as long as two days on the swings before confessing. For those who have experienced it before, the mere threat of doing it again is enough.

But, that's a Nazi technique, not an American one.

That proves my point. You can get anyone to say anything. Which includes the names of all their terrorists buddies. :p

Then we may hope for the demise of the US should it seriously lower itself to such depths. Oh, it already has. Never mind...

OMFG!!! The Nazi's also had a good economy and believed that Germany was the best nation on earth! That means tha all conservatives are Nazis!


And I think the Nazis went a little farther than waterboarding. :rolleyes:

If you read back a little before making an ass out of yourself, you would have read the following Again though, here is the comparison with the Nazis. No one is claiming you are as bad or worse then they are
we didn't massacre whole populations - that we didn't build industrial slaughterhouses like the Nazis

Merely because you don't do everything they did doesn't excuse the fact that you use the same methods they used.

Hey, it worked EXTREMELY well with Khalid Sheik Muhammed. Captured more guys with more of those interesting al-Qaeda laptops...

We already get information through the other sources, but those are not 100% either. Torture is just another tool in the kit.

You're pretty naive to believe that the methods you listed for intelligence gathering are 100% for anyone.

Becuase it works once does not mean it ill work all the time- not nearly all the time. If it worked for you on that guy and your happy with torture being used... where do you draw the line? How sure do you have to be before you torture someone? 90%? 50%? 10%?

How about torturing US citizens?

How about torturing your aunt, or niece, or cousin because they thought they had some intl, then released and said "Yeah, sorry bout that. Thought they were someone else. Eh.. but it was only through torture that we established that.... No hard feelings."

Torture goes against every principle democracy stands for and the moment you use it or espouse to use it- you stop living in the democratic society you love so dearly.

Torture goes against every principle democracy stands for and the moment you use it or espouse to use it- you stop living in the democratic society you love so dearly.

What's you're definition of torture?

If you were a captive, and I told you that your friend (who you were just with) had died during your capture (and you had no way to verify that), would that be simple deception or torture?

If you received an injection of something you believed to be a mind-altering substance (but was actually a simple saline solution) and you reacted to it as though you were drugged (this happens VERY frequently because a lot of people are willing to talk if they have an excuse to tell later "I was drugged"), would that be torture?

Eh? When is questioning torture? Isn't every prisoner intimidated by the very act of capture? I'm sorry I scared you Mr. Terrorist, here, we'll just let you go because you were intimidated...

If you read back a little before making an ass out of yourself, you would have read the following

Maybe you should look at what I was quoting... You brought up teh Nazi's...


How about torturing your aunt, or niece, or cousin because they thought they had some intl, then released and said "Yeah, sorry bout that. Thought they were someone else. Eh.. but it was only through torture that we established that.... No hard feelings."

Torture goes against every principle democracy stands for and the moment you use it or espouse to use it- you stop living in the democratic society you love so dearly.
I never said we should use torture. I just said that it works.

What's you're definition of torture?
What you described a 'waterboarding' previously.

Ah, the murky waters of 'coercion'. I think its a tricky subject and its a loophole that many govts can use to get away with abhorrent things.

Physical or psychological abuse I personally call torture. Being forced to stand in a brightly light cell, naked, nose to the wall for hours upon hours on end without water, food, sleep and maybe the odd beating thrown in.

Blasting loud music in? No.

Drugs? No, I don't have a problem with to be honest.

Threat to family outside? Yes. I would call that torture- psychological.

Maybe you should look at what I was quoting... You brought up teh Nazi's...

No, Deep Kimchi did. He gave an example of a torture method used by the American troops/CIA. I merely showed that it was identical to methods the Nazis used... when Deep Kimchi said the US wasn't like the Nazis... i pointed out through his own words that they used the same methods. Happy now?

What you described a 'waterboarding' previously.

Ah, the murky waters of 'coercion'. I think its a tricky subject and its a loophole that many govts can use to get away with abhorrent things.

Physical or psychological abuse I personally call torture. Being forced to stand in a brightly light cell, naked, nose to the wall for hours upon hours on end without water, food, sleep and maybe the odd beating thrown in.

Blasting loud music in? No.

Drugs? No, I don't have a problem with to be honest.

Threat to family outside? Yes. I would call that torture- psychological.



Well, on the definitions, we have different opinions. *shrug*

Well, on the definitions, we have different opinions. *shrug*
Isn't that kinda the whole point? :p

Well, what do you consider to be torture and what is not torture?

Drugs? No, I don't have a problem with to be honest.

There's a method of implanting electrodes into the pleasure center of the brain through stereotactic surgery.

Apparently, no animal can resist the pleasure - it's supposedly millions of times more pleasurable than any drug high or sex act. Rats will cross shock grids to get the stimulation, and monkeys will starve to death in order to continue to press the button to get the stimulation.

If we put that into a terrorist's head, pressed the button to make him realize what he could get for cooperating, and then asked him questions and rewarded accurate answers (that we verify through other sources) with more pleasure stimulation, is that torture to you?

He would be begging for the stimulation - it would be a harder addiction than any drug.

There's a method of implanting electrodes into the pleasure center of the brain through stereotactic surgery.

Apparently, no animal can resist the pleasure - it's supposedly millions of times more pleasurable than any drug high or sex act. Rats will cross shock grids to get the stimulation, and monkeys will starve to death in order to continue to press the button to get the stimulation.
If we put that into a terrorist's head, pressed the button to make him realize what he could get for cooperating, and then asked him questions and rewarded accurate answers (that we verify through other sources) with more pleasure stimulation, is that torture to you?

He would be begging for the stimulation - it would be a harder addiction than any drug.

Its hard to make a judgement on just those few lines you have presented. The parts in bold would worry me. If it involves the inevitable death of the suspect through my own cause of implanting such a device then, the end result is the same... for both of us. He's dead.... I've been responsible for creating such extraordinary pain and death.

If it was something that could eaily be cured, like say some counter agent to counter the effects of such a drug when you are finished with him, then no. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

My main problem is that, no one gives me the right to cause the death of another person... especially when I could have prevented it or helped him. Just because we fight them, doesn't mean we have to be as bad as them.

Its hard to make a judgement on just those few lines you have presented. The parts in bold would worry me. If it involves the inevitable death of the suspect through my own cause of implanting such a device then, the end result is the same... for both of us. He's dead.... I've been responsible for creating such extraordinary pain and death.

If it was something that could eaily be cured, like say some counter agent to counter the effects of such a drug when you are finished with him, then no. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

My main problem is that, no one gives me the right to cause the death of another person... especially when I could have prevented it or helped him. Just because we fight them, doesn't mean we have to be as bad as them.

No, the process doesn't kill you or physically harm you.

It's just that you, like an addict, will do anything in order to get another stimulation.

They say it feels millions of times more pleasurable and intense than any drug or sex. And lasts as long as the current is on.

So, we let the guy have a taste, and then we tell him:

"Tell us something, and if we find out it's true, we'll come back and give you another 30 seconds of pleasure".

Would that be torture to you?

No, the process doesn't kill you or physically harm you.

Then I find it hard to classify that (in my personal definition) as torture.
You might as well classify your local heroine/cocaine dealer as a torturer by that definition.

*Why do I feel like I just walked into something... *

Then I find it hard to classify that (in my personal definition) as torture.
You might as well classify your local heroine/cocaine dealer as a torturer by that definition.

*Why do I feel like I just walked into something... *

It's far more addictive than any drug in existence. The person would become your willing slave.

In fact, you could turn such a person to your own purposes. They would kill at your order in order to receive another stimulation.

"Here, go back to your friends and give them this package. Then come back to the car, and we'll give you another 30 seconds..."

It's far more addictive than any drug in existence. The person would become your willing slave.

In fact, you could turn such a person to your own purposes. They would kill at your order in order to receive another stimulation.

"Here, go back to your friends and give them this package. Then come back to the car, and we'll give you another 30 seconds..."

Again.... treading carefully in my responses to you.... I don't trust you Deep Kimchi ;)

But I agree, that wouldn't be torture IMO.

Slavery maybe. :D

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Where do you suppose you get "intelligence"?

When Khalid Sheik Muhammed (the #3 Al-Qaeda man) was captured in Pakistan, he was taken immediately to Diego Garcia and waterboarded. That is, repeatedly nearly drowned until he talked.

It took three attempts (about 5 minutes) to get him to talk. They needed to know the names and locations of everyone he knew in the al-Q network before that information became useless.

He squealed like a pig. And his information was extremely accurate - and was new information that we didn't have before.

I haven't heard about this before. Do you have a link? I wouldn't think that the accuracy of his information was common knowledge.

I haven't heard about this before. Do you have a link? I wouldn't think that the accuracy of his information was common knowledge.
The New York Times and Atlantic Monthly both covered this a long time ago (he was captured a long time ago).

It's why the US was able to clear out so much of the upper levels of al-Qaeda in such a short time, allowing the US to claim that 75 percent of their upper level organization had been captured or assassinated.

And why we have obtained so many of their laptops.

There's a method of implanting electrodes into the pleasure center of the brain through stereotactic surgery.

Apparently, no animal can resist the pleasure - it's supposedly millions of times more pleasurable than any drug high or sex act. Rats will cross shock grids to get the stimulation, and monkeys will starve to death in order to continue to press the button to get the stimulation.

If we put that into a terrorist's head, pressed the button to make him realize what he could get for cooperating, and then asked him questions and rewarded accurate answers (that we verify through other sources) with more pleasure stimulation, is that torture to you?

He would be begging for the stimulation - it would be a harder addiction than any drug.

Sounds like something from room 101.

The New York Times and Atlantic Monthly both covered this a long time ago (he was captured a long time ago).

It's why the US was able to clear out so much of the upper levels of al-Qaeda in such a short time, allowing the US to claim that 75 percent of their upper level organization had been captured or assassinated.

And why we have obtained so many of their laptops.

Well, I read about it at the time, but I can't recall that any government officials confirmed that they had used torture to recieve the information, neither commented on the accuracy of his information. 'Course, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened...

On the other hand, I don't think we'll see a statement like "Well, we tortured this sum'bitch 'till the brink of death, but all he told us was lies", so I fear we cannot take their word for whether or not torture is an efficient tool. Personally, I have strong doubts about the effectiveness (and usefullness) of torture, not to mention moral objections, but I think it will be used in the war on terror because many feel that suspected terrorist have lost their rights to live or even be treated humanely.

This will be the future of interrogation:

http://www.wireheading.com/

Depends on the torturer, and the tortured.

And the nature of the torture. Some things that Europeans regard as "torture" are far removed from the days of hot irons and the rack.

This is how I expected someone would respond, but in actual fact there were very strict regulations on torture in Europe. After torture of free people as a means to gain evidence was allowed (In the 'barbarian' kingdoms of the Goths, it was illegal) in many continental countries in the cases of treason and heresy with the revival of Roman law, people went to great lengths to make sure it wasn't abused. Torture was confined to certain acts, similar to the sorts of torture you approve of, such as near drowning and ripping out fingernails, and should never cause permenant damage to the accused. Once you'd being tortured, you couldn't be tortured again for a long while and even if you did confess under torture you could always retract it - people even then knew how incredibly unreliable it could be.

The 96% figure came from a Magistrate who usually preferred to use sleep deprivation, since the Scottish legal system was a hybrid of the English system which forbid torture, and the continental which allowed it - it was ambiguous in Scotland.

Moreover, don't just assume that the CIA are plain better at torture so it's alright. Since the early modern torturers, usually doubling as executioners, were well experienced in it and formally trained as an apprentice, they probably knew just as well how to go about it - perhaps more so, assuming that the CIA aren't trained in it.

This is how I expected someone would respond, but in actual fact there were very strict regulations on torture in Europe. After torture of free people as a means to gain evidence was allowed (In the 'barbarian' kingdoms of the Goths, it was illegal) in many continental countries in the cases of treason and heresy with the revival of Roman law, people went to great lengths to make sure it wasn't abused. Torture was confined to certain acts, similar to the sorts of torture you approve of, such as near drowning and ripping out fingernails, and should never cause permenant damage to the accused. Once you'd being tortured, you couldn't be tortured again for a long while and even if you did confess under torture you could always retract it - people even then knew how incredibly unreliable it could be.

The 96% figure came from a Magistrate who usually preferred to use sleep deprivation, since the Scottish legal system was a hybrid of the English system which forbid torture, and the continental which allowed it - it was ambiguous in Scotland.


I don't know why people bother with the old fashioned methods.

It's relatively easy to insert electrodes into the pain and pleasure centers of the brain, and stimulate them ad infinitum with no physical damage to the patient, although they will experience far greater pain or pleasure than can ever be physically experienced.

I would bet that you could get very quick results with that. A pleasure that no one can resist, and a pain that no one can tolerate. And the ability of the interrogator to apply either at will, for as long as the interrogator wishes.

I don't know why people bother with the old fashioned methods.

It's relatively easy to insert electrodes into the pain and pleasure centers of the brain, and stimulate them ad infinitum with no physical damage to the patient, although they will experience far greater pain or pleasure than can ever be physically experienced.

I would bet that you could get very quick results with that. A pleasure that no one can resist, and a pain that no one can tolerate. And the ability of the interrogator to apply either at will, for as long as the interrogator wishes.

There! Thats what I'm against. I knew you were up to something. ;)

There! Thats what I'm against. I knew you were up to something. ;)

The pleasure center would be sufficient to get results.

Hey, it worked EXTREMELY well with Khalid Sheik Muhammed. Captured more guys with more of those interesting al-Qaeda laptops...

We already get information through the other sources, but those are not 100% either. Torture is just another tool in the kit.
And what happened to that information? Is the world a safer place? Has Bin Laden been found? Is the information acurate (and how would you tell)?

Sorry, but I don't buy your big talk "torture saves lives" bull. Indeed, I would go as far as say that torture edangers lives. Why? If you were in an armed conflict and knew that your opponent used torture, wouldn't you be even less interested in how you treat the enemy.

If you condone torture than you sink to the level of those you fight. And if you do that then you've lost the fight anyway.

But here's a thought - maybe you started on that level anyway (secret assassinations, coup d'etats in states that dare elect governments not pleasing to your political view, faked reasons to start a war (no, I'm not talking about Iraq here - google Tonkin).

When you think about it, we all are still just animals ...

The pleasure center would be sufficient to get results.

I doubt it. Besides, there would probably be those who said it would take too long (since one would first have to administer enough pleasure to make the subject addicted, and then take it away with the promise of more after the subject cooperates), and therefore one would probably go straight to pain. After all, time is money ;)
...I mean of course life, democracy and liberty, not money. :cool:

And what happened to that information? Is the world a safer place? Has Bin Laden been found? Is the information acurate (and how would you tell)?

75 percent of the upper echelons of al-Qaeda were captured or assassinated in the immediate aftermath of Khalid's torture - captures that included more al-Q laptops and information.

Pretty accurate stuff - and Bin Laden had to sharply restrict his communications even more after that date.

Why do you place so much on finding Bin Laden? Do you honestly think this would stop if he were captured?

Why do you place so much on finding Bin Laden? Do you honestly think this would stop if he were captured?
Aw.. not you too!

No but it would give crediance to the thought that America actually WANTS to find and bring justice to the people responsible for the WTC attacks. Rather then on some half cocked informal imperialist galavant around the globe.

75 percent of the upper echelons of al-Qaeda were captured or assassinated in the immediate aftermath of Khalid's torture - captures that included more al-Q laptops and information.

Pretty accurate stuff - and Bin Laden had to sharply restrict his communications even more after that date.

Why do you place so much on finding Bin Laden? Do you honestly think this would stop if he were captured?
I don't care about the capture of Bin Laden one way or another in terms of safety. I just don't believe the whole "Oh we seriously crippled Al-Quaeda, we got 75% of their top guys" rhethoric. It doesn't seem to have much effect, does it? Madrid, London - Afghanistan? Does anyone remember Afghanistan? It is still a very war torn place, warlords in (actual) power and the Taliban on the rise again. Great job guys!

Here's a nice conspiracy theory for you: The war in Iraq was started as a smoke screen, so that people wouldn't notice how fruitles the actual, original war on terror is. Of course noone had expected the Iraqis to fight back.

And with that little thought I'l brave the danger that is a rush hour car commute. Good Night :p

Aw.. not you too!

No but it would give crediance to the thought that America actually WANTS to find and bring justice to the people responsible for the WTC attacks. Rather then on some half cocked informal imperialist galavant around the globe.

You're under the misguided impression that this is a law enforcement effort.

We're in a war, whether you like it or not. Declared by Bin Laden almost ten years before Bush took office. The stated goal is to annihilate the West.

Sure, it would be nice to capture him, and hang him during the half-time show at the Super Bowl.

But the war would not end - he has quite a few followers.

My money's on BOTH. (http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-16-05.jpg)

My money's on BOTH. (http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-16-05.jpg)

You're making the mistaken assumption that I care if they're tortured.

I assume that torture is going on, whether we hear about it in the media or not.

I also assume that most nations, even some of those who claim not to torture, do so during times of conflict. Not just the US, but other Western nations as well.

And I believe that under some circumstances, torture can be useful and may provide useful information.

You're under the misguided impression that this is a law enforcement effort.

We're in a war, whether you like it or not. Declared by Bin Laden almost ten years before Bush took office. The stated goal is to annihilate the West.

Sure, it would be nice to capture him, and hang him during the half-time show at the Super Bowl.

But the war would not end - he has quite a few followers.

You know the quickest way to win a fight? Don't lie to your friends. Get them on your side... and NOT go on some 'crusade' to spread democracy and freedom and all that jazz... that, face it guys, we ALL know is BS.

Now, personally, if America had said "we don't like Saddam. He's become pain in our ass and we're going to take him out" I would have understood and said grand.

But because this BS about 'freedom' and 'spreading democracy' and the War on Terror was linked to Iraq... and LIED about it- that above all else angers me.

Find Bin Laden. Blammo- you got allies again because it looks like your actions are meeting up with your words. (not 'your' but American admins.)

Edit: Actually, ignore this- its gone too far off topic.

~SNIP~
The next time something that big happens here, I suggest that you all hide in a fallout shelter until we're finished killing them - because the American public will not tolerate another act like that - it is politically unacceptable here. Any American President who does not respond with force will be bounced out of office in his underwear.
I officially add my name to the list of people who wholeheartedly agree with this.

You know the quickest way to win a fight? Don't lie to your friends. Get them on your side... and NOT go on some 'crusade' to spread democracy and freedom and all that jazz... that, face it guys, we ALL know is BS.

Now, personally, if America had said "we don't like Saddam. He's become pain in our ass and we're going to take him out" I would have understood and said grand.

But because this BS about 'freedom' and 'spreading democracy' and the War on Terror was linked to Iraq... and LIED about it- that above all else angers me.

Find Bin Laden. Blammo- you got allies again because it looks like your actions are meeting up with your words. (not 'your' but American admins.)

You will notice that I'm not the President.

If I had been the President, I would have made the case for invading Iraq solely on three points:

1. UNSCOM says there's 1800 gallons of anthrax missing - not US intelligence, not UK intelligence - UNSCOM says so.
2. Saddam is the only world leader who openly praised the 9-11 attacks. So I would count him as sympathetic to people who want to do some more of the same - he doesn't have to be a direct ally or have a direct agreement.
3. 1800 gallons of anthrax is enough to kill everyone in the world, even if all you do is throw it from the tops of tall buildings in various countries. Put that together with point 2, and I have all the reason I need.

I would have invaded Iraq and right after the initial victory, I would have deliberately demolished most of the major cities and infrastructure, and then left. Just like the Mongols.

PS - we had a few anthrax attacks in the US we were never able to trace

I would not have concentrated on capturing Bin Laden. I would have concentrated on a worldwide campaign of assassination of everyone who was friendly to him - his network of people, their friends and relatives, the people who owe them money.

I would not have taken prisoners in Afghanistan. There would be no Guantanamo. According to the Geneva Convention, you are never required to accept a surrender offer.

I wouldn't have made the statement that you're either for us or against us. I would have said that if you want to help, you're welcome. If you don't want to help, that's fine. If you're against us, we're coming to kill you and burn your houses to the ground.

As the bastion of liberty, freedom and the beacon of democracy... surely you should hold yourselves to a higher account then.... "Well, at least we're not as bad as the Nazis".
Why is it that when we say were are "the bastion of liberty, freedom and the beacon of democracy", everyone flips out and claims their country is SO much better, but when we aren't acting how you want us to, you can bring it up?

Restraint? What restraint? Who would you unleash against? The phantom terrorists you have been chasing around the globe now for nigh on 5 years? Or would you actually go back TO AFGHANISTAN TO FIND BIN LADEN!!!

"Quick, lets nuke sumthin'"
"What?"
"I dunno.... sumthin'... there! That thing's moving!"
*BOOM*
Were still in Afghanistan, genius. Sorry it doesn't make the news wherever you are. Apparently it isn't too high on the medias priority list. :rolleyes:

You're making the mistaken assumption that I care if they're tortured.
You're making the mistaken assumption I was trying to persuade you as to right vs. wrong.

You have to decide that for yourself. And live with the consequences of your decision.

Personally, I think it's incredibly stupid.

*snip*
I know. You're a realist, a pragmatist too :p Shame we all can't think that 'if i was in power'.... But like I said getting into a whole other argument.. and an old one at that.

Were still in Afghanistan, genius. Sorry it doesn't make the news wherever you are. Apparently it isn't too high on the medias priority list.

US troops in Iraq- roughly 130-140,000
Us troops in Afghanistan- roughly 18,000

Priorities? Doesn't seem to be in finding the people that carried out terrorist attacks on the US.

Why is it that when we say were are "the bastion of liberty, freedom and the beacon of democracy", everyone flips out and claims their country is SO much better, but when we aren't acting how you want us to, you can bring it up?

Is that your defence for using torture? "We're not as bad as the Nazis" :rolleyes:

And I never 'flipped out'. I was using common enough terminology that some US people/pundits/media outlets/politicians use.

Why is it that when we say were are "the bastion of liberty, freedom and the beacon of democracy", everyone flips out and claims their country is SO much better, but when we aren't acting how you want us to, you can bring it up?

Joe claims to be perfect, righteous and above all other "inferiour", expendable, peoples. He is laughed at and ignored by most others, although he constantly persists this lecturing until it gets real boring real fast. Joe then commits an immoral act (Say, burns down an orphanage). Everybody else, who are pretty pissed off at Joe's annoying arrogance, questions how he can make the claims he makes whilst simultaneously acting so evil. Joe turns round and says "Shut up! You didn't believe that I was perfect, so you have no right to bring it up! I'm still perfect though..."

Is what Joe says rational?

Joe claims to be perfect, righteous and above all other "inferiour", expendable, peoples. He is laughed at and ignored by most others, although he constantly persists this lecturing until it gets real boring real fast. Joe then commits an immoral act (Say, burns down an orphanage). Everybody else, who are pretty pissed off at Joe's annoying arrogance, questions how he can make the claims he makes whilst simultaneously acting so evil. Joe turns round and says "Shut up! You didn't believe that I was perfect, so you have no right to bring it up! I'm still perfect though..."

Is what Joe says rational?

Well, I'm not Joe. And I don't claim to be moral or ethical.

I view the war against Islamic extremism as a global insurgency - World War IV in a global war against a guerilla enemy. And I act according to Realpolitik, not according to moral or ethical standards.

I don't capture them because I'm a policeman - because I'm not a policeman. The US is not the World Police. I regard this solely as a matter of survival - and the more of them we kill, and faster, the better it will be.

<snip>

Look back to France during WW2. The Germans destroyed whole villages in reprisal attacks against the French resistance. They used torture and fear to try and wipe them out. Yet when Allied tanks rolled in the resistance was alive and well.

Killings and torture will not stop this guerilla enemy. The resistance kept on fighting despite hideous losses. You think that people who will blow themselves up will do any less?

Look back to France during WW2. The Germans destroyed whole villages in reprisal attacks against the French resistance. They used torture and fear to try and wipe them out. Yet when Allied tanks rolled in the resistance was alive and well.

Killings and torture will not stop this guerilla enemy. The resistance kept on fighting despite hideous losses. You think that people who will blow themselves up will do any less?

The number of people in the French Resistance climbed dramatically on Liberation Day. So I discount a lot of French Resistance talk.

I'm not using torture and fear to wipe them out. I'm using weapons.

If I were President, there wouldn't be anyone alive in Afghanistan and parts of northern Pakistan right now. And definitely no one alive in North Korea.

I view the war against Islamic extremism as a global insurgency - World War IV in a global war against a guerilla enemy. And I act according to Realpolitik, not according to moral or ethical standards.

I must've missed the memo about World War III. :rolleyes:

Other. If it's neccessary in an emergency to get information that will save lives then torture is OK. Otherwise no. Also it depends what you consider torture. Sleep deprivation is considered torture by some. Not by me.

I must've missed the memo about World War III. :rolleyes:

The Cold War was WW III. Over a long time ago.

The Cold War was WW III. Over a long time ago.
That was so not a war.

That was so not a war.
Ask the proxy nations that fought it (most of the guerilla wars of the period).
Ask the families of the men who were shot down over the USSR (mostly British).

Ask the proxy nations that fought it (most of the guerilla wars of the period).
Ask the families of the men who were shot down over the USSR (mostly British).
Nuh-uh. Not a war.

If I were President, there wouldn't be anyone alive in Afghanistan and parts of northern Pakistan right now. And definitely no one alive in North Korea.
You sound like somebody affected with a personality disorder marked by aggressive, violent, antisocial thought and behavior and a lack of remorse or empathy.:(

Is you hatred and fear that deeply ingrained?

Well, I'm not Joe. And I don't claim to be moral or ethical.


I was merely using an example to show Sick Nightmares how his attitude might be seen. If you don't claim America to be somehow ethically superiour in the first place then it doesn't apply.

You sound like somebody affected with a personality disorder marked by aggressive, violent, antisocial thought and behavior and a lack of remorse or empathy.:(

Is you hatred and fear that deeply ingrained?

Ad hominem. Try again.

In fact, it's been confirmed by psychological evaluation that I'm an extremely stable person, to be trusted with decisionmaking in a thermonuclear life or death context (not that I do that sort of work anymore).

Nuh-uh. Not a war.
I agree with Mr. Dobbs.

Cold War was not a war in the way World War 2 was. Cold War wasn't the whole world!

Ad hominem. Try again.

In fact, it's been confirmed by psychological evaluation that I'm an extremely stable person, to be trusted with decisionmaking in a thermonuclear life or death context (not that I do that sort of work anymore).
Yet you think that is acceptable to wipe 53+ Million people (Afghanistan & N. Korea) off the face of the earth? Even Hitler and Stalin didn't come close to those kind of numbers, and you know how much those two are loved by the world?

Yet you think that is acceptable to wipe 53+ Million people (Afghanistan & N. Korea) off the face of the earth? Even Hitler and Stalin didn't come close to those kind of numbers, and you know how much those two are loved by the world?

Stalin killed about 40 million people, of which roughly 20 million were his own people in peacetime.

Add Hitler's count to that, and you go way over.

It's not the numbers that count - it's the reason - without taking morals or ethics into any consideration at all.

In decisions regarding thermonuclear weapons, you're not supposed to take morality or ethics into account - only game theory and your own nation's survival.

Otherwise, the more unstable threatening nations will cow you into surrender to their demands.

(not having read the whole thread)

I answered "Other" because "Torture" was undefined.

What do you mean? Physical? Mental? Psychological? Religious?

Is simple incarceration (a jail cell marginally less well appointed than a Motel 6) torture? It is to some.

How about being forced to eat weird things... what if those weird things are the staples of the area?

Pain has its uses - a child learns early that touching a hot stove is a bad idea. Isolation can either be a torture or blessed relief.

Is it torture because, as with Pr0n, "you know it when you see it"?

IMO, if it's not crippling, disfiguring or debilitating it's not torture.

IMO, if it's not crippling, disfiguring or debilitating it's not torture.
So I guess the ol' water torture doesn't figure into your particular bag o' torture tricks?

So I guess the ol' water torture doesn't figure into your particular bag o' torture tricks?
I would count permanent insanity as "debilitating"...

There's a method of implanting electrodes into the pleasure center of the brain through stereotactic surgery.

... is that torture to you?
Any unnecessary surgery is Criminal.
If you cut her because she needs it...and she agrees..like in a hospital..that is medical application.

But...If you cut her whenever she does not need that surgery...That is Criminal..
and If you cut her just to force her to talk... that is Terrorism.

(used the female form for both genders)

I would count permanent insanity as "debilitating"...
Ahh, see I'd thought 'debilitating' was used to refer to physical debilitation. Seems like people just don't give a toss about the psychological well-being of those who've been interred these days.

My bad. Apologies.

Ahh, see I'd thought 'debilitating' was used to refer to physical debilitation. Seems like people just don't give a toss about the psychological well-being of those who've been interred these days.Within reason. I don't have any qualms about making someone "feel bad", or even "terrify" them if necessary. (Brittney Spears Videos?) The key is "permenant". If they have to have a mild (temporary) nervous breakdown to speak the truth (only to save lives), so be it... as long as they are not left gibbering loons - somthing the "water torture" is said to do.

My bad. Apologies.None needed. I'm still a rat-bastard. ;)

... "terrify" them if necessary. ... ... nervous breakdown to speak the truth (only to save lives)In previous Wars

Germans Tortured .. only to save German lives.
Japanese Tortured ..only to save Japanese lives.
British Tortured .. only to save British lives.
Vietnamese Tortured ..only to save Vietnamese lives.
Russians Tortured .. only to save Russians lives.
American Tortured ..only to save American lives.
Jews Tortured .. only to save Jewish lives.
Palestineans Tortured ..only to save Palestinean lives.
We nuked japanese school Children to save American soldiers lives.

Currently we are running the "War on Terror"...

I am sure all sides are torturing .."only to save lifes"

.... I'm still a rat-bastard.
I dont know about you...but all the people using the "only to save lifes" line are rat-bastards.

I think a lot of torture exists because people like to do it. There are a lot of sadistic people out there, who get off on inflicting physical pain on other people. There's no rational or logical reason for doing so, it's just human nature. For instance in the Abu Ghraib situation, there was no reason for torturing and humiliating those prisoners, that's just what the guards felt like doing.

In previous Wars

Germans Tortured .. only to save German lives.
Japanese Tortured ..only to save Japanese lives.
British Tortured .. only to save British lives.
Vietnamese Tortured ..only to save Vietnamese lives.
Russians Tortured .. only to save Russians lives.
American Tortured ..only to save American lives.
Jews Tortured .. only to save Jewish lives.
Palestineans Tortured ..only to save Palestinean lives.
And if the tourture was done without causing permenant injury (see above) what of it?
We nuked japanese school Children to save American soldiers lives. And strangely enough, it Worked... saved a piss lot of Japanese lives too.
Currently we are running the "War on Terror"...Only because no one else seems willing to...
I am sure all sides are torturing .."only to save lifes"I don't see how Beheadings save lives...
I dont know about you...but all the people using the "only to save lifes" line are rat-bastards.As are those who use the "for the children" line.

Humans are Rat bastards and that isn't going to change.

dp

dp

..
I don't see how Beheadings save lives....They Behead US-forces AND they Torture US-forces...

US-forces Burn them AND Torture them...

Both sides commit all the atrocities hoping to "end the war sooner" thus "saving (our side's) soldiers lives"

all the atrocities are meant to break the enemy will...and "end the war sooner".

like I said... Rats bastards are running your so called War-on-terror.

They Behead US-forces AND they Torture US-forces... They behead and torture more than US forces...
US-forces Burn them AND Torture them...And our guys go to jail for it...
Both sides commit all the atrocities hoping to "end the war sooner" thus "saving (our side's) soldiers lives" Then how do you explain their lack of concern for their "soldiers" lives - i.e. using them as attrition-splodydopes?
all the atrocities are meant to break the enemy will...and "end the war sooner".Nope. Interrogation (torture to you) is specifically to get information, not break the will of the enemy at large. Terrorist/Media events however...
like I said... Rats bastards are running your so called War-on-terror.Good thing too. Losing and being killed for my (un)belief is rather unappealing.

I also assume that most nations, even some of those who claim not to torture, do so during times of conflict. Not just the US, but other Western nations as well.
Here is the case of a German policeman threatening "intense pain" to save a kidnapped child.
Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Policeman-guilty-of-terrorising-kidnapper/2004/12/21/1103391774619.html?from=moreStories&oneclick=true)
I'm not at all happy with the lenient sentence, I would've put him in jail for at least 5 years.

Here is the case of a German policeman threatening "intense pain" to save a kidnapped child.
Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Policeman-guilty-of-terrorising-kidnapper/2004/12/21/1103391774619.html?from=moreStories&oneclick=true)
I'm not at all happy with the lenient sentence, I would've put him in jail for at least 5 years.
And if it had saved/found the child?

And if it had saved/found the child?
Then that still isn't worth abandoning our principles.

Here is the case of a German policeman threatening "intense pain" to save a kidnapped child.
Oh, BTW, what is "intense pain"? Pain is entirely subjective. If nothing is broken, disfigured, crippled or otherwise sustains permenant damage (i.e. requiring restorative medical treatment) how can you say applying "intense pain" is always wrong?

Properly applied joint-locks are intensely painful, yet are a non-injurious way of controlling someone wishing to fight you. Rendering someone unconscious with a blow to the head hurts very little. Which is better? Pain or Concussion?

Then that still isn't worth abandoning our principles.
Tell that to the mother. Dead child, living murderer, intact "principles". Good trade. :rolleyes:

Tell that to the mother. Dead child, living murderer, intact "principles". Good trade. :rolleyes:
The Principles are greater than the lot of us. It's not worth it to save one child and condemn hundreds or thousands in the future by setting a precedence.
It's basically the same thing as with anti-terror laws: You might be able to save a few people, but at the same time you throw out everything you stand for, and ultimately end up worse off.

The Principles are greater than the lot of us. It's not worth it to save one child and condemn hundreds or thousands in the future by setting a precedence.
It's basically the same thing as with anti-terror laws: You might be able to save a few people, but at the same time you throw out everything you stand for, and ultimately end up worse off.
But you see, no-one has effectively defined "torture". To some, anything and everything a police/military agency does to a criminal or suspect is "torture".

When did "threatening intense pain" become torture?

The biggest problem with the anti-terror laws is their breadth. Knowing about the activities of a criminal is in itself a crime. If, through non-invasive surveilance/investigation I can tie you to knowledge of Violent Criminal(s) and their plans, then I SHOULD be able to warrant your arrest and extract information from you... but as of yet, there is no good demarcation between "interrogation" and "Torture". (Oh, I'm sorry, did my questions make you cry? I didn't mean to torture you. You're free to go and maintain your conspiracy of silence...) :rolleyes:

When did "threatening intense pain" become torture?
Threatening is not turture. Using intense pain, physically or mentally to gain access to information is.

The UN says this (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html):
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Fact of the matter is that our nations were founded on the inviolability of the individual, on individual rights, and so on. The first sentence of the German constitution says: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.". And the US has something about "cruel and unusual punishment" in there as well.

Using Pain is against the very principles the Western world stands upon, regardless who attacks it and what methods those guys use.
You cannot defend the constitutional state by destroying it, whether it be torture or anti-terror legislation.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This is what you are abandoning. And nowhere in the Constitution does it state that Americans are not under it because they were off of American soil. As a matter of fact, the courts have held up the notion that Americans can be tried in America for violation of American laws, even if said crimes happened in another country.

You abandon this, to 'save lives', you then willingly state that you find the Constitution of the United States to be subjective to your own interpritation whensoever it suits you. I don't want to hear any more whining about judical activists or strict interpritation because it's right there. You can't include torture as NOT being "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

When fighting a war, it is important sometimes to step back and ask: what exactly are we fighting for? Our president would call it 'valyas', many politicians call it liberty, but whatever you call it, we are fighting to preserve the general principles of a democratic society. One of these principles (go figure) is human rights. When you start violating these basic principles, whatever the justification, you aren't fighting at all: you've already lost.

Arguments cited by various posters bring to mind the story of the guy who steals a painting because he thinks it's going to be taken the next day by somebody else. Great, you stopped them from messing with it, but you did it yourself. If you want to stop terrorists from destroying our liberty, then show you care about liberty yourself, don't preemptively violate it yourself. Since we are fighting to preserve these principles, we shouldn't compromise on them ourselves. Period.

Well said.

And so we have it: In a not very accurate and useful poll, we have significant differences in the feelings on torture.

Americans
Yes - 23%
No - 64%
Other - 13%

Non-Americans
Yes - 9%
No - 87%
Other - 4%

How come? Do Americans feel more threatened from Terrorism? Or don't they believe in their principles as strongly?

Very strange, and a little worrying - though I think if you ask proper samples, the results will be different.

Well said.

And so we have it: In a not very accurate and useful poll, we have significant differences in the feelings on torture.

Americans
Yes - 23%
No - 64%
Other - 13%

Non-Americans
Yes - 9%
No - 87%
Other - 4%

How come? Do Americans feel more threatened from Terrorism? Or don't they believe in their principles as strongly?

Very strange, and a little worrying - though I think if you ask proper samples, the results will be different.I think it has more to do with the concept that the Rights of Innocent individuals trump the "rights" of criminals - i.e. those who have abandoned all pretense of participating in the Social Contract that secures their Rights.

Great, you stopped them from messing with it, but you did it yourself. If you want to stop terrorists from destroying our liberty, then show you care about liberty yourself, don't preemptively violate it yourself. Since we are fighting to preserve these principles, we shouldn't compromise on them ourselves. Period.

Worked for Abraham Lincoln. Suspended habeas corpus, made the Maryland Legislature vote to stay in the Union at rifle point, threatened Senators and Congressmen who spoke against the Civil War with prison, exile, and execution.

He saved the Union, and his measures were not continued afterwards.