NationStates Jolt Archive

Possibly the biggest moral question facing America now:



How to lose friends and alienate people

Nov 10th 2005
From The Economist print edition
The Bush administration's approach to torture beggars belief


THERE are many difficult trade-offs for any president when it comes to diplomacy and the fight against terrorism. Should you, for instance, support an ugly foreign regime because it is the enemy of a still uglier one? Should a superpower submit to the United Nations when it is not in its interests to do so? Amid this fog, you would imagine that George Bush would welcome an issue where America's position should be luminously clear—namely an amendment passed by Congress to ban American soldiers and spies from torturing prisoners. Indeed, after the disastrous stories of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and Afghanistan, you might imagine that a shrewd president would have sponsored such a law himself to set the record straight.

But you would be wrong. This week saw the sad spectacle of an American president lamely trying to explain to the citizens of Panama that, yes, he would veto any such bill but, no, “We do not torture.” Meanwhile, Mr Bush's increasingly error-prone vice-president, Dick Cheney, has been across on Capitol Hill trying to bully senators to exclude America's spies from any torture ban. To add a note of farce to the tragedy, the administration has had to explain that the CIA is not torturing prisoners at its secret prisons in Asia and Eastern Europe—though of course it cannot confirm that such prisons exist.

The nub of the torture debate is an amendment sponsored by John McCain, a Republican senator who was himself tortured by the Vietnamese. The amendment, based on the American army's own field manual and passed in the Senate by 90 votes to nine, states that “no individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Mr McCain's aim was simple enough: to clear up any doubt that could possibly exist about America's standards.

That doubt does, alas, exist—and has been amplified by the administration's heavy-handed efforts to stifle the McCain amendment. This, after all, is a White House that has steadfastly tried to keep “enemy combatants” beyond the purview of American courts, whose defence secretary has publicly declared that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the battle against al-Qaeda and whose Justice Department once produced an infamous memorandum explaining how torture was part of the president's war powers. The revelation in the Washington Post that the CIA maintains a string of jails, where it can keep people indefinitely and in secret, only heightens the suspicion that Mr Cheney wants the agency to keep using “enhanced interrogation techniques”. These include “waterboarding”, or making a man think he is drowning.

Although Mr Cheney has not had the guts to make his case in public, the argument that torture is sometimes justified is not a negligible one. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, presumed to be in one of the CIA's “black prisons”, is thought to have information about al-Qaeda's future plans. Surely it is vital to extract that information, no matter how? Some people think there should be a system of “torture warrants” for special cases. But where exactly should the line be drawn? And are the gains really so dramatic that it is worth breaking the taboo against civilised democracies condoning torture? For instance, Mr McCain argues that torture is nearly always useless as an interrogation technique, since under it people will say anything to their tormentors.

If the pragmatic gains in terms of information yielded are dubious, the loss to America in terms of public opinion are clear and horrifically large. Abu Ghraib was a gift to the insurgency in Iraq; Guantánamo Bay and its dubious military commissions, now being examined by the Supreme Court, have acted as recruiting sergeants for al-Qaeda around the world. In the cold war, America championed the Helsinki human-rights accords. This time, the world's most magnificent democracy is struggling against vile terrorists who thought nothing of slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians—and yet the administration has somehow contrived to turn America's own human-rights record into a subject of legitimate debate.

Mr Bush would rightly point out that anti-Americanism is to blame for some of the opprobrium heaped on his country. But why encourage it so cavalierly and in such an unAmerican way? Nearly two years after Abu Ghraib, the world is still waiting for a clear statement of America's principles on the treatment of detainees. Mr McCain says he will keep on adding his amendment to different bills until Mr Bush signs one of them. Every enemy of terrorism should hope he does so soon.
__________________

Nothing is more dangerous than an Ignorant People with a Legitimate Cause.

*hangs head in shame*

My tax dollars pay for this shit. God... I truly dislike this country.

*hangs head in shame*

My tax dollars pay for this shit. God... I truly dislike this country.

I'd move to Canada but GUESS where we will invade next...

McCain has the best argument - torture doesn't work. He knows firsthand - he was tortured in Vietnam, and when asked for a list of names, he gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers, apparently. The terrorists will simply give us false information. Instead, we should use psychological means to break them.

McCain has the best argument - torture doesn't work. He knows firsthand - he was tortured in Vietnam, and when asked for a list of names, he gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers, apparently. The terrorists will simply give us false information. Instead, we should use psychological means to break them.

Oh, physical torture works to a certain extent. But definately work with the psychological torture in conjunction with the physical torture. It works better. Tearing pages out of the Koran, showing them nude women, maybe even circumcizing them. The idea is not to break his body, but to break his spirit.

Or suck out his brains Starship Troopers style :)

McCain has the best argument - torture doesn't work. He knows firsthand - he was tortured in Vietnam, and when asked for a list of names, he gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers, apparently. The terrorists will simply give us false information. Instead, we should use psychological means to break them.
This has been known since the first scientific studies of torture a couple hundred years ago. But then this administration has been anti science in every way possible, so it's no wonder they didn't know.

Well none of this comes to me as a surprise.

A bit off topic, It pains me to think that us Americans cannot learn from our mistakes. But then again, we are taught in our history classes that we are the hero's and with the nationalism were braught up to believe, its no wonder we never learn from our mistakes... we dont know/believe we have any.

meanwhile, our country, even though we've never caused something as grusome as genecide... we have caged up japanese americas durring WW2, use imperialism whenever possible and exploit that countries labor, our corporations aid our "enemies" for more wealth, we support a side of a countries civil war... then stay and occupy them, and the list goes on.

Its not just Bush, I actually disagree with Anti-Bush people. Its America... Dont hate the player, hate the game. ;P

meanwhile, our country, even though we've never caused something as grusome as genecide...

actually, talk to the native americans about that one. pushed off their land, slaughtered, continually had treaties broken with...

it sucks, but yes, we even have committed genocide.

actually, talk to the native americans about that one. pushed off their land, slaughtered, continually had treaties broken with...

it sucks, but yes, we even have committed genocide.

We never committed genocide. Had we done so, the only time we'd spend every seeing a Native American would be one in a wax museum.

They still live you know.

And no, they slaughtered settlers as much as we slaughtered their tribes. Both sides did despicable things. Why the hell do you think the Western Frontier was always so anti-Indian, because of Indian raiders killing settlers. You think they'd have been so fired up to kill them if they only picked flowers like these liberal college professors would have you believe? Native Americans knew how to wage war, they warred amongst themselves too.

It went both ways. And, sorry to tell you, it was only inevitable. A lot of Native American tribes, especially those where the Plymouth settlers landed, had no idea of 'ownership of land', therefore didn't believe the land was theirs. So the land wasn't anybodys. It's like the moon. We put a god-damned flag on it, and it's now ours.

It went both ways. And, sorry to tell you, it was only inevitable. A lot of Native American tribes, especially those where the Plymouth settlers landed, had no idea of 'ownership of land', therefore didn't believe the land was theirs. So the land wasn't anybodys. It's like the moon. We put a god-damned flag on it, and it's now ours.
Looks to me like the whole 'ownership of land' dealie was a bust. Greed should never be the backbone of a People, no matter how you'd care to dress it up. And while I don't know about you, I certainly didn't put a flag anywhere, pally, and deep down inside, I know - I know and I don't think it - this land, any land - really is anyone's to call their own, anyway. So please refrain from utilising the collective 'we', now why don't you? You're not speaking on my behalf.

This has been known since the first scientific studies of torture a couple hundred years ago. But then this administration has been anti science in every way possible, so it's no wonder they didn't know.
Please cite me some of these studies...

Because I believe in soem cases torture is necessary and in some cases it is effective. When it's used "generally" it is ineffective and purely sadistic, but when a greater number of lives are at stake, torture may become the only option.

All this OH GOD HUMAN RIGHTS! is too altruistic for its own good. The world is not a happy place of everyone frolicking in meadows. If America ties itself up in regulations about what our intelligence officers can and cannot do... if we start exposing what they do and how they do it... our intelligence agency will be impotent. And at that point, we can kiss our high level of living standards goodbye, because our comfortable, secure existance isn't gonna happen if the US cannot defend itself.

Yeah, yeah, it's immoral. The world is immoral and I'm a cynic... I don't think we can change it through all this hippie flower power bullshit.

Looks to me like the whole 'ownership of land' dealie was a bust. Greed should never be the backbone of a People, no matter how you'd care to dress it up. And while I don't know about you, I certainly didn't put a flag anywhere, pally, and deep down inside, I know - I know and I don't think it - this land, any land - really is anyone's to call their own, anyway. So please refrain from utilising the collective 'we', now why don't you? You're not speaking on my behalf.

Greed is just a very basic survival instinct based on the continuation of the human race. Greed is the backbone of everything, because survival is. Hoarding resources basically guarantees survival until normal death. Our greed allowed the USA to become what it is. I know, cynical, but true.

And I use the 'we' in the sense of our shared Heritage, ie American settlers and pioneers.

Greed is just a very basic survival instinct based on the continuation of the human race. Greed is the backbone of everything, because survival is. Hoarding resources basically guarantees survival until normal death. Our greed allowed the USA to become what it is. I know, cynical, but true.

And I use the 'we' in the sense of our shared Heritage, ie American settlers and pioneers.

*is ashamed to be human with people like this representing*:(

*is ashamed to be human with people like this representing*:(

I call it as it is.

How do you think I feel?

And at that point, we can kiss our high level of living standards goodbye, because our comfortable, secure existance isn't gonna happen if the US cannot defend itself.

If the intelligence services can call at your door and drag you away for torture, I think it is safe to say that your 'high level of living standards' are already a thing of the past.

If the intelligence services can call at your door and drag you away for torture, I think it is safe to say that your 'high level of living standards' are already a thing of the past.
And this happens so often, nowadays...

And this happens so often, nowadays...

Hey, people crashing airliners into American landmarks happens so often, nowadays...

We never committed genocide. Had we done so, the only time we'd spend every seeing a Native American would be one in a wax museum.

They still live you know.

And no, they slaughtered settlers as much as we slaughtered their tribes. Both sides did despicable things. Why the hell do you think the Western Frontier was always so anti-Indian, because of Indian raiders killing settlers. You think they'd have been so fired up to kill them if they only picked flowers like these liberal college professors would have you believe? Native Americans knew how to wage war, they warred amongst themselves too.

It went both ways. And, sorry to tell you, it was only inevitable. A lot of Native American tribes, especially those where the Plymouth settlers landed, had no idea of 'ownership of land', therefore didn't believe the land was theirs. So the land wasn't anybodys. It's like the moon. We put a god-damned flag on it, and it's now ours.

Just because we didn't kill them all doesn't mean it's not Genocide? Well, I guess the Jews had nothing to complain about during WW2, because they weren't all killed. Whether or not they were all killed or not does not make a difference-The American Government, especially during the mid 1800's, committed some heinous acts against the native Americans. Of course, you never really here much about htis in school other than maybe a single class period.

Note-SOME killed settlers. However, many others were rather open to the Settlers, only to be stabbed in the back by people whom they trusted. Signing contracts with the "X" come to mind? They couldn't read, nor were they told the real contents of what they were signing, and many times they didn't know the significance of the papers. But, they were screwed over, and hard core. Not only that, but the genocidal tactics of the Americans against the Natives was very indiscriminate, taking out much of the time peaceful tribes rather than violent tribes.

As far as ownership of land, not in the European sense of having a land-deed, however they did have the idea of territory, and they definately had the idea of a "home", which they were forcefully evicted from almost all of the time, without any say.

Hmm... seems like Genocide to me.

Just because we didn't kill them all doesn't mean it's not Genocide? Well, I guess the Jews had nothing to complain about during WW2, because they weren't all killed. Whether or not they were all killed or not does not make a difference-The American Government, especially during the mid 1800's, committed some heinous acts against the native Americans. Of course, you never really here much about htis in school other than maybe a single class period.

Note-SOME killed settlers. However, many others were rather open to the Settlers, only to be stabbed in the back by people whom they trusted. Signing contracts with the "X" come to mind? They couldn't read, nor were they told the real contents of what they were signing, and many times they didn't know the significance of the papers. But, they were screwed over, and hard core. Not only that, but the genocidal tactics of the Americans against the Natives was very indiscriminate, taking out much of the time peaceful tribes rather than violent tribes.

As far as ownership of land, not in the European sense of having a land-deed, however they did have the idea of territory, and they definately had the idea of a "home", which they were forcefully evicted from almost all of the time, without any say.

Hmm... seems like Genocide to me.

Our purpose was not to annihilate, until the mid-late 1800s, and even then, it was to eliminate the threat they posed. There's 200 years in between 1600 and 1800. Why would we be so pissed off?

Because they would've slaughtered us if they could.

Hey, people crashing airliners into American landmarks happens so often, nowadays...
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing for general torture. I'm saying that I believe in extreme cases it should be an option. Sure I know you're going to reply, but who draws the line and the etc...

I think as long as we have the free press, that will serve as a good inhibitor--but at the same time, should the CIA, be legally open to the press. Once the press sneaks out some info out of the CIA, the CIA shouldn't be able to legally stop them from publishing it. But neither should the press get free reign in the CIA. If we leave thigns as they are without binding laws of what the press and CIA should and should not do... then we'll be fine.

I call it as it is.

How do you think I feel?

no you call it like you see it, not as it is - it's all perception - what you are saying is not some sort of absolute

I hope you don't feel as bad as I feel for you. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

it does lift my spirits to see that most people do not see things as you do

my version of life is of course perception too - I would rather perceive a beautiful world than something as ugly as you are portraying - we do have a choice - do you direct your llife or are you a helpless leaf letting the wind blow you whatever direction it is going at the time?

no you call it like you see it, not as it is - it's all perception - what you are saying is not some sort of absolute


Relativism has made possible for everyone to be right, in everything.

Relativism has made possible for everyone to be right, in everything.

what else is there? some random guys version of the right way to look at life? which random guys? how do you know you got the right one once you adopt that random guys life view? why not do what you feel in your heart is right?

no you call it like you see it, not as it is - it's all perception - what you are saying is not some sort of absolute

I hope you don't feel as bad as I feel for you. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

it does lift my spirits to see that most people do not see things as you do

my version of life is of course perception too - I would rather perceive a beautiful world than something as ugly as you are portraying - we do have a choice - do you direct your llife or are you a helpless leaf letting the wind blow you whatever direction it is going at the time?

No, I call it as it is. Both sides tried to get rid of/kill each other. The US Americans won. If that's not an absolute, then I don't know what is. But read any moderate history book (Right Wing Extremist & Left-Wing Extremist books don't count, since they're trying to give you a slant in the view of history. Now, while all history has a slant, there are many that are so much less slanted then some of the other books out there) and I guarantee you it'll say both sides participated in massacres to eliminate the other.

I don't know why you pity me. I try to see the reality in the situation. Should I pity you because you have a liberal viewpoint? I live a pretty optomistic lifestyle. I happen to hope that people do right unless proven otherwise, this includes our current US Government. I hope that they have their citizens best interest at heart. This has yet to be definatively proven or disproven, so I will withhold condeming judgement till I see condemning evidence for either side.

I'm still kind of confused why, "your spirits are lifted." I happen to take a less liberal view of the universe. I acknowledge our ancestors commited massacres. Genocide, I believe, is giving it a definition it doesn't deserve.

And do I direct my life? Yes, as much as I can. Unforunately, I also believe that some events are out of our hands. I believe in the butterfly chaos theory as much as I believe in not being able to completely control my life. I can only do so much.

And if you're trying to say that I just follow the current trend, you'd be sorely mistaken. I, however, will take the more optomistic position and hope that you just meant that I believe I cannot control my own destiny.

what else is there? some random guys version of the right way to look at life? which random guys? how do you know you got the right one once you adopt that random guys life view? why not do what you feel in your heart is right?
Because I like to judge people. :D

EDIT: And I'm kinda tired with this whole politically correct "I respect your opinion, but I believe..."

Because I like to judge people. :D

EDIT: And I'm kinda tired with this whole politically correct "I respect your opinion, but I believe..."

It really should be more of, "You are entitled to your wrong opinion. Now, let me tell you why..." :D

No, I call it as it is. Both sides tried to get rid of/kill each other. The US Americans won. If that's not an absolute, then I don't know what is. But read any moderate history book (Right Wing Extremist & Left-Wing Extremist books don't count, since they're trying to give you a slant in the view of history. Now, while all history has a slant, there are many that are so much less slanted then some of the other books out there) and I guarantee you it'll say both sides participated in massacres to eliminate the other.

I don't know why you pity me. I try to see the reality in the situation. Should I pity you because you have a liberal viewpoint? I live a pretty optomistic lifestyle. I happen to hope that people do right unless proven otherwise, this includes our current US Government. I hope that they have their citizens best interest at heart. This has yet to be definatively proven or disproven, so I will withhold condeming judgement till I see condemning evidence for either side.

I'm still kind of confused why, "your spirits are lifted." I happen to take a less liberal view of the universe. I acknowledge our ancestors commited massacres. Genocide, I believe, is giving it a definition it doesn't deserve.

And do I direct my life? Yes, as much as I can. Unforunately, I also believe that some events are out of our hands. I believe in the butterfly chaos theory as much as I believe in not being able to completely control my life. I can only do so much.

And if you're trying to say that I just follow the current trend, you'd be sorely mistaken. I, however, will take the more optomistic position and hope that you just meant that I believe I cannot control my own destiny.

Let's just say that I feel that your thinking is void of heart. I'm not tryign to tell you how to think, I just am sorry to see soemone not use their capacity for compassion. Of course that is just a perception and I could be wrong.

Yes - Two sides tried to kill each other - first the foreigners killed them and then they tried to kill them back to stop the encroachment and they failed. I can see the cold logic in your justification on how it's okay that the white man killed off a majority of the native americans and took the land they lived on for centuries, but I could never think that that was okay.

You don't need to continue because I know I will not see eye to eye with you. I'm sorry I feel bad for your heartless outlook.

We never committed genocide. Had we done so, the only time we'd spend every seeing a Native American would be one in a wax museum.

They still live you know.

And no, they slaughtered settlers as much as we slaughtered their tribes.

No that's not true. It was genocide in Nazi Germany yet there are still jews around, and there was genocide in Rwanda even though there are still Tutsis around. You don't have to completely wipe a people out to commit genocide.

And I seriously doubt the Native Americans killed 4 million American settlers. That's how many of them we wiped out.

Because I like to judge people. :D

EDIT: And I'm kinda tired with this whole politically correct "I respect your opinion, but I believe..."


So you adopt a certain outlook so you can feel surperior to others who don't follow it? Well as long as it has a lot of meaning to you... BTW, I respect your right to have your own opinion (not because it is politically correct because I don't do things for political correctness) but I don't respect your opinion. :p

So you adopt a certain outlook so you can feel surperior to others who don't follow it? Well as long as it has a lot of meaning to you... BTW, I respect your right to have your own opinion but I don't respect your opinion. :p
Ego is all that we have in this life. And if you cannot see that, then you have my sympathies.

Let's just say that I feel that your thinking is void of heart. I'm not tryign to tell you how to think, I just am sorry to see soemone not use their capacity for compassion. Of course that is just a perception and I could be wrong.

Yes - Two sides tried to kill each other - first the foreigners killed them and then they tried to kill them back to stop the encroachment and they failed. I can see the cold logic in your justification on how it's okay that the white man killed off a majority of the native americans and took the land they lived on for centuries, but I could never think that that was okay.

You don't need to continue because I know I will not see eye to eye with you. I'm sorry I feel bad for your heartless outlook.

I don't know how else to look at the situation. I don't see how I can look at it with any heart and then not be filled with utter revulsion over the act. So, yes, I am looking at this heartlessly.

However, it's hard to look compassionately at someone who just happened to also be wanting to kill you.

And no, we never meant to annihilate the American Indians. The Nazi's goal was to kill off the Jews. Our goal was to take their land, not slaughter them. Another difference is that, the Nazi's were fighting other enemies, but had there been no other enemies to fight, and they had been left to their own devices... I think they just might have...

Not even fucking going there. But following the above logic, I think you can imagine that were we to also be in the business of genocide, Americans don't really deal well with doing things half-assed...

Except Vietnam of course.

Ego is all that we have in this life. And if you cannot see that, then you have my sympathies.


ditto ;) I have seen the other side of the river, played on the banks and soaked in the sun - ego makes life ugly and painful

ditto ;) I have seen the other side of the river, played on the banks and soaked in the sun - ego makes life ugly and painful
Interesting you say that for I can say the same too. I once was like you...

Greed is just a very basic survival instinct based on the continuation of the human race. Greed is the backbone of everything, because survival is. Hoarding resources basically guarantees survival until normal death. Our greed allowed the USA to become what it is. I know, cynical, but true.

And I use the 'we' in the sense of our shared Heritage, ie American settlers and pioneers.


Yeah! How dare they be on our land before we got there! :rolleyes:

Yeah! How dare they be on our land before we got there! :rolleyes:

I don't think we really cared either way... :cool:

Our purpose was not to annihilate, until the mid-late 1800s, and even then, it was to eliminate the threat they posed. There's 200 years in between 1600 and 1800. Why would we be so pissed off?

Because they would've slaughtered us if they could.

There are no Seminols today. Because Jackson (I believe) killed them all off. There are many tribes and creeds completely whiped out. That's like killing all the Germans, Italians, and Brits, and saying it wasn't genocide because there are still a few French around.

The aim of the US army was indeed the whiping out of many tribes, much of the time they were successful.

Yes, there was killing on both sides, but the white man started it, the natives were acting more or less in self-defence, as well as revenge in some instances.

As for what the thread was origonally about, this is the reason I don't trust the government. It's digusting.

"I'll veto any bill that bans torture. But we don't torture. Um, God, 9/11, terrorist!"

'Genocide is defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 "as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:" Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The most widely known example is the Holocaust (the genocide of Jews and various other groups during World War II by Third Reich and its collaborators).'

It is the intent to anhialate that defines genocide.

'Genocide is defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 "as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:" Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The most widely known example is the Holocaust (the genocide of Jews and various other groups during World War II by Third Reich and its collaborators).'

It is the intent to anhialate that defines genocide.

And I contend that the intent to anhialate was, in many cases, there.

And I contend that the intent to anhialate was, in many cases, there.

Precisely my point.

Precisely my point.

ok, so we're in agreement. Awesome