NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/27/cheney.torture.ap/index.html

Also Rummy said something yesterday about how Iraq is a mess but democracy is a messy process and we should just sit back and watch it happen.

President Bush, asked about Cheney's comments, said, "This country doesn't torture. We're not going to torture.

Heh. So okay, some people in this countrys government agencies might torture. But not the country itself!

And sure, we're not going to torture. We are and have!

Get it right, America!

Any political official authorizing the use of waterboarding and similar methods should submit to having them used on him or her first. That should keep 'em honest. If it's really harmless but uncomfortable they should have no problem having it used on them.

Snowball recently came out and said that was taken out of context from Cheney by the reporters.

The White House said Friday that Vice President Dick Cheney was not talking about a torture technique known as "water boarding" when he said dunking terrorism suspects in water during questioning was a "no-brainer."

So the AP has unilaterally decided that waterboarding is definitely torture?


Reuters is actually a little more objective on this. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061027/pl_nm/security_cheney_dc_2)

His comment prompted complaints from human rights advocates that he was endorsing a technique called "waterboarding" that simulates drowning and is considered torture by some critics.

Kudos to Reuters for the absence of suggestive reporting.

When Cheney was talking about a 'dunk in water', he was obviously referring to this:

http://www.carnivalservices.com/images/largedunk.jpg

:D

So the AP has unilaterally decided that waterboarding is definitely torture?



Its torture and, as an "old school" technique, has been recognised as such for centuries.. And Cheney, with his dodgy ticker, would quite likely not survive it too long. Which would be terrible. Ironic certainly and not unjust, but terrible nonetheless.

Cos waterboarding obviously is just a friendly method in order to acquire honest answers, I wonder if it could be useful in presidential elections discussions. It's mildly inconvenient, but would make killer TV. I'd watch it.

So the AP has unilaterally decided that waterboarding is definitely torture?


Reuters is actually a little more objective on this. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061027/pl_nm/security_cheney_dc_2)



Kudos to Reuters for the absence of suggestive reporting.

By this administration's new definition of torture, the "Chinese Water Torture" is, in fact, NOT torture at all. Go figure.

Here is an interesting video simulating the Waterboarding technique. (http://www.current.tv/video/?id=13462474)

Dershowitz, who is interviewed in the video and is a Liberal Democrat had a reasonable take on the issue and also brought up the issue of accountability. I personally support Waterboarding in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, but not for vindictive purposes.

EDIT:

oh, in the video the guy lasts 24 mins but according to reports from military officials, the average person lasts less than a minute and much more water is poured on them. Khalid Shaik Muhammed for instance, lasted the longest by holding out for about 2 minutes before giving up information. I believe it was a report on CNN by Anderson Cooper where I saw this, not sure.

Cos waterboarding obviously is just a friendly method in order to acquire honest answers, I wonder if it could be useful in presidential elections discussions. It's mildly inconvenient, but would make killer TV. I'd watch it.

LOL, you mean use it at presidential debates to prevent them from dodging questions?

LOL, you mean use it at presidential debates to prevent them from dodging questions?
Yeh, why not?

By this administration's new definition of torture, the "Chinese Water Torture" is, in fact, NOT torture at all. Go figure.

Well you know it doesn't leave any identifying marks, so it's not torture. Atleast nothing that can be proven. Who would take the word of a confessed terrorist anyway.

Yeh, why not?

maybe the debates will be more educational with waterboarding.

maybe the debates will be more educational with waterboarding.

I keep reading that like 'waterbending'.


Too much fucking Avatar.

I keep reading that like 'waterbending'.


Too much fucking Avatar.

Yep, entirely.

Here is an interesting video simulating the Waterboarding technique. (http://www.current.tv/video/?id=13462474)
It would have been funnier if they poured water on the front of his pants.

Dershowitz, who is interviewed in the video and is a Liberal Democrat .

He's a what now?

Water Boarding isn't torture. Ripping someones fingernails out and peeing on the wound is torture. You never actually drown the person in water boarding you just want them to think you will.

Water Boarding isn't torture. Ripping someones fingernails out and peeing on the wound is torture. You never actually drown the person in water boarding you just want them to think you will.

Which... is a form of torture.

Which... is a form of torture.

Personally, I don't care if a rusty nail is slowly driven into a terrorist's eyeball with a hammer. However, water-boarding is far from torture. The terrorists are not actually getting hurt in any way whatsoever -- they are not in any extreme phyiscal pain. I am an advocate of mandatory torture of all terrorist suspects, and not just some touchy-feely methods of interrogation such as water-boarding and sleep deprivation. If they try to kill innocent civilians, they deserve anything they get.

Personally, I don't care if a rusty nail is slowly driven into a terrorist's eyeball with a hammer. However, water-boarding is far from torture. The terrorists are not actually getting hurt in any way whatsoever -- they are not in any extreme phyiscal pain. I am an advocate of mandatory torture of all terrorist suspects, and not just some touchy-feely methods of interrogation such as water-boarding and sleep deprivation. If they try to kill innocent civilians, they deserve anything they get.

And if, after all that shit, it turns out they were completely innocent, as many suspects have been?

Personally, I don't care if a rusty nail is slowly driven into a terrorist's eyeball with a hammer. However, water-boarding is far from torture. The terrorists are not actually getting hurt in any way whatsoever -- they are not in any extreme phyiscal pain. I am an advocate of mandatory torture of all terrorist suspects, and not just some touchy-feely methods of interrogation such as water-boarding and sleep deprivation. If they try to kill innocent civilians, they deserve anything they get.

Theres conservative boards where they'd swallow that with no hint of irony at all, at all...

And if, after all that shit, it turns out they were completely innocent, as many suspects have been?

Few days of torture and you break, you'll confess to anything. Torture subjects are never found innocent. You'll say anything to get them to stop, whatever they want to hear.

Personally, I don't care if a rusty nail is slowly driven into a terrorist's eyeball with a hammer. However, water-boarding is far from torture. The terrorists are not actually getting hurt in any way whatsoever -- they are not in any extreme phyiscal pain. I am an advocate of mandatory torture of all terrorist suspects, and not just some touchy-feely methods of interrogation such as water-boarding and sleep deprivation. If they try to kill innocent civilians, they deserve anything they get.

Though I think terrorists should be punished, I feel torturing all US government officials for killing innocent civilians is not okay.

Personally, I don't care if a rusty nail is slowly driven into a terrorist's eyeball with a hammer. However, water-boarding is far from torture. The terrorists are not actually getting hurt in any way whatsoever -- they are not in any extreme phyiscal pain. I am an advocate of mandatory torture of all terrorist suspects, and not just some touchy-feely methods of interrogation such as water-boarding and sleep deprivation. If they try to kill innocent civilians, they deserve anything they get.
Do you understand the meaning of the word 'suspect'?

Or do you, who claims to love America so much, not really believe in the central pillar of freedom and democracy, 'innocent until proven guilty'?

Personally, I don't care if a rusty nail is slowly driven into a terrorist's eyeball with a hammer. However, water-boarding is far from torture. The terrorists are not actually getting hurt in any way whatsoever -- they are not in any extreme phyiscal pain. I am an advocate of mandatory torture of all terrorist suspects, and not just some touchy-feely methods of interrogation such as water-boarding and sleep deprivation. If they try to kill innocent civilians, they deserve anything they get.

Shhhh... adults are talking. If you're quiet for a whole hour, I'll give you a whole quarter.

Which... is a form of torture.

no, its really not.

Personally, I don't care if a rusty nail is slowly driven into a terrorist's eyeball with a hammer. However, water-boarding is far from torture. The terrorists are not actually getting hurt in any way whatsoever -- they are not in any extreme phyiscal pain. I am an advocate of mandatory torture of all terrorist suspects, and not just some touchy-feely methods of interrogation such as water-boarding and sleep deprivation. If they try to kill innocent civilians, they deserve anything they get.

See the thing is torture is wrong thus it should not be done.

no, its really not.

Yeah... it really is. You see authorities on torture techniques agree with me. Means to an End agrees with you.

Or do you, who claims to love America so much, not really believe in the central pillar of freedom and democracy, 'innocent until proven guilty'?

It's better to torture an innocent man than to allow a terrorist to roam freely. Anyway, there would be a large preponderance of evidence linking a man to terrorism before he could be deemed a "suspect." It is very rarely the case that a person on whom US intelligence services have amassed information suggesting links to terrorist organizations is, in fact, innocent. Nonetheless, we should be quite careful to avoid innocent people from being apprehended -- with proper adherence to rules and regulations, I suspect that such people will never be tortured.

Personally, I don't care if a rusty nail is slowly driven into a terrorist's eyeball with a hammer. However, water-boarding is far from torture. The terrorists are not actually getting hurt in any way whatsoever -- they are not in any extreme phyiscal pain. I am an advocate of mandatory torture of all terrorist suspects, and not just some touchy-feely methods of interrogation such as water-boarding and sleep deprivation. If they try to kill innocent civilians, they deserve anything they get.
so... then who's a terrorist?

It's better to torture an innocent man than to allow a terrorist to roam freely. Anyway, there would be a large preponderance of evidence linking a man to terrorism before he could be deemed a "suspect." It is very rarely the case that a person on whom US intelligence services have amassed information suggesting links to terrorist organizations is, in fact, innocent. Nonetheless, we should be quite careful to avoid innocent people from being apprehended -- with proper adherence to rules and regulations, I suspect that such people will never be tortured.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

It's better to torture an innocent man than to allow a terrorist to roam freely. Anyway, there would be a large preponderance of evidence linking a man to terrorism before he could be deemed a "suspect." It is very rarely the case that a person on whom US intelligence services have amassed information suggesting links to terrorist organizations is, in fact, innocent. Nonetheless, we should be quite careful to avoid innocent people from being apprehended -- with proper adherence to rules and regulations, I suspect that such people will never be tortured.

There is an obvious flaw in your logic; if you are that certain they are terrorists, they don't need torturing - you know what it is they are trying to do anyway. If you don't know what they are going to do, then you don't know enough to be certain they are terrorists.

A circular argument that leads to innocent people being tortured without trial.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

Seriously, would people please stop posting that? This is a debate forum - if you don't want to debate MTAE, just leave the thread.

Seriously, would people please stop posting that? This is a debate forum - if you don't want to debate MTAE, just leave the thread.

Because he doesn't debate, he just thinks of the most inflammatory thing he can possibly come up with and then repeats until everyone gets tired of him. If people ignore him he'll stop. I don't want that idiot screwing with my thread.

There is an obvious flaw in your logic; if you are that certain they are terrorists, they don't need torturing - you know what it is they are trying to do anyway. If you don't know what they are going to do, then you don't know enough to be certain they are terrorists.

Interesting logic, but not necessarily true. For example, let's say that an Arab man in the US keeps on getting calls from Osama bin Laden on disposable cell phones which he promply throws in the garbage after hearing the message. What his plot is, exactly, is not necessarily known, but it is obvious that he is planning some sort of heinous act. You can be certain that someone is a terrorist, beyond any reasonable doubt, without knowing exactly what evil scheme they are concocting.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
If I didn't want to feed the trolls, I wouldn't come to the zoo. *pets MTAE*

There is an obvious flaw in your logic
It's not a flaw, it's a feature.

It's better to torture an innocent man than to allow a terrorist to roam freely. Anyway, there would be a large preponderance of evidence linking a man to terrorism before he could be deemed a "suspect." It is very rarely the case that a person on whom US intelligence services have amassed information suggesting links to terrorist organizations is, in fact, innocent. Nonetheless, we should be quite careful to avoid innocent people from being apprehended -- with proper adherence to rules and regulations, I suspect that such people will never be tortured.
this is why the Bush administration has had to sign laws circumventing due process at Guantanamo? Because they have too much evidence?

Because he doesn't debate, he just thinks of the most inflammatory thing he can possibly come up with

I find many of the things which you say inflammatory, but I don't call you a troll. Why? Because I am cognizant of the fact that this is a debate forum and that people are entitled to their own views, even if they are diametrically opposed to my own. You, apparently, are not.

Interesting logic, but not necessarily true. For example, let's say that an Arab man in the US keeps on getting calls from Osama bin Laden on disposable cell phones which he promply throws in the garbage after hearing the message. What his plot is, exactly, is not necessarily known, but it is obvious that he is planning some sort of heinous act. You can be certain that someone is a terrorist, beyond any reasonable doubt, without knowing exactly what evil scheme they are concocting.

So how exactly do we know it's Bin Ladin talking to him? It's not like we have his number, or location, or even know if he's still alive.

Interesting logic, but not necessarily true. For example, let's say that an Arab man in the US keeps on getting calls from Osama bin Laden on disposable cell phones which he promply throws in the garbage after hearing the message. What his plot is, exactly, is not necessarily known, but it is obvious that he is planning some sort of heinous act. You can be certain that someone is a terrorist, beyond any reasonable doubt, without knowing exactly what evil scheme they are concocting.

Personally, I'd just pick up the phone and look at the message myself. And, you wouldn't need to torture such a man; if he's just provided you with a callback feature to Bin Laden, he's done you a favour without any torture required. ;)

And, the point is, you don't know he is a terrorist. You can know that he is connected to terrorists. You can even know that there is a strong likelihood that he is a terrorist. But you still don't know that he is one. He should not be guilty by association alone. And, quite frankly, if you have a man you're certain is a terrorist in your custody and can't find any information without torture, then your investigative services aren't really up to the job.

Put such people on trial, by all means; go through the proper channels. But everyone, in a free democracy, has the right to the presumption of innocence.

So how exactly do we know it's Bin Ladin talking to him? It's not like we have his number, or location, or even know if he's still alive.

Obviously you do not understand the basic tenets of logic. All that is required is one example to disprove a statement that someone claims is always true, no matter how outrageous that counter-example is.

So how exactly do we know it's Bin Ladin talking to him? It's not like we have his number, or location, or even know if he's still alive.

Please don't walk into this hypothetical spy thriller.

Put such people on trial, by all means; go through the proper channels. But everyone, in a free democracy, has the right to the presumption of innocence.

That is where your views and mine diverge. Everyone has a presumption of innocence until there is sufficient evidence linking them with a crime. Hell, we can even create an ad hoc military tribunal to try some terrorist suspects if that will help people sleep better at night. If the military tribunal convicts them, only then will they be tortured -- that seems fair and just to me.

Please don't walk into this hypothetical spy thriller.

Too true, I forgot MTAE is omniscient when it comes to who's guilty and who's not, who's a terrorist, and who can be a bloody millionaire on minimum wage.

That is where your views and mine diverge. Everyone has a presumption of innocence until there is sufficient evidence linking them with a crime. Hell, we can even create an ad hoc military tribunal to try some terrorist suspects if that will help people sleep better at night. If the military tribunal convicts them, only then will they be tortured -- that seems fair and just to me.

If this was the case, then no one would ever be acquitted from a court of law. The police would bring a charge, and that would be it; case closed. But, we both know that this does not happen in real life. Evidence does not close the book on a matter by itself; it is simply a means for the prosecution to prove its case. I would hope you would agree that there are massive implications for democracy if the burden of proof was instead shifted onto the defendant.

I would hope you would agree that there are massive implications for democracy if the burden of proof was instead shifted onto the defendant.

Of course, but I do not advocate such a philosophy. I simply believe that it is better to torture an innocent man than to allow a terrorist to sit in prison unscathed.

That is where your views and mine diverge. Everyone has a presumption of innocence until there is sufficient evidence linking them with a crime. Hell, we can even create an ad hoc military tribunal to try some terrorist suspects if that will help people sleep better at night. If the military tribunal convicts them, only then will they be tortured -- that seems fair and just to me.

How does the torturer know when the victim has told him the truth?

Of course, but I do not advocate such a philosophy. I simply believe that it is better to torture an innocent man than to allow a terrorist to sit in prison unscathed.

If you accept that the man may be innocent, then how is what you doing any different to common assault and GBH, as practiced by petty thieves and criminals? It is comparable to a mugger dragging an innocent, hardworking, decent American off the street and holding a knife to his throat to get the wallet; except this time the 'mugger' is Uncle Sam and the wallet 'intelligence'.

If the terrorists have lowered you to the point of such a petty criminal, then you may find the battle for freedom has already been lost.

How does the torturer know when the victim has told him the truth?

When the victim is telling the story the torturer wants to hear. That's the "truth".

"But how could he convince those men who were beating him, hooking his penis to electric wires and waterboarding him? How could he prove to them that he had been lying, prancing in front of his Chilean comrades, just trying to impress the ladies with his fraudulent insurgent persona?

Of course, he couldn't. He confessed to anything and everything they wanted to drag from his hoarse, howling throat; he invented accomplices and addresses and culprits; and then, when it became apparent that all this was imaginary, he was subjected to further ordeals."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092201303_pf.html

How does the torturer know when the victim has told him the truth?

Oh, hehe, you misunderstand me. I am a firm believer in the "eye for an eye" philosophy. The punishment for attempted terrorism should be excruciating torture for life, regardless of the necessity of data extraction. I don't care about the truth -- most terrorists don't have a lot of information to give. For those that do, the rules of the game would be altered.

Oh, hehe, you misunderstand me. I am a firm believer in the "eye for an eye" philosophy. The punishment for attempted terrorism should be excruciating torture for life, regardless of the necessity of data extraction. I don't care about the truth -- most terrorists don't have a lot of information to give. For those that do, the rules of the game would be altered.

Now, I understand you. You're not going into politics, are you? Plus, you do know that to have this philosophy you are making it acceptable for US soldiers to be tortured by our enemies. You understand that much?

If you accept that the man may be innocent, then how is what you doing any different to common assault and GBH, as practiced by petty thieves and criminals?

We would only torture those whom we had a large preponderance of evidence linking them with terrorists. For others, we'd just lock them up in a cell for the rest of their life. It is possible that some innocents will be caught up in the process, but that's just collateral damage. If we need to sacrifice one innocent to foil one terrorist plot, it is worth it. The actual ratio would be more like 50 to 1, however.

We would only torture those whom we had a large preponderance of evidence linking them with terrorists. For others, we'd just lock them up in a cell for the rest of their life. It is possible that some innocents will be caught up in the process, but that's just collateral damage. If we need to sacrifice one innocent to foil one terrorist plot, it is worth it. The actual ratio would be more like 50 to 1, however.

Terrorists deprive innocents of life and liberty; civilised people deprive only terrorists and criminals of liberty. There is no middle ground; you are one or the other. Which do you choose?

Now, I understand you. You're not going into politics, are you?

I am considering it. I was very active in the re-election campaign of my state congressman and my views are widely shared throughout my community. Also, Kansas is known to be quite fertile ground for more right-of-center Republicans.

Terrorists deprive innocents of life and liberty; civilised people deprive only terrorists and criminals of liberty. There is no middle ground; you are one or the other. Which do you choose?

There is no such binary distinction. Civilized people only deprive convicted terrorists and criminals of liberty, although they can be tried by a governmental institution. There will always be some innocent people who are arrested -- there is no way to avoid this eventuality. Accidentally detaining an innocent man, does not, however, make a state a terrorist organization.

I am considering it. I was very active in the re-election campaign of my state congressman and my views are widely shared throughout my community. Also, Kansas is known to be quite fertile ground for more right-of-center Republicans.

Must be something in the corn...

There is no such binary distinction. Civilized people only deprive convicted terrorists and criminals of liberty, although they can be tried by a governmental institution. There will always be some innocent people who are arrested -- there is no way to avoid this eventuality. Accidentally detaining an innocent man, does not, however, make a state a terrorist organization.

We can easily agree on this. However, while we accept that the State will sometimes detain innocents, we only consider this acceptable on the basis that such innocents will get a free and fair trial as soon as possible so that any mistakes can be rectified. Torturing them, however, does not equal a free and fair trial; neither does detaining them indefinately.

Didn't someone ask earlier what the fuck was wrong with Kansas?

Torturing them, however, does not equal a free and fair trial; neither does detaining them indefinately.

No, we would give them a military trial before torturing them, which is a hell of a lot more fair then subjecting them to the prejudices of 12 idiots on a jury. As for detaining them indefinitely -- which do you prefer? Ten dead civilians whose deaths were caused by a terrorist who evaded our criminal justice system or an innocent man who was condemned to life in jail for supposed terrorist activities? The latter is preferable to me.

Didn't someone ask earlier what the fuck was wrong with Kansas?

There is nothing wrong with the great state of Kansas except an elevated level of common sense and pesticides in the populace. :)

No, we would give them a military trial before torturing them, which is a hell of a lot more fair then subjecting them to the prejudices of 12 idiots on a jury. As for detaining them indefinitely -- which do you prefer? Ten dead civilians whose deaths were caused by a terrorist who evaded our criminal justice system or an innocent man who was condemned to life in jail for supposed terrorist activities? The latter is preferable to me.

I prefer an intelligence organisation with the competence to stop the ten dead civilians, and a justice system that protects all innocents. This is not a fairy tale dream; it should be the aims and objectives of all of us who really do love peace and freedom.

No, we would give them a military trial before torturing them, which is a hell of a lot more fair then subjecting them to the prejudices of 12 idiots on a jury. As for detaining them indefinitely -- which do you prefer? Ten dead civilians whose deaths were caused by a terrorist who evaded our criminal justice system or an innocent man who was condemned to life in jail for supposed terrorist activities? The latter is preferable to me.
are you in the army? if not, maybe you should be. it seems to me a lot of the people who actually are fighting for what you call peace and justice would be really cheesed to return and find out their friends have been detained for no good reason. then again, perhaps they should not have made friends with any arabs in the first place.

There is no such binary distinction. Civilized people only deprive convicted terrorists and criminals of liberty, although they can be tried by a governmental institution. There will always be some innocent people who are arrested -- there is no way to avoid this eventuality. Accidentally detaining an innocent man, does not, however, make a state a terrorist organization.
Torturing one, I would charge, does.
The government exists to serve the people. If ever the people at large have real reason to truly fear their government, it should be razed to the ground and begun anew.

maybe the debates will be more educational with waterboarding.Right-O. (sorry, had to step to the pub for a moment... haven't read all the posts).

It obviously isn't torture. You and numerous other people say so... Then why not use it as entertainment..? I'm sure nobody would protest. Why the hell would they?!?

I mean... You wouldn't mind, right?

Oh, hehe, you misunderstand me. I am a firm believer in the "eye for an eye" philosophy.
And an eye for an eye makes the world go blind, fool.

And I take it "right of centre Republicans" is basically a euphamism for neofascist nutters, correct?

Didn't someone ask earlier what the fuck was wrong with Kansas?
Now we know. ;)