NationStates Jolt Archive

I know I already posted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505772) about this topic, but I was a bit premature about it, and made the thread while the segment was have video of it uploaded inside of an hour, but it took a bit longer than that, so... here it is again.

Anyway, the story is basically this: Fox News sent one of its own reporters (Steve Harrigan, for those of you taking notes) to a classified military installation, where he was bound and subjected to three different forms of waterboarding by scary black-clad men in ski masks. The event was aired later as a segment on Greta van Sustern's program.

There are two videos of the incident:

This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81xjAgCOX3A) shows the actual video of the session, demonstrating each of the three methods and how Harrigan responded to them.

This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Xd0Q2Auz4) shows Harrigan after the session and his commentary on it.

I find the second video especially telling -- even after what we can assume is hours or even days, you can still hear the fear in his voice and see it on his face. Keep in mind that each trial lasted mere seconds, and that he knew he was in a safe, artificial, non-lethal environment that he could leave at any time.

Even better than that is the fact that Harrigan, a dyed-in-the-wool Fox News reporter, unhesitatingly describes the experience as "torture". No equivocation, no qualifiers, no Republican talking points. Just torture, pure and simple.

I'd like to see how MTAE responds to that...

I'd like to see how MTAE responds to that...

Probably something to do with him being mentally unfit to have an opinion, or some similar bullshit. You know, the usual things a troll does.

I'd like to see how MTAE responds to that...
It's just a little water, it's NOT torture at all!



Or something along those lines.

One cannot listen to his assessment, as it is biased for very obvious reasons. You stated that you could hear the fear in his voice -- obviously, fear clouds our judgment. It makes us exaggerate smaller occurrences and turn them into bigger ones. He said that it was "torture" because he was probably frightened out of his mind. However, the procedure was not painful at all. Torture tends to involve physical anguish, while his was purely mental. In fact, it can be likened to going to a dentist. Sure, it can freak out some people, but it can hardly be construed as "torture." It is simply a scary but painless procedure devised to extract information (or teeth). For those who are claustrophobic, being put in a very small room can be considered "torture" although, objectively, it is no such thing. The same principle applies to this -- it's no worse than a frightening horror movie. Well, maybe a bit worse.

Probably something to do with him being mentally unfit to have an opinion, or some similar bullshit. You know, the usual things a troll does.

You know, there's an entire topic to debate here -- no need to guess at what my response will be. Seriously.

Probably something to do with him being mentally unfit to have an opinion, or some similar bullshit. You know, the usual things a troll does.
Wow... you got it spot on!

So a little closeted democrat gets scared by water.

Leftists are always scared of something.

Torture tends to involve physical anguish, while his was purely mental.

The best torture is always mental. And before you open your fucking noisehole again, think about the fact that there are people on this planet who know of such things better than you by sheer dint of experience & that they may in fact be among the denizens on this board.

One cannot listen to his assessment, as it is biased for very obvious reasons. You stated that you could hear the fear in his voice -- obviously, fear clouds our judgment. It makes us exaggerate smaller occurrences and turn them into bigger ones. He said that it was "torture" because he was probably frightened out of his mind. However, the procedure was not painful at all. Torture tends to involve physical anguish, while his was purely mental. In fact, it can be likened to going to a dentist. Sure, it can freak out some people, but it can hardly be construed as "torture." It is simply a scary but painless procedure devised to extract information (or teeth). For those who are claustrophobic, being put in a very small room can be considered "torture" although, objectively, it is no such thing. The same principle applies to this -- it's no worse than a frightening horror movie. Well, maybe a bit worse.The problem with this statement is that it assumes that there is no such thing as mental torture, making it utterly worthless. ;)

One cannot listen to his assessment, as it is biased for very obvious reasons. You stated that you could hear the fear in his voice -- obviously, fear clouds our judgment. It makes us exaggerate smaller occurrences and turn them into bigger ones. He said that it was "torture" because he was probably frightened out of his mind. However, the procedure was not painful at all. Torture tends to involve physical anguish, while his was purely mental. In fact, it can be likened to going to a dentist. Sure, it can freak out some people, but it can hardly be construed as "torture." It is simply a scary but painless procedure devised to extract information (or teeth). For those who are claustrophobic, being put in a very small room can be considered "torture" although, objectively, it is no such thing. The same principle applies to this -- it's no worse than a frightening horror movie. Well, maybe a bit worse.

tor‧ture  /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object)
6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).


While dictionary.com isn't the world's most reliable source for anything, I'm pretty sure it will do for word definitions. According to this, anything that causes mental anguish could be considered torture.

To liken this to something you'd understand, it'd be along the lines of getting trapped in an elevator with a reasonable, intelligent, and nice person. You probably wouldn't last 15 minutes.

The best torture is always mental.

If there are no detrimental physical consequences and if there is no pain, I cannot deem it torture. It is simply coercive interrogation -- no more, no less. The same would apply to playing a Teletubbies movie, over and over and over and over.

The problem with this statement is that it assumes that there is no such thing as mental torture, making it utterly worthless. ;)

If you allow for mental torture, then one can claim that anything is torture. A cell? Why, I'm deathly afraid of cells! Putting me in a cell is torture! Oh, no! Water?! Why, I'm very, very afraid of water! Oh, please don't drip it slowly down my throat because that would be torture! See how ridiculous it is?

If there are no detrimental physical consequences and if there is no pain, I cannot deem it torture.Who died and made you dictionary? :confused:

Wow... you got it spot on!

And you know, I'm not the least bit surprised. His routine is really wearing thin.

Come on, puppet master... You can do better.

If you allow for mental torture, then one can claim that anything is torture. A cell? Why, I'm deathly afraid of cells! Putting me in a cell is torture! Oh, no! Water?! Why, I'm very, very afraid of water! Oh, please don't drip it slowly down my throat because that would be torture! See how ridiculous it is?Nope.

To liken this to something you'd understand, it'd be along the lines of getting trapped in an elevator with a reasonable, intelligent, and nice person.

I frequently get trapped in the elevator alone. Oh, snap! :)

If there are no detrimental physical consequences and if there is no pain, I cannot deem it torture. It is simply coercive interrogation -- no more, no less. The same would apply to playing a Teletubbies movie, over and over and over and over.

Who cares what you deam or dont deam torture ... the english language as posted disagrees with you

Here we go...

One cannot listen to his assessment, as it is biased for very obvious reasons.
If it were biased at all, it would be biased towards the Republican Party line. This is Fox News we're talking about, after all.

You stated that you could hear the fear in his voice -- obviously, fear clouds our judgment. It makes us exaggerate smaller occurrences and turn them into bigger ones. He said that it was "torture" because he was probably frightened out of his mind. However, the procedure was not painful at all.
Yes, I am sure you're second-hand evaluation of his commentary is much more accurate than this guy's first-hand experience of the technique.

Torture tends to involve physical anguish, while his was purely mental.
Wrong. My dictionary defines torture as "excruciating physical or mental pain". You fail.

In fact, it can be likened to going to a dentist. Sure, it can freak out some people, but it can hardly be construed as "torture."
That's because fear of the dentist is a specific phobia that affects a certain segment of the population -- some people just don't like machines drilling in their teeth. Waterboarding, however, elicits an extreme panic response in everyone. This is because the interrogator is tricking the mind into thinking the body is dying. Oh, hey... doesn't Bush define torture as any method that causes or simulates organ failure? Hmm...

It is simply a scary but painless procedure devised to extract information (or teeth).
Wrong again. Torture is useless as an interrogation technique, because the victim is so terrified that they'll say anything to make it stop.

For those who are claustrophobic, being put in a very small room can be considered "torture" although, objectively, it is no such thing. The same principle applies to this -- it's no worse than a frightening horror movie. Well, maybe a bit worse.
Again, wrong. Claustrophobia is a specific phobia.

I frequently get trapped in the elevator alone. Oh, snap! :)Ah, man, that's just asking for a Brave New World joke at your expense...

Come on, puppet master... You can do better.

I'm not a puppet, and I'm not a troll. I cannot do better than telling the truth, even if it doesn't conform with your vision of me as an ultra-extremist puppet/troll. I'm sorry for telling you cold, hard, reasonable facts.

I'm not a puppet, and I'm not a troll. I cannot do better than telling the truth, even if it doesn't conform with your vision of me as an ultra-extremist puppet/troll. I'm sorry for telling you cold, hard, reasonable facts.As Fris pointed out, you can troll even if you believe your opinion to be true. ;)

It's all liberal lies!

Just kidding, just kidding. I just felt bored.

I'm not a puppet, and I'm not a troll. I cannot do better than telling the truth, even if it doesn't conform with your vision of me as an ultra-extremist puppet/troll. I'm sorry for telling you cold, hard, reasonable facts.

What facts? so far you have failed English comprehension. The facts stated in a dictionary are usually pretty simple.

Wrong again. Torture is useless as an interrogation technique, because the victim is so terrified that they'll say anything to make it stop.

That is false. There is always the threat of increased pain if you give a wrong response. For example, an electric current can be attached to certain sensitive body parts. Every time you answer incorrectly, the voltage can be cranked up.

Thanks. BTW here's his blog regarding the whole bit:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227357,00.html

That is false. There is always the threat of increased pain if you give a wrong response. For example, an electric current can be attached to certain sensitive body parts. Every time you answer incorrectly, the voltage can be cranked up.

That’s one example … ignoring the other half of the definition. Ignore it all ya want its still in the definition.

I'm not a puppet, and I'm not a troll. I cannot do better than telling the truth, even if it doesn't conform with your vision of me as an ultra-extremist puppet/troll. I'm sorry for telling you cold, hard, reasonable facts.
More like warm, soft, unreasonable opinion. You're going against this guy's personal experience with waterboarding -- which if anything should be biased to minimize it's negative side -- with what you "deem" to be reality. Deem all you want, but we're discussing the real world here.

You are also, for the record, arguing definitions with a standard English dictionary.

Semantics. The last refuge of those who have hopelessly lost an argument.

That is false. There is always the threat of increased pain if you give a wrong response. For example, an electric current can be attached to certain sensitive body parts. Every time you answer incorrectly, the voltage can be cranked up.

I'm pretty sure the difference between 15,000 and 20,000 volts is academic at the point when you're writhing on the floor screaming in pain, convulsing, vomiting, and likely voiding your bowels.

But hey, a desperate made up answer to a torturer's question is the same thing as intelligence, right?

That is false. There is always the threat of increased pain if you give a wrong response.
And they'd know it's wrong how?

For example, an electric current can be attached to certain sensitive body parts. Every time you answer incorrectly, the voltage can be cranked up.
Even if that were effective, it doesn't address the fact that torture soils what remains of our image as a civilized nation and destroys our moral authority.

Even if that were effective, it doesn't address the fact that torture soils what remains of our image as a civilized nation and destroys our moral authority.You're telling this to someone that wants to bring back slavery...

And they'd know it's wrong how?

What would be the point of asking a question which could not be verified? What would the objective of asking a such question be?

Even if that were effective, it doesn't address the fact that torture soils what remains of our image as a civilized nation and destroys our moral authority.

We don't need moral authority as long as we have military authority. As long as we're self-righteous, we'll be fine. If we're doing, excuse the phrase, God's work, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of us.

We don't need moral authority as long as we have military authority. As long as we're self-righteous, we'll be fine. If we're doing, excuse the phrase, God's work, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of us.Whittier?

If there are no detrimental physical consequences and if there is no pain, I cannot deem it torture. It is simply coercive interrogation -- no more, no less. The same would apply to playing a Teletubbies movie, over and over and over and over.

Very well, lad. Come on over to my house & I'lll inflict a few things on you. When we're through, you will be free to describe your experiences.

If you allow for mental torture, then one can claim that anything is torture. A cell? Why, I'm deathly afraid of cells! Putting me in a cell is torture! Oh, no! Water?! Why, I'm very, very afraid of water! Oh, please don't drip it slowly down my throat because that would be torture! See how ridiculous it is?

In Greenland, that IS torture. There are no prisons there, & offenses that nominally would be punished with jail sentences elsewhere are let off with fines there. Why? Because the Greenlandic form of hell, of torture is the small, locked room. Look a Greenlander away & they might be dead in less than a week. It has something to do with the never-ending opennness & horizons.

You cannot proclaim yourself High-All Arbiter Of Existence for the sheer fact that you do not know everything nor do you know how all should live, which in fact, you ARE doing by stating "THIS is torture; THIS is not."

"You oughta be shot. Or stabbed. Lose a leg. To be a surgeon, you know? Know what kind of pain you're dealing with. They make psychiatrists get psychoanalyzed before they can get certified, but they don't make a surgeon get cut on. That seem right to you?" --Jubal Early, Firefly

Liberal lies!

Waterboarding isn't torture because it doesn't inflict physical damage upon the individual, in fact, I think it should be encouraged! Use it on regular criminals even!

Still trying to get someone to bite...you have no idea how distasteful it was for me to write that.

What facts? so far you have failed English comprehension. The facts stated in a dictionary are usually pretty simple.

I disagree with the definition as it should apply to what is an acceptable interrogation technique. Even if by a strict dictionary definition it is torture, it is not physically harmful and does not cause pain. A different definition of torture must apply to our modern world, lest anything be deemed torture. What if someone asks you a hard question? Can that be deemed "mental torture"? That definition is far too loose to be applicable.

Very well, lad. Come on over to my house & I'lll inflict a few things on you. When we're through, you will be free to describe your experiences.



In Greenland, that IS torture. There are no prisons there, & offenses that nominally would be punished with jail sentences elsewhere are let off with fines there. Why? Because the Greenlandic form of hell, of torture is the small, locked room. Look a Greenlander away & they might be dead in less than a week. It has something to do with the never-ending opennness & horizons.

You cannot proclaim yourself High-All Arbiter Of Existence for the sheer fact that you do not know everything nor do you know how all should live, which in fact, you ARE doing by stating "THIS is torture; THIS is not."

"You oughta be shot. Or stabbed. Lose a leg. To be a surgeon, you know? Know what kind of pain you're dealing with. They make psychiatrists get psychoanalyzed before they can get certified, but they don't make a surgeon get cut on. That seem right to you?" --Jubal Early, Firefly

I love you for the Firefly quote.

I disagree with the definition as it should apply to what is an acceptable interrogation technique.That's ok, tell some people that care :)

What would be the point of asking a question which could not be verified? What would the objective of asking a such question be?
There's no way to verify anything a suspect says for sure, but there are some tactics that are more effective at producing accurate information than others. Torture is not one of those methods.

We don't need moral authority as long as we have military authority. As long as we're self-righteous, we'll be fine. If we're doing, excuse the phrase, God's work, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of us.
Sure, we don't need the world's cooperation, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier to get things done. Just imagine how much better off America and the world would be if Bush had stuck to his inaugural promise and cooperated with the Democrats rather than rending the country with his divisive rhetoric.

Just imagine how much better off America and the world would be if Bush had stuck to his inaugural promise and cooperated with the Democrats rather than rending the country with his divisive rhetoric.

Yeah, the Islamic flag would be fluttering over the White House. [/hyperbole]

Don't you people know that Fox News is part of the liberal lie machine?

I disagree with the definition as it should apply to what is an acceptable interrogation technique.
Disagree all you want, it doesn't change reality. Truthiness is not truth.

Even if by a strict dictionary definition it is torture, it is not physically harmful and does not cause pain.
It causes severe mental pain and terror, which is no less potent or abhorrent.

A different definition of torture must apply to our modern world, lest anything be deemed torture. What if someone asks you a hard question? Can that be deemed "mental torture"? That definition is far too loose to be applicable.
Hell, why don't we redefine "morality" to mean "nuking every country on Earth but us"? The old definitions of "morality" are standing in the way of American expansion. We must redefine the word in our modern world to make room for our eradication and dominance of every other nation. That way we can tell ourselves that we did the right thing when the nuclear winter comes.

We don't need moral authority as long as we have military authority. As long as we're self-righteous, we'll be fine.

Erm...

TROLL! :cool:

Whittier?

I think it just might be.

Erm...

TROLL! :cool:

Its got to stop. Its getting fucking ridiculous. I think I really would like to argue with somebody who had opinions like MTAE but who could be reasonable. But then, I don't think it is possible to be reasonable and have opinions like those. At least, it is yet to be proven.

Erm...

TROLL! :cool:

Perhaps self-righteous is not the right word because it has a negative connotation, but you know what I mean. And stop flaming, please!

Perhaps self-righteous is not the right word because it has a negative connotation, but you know what I mean. And stop flaming, please!

We're not flaming. We're just calling you out for your never-ending trolling.

Don't you people know that Fox News is part of the liberal lie machine?

No, it's not. It's completely fair and objective, actually. Sometimes it might lean a bit liberally, but it's certainly not a part of any "lie machine." Also, I have full faith in that reporter, but I cannot trust his judgment when he is scared out of his mind.

No, it's not. It's completely fair and objective, actually. Sometimes it might lean a bit liberally, but it's certainly not a part of any "lie machine."
Now see, this is why people say you troll. Blatant contradictions of reality and all that.

Also, I have full faith in that reporter, but I cannot trust his judgment when he is scared out of his mind.
Scared out of mind = sever mental anguish = torture.

Torture tends to involve physical anguish, while his was purely mental.
Perhaps you should learn the definition of "torture"?

torture:

2. cause somebody anguish: to cause somebody mental or physical anguish

Now that you have learned your word for the day, you can go about your trollish ways :p

Is it ok to become aroused at the tourture of certain people?

Is it ok to become aroused at the tourture of certain people?

*slaps you with a trout*

You tell me.

Whittier?
Perhaps, but I don't think so.

Here you can compare Whittier on the same topic (torture):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9104311&postcount=280

Also, Whittier was at one time in the army and ran for Congress, whereas MTAE stated that voting was a "waste of time", and he believes that people who serve in the military are not quite sane.

Its got to stop. Its getting fucking ridiculous. I think I really would like to argue with somebody who had opinions like MTAE but who could be reasonable. But then, I don't think it is possible to be reasonable and have opinions like those. At least, it is yet to be proven.

I actually think his posts are kind of funny in a deliberately twisted way. Sometimes when I have really evil, outrageous thoughts, my forehead tightens up and I hear a "woooong...woooong" sound in my ears.

I think MTAE is addicted to that sort of experience. :D

No, it's not. It's completely fair and objective, actually. Sometimes it might lean a bit liberally, but it's certainly not a part of any "lie machine." Also, I have full faith in that reporter, but I cannot trust his judgment when he is scared out of his mind.

:p

I get it.

Am I really that unbelievable as a troll? :(

Am I really that unbelievable as a troll? :(

It was you? :eek:

Am I really that unbelievable as a troll? :(
I'll believe it when I hear it from Herr MTAE's mouth...

I'll believe it when I hear it from Herr MTAE's mouth...

*silence deafens*

No, it's not. It's completely fair and objective, actually. Sometimes it might lean a bit liberally, but it's certainly not a part of any "lie machine." Also, I have full faith in that reporter, but I cannot trust his judgment when he is scared out of his mind.

You're getting funny again. Cool.

Perhaps, but I don't think so.

Here you can compare Whittier on the same topic (torture):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9104311&postcount=280

Also, Whittier was at one time in the army and ran for Congress, whereas MTAE stated that voting was a "waste of time", and he believes that people who serve in the military are not quite sane.Yeah I know. I'm sure the mods would have deleted MTAE if he was Whittier, considering that Whittier is DOS, if I remember correctly. A comparison to NSG's self-proclaimed prophet seemed applicable though.

Am I really that unbelievable as a troll? :(Yeah. You seem a bit too sane to be spouting some of the things you did :D

Yeah I know. I'm sure the mods would have deleted MTAE if he was Whittier, considering that Whittier is DOS, if I remember correctly. A comparison to NSG's self-proclaimed prophet seemed applicable though.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I haven't seen any posts by DK for awhile.

Hmmmmm. Hmmmmm.

One cannot listen to his assessment, as it is biased blahblahblah. meaningless trolling. blahblahblah. He said that it was "torture" because he was probably frightened out of his mind. However, the procedure was not painful at all. Torture tends to involve physical anguish, while his was purely mental. more trolling. It is simply a scary but painless procedure devised to extract information blahblahblah."torture" although, objectively, it is no such thing. Lookatme!Lookatme!Lookatme everybody, Lookatme! I'm a troll! blahblahblah.
well done. Well done.
And again, well done.

*starts slow hand clap*

We don't need moral authority as long as we have military authority. As long as we're self-righteous, we'll be fine. If we're doing, excuse the phrase, God's work, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of us.

Gott mit uns... I remember this words... Oh, yeah, old SS motto

One cannot listen to his assessment, as it is biased for very obvious reasons. You stated that you could hear the fear in his voice -- obviously, fear clouds our judgment. It makes us exaggerate smaller occurrences and turn them into bigger ones. He said that it was "torture" because he was probably frightened out of his mind. However, the procedure was not painful at all. Torture tends to involve physical anguish, while his was purely mental. In fact, it can be likened to going to a dentist. Sure, it can freak out some people, but it can hardly be construed as "torture." It is simply a scary but painless procedure devised to extract information (or teeth). For those who are claustrophobic, being put in a very small room can be considered "torture" although, objectively, it is no such thing. The same principle applies to this -- it's no worse than a frightening horror movie. Well, maybe a bit worse.

You dont think nearly drowning is painful?

I frequently get trapped in the elevator alone. Oh, snap! :)

So, "alone" is "with a person" to you.

Multiple personality disorder... check.

We don't need moral authority as long as we have military authority. As long as we're self-righteous, we'll be fine. If we're doing, excuse the phrase, God's work, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of us.

Stand against the world, then. You'll be the first one to die. And there is no higher authority than ME! You answer to ME, and ME alone, Means. Your God is hereby null and void! How can I tell? Your evil interpretation of a god has, so far, failed to smite me...

but I cannot trust his judgment when he is scared out of his mind.
Then how could you trust anything he says?

If somoene under torture is scared out of their mind can you trust what they have to say? You don't seem t think so by your own admission...


At any rate - in regard to your "make the threat of increased pain for wrong answers and don't ask for answers you can't verify"

If you can verify the answers already then WTF are you still asking the questions for?

Also - The "possibility of more pain later" is not a deterent against "definately ending the pain now". Give an answer that will take a looooong time to verify and not only do you score a hit against the intelligence services by wasting huge amounts of time and resources but you don't get hurt for a long time.

Is it ok to become aroused at the tourture of certain people?

Sure, Means does that all the time.

obviously, fear clouds our judgment.
My advice to you then would be: Let go of your fears!

Gott mit uns... I remember this words... Oh, yeah, old SS motto
The SS motto was "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" ("My honour is loyalty"). "Gott Mit Uns" ("God with us") was the Emperor's motto, inscribed in the belt buckles of German soldiers. It was not changed for the Wehrmacht's belt buckles.
At least get it right, will you?

Just out of interest: A Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, was tried in 1947 for carrying out a form of torture waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II, and was sentenced to 15 years of hard labour.
Said form was strapping the US civilian to a board, tilting him so his feet with higher than his head and pouring water over him to simulate the sensation of drowning.

Yep. That's right. 60 years ago, the US called it a war crime and sentenced someone to 15 years hard labour for it. Now we have Cheney calling it a harmless 'dunk in water' and a Fox reporter saying it's an effective and safe way of obtaining information.

When are you going to wake up America, and see what the Bush Admin has done to your country and it's ideals?

Just out of interest: A Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, was tried in 1947 for carrying out a form of torture waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II, and was sentenced to 15 years of hard labour.
Said form was strapping the US civilian to a board, tilting him so his feet with higher than his head and pouring water over him to simulate the sensation of drowning.

Yep. That's right. 60 years ago, the US called it a war crime and sentenced someone to 15 years hard labour for it. Now we have Cheney calling it a harmless 'dunk in water' and a Fox reporter saying it's an effective and safe way of obtaining information.

When are you going to wake up America, and see what the Bush Admin has done to your country and it's ideals?

Of course it is only bad if others do it!

Okay so afetr reading this thread I have learnt menatl torture doesn't exist. I sense example time!

Example: Say you, MTAE were trapped in a room where all the walls were clear so you could see everything going on outside. Not so bad right...okay. Now imagine whatever way you look you see a loved one being hurt for no reason and you are helpless to save them. Now wouldn't you be angry, anxious.....tortured?

You see you are feeling pain but no physcal pain is being inflicted on you. That is mental torture......

Look a Greenlander away & they might be dead in less than a week. It has something to do with the never-ending opennness & horizons.

Can you cite this? Im skeptical that any healthy human keels over dead if you lock them in a 8x8 room with proper medical care and food for a week and i dont care what horizons he is used to.

Just out of interest: A Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, was tried in 1947 for carrying out a form of torture waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II, and was sentenced to 15 years of hard labour.
Said form was strapping the US civilian to a board, tilting him so his feet with higher than his head and pouring water over him to simulate the sensation of drowning.

Yep. That's right. 60 years ago, the US called it a war crime and sentenced someone to 15 years hard labour for it. Now we have Cheney calling it a harmless 'dunk in water' and a Fox reporter saying it's an effective and safe way of obtaining information.

When are you going to wake up America, and see what the Bush Admin has done to your country and it's ideals?
Not all of us are asleep.

I know I already posted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505772) about this topic, but I was a bit premature about it, and made the thread while the segment was have video of it uploaded inside of an hour, but it took a bit longer than that, so... here it is again.

Anyway, the story is basically this: Fox News sent one of its own reporters (Steve Harrigan, for those of you taking notes) to a classified military installation, where he was bound and subjected to three different forms of waterboarding by scary black-clad men in ski masks. The event was aired later as a segment on Greta van Sustern's program.

There are two videos of the incident:

This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81xjAgCOX3A) shows the actual video of the session, demonstrating each of the three methods and how Harrigan responded to them.

This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Xd0Q2Auz4) shows Harrigan after the session and his commentary on it.

I find the second video especially telling -- even after what we can assume is hours or even days, you can still hear the fear in his voice and see it on his face. Keep in mind that each trial lasted mere seconds, and that he knew he was in a safe, artificial, non-lethal environment that he could leave at any time.

Even better than that is the fact that Harrigan, a dyed-in-the-wool Fox News reporter, unhesitatingly describes the experience as "torture". No equivocation, no qualifiers, no Republican talking points. Just torture, pure and simple.

I'd like to see how MTAE responds to that...

That is PRECISELY the form of "torture", which I would refer to as "coerced behavioral change", we need..!!

If the word "torture" encompasses both what "Ude and Kuse" did and this "waterboarding", then the word "torture" is a useless one.


If you are simply opposed to a word, devoid of meaning, then you have severely underused your gray matter.

These people are to be laughed at.

And are.

That is PRECISELY the form of "torture", which I would refer to as "coerced behavioral change", we need..!!

If the word "torture" encompasses both what "Ude and Kuse" did and this "waterboarding", then the word "torture" is a useless one.


If you are simply opposed to a word, devoid of meaning, then you have severely underused your gray matter.

These people are to be laughed at.

And are.

Yet like posted apparently this form of torture is enough to charge someone with a war crime

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11913760&postcount=72

Yep. That's right. 60 years ago, the US called it a war crime and sentenced someone to 15 years hard labour for it.

That's because the US was much more liberal back then. After all, we had just gone through a pseudo-communist president (who was elected for no less than 4 terms). Also, we were quite enraged at the actions of the Japanese. These two factors, when mixed together, allowed us to deem coercive investigation "torture" when it was, in fact, not. Have you ever heard of victors' justice? Well, guess what? Frequently, it's not justice but retribution.

That's because the US was much more liberal back then (in the 40s).

Drugs destroy brain cells, okay? We're starting to worry about you.

That's because the US was much more liberal back then. After all, we had just gone through a pseudo-communist president (who was elected for no less than 4 terms). Also, we were quite enraged at the actions of the Japanese. These two factors, when mixed together, allowed us to deem coercive investigation "torture" when it was, in fact, not. Have you ever heard of victors' justice? Well, guess what? Frequently, it's not justice but retribution.

That silly liberal with his Japanese internment camps.

One cannot listen to his assessment, as it is biased for very obvious reasons. You stated that you could hear the fear in his voice -- obviously, fear clouds our judgment. It makes us exaggerate smaller occurrences and turn them into bigger ones. He said that it was "torture" because he was probably frightened out of his mind. However, the procedure was not painful at all. Torture tends to involve physical anguish, while his was purely mental. In fact, it can be likened to going to a dentist. Sure, it can freak out some people, but it can hardly be construed as "torture." It is simply a scary but painless procedure devised to extract information (or teeth). For those who are claustrophobic, being put in a very small room can be considered "torture" although, objectively, it is no such thing. The same principle applies to this -- it's no worse than a frightening horror movie. Well, maybe a bit worse.

Jesus, you are so completely full of shit, it's scary.

And the fact that you declare that going to the dentist is a simple and painless procedure just proves how much of an ignorant fool you truly are.

Next time you go to the dentist and need to have some work done, ie; having a cavity filled or having a crown or root canal done, you are not allowed to have any anaesthetic.

None.

Then after you're finished shrieking and writhing in pain fater having had the raw nerves in your mouth exposed, then perhaps you can come back and apologize to everyone here at NS and admit that yes, you are in fact a fucking moron.

And as for your bullshit claim that torture can only be physical in nature, that's bullshit as well.

Everyone, from the CIA to watchdog groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have declared that torture can and is mental and psychological as well as physical.

And finally, please explain how waterboarding is not a phyisical process at all, but merely a mental one.

Tool.

That's because the US was much more liberal back then. After all, we had just gone through a pseudo-communist president (who was elected for no less than 4 terms). Also, we were quite enraged at the actions of the Japanese. These two factors, when mixed together, allowed us to deem coercive investigation "torture" when it was, in fact, not. Have you ever heard of victors' justice? Well, guess what? Frequently, it's not justice but retribution.

Mmm. Liberal US that won a war against a much more fearsome enemy than the terrorists, all of this in the same five years this Administration has taken (so far and COUNTING) to win the war on terror.

So you're saying that liberals fight wars better. Okay. Sounds like the only sane thing you ever said.

Oh, you'll claim, that was a DIFFERENT war. One that did not require elements like secrecy and such. Bull, as per the several radio and code interceptions and so on. However, should you claim this, you'll be admitting that this war is, as the liberals claimed, in actuality a police action.

So, what will it be, Means? Or will you decide not to answer me out of pure, abject fear of my obvious superiority?

That's because the US was much more liberal back then.


Oh yes, the US was just SO much more liberal back then than it is today.

For example, the armed forces were segregated, after all we couldn't have honkies living with those filthy negroes, now could we?:rolleyes: , the entire Southern part of the country, from Virginia all the way to texas was segregated in every way imaginable and Jim crow laws were strictly enforced, quite frequently ar gunpoint or at the end of a lynching rope. After all, we couldn't have honkies shopping and eating at the same lunch counters/department stores and restaurants as those filthy negroes, now could we?:rolleyes: Not to mention that if you were black and living in the South and wanted to travel across the South either for a vacation or to see relatives, when it came to sleeping, you had two choices:

1) Sleep in your car.

2) Find some friends who would put you up for the night.

Why?

Because no hotel/motels in the South would take negroes as customers, in fact it was illegal to do so under the Jim Crow laws.

MTAE after reading only two of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you are an racist, bigoted ignorant fucktard who likes to try and rewrtie history to serve your own vile and warped ends.

You want to play that game, fine.

But I will crush and end you.

Count on it.

Game on.

MTAE after reading only two of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you are an racist, bigoted ignorant fucktard who likes to try and rewrtie history to serve your own vile and warped ends.
It took two of his posts for you to realize that? :eek:

You want to play that game, fine.

But I will crush and end you.

Count on it.

Game on.
Get in line...

MTAE after reading only two of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you are an racist, bigoted ignorant fucktard who likes to try and rewrtie history to serve your own vile and warped ends.

You want to play that game, fine.

But I will crush and end you.

Count on it.

Game on.

He's a troll, that's what he's after, also you'll want to avoid flaming him, 'cause you will end up getting banned if you don't.

Oh, no! Water?! Why, I'm very, very afraid of water! Oh, please don't drip it slowly down my throat because that would be torture!

I see you don't watch Mythbusters.

I see you don't watch Mythbusters.

Too cerebral for him, though he might like the explosions.

Too cerebral for him, though he might like the explosions.

Hey I like the explosions

Adam makes me giggle.

One cannot listen to his assessment, as it is biased for very obvious reasons. You stated that you could hear the fear in his voice -- obviously, fear clouds our judgment. It makes us exaggerate smaller occurrences and turn them into bigger ones. He said that it was "torture" because he was probably frightened out of his mind. However, the procedure was not painful at all. Torture tends to involve physical anguish, while his was purely mental. In fact, it can be likened to going to a dentist. Sure, it can freak out some people, but it can hardly be construed as "torture." It is simply a scary but painless procedure devised to extract information (or teeth). For those who are claustrophobic, being put in a very small room can be considered "torture" although, objectively, it is no such thing. The same principle applies to this -- it's no worse than a frightening horror movie. Well, maybe a bit worse.

So rape should not be considered a crime as long as it does not cause physical anguish? The effects of rape are mostly mental so do you believe that raping someone should not be a crime if you do not hurt them?

Myth (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/adam.jpg)-Busters (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/jamie.jpg), eh? (Check out http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/mythbusters.html ) :p

So rape should not be considered a crime as long as it does not cause physical anguish? The effects of rape are mostly mental so do you believe that raping someone should not be a crime if you do not hurt them?

Given MTAE's "enlightened" attitudes I find it unlikely he thinks rape should even be a crime.

You know what! Im sick and tierd of the back seat presidents in this country. All I hear now adays is whineing about morality, human rights, political correctness and how we should care what the rest of the world thinks of us. Im sorry I feel this country is becoming figuratively a bowl of quivering jelly. We are willing to give rights to people that would not give those same rights to our men.

We are fighting harder in this country to be everyones friends then we are to protect ourselves from those that would like to kill us. We are at war people when we have a risk that our civilians are at risk dont you want to know that our government is doing everything possible to protect you.

This brings me to what I believe will happen if something happens in this country. If god help us a nuke does go off in say Chicago, and the people of this fine country find out we had a connected person to the attack in jail that knew about this attack ahead of time. What would the outcry be? WHY DID YOU NOT GET THE INFO OUT OF HIM BEFORE THIS HAPPENED? We dwell in this little world were we think everyone in the world should love us but they dont and they never will. When a country gets mad at us we are so quick to demand we appease them. Sorry Im not a political correct nut that thinks if some crazy person attacks us we should drop our guns and ask for them to please be our friend. Those that do think that way are as crazy as the ones that attacked us.

So keep whining about things we are doing to protect ourselves from the crazies and one day you will look back and wish we had done some of this in order to save lives in our country and dont whine we didnt do enough when it happens because of the whineing we are taking away things that are there in just the cases that they are needed.

You know what! Im sick and tierd of the back seat presidents in this country. All I hear now adays is whineing about morality, human rights, political correctness and how we should care what the rest of the world thinks of us. Im sorry I feel this country is becoming figuratively a bowl of quivering jelly. We are willing to give rights to people that would not give those same rights to our men.

We are fighting harder in this country to be everyones friends then we are to protect ourselves from those that would like to kill us. We are at war people when we have a risk that our civilians are at risk dont you want to know that our government is doing everything possible to protect you.

This brings me to what I believe will happen if something happens in this country. If god help us a nuke does go off in say Chicago, and the people of this fine country find out we had a connected person to the attack in jail that knew about this attack ahead of time. What would the outcry be? WHY DID YOU NOT GET THE INFO OUT OF HIM BEFORE THIS HAPPENED? We dwell in this little world were we think everyone in the world should love us but they dont and they never will. When a country gets mad at us we are so quick to demand we appease them. Sorry Im not a political correct nut that thinks if some crazy person attacks us we should drop our guns and ask for them to please be our friend. Those that do think that way are as crazy as the ones that attacked us.

So keep whining about things we are doing to protect ourselves from the crazies and one day you will look back and wish we had done some of this in order to save lives in our country and dont whine we didnt do enough when it happens because of the whineing we are taking away things that are there in just the cases that they are needed.
Getting info is good. Getting info through torture doesn't work.

prove it!

prove it!
Here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=torture+doesn%27t+work&btnG=Google+Search).

Pick a source, any source.

prove it!

Did you think the reason civilized nations don't torture is because we're too nice? It's because you don't get reliable information. If you don't know what the victim is saying is true you don't know when to stop. If you don't stop when they tell the truth they'll say whatever you want to hear.

prove it!

Troll.

prove it!

You are the one that has to prove it works, because, by definition, negatives aren't proven.

However, the CIA has several essays by people who actually KNOW what the fuck they're talking about. And yes, the USA is accountable to the world, unless you also believe that Iraq wasn't. And you won't have any success in the war on terror until you work WITH the world on it, not the other way around. Manifest destiny does NOT exist. Live with it.

Edit: Well, I stand corrected. Turns out this many people that actually, again, KNOW what the fuck they're talking about just made the work of proving the negative you asked this much easier.

Poor Laborland...

Given MTAE's "enlightened" attitudes I find it unlikely he thinks rape should even be a crime.

Well, he certainly thinks paedophilia shouldn't be one...

You know what! Im sick and tierd of the back seat presidents in this country. All I hear now adays is whineing about morality, human rights, political correctness and how we should care what the rest of the world thinks of us. Im sorry I feel this country is becoming figuratively a bowl of quivering jelly. We are willing to give rights to people that would not give those same rights to our men.

So you consider people who believe in the 8th ammendment of the constitution to be politically correct bowls of jelly? Do you consider the founding fathers bowls of jelly for putting in the pussyfied 8th ammendment of no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted?

[

Getting info is good. Getting info through torture doesn't work.

Then you're not DOING IT RIGHT..!!

DM,.. not only is that a completely unprovable statement, it's obviously wrong.


Whenever you get your child to admit to a lie, for example, you have "tortured" him into doing so.

He knows he will be "punished" if he doesn't admit it, and he knows that he will be HIGHLY punished if it's found out that he lied to you during "the session",.. and because he knows that, he admits the lie, and tells the truth about what actually happened.

That is what effective "torture" is all about.

So we sit down and ask them nicely for the info when they know we wont do anything to them if they refuse and just spit in our eye with a smile. We sit there for days and days asking them to please give us the info we need and then the bomb goes off killing hundreds of thousands of americans and the people will be all mad because we didnt do enough to get the info? Is this what everyone is saying they would rather see? Instead of instilling fear in our enemies and keeping them off balance and not knowing what to expect next?

Sorry I think we ahould have more spine then our enemies do. I think that when american lives are at risk its a do whatever it takes attitude that should take over not the sissy oh please mister terrorist give us the info we need and you get a cookie attitude that we are showing now a days.

So you consider people who believe in the 8th ammendment of the constitution to be politically correct bowls of jelly? Do you consider the founding fathers bowls of jelly for putting in the pussyfied 8th ammendment of no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted?

[

"Torture" as used to get information, and done ethically, is NOT PUNISHMENT.

It is "behavior change inducement".



Knee-jerk anti-torture proponents are funny.

They have no idea what they're talking about,.. and talk about it with such self-righteous moral power.

THAT is extremely funny,.. and rather sad.

prove it!

S'alright:

http://www.spssi.org/SPSSI_Statement_on_torture.pdf

"Second, extensive studies of torture show that it is largely ineffective as a means of gathering correct information. For example, the Gestapo's use of torture against the French resistance in the 1940s and the French use of torture against the Algerian resistance in the 1950s both proved largely ineffective. As another example, Diederik Lohman, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, found that the torture of suspected criminals typically yields information that is not accurate. A final, and rather famous example is that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Under torture, al-Libi claimed that Al Qaeda had significant links to Iraq . However, as he himself later admitted, there were no such links. Thus, the historical record seems to count against the effectiveness of torture."
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/provocations20.htm

A Christian view point for those who like that sort of thing:
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2006/february/23.32.html

Yay:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/torturetest/

"A new study that applies the principles of game theory to intelligence gathering says torture does not succeed in getting information.

Roger Koppl, a professor of economics at Fairleigh Dickinson University, said Wednesday torture does not work because of a central problem: The government inflicting the torture can't make a believable promise to the torture victim that the punishment will stop once he or she tells the truth.

His study, entitled "Epistemic Systems," applies game theory to social situations in which people must decide whether to lie or tell the truth, according to a press release from the university. Game theory studies how people in conflict try to get the best outcome for themselves by picking the best available strategy. His work appears in "Episteme: Journal of Social Epistemology," a magazine that publishes research on which social situations encourage people to tell the truth and which do not.

According to Koppl, torture victims know governments resort to torture because they do not know the truth, so they would be unable to recognize it when they hear it. And if they do believe they have learned the truth, the victim has no reason to believe the torture will stop.

"Torture victims understand this fact and therefore hide the truth," according to the statement.

Koppl's research is meant to overturn conventional wisdom that suggests torture is an effective means of gathering information, particularly in a "ticking bomb" scenario, but that governments should not engage in it for moral reasons.

"There are situations in which torture works, but they are rare. Twentieth-Century experiences with torture show that it is futile in most cases," Koppl said in the statement."

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/torture_doesnt_work_study.htm

So we sit down and ask them nicely for the info when they know we wont do anything to them if they refuse and just spit in our eye with a smile. We sit there for days and days asking them to please give us the info we need and then the bomb goes off killing hundreds of thousands of americans and the people will be all mad because we didnt do enough to get the info? Is this what everyone is saying they would rather see? Instead of instilling fear in our enemies and keeping them off balance and not knowing what to expect next?

Sorry I think we ahould have more spine then our enemies do. I think that when american lives are at risk its a do whatever it takes attitude that should take over not the sissy oh please mister terrorist give us the info we need and you get a cookie attitude that we are showing now a days.

No, of course not. We torture them and get false information which doesn't help us, silly pants.

So we sit down and ask them nicely for the info when they know we wont do anything to them if they refuse and just spit in our eye with a smile. We sit there for days and days asking them to please give us the info we need and then the bomb goes off killing hundreds of thousands of americans and the people will be all mad because we didnt do enough to get the info? Is this what everyone is saying they would rather see? Instead of instilling fear in our enemies and keeping them off balance and not knowing what to expect next?

Sorry I think we ahould have more spine then our enemies do. I think that when american lives are at risk its a do whatever it takes attitude that should take over not the sissy oh please mister terrorist give us the info we need and you get a cookie attitude that we are showing now a days.

What should we do rape their wives and daughters in front of them kill their children in front of them where would you draw the line? Once you start torturing you are entering into a slippery slope there is no such thing as humane torture.

So then you are against any interragation whatso ever then. You are against torture and asking nicely so then how do you propose we get info in a hurry out of a un cooperative prisoner? Please enlighten this thread on how you would do it if you were in charge. You going to just sit and stare at him until he talks?

So then you are against any interragation whatso ever then. You are against torture and asking nicely so then how do you propose we get info in a hurry out of a un cooperative prisoner? Please enlighten this thread on how you would do it if you were in charge. You going to just sit and stare at him until he talks?

How about every tactic of actual interrogation that has ACTUALLY worked for decades now, NONE OF WHICH include torture, which does NOT work?

If you want to inflict pain on them out of sheer sadism, at least have the decency to admit as much!

"Torture" as used to get information, and done ethically, is NOT PUNISHMENT.

It is "behavior change inducement".



Knee-jerk anti-torture proponents are funny.

They have no idea what they're talking about,.. and talk about it with such self-righteous moral power.

THAT is extremely funny,.. and rather sad.

Hahahahaha "Ethical torture" stating the constitution is a "knee-jerk" response. I have never heard so much newspeak in my life you truly are an evil human being.

So how do we know when the person we're torturing is telling the truth?

So then you are against any interragation whatso ever then. You are against torture and asking nicely so then how do you propose we get info in a hurry out of a un cooperative prisoner? Please enlighten this thread on how you would do it if you were in charge. You going to just sit and stare at him until he talks?

I'd like you to explain how torturing an uncooperative prisoner will get us any useful information and to provide links. Then we'll talk about effective means of extracting information.

So then you are against any interragation whatso ever then. You are against torture and asking nicely so then how do you propose we get info in a hurry out of a un cooperative prisoner? Please enlighten this thread on how you would do it if you were in charge. You going to just sit and stare at him until he talks?

Evidence and a trial by law maybe.

S'alright:

http://www.spssi.org/SPSSI_Statement_on_torture.pdf

"Second, extensive studies of torture show that it is largely ineffective as a means of gathering correct information. ...

"largely ineffective" tells me everything I need to know.

If it is in ANY WAY effective, which this "report" admits, then it is a valuable tactic, because any one piece of information could be massively important.

Once again, the anti-torture cadre has no idea what the heck they're talking about.

Thanks Des, for proving my point.

Bullshit snip

Too bad it's not only, YES, morally reprehensible, it DOES NOT WORK TO YIELD INFORMATION!

"largely ineffective" tells me everything I need to know.

If it is in ANY WAY effective, which this "report" admits, then it is a valuable tactic, because any one piece of information could be massively important.

Once again, the anti-torture cadre has no idea what the heck they're talking about.

Thanks Des, for proving my point.

You're not a bear. You're just a silly man in a brown fur coat.

"largely ineffective" tells me everything I need to know.

If it is in ANY WAY effective, which this "report" admits, then it is a valuable tactic, because any one piece of information could be massively important.

Once again, the anti-torture cadre has no idea what the heck they're talking about.

Thanks Des, for proving my point.

You say "anti-torture" as if it were a bad thing.

Do you know what torture does? It consumes precious time that could be being used with actual effective (or, at least, MUCH more effective) interrogation techniques in the scenario "atomic bomb in Chicago" you so much enjoy using, and yields no information.

I side with John McCain on this:

"First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop.

Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops, who might be captured by the enemy, if not in this war then in the next."

from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec05/torture_12-02.html

"largely ineffective" tells me everything I need to know.

If it is in ANY WAY effective, which this "report" admits, then it is a valuable tactic, because any one piece of information could be massively important.

Once again, the anti-torture cadre has no idea what the heck they're talking about.

Thanks Des, for proving my point.

I never said torture was ineffective it may work in some cases. I am saying it is wrong according to the constitution and wrong according to the geneva convention.

So tell me do you support raping a mans wife or daughter in front of him or torturing his children for national defense? I would really like to know if I am talking to a Demon

"largely ineffective" tells me everything I need to know.

If it is in ANY WAY effective, which this "report" admits, then it is a valuable tactic, because any one piece of information could be massively important.

Once again, the anti-torture cadre has no idea what the heck they're talking about.

Thanks Des, for proving my point.

Wow. You're really grasping at straws here.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were actually joking.

I would really like to know if I am talking to a Demon

Nah. Demons are more convincing. I mean, in the mythos, demons do not appear as ugly to those they try to convince.

You might be talking to an imp, though.

Nah. Demons are more convincing. I mean, in the mythos, demons do not appear as ugly to those they try to convince.

You might be talking to an imp, though.

Haha ya I probably should not insult demons by comparing the two.

I've got the image of finger painting as an effective method of painting the Golden Gate Bridge stuck in my head and I don't know what to do about it except post it.

Desperate Measures I asked you a question first. What would you do if you have a prisoner that knows something and you have 24 hours to get info from that person. Over 100000 peoples lives hang in the balance on weather you can get the info or not. You people are forgeting that the people that you claim we are tortureing DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUTION APPLIED TO THEM because they are not citizens of the USA. So the whole constitutional arguement just went POOF!

I know how badly you all want the constitution to apply to everyone in the world but you have to actually get that add in there for it to be true.

Whenever you get your child to admit to a lie, for example, you have "tortured" him into doing so.

He knows he will be "punished" if he doesn't admit it, and he knows that he will be HIGHLY punished if it's found out that he lied to you during "the session",.. and because he knows that, he admits the lie, and tells the truth about what actually happened.

That is what effective "torture" is all about.

Coercion and torture are two very different things.

It is not torture to threaten removal of priviledges.

It is not torture to withhold chocolate cake.

And it is often not done for anything beyond behaviour modification given that most kids are crappy liars, so you already KNOW that they were lying when you engage them on the subject. The desired end result being an adult that you will trust and respect as well as love.

Every decision you make in life has consequences. EVERY decision. The scenario you describe involves having a child know and understand possible consequences, and making their decision accordingly.

It is NOTHING like puting a person in mortal fear for their life and/or bodilly parts where the discomfort, pain, or whatever will only end when they have CONVINCED you of the veracity of their statements.

Nothing like it at all.


But then, clearly you are not a parent.....

Given MTAE's "enlightened" attitudes I find it unlikely he thinks rape should even be a crime.

While it is a crime, it is not torture. There is a fine distinction between the two, and as rape does not cause any physical problems (provided that protection is used), it is an acceptable interrogation technique.

Desperate Measures I asked you a question first. What would you do if you have a prisoner that knows something and you have 24 hours to get info from that person. Over 100000 peoples lives hang in the balance on weather you can get the info or not. You people are forgeting that the people that you claim we are tortureing DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUTION APPLIED TO THEM because they are not citizens of the USA. So the whole constitutional arguement just went POOF!

I know how badly you all want the constitution to apply to everyone in the world but you have to actually get that add in there for it to be true.

Laborland, I can't answer for DM, but I'd apply a myriad of EFFECTIVE interrogation techniques that have been applied SUCCESSFULLY over the years without the need to waste precious time resorting to a method that, IF effective at ALL, is severely less effective than any other I listed.

And the Geneva Conventions, of which the US IS part, apply to everyone in the world. And there's nothing you can do about it.

Desperate Measures I asked you a question first. What would you do if you have a prisoner that knows something and you have 24 hours to get info from that person. Over 100000 peoples lives hang in the balance on weather you can get the info or not. You people are forgeting that the people that you claim we are tortureing DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUTION APPLIED TO THEM because they are not citizens of the USA. So the whole constitutional arguement just went POOF!

I know how badly you all want the constitution to apply to everyone in the world but you have to actually get that add in there for it to be true.

Well, thats nice that you asked a question first. It's just that my question is more pertinent and my answer to your question will be a waste of my time until I hear a suitable answer from you.

While it is a crime, it is not torture. There is a fine distinction between the two, and as rape does not cause any physical problems (provided that protection is used), it is an acceptable interrogation technique which I declare anyone officially free to use on me or my mother should the need arise.

Fixed.

Oh yes, the US was just SO much more liberal back then than it is today.

I was not referring to the social laws which were in place back then, as our society's morals are gradually being degraded into nothingness by hedonistic liberals (although that is another issue). I was referring to the economic perspective and common courtesy laws as they applied to whites.

Fixed.

Please, don't flame.

Desperate Measures I asked you a question first. What would you do if you have a prisoner that knows something and you have 24 hours to get info from that person. Over 100000 peoples lives hang in the balance on weather you can get the info or not. You people are forgeting that the people that you claim we are tortureing DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUTION APPLIED TO THEM because they are not citizens of the USA. So the whole constitutional arguement just went POOF!

I know how badly you all want the constitution to apply to everyone in the world but you have to actually get that add in there for it to be true.
Did your country sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? YES

Read it (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html). :p

Especially Article 5!!

While it is a crime, it is not torture. There is a fine distinction between the two, and as rape does not cause any physical problems (provided that protection is used), it is an acceptable interrogation technique.

Protection does nothing for the physical damage that often accompanies rape. I think this will be the last thing I direct towards you... though I kind of doubt it. It's hard to read the things you write and not post something.

While it is a crime, it is not torture. There is a fine distinction between the two, and as rape does not cause any physical problems (provided that protection is used), it is an acceptable interrogation technique.

LMAO. What if said rape causes micro-lesions on the vagina wall? Physical harm will have been inflicted but on a very minor scale and I'm curious to know where you draw the line as to how much physical damage has to be done for coercive interrogation to edge over into torture?

DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUTION APPLIED TO THEM because they are not citizens of the USA.


Um, although not an American citizen, when in the United States (or their territories) I do believe I am afforded the rights and protections of the Constitution- conversely, I have to obey laws and rules of said country because "they don't apply to me coz I ain't American" argument doesn't hold up.

Please, don't flame.

I'm not.

You said it's legal.

You said it's an acceptable technique.

So, it stands to reason that it would be acceptable for you or for members of your family.

I don't think so, but you seem to.

What would you do if you have a prisoner that knows something and you have 24 hours to get info from that person. Over 100000 peoples lives hang in the balance on weather you can get the info or not.

Torture their children, rape their wives. electrodes to genitals are these the answers you want us to say? If we disagree with these methods are we
anti-american terrorist sympathizers?

You people are forgeting that the people that you claim we are tortureing DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUTION APPLIED TO THEM because they are not citizens of the USA. So the whole constitutional arguement just went POOF!
I know how badly you all want the constitution to apply to everyone in the world but you have to actually get that add in there for it to be true.

Did I not also say something about the Geneva Convention? I am talking about the constitution for American citizens who GWB would like torture if they where suspected of terrorism.

Protection does nothing for the physical damage that often accompanies rape.

I doubt there would be much physical damage, actually. The subject will be tied down to prevent any violence, and the act of rape would not cause any non-mental damage. What type of wounds do you think would accompany such a punishment? As long as ample care is taken, none. Also, it may be a more equitable form of interrogation for the detective in charge.

So, it stands to reason that it would be acceptable for you or for members of your family.

Right, but neither I nor my family is part of a terrorist organization, so your logic breaks down there.

I doubt there would be much physical damage, actually. The subject will be tied down to prevent any violence, and the act of rape would not cause any non-mental damage. What type of wounds do you think would accompany such a punishment? As long as ample care is taken, none. Also, it may be a more equitable form of interrogation for the detective in charge.

....

Did you just justify rape as a torture method?

I doubt there would be much physical damage, actually. The subject will be tied down to prevent any violence, and the act of rape would not cause any non-mental damage. What type of wounds do you think would accompany such a punishment? As long as ample care is taken, none. Also, it may be a more equitable form of interrogation for the detective in charge to use as they see fit on me.

Fixed. The laws you want would apply to you as well.

Right, but neither I nor my family is part of a terrorist organization, so your logic breaks down there.

How do we know? Maybe a bit of coercive interrogation is required to make sure?

I know how badly you all want the constitution to apply to everyone in the world but you have to actually get that add in there for it to be true.

It's interesting that the Bush administration doesn't think the Constitution even applies to American citizens anymore.

But let's leave that train of thought for a bit...

So we only have to treat American citizens like human beings. The Founding Fathers only gave a shit about Americans. Fuck everyone else, right?

No, the Constitution doesn't protect those who aren't American citizens, but think of how the Founding Fathers would've felt about us not treating other human beings like human beings. Imagine if they could see us today, disrespecting their gift to us by not using it as a guide in dealing with citizens from other countries.

Besides, even if we don't have the Constitution, we have the Geneva Accord, and it does apply for the world. ;)

I doubt there would be much physical damage, actually. The subject will be tied down to prevent any violence, and the act of rape would not cause any non-mental damage. What type of wounds do you think would accompany such a punishment? As long as ample care is taken, none. Also, it may be a more equitable form of interrogation for the detective in charge.
Right - anyone up for violently raping MTAE and then playing him music for days without any light or water for days, in a shipping crate?

Because it's not torture - hence it's all alright.

Right, but neither I nor my family is part of a terrorist organization, so your logic breaks down there.

Oh, but they don't KNOW that, now do they? And you can be held for as long as they want under the law. And so can your family.

Right, but neither I nor my family is part of a terrorist organization, so your logic breaks down there.
You said we should torture innocents, if we manage to eventually get a terrorist. It's perfectly acceptable, by your own logic.

So as a parent you are stating that you have never threatened your child with a spanking if they did something wrong? If so you are doing the samething that you are against in this post. When you instill fear in a person they are much easier to deal with and have them do what you want. Now I do not agree with doing this with everyone only on cases as I have above stated in previous posts. We use punishment as a deterent in all forms in this country. One is prison if you break the law, two is the death penelty for murderers, three is a ticket for speeding. All of these are forms of torture in the eyes of the politically correct in this country, They wont say it though because it just shows their true colors and weaknesses.

People are creatures that will go the easy route if there is a way to do it. If there is no rough route they will do whatever they want. So when you ask a terrorist please give the info and he spits in your eye its because he knows you are soft and will not do anything to him.

You said we should torture innocents, if we manage to eventually get a terrorist. It's perfectly acceptable, by your own logic.

I stated that such an action would be acceptable only if there was a preponderance of evidence linking the suspect with a terrorist interrogation. Since there is absolutely no proof tying me to a such group, and since I am not Muslim, it is definitely not right to do something like that.

While it is a crime, it is not torture. There is a fine distinction between the two, and as rape does not cause any physical problems (provided that protection is used), it is an acceptable interrogation technique.

Thank you for admitting you are evil;) .

....

Did you just justify rape as a torture method?

If that's against forum rules, then I'll apologize and retract my statement. Otherwise, yes, I did. It doesn't result in any physical harm, nor does it cause pain, so it's fine by me.

I stated that such an action would be acceptable only if there was a preponderance of evidence linking the suspect with a terrorist interrogation.
Hardly. It was more "if they look a bit shifty". You, sir, are a psychopath (by definition).
Since there is absolutely no proof tying me to a such group, and since I am not Muslim, it is definitely not right to do something like that.
Excellent use of racism to undermine yourself.

So as a parent you are stating that you have never threatened your child with a spanking if they did something wrong? If so you are doing the samething that you are against in this post. When you instill fear in a person they are much easier to deal with and have them do what you want. Now I do not agree with doing this with everyone only on cases as I have above stated in previous posts. We use punishment as a deterent in all forms in this country. One is prison if you break the law, two is the death penelty for murderers, three is a ticket for speeding. All of these are forms of torture in the eyes of the politically correct in this country, They wont say it though because it just shows their true colors and weaknesses.

People are creatures that will go the easy route if there is a way to do it. If there is no rough route they will do whatever they want. So when you ask a terrorist please give the info and he spits in your eye its because he knows you are soft and will not do anything to him.

I'll put this in a big font so you can read and actually answer my points:

ANY DECENT METHOD OF INTERROGATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TORTURE! ANY DECENT METHOD OF INTERROGATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TORTURE! ANY DECENT METHOD OF INTERROGATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TORTURE! ANY DECENT METHOD OF INTERROGATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TORTURE!

Thank you.

I stated that such an action would be acceptable only if there was a preponderance of evidence linking the suspect with a terrorist interrogation. Since there is absolutely no proof tying me to a such group, and since I am not Muslim, it is definitely not right to do something like that.

I don't know dude, your post on here seem to imply that you hold some extreme right wing views. Said views could easily be interpreted as a sign the you could belong to a right wing terrorist organisation. After all, not all terrorists are mulims.

If that's against forum rules, then I'll apologize and retract my statement. Otherwise, yes, I did. It doesn't result in any physical harm, nor does it cause pain so it's fine by me.
Depends what the rapist's into.

Also - have you ever been raped?

I was not referring to the social laws which were in place back then, as our society's morals are gradually being degraded into nothingness by hedonistic liberals (although that is another issue). I was referring to the economic perspective and common courtesy laws as they applied to whites.

Hahahaha "hedonistic liberals" from a person who say's rape is an effective interrogation technique.

Excellent use of racism to undermine yourself.

How many terrorist attacks, in the past 10 years, have been conducted by non-Muslims? Better yet, what proportion of terrorists who have been involved in any terrorist plot in the the past 10 years, have been Muslim? It's over 99%, at least. It's not racism if it's true.

I don't know dude, your post on here seem to imply that you hold some extreme right wing views. Said views could easily be interpreted as a sign the you could belong to a right wing terrorist organisation. After all, not all terrorists are mulims.

So, can we get the lubricant already? After all we don't want Means or his family to feel any physical pain...

Depends what the rapist's into.

The rapist would be a US government agent, well-trained in interrogation techniques, and would use all necessary precautions to avoid excessive pain. The object would be to mentally degrade the suspect while keeping them physically intact.

So, so far we've got a whacko justifying rape and somebody who hasn't provided even one serious link that supports torture as a method of extracting information. Huh.

If that's against forum rules, then I'll apologize and retract my statement. Otherwise, yes, I did. It doesn't result in any physical harm, nor does it cause pain, so it's fine by me.

So, yes if I don't get in trouble.

No, if I do get in trouble (but secretly I believe rape is a good way to torture people anyway).


Good god. Even for a troll, you are sinking into depravity fast.

I was not referring to the social laws which were in place back then, as our society's morals are gradually being degraded into nothingness by hedonistic liberals (although that is another issue).

Oh noes! Thems liberals are decaying the fabric of society!

You're a silly bed-wetting conservative.

So as a parent you are stating that you have never threatened your child with a spanking if they did something wrong?

Nope, because whoever "must" resort to spanking in order to straighten out their kid's behavior is not fit to be a parent.

How many terrorist attacks, in the past 10 years, have been conducted by non-Muslims? Better yet, what proportion of terrorists who have been involved in any terrorist plot in the the past 10 years, have been Muslim? It's over 99%, at least. It's not racism if it's true.

Too bad it isn't true, thus it's racism.

How many terrorist attacks, in the past 10 years, have been conducted by non-Muslims? Better yet, what proportion of terrorists who have been involved in any terrorist plot in the the past 10 years, have been Muslim? It's over 99%, at least. It's not racism if it's true.
Can you say "Lord's Resistance Army and the Real IRA"?

The rapist would be a US government agent, well-trained in interrogation techniques, and would use all necessary precautions to avoid excessive pain. The object would be to mentally degrade the suspect while keeping them physically intact.
They already get prostitutes in Gitmo to expose themselves to Muslims and sexually humiliate them...

Plus why the fuck would the CIA care about the welfare of its torturees?

Too bad it isn't true, thus it's racism.

The terrorist attacks in India which killed hundreds were the work of Muslims. The sectarian terrorism in Iraq is the work of Muslims. 9/11 was the work of Muslims. The Madrid train bombings were the work of Muslims. Can you name any non-Muslim attacks which even begin to rival the scale of Muslim terrorism? Of course not, because you're dead wrong. It's not society's fault that almost all terrorists are Muslim, and we shouldn't avoid saying that because it sounds racist. It's not, because it's true.

The terrorist attacks in India which killed hundreds were the work of Muslims. The sectarian terrorism in Iraq is the work of Muslims. 9/11 was the work of Muslims. The Madrid train bombings were the work of Muslims. Can you name any non-Muslim attacks which even begin to rival the scale of Muslim terrorism? Of course not, because you're dead wrong. It's not society's fault that almost all terrorists are Muslim, and we shouldn't avoid saying that because it sounds racist. It's not, because it's true.
Lord's.... Resistance.... Army....

If that's against forum rules, then I'll apologize and retract my statement. Otherwise, yes, I did. It doesn't result in any physical harm, nor does it cause pain, so it's fine by me.

That sounds like you'd be for Viagra as long as all users remain celebate.

Or you'd be for murder as long as it doesn't inflict any death.

The rapist would be a US government agent, well-trained in interrogation techniques, and would use all necessary precautions to avoid excessive pain. The object would be to mentally degrade the suspect while keeping them physically intact.

Why do you just not say I am a morally depraved and evil human being? So you want US government rapist would they be a GS-10 or GS-12 pay grade? Even for a troll you are sick person I feel very sorry for you.

The rapist would be a US government agent, well-trained in interrogation techniques, and would use all necessary precautions to avoid excessive pain. The object would be to mentally degrade the suspect while keeping them physically intact.


"Hey Bill. How's the new job going? What d'you do now?"

"Professional rapist. *nods* "

"........right...... then....."

Plus why the fuck would the CIA care about the welfare of its torturees?

They're not being tortured; they are being coercively interrogated. If they were being tortured, the CIA would care less about their welfare since their object would be to inflict the maximum amount of pain.

Ok the torture thing is not acceptable if done to americans yet it happens whenever they are captured by the enemy. If a american is doing things that would cause the deaths of 100000 people or more I agree that the mind frame is do whatever it takes to save 100000 people. If we are required to follow the Geneva Accord why is everyone else given a pass. Such as the terrorists who behead our people and drag them around their cities behind a truck?

So why is the vitrial that is blatently pointed at us not also in the same light pointed at the ones who also do it. Why should we take away something because of the Geneva Accord when our enemies are able to continually do what they do. If that is not tieing our hands I dont know what to call it.

I have not heard one case in which a American citizen was tortured by our government so until that happens I dont think it belongs in this debate.

I will refer back to what I said before if you are not doing things that will cause the US to see ou as a enemy of the state and a terrorist then you have nothing to worry about.

Also if you are not a citizen of the US the constitution does not apply to you.
So if you are here and you are working in a terrorist group and you are caught you have no legal rights we can arrest you and send you back where you are from or send you through a MILITARY tribunal not a court case. Thats the way the constitution reads and unless its changed which I hope to god its not. It will remain that way.

Can you name any non-Muslim attacks which even begin to rival the scale of Muslim terrorism?
On a comparitive level, yes actually. Omagh.

Even for a troll you are sick person I feel very sorry for you.

You're pretty slow, aren't you? I'm not pulling this out of my ass; I'm not a troll.

They're not being tortured; they are being coercively interrogated.
Ever read some of the interviews from people who got out of Gitmo?

Sounds a shitload like they were tortured - beaten for asking for a glass of water, kept in painful stretches for days on end, solitary confinement and music on a loop for weeks...

How's that not torture?
If they were being tortured, the CIA would care less about their welfare since their object would be to inflict the maximum amount of pain.
No shit.

Ok the torture thing is not acceptable if done to americans yet it happens whenever they are captured by the enemy. If a american is doing things that would cause the deaths of 100000 people or more I agree that the mind frame is do whatever it takes to save 100000 people. If we are required to follow the Geneva Accord why is everyone else given a pass. Such as the terrorists who behead our people and drag them around their cities behind a truck?

So why is the vitrial that is blatently pointed at us not also in the same light pointed at the ones who also do it. Why should we take away something because of the Geneva Accord when our enemies are able to continually do what they do. If that is not tieing our hands I dont know what to call it.

I have not heard one case in which a American citizen was tortured by our government so until that happens I dont think it belongs in this debate.

I will refer back to what I said before if you are not doing things that will cause the US to see ou as a enemy of the state and a terrorist then you have nothing to worry about.

Also if you are not a citizen of the US the constitution does not apply to you.
So if you are here and you are working in a terrorist group and you are caught you have no legal rights we can arrest you and send you back where you are from or send you through a MILITARY tribunal not a court case. Thats the way the constitution reads and unless its changed which I hope to god its not so I can apply my sadism to foreigners. It will remain that way.

Fixed.

Now, ANSWER ME ON THE FACT THAT ALL TECHNIQUES ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TORTURE OR ADMIT YOU LOST!

You're pretty slow, aren't you? I'm not pulling this out of my ass; I'm not a troll.
You're pulling it so far out of your arse, you're going to need to widen your small intestines.

You are medically a psychopath. Seek help.

Also if you are not a citizen of the US the constitution does not apply to you.
Fucking sweet. Now I don't have to obeys the laws of the United States when I visit next Spring. Because, you know from where all the laws of the land stem from originally...right.... and if that doesn't apply....

Sir, I will resist the temptation to flame you.

They're not being tortured; they are being coercively interrogated. If they were being tortured, the CIA would care less about their welfare since their object would be to inflict the maximum amount of pain.

Nice euphemism. Because if you change the word for something, the object under consideration changes too.:rolleyes:

You're pretty slow, aren't you? I'm not pulling this out of my ass; I'm not a troll. Which makes me a proponent of rape, slavery, paedophilia, and other sick things.

Wow, much better.

Ok the torture thing is not acceptable if done to americans yet it happens whenever they are captured by the enemy. If a american is doing things that would cause the deaths of 100000 people or more I agree that the mind frame is do whatever it takes to save 100000 people. If we are required to follow the Geneva Accord why is everyone else given a pass. Such as the terrorists who behead our people and drag them around their cities behind a truck?

So why is the vitrial that is blatently pointed at us not also in the same light pointed at the ones who also do it. Why should we take away something because of the Geneva Accord when our enemies are able to continually do what they do. If that is not tieing our hands I dont know what to call it.

I have not heard one case in which a American citizen was tortured by our government so until that happens I dont think it belongs in this debate.

I will refer back to what I said before if you are not doing things that will cause the US to see ou as a enemy of the state and a terrorist then you have nothing to worry about.

Also if you are not a citizen of the US the constitution does not apply to you.
So if you are here and you are working in a terrorist group and you are caught you have no legal rights we can arrest you and send you back where you are from or send you through a MILITARY tribunal not a court case. Thats the way the constitution reads and unless its changed which I hope to god its not. It will remain that way.

Do you realize you are on the side of someone who advocates government rape rooms? You should turn off the computer and reevaluate morality.

This threads gone to hell.

Ok the torture thing is not acceptable if done to americans yet it happens whenever they are captured by the enemy. If a american is doing things that would cause the deaths of 100000 people or more I agree that the mind frame is do whatever it takes to save 100000 people. If we are required to follow the Geneva Accord why is everyone else given a pass. Such as the terrorists who behead our people and drag them around their cities behind a truck?

So why is the vitrial that is blatently pointed at us not also in the same light pointed at the ones who also do it. Why should we take away something because of the Geneva Accord when our enemies are able to continually do what they do. If that is not tieing our hands I dont know what to call it.

I have not heard one case in which a American citizen was tortured by our government so until that happens I dont think it belongs in this debate.

I will refer back to what I said before if you are not doing things that will cause the US to see ou as a enemy of the state and a terrorist then you have nothing to worry about.

Also if you are not a citizen of the US the constitution does not apply to you.
So if you are here and you are working in a terrorist group and you are caught you have no legal rights we can arrest you and send you back where you are from or send you through a MILITARY tribunal not a court case. Thats the way the constitution reads and unless its changed which I hope to god its not. It will remain that way.
Since you want to RE-POST, I will RE-POST:

Desperate Measures I asked you a question first. What would you do if you have a prisoner that knows something and you have 24 hours to get info from that person. Over 100000 peoples lives hang in the balance on weather you can get the info or not. You people are forgeting that the people that you claim we are tortureing DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUTION APPLIED TO THEM because they are not citizens of the USA. So the whole constitutional arguement just went POOF!

I know how badly you all want the constitution to apply to everyone in the world but you have to actually get that add in there for it to be true.
Did your country sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? YES

Read it (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html). :p

Especially Article 5!!

Nice euphemism. Because if you change the word for something, the object under consideration changes too.:rolleyes:
Semantics does really seem to be a key feature of GWB's policies at the moment...

"Umm no, the Iraqis don't have a timetable for events including our withdrawl, it's more a set of demands with a time attached to them..."

You are medically a psychopath. Seek help.

So all conservatives with whom you disagree are psychopaths? Well, then, you are a hopeless drug addict (medically, of course). Seek succor.

Heh... get a load of what MTAE just posted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506202) in Moderation:

This topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506115) has taken a turn for the worse, and the discussion is now centered on whether rape is an acceptable interrogation technique. I'm not sure if arguing in favor of such a position is against forum rules, and I don't want to commit such a transgression. Is the topic fine as it is or should that particular line of conversation be closed?

He reported us for talking about rape, a topic that he was the first to bring up (not to mention defend). :headbang:

They're not being tortured; they are being coercively interrogated. If they were being tortured, the CIA would care less about their welfare since their object would be to inflict the maximum amount of pain.

Torture is not only physical.


Ok the torture thing is not acceptable if done to americans yet it happens whenever they are captured by the enemy. If a american is doing things that would cause the deaths of 100000 people or more I agree that the mind frame is do whatever it takes to save 100000 people. If we are required to follow the Geneva Accord why is everyone else given a pass. Such as the terrorists who behead our people and drag them around their cities behind a truck?

No one is "given a pass" except the US. When terrorists who torture are caught, they are punished. US troopse torture and get off scot free.

"They broke the rules first" is a kindergarden argument, and not even acceptible there.


I have not heard one case in which a American citizen was tortured by our government so until that happens I dont think it belongs in this debate.

So non-US citizens are not people?

So all conservatives with whom you disagree are psychopaths? Well, then, you are a hopeless drug addict (medically, of course). Seek succor.

No. Eutrusca, for example, wasn't one. Corneliu isn't one. And I disagree strongly with them.

But they do not advocate rape.

You're pretty slow, aren't you? I'm not pulling this out of my ass; I'm not a troll.

Yes I am very, very slow to the idea of US government rape rooms. If you are not a troll are you by any chance possessed by satan? Because you are one sick mofo.

Heh... get a load of what MTAE just posted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506202) in Moderation:



He reported us for talking about rape, a topic that he was the first to bring up (not to mention defend). :headbang:

I took care of it.

So all conservatives with whom you disagree are psychopaths? Well, then, you are a hopeless drug addict (medically, of course). Seek succor.
What is a psychopath?

A psychopath is defined as having no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. They seem egocentric and lack insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative, and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone of any kind of love. It is thought that any emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. They show poor impulse control and a low tolerance for frustration and aggression. They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience.

Sounds a lot like you...



I'm also not a hopeless drug addict. I haven't done anything in about nine months... and the most I've ever done is weed.

So all conservatives with whom you disagree are psychopaths? Well, then, you are a hopeless drug addict (medically, of course). Seek succor.

He did not say all conservatives who disagree with you. He said you. Because you advocate government rape rooms.

He did not say all conservatives who disagree with you. He said you. Because you advocate government rape rooms.
Amongst a great deal of other things...

So all conservatives with whom you disagree are psychopaths? Well, then, you are a hopeless drug addict (medically, of course). Seek succor.

Tell me where in the conservative play book is government rape rooms. Unless NAZIs are the conservatives you are talking about

Tell me where in the conservative play book is government rape rooms. Unless NAZIs are the conservatives you are talking about

Not all conservatives agree with the concept of government rape rooms, but all those who are partial to the idea are conservatives, by definition.

In responce to your claim that all terrorists are Muslims:

Tim McVey was not Muslim.

All those dozens of white power terrorist groups arn't Muslim.

The RAF isn't Muslim.

Columbian death squads arn't Muslim

Niceraguan, Salvedorian, et cetera death squads arn't Muslim.

Locked pending Moderator review.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11915891&postcount=9

Folks, stop baiting and feeding the posters you consider trolls. Let them get themselves in trouble without your help. That makes it easier on you and on us.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia