NationStates Jolt Archive

The Massachusetts-based Physicians for Human Rights reached that conclusion after two-day clinical evaluations of 11 former detainees, who had been held at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan.

The detainees were never charged with crimes.

"We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering," said Dr. Allen Keller, a medical evaluator for the study.

In a 121-page report, the doctors' group said that it uncovered medical evidence of torture, including beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sodomy and scores of other abuses.
Link. (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html)

Medical proof of torture. Well, it's nice to have the evidence at hand, even if it's not unexpected or any surprise at all, to contradict the statment made by Bush that "This government does not torture people."
Harsh words from Major Gen. Antonio Taguba though:

"There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes," Taguba says. "The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account."

I don't think the people responsible for those orders will be held accountable. I can't see that happening.

Anybody think differently? Or do you think there's still not enough evidence?

It's not torture, Bush said it wasn't. We can trust Dear Leader Bush.

I don't understand what this has to do with Bush, besides the fact that he is very unpopular and is blamed for almost every bad thing the military or economy does.

It's not torture, Bush said it wasn't. We can trust Dear Leader Bush.

If you question Friend Bush, then you must be a Commie Muslim Traitor. Commie Muslim Traitors need to be terminated.

Link. (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html)

Medical proof of torture. Well, it's nice to have the evidence at hand, even if it's not unexpected or any surprise at all, to contradict the statment made by Bush that "This government does not torture people."
Harsh words from Major Gen. Antonio Taguba though:



I don't think the people responsible for those orders will be held accountable. I can't see that happening.

Anybody think differently? Or do you think there's still not enough evidence?

You would have to find written orders somewhere, or a tape of them giving orders.

Otherwise, they'll throw the lowest ranking man under the bus. And he'll have no idea or proof of who gave him the order.

Think Abu Gharib. There were no explicit orders telling the low ranking people to actually do any of the things they did - they just did it because they were bored and thought a naked homoerotic human pyramid was funny. Maybe you could hold a local commander responsible on the basis of not being on top of his troops.

As for any explicit "orders" (and the "torture memo" is not "order to torture" - it's merely an attempt to express that certain activity is viewed as OK legally), there aren't any - if there were, they surely would have leaked by now.

Do you ever think they might have been tortured by Saddam?

If you question Friend Bush, then you must be a Commie Muslim Traitor. Commie Muslim Traitors need to be terminated.

And if you're a commie Muslim traitor, you hate freedom and Democracy and deserve whatever you got :D.

Do you ever think they might have been tortured by Saddam?

That's ok, and no one should have invaded Iraq to stop that sort of thing, even if they ended up dead by the hundreds of thousands.

Link. (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html)

Medical proof of torture. Well, it's nice to have the evidence at hand, even if it's not unexpected or any surprise at all, to contradict the statment made by Bush that "This government does not torture people."
Harsh words from Major Gen. Antonio Taguba though:



I don't think the people responsible for those orders will be held accountable. I can't see that happening.

Anybody think differently? Or do you think there's still not enough evidence?
I don't think differently. There is plenty of evidence. I doubt anyone will ever be punished for it. That makes me unhappy.

Do you ever think they might have been tortured by Saddam?
No. There are US military records that indicate fairly clearly that these people were not prisoners there before US personnel showed up, but rather that they were arrested by US forces and sent to that prison. So whatever abuses Saddam might have inflicted on them had he been in charge at the time, he missed his chance.

It's not torture, Bush said it wasn't. We can trust Dear Leader Bush.

Even the things that aren't torture doesn't seem to be a lot of fun...

Binyam Mohamed, the British resident who is still held in Guantánamo Bay, knows a bit about such torture. The CIA rendered him to Morocco, where his torturers repeatedly took a razor blade to his penis throughout an 18-month ordeal.

When I later sat across from him in the cell, he described how psyops methods were worse than this. He could anticipate physical pain, he said, and know that it would eventually end. But the experience of slipping into madness as a result of torture by music was something quite different.

"Imagine you are given a choice," he said. "Lose your sight or lose your mind." While having your eyes gouged out would be horrendous, there is little doubt which you would choose.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/19/usa.guantanamo

Even the things that aren't torture doesn't seem to be a lot of fun...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/19/usa.guantanamo

I'm sure the CIA guys would be in the category of "plausible deniability" and claim they didn't know anything about the razorblades.

I don't understand what this has to do with Bush, besides the fact that he is very unpopular and is blamed for almost every bad thing the military or economy does.
If you don't understand what this has to do with the Commander In Chief, I don't know what to tell you.

The man is in charge, yet through his actions and on his watch war crimes are being comitted. He is, ultimately, responsible. He should be held accountable for the action of his administration.

Do you ever think they might have been tortured by Saddam?
The afghani, the pakistani, and the british etc? Nope.

The Iraqi? Irrelevant. That would never excuse the crimes that have taken place by American orders and American hands.
That's ok, and no one should have invaded Iraq to stop that sort of thing, even if they ended up dead by the hundreds of thousands.
Too bad nobody ever did that.

Iraq was not invaded "to stop that sort of thing".

Too bad nobody ever did that.

Iraq was not invaded "to stop that sort of thing".

I didn't say it was. No one was willing to step up to the plate for over 300,000 tortured to death.

I'm sure the CIA guys would be in the category of "plausible deniability" and claim they didn't know anything about the razorblades.

Again, I don't believe anyone will be held accountable for their crimes. The climate of impunity is difficult to penetrate.

Shame. The fuckers should be punished for their illegal actions.

Again, I don't believe anyone will be held accountable for their crimes. The climate of impunity is difficult to penetrate.

Shame. The fuckers should be punished for their illegal actions.

You only get results like that when you invade a place, overthrow the government, and hold your own courts.

You only get results like that when you invade a place, overthrow the government, and hold your own courts.

No, no you don't. With a proper, working democracy that respect the rule of law, you get those results too.

No, no you don't. With a proper, working democracy that respect the rule of law, you get those results too.

Not too many places like that around.

No, no you don't. With a proper, working democracy that respect the rule of law, you get those results too.

The excludes pretty much everywhere except Iceland.

The excludes pretty much everywhere except Iceland.
Then we know where to send them! :)

Another way to get such trials is to wait until the offenders are out of office, and let the next government deal with it.

Of course, it's not going to happen. And, like I said, me no like.

The excludes pretty much everywhere except Iceland.

I don't think so. I see several democratic nations that respect the rule of law.

Then we know where to send them! :)

Another way to get such trials is to wait until the offenders are out of office, and let the next government deal with it.
One can only hope... *Sigh* One can only hope...

Of course, it's not going to happen. And, like I said, me no like.
Me neither... It's not been the best 7,5 years.

The excludes pretty much everywhere except Iceland.

And what's wrong with Iceland exactly?

Link. (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html)

Medical proof of torture. Well, it's nice to have the evidence at hand, even if it's not unexpected or any surprise at all, to contradict the statment made by Bush that "This government does not torture people."
Harsh words from Major Gen. Antonio Taguba though:



I don't think the people responsible for those orders will be held accountable. I can't see that happening.

Anybody think differently? Or do you think there's still not enough evidence?

Just because torture occured does not mean it was ordered by the administration...you think Bush ordered those reservists to torture prisoners and embarres the administration?

Obviously "Physicians for Human Rights" is just some front for a sinister terrorist conspiracy.

Just because torture occured does not mean it was ordered by the administration...you think Bush ordered those reservists to torture prisoners and embarres the administration?

Considering that Bush was at practically every meeting that discussed the planning stages including the narrowing of the definition of 'torture' to 'sadistic, slow and cartoon-villain deliberate murder' he at least sat there and did nothing to quash it if not outright condone or approved of them.

I don't think so. I see several democratic nations that respect the rule of law.

Yah, but none of them have an army worth squat.

And what's wrong with Iceland exactly?

Nothing. I was complimenting it.

I find it a bit disturbing that the report concludes torture took place based on the claims of the prisoners alone. The report acknowledges that it did not review medical histories on any of the people allegedly tortured. Failure to do so leaves open the possibility of lying and the existence of pre-existing injuries and conditions that were not considered.

Not saying they weren't tortured, just I find the report to be lacking in a serious issue that affects the credibility of its information.

People will say the damndest things sometimes.

I find it a bit disturbing that the report concludes torture took place based on the claims of the prisoners alone. The report acknowledges that it did not review medical histories on any of the people allegedly tortured. Failure to do so leaves open the possibility of lying and the existence of pre-existing injuries and conditions that were not considered.

Not saying they weren't tortured, just I find the report to be lacking in a serious issue that affects the credibility of its information.

People will say the damndest things sometimes.

If you have the right kind of court, you don't need any evidence.

.

The man is in charge, yet through his actions and on his watch war crimes are being comitted. He is, ultimately, responsible. He should be held accountable for the action of his administration.




Actually...since the US is a democracy... every single USian is responsible for this war crimes. They elected him...not once, but twice, and thus are ultimately responsible for this tortures.

Actually...since the US is a democracy... every single USian is responsible for this war crimes. They elected him...not once, but twice, and thus are ultimately responsible for this tortures.

I voted for the other guys each time, so don't hold me accountable for this debacle :p

If you have the right kind of court, you don't need any evidence.

Yes, I imagine the prisoners they interviewed certainly found that out first hand.

Actually...since the US is a democracy... every single USian is responsible for this war crimes. They elected him...not once, but twice, and thus are ultimately responsible for this tortures.

Are you being sarcastic? It's hard to tell these days...

Yes, I imagine the prisoners they interviewed certainly found that out first hand.

The article states that they weren't actually investigated as to their actual medical history, so we have no idea why or when they received their injuries.

The mere assertion that they were tortured would fall flat in court.

It's fallen flat before. In a court case in Federal court in Alexandria, Va, where a student said he was flown to Saudi Arabia, tortured, and brought back to the US.

No one could prove that he was tortured - even the judge asked to look at his back, where he claimed that he had been whipped until the skin came off.

The judge was not convinced.

Let's teach these dirtbags a lesson, Nuremberg style. Its time for America to remember that justice aplys to all, regardless of wealth, rank, or which side you're on.

Hotwife, stop the apologetics. There is at the very least good evidence of torture warranting further criminal investigations.

Yeah, no shit. "There's a war on and people get tortured shocker".

I'm sure the CIA guys would be in the category of "plausible deniability" and claim they didn't know anything about the razorblades.

Like OJ Simpson claiming he had nothing to do with that knife. Riiight.

The CIA is a tax-payer funded Maifia, nothing more. Some may argue that such dirty tactics are nessissary for America's defense. But they should own up to it, not spew apologetics.

Of course, a lot of people probably don't think about it. To them, its okay because America does it, and if you question it you're a Dirty Athiest Communist Muslim Terrorist.:rolleyes:

The blind Patriots will live in a hell of their own making, having destroyed the ideals of the very country to which they claim loyalty.

I don't think anything will happen in our lifetimes, but I wouldn't be surprised if future historians condemn the Bush regime as acting completely immorally throughout these times.

I don't understand what this has to do with Bush, besides the fact that he is very unpopular and is blamed for almost every bad thing the military or economy does.

First rule of leadership. If you are in charge, Everything is your fault.

I didn't say it was. No one was willing to step up to the plate for over 300,000 tortured to death.

You're absolutely right. Now let's draw up plans for the liberation of Sudan, China, North Korea, Burma, the Congo, Zimbabwe, and Iran. That should do us till lunch, we can tackle the rest afterward.

Even the things that aren't torture doesn't seem to be a lot of fun...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/19/usa.guantanamo

Too damn right. I recently read an article describing in awful detail how years of Guantanamo 'interrogation' literally drove a detainee insane. He'd be useless for trial now because when he's not jumping at nonexistent terrors, he's having intricate discussions with the water pipes in his cell. I literally felt nauseous for a few hours after reading it.

That's what an administration determined to torture will do in the face of anti-torture rules--"see, no physical marks, no torture!"

I don't understand what this has to do with Bush, besides the fact that he is very unpopular and is blamed for almost every bad thing the military... does.

Perhaps because he is the Commander in Chief, genius.

You might as well say Stalin was innocent. He was just unpopular. He didn't kill anyone personally! Wah, stop hating on Stalin!

First rule of leadership. If you are in charge, Everything is your fault.

first and second rules of the Presidency.
1) If it goes wrong, it's your fault.
2) If it goes right, then it's the credit of those you put in key posistion.

:D

You're absolutely right. Now let's draw up plans for the liberation of Sudan liberation by proxy planned , China invasion by Macdonald's and Starbucks underway., North Korea, Burma, the Congo, Zimbabwe, and Iran planning stage. That should do us till lunch, we can tackle the rest afterward.


"

The article states that they weren't actually investigated as to their actual medical history, so we have no idea why or when they received their injuries.

The mere assertion that they were tortured would fall flat in court.

It's fallen flat before. In a court case in Federal court in Alexandria, Va, where a student said he was flown to Saudi Arabia, tortured, and brought back to the US.

No one could prove that he was tortured - even the judge asked to look at his back, where he claimed that he had been whipped until the skin came off.

The judge was not convinced.

This is not a case where it's just their word because the injuries in question could have healed, there is significant medical evidence of injuries sustained over a long period of time that are consistent with the act of torture. They were not under arrest in their home countries when they were taken, and I think we can assume they didn't electrocute themselves for fun, for example, prior to their arrest. Looks like it's pretty conclusive proof, at least on the medical side. Psychological torture is always going to be difficult to prove though.

I think we can assume they didn't electrocute themselves for fun, for example, prior to their arrest.


I hear S&M is very popular in the mid east.

I hear S&M is very popular in the mid east.

I'd like to see someone try to argue that one in court :p

Yeah, no shit. "There's a war on and people get tortured shocker".
Yeah, actually, it is a shocker, because torture has never been a tactic of war. It's a tactic of rear eschelon motherfuckers, i.e. civilian wanks. And it has nothing to do with fighting. And it's illegal under modern rules of military engagement. So, yeah, shocking, etc.

I'd like to see someone try to argue that one in court :p
"It was consensual, ya honah!"

Yeah, actually, it is a shocker, because torture has never been a tactic of war. It's a tactic of rear eschelon motherfuckers, i.e. civilian wanks. And it has nothing to do with fighting. And it's illegal under modern rules of military engagement. So, yeah, shocking, etc.

Although it does tend to take place in the majority of wars in history.

Although it does tend to take place in the majority of wars in history.
An illusory connection.

1) Where torture takes place, historically, it takes place just as frequently without a war being on as when there's a war on. Governments/groups that torture do not do so as part of war. They do it for its own sake.

2) There is nothing about war that necessitates, requires or causes torture. Therefore, the fact that there is a war on is not a causative factor in the decision to torture. The war could be carried on just as well without torture. If the war is cited as a reason to torture, then it is merely an excuse. When the war is over, another excuse will have to be found.

For these reasons, the statement "there's a war on and people get tortured" is a non sequitur, and thus, bull.

1) Where torture takes place, historically, it takes place just as frequently without a war being on as when there's a war on. Governments/groups that torture do not do so as part of war. They do it for its own sake.


I disagree with this completely from my studies of history, but it is pointless debating this point because it would require a complete overview of every war and country in history to make any valid conclusions, which will never be done. So we're both both holding practically unfalsifiable propositions.


2) There is nothing about war that necessitates, requires or causes torture.

Generals find important information extremely useful in making tactical strikes etc... if the only way they think to gain this intelligence is through torture, then that is what they will do, whether it is justified or not is irrelevant to this conversation. You rarely ever see any torture for reasons other than to find information about the enemy, if they care that much about the enemy they are likely at war with them.


Therefore, the fact that there is a war on is not a causative factor in the decision to torture. The war could be carried on just as well without torture. If the war is cited as a reason to torture, then it is merely an excuse. When the war is over, another excuse will have to be found.


So why do you think people get tortured then, just for kicks?

War produces torture. A government may not have to be at war to torture, but it must have enemy. Torture does not happen in peaceful land. Who do you torture? Not your friend. Your enemy. Conflict produces torture. We know this where I live.
BUT: I think American torture of Iraqis, bad. Very bad. You try and show these people you are their friends, and you treat each single one of them as a "potential threat". This, I think is contradiction, and make them become enemy.

Generals find important information extremely useful in making tactical strikes etc... if the only way they think to gain this intelligence is through torture, then that is what they will do, whether it is justified or not is irrelevant to this conversation.

Stupid generals, possibly. Plenty of interrogation experts have come out and argued that torture is actually ineffective, as the torturee will eventually say anything to get the torture to stop.


You rarely ever see any torture for reasons other than to find information about the enemy, if they care that much about the enemy they are likely at war with them.


Torture is used purely as a means of non-military punishment or retaliation all over the world and has been throughout history. Then there's the Inquisition and its ilk, which tortured to get 'confessions' of no tactical/strategic/real world value at all.

So why do you think people get tortured then, just for kicks?

More likely for some sense of 'payback' for previous crimes (9/11), but certainly not for any productive reason. I'm sure this wasn't the stated reason at the beginning, and its advocates may even have conned themselves into believing their motives were purely informational, but that's what was lurking behind it all.

Yeah, actually, it is a shocker, because torture has never been a tactic of war.
I lol'd.

As someone who's studied history I'd have to completely disagree.
It's a tactic of rear eschelon motherfuckers, i.e. civilian wanks. And it has nothing to do with fighting.
It's the darker side of intelligence gathering. Yeah, the information it produces is often dubious, that doesn't stop people doing it. And although it's often 'indulged in' by REMFs, it's not like information given under duress has no use at the front lines.
And it's illegal under modern rules of military engagement.
So is shooting at civilians. Doesn't stop it happening, mind.
So, yeah, shocking, etc.
Not really. War causes bad and illegal things to happen as peoples' resolve is ground down. This is in its nature.

first and second rules of the Presidency.
1) If it goes wrong, it's your fault.
Too bad that rule seems to have been invalidated during the current president. At least when it comes to accountability.

The article states that they weren't actually investigated as to their actual medical history, so we have no idea why or when they received their injuries.

The mere assertion that they were tortured would fall flat in court.

It's fallen flat before. In a court case in Federal court in Alexandria, Va, where a student said he was flown to Saudi Arabia, tortured, and brought back to the US.

No one could prove that he was tortured - even the judge asked to look at his back, where he claimed that he had been whipped until the skin came off.

The judge was not convinced.

So you're saying the evidence of torture won't hold up in court because a case where they didn't have evidence of torture failed before.

You certainly have an interesting grasp of reality.

Perhaps because he is the Commander in Chief, genius.

You might as well say Stalin was innocent. He was just unpopular. He didn't kill anyone personally! Wah, stop hating on Stalin!

Don't say that, Andaras might come in!:D

Too bad that rule seems to have been invalidated during the current president. At least when it comes to accountability.

I think you would have to have more than the testimony of inmates who claimed torture.

You would have to have proof that any injury they sustained was at Guantanamo, or some other holding place, and not previously incurred.

You would have to have orders in writing that torture was to be used, and I don't think that the "torture memo" (which describes the perceived legality of certain measures) would qualify.

Witnesses who were the torturers would certainly help.

But to tie it to Bush - you would need something in writing. Otherwise, only the lowest ranking people get fried for it.

Not really. War causes bad and illegal things to happen as peoples' resolve is ground down. This is in its nature.

True, despite any rules of war there will always be abuses made by the soldiers on the ground. This is why it is vital for those higher up the chain of command to keep an eye on such things to ensure that when they do happen the perpetrators are caught and appropriately punished.

However, that the administration are still denying such abuses are happening despite evidence to the contrary, and their failure to act to stop this, would appear to suggest that even if they are not strictly condoning such actions then they are at least responsible of criminal negligence in their duty to police their own forces.

I disagree with this completely from my studies of history, but it is pointless debating this point because it would require a complete overview of every war and country in history to make any valid conclusions, which will never be done. So we're both both holding practically unfalsifiable propositions.
Excellent! A very desirable position to be in.

Generals find important information extremely useful in making tactical strikes etc... if the only way they think to gain this intelligence is through torture, then that is what they will do, whether it is justified or not is irrelevant to this conversation. You rarely ever see any torture for reasons other than to find information about the enemy, if they care that much about the enemy they are likely at war with them.
I cannot begin to tell you how much I disagree with you on this score -- not as a matter of opinion, but as a simple matter of fact. Throughout the Bush adminstration's issues with torture, we have seen a constant parade of military officers, CIA agents, intelligence and interrogation experts, and historians, all of whom aver unanimously that torture does NOT yield useful information and that getting information is NOT why it is used.

As for rarely seeing torture used for any reason other than getting information about the enemy -- then what were Saddam's "rape rooms" for? What information about which enemy was he getting in those? What intelligence do you think was gathered by those sadistic bondage scenes acted out in Abu Ghraib prison? What information about which enemy was being gathered in the camps and killing fields of Cambodia or the gulags of the Soviet Union? Way back when, what government was gathering what kind of intelligence against what enemy in which war when the Inquisition tortured confessions out of "witches" so they could execute them with cleansed souls? The assertion that torture is rarely done for any reason but to gain information during a war is patent nonsense.

So why do you think people get tortured then, just for kicks?
Insane people torture others for kicks. Governments use torture as a tool of controlling people -- either their own citizens or their enemies, or both -- by fear. It is, essentially, state terrorism.

I lol'd.

As someone who's studied history I'd have to completely disagree.

It's the darker side of intelligence gathering. Yeah, the information it produces is often dubious, that doesn't stop people doing it. And although it's often 'indulged in' by REMFs, it's not like information given under duress has no use at the front lines.

So is shooting at civilians. Doesn't stop it happening, mind.

Not really. War causes bad and illegal things to happen as peoples' resolve is ground down. This is in its nature.
The fact that crimes are committed, doesn't make it okay to commit them. The fact that there is a war on -- one that we started -- does not suspend the rule of law. A crime committed on a battlefield is still a crime, if it violates the rules of war, and it deserves to be punished. Period.

I think you would have to have more than the testimony of inmates who claimed torture.

You would have to have proof that any injury they sustained was at Guantanamo, or some other holding place, and not previously incurred.

You would have to have orders in writing that torture was to be used, and I don't think that the "torture memo" (which describes the perceived legality of certain measures) would qualify.

Witnesses who were the torturers would certainly help.

But to tie it to Bush - you would need something in writing. Otherwise, only the lowest ranking people get fried for it.
We'll see what the future holds...

Two weeks ago, House Democrats sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey Friday requesting that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether White House officials, including President Bush, violated the War Crimes Act when they allowed interrogators to use brutal interrogation methods against detainees suspected of ties to terrorist organizations.

The letter, signed by 56 Congressional lawmakers, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, who is leading an investigation into the administration’s interrogation practices, says the International Committee of the Red Cross conducted an independent investigation of interrogation practices at Guantanamo Bay and “documented several instances of acts of torture against detainees, including soaking a prisoner’s hand in alcohol and lighting it on fire, subjecting a prisoner to sexual abuse and forcing a prisoner to eat a baseball.”

“We believe that these events alone warrant action, but within the last month additional information has surfaced that suggests the fact that not only did top administration officials meet in the White House and approve of the use of enhanced techniques including waterboarding against detainees, but that President Bush was aware of, and approved of the meetings taking place,” the letter, dated June 6, says. "This information indicates that the Bush administration may have systematically implemented, from the top down, detainee interrogation policies that constitute torture or otherwise violate the law. We believe that these serious and significant revelations warrant an immediate investigation to determine whether actions taken by the President, his Cabinet, and other Administration officials are in violation of the War Crimes Act, the Anti-Torture Act, and other U.S. and international laws.”
Link (http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?view=article&catid=1%3Anationworld&id=148%3Aformer-abu-ghraib-investigator-says-bush-administration-committed-war-crimes&option=com_content&Itemid=8)

I cannot begin to tell you how much I disagree with you on this score -- not as a matter of opinion, but as a simple matter of fact. Throughout the Bush adminstration's issues with torture, we have seen a constant parade of military officers, CIA agents, intelligence and interrogation experts, and historians, all of whom aver unanimously that torture does NOT yield useful information and that getting information is NOT why it is used.


Your first point about it not yielding useful information could not be more irrelevant. The only thing that's important in this context is whether the government believes it gathers useful information, not if it actually does (and its very difficult to generalise in this situation, since it often depends on the style and circumstance of the torture). As for your second point, I have never seen an expert in all my life (who isn't patently obviously not just trying to look good by condemning torture) who claims that universally torture is never used to gather information ever, which is an absolutely absurd claim.


As for rarely seeing torture used for any reason other than getting information about the enemy -- then what were Saddam's "rape rooms" for? What information about which enemy was he getting in those? What intelligence do you think was gathered by those sadistic bondage scenes acted out in Abu Ghraib prison? What information about which enemy was being gathered in the camps and killing fields of Cambodia or the gulags of the Soviet Union? Way back when, what government was gathering what kind of intelligence against what enemy in which war when the Inquisition tortured confessions out of "witches" so they could execute them with cleansed souls? The assertion that torture is rarely done for any reason but to gain information during a war is patent nonsense.


Ok let's be more specific, there are two main reasons governments torture. The first one is to uphold a terror state, where the threat of torture scares people into conformity, this type of torture is enacted on its own citizens and is used as a deterrent and not to gather information.

The second type is used on enemy forces in order to gain the upper hand in warfare by ascertaining valuable information about the whereabouts and nature of enemy forces. For some reason you're trying to treat these two types as one in the same and then because the two types are apparently exactly the same your making the assertion that torture is only used for the first reason stated. Yet all historical evidence shows that the two types of torture are very separate and often enacted by totally separate institutions of the government altogether.


Insane people torture others for kicks. Governments use torture as a tool of controlling people -- either their own citizens or their enemies, or both -- by fear. It is, essentially, state terrorism.

Governments do not have any control over the citizens of countries which are not theirs, the USA does not control the citizens of Iran for instance, so it would make absolutely no sense for the government to torture Iranians in order to control Iranian citizens, when that would have absolutely no effect whatsoever.

The fact that crimes are committed, doesn't make it okay to commit them. The fact that there is a war on -- one that we started -- does not suspend the rule of law. A crime committed on a battlefield is still a crime, if it violates the rules of war, and it deserves to be punished. Period.

No one is saying it does justify it, I still think what the US gov is doing is abhorrent. All we are saying is that its not surprising and has been fairly standard practice for world powers at war.

Ok let's be more specific, there are two main reasons governments torture. The first one is to uphold a terror state, where the threat of torture scares people into conformity, this type of torture is enacted on its own citizens and is used as a deterrent and not to gather information.

The second type is used on enemy forces in order to gain the upper hand in warfare by ascertaining valuable information about the whereabouts and nature of enemy forces. For some reason you're trying to treat these two types as one in the same and then because the two types are apparently exactly the same your making the assertion that torture is only used for the first reason stated. Yet all historical evidence shows that the two types of torture are very separate and often enacted by totally separate institutions of the government altogether.


Again, only the first kind is at all effective at accomplishing its goal. Torture for information doesn't work very well, regardless of what 24 may tell you.

Your first point about it not yielding useful information could not be more irrelevant. The only thing that's important in this context is whether the government believes it gathers useful information, not if it actually does (and its very difficult to generalise in this situation, since it often depends on the style and circumstance of the torture). As for your second point, I have never seen an expert in all my life (who isn't patently obviously not just trying to look good by condemning torture) who claims that universally torture is never used to gather information ever, which is an absolutely absurd claim.


The experts aren't saying torture isn't being used to attempt to gather information--of course it is--they're arguing it isn't very good at actually getting information. Still, if you're going to dismiss the sources outright, no point in further discussion.

Yeah, actually, it is a shocker, because torture has never been a tactic of war. It's a tactic of rear eschelon motherfuckers, i.e. civilian wanks. And it has nothing to do with fighting. And it's illegal under modern rules of military engagement. So, yeah, shocking, etc.

Lolwhat?

Seriously, Muravyets? You're actually going to argue that torture has never been a tactic of war? I do believe the vast majority of history by far disagrees with you. Just look at the famous sacks of cities, like the Sack of Rome. Torture all over the place. Torture was ROUTINE in war. It's only in very recent times that we've finally gotten to the point where we're civilized enough to ban it.

Too bad that rule seems to have been invalidated during the current president. At least when it comes to accountability.

really? according to the popular opinions here, it seems that no one believes that. :p

really? according to the popular opinions here, it seems that no one believes that. :p

Has a special prosecutor been assigned yet?

Bush should be imprisond for crimes against humanitiy, but i dout any one in america has the ball's to risk dieing for freedom, liberty and democracy(at least not when they have to admit that they were the ones destorying those priniples)

I do think most americans belive in justice, and would fight for it, but not at the exspence of admitting they where wrong

Your first point about it not yielding useful information could not be more irrelevant. The only thing that's important in this context is whether the government believes it gathers useful information, not if it actually does (and its very difficult to generalise in this situation, since it often depends on the style and circumstance of the torture). As for your second point, I have never seen an expert in all my life (who isn't patently obviously not just trying to look good by condemning torture) who claims that universally torture is never used to gather information ever, which is an absolutely absurd claim.
Sorry, but the above is total bullshit, the kind of stuff I expect to hear from apologists for torture. Wrap your brain around this: The experts who are in charge of interrogating people to get information have been saying for many, many years (longer than Bush has been president) that torture does not yield information. So tell me, with that already on the table, why would any government authorize torture for the purpose of getting information? "Here, we need information. Please use this technique that every knowledgable person knows doesn't work." Yeah, right. Getting information is clearly not the reason why prisoners are being tortured. Don't act as if you are dense.

Ok let's be more specific, there are two main reasons governments torture. The first one is to uphold a terror state, where the threat of torture scares people into conformity, this type of torture is enacted on its own citizens and is used as a deterrent and not to gather information.
Scaring people is the only reason torture is used. used against a government's own citizenry, it is intended to scare them into obedience, as you say. Used against enemy prisoners, it is intended to scare and demoralize the enemy and serve as a threatening example to any other would-be enemies. Terror is its only purpose.

The second type is used on enemy forces in order to gain the upper hand in warfare by ascertaining valuable information about the whereabouts and nature of enemy forces.
Which is bullshit, because all the expert interrogators of the last century have told the leaders of the modern world and the generals and spies that work for them that it doesn't work, so why the fuck would they waste time doing it for that purpose? I sincerely doubt that even George Bush really believes he is getting information from torture even though none actually materializes. And yet, he keeps authorizing it. Clearly, there must be another purpose for doing it (like, oh, say, terror, perhaps).

For some reason you're trying to treat these two types as one in the same and then because the two types are apparently exactly the same your making the assertion that torture is only used for the first reason stated. Yet all historical evidence shows that the two types of torture are very separate and often enacted by totally separate institutions of the government altogether.
Wrong. I am not treating the two types as the same. I am disputing your claim that the second type exists at all. I am asserting my firm belief that if a government claims it tortures for information, it is lying.

Governments do not have any control over the citizens of countries which are not theirs, the USA does not control the citizens of Iran for instance, so it would make absolutely no sense for the government to torture Iranians in order to control Iranian citizens, when that would have absolutely no effect whatsoever.
Again, please don't pretend to be dense. Systematic torture of enemy prisoners for purposes of terror is a tactic -- an illegal one -- because some people believe that terror might sap an enemy's will to keep fighting. Supposedly, it worked for Vlad the Impaler. I guess some people really do want to be Dracula. Too bad that's the only historical story (possibly apocryphal) that I've ever heard of that actually working (if it happened at all).

Lolwhat?

Seriously, Muravyets? You're actually going to argue that torture has never been a tactic of war? I do believe the vast majority of history by far disagrees with you. Just look at the famous sacks of cities, like the Sack of Rome. Torture all over the place. Torture was ROUTINE in war. It's only in very recent times that we've finally gotten to the point where we're civilized enough to ban it.
I have laid out my thinking on this in other posts. I suggest you read them to see what I am talking about.

I have laid out my thinking on this in other posts. I suggest you read them to see what I am talking about.

Ooooh, I see what you meant. Sorry, I'll take back my comment now.

Ooooh, I see what you meant. Sorry, I'll take back my comment now.
No problem at all, and thanks very much. :) I know it's kind of hard to lay out a position clearly when one is trying to draw a distinction between what governments say they are doing and what they are actually doing, so I realize my posts are confusing if people don't catch all of them. Sorry about that.

Well, there are a wide range of opinions on the issue, so I'm guessing there is still plenty of doubt going round

Those with brains realized long ago that the US administration was torturing people.

Those without them or were too naive to believe their own logic just shoved their head in the sand.

No matter how much evidence, irrefutable as it may be, comes out proving our acusations, those mentioned above wont believe it.


Therefore, my response is :(

You only get results like that when you invade a place, overthrow the government, and hold your own courts.

Hardly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission)

First rule of leadership. If you are in charge, Everything is your fault.
I'm The Decider! :rolleyes:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2006/04/20/im-the-decider.htm

I hear S&M is very popular in the mid east.
Everyone knows about Lawrence of Arabia, right?

Well, there are a wide range of opinions on the issue, so I'm guessing there is still plenty of doubt going round
Strange how so much of the doubt is being held by the same people holding doubt about the issue of drastic climate change ... and ever stranger how important this particular administrations' opinion is to them.

I don't understand what this has to do with Bush, besides the fact that he is very unpopular and is blamed for almost every bad thing the military or economy does.
Just because torture occured does not mean it was ordered by the administration...you think Bush ordered those reservists to torture prisoners and embarres the administration?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/18/BL2008061801546.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/retired-gen-tag.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/06/bush-war-crimes.html
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/taguba-bush-adm.html
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/NEWS07/806190349

But realistically, unless some spectacular miracles come up the only thing that Dubya is going to get when he leaves office is a Secret Service guard at all times, historical footnotes declaring him one of the biggest Presidential Failures in history that'll make Jimmy Carter look like Einstein, and a library at SMU that celebrates his incompetence and nepotism.

And I feel sorry for the Secret Service watch, because I'm sure there's going to be at least one pissed off American insane enough to go gunning for Dubya when he's out of the White House.

But realistically, unless some spectacular miracles come up the only thing that Dubya is going to get when he leaves office is a Secret Service guard at all times, historical footnotes declaring him one of the biggest Presidential Failures in history that'll make Jimmy Carter look like Einstein, and a library at SMU that celebrates his incompetence and nepotism.

And I feel sorry for the Secret Service watch, because I'm sure there's going to be at least one pissed off American insane enough to go gunning for Dubya when he's out of the White House.

It was kind of a weird feeling when I fully realized the extent of Bush's fuckups. I read all about Harding and Grant in high school history--how they were the two 'failures' in U.S. presidential history and all that. But now I've realized that I'm living in a truly historic time, seeing as Bush is literally the worst president we've ever had; at least Harding's men managed to corrupt themselves without fucking the rest of the world over.

We really are living history, the worst president the United States has ever had... think about that for a minute.

We really are living history, the worst president the United States has ever had... think about that for a minute.

And hopefully the next President will make history as the Man Who Cleaned Up Dubya's Mess and turns the country around a complete 180. And we know who that man ideally should be, otherwise it's just a continuation of Dubya's Follies.

Again, only the first kind is at all effective at accomplishing its goal. Torture for information doesn't work very well, regardless of what 24 may tell you.



The experts aren't saying torture isn't being used to attempt to gather information--of course it is--they're arguing it isn't very good at actually getting information. Still, if you're going to dismiss the sources outright, no point in further discussion.

Congratulations for completely missing the point of everything I've said so far, enjoy your strawman.

Sorry, but the above is total bullshit, the kind of stuff I expect to hear from apologists for torture. Wrap your brain around this: The experts who are in charge of interrogating people to get information have been saying for many, many years (longer than Bush has been president) that torture does not yield information. So tell me, with that already on the table, why would any government authorize torture for the purpose of getting information? "Here, we need information. Please use this technique that every knowledgable person knows doesn't work." Yeah, right. Getting information is clearly not the reason why prisoners are being tortured. Don't act as if you are dense.


I cannot believe your even using this argument. There are thousands and thousands of intelligence and military experts who believe that torture DOES yield information, and most importantly, many members of the republican party. The fact that many experts condone is as I have said over and over and over again, completely irrelevant.


Scaring people is the only reason torture is used. used against a government's own citizenry, it is intended to scare them into obedience, as you say. Used against enemy prisoners, it is intended to scare and demoralize the enemy and serve as a threatening example to any other would-be enemies. Terror is its only purpose.


Hahahahahaha, you honestly think that Guantanamo Bay, something that holds less than 0.01% of all terrorists in the world (and is absolutely nothing compared to the treatment these guys get at home) is actually going to demoralise them. I think sending in the military and blowing up their homeland does a far better job of that.


Which is bullshit, because all the expert interrogators of the last century have told the leaders of the modern world and the generals and spies that work for them that it doesn't work, so why the fuck would they waste time doing it for that purpose? I sincerely doubt that even George Bush really believes he is getting information from torture even though none actually materializes. And yet, he keeps authorizing it. Clearly, there must be another purpose for doing it (like, oh, say, terror, perhaps).


What you are saying is beyond flippant, it's just immature speculation. You have not got a single shred of proof of what you say, and yet the burden of proof is so vastly, overwhelmingly on you. All you've been saying over and over again is "but but but every sing expert in the world says this" which is something you could not possibly know, because you could have not have possibly read every single research into torture, especially since a lot of the more in depth research is classified. And even still that doesn't mean shit, as I have also said over and over again, but which you keep ignoring, it doesn't matter what the experts say, it matters what the generals believe.


Wrong. I am not treating the two types as the same. I am disputing your claim that the second type exists at all. I am asserting my firm belief that if a government claims it tortures for information, it is lying.

Again, please don't pretend to be dense. Systematic torture of enemy prisoners for purposes of terror is a tactic -- an illegal one -- because some people believe that terror might sap an enemy's will to keep fighting. Supposedly, it worked for Vlad the Impaler. I guess some people really do want to be Dracula. Too bad that's the only historical story (possibly apocryphal) that I've ever heard of that actually working (if it happened at all).

It sounds like to me you really desperately want the idea that governments never torture people for information, and that this terror state that a few rouge states set up is exactly the same torture that has been used by countries during war time, despite them never torturing their own citizens. You want this idea so badly to be true despite absolutely having no evidence to support what you say, so it makes it easier to condone torture, to massively generalise and say that any government that embarks upon it is clearly just being an evil terror state, perhaps it's a noble cause, but its still a disconnect from reality.

You know what? I think that the entirity of the officer staff in Abu Gharaib should be tried (along side Bushy, Cheny, etc) at the Hague.

Who gives a fuck quite honestly. You Americans are never going to stand up to Bush. All the shit they did, under the cloak of anti-terrorism, sure, that could be understood back in the early days of post 9/11. But evidence of illegal wiretaps didn't rouse you up in sufficient numbers to do anything. War profiteering, torture in all those secret prisons, the lies about WMD, the continuing fighting in Iraq, none of it is enough for you to get out and demand accountability.

The democrats are about to help pass a bill to give Bush a pass on violating the Constitution, and then allow it to continue. Even when the republicans are in retreat, in a Democrat controlled house this shit is still going through.

I'm an Australian, so yea, you can say fuck off you're not one of us and I don't get to speak. Fair enough. I just greatly admire the US, and for a long time I've dreamed about emigrating there, and hopefully I'll get the chance to after I finish my degree. It just saddens me greatly when I see this going on, in a country that I want to be a citizen of.

Who gives a fuck quite honestly. You Americans are never going to stand up to Bush. All the shit they did, under the cloak of anti-terrorism, sure, that could be understood back in the early days of post 9/11. But evidence of illegal wiretaps didn't rouse you up in sufficient numbers to do anything. War profiteering, torture in all those secret prisons, the lies about WMD, the continuing fighting in Iraq, none of it is enough for you to get out and demand accountability.

The democrats are about to help pass a bill to give Bush a pass on violating the Constitution, and then allow it to continue. Even when the republicans are in retreat, in a Democrat controlled house this shit is still going through.

I'm an Australian, so yea, you can say fuck off you're not one of us and I don't get to speak. Fair enough. I just greatly admire the US, and for a long time I've dreamed about emigrating there, and hopefully I'll get the chance to after I finish my degree. It just saddens me greatly when I see this going on, in a country that I want to be a citizen of.

I wouldn't advise going there mate. I'm an American myself and I want to leave, desperately. It breaks my heart to see whats happening here, but I cannot be a part of a nation that thinks fascism is ok. And most of the nation isn't able to see past Monday night Football and other pleasentries to really care about whats going on, many more don't even know. So...you can really blame our lack of action on our ignorance. I'm likely either going to, ironically, Australia or Canada.

The fact that crimes are committed, doesn't make it okay to commit them. The fact that there is a war on -- one that we started -- does not suspend the rule of law. A crime committed on a battlefield is still a crime, if it violates the rules of war, and it deserves to be punished. Period.
No shit. That wasn't what I was claiming.

I wouldn't advise going there mate. I'm an American myself and I want to leave, desperately. It breaks my heart to see whats happening here, but I cannot be a part of a nation that thinks fascism is ok. And most of the nation isn't able to see past Monday night Football and other pleasentries to really care about whats going on, many more don't even know. So...you can really blame our lack of action on our ignorance. I'm likely either going to, ironically, Australia or Canada.

Is that actually the reason you're going, does any of the US governments policies actually personally affect you? If it doesn't then how will moving stop you from feeling depressed about what the American government is doing?

I cannot believe your even using this argument. <snip>
Likewise. I especially have a hard time believing you think you can get away with denouncing me for claiming that "every single expert" says something (which I didn't actually say) and that that is nothing but baseless speculation because I cannot possibly know it -- and then you turn around and base your entire argument on what you think generals might believe.

I take back what I said. Your posts are not like the sort of stuff I expect from torture apologists. It actually is the argument of a torture apologist, your little disclaimers notwithstanding. And the fact that you would go on about this, and continue escalating the tone, just because you want to claim that "the generals" believe torture works -- which I have told you is false; they do not believe it works; they are the ones saying it doesn't work -- well, I'm sorry, but that is just a pathetic way to attack me for saying torture is a war crime.

Not only do you fail to counter my arguments, but merely ridicule them, your own assertions amount to nothing but a catalogue of regurgitated White House talking points, the same kind of crap that we've been hearing from press secretaries for the duration of the current administration. AND you repeat yourself here as well, showing even more clearly the lack of depth in your thinking. You say governments torture for information. I say that can't be true because torture doesn't produce information, and we've all known that for a very long time, so there must be some other reason they do it, and based on history, I think it's to terrorize people. And your devastating debunking of my allegation is along the lines of "nuh-uh, they do it for information, 'cause they think it will work, and you're a big stupid-head for suggesting otherwise."

My first response was going to be a list of links to military and intelligence experts and officers saying exactly what I said they did over the past 7 years, but when I looked at the hundreds of articles and papers that google spit out for me -- and how many of them were very recent news -- I realized that there is no point. This has been so hashed out in the public media for so long now that there is no way you can be ignorant of what I said. I am pretty confident that you have been told all of this, just as I was, by the experts who know better than you how to interrogate people, and you just stuck your fingers in your ears and lalala'd them away, just like you're doing here.

Your argument is shallow, limited and unreasoned, and it flies in the face of both historical fact, expert opinion, and recent news.

I'll state my position just one more time: Modern generals and interrogators do not believe that torture provides information. I know this because, here in the US during the current administration, they have come out in public and said so, in personal statements, published papers and books, and sworn testimony before Congress. Because of this, any claim that the US tortures prisoners to get information is bogus, because the people doing the torture know full well they won't learn anything from it. Therefore, if they do it, they must be doing it for some reason other than to gain information. That much is surmised from the facts.

Now the part of my argument that is opinion is the part where I state that I do not believe that any modern government tortures prisoners in order to get information. I do not have the factual support of public statements from foreign governments' interrogation experts declaring that torture does not yield information, but I do know that they are modern nations living in the modern world, attending modern universities, and exposed to all the same history and research as US experts are. And I know that, on the whole, foreign interrogators are not too stupid to read up on their jobs. For that reason, I do not believe they have more faith in torture than US generals and experts do.

Now, if you have anything to support your claims about what generals believe (in contradiction of what they say), then feel free to post it, and I will go wading into all the evidence against you and post stuff from that, and we can beat each other up with it all we like. But I predict that will be a waste of time. You said our positions were mutually unfalsifiable. That is not true. My postion is strong because it is based on facts and therefore, I will not be swayed from it unless new facts come to light. Your position is based on a fantasy of how you imagine other people think. I can only assume your beliefe in your fantasy is strong, and I cannot imagine what could possibly sway you from it, if 7 years of being told otherwise by experts wasn't enough to do the trick.

No shit. That wasn't what I was claiming.
Our conversation so far, as it appears from my side of the fence.

A: Torture is a crime and should be punished.

B: Meh, there's a war on, and torture happens in war.

A: That doesn't justify it.

B: No shit. That wasn't what I was claiming.

So far, so good? OK, new question:

Then what the hell were you claiming?

Is that actually the reason you're going, does any of the US governments policies actually personally affect you? If it doesn't then how will moving stop you from feeling depressed about what the American government is doing?
Of course US government policies affect US citizens personally. Emmigrating can help a US citizen distance themselves from the public perception of Americans as being in support of what many see as fascist principles. It can also help protect a US citizen from having to live under domestic policies that they feel are similarly fascist. What is so unreasonable about moving out of a country whose policies one disagrees with so vehemently? Would you think it unreasonable if Saudis moved out of Saudi Arabia because they were sick of living under religious rule? If some Americans don't like the way the country is being run and don't think they can do anything about it, going ex-pat is a reasonable move. I am also holding it out as an option, pending what I see from the next administration.

Our conversation so far, as it appears from my side of the fence.

A: Torture is a crime and should be punished.

B: Meh, there's a war on, and torture happens in war.

A: That doesn't justify it.

B: No shit. That wasn't what I was claiming.

So far, so good? OK, new question:

Then what the hell were you claiming?
"There's a war on and you get torture in wars. This is not a good thing, this is just how it is."

Actually...since the US is a democracy... every single USian is responsible for this war crimes. They elected him...not once, but twice, and thus are ultimately responsible for this tortures.

No, Bush only won the 2004 election.

-snip epicly horribly dull tl;dr snip-

I didn't even bother to read all of this crap, it was so obviously set up in such a way that its impossible to falsify.

The fact of the matter is, as I have already stated, the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on you, and you haven't given any evidence for anything you have said in this whole discussion ever.

You've done two things, made some vague claim that all the experts say that it doesn't work (which would be irrelevant anyway) and then somehow extrapolated from this that this is actually also apparently what the US gov believes (without providing any evidence).

You've then also tried to use some form of 'common sense' claiming that the only reason the US government torture people is to strike fear into terrorists hearts, which is also totally absurd considering that of all the things terrorists have to be worried about at home, Guantanamo Bay would be the least of their concerns especially considering that its extremely unlikely they would ever even go there. In fact, if it really was used just to terrorise, it would be the most farcical attempt at such that has ever existed and would be completely superfluous next to the massive devastation the US military is causing in the middle east.

From this, I must conclude that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the US are doing it for the reasons you state unless you can actually present any evidence.

edit: also, lets see what the Chief of the CIA has to say about this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7070483.stm

Of course US government policies affect US citizens personally. Emmigrating can help a US citizen distance themselves from the public perception of Americans as being in support of what many see as fascist principles. It can also help protect a US citizen from having to live under domestic policies that they feel are similarly fascist. What is so unreasonable about moving out of a country whose policies one disagrees with so vehemently? Would you think it unreasonable if Saudis moved out of Saudi Arabia because they were sick of living under religious rule? If some Americans don't like the way the country is being run and don't think they can do anything about it, going ex-pat is a reasonable move. I am also holding it out as an option, pending what I see from the next administration.

Firstly moving out because you're worried about your image is an incredibly shallow reason to move. As to your second point, unless the US's 'fascism' is actually affecting me personally, I would see no reason to move, and if I actually did care that much about it, I would campaign against it.

As much as I'm neither surprised, nor excessively appalled, at this, I do hope it might be used to have Tony Blair stand trial for war crimes, and be executed thereafter.

As much as I'm neither surprised, nor excessively appalled, at this, I do hope it might be used to have Tony Blair stand trial for war crimes, and be executed thereafter.
Wouldn't it just be funnier to stick him in the stocks in Basra, For All To See etc.

Could even have the RAF drop in supplies of manky tomatoes from the US or whatever. Happy days.

Wouldn't it just be funnier to stick him in the stocks in Basra, For All To See etc.

Could even have the RAF drop in supplies of manky tomatoes from the US or whatever. Happy days.

Possibly, but then the first thing I'd want Cameron to do if elected as Prime Minister would be to repeal every legislation, law or bill passed under New Labour.

Possibly, but then the first thing I'd want Cameron to do if elected as Prime Minister would be to repeal every legislation, law or bill passed under New Labour.

Do you really think that would happen?

really? according to the popular opinions here, it seems that no one believes that. :p

Sad, but true.

-snip epicly horribly dull tl;dr snip-
I didn't even bother to read all of this crap, it was so obviously set up in such a way that its impossible to falsify.

Game, set, and match: Muravyets.

Hydes, you've been bitch-slapped, and you deserve it. All you have left is snark, and it's truly unflattering. You have my pity.

Do you really think that would happen?

I live in hope. I'd like to see any evidence that New Labour ever occurred purged from Britain.

Possibly, but then the first thing I'd want Cameron to do if elected as Prime Minister would be to repeal every legislation, law or bill passed under New Labour.
It'd be a hell of a surprise if a new PM repealed legislation giving the government more power. Not going to happen.

Game, set, and match: Muravyets.

Hydes, you've been bitch-slapped, and you deserve it. All you have left is snark, and it's truly unflattering. You have my pity.

Was there any reason for this post at all? I have read through what Muravyets had to say now and it was full of ad hominems and strawmen, not even addressing the main points I make. Why should I bother to spend absolutely ages addressing every point she makes which will be completely fruitless, when it would be much easier to lay down clearly what my position is whilst giving her a perfect opportunity to prove me wrong. Now please, go away with your brown nosing.

Edit: also, she did exactly the same thing to me, snipping everything I had to say, so why shouldn't I give her the same pleasure?

It'd be a hell of a surprise if a new PM repealed legislation giving the government more power. Not going to happen.

A shame really, because it's the right thing to do.

A shame really, because it's the right thing to do.
Those who seek power don't give it up easily.

Was there any reason for this post at all? I have read through what Muravyets had to say now and it was full of ad hominems and strawmen, not even addressing the main points I make. Why should I bother to spend absolutely ages addressing every point she makes which will be completely fruitless, when it would be much easier to lay down clearly what my position is whilst giving her a perfect opportunity to prove me wrong. Now please, go away with your brown nosing.

I've read the whole thread, sir, and the very moment where Muravyets pinned you is where you started upping the ante on antagonism and deliberately misrepresented her point. She merely reflected your vitriol back at you (without the concomitant misrepresentation). This is the classic pattern of those who are cornered: lash out. By all means, continue.

EDIT: Her snips were not childishly editorialized, that's why.

I've read the whole thread, sir, and the very moment where Muravyets pinned you is where you started upping the ante on antagonism and deliberately misrepresented her point. She merely reflected your vitriol back at you (without the concomitant misrepresentation). This is the classic pattern of those who are cornered: lash out. By all means, continue.

Spare me your 'analysis', if you have anything useful to say, say it, otherwise don't post.

Edit: in fact, the content-less posting your doing right now is probably the worst thing anyone can do in a forum and is far worse then any 'vitriol' I may be producing, nothing is more annoying then what you're doing right now. So discontinue unless you want to continue being a hypocrite.

Spare me your 'analysis', if you have anything useful to say, say it, otherwise don't post.

Sorry, sir, but you don't have the power to order anyone here around. I read the thread, called what I saw, and you don't agree. Fair enough.

But you can take your superiority complex and blow it out your gazoo. I'll post wherever I like, and call whatever I see however I see it. You got owned and are trying to shift focus to the person who sees it that way and decided to comment on it. I see that as further proof that I called it correctly.

But you can take your superiority complex and blow it out your gazoo. I'll post wherever I like, and call whatever I see however I see it. You got owned and are trying to shift focus to the person who sees it that way and decided to comment on it. I see that as further proof that I called it correctly.

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. So somehow me replying to what you say is now further evidence of getting owned? Wow you must really be grasping at straws.

Sorry, sir, but you don't have the power to order anyone here around. I read the thread, called what I saw, and you don't agree. Fair enough.

But you can take your superiority complex and blow it out your gazoo. I'll post wherever I like, and call whatever I see however I see it. You got owned and are trying to shift focus to the person who sees it that way and decided to comment on it. I see that as further proof that I called it correctly.

I can't help but feel that the emboldened sentences are excessively vernacular and abrasive, redolent not of any informed and intellectual debate, but of a prosaic layman, aware of his inferiority, being a combative cock to compensate.

And even still that doesn't mean shit, as I have also said over and over again, but which you keep ignoring, it doesn't matter what the experts say, it matters what the generals believe.
Can you show what the generals believe? Or which generals believe that torture works?

Major General Antonio Taguba doesn't believe that it works. Neither does
retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html) ("if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless),
Army retired Col. Stuart Herrington (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07294/826876-35.stm) (We rejected the view that interrogators could merely "take off the gloves" and that information would somehow magically flow if we brutalized our "guests." This notion was uninformed and counterproductive, not to mention illegal, and we made sure our chain of command understood that bowing to such tempting theories would result in bad information.),
Brig. Gen. David R. Irvine (http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/) (No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives.),
Lt. Gen. John Kimmons (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/07/torture/) ("No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices," Kimmons said. "I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that." He argued that "any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility."),
and, indeed, Gen. David Petraeus (http://www.hstoday.us/content/view/525/150/1/3/), the commander of US forces in Iraq(“some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.”) - just a quick round of examples.

Can you show what the generals believe? Or which generals believe that torture works?

Major General Antonio Taguba doesn't believe that it works. Neither does retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html) ("if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless), Army retired Col. Stuart Herrington (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07294/826876-35.stm) (We rejected the view that interrogators could merely "take off the gloves" and that information would somehow magically flow if we brutalized our "guests." This notion was uninformed and counterproductive, not to mention illegal, and we made sure our chain of command understood that bowing to such tempting theories would result in bad information.), Brig. Gen. David R. Irvine (http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/) (No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives.), Lt. Gen. John Kimmons (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/07/torture/) ("No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices," Kimmons said. "I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that." He argued that "any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility."), and, indeed, Gen. David Petraeus (http://www.hstoday.us/content/view/525/150/1/3/), the commander of US forces in Iraq, wrote (“some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.”) - just a quick round of examples.

Look, the are thousands of generals who believe that torture is a completely abhorrent method that does not yield any useful information. I'm not trying to defend it as legitimate or a morally acceptable practice, I'm just stating that there is no reason to assume that the US government is doing it merely as a farcical attempt create terror. When I say generals, I mean the people in charge and behind the operation, what matters is what they believe, if you can show that they don't believe it yields useful information THEN you have an argument to show that they are torturing for reasons that Muryavets stated, if you cannot show that they don't believe it does, then you have very little to stand on other than mere vague speculation. I already provided one link showing what the chief of the CIA believes, someone who is important in this case because he's actually behind and responsible for what happens in the Bay, rather than a military grunt following orders: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7070483.stm

Eh to be fair, that's often how you sound also. Exams or being in Kent make you wordy and dull. But aye, you can't exactly blame Hydesland for not even bothering to deal with a bullshit overload.

Being in Kent?:confused:

I can't help but feel that the emboldened sentences are excessively vernacular and abrasive, redolent not of any informed and intellectual debate, but of a prosaic layman, aware of his inferiority, being a combative cock to compensate.
Eh to be fair, that's often how you sound also. Exams or being in Kent make you wordy and dull. But aye, you can't exactly blame Hydesland for not even bothering to deal with a bullshit overload.

Being in Kent?:confused:


So thats what it is....Try bottled water only for a few weeks and come back to us.

So you don't mean "the generals" at all, but rather the politicians?

The generals and politicians behind the operation, rather merely than just 'generals'... in general (yes I apologize for perhaps not being clear enough on that in the first place, but I thought that was a given). But yes you're otherwise broadly correct, if you're going to assert what these people believe, then you're going to have to show it.

Look, the are thousands of generals who believe that torture is a completely abhorrent method that does not yield any useful information. I'm not trying to defend it as legitimate or a morally acceptable practice, I'm just stating that there is no reason to assume that the US government is doing it merely as a farcical attempt create terror. When I say generals, I mean the people in charge and behind the operation, what matters is what they believe, if you can show that they don't believe it yields useful information THEN you have an argument to show that they are torturing for reasons that Muryavets stated, if you cannot show that they don't believe it does, then you have very little to stand on other than mere vague speculation. I already provided one link showing what the chief of the CIA believes, someone who is important in this case because he's actually behind and responsible for what happens in the Bay, rather than a military grunt following orders: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7070483.stm

So you don't mean "the generals" at all, but rather the politicians?

So you don't mean "the generals" at all, but rather the politicians?

My reply to this seems to have timewarped, just in case you missed it, its on the page before.

Being in Kent?:confused:
Jawohl. Dunno what it is, but going back to Kent makes your posts a bit dull.

Jawohl. Dunno what it is, but going back to Kent makes your posts a bit dull.

Never been to Kent in my life....I try to hush this up, but I live in Essex....the shame...

I'm still in York anyway. Spent all last night flyering for "Up the Racket" at Terrace.

Never been to Kent in my life....I try to hush this up, but I live in Essex....the shame...

I'm still in York anyway. Spent all last night flyering for "Up the Racket" at Terrace.
Oh I see :p

Well anyway... err... aye... *dies of shame*

Also, you free tonight? Could go to the City Screen bar and have a very tiny NSG meetup :p

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/internet_argument.png (http://xkcd.com/438/)

Please, people. Calm down a bit. This is only the internet.

"There's a war on and you get torture in wars. This is not a good thing, this is just how it is."
I reject the bolded part on the grounds that this is what war crimes tribunals are for.

I didn't even bother to read all of this crap, it was so obviously set up in such a way that its impossible to falsify.

<snip>
Because it's right?

Firstly moving out because you're worried about your image is an incredibly shallow reason to move.
You'd be the expert on shallow today.

As to your second point, unless the US's 'fascism' is actually affecting me personally, I would see no reason to move, and if I actually did care that much about it, I would campaign against it.
To each his own.

I can't help but feel that the emboldened sentences are excessively vernacular and abrasive, redolent not of any informed and intellectual debate, but of a prosaic layman, aware of his inferiority, being a combative cock to compensate.
Got a new thesaurus recently? ;)

The generals and politicians behind the operation, rather merely than just 'generals'... in general (yes I apologize for perhaps not being clear enough on that in the first place, but I thought that was a given). But yes you're otherwise broadly correct, if you're going to assert what these people believe, then you're going to have to show it.
You mean you apologize for having to move your goal posts so late in the game? Gravlen did some of my work for me, and in response to being shown actual generals putting the lie to your claims about what they believe, you now try to redefine "generals" to include non-generals and claim that should have been obvious. Very cute, but not very effective. And if we were to post examples of politicians who don't believe it, who else would you try to include as a "given" under the rubric of "generals"? How long will we have to go round this bush before your definition of "generals" just means you and a couple of White House staffers?

Apparently, it's not the interrogators of Khalid Mohammed who did the torturing. "Paramilitary" people did it - cold, pain, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

And he talked. While the interrogator himself seems to have been fairly nice, apparently it was necessary to give him "the treatment" before he was willing to talk to anyone at all.

Since he gave up accurate information, including information leading to the capture of at least one other high ranking al-Qaeda member, I can only conclude that torture, at least implemented in this manner, works.

And it works on the most recalcitrant hard-cases.

I can't help but feel that the emboldened sentences are excessively vernacular and abrasive, redolent not of any informed and intellectual debate, but of a prosaic layman, aware of his inferiority, being a combative cock to compensate.
Oh I just love this part. ;)
Also, you free tonight? Could go to the City Screen bar and have a very tiny NSG meetup :p
Ach! Me too!

Rexmehe, just what did you mean by "you Americans." Millions of us cared enough to vote against Bush. Thousands of us have marched in protests. Some have sued the Government. What more could they do, short of armed rebellion? I'll admit there's a lot of laziness and apathy, and a lot of people just to busy with their own lives( its hard to fight the system when you live paycheck to paycheck, and are trying to pay for medicine and school to boot). I'll admit I haven't been very active in opposing the current regime, and the much deeper general ignorance of the bulk of the population. but you can't paint all Americans with one brush. You Americans in this context is little more valid a statement than "you blacks", or "you gays". It's just stereotyping.

Sorry if I'm making to much of this. I can see from your other comments that your not against all Americans. But I get a lot of sweeping generalizations about Americans where I live, in a place where they'd come down on you like a ton on bricks for saying similar things about any other group. So I take the time to point this out when ever possible.

Rexmehe, just what did you mean by "you Americans." Millions of us cared enough to vote against Bush. Thousands of us have marched in protests. Some have sued the Government. What more could they do, short of armed rebellion? I'll admit there's a lot of laziness and apathy, and a lot of people just to busy with their own lives( its hard to fight the system when you live paycheck to paycheck, and are trying to pay for medicine and school to boot). I'll admit I haven't been very active in opposing the current regime, and the much deeper general ignorance of the bulk of the population. but you can't paint all Americans with one brush. You Americans in this context is little more valid a statement than "you blacks", or "you gays". It's just stereotyping.

Sorry if I'm making to much of this. I can see from your other comments that your not against all Americans. But I get a lot of sweeping generalizations about Americans where I live, in a place where they'd come down on you like a ton on bricks for saying similar things about any other group. So I take the time to point this out when ever possible.

It was mostly a rant, and I do realise there have been protests, and I know that people voted against Bush in the millions. But just over this last year, after all the current revelations about false data, about all the lies that were revealed on trusting faulty intelligence about WMD's and terrorists in Iraq it still doesn't seem like anyone will ever be punished. The people who oppose the war, and voted in the Democrats in 2006 to bring about an end to the war...and nothing happens.
The Bush administration knew they were taking the country to war on faulty intelligence, and almost no one seems to be interested in going after them for it.
Now the FISA bill is going to pass again, which will give Bush a pass for his pass illegal wiretaps, and allow for continued wiretapping, under the oversight of Inspector Generals (I think that's the title), and guess who appoints those? And the democrats are going to support it. The majority of them, blue dog or not. Even Barack Obama, admittedly it hasn't reached the Senate floor yet, but even he hasn't come out in strong disapproval of the bill. And the majority of the news on this issue, which is not even an issue from what I see in most news I read - its about retroactive immunity for the telcos. Yea, they should be punished, in my opinion, but I can see their position. When the government calls, when the president says 'For the good of your country' are you going to say no? No one's debating on the provisions which will continue to allow warrantless wiretaps.

Guess that went off on a rant again - so I'll qualify it this time. I realise, just like every other country in the world Americans are not all the same. Apologies for earlier post that stereotyped all of you.

Cool. Its frusterating to see nothing change, I know. But that's the fault of the spinless Democrats in Congress(who just voted for imunity to companies for wire tapping), and a system that is geared to prevent third party candidites or independants from being viable. given their monopoly on power, would it possible to sue the two big parties for violating anti-trust laws?:D I suppose those only apply to bussinesses. Pity.:(

It was mostly a rant, and I do realise there have been protests, and I know that people voted against Bush in the millions. But just over this last year, after all the current revelations about false data, about all the lies that were revealed on trusting faulty intelligence about WMD's and terrorists in Iraq it still doesn't seem like anyone will ever be punished. The people who oppose the war, and voted in the Democrats in 2006 to bring about an end to the war...and nothing happens.


The Democrats need a 2/3 majority in Congress to get anything done. They barely have half. Why blame the people who are trying to get this stuff to happen? Why not blame the people who are actively preventing it from happening?

The Democrats need a 2/3 majority in Congress to get anything done. They barely have half. Why blame the people who are trying to get this stuff to happen? Why not blame the people who are actively preventing it from happening?

Tell me how many democrats voted for the bill, in its current form, in which it extends the length of the wiretaps to 7 days, and even if it is ever brought before the courts, the rulings they make are not binding? The president got away with it, they're passing a bill to legalise it, and extend the scope. And immunity. Tell me how many democrats voted FOR this measure. Don't give me this bullshit 'they're trying to get it done' they helped pass everything the president wanted.

The Democrats need a 2/3 majority in Congress to get anything done. They barely have half. Why blame the people who are trying to get this stuff to happen? Why not blame the people who are actively preventing it from happening?

Because it's easier to blame the Democrats for "doing nothing" rather than realize that the other, Republican half of Congress is "stopping everything."

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Democrats and Republicans use the same strategies on each other - the minority party obstructs the majority party.

The leadership of the Democratic Party are by and large spineless posers who think they can capture the center by aping the right. I'll vote Obama rather than have McCain, but I'm registering Independent.

There have been times I have geneuinly feared that Bush could turn the US into a dictatorship, and that the end result of hi crimes would be civil or nuclear war. I still fear it. But I will not forget that the Democrats allowed matters to come to this pass, by utterly failing in their role as an opposition party in the post-911 years, and becoming, for the most part, a rubber stamp organisation. I will not register Democrat.:mad:

The leadership of the Democratic Party are by and large spineless posers who think they can capture the center by aping the right. I'll vote Obama rather than have McCain, but I'm registering Independent.

There have been times I have geneuinly feared that Bush could turn the US into a dictatorship, and that the end result of hi crimes would be civil or nuclear war. I still fear it. But I will not forget that the Democrats allowed matters to come to this pass, by utterly failing in their role as an opposition party in the post-911 years, and becoming, for the most part, a rubber stamp organisation. I will not register Democrat.:mad:
You are coming to a sad realization about the Democratic Party. Cancel or allow?

My realizations about the Democratic Party came along time ago. It began way back when they let bush appoint Ashcroft, but I think the deciding factor was Kerry's weak campaign and swift concession after Ohio.

Sorry I couldn't post this as Skyland Mt, but I'm currently unable to log in using that nation.:headbang:

Because it's easier to blame the Democrats for "doing nothing" rather than realize that the other, Republican half of Congress is "stopping everything."In fact, it works well for one party to blame the other party for every single fucking thing. Can't think of a single thing they blame themselves for.

The leadership of the Democratic Party are by and large spineless posers who think they can capture the center by aping the right. I'll vote Obama rather than have McCain, but I'm registering Independent.

There have been times I have geneuinly feared that Bush could turn the US into a dictatorship, and that the end result of hi crimes would be civil or nuclear war. I still fear it. But I will not forget that the Democrats allowed matters to come to this pass, by utterly failing in their role as an opposition party in the post-911 years, and becoming, for the most part, a rubber stamp organisation. I will not register Democrat.:mad:
Obama and the democrats disappointed me with this bill, but I applaud your level-headedness. Obama and McCain are so far apart it's stupid to vote on the one issue.

Thanks!:) My faith in Obama's integrity diminishes all the time, but I still think he's pretty good by the standard's of typical politics. I think his flaws just stand out more because he's so good in so many ways, has such a good image, and has based his campaign on change. The last makes any slips he makes worse by comparison, since he has more to live up to. Keeping this in mind, it would take a truly epic screwup on his part just to make me stay home, when the alternative is Bush with senior moments.;)

Oh I see :p

Well anyway... err... aye... *dies of shame*

Also, you free tonight? Could go to the City Screen bar and have a very tiny NSG meetup :p

You know, if we actually got all the York-based NSGers together, I don't think the meet-up would be that tiny. I seem to remember there's at least a half-dozen of us *wonders if we've actually all met in real life and just don't realise it yet*

You mean you apologize for having to move your goal posts so late in the game? Gravlen did some of my work for me, and in response to being shown actual generals putting the lie to your claims about what they believe, you now try to redefine "generals" to include non-generals and claim that should have been obvious. Very cute, but not very effective. And if we were to post examples of politicians who don't believe it, who else would you try to include as a "given" under the rubric of "generals"? How long will we have to go round this bush before your definition of "generals" just means you and a couple of White House staffers?

Oh please, this is just getting sad. Use your common sense! Do you honestly, reaaaaally think that by generals I would mean just any old general from the military, look at the bloody context, its patently clear that by generals I meant people behind the operation otherwise everything I would have said would have been completely irrelevant, I mean what the fuck could any general who wasn't responsible for the torture have to do with absolutely anything ever mentioned in this convo ever? God damn, use your initiative!

Oh please, this is just getting sad. Use your common sense! Do you honestly, reaaaaally think that by generals I would mean just any old general from the military, look at the bloody context, its patently clear that by generals I meant people behind the operation otherwise everything I would have said would have been completely irrelevant, I mean what the fuck could any general who wasn't responsible for the torture have to do with absolutely anything ever mentioned in this convo ever? God damn, use your initiative!
HAHAHAHAHA!!! So, by "generals" you mean anyone you can think of, whether they're military officers or not -- possibly in the desperate hope that if you keep adding non-generals to the generals list, you'll find someone who actually does support your argument?

Seriously, Hydesland, you are repeating yourself again, because this really was completely obvious from the context that you think is going to save you. Everything you said actually was completely irrelevant. It was also wrong on the facts. And it ignored the points that I made in favor of attacking me (like the point where I included CIA officials and professional interrogators in my list of people who have come out against torture, not just generals), so you've been arguing only the weakest part of the issue. Basically, you have been beating this dead horse of yours for no reason at all for two days.

But at least you have finally realized that people who do not torture have no reason to support torture because they don't think torture has any effect other than ones they don't want. Now let's see you find someone who knows anything at all about interrogation, who actually thinks torture provides information. Or if you can't do that, find us some torturers who talk publicly about why they do it -- not the usual small gang of armchair Torquemadas who've never even asked a pointed question, let alone interrogated someone, but who "think" torture will get the terrorist to tell them where the magic key to disarming the ticking time bomb is because it works for Keifer Sutherland.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! So, by "generals" you mean anyone you can think of, whether they're military officers or not -- possibly in the desperate hope that if you keep adding non-generals to the generals list, you'll find someone who actually does support your argument?

Seriously, Hydesland, you are repeating yourself again, because this really was completely obvious from the context that you think is going to save you. Everything you said actually was completely irrelevant. It was also wrong on the facts. And it ignored the points that I made in favor of attacking me (like the point where I included CIA officials and professional interrogators in my list of people who have come out against torture, not just generals), so you've been arguing only the weakest part of the issue. Basically, you have been beating this dead horse of yours for no reason at all for two days.


Absolute nonsense, you're just being insanely pedantic and semantic. If you flat out refuse to actually address any of my points but instead whine about how you apparently do not have any actual common sense to grasp something so clearly obvious then there is no point in continuing this discussion. None of what you're saying is relevant to anything as usual, but just for clarity I already differentiated between military grunts just following orders (whos opinions do not mean absolute shit to anything regarding this discussion, so focusing on what they say only means you must not have any argument at all) and people actually responsible for the operation who are obviously the people I've been trying to talk about this whole bloody time, but yet so far you haven't even come to even vaguely addressing that point.


But at least you have finally realized that people who do not torture have no reason to support torture because they don't think torture has any effect other than ones they don't want. Now let's see you find someone who knows anything at all about interrogation, who actually thinks torture provides information.

Why should I? I never said that torture DOES yield any useful information, so I fail to see its relevance.


Or if you can't do that, find us some torturers who talk publicly about why they do it -- not the usual small gang of armchair Torquemadas who've never even asked a pointed question, let alone interrogated someone, but who "think" torture will get the terrorist to tell them where the magic key to disarming the ticking time bomb is because it works for Keifer Sutherland.

People who are responsible for the operation (like the chief of the CIA who I gave a link for) are the only people that matter in addressing your point, again not just someone following orders. There are thousands of soldiers and generals who don't support the Iraq war, does that mean the US government doesn't either? Of course not. Regardless, the burden of proof as I have said is on you, YOU should be finding me links showing me what the people responsible for the torture actually think, which shouldn't be so hard if its as obvious as you make it seem.

The generals and politicians behind the operation, rather merely than just 'generals'... in general (yes I apologize for perhaps not being clear enough on that in the first place, but I thought that was a given). But yes you're otherwise broadly correct, if you're going to assert what these people believe, then you're going to have to show it.

You were a bit vague. :)
But now that you've clarified, let me ask you this:

Generals find important information extremely useful in making tactical strikes etc... if the only way they think to gain this intelligence is through torture, then that is what they will do, whether it is justified or not is irrelevant to this conversation. You rarely ever see any torture for reasons other than to find information about the enemy, if they care that much about the enemy they are likely at war with them.
When the consensus among military generals seems to be that you don't get good intel through torture, why would they still try to use torture to find information about the enemy?

And yes, I'm asking you to speculate here, I know...

I find it a bit disturbing that the report concludes torture took place based on the claims of the prisoners alone. The report acknowledges that it did not review medical histories on any of the people allegedly tortured. Failure to do so leaves open the possibility of lying and the existence of pre-existing injuries and conditions that were not considered.

Not saying they weren't tortured, just I find the report to be lacking in a serious issue that affects the credibility of its information.

People will say the damndest things sometimes.

Hmm, this appears to be the first post where someone actually read the article critically (I did not read it, due in large part to my laziness). This deficit in the article is pretty severe. It doesn't necessarily mean they are lying... but I'd imagine there's a pretty decent chance that not all of what they said was true.

Also, I don't necessarily think that Bush was directly responsible, nor that he necessarily condoned it. Merely because a couple of executives have meetings about what 'torture' means, does not suggest that they knew about the Abu Ghraib situation, and let it fly. The suggestions that pepper this thread "Punish 'them'" and "Hold 'them' responsible" are laughable. Few people have specified who 'they' are that need to be punished, and it's clear that who is all directly responsible is a mystery, otherwise they would've already been punished. So, we can either give dishonourable discharges to every single US Army staffperson for the actions of those on the bottom (including Bush, of course, for being the top military dude in the country... technically), or we can do what responsible research we can about who caused these tortures, and punish only those directly responsible. In this case, the second option is pretty much the only viable one.

The problem with America's inability to 'respect the law' in this case, is that we don't know who is all responsible for the situation... until then America cannot be blamed for not 'respecting the law' when a murder happens we don't just start jailing all of the potential suspects, just to make sure we are respecting the law, but rather, we wait until sufficient evidence can be found to blame one party enough for them to be convicted (though, sometimes they are, indeed, not guilty, it is part of being an imperfect human).

Absolute nonsense, you're just being insanely pedantic and semantic. If you flat out refuse to actually address any of my points but instead whine about how you apparently do not have any actual common sense to grasp something so clearly obvious then there is no point in continuing this discussion. None of what you're saying is relevant to anything as usual, but just for clarity I already differentiated between military grunts just following orders (whos opinions do not mean absolute shit to anything regarding this discussion, so focusing on what they say only means you must not have any argument at all) and people actually responsible for the operation who are obviously the people I've been trying to talk about this whole bloody time, but yet so far you haven't even come to even vaguely addressing that point.



Why should I? I never said that torture DOES yield any useful information, so I fail to see its relevance.



People who are responsible for the operation (like the chief of the CIA who I gave a link for) are the only people that matter in addressing your point, again not just someone following orders. There are thousands of soldiers and generals who don't support the Iraq war, does that mean the US government doesn't either? Of course not. Regardless, the burden of proof as I have said is on you, YOU should be finding me links showing me what the people responsible for the torture actually think, which shouldn't be so hard if its as obvious as you make it seem.
You must have your goalposts mounted on wheels, the way you keep moving them around.

1) Your original argument was that torture is used to get information from enemy prisoners. I countered that by pointing out that intelligence experts say it doesn't work for that, so we have no reason to think it is used for that.

2) You then claimed that it will be used to get information IF governments think it works for that. I countered that by saying that, since the experts, who advise governments, say it doesn't work for that and say so to their government bosses, we have no reason to think that governments think torture works for getting information, because they have been told otherwise by their own experts. We especially have no reason to think they think that when they actually practice torture but get no information from it.

3) You then started equivocating about just who it is you claim thinks torture works for getting information. First it was the government. Then it was the generals. Then "generals" meant non-military personnel. And that went over about as well as could be expected.

4) Now you're trying to save face by falling back on your big IF, claiming that since you were just saying that IF somebody thinks a thing works, then they are likely to think it works, that somehow makes your argument valid. No, actually, it just makes it trivial and irrelevant. You have yet to convince me that there is anyone currently practicing torture who actually does so for the purpose of getting information from a prisoner. If there is no one who does that, then your profound insight that if they were doing it, then they they would be doing it, means nothing. You may as well say that if interrogators were pink unicorns, then they'd probably be pink and have four legs and horns growing out of their foreheads. Yeah, sure, if they were, then they would, only they don't because they're not.

5) And finally, having utterly failed to support your assertions, you try to shift the burden onto me to prove what torturers think. Only I don't have to. Here's why:

a) I never made any claims about what people think or believe, only about what they do. I made it clear, several times over, that I am surmising a purpose for torture based on its results. For centuries, torture has been committed against people, and in all that time, there are no recorded cases of torture actually being a useful way of getting information, but plenty of firm evidence that, in fact, it is counter-productive for that purpose. Yet it is still done. Perhaps you think all those torturers and the governments they've worked over the centuries have been stupid and crazy enough to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result every time (classic definition of insanity), but I do not. I think it is far more reasonable to conclude that torture is done for a different purpose and that the claim that it is done to gain information is a lie. Why is that more reasonable? Because it does not require thousands of people across multiple cultures and through multiple historical periods to all be crazy, stupid, and naive in the same way.

b) Since I did not make any claims of fact about what people think or believe, I do not have to prove anything about what people think or believe. Remember, I made claims as to what people DO, and based on that, I stated that I do not believe them when they say they do it for a particular reason.

c) Since you have already acknowledged that thousands of people do not think that torture yields information, what exactly are you asking me to prove? What do you doubt -- that there is any reason for sane people to doubt the usefulness of torture for getting information? But you have already conceded that point, so why do I have to prove anything about it?

d) And finally, and frankly, I am less than motivated to feel like I have to prove anything to you, after comparing my argument, in which I lay out my reasoning and refer to the kinds of facts I am basing it on, against your argument, in which you merely repeat your claims in lieu of explanation of how you formulated them, in which you keep move your goalposts to the point of stripping your own argument of meaning and relevance, and, most important, in which you have already conceded the main points -- that torture does not yield information and that people who know how to interrogate prisoners do not think that it does. So tell me, since you have already admitted that you were wrong, all on your own, without any other proofs from me, what is there that you would like me to prove to you?

Hmm, this appears to be the first post where someone actually read the article critically (I did not read it, due in large part to my laziness). This deficit in the article is pretty severe. It doesn't necessarily mean they are lying... but I'd imagine there's a pretty decent chance that not all of what they said was true.
The medical evidence seems to back up their claims though. You can find the entire report here (http://brokenlives.info/).

Also, I don't necessarily think that Bush was directly responsible, nor that he necessarily condoned it. Merely because a couple of executives have meetings about what 'torture' means, does not suggest that they knew about the Abu Ghraib situation, and let it fly. The suggestions that pepper this thread "Punish 'them'" and "Hold 'them' responsible" are laughable.

Why? Is it the lack of names? I can give you names:
Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Alberto Gonzales, Dr. Stephen Cambone, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, Major General Walter Wojdakowski, Major General Geoffrey Miller, Colonel Thomas Pappas, Major General Barbara Fast, Colonel Marc Warren, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, William James Haynes II, David S. Addington. To name a few.

Few people have specified who 'they' are that need to be punished, and it's clear that who is all directly responsible is a mystery, otherwise they would've already been punished.
Hah!

So, we can either give dishonourable discharges to every single US Army staffperson for the actions of those on the bottom (including Bush, of course, for being the top military dude in the country... technically), or we can do what responsible research we can about who caused these tortures, and punish only those directly responsible. In this case, the second option is pretty much the only viable one.
I'm glad you would support the apointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the allegations.

The current administration doesn't exactly seem inclined to assist any investigation, though...

The problem with America's inability to 'respect the law' in this case, is that we don't know who is all responsible for the situation... until then America cannot be blamed for not 'respecting the law' when a murder happens we don't just start jailing all of the potential suspects, just to make sure we are respecting the law, but rather, we wait until sufficient evidence can be found to blame one party enough for them to be convicted (though, sometimes they are, indeed, not guilty, it is part of being an imperfect human).
America isn't an individual and entitled to being innocent until proven guilty.

Hmm, this appears to be the first post where someone actually read the article critically (I did not read it, due in large part to my laziness). This deficit in the article is pretty severe. It doesn't necessarily mean they are lying... but I'd imagine there's a pretty decent chance that not all of what they said was true.

Also, I don't necessarily think that Bush was directly responsible, nor that he necessarily condoned it. Merely because a couple of executives have meetings about what 'torture' means, does not suggest that they knew about the Abu Ghraib situation, and let it fly. The suggestions that pepper this thread "Punish 'them'" and "Hold 'them' responsible" are laughable. Few people have specified who 'they' are that need to be punished, and it's clear that who is all directly responsible is a mystery, otherwise they would've already been punished. So, we can either give dishonourable discharges to every single US Army staffperson for the actions of those on the bottom (including Bush, of course, for being the top military dude in the country... technically), or we can do what responsible research we can about who caused these tortures, and punish only those directly responsible. In this case, the second option is pretty much the only viable one.

The problem with America's inability to 'respect the law' in this case, is that we don't know who is all responsible for the situation... until then America cannot be blamed for not 'respecting the law' when a murder happens we don't just start jailing all of the potential suspects, just to make sure we are respecting the law, but rather, we wait until sufficient evidence can be found to blame one party enough for them to be convicted (though, sometimes they are, indeed, not guilty, it is part of being an imperfect human).
I adhere absolutely to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." However, I disagree with several of your points.

1) When assigning guilt in cases such as this, prosecutors will go after those against whom they can make a strong case, but they will go after ALL such people. A chain of command situation is somewhat similar to a criminal conspiracy in such a case, in that even those who do not physically commit the crime still carry responsibility for it if they ordered it or in any way abetted it. Where such a chain exists, it is entirely reasonable to look at every part of it to see where responsibility for the crime exists. You do not stop just at the ones who carried out the crime, you go after the ones who ordered it and the ones who helped make it possible or helped cover it up afterwards as well.

2) Considering that George Bush is the ultimate leader of both the military and the US intelligence system, it is not at all unreasonable to investigate him for involvement in these crimes.

3) We know for a fact that Bush knew about Abu Ghraib after it happened. We also know for a fact that he has, since that time, pushed for legal interpretations of existing laws and for new legislation that would give the president the authority to use interrogation methods legally classed as torture. Even if there is no positive proof (and I'm not convinced that there isn't) that he knew that torture was being conducted before Abu Ghraib, his known actions do make it look as if he has sought to support the use of torture after Abu Ghraib. That creates a strong appearance of guilt and good reason to investigate him.

4) Your "otherwise they would've already been punished" argument is flawed because no one has even started investigating yet. Nor will they, if the ones responsible are the ones in charge at the moment.

5) Since we are not a jury sitting for a trial, we are free to express our opinions. I personally believe that Bush is guilty of authorizing torture of prisoners in direct violation of US and international law. I base that opinion on what I have seen of his actions during his presidency. I acknowledge that I do not have all the facts, and that as new facts come to light, I may have to adjust my opinion to match them. However, based on the facts available to me now, it is my opinion that he is guilty. Note that I would like to see him tried fairly for it -- which I guess means that I could not be on that jury, since I am already prejudiced against him. At least I know that about myself.

6) I fail to see what is so unreasonable about merely declaring that the people responsible for a crime should be punished for it. I have not seen anyone say that anyone should be punished without a trial. Assuming a fair trial, the convicted will be proven responsible beyond a reasonable doubt, and then yes, the responsible parties should be punished. I assume you would not disagree with that?

7) So, considering the chain of command, and Bush's known actions, and the fact that our opinions are not binding on anything, and what the actual content of those opinions are, just what is so unreasonable about our arguments?

If you question Friend Bush, then you must be a Godless Gay Commie Muslim Traitor. Commie Muslim Traitors need to be terminated.

Fixed.

I hear S&M is very popular in the mid east.

That settles it then, they're just looking for attention.

Who gives a fuck quite honestly. You Americans are never going to stand up to Bush. All the shit they did, under the cloak of anti-terrorism, sure, that could be understood back in the early days of post 9/11. But evidence of illegal wiretaps didn't rouse you up in sufficient numbers to do anything. War profiteering, torture in all those secret prisons, the lies about WMD, the continuing fighting in Iraq, none of it is enough for you to get out and demand accountability.

The democrats are about to help pass a bill to give Bush a pass on violating the Constitution, and then allow it to continue. Even when the republicans are in retreat, in a Democrat controlled house this shit is still going through.

I'm an Australian, so yea, you can say fuck off you're not one of us and I don't get to speak. Fair enough. I just greatly admire the US, and for a long time I've dreamed about emigrating there, and hopefully I'll get the chance to after I finish my degree. It just saddens me greatly when I see this going on, in a country that I want to be a citizen of.

We're just waiting for a plucky teenaged, English-speaking foreigner (That Could Be You!!!) to come to the U.S., carrying a sword six times his size, so he can give a rousing speech that brings our hope back.

That or the promise of a flying car.

Sorry, sir, but you don't have the power to order anyone here around. I read the thread, called what I saw, and you don't agree. Fair enough.

But you can take your superiority complex and blow it out your gazoo. I'll post wherever I like, and call whatever I see however I see it. You got owned and are trying to shift focus to the person who sees it that way and decided to comment on it. I see that as further proof that I called it correctly.

Who was it that went off on the tangent of the effectiveness of torture? Wasn't that fairly irrelevant as to whether or not it happened?

Fixed.

You broke the Paranoia ref.

When the consensus among military generals seems to be that you don't get good intel through torture, why would they still try to use torture to find information about the enemy?


Consensus? What on earth? Where did you get this from? There are tens of thousands of generals, you've only shown me three links, and its not particularly news worthy for a general to accept torture, so you're unlikely to find any evidence of a consensus. Again, you absolutely have to provide evidence that it is the consensus amongst military generals (and no, what three generals say is not evidence).

Consensus? What on earth? Where did you get this from?
The statements made during the release of the newest US Army Interrogations Manual.

But you believe that the military generals believe differently?

You must have your goalposts mounted on wheels, the way you keep moving them around.

1) Your original argument was that torture is used to get information from enemy prisoners. I countered that by pointing out that intelligence experts say it doesn't work for that, so we have no reason to think it is used for that.


Yet it doesn't counter it at all, and I never said that torture is NEVER used for anything else, in fact I explicitly stated an alternative reason.


2) You then claimed that it will be used to get information IF governments think it works for that. I countered that by saying that, since the experts, who advise governments, say it doesn't work for that and say so to their government bosses, we have no reason to think that governments think torture works for getting information, because they have been told otherwise by their own experts. We especially have no reason to think they think that when they actually practice torture but get no information from it.


No you haven't shown this, you stated it typically without providing any evidence. There are hundreds of thousands of experts, there is no reason to assume they all agree on this issue.


3) You then started equivocating about just who it is you claim thinks torture works for getting information. First it was the government. Then it was the generals. Then "generals" meant non-military personnel. And that went over about as well as could be expected.


I cannot believe your even making this an issue. This semantics is one of the most childish things I've ever seen, especially considering you otherwise seem pretty intelligent. It seems like your trying to just score a plus one by actually giving a shit that you didn't understand what I meant by generals in the first place (even though you plainly didn't look at the context, since if you did it was obvious I meant the generals in charge of the operation). I can't believe your still clinging on to this massive irrelevance, if you make another post on this boring crap then I refuse to debate with you further since you clearly don't actually care about the topic.


4) Now you're trying to save face by falling back on your big IF, claiming that since you were just saying that IF somebody thinks a thing works, then they are likely to think it works, that somehow makes your argument valid.

Your argument is no better, in fact that is exactly what your argument is (except from the fact that you haven't provided any evidence... still). You're saying that experts say torture doesn't work, and making a wild extrapolation that from that you believe that the US government doesn't believe torture doesn't work. That is such a weak argument, I don't understand how you can have so much confidence in it.


No, actually, it just makes it trivial and irrelevant. You have yet to convince me that there is anyone currently practicing torture who actually does so for the purpose of getting information from a prisoner. If there is no one who does that, then your profound insight that if they were doing it, then they they would be doing it, means nothing. You may as well say that if interrogators were pink unicorns, then they'd probably be pink and have four legs and horns growing out of their foreheads. Yeah, sure, if they were, then they would, only they don't because they're not.


And you fail... still... to grasp the point that why these angsty neocon soldiers who really hates dem terrorists torture people is irrelevant, since your claim was about why the Government torture people.


5) And finally, having utterly failed to support your assertions, you try to shift the burden onto me to prove what torturers think. Only I don't have to. Here's why:


I haven't even made any strong assertions, all I've claimed is that you haven't even come close to providing a sufficient reason as to why I should believe what you're saying.


a) I never made any claims about what people think or believe, only about what they do.

Bollocks, that is absolutely exactly what you are doing. You are making an assertion as to WHY the US government tortures people, which is a claim on what they are thinking.


I made it clear, several times over, that I am surmising a purpose for torture based on its results. For centuries, torture has been committed against people, and in all that time, there are no recorded cases of torture actually being a useful way of getting information, but plenty of firm evidence that, in fact, it is counter-productive for that purpose. Yet it is still done. Perhaps you think all those torturers and the governments they've worked over the centuries have been stupid and crazy enough to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result every time (classic definition of insanity), but I do not. I think it is far more reasonable to conclude that torture is done for a different purpose and that the claim that it is done to gain information is a lie. Why is that more reasonable? Because it does not require thousands of people across multiple cultures and through multiple historical periods to all be crazy, stupid, and naive in the same way.


This is a little better, but it relies on silly absolutes and is unrealistic and is based on examples of much much much more extreme types of torture. You just absolutely cannot generalise and say that regardless of the type of torture and the circumstance you will never, ever get any useful information, ignoring any modern techniques and drugs that people may be used today which were not used in history. There are examples of torture working, I don't need to tell you about the millions of times a bank robber has forced someone to open the safe by pointing a gun at their head (psychological torture). I'm not trying to defend torture, but you have to acknowledge that unless something is completely 100% objectively true, people will ALWAYS disagree and you'll never be able to fully convince them. I mean come on, the US government especially has done far stupider things then this, in fact looking back in history it may not be so unreasonable to claim that governments can be really stupid and naive. In their opinion, torture does yield useful information, and there ARE experts who support this opinion also, republicans are stupid, get over it.


b) Since I did not make any claims of fact about what people think or believe, I do not have to prove anything about what people think or believe. Remember, I made claims as to what people DO, and based on that, I stated that I do not believe them when they say they do it for a particular reason.


What? You clearly stated that they do it to terrorize which IS A REASON, something you absolutely have to provide evidence for.


c) Since you have already acknowledged that thousands of people do not think that torture yields information, what exactly are you asking me to prove? What do you doubt -- that there is any reason for sane people to doubt the usefulness of torture for getting information? But you have already conceded that point, so why do I have to prove anything about it?


I did not concede, since I never held the position that it does. And yes you do need to provide evidence that the US government is lying, mere speculation that "the US government can't be stupid" is definitely not enough, since the US government quite obviously is stupid anyway, I mean hello, the Iraq war?


So tell me, since you have already admitted that you were wrong, all on your own, without any other proofs from me, what is there that you would like me to prove to you?

What the fucking fuck? I never said I was wrong since I never ever once said that torture DOES yield useful information, please stop with these absolutely disgraceful snarky tactics in trying to score another plus one, grow up.

Why can't you be more like Gravlen? Seriously, this post had pretty much about one point worth considering without which would have only taken two sentences if it hadn't all been clouded around massive tl;dr irrelevance, strawmen and self flagellating. At least Gravlen gets straight to the point in a concise way and provide evidence, if you continue like this then I can't be bothered to debate with you, I'll continue only with people like gravlen who get to the point.

The statements made during the release of the newest US Army Interrogations Manual.

But you believe that the military generals believe differently?

Which one because I think there are multiple ones, if you're talking about the one I'm thinking of it only prohibits torture

"It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress, torture or any other form of coercion in an effort to secure information."

but does not make a statement about why it is used.

Edit: also the latest one has ten classified pages on interrogation techniques, so we have no idea what the government actually consider to be torture.

Hydesland, fine. Since you persist in your wrongness, I will do the required research. It will take me several days (no idea how many), because it's not the only thing I have to do. When I get it done, I will post it, and I predict right now that, when I do, no matter what it is, you will reject it. No matter how many sources I link, you will claim it's not enough. No matter what sources they are, you will claim they are biased and not trustworthy. No matter what they say, you will claim it's not on point because you were talking about something else. But I will do it, regardless of the pointlessness, just throw it in your face and have done with you.

Hydesland, fine. Since you persist in your wrongness, I will do the required research. It will take me several days (no idea how many), because it's not the only thing I have to do. When I get it done, I will post it, and I predict right now that, when I do, no matter what it is, you will reject it. No matter how many sources I link, you will claim it's not enough. No matter what sources they are, you will claim they are biased and not trustworthy. No matter what they say, you will claim it's not on point because you were talking about something else. But I will do it, regardless of the pointlessness, just throw it in your face and have done with you.

It's not our problem when people persist in claiming that they are the sole authority on what is and is not, and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. That's called being a demagogue. Best to just ignore, and move on.

From a practical point of view, the enemy completely disregards the Geneva Convention, so I see no reason for us to give any unlawful combatant any protection whatsoever. They should be thankful that we don't summarily execute them, and that we take care of their needs while they're imprisoned. They afford any of our troops (which are legal combatants under the Geneva Convention) that they capture absolutely no protections or rights of any kind, and have a consistent record of torturing them to death or summarily executing them. Let's be practical about this, people. The Geneva Convention is there to try and make the worst catastrophe on mankind (war) a little more humane. But it only works if both sides are generally adhering to it. If one side is not, then it is highly impractical for the other side to continue to follow it, even if they are superior to their enemy in every way.

It's not our problem when people persist in claiming that they are the sole authority on what is and is not, and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. That's called being a demagogue. Best to just ignore, and move on.
At 5:45 this morning, one of the squirrels that live on our roof decided to run back and forth on my bedroom window sill and taunt my cat. You'd be surprised how much racket those little buggers make with their little feet. I tried to go back to sleep despite the noise, but eventually, I got so pissed off that I got out of bed, went to the other side of the house, got the water spray bottle I used for when the cat really pisses me off, lay in wait, and when that scrabbling came by again, spritzed that little sucker, making him jump off the building and into a nearby tree. Then I went back to frikkin bed. I know perfectly well I did not teach that squirrel anything, and he will be right back tomorrow, but after a while, it just got to be a matter of principle.

To put together what I would consider an appropriate list of links -- no wiki articles -- I will have to scan many news, government and academic sources and will probably have to reword my search criteria several times. Some of what I need may not even be posted on line. It will be a long and annoying search. I will do this because Hydesland has pissed me off in exactly the manner that squirrel did, and I know that it won't make any more difference to his brain than the spritz did to that squirrel's, but you know what? I got another hour and a half of sleep this morning after I silenced that squirrel, so I will do whatever I have to to silence Hydesland, even if only for a short while.

From a practical point of view, the enemy completely disregards the Geneva Convention, so I see no reason for us to give any unlawful combatant any protection whatsoever. They should be thankful that we don't summarily execute them, and that we take care of their needs while they're imprisoned. They afford any of our troops (which are legal combatants under the Geneva Convention) that they capture absolutely no protections or rights of any kind, and have a consistent record of torturing them to death or summarily executing them. Let's be practical about this, people. The Geneva Convention is there to try and make the worst catastrophe on mankind (war) a little more humane. But it only works if both sides are generally adhering to it. If one side is not, then it is highly impractical for the other side to continue to follow it, even if they are superior to their enemy in every way.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I could not disagree with it more. I cannot accept an argument that says that I should do something illegal, morally wrong, and counter-productive to my interests just because my enemy -- who I think is a piece of shit not worth spitting on -- did it first. I do not model my behavior after the behavior of people I think I'm better than, and I do not believe my nation should do that, either. I take the Geneva Convention as a statement of what we will do, not what we will do if the other side does it too. I oppose torture because I believe it to be bad in every conceivable sense of that word, and my enemy's actions won't change that. Saying otherwise sounds to me like saying I'm against murder, but since murderers murder, then I guess I will, too. Nope, I can't do that.

You broke the Paranoia ref.

I'm a Ref Breaker. Lame Maker. Meme Taker...

If one side is not, then it is highly impractical for the other side to continue to follow it, even if they are superior to their enemy in every way.

If we do that then we're no longer superior in the most important way: morally.

Then again, we kinda gave up that hill a long time ago, so why not go for the gusto?

You are entitled to your opinion, but I could not disagree with it more. I cannot accept an argument that says that I should do something illegal, morally wrong, and counter-productive to my interests just because my enemy -- who I think is a piece of shit not worth spitting on -- did it first. I do not model my behavior after the behavior of people I think I'm better than, and I do not believe my nation should do that, either. I take the Geneva Convention as a statement of what we will do, not what we will do if the other side does it too. I oppose torture because I believe it to be bad in every conceivable sense of that word, and my enemy's actions won't change that. Saying otherwise sounds to me like saying I'm against murder, but since murderers murder, then I guess I will, too. Nope, I can't do that.

And it calls into question the very fundamental purpose of this supposed war on terror. If we find the tactics used by them so abhorrant, so contrary to our ideals of freedom that we are willing to fight them on the beaches, the landing grounds, the fields and the streets, how can we justify such an action if that fighting leads to the very same tactics that we so openly decry.

A wise man once said something about staring into an abyss...

A wise man once said something about staring into an abyss...

I never cared for his philosophy as a whole, but that is perhaps one of my favorite mantras.

I like the abyss.

And it calls into question the very fundamental purpose of this supposed war on terror. If we find the tactics used by them so abhorrant, so contrary to our ideals of freedom that we are willing to fight them on the beaches, the landing grounds, the fields and the streets, how can we justify such an action if that fighting leads to the very same tactics that we so openly decry.

A wise man once said something about staring into an abyss...

"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- another wise person.

"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- another wise person.

hmmmm.....close (http://www.igopogo.com/Wehavemet01.jpg) :p

hmmmm.....close (http://www.igopogo.com/Wehavemet01.jpg) :p

Met, seen, who gives a shit? It's a frigging possum.

"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- another wise person.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

-anonymous

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

-anonymous

Which John McCain has taken to heart in the worst way possible.

And it calls into question the very fundamental purpose of this supposed war on terror. If we find the tactics used by them so abhorrant, so contrary to our ideals of freedom that we are willing to fight them on the beaches, the landing grounds, the fields and the streets, how can we justify such an action if that fighting leads to the very same tactics that we so openly decry.

A wise man once said something about staring into an abyss...

This.

We do not have moral immunity just because they did it first. That did not work in primary school, it certainly won't work now. If we are truly to claim the moral highground in this conflict we have to act in a moral fashion, otherwise it is merely a conflict between two equally morally bankrupt ideologies. We are not their yet, but if we continue on this path, we may well become so.

Hydesland, fine. Since you persist in your wrongness, I will do the required research. It will take me several days (no idea how many), because it's not the only thing I have to do. When I get it done, I will post it, and I predict right now that, when I do, no matter what it is, you will reject it. No matter how many sources I link, you will claim it's not enough. No matter what sources they are, you will claim they are biased and not trustworthy. No matter what they say, you will claim it's not on point because you were talking about something else. But I will do it, regardless of the pointlessness, just throw it in your face and have done with you.

If you think that's the case then don't bother with it, I don't want to have the guilty conscience of putting you through hassle for nothing. I am open to change my opinion if strong evidence comes to light, but as of yet I am thoroughly unconvinced by what you say, and I find it unlikely that you'll ever be able to find sufficient evidence because:

a) any position currently on torture is not properly scientific, it can't practically be tested (since no one would volunteer) and the vast majority of any intelligence obtained from extreme interrogation techniques is classified. While I agree that torture in general is not a reliable method, and certainly does not provide enough intel to support it being used in the first place, I do acknowledge that this is more opinion based on history other than fact and that I cannot generalise and make absolutes on this claiming that torture would never work in any circumstance.

b) From what I've read, its the majority of experts who state that torture is not reliable, not all. But I've never seen an expert say that torture absolutely does not ever work regardless of the circumstance, a lot of the time its focussed around the uselessness of intelligence gained. With an issue not so clear cut, its not unreasonable to think that the US gov will take a rather unorthodox approach, they do with most other things which the majority of experts also happen to claim is wrong.

Do you ever think they might have been tortured by Saddam?

So that makes it of for "us" to torture them? Atleast we're not worse than Saddam..

I do not get the rationale for torture, though I do understand the desperate need "we" can sometimes have for information. We are making the world a better place by torturing people?

Makes me think of the old addage: Killing for peace is like f**king for virginity (altho in this case I'd paraphrase with Killing for justice)

So that makes it of for "us" to torture them? Atleast we're not worse than Saddam.. That's a pretty shitty benchmark. Not real great reasoning either. At least we're not worse than Saddam, as if it's okay to be anything close to as bad as him.

That's a pretty shitty benchmark. Not real great reasoning either. At least we're not worse than Saddam, as if it's okay to be anything close to as bad as him.

The Dubya Administration will be known in history as setting benchmarks and standards so low that you could limbo dance with them.

If you think that's the case then don't bother with it, I don't want to have the guilty conscience of putting you through hassle for nothing. I am open to change my opinion if strong evidence comes to light, but as of yet I am thoroughly unconvinced by what you say, and I find it unlikely that you'll ever be able to find sufficient evidence because:

a) any position currently on torture is not properly scientific, it can't practically be tested (since no one would volunteer) and the vast majority of any intelligence obtained from extreme interrogation techniques is classified. While I agree that torture in general is not a reliable method, and certainly does not provide enough intel to support it being used in the first place, I do acknowledge that this is more opinion based on history other than fact and that I cannot generalise and make absolutes on this claiming that torture would never work in any circumstance.

b) From what I've read, its the majority of experts who state that torture is not reliable, not all. But I've never seen an expert say that torture absolutely does not ever work regardless of the circumstance, a lot of the time its focussed around the uselessness of intelligence gained. With an issue not so clear cut, its not unreasonable to think that the US gov will take a rather unorthodox approach, they do with most other things which the majority of experts also happen to claim is wrong.
Classic. First invalidate evidence before it is even presented. Then concede the points but claim there's no factual basis for any of it anyway and then backpedal from the concession by holding out the hope that your apologetics for torture might turn out to be true sometimes anyway, someday, somewhere, maybe, if you squint hard. Then misrepresent my argument, again. And finally, what does that last sentence mean? Are you blaming or commending the US government for taking the approach of "when in doubt, do the one thing your own experts tell you shouldn't" to their jobs? Well done.

And if you're really going to let me off the hook of doing that research right now -- having already made your rejection performance in advance -- then I'll thank you for it. I will probably do the research anyway so I can have it on hand for future, but I would be grateful not to feel any time pressure on it.

Classic. First invalidate evidence before it is even presented.

I didn't invalidate it, I said it is unlikely you'll find any good evidence and explained why I can't see how any good evidence can be found. That doesn't mean that any evidence you do find is definitely invalid.


Then concede the points but claim there's no factual basis for any of it anyway and then backpedal from the concession by holding out the hope that your apologetics for torture might turn out to be true sometimes anyway, someday, somewhere, maybe, if you squint hard. Then misrepresent my argument, again.

None of this made any sense to me.


And finally, what does that last sentence mean? Are you blaming or commending the US government for taking the approach of "when in doubt, do the one thing your own experts tell you shouldn't" to their jobs? Well done.

I did not attempt to make any moral judgement on what the US gov is doing in that sentence (though incidentally I do find what they are doing unethical), trying to find one in that post would be pointless.

Ha, took their time.
For serious, I quote good old Zack when i say:
"if the same laws were applied to U.S. presidents as were applied to the Nazis after World War II that every single one of them, every last rich white one of them from Truman on would have been hung to death and shot - and this current administration is no exception. They should be hung, and tried, and shot. As any war criminal should be. But the challenges that we face, they go way beyond administrations, way beyond elections, way beyond every four years of pulling levers, way beyond that. Because this whole rotten system has become so vicious and cruel that in order to sustain itself, it needs to destroy entire countries and profit from their reconstruction in order to survive - and that's not a system that changes every four years, it's a system that we have to break down, generation after generation after generation after generation after generation..."

Sums up all i need to say

That's a pretty shitty benchmark. Not real great reasoning either. At least we're not worse than Saddam, as if it's okay to be anything close to as bad as him.

Look up sarcasm ffs

"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- another wise person.

Walt Kelly, in the panels and pages of Pogo (http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm).

And it calls into question the very fundamental purpose of this supposed war on terror. If we find the tactics used by them so abhorrant, so contrary to our ideals of freedom that we are willing to fight them on the beaches, the landing grounds, the fields and the streets...
We will fight ourselves on the beaches, we will fight us on the landing grounds, we will fight us in the fields, we will fight us in the streets, we will never surrender!

You are entitled to your opinion, but I could not disagree with it more. I cannot accept an argument that says that I should do something illegal, morally wrong, and counter-productive to my interests just because my enemy -- who I think is a piece of shit not worth spitting on -- did it first. I do not model my behavior after the behavior of people I think I'm better than, and I do not believe my nation should do that, either. I take the Geneva Convention as a statement of what we will do, not what we will do if the other side does it too. I oppose torture because I believe it to be bad in every conceivable sense of that word, and my enemy's actions won't change that. Saying otherwise sounds to me like saying I'm against murder, but since murderers murder, then I guess I will, too. Nope, I can't do that.

War in and of itself will contain a challenge of morality on some issue, both at the personal level for the combatants involved, and for the nation as a whole. Unlawful combatants may be summarily executed as spies and that is not in violation of the Geneva Convention. Yet we are merciful to them, not executing them, but giving them better accommodations and food than we give our own military prisoners at Ft. Leavenworth. This wouldn't necessary even be a bad thing if it weren't for the debate over their legal disposition. Since they're unlawful combatants, the Geneva Convention makes no mention of how they are to be legally processed, so we're on entirely new grounds here. Even up until the 1980s, unlawful combatants involved in conflicts around the world were routinely summarily executed.

Since they're unlawful combatants...
Are they? Hardly any of them were captured fighting against us. In most cases, no evidence has been presented to anyone that they have done anything unlawful whatsoever.

War in and of itself will contain a challenge of morality on some issue, both at the personal level for the combatants involved, and for the nation as a whole.
Which is why it should be avoided at all times. Arguing over relative morality of this or that action within a fundamentally immoral context is crazy-making.

Unlawful combatants may be summarily executed as spies and that is not in violation of the Geneva Convention.
I disagree on the grounds that "unlawful combatant" is a bullshit category invented specifically for the purpose of circumventing the Geneva Conventions. A person is either a combatant or a non-combatant, and in either case, their treatment is covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Yet we are merciful to them, not executing them, but giving them better accommodations and food than we give our own military prisoners at Ft. Leavenworth.
How enormously huge of us. And if what you say about Leavenworth is true, then that's another thing we are doing wrong. Though, I would be interested to see what evidence you have that these marginalized prisoners are being treated better than the inmates at Leavenworth. Might make for yet another charge against the government.

This wouldn't necessary even be a bad thing if it weren't for the debate over their legal disposition. Since they're unlawful combatants, the Geneva Convention makes no mention of how they are to be legally processed, so we're on entirely new grounds here.
As I said before, I disagree.

Even up until the 1980s, unlawful combatants involved in conflicts around the world were routinely summarily executed.
Proof? Evidence? Source of information? Who were these so-called "unlawful combatants"? Who called them that? What conflicts were they in? Who did the executing? You have anything at all to back your assertion that not killing prisoners is a new and unprecedented policy?

A wise man once said something about staring into an abyss...
I shall tell you where we are. We're in the darkest region of the human brain, a radiant abyss where men go to find themselves.?

?

If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzche

Nietzche is STILL dead. - God