-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
You mean this like a joke (edit: you too montmorency), but you almost nailed the truth. Waterboarding can be used for torture if that is the wish of the interrogators--just do it like the japanese did. Denying someone water could be torture if it was carried out to long. Isolation or sleep deprivation can be torture if carried out to long. That's the reason the main argument from the gitmo-maniacs is false equations with japanese or nazi's or whoever. The claim that waterboarding is torture has no more merit than the claim that sleep deprivation is torture--they both have a tremendous range that covers everything from not torture to horrendous. If I felt like writing some dumb parody I would take someones claim that sleep deprivation isn't torture and then post a bunch of outraged moralizing about how so-and-so went insane from not being allowed any sleep for 11 days.
Not meant as a joke. I do understand why you would think that though. What the Japanese did was much worse, that's why they were hung. I do not wish for any American to be hung, howerver, I would like a good hard look at our techniques. Perhaps not even that, perhaps, I simply wish for Americans to realize what its government does in the name of safety and the boogeyman.
Quote:
There is no argument to be made, all that's needed is a description of reality. I gave a basic description of what was done, you can read more detailed descriptions if you bother to find a good source. Anyone who has a simple desire for the truth will percieve that what we did was not torture and was most certainly a good thing to do. But too many people don't care about that, especially the talking heads on tv and the avid news watching talking-point repeaters, and that's where the arguments start. People who have filled some sort of existential gap in their soul with some ideological beliefs, religious beliefs, moral posturing, social group identification, etc, and are willing to say anything that sounds good to them. It's narcissism gone wild. People love the image of CIA agents dousing people with water with sadistic glee and scribbling down whatever they babble out to make the pain stop. McCain loves his "maverick" image too much to care that he's saying things that are idiotic. The media treats anyone who says "waterboarding is torture" like a hero, and ordinary people want a bit of that glory for themselves, or at least want to avoid being "some patriotic wingnut".
Well certainly if you follow a realist point of view. What if I said I would be willing to trade some uncertainty with peace of mind?
Quote:
Human nature is deeply flawed and this particular flaw is very well illustrated by the Orwellian equivocation over the word "waterboarding" for deeply selfish purposes.
I understand and agree with you. I just haven't bought into the cynicism yet. I will continue shouting from the mountaintops even if nothing changes
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
There is no argument to be made, all that's needed is a description of reality.
You argue from duration. What of iterations?
At least we're closer to a working definition of torture, which was my main point.
Sorry, but I perceive that you do this all the time.
Taking polysemousness into account, anything distasteful could be dismissed as equivocation. Why should we accept your narrow definition? That's what I'd like you to argue. There are no mere "descriptions of reality" when each uses a different measuring stick, or the measuring stick has not even been produced.
Argue for your measuring stick.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
The Japanese? Forgetaboutit. The Klorxorns took people, grazed upon their minds with their Maw-Shears of Incorporeal Rending, and then sucked all the information from them in a process known only as "The Latrine of Mercy". After picking through the gains to get at what they desired, the information would then be mangled and regurgitated back into the prisoners' minds. After the shrieking insanity had set in, they would be made to worship the condition of their own degradation for ten thousand millenniums before being reduced to their constituent fundamental particles, each of which had been converted into another instance of themselves, each of which added to the unity of the individual's experience and so made a mockery of all the torment that had come before. But this was only the beginning. The Japanese just stuck stuff under people's fingernails for like a few minutes, and their techniques weren't even reliable methods of retrieving information. To name Japanese squirming "torture" is to deny the untold groans and wails that have been swallowed up by the untold vastness and sound-slaying gravity of the Klorxorns' fortress in the pit of our galaxy's black hole. The Japanese merely performed what they understood, and their "prisoners" responded as they understood. It was not torture, nor even the simulation of torture, but language. Do not blame the Tower of Babel. The Klorxorns have no language, save the engineered and emergent understanding that it is only fact for us take on the burden, the responsibility, of our own suffering, and so to suffer the more greatly its own continuous encrease.
Also, in Hell you suffer for ever and ever.
Just tell us where exactly you draw the semantic line and make a case for it, Moses.
Dude.
Can I have your dealer's number?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Sasaki - a simulation of torture is torture, because torture is a mental not physical, thing.
You are, frankly, being stupid in claiming that torture is useful, there really isn't a foreseeable instance where you could extract reliable information from someone quicker using torture than by just sitting them down with a cup of tea and talking to them.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
No no, I basically just wish he would provide a concrete and encompassing formulation of what he would consider torture, and argue for why we should accept this definition over whatever our working definitions might be, or, say, the UN's.
My understanding so far is that Sasaki considers any treatment to be potentially torture, but only on the conditions of its duration and intensity. What are [the definition's] limitations? What thresholds of intensity and duration should be accepted as torturous? Why should we accept the definition as a whole?
This is where the discussion should go, IMO.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
Err, yeah. My bad. This was the only bit where I was trying to interpret your post:
The rest was just me stating what I think about it. Which is that any kind of institutionalized and sanctioned torture is wrong. Sometimes governments need to do things that are wrong, but in a democracy those things need to be done with the full knowledge and support of the people. If someone actually needs to be tortured, then surely the need is so great that the people will back you up, right? If not, then perhaps they don't need to be tortured.
My objections are not in the acts themselves, but in the less-than-honest and certainly less-than-democratic way the government handled it. This opinion is not based on legal nitpicking, but on a healthy respect for the golden rule. Every democracy needs that.
While I see your point, I disagree.
We elect politicians to make hard choices. Asking the British people to back up not beefing up Coventry's Air Defense to preserve the secret of Blechly Park is not acceptable. That was a decision for the War Cabinet, and for their consciences. Spreading that kind of pain around is worse than taking the decision and letting people die.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
The "US" didn't do abu ghraib, anymore than norway did breivik.
9/11 was done by Saudi Arabian individuals in the majority.
How is it by your own standards that it is fine to then invade two nations. One of which was a supporter of AQ the other an opponent of AQ?
If these nations have to take responsibility for AQ then the US has to take responsibility for their prisons and POWs.
If the USA resets/renames the definitions then it is equally fine for other nations to do the same.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Saski has either a nasty strain of realism and or nhilism in him. The whole subjective truth thing has shown up in a few threads.
Whatever, a debate with saski will require soberity and reflection.
Can I concede now? ;)
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
How's life in the echo-zone?
"How do you feel about the use of torture against suspected terrorists to obtain information about terrorism activities? Can that often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?" Options rotated |
|
|
|
Often |
Sometimes |
Rarely |
Never |
Unsure |
|
|
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
|
5/5-9/11 |
25 |
35 |
14 |
25 |
2 |
|
1/12-17/10 |
23 |
29 |
19 |
27 |
3 |
|
5/28 - 6/1/09 |
20 |
32 |
18 |
29 |
1
|
"Do you think it is sometimes justified to use waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation tactics to get information from a suspected terrorist, or are these tactics never justified?" |
|
|
|
Sometimes
justified |
Never
justified |
Depends
(vol.) |
Unsure |
|
|
|
% |
% |
% |
% |
|
|
11/6-10/11 |
45 |
40 |
6 |
9 |
|
|
Republicans |
70 |
20 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
Democrats |
35 |
48 |
6 |
11 |
|
|
Independents |
37 |
46 |
8 |
9 |
|
|
|
4/22-26/09 |
37 |
46 |
7 |
10
|
How do like the trend?
We were blanketed with enough propaganda to cause a noticeable distortion, e.g. most people are now willing to define torture as "something really unpleasant" or at least say that it's torture but that torture can be justified. And frankly I'm not too optimistic about it wearing off. There's evidently something too satisfying to people about perpetuating the idea.
Must admit that I feel it is sometimes justified.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
You mean this like a joke (edit: you too montmorency), but you almost nailed the truth. Waterboarding can be used for torture if that is the wish of the interrogators--just do it like the japanese did. Denying someone water could be torture if it was carried out to long. Isolation or sleep deprivation can be torture if carried out to long. That's the reason the main argument from the gitmo-maniacs is false equations with japanese or nazi's or whoever. The claim that waterboarding is torture has no more merit than the claim that sleep deprivation is torture--they both have a tremendous range that covers everything from not torture to horrendous. If I felt like writing some dumb parody I would take someones claim that sleep deprivation isn't torture and then post a bunch of outraged moralizing about how so-and-so went insane from not being allowed any sleep for 11 days.
Sending a kid to bed without dinner once is not child abuse. Not feeding your kids for several days is. Suffocating your kid to the point of unconsciousness, even if you're careful not to cause any permanenent damage, only requires one time to be abuse.
Water boarding is a technique that artificially creates the experience of drowing in the subject. Even if you use it sparingly it's still torture. Even if you don't sadistically beat them in between like the Japanese it's still torture. Any comparison with the Japanese or the nazis is hyperbole; equivalency is not necessary for something to be torture.
To me it appears that you're merely trying to restrict the meaning of the word "torture" because you're unwilling to challenge the notion that all torture is bad.
You're entitled to your opinion and to think that McCain is a dumbass, of course.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kralizec
Sending a kid to bed without dinner once is not child abuse. Not feeding your kids for several days is. Suffocating your kid to the point of unconsciousness, even if you're careful not to cause any permanenent damage, only requires one time to be abuse.
Water boarding is a technique that artificially creates the experience of drowing in the subject. Even if you use it sparingly it's still torture. Even if you don't sadistically beat them in between like the Japanese it's still torture. Any comparison with the Japanese or the nazis is hyperbole; equivalency is not necessary for something to be torture.
To me it appears that you're merely trying to restrict the meaning of the word "torture" because you're unwilling to challenge the notion that all torture is bad.
You're entitled to your opinion and to think that McCain is a dumbass, of course.
Is all torture bad, that really depends on the information you need at the time. I'll do it myself if I know it's a little bit of evil for the greater good.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fragony
Is all torture bad, that really depends on the information you need at the time. I'll do it myself if I know it's a little bit of evil for the greater good.
Even if we agree that it is morally acceptable to do a little evil for the greater good (and we don't), this entire theory hinges on you being 100% certain that this person is a bad person and that he knows the exact information you need, with all the details, which you can't really be sure of.
I'm pretty sure that under torture, I'd admit I stabbed Caesar.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
Even if we agree that it is morally acceptable to do a little evil for the greater good (and we don't), this entire theory hinges on you being 100% certain that this person is a bad person and that he knows the exact information you need, with all the details, which you can't really be sure of.
I'm pretty sure that under torture, I'd admit I stabbed Caesar.
I fully a accept that it would be a horrible thing to do, and it will probably haunt me the rest of my life. It certainly wouldn't be something I would take pleassure in doing. But I will do it regardless if I see no other way. What would you do if you are reasonably certain you can safe hundreds of people by pulling out a few nails. Of course you can be wrong but I wouldn't take any chances. I don't know if it would make me immoral really
edit, word of notice, I have a very big mouth for a total pussy
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
And what if you have the wrong guy?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hax
And what if you have the wrong guy?
Torture is usually the method of choice when all you want is for them to tell you what you want to hear. Guilt or innocence has very little to do with it.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hax
And what if you have the wrong guy?
That's the problem isn't it, I probably couldn't live with myself if I got wrong, and for the innocent person it would of course be infinitely worse. But I think that if you really need something really fast you must take the chance at the risk of being wrong.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fragony
Is all torture bad, that really depends on the information you need at the time. I'll do it myself if I know it's a little bit of evil for the greater good.
Would you institutionalise it, ergo make it legal?
The ticking bomb scenario is probably one of the least effective use of torture btw. The crock also have something he needs to outlast. Getting a location is easy, getting the correct location with the correct disarmament code?
Most effective use of torture should be S-21. Ironically enough they also used waterboarding.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ironside
Would you institutionalise it, ergo make it legal?
It's fine where it is now: in the grey area. Not legal, but still being used when the situation warrants it.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
... being used when the situation warrants it.
The problem though is you are starting from a presumption of guilt.
Far be it from me to question the motives of someone looking to overthrow centuries of hard fought battles against arbitrary "justice". But then why did our societies fight so hard to get beyond just that? Ah! To flush it down the toilet because someone says we must!!! It's all so clear now...
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HopAlongBunny
The problem though is you are starting from a presumption of guilt.
No, it's acting from reasonable doubt. If you reject our values suit yourself, they won't apply for you
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HopAlongBunny
Far be it from me to question the motives of someone looking to overthrow centuries of hard fought battles against arbitrary "justice". But then why did our societies fight so hard to get beyond just that? Ah! To flush it down the toilet because someone says we must!!! It's all so clear now...
Must? Nobody said that. Can. Can do and need to do. Occasionally. It's a useful tool when dealing with fanatics like those of al-Qaeda. No amount of religious instruction can trump good old fashioned pain. Everyone feels it, everyone fears it. So you apply it, make the guy wish he was never born, and then he talks. Oh, and make it clear that if he's lying, he'll be introduced to a whole new level of pain. Information received. Terrorist plot foiled. Everybody's happy.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
I see we're back to the familiar game of, "we don't torture, if we do it it isn't torture, and if it is torture it is justified" cul-de-sac of thought. Been here, done this.
Have fun:
Captives at Guantánamo Bay were chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor for 18 hours or more, urinating and defecating on themselves, an FBI report has revealed. [...]
In the 2004 inquiry, the FBI asked nearly 500 employees who had served at Guantánamo Bay to report possible mistreatment by law enforcement or military personnel. Twenty-six incidents were reported, some of which had emerged in earlier document releases.
Besides being shackled to the floor, detainees were subjected to extremes of temperature. One witness said he saw a barefoot detainee shaking with cold because the air conditioning had bought the temperature close to freezing.
On another occasion, the air conditioning was off in an unventilated room, making the temperature over 38C (100F) and a detainee lay almost unconscious on the floor with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been pulling out his hair throughout the night.
Not that any evidence will make the slightest difference to torture apologists, who appear to have some sort of emotional need to justify the abuse of prisoners.
The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.
The classified memos, which have not been previously disclosed, were requested by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet more than a year after the start of the secret interrogations, according to four administration and intelligence officials familiar with the documents. Although Justice Department lawyers, beginning in 2002, had signed off on the agency's interrogation methods, senior CIA officials were troubled that White House policymakers had never endorsed the program in writing.
The memos were the first -- and, for years, the only -- tangible expressions of the administration's consent for the CIA's use of harsh measures to extract information from captured al-Qaeda leaders, the sources said. As early as the spring of 2002, several White House officials, including then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheney, were given individual briefings by Tenet and his deputies, the officials said. Rice, in a statement to congressional investigators last month, confirmed the briefings and acknowledged that the CIA director had pressed the White House for "policy approval."
The repeated requests for a paper trail reflected growing worries within the CIA that the administration might later distance itself from key decisions about the handling of captured al-Qaeda leaders, former intelligence officials said. The concerns grew more pronounced after the revelations of mistreatment of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and further still as tensions grew between the administration and its intelligence advisers over the conduct of the Iraq war.
"It came up in the daily meetings. We heard it from our field officers," said a former senior intelligence official familiar with the events. "We were already worried that we" were going to be blamed.
A. John Radsan, a lawyer in the CIA general counsel's office until 2004, remembered the discussions but did not personally view the memos the agency received in response to its concerns. "The question was whether we had enough 'top cover,' " Radsan said.
Tenet first pressed the White House for written approval in June 2003, during a meeting with members of the National Security Council, including Rice, the officials said. Days later, he got what he wanted: a brief memo conveying the administration's approval for the CIA's interrogation methods, the officials said.
Administration officials confirmed the existence of the memos, but neither they nor former intelligence officers would describe their contents in detail because they remain classified. The sources all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not cleared to discuss the events.
The second request from Tenet, in June 2004, reflected growing worries among agency officials who had just witnessed the public outcry over the Abu Ghraib scandal. Officials who held senior posts at the time also spoke of deteriorating relations between the CIA and the White House over the war in Iraq -- a rift that prompted some to believe that the agency needed even more explicit proof of the administration's support.
"The CIA by this time is using the word 'insurgency' to describe the Iraq conflict, so the White House is viewing the agency with suspicion," said a second former senior intelligence official.
As recently as last month, the administration had never publicly acknowledged that its policymakers knew about the specific techniques, such as waterboarding, that the agency used against high-ranking terrorism suspects. In her unprecedented account to lawmakers last month, Rice, now secretary of state, portrayed the White House as initially uneasy about a controversial CIA plan for interrogating top al-Qaeda suspects.
After learning about waterboarding and similar tactics in early 2002, several White House officials questioned whether such harsh measures were "effective and necessary . . . and lawful," Rice said. Her concerns led to an investigation by the Justice Department's criminal division into whether the techniques were legal.
But whatever misgivings existed that spring were apparently overcome. Former and current CIA officials say no such reservations were voiced in their presence.
In interviews, the officials recounted a series of private briefings about the program with members of the administration's security team, including Rice and Cheney, followed by more formal meetings before a larger group including then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. None of the officials recalled President Bush being present at any of the discussions.
Several of the key meetings have been previously described in news articles and books, but Rice last month became the first Cabinet-level official to publicly confirm the White House's awareness of the program in its earliest phases. In written responses to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rice said Tenet's description of the agency's interrogation methods prompted her to investigate further to see whether the program violated U.S. laws or international treaties, according to her written responses, dated Sept. 12 and released late last month.
"I asked that . . . Ashcroft personally advise the NSC principles whether the program was lawful," Rice wrote.
If need be, I can track down the mortician reports from Bagram again; case after case of death by blunt force trauma and/or asphyxiation. Heck, I suppose I should just search up some of the earlier torture threads and re-post the sources. But then, I don't think it will make the slightest bit of difference to torture apologists. So why bother?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
I see we're back to the familiar game of, "we don't torture, if we do it it isn't torture, and if it is torture it is justified" cul-de-sac of thought. Been here, done this.
I freely admit that it's torture.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
I freely admit that it's torture.
But You can roll with it, as You are the good guys anyway?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
But You can roll with it, as You are the good guys anyway?
Good? Bad? I'm not the one trying to ride the high horse. It's not necessarily about good vs evil, it's about us vs them. Rules of engagement apply only to conventional wars. In the war against al-Qaeda and Taliban rules can be bent and/or broken.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
But You can roll with it, as You are the good guys anyway?
I can absolutely feel that way. You only have to be nice to nice people, the world doesn't play by our lovely rules so it's merely adaptation.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fragony
You only have to be nice to nice people
Fascinating legal theory, there.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Fascinating legal theory, there.
I am having a harder time in understanding why we would upheld our values with people who flatout reject them. Whatever legal theory you might have doesn't really matter imho, there is no lawful level playing field here.