Shades if you support torture and abuse you are no different from those who associate with bin-laden .
Printable View
Shades if you support torture and abuse you are no different from those who associate with bin-laden .
What do you mean by this statement? What specific actions qualify as 'torture' in your book? Are Shades and I on the same level as bin-Laden's :daisy: if we agree the prison has the right to keep them in solitary confinement, a practice some define as torture? I'm asking you... what is torture in your book?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
This has often proven to be a contentious debate, but there is still the need to be civil and refrain from personal attacks.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Sorry, I didn't know that word I used that got flowered was a cussword. What does it mean? I thought it meant henchmen or lackey...
By the way, do you mind when we use :daisy: ourselves in a manner that makes it clear we intended a 'colorful expression'?
you will not get my MAC pin out of me EVER, because i refuse to memorise it,
you WILL get a fake MAC pin out of me simply to stop the pain.
reliability of intel retrieved from torturing me = zero.
After trying the pin number we'd know it was or wasn't false, but on the chance that it was correct you're alive and so are we.Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
It means a foul or contemptible person. The second syllable derives from exactly the word it looks like and means much the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Not at all. The forum rules on swearing indicate that if the word is fully blanked out (by asterisks for example) it is permissible to "colour" one's posts. I thought the :daisy: was a gentler way of editing language that was not permissible than sending alerts and warnings - unless the language used was inflammatory or particularly bad, in which case they still follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
If members want to use it as a replacement for asterisks, that's fine by me. Of course, we'd all prefer that recourse to colourful metaphor was kept to a minimum, since this is a PG site.
Forgive the intermission. I return you to the discussion at hand.
:bow:
By making that comparison you show your cards perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
but you cannot get information from me that I DO NOT KNOWQuote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
it dont matter how many times you come back and beat the tar out of me i simply DO NOT KNOW
each and every time i will tell you something you want to hear simply to stop the pain
that is why torture is not and can never be reliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
You assume universal ignorance amongst those tortured and a complete lack of collaborating and supporting intelligence prior to and independant of questioning.
Eh, nevermind. Someone beat me to it.
but everybody in this country has keycards and thus MAC numbers,Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
i have such a card,
a natural assumption would be that i know the number for mine
i do not
you can torture me till i die and i cannot tell you something that i should know,
that any reasonable person would assume i know,
that even my bank will tell you i should know,
i simply do not know the number
and if you guys have access to such almighty and allknowing intelligence apparatus then why do you need to torture anyone?
The reason we question anyone is to increase the intelligence picture. Your being captured with an AK amongst a group of Taliban shows you have opportunity for intelligence. If you lack value in intelligence that is just as telling as to your station and the information flow environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
By what you've stated, we might as well not ask any detainees any questions whether we slap their stomach or serve them cupcakes.
now that is being too simplistic,
You cannot beat information out of people who do not know,
but once you start beating them you cannot stop in case they are being stubborn,
they will eventually make up a story to get you to stop,
once you have that story you have to spend additional resources checking it,
and beating up more people if need be.
why not simply hook them up to a lie detector?
sure, those things can be beaten, but not as easily as many would have you believe. in better than 90% of the time you'll get the truth.
heck, even sodium pentathol (?spelling) in careful doses is better than torture
Thats because I took your arguments to be too simplistic, this was my poor attempt at mocking the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
They will eventually make up a story or tell you the truth to get you to stop. Negatives and positives are both valuable in the intelligence game. If a person is being stubborn then you have to ask why? It could be out of contempt, out of principle, or because they are guarding information. These quasi torture techniques are used to break down those barriers.Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
Of course you have to check it, you have to check any intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
or question more people using a varietly of methods.Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
Of course those are all great but we have to then do it all again to more people and use resources to check that intelligence - sorry couldn't resist the reference to what you said above.Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
Really though these are all good methods and you don't honestly believe that everyone we detain goes straight to the waterboard do you? By having enhanced techniques at hand doesn't mean we use them absolutely. This is an attempt to characterize it as sadists run amok and a need to have to feed the machine.
I don't really know what to say to people who believe that torture is a good and American thing, or who want to play semantic games with "enhanced interrogation techniques" (an Orwellian turn of phrase if ever there was one).
We're the good guys. We're on the side of right. We're America. How can you countenance throwing that away for a debatable advantage over some Middle Eastern parasites? How can you approve of us losing so much prestige and moral suasion?
This is not a left-right issue; this is a moral absolute. Torture is wrong. It's wrong when anyone does it. "They're worse" is not an argument, it's a school-child's excuse.
"I am on the side of justice. Therefore, what I do is justice. Therefore, whoever I do it to is getting his just desserts."
I figure that's roughly the sort of circular reasoning the apologists are running, personally. The idea that because you're Good, you can do no wrong.
To be fair, Lemur, America has a history of abandoning its most precious principles when practicalities demand -- although those practicalities usually turn out to be less than useless. The famed and much beloved President Abraham Lincoln was the first guy to really try and shut down the fundamental defense mechanism of the Writ of Habeas Corpus since John Adams after all. The almost equally beloved President Roosevelt (II) put Japanese-Americans in detention camps in the deserts and pretty much screw them over, just as well; and what else, the supposedly almighty Supreme Court ruled in his favor in Korematsu. They fought that Court Packing tooth and nail but damn if anyone cared about Japanese-Americans being herded around like sheep when the USA was at war with the Japanese Empire. National Security, old argument.
President Bush really isn't worse than anybody else. But that doesn't mean it's a Very Bad Thing of course; like you said, schoolboy's excuse.
By the way, barocca's back!? :book:
Isn't the left the same lot which argues that there are no moral absolutes. That all morality is relative to the personal subjective core or whatever nonsense. The world is gray and all that stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The fact that this discussion is taking place asserts that we are good and that there are feelings of right and wrong associated with it. What it boils down to is who makes the call, in what circumstances is it called for and whether or not we accept accountability for our choices. Denying it in absolutes denies the discussion, denies accountability and denies responsibility. The old we do not do it so we are on moral high ground argument, despite being deaf dumb and blind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Alright, Tribesman wouldn't answer me, let me try you. What is your definition of torture? Are we agreeing not to slap people around repeatedly? Are we guaranteeing that we won't use coercive questioning? Is soliatary confinement on the table? I've seen people make make arguments that all of the above 3 are torture, and I would agree or disagree to varying degrees on each of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Are you asking me to sign on for treating them the way the ACLU says we should (conjugal visits and high-def tv in air conditioned cells)? What exactly is torture to you?
Because honestly Lemur, if somebody had Jillian kidnapped somewhere, I don't think a slap or two across the face would seem like torture if I knew they knew where she was. I strongly suspect you'd follow the same path.
This seems to be a fair bit of text that doesn't actually say anything. "Platitudes" is the word, I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
It says a great deal, but that is relative to the reader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Could you be enticed to indulge me by rewording it in a less roundabout manner ?
There isn't a benchmark for this at which point it becomes wrong, torturing one million isn't the point of sadists running amok, torturing ten thousand isn't the point of sadists running amok, its the point that you choose to torture One.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
'Those who trade freedom for security deserver neither.'
Principles that are dropped when things get tough were never principles, they were just show pieces. Just mere Euclidean points, ethereal medals, style over substance, show ponies... meaningless. It also brings into sharp relief what is the substance of the remaining principles, one expects they will be dropped for expediency too... as will friends, allies and family. Survival yes, but survival of what for what? A self replicating organism with nary a higher calling. Clap fecking clap.
'Live by the sword, die by the sword'/'Reap what you sow'
The US is now stating that it is fine for any one of their citizens to be tortured, as long as it makes someone somewhere feel more secure.
What a timid way for a great nation to handle a situation.
I agree completely. If my children were threatened, and I knew a single individual had information critical to saving them, I would have no compunctions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
But that shouldn't be legal. There will always be worst-case "ticking bomb" scenarios, and historically, juries have been very reluctant to convict people who behaved the way they had to. Usually charges are not even filed. That's one of the things that makes me so crazy about the torture discussion. We're not really talking about in extremis worst-case moments; we're talking about the routine, everyday application of physical force to people under our control.
What is torture? Deliberate application of pain to either break the individual, elicit a confession or obtain information. I think that's a safe definition, and it saves us from getting into a tedious debate about how much electricity applied to which body part is "really" torture.
The jihadis are taught that we are brutal animals who hate Islam. When we conform to that image, we do ourselves no favors, and we encourage no defections. The seduction style of interrogation has been used successfully by the F.B.I. for decades, and British counter-terrorism units had great success with it in Northern Ireland. Even the Israelis use it. Slapping around the Arabs is something uneducated grunts do over there.
I hate to keep dragging generals into the debate, but here's another:
"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 Kimmons conceded that bad P.R. about abuse could work against the United States in the war on terror. "It would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used," Kimmons said. "We can't afford to go there."
Kimmons added that "our most significant successes on the battlefield -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically, all of them" -- came from interrogators that stuck to the kinds of humane techniques framed in the new Army manual. "We don't need abusive practices in there," Kimmons said. "Nothing good will come from them."It makes more sense if you substitute "absolute" for "absolution." Miss Malaprop has been visiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Don, if a more legal definition would suit better, here's the one from the books (18 U.S. Code § 2340 (Definitions)):
As used in this chapter— (1) 'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) 'severe mental pain or suffering' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) 'United States' means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
So "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture under our law.
And to throw down against anyone who claims that we would only torture when absolutely necessary, I give you the confessions of an army interrogator:
Asked how he explains himself, Lagouranis says, “It’s tough. I can say I was following orders, and that is partly true. I was wondering, ‘At what point do I put my foot down?’ and there were definitely times when I said I wasn’t going to cross this or that line.” Lagouranis refused, he says, to engage in sexual humiliation, electric shock, or mock execution (though he admits that he once failed to assure a blindfolded prisoner he was escorting past some soldiers at target practice that this was not a firing squad). He also says he never hit a prisoner, though he admits that hitting someone “might do less damage to him than hypothermia or stress positions or things like that. It just seemed like that was completely taboo. I didn’t really think that through—it seemed to me like that was where the line was legally and morally.
“But there are other answers, too. You are in a war zone and things get blurred. We wanted intelligence. It really became absolutely morally impossible for me to continue when I realized that most of the people we were dealing with were innocent. And that was tough. So it made it easier if I thought that I was actually dealing with a real-life bad guy. Another thing that made it easier was that I felt—and I think this is a flawed argument too—that it was all environmental things that were happening to this person. Like it was gravity that was making his knees hurt, it was the fact that it was cold outside that was making him uncomfortable, it wasn’t me, you know what I mean? As I said, those are flawed arguments, but it makes it easier to do it if you think of it that way.
“Then, also, you’re in an environment where everybody is telling you that this is OK, and it’s hard to be the only person saying, ‘This is wrong.’ ”
That's still terribly vague. Is sleep deprivation painful? What about making someone remain standing? Belly slaps? I don't think waterboarding causes much, if any physical pain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
We are?Quote:
We're not really talking about in extremis worst-case moments; we're talking about the routine, everyday application of physical force to people under our control.
If my definition is too vague, I have also supplied the Federal definition. Hope that's more helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
We are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Way to skirt the question. I'll make it easier- which of the "approved techniques" that you listed earlier would you consider to be torture and why? And what about what Don said? Is denying air conditioning torture? Denying Korans? What about not preparing religiously appropriate meals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Do you think everyone at Gitmo has been waterboarded?Quote:
We are.
I'm not trying to skirt the question; rather, I'm trying to avoid getting into a treatment-by-treatment dissection of what is or is not torture. If that's where you really want to go, have at it with someone else. Obviously, lack of creature comforts is not torture, but deliberate manipulation of environment can be. Deliberate induction of hypothermia, which has been documented, is clearly torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Denial of holy texts is not torture. I'll leave it to you to ask more specifics. I'm not clear on why they are necessary; intent is the important thing. If you set out to hurt a person in your control, you're on dangerous ground.
I am highly suspicious of how they have been treated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
She said current Iraqi prisons chief Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller - who was in charge at Guantanamo Bay - visited her in Baghdad and said: "At Guantanamo Bay we learned that the prisoners have to earn every single thing that they have."
"He said they are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them."
General Miller was in charge of Gitmo when many of the abuses are alleged.
What's your take on this, Xiahou? I can't tell whether you're arguing that limited torture is a valid path, or rather that we don't torture, and anyone who is concerned about it is a tinfoil-hatted leftie.
It's hard to talk intelligently about what's going on in Gitmo, since it is literally a black hole of information.
Here's an account from the American Journal of Bioethics of the interrogation of prisoner 063. Worth a read.
First, from what I can tell, waterboarding has never been condoned at Gitmo. The only reference I found was that permission was denied in 2002. As for belly slaps, white noise... it's tough for me to get very worked up about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Again, I don't think even those techniques are routine and certainly not waterboarding. If you believe Brian Ross, it was only reserved for 14 top terrorist leaders and that they did spill their guts and give up valuable info. Ross also says he believes that as many as 12 attacks have been broken up as a result of intel gained. It was done by trained CIA interrogators and those 14 certainly sound like they'd qualify as "the worst of the worst".
These sorts of measure should not be routine, and I don't think they are.
So what will your position be if evidence emerges that we've been using extreme measures far more broadly than you suppose? I'm genuinely curious. At what point will you feel that we have crossed a line?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
So you're stating that its a moral point of no return? Do you believe we have ever "tortured" an individual lets say...pre 2001? If the answer is no then I can give you some off the record testimony by veterans of Vietnam, Korea, and WW2 that would include hard slaps across the face, not to mention a belly slap here and there. Of course this does not even touch the CiA and FBI operations during the Cold War. The line has already been crossed my friend. What we are essentially talking about is people coming to the realizatiobn that to stand for something you sometimes have to step into the gray. Is this a wholesale sell out? Of course it isn't, it never has been. The U.S. will never rival the torture dens of Saddam....for example let alone those more notorious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Having the discussion does allow us to come to terms with this. However its important that we have a true interpretation of what things mean, what our version of so called "torture" is. To wave in front of people the absolutes of torture to incite visions of Inquisitions, Soviet style reeducation and Nazi experimentations is to only further disinformation and breed ignorance. For what would this purpose be, but for political gain. Upon the threshold of reality we kick ourselves back into ignorance for the sake of votes. Republicans and democrats are both doing this with very few on either side willing to stand up and take a bit of accountabilty and culpabilty. Well done.
I'll throw in there that the suspension of habeas corpus was a line that was not dared to be crossed, but it was and we survived and are no doubt stronger for it. Exectuive order 9066 was supposed to be a line not crossed, but it was and we survived and are a better people for having done so, because we learned much about ourselves.
See above. Integrity to principle is not a game of absolutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Not even close to factual see above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
To be morally strong we must check our grey matter at the door..excellent idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Sure, for starters just imagine the three apes seeing no evil, hearing no evil, and speaking no evil. Now imagine them wearing Halo's purchased at K-Mart.Quote:
Originally Posted by watchman
Actually I meant to state "absolutes", but with all these visions of inquisitors knocking on my door asking for my ATM PIN number I was looking for a little absolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Only because you gave a nice ticking bomb scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't marines trained to endure 3 days of torture (something about the expire time of the intel), or something like that ? I seem to recall something like that mentioned earlier in here in the forum.
How many here thinks that any group of people, on average, can endure say 60 hours of waterboarding, even with extensive training?
So what's done during the next 59 hours that keeps the evil guys from this vital information?
You will never convince me that people who torture others are anything less than barbarians and terrorists, deserving of nothing more than contempt.
If the USA wants to join those ranks then all that can be said is you will reap what you sow.
Become a brother of the terrorist states and ignore Basic Human Rights and you will have no cause to cry foul when the same treament is visited upon your own citzens.
Barocca has left This building
Marines generally speaking are educated about torture techniques that could be used on them and ways to endure it, but from my own training and that done by people I know now there is not a 3 day hold out regime. On the other side, MCBT is set up to stress the recruit to a greater degree than other branches specifically for the purpose of increasing mental and physical endurance on the chance that he/she may encounter a PoW situation. This was and remains a doctrine of recruit training as far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Waterboarding past the finite cannot be performed under proposed rulesets nor is it currently as excessive continuous waterboarding increases chance of death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
In short, very little, practically any former PoW will tell you that every man has his limits. No matter how macho, ballsy or devout a person may be, they can't hold out forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
A friend of mine who was a child in N. Vietnam and Southern China during the Vietnam conflict spoke to me directly about this. Of course recalling how he would give McCain candy at different times was not a recollection of an attempt at torture.
Well I consider you deserving of much more than contempt even though I find your argument against enhanced methods tired and nothing less than barbaric in its neglect of reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
Who is ignoring basic human rights? We are in fact one of the few nations that believe in a basic human dignity and performing enhanced interogations of those choosing to be counted as those who want to destroy and wipe from the earth any basis of basic human dignity in no way compromises that principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
Well I wish you wouldn't leave the building, but I hope you do so rooted in whatever beliefs you hold as ones you come about honestly and not out of stubborness to dogma or drive by sound bytes that appeal to pathos. I enjoyed our give and take as you at least seemed genuine in your opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
Ah. "Just ends justify any means." I kinda figured that pointlessly convoluted piece of rhetoric amounted to that much. And with empty excuses of the classic "but the bad guys do it worse" school thrown in.
:dozey:
Want me to start digging up figures of speech relevant to the issue ? Nietzsche had a couple of good ones for starters.
I'm sorry, at what point were we talking about anything but finite examples. Go play Chicken Little somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
What a wonderfully original turn of phrase to make an excellent point. :dizzy2: Honestly, this oversimplification of an issue was tired after its first utterance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Oh nice an emoticon, matched above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Precisely what I would expect, first you reduce the butter to use later, then you add a variety of spices in an attempt to kill pathogens inherent in rotten reduction. What is this...rhetorical cooking by watchman?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
ShadeHonestus, as you just pointed out "well done" torture will make people talk, so how do you keep the vital information from getting extracted to be at use within the next few days?
Please don't waste my time playing silly rhetorical games, Clinton. I'm much too old and cynical for those to work. Oral sex doesn't become any less oral sex no matter how much you mince the definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Shades, I'd like to ask you to take some time out between declarations that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or a moral coward, and ask for some clarification.
I'm having much the same confusion with you that I had with Xiahou, in that your arguments veer between "What we do isn't torture" and "Torture would be justified even if we did it." Could you please clarify? Do you believe that the U.S.A. is within its rights to torture terror suspects and illegal combatants? Or do you believe, rather, that nothing we have authorized constitutes torture? Or, confusingly, both?
Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago that sleep deprivation was perhaps the worst torture inflicted on the prisoners. Interestingly, torture was also illegal in the Soviet Union, and sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures, and stress positions were merely considered coercive methods. At the end of interrogation, prisoners had to sign a statement affirming that they had not been tortured and that they had given their confessions in full awareness of their rights.
Contrast and compare with a recent account:
In one of the few actual logs we have of a high-level interrogation, that of Mohammed al-Qhatani, doctors were present during the long process of constant sleep deprivation over 55 days, and they induced hypothermia and the use of threatening dogs, among other techniques. According to Miles, Medics had to administer three bags of medical saline to Qhatani — while he was strapped to a chair — and aggressively treat him for hypothermia in the hospital. They then returned him to his interrogators.
What does that sound like to you? Further:
Of the 136 documented deaths of prisoners in detention, Miles found, medical death certificates were often not issued until months or even years after the actual deaths. One prisoner's corpse at Camp Cropper was kept for two weeks before his family or criminal investigators were notified. The body was then left at a local hospital with a certificate attributing death to "sudden brainstem compression." The hospital's own autopsy found that the man had died of a massive blow to the head. Another certificate claimed a 63-year-old prisoner had died of "cardiovascular disease and a buildup of fluid around his heart." According to Miles, no mention was made that the old man had been stripped naked, doused in cold water and kept outside in 40 degree cold for three days before cardiac arrest.
You need him to clarify ?????I thought it was clear that he has no clarity and no point , someone who tries to justify the unjustifiable is undoubtable speakin to prove....what was it again ......that the more he talks the more he shows what a fool he isQuote:
I'm having much the same confusion with you that I had with Xiahou, in that your arguments veer between "What we do isn't torture" and "Torture would be justified even if we did it." Could you please clarify?
The reason I'm so loathe to speak out against 'torture' is the misappropriation the term has endured in the past 20 years. As PJ's initial post and subsequent ones have supported, the term has come to mean 'anything the opposition party disagrees with'.
I am opposed to inflicting pain on people or subjecting them to mental anguish in anything but a ticking timebomb scenario. I don't believe in slapping prisoners around, stress positions, water boarding or the like. I especially don't agree with it on "fishing expeditions" of the type where some some Pakastani 22-year old, let's even say he was attending a madras, get's dragged off to to a secret prison and his interrogators repeat the simplistic 'tell us everything you know or else' repeatedly and then proceed with the hoods, the dogs, and the rest. Hell, put me through enough of that and I'll confess to being the gunman on the hill and I'll confess that I am the advance scout for an Alpha-Centauri invasion, if that's what I think you want to hear.
I think Xiahou's and Shade's point is that if you know the guy knows the answer to a distinct question, it may be possible to get it out of him, and putting the guy through some discomfort may be appropriate to get it out of him.
I think Lemur and Watchman are making the point that you can't ever let yourselves go do down that road, as 1) you can't know that they really do know and 2) even if you could, the ends don't justify the means (minus the ticking timebomb scenario).
I think both sides have valid points, I just wish you'd focus on triangulating them instead of engaging in indirect personal attacks on each other.
That being said, I recently heard some disturbing reports on 'This American Life' and "McNeil Lehrer" about the nature of the detainees in Gitmo. They weren't scooped up off a battlefield (at least not the majority of them). The were turned over by neighbors with a grudge. The US went around Afghanistan and Pakistan offering rewards. They then interred anyone that got turned in as a 'collaborator'. In many cases, the government can't say why they're being held, not because of national security issues, but because they themselves don't know why they interred these guys in the first place and won't let them go until they can figure it out.
I'm all for getting the KSMs of the world into isolated cells and keeping them awake for 3 or 4 days. But taking his chaffeur's nephew's girlfriend's younger brother off to Gitmo for the same, because of the 'connection' just doesn't seem right to me.
I didn't have sex with that woman. But if we'd agree on the definitions of things, it might prove out that I did shag her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Please don't cast empty aspersions. I've only called out certain arguments, demonstrated the shortcomings and put questions back on the person. Is the taking of arguments to task calling somebody an idiot or moral coward? I'm sorry but if you even read what has been written it was my position which was attempted to be pigeon holed as "timid" and repeatedly insulted as being terrorist in nature and worse. Have I called anyone here an idiot? Have I called anyone a moral wimp? In fact the only insult I have put out there was extremely benign and retaliatory in nature and it was one which I withdrew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Thank you for furthering the discussions by asking legitimate questions some of which I have answered prior.
The word torture is something that people would have to be educated on to understand its meaning, history and context before I personally am willing to label what we do as torture. Sure if we go "wiki" on definitions we are according to Hoyle. However what does the average person out there think of when you mention torture? Is it those procedures outlined above such as the face and belly slap, cold rooms, sleep deprivation and standing or waterboarding? Of course it isn't. Walk on any campus, walk through any mall and ask the question, your definitions will range from the ripping of fingernails to the rack to vision of the Chuck Norris movies in bamboo cages. Its important when asking the questions that people know what words mean. Its that simple. Furthermore the misunderstanding of what words mean leads to the "naturally since we are getting wet, we'll go swimming" attitude. That once we slap a face we suddenly will be wearing fingernail necklaces, pulling people from mosques, putting them in chains and whipping them into confinement. This ignores history, ignores our own history as well as that of our enemies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
So we are already going swimming? Are you stating the detainees are the equivalent of Solzhenitsyn and that we already a Gulag culture? is that the exact comparison you are wishing to portray by providing this distinct example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Do you honestly believe this is our first taste of those techniques used at Gitmo? What is this shock and horror but editorializing facts politically? I hope you had your critical thinking cap on when reading this article and understand the context we live in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
All of this sidesteps the third face of America in this war. the fact that the information provided for the article was...well provided. We somehow can print these facts for open discussion. Are the sources now in a gulag? Is this not "the America I know and love."
Of course one could look at George Tenet's interview of April 29 when speaking of his book on 60 minutes when asked about enhanced techniques.
"Here’s what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the President of the United States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots, I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."
Or do we dismiss this simply as justification at any cost? What is the cost? Or is it the source that we have problems with? What is the agenda for not reading the writing on the wall? I know there might be some people here would gladly trade 1000 American lives to save one detainee from enhanced techniques, but how many would you give? If it came out later that reports from Tenet were ignored for the sake of perception and perceived principle to protect our illusions of innocence, but ended up costing 1 or 2 or 10,000 lives would there not be a call for heads politically and on the principle that the federal government's primary role is the protection of its citizens? Or do we forget that one entirely to keep our illusions?
Oh tribesman...what would I expect from a pig but a grunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
There ya go Lemur, I concede that one. :laugh4:
Keep this civil - personal attacks (e.g., "fool", "pig") will not be tolerated.
Thanks
I'm sorry, but when you lace your somewhat impenetrable prose with lines such as "I'm sorry but if you even read what has been written," you're skirting the edge of common courtesy. It's true, you generally argue the issue and not the person, but you often suggest that the person you're speaking to is uneducated, illiterate, stupid, or just generally clueless. If you want me to pull out some samples, I'll do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
This is very strange. You're not willing to conceded that torture is torture until the general populace's education and understanding of the word is increased?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
An interesting point, but it really answers nothing. Likewise, when we mention "corruption," people have all sorts of odd notions that may or may not have anything to do with real malfeasance. Does this mean we should not condemn corruption? Trust me, I understand your point. I just don't see it leading anywhere productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Right, so you don't like the slippery slope fallacy. Fine. There is evidence, however, that the use of torture has a historical tendency to spread. Most armed forces have to work like mad to prevent cruelty to prisoners.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
The comparison I was drawing was precise, not a broad brush of condemnation for America and All She Stands For, as convenient as it would be to you for purposes of dismissal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Another society faced exactly the same issue we're facing today -- how to integrate "enhanced interrogation" into a legal framework that outlaws "torture." They reached many of the same conclusions, and methods. If that doesn't send a chill down your spine, nothing will.
The first two sentences are so vague I don't really know how to respond to them. Doubtless you're clear as crystal about what you meant, but it didn't quite make it to the screen. Any response, therefore, will probably be pointless, since both of those sentences could be read any number of ways. As for whether or not I have my "critical thinking cap" on, that's a nice little rhetorical flourish that accomplishes nothing. Shall I say, "Oh! Hey! I sure do have it on!" What a bit of fluff.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Of course we have open discussions in America. Of course we're not a gulag. When you're done beating up that straw man, I'll be over at the bar.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
I'm glad you finally brought something besides your prose and opinions to the party. Tenet is an interesting guy, and his book has been received by all sides with something bordering on contempt. I'm not in a position to know if his claim is justified (and neither are you), but I will note that the man has every reason to want "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be seen in a benign light. Slam Dunk has a lot of history to revise.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Cost of what? Source of what? You need to throw some nouns in to leaven your pronouns, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Whose agenda? What writing? I think I know what you mean, but like so many of your phrases, this is deeply unclear.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Excuse me? Who has stated such a thing? Where, on this entire board, has any Orgah stated that they would trade Western lives (of any number) to save a detainee from waterboarding? You're piggybacking on your own assumptions, and putting slanderous words in others' mouths. Very Ann Coulter of you, sir. If you want to have a serious discussion about the appropriateness of torture and its application, you might want to start by not deciding that you, personally, know others' minds better than they know their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Reports from the C.I.A. were ignored, at a cost of thousands of lives, if you recall the attacks of 9/11, and the summer '01 Presidential briefing coyly titled "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Attack in The U.S."Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Now, let's look at "perception and perceived principle to protect our illusions of innocence." (A felicitous turn of phrase if ever I read one.) I take this to mean that you believe we are in an existential struggle for survival, and any froo-frah about American principles are "illusions of innocence." Of course, the phrase is constructed in such a Germanic compound-noun style, you could mean any number of things. I trust you'll unpack it for us.
I thought Don did a fairly good job of summing our positions:
It's over-simplified, sure, but he gets the broad outlines right. I'm not against torture in every conceivable scenario -- I'm just against its institutionalization. Torture is a sin. perhaps sometimes it is necessary, but sin should not be endorsed by the law of the land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The Inspector General's report on detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib just came out from under classification. Conclusions:
“Allegations of detainee abuse were not consistently reported, investigated, or managed in an effective, systematic, and timely manner.”
“Reports of detainee abuse by special mission unit task force personnel dated back to June 2003, but we believe it took the publicized abuse at Abu Ghraib [in spring 2004]… to elevate the issue to the Flag Officer level.”
“There are many well-documented reasons why detention and interrogation operations were overwhelmed [including] … inconsistent training; a critical shortage of skilled interrogators, translators, and guard force personnel; and the external influence of special operations forces and OGAs ['other government agencies,' namely, the CIA].”
This is precisely what 90% of what I've written addresses, although thinking it clear it seems to have escaped you as the reader where it was crystal to me the writer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
By moving this from an unsanctioned act which has occurred for decades to a legally defined act we somehow cross into a different realm of no return? This is the illusion of innocence. By keeping it in the shadows we afford ourselves plausible deniability, but make ourselves fools as we predicate our principles upon lies. By bringing this under the law we allow for accountability and responsibility in light of our principles where we can make the distinctions. Like those distinctions between what we do and what Hollywood has educated the public to understand as the definition of torture. By not doing this we will not stop enhanced techniques, thats naive, however admirable, but we lose any chances at integrity to principle.
That's a weird way of saying "legalize it". Because that's what it'd actually be isn't it ? "No more doing bad stuff sneakily, we just defined it as good stuff so it's okay to do it openly so stop complaining."Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Nevermind now that the potential for "pushing the envelope" after the first step is taken ought to be tempting indeed in some circles... all in the name of dire needs and just causes, of course.
This is something I love about America, and it gives me the opportunity to say that I think what we are doing is wrong, and we need to change it. Also, I don't think it consitutes a straw man, as Lemur has suggested. At worst, it's a red herring.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Ajax
Nobody is arguing that we are labeling anything as "good stuff" as you would define it and furthermore legalistlation has never stifled rhetoric in the U.S.. The code of law is not a stone on the neck of the people. Pushing the envelope is something that under legal definitions is regulated via a number of vehicles, especially if we allow judicial review. Many have argued for the courts access are you now denying it on the "envelope" principle? Or do you want lawless courts without jurisdiction to review this...now thats an envelope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I think I can see where you're coming from here. It makes me think of issues like say prostitution, where it's generally seen as morally contemptible, but at the same time inevitable. Should prostitution be illegal for the sake of moral outrage, and happen in back alleys with no protection, or should it be legalized and regulated to protect the prostitutes? A touchy question, to be sure. Same thing for abortion. Moral satisfaction in spite of the coathangers, or a safe procedure and an irate public?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Would you say then that the issue is as follows?: military personnel, CIA interrogators, etc. will commit acts of torture whether we regulate it or not, but by regulating torture we can ensure minimum standards of decent conduct and protection for those being tortured? Does this mean torture will be worse if not legalized? I understand the analogy I suppose, but I still don't like the sound of it. Perhaps I'm just like one of the hardline religious types that wants to keep things I consider wrong--wrong period--illegal in spite of any harsh realities there may be. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that unregulated torture vs. regulated torture would really be that similar to unregulated vs. regulated prostitution or abortion.
Ajax
They have before and will continue to do so, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Not only this but it brings it into proper light legally. Let it's use be found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, where the argument can be made, then you will it put to rest, properly and by law, not empty rhetoric and on the other side of the coin if withstanding USSC scrutiny it becomes legal we have further legal framework for strict defintion and oversight. This is further handled properly by the people, every election year there is a chance for public referendum with our politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
If not under scrutiny of the law, it may get worse, but then like before we may not choose to recognize it and cry foul and personal outrage when we do. Legal definitions are important.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Believe me this is not something that I snuggle up with at night and feel cozy with. Its a tough decision, its a tough topic. I'm not some junkyard dog who can't wait to take a bite out of some Islamic Fundamentalists either as any decision we make about enhanced techniques and these people we ultimately make for ourselves and others. Its about not being in denial, protecting our citizens and understanding that what words mean is extrememly important in the struggle which we are in.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Personally I think it would simply be used as a carte blanche justification for whatever dodgy business is already carried out, and then it would gradually erode the whole taboo on torture, the writ being applied to over more vicious methods under one pretext or another, until one day you're right back in the singular unpleasantness before the original taboo became established.
And probably feeling heartily appalled at the sort of stuff you've been giving the nod to.
You see, the problem is that people get used to stuff. They learn to regard the abnormal as normal. This whole debate is already a case in point, with quite a few folks quite seriously and earnestly arguing for the relaxation on certain rights and safeguards that protect the individual from abuse by the system. If that stuff were made officially legit, I can all but quarantee sooner or later people would have become so inured to it they wouldn't really see anything wrong with extending the permit to just a bit harsher methods, you know just this once because the needs are really pressing... and then a bit... and then a bit...
That's the way idealistic revolutions turn into horrid tyrannies too.
Watchman
That argument has been made before.
Remember when people were stating that the monitoring of calls made by terror suspects within the U.S. to overseas parties was now somehow testament to a carte blanche for domestic surveillance? Or are you of that camp as well? In fact the bringing of the program under judicial review in the form of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was seen as even more dubious, making it a "moving target" as the times reported, the Bush boogey man creeping into your house through your phone lines. Of course the only damage to anything domestic was the actual bringing of this under judicial review as it was done, as there was no basis for it, there was no precedent binding the president to subject it and in fact no constitutional authority for any legal bound court to have jurisdiction.
In fact I argue are we more critical of this or less since its evil inception?
Yay for still-working checks and balances. How long do you figure you can keep chipping at them before they stop working properly ? Listening to suspects' call isn't unprecedented in modern Rechtstaats; the police can usually do it if they get the proper permits from due authorities.
But you're talking about the equivalent of giving the police the right to torture ('lightly' or not is quite irrelevant) suspects to extract information for the sake of convenience. I'd say that's a bridge that just should not be crossed; because there's much too good chances that what lies beyond is very very unpleasant.
I do value what you say Watchman and I would like to leave it as two schools of thought arrived at honestly, but I have to ask a couple questions pertaining to your last post.
What checks and balances have we chipped away? We added a new one with the precedent afforded by Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
As it is here domesticallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I would say that is a bridge I wouldn't want to cross either, but who said anything about domestic police? We are talking about enemy combatants/detainees here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I fail to see where they are any less entitled to the same basic human rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
...do you quite realize that with that statement you've already dividing mankind into at least two categories, one - the "foreign" one - of which you're withholding certain fairly fundamental rights ?
That sort of thing is exactly the kind of gradual corruption of ethics I've been talking and worried about.
Here's a funny detail for you. Do you know what the rightly infamous WW1 gas warfare started off of ?
Tear gas grenades used against bunkers.
It ended up with stuff that sounds positively nightmarish even when read from a book that doesn't dwell on the ugly details.
Comparable ? Perhaps not. But it should be kept in mind that things tend to escalate under pressure and the genie, as it were, tends to be reluctant to return to the bottle.
I was and am referring to legal definitions of individuals as that goes directly to legal status. That meaning under what legal code their rights exist and what court will uphold them and who would defend them. The fairly fundamental rights are not things recognized readily around the globe outside of legal code.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I think its a decent compairason and very valuable. I think everyone should have as required reading The Guns of August as the escalation scenarios of WW1 are very practical throughout ones life. I do not see it as opposition to codifying our intelligence gathering techniques, however I would not propose it without remembering its lessons. Another reason I say that the education of definitions through the law is extremely important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
The point of no return is where out of fear it is endorsed by the law of the land that torture is okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Yes it is always true that it is okay to do something as long as someone else has already done it to the same degree or more. You can't for instance rape a woman who isn't a virgin because she already has had sex. You also can't be wrong in torturing someone as long as another country or the other side torture worse then what you have done.Quote:
Having the discussion does allow us to come to terms with this. However its important that we have a true interpretation of what things mean, what our version of so called "torture" is. To wave in front of people the absolutes of torture to incite visions of Inquisitions, Soviet style reeducation and Nazi experimentations is to only further disinformation and breed ignorance. For what would this purpose be, but for political gain. Upon the threshold of reality we kick ourselves back into ignorance for the sake of votes. Republicans and democrats are both doing this with very few on either side willing to stand up and take a bit of accountabilty and culpabilty. Well done.
You are not stronger for it. You are showing that principles mean nothing when a small amount of fear is introduced into the equation. Animals fear. Humans evaluate and decide if the situation warrants the response.Quote:
I'll throw in there that the suspension of habeas corpus was a line that was not dared to be crossed, but it was and we survived and are no doubt stronger for it. Exectuive order 9066 was supposed to be a line not crossed, but it was and we survived and are a better people for having done so, because we learned much about ourselves.
Actually it is.Quote:
See above. Integrity to principle is not a game of absolutes.
There is a principle of reciprocity which is used in international relations, philosophy and religions... 'Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.'... essentially the golden rule means that the door swings both ways. If you think that it is okay to torture someone so that you feel more secure then it is okay for someone to torture you so they may feel more secure.Quote:
Not even close to factual see above.
Quite the opposite, principles are in general much smarter ways to approach a situation, and they are there to protect those who would go beyond the boundaries they establish. You are not getting stronger or the moral high ground you are weakening your position. Principles that are broken devour those who break them. Being the second ship to ignore a lighthouse does not brilliance make.Quote:
To be morally strong we must check our grey matter at the door..excellent idea.
I'm glad that you admit your position on torture is one of ignoring its consequences. After all you are the one willfully ignoring the evil by covering your eyes, ears and braying in an effort to not speak of it. I hope your Halo isn't too tight as they come in one size fits all.Quote:
Sure, for starters just imagine the three apes seeing no evil, hearing no evil, and speaking no evil. Now imagine them wearing Halo's purchased at K-Mart.
A lot of work and effort has gone into trying to get them recognized at an intuitive level. A good portion of the so-called "First World" has more or less already managed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
And you'd discard it for convenience ?
No he would discard it because he thinks the sky is falling in .Quote:
And you'd discard it for convenience ?
Conflict resolution is not fear mongering, maybe it is in your world but that makes me only thankful that you are not in a position of leadership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
If you got more abstract I'd call the argument Picasso, but past perception just the same it lacks any value to the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I don't believe we are determining our policy by proportion to what others do. I believe it should be mentioned for perspective and contrast so nut jobs can be revealed for what they are when they scream that a slap on the face is the same as tearing out a fingernail or executing fellow prisoners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
You lack a concrete understanding of those scenarios and the reality of the situations. You attempt to state that an irrelevant emotion to the matter at hand is somehow only felt by animals? Is that an attempt to pigeon hole anyone who honestly engages in this discussion as animal and sub human? What next, if somebody argues for legal courts granted to detainees you'll submit the person to Eugenics? Way to go Adolf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Actually it isn't. The easiest example is that of Lincoln on the principles of preserving the Union and the political principle of abolishion. He did so while suspending habeas corpus. As fundamental as that is to what the Union was and to any notion of freedom, yet that in no way abandoned the integrity to those principles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
So what you're saying is that we'll get tortured more than we already are? Tell me a modern war where we weren't tortured. Hell waterboarding was the weakest of N. Vietnam's tools, yet they perfected it and many more in coordination with Soviet assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Actually nobody is discussing the breaking or the abandoning of principles here or have you just not paid attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I do believe its you who continually seeks to be in denial preferring to ignore what has been happening and is currently happening. But great job line there, just the wrong target.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I'm glad you admit your position on ignoring torture or the definitions of it and its value or lasting existence within our intelligence community is that of absolute denial.
There fixed.
On the contrary I'm one of those here willing to discuss it and bring it into light. Your actions of plugging your ears yelling "torture NO!! la la la la la" is to join the ranks of the forever blissful in ignorance, halo optional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
No of course not, as I stated I seek a legal definition within a legal code from which to work with an authoritative body to exercise its enforcement. Anything less is rather arbitrary and ad hoc.
Did you know, both the Nazis and Soviets could be real sticklers about laws too ? Resulted in some quite absurd scenarios too.
Just pointing out.
Oh absolutely and intereting introduction by you, the laws for the protection of german blood and honor while interesting as a study are outweighed in their cold sinister intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
While the introduction for comparison is well received, I'm sure you wouldn't be comparing legal frameworks for classification of detainees, providing them rights and giving legal standards and accountability to our intelligence community to the laws of Nazi Germany..would you?
I think his point is that moral rectitude > legal justification. Codifying torture doesn't make it right. Especially since we already have it legally coded as wrong in all situations with no exceptions.
Ajax
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
I considered this, but that would mean one assumes legal justification would be made absent of morality.
I wasn't talking about that. For example Die Reich was a proper Rechtstaat and took it quite seriously; if they for example located in the camps someone wanted for a crime or with outstanding prison sentences, they duly properly plucked the fellow out and put him through the proper judicial procedures. It would not do for someone to not suffer his due legal punishement merely because he was some dirty Jew or Gypsy sent into the death camps, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
The Soviets could also be strangely legalistic, given their usual arbitrary style. There were cases where a person sought by the secret police in one member-state of the USSR (it was a federation, remember) fled to another where there was no warrant for him, and in some cases could rise quite high in the local power structure...
Just some examples I remember from the top of my head. The point is, mere legal code and suchlike doesn't really amount to much if the ethics and morals are missing.
As stated before what assumption is given that legal code here will be in the absence of morality? Currently here despite ratifying empty resolutions it isn't clear cut outside of the domestic sphere. Currently torture of any shape and size can take place outside our borders and under information privealage it can be classified. In fact this is what is happening and has happened for quite some time, occasional cases making it into courts, but its been a long time since this has been allowed to happen. None of this is subject to the public or the public's courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
You don't exactly see me applauding the practice, do you ? But it remains a fact they have to do it covertly; that already keeps a stigma of moral illegitimacy attached to the whole business, or in any case should; I rather worry over how much some people seem willing to gloss over for their own moral convenience these days...
I'm getting a little confused, Shades. For most of this thread, you've seemed to be advocating the use of torture, albeit in a limited and controlled fashion, but your latest few posts sound almost more like we need to clearly define torture so that we can more effectively prohibit it. Could you clarify your intentions when you say we need a clearer legal framework for torture?
Ajax
Never said you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
The whole business meaning a lot more than simply interrogation techniques.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
If it is as valuable as deemed necessary to the extent that it has been practiced, move it out of the shadows, legistlate it and as I've said before if our taste for these matters proves wanting the argument for it cannot be maintained. But dismissing it outright and keeping it where it is, does nothing to further anyone's moral highground as that itself is exhibiting neglect and is itself illegitimate.
Such as...Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Yes, well, that's a wide-open question, now isn't it? And I don't see any attempt being made by anyone in the administration to engage in a meaningful debate about whether torture is, in fact, valuable, and to what extent it is being practiced. The entire thing is a black hole, with only little snippets of information worming their way out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
In this lemur's opinion, the torture debacle will only be ended when George W. Bush retires from office. Nothing less will accomplish this. And heaven help us if Mitt ("I'd like to double Gitmo!") Romney follows in his footsteps.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
The moral high ground is neglected and illegitimate? Speak for yourself, buddy ...Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus