Torture Techniques Revealed at Gitmo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barocca

You will never convince me that people who torture others are anything less than barbarians and terrorists, deserving of nothing more than contempt.

---

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

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.

---

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

Barocca has left This building

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Ah. "Just ends justify any means." I kinda figured that pointlessly convoluted piece of rhetoric amounted to that much.

---

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

And with empty excuses of the classic "but the bad guys do it worse" school thrown in.

---

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

:dozey:

---

Oh nice an emoticon, matched above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Want me to start digging up figures of speech relevant to the issue ? Nietzsche had a couple of good ones for starters.

---

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I'm sorry, at what point were we talking about anything but finite examples. Go play Chicken Little somewhere else.
---
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.
---
Oh nice an emoticon, matched above.
---
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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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?

---

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 is

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

---

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 Lemur

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.

---

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.

Thank you for furthering the discussions by asking legitimate questions some of which I have answered prior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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 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

Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago

---

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

One of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's first instructions for military interrogations outside the Geneva Conventions was that military doctors should be involved in monitoring torture.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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 is

---

Oh tribesman...what would I expect from a pig but a grunt.

There ya go Lemur, I concede that one. :laugh4:

Keep this civil - personal attacks (e.g., "fool", "pig") will not be tolerated.

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I've only called out certain arguments, demonstrated the shortcomings and put questions back on the person.

---

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

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.

---

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

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.

---

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

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

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.

---

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

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 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

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.

---

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

What is the cost? Or is it the source that we have problems with?

---

Cost of what? Source of what? You need to throw some nouns in to leaven your pronouns, sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

What is the agenda for not reading the writing on the wall?

---

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

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?

---

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

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?

---

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."

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

---

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.

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].”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Torture is a sin. perhaps sometimes it is necessary, but sin should not be endorsed by the law of the land.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

By bringing this under the law we allow for accountability and responsibility in light of our principles where we can make the distinctions.

---

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."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

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."

---

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.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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."

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.

---

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 ShadeHonestus

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.

---

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

military personnel, CIA interrogators, etc. will commit acts of torture whether we regulate it or not.

---

They have before and will continue to do so, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

but by regulating torture we can ensure minimum standards of decent conduct and protection for those being tortured?

---

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

Does this mean torture will be worse if not legalized?

---

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

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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Yay for still-working checks and balances. How long do you figure you can keep chipping at them before they stop working properly ?

---

What checks and balances have we chipped away? We added a new one with the precedent afforded by Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

---

As it is here domestically

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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 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 ShadeHonestus

We are talking about enemy combatants/detainees here.

---

I fail to see where they are any less entitled to the same basic human rights.

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I fail to see where they are any less entitled to the same basic human rights.

...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.

---

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

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 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 ShadeHonestus

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.

---

The point of no return is where out of fear it is endorsed by the law of the land that torture is okay.

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

See above. Integrity to principle is not a game of absolutes.

---

Actually it is.

Quote:

---

Not even close to factual see above.

---

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:

---

To be morally strong we must check our grey matter at the door..excellent idea.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

The fairly fundamental rights are not things recognized readily around the globe outside of legal code.

---

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.

And you'd discard it for convenience ?

Quote:

---

And you'd discard it for convenience ?

---

No he would discard it because he thinks the sky is falling in .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The point of no return is where out of fear it is endorsed by the law of the land that torture is okay.

---

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

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.

---

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

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.

---

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 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.

---

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 is.

---

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

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.

---

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

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.

---

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'm glad that you admit your position on torture is one of ignoring its consequences.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

---

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 Watchman

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.

And you'd discard it for convenience ?

---

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.