retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
I asked the other 2 ultra right win nutjobs with no answer, so I will ask you as well...
So you are saying you are pro torture then correct?
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Does any of the eloquent pro-torture posters wish to address any part at all of the two expert life long intelligence officials who authored the op-ed in the OP? Anyone? Anyone care to put their opinion, with maybe some reasoning skills behind it, to put together some sort of coherent response to what they had to say based on decades of intelligence gathering and interrogation experience?
"Cruel and inhuman treatment is defined as an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical pain or suffering. Such mental suffering need not be prolonged to be prohibited. The mental suffering need only be more than transitory." - Left Wing Liberal John McCain on the Senate floor, in proposing restrictions on non-military interrogations.
"Cruel and inhuman treatment is defined as an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical pain or suffering. Such mental suffering need not be prolonged to be prohibited. The mental suffering need only be more than transitory." - Left Wing Liberal John McCain on the Senate floor, in proposing restrictions on non-military interrogations.
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
And what if we have the wrong guy, who knows nothing, and is innocent?
You just don't get it... The minute we started torturing the bad guys to gain information, we ourselves became the bad guys.
AQ hasn't taken advantage of a crippled intelligence for the last eight years?
Ba ba ba boo boo bubba Bush!
Yeah like a bunch of suicide bombers who aren't afraid to die are going to be afraid of anything else. GD you post the stupidest shit!
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The other unasked question is, what does the guy tortured know of any value anyway? Once they are captured, Al-Quida usually knows almost before we do, any knowledge they did have becomes almost instantly obsolete. Yet some of these morally bankrupt types try torture months and years later when anything they did know becomes worthless. And then any information they get more serves to inflate the torturer's paranoia
than anything else as 90% are lies.
And when torture and pictures from AbuGhrab does much to fuel Muslim anger and Al-Quida recruitment , we have to realize its totally counter productive.
But it will sadly not dawn on some of those hard core Sadist torturers until they end up on the docket in the Hague or charged in a US court of law.
And during WW2 Japanese soldiers fought with fanatical fury because they were told that they would be treated inhumanely by the US if captured, false then, but now we want to make it true now???????????
Even Hitler treated US prisoners more humanely and respected the Geneva conventions. Ya I know, GWB has his own unique interpretations of the Geneva conventions that may last as long as the Good German defense did at Nuremberg.
than anything else as 90% are lies.
And when torture and pictures from AbuGhrab does much to fuel Muslim anger and Al-Quida recruitment , we have to realize its totally counter productive.
But it will sadly not dawn on some of those hard core Sadist torturers until they end up on the docket in the Hague or charged in a US court of law.
And during WW2 Japanese soldiers fought with fanatical fury because they were told that they would be treated inhumanely by the US if captured, false then, but now we want to make it true now???????????
Even Hitler treated US prisoners more humanely and respected the Geneva conventions. Ya I know, GWB has his own unique interpretations of the Geneva conventions that may last as long as the Good German defense did at Nuremberg.
I firmly believe that torture, when indiscriminately applied to real and suspected terrorists, and used as the ONLY means to elicit information from a suspect, has its limitations. For two books that explore the treatment of enemy noncombatants (as well as more general War on Terror questions/concerns), I recommend "The Terror Presidency" by Jack Goldsmith, former head of the OLC, and "Law and the Long War" by Benjamin Wittes.
/agree. Either we admit that we torture and take steps to reassure people that it is regulated, or we tell people that we don't torture *except* in extreme situations (ie ticking bomb scenario). These are the two realistic options. There's too much ambiguity when official and flat declarations of "we DON'T torture" are in contrast to disturbing reports that have been reported to the media. There are unclear standards and rules, and interrogators have no confidence that they can do their job without being hung out to dry.
Torture is a blunt instrument. It won't help you if a person is innocent and frantically babbles anything. People can and WILL say anything under duress if they want the pain to stop. As much as I admire 24, torture isn't the magic pill. If someone is innocent, applying the hot poker to their body ten times is no more effective than one time, if you don't believe or have any way to verify the "information" that is given to you. And let's dispense with at least one disingenuous part of the argument: we don't rape/sodomize those being tortured, nor kidnap and execute other family members. I wouldn't be surprised if some other countries (as well as the terrorists) lack our scruples, so already we are operating at a 'disadvantage' by only focusing on individual rather than collective/family guilt.
There's a big difference between "do whatever you have to do within the bounds of the law in eliciting information" and "you don't threaten him, you don't lay a hand on him, and you don't even get to question him without reading him of his rights, in the presence of a lawyer, and getting both verbal AND written confirmation that the interrogated is aware of his 'rights' ". As I pointed out above, we as a democracy operate at a disadvantage since we believe in individual guilt rather than indiscriminate collective guilt.
And given some of our embarassing intelligence fiascos which did not necessarily involve torture (ie Wen Ho Lee, Hatfill, Robert Hansen, Aldrich Ames; first two were exonerated, other two were undetected traitors who never took and never failed a polygraph, respectively), i find it hard to believe that missed opportunities, false leads, or sloppy investigating can't be just as dangerous as not being able to physically torture individuals.
I respectfully disagree; using torture as an option when we're as sure as humanly possible that we are dealing with a guilty individual who has time-sensitive and extremely vital information doesn't make us bad guys, but being lax and relying on torture as the only method of eliciting information on anyone and everyone IS. In practice of course, it's hard to draw a line demarking when to use it and when not to but I don't think we need be absolutist against torture...
in other words....
- torture is a TOOL with limits. people can and will say anything under duress so either way information must be verified.
- we already operate under constraints by insisting on individual instead of collective guilt, so the argument about us being crippled or handicapped is somewhat disingenuous.
- at the very least the US should come clean and either admit that we do torture, albeit with regulations/restrictions, or say that we don't torture except in exigent circumstances.
/agree. Either we admit that we torture and take steps to reassure people that it is regulated, or we tell people that we don't torture *except* in extreme situations (ie ticking bomb scenario). These are the two realistic options. There's too much ambiguity when official and flat declarations of "we DON'T torture" are in contrast to disturbing reports that have been reported to the media. There are unclear standards and rules, and interrogators have no confidence that they can do their job without being hung out to dry.
Torture is a blunt instrument. It won't help you if a person is innocent and frantically babbles anything. People can and WILL say anything under duress if they want the pain to stop. As much as I admire 24, torture isn't the magic pill. If someone is innocent, applying the hot poker to their body ten times is no more effective than one time, if you don't believe or have any way to verify the "information" that is given to you. And let's dispense with at least one disingenuous part of the argument: we don't rape/sodomize those being tortured, nor kidnap and execute other family members. I wouldn't be surprised if some other countries (as well as the terrorists) lack our scruples, so already we are operating at a 'disadvantage' by only focusing on individual rather than collective/family guilt.
There's a big difference between "do whatever you have to do within the bounds of the law in eliciting information" and "you don't threaten him, you don't lay a hand on him, and you don't even get to question him without reading him of his rights, in the presence of a lawyer, and getting both verbal AND written confirmation that the interrogated is aware of his 'rights' ". As I pointed out above, we as a democracy operate at a disadvantage since we believe in individual guilt rather than indiscriminate collective guilt.
And given some of our embarassing intelligence fiascos which did not necessarily involve torture (ie Wen Ho Lee, Hatfill, Robert Hansen, Aldrich Ames; first two were exonerated, other two were undetected traitors who never took and never failed a polygraph, respectively), i find it hard to believe that missed opportunities, false leads, or sloppy investigating can't be just as dangerous as not being able to physically torture individuals.
I respectfully disagree; using torture as an option when we're as sure as humanly possible that we are dealing with a guilty individual who has time-sensitive and extremely vital information doesn't make us bad guys, but being lax and relying on torture as the only method of eliciting information on anyone and everyone IS. In practice of course, it's hard to draw a line demarking when to use it and when not to but I don't think we need be absolutist against torture...
in other words....
- torture is a TOOL with limits. people can and will say anything under duress so either way information must be verified.
- we already operate under constraints by insisting on individual instead of collective guilt, so the argument about us being crippled or handicapped is somewhat disingenuous.
- at the very least the US should come clean and either admit that we do torture, albeit with regulations/restrictions, or say that we don't torture except in exigent circumstances.
These types of arguments are proof that a liberal arts education including studies of logic, ethics, and history are just as important as chemistry or math. Recently in the news when I've seen people say outrageous things--that they support torture, for example--I check their Wikipedia page. What is interesting is that in every case so far that person has either been a college dropout or has studied a science field such as engineering.
There is no use trying to debate with people like that here. It is like trying to explain quantum physics to a elementary school student. Just like anything else, explaining why torture is not an option to someone who thinks it should be requires a foundation in a variety of concepts. There is a truth to a lot of political issues, a truth that can be proven with logic and a quantitative process much like mathematics. That these people have not reached it yet simply shows a lack of knowledge.
Just to qualify what I said, there is a truth so long as your starting values are constant. Once you boil down these people's arguments, you realize that if they don't end up agreeing with you it is because one of your constants is not agreed upon--and you end up finding out they think one class of people is inherently superior to another, or one I ran into recently that the President is not subject to any laws (another version of the first example).
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
Ya, your probably right... Still, sometimes the ignorance is so overwhelmingly irritating that you have to try.
Only a piece of human shit tortures or approves of the torture of others. There are a number of pieces of human shit posting in this thread.
If you become a piece of human shit to fight the human shit who is a terrorist you have become what you fight and it makes no difference at all who then wins. The terrorist has brought you to his level and won.
If you become a piece of human shit to fight the human shit who is a terrorist you have become what you fight and it makes no difference at all who then wins. The terrorist has brought you to his level and won.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
I'll echo eskimospy's statements, the adults are back in charge here. We'll undeniably look back at 00-08 as similar to 41-45's Japanese internment camps. Suspension of habeas corpus, denying American citizens' rights to privacy, and torture truly was a disgrace to our long-held values and morals, and it didn't make us any safer to boot except that we didn't have a terrorist attack on American soil after 9/11, instead transferring the deaths to Iraq with the loss of 4000+ American soldiers.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Or it could just be that the truth you consider a constant is not something they find agreeable, and they may find it equally frustrating that you are unable to comprehend their worldview.
In simpler terms, we call this a disagreement.
No offense to your claim about logic, ethics and history, but I have known many academics who couldn't argue themselves out of a box, but felt their liberal arts education somehow elevated their thinking....enlightenment can sometimes lead to elitism.
Facts, the true enemy of Republicans.
For example:
spidey here thinks that torture was outlined in the constitution. Amazing.
Torturing people is the only way to get intelligence apparently.
This sounds like something that will hurt American. Nobama is right on track to hurt America as much as he can in 4 years.
Wait can we recall this idiot now
Wait can we recall this idiot now
The right-wing extremists here are too dumb to understand that they have as little regard for human lives and rights as Al Qaida, maybe even less. 99% of the world does not hate America, just the American right-wing terrorists like you.
And like with Al Qaida, the world would be better off with you exterminated.
And like with Al Qaida, the world would be better off with you exterminated.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter