• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Well, Bush is pre-pardoning himself and his administration for war crimes...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_michaelpatrick33

Platinum Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,364
0
0
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The only thing that makes me worry for the future of the United States is that people such as those that have posted in this thread will be the ones controlling it.
:roll: If this report is true how do you in any way justify such action by a head of state. It is carte blanche to perform and action you desire without fear of consequence. That is not a very comforting thought for me.

And yes I am a Republican but I don't support any President retroactively pardoning himself and his administration. Ridiculous.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Btw, you have personally believed that we should troture, that we should continue the war in Iraq, and back of the president 99.9% of the time.. so this should come as a surprise to us ...how?
I do not support Rummy's Iraq tactics. In fact, I believe that the wars should have been fought much differently.

And I do not condone what I would consider as torture. (I imagine that our definitions of "torture" are very different). To me, "stress positions" and yelling at prisoners is NOT "torture." On the other hand, water-boarding is still up for debate...

Last, yes, I do believe that we need to continue the war in Iraq. However, as I stated above, the tactics must change dramatically. I believe that we need approx 400k troops there to do the job correctly, and 50k troops in Afghanistan. I'd also like to see our troops invade NW Pakistan.

I'd gladly fire Rummy and see someone replace him that is willing to take the political heat and make those things happen. I would also support a draft.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
Originally posted by: mc00
man very sad...

but I bet if CNN, MSNBC,ABC,other bs media would report "50% TAX Increase on our paycheck and $6 per gallon" America would get up and fight.. but we have lying SOB running the country they don't care.. just keep me safe and lower the taxes and gas, and live on with life.. bah!

mc00, yours are the views of a freedom lover, as opposed to the people who simply like to proclaim their great love for freeom but fail to really practice it.

It's good to see real Americans like yourself, and not those who would fall short of our principles, such as Extelleron who has no concern about our nation torturing, etc.

We need to fight for freedom, even today.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
To me, "stress positions" and yelling at prisoners is NOT "torture." On the other hand, water-boarding is still up for debate...
I have no problem with yelling at detainees, as long as it's not the sort that goes on for 72 hours and is really extreme sleep deprivation. I do have a problem with 'stress positions' since they are designed to cause such pain as to coerce behavior.

Some are asking 'what is torture anyway'.

I'll offer a definition: Things falling short of torture are the uncomfortable aspects of the person being imprisoned and the situation; they're entitled to adequate food if it is possible, not to anything fancy; they're entitled to blankets if it's cold and possible, not to soft beds, and so on.

However, discomfort introduced not because it's necessary for security or the resources available on a battlefied, but artifically for the purpose of coercing behavior, is torture.

That's a pretty simple definition. Requiring prisoners to get up at 6AM for breakfast is fine; keeping them awake for days with loud sounds and lights to try to exhaust and confuse them to the point of coercing behavior is not. Keeping them in shackles when moving them is fine, stress positions aimed to cause pain and coerce are not.

Guess where waterboarding falls? Guess where panties on the head for religious conservatives, rolling people in sleeping bags with little air for beatings fall?

On the other hand, saying things to challenge them - arguing they are violating the Koran, quoting Muslim leaders that terrorism is wrong, pointing out the harms of their actions, showing them photos of their victims and of the victims of the retribution, are all within the bounds of interrogation.

It's pretty simple, and has not caused a lot of controversy for 60 years since we didn't have evil torturers in power for 60 years.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
To me, "stress positions" and yelling at prisoners is NOT "torture." On the other hand, water-boarding is still up for debate...
I have no problem with yelling at detainees, as long as it's not the sort that goes on for 72 hours and is really extreme sleep deprivation. I do have a problem with 'stress positions' since they are designed to cause such pain as to coerce behavior.

Some are asking 'what is torture anyway'.

I'll offer a definition: Things falling short of torture are the uncomfortable aspects of the person being imprisoned and the situation; they're entitled to adequate food if it is possible, not to anything fancy; they're entitled to blankets if it's cold and possible, not to soft beds, and so on.

However, discomfort introduced not because it's necessary for security or the resources available on a battlefied, but artifically for the purpose of coercing behavior, is torture.

That's a pretty simple definition. Requiring prisoners to get up at 6AM for breakfast is fine; keeping them awake for days with loud sounds and lights to try to exhaust and confuse them to the point of coercing behavior is not. Keeping them in shackles when moving them is fine, stress positions aimed to cause pain and coerce are not.

Guess where waterboarding falls? Guess where panties on the head for religious conservatives, rolling people in sleeping bags with little air for beatings fall?

On the other hand, saying things to challenge them - arguing they are violating the Koran, quoting Muslim leaders that terrorism is wrong, pointing out the harms of their actions, showing them photos of their victims and of the victims of the retribution, are all within the bounds of interrogation.

It's pretty simple, and has not caused a lot of controversy for 60 years since we didn't have evil torturers in power for 60 years.
FYI: interrogators did not place "panties on their heads." That was an ignorant group of uneducated reservist MP's.

Second, the detainees get 4 hours of sleep per 24 hour period. They also get at least two meals a day. In fact, they also get time to pray, wash, and even excercise (walk).

That said, I do not consider most of the methods you mentioned to be "torture." I do not agree with your definition at all. I believe the fine line between discomfort and torture is much different; and I consider stress positions, noise/light variance, and possibly even water-boarding to fall under "discomfort" - which is fine by me.

Discomfort and stress are much more humane than thendirectly causing pain. Anything that causes direct pain, such as beatings, electricity, etc, are wrong and inhumane. But causing stress and fear? That's perfectly fine AFAIC... and many Americans agree with me.

Causing direct pain is usually ineffective anyways, especially in longterm interrogations. On the other hand, stress, confusion, and fear are very effective tools, both in long and short term interrogations. Eliminating them from our arsenal would seriously hamper the effectiveness of our interrogators which leads directly to the loss of American lives.

I can also assure you that out interrogations are much more humane than they were 60 years ago.

The fanatics we face already laugh at our methods and people like yourself would have them on the ground rolling in hysterics.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
I believe the fine line between discomfort and torture is much different; and I consider stress positions, noise/light variance, and possibly even water-boarding to fall under "discomfort" - which is fine by me.
And I think you are an evil human being. We each know where we stand, don't we.

many Americans agree with me.
They often agree with you from the comfort of not having to see the situation, thier armchairs thousands of miles away with no risk to themselves being subject to these acts, and others to do the dirty work - and the fact that they can find people willing to do the dirty work means nothing either, I know of no government who did not do evil for lack of volunteers.

The German people were no worse than Americans, and yet they were led to support Hitler and his aggressions against Poland and other nations; haivng some people agree with something does not make it ok. It takes additional effort to have moral policies.

I can also assure you that out interrogations are much more humane than they were 60 years ago.
And the techniques you say you oppose are not as bad as the ones used by Vlad the Impaler. So? You are making a relativist argument here without any merit - it's irrelevant that something worse was done in determing what the right behavior is.

The fanatics we face already laugh at our methods and people like yourself would have them on the ground rolling in hysterics.
And this reveals more about your thinking: you seem to have some 'macho' issue being 'afraid' of the terrorists laughing at you and not seeing you as the tough man you are, so beat them some more until you prove yourself. Sorry, Charlie.

I don't see them rolling on the ground in hysterics, any more than the many other prisoners of war we have treated humanely. I see them instead as at the least having one less reason to want revenge and killing Americans, and at best realizing that the messages they were taught that Americans are evil torturers are lies, questioning their cause.

If they did roll on the floor laughing, I don't care. You deal with it, as the boy who struggles with his toughness being questioned you sound like from that comment. It's fine. They're there to be restrained and interrogated as enemy prisoners, not to make you feel like you are tough. If they laugh, they're still imprisoned, and that's all we need.

But they won't be laughing much. American criminal prisoners, including muggers, rapists, murderers, have to be treated with better conditions than I describe; how many police interrogators do you hear complaining that the prisoners are rolling on the floor laughing at them for not being able to use coercion?

No, we have a good criminal justice system, and a good military justice system that don't need the expansion you want - our moral requirements prohibit it.

My gosh, you don't feel just a little shame that the woman soldier during the Iraq invasion who our forces 'rescued' from the clutches of the Iraqis was getting very good treatment as our soldiers burst into the hospital - and that it was our own government who lied about nearly every detail of her ordeal to we, the people?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
And this reveals more about your thinking: you seem to have some 'macho' issue being 'afraid' of the terrorists laughing at you and not seeing you as the tough man you are, so beat them some more until you prove yourself. Sorry, Charlie.
it's not that they do so when we're not around, it's that they do so while we are trying to get information from them. they basically sit there, smile, and go "HA! I know you Americans cant make me tell you anything! good luck! muhHAHAHAHa!" It has nothing to do with mine or anyone's "masculinity," but rather, it has to do with the effectiveness of our interrogations... which, if you had your way, would be nil. You'd rather protect their right "not to be stressed out," than to save american lives. fact.

you then go on to describe how great the treatment was that Jessica Lynch received at the hands of her captors. maybe she was treated well because they never had time to get her to their leaders. because, i can assure you, they DONT treat our prisoners well.. behead much?

I've seen the enemy knowingly laugh at us after we capture them, you haven't. and THAT is really the bottom line.

quit tying our fvcking hands with yoru panzy-assed feel-good politically correct bullsh*t.

We are already humane enough by any warriors' standard.

thanks.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Craig234
And this reveals more about your thinking: you seem to have some 'macho' issue being 'afraid' of the terrorists laughing at you and not seeing you as the tough man you are, so beat them some more until you prove yourself. Sorry, Charlie.
it's not that they do so when we're not around, it's that they do so while we are trying to get information from them. they basically sit there, smile, and go "HA! I know you Americans cant make me tell you anything! good luck! muhHAHAHAHa!" It has nothing to do with mine or anyone's "masculinity," but rather, it has to do with the effectiveness of our interrogations... which, if you had your way, would be nil. You'd rather protect their right "not to be stressed out," than to save american lives. fact.

you then go on to describe how great the treatment was that Jessica Lynch received at the hands of her captors. maybe she was treated well because they never had time to get her to their leaders. because, i can assure you, they DONT treat our prisoners well.. behead much?

I've seen the enemy knowingly laugh at us after we capture them, you haven't. and THAT is really the bottom line.

quit tying our fvcking hands with yoru panzy-assed feel-good politically correct bullsh*t.

We are already humane enough by any warriors' standard.

thanks.
For being a "warrior", you sure do whine a lot about doing your job. I've never seen a profession where you are allowed to dictate the terms of how you perform your job, and then complain when you aren't able to do it correctly. The brute force method may be attractive, but it's hardly the only approach out there...and that goes for pretty much anything. Whether or not you like them, there are rules to how civilized people are supposed to behave. If you can't figure out how to work within those limitations, step aside and let someone competent at it. With all the tools at the disposal of an interrogator, it's not reasonable to claim that torture is the only valid approach. Maybe YOU can't think of anything better, but that's more of an argument for you not being put in charge of interrogating anyone than it is an argument against "pansy-assed feel-good PC bullshit".

"Effectiveness" and "brutality" are NOT the same thing, you can prohibit the latter without impacting the former. And if we CAN'T do that, perhaps we need better trained interrogators. And in a lot of cases, more reasonable interrogation methods might even yield better information. It sounds quick and easy to waterboard a prisoner until he'll tell you the secret location of the nuclear bomb, just in time for Jack Bauer to disable it before the next commercial break, but the kind of intelligence gathering that REALLY benefits our war effort isn't something you can use overwhelming force to convince someone to reveal. Most governments that use torture do so to get "confessions" and things of that nature, without any real regard for factual intelligence...that should tell you everything you need to know about how effective it is.

And please, enough of this "I'm in the military so only MY opinion is valid" bullshit...it's getting really old.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Craig234
And this reveals more about your thinking: you seem to have some 'macho' issue being 'afraid' of the terrorists laughing at you and not seeing you as the tough man you are, so beat them some more until you prove yourself. Sorry, Charlie.
it's not that they do so when we're not around, it's that they do so while we are trying to get information from them. they basically sit there, smile, and go "HA! I know you Americans cant make me tell you anything! good luck! muhHAHAHAHa!" It has nothing to do with mine or anyone's "masculinity," but rather, it has to do with the effectiveness of our interrogations... which, if you had your way, would be nil. You'd rather protect their right "not to be stressed out," than to save american lives. fact.

you then go on to describe how great the treatment was that Jessica Lynch received at the hands of her captors. maybe she was treated well because they never had time to get her to their leaders. because, i can assure you, they DONT treat our prisoners well.. behead much?

I've seen the enemy knowingly laugh at us after we capture them, you haven't. and THAT is really the bottom line.

quit tying our fvcking hands with yoru panzy-assed feel-good politically correct bullsh*t.

We are already humane enough by any warriors' standard.

thanks.
For being a "warrior", you sure do whine a lot about doing your job. I've never seen a profession where you are allowed to dictate the terms of how you perform your job, and then complain when you aren't able to do it correctly. The brute force method may be attractive, but it's hardly the only approach out there...and that goes for pretty much anything. Whether or not you like them, there are rules to how civilized people are supposed to behave. If you can't figure out how to work within those limitations, step aside and let someone competent at it. With all the tools at the disposal of an interrogator, it's not reasonable to claim that torture is the only valid approach. Maybe YOU can't think of anything better, but that's more of an argument for you not being put in charge of interrogating anyone than it is an argument against "pansy-assed feel-good PC bullshit".

"Effectiveness" and "brutality" are NOT the same thing, you can prohibit the latter without impacting the former. And if we CAN'T do that, perhaps we need better trained interrogators. And in a lot of cases, more reasonable interrogation methods might even yield better information. It sounds quick and easy to waterboard a prisoner until he'll tell you the secret location of the nuclear bomb, just in time for Jack Bauer to disable it before the next commercial break, but the kind of intelligence gathering that REALLY benefits our war effort isn't something you can use overwhelming force to convince someone to reveal. Most governments that use torture do so to get "confessions" and things of that nature, without any real regard for factual intelligence...that should tell you everything you need to know about how effective it is.

And please, enough of this "I'm in the military so only MY opinion is valid" bullshit...it's getting really old.
I highly suggest you read every other one of my posts in this thread. they completely negate your ignorance.

g'day.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Craig234
And this reveals more about your thinking: you seem to have some 'macho' issue being 'afraid' of the terrorists laughing at you and not seeing you as the tough man you are, so beat them some more until you prove yourself. Sorry, Charlie.
it's not that they do so when we're not around, it's that they do so while we are trying to get information from them. they basically sit there, smile, and go "HA! I know you Americans cant make me tell you anything! good luck! muhHAHAHAHa!" It has nothing to do with mine or anyone's "masculinity," but rather, it has to do with the effectiveness of our interrogations... which, if you had your way, would be nil. You'd rather protect their right "not to be stressed out," than to save american lives. fact.

you then go on to describe how great the treatment was that Jessica Lynch received at the hands of her captors. maybe she was treated well because they never had time to get her to their leaders. because, i can assure you, they DONT treat our prisoners well.. behead much?

I've seen the enemy knowingly laugh at us after we capture them, you haven't. and THAT is really the bottom line.

quit tying our fvcking hands with yoru panzy-assed feel-good politically correct bullsh*t.

We are already humane enough by any warriors' standard.

thanks.
For being a "warrior", you sure do whine a lot about doing your job. I've never seen a profession where you are allowed to dictate the terms of how you perform your job, and then complain when you aren't able to do it correctly. The brute force method may be attractive, but it's hardly the only approach out there...and that goes for pretty much anything. Whether or not you like them, there are rules to how civilized people are supposed to behave. If you can't figure out how to work within those limitations, step aside and let someone competent at it. With all the tools at the disposal of an interrogator, it's not reasonable to claim that torture is the only valid approach. Maybe YOU can't think of anything better, but that's more of an argument for you not being put in charge of interrogating anyone than it is an argument against "pansy-assed feel-good PC bullshit".

"Effectiveness" and "brutality" are NOT the same thing, you can prohibit the latter without impacting the former. And if we CAN'T do that, perhaps we need better trained interrogators. And in a lot of cases, more reasonable interrogation methods might even yield better information. It sounds quick and easy to waterboard a prisoner until he'll tell you the secret location of the nuclear bomb, just in time for Jack Bauer to disable it before the next commercial break, but the kind of intelligence gathering that REALLY benefits our war effort isn't something you can use overwhelming force to convince someone to reveal. Most governments that use torture do so to get "confessions" and things of that nature, without any real regard for factual intelligence...that should tell you everything you need to know about how effective it is.

And please, enough of this "I'm in the military so only MY opinion is valid" bullshit...it's getting really old.
I highly suggest you read every other one of my posts in this thread. they completely negate your ignorance.

g'day.
Hmm, I read them before I posted at all, and now I've RE-read them...a couple of times in fact, and I'm not sure what in any of them "negates my ignorance". I DO see a very Clinton-esque "it depends on what the meaning of 'torture' is" dodge, but I don't see a lot of justification for why your prefered interrogation methods (just so we can avoid childish arguments about terminology) are the ONLY (or even best) way to go. I do, however, see plenty of whining (oddly mixed with a great deal of talking down to everyone) in the rest of your posts as well. So tell me, how am I off base here?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,133
1
0
The point is that he is pre-pardoning himself and his administration. If he is to put others on trial for crimes, then he should be willing to be held to those same standards, guilty or not.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,630
181
106
Clinton should of thought of that: A no penalty clause for White House sex ! Our right wing congress sure can give a free pass to their own!
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
0
0
Originally posted by: laFiera
as if the democrats would do anything about it...didnt' they also vote for this bill? reps and dems are all the same---bunch of sold out politicians.
presumably the Democrats are worried if they vote against it, they will be seen as "soft on terror" and lose at the elections.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Craig234
And this reveals more about your thinking: you seem to have some 'macho' issue being 'afraid' of the terrorists laughing at you and not seeing you as the tough man you are, so beat them some more until you prove yourself. Sorry, Charlie.
it's not that they do so when we're not around, it's that they do so while we are trying to get information from them. they basically sit there, smile, and go "HA! I know you Americans cant make me tell you anything! good luck! muhHAHAHAHa!" It has nothing to do with mine or anyone's "masculinity," but rather, it has to do with the effectiveness of our interrogations... which, if you had your way, would be nil. You'd rather protect their right "not to be stressed out," than to save american lives. fact.

you then go on to describe how great the treatment was that Jessica Lynch received at the hands of her captors. maybe she was treated well because they never had time to get her to their leaders. because, i can assure you, they DONT treat our prisoners well.. behead much?

I've seen the enemy knowingly laugh at us after we capture them, you haven't. and THAT is really the bottom line.

quit tying our fvcking hands with yoru panzy-assed feel-good politically correct bullsh*t.

We are already humane enough by any warriors' standard.

thanks.
For being a "warrior", you sure do whine a lot about doing your job. I've never seen a profession where you are allowed to dictate the terms of how you perform your job, and then complain when you aren't able to do it correctly. The brute force method may be attractive, but it's hardly the only approach out there...and that goes for pretty much anything. Whether or not you like them, there are rules to how civilized people are supposed to behave. If you can't figure out how to work within those limitations, step aside and let someone competent at it. With all the tools at the disposal of an interrogator, it's not reasonable to claim that torture is the only valid approach. Maybe YOU can't think of anything better, but that's more of an argument for you not being put in charge of interrogating anyone than it is an argument against "pansy-assed feel-good PC bullshit".

"Effectiveness" and "brutality" are NOT the same thing, you can prohibit the latter without impacting the former. And if we CAN'T do that, perhaps we need better trained interrogators. And in a lot of cases, more reasonable interrogation methods might even yield better information. It sounds quick and easy to waterboard a prisoner until he'll tell you the secret location of the nuclear bomb, just in time for Jack Bauer to disable it before the next commercial break, but the kind of intelligence gathering that REALLY benefits our war effort isn't something you can use overwhelming force to convince someone to reveal. Most governments that use torture do so to get "confessions" and things of that nature, without any real regard for factual intelligence...that should tell you everything you need to know about how effective it is.

And please, enough of this "I'm in the military so only MY opinion is valid" bullshit...it's getting really old.
I highly suggest you read every other one of my posts in this thread. they completely negate your ignorance.

g'day.
Hmm, I read them before I posted at all, and now I've RE-read them...a couple of times in fact, and I'm not sure what in any of them "negates my ignorance". I DO see a very Clinton-esque "it depends on what the meaning of 'torture' is" dodge, but I don't see a lot of justification for why your prefered interrogation methods (just so we can avoid childish arguments about terminology) are the ONLY (or even best) way to go. I do, however, see plenty of whining (oddly mixed with a great deal of talking down to everyone) in the rest of your posts as well. So tell me, how am I off base here?
my entire point is that we each draw the lines of humanity in interrogation differently, and I believe that the line I draw is a humane one.

Why? I do not believe that discomfort and fear = torture. Therefore waterboarding, stress positions, light/noise variances, and other methods of causing fear are all humane methods of interrogation AFAIC. None of those cross the line as I see it drawn.

Other people, such as yourself, simply draw that line much lower. Some, and I'm not saying you, believe that we shouldnt even be able to yell at the bastards because it might upset them.

So, like I said, different people will draw a different line; and those who restrict interrogators too much may not realize the impact of such collection impotence. They might not realize that tying the hands of HUMINT folks too much will lead directly to the loss of American lives; perhaps even their own!
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
I might not realize that not killing you, Palehorse, could lead to you murdering someone. So, I'd better kill you to prevent that threat.

Whenever we release a murderer from jail after they serve their sentence, they might kill again. So better imprison them all for life. In fact, for all violent criminals. And those non-violent criminals, what guarantee do we have they won't kill someone?

And you know, a high percentage of murders are committed by people with no criminal records - so we'd better not ignore THAT threat.

When you choose to say that the slightest chance of torture giving you something useful is all that matters, and that the rights of the prisoner are zero, you end up with a warped view jutifying all kinds of evil, and that's where you are, with your distorted euphamisms for waterboarding being called just 'discomfort'.

Discomfort is not having a nice mattress. Being locked up at all is far more than 'discomfort'.

Again, the simple and moral line is to say that those 'discomforts' inherent to keeping the person locked up, and to interrogating them, are ok; and actions taken to overcome the prisoners' ability to resist talking by causing sufficient pain and suffering, caused by intentional act unrelated to the security needs, are not ok.

Prisoners can laugh at you all day if they like - they're still securely locked up. And torturing them to get info is not ok.

Our criminal justice system has functioned for centures with rapists and murderers without any provision for torture to get information. It's the proper balance of security and humanity.

You are evil if you support torture. And since you want me to pay the salary of the torturers, you want my nation to say it supports this, I will make you subject to jail for doing it if I can.

Perhaps they can then interrogate you for info you *might* have on other torturers.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
I might not realize that not killing you, Palehorse, could lead to you murdering someone. So, I'd better kill you to prevent that threat.

Whenever we release a murderer from jail after they serve their sentence, they might kill again. So better imprison them all for life. In fact, for all violent criminals. And those non-violent criminals, what guarantee do we have they won't kill someone?

And you know, a high percentage of murders are committed by people with no criminal records - so we'd better not ignore THAT threat.

When you choose to say that the slightest chance of torture giving you something useful is all that matters, and that the rights of the prisoner are zero, you end up with a warped view jutifying all kinds of evil, and that's where you are, with your distorted euphamisms for waterboarding being called just 'discomfort'.

Discomfort is not having a nice mattress. Being locked up at all is far more than 'discomfort'.

Again, the simple and moral line is to say that those 'discomforts' inherent to keeping the person locked up, and to interrogating them, are ok; and actions taken to overcome the prisoners' ability to resist talking by causing sufficient pain and suffering, caused by intentional act unrelated to the security needs, are not ok.

Prisoners can laugh at you all day if they like - they're still securely locked up. And torturing them to get info is not ok.

Our criminal justice system has functioned for centures with rapists and murderers without any provision for torture to get information. It's the proper balance of security and humanity.

You are evil if you support torture. And since you want me to pay the salary of the torturers, you want my nation to say it supports this, I will make you subject to jail for doing it if I can.

Perhaps they can then interrogate you for info you *might* have on other torturers.
We simply have very different definitions of what constitutes "torture."

I'm not condoning the beating of prisoners, starvation, electric shock, or the pulling out of fingernails. Each of those are "torture" by my definition and I'd be the first in line to prosecute those who participate in such nonsense.

However, there are plenty of methods that fall way short of torture that cause enough discomfort, fear, and unpleasantness to get the job done without directly causing pain and suffering. I do support the use of such methods and do consider them to be humane.

And to me, ALL of this only applies to non-US persons caught in the GWOT. US Persons are a completely different situation, and unless WMD's are involved, I would not condone any of the interrogation methods mentioned above.

we are allowed to disagree ya know.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
This notion that torture is OK came somewhat from Alan Derworitz---who posed the fantasy case where we had a terrorist in our hands who we KNEW had already placed a bomb
that could kill thosands or millions---and said bomb could only be defused by the terrorist himself---AND GIVEN THE FANTASY FACT IN THIS SENARIO---only very LIMITED TIME remained
before the bomb went off----IN THAT TYPE EVENT IT MAY BE MORALLY PERMISSABLE TO TORTURE---to prevent the horrible distruction THAT WOULD CERTAINLY FOLLOW.

With someone like GWB---that arguement rapidly morfs into its permissable to torture if the terrorist might know something---or in the case of Abu Ghrab--where the prisoners were not terrorists--but were mostly all common criminals in for things like home buglary--it get really weird to torture those folks---because they have no usable information at all.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
With someone like GWB---that arguement rapidly morfs into its permissable to torture if the terrorist might know something---or in the case of Abu Ghrab--where the prisoners were not terrorists--but were mostly all common criminals in for things like home buglary--it get really weird to torture those folks---because they have no usable information at all.
FYI, fact: President Bush and actual interrogators had nothing to do with the ignorant stupid sh*t that happened at Abu Ghraib.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
With someone like GWB---that arguement rapidly morfs into its permissable to torture if the terrorist might know something---or in the case of Abu Ghrab--where the prisoners were not terrorists--but were mostly all common criminals in for things like home buglary--it get really weird to torture those folks---because they have no usable information at all.
FYI, fact: President Bush and actual interrogators had nothing to do with the ignorant stupid sh*t that happened at Abu Ghraib.
Please stop spreading this tripe, they did so.

Link

"For most of the time that Jamadi was being interrogated at Abu Ghraib, there were only two people in the room with him. One was an Arabic-speaking translator for the C.I.A. working on a private contract, who has been identified in military-court papers only as ?Clint C.? He was given immunity against criminal prosecution in exchange for his coöperation. The other person was Mark Swanner.

In the spring of 2004, the fact of pervasive prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib became public, on ?60 Minutes II? and in a series of articles in these pages by Seymour M. Hersh. Photographs, taken by U.S. soldiers, that showed Iraqi prisoners being hooded, sexually humiliated, and threatened with dogs were published around the world. One of the most harrowing images was of Jamadi?s severely battered corpse, which had been wrapped in plastic and put on ice; he became known in the media as the Ice Man. "
 

forfor

Senior member
Jul 7, 2006
390
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Btw, you have personally believed that we should troture, that we should continue the war in Iraq, and back of the president 99.9% of the time.. so this should come as a surprise to us ...how?
I'd also like to see our troops invade NW Pakistan.

Good, you just lost any credibility you had. This isn't 1500s when the Ottoman Turks invaded anyone that didn't simply surrender or the 1940s when the Nazis did whatever the heck they pleased. Kids at your young age really need to read a few books.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
With someone like GWB---that arguement rapidly morfs into its permissable to torture if the terrorist might know something---or in the case of Abu Ghrab--where the prisoners were not terrorists--but were mostly all common criminals in for things like home buglary--it get really weird to torture those folks---because they have no usable information at all.
FYI, fact: President Bush and actual interrogators had nothing to do with the ignorant stupid sh*t that happened at Abu Ghraib.
Please stop spreading this tripe, they did so.

Link

"For most of the time that Jamadi was being interrogated at Abu Ghraib, there were only two people in the room with him. One was an Arabic-speaking translator for the C.I.A. working on a private contract, who has been identified in military-court papers only as ?Clint C.? He was given immunity against criminal prosecution in exchange for his coöperation. The other person was Mark Swanner.

In the spring of 2004, the fact of pervasive prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib became public, on ?60 Minutes II? and in a series of articles in these pages by Seymour M. Hersh. Photographs, taken by U.S. soldiers, that showed Iraqi prisoners being hooded, sexually humiliated, and threatened with dogs were published around the world. One of the most harrowing images was of Jamadi?s severely battered corpse, which had been wrapped in plastic and put on ice; he became known in the media as the Ice Man. "
i meant the incidents involving the infamous photos of humiliation which is what I believe Lemon was referring to, not the Swanner incident. Because it is a fact that interrogators had nothing to do with the MP's and their perverted games and photos. In fact, Army interrogators reported and documented those abuses just as they were trained to do.

perhaps i was mistaken and he was referring to both incidents...?
 

forfor

Senior member
Jul 7, 2006
390
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74

We simply have very different definitions of what constitutes "torture."
Is this really your only argument? You have posted this line, one way or another, in response to every counter-post that you do not agree with but with no rationale whatsoever. Please grow up. Did you ever serve in the army? If yes, where, when, and what unit? Better yet, this discomfort you speak of, do you still believe its discomfort after 2 years? 3? 4? 5? Have you ever slept on a hard floor for more than a day?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,133
1
0
Again guys, The point is that he is pre-pardoning himself and his administration. If he is to put others on trial for crimes, then he should be willing to be held to those same standards, guilty or not....

This is not about torture.. this about pre-pardoning of war crimes in case someone eventually holds him and his administration accountable for all they have done.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Well, this sounds like an editorial piece (using terms like Republican Stooges etc), rather than a serious analytical piece.

I think peeps should see the relevant portions of the legislation b4 getting too worked up.

I have doubts about this guy's analysis. He says "Bush is pardoning himself", yet it is a bill before Congress. So Bush isn't pardoning himself, Congress would be pardoning him. Further, and we went thriough this a little while ago in another thread, the Constitution reserves the right to pardon to the President only. Congress doesn't have the right to pardon. So, at this point his analysis doesn't make much sense. Will be looking forward to seeing relevant portions of the actual bill.

Fern
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: forfor
Originally posted by: palehorse74

We simply have very different definitions of what constitutes "torture."
Is this really your only argument? You have posted this line, one way or another, in response to every counter-post that you do not agree with but with no rationale whatsoever. Please grow up. Did you ever serve in the army? If yes, where, when, and what unit? Better yet, this discomfort you speak of, do you still believe its discomfort after 2 years? 3? 4? 5? Have you ever slept on a hard floor for more than a day?
It may not be the most profound argument, but it still remains my response to our difference of opinion. I honestly define "torture" differently than you do, and I do not see the new Detainee Bill as a license to torture. In fact, I'm very grateful that there are finally specific guidelines for interrogation methods. this eliminates the need for every interrogator to interpret the GC's himself, and that's a good thing for anyone involved; detainees and interrogators alike.

And yes, I have served in the Army for over 10 years now...and counting.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY