CIA torture directives

[taks]

Then maybe that is the point of the whole thing.

i would doubt that. during the inquisition, yes, but not so much now. there are obviously some who think that such methods work - right or wrong, plus some that are simply sadistic (particularly the ones that do "real torture" as the US defines it).

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Please, how else is Jack Bauer going to save the world?

I missed my one liner, you bastard. It's funny how Fox thinks they are being controversial, and in reality Jack Bauer has turned into caricature of himself. I still remember when that show was good.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Gorgon

[Gorgon]

Then maybe that is the point of the whole thing.

i would doubt that. during the inquisition, yes, but not so much now. there are obviously some who think that such methods work - right or wrong, plus some that are simply sadistic (particularly the ones that do "real torture" as the US defines it).

 

taks

I dunno, I think those people in government who sanction torture, whether we are talking torture light, or torture decaff, should undergo two week course on the receiving end. McCain at least was consistent in saying torture is torture and governments shouldn't do it, he didn't have any trouble with the definitions either.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Gorgon

[Trenitay]

That's right, they're rabid dogs, and need to be dealt with accordingly.

 

No people I know torture dogs. Not even rabid ones.

[Wrath of Dagon]

As usual you miss the point.

[taks]

I dunno, I think those people in government who sanction torture, whether we are talking torture light, or torture decaff, should undergo two week course on the receiving end. McCain at least was consistent in saying torture is torture and governments shouldn't do it, he didn't have any trouble with the definitions either.

that wasn't my point, i.e., i wasn't commenting on whether or not it was right or wrong or how it was defined.

 

rostere was saying that maybe the point was simply to get recipients to say whatever the torturers want them to say, which would presumably serve some propaganda tool. during the inquisition, my example, heretics were tortured in order to terrorize masses into behaviors the church found acceptable (i'm sure there was plenty of sadism, too). to that end, they used torture for propaganda. i don't think that's why it is used by and large now, however, though the threat of torture is probably used in lieu of torture itself rather often "we'll send you over to syria, how about that!" i wouln't doubt, however, if the more egregious abusers, such as saddam's iraq, were using it as a propaganda too to frighten their people, but certainly not the US or similarly "civilized" countries. those, i argued, mostly want information and probably believe it is trustworthy, whether it is or not.

 

taks

[Trenitay]

As usual you miss the point

 

No, it's just that your metaphor doesn't make sense. Maybe you should try another one. But there isn't really a sensible metaphor to explain torture is there?

[Gorgon]

Well yes, we, the 'civilized' ,whatever that means, don't use torture as a means of repression. I was just making an interjection that we should not tolerate it's use in the name of national security either.

[kirottu]

As usual you miss the point

 

No, it's just that your metaphor doesn't make sense. Maybe you should try another one. But there isn't really a sensible metaphor to explain torture is there?

 

Or is there?

 

[Gorgon]

I'm pretty sure it don't count if you enjoy it.

[kirottu]

Or does it?

[Wrath of Dagon]

As usual you miss the point

 

No, it's just that your metaphor doesn't make sense. Maybe you should try another one. But there isn't really a sensible metaphor to explain torture is there?

No, it's just that you didn't understand the metaphor. The point was that terrorists don't need to be treated as human beings, not that dogs should be tortured. Terrorists are in fact much worse than rabid dogs, since dogs aren't responsible for their own actions, as they aren't sentient.

[Rostere]

Then maybe that is the point of the whole thing.

i would doubt that. during the inquisition, yes, but not so much now. there are obviously some who think that such methods work - right or wrong, plus some that are simply sadistic (particularly the ones that do "real torture" as the US defines it).

 

taks

 

I'm not so sure myself. If someone for some reason wants to be able to enforce laws and do things the public would otherwise be lax to accept, it would be to his advantage if he could just pull terrorist plots out of a wizard's (torturer's?) hat. Now, since I am not entirely sure if you really get news reportings on "terrorist plot thwarted" terrorist act planned" et.c. since I don't watch American news channels, but if you do and at the same time have about a hundred guys being detained in some sort of terror camp where they are tortured to reveal information, I would be questioning those reports.

 

I do not believe there is any significant amount of people who would torture anyone because they are sadistic. I think their reasons are just ignorance, perhaps some kind of violence- glorifying naivity.

 

This whole thing is so absurd I almost can't relate to it. It's like some kind of bad joke. How the **** could this happen? Let's see.... in which countries does torture exist as a method of interrogation? North Korea and the US? lolwut?

Edited April 21, 2009 by Rostere

[taks]

I do not believe there is any significant amount of people who would torture anyone because they are sadistic.

significant, no, but does it happen, yes. saddam's two sons, apparently, did it out of sadism. maybe they were also pushing the propaganda issue, dunno.

 

in which countries does torture exist as a method of interrogation? North Korea and the US? lolwut?

many, many more than that. the US is the only one that outright admitted to it, probably because it got leaked. and keep in mind, they didn't admit to torture per se, but smoothed it over a bit.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

As usual you miss the point

 

No, it's just that your metaphor doesn't make sense. Maybe you should try another one. But there isn't really a sensible metaphor to explain torture is there?

No, it's just that you didn't understand the metaphor. The point was that terrorists don't need to be treated as human beings, not that dogs should be tortured. Terrorists are in fact much worse than rabid dogs, since dogs aren't responsible for their own actions, as they aren't sentient.

 

You are the one who is missing the point, because you are looking at this stuff as a black and white scenario. You see these terrorists as pure evil and the CIA as pure angels. There is no such thing. These people weren't born with horns and a dynamite jacket. They were led down a terrible path. Our goal should be eliminating that path so others don't follow, torture doesn't achieve that in any way.

[Rostere]

I do not believe there is any significant amount of people who would torture anyone because they are sadistic.

significant, no, but does it happen, yes. saddam's two sons, apparently, did it out of sadism. maybe they were also pushing the propaganda issue, dunno.

 

Once again, I doubt they did anything out of sadism. I do not in any way mean to excuse their use of torture, rather the opposite, but "sadism" is a word I feel should be used with caution. It is not about the use of excessive force, but something deeply psychological.

 

in which countries does torture exist as a method of interrogation? North Korea and the US? lolwut?

many, many more than that. the US is the only one that outright admitted to it, probably because it got leaked. and keep in mind, they didn't admit to torture per se, but smoothed it over a bit.

 

You are right, but I think you got the point.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You are the one who is missing the point, because you are looking at this stuff as a black and white scenario. You see these terrorists as pure evil and the CIA as pure angels. There is no such thing. These people weren't born with horns and a dynamite jacket. They were led down a terrible path. Our goal should be eliminating that path so others don't follow, torture doesn't achieve that in any way.

Yes, poor little jihadists, if only they got more love as children. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

[taks]

Once again, I doubt they did anything out of sadism. I do not in any way mean to excuse their use of torture, rather the opposite, but "sadism" is a word I feel should be used with caution. It is not about the use of excessive force, but something deeply psychological.

exactly. it was a game to them. really... they (i read primarily uday) had their own personal torture chambers. these guys were sick, sick men that enjoyed torturing people. this was fairly well documented.

 

You are right, but I think you got the point.

judge napolitano over at fox had some interesting comments (5 things you should know) about the memos. if he's correct, they're pretty damning, btw.

 

taks

[Trenitay]

@Dagon

 

Do you have an ass for a mouth, because there sure is a lot of crap coming ot of there. I think your solution to this is Nuke'em and everything will be fine. A shot to the head for anyone who disagrees.

Edited April 21, 2009 by awsomeness

[mkreku]

Got to love that label "terrorist"! Just stick it to anyone and according to US laws, you're now free to torture them, kill them, rape them, etc.

 

And as usual the Fox crowd doesn't react at all. "No, it's OK, it's just a terrorist. Someone said so!".

[taks]

really... by your estimation i'm part of the fox crowd yet here i am, posting a comment about a fox news commenter that condemned the torture and expects people to be prosecuted (actually, the judge expects holder to do his job and prosecute some of the people involved).

 

drop the ideology... it only makes you look foolish in the end.

 

taks

[Trenitay]

I think by "Fox crowd" he meant those who would generally agree with the Fox network, not that you're a religous Fox who does whatever they say.

 

Of course I could be wrong about that.

[Meshugger]

You are the one who is missing the point, because you are looking at this stuff as a black and white scenario. You see these terrorists as pure evil and the CIA as pure angels. There is no such thing. These people weren't born with horns and a dynamite jacket. They were led down a terrible path. Our goal should be eliminating that path so others don't follow, torture doesn't achieve that in any way.

Yes, poor little jihadists, if only they got more love as children. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

 

Please do elaborate, where do you draw this imaginary line when people are turned into shoggoths with rabies, beyond any form of redemption. Please do it with utmost care and preferbly with a model, or a personal philosophy as you might call it, that you can apply consistantly in everyday life.

 

For example, let's say that you are a warhero and some guy kills your dog and laughs about it. You dispose of him in a most brutal way. Then we have Mustafah in Gaza, whose family has died from the Israeli mortar. He decides that every Israeli is equally guilty of his family's death, joins Hamas out of personal vengeance and kills a random Israeli military guy at a guardpost.

 

Should these people be deemed as Skeletor and throughoutly be waterboarded 100-200 times during interrogation? If so, why? If it is one or the other, please do explain.

 

Finally, is a fair trial and a fair interrogation a right, or a privilige?

Edited April 22, 2009 by Meshugger

[taks]

I think by "Fox crowd" he meant those who would generally agree with the Fox network, not that you're a religous Fox who does whatever they say.

trust me, according to mkreku, i'm part of the fox crowd.

 

the irony that one of the fox commentators had such harsh words to say about the content in the memos is... well... delicious.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

I think by "Fox crowd" he meant those who would generally agree with the Fox network, not that you're a religous Fox who does whatever they say.

trust me, according to mkreku, i'm part of the fox crowd.

 

the irony that one of the fox commentators had such harsh words to say about the content in the memos is... well... delicious.

 

taks

 

You got me intruiged. Linky?