US tortures

[BruceVC]

 

This is very true but the more important point is that that we don't want a world without the USA and its Western ideology

 

Imagine living like  the Chinese or following the doctrines of Russia or the Middle East....it would be depressing

have you been to china or the middle east or are your horror stories from the "news?"

 

Though to be clear, living in a world without the US is not something I want, I don't know if your ignorant dismissal of the rest of the world is the way I'd go about expressing it.

 

 

Yes I have travelled extensively through the ME for work, its not a bad place but its not a Democracy. And that's my point, most Westerners would not  want to live under such political system

[Leferd]

Former CIA officials (including Directors George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden) wrote a rebuttal:

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644

 

They also launched a website: http://www.ciasavedlives.com/

 

I've been cavalier with opinions regarding Enhanced Interrogation Techniques/Torture but am generally very much against its use. There's much to criticize about the CIA and their...colorful...history, but I am a proponent of the CIA and their importance to national security and I agree that this was a shoddy and highly partisan attack against the agency.

 

 

 

 

[Guard Dog]

Former CIA officials (including Directors George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden) wrote a rebuttal:

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644

 

They also launched a website: http://www.ciasavedlives.com/

 

I've been cavalier with opinions regarding Enhanced Interrogation Techniques/Torture but am generally very much against its use. There's much to criticize about the CIA and their...colorful...history, but I am a proponent of the CIA and their importance to national security and I agree that this was a shoddy and highly partisan attack against the agency.

Ditto. Although maybe I'm becoming more jaded in my old age. I really can't seem to rile up any strong emotions over a story like this. I guess when it comes to governments my expectations of them are so low when something like this comes to light I'm just not surprised. 

[Walsingham]

Apologies, but I haven't time to read the whole thread before posting my thoughts on this.

 

1. I've been pretty consistent in condemning the use of torture - not as immoral (although I feel it is), but as pointless and counterproductive

2. I've blamed the film industry as number one reason we don't collectively grasp this. In films torture always works quickly and gets true answers

 

 

3. I reject completely the argument from some quarters that this report should not have been released for two reasons:

3a. Releasing the report is the only way the US can exorcise this ludicrous nonsense

3b. the argument against release seems to be based on the idea that it will provoke attacks.

 

IF TORTURE INCREASES ATTACKS THEN WHY THE **** WAS IT DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

4. Having said all this I think we have to be honest and admit that what was done was relatively mild torture. Relative being an operative word. But in comparison with - say being beaten daily then having your head cut off on camera - then it's very mild.

5. So let's not forget who we're fighting here.

[213374U]

4. Having said all this I think we have to be honest and admit that what was done was relatively mild torture. Relative being an operative word. But in comparison with - say being beaten daily then having your head cut off on camera - then it's very mild.

5. So let's not forget who we're fighting here.

 

Having your head cut off on camera is not torture, it's murder. So apples and oranges, chum. Beatings have been a common occurrence at gitmo as reported by former prisoners. And I see your live decapitations and raise you a few hundred lucky winners blown to bits by drone strikes. Yeah, let's not forget who we're talking about here.

 

Further, I cannot help but point out a sort of contradiction in what you said. If torture is immoral, what exactly are you trying to achieve by establishing degrees of comparison between "mild*" and "harsh" torture? Is mild torture less immoral than harsh torture? Does applying only mild torture make these torturers and their enablers better in some way than whoever "we're fighting here"?

 

(Of course it does, they are our guys, and it's a simple fact of life that we are inherently better... even when committing heinous crimes. )

 

 

*Out of curiosity, where are you drawing the line for "mild" torture? Does it have to do with intent? The effects on victims? Is it about the instruments used? I'm asking because this distinction you are making is really a medieval concept that has been discarded in modern times, and currently, there is no such distinction as far as the ICC or the UN Convention against Torture are concerned:

 

 

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions

 

So, I'll ask again. What exactly are you trying to prove here?

Edited December 12, 2014 by 213374U

[Gorth]

Just a thought experiment inspired by the "living in a world without the US" bit... that would mean North America being part of the UK the same way as Northern Ireland, QE2's face would be on the dollar bills and everyone playing bad to mediocre football (since nobodys around to call it "soccer" anymore).

[pmp10]

I'm all for hyperbole but your definition can be applied to any form of imprisonment.

In fact mental suffering can stem from any kind of punishment.

 

And yes - torture that rarely leads to permanent physical damage is milder than examples historically practiced.

[213374U]

I'm all for hyperbole but your definition can be applied to any form of imprisonment.

In fact mental suffering can stem from any kind of punishment.

 

And yes - torture that rarely leads to permanent physical damage is milder than examples historically practiced.

 

No, it reasonably cannot. Unless you are thinking the kind of imprisonment or punishment that "accidentally" ends with prisoners almost drowning in a toilet, hitting themselves against the bars of their cells or being tasered "for their own protection", repeatedly. Did you even read the definition? Here, let me help you:

 

 

It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions

They aren't even my definitions, they are the accepted international legal standards for torture (which the US is a signatory of, might I add). You think they are hyperbolic? Take it up with them and explain to them how being smacked around a bit and a little waterboarding here and there never killed nobody, and that only being stretched on the rack or having your eyes gouged out with a burning piece of metal are actual torture, because they tend to leave marks.

 

In the next episode, we will discuss "mild" murder, "mild" rape, and "mild" crimes against humanity. Stay tuned!

 

 

[BruceVC]

 

I'm all for hyperbole but your definition can be applied to any form of imprisonment.

In fact mental suffering can stem from any kind of punishment.

 

And yes - torture that rarely leads to permanent physical damage is milder than examples historically practiced.

 

No, it reasonably cannot. Unless you are thinking the kind of imprisonment or punishment that "accidentally" ends with prisoners almost drowning in a toilet, hitting themselves against the bars of their cells or being tasered "for their own protection", repeatedly. Did you even read the definition? Here, let me help you:

 

 

It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions

They aren't even my definitions, they are the accepted international legal standards for torture (which the US is a signatory of, might I add). You think they are hyperbolic? Take it up with them and explain to them how being smacked around a bit and a little waterboarding here and there never killed nobody, and that only being stretched on the rack or having your eyes gouged out with a burning piece of metal are actual torture, because they tend to leave marks.

 

In the next episode, we will discuss "mild" murder, "mild" rape, and "mild" crimes against humanity. Stay tuned!

 

 

No 2133 I think you are being far too critical towards the USA

 

You do realize that this report was brought forward for public scrutiny  by the current administration because they know it was wrong

 

You are just stating the obvious. I see very few  people are giving credit to the Obama administration for being prepared to accept the inevitable condemnation that this report would bring. But they did it anyway...because they believe a true Democracy cannot condone or hide this type of behaviour

[Malcador]

4. Having said all this I think we have to be honest and admit that what was done was relatively mild torture. Relative being an operative word. But in comparison with - say being beaten daily then having your head cut off on camera - then it's very mild.

5. So let's not forget who we're fighting here.

Interesting standards you hold. Also, why does it matter that we remember who we are fighting, exactly ? Funnily enough though, terrorists are probably operating under this kind of logic as well

[BruceVC]

 

4. Having said all this I think we have to be honest and admit that what was done was relatively mild torture. Relative being an operative word. But in comparison with - say being beaten daily then having your head cut off on camera - then it's very mild.

5. So let's not forget who we're fighting here.

Interesting standards you hold. Also, why does it matter that we remember who we are fighting, exactly ? Funnily enough though, terrorists are probably operating under this kind of logic as well

 

 

Because the West faces a brutal, intransigent  and unforgiving enemy in the form of Islamic Fundamentalism. And because so many  terrorist attacks have been foiled some of you guys forget what a threat they can be

[pmp10]

You think they are hyperbolic? Take it up with them and explain to them how being smacked around a bit and a little waterboarding here and there never killed nobody, and that only being stretched on the rack or having your eyes gouged out with a burning piece of metal are actual torture, because they tend to leave marks.

I didn't say they weren't torture but that they are certainly the milder version of it.

[Kroney]

Either torture's wrong, or it isn't. Attempting to place grades or levels on torture and then trying to decide what's acceptable and what isn't is pretty shaky ethical ground, in my opinion. Applying a set of rules to warfare, which include the forbidding of torture, and then choosing to ignore those rules when it suits because it's agents and "terrorists" rather than soldiers at the very least makes a nation hypocritical.

[BruceVC]

Either torture's wrong, or it isn't. Attempting to place grades or levels on torture and then trying to decide what's acceptable and what isn't is pretty shaky ethical ground, in my opinion. Applying a set of rules to warfare, which include the forbidding of torture, and then choosing to ignore those rules when it suits because it's agents and "terrorists" rather than soldiers at the very least makes a nation hypocritical.

 

Come on Kroney you are a reasonable and intelligent person, there are different degrees of torture

 

Waterboarding is not as harsh as having hot boiling oil poured over your private parts

[Malcador]

Because the West faces a brutal, intransigent  and unforgiving enemy in the form of Islamic Fundamentalism. And because so many  terrorist attacks have been foiled some of you guys forget what a threat they can be

If your conduct is dictated by reciprocity, perhaps you should stop pretending you have standards, it's that simple. It's also pointless, the quote from GTA V that torture is for the torturer to have fun is pretty accurate thinking about it. Also, are you trying to imply torture has stopped any attacks ?

[Hurlshort]

I blame Jack Bauer for all of this.

 

 

But really, no form of torture is acceptable.  We need to take the higher ground, not lower ourselves to the levels of violent extremists.  We clearly have not been doing that, and I will be hoping and voting for change as we move forward.

[BruceVC]

 

Because the West faces a brutal, intransigent  and unforgiving enemy in the form of Islamic Fundamentalism. And because so many  terrorist attacks have been foiled some of you guys forget what a threat they can be

If your conduct is dictated by reciprocity, perhaps you should stop pretending you have standards, it's that simple. It's also pointless, the quote from GTA V that torture is for the torturer to have fun is pretty accurate thinking about it. Also, are you trying to imply torture has stopped any attacks ?

 

 

We cannot say with absolute certainty that the advanced interrogation techniques did help prevent any attacks but we also can't say they didn't, so you are  looking for a hypothetical answer

 

I think you must know this ?

[kgambit]

 

 

Because the West faces a brutal, intransigent  and unforgiving enemy in the form of Islamic Fundamentalism. And because so many  terrorist attacks have been foiled some of you guys forget what a threat they can be

If your conduct is dictated by reciprocity, perhaps you should stop pretending you have standards, it's that simple. It's also pointless, the quote from GTA V that torture is for the torturer to have fun is pretty accurate thinking about it. Also, are you trying to imply torture has stopped any attacks ?

 

 

We cannot say with absolute certainty that the advanced interrogation techniques did help prevent any attacks but we also can't say they didn't, so you are  looking for a hypothetical answer

 

I think you must know this ?

 

 

Actually I think what Malcador was saying was that if you sink to your opponents level, you've surrendered the moral high ground.  You are then no better than the people you are trying to defeat.   

 

Are you really advocating for the use of illegal and painful techniques because they might  have provided useful information?  That's awfully shaky moral ground to be standing on.

[213374U]

No 2133 I think you are being far too critical towards the USA

 

You do realize that this report was brought forward for public scrutiny  by the current administration because they know it was wrong

 

You are just stating the obvious. I see very few  people are giving credit to the Obama administration for being prepared to accept the inevitable condemnation that this report would bring. But they did it anyway...because they believe a true Democracy cannot condone or hide this type of behaviour

 

You are missing the point and conflating two different things. I was talking about the fact that there is now documental evidence that the US have been using torture routinely and Wals' factually and morally suspect comparison. The fact that this has been made public is a different matter altogether, but we can discuss it as well, if that's what you want. Who, and why has made this public? Who stands to benefit from it? Whose political career will be damaged*?

 

I find it also rather amusing that if it's the gov't doing it, it's something laudable and the result of them believing in "true democracy", but if it's Snowden or Assange... they are traitors that must be hunted down, tried and convicted. Welcome to Denial. Population: You.

 

*reminder that people usually are hanged, shot or imprisoned for life for pulling this kind of thing. In this case, I doubt we'll even see criminal charges being filed.

 

 

 

 

You think they are hyperbolic? Take it up with them and explain to them how being smacked around a bit and a little waterboarding here and there never killed nobody, and that only being stretched on the rack or having your eyes gouged out with a burning piece of metal are actual torture, because they tend to leave marks.

I didn't say they weren't torture but that they are certainly the milder version of it.

 

Right, I'll bite. What are you basing this opinion on? Have you experienced both versions of torture so you have an informed opinion on the severity of different tortures? Are you a mental health specialist whose field of research is torture? I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong here, but I'm going to need something substantial; I'm not trying to antagonize you. I'm simply going from an internationally accepted standard that accepts no qualifications. Do you have something to challenge that?

 

 

 

 

We cannot say with absolute certainty that the advanced interrogation techniques did help prevent any attacks but we also can't say they didn't, so you are  looking for a hypothetical answer

 

I think you must know this ?

 

Please, call a spade a spade. Do you have any evidence that *torture* helped prevent any attacks? Or you just support a policy of doing random, stupid **** and hope for results, without review?

Edited December 12, 2014 by 213374U

[Nonek]

Is that People Inhabiting Germanic Settlements from Saberhagen I think? Of Pigs and Men?

[Kroney]

 

Either torture's wrong, or it isn't. Attempting to place grades or levels on torture and then trying to decide what's acceptable and what isn't is pretty shaky ethical ground, in my opinion. Applying a set of rules to warfare, which include the forbidding of torture, and then choosing to ignore those rules when it suits because it's agents and "terrorists" rather than soldiers at the very least makes a nation hypocritical.

 

Come on Kroney you are a reasonable and intelligent person, there are different degrees of torture

 

Waterboarding is not as harsh as having hot boiling oil poured over your private parts

 

 

^^^ shaky ethical ground ^^^

[Drowsy Emperor]

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised. A country trying for a century to achieve world supremacy has secret dungeons to torture its enemies? Its like wondering how come that  Caesar of "civilized" Rome brought Vercengetorix on a leash to show him around. To even ask the question shows how little the questioner knows of Rome.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[Gorgon]

Apologies, but I haven't time to read the whole thread before posting my thoughts on this.

 

1. I've been pretty consistent in condemning the use of torture - not as immoral (although I feel it is), but as pointless and counterproductive

2. I've blamed the film industry as number one reason we don't collectively grasp this. In films torture always works quickly and gets true answers

 

 

3. I reject completely the argument from some quarters that this report should not have been released for two reasons:

3a. Releasing the report is the only way the US can exorcise this ludicrous nonsense

3b. the argument against release seems to be based on the idea that it will provoke attacks.

 

IF TORTURE INCREASES ATTACKS THEN WHY THE **** WAS IT DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

4. Having said all this I think we have to be honest and admit that what was done was relatively mild torture. Relative being an operative word. But in comparison with - say being beaten daily then having your head cut off on camera - then it's very mild.

5. So let's not forget who we're fighting here.

I'm not sure I would classify sleep deprivation as torture. Pretty standard interogation technique actually.

 

 Waterboarding, rape with a broomhandle, the threat of rape or violence against family members, rectal dehydration (whatever that is it's got to be nasty) Those things are definitely not 'mild'.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

4. Having said all this I think we have to be honest and admit that what was done was relatively mild torture. Relative being an operative word. But in comparison with - say being beaten daily then having your head cut off on camera - then it's very mild.

5. So let's not forget who we're fighting here.

Interesting standards you hold. Also, why does it matter that we remember who we are fighting, exactly ? Funnily enough though, terrorists are probably operating under this kind of logic as well

 

 

Because the West faces a brutal, intransigent  and unforgiving enemy in the form of Islamic Fundamentalism. And because so many  terrorist attacks have been foiled some of you guys forget what a threat they can be

 

 

The west only faces this specter because it allows itself to be ruled be people with an insatiable appetite for resources in other people's backyards.

 

There has been zero evidence ever presented that a any 'terrorist' attacks have been foiled in modern times. Not one time, let alone many.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

Either torture's wrong, or it isn't. Attempting to place grades or levels on torture and then trying to decide what's acceptable and what isn't is pretty shaky ethical ground, in my opinion. Applying a set of rules to warfare, which include the forbidding of torture, and then choosing to ignore those rules when it suits because it's agents and "terrorists" rather than soldiers at the very least makes a nation hypocritical.

 

Come on Kroney you are a reasonable and intelligent person, there are different degrees of torture

 

Waterboarding is not as harsh as having hot boiling oil poured over your private parts

 

 

And being raped by one man isn't as harsh as being raped by two or more. Having your stereo stolen out of your car isn't as harsh as having your car stolen. Being stabbed through the heart once isn't as harsh as being stabbed there and other places more than a dozen times.

 

It's still rape. It's still theft. It's still being killed.