Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- DrBombay0
Countless people have said that torture doesn't work. One article written by a questionable news source doesn't change this.
- tommyo0
Rick,
Are you just trying to be frustrating or are you really just not getting what I'm asking? I'm not talking about that article. In fact, I asked you this question before that article was even posted.
You know what, this just isn't worth my time. I'm waiving the white flag. Honestly you just lack the ability to process words. Seems like it would hinder your ability to work and live but you seem to be getting along okay so more power to you. I'm going to go do something slightly more enjoyable such as: jam black widows in my own asshole, or see if I can run fast enough into a wall so that I defy physics and can push my molecules through to the other side, or possibly, if I feel really motivated today, I might eat my desk.
- lowimpakt0
UK to set out anti-torture rules
- i should counterpoint this with - http://en.wikipedia.…lowimpakt
- DrBombay0
Standard interrogation minus torture. I didn't think I had to draw it in crayon for you.
- TheBlueOne0
"Scenario:
Detainee has information about an attack on Americans. What is an okay method to get the information out of him? Lives of innocent people are on the line.Assumptions:
- The guy has information and you know it.
- He's a known terrorist."I'll try to address this like an adult, before GetRefresh starts screaming that I'm some pussy lefty or whatever gets his dick hard, but here goes:
Look, I know calling the guy a "terrorist" somehow adds a seemingly easy value judgment to the equation, like "terrorist=bad guy", so therefore that seems to pre-empt any ethical judgement for treatment, but the reality is that this is not a new question in the sphere of human conflict. Over the course of a few hundred years, humans have in fact come up with rules of conduct for exactly these situations. I can very easily change a few words here:
"Captured enemy soldier has information about an attack on Your Army. What is an okay method to get the information out of him? Lives of innocent people are on the line. Assumptions: 1) The guy has information and you know it. 2) He's a known soldier."
This scenario has been played out thousands of times over the last couple of centuries, and after much experience and deliberation and the use torture has been mainly officially frowned upon, primarily because of three reasons: 1) You want your own captured soldiers treated with respect, 2) torture generally has proven to not provide consistently true or useful answers 3) the timeliness of the information is usually not worth effort. (The guys buddies know he was captured, know he has information, and adjust their plans accordingly in case he reveals any information)
Now, note I said "officially frowned upon". It's damn certain that torture has been used in every major conflict in the last 100 years at least, but every side. Part of it is human nature (revenge impulse) or as legitimate attempt to get useful information. The fact that it's use to gain information has never seemed important enough to seek to overturn the rules about treatment of prisoners of war should tell you it's true, considered value as a tactic of information gathering. Meaning, in the conduct of war, if information extraction via torture were truly that useful and valuable, no one would place a higher value on ensuring the proper treatment of captured prisoners. But the value and actions of proper treatment is placed higher in nearly all militaries across the world and across time.
The point here really, is that, as I said shit happens in war - even torture - but no one ever laid out a legal case and official policy to make the use of torture legally justifiable - against the laws of war, against signed and binding treaties (Geneva Conventions), and SOP in military prisoners of war - until it was done under Bush.
I for one am appalled that the legal case for the use of torture in an official capacity by our government was the law of the land, against the laws, conventions and principles we hold sacred.
If you want to base your ideas on ethical treatment of people based on a TV show scenario, go ahead. I have a few centuries of war, military history and legal doctrine on my side.
- ukit0
I don't know why this is even up for debate, but giving the government the legal authority to torture anyone (U.S. citizen, non U.S. citizen) they deem a "terrorist" just seems like a really bad idea.
- Yet the "small government types" seem to be the first in line to want to give government this power...TheBlueOne
- ...go figure.TheBlueOne
- designbot0
(starting typing for TBO's post....eh well some redundant info)
I read some very interesting information on what techniques (under the Bush Admin) were used to get information out of the detained. Along with other info that was straight-up leaked. I think most people would be horrified if they knew half of what went on. When the US uses "black sites" in other countries with no laws against torturing (like Egypt) to detain supposed "terrorists" you know it can't be good. Factor in that they were able to hold the detained indefinitely and without access to a fair trial, and you are really throwing the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions in the trash can among other strict code of ethics that the US has promised to adhere to. Another thing to consider when folding to the mindset of "screw them, they are terrorists" is that there were plenty of completely innocent people being detained at Guantanamo and other sites. So I think it's important to ask the "what if..." question in regards to folks that might be completely innocent. I don't think anyone would be for torturing innocent detainees.
- I don't know enough about the top half of this. But I completely agree with you on the bottom half.tommyo
- ********0
^ He has NO answer.
- tommyo0
TBO,
Go back and reread what I asked without attaching some sort of motive to my question. Obviously you've done so in this case. Terrorist, captured soldier, call it whatever the fuck you want, I was only using the term that I used because it seems applicable in the issue of Guantanamo etc. I honestly don't think, from what I've read, that interrogation works, which I mentioned on the last page. I also mentioned that time sensitivity of information made the practice of interrogation almost completely useless, imo. How you extrapolate that I'm basing anything on 'a TV scenario' is ludicrous to say the least. Go re read and then I expect an apology and an autographed picture in my mailbox by the end of the week.
Not to mention that Rick's evasiveness in answering a simple question made me filter the fucking thing down into the most simplest of scenarios for him to answer, which, honestly, makes me feel like an idiot in the first place. So with all due respect, gfy with that post ^^ there.
- My bad then, what EXACTLY is your question then?TheBlueOne
- Who really fucking cares anymore. I'm done for a while.tommyo
- I think I heard this was a scenario on "24".DrBombay
- ********0
... and furthermore...
mg33 wrote: Has anyone seen these Dick Cheney interviews on Fox this week? I've only read about them, but good God that imbecile has some nerve to be afraid of Obama's "devastating economic policies" when Bush and Cheney just destroyed everything in one big eight year swoop.mg33, Obama will triple what Bush did by the time he's through. And, someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Obama ALREADY effectively "doubled down" on what Bush spent, in his first 100 days?
- i believe the numbers to be more than double when viewed in 'the long run' scenarioPonyBoy
- designbot0
I agree ukit. The devil is in the details....or in this case, in the definition.
This is exactly why many people were in an uproar after the recent announcement to add "Right Wing Extremists" to the list of people to watch by the Department of Homeland Security.
It's completely open to interpretation.
- PonyBoy0
^^napolitano didn't leave that open to interpretation though... she came back out the next day - attempted to apologize for not being clear - then proceeded to use 'Tim McVeigh' as her reason for attaching vets to her 'report'...
... she needs to go... and fast.
This is the woman who said 'Show me a 50' fence and I'll show you a 51' ladder' in response to setting up border-crossing deterrent
- TheBlueOne0
Is this your question?
"All I'm asking is, what would you do? What's an okay form of interrogation for you?"
Then we're arguing apples and oranges. Us "lefty" *cough cough* types are arguing that making the use of torture officially stated policy by the government is unethical and illegal. And for all the reasons I stated in my above post. I also gave the caveat that torture does in fact happen. I'm primarily taking issue with GetRefresh's moronic concept that those who made the use of torture official policy of the United States of America shouldn't be held accountable for violating long established signed treaties, conventions and military law.
Now, in the heat of the moment of ""All I'm asking is, what would you do? What's an okay form of interrogation for you?" if I was operating under the idea that I could ACTUALLY extract useful information from the individual in a time frame in which that information would in fact save lives? Well I'd put bamboo shoots up the motherfuckers ass faster than you could spell "Dick Cheney". But most intelligence and military professionals rarely come across such a scenario and secondly I would have severe reservations about if the information I extracted was both truthful and actionable.
- TheBlueOne0
You know, I'm really, really fucking tired of this thread as well.
- I've been pretty busy actually working at work to spend too much time here....crazy eh :)designbot
- PonyBoy0
as far as waterboarding... naked man-stacking... threatening to toss a 'scary' insect into a confined space with you...
... lol...
... that's not torture - that's 'brotherly love' - anyone growing up w/3 brothers knows what I'm saying. :)- eh. sounds like your family was fucked up.lowimpakt
- Geneva Conventions calls it "torture," PonyBoy calls it his "his childhood":)ukit
- "naked man-stacking"? With your brothers?
*creeps outTheBlueOne - you should have been a terrorist, kev. you could relive your childhood!DrBombay
- ukit0
LOL @ I'd put bamboo shoots up the motherfuckers ass faster than you could spell "Dick Cheney".
- ...faster than you could spell "Colon Bowel" :Pdesignbot
- zing!TheBlueOne
- DrBombay0
It seems I am here to aggravate tommy to the point of frustration and then TBO pierces right between his shoulder blades. For the record, there is no collusion between TBO and I.
- ukit0
This shows you how quickly and easily that kind of power will be abused once you give it to the government...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/s…
"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.
"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."
"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.
A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.
- TheBlueOne0
And since we're talking terrorists, let me mention al Shabab. It won't be the first time you hear about them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB…
&
- IRNlun60
There is a strong possibility that there may be an investigation and possible prosecution of senior Bush Administration officials regarding torture policy of enemy combatants.
I wonder what Cheney's intention are when defending these interrogation methods in public. Especially since he may very well be investigated and prosecuted. If in fact there is a prosecution, isn't he tainting the jury pool by publicly defending his position?
This may not be the case but he's been quiet for so long on so many important issues that I find it interesting that he is so vocal on this subject.