The moral bankruptcy of the torture apologists
- 04-26-2009, 07:24 AM
The moral bankruptcy of the torture apologists
Ray McGovern, former senior analyst at the CIA, discusses the emotional aversion CIA agents developed for their own torture tactics, the moral bankruptcy of torture apologists, the barriers to an effective Senate Intelligence Committee torture investigation and the reemergence of long time cover-up artist Warren Rudman.
Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years, from the John F. Kennedy administration to that of George H. W. Bush. His articles appear on Consortium News and Antiwar.com.
- 05-02-2009, 07:23 AM
05-02-2009, 07:45 PM
Torture is useful. We play by the rules, they dont, and we are painfully inept because of it. Its like asking us to fight a humane and moral war. Its impossible because of the nature of it.
Douchebags who grow up and learn that words can be used to get out of anything think this is somehow the way the world works outside the US. Idealistic, naive, hilariously inept.
05-02-2009, 07:58 PM
heck, if china or mexico captures them they'd get worse treatment. have you seen the jails and lack of food in those places? and that's not even their torture chambers. i say we show them just as much mercy as they would show our civilians. if they don't like it, play by the frikken rules.
its the same issue we have in iraq. the terrorists dress like civilians and then bitch when civilians die. its not my fault they're too pansy to dress in uniforms like we do. if they're content dressing like a civilian, then they share as much blame as we do when innocents die. pity how they're so quick to point the finger at the "infidels".
could you imagine if WE fought like that? took thousands of random iraqi's and used them as human shields for our forces, and blaming them for killing the targets that we provided? its the lack of intelligence of terrorists that allow them to have a lopsided view of reality and find reasons to complain for their own incompetence.
05-03-2009, 12:24 AM
If the US threw the moral constrictions we use off and fought without compassion or mercy, the Iraq would be secure in a week.
05-03-2009, 01:07 AM
05-03-2009, 02:27 AM
really guys? i am as conservative as anyone here but i believe as the U.S., the leader of world power and freedom we HAVE THE RESPONSIBILTY to act in a manner ABOVE the terrorists and treat our prisoners with the dignity we expect our POW's to be treated with. I mean honestly if we don't follow our moral code and the Geneva Convention who will?
05-03-2009, 09:35 AM
05-03-2009, 09:50 AM
According to this article http://rainmaker.newsvine.mobi/_news...y-if-necessary House Judiciary Committee member Jerry Nadler said:
"There can't be a compromise -- you have to follow the law. If the facts say that some former high-ranking official should be prosecuted, the fact people will get angry should be irrelevant. (...) If we do not investigate the torture that is clear that it occured, and if the evidence is there prosecute, not only are we disobeying the law, not only are we being immoral, but we are inviting torture of our people in the future."
Worse than that, I'd say. There is even more at stake than this. You risk a future in which the American Way is defined by "the right to torture, rendition and pursuit of terrorism".
Since it's the right wing that has become so zealous in their defense of torture they are not only defining their party by the support for torture, but trying to define American identity by support for torture example: http://wharrison55.newsvine.com/_new...ump-our-safety
In other words they are saying:
"We are the party that tortures. If any of us were in a position in which we were called upon to torture someone - anyone - we would do it. If you were a suspect of terrorism, I would gladly torture you. We also consider anyone willing to do less than that a breach in the US defense system."
By pulling the 9/11 and the "ticking bomb scenario" torture apologists effectively draw a picture in which "the safety of America" is unthinkable without torture. USA rests on the pillars of torture. Torture, it has been argued, has been applied by American forces in several conflicts from Second World War to Vietnam, and now in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I read an interesting piece on this called :
The Uncertainty Principle of Torture
"To be very technical about it: For someone to torture another to gain crucial information there has to be a level of ignorance proportional to the the importance of the information, an information gap we could refer to as "The Uncertainty Gap".
Since you do not hold the desired information, you can only assume that the victim does. This means there is, in the best case, an abstract 50/50 percent chance you are torturing for no good reason.
In the worst case, which due to human nature and the particularly paranoid setting is the more likely, the success ratio of torture will quickly grow infinitely small. The more fearful you are, the more "ticking bomb scenarios" you will find, and the more people you will torture on less and less suspicious activity.
The less we know, the more we torture. The more actual intelligence you have, the less you need to torture. And, reversely, the frequency and intensity of the use of torture reveals the level of desperation when comes to obtaining intelligence.
In other words, the uncertainty gap tends to explode. It is highly volatile matter. "
You guys heard of Vine Deloria Jr., the Native American attorney and activist? He used to say, Native Americans laugh themselves sick when they hear people talk of our respect for the rule of law.
05-03-2009, 03:28 PM
I disagreed with basically everything that interview said, but there is one thing in it that highlighted the difference in my opinion and the liberal talking points.
The guy said:
"Torture is implicitly wrong."
Would you disagree with the statement:
"Murder is implicitly wrong."
What if I was to tell you that the guy had a gun and had already killed 10 innocent people and was heading into an elementary school. Would killing the guy at that point be wrong?
Murder and torture are both force, pure and simple. Using force to defend against force is not wrong. INITIATING force is whats wrong.
I think very few people would not torture if it could save the lives of those people they love.
All this being said, the key thing with torture, is that it should be used in only the most necessary of circumstances and never by the United States government against United States citizens. The constitution is cut and dry about due process for US citizens and I support the constitution in its entirety.
05-04-2009, 01:04 AM
"Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
"Article 44. -Combatants and prisoners of war
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.
2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
(a) During each military engagement, and
(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed."
Now, as I said: these individuals are covered under the provisions pursuant to or equal to the articles III, IV and V of the Geneva Conventions. "Unlawful combatants" is a bull**** term, made up to torture detainees. Case closed. "
05-04-2009, 01:40 AM
I dont give two ****s about goat herder turned terrorist Akmed. You cant negociate, talk to, or ask these people for help. Its naive and idealistic to think our "justice" and "laws" keep us honest and help. To what end even? We are the only ones playing by the rules. To kill a monster, you have to be a monster.
05-04-2009, 09:56 AM
Conservatives are all too eager to put the screws to anyone and everyone they think might have information about 'terrorist activities', and in the process run the risk of creating as many terrorists as they catch. Liberals are too eager to define any and every interrogation technique that involves discomfort as 'torture' and to ignore the key issue of whether or not valuable information has been uncovered.
All told the conservative side of this debate disgusts me the most. The liberals are just clueless, the conservatives are displaying their most ignorant and viscious stripes. You'd better start caring about some "goat herder turned terrorist," because not only is your characterization of the enemy off the point, stereotypically wrong, and ignorant beyond belief, understanding the enemy is the first step toward defeating them.
05-04-2009, 10:02 AM
My solution to terrorism.
Costs a dramtic amount less, problem solved.
End flimsy immigration from less than favorable countries. The only reason we let them come is because of their oil. Once we suck it dry, they go bye bye anyways. Back to lopping each others heads off in the desert once again.
If people over there werent so damn stubborn and stupid, we wouldnt have our own problems. My sister's friend went to Pakistan and told us that the most popular show over there is Jerry Springer.
05-04-2009, 10:09 AM
Interrogation techniques should be allowed to be used along with some that are labeled as torture. On one end people are too willing to go down the torture path with giving way to lesser solutions and defining when and how these techniques are to be used and by whom. On the other, people are too damn concerned with anything that could be said to be torture.
There is a solution in the middle but both sides are too up in arms to even consider giving it a try it seems.
05-04-2009, 10:13 AM
We have a democratic house, senate, and white house. Its no secret which way is going to win. We will write the terrorists a letter telling them how angry we are and we will sanction their food down from 3 meals a day, to 2.5. Theyll listen.
With how concerned we are with civilian deaths and whatnot like that, thats how the terrorists are plotting to beat us. Through the media.
OMG THE US SLAUGHTERED 30 CIVILIANS, when in fact they were a terrorist group using a building as a haven and 2 other people were killed in a bombing.
They think its hilarious. If you want to apply morality to anything relating to war, youre a naive idealistic jackass.
05-04-2009, 10:14 AM
Oh lord... can we get ONE post with out a copy and paste, or a link to other bull**** words? PLEASE... I am sure we can get Kramer to put a nice little icon award under your name... proving you are a useful addition to the forums.
I love how compassion is a one way street... ie... somehow a few members around here seem to think every problem in this world is America's fault. Constantly spewing American hate speech, but then has the audacity to turn around and call anyone with different ideals as hateful.
Hippocracy in its finest.. the Audacity of hope my friend.. the Audacity of hope.
The Historic PES Legend
05-04-2009, 10:18 AM
05-04-2009, 10:20 AM
I completely disagree. Morality is definitely needed in war.They think its hilarious. If you want to apply morality to anything relating to war, youre a naive idealistic jackass.
05-04-2009, 10:41 AM
Of course the crowd that constantly cries "you're blaming America!" would like to think that none of our policy decision could ever, even in the slightest and most remote possibility, ever have blow back or negative consequences for us. No no. When Middle Easterners do anything and everything from speaking out against American policy to attacking us outright, it's because they're nutter goat herders. They couldn't possibly have a legitimate gripe about how our past and current interventionist policies have worked to help make their lives a living hell or caused them personal pain.
Nah, they're just clueless and evil, and we have to kill them and pull their finger nails out and stuff. And we are nothing but great and our actions produce nothing but good for the entire planet. We **** rainbows here. People should be happy to be killed by our bombs as we bring them freedom, providing of course we avoid killing them and/or their family in the process, or avoid destroying their infrastructure and sending their economy into the tank. Gee, the world is so simple, it's almost enjoyable.
05-04-2009, 10:49 AM
For as much bitching as the Arab world does about our treatment of prisoners and acts dont by our intelligence agencies, why dont they look in the mirror?
Treatment of prisoners is so minor compared to the other reasons the arabs hate us.
05-04-2009, 11:15 AM
.Do you understand the concept of war? Systematic, relentless extermination. Ethics applied means you just slow yourselves down and add rep tape to make a fighting force more inept. We are taking a beating for the sake of trying to fight a "humane" war
Nah, just served my country in the Army because of the GI Bill and later became a cop for the pay... No clue to the function of anything that requires protecting...
05-04-2009, 11:17 AM
Apparently not but I do understand the concept of a slaughter and of innocents.Do you understand the concept of war? Systematic, relentless extermination.
05-04-2009, 11:21 AM
No, that's the definition of genocide.Do you understand the concept of war? Systematic, relentless extermination.
Yeah, we should be looking to up the count of dead civilians. That will solve all our problems... Until one of their relatives runs into NY club with an explosive belt on.Ethics applied means you just slow yourselves down and add rep tape to make a fighting force more inept. We are taking a beating for the sake of trying to fight a "humane" war.
05-04-2009, 11:23 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By BeatNec in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 1Last Post: 03-05-2006, 05:16 AM
- By sicosico in forum General ChatReplies: 3Last Post: 04-14-2005, 08:31 PM
- By WiNgS in forum General ChatReplies: 23Last Post: 01-06-2004, 05:58 PM