Criminal Investigations of the Torturers?

[Mulletsoldier]

You're not 100% correct. They aren't snatching random folks off the street for kicks, despite what several ecent Hollywood movies have suggested, or aren't when the system is working properly

That was not my implication, but you obviously know that already. My suggestion was that, in a general sense, rendition and torture, as methods of interrogations, beg their own questions ad infinitum. The inevitable result of any method of interrogation is wrongfully accusing and/or imprisoning innocent individuals; and so, if that is inevitable of all interrogation systems, why apply a method that (a) has not been shown to be superior to others and (b) causes more harm than good in the aggregate?

Generally they rendition only high value individuals, not half-way low-life terrorists. There isn't any doubt that OBL is guilty as charged, or that he wouldn't be a wealth of life-saving knowledge about future al qaeda plans. Same for Zarqawi and hundreds more. You can't assume the CIA is operating on the assumption of guilt.

Generally is a vague blanket term, usually reserved for statements where a massive margin of error is needed to effectively convey the intended message. As in: generally, the CIA has accurate intelligence. At any rate, I don't base my opinions of rendition on assumptions, but actual case reports [when they are seldom made available]. Have you ever read the dossiers or reports on the dossiers re: the initial intelligence reports for the Iraq war? If you have not, I would certainly suggest it: they truly give an eye-opening view on how intelligence is collected in the contemporary ME region. I think a fair statement is the CIA generally performs rendition and torture on whom they think is a threat; however, the issue of question begging arises, as who they "think" necessarily depends on intelligence which has been shown, time and time again, to be faulty. And so, the inevitable result is still the circular reasoning I posited above.

 

[poison]

I'm not sure anyone here can actually judge how effective renditioning is, or how effective our intelligence in the ME is. We see .001% of what the CIA does. I'm not willing to judge based on that percentage. Everything else is assumption.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Well, it's funny, luther, that was confined to one location,

Oh right,never happened in Guantanamo or any of the secret CIA prisons:bsflag:

That's the difference. Our prisoners are treated VERY WELL, and there are very strict rules about their treatment, lapses notwithstanding. Their treatment of THEIR prisoners is one big ****ing lapse, so don't try to equate the two.

According to you they are treated VERY WELL.But:

Invalid Link Removed

"Behind the rhetoric, however, the truth is still bleak. Guantánamo may look, more than ever, like a regular U.S. prison, with half of the remaining 239 prisoners now sharing communal facilities, and others, in two maximum security blocks, allowed limited opportunities to socialize, but the prisoners held there have, for the most part, been imprisoned without charge or trial for over seven years, unlike even the most hardened convicted criminals on the U.S. mainland."

"As a result, many of the prisoners, like Muhammad Salih, the Yemeni prisoner who died on Monday, apparently by committing suicide, have resorted to hunger strikes as the only means of protesting against their arbitrary and seemingly endless imprisonment.

For these men, strapped into a restraint chair twice a day, and force-fed against their will via a tube that is thrust up their noses and into their stomachs, the prison is anything but "humane." "

See: The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 759 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison by Andy Worthington

Basing his research mostly on the Pentagon's own documents, obtained under freedom of information legislation the overwhelming case made by the book is that, amongst the great numbers of prisoners who were swept up in Afghanistan, the majority were either completely innocent men caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were unimportant foot-soldiers whose involvement in an inter-Muslim civil war both pre-dated 9/11 and had no connection with it. The treatment of these captives has been wholly disproportionate.

 

[searl12]

enough already, they cut our heads off or shoot us in the head, we rough them up the odd time....so what its still not even and its a pointless arguement, war is hell, if you cant take the reality dont read about it.

 

[CDB]

You can't equate Islamic terror in over twenty countries targeting largely innocents, to US military interventionism which does not deliberately target innocents. You may not like either, but there is a distinct difference.

Differentiate then. What's the real difference? The only difference I see is the state carries out one bunch of acts, a non state the other. Targetting innocents? Destroying water supplies and logistic routes that lead to starvation, that kind of non targetting? Applying sanctions that starve millions, that kind of non targetting? And even allowing this, why are military not considered innocents? I have a hard time believing donning the uniform of your country and swearing to defend it automatically qualifies you as evil and not worth a consideration before blowing you to hell.

Many Iraqis are very grateful to the US for ousting SAddam.

Gee, guess we shouldn't have installed him to begin with...

The problem, again, is HOW we went about it. WE went in severely under-manned, at Rumsfelds orders, and this cost us several YEARS, several thousand dead US troops, billions of dollars, and TENS OF THOUSANDS of dead Iraqis. It could easily have been much quicker and cleaner, in which case no one would be bitching. Hey, no one is hauling mass numbers of girls out of their home and raping them, or wood-chipping fathers for disagreeing with Saddam under their breaths.

I would be, because it is wrong to begin with. Arguing over the method of the war's execution is like comparing two different methods of rape. Had we followed the recomendations of the military we could give ourselves a huge thumbs up for successfully invading a sovereign nation which posed no threat to us whatsoever. Oh goody. One of the most successful tricks employed by the NeoCons is to shift argument to the method of execution of the war and to shift discussion away from the fact that it was ****ing wrong to begin with. This confuses the issue of basic policy. Rape does not become acceptable if you wear a condom. Invading a sovereign nation that posed no threat to you does not become acceptable if you limit human and equipment losses.

Iraqi's want us out, and we're slowly leaving (as quickly as possible). We would still be seen as liberators if we hadn't come in blazing, to make up for a lack of manpower, then used rogue soldiers like BlackWater to make up the initial difference. THeir behavior cost us the goodwill of the Iraqi people.

Historic myopia. We 'liberated' them from the very dictator we saddled them with decades ago. Hence the problem with NeoCon foreign policy; it relies on people not examining any history more than five minutes old. If we hadn't installed the murderous brutal ****, we wouldn't have had to come back and 'liberate' the Iraqis later. And if our current military actions make us the source of their liberation, why don't our previous actions in installing Saddam make us responsible for his murderous and brutal rule and all the people who died during his reign? You can't have it both ways. When you're ****ing a woman any time you fail to get her off or when you cum too soon is just as much on your record as when you make her scream. You don't get to just acknowledge the times she cums and ignore all the rest. This is double speak extraordinaire from the right on this issue. If we are their saviors now, we are just as legitimately responsible for their brutalization over the years at the hands of the dictator we helped install.

One intervention leads to another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. All of which serves the purpose of the policy-makers because all actions are seen as right or at least arguably justifiable in their current circumstances. Until you take a longer look at history and note that the current proposed intervention is just another in a long series of prior interventions, all of which could have been avoided if we'd have just minded our own ****ing business.

So it's not as simple as saying 'they hate us', or 'we inflame the moderates', when speaking of Iraq specifically.

Actually it is that simple, because the flip side is the irrational claim that US foreign policy can have no negative consequences. The plain reality is that in any country over there is a spectrum of ideology and feelings toward the US, and our policies over there can have no other effect but to push those on the margins either against us even further to the extremist side or to enahnce whatever support they feel. Which feeling do you honestly think is more prevelant, and thus, which will our policies help support in the end? We are in effect subsidizing hatred of the US with our actions, and as such we will get more of it.

Kosovo was NO danger to the US. We did a good thing. I don't believe in total isolationism.

I disagree. You can not do good by doing evil. What's more, where is the constitutional authority for Kosovo? I see nothing in that document giving our government the power and responsibility for policing the world. I see every reason against it; the frames did not want a standing army because they new the very presence of a standing army was an inducement to use it.

Whatever the grievances were or are, THAT is not the way to solve them. It's immoral, and counter-productive. In the case of Israel, if the Palestinians eschewed violence, marched peacefully en masses on Jerusalem, and demanded a 1 or 2 state solution, they'd have it in a month flat without a shot being fired. They know it, and Israel knows it. So why doesn't it happen? The majority don't want to live next to Jews. THey don't want peace with Jews, they want no Jews.

Not the issue. It is not our ****ing problem. Nor is it our problem or our purview to decide for them what is and is not an appropriate means of defense for the land they claim is theirs. I don't agree with their methods either but I'm not the one insisting we insert ourselves into a centuries old war where there's enough bull**** on all sides to make choosing allies a decision between which stench is less offensive. That's the problem with getting involved in foreign conflicts; by chosing sides you also chose an enemy; you really don't have a ****ing clue who is right or not, or how those stands may have changed over time. Let them fight it out and who ever is left standing, be friendly with them. The wisdom of the founders shines brightly when George Washington warned us, and I'm paraphrasing here, to "stay the **** out of foreign ****holes where we will get entangled and involved in a whole host of bull**** we don't ****ing need," or words to that effect.

They have legitimate grievances, but when they purposely target women and clubs full of high school kids, they lose every shred of legitimacy they ever had.

Why? Aren't these democracies? Aren't those people the ultimate decision makers in reality? All terrorists have done is make an honest assessment of where their limited resources are best spent for effect, and they're right. There is no legitimacy in nondefensive violence to begin with. Are you honestly suggesting rules for how to acceptably massacre people? It's okay if it's incidental to another goal like taking out a power station or something? Nonsense. That's the rhetoric of kids who think there are 'rules' to fighting and then complain when their opponent wins by kicking them in the balls.

Because they choose to use these methods, they pic the stage for the battle. They kill women and children, and hide among women and children. They use women and children as pawns to inflict damage. And it's wrong.

It's effective is what it is. And for good reason. We threaten what they hold most dear, they threaten what we hold most dear. Their mistake is in truly conflating the people and the government as one. If they'd realize their mistake there and start attacking government slugs and elected officials they'd see change real quick. As it is they target us because they are under the mistaken belief that we truly have a say in how our governments act.

The ME has been ****ed for centuries. You can't just view the present, or the last century of their history, because they sure don't. THey see the last 2000 years, and themselves as being part of it. Americans don't and can't think this way. The Muslim world spent plenty of time ****ing the West to the fullest extent of their abilities, and would never have stopped if it weren't for them getting their asses handed to them eventually. Many Muslims still feel the sting of this. What's going on now is simply a continuation of 2000 years of history. At times they won; lately, they're on a massive losing streak.

All the more reason to get and stay the **** out.

If they spent more time educating their children about more than Islam, raising them to be tolerant and kind, and less time on hate and killing, and living in the past, reliving past failures over and over, maybe they'd be winning today. If they've been taken advantage of, they can take a majority of that blame. They're not passive partners in the transaction.

Yeah, if only other people would live by your standards and rules, the world would be a better place.

There is NO justification. It's a terrible convergence of religious teachings, culture, and ignorance (as was Christianity during the Dark Ages and INquisition, the difference being Christianity pulled itself out of the ****ty hole it was in and does not condone that behavior or partake of it today).

Then why the massive difference in body counts? Or is it okay to kill innocents so long as it's the result of a UN sanction with the 'intentions' of getting rid of Saddam?

Sometimes, sometimes not. You can't make a blanket statement like that.

Yes, you can. The Constitution is there and clear on the issue, as is the surrounding rhetoric if the time in which it was ratified. If you want to ignore that document to further an ideological point then fine, most people do these days, but don't try and square your ideology with it when they are plainly at odds with each other. There is no constitutional authority to use our military to police the world.

I'm not sure anyone here can actually judge how effective renditioning is, or how effective our intelligence in the ME is. We see .001% of what the CIA does. I'm not willing to judge based on that percentage. Everything else is assumption.

My only beef with the anti torture crowd too. How the hell do we know it's ineffective? Whenever I hear people who are supposedly experts on the subject speak out against it, they always seem to qualify their criticisms to torture not being good for getting confessions. Well no ****. But what about information that's verifiable through other sources once you have it? I can see how beating someone with a rubber hose would be useless when it comes to getting him to confess to this or that crime; of course he'll confess. But there's a difference between a confession and information like what cell phone network does X Y and Z use, how do they communicate otherwise, where are their hiding spots, etc. I'm also not convinced on the water boarding issue. Is it unpleasant? Yeah, no doubt. Torture? Not sure on that one.

 

[lutherblsstt]

enough already, they cut our heads off or shoot us in the head, we rough them up the odd time....so what its still not even and its a pointless arguement, war is hell, if you cant take the reality dont read about it.

The US and other "Western" militaries/governments also also send missiles into their homes,weddings,blow up their kids,imprison and torture various members of their populace,deposit depleted uranium in their soil,station troops in their country,apply sanctions that starve millions and extract their resources .

 

[CDB]

The US and other "Western" militaries/governments also also send missiles into their homes,weddings,blow up their kids,imprison and torture various members of their populace,deposit depleted uranium in their soil,station troops in their country,apply sanctions that starve millions and extract their resources .

Yeah, but that doesn't matter because They aren't human, and even if they were, our hearts were in the right place.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Yeah, but that doesn't matter because They aren't human, and even if they were, our hearts were in the right place.

Oh that's right,never mind then,kill em all.

 

[poison]

Differentiate then. What's the real difference? The only difference I see is the state carries out one bunch of acts, a non state the other. Targetting innocents? Destroying water supplies and logistic routes that lead to starvation, that kind of non targetting? Applying sanctions that starve millions, that kind of non targetting? And even allowing this, why are military not considered innocents? I have a hard time believing donning the uniform of your country and swearing to defend it automatically qualifies you as evil and not worth a consideration before blowing you to hell.

The US isn't targeting water supplies or imposing sanctions for no reason, or for fun, or for its own benefit even. THe US imposes sanctions because someone is threatening an ally or the US itself. You can't piss on any country, and expect no reaction.

If Iran threatens the US, or France and Israel, then you can't expect sanctions to NOT take place. There's nothing immoral about stopping trade with N. Korea; yes, it means civilians die, but we're not the bad guy, we didn't threaten them. THey made the decision to piss on their civilians, and threaten us.

Military ARE considered innocents, in a way. Unless you are taking part in war crimes, you're not held responsible for fighting in war. Why? You give up your personal beliefs when you swear in to the military, and take an oath to follow all legal orders.

I would be, because it is wrong to begin with. Arguing over the method of the war's execution is like comparing two different methods of rape. Had we followed the recomendations of the military we could give ourselves a huge thumbs up for successfully invading a sovereign nation which posed no threat to us whatsoever. Oh goody. One of the most successful tricks employed by the NeoCons is to shift argument to the method of execution of the war and to shift discussion away from the fact that it was ****ing wrong to begin with. This confuses the issue of basic policy. Rape does not become acceptable if you wear a condom. Invading a sovereign nation that posed no threat to you does not become acceptable if you limit human and equipment losses.

Look: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran all are/were unfriendly to the West; all are/were trying to develop nukes, or find nukes, or otherwise dabble in activities which very well could endanger the US or our allies. Saddam hadn't been involved for quite some time, but I'm not sure he wouldn't have utilized something developed by another country. The fact is we're now down to one ME country which ma pose a threat to the WEst (down from 4, after Israel eliminated a budding Syrian nuke plant in '07). I'd call this a good thing.

See, the US didn't become involved in ME politics for no reason. Contrary to popular opinion, the US didn't have much at all to do with ISrael until the late 70's. France and Britain supplied Israel's nuke program, and Eastern Europe supplied the arms. The US became involved when the USSR began courting Arab countries more heavily and expanding their influence. The US responded by courting Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc; these countries are willing partners in the deal, as they understand the US is far more fun than the USSR, and the US, in turn, gains more than we'll ever know from the deal, including intelligence, technology, etc. Whether countering the threat from communism was necessary is a subject for another time.

We did rape Iraq, unfortunately. I'm pretty critical of the invasion and the 100k+ Iraqis it killed. The US killed more Arabs in 5 years than Israel killed in its history, with 7 wars. That's ****ed, bull****, and wrong. However, I still am on the fence as to whether the end goal was wrong, it was just the implementation which was wrong. Only history will tell. I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

Historic myopia. We 'liberated' them from the very dictator we saddled them with decades ago.

True. BUt we can't allow past indiscretions to dictate future action. WE need to learn from history, but not allow it to hinder progress (again, not implying Iraq was 'progress', necessarily, just a general statement).

Hence the problem with NeoCon foreign policy; it relies on people not examining any history more than five minutes old. If we hadn't installed the murderous brutal ****, we wouldn't have had to come back and 'liberate' the Iraqis later. And if our current military actions make us the source of their liberation, why don't our previous actions in installing Saddam make us responsible for his murderous and brutal rule and all the people who died during his reign? You can't have it both ways. When you're ****ing a woman any time you fail to get her off or when you cum too soon is just as much on your record as when you make her scream. You don't get to just acknowledge the times she cums and ignore all the rest. This is double speak extraordinaire from the right on this issue. If we are their saviors now, we are just as legitimately responsible for their brutalization over the years at the hands of the dictator we helped install.

Of course we're responsible. Absolutely. By that standard, the Iraq invasion was righting a wrong, and it comes back to botching the implementation, not the original goal being bad.

One intervention leads to another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. All of which serves the purpose of the policy-makers because all actions are seen as right or at least arguably justifiable in their current circumstances. Until you take a longer look at history and note that the current proposed intervention is just another in a long series of prior interventions, all of which could have been avoided if we'd have just minded our own ****ing business.

I'm not a libertarian, or a historian. I really don't know what a purely, consistently isolationist policy would have brought the US and the world over the last 100 years. My gut says we, and the world, would be far far poorer place if we had not gotten involved as we have. I really don't know, I'll have to think about it.

I still believe strongly that the US, on the scale of world super-powers throughout history, has done far more good, and far less bad than any other super-power; and that the US is inordinately generous with it's largesse and success.

I know it's simplistic, but I'm not one to ignore those in need, or stand by while others are harmed. Looking on as others suffer and are abused is wrong, if you have the ability to help. The question is, where do you draw the line.

Actually it is that simple, because the flip side is the irrational claim that US foreign policy can have no negative consequences. The plain reality is that in any country over there is a spectrum of ideology and feelings toward the US, and our policies over there can have no other effect but to push those on the margins either against us even further to the extremist side or to enahnce whatever support they feel. Which feeling do you honestly think is more prevelant, and thus, which will our policies help support in the end? We are in effect subsidizing hatred of the US with our actions, and as such we will get more of it.

I never made the claim about consequences. Every action has consequences, including inaction. You can't assume inaction or un-involvement is always superior. You need to take each action on a case-by-case basis. Everything else is folly.

You can't say 'we are subsidizing hatred with our actions'. A true statement would be 'some of our actions subsidize hatred', or 'our actions subsidize hatred among some people', but no action has the same effect on all people in every instance. A great many Iraqis are/were happy we ousted SAddam. They're just unhappy we ****ed it up.

If the US became isolationist, there'd still be hatred for the US. It wouldn't go away. This leads to a discussion of radical Islam, which I'd rather not enter.

I disagree. You can not do good by doing evil.

I find it a stretch to call anything we did in Kosovo 'evil'. That's like saying I'm evil for killing the armed mugger of a passersby in his defense. There is a time for everything under the sun. I'm Jewish: I'm not saddled with 'turn-the-other-cheek' teachings. I'm not religious, but in Jewish law, there are very few things (2, IIRC) you CAN'T do to save a human life. That's 616 commandments you MUST break, to save a life.

What's more, where is the constitutional authority for Kosovo? I see nothing in that document giving our government the power and responsibility for policing the world. I see every reason against it; the frames did not want a standing army because they new the very presence of a standing army was an inducement to use it.

You raise good points, re the Constitution. Random policing is one thing; watching others suffer because it's 'not our problem' is another; and not getting involved when it is in our countries best interest, because it's against the Constitution, is something else too. There are a lot of grey areas there, and I'm no lawyer. I believe the Constitution has been pissed on, yes, but I also believe the Constitution, being written by humans, may also be flawed, and may not cover every eventuality, either. I'll freely admit I'm not knowledgeable to comment on every instance.

Not the issue. It is not our ****ing problem. Nor is it our problem or our purview to decide for them what is and is not an appropriate means of defense for the land they claim is theirs. I don't agree with their methods either but I'm not the one insisting we insert ourselves into a centuries old war where there's enough bull**** on all sides to make choosing allies a decision between which stench is less offensive. That's the problem with getting involved in foreign conflicts; by chosing sides you also chose an enemy; you really don't have a ****ing clue who is right or not, or how those stands may have changed over time. Let them fight it out and who ever is left standing, be friendly with them. The wisdom of the founders shines brightly when George Washington warned us, and I'm paraphrasing here, to "stay the **** out of foreign ****holes where we will get entangled and involved in a whole host of bull**** we don't ****ing need," or words to that effect.

Good points.

Why? Aren't these democracies? Aren't those people the ultimate decision makers in reality? All terrorists have done is make an honest assessment of where their limited resources are best spent for effect, and they're right. There is no legitimacy in nondefensive violence to begin with. Are you honestly suggesting rules for how to acceptably massacre people? It's okay if it's incidental to another goal like taking out a power station or something? Nonsense. That's the rhetoric of kids who think there are 'rules' to fighting and then complain when their opponent wins by kicking them in the balls.



It's effective is what it is. And for good reason. We threaten what they hold most dear, they threaten what we hold most dear. Their mistake is in truly conflating the people and the government as one. If they'd realize their mistake there and start attacking government slugs and elected officials they'd see change real quick. As it is they target us because they are under the mistaken belief that we truly have a say in how our governments act.

No, I'm suggesting rules on how to behave as a human. I believe it's OK to protect me and mine, and yours too, with violence. There must be a means to the end, and it must be with respect to the lives you are taking. If someone hurt my children, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them by any means possible. I would not, however, torture them.

Believe me, I understand terrorists thought process. It's flawed. Blowing up children on purpose is inhuman, and reprehensible by any standard. But even moreso, it hardens MY resolve against them, and whatever reason they had to display outrage becomes incidental and meaningless.

The US parked troops on Saudi soil with Saudi permission. OBL's Islamist little soul saw that as an affront to the supremacy that he sees as Islam, so he killed 2500 US civilians on the other side of the planet.

Imagine how differently we'd see things if he had attacked the SAudi royal family, in protest, or even the US troops based there. At some point, we'd capitulate and run. But attack our men, women, and children HERE, in their beds, so to speak? Oh no you didn't, OBL. All bets are now off. Same for Israel: If the Palestinians had limited attacks to IDF troops only, they'd likely have a LOT more world sympathy, as well as Israeli sympathy, and Israel might have already capitulated. But see a baby's guts hanging from a Tel Aviv tree, sheets of skin hanging from a balcony, and blood pooled in the street, like I have, and guess what? You leave me no opportunity, no wiggle room. I'm coming.

That's the game, and those are the rules.

There's room to discuss what the Islamists hold dear, here, but again, I'd rather not. Suffice it to say: I don't give a **** what they hold dear, there's no room in this world for their thinking, just as there's no room in the world for the thinking of Christianity circa 1450.

Yeah, if only other people would live by your standards and rules, the world would be a better place

.

:lol: Please. I don't give a **** what you do, as long as you are human as you go about it.

Then why the massive difference in body counts? Or is it okay to kill innocents so long as it's the result of a UN sanction with the 'intentions' of getting rid of Saddam?

Since when was a bodycount the standard by which legitimacy is judged? Since when did the 'legitimate' side have to have a lower bodycount than the 'non-legitimate' side?

The sanctions weren't imposed to kill innocents. Saddam made the choices he did, and he's responsible for those deaths. He could have fed those people, but chose to build gold palaces and cutting edge underground bunkers and superguns.

Since when were we required to do business with someone? Let's say you walk into my store, and mouth off, maybe threaten another customer; the cops haul you off to a night in county, and you get stabbed, is it my fault? Screw you and your big mouth, ass. Saddam mouthed off, threatened others, and undertook illegal activity; we ceased to do business with him. **** him and his threats. We didn't kill them, nor did the sanctions; he did.

I'm also not convinced on the water boarding issue. Is it unpleasant? Yeah, no doubt. Torture? Not sure on that one.

Eh, I read the accounts of some people who had been water-boarded, as well as psychologists who had viewed it. After reading that, I believe it is torture. This doesn't change my view on torture, I'd just lump water-boarding under that heading. Apparently it breaks people RIGHT NOW.

 

[CDB]

The US isn't targeting water supplies or imposing sanctions for no reason, or for fun, or for its own benefit even. THe US imposes sanctions because someone is threatening an ally or the US itself. You can't piss on any country, and expect no reaction.

Yet you apparently did not expect this particular reaction. And in any event our reasons for imposing sanctions are laregly irrelevant to those who suffer because of them.

If Iran threatens the US, or France and Israel, then you can't expect sanctions to NOT take place. There's nothing immoral about stopping trade with N. Korea; yes, it means civilians die, but we're not the bad guy, we didn't threaten them. THey made the decision to piss on their civilians, and threaten us.

We took the ultimate action that lead to death, knowing it would lead to death. The bad acts of others don't excuse the results of your own. My neighbor may threaten me, that doesn't give me the right to kill his whole family and then go before a judge and claim 'he started it' and 'I was just heading off any future revenge' or 'I didn't mean to kill them, only him, but they were in the house with him at my most opportune moment to burn it down'. None of that flies on an individual or national scale. If we impose sanctions on a country and those sanctions lead to deaths, we are responsible for those deaths. If we have a problem with a particular regime we should target that particular regime, not kill the surrounding civilians.

Look: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran all are/were unfriendly to the West; all are/were trying to develop nukes, or find nukes, or otherwise dabble in activities which very well could endanger the US or our allies. Saddam hadn't been involved for quite some time, but I'm not sure he wouldn't have utilized something developed by another country. The fact is we're now down to one ME country which ma pose a threat to the WEst (down from 4, after Israel eliminated a budding Syrian nuke plant in '07). I'd call this a good thing.

I wouldn't, because I'd call it the result of years of meddling which needn't have produced this result to begin with.

See, the US didn't become involved in ME politics for no reason.

The reasons are irrelevant. As the excerpt from Paterson's book shows, good intentions aren't enough and are usually the source of most horrors.

True. BUt we can't allow past indiscretions to dictate future action. WE need to learn from history, but not allow it to hinder progress (again, not implying Iraq was 'progress', necessarily, just a general statement).

We very much need to let past indiscretions teach us how to dictate future actions. Whenever we are called to intervene in such a mess it's usually of our own making. The best way to stop staining your den carpet is to avoid taking food in there in the first place.

Of course we're responsible. Absolutely. By that standard, the Iraq invasion was righting a wrong, and it comes back to botching the implementation, not the original goal being bad.

No, by that standard we are tyrannical murderers and have the deaths of more than a few hundred thousand people on our doorstep. I don't think your 'botched implementation' argument will matter too much to someone who lost their family because of our mistakes.

I'm not a libertarian, or a historian. I really don't know what a purely, consistently isolationist policy would have brought the US and the world over the last 100 years. My gut says we, and the world, would be far far poorer place if we had not gotten involved as we have. I really don't know, I'll have to think about it.

There is a very, very big difference between isolationist and noninterventionist. We do not need to isolate ourselves from the world. We also do not need to get involved in any military adventures with any other countries. We are perfectly capable of trading peacefully with people and not having to send tanks and bombs their way, or their enemy's way first. By the logic that says we need to have military ties in order to trade with nations each and every state of the union would have had to invade each other by this point just to keep relations fresh. Peaceful trade is more than possible.

I still believe strongly that the US, on the scale of world super-powers throughout history, has done far more good, and far less bad than any other super-power; and that the US is inordinately generous with it's largesse and success.

That means little in light of the fact that you only need a few serious malcontents to cause a problem, and that those we've done such wonderful goodness to often didn't want it to be done to them.

I know it's simplistic, but I'm not one to ignore those in need, or stand by while others are harmed. Looking on as others suffer and are abused is wrong, if you have the ability to help.

I never suggested you do otherwise. However neither you nor I are the US military. There's a very, very big difference between a private citizen or group of them lending support to some foreign cause and actions that require air craft carriers, war ships, fighter jets, and ****loads of explosives. You can't personalize foreign relations. Britain is not 'our' friend. Iran is not 'our' enemy. These are complex collections of people, all of whom would respond differently to our 'help' or any adversarial action we took.

I never made the claim about consequences. Every action has consequences, including inaction. You can't assume inaction or un-involvement is always superior. You need to take each action on a case-by-case basis. Everything else is folly.

Once more though, the standard for personal action is not the one for the entire military.

You can't say 'we are subsidizing hatred with our actions'. A true statement would be 'some of our actions subsidize hatred', or 'our actions subsidize hatred among some people', but no action has the same effect on all people in every instance. A great many Iraqis are/were happy we ousted SAddam. They're just unhappy we ****ed it up.

So if it's not the goal, then it's the execution. The point was which way do you honestly think our actions bent people on balance, more for or against? My guess would be heavily weighted against.

If the US became isolationist, there'd still be hatred for the US. It wouldn't go away. This leads to a discussion of radical Islam, which I'd rather not enter.

Nor do I suggest isolationism, nor do I suggest pacifism. What I suggest is that interventionism breeds more problems than it solves in the long term, breeds hatred of the west and the US in particular and thus creates a continuing, growing problem, is not necessary for trade or the economic well being of the nation, and in fact weakens us as we spend more and more resources towards maintaining a default international empire because we've stuck our nose into every single dispute and round of national grab assing possible. Our military must be focussed on defense of the nation, it's resources geared toward that one end: defense against clear and present dangers. That way far fewer resources make a much bigger impact.

I find it a stretch to call anything we did in Kosovo 'evil'. That's like saying I'm evil for killing the armed mugger of a passersby in his defense.

You assumed it was a mugger and might have been right. What if the mugger was trying to reclaim property previously stolen from him? Kosovo aside, these national disputes often involve histories and claims and past actions we have no clue about and are incompetent to render judgement on, making choosing sides ridiculous.

You raise good points, re the Constitution. Random policing is one thing; watching others suffer because it's 'not our problem' is another; and not getting involved when it is in our countries best interest, because it's against the Constitution, is something else too. There are a lot of grey areas there, and I'm no lawyer. I believe the Constitution has been pissed on, yes, but I also believe the Constitution, being written by humans, may also be flawed, and may not cover every eventuality, either. I'll freely admit I'm not knowledgeable to comment on every instance.

You don't have to be. All you have to realize is that sometimes those getting pissed on deserve to get pissed on, and stepping in as a rule is not a good idea, even if they don't deserve it but are getting it anyway.

No, I'm suggesting rules on how to behave as a human. I believe it's OK to protect me and mine, and yours too, with violence. There must be a means to the end, and it must be with respect to the lives you are taking. If someone hurt my children, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them by any means possible. I would not, however, torture them.

What if they had your kid and wouldn't tell you where?

The US parked troops on Saudi soil with Saudi permission. OBL's Islamist little soul saw that as an affront to the supremacy that he sees as Islam, so he killed 2500 US civilians on the other side of the planet.

Wasn't it you who just wrote recently: "no action has the same effect on all people in every instance." Welcome to OBL's 'reaction'. Reasonable? No. I'd have preferred he fired off a letter to the editor or something. But the world is full of unreasonable people, more the point to avoid situation that might piss them off.

Imagine how differently we'd see things if he had attacked the SAudi royal family, in protest, or even the US troops based there. At some point, we'd capitulate and run.

I seriously doubt that.

But attack our men, women, and children HERE, in their beds, so to speak? Oh no you didn't, OBL. All bets are now off. Same for Israel: If the Palestinians had limited attacks to IDF troops only, they'd likely have a LOT more world sympathy, as well as Israeli sympathy, and Israel might have already capitulated. But see a baby's guts hanging from a Tel Aviv tree, sheets of skin hanging from a balcony, and blood pooled in the street, like I have, and guess what? You leave me no opportunity, no wiggle room. I'm coming.

The problem I have with your analysis and general way of looking at these issues is that you seem to be personalizing things. Sympathy for Palestinians means jack **** to me; wars are fought primarily for economic reasons coupled with ideological reasons. Perceived national interests go way beyond idea of who is the good guy and bad guy, and who has more sympathy in the public eye. A good book to read on this is Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy.

:lol: Please. I don't give a **** what you do, as long as you are human as you go about it.

But that's the very point. People have very different ideas as to what standards are acceptable. Do we fight wars over all differences? Only some? Which ones? Or, more to the point, do we let politicians sell us on wars over this or that bull**** issue when in reality they're securing financial interests, guaranteeing foreign investments for corporations, etc.?

Since when was a bodycount the standard by which legitimacy is judged? Since when did the 'legitimate' side have to have a lower bodycount than the 'non-legitimate' side?

Legitimacy is not the issue, the issue is the raw amount of pissed off people. You can be the most ritcheous man in the world, if you happen to be at a KKK rally I'd advise you to hold you're ritcheous tongue on issues they are 'sensitive' about. Likewise, you can't amass a body count in the millions and not expect to piss people off no matter how 'legitimate' your cause was. At what point does the sheer amount of dead people overwhelm good intentions and claims of unintended consequences?

The sanctions weren't imposed to kill innocents. Saddam made the choices he did, and he's responsible for those deaths. He could have fed those people, but chose to build gold palaces and cutting edge underground bunkers and superguns.

You can't pass the buck on this one. We waned the sanctions, we essentially put them in place, and we, or our reps, said they were jusified even when we were aware of the unintended consequences. It's analogous to the people who still think sending food to famine areas is a good idea, even though it just undercuts local farmers and leads to more people starving. At a certain point, "I didn't mean it," loses it's applicability. You can't accidentally kill millions of people, no one gets that blazingly drunk.

Since when were we required to do business with someone? Let's say you walk into my store, and mouth off, maybe threaten another customer; the cops haul you off to a night in county, and you get stabbed, is it my fault?

Bad analogy. You have a right as an individual to throw someone off your property. What you are talking about is more analogous to trying to reclaim property already stolen, and you think you know where it is so you try and get it, and in the process accidentally kill someone or cause someone to be killed. And yes, in that instance, you are responsible for that death.

Screw you and your big mouth, ass. Saddam mouthed off, threatened others, and undertook illegal activity; we ceased to do business with him. **** him and his threats. We didn't kill them, nor did the sanctions; he did.

Our actions lead directly to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, millions according to some numbers, and certainly millions over the years of our repeated meddling. Hardly proportional punishment for 'mouthing off'. If someone had done likewise to us every American citizen would be foaming at the mouth for revenge. When we do it to others, it's an interesting statistic we bounce about while we ponder the legitimacy and wonderousness of our existence and wonder why everyone doesn't want a great big old American **** shoved straight up their ass, or at least parked on their street somewhere.

It is not the proper place for our military to protect other nations. It is not the proper place for our military to be enforcing international law or UN resolutions or even our own will on sovereign nations. It is the proper place of our military to protect us from clear and present dangers to our lives and freedoms. Saddam never came close to fitting that bill. No one since Hitler has, and if we had kept our dumb asses out of WWI and Germany hadn't been raped post WWI, that likely wouldn't have been an issue. In fact, many of the problems we have today are tracable back to WWI and the meddling that began then. That one war of choice arguably has caused or lead to most of our current problems. And the only way to end the cycle is to stop contributing to it. Go Roman on any real threat that materializes, but otherwise stay the **** out of other nations' issues.

Eh, I read the accounts of some people who had been water-boarded, as well as psychologists who had viewed it. After reading that, I believe it is torture. This doesn't change my view on torture, I'd just lump water-boarding under that heading. Apparently it breaks people RIGHT NOW.

I'm not too concerned with psychological well being. They got all their fingers and toes and nails and what not, I'm happy. Once you start worrying about psychology damn near everything is off the table except for repeating the question.

 

[roids1]

Eh, I read the accounts of some people who had been water-boarded, as well as psychologists who had viewed it. After reading that, I believe it is torture. This doesn't change my view on torture, I'd just lump water-boarding under that heading. Apparently it breaks people RIGHT NOW.

I've read several accounts of liberal journalists having themselves waterboarded, then getting up and saying "Oh my, that was torture!" If it was truley torture, I don't believe anyone would be able to willingly subject themselves to it. Could you subject yourself to an acid drip to see how painful it is? Simply put, you know torture when you see it.

 

[TexasTitan]

New York.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That explains much.

This phrase condones not only the murdering of them, but also suggests they should be eliminated from the planet. It's exactly this arrogant thinking that inspires most of the radical Muslims to commit the very acts that have started the most recent foreign invasion in the region.

Musilims that commit terrorist act are so fringe you cant really connect that. They are told so many things and brainwashed to a radical extent. Hell, some of them just do it so their family gets money.

Abu Ghraib Prison Photos

God dammit who the hell let luthers delusion ass in here.

 

[poison]

The beauty of the waterboard is not only in its absolute effectiveness, but in mental processes triggered in the recipient's mind. It is incredibly terrifying and panic inducing because its mechanism harnesses autonomic physiological processes well beyond the control of the human mind. Imagine 3 Team Guys holding you down violently, pulling your T-shirt over your head and pulling out a canteen... Not that that has ever happened, mind you. But if it did, that series of events would pretty much preclude you from holding your breath for longer than 2 seconds... Or so I am told.

But the true beauty is in that the subject inherently understands that waterboarding will not cause him long term harm or enduring pain. It can be stopped as quickly as it is started and the subject immediately realizes that endurance is utterly futile and cooperation not only immediately relieves the horror, but promises life without disfigurement.

Oh yes they did 'leverage' my fears at Key West (78). Cross-overs, bobbing and 'confidence' swims, etc. Having been waterboarded as a part of SERE training; and getting caught at the wrong time and place (), I can safely say the waterboarding sucked faster than the evolutions at Key West. Not better or worse, just a whole lot faster...

Spanish Inquisition

A form of torture similar to waterboarding called toca, and more recently "Spanish water torture", to differentiate it from the better known Chinese water torture, along with garrucha (or strappado) and the most frequently used potro (or the rack), was used infrequently during the trial portion of the Spanish Inquisition process. "The toca, also called tortura del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning".[82]

Colonial times

Agents of the Dutch East India Company used a precursor to waterboarding during the Amboyna massacre, which took place on the island of Amboyna in the Molucca Islands in 1623. At that time, it consisted of wrapping cloth around the victim's head, after which the torturers "poured the water softly upon his head until the cloth was full, up to the mouth and nostrils, and somewhat higher, so that he could not draw breath but he must suck in all the water".[84][85][86][87]

19th century prisons

An editorial in The New York Times of April 6, 1852, and a subsequent April 21, 1852 letter to the editors documents an incidence of waterboarding, then called "showering," or "hydropathic torture," in New York's Sing Sing prison of an inmate named Henry Hagan, who, after several other forms of beating and mistreatment, had his head shaved, and "certainly three, and possibly a dozen, barrels of water were poured upon his naked scalp." Hagan was then placed in a yoke.[90] A correspondent listed only as "H" later wrote: "Perhaps it would be well to state more fully the true character of this 'hydropathic torture.' The stream of water is about one inch in diameter, and falls from a hight [sic] of seven or eight feet. The head of the patient is retained in its place by means of a board clasping the neck; the effect of which is, that the water, striking upon the board, rebounds into the mouth and nostrils of the victim, almost producing strangulation. Congestion, sometimes of the heart or lungs, sometimes of the brain, not unfrequently [sic] ensues; and death, in due season, has released some sufferers from the further ordeal of the water cure. As the water is administered officially, I suppose that it is not murder!"

After the Spanish-American War of 1898

After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the U.S. Army used waterboarding which was called the "water cure" at the time. Reports of "cruelties" from soldiers stationed in the Philippines led to Senate Hearings on U.S. activity in the Philippines.

World War II

During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo,[98] the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture.[99] During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.[100][101][102]

Chase J. Nielsen, one of the U.S. airmen who flew in the Doolittle raid following the attack on Pearl Harbor, was subjected to waterboarding by his Japanese captors.[103] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again… I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."[34]

Algerian War

The technique was also used during the Algerian War (1954-1962). The French journalist Henri Alleg, who was subjected to waterboarding by French paratroopers in Algeria in 1957,[104] is one of only a few people to have described in writing the first-hand experience of being waterboarded. His book La Question, published in 1958 with a preface by Jean-Paul Sartre subsequently banned in France until the end of the Algerian War in 1962,[105] discusses the experience of being strapped to a plank, having his head wrapped in cloth and positioned beneath a running tap:

The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation. In spite of myself, the fingers of both my hands shook uncontrollably. "That's it! He's going to talk", said a voice.

The water stopped running and they took away the rag. I was able to breathe. In the gloom, I saw the lieutenants and the captain, who, with a cigarette between his lips, was hitting my stomach with his fist to make me throw out the water I had swallowed.[104][106]

Alleg stated that he had not broken under his ordeal of being waterboarded.[107] Alleg has stated that the incidence of "accidental" death of prisoners being subjected to waterboarding in Algeria was "very frequent".[5]

Vietnam War

Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War.[108] On January 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial front-page photograph of two U.S soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier participating in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang.[109] The article described the practice as "fairly common".[109] The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army.[108][110] Another waterboarding photograph of the same scene, referred to as "water torture" in the caption, is also exhibited in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City.[111]

Chile
Further information: Operation Condor
Please help improve this article by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (January 2009)

Based on the testimonies from more than 35,000 victims of the Pinochet regime, the Chilean Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture concluded that to provoke a near death experience, by waterboarding, is torture.[112]

U.S. Military survival training
Main article: Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape

All special operations units in all branches of the U.S. military and the CIA's Special Activities Division [116] employ the use of a form of waterboarding as part of survival school (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training, to psychologically prepare soldiers for the eventuality of being captured by the enemy forces.[117]

Jane Mayer wrote for The New Yorker:

According to the SERE affiliate and two other sources familiar with the program, after September 11th several psychologists versed in SERE techniques began advising interrogators at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. Some of these psychologists essentially "tried to reverse-engineer" the SERE program, as the affiliate put it. "They took good knowledge and used it in a bad way", another of the sources said. Interrogators and BSCT members at Guantánamo adopted coercive techniques similar to those employed in the SERE program.[118]

and continues to report:

many of the interrogation methods used in SERE training seem to have been applied at Guantánamo.[118]

However, according to a declassified Justice Department memo attempting to justify torture which references a still-classified report of the CIA Inspector General on the CIA's use of waterboarding, among other "enhanced" interrogation techniques, the CIA applied waterboarding to detainees "in a different manner" than the technique used in SERE training:

The difference was in the manner in which the detainees' breathing was obstructed. At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion, the subject's airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency interrogator ... applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee's mouth and nose. One of the psychiatrist / interrogators acknowledged that the Agency's use of the technique is different from that used in SERE training because it is 'for real' and is more poignant and convincing. [119]

According to the DOJ memo, the IG Report observed that the CIA's Office of Medical Services (OMS) stated that "the experience of the SERE psychologist / interrogators on the waterboard was probably misrepresented at the time, as the SERE waterboard experience is so different from the subsequent Agency usage as to make it almost irrelevant" and that "[c]onsequently, according to OMS, there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe."[119]

It's torture, duh. Stress positions = not torture. Waterboarding = torture. Now, I don't give a ****, if it's applied judiciously and strategically.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times while being interrogated by the CIA, and is the person who has survived the most waterboarding sessions.[135] According to the Bush administration, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed divulged information of tremendous value during his detention. He is said to have helped point the way to the capture of Riduan Isamuddin (AKA Hambali), the Indonesian terrorist responsible for the 2002 bombings of night clubs in Bali. According to the Bush administration, he also provided information on an Al Qaeda leader in England.[136]

During a radio interview on October 24, 2006, with Scott Hennen of radio station WDAY, Vice President **** Cheney seemed to agree with the use of waterboarding.[137][138]

The administration later denied that Cheney had confirmed the use of waterboarding, saying that U.S. officials do not talk publicly about interrogation techniques because they are classified. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that Cheney was not referring to waterboarding, but only to a "dunk in the water", prompting one reporter to ask, "So dunk in the water means, what, we have a pool now at Guantanamo and they go swimming?" Tony Snow replied, "You doing stand-up?"[139]

On September 13, 2007, ABC News reported that a former intelligence officer stated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been waterboarded in the presence of a female CIA supervisor.[140]

Captured along with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a letter from bin Laden which led officials to think that he knew where the Al Qaeda founder was hiding.[141][142]

According to sources familiar with a private interview of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he claimed to have been waterboarded five times.[136] A CIA official told ABC News that "he had been water-boarded, and had won the admiration of his interrogators because it took him two to two-and-half minutes to start confessing—well beyond the average of 14 seconds observed in others".[143] This is disputed by two former CIA officers who are reportedly friends with one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's interrogators. The officers called this "bravado" and claimed that he was waterboarded only once. According to one of the officers, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed needed only to be shown the drowning equipment again before he "broke". "Waterboarding works", the former officer said. "Drowning is a baseline fear. So is falling. People dream about it. It's human nature. Suffocation is a very scary thing. When you're waterboarded, you're inverted, so it exacerbates the fear. It's not painful, but it scares the **** out of you". This former officer had been waterboarded himself in a training course. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he claimed, "didn't resist. He sang right away. He cracked real quick". He said, "A lot of them want to talk. Their egos are unimaginable. [He] was just a little doughboy. He couldn't stand toe to toe and fight it out".[136] After being subjected to waterboarding, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claimed involvement in thirty-one terrorist plots.[144]

On June 15, 2009, in response to a lawsuit by the ACLU, the government was forced disclose a previously classified portion of a CIA memo written in 2006 which recounted how Mohammed told the CIA that he "made up stories" to stop from being tortured.[145]

**** him.^

 

[Mulletsoldier]

The act of water-boarding is all well-and-good, but again, it is based fundamentally on a flawed premise. Executing beautifully a flawed concept means only that your disasters are even more monumental.

 

[poison]

The act of water-boarding is all well-and-good, but again, it is based fundamentally on a flawed premise. Executing beautifully a flawed concept means only that your disasters are even more monumental.

Prove that it's flawed. I'm not trying to be a ****; but you keep saying it's flawed, so I'd like to know what you know. See, I've read accounts of people saying 'it's not effective'. I've also read accounts saying it is, and I've read TONS of accounts saying Prime doesn't work.

I'd go out on a limb and speak for everyone here: we don't know how effective it is, we don't know how often it was used in a frivolous manner, therefore this is speculation. I can tell you that out of the tens of thousands of Iraqis/Muslims/ARabs who've filtered through the US Military's grasp, a fraction of a single percentage has been waterboarded.

 

[somewhatgifted]

Prove that it's flawed. I'm not trying to be a ****; but you keep saying it's flawed, so I'd like to know what you know. See, I've read accounts of people saying 'it's not effective'. I've also read accounts saying it is, and I've read TONS of accounts saying Prime doesn't work.

I'd go out on a limb and speak for everyone here: we don't know how effective it is, we don't know how often it was used in a frivolous manner, therefore this is speculation. I can tell you that out of the tens of thousands of Iraqis/Muslims/ARabs who've filtered through the US Military's grasp, a fraction of a single percentage has been waterboarded.

When you break down a human so badly they are effectivly nolonger a human. They are a tortured, exausted, broken shell of a human. Using torture could make Obama admit to being Osama if done effectively i imagine. This Makes this route useless. What would you say after days of endless torture? you may admit to things you can never imagine, prevent or possibly have done just to make it stop. I think this would render it useless when a sane person becomes insane and says whatever they need to so it stops.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Prove that it's flawed. I'm not trying to be a ****; but you keep saying it's flawed, so I'd like to know what you know. See, I've read accounts of people saying 'it's not effective'. I've also read accounts saying it is, and I've read TONS of accounts saying Prime doesn't work.

I actually appreciate your careful wording - a shifted word here and there usually works at diverting the argument away from the issue at hand. See, in this particular instance, I am using "flawed" in the context of torture's premise - which it certainly is - whereas you placed "flawed" to connote practical effectiveness; later, you go on to describe the ambiguity and rarity of torture datum, thereby placing the argument beyond epistemological reach. Good show.

Anyway, whether or not the interrogation method of torture has been nominally effective in specific instances is entirely secondary to the point I was making - that point being, the premise of torture is based-upon fundamentally flawed logic, which is something we discussed in a previous thread. Your argument can be surmised as: "As long as it saves innocent lives, and is done on known terrorists, torture as an interrogation method is entirely adequate". As I said, this begs the question of: "What interrogation method determines they are terrorists in the first place?"

Unless their guilt or innocence, and therefore the worthiness of the information they pose to divulge, is determined a priori of the act itself, then the premise of torture is determinately flawed. In order for torture to be effective - i.e., to save lives - and to be justifiable - i.e., to not rob the moral conscience of a nation - the individuals being tortured must be guilty; however, when we are using torture to determine if they are guilty in the first place, the exercise becomes entirely flawed and circular.

 

[poison]

I actually appreciate your careful wording - a shifted word here and there usually works at diverting the argument away from the issue at hand. See, in this particular instance, I am using "flawed" in the context of torture's premise - which it certainly is - whereas you placed "flawed" to connote practical effectiveness; later, you go on to describe the ambiguity and rarity of torture datum, thereby placing the argument beyond epistemological reach. Good show.

Anyway, whether or not the interrogation method of torture has been nominally effective in specific instances is entirely secondary to the point I was making - that point being, the premise of torture is based-upon fundamentally flawed logic, which is something we discussed in a previous thread. Your argument can be surmised as: "As long as it saves innocent lives, and is done on known terrorists, torture as an interrogation method is entirely adequate". As I said, this begs the question of: "What interrogation method determines they are terrorists in the first place?"

Unless their guilt or innocence, and therefore the worthiness of the information they pose to divulge, is determined a priori of the act itself, then the premise of torture is determinately flawed. In order for torture to be effective - i.e., to save lives - and to be justifiable - i.e., to not rob the moral conscience of a nation - the individuals being tortured must be guilty; however, when we are using torture to determine if they are guilty in the first place, the exercise becomes entirely flawed and circular.

Anomalies like abu Ghraib aside, torture isn't used to assess innocence. We KNOW guys like Khaled Mohammed are guilty when they are picked up. There's no doubt about it. You make it sound like we fly around the globe and torture random individuals just 'to see'. That's not the case.

So if we picked up OBL, would you be against his torture?

 

[lutherblsstt]

I actually appreciate your careful wording - a shifted word here and there usually works at diverting the argument away from the issue at hand.

It is called the Straw Man fallacy
Invalid Link Removed

See, in this particular instance, I am using "flawed" in the context of torture's premise - which it certainly is - whereas you placed "flawed" to connote practical effectiveness; later, you go on to describe the ambiguity and rarity of torture datum, thereby placing the argument beyond epistemological reach. Good show.

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. "

As I said, this begs the question of: "What interrogation method determines they are terrorists in the first place?"

Great point. Especially in light of the fact that many are rounded up by bounty hunters and exposed to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and exposure to extreme temperatures, which the International Committee of the Red Cross says constitute torture.

Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff of the Department of State during the term of Secretary of State Colin Powell, reports that:

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002 — well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion — its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qaeda. So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee "was compliant" (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qaeda-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, "revealed" such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop. There in fact were no such contacts.

Unless their guilt or innocence, and therefore the worthiness of the information they pose to divulge, is determined a priori of the act itself, then the premise of torture is determinately flawed. In order for torture to be effective - i.e., to save lives - and to be justifiable - i.e., to not rob the moral conscience of a nation - the individuals being tortured must be guilty; however, when we are using torture to determine if they are guilty in the first place, the exercise becomes entirely flawed and circular.

Exactly!

And for the people who keep just focusing on waterboarding:

"Methods of abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan have included stuffing a detainee into a sleeping bag, wrapping him with electrical cord, and suffocating him to death Invalid Link Removed

covering a detainee’s head with a plastic bag, then shackling him "in a crucifixion-like pose that inhibited his ability to breathe" until he died of asphyxiation
Invalid Link Removed, and until the guard on duty was surprised the detainees’ arms "didn’t pop out of their sockets;

beating a detainee "with a flashlight so severely that he eventually died from his injuries
Invalid Link Removed

" stripping detainees naked and forcing them to masturbate
Invalid Link Removed

"breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; [and] sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light."
Invalid Link Removed

 

[lutherblsstt]

Anomalies like abu Ghraib aside, torture isn't used to assess innocence. We KNOW guys like Khaled Mohammed are guilty when they are picked up. There's no doubt about it. You make it sound like we fly around the globe and torture random individuals just 'to see'. That's not the case.

US Army interrogator Tony Lagouranis, who served in various US prisons throughout Iraq, including in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, described how the rationale of torturing prisoners to save American lives led US interrogators to torture not only suspected insurgents, but also regular Iraqis known to be innocent as well:

"Once introduced into war, torture will inevitably spread because the ticking bombs are everywhere.

Each and every prisoner, without exception, has the potential to be the one that provides the information that will save American lives.

So if you accept the logic that we have to perform torture to prevent deaths, each and every prisoner is deserving of torture. In a situation like Iraq, it wasn’t just a few abstract lives that might be saved somewhere, at some future time.

The mortars came almost every day. The life in question was my very own. Once we accepted that any prisoner might be holding information that could save lives, we gladly used everything in our tool box on everyone.

This resulted in the expansion of the class of people who could be tortured. Now it included people who had been picked up for questioning but were not being suspected of being insurgents, and it included people who were picked up on hunches — people against whom we had no solid evidence — and it included relatives of our real targets.

Again, I see the spread of torture to these groups as natural and inevitable. At the time, I barely noticed it happening"

(See Fear Up Harsh: An Army Interrogators Dark Journey Through Iraq
Amazon.com: Fear Up Harsh: An Army Interrogator's Dark Journey Through Iraq (9780451221124): Tony Lagouranis, Allen Mikaelian: Books

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Up-Harsh-Interrogators-Journey/dp/0451221125"]Amazon.com: Fear Up Harsh: An Army Interrogator's Dark Journey Through Iraq (9780451221124): Tony Lagouranis, Allen Mikaelian: Books[/ame]

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Anomalies like abu Ghraib aside, torture isn't used to assess innocence. We KNOW guys like Khaled Mohammed are guilty when they are picked up. There's no doubt about it. You make it sound like we fly around the globe and torture random individuals just 'to see'. That's not the case.

That is not what I made it sound like; and, in fact, I never qualified my statements as to how systemized I felt torture was, at all. I was speaking about its flaw as a premise, and you interjected with the 'around the world' scenario to discredit my statement. This being said, I feel the original point I made remains consistent, and I don't really feel I need to elaborate on that any further.

Now, on to something more relevant: Matthew Alexander, who was the lead interrogator in Iraq, and whose team found al-Zarqawi, has been very vocal about the prevalence of "enhanced interrogation" techniques, and; in turn, has been equally adamant about his team's success using rapport, cultural understanding and so forth in obtaining critical information. So, while you are countering with, "We only torture known terrorists", that does not seem to be the case: Alexander has repeatedly stated that a majority of the interrogations being carried out in Iraq, enhanced or otherwise, are on Sunni/Shiite farmers who were equipped with weapons by al-Qaeda - i.e.,) not guys like al-Zarqawi or Khaled Mohhamed.

Finally, and as I said, the premise of torture is fatally flawed: determination of guilt must come a priori of the interrogation itself, or else the torture is self-defeating. And, as I said before, the determination of guilt is coming from intelligence which, in this area at least, is known to be faulty - i.e.) the question-begging cluster-fuck continues.

So if we picked up OBL, would you be against his torture?

Am I to say yes, so you can therefore make a hasty generalization, deducing that this one instance of correctness means torture as a whole is viable? Again, you are trying to divert the argument, while I would prefer to stay on point. Whether or not I think torture is morally acceptable - which is what I feel you are trying to drive at here - is incidental to the point: torture is flawed and ineffective as an interrogation method, as a whole.

 

[poison]

Really? That's like saying 'guns are bad'. If torture is being used improperly, it's not the problem of torture, but those using it.

You know, maybe I'm wrong about the prevalence of torture in iraq. I'll do some more research. This still isn't going to change my opinion on torture, though. Just because some troops in Iraq were abusing it, doesn't mean 'torture is a flawed premise as a whole'. As I said, it's generally applied to known terrorists to extract info, and in that case, it's not flawed. Sure, if you can give the guy a candy bar and a prayer rug, and he spills his guts, it's preferable; but if not?

What are YOU driving at? That because torture is generally more acceptable to conservatives, and many conservatives have a nasty habit of calling non-conservatives 'immoral', I must be a conservative and trying to paint you as immoral? I didn't say ANYTHING about morals.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Really? That's like saying 'guns are bad'. If torture is being used improperly, it's not the problem of torture, but those using it.

I disagree. It is more like saying: "Using broken guns is bad as a concept." No matter how trained the individual discharging it, a broken gun is predisposed to have faulty, and inconsistent operation: maybe it fires true and kills your assailant; maybe it backfires and blows your hand off.

You know, maybe I'm wrong about the prevalence of torture in iraq. I'll do some more research. This still isn't going to change my opinion on torture, though. Just because some troops in Iraq were abusing it, doesn't mean 'torture is a flawed premise as a whole'. As I said, it's generally applied to known terrorists to extract info, and in that case, it's not flawed. Sure, if you can give the guy a candy bar and a prayer rug, and he spills his guts, it's preferable; but if not?

The word "abuse" implies that the thing being "abused" has a right, proper use. Obviously, we disagree on whether or not torture is an effective mechanism at extracting necessary information, for the purpose of 'saving lives'. While I do try and stay open, I will take the word of "Matthew Alexander" over **** Cheney - namely because Cheney had constituents/public opinion to worry about, and Alexander did not.

What are YOU driving at? That because torture is generally more acceptable to conservatives, and many conservatives have a nasty habit of calling non-conservatives 'immoral', I must be a conservative and trying to paint you as immoral? I didn't say ANYTHING about morals.

I honestly cannot fathom how you arrived here: morals was entirely secondary to the notion of effectiveness in my points; and I never once explicitly used, nor even implied, this notion about conservative morality. Your morality is your morality, and not my place to judge. The way your question was worded seemed to neatly square away the "known terrorist" point of contention, and drive at whether or not my personal morality and ethic supported use of torture on a known terrorist. I simply replied I thought it was cursory to the point at hand.

 

[lutherblsstt]

This is perhaps the greatest segment of “The Word” ever to air on The Colbert Report.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[CDB]

You seem to be missing the point that he's using a previous, highly qualified statement of yours to disprove your approach. Drop the statement or admit it was wrong, modify it or whatever, and the argument can focus on what torture is, and whether or not it is effective. It's only what you have said which has allowed a highly logically consistent argument to succeed, despite the fact that's it's way off the point you're trying to make.

Really? That's like saying 'guns are bad'. If torture is being used improperly, it's not the problem of torture, but those using it.

You know, maybe I'm wrong about the prevalence of torture in iraq. I'll do some more research. This still isn't going to change my opinion on torture, though. Just because some troops in Iraq were abusing it, doesn't mean 'torture is a flawed premise as a whole'. As I said, it's generally applied to known terrorists to extract info, and in that case, it's not flawed. Sure, if you can give the guy a candy bar and a prayer rug, and he spills his guts, it's preferable; but if not?

What are YOU driving at? That because torture is generally more acceptable to conservatives, and many conservatives have a nasty habit of calling non-conservatives 'immoral', I must be a conservative and trying to paint you as immoral? I didn't say ANYTHING about morals.

 

[nopeace]

In my opinion torture does nothing but give false confessions. When American Soldiers were captured in Korea they confessed to a massive conspiracy to use biological weapons in Korea even though it was entirely false.

The Bush administration was more interested in looking like it was effectively fighting the war on terror but failed. The only thing it could use as proof was stating it "foiled an attack" etc,.

The major issue for me is corruption and the rule of law in this country. As citizens we are subject to the rule of law but when our elected officials go against the law without any reprisal we don't have a free republic. Where does it end? Where do we draw the line? What's next? children as they do in Israel?

 

[CDB]

Once more though, there is a large distinction between getting a confession and getting actable information; something that can be verified.

 

[nopeace]

Once more though, there is a large distinction between getting a confession and getting actable information; something that can be verified.

BINGO.


Torturing does nothing but give false confession and ruins the reputation of this country.

The world looked to the US as the leader of the Freeworld after the Soviet bloc fell, now we're seen as invaders and imperialists.

 

[DAdams91982]

BINGO.


Torturing does nothing but give false confession and ruins the reputation of this country.

The world looked to the US as the leader of the Freeworld after the Soviet bloc fell, now we're seen as invaders and imperialists.

Prove this.

 

[CDB]

Prove this.

Ron Paul was recently voted the most popular US politician abroad. His opinions on foreign policy, likely the only ones foreigners give a **** about, are in line with this view. As are the protests and signs held up outside of many US embassies, the statements given by terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, more than a few heads of state, etc., etc., etc., all of whom agree that the US is too intrusive in foreign affairs.

Can we please not drag this frigging debate down by asking for 'proof' of rhetorical points which have admitted weight to anyone but a lunatic? Whether you think it is a majority or not, a significant amount of people in foreign countries hold this view of the US, it's painfully obivous that they do, it's ridiculous to ask for proof of it, and it's a valid rhetorical point to make.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Ron Paul was recently voted the most popular US politician abroad. His opinions on foreign policy, likely the only ones foreigners give a **** about, are in line with this view. As are the protests and signs held up outside of many US embassies, the statements given by terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, more than a few heads of state, etc., etc., etc., all of whom agree that the US is too intrusive in foreign affairs.

Can we please not drag this frigging debate down by asking for 'proof' of rhetorical points which have admitted weight to anyone but a lunatic? Whether you think it is a majority or not, a significant amount of people in foreign countries hold this view of the US, it's painfully obivous that they do, it's ridiculous to ask for proof of it, and it's a valid rhetorical point to make.

I believe he was demanding proof that torture only provides false confessions; though your caveat would apply there as well.

 

[DAdams91982]

I believe he was demanding proof that torture only provides false confessions; though your caveat would apply there as well.

I only stated that because the other person offered a sweeping statement as fact. I am not for or against the issue at hand. Only the stating something as fact when it may or may not be the case is irritating.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I only stated that because the other person offered a sweeping statement as fact. I am not for or against the issue at hand. Only the stating something as fact when it may or may not be the case is irritating.

Definitely. I was just clarifying that you questioned the truth-value of, "Torturing does nothing..." rather than, "The U.S., soviet bloc, etc., etc...". I have too much other stuff to do right now to elaborate on my personal position, ha.

 

[CDB]

Definitely. I was just clarifying that you questioned the truth-value of, "Torturing does nothing..." rather than, "The U.S., soviet bloc, etc., etc...". I have too much other stuff to do right now to elaborate on my personal position, ha.

You always leave the good debates. Then again, right now I am single with no school or dramatic obligations anywhere, so I have spare time.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

You always leave the good debates. Then again, right now I am single with no school or dramatic obligations anywhere, so I have spare time.

Ha ha, well: there are three pages of my opinion in this thread already. What is your stance re: torture's effectiveness?

 

[CDB]

No idea. I think there is a distinct difference however between torturing for a confession, which you will obviously get, and torturing for information that is verifiable. Or in other words if I say, "Confess to this crime or I'll pull your toe nails out!", I'm sure I'll get a confession, if not immediately then after a couple of good yanks. If however I say, "Tell me where your weapons cache is of I'll pull your toe nails out, and if I find out you're lying I'll do worse," I think people might be inclided to answer and answer honestly.

Plus I still don't necessarily think water boarding is torture. I mean is anything we do to make these people uncomfortable torture? There's got to be some middle ground between yanking out their toe nails and giving these pricks a tax payer funded pedicure, and anything short of the latter seems to qualify as 'torture' in the minds of some people I've met.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

No idea. I think there is a distinct difference however between torturing for a confession, which you will obviously get, and torturing for information that is verifiable. Or in other words if I say, "Confess to this crime or I'll pull your toe nails out!", I'm sure I'll get a confession, if not immediately then after a couple of good yanks. If however I say, "Tell me where your weapons cache is of I'll pull your toe nails out, and if I find out you're lying I'll do worse," I think people might be inclided to answer and answer honestly.

I more or less agree. But, as I was saying to somebody else, I also think that the flaws in the premise of torture are technically inalienable from the act itself - in other words, one must possess verifiable information in the first place in order to concede it. And, given the disheveled, decrepit and paranoid state the Middle East is in, I feel this flaw will ultimately mitigate the effectiveness of torture as a whole. This being said, if one knew for certain the suspect had information, your latter scenario most probably would be a more effective approach. In reality, it is difficult to say either way, as documentation for either method [enhanced v., standard interrogation] is pretty sparse.

Plus I still don't necessarily think water boarding is torture. I mean is anything we do to make these people uncomfortable torture? There's got to be some middle ground between yanking out their toe nails and giving these pricks a tax payer funded pedicure, and anything short of the latter seems to qualify as 'torture' in the minds of some people I've met.

Yeah, on one side you have people making the definition of torture so shallow and broad that any ol' interrogation technique will satisfy the definition; on the other, you have people narrowing and deepening the definition to put themselves beyond any type of domestic or international culpability. Is water-boarding in-itself torture? No, I would say probably not.