Torture

[Son of Disaster]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/bush-torture-memos-releas_n_187867.html

This story isn't old really but i thought someone would have adressed it by now. Anyway it's all about the torture memos that bush and the justice department okayed.

My questions are these:
Is water boarding really an unthinkable torture?
Why should we not torture terrorists to save American lives?
Why should the Geneva Convention apply to those who don't abide by it?

 

[Morm]

1. Yes, it's fucking hideous as I understand it.
2. Because your life isn't more valuable than theirs and causing them unthinkable torment and pain certainly isn't reasonable.
3. If you violate it to punish those that don't abide by it you are effectively the same as them and are a hypocrite through and through.

 

[jjfun]

The act doesn't matter. The intention does, why do you think that water boarding was used? If it was used to torture people then it's torture and that is wrong.

Studies have shown that over 50% of the information given to those that torture by the tortured is actually incorrect. So I think that it's not worth the acts of violence and cruelty for nothing.

Because we're better than them. If you don't want to abide by the geneva convention then you don't belong in a civilized country, you don't deserve to have justice and you're as bad as those who you wish to torture.

 

[Pirika]

They used torture techniques to interrogate suspects, that's the main problem.

Someone that is suspect should not be punished until his guilty is proven. You can't torture someone that may be innocent.

 

[Luduan]

1. Waterboarding is torture; all torture should be unthinkable. (If you don't agree that waterboarding is torture, read this.)
2. Because it doesn't save American lives (which are only at risk because of our government's policies to begin with).
3. The Geneva Convention should not apply to Americans, by this logic.

 

[Deck Knight]

1. Yes, it's fucking hideous as I understand it.
2. Because your life isn't more valuable than theirs and causing them unthinkable torment and pain certainly isn't reasonable.
3. If you violate it to punish those that don't abide by it you are effectively the same as them and are a hypocrite through and through.

Your individual life isn't more valuable than theirs, however they intend to kill hundreds, if not thousands.

Being a "hypocrite" is better than letting thousands die. We don't torture run of the mill murderers and gangbangers, torture is only used to obtain information from terrorists bent on killing you and everyone you know.

Furthermore, we torture to save lives, they torture for bloodlust. You were a Wrestler Morm. If some asshole tries to take you and you slam his ass to the ground and wreck him in close combat (probably worse than he would ever do to you), are you a hypocrite because you committed violence to stop him from doing so?

You would of course argue self-defense. Getting information from terrorists is also self-defense. Everyone is willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt when its levying regulations, banning guns, and banning free speech, but if they actually do their duty to protect their own citizens? Why, it's just not America anymore.

Torture works. Otherwise it would not have been a practice for centuries of the most powerful armies ever known. If all torture did was make people more likely to incite popular rebellion and lead to false information, it would never have been practiced. Torture is what got Khalid Sheik Mohammed to spill his guts.

And right on cue, here come the Marxists with moral equivalence:

Terrorists don't wear uniforms, and they are generally picked up in the act of attacking Americans. They are thus not only guilty but not protected by the Geneva Conventions. When they are released they go right back to attacking American soldiers.

You are fucking clueless as usual Luduan. Is Palestine at risk because of their government's policy of indiscriminately sending rockets into Israel? Or do non-American nations not have to answer for their policies? I say it is the Palestinians fault that they can't protect their own people, it is Palestine's policy of Death to Jews before peace.

 

[Pirika]

Your individual life isn't more valuable than theirs, however they intend to kill hundreds, if not thousands.

They were suspects, you can't harm someone for being suspect of terrorism. Probaly most of the tortured people were innocent.

 

[Young Cardinal]

As some people mentioned before, they were suspects.

To induce a torture method on somebody that replicates the feeling of drowning all on a belief that somebody has a piece of information is truly sick.
We would have been better off sticking with the tested and proven interrogation techniques

 

[Deck Knight]

They were suspects, you can't harm someone for being suspect of terrorism. Probaly most of the tortured people were innocent.

No. Khalid Sheik Mohammad was dead as a doornail guilty, and he's pretty much the only one in the last three years. You don't give the benefit of doubt on the battlefield, the enemy is obviously trying to kill you, that is their stated purpose. No one at Club Gitmo has ever been tortured. And Abu Ghraib people were court marshalled and given dishonorable discharge. KSM was a known terrorist for years before his capture, but like most leftists, complete ignorance of reality and feigned outrage are the status quo.

They were "suspects" just like the guy dancing over your dead mom's body with a smoking gun is a "suspect."

 

[Morm]

Your individual life isn't more valuable than theirs, however they intend to kill hundreds, if not thousands.

What if my individual life cures aids? Then is my individual life worth more than all the lives of people that haven't saved as many? I find your criteria to be lacking in boundaries.

Being a "hypocrite" is better than letting thousands die.

Coming from a person who seemingly stands on principle no matter what, that's a very unreliable statement.

Torture works.

I'd like your research and papers on this topic, please.

They used torture techniques to interrogate suspects, that's the main problem.

Someone that is suspect should not be punished until his guilty is proven. You can't torture someone that may be innocent.

I dunno about you, but if I'm innocent I'm squealing pretty fucking fast. The issue with torture is that even if you are innocent and even if you spill every single piece of information you ever had, there is no way of knowing if you are with holding something. That makes it unreasonable.

You don't give the benefit of doubt on the battlefield, the enemy is obviously trying to kill you, that is their stated purpose.

As true as that is, a torture chamber (or whatever you call it) isn't a battelfield. The comparison is pretty outrageous to be making.

 

[Pirika]

No. Khalid Sheik Mohammad was dead as a doornail guilty, and he's pretty much the only one in the last three years. You don't give the benefit of doubt on the battlefield, the enemy is obviously trying to kill you, that is their stated purpose.

So do you support torturing children, women and elders in order to protect American soldiers?

First of all, it was the United States that invaded Iraq. You can't invade a country and torture civilians expecting to find "terrorists". If your country wants to protect their soldiers them just send them back home.

I dunno about you, but if I'm innocent I'm squealing pretty fucking fast. The issue with torture is that even if you are innocent and even if you spill every single piece of information you ever had, there is no way of knowing if you are with holding something. That makes it unreasonable.

I do not support torture. My point was to show how unreasonable is to harm someone innocent just to obtain information.

 

[Luduan]

You are fucking clueless as usual Luduan. Is Palestine at risk because of their government's policy of indiscriminately sending rockets into Israel? Or do non-American nations not have to answer for their policies? I say it is the Palestinians fault that they can't protect their own people, it is Palestine's policy of Death to Jews before peace.

I say it is Palestine's right to defend themselves against years of apartheid and state-sponsored terrorism perpetrated by the Israeli government. I also say that had we not engaged in propping up of dictatorial régimes, arming and radicalizing jihadist militants, and generally and recklessly interfering in Middle Eastern politics in a very imperialistic manner, we would not have had 9/11. It is the very definition of "blowback".

Terrorists don't wear uniforms, and they are generally picked up in the act of attacking Americans. They are thus not only guilty but not protected by the Geneva Conventions. When they are released they go right back to attacking American soldiers.

Extraordinary rendition. Add to that that the United States is signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, both of which prohibit torture, under Article 6 of the Constitution it is illegal to torture. Period. The Geneva Conventions are not even necessary to provide a basis for the illegality of torture.

EDIT: I just looked on Wikipedia, and it turns out that there is also domestic law prohibiting torture: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2340.html

No one at Club Gitmo has ever been tortured.

Really?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/guan-a06.shtml
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17102
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/107/2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6876549/

 

[Son of Disaster]

SInce when were they suspects? Also since when have prisoners of war been given US rights?

Torture is torture and it's wrong? Sleep deprivation and food deprivation are therefore unthinkable and wrong?

It saved lives according to the bush administration.

Your link didn't work for some reason but coming from vanity fair i could only expect garbage. Sorry man i want a real source. Also jjfun what studies showed that and why would it matter in the case of torturing terrorists?

How is that hypocritical? We are giving these people the rights they will not give their own people or our soldiers. It's nothing short of what they deserve.

 

[Pirika]

SInce when were they suspects? Also since when have prisoners of war been given US rights?

Did you read the article?

As part of an ongoing court case, the Department of Justice released on Thursday memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005, detailing techniques used for interrogation of terrorism suspects.

 

[Morm]

SInce when were they suspects? Also since when have prisoners of war been given US rights?

As far as I know, since always. But Saddam certainly set a decent precident if not...

Torture is torture and it's wrong? Sleep deprivation and food deprivation are therefore unthinkable and wrong?

Sleep deprivation is remarkably hideous on a mind. It can do anything from cause hallucinations to killing you.

It saved lives according to the bush administration.

As if that's a great source. How can you know that lives were saved if they were never imminently in danger?

Sorry man i want a real source.

Someone of your credentials on this board should really be saying what kind of source, since some of us consider 'real' sources to be primary journals and whatnot. Clarification will help your case.

How is that hypocritical? We are giving these people the rights they will not give their own people or our soldiers. It's nothing short of what they deserve.

To say you are upholding the geneva convention and human rights, then not apply it universally and do the opposite? That isn't hypocritical? I've seen this kind of thought from you before and I'm curious: do I need to define hypocrisy for you AGAIN? It's a cut and paste definition, saying one thing and doing the opposite.

 

[Luduan]

SInce when were they suspects? Also since when have prisoners of war been given US rights?

Torture is torture and it's wrong? Sleep deprivation and food deprivation are therefore unthinkable and wrong?

It isn't a matter of US rights; it is a matter of international and humanitarian law to which the US is signatory.

It saved lives according to the bush administration.

Who are obviously reliable on this issue, right?

Your link didn't work for some reason but coming from vanity fair i could only expect garbage. Sorry man i want a real source. Also jjfun what studies showed that and why would it matter in the case of torturing terrorists?

Sorry man, but Vanity Fair is actually a highly respectable journalistic entity. And Christopher Hitchens should be a good enough source, especially given his background as a supporter of Bush era neocon policies. I'll paste the link again in hopes it works for you: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

 

[User 12783]

Deck Knight, 9 times out of 10, torture does not work. The tortured individual will just tell you what you want to hear, why should they honestly tell you where a terrorist attack is going to happen, if they can just lie and get out of it?

 

[Son of Disaster]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

Only three people got waterboarded.

It was also on high value targets. KSM himself admitted the waterboarding broke him.

OKay Moormopid so no torture of any kind is acceptable. How do you break someone with information?

Vanity Fair is liberal to the core.

 

[Morm]

Sorry man, but Vanity Fair is actually a highly respectable journalistic entity.

It's highly respectable on the topic of international politics?

OKay Moormopid so no torture of any kind is acceptable. How do you break someone with information?

I have no idea. It's not about what alternatives I have to offer in any way, I'm not an authority on the human psyche. It's about what is acceptable and what is not given the human rights standards set down and according to that torture is a no go.

 

[Deck Knight]

What if my individual life cures aids? Then is my individual life worth more than all the lives of people that haven't saved as many? I find your criteria to be lacking in boundaries.

Your comparison is ridiculous. Your scenario involves weighing the life of someone who saves future lives vs the value of current lives. Torture is focused on weighing the comfort of a terrorist with hundreds of current lives.

Coming from a person who seemingly stands on principle no matter what, that's a very unreliable statement.

One terrorist scumbag who hides behind womens' skirts and uses children as human shields temporary and reversible discomfort in exchange for hundreds or thousands of lives? Call me the king of hypocrite nation, then. The two aren't even remotely close in comparison.

Torture doesn't kill, it only causes pain enough to seek information.

I'd like your research and papers on this topic, please.

Why don't you google it, am I your mother? Or is thousands of years of successful militaries utilizing torture not a strong enough test?

Here's left-wing Salon arguing for efficacy, but not morality: http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/04/23/torture/

And Here's John McCain, who was tortured, making the same exact argument: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml

And torture does not solely mean waterboarding. The two are not synonymous. Sleep deprivation is a standard coercion tactic. The fact is you can't get infromation from an enemy by playing chamberlain and offering them tea and crumpets. Coercion tactics have been used for tactical information throughout history. The idea the practice only came into vogue because humanity of previous ages were barbarians is ridiculous. We've had plenty of barbarians hanging around since 1933 and even today.

I dunno about you, but if I'm innocent I'm squealing pretty fucking fast. The issue with torture is that even if you are innocent and even if you spill every single piece of information you ever had, there is no way of knowing if you are with holding something. That makes it unreasonable.

If you're innocent you are not going to be caught trying to set a roadside bomb in civilian clothing, as these punks routinely are.

As true as that is, a torture chamber (or whatever you call it) isn't a battelfield. The comparison is pretty outrageous to be making.

Where are these non-uniformed, armed combatants captured? A battlefield. You can't really interrogate someone in the middle of a battlefield, you have to extract information later. Even then, torture is only used as a last resort, not a first resort.

Oh, and finally: The Geneva Conventions do not apply to these scumbags. The Geneva Conventions apply to standing, uniformed armies representing a nation, not thugs in scarves launching mortars from school buildings.

 

[Luduan]

Vanity Fair is liberal to the core.

But the writer was a firm supporter of the Bush Administration's "war on terror", has on numerous occasions ranted about the dangers of "Islamofascism", and was a supporter of waterboarding prior to his experiencing it. Vanity Fair is thoroughly irrelevant.

It's highly respectable on the topic of international politics?

It is respectable for its journalistic quality, yes. But the medium should not matter; it is the writer that is the point. Christopher Hitchens isn't some obscure character; he is a major public intellectual, for better or for worse.

 

[Morm]

Yeah, I thought you were comparing the place in which torture is executed to the actual battlefield.

Why don't you google it, am I your mother?

You made the statement, it is not up to me to back it up.


Thanks Luduan.

 

[ferron]

i was going through my old psychology textbooks, but i can't find anywhere that they state that torture is more effective than standard interrogation.
in fact, psychology:the adaptive mind only refers to the physical and psychological stress from torture, but can't comment on it's effectiveness because people will say anything to make it stop.

with that in mind, i remembered this statement:

"When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the physical pressures that were on me, I named the starting lineup -- defensive line -- of the Pittsburgh Steelers as my squadron-mates!"

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Is water boarding really an unthinkable torture?

Any torture is unthinkable. The fact that we tried and hanged Japanese soldiers that waterboarded people during WW2 should indicate that it is a pretty serious practice.

Why should we not torture terrorists to save American lives?

Because there are ways of getting more reliable information just as effectively without resorting to going against everything the United States stands for.

Why should the Geneva Convention apply to those who don't abide by it?

As soon as we stop abiding by our own laws, Deck's fantasy of a big controlling government becomes a reality. As soon as we stop abiding by our own laws, we are becoming terrorists.

Your individual life isn't more valuable than theirs, however they intend to kill hundreds, if not thousands.

Since the people in question are tortured before they are convicted, you can't say what they were intending to do.

Being a "hypocrite" is better than letting thousands die. We don't torture run of the mill murderers and gangbangers, torture is only used to obtain information from terrorists bent on killing you and everyone you know.

Yeah, and most of the information we get out of torture is unreliable. If someone is forcing you to drown, you're pretty much going to tell them anything you want to hear.

Furthermore, we torture to save lives, they torture for bloodlust. You were a Wrestler Morm. If some asshole tries to take you and you slam his ass to the ground and wreck him in close combat (probably worse than he would ever do to you), are you a hypocrite because you committed violence to stop him from doing so?

Oh, so since we're the good guys, we can do whatever we want? Makes sense.

And yeah, torturing helpless inmates who haven't even been given a trial to determine if they are guilty is really comparable to being attacked from behind.

You would of course argue self-defense. Getting information from terrorists is also self-defense. Everyone is willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt when its levying regulations, banning guns, and banning free speech, but if they actually do their duty to protect their own citizens? Why, it's just not America anymore.

Torture does not protect American citizens. It only endangers them, both by stirring up anti-American sentiment and by providing (usually) unreliable information.

Torture works. Otherwise it would not have been a practice for centuries of the most powerful armies ever known. If all torture did was make people more likely to incite popular rebellion and lead to false information, it would never have been practiced.

Nope, torture has proven to be an inferior tactic in attaining information. "They did it hundreds of years ago, so it must be OK now!" is really your argument? I mean, I know youre conservative...but you really want to regress our system of law by 700 years?

Torture is what got Khalid Sheik Mohammed to spill his guts.

Yeah, shipping him off to a secret prison was just so useful in preventing terrorism plots. I'm sure you would say that waterboarding him 183 times and abusing his children was justified?

CIA officials have previously told ABC News that "Mohammed lasted the longest under waterboarding, two and a half minutes, before beginning to talk."[61] Legal experts say this could taint all his statements. Forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner, M.D., an expert in false confessions, observed from the testimony transcript that his concerns about his family may have been far more influential in soliciting Mohammed’s cooperation than any earlier reported mistreatment.[62]

One CIA official cautioned that "many of Mohammed's claims during interrogation were 'white noise' designed to send the U.S. on wild goose chases or to get him through the day's interrogation session". For example according to Mike J. Rogers, a former FBI agent and the top Republican on the terrorism panel of the House Intelligence Committee, he has admitted responsibility for the Bali nightclub bombing, but his involvement "could have been as small as arranging a safe house for travel. It could have been arranging finance." Mohammed also made the admission that he was "responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center Operation," which killed six and injured more than 1,000 when a bomb was detonated in an underground garage, Mohammed did not plan the attack, but he may have supported it. Michael Welner noted that by offering legitimate information to interrogators, Mohammed had secured the leverage to provide disinformation as well.

Yeah, torture was just so convincing.

And right on cue, here come the Marxists with moral equivalence:

Wow.

 

[Young Cardinal]

Btw Deck.
Tortures age certainly isnt a testament to its validity or reliability.
Hell, The Bible is still doin pretty well..
AMIRIGHT????