DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on June 01, 2007, 03:04:09 PM
-
Today's Must Read
By Laura McGann - June 1, 2007, 10:08 AM
Many of the controversial interrogation tactics used against “war on terror†detainees in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan are similar to strategies the United States feared its worst enemies would use against captured soldiers during the Cold War.
Time magazine catches this connection in a recently declassified report, "Review of DoD-Directed Investigations of Detainee Abuse,†that has received little media coverage.
The same potential enemy tactics the U.S. military trained forces to face during the Cold War became interrogation strategies used on enemy combatants.
Originally developed as training for elite special forces at Fort Bragg under the "Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape" program, otherwise known as SERE, tactics such as sleep deprivation, isolation, sexual humiliation, nudity, exposure to extremes of cold and stress positions were part of a carefully monitored survival training program for personnel at risk of capture by Soviet or Chinese forces, all carried out under the supervision of military psychologists:
The Pentagon began scaling back the well-documented use of these SERE tactics in 2002, which include “prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation (visual and auditory), forced removal of clothing, exploiting prisoners phobias (notably fear of dogs), and threats against family members.†The Army Field Manual now prohibits the use of water-boarding and dogs.
Some critics are concerned that the scale-back has not gone far enough, Time reports:
In the letter to Secretary Gates, dated May 31, 2007, the non-profit Physicians for Human Rights cites an appendix of the current Army Field Manual that "explicitly permits what amounts to isolation, along with sleep and sensory deprivation." The letter, signed by retired Army General Stephen Xenakis, a psychiatrist and former senior medical commander, and Leonard Rubenstein, the organization's executive director, also points out that the current Field Manual remains "silent on a number of other SERE-based methods (including sensory overload and deprivation) creating ambiguity and doubt over their place in interrogation doctrine."
http://tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003329.php
-
And............................? Ready to demonstrate where we're advocating pulling flesh off skin?, dismembering body parts?, pulling tongues out?, being hung from one's private parts?, burning alive? You know, the things that our current enemy of terrorists perform as SOP, that appears to never get a peep of condemnation from those so fast to lay claim of how vile the U.S. is supposed to be?
-
Ready to demonstrate where we're advocating pulling flesh off skin?, dismembering body parts?, pulling tongues out?, being hung from one's private parts?, burning alive? You know, the things that our current enemy of terrorists perform as SOP, that appears to never get a peep of condemnation from those so fast to lay claim of how vile the U.S. is supposed to be?
I was not aware we were supposed to let the terrorists determine what our level of standards is supposed to be.
This is a factor , how many times have we heard the argument that we should be kind to captives for the sake of our own when they get captured?
A reaction to the threat in kind is exactly what happened after Malmady ,and it did not have to get to Washington and back down the chain of command , it was simply a matter of our side learning the story.
As things sem to me I would like very much for our opposiion to rise to our present standard , and for our standard to also improve , but the worser standard is the worser problem.
-
Ready to demonstrate where we're advocating pulling flesh off skin?, dismembering body parts?, pulling tongues out?, being hung from one's private parts?, burning alive? You know, the things that our current enemy of terrorists perform as SOP, that appears to never get a peep of condemnation from those so fast to lay claim of how vile the U.S. is supposed to be?
I was not aware we were supposed to let the terrorists determine what our level of standards is supposed to be.
Nor was I referencing as any form of torture standard. The article again was in referencing to trying to prepare our troops to deal with harsh interrogation techniques. I'm able to draw the line between that and actual torture. Are you? Or do we all need to define our version of "torture" Forced to eat lima beans and listen to rap music could be considered "torture", if I were a prisoner
-
Nor was I referencing as any form of torture standard. The article again was in referencing to trying to prepare our troops to deal with harsh interrogation techniques. I'm able to draw the line between that and actual torture. Are you?
I believe the article was about the use by the U.S. of those techniques as methods of interrogation. So when you, Sirs, say "draw the line between that and actual torture", are you suggesting these techniques are not torture?
If by your question you mean can I tell the difference between training men in how to withstand torture and using torture as a method if interrogating prisoners, the answer is yes. Which is why I can approve of the former, disapprove of the latter and see no contradiction there. How about you?
-
Nor was I referencing as any form of torture standard. The article again was in referencing to trying to prepare our troops to deal with harsh interrogation techniques. I'm able to draw the line between that and actual torture. Are you?
I believe the article was about the use by the U.S. of those techniques as methods of interrogation. So when you, Sirs, say "draw the line between that and actual torture", are you suggesting these techniques are not torture?
Yes. I've been on record long ago, that humiliation, psychological & physical stresses without causing physical harm, USED TO INTERROGATE PRISONERS, is not torture. Torture, as I have consistently seen it is the purposeful & brutal application of techniques to inflict the greatest amount of physical & psychological pain, simply to cause pain and/or death
If by your question you mean can I tell the difference between training men in how to withstand torture and using torture as a method if interrogating prisoners, the answer is yes. Which is why I can approve of the former, disapprove of the latter and see no contradiction there. How about you?
Obviously we have 2 definitions of torture
-
Yes. I've been on record long ago, that humiliation, psychological & physical stresses without causing physical harm, USED TO INTERROGATE PRISONERS, is not torture. Torture, as I have consistently seen it is the purposeful & brutal application of techniques to inflict the greatest amount of physical & psychological pain, simply to cause pain and/or death
So, if I am understanding you correctly, you're saying physical and psychological abuse is not torture if used to interrogate prisoners. That is an odd distinction, and it seems completely invalid to me.
Obviously we have 2 definitions of torture
Perhaps. I'm frankly unfamiliar with the notion that torture techniques used in interrogating prisoners are not torture. As I recall, the basic definition of torture included physical and/or psychological abuse as a means of interrogation. I would be more than a little surprised to find a definition that specifically made an exception for interrogating prisoners, as you seem to have done.
-
I've been on record long ago, that humiliation, psychological & physical stresses without causing physical harm, USED TO INTERROGATE PRISONERS, is not torture. Torture, as I have consistently seen it is the purposeful & brutal application of techniques to inflict the greatest amount of physical & psychological pain, simply to cause pain and/or death
So, if I am understanding you correctly, you're saying physical and psychological abuse is not torture if used to interrogate prisoners.
Not abuse, stresses used to facilitate answers to questions pertinent in trying to stop terrorist attacks and the murdering of innocent men, women, & children. "Abuse" is the obvious inferrence of going far above and beyond what would be considered acceptable stress
That is an odd distinction, and it seems completely invalid to me.
And you are completely entitled to that opinion
Obviously we have 2 definitions of torture
Perhaps. I'm frankly unfamiliar with the notion that torture techniques used in interrogating prisoners are not torture.
That's because you're applying the term "torture" inappropriately, IMHO. Thus the obvious difference we have in applying the term. As I said, I could apply torture, in how you're using it, in making me listen to rap music. It's the what, how & why that differentiates our versions of torture, it would seem
-
Right. The difference is, when we're doing it, it's not torture. It's just "stressful."
When they do it, they get hung after a war crimes tribunal and rightly so.
We are America, hear us torture apply stressors.
PS: I thought "situational ethics" were decried among conservatives. If this isn't a perfect example of them, I don't know what is.
-
Right. The difference is, when we're doing it, it's not torture. It's just "stressful."
No, if we do it just to cause pain and suffering, then it's torture, whether we do it or "they" do. When it's done and is not causing any physical damage, and it attempting to facilitate information to stop the killing of others, then it's not torture, whether we do it, or "they" do
Try to be a little more honest, Lanya
-
I find Lanya's breeziness just another casualty of the mindset of the looney left. Yes, distinctions have to be made. Even John McCain makes them. Interrogation in time of war or other serious peril should not imitate a tea party. But, yes, core values are at stake so our best (not our breeziest) thought should be devoted to the matter. Among the things to consider, aside from downright uncomfortability, are the reliability of the methods, IF ANY, and the degree of harm we are attempting to avert, and the time frame within which averting must be accomplished. A blanket ban on "severe techniques" -- even if such a ban were established de facto by nonuse of certain techniques as part of the regular "arsenal" -- must be rejected so as to save every (approved) tool for use when it really and actually may save a significant amount of lives.
-
Not abuse, stresses used to facilitate answers to questions pertinent in trying to stop terrorist attacks and the murdering of innocent men, women, & children. "Abuse" is the obvious inferrence of going far above and beyond what would be considered acceptable stress
Please, if you would, clarify for me the specific difference between 'stress' and 'abuse'.
As I said, I could apply torture, in how you're using it, in making me listen to rap music. It's the what, how & why that differentiates our versions of torture, it would seem
Um, no. Torture is not annoying people or making them uncomfortable. Torture is the infliction of severe physical and/or psychological suffering. No matter how bad you think rap music is, being made to listen to it is not going to bring you to the sort of psychological fear and suffering that I'm talking about. Waterboarding you or threatening you with large, snarling dogs probably would. The difference there seems pretty significant to me, and techniques of the latter sort are what I've been talking about. And as I said before, I'm not familiar with the notion that such techniques are somehow not torture if used as a means of interrogation. The notion seems, at best, like a weak justification for getting away with using torture for interrogation purposes.
-
Not abuse, stresses used to facilitate answers to questions pertinent in trying to stop terrorist attacks and the murdering of innocent men, women, & children. "Abuse" is the obvious inferrence of going far above and beyond what would be considered acceptable stress
Please, if you would, clarify for me the specific difference between 'stress' and 'abuse'.
Stress is placing the body in some form of duress, be it physical, mental, emotional, and/or psychological. Abuse is the willful attempt at trying to bring completely unwarranted and over-the-top form of stress, simply to abuse & cause pain
As I said, I could apply torture, in how you're using it, in making me listen to rap music. It's the what, how & why that differentiates our versions of torture, it would seem
Um, no. Torture is not annoying people or making them uncomfortable. Torture is the infliction of severe physical and/or psychological suffering. No matter how bad you think rap music is, being made to listen to it is not going to bring you to the sort of psychological fear and suffering that I'm talking about. ...The notion seems, at best, like a weak justification for getting away with using torture for interrogation purposes.
Again, you need to go back to the beginning, since your version of torture is obviously different than mine. Causing someone to be afraid is one of the best ways of interrogating. It causes no physical damage, and is not torture, in the sense that "torture" is historically understood to mean....dislocating of appendages, piercing body parts, burning flesh, pulling eyes out....THAT's torture
-
We need a baseline, perhaps best approached with a hypothetical. It is certain that many US lives (pick your magnitude) will be lost unless crucial information is not extracted in short order from a high-level terorist operative and a preventive operation begun. There is a certainty (no doubt whatsoever) that certain brutal and inhuman techniques will win his capitulation. Do you use those techniques? If so, why; if not, why not? As a closing comment, please take this hypothetical as factually unalterable (no dodges allowed). Further, assume that the target is, say, St. Louis, and that deaths in the range of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined are a realistic forecast. (I know this is a rather hackneyed exercise, but I can't think of a better one to state the issues.)
-
Gipper: You find my comment "breezy"?
Man, you sure are hard to satisfy. The right's too this, the left's too that. You're like Baby Bear, can't find the exactly right bowl of porridge. I'll just leave you to that search.
-
Stress is placing the body in some form of duress, be it physical, mental, emotional, and/or psychological. Abuse is the willful attempt at trying to bring completely unwarranted and over-the-top form of stress, simply to abuse & cause pain
Looks like stress is a merely a mild form of abuse. But what I'm not getting is the "simply to abuse & cause pain" part. If abuse-like measures are used for some other reason, is that not abuse?
Again, you need to go back to the beginning, since your version of torture is obviously different than mine. Causing someone to be afraid is one of the best ways of interrogating. It causes no physical damage, and is not torture, in the sense that "torture" is historically understood to mean....dislocating of appendages, piercing body parts, burning flesh, pulling eyes out....THAT's torture
Ignoring for the moment your choice of omission when you quoted me, you seem to keep trying to make this all seem mild. I speak of severe psychological suffering, and you say, "Causing someone to be afraid". I'm not talking about spooking someone into confessions like a comedic cop show. I'm talking about causing severe psychological fear and trauma. Not all torture is physical. It doesn't have to be the Spanish Inquisition with hot pokers and racks to be torture, and I am not aware of any definition of torture that excludes intentionally causing mental anguish and/or psychological trauma or some variation thereof. Except, of course, yours, which seems unusually selective in both action and intent of the action.
-
There is a certainty (no doubt whatsoever) that certain brutal and inhuman techniques will win his capitulation.
That is where you lost my suspension of disbelief. First, I don't know how that could possibly be certain. Second, even if there was a reasonable assurance that he would buckle under torture, there is no certainty that he would give accurate or even truthful information. I realize you probably see my objections as a dodge, but your hypothetical seems like a bit of a trap. If the only way to stop a terrorist was to send in your mother to have sex with the guy so she could blow both herself and the terrorist up with an exploding condom, would you do it? And if you say yes, does that mean you think sending mothers to have sex with and to explode terrorists in suicide attempts is a policy we should pursue in fighting terrorism?
-
Please, if you would, clarify for me the specific difference between 'stress' and 'abuse'.
Well, my job causes stress. Does that mean my employer is abusing me?
-
Well, my job causes stress. Does that mean my employer is abusing me?
Probably not. Are you suggesting your job could be given to prisoners in order to make them give us information?
-
Probably not. Are you suggesting your job could be given to prisoners in order to make them give us information?
Well, not my job per se, because it requires clearances to access confidential data.
But some of the stuff that happens? Woken up randomly at all hours of the day and night, working long hours with very little sleep, that kind of stuff?
Sure.
-
Woken up randomly at all hours of the day and night, working long hours with very little sleep, that kind of stuff?
Okay, for you, from your employer, we are calling that stress. But let's say the person doing that was not your boss, but your neighbor. Would you call it stress or abuse?
Another scenario. Your employer kept you locked in a jail cell, and you had no way to leave the job, and every day all day you were kept awake, able to get no more than a few moments of sleep at random intervals. Would that be stress, or abuse?
What about waterboarding? Is that stress or abuse? Or torture? What I have heard and read about waterboarding, it sounds like torture to me. But I've seen implications that it is no worse than being made to listen to rap music. I don't really see how the two are comparable, so I am trying to understand.
-
Employing your hypothetical with YOUR mother (policy forbids making such a decision regarding one's own family on conflict of interest grounds et al.), assuming the CERTAINTY of acquiring crucial, usable, "preemptive" intelligence on a timely basis, there are a number of factors to consider legitimately. Care to try, using yet another mother for the example?
-
You broke your own "no dodges allowed" rule, Gipper.
-
Mine wasn't a dodge, as it didn't address my original hypothetical, to which the "no dodge" prescription applied. Instead, it was a recasting of your dodge. In the future, even for serious matters such as that addressed by my original hypothetical, just say, "Fuck it" and be done with the pretense. In the final analysis I discern that you have neither the capacity nor the courage to answer.
-
Mine wasn't a dodge, as it didn't address my original hypothetical, to which the "no dodge" prescription applied. Instead, it was a recasting of your dodge.
Oh, I see. I gotta say though, it looks like you're still dodging.
In the future, even for serious matters such as that addressed by my original hypothetical, just say, "Fuck it" and be done with the pretense. In the final analysis I discern that you have neither the capacity nor the courage to answer.
Heh. That's funny. Apparently you have confused "the capacity" and "the courage to answer" with stupidity, and so I can't say I'm sorry to have disappointed you. Your hypothetical isn't relying on people to have courage to answer, but fear. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at risk and you have to torture someone to get the info to stop the danger, in other words, does the hypothetical threat scenario frighten you enough to agree to the use of torture to get the information. As I said before, it's a trap—one that, redressed and turned back on you, I noticed, you squirmed out of answering with excuses for which you then made more excuses. Anyway, who is going to answer with "no, I would rather let hundreds of thousands of people die than torture one person for information"? Obviously, the purpose of your unrealistic hypothetical is to get an answer that agrees with torture. And now you're passing judgment on my intelligence and courage because I didn't step into the trap. That's funny.
-
Intelligent discussion on the way to an answer, and then only for its heuristic value, is what the situation called for. Your simple ipse dixit leaves me, well, unenlightened.
-
Intelligent discussion on the way to an answer, and then only for its heuristic value, is what the situation called for.
If you want intelligent discussion, then try starting there yourself. Your hypothetical, to put this very politely, was a poor choice for a heuristic tool. The completely unrealistic nature of your scenario is such that you might as well have posed one suggesting that we could use ordained priests armed with the power of Christ to compel terrorists to talk. Taking your hypothetical seriously is difficult because your hypothetical is implausible.
I'm glad you want intelligent discussion, but I'm not a rube you can manipulate with pseudo-Socratic hypotheticals. If you want to discuss ideas, then let's do that. If you want to know if there are any circumstances under which I would agree to the use of torture, then ask me. If all you want is to trick me or "heuristically" lead me into agreeing with torture, then I'm not interested.
Your simple ipse dixit leaves me, well, unenlightened.
Please, since you're so smart, point out the unsupported assertion. Otherwise, physician, heal thyself. So far your swagger looks like so much bluster and show.
-
Prince, to me at least, you are an oversensitive, overly-circumspect little paranoid pretender. The obvious and open intent of my suggested exercise is to determine whether in a theoretical world "extreme measures" in interrogation are ever justified.
-
Question: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
-
Question: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Except for the point he wouldn't authorize such a barbaric terrorist-like act. And the idea that someone would even think he could, demonstrates just how bad their BDS has gotten >:( This is the point I apparently couldn't make with Prince. When I reference listening to rap music as a form of "torture" I would have a hard time with, it's not to directly compare it on an even keel with sleep deprivation or scaring the bejeebees out of someone you were interrogating. Yet it's in this vane that folks on the left lay innuendo that sleep deprivation is akin to crushing children's testicles.
-
Prince, to me at least, you are an oversensitive, overly-circumspect little paranoid pretender. The obvious and open intent of my suggested exercise is to determine whether in a theoretical world "extreme measures" in interrogation are ever justified.
What a lot of self-righteous excrement. Your hypothetical is juvenile and so is your bluster. You did not propose that torture could be justified and then explain your position with a hypothetical. You posed an implausible hypothetical wherein "brutal and inhuman techniques" were required and certain to make a terrorist talk and asked, "Do you use those techniques?" That isn't an open ended exercise to determine whether "extreme measures" are ever justified. The obvious intent of your hypothetical is to determine whether the respondent will agree that torture can be justified. The hypothetical was leading. Did you think no one would notice?
Most of your insults are asinine, so I don't intend to answer them. However I'd like to address that you called me paranoid. I didn't make this about me. You're the one who started with the insults, and you directed them at me specifically. If you don't like it, too bad because it's your own damn fault.
-
Question: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Except for the point he wouldn't authorize such a barbaric terrorist-like act. And the idea that someone would even think he could, demonstrates just how bad their BDS has gotten >:( This is the point I apparently couldn't make with Prince. When I reference listening to rap music as a form of "torture" I would have a hard time with, it's not to directly compare it on an even keel with sleep deprivation or scaring the bejeebees out of someone you were interrogating. Yet it's in this vane that folks on the left lay innuendo that sleep deprivation is akin to crushing children's testicles.
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
By Philip Watts
01/08/06 "revcom.us" -- -- John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.
What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."
This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us
Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."
What is the position of the Bush Administration on the torture of children, since one of its most influential legal architects is advocating the President’s right to order the crushing of a child’s testicles?
This fascist logic has nothing to do with "getting information" as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S.-run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?
It is ironic that just prior to arguing the President's legal right to torture children, John Yoo was defensive about the Bush administration policies, based on his legal memo’s, being equated to those during Nazi Germany.
Yoo said, "If you are trying to draw a moral equivalence between the Nazis and what the United States is trying to do in defending themselves against Al Qauueda and the 9/11 attacks, I fully reject that. Second, if you’re trying to equate the Bush Administration to Nazi officials who committed atrocities in the holocaust, I completely reject that too…I think to equate Nazi Germany to the Bush Administration is irresponsible."
[..........]
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm
-
Question: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Except for the point he wouldn't authorize such a barbaric terrorist-like act. And the idea that someone would even think he could, demonstrates just how bad their BDS has gotten >:( This is the point I apparently couldn't make with Prince. When I reference listening to rap music as a form of "torture" I would have a hard time with, it's not to directly compare it on an even keel with sleep deprivation or scaring the bejeebees out of someone you were interrogating. Yet it's in this vane that folks on the left lay innuendo that sleep deprivation is akin to crushing children's testicles.
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
By Philip Watts ...snip...
And this changes my point.....how again?
-
You prattle on, Prince, with nothing to say. Trust me, my hypothetical was a good conversation starter in the right crowd, and the point it hopes to address is sound if controversial. I could, but won't, give you a list of scholarly works addressing the same general theme, pro and con.
-
you might as well have posed one suggesting that we could use ordained priests armed with the power of Christ to compel terrorists to talk
It worked for the Exorcist, it'll work for Iraq!
-
You prattle on, Prince, with nothing to say.
Actually, I've said plenty. I've gone out of my way to explain my objection to your hypothetical, which could easily have led to a discussion of ideas about the topic. You apparently are unwilling to discuss the topic. You seem to have preferred that I act like a little marionette, with you tugging on the strings, dancing to your tune. I did not, and so far the best you can do is insult me, insist that you really were making serious point, complain that I didn't play by your made up rules, and all with a virtual stomp of your foot. So far, I'm not impressed.
Trust me, my hypothetical was a good conversation starter in the right crowd,
Of that I have little doubt.
and the point it hopes to address is sound if controversial.
I am sure that is also true.
I could, but won't, give you a list of scholarly works addressing the same general theme, pro and con.
I do not doubt that. You seem to have mistakenly assumed that my objection was to the general theme of your hypothetical. The issue of whether torture is an acceptable course of action in certain circumstances is, of course, a perfectly reasonable topic of discussion. I never said otherwise. The objection was not to the general topic, but the specifics of your hypothetical. Do try to keep up.
-
It worked for the Exorcist, it'll work for Iraq!
Heh. Yes, I did for a moment have an image of Max von Sydow saying "The power of Christ compells you..." to a man in an interrogation room. As I say that now, though, I'm thinking if you really wanted to creep out a terrorist, you need Max von Sydow not as a Catholic priest, but as Jesus Christ. Then again, that might result in a tedium that would make the terrorist talk just to make it end.
-
And this changes my point.....how again?
......................*deafening silence*...................
That's what I thought
-
Question: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Except for the point he wouldn't authorize such a barbaric terrorist-like act. And the idea that someone would even think he could, demonstrates just how bad their BDS has gotten >:( This is the point I apparently couldn't make with Prince. When I reference listening to rap music as a form of "torture" I would have a hard time with, it's not to directly compare it on an even keel with sleep deprivation or scaring the bejeebees out of someone you were interrogating. Yet it's in this vane that folks on the left lay innuendo that sleep deprivation is akin to crushing children's testicles.
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
By Philip Watts ...snip...
And this changes my point.....how again?
----------------------
Isn't that the whole point of torture, these extreme-case scenarios? The ticking time-bomb scene, and the little boy's father knows where the bomb is....
But you say Bush wouldn't do that. So let's just go back to being a nation who doesn't torture.
Don't mince and prance around the meaning of the word.
If you don't want it done to you or your child or any one else, don't do it, and don't order it done. Don't pretend that it isn't happening. Face up to it. Demand that it be stopped, if you think that it is terrorist-like behavior.
-
Question: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Except for the point he wouldn't authorize such a barbaric terrorist-like act. And the idea that someone would even think he could, demonstrates just how bad their BDS has gotten >:( This is the point I apparently couldn't make with Prince. When I reference listening to rap music as a form of "torture" I would have a hard time with, it's not to directly compare it on an even keel with sleep deprivation or scaring the bejeebees out of someone you were interrogating. Yet it's in this vane that folks on the left lay innuendo that sleep deprivation is akin to crushing children's testicles.
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
By Philip Watts ...snip...
And this changes my point.....how again?
----------------------
Isn't that the whole point of torture, these extreme-case scenarios?
No, it's not. The whole point of "torture" is to inflict the greatest amount of pain and suffering as possible, and still see if your captive can remain alive. That or just decapitate him/her, if they haven't already been burned to death.
The ticking time-bomb scene, and the little boy's father knows where the bomb is....But you say Bush wouldn't do that.
No, he wouldn't
So let's just go back to being a nation who doesn't torture.
We don't. And the form of stressful interrogation techniques used are nothing like the continued dren you keep implying as anaolgus to children's testicles being crushed
-
If you don't want it done to you or your child or any one else, don't do it, and don't order it done. Don't pretend that it isn't happening. Face up to it. Demand that it be stopped, if you think that it is terrorist-like behavior.
How can we "demand that it be stopped" - do you have an example of crushing child's testicles for us to protest?
-
It isn't about a child's testicles to Lanya, it is about Bush.
Meanwhile renditioning, invented during the Clinton Admin, which put the blessing on outsourcing torture, gets hardly a mention from her.
Renditioning is real, Yoo's comments were hypothetical.
I guess it is OK if you are a Democrat.
-
It isn't about a child's testicles to Lanya, it is about Bush. Meanwhile renditioning, invented during the Clinton Admin, which put the blessing on outsourcing torture, gets hardly a mention from her. Renditioning is real, Yoo's comments were hypothetical. I guess it is OK if you are a Democrat.
Boy, that sure hits the nail on the head. But of course, Lanya doesn't hate Bush
-
We don't. And the form of stressful interrogation techniques used are nothing like the continued dren you keep implying as anaolgus to children's testicles being crushed
How do you know? I ask that about the first and second clause of your second sentence.
-
I find Lanya's breeziness just another casualty of the mindset of the looney left. Yes, distinctions have to be made. Even John McCain makes them. Interrogation in time of war or other serious peril should not imitate a tea party. But, yes, core values are at stake so our best (not our breeziest) thought should be devoted to the matter. Among the things to consider, aside from downright uncomfortability, are the reliability of the methods, IF ANY, and the degree of harm we are attempting to avert, and the time frame within which averting must be accomplished. A blanket ban on "severe techniques" -- even if such a ban were established de facto by nonuse of certain techniques as part of the regular "arsenal" -- must be rejected so as to save every (approved) tool for use when it really and actually may save a significant amount of lives.
-
We need a baseline, perhaps best approached with a hypothetical. It is certain that many US lives (pick your magnitude) will be lost unless crucial information is not extracted in short order from a high-level terorist operative and a preventive operation begun. There is a certainty (no doubt whatsoever) that certain brutal and inhuman techniques will win his capitulation. Do you use those techniques? If so, why; if not, why not? As a closing comment, please take this hypothetical as factually unalterable (no dodges allowed). Further, assume that the target is, say, St. Louis, and that deaths in the range of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined are a realistic forecast. (I know this is a rather hackneyed exercise, but I can't think of a better one to state the issues.)
-
We don't. And the form of stressful interrogation techniques used are nothing like the continued dren you keep implying as anaolgus to children's testicles being crushed
How do you know? I ask that about the first and second clause of your second sentence.
Because, we're not a Terrorist nation, run by barbarians, despite the perseveration of the claim made by the likes of Tee & Brass. And until folks like Lanya & Tee start demonstrating actual evidence of such barabarism at the hands of the U.S., it's their credibility that gets picked clean, as the benefit of the doubt goes in favor of those not completely blinded by Bush hatred.
-
Gipper,
I fail to see where "breezy" comes into this discussion at all. I do not feel breezy, I assure you. If you think my arguments are looney, please say so. I am taking words spoken by architects of Bush's torture policy and pasting them here. I think they, these architects, are immoral and certainly did not consider what effects their legal memos could have on our troops who, in the future, will be possibly subjected to torture. They aren't considering what our soldiers who commit torture will have to face for the rest of their lives: self-knowledge, or knowing that they did monstrous things under ORDER. That is horrible.
They aren't considering the Nuremburg trials. They aren't fully considering the Geneva Conventions. If you are willing for our soldiers to have these exact same tortures exacted upon them, please say so. If not, please say so. You seem to want the 'evil ones' to pay a price in pain and blood but you think American soldiers won't have to pay it----or so it seems to me. Otherwise you would never countenance torture.
-
Because, we're not a Terrorist nation, run by barbarians, despite the perseveration of the claim made by the likes of Tee & Brass. And until folks like Lanya & Tee start demonstrating actual evidence of such barabarism at the hands of the U.S., it's their credibility that gets picked clean, as the benefit of the doubt goes in favor of those not completely blinded by Bush hatred.
Yet, we've certainly had evidence of prisoner abuse, if not outright torture. Have we not? We've had police departments practice techniques that were torture.
What techniques would you use on a fellow human being to extract information?
-
Gipper,
I fail to see where "breezy" comes into this discussion at all. I do not feel breezy, I assure you. If you think my arguments are looney, please say so. I am taking words spoken by architects of Bush's torture policy and pasting them here. I think they, these architects, are immoral and certainly did not consider what effects their legal memos could have on our troops who, in the future, will be possibly subjected to torture. They aren't considering what our soldiers who commit torture will have to face for the rest of their lives: self-knowledge, or knowing that they did monstrous things under ORDER. That is horrible.
They aren't considering the Nuremburg trials. They aren't fully considering the Geneva Conventions. If you are willing for our soldiers to have these exact same tortures exacted upon them, please say so. If not, please say so. You seem to want the 'evil ones' to pay a price in pain and blood but you think American soldiers won't have to pay it----or so it seems to me. Otherwise you would never countenance torture.
Well you did bring up the mutilation of a child , which as far as we know is entirely hipothetical. If what is actually being done is very bad , why are you searching for something worse in the imagination?
Our Soldiers being treated very badly is a given and cannot be avoided by our good behavior , this should not be a factor in our consideration of what is good to do , elese we could simply make sure we are one notch less barbaric than they , that would be too easy by half.
The things that have been approved by the Bush administration for use in questioning are worthy of discussion but they must not be too bad if one must bring up worse than these to point to as a scarey possibility.
-
Because, we're not a Terrorist nation, run by barbarians, despite the perseveration of the claim made by the likes of Tee & Brass. And until folks like Lanya & Tee start demonstrating actual evidence of such barabarism at the hands of the U.S., it's their credibility that gets picked clean, as the benefit of the doubt goes in favor of those not completely blinded by Bush hatred.
Yet, we've certainly had evidence of prisoner abuse, if not outright torture. Have we not?
[/quote
Yes, and have we not condemned those actions that have been proven to be simply abuse if not outright torture?? and have we not prosectued actions that were deemed simply abuse, if not outright torture?? So, that pretty much debunks the notion we're akin to AlQeada now, doesn't it
We've had police departments practice techniques that were torture.
And? What were those "techniques", and when were they being used?
What techniques would you use on a fellow human being to extract information?
Sleep deprivation, enviromental fluctuations, humiliation, "threat" of both bodily and family harm (Note that does not equate to actual harm, merely the threat), etc. Actually, why don't you provide some examples of "torture" and I'll tell you if they're acceptable as methods of extracting information
-
Sleep deprivation, enviromental fluctuations, humiliation, "threat" of both bodily and family harm (Note that does not equate to actual harm, merely the threat), etc. Actually, why don't you provide some examples of "torture" and I'll tell you if they're acceptable as methods of extracting information
I'll do better than that, I'll provide the U.S. code legal definition of torture.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340
(1) “torture†means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering†means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality
(3) “United States†means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
Notice that the threat of harm to the person or his or her family is a violation of the law. So, you are willing to violate the law of this country, correct?
Yes, and have we not condemned those actions that have been proven to be simply abuse if not outright torture?? and have we not prosectued actions that were deemed simply abuse, if not outright torture?? So, that pretty much debunks the notion we're akin to AlQeada now, doesn't it
When did I say we were akin to al Qaeda?
And? What were those "techniques", and when were they being used?
Ask Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo, Martin Anderson, Sean Bell, Robert Davis, Frank Jude...of course some of them will be difficult to ask because they were killed and in most cases there were no convictions of anyone.
-
Sleep deprivation, enviromental fluctuations, humiliation, "threat" of both bodily and family harm (Note that does not equate to actual harm, merely the threat), etc. Actually, why don't you provide some examples of "torture" and I'll tell you if they're acceptable as methods of extracting information
I'll do better than that, I'll provide the U.S. code legal definition of torture. Notice that the threat of harm to the person or his or her family is a violation of the law. So, you are willing to violate the law of this country, correct?
Notice that you're continuing to blurr (as do so many) "torture" for the sake of simply inflicting torment, if not death, and tactics used to extract information. So, no, I'm not willing to "torture" for the sake of torturing. I am for aggressive techniques in extracting information, as I've already alluded to, that do NOT cause any physical damage, to ANYONE. Physical stress and mental anguish are acceptable in my book. Crushing a child's testicles is not. Dislocating body parts is not. Cutting off ears is not So, let's go back to rephrasing my question, what are some of the examples of "torture" you deem unacceptable as methods of extracting information, and I'll tell you if I agree
....have we not condemned those actions that have been proven to be simply abuse if not outright torture?? and have we not prosectued actions that were deemed simply abuse, if not outright torture?? So, that pretty much debunks the notion we're akin to AlQeada now, doesn't it
When did I say we were akin to al Qaeda?
That'd be in defending Lanya's references that I responded to, that you then responded to. The garbage that alludes to Bush ok'ing the crushing oh children's testicles, akin to terrorist acts by AlQeada, for the sake of "extracting information", and you piping in about how could I be so sure he wouldn't. If you're going to go on record and denounce such an implication, then I shall subtract my finger pointing
And? What were those "techniques", and when were they being used?
Ask Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo, Martin Anderson, Sean Bell, Robert Davis, Frank Jude...of course some of them will be difficult to ask because they were killed and in most cases there were no convictions of anyone.
And..........................? I'm not sure what you're fishing for here, Js. There are a multiude of Constitutional & legal protections afforded U.S. civilians in custody. Any "torture" that certain police officers performed should be absolutely condemned. So, what's your point?
-
Unless you're willing to answer hypotheticals such as I proposed, and corollary hypotheticals suggested by the answers -- unless you are an absolutist --you cannot, I suggest, approach the clarity which this topic requires.
-
Unless you're willing to answer hypotheticals such as I proposed, and corollary hypotheticals suggested by the answers -- unless you are an absolutist --you cannot, I suggest, approach the clarity which this topic requires.
To whom are you talking, Gipper?
-
There is a certainty (no doubt whatsoever) that certain brutal and inhuman techniques will win his capitulation.
That is where you lost my suspension of disbelief. First, I don't know how that could possibly be certain. Second, even if there was a reasonable assurance that he would buckle under torture, there is no certainty that he would give accurate or even truthful information. I realize you probably see my objections as a dodge, but your hypothetical seems like a bit of a trap. But we've done this already. So let's try something else.
We need a baseline, perhaps best approached with a hypothetical. It is certain that many US lives (pick your magnitude) will be lost unless crucial information is not extracted in short order from a high-level terorist operative and a preventive operation begun. There is a certainty (no doubt whatsoever) that certain brutal and inhuman techniques will win his capitulation. Do you use those techniques? If so, why; if not, why not? As a closing comment, please take this hypothetical as factually unalterable (no dodges allowed). Further, assume that the target is, say, St. Louis, and that deaths in the range of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined are a realistic forecast. (I know this is a rather hackneyed exercise, but I can't think of a better one to state the issues.)
Well, we've already discussed that I do not intend to take this hypothetical as factually unalterable because the hypothetical is simply not plausible. But if we overlook the objectionable sentence, the specific answer to your question is no. I would not use those techniques. Because for one, there is no way to be certain that torture is going to yield useful results. The prisoner could merely tell a half-truth or lie that I have to spend time investigating, and then the time is wasted. For another, while I believe we can use terror to fight terrorists, I also believe that somewhere there has to be a line drawn that we will not cross. If we say torture is okay here, then what about this that just is little step down? And then another and another. Sure, we could attempt to set some arbitrary limit, like if so many people are in danger only then can we use torture, but how many people is enough? How sharp or fuzzy do we draw that line? Is New York City worth it, but not San Antonio? Is California worth it, but not Wyoming? I would prefer we take a principled stance against torture rather than say it is off limits unless we feel we need it. Which is essentially what would happen and would amount to, imo, no standard at all.
-
Unless you're willing to answer hypotheticals such as I proposed, and corollary hypotheticals suggested by the answers -- unless you are an absolutist --you cannot, I suggest, approach the clarity which this topic requires.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Just out of curiosity, who appointed you the definer of rules under which a discussion of torture gets to take place?
-
Unless you're willing to answer hypotheticals such as I proposed, and corollary hypotheticals suggested by the answers -- unless you are an absolutist --you cannot, I suggest, approach the clarity which this topic requires.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Just out of curiosity, who appointed you the definer of rules under which a discussion of torture gets to take place?
Each of us .
Anyone may determine the conditions under which he himself will be availible for discussion.
Some may require more or less , but the only penaty they can apply is to make themselves more or less accessable.
Domer may set the rules under which discussions with Domer are held.
-
Anyone may determine the conditions under which he himself will be availible for discussion.
I have no problem with that, since I do that. However, that isn't what Gipper said. He was determining for others by what avenue they could "approach the clarity which this topic requires."
-
Anyone may determine the conditions under which he himself will be availible for discussion.
I have no problem with that, since I do that. However, that isn't what Gipper said. He was determining for others by what avenue they could "approach the clarity which this topic requires."
The terms you work out with Domer might be unique , would there be an advantage in standardising such deals more?
-
The terms you work out with Domer might be unique , would there be an advantage in standardising such deals more?
I doubt it.
-
The terms you work out with Domer might be unique , would there be an advantage in standardising such deals more?
I doubt it.
You have the same right to demand that someone jump thu hoops as anyone elese , and the same right to ignore the hoops .
I think that when there is a good reason to insist on some sort of particular thing , the insistance should come with an explanation of why the thing is a good idea.
3DHS is pretty much a round table with rules pretty loose , being polite is a good idea more often than not , being cogent is a good idea too.
I can imagine an exploration of ideas requireing a narrowly focused track that excludes unimportant distractions and details that are not pertanent , that is going to be difficult to accomplish here.
-
I never particularly liked the "slippery slope" argument, oft-heard in legal courtrooms, because most of the time one can construct reliable "off ramps" that prevent the downhill momentum from ending in a result you do not want. It just requires hard work to develop and maintain them (the ramps). In the context of a catastrophic event causing the loss of a shocking number of lives (at what point the sheer number becomes "shocking" and therefore insufferable is an open part of the discussion), coupled with a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation, I would have no qualms whatsoever using whatever means are necessary.*
*Accurately, that should read "I would have no qualms empowering a properly-appointed designee to do whatever is necessary." I personally have no tolerance for torture, but some do to the extent that they can maintain their humanity even while inflicting horrible punishments ... or willing volunteer to risk losing their humanity for the greater good.
This introduces two further questions (at least): What is the utility of keeping such interrogation "off the books" or "covert"? And especially in light of that consideration, how do you enforce standards when the chain of command may insist on deniability?
-
If there is one thing that makes me worry, in the question of Torture , it is the slippery slope we have already come down and the steepness of the slope ahead.
I am pleased that there is a lot of public reluctance to support cruelty , and that there is a public discussion on the subject of how much cruelty might be permissable , needed , or forbidden , useless.
It is experience and discussion that determines the public tolerance level and the public tolerance level that produces resistance to the slide down the slope.
Without the experience of 9-11 we would still be a lot nearer the top of the hill, if there is another very shocking incident I would expect the friction vector on the hill to be reduced again.
There is a balence to be struck , somewhere in between MT's suggestion of serveing diuretic tea to a guy that is embarrased to say he needs to pee , and the extremity of cruelty that full revenge would exact with some multiple of our own loss as the basis of limit , there must be a place on the spectrum or matrix where there is no uneeded cruelty and there is little loss of oppurtunity to know what our captured prisoners can tell.
Is this a job for experts? Do we have psycologists who are dedicated to the extraction of information of intrest to a state from an induvidual? I hope we don't. Such a person would be in violation of the Hippocratic oath very severely and the very concept is scary.
Is this a job for self appointed ametures? No, very much no, we can't refuse to learn from Abu Graib how badly poor oversight can turn out.
This is a proper subject for public consensus , which will not necessacerily produce the most optimum answer but is very likely to avoid at least the evil that is lurking at the extremes.
-
You have the same right to demand that someone jump thu hoops as anyone elese , and the same right to ignore the hoops
I hope I'm not demanding hoop jumping, but thanks all the same.
I can imagine an exploration of ideas requireing a narrowly focused track that excludes unimportant distractions and details that are not pertanent
I can imagine that as well, but at the same time, I have a hard time imagining that requires telling other people how they must approach discussing a topic.
-
coupled with a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation
The problem is, such certainty only exists hypothetically. If the torture were hypothetical, that would be fine. When the torture is real, however, such certainty is nowhere to be found. So what do you, or your properly appointed designee, decide when you face the possibility of a catastrophic event and no certainty that torturing a known terrorist will get you any reliable information?
-
You would draw on a body of knowledge previously developed to try to judge, possibly through mathematical-like formulae, the reliability of a technique or techniques to produce capitulation, the chance that accurate, actionable information could be extracted from the capitulation, assessment in the keenest way possible of the status of the umbrella investigation, assessment of the certainty of the catastrophic event, assessment of the damage that the event would cause, projection of the longitudinal ramifications of the catastrophe actually occurring, projection of the effect of a "wrong" decision" on future civilized life (e.g., wrong -- not trying (catastrophe occurs): the effects of the catastrophe on future interrogation policy, and much more; wrong -- trying without breaking the subject: the corrosive effects of uncivility perhaps perpetuated but mitigated by the outcry over the catastrophe itself; wrong -- breaking the subject but finding he has nothing to offer or else provides deceptive or useless information: see immediately preceding elaboration; and so on to "right and successful": catastrophe aborted). Beyond my particular ken, there are calculuses and analytical trains that may be able to make these matters more intelligible and usable, which, I suspect, society would opt for (i.e., trying to optimize data in a quite scientific undertaking), all the time informed by every available and helpful value, distilled to a usable philosophy. The basic moral problem as conceived is this: when do you risk the effects of degradation from torture (though please note, like "legitimate" collateral damage from bombing in wartime, say, this may be substantially mitigated by the importance of the given mission) to prevent (as posited) a truly earth-shattering catastrophe taking "x" amounts of lives with all sorts of horrible maiming, "x" being to the limits of your imagination.
-
The nature of torture is on the cusp of change.
I will soon be possible to cause intense pain with absolutely no phisical damage .
Not too far in the future it my be possible to shut down a persons self disapline temporairily so that they speak every word in their head but there would be n pain.
Does the nature of the question change as tecnical means become availible to manipulate the mind?
-
I would not support any type of torture, whether to garner information or not. Nor do I think it is reasonable to re-define "torture" until you make it acceptable to your current situation.
Violating the basic dignity of a human being is unconscionable, even when you believe that person to be responsible for some heinous act.
-
Violating the basic dignity of a human being is unconscionable, even when you believe that person to be responsible for some heinous act.
Yet for me, someone who was responsibible for some heinous act of murdering innocent women & children, be it in the tens, to hundreds, to thousands, has forfeited their being considered a human being in my book, thus have lost any right to be treated with basic dignity
-
Yet for me, someone who was responsibible for some heinous act of murdering innocent women & children, be it in the tens, to hundreds, to thousands, has forfeited their being considered a human being in my book, thus have lost any right to be treated with basic dignity
And that is where you and I differ. I never start stripping anyone of their innate humanity, given to them by God, no matter what they have done (or are alleged to have done).
I don't really care what other's think, I'd rather die with principles than live without them.
-
coupled with a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation
The problem is, such certainty only exists hypothetically. If the torture were hypothetical, that would be fine. When the torture is real, however, such certainty is nowhere to be found. So what do you, or your properly appointed designee, decide when you face the possibility of a catastrophic event and no certainty that torturing a known terrorist will get you any reliable information?
There are occasions of certainty .
Some of the captives we have are well identified as leaders of Al Quieda , thus we have a reasonable certainty that these guys were in on plans of destruction tipical of Al Queida.
Foiling such a plan certainly saves lives.
When such certainty is availible do you allow more lattitude?
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Yet for me, someone who was responsibible for some heinous act of murdering innocent women & children, be it in the tens, to hundreds, to thousands, has forfeited their being considered a human being in my book, thus have lost any right to be treated with basic dignity
And that is where you and I differ. I never start stripping anyone of their innate humanity, given to them by God, no matter what they have done (or are alleged to have done).
I don't really care what other's think, I'd rather die with principles than live without them.
When you have a reasonable certainty that you are holding a person who knows the time and place of an ambush or attack you are not makeing this choice only for yourself.
-
Yet for me, someone who was responsibible for some heinous act of murdering innocent women & children, be it in the tens, to hundreds, to thousands, has forfeited their being considered a human being in my book, thus have lost any right to be treated with basic dignity
...I don't really care what other's think, I'd rather die with principles than live without them.
My principles are fine BTW, yet I have no problem calling an animal an animal, even when they're existing in human form
-
When you have a reasonable certainty that you are holding a person who knows the time and place of an ambush or attack you are not makeing this choice only for yourself.
An unlikely scenario. Besides, we can play hypotheticals all day. If it is reasonable to assume that the individual who has been captured knows the time and place of a terrorist attack - would it not also be reasonable to assume that his conspirators in this crime will change the details or abort it entirely now that it has been compromised?
-
Yet for me, someone who was responsibible for some heinous act of murdering innocent women & children, be it in the tens, to hundreds, to thousands, has forfeited their being considered a human being in my book, thus have lost any right to be treated with basic dignity
...I don't really care what other's think, I'd rather die with principles than live without them.
My principles are fine BTW, yet I have no problem calling an animal an animal, even when they're existing in human form
Right, that is why you have to justify it.
That is also why you have to dehumanize the human beings responsible for such actions.
Interesting.
-
My principles are fine BTW, yet I have no problem calling an animal an animal, even when they're existing in human form
Right, that is why you have to justify it. That is also why you have to dehumanize the human beings responsible for such actions. Interesting.
Justify calling a terrorist who brazingly kills, when not butchering innocent men, women, and children, an animal? And you have a problem with that? Interesting. They just need therapy right? Bad self esteem, Father made him wear women's underwear when he was a child, or something like that. Just need to understand why they kill, then of course, they'll stop killing, be all nice nice, and we can all sing kumbuyaw ::)
-
Some of the captives we have are well identified as leaders of Al Quieda , thus we have a reasonable certainty that these guys were in on plans of destruction tipical of Al Queida.
That is not the sort of certainty Gipper was talking about. He said specifically "a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation". Again, such certainty only exists hypothetically. For torture in the real world, rather than the hypothetical world, such certainty is nowhere to be found.
-
You would draw on a body of knowledge previously developed to try to judge, possibly through mathematical-like formulae, the reliability of a technique or techniques to produce capitulation, the chance that ... assessment in the keenest way possible ... assessment of the damage ... projection of the longitudinal ramifications ... projection of the effect ...
So, you would take a guess and hope you thought of everything, and then go ahead with the torture.
-
My principles are fine BTW, yet I have no problem calling an animal an animal, even when they're existing in human form
Right, that is why you have to justify it. That is also why you have to dehumanize the human beings responsible for such actions. Interesting.
Justify calling a terrorist who brazingly kills, when not butchering innocent men, women, and children, an animal? And you have a problem with that? Interesting. They just need therapy right? Bad self esteem, Father made him wear women's underwear when he was a child, or something like that. Just need to understand why they kill, then of course, they'll stop killing, be all nice nice, and we can all sing kumbuyaw ::)
Putting words in my mouth now? Nice.
Show me where I said that: "they need therapy" "bad self esteem" "Father made him wear women's underwear when he was a child, or something like that" "Just need to understand why they kill, then of course, they'll stop killing, be all nice nice, and we can all sing kumbuyaw[sp.]"
So now you've moved from justifying stripping another human being of his humanity to an ad hominem argument. It seems to me that you are having a lot more trouble with this issue than I am Sirs.
-
Justify calling a terrorist who brazingly kills, when not butchering innocent men, women, and children, an animal? And you have a problem with that?
I can't answer for JS, but I know I have a problem with that. I do not believe deciding who does not get to be human is up to you. Or me, or any other human being. And frankly, it seems in the same area of rhetoric as Michael Tee calling people gusanos for being enemies of "the Revolution". It is a dehumanizing tactic so the killing or abuse of those people can be justified.
-
To Js, my apologies for the over-the-top response
To Prince, I don't think I EVER indicated that everyone was to follow my lead in calling a terrorist who purposely kills women & chilrent an animal. And for you to imply I shouldn't is pretty arrogant on your part
-
"Brother, I love ya!" shouted the artilleryman as his round square hit an enemy soldier, shredding him apart but not killing him, yet, or for two more agonizing weeks. "Kumbaya."
-
No problem Sirs. It is a heated subject.
-
To Prince, I don't think I EVER indicated that everyone was to follow my lead in calling a terrorist who purposely kills women & chilrent an animal. And for you to imply I shouldn't is pretty arrogant on your part
To imply that you shouldn't dehumanize other people is arrogant on my part? Perhaps, but I don't see how I can express a disagreement on that issue without that implication being there. Does that mean my disagreement is arrogant? I hope not.
-
Some of the captives we have are well identified as leaders of Al Quieda , thus we have a reasonable certainty that these guys were in on plans of destruction tipical of Al Queida.
That is not the sort of certainty Gipper was talking about. He said specifically "a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation". Again, such certainty only exists hypothetically. For torture in the real world, rather than the hypothetical world, such certainty is nowhere to be found.
No I am pretty sure that we have actually captured some persons of known rank who we actually knew had knoledge of Al Queda resorces , personell and plans. Extracting this information produces a near certainty of stopping plans , a near certanty of saveing lives.
-
I don't think I EVER indicated that everyone was to follow my lead in calling a terrorist who purposely kills women & children an animal. And for you to imply I shouldn't is pretty arrogant on your part
To imply that you shouldn't dehumanize other people is arrogant on my part? Perhaps, but I don't see how I can express a disagreement on that issue without that implication being there. Does that mean my disagreement is arrogant?
No, it really means your inferrence that I require others to follow suit in calling terrorists animals, is arrogant & egotistical
-
Is torturing someone qualitatively different from inflicting "normal course" damage in war? If so, why? Please elaborate.
-
No, it really means your inferrence that I require others to follow suit in calling terrorists animals, is arrogant & egotistical
Oh. Well, um, I didn't say you required others to do that. And I don't see where I implied that in what I said. And for the record, I did not infer that either.
-
No, it really means your inferrence that I require others to follow suit in calling terrorists animals, is arrogant & egotistical
Oh. Well, um, I didn't say you required others to do that. And I don't see where I implied that in what I said. And for the record, I did not infer that either.
For the record, "I do not believe deciding who does not get to be human is up to you" sure appears so.
-
That is not the sort of certainty Gipper was talking about. He said specifically "a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation". Again, such certainty only exists hypothetically. For torture in the real world, rather than the hypothetical world, such certainty is nowhere to be found.
No I am pretty sure that we have actually captured some persons of known rank who we actually knew had knoledge of Al Queda resorces , personell and plans. Extracting this information produces a near certainty of stopping plans , a near certanty of saveing lives.
You're not getting it. The problem is not the idea that we might know for certain that someone is a terrorist or has information about terrorist plans. The problem is the idea that we could know with certainty that torture is going to cause the terrorist/prisoner to divulge honestly plans for terrorism. Gipper wants to claim the hypothetical certainty, but that certainty does not exist in reality. One might as well claim a hypothetical certainty that the prisoner will convert to Unitarianism. Yeah, it's possible, but not something we can count as a certainty in reality.
-
No, it really means your inferrence that I require others to follow suit in calling terrorists animals, is arrogant & egotistical
Oh. Well, um, I didn't say you required others to do that. And I don't see where I implied that in what I said. And for the record, I did not infer that either.
For the record, "I do not believe deciding who does not get to be human is up to you" sure appears so.
What part of that implies that you require everyone else to agree with you? You seem to have glossed over where I added, "Or me, or any other human being." So am I implying that everyone else must agree with you and me and any other human being? I wrote it, so I'm gonna vote... no. And since I wrote it, and already said I didn't infer that you require everyone else to agree with you or imply that you require everyone else to agree with you or say that you require everyone else to agree with you, can we please drop this pointless tangent? Please? With sprinkles and a cherry on top?
-
Johnny One Note (Prince): you'll never approach certainty in the real world -- has yet to disprove the efficacy of debating the absolutist position and, if that is decided for preemption, then how you go about titrating the circumstances under which torture not only would be allowed but required. I again recommend my recent questions as very helpful in clearing emotional if not mental baggage: Is torture qualitatively different from the horrors war imposes in normal course? If so, why? Please elaborate.
-
For the record, "I do not believe deciding who does not get to be human is up to you" sure appears so.
What part of that implies that you require everyone else to agree with you? You seem to have glossed over where I added, "Or me, or any other human being." So am I implying that everyone else must agree with you and me and any other human being? I wrote it, so I'm gonna vote... no. And since I wrote it, and already said I didn't infer that you require everyone else to agree with you or imply that you require everyone else to agree with you or say that you require everyone else to agree with you, can we please drop this pointless tangent? Please? With sprinkles and a cherry on top?
I will if you will
-
you'll never approach certainty in the real world
Why not?
has yet to disprove the efficacy of debating the absolutist position and, if that is decided for preemption, then how you go about titrating the circumstances under which torture not only would be allowed but required.
Why do I need to disprove it? Please, feel free to debate completely unrealistic hypothetical situations. If you expect me to believe that such is going to result in realistic, real world solutions, you need to prove it to me, not I to you. And so far, other than just insisting over and over again that no, really, it will work if everyone else would just do it right, you haven't done a damn thing to illustrate the efficacy of debating your absolutist position or how you then go about hypothetically titrating the hypothetical circumstances under which torture not only would be allowed but hypothetically required.
I again recommend my recent questions as very helpful in clearing emotional if not mental baggage: Is torture qualitatively different from the horrors war imposes in normal course? If so, why? Please elaborate.
Possibly not, but then I don't much are for war either. Then again, it is not quite the same as facing an enemy on the battle field. The bound prisoner can't fight back, can't get out of the way, run for cover, do anything without becoming a traitor that might mitigate his circumstances. So, yeah, I'd say it is different.
-
I will if you will
::)
-
That is not the sort of certainty Gipper was talking about. He said specifically "a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation". Again, such certainty only exists hypothetically. For torture in the real world, rather than the hypothetical world, such certainty is nowhere to be found.
No I am pretty sure that we have actually captured some persons of known rank who we actually knew had knoledge of Al Queda resorces , personell and plans. Extracting this information produces a near certainty of stopping plans , a near certanty of saveing lives.
When it is certain that the subject has information that would save lives , it isn't worth a try to get him to divulge it ?
You're not getting it. The problem is not the idea that we might know for certain that someone is a terrorist or has information about terrorist plans. The problem is the idea that we could know with certainty that torture is going to cause the terrorist/prisoner to divulge honestly plans for terrorism. Gipper wants to claim the hypothetical certainty, but that certainty does not exist in reality. One might as well claim a hypothetical certainty that the prisoner will convert to Unitarianism. Yeah, it's possible, but not something we can count as a certainty in reality.
-
Johnny One Note (Prince): you'll never approach certainty in the real world -- has yet to disprove the efficacy of debating the absolutist position and, if that is decided for preemption, then how you go about titrating the circumstances under which torture not only would be allowed but required. I again recommend my recent questions as very helpful in clearing emotional if not mental baggage: Is torture qualitatively different from the horrors war imposes in normal course? If so, why? Please elaborate.
Certainly you, of all people Domer, can see the qualitative difference in bringing harm (whether psychological or not) to someone who has been detained, disarmed, and removed from any contact with his/her people and those on a battlefield who are still armed and part of an organised resistence composing a legitimate threat (to self or others).
Note that I'm not a great fan of warfare either, but in this case if I apply your logic Domer, the situation would be akin to capturing a high ranking officer of the opposing military. He may or may not know further battle plans and other useful information, but as an individual he is no longer a threat.
And Prince is correct about your hypothetical scenario. Sure, you may torture the guy, or as you indicated - send someone else in to do your dirty work and leave you with a less stained conscience. Or, you could dehumanize him if that helps make you feel better. Regardless, you have no idea whether or not what he tells you (if he tells you anything) will be true or not. He may say something just to make the pain go away. And, if he tells the truth you have no idea whether or not his cohorts will still act upon it, knowing you have their ringmaster in captivity and the entire plot is compromised. The variables are many for even the most formulaic hypothetical scenario.
-
Both Prince and JS dodge the threshold question, the 0 or 1 that tells you whether to proceed with the inquiry: all things being controlled and the certainty of success guaranteed, should you torture a terrorist operative to effectively thwart a plan to kill a "shocking" number of people? If the answer is no, then just state your principles and be done with it. If the answer is yes, then proceed with the discussion.
I will say as well that JS's attempt to articulate the "qualitative" distinction between "normal course" war damage and torture is not only unconvincing and unsatisfying but virtually useless for purposes of analysis. Care to try again. The phenomenology of tortue can be explained, compared and scrutinized under principles. You haven't done it, JS.
-
Both Prince and JS dodge the threshold question, the 0 or 1 that tells you whether to proceed with the inquiry: all things being controlled and the certainty of success guaranteed, should you torture a terrorist operative to effectively thwart a plan to kill a "shocking" number of people? If the answer is no, then just state your principles and be done with it. If the answer is yes, then proceed with the discussion.
I thought I had answered this a while back. I cannot condone any action that undermines the dignity of human beings, be they innocent infants in the womb or the worst of offensive criminals.
Or to put it in your binomial terms - "No" (I'm not sure if that is a 1 or a 0, I'm not that good with computers).
I will say as well that JS's attempt to articulate the "qualitative" distinction between "normal course" war damage and torture is not only unconvincing and unsatisfying but virtually useless for purposes of analysis. Care to try again. The phenomenology of tortue can be explained, compared and scrutinized under principles. You haven't done it, JS.
Hmmm, I thought I made it fairly distinct. I could make it more simple:
Do you beat the hell out of the alleged criminal once he is apprehended?
-
I will say as well that JS's attempt to articulate the "qualitative" distinction between "normal course" war damage and torture is not only unconvincing and unsatisfying but virtually useless for purposes of analysis. Care to try again. The phenomenology of tortue can be explained, compared and scrutinized under principles. You haven't done it, JS.
Hmmm, I thought I made it fairly distinct. I could make it more simple: Do you beat the hell out of the alleged criminal once he is apprehended?
No.
And does one use whatever stressful techniques employable, both physical & psychological, that does not cause any physical damage, in order to extract information vital to preventing the death of scores of innocent men, women, & children, from a terrorist you have high confidence knows of such plot(s)?
That'd be a "Yes" from this poster
-
And does one use whatever stressful techniques employable, both physical & psychological, that does not cause any physical damage, in order to extract information vital to preventing the death of scores of innocent men, women, & children, from a terrorist you have high confidence knows of such plot(s)?
That'd be a "Yes" from this poster
That's not really a surprise, is it? You've already stripped them of their humanity.
Having done that, why stop at physical damage? Where's the fuzzy line for you and Domer that the ends stop justifying the means?
-
Both Prince and JS dodge the threshold question, the 0 or 1 that tells you whether to proceed with the inquiry: all things being controlled and the certainty of success guaranteed, should you torture a terrorist operative to effectively thwart a plan to kill a "shocking" number of people?
This is getting repetitive. To point out the completely implausible nature and therefore uselessness of your hypothetical scenario is not a dodge. It is, in point of fact, a legitimate objection. You continue to fail to address this objection, and instead repeatedly complain that people are not answering your hypothetical the way you want. Take a deep breath, exhale slowly, and let it go. Your hypothetical is inoperative. Get over it.
If the answer is no, then just state your principles and be done with it. If the answer is yes, then proceed with the discussion.
I do believe that has been covered already. Let's move on.
-
When it is certain that the subject has information that would save lives , it isn't worth a try to get him to divulge it ?
I almost missed that question because you had it within the quote tags.
Anyway, to answer your question, yes, of course trying to get him to divulge the info is worth a try. I'm not saying it isn't. Prisoners are interrogated all the time without resorting to torture.
-
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Does anyone remember that? Does it have any bearing on torturing or "stressing" prisoners with techniques like waterboarding? I think it does.
I know, right out of the gate, someone is going to tell me it only applies to American citizens. However, nowhere does it say anything about applying to only American citizens. In point of fact, its source document does not apply to citizens at all. It applies to the U.S. federal government. And if the key to torture, or "stress", being used to interrogate prisoners is the lives to be saved, then are you now going to argue that you would not also apply those same techniques to an American citizen, like, say, a Timothy McVeigh, to save lives?
-
And does one use whatever stressful techniques employable, both physical & psychological, that does not cause any physical damage, in order to extract information vital to preventing the death of scores of innocent men, women, & children, from a terrorist you have high confidence knows of such plot(s)? That'd be a "Yes" from this poster
That's not really a surprise, is it? You've already stripped them of their humanity.
Yes, I've managed to call a monster a monster. I'm not sure why that's such a hard concept to grasp
Having done that, why stop at physical damage?
Because as I've alluded to since the beginning, I'm not like terrorists, who don't stop. I'm not like terrorists who'll go to every conceivable end simply to cause the maximum amount of pain possible. I'm not like terrorists, who'll use whatever instrument possible to scar and disfigure any part of the body. I'm not like terrorists who'll think nothing of cutting someone's head off while they're perfectly awake to experience it. Do I need to go on?
-
Prince doth protest too much. I'll chalk him up as a "yes" (he would torture under certain circumstances) on the question designed to differentiate between absolute opponents of torture, like JS legitimately (but wrongly) is, and those (like Prince) who would do it just if you could present him with a near-perfect scenario. Still object, tenderfoot? Too bad, you've been interviewed. If you want to alternate between coy like an over-eager debutante or enraged (your usual mode) like an avatar of righteousness, please stifle yourself. The intent here as elsewhere is mature, intelligent discussion.
-
The intent here as elsewhere is mature, intelligent discussion.
Then why don't you try mature, intelligent discussion rather than the arrogantly sophomoric "you just don't understand" manner you've been using?
I'll chalk him up as a "yes" (he would torture under certain circumstances) on the question designed to differentiate between absolute opponents of torture, like JS legitimately (but wrongly) is, and those (like Prince) who would do it just if you could present him with a near-perfect scenario. Still object, tenderfoot? Too bad, you've been interviewed.
I submit that the interviewer does not know what he is doing since he apparently doesn't know how the person interviewed has responded to the questions. You are quite wrong about my position. I suggest you try paying attention.
If you want to alternate between coy like an over-eager debutante or enraged (your usual mode) like an avatar of righteousness, please stifle yourself. The intent here as elsewhere is mature, intelligent discussion.
As best I can tell, you are considerably less interested in discussion than you are in trying to establish your dominance. I have nothing to prove, to you especially. So I'll just wait here till you're feeling more secure.