We took lessons from the Soviets and Chinese on torture

[gipper]

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.)

[sirs]

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.

[Lanya]

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. 

[_JS]

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?

[Plane]

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.

[sirs]

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

[_JS]

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.

[sirs]

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?

[gipper]

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.

[Universe Prince]

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?

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Universe Prince]

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?

[Plane]

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.

[Universe Prince]

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."

[Plane]

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?