is this torture?

[financeguy]

This is not a new concept. There have always been "rules of battle" respected by both sides in a conflict. If one was found in violation of those rules, they often paid with their lives.

Dresden...
Horishima....
Falluja....
bombing raids conducted in Cambodia.....
various raids conducted by Israeli military....

all attacks on civilian populations with the main intention of weakening their nerve.

Same as 911.

 

[Irvine511]

Where exactly have I been so belligerant?

well, let's start:

1. [q]I guess if you call NOT agreeing with your twisted Urban Utopian ideology belligerant, than I'm guilty as charged. [/q]

2. [q]The liberals would Scream KANGAROO COURT faster than a speeding car bomb. [/q]

3. [q]I guess we should just bow down to the hague now. Gimme a frekkin break. Maybe we should just disband our entire judicial system. why do we need it? We can just have the Europeans show us how to run our country.[/q]

4. [q]Typical Liberal Hypocricy.[/q]

5. [q]I guess my "neanderthalic thinking" is just beneath you. [/q]

6. [q]Well, I guess YOU value all opinions as long as they agree with YOUR way of thinking. Sorry, but I don't and never will.[/q]

7. [q]I guess when we interrogate terrorist suspects we should just ask NICELY, right?[/q]

8. [q]You people don't seem to get it do you?[/q]

9. [q]One day it will all become abundantly clear to you bleeding heart mamby pambys that we are fighting a war against an enemy who wants you DEAD!! No discussion, no give peace a chance.[/q]



i think you might have a lot to add to the argument; i wish you'd engage other people instead of thinking we are all caricatures of Upper West Side Liberals or San Francisco Lefists so that you have an easier time (and a more fun time) venting, as opposed to offering an argument. as has been noted, many people including John McCain and most of the Republican Party do not agree with water boarding as an appropriate interrogation technique. clearly, you are not speaking for them. so who are you speaking for? and who are you arguing against? you've tossed out a bunch of caricatures and empty catch phrases ("give peace a chance") that belie who you appear to wish you were arguing against. instead, you have many smart people in here who are interested in having a discussion. why don't you try to speak and articulate your points instead of resorting to playground insults like those enumerated above?

 

[indra]

The first one (attention grab) fine.

The next two make me a bit queasy, but can be acceptable.

Last three, not acceptable.

To me what makes a good person an good person and a good country a good country is how they treat their enemies. Anyone can treat their friends well, it takes true goodness to treat your enemies well.

 

[Irvine511]

Should an insurgant/terrorist really expect protection under international conventions when they do not live under those same conventions?

great question. it appears that we are in a new era, we are fighting a new kind of enemy who is vastly different from the steel worker in Bavaria who was conscripted into the German army in 1938. what this means is we have to draw up new rules of engagement, and new standards of detention and interrogation.

also, isn't there something to be said for being "better than" the insurgant/terrorist? we prove that our way of life is worth defending and is "better" than their religious alternative through treating the captured better than they might expect, or even deserve, to be treated? the idea of moral authority, something we once had, is of paramount importance when it comes to the "heart and minds" debate, which, as i initially understood it, was going to be a huge component of the GWOT.

 

[Abomb-baby]

We already treat our enemies BETTER. Last time I checked we weren't cutting people's heads off or burning them to a crisp and hanging them from bridges. Where is all the outrage for this behavior? I never seem to hear it from the left. Its always, "of course its horrible, but we have to blah blah blah." They dismiss it QUICKLY. Have mistakes been made? Yes. Will they continue to be made? Probably. No war has ever been fought without mistakes. It is a sad reality of war. But I sure didn't hear the same kind of rhetoric from the left when Clinton was in office and bombs were falling. Again if we want to discuss torture lets talk about N Korea, China, Most of the middle east, Africa. Why don't I hear the same sort of concern about these other parts of the world? I believe ppl should have protection of basic human rights. But when ppl act in a way that is against those rights, I believe they must also give something up. Why shouldn't they? Hearts and minds? What would you know about it? The soldiers over there are the hearts and minds. They give of themselves selflessly to the Iraqi ppl only to be blown up by a minority of bad ppl. Our military is doing good, positive work there. Helping orphans, opening new schools, feeding and caring for sick and injured ppl. But you know what? You never hear about it because it doesn't sell. Death and destruction sells. People get a certain satisfaction from others misery. Something the germans call "Schadenfreude"If you look around, you can find the positives, but you have to WANT to find it. Many on the left wish the whole Iraq issue would fail miserabley simply because they have such a seething hate for Bush. Just so they have the right to say 'look, I told you so."

 

[Irvine511]

We already treat our enemies BETTER. Last time I checked we weren't cutting people's heads off or burning them to a crisp and hanging them from bridges. Where is all the outrage for this behavior? I never seem to hear it from the left. Its always, "of course its horrible, but we have to blah blah blah." They dismiss it QUICKLY. Have mistakes been made? Yes. Will they continue to be made? Probably. No war has ever been fought without mistakes. It is a sad reality of war. But I sure didn't hear the same kind of rhetoric from the left when Clinton was in office and bombs were falling. Again if we want to discuss torture lets talk about N Korea, China, Most of the middle east, Africa. Why don't I hear the same sort of concern about these other parts of the world? I believe ppl should have protection of basic human rights. But when ppl act in a way that is against those rights, I believe they must also give something up. Why shouldn't they?

what do you mean when you say "the Left"?

are there specific politicians? authors? columnists? pundits?

if so, can you cite them and their dismissal of the barbarism of the insurgency? can you cite their approval of China and North Korea?

 

[financeguy]

We already treat our enemies BETTER. Last time I checked we weren't cutting people's heads off or burning them to a crisp and hanging them from bridges.

So, is that our standard? Is our standard merely to be better than the beheaders? I'd like to think we can set ourselves a higher standard than that.

But I'm probably a deluded latte drinking Michael Moore-worshipping (insert cliche of choice, etc, etc) librul.

 

[medmo]

Again if we want to discuss torture lets talk about N Korea, China, Most of the middle east, Africa. Why don't I hear the same sort of concern about these other parts of the world?

Yes, but sadly it isn't surprising to hear of torture coming from these areas because it's never really been a secret that it goes on there. America has always stood for something better than that. Whether most of the allegations are true or exagerrated, it will take a long time to come back from this, and that's not the company I want to be in anyway.

 

[financeguy]

what do you mean when you say "the Left"?

are there specific politicians? authors? columnists? pundits?

Good question. I know of many pro-free market libertarians that would be quite offended to be called 'liberals' or part of 'the left', and yet many of whom don't agree with the war in Iraq, for example.

Although I guess to be fair to Abomb-baby, he did state that regardless of whether one was pro or anti the Iraq war, the reality is we are there now, and the main emphasis should be deciding upon the best route to get out, which is a legitimate point.

 

[deep]

Originally posted by Abomb-baby
Again if we want to discuss torture lets talk about N Korea, China, Most of the middle east, Africa. Why don't I hear the same sort of concern about these other parts of the world?

Egypt
Jordan
Saudi Arabia

Are these some of the middle east countries you are referring to?




these are where the cia rendition flights land



Bush/cheney partners in torture

 

[Abomb-baby]

Well, as long as were naming countries, don't forget Spain and Britain, supposed leaders in human rights.

 

[BVS]

^ A game of sleight of hand...look over here at this country, ignore my own.

 

[melon]

No wonder most of our "intelligence" extracted from them has been nothing but crap. Tortured men are most tempted to tell their torturers what they want to hear, not necessarily the truth.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

No wonder most of our "intelligence" extracted from them has been nothing but crap. Tortured men are most tempted to tell their torturers what they want to hear, not necessarily the truth.

Melon

What are you basing this statement on? Which intelligence has been "nothing but crap"?

I stand by earlier statement and maintain that just the fear of torture gets around the mindset that since they are in US custody it is impossible (read the captured AQ manuals on GlobalSecurity.org, some very specific pieces about what to do when captured).

 

[melon]

What are you basing this statement on? Which intelligence has been "nothing but crap"?

Have we captured Osama bin Laden? No. Have we stopped the insurgency in Iraq? No. How many "terror alert threats" have been issued based on "intelligence" gathered from tortured detainees? A few. Have any of them remotely turned out to be true? No.

True logic would say that the burden of proof is on the U.S. to prove that torturing detainees is actually gathering useful intelligence. Otherwise, I could say that this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away. I don't see any tigers, so my rock must be working, right?

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

The example that you give firstly assumes that torture was used as the basis of these alerts, I certainly havent seen the media furore at those specific instances where alerts were issued based on intelligence obtained by torture. Then you go onto say that none of these alerts have remotely turned out to be true - and this in itself completely overlooks the foiled plots, arrests and even killed operatives that have occured the world over since 2001.

 

[Abomb-baby]

No wonder most of our "intelligence" extracted from them has been nothing but crap. Tortured men are most tempted to tell their torturers what they want to hear, not necessarily the truth.

Melon

How could you possibly know what sort of good or bad intelligence we've received? Do you work for the CIA? It would be impossible to know what has or hasn't happened because of these interrogation techniques unless you have first hand knowledge. One thing is for sure. Extreme torture practices yield very little in credible information. That is why the government doesn't use them. They're unreliable. These aren't extreme practices. Sitting in a cold cell? Some here would find raising your voice extreme. In survival school, these techniques are used on our own military. Do you think that we would put our own military in harms way?NO. Mock executions, Beatings to the point of bruising or other injury, burning, electrocution, Rape, all unreliable practices and something I wouldn't condone under ANY circumstances. The practises that were originally listed however, aren't any of those.

 

[indra]

Do you think that we would put our own military in harms way?NO.

ummm... isn't that exactly what troops are for? Of course they are put in harm's way.

 

[melon]

How could you possibly know what sort of good or bad intelligence we've received? Do you work for the CIA? It would be impossible to know what has or hasn't happened because of these interrogation techniques unless you have first hand knowledge.

And there's the problem. We're supposed to just "trust" that the government is doing right. I'm supposed to trust that that rock that President Bush holds in his hand keeps the terrorists away, and we're never allowed to question whether it's actually true.

We "trusted" the Eisenhower Administration and the best we got from him was a bunch of overthrown leftist elected governments worldwide, radioactive Pacific islands, and poisoning mentally challenged people living in asylums for "science."

The burden of proof is on the government. Prove to me that that rock keeps away the terrorists.

Melon

 

[Abomb-baby]

Well Melon, I know you would just love for the CIA to come out and say, " hey, this is what we've stopped from happening", but its not gonna happen. National security is more important than your need to know anything.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I seriously question all attitudes here. The argument that a right to live exeeds the individual liberty is a pile of crap - if that was true then one could say that North Korea is a nice and safe place to live.

The argument that you "don't need to know" only goes so far, in terms of operational secrecy and security it is justified but there must be a time limit and a degree of information that does not compromise operations or legal proceedings should be put out there.

 

[financeguy]

I seriously question all attitudes here. The argument that a right to live exeeds the individual liberty is a pile of crap - if that was true then one could say that North Korea is a nice and safe place to live.

Pure bull, that is a dangerous fallacy. I would be very grateful if you would stop describing yourself as a libertarian, your philisophy has not an iota to do with what libertarians truly represent.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What fallacy? I am saying that that line of argument that the "right not to be blown up" exeeds the right to browse the internet without being monitored or walk down the street without CCTV cameras is flawed is a pile of crap. I am coming down on the side of individual liberty over measures that restrict it in the name of security but don't actually prevent anything.

What the hell are you reading into it?

 

[financeguy]

What fallacy? I am saying that that line of argument that the "right not to be blown up" exeeds the right to browse the internet without being monitored or walk down the street without CCTV cameras is flawed is a pile of crap.

Interesting change of focus.

 

[melon]

Well Melon, I know you would just love for the CIA to come out and say, " hey, this is what we've stopped from happening", but its not gonna happen. National security is more important than your need to know anything.

The people rule the government, not the other way around. That's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. If I wanted a reckless government that did whatever the hell it pleased with no accountability, I'd have asked the Vatican to run the U.S.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Change of focus? I am baffled, the case remains the same in both cases. Willful surrendering of whatever rights you may have in the name of security is flawed. That is not a call for doing nothing, that position cannot be taken to its extreme here because in the real world things are a lot murkier at times.

People arguing for tighter measures invariably argue that their right to security trumps liberty. That is exactly what was being argued by Abomb-baby. That logic is an absolute position that can lead down a very dangerous road. The ultimate example is the DPRK, where state security has taken over practically all liberties to a point where the nation is beyond a slave state. Being the logical extreme of surrendering liberty for security. I think that security and liberty may not always be mutually exclusive and that more freedoms can do a lot of good in the GWOT, regardless of the shit that is piled out by government from "Alert not Alarmed" fridge magnets to banning metal knives and forks on planes.

I argue in favour of individual liberty over security in these instances and my philosophy is apparently the antithesis of libertarianism.

 

[A_Wanderer]

National security is more important than your need to know anything.

This is the exact opposite argument to the one that I made.

 

[Abomb-baby]

Well, I for one don't feel like my individual "Rights" have been trampled on since 9/11 or the implementation of the Patriot act. If I'm doing nothing WRONG, what is my concern? I could really give a crap if the government looks to see what books I'm checking out at the library. Maybe I should care, but I don't. I just don't feel like anything has changed. And while we're on the subject, doesn't Britain have like a TON of those CCTV cameras all over the country? I mean that seems to go against the very nature of this whole civil rights concern. Are ppl up in arms about it in Britain? I'm honestly asking because I don't know. But I think they have been using them for years.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Did CCTV stop the London Bombings? Did it prevent the shooting of de Menezes? While handy in reconstructing events I do not think that these networks of cameras are worth surrendering your privacy for.

You may not be worried about your liberties at this time, you may willfully surrender them to government, but when the time comes that they do start exercising these security powers in a manner that you find offensive what will you be able to do?

 

[Irvine511]

Well, I for one don't feel like my individual "Rights" have been trampled on since 9/11 or the implementation of the Patriot act. If I'm doing nothing WRONG, what is my concern? I could really give a crap if the government looks to see what books I'm checking out at the library. Maybe I should care, but I don't. I just don't feel like anything has changed.

and what color is your skin?

and what is your religion?