Torturer-in-Chief: Secret Prisons in Eastern Europe!

[VertigoGal]

Our country should never engage in physical torture, but "emotional" torture and "degrading" methods are perfectly fine by me. Sorry, I couldn't care less if they flush a Koran or any holy book down the toilet. Not torture.

I don't like the fact that most of the people are held at these secret facilities and aren't documented, but I guess that's the way it is, and it doesn't surprise me. It's definitely fishy that most of these people are eventually released and never charged with any kind of crime...I'm still holding out hope that in some vaguely sci-fi twist of events, the CIA is actually implanting little chips into these guys' heads, and once released they will now infiltrate cells, do our bidding, etc. Wouldn't that be cool. They should make a movie out of that, starring Ahhnold...

 

[Irvine511]

Our country should never engage in physical torture, but "emotional" torture and "degrading" methods are perfectly fine by me. Sorry, I couldn't care less if they flush a Koran or any holy book down the toilet. Not torture.

I don't like the fact that most of the people are held at these secret facilities and aren't documented, but I guess that's the way it is, and it doesn't surprise me. It's definitely fishy that most of these people are eventually released and never charged with any kind of crime...I'm still holding out hope that in some vaguely sci-fi twist of events, the CIA is actually implanting little chips into these guys' heads, and once released they will now infiltrate cells, do our bidding, etc. Wouldn't that be cool. They should make a movie out of that, starring Ahhnold...

i should look this up, but if memory serves, somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 detainees have died while in US custody as a result of interrogation techniques.

also, is doing things like wiping fake menstrual blood on the face of a prisoner appropriate "emotional" torture?

 

[financeguy]

Didn't work in Northern Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_torture_in_recent_times#United_Kingdom


"The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six claimed they were tortured by anti-terrorism police into confessing to IRA bombings. If they were, it appears not to have been authorised by the British government and the resulting convictions would be a good demonstration of the problems related to information extracted by torture."

 

[VertigoGal]

i should look this up, but if memory serves, somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 detainees have died while in US custody as a result of interrogation techniques.

also, is doing things like wiping fake menstrual blood on the face of a prisoner appropriate "emotional" torture?

I wasn't aware of that, I know those reports vary greatly depending who you're talking to (obviously). A source would be nice...

sorry, but what exactly constitutes "fake menstrual blood"? (at least it doesn't smell as bad as real menstrual blood. ) anyway, I don't think there's that much of a problem with it, if they really think it's suck an effective info-gathering technique. although it may qualify as physical torture if it got in their eyes or something. in any case I have to say it's probably preferable to bamboo shoots up the toenails.

by the way, sorry if I'm being crass. torture is definitely bad, I'm just feeling a little cynical tonight

 

[VertigoGal]

Didn't work in Northern Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_torture_in_recent_times#United_Kingdom


"The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six claimed they were tortured by anti-terrorism police into confessing to IRA bombings. If they were, it appears not to have been authorised by the British government and the resulting convictions would be a good demonstration of the problems related to information extracted by torture."

I don't know if that's really a fair comparison in terms of how torture can backfire. I don't think the CIA expects most of the detainees to be in a position to turn around and take the US to court over it. Sort of lost me at "resulting convictions." Because here there would be no resulting convictions. It's just not how we roll if you haven't noticed.

 

[financeguy]

I don't know if that's really a fair comparison in terms of how torture can backfire. I don't think the CIA expects most of the detainees to be in a position to turn around and take the US to court over it. Sort of lost me at "resulting convictions." Because here there would be no resulting convictions. It's just not how we roll if you haven't noticed.

The case referred to is the Irish government taking the UK government to court, not individuals taking the UK government to court. It is entirely possible for a government to take the US government to court if it has evidence its' nationals are being mistreated, regardless of any convictions. In fact I think the Bahrain government is in the process of it.

Also what is not made fully clear in the article is that it is now accepted by almost everyone, including the British authorities, that the Birm. 6 and Guildford 4 were innocent. Indeed they have won substantial monetary damages.

But the larger point I should have made was that 'soft' torture such as sensory deprivations, etc, practised by the UK authorities in the early 1970's in the context of Northern Ireland led to an increase in terrorist activity and recruitment for the IRA, rather than the reverse.

 

[VertigoGal]

Oh, okay. I didn't read that properly. I had no clue Bahrain was taking us to court, that's good to know.

Certainly the use of soft torture may lead to increased recruitment and that's something we need to assess. However if it was for whatever reason determined that the info gathered would be more important than the possible negative ramifications, I don't see any moral problem with emotional torture.

I mean, I do, but it's not bamboo shoots up the toenails, and I think that's really all we can ask of our government. I'm not kidding.

The greater problem does lie with the fact that it seems most of these people are indeed innocent or of very questionable involvement. Not good for our image, and it's obviously wrong to lock up innocent people. I don't see why Washington won't make some concessions as far as disclosing info about locations at least. Not doing so only gives the impression that these are some type of gulags (I'd like hope they aren't), and Washington could really use some image-boosting at the moment.

 

[Rono]

Certainly the use of soft torture may lead to increased recruitment and that's something we need to assess. However if it was for whatever reason determined that the info gathered would be more important than the possible negative ramifications, I don't see any moral problem with emotional torture.

Honestly I'm surprised so many people who I'd consider to be more liberal are so tenatively supportive of this.

 

[AvsGirl41]

I am shocked and sickened by anyone who would advocate torture.

We condemn it if it's against Christians in Africa or China, but if it's against a political prisoner (and one of a different faith) than it is ok. If it was against an American in Vietnam, it was bad, but if it's a suspected Islamic terrorist, then it is good. It was bad when Saddam tortured Shiites, and that's why we invaded, but it's ok when Americans torture Arabs.

Does no one else smell the hypocrisy? Or are we all blinded by the Stars and Stripes?

I do not want America to inherit the mantle of the Lubyanka or Vietcong. I would think any God fearing, self-respecting, patriotic American would condemn even the hint of such things going on in their name.

And if this is unpatriotic, maybe it is time I became Canadian.

 

[VertigoGal]

Honestly I'm surprised so many people who I'd consider to be more liberal are so tenatively supportive of this.

well, if you'll allow me to quote my next sentence:

I mean, I do, but it's not bamboo shoots up the toenails, and I think that's really all we can ask of our government. I'm not kidding.

Look, I don't advocate torture, I really don't. I wish it was never used. But I get the feeling it's almost guaranteed that the CIA/army are going to do some things that aren't exactly preferable. And since that's the case, I do feel like some things are worse than others. I'd rather they use soft torture, than create hard labor camps, or electrocute people, or whatever it is people use to physically torture people.

And in some of the least severe instances, such as the Koran down the toilet, I still don't see what is so wrong with that in the scheme of things.

 

[yolland]

For those who argue that physical and/or psychological torture is permissible under some circumstances...

-- Who should decide the criteria for determining which detainees are appropriate candidates for torture?

-- Who should decide what the permissible techniques are?

-- Who should they (the above) be answerable to regarding the scope, duration and consequences of these practices?

-- If the use of torture in a particular situation should happen to be exposed, and evokes widespread international revulsion, should that affect the decision of how long to continue it?


From a purely cynical realpolitik standpoint, I can appreciate the point that Black Ops (by many countries) sometimes entails coercive techniques whether we like it or not--but moral considerations aside (God forbid), I am dubious whether that analogy can be meaningfully applied to such an (apparently) large-scale, and at best, semi-clandestine operation.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

There was an episode of Commander In Chief about this subject, it was great to at least see the fictional President say that torture of terrorism suspects or any other suspects will never be tolerated or allowed

It should never be tolerated or allowed under any circumstances, to do so is to betray every ideal that the US supposedly stands for

 

[nbcrusader]

Well, on NBC, President Bartlett ordered an assassination!










Coercive techniques have likely been used for decades. I guess the open documentation of said use makes us extremely uncomfortable.

 

[Irvine511]

Coercive techniques have likely been used for decades. I guess the open documentation of said use makes us extremely uncomfortable.

coercive techniques?



[q]"I think our policies required abuse. There were freaking horrible things people were doing. I saw [detainees] who had feet smashed with hammers. One detainee told me he had been forced by Marines to sit on an exhaust pipe, and he had a softball-sized blister to prove it. The stuff I did was mainly torture lite: sleep deprivation, isolation, stress positions, hypothermia. We used dogs."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9865301/site/newsweek/

[/q]

 

[nbcrusader]

coercive techniques?

From a purely cynical realpolitik standpoint, I can appreciate the point that Black Ops (by many countries) sometimes entails coercive techniques whether we like it or not

 

[Irvine511]

so the United States of America is now reduced to cynical realpolitik decisions whereby it's okay to smash people's feet with hammers?

and with all this high talk about the human rights abuses and torture chambers being the real reason as to why we took out Saddam Hussein (now that the stated reason, WMDs, has turned out to be a result of faith-based intelligence cherry picking), we turn around and break arms and legs?

 

[joyfulgirl]

I am completely unable to understand how anyone with a conscience could justify this. I am completely unable to understand why there isn't unanimous agreement that torture is wrong on every level.

 

[yolland]

Way to take my remarks out of context, nb.

 

[nbcrusader]

Way to take my remarks out of context, nb.

How?

I simply showed Irvine where I pulled the term "coercive techniques".

 

[Iskra]

So in order to fight religous zealots who believe in violence we must become religious zealots who use violence.
Hmmm..interesting.
I've always wondered ow people who claim to be Christians square that up with Jesus.
H Y P O C R I T E S

 

[Irvine511]

I am completely unable to understand how anyone with a conscience could justify this. I am completely unable to understand why there isn't unanimous agreement that torture is wrong on every level.

yes.

in the midst of every post, i start thinking, "am i really typing this?"

 

[nbcrusader]

So in order to fight religous zealots who believe in violence we must become religious zealots who use violence.
Hmmm..interesting.
I've always wondered ow people who claim to be Christians square that up with Jesus.
H Y P O C R I T E S

Who is "becoming" a "religious zealot" in your statement?

 

[joyfulgirl]

from Bush's address to the U.N. September 21, 2004

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040921-3.html

"Now we have the historic chance to widen the circle even further, to fight radicalism and terror with justice and dignity, to achieve a true peace, founded on human freedom."

"Terrorists and their allies believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights, and every charter of liberty ever written, are lies, to be burned and destroyed and forgotten. They believe that dictators should control every mind and tongue in the Middle East and beyond. They believe that suicide and torture and murder are fully justified to serve any goal they declare. And they act on their beliefs."


Can anyone explain to me where the dignity is in torturing our enemy?

Here Bush says terrorists believe that torture is justified to serve any goal they declare. So are we terrorists now or what?

 

[Scarletwine]

Torture is EVIL in any context for any reason.

The methods Vertigo Gal propose become a slippery slope.

The Pope thought GWB was the anti-Christ, I think it's really Cheney.

I'm hate what this Admin. has brought our nation to. Torture has been advocated by the School of the America's for years and they are severely wrong. But never has it been openly advocated by our gov't before.

No one that advocates it can be a true Christian.

 

[joyfulgirl]

No one that advocates it can be a true Christian.

I would really like to hear any torture-defending Christian here respond to this.

 

[Bono's shades]

I read this thread last night and didn't reply in it because I was so angry that I was afraid I'd say something that would get me banned.

I'm not sure I'm a whole lot calmer now.

I can't believe some of you are justifying torture. I know it's only a few of you, but that anyone here at all would shrug their shoulders at it is shocking to me.

Are you people really that determined to defend the current U.S. administration that you would ignore your conscience?

 

[VertigoGal]

From a purely cynical realpolitik standpoint, I can appreciate the point that Black Ops (by many countries) sometimes entails coercive techniques whether we like it or not

That's all I was trying to say. It's just the way it is, so I'd prefer we'd keep it to holy-book flushing as opposed to smashing people's feet with hammers. If that means I have no conscience, then fine.

Of course it is a slippery slope, which is exactly how we have smashed feet, etc. The only surefire way of preventing that abuse of power is not allowing anything that could be in any way interpreted as torture. But that's not going to happen, it's never been that way and it never will in my opinion. If there was some kind of case that exposed widespread, systematic physical torture, and there was truly strong public outrage, there might be efforts to discourage it from the top down. But, as it is, I don't think most people really care. Watch a news brief on it, and 10 minutes later forget about it.

 

[Zoomerang96]

What is your alternative?

We can all say "Torture is bad - we should not be a part of it". (I know, if one doesn't condemn it strongly enough, one must be a koolaid drinking, propaganda believing, GWB supporting, torture loving right winger - let's avoid that part of the argument).

But you are still faced with problem of Al-Qaeda and jihadists across the globe.

Any proven alternatives you are willing to suggest?

yeah, keep drinking the kool-aid crusader.

there is NOTHING that will ever make you wake up your eyes to how fucking corrupt your government is and how unbelievably evil they are.

how does torturing prisoners make us CIVILIZED people any better than the terrorists?!!? torture is the most disgusting inhumane thing anyone can ever do. hence - that's why it's called TORTURE.

i honestly feel like i'm going insane when i read comments like this and others that can't even acknowledge that this is horribly evil.

we share the same world??

 

[Zoomerang96]

I read this thread last night and didn't reply in it because I was so angry that I was afraid I'd say something that would get me banned.

I'm not sure I'm a whole lot calmer now.

I can't believe some of you are justifying torture. I know it's only a few of you, but that anyone here at all would shrug their shoulders at it is shocking to me.

Are you people really that determined to defend the current U.S. administration that you would ignore your conscience?

there is no reasoning with some people, let them have it.

 

[yolland]

From a purely cynical realpolitik standpoint, I can appreciate the point that Black Ops (by many countries) sometimes entails coercive techniques whether we like it or not--but moral considerations aside (God forbid), I am dubious whether that analogy can be meaningfully applied to such an (apparently) large-scale, and at best, semi-clandestine operation.

For the record, this is what I ACTUALLY said. Means something pretty different when the second half isn't chopped off (not to mention being preceded by a list of questions addressed to "those who argue that physical and/or psychological torture is permissible under some circumstances"...)