Torture; SOMEone's Gotta Pay!!

[BigRob]

People do not know what goes on at GITMO and therein lies the problem. This is a democracy of sorts and the people have a right to know what is being done in their name.

That is ridiculous. How do you expect to win a war if you broadcast your technique and strategy to the world before you do it? Do you want to win, or do you want to maintain some facade of morality?

Yes, and that is exactly the way it should be. Torture is a social evil, it cannot be done in public it has to be done in secrecy, we need clear open policy and oversight on this issue because anyone who would do torture would not hesitate to lie about it. George Washington rejected the use of torture saying that it was not what Americans do--no matter what their enemies do--it's what sets us apart.

Seems to me broadcasting interrogation techniques to the world pretty much renders those techniques irrelevant.

Have right and wrong changed? Torture is wrong no matter who does it, because our enemies do it is no reason for us to stoop to their level.

Right and wrong is nothing but perception. Is it wrong to prevent someone from sleeping if you prevent a major attack? I for one would rather keep the country safe than worry about which direction my moral compass is pointing.

If Bush broke the law he should stand trial and be punished, without the law we have no credibility in the world.

Bush did not break the law.

If Clinton did that, then he was wrong and should be punished. George brought it home and made it legal, he too should be punished.

Clinton really broke no law either.

Testicle crushing goes on in a lot of places, it would go on here too if the people would let happen, but I hope with public oversight it won't.

You just claimed there was no public oversight and that was the problem, and now public oversight is preventing such action?

Got your national ID card yet?

No.

Did the North American Union agreement get signed?

No.

Has Bush pushed to ban Constitutional equal protection for gay and transgendered people?

The people pushed for this more so than Bush. I am also not sure what any of the things you pointed out have to do with torture exactly.

He's destroying our country with his protection. I can only hope that Obama will be better, but it's always a choice between the lesser of two evils when we vote for President. Personally, I'm with John Hightower who said, "If God wanted us to vote He would have given us candidates."

Obama has already pretty much stated he will resort back to the Clinton policies of simply letting foreign countries take prisoners at the start. While he did not expressly say that, it was pretty clearly indicated.

The United States already does not torture, sleep deprivation is not torture, tough interrogation techniques are not torture, many are designed to inflict no harm. Why is this not good enough?

 

[BigRob]

Prove it!!​

Seems to me the burden of proof is on the one making the original claim. Of course in your world I am sure it makes logical sense to make some outlandish claim and then demand proof that it is not happening.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

First I will say this is all outrageous. What do you people think goes on at GITMO? You think we sit around an crush people testicles, or electrocute their testicles and break their bones?

We do not do any of that.

Seems to me the burden of proof is on the one making the original claim.

You're actually staking your gut on what comes outta-the-Whitehouse...and, you're callin' everyone (else) delusional?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

First I will say this is all outrageous. What do you people think goes on at GITMO? You think we sit around an crush people testicles, or electrocute their testicles and break their bones?

We do not do any of that. The problem with "torture" is that the media has decided that they need to be told every detail of an interrogation so that they can decide what and what is not torture, but it is not up to the media to decide what it is.

"A group of retired military officers opposed to harsh interrogation techniques sanctioned by the Bush administration met with members of President-elect Barack Obama's transition team yesterday to press the incoming administration to establish a single, internationally accepted standard for the treatment of detainees by all U.S. government agencies.

At the request of the Obama team, the officers declined to say whom they met with or detail the contents of the meeting. But they said their agenda has long been clear. The group of retired generals and admirals are opposed to interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that they describe as torturehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/03/AR2008120303379.html and that have been employed by the CIA during the questioning of al-Qaeda suspects. President Bush vetoed legislation that would have forced the CIA and other agencies to conform to interrogation methods laid out in military guidelines."

You've been out-ranked....by REAL military......

​

 

[BigRob]

You're actually staking your gut on what comes outta-the-Whitehouse...and, you're callin' everyone (else) delusional?

Perhaps you missed the multiple posts before mine? Guess so.

 

[BigRob]

You've been out-ranked....by REAL military......

​

I have been outranked by stupidity. Further, retired military officials are supposed to do what they are told to do by the commander in chief, not spark a moral debate on torture techniques we rarely employ to begin with.

 

[Animekid]

Hi.

Well, being the nuby here...I would have to say that I would consider " waterboarding " to be torture...now mind you I'm not saying that we shouldn't use whatever means ( short of actually killing someone ) necessary in order to gain information " Vital To America and it's Security "

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I have been outranked by stupidity. Further, retired military officials are supposed to do what they are told to do by the commander in chief, not spark a moral debate on torture techniques we rarely employ to begin with.

Ah, yes.....rarely being the operative-work.

I've often-wondered why you folks (who need the entertainment-value of torture & executions) can't find more-productive ways to deal with your (perceived) Divine Right to revenge.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is ridiculous. How do you expect to win a war if you broadcast your technique and strategy to the world before you do it? Do you want to win, or do you want to maintain some facade of morality?

Why assume that one's morality is a facade? Stating that we do not torture prisoners and then keeping our word will not change the outcome of the war.

Do you remember the Geneva Convention? Torture is illegal, defining torture can be difficult, but that's where some public oversight comes in. Everything in love and war is not fair, there are things that we should not do, things that no one should do--even if the other people do them.

Seems to me broadcasting interrogation techniques to the world pretty much renders those techniques irrelevant.

Saying that we don't torture people and then NOT torturing people is not "broadcasting" interrogation techniques.

Right and wrong is nothing but perception. Is it wrong to prevent someone from sleeping if you prevent a major attack? I for one would rather keep the country safe than worry about which direction my moral compass is pointing.

I guess that's a difference between us, I don't believe that winning is everything. If expediency is your only measure of right and wrong, then we have nothing more to discuss.

You just claimed there was no public oversight and that was the problem, and now public oversight is preventing such action?

The lack of public oversight has been a problem and we're working on changing that, but there is no guarantee that public oversight will stop the torture, it's just the best we can do. There are few absolutes in life, I hope that public oversight will prevent torture though I am realistic enough to understand that it may not. We need to teach our children ethical standards, set an example of doing the right thing even if it costs us. Prolonging our lives is not necessarilly the highest good to which we can aspire, if it was then men would not jump on hand grenades to save their buddies lives, people would not dive into icy water to rescue someone, strangers would not give money or assistance at risk to themselves. If we have to become like our enemies to defeat them, then they win anyway.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have been outranked by stupidity. Further, retired military officials are supposed to do what they are told to do by the commander in chief, not spark a moral debate on torture techniques we rarely employ to begin with.

What a weird idea. Don't you realize that mindless obedience leads to all kinds of nasty stuff like genocide and torture. Remember the Nazis? My Lai? "I was just following order!"????

Daniel P. Mannix wrote THE HISTORY OF TORTURE and at the end he noted that physical torture had rarely been of value down through history, in fact it tended to harden the resolve of enemy soldiers who would rather die fighting than risk being captured. Allowing ourselves to be brought down the lowest common denominator of morality assures our loss no matter who wins the war.

 

[The Scotsman]

Everyone, within the Bush Admin, who figured they could make torture, cool again!!!

They've done nothing to advance our National Security....they've done the opposite!!

Hell.....what do Chickenhawks know about the end-result of their sadistic tendencies??!!!

Terrorism is an interesting concept and one which I don't think many people have a real understanding of. Its not nice seeing pictures of bodies on streets, its' especially not nice seeing bodies and body parts strewn on the track of the Circle Line train that left Cannon Street Station at 8.40 and just after the points at Aldgate underground station went......... and its espcially not nice when it happens in countries where the protection of the rights of terrorists are held higher then those of the victims.

Okay touche....one emotional exchange for another....

So down to the unfortunate truth. Civilised countries such as the US and the UK are not that civilised. You, the citizen expect to be protected from harm and the consequences of terrorism, after all you cannot do it yourself! You turn on your television and look on horrified and revolted as two aircraft plough into symbols of what makes the US great. Its an unfortunate fact that people get hurt and people get killed whilst terrorism and those that perpetrate acts of terrorism can do so because of the freedoms and rights that you so readily enjoy and where symbolised by those towers.

Terrorism and freedom are an interesting mix don't you think? Based on the psychology of fear the intentional, deliberate and specific targetting of civilians in order to promote a cause and to instill a long lasting sense of fear and dread. Simple really isn't it! kill in such a fashion as to terrify the population into giving in. Which is what will ultimately happen if you allow them to take advantage of the freedoms you uphold.

So here we are in our civilised little world happily discussing the rights and wrongs of methods of behaviour that a majority of the worlds population would consider a normal way of life! Do terrorists get squeamish beheading US servicemen and women for the delight of others on the internet? No. Ah you say but we're civilised and have rights and laws and all that sh!t..... Well fine, you do and you will no doubt continue to live in peace and harmony but provided by people that are employed, trained and dedicated to protecting you and your way of life. Personally I don't care if they slice these bastards testicles off and shove them in their nostrils - which by the way happened to a mate of mine in Northern Ireland funnily enough by terrorists funded by the citizens of the good old US of A!!!

..........ah well never mind eh!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Terrorism is an interesting concept and one which I don't think many people have a real understanding of.

Its an unfortunate fact that people get hurt and people get killed whilst terrorism and those that perpetrate acts of terrorism can do so because of the freedoms and rights that you so readily enjoy and where symbolised by those towers.

Unfortunately, for us, those towers also symbolized greed & Imperialism.

So here we are in our civilised little world happily discussing the rights and wrongs of methods of behaviour that a majority of the worlds population would consider a normal way of life! Do terrorists get squeamish beheading US servicemen and women for the delight of others on the internet? No. Ah you say but we're civilised and have rights and laws and all that sh!t..... Well fine, you do and you will no doubt continue to live in peace and harmony but provided by people that are employed, trained and dedicated to protecting you and your way of life.

Yeah.....whatta shame they don't get the appropriate accolades/consideration.....while the local-neandrathals wonder "What would John Wayne do?"

"I should have felt triumphant when I returned from Iraq in August 2006. Instead, I was worried and exhausted. My team of interrogators had successfully hunted down one of the most notorious mass murderers of our generation, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the mastermind of the campaign of suicide bombings that had helped plunge Iraq into civil war. But instead of celebrating our success, my mind was consumed with the unfinished business of our mission: fixing the deeply flawed, ineffective and un-American way the U.S. military conducts interrogations in Iraq. I'm still alarmed about that today."

 

[top gun]

Remember, how "conservatives" continually insist people "...need to accept responsibility for their own actions!"??

It's THAT TIME, for the Bush Cabal!!!

​

Well everyone knows water-boarding it torture under International Law as well as the Military Field Manual... and everyone knows Bush approved doing it.

The math is there. But President Obama will not pursue it. The last eight years of the overall Republican administration has been such a major disaster on so many fronts we'll just be moving on to start the reversals of the bad laws, rules and policies themselves and bring the stature of the United States up throughout the world that way.

Plus it's very difficult to go after a past President anyway with all his layers of cover.

 

[foggedinn]

Hi.

Well, being the nuby here...I would have to say that I would consider " waterboarding " to be torture...now mind you I'm not saying that we shouldn't use whatever means ( short of actually killing someone ) necessary in order to gain information " Vital To America and it's Security "

Torture doesn't get actionable information at Gitmo or Abu Gareb. Especially months or years after original confinement. It just feeds the perversion of the torturer. From the information available, it also seems to be contagious.

I've never accepted that the ends justify the means. I believe the means used define the nature of the individual or country using them.

 

[BigRob]

Why assume that one's morality is a facade? Stating that we do not torture prisoners and then keeping our word will not change the outcome of the war.

Because often those opposing "torture" simply want the US to stop using our own methods (which are not even torture) and could care less if another country takes it to a far worse level.

Do you remember the Geneva Convention? Torture is illegal, defining torture can be difficult, but that's where some public oversight comes in. Everything in love and war is not fair, there are things that we should not do, things that no one should do--even if the other people do them.

I remember the Geneva Convention, can you cite the part we are breaking?

Saying that we don't torture people and then NOT torturing people is not "broadcasting" interrogation techniques.

We already say we do not torture people, and no one believes it. They instead demand to know the techniques so they can make up their minds. I say that is "broadcasting" interrogation techniques.

I guess that's a difference between us, I don't believe that winning is everything. If expediency is your only measure of right and wrong, then we have nothing more to discuss.

Are you saying you want to lose the war on terror, or simply saying you do not care if we lose the war on terror?

Expediency has nothing to do with it, the techniques that we use to interrogate prisoners are not illegal and are not torture. Further, my top priority is protecting the lives of US citizens, and if doing that means that someone we pick up has to go without sleep then so be it.

The lack of public oversight has been a problem and we're working on changing that, but there is no guarantee that public oversight will stop the torture, it's just the best we can do. There are few absolutes in life, I hope that public oversight will prevent torture though I am realistic enough to understand that it may not. We need to teach our children ethical standards, set an example of doing the right thing even if it costs us.

You can promote ethical standards and protect American citizens at the same time. I personally think that it is pretty telling of our character that we use our own methods instead of the methods used by some other countries.

Further, there does not need to be any "public" oversight of interrogation techniques. How do you propose to enact "public" oversight without broadcasting our techniques?

On top of all of this, what we do is not torture to begin with.

Prolonging our lives is not necessarilly the highest good to which we can aspire, if it was then men would not jump on hand grenades to save their buddies lives, people would not dive into icy water to rescue someone, strangers would not give money or assistance at risk to themselves. If we have to become like our enemies to defeat them, then they win anyway.

This makes no sense. The people you describe make a sacrifice for the sole purpose of prolonging the lives of others. Further, our tactics are nothing like that of our "enemy."