The defining of torture in a new world war

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
The US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's defence of the practice of transferring prisoners around the world for interrogation relies a great deal on a definition of torture.
In the US view, torture has to involve "severe pain" and harsh interrogations do not necessarily amount to torture.

Ms Rice accepted that prisoner transfers, known as "renditions", take place and said they were not unusual. The French had moved Carlos the Jackal directly from Sudan that way in 1994, she pointed out.

She did not adddress the issue of where these prisoners, thought to be senior al-Qaeda suspects like Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the man who thought up the attacks of 9/11, end up. The Washington Post has alleged that there are or have been secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Thailand. By being located outside the US, they would avoid coming under the scrutiny of US courts.

But as she set off a European visit during which the rendition flights and the ultimate aim of such flights will be a key issue, the Secretary of State stressed several times that the United States did not engage in torture.

And it is really the torture issue which is the key. If the flights were simply for the purpose of moving prisoners between open court systems, nobody would complain.

It is the idea that they are tortured in secret detention camps that has concerned critics and has forced Ms Rice to issue her statement.

The UN Convention on Torture

The United States acted, she said, in accordance with its legal obligations, among which is the 1984 UN "Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This defines torture as follows: "Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind..."

Defining 'severe'

It will be seen that a lot depends on the definition of "severe." In a memorandum on 1 August 2002, the then Assistant US Attorney General Jay Bybee said that "the adjective severe conveys that the pain or suffering must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure." He even suggested that "severe pain" must be severe enough to result in organ failure death.

Such an interpretation would obviously leave an interrogator a great deal of latitude, and that memo was subsequently disowned by the Bush administration.

What seems to have evolved is a series of interrogation techniques which in the US view do not amount to torture as defined by the UN Convention but which go beyond the simple business of asking questions.

Recent reports on the American ABC News network, quoting CIA sources, listed six so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."

1. Grab : the interrogator grabs a suspect's shirt front and shakes him.

2. Slap : an open-handed slap to produce fear and some pain.

3. Belly Slap : a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury. A punch is said to have been ruled out by doctors.

4. Standing : Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor. Said to be effective, it also denies them sleep and is part of a process known as sensory deprivation ( this was a technique used by British forces in Northern Ireland for a time until it was stopped).

5. Cold Cell : a prisoner is made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water.

6. Water Boarding : the prisoner is bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning which leads to a rapid demand for the suffering to end.

The McCain amendment

Some or all of these techniques might be outlawed if the US Senate has its way. The Senate has approved by 90 to 9 a measure outlawing "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."

Again, much depends on definitions but President Bush apparently feels that McCain's amendment would prevent the CIA from carrying out "enhanced" interrogation. He is threatening to veto the Bill onto which this prohibition has been tacked as an amendment. The White House and McCain, a former pilot who was himself tortured by the North Vietnamese, are trying to reach a compromise.

Senator McCain has written against any ill-treatment of prisoners: "We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear - whether it is true or false - if he believes it will relieve his suffering," he said in an article in Newsweek.

He is particularly against "waterboarding". "I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture," he said.

But the administration clearly feels that the CIA's hands should not be tied too tightly.

Stephen Hadley, the US National Security Adviser, has spoken of the dilemma faced by governments which say they abide by the rule of law yet which need to get information to save lives. "The president has said that we are going to do whatever we do in accordance with the law. But you see the dilemma. What happens if on September 7th 2001, we had gotten one of the hijackers and based on information associated with that arrest, believed that within four days, there's going to be a devastating attack on the United States?"

One very grey area of the rendition policy is that sometimes a prisoner is handed over secretly to a country which itself carries out the interrogation. Such a country might not be so particular as to the methods used.

There is a view among some lawyers that the US would violate international law if it knew of such practices by governments to which it hands over suspects.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4499528.stm



Particularly interesting are the 6 techniques mentioned. Some are only technically (ie. not explicitly listed in any law) not torture, others seem to rely too heavily on the interrogators restraint, such as hit them but not too hard. It would seem that they would likely cross that barrier easily if the interrogator is getting angry (or is already angry).

Water boarding seems to mimic the experience of dunking people in water, lifting them out then repeating. That used to be a method of torture used.
 
I saw part of a documentary showing some of the techniques carried out by American interrogators at Guantanamo. Some of that shit was truly fucked up Alonzo.
One technique was easily counterproducative and truly stupid. The isolation bit, up to 18 fucking months! 18 months man! And before you say anything PAD shut the fuck up. You of all people should know if you put someone in solitary for that long they'll go nuts and before you mention chat I heard something about an FBI report talking about one person tearing bits of hair out in that cell and another talking to a non existent person. That isn't real interrogation, it's stupidity but what else should I expect from an Administration that seems to associate effective interrogation with obvious and pitiful "Hey baby! Look at me and how powerful I am." masculine displays of power. These are the kind of men speaking all about how powerful they are, with cheesy lines and then a woman walks out and sees a sportcar and does the math or he's one Viagra short. This kind of crap should be seen at a bar where we point and laugh, not in the middle of the town square where the town drunk rants his head off then proceeds to point us out and greet us as if they're our friend, leaving us embarrassed.
Sorry I went on there.
 
It's funny that the fundies are happy to bitch about stores saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas", but don't even bat an eye when their leaders are torturing people, some of which were clearly innocent like the German man who is now suing the CIA.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I saw part of a documentary showing some of the techniques carried out by American interrogators at Guantanamo. Some of that shit was truly fucked up Alonzo.
One technique was easily counterproducative and truly stupid. The isolation bit, up to 18 fucking months! 18 months man! And before you say anything PAD shut the fuck up. You of all people should know if you put someone in solitary for that long they'll go nuts and before you mention chat I heard something about an FBI report talking about one person tearing bits of hair out in that cell and another talking to a non existent person. That isn't real interrogation, it's stupidity but what else should I expect from an Administration that seems to associate effective interrogation with obvious and pitiful "Hey baby! Look at me and how powerful I am." masculine displays of power. These are the kind of men speaking all about how powerful they are, with cheesy lines and then a woman walks out and sees a sportcar and does the math or he's one Viagra short. This kind of crap should be seen at a bar where we point and laugh, not in the middle of the town square where the town drunk rants his head off then proceeds to point us out and greet us as if they're our friend, leaving us embarrassed.
Sorry I went on there.[/QUOTE]

This same exact thing happens in prisons across the United States and the prisoners subjected to it don't even have any useful information to give up.
 
I will state again that I don't care what we do to these "people". I could care less if we grind them up into Alpo. I would support methods not used. Just off the top of my head I would have them sleeping with or around pigs. Hell, crazy glue their hands together either balled up as fists or palms together. They have no rights. They have no standing. They represent no country, no standing army, wear no uniform and as such have no Geneva Convention standing.

If we don't want to do it fine, outsource it. Send them to countries where they'll be put feet first in plastic shredders.

I don't care what we do to them. Period.

I love how the idiots here on this board, and yes, you are idiots, think 18 months in solitary is extreme. They put Tookie Williams in solitary for 6 years. I have yet to see one of you bitch about that treatment of an American citizen in jail in the most liberal state in the union.

Speaking of Tookie, I can't wait to see him take the Journey on the Gurney.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I have yet to see one of you bitch about that treatment of an American citizen in jail in the most liberal state in the union.[/quote]

*cough*

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Speaking of Tookie, I can't wait to see him take the Journey on the Gurney.[/QUOTE]

Why are you so elated about his death? Because of what you consider to be "justice," because of your thirst for revenge, or for another reason?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I will state again that I don't care what we do to these "people". I could care less if we grind them up into Alpo. I would support methods not used. Just off the top of my head I would have them sleeping with or around pigs. Hell, crazy glue their hands together either balled up as fists or palms together. They have no rights. They have no standing. They represent no country, no standing army, wear no uniform and as such have no Geneva Convention standing.

If we don't want to do it fine, outsource it. Send them to countries where they'll be put feet first in plastic shredders.

I don't care what we do to them. Period.

I love how the idiots here on this board, and yes, you are idiots, think 18 months in solitary is extreme. They put Tookie Williams in solitary for 6 years. I have yet to see one of you bitch about that treatment of an American citizen in jail in the most liberal state in the union.

Speaking of Tookie, I can't wait to see him take the Journey on the Gurney.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I just mentioned about prisoners in jail, which is probably what made you think of it but anyway...

The problem with treating prisoners of Gitmo is not because they don't deserve it its because THEY'VE NEVER BEEN GIVEN A TRIAL and most have never been given legal counsel. If they had been found guilty in a court of law and were treated like this my opinion would be slightly different (although I still oppose harsh torture). Just because they do not represent a country's standing army does not mean that its carte blanche for us to treat them harshly and keep them locked up indefinetly without give them a proper trial.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']*cough*



Why are you so elated about his death? Because of what you consider to be "justice," because of your thirst for revenge, or for another reason?[/QUOTE]


Because retribution>rehabilitation in his mind. He's actually VERY mainstream on this issue, no one cares about rehabilitating inmates anymore, its "lock them up and throw away the key" mentality.
 
How many U.S. airmen were given legal counsel and/or a legitimate trial when shot down over North Vietnam? Oh, how about North Korea, Japan or Germany?

Get back to me on that would you?

Like I said. No rights. They deserve absolutely nothing. Terrorists get no due process when captured on foreign soil by American forces. Kill them all. Let them have their 72 virgins in paradise. They want to be martyred? Help them on their way.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Because retribution>rehabilitation in his mind. He's actually VERY mainstream on this issue, no one cares about rehabilitating inmates anymore, its "lock them up and throw away the key" mentality.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I know; prisons/corrections are my specialty. To be fair, the public's opinion becomes far more nuanced as individual characteristics are known; that is, if you ask the public if murderers should be executed, you'll get one kind of (mostly favorable towards capital punishment) response.

If you ask them about Tookie Williams in particular, and focus on the criticisms of the trial as well as the work he's done since then, the support for the death penalty declines. (Not that I have any data on Tookie specifically, but I do know that public support declines when those on death row are given "life histories," and not just the crime they committed, when presented to the public).
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']How many U.S. airmen were given legal counsel and/or a legitimate trial when shot down over North Vietnam? Oh, how about North Korea, Japan or Germany?

Get back to me on that would you?

Like I said. No rights. They deserve absolutely nothing. Terrorists get no due process when captured on foreign soil by American forces. Kill them all. Let them have their 72 virgins in paradise. They want to be martyred? Help them on their way.[/QUOTE]

So you really want to put us into the same category as North Vietnam, North Korea, Imperialist Japan, and Nazi Germany?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, I know; prisons/corrections are my specialty. To be fair, the public's opinion becomes far more nuanced as individual characteristics are known; that is, if you ask the public if murderers should be executed, you'll get one kind of (mostly favorable towards capital punishment) response.

If you ask them about Tookie Williams in particular, and focus on the criticisms of the trial as well as the work he's done since then, the support for the death penalty declines. (Not that I have any data on Tookie specifically, but I do know that public support declines when those on death row are given "life histories," and not just the crime they committed, when presented to the public).[/QUOTE]

Its very easy to execute a criminal, its more difficult to execute a human being.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']They have no rights. They have no standing. They represent no country, no standing army, wear no uniform and as such have no Geneva Convention standing.[/QUOTE]

The German citizen abducted by the CIA contradicts this statement.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I could care less if we grind them up into Alpo.[/QUOTE]

If they did I would start buying a crapload of Alpo just so they would have to grind up more terrorists...I don't even have a dog.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Its very easy to execute a criminal, its more difficult to execute a human being.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for showing me what an unnecessarily long-winded bastard I can be. ;)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']How many U.S. airmen were given legal counsel and/or a legitimate trial when shot down over North Vietnam? Oh, how about North Korea, Japan or Germany?[/QUOTE]

So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't even bother holding the moral high ground? I must say, you'd make a great SS Gestapo.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Water boarding seems to mimic the experience of dunking people in water, lifting them out then repeating. That used to be a method of torture used.[/QUOTE]

For people like witches? :D

Seriously though, these techniques seem like they are borrowed from the inquisiition. Whatever happened to lie detectors and Sodium Pentothal?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Thanks for showing me what an unnecessarily long-winded bastard I can be. ;)[/QUOTE]

:lol: Yeah I thought that pretty much summed it up perfectly. I don't think I can claim originality on it though because after 2+ years of criminal justice classes, its possible I heard that quote from somewhere else first.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't even bother holding the moral high ground? I must say, you'd make a great SS Gestapo.[/QUOTE]

Yay! Demonstrate your ignorance completely!

The Gestapo was the German national police force.

The SS were Nazi party members enlisted in a special branch of German armed forces with their own chain of command and seperate from Wermacht forces. They had their own officers and force structre.

The two had nothing to do with one another on any military TOE. Your statement is the equivilent of saying "OMG U WOULD MAKE A GREAT GREEN BERET FBI!11!11!".

Demonstrating yet again, you're a tard.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Yay! Demonstrate your ignorance completely!

The Gestapo was the German national police force.

The SS were Nazi party members enlisted in a special branch of German armed forces with their own chain of command and seperate from Wermacht forces. They had their own officers and force structre.

The two had nothing to do with one another on any military TOE. Your statement is the equivilent of saying "OMG U WOULD MAKE A GREAT GREEN BERET FBI!11!11!".

Demonstrating yet again, you're a tard.[/QUOTE]

No, you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheitspolizei

The SS absorbed the Prussian Secret Police which were predecessors of the Gestapo. The Gestapo was also under the supervision of the SD leader Reinhard Heydrich (SD being an intelligence branch of the SS). That being said, they may have had different jurisdictions, but their duties also intersected quite frequently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

In 1934, full control of the Gestapo was handed over to the SS, and the SS resumed control of all concentration camps (and I presume the ghettos, too).
 
The Prussian Secret Police had as much bearing on the rise of the Nazis as the San Diego Police Department had on the Revolutionary War.

The SS was headed by and controlled by Heinrich Himmler. The SD was SS security. Heydrich was also responsible for the dissolution of Ernst Rohm's SA, or brownshirts in the Night of the Long Knives.

While both the SD and Gestapo both participated in the rounding up, torture and execution of SA membership the SS's SD units were purely military and the Gestapo was mostly civillian in nature being comprised mostly of regional police forces

Within Germany and areas which were incorporated within the Reich for the purpose of civil administration local offices of the Gestapo, Criminal Police, and SD were formally separate. They were subject to coordination by Inspectors of the Security Police and SD on the staffs of the local Higher SS and Police Leaders, however, and one of the principal functions of the local SD units was to serve as the intelligence agency for the local Gestapo units. In the occupied territories, the formal relationship between local units of the Gestapo, Criminal Police, and SD was slightly closer.

So again.... wonder tard....

You are wrong.

Argue the history, causes and players of the Nazi party with me and you're going to be up shit creek without a paddle. I know that part of history like the bck of my hand.
 
Being the moral equivalent to the Nazis, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Egyptians, Saudis, Pakistanis, is A-OK!!!

Happy Torturing!!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The Prussian Secret Police had as much bearing on the rise of the Nazis as the San Diego Police Department had on the Revolutionary War.

The SS was headed by and controlled by Heinrich Himmler. The SD was SS security. Heydrich was also responsible for the dissolution of Ernst Rohm's SA, or brownshirts in the Night of the Long Knives.

While both the SD and Gestapo both participated in the rounding up, torture and execution of SA membership the SS's SD units were purely military and the Gestapo was mostly civillian in nature being comprised mostly of regional police forces

Within Germany and areas which were incorporated within the Reich for the purpose of civil administration local offices of the Gestapo, Criminal Police, and SD were formally separate. They were subject to coordination by Inspectors of the Security Police and SD on the staffs of the local Higher SS and Police Leaders, however, and one of the principal functions of the local SD units was to serve as the intelligence agency for the local Gestapo units. In the occupied territories, the formal relationship between local units of the Gestapo, Criminal Police, and SD was slightly closer.

So again.... wonder tard....

You are wrong.

Argue the history, causes and players of the Nazi party with me and you're going to be up shit creek without a paddle. I know that part of history like the bck of my hand.[/QUOTE]

By this point, you're splitting hairs. They were both part of the same structure, and you've still yet to address the greater point of whether or not it's ok for America to assume the same moral posturing of those we deem evil.

You are a great example of blind nationalism.
 
[quote name='evanft']Being the moral equivalent to the Nazis, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Egyptians, Saudis, Pakistanis, is A-OK!!!

Happy Torturing!![/QUOTE]

Korean Reds Targeting Christians

By MEGHAN CLYNE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 16, 2005

WASHINGTON - A woman in her 20s executed by a firing squad after being caught with a Bible. Five Christian church leaders punished by being run over by a steamroller before a crowd of spectators who "cried, screamed out, or fainted when the skulls made a popping sound as they were crushed."

These and other "horrifying" violations of human rights and religious freedom in North Korea are reported in a new study by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, titled "'Thank You, Father Kim Il Sung': Eyewitness Accounts of Severe Violations of Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion in North Korea."

The report, released yesterday, comes as President Bush is touring Asia, calling for increased political freedom. In remarks prepared for delivery early this morning in Japan, the president called on Red China to extend more freedom to its population of 1.3 billion. In an advance text of the speech, President Bush also extolled Taiwan, which Beijing considers a renegade province, as "a free and democratic Chinese society." And the president noted North Korean human rights abuses while reassuring the Hermit Kingdom's people.

"Satellite maps of North Korea show prison camps the size of whole cities," Mr. Bush said. "We will not forget the people of North Korea."

Excerpt: Link to full article.

I think we have a whole lotta ways to go if we're ever going to be on the same level of Kim ILL's DPRK......

[quote name='capitalist_mao']By this point, you're splitting hairs. They were both part of the same structure, and you've still yet to address the greater point of whether or not it's ok for America to assume the same moral posturing of those we deem evil.

You are a great example of blind nationalism.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not splitting hairs. You're comparing aspects of government and saying they're identical, they are not. By your "logic" the Agriculture Department and Defense Department are part of the same structure because they're both U.S. government agencies.

I've already addressed the greater point. I don't care what we do to them. I don't care if we make them into dog food. That's my posture and I see nothing immoral about it. These people want to be martyrs help them on their way. We'd be doing them and the world a great service by executing them by the truck, plane or boatload.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']No, I'm not splitting hairs. You're comparing aspects of government and saying they're identical, they are not. By your "logic" the Agriculture Department and Defense Department are part of the same structure because they're both U.S. government agencies.[/QUOTE]

No, my logic would be like comparing police forces that do very similar things. Such as your local militia (national guard) and the army. They're not the same thing, but they sure as hell do many of the same things.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Korean Reds Targeting Christians

By MEGHAN CLYNE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 16, 2005

WASHINGTON - A woman in her 20s executed by a firing squad after being caught with a Bible. Five Christian church leaders punished by being run over by a steamroller before a crowd of spectators who "cried, screamed out, or fainted when the skulls made a popping sound as they were crushed."

These and other "horrifying" violations of human rights and religious freedom in North Korea are reported in a new study by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, titled "'Thank You, Father Kim Il Sung': Eyewitness Accounts of Severe Violations of Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion in North Korea."

The report, released yesterday, comes as President Bush is touring Asia, calling for increased political freedom. In remarks prepared for delivery early this morning in Japan, the president called on Red China to extend more freedom to its population of 1.3 billion. In an advance text of the speech, President Bush also extolled Taiwan, which Beijing considers a renegade province, as "a free and democratic Chinese society." And the president noted North Korean human rights abuses while reassuring the Hermit Kingdom's people.

"Satellite maps of North Korea show prison camps the size of whole cities," Mr. Bush said. "We will not forget the people of North Korea."

Excerpt: Link to full article.

I think we have a whole lotta ways to go if we're ever going to be on the same level of Kim ILL's DPRK......
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm right with you there. I'm just nervous that ANY aspect of their morality is seaping into our own.

I'm also a little worried about the possibility of these methods being expanded to other types of prisoners. I mean, the label "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" could probably be applied to a lot of people, at least in some legal sense. It's a slippery slope, I know, but one that makes me nervous.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

I've already addressed the greater point. I don't care what we do to them. I don't care if we make them into dog food. That's my posture and I see nothing immoral about it. These people want to be martyrs help them on their way. We'd be doing them and the world a great service by executing them by the truck, plane or boatload.[/QUOTE]

But, even if I am to accept the premise that terrorists, insurgents etc. should be tortured, there's still a problem with your logic. It assumes that every single one is guilty. There aren't trials going on (let alone fair trials), and there have been multiple case of people who weren't guilty of anything being arrested and held in conditions that are torture, or at least close enough that torture can be argued.

Its the difference between saying murderers should be executed and saying anyone suspected of murder should be executed.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']So you really want to put us into the same category as North Vietnam, North Korea, Imperialist Japan, and Nazi Germany?[/QUOTE]

Well, that's been the Republican argument for quite some time: they do it, so it's okay if we do it to them. I think that argument is misguided and, quite frankly, morally wrong. How do we expect the people we're trying to help to support us when we feel it's okay to sink to that level? It's just a very, very misguided premise.

Although obviously we're not in the same category as those nations, even with the "restrained torture" that has been approved for use in places like Gitmo. As PAD's article suggests and the history of entities like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan confirms, their actions were a far cry from what our government is doing. OTOH, PAD seems to want to move us closer (although still far away) to them...
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I will state again that I don't care what we do to these "people". I could care less if we grind them up into Alpo. I would support methods not used. Just off the top of my head I would have them sleeping with or around pigs. Hell, crazy glue their hands together either balled up as fists or palms together. They have no rights. They have no standing. They represent no country, no standing army, wear no uniform and as such have no Geneva Convention standing.

If we don't want to do it fine, outsource it. Send them to countries where they'll be put feet first in plastic shredders.

I don't care what we do to them. Period.

I love how the idiots here on this board, and yes, you are idiots, think 18 months in solitary is extreme. They put Tookie Williams in solitary for 6 years. I have yet to see one of you bitch about that treatment of an American citizen in jail in the most liberal state in the union.

Speaking of Tookie, I can't wait to see him take the Journey on the Gurney.[/QUOTE]



I completely agree with ya PAD. Keep up the good fight.
 
its funny that we are supposed to be the good guys here. The good guys wouldnt not have secret torture airplanes all over the space. We are supposed to be better than the enemy not equal or worse than it. By the way PAD how come you arent tearin into your boy MCcain he is as against torture as many of the people in this site but I have yet to see some garbage messageboard crap from another site posted here.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I've often wondered why we even have rules for war. War is nasty business, why even bother?[/QUOTE]

At the end of the battle of Gettysburg, General Lee's faithful subordinate, General Alexander, urged Lee to scatter the remainder of the southern troops and thereafter lead a guerilla-style war against the northern army.

Instead Lee realized that the best course of action for all concerned was to unconditionally surrender, and let the confederate men "quietly and quickly" return home to "plant crops and begin to repair the ravages of war."

What state would America be in today if General Lee had disbanded the traditional structure of his army and encouraged them to wreak havok on an already severely weakened country? General Lee's decision to unconditionally surrender saved the country from many more subsequent years of pointless and destructive battles.

While the "rules of war" routinely become victim to the "prisoner's dillemma", they exist to lessen the impact of war and set a standard for the treatment of POWs.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't even bother holding the moral high ground? [/QUOTE]

Considering we simulate drowning on prisoners and they chop people's heads off, I think we're still in control of the high ground here.

If fear of being tortured makes one less suicide bomber light one up and kill 50 people, I'd say that's an accomplishment too. We should, however, save the real good tortures for the al qaeda hierarchy. Those pussies will sing like babies cause they're too afraid to die. It's the rank and file grunts who are willing to kill themselves on which torture doesn't work.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Considering we simulate drowning on prisoners and they chop people's heads off, I think we're still in control of the high ground here.

If fear of being tortured makes one less suicide bomber light one up and kill 50 people, I'd say that's an accomplishment too. We should, however, save the real good tortures for the al qaeda hierarchy. Those pussies will sing like babies cause they're too afraid to die. It's the rank and file grunts who are willing to kill themselves on which torture doesn't work.[/QUOTE]

While we may hold the relative high ground in morality when we compare ourselves to terrorists, we're really starting to sink when we compare ourselves to our western and european allies.
 
[quote name='camoor']At the end of the battle of Gettysburg, General Lee's faithful subordinate, General Alexander, urged Lee to scatter the remainder of the southern troops and thereafter lead a guerilla-style war against the northern army.

Instead Lee realized that the best course of action for all concerned was to unconditionally surrender, and let the confederate men "quietly and quickly" return home to "plant crops and begin to repair the ravages of war."

What state would America be in today if General Lee had disbanded the traditional structure of his army and encouraged them to wreak havok on an already severely weakened country? General Lee's decision to unconditionally surrender saved the country from many more subsequent years of pointless and destructive battles.

While the "rules of war" routinely become victim to the "prisoner's dillemma", they exist to lessen the impact of war and set a standard for the treatment of POWs.[/QUOTE]

What planet did you learn U.S. history on?

I'm being completely serious.

The Battle of Gettysburg was in July of 1863 and the surrender at Appamattox was in April of 1865.

Where did you ever learn that Gettysburg was the deciding battle of the American Civil War???

Is it any wonder I think this board is filled with intellectual lightweights and factually challenged individuals?
 
Also, weren't they given very good terms of surrender? Allowed to keep a personal weapon, and horse?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Considering we simulate drowning on prisoners and they chop people's heads off, I think we're still in control of the high ground here.[/QUOTE]

No rational person could argue otherwise. However, that doesn't make some of the things we're doing right, or from a more utilitarian point of view even advisable.

[quote name='bmulligan']If fear of being tortured makes one less suicide bomber light one up and kill 50 people, I'd say that's an accomplishment too. We should, however, save the real good tortures for the al qaeda hierarchy. Those pussies will sing like babies cause they're too afraid to die. It's the rank and file grunts who are willing to kill themselves on which torture doesn't work.[/QUOTE]

You're probably right about people like Zawahiri, bin Laden and Zarqawi. They're cowards who hide behind dupes who blow themselves up on the promise of 72 virgins.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Considering we simulate drowning on prisoners and they chop people's heads off, I think we're still in control of the high ground here.[/quote]

I'll take "that doesn't make it right" for $1000.

If fear of being tortured makes one less suicide bomber light one up and kill 50 people, I'd say that's an accomplishment too.

Looking at the increase in successful and attempted terror attacks in the past several years (a 3x or larger increase since 2001), I'd say that this "deterrence" strategy is not only not working, but it never worked (particularly in the middle east), and we're fools for believing so.

We should, however, save the real good tortures for the al qaeda hierarchy. Those pussies will sing like babies cause they're too afraid to die. It's the rank and file grunts who are willing to kill themselves on which torture doesn't work.

Um...suuure. While I'm perfectly fine with them being executed, I'm not about to delight in it to your morbidly fantastic extent.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']WASHINGTON - A woman in her 20s executed by a firing squad after being caught with a Bible. Five Christian church leaders punished by being run over by a steamroller before a crowd of spectators who "cried, screamed out, or fainted when the skulls made a popping sound as they were crushed."
[/QUOTE]

And here I thought you enjoyed watching Christians getting executed. At least that's what you stated in your other thread.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']No, I just enjoy the delicious irony of watching Adopt a Terrorist groups being kidnapped by terrorists.[/QUOTE]

Same here.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']No, I just enjoy the delicious irony of watching Adopt a Terrorist groups being kidnapped by terrorists.[/QUOTE]

Adopt a terrorist groups? Who are you refering to?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] Read here all about the "Christian Peacemaker Teams" adopt a terrorist program.

This is the group that had 4 "human rights workers" kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq on November 29th.[/QUOTE]

Some people are more idealistic and don't readily accept the argument to work with the lesser of two evils.

If fear of being tortured makes one less suicide bomber light one up and kill 50 people, I'd say that's an accomplishment too.

You're right. The problem is when these practices become public (required for the deterrent effect) it helps produce a larger pool of potential terrorists. So any deterrent effect is lesser than the increase in support they recieve.
 
Today's post had a great article about the White House xmas cards.

They said "Happy Holidays" and predictably the god-warriors of the mid-west threw a hissy fit that their religion wasn't getting more free advertising.

Anyway - one of the guys had a great quote - he said it's about time to stop worrying about xmas cards and for christians to put the christ back into dialogues on war. I couldn't agree more.
 
I see how you neglect to even defend your apparent lack of knowledge of American history, as I pointed out, in the midst of your bigoted anti-Christian rant.
 
bread's done
Back
Top