Forums > Social Discussion > The Torture Issue
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
So with the Obama administration, one thing they are doing is releasing CIA memos that allowed certain interrogation methods including waterboarding, causing pain that left no physical harm, or inducing severe psychological trauma.
Many people feel that these methods are more properly defined as "torture." I am inclined to agree with them.
Obama has also said that he will not be prosecuting this. I am inclined to disagree with him.
The Attorney General's office issued guidelines to field officers that these methods were in fact, legal under international law. On the one hand, some feel that should take the responsibility off the officers because they were told by attorneys that they were behaving legally. On the other hand, others feel that they should have recognized these methods as torture, regardless of what the AG told them, and that they should be held responsible. I am not sure which side I agree with. Or if I fall somewhere in between. I'd need more information, I suppose.
How do you feel about these things? Does anyone here have personal experience with torture? I was voluntarily waterboarded. I lasted 93 seconds, 34 longer than the next guy. And I'm a competitive swimmer. It was AWFUL.
So with the Obama administration, one thing they are doing is releasing CIA memos that allowed certain interrogation methods including waterboarding, causing pain that left no physical harm, or inducing severe psychological trauma.
Many people feel that these methods are more properly defined as "torture." I am inclined to agree with them.
Obama has also said that he will not be prosecuting this. I am inclined to disagree with him.
The Attorney General's office issued guidelines to field officers that these methods were in fact, legal under international law. On the one hand, some feel that should take the responsibility off the officers because they were told by attorneys that they were behaving legally. On the other hand, others feel that they should have recognized these methods as torture, regardless of what the AG told them, and that they should be held responsible. I am not sure which side I agree with. Or if I fall somewhere in between. I'd need more information, I suppose.
How do you feel about these things? Does anyone here have personal experience with torture? I was voluntarily waterboarded. I lasted 93 seconds, 34 longer than the next guy. And I'm a competitive swimmer. It was AWFUL.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
member
14 posts
Location: Sydney, Australia
member
14 posts
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posted:
Never experienced torture personally.
I'm pretty sure it would be easy to tell whether you're torturing someone or not. Unless a person is mentally incapable of understanding, if they've decided to follow orders that direct them to torture, I would hold them responsible. I don't know how such responsibility would be met.
In terms of causing pain with no physical signs: Has anyone ever had ultra-sound treatment in physiotherapy? My dad (the physio) told me it's used as a method of torture, and then proceeded to show me how effective it was.
It's not fun. It felt like the muscle fibres were tearing apart.
Never experienced torture personally.
I'm pretty sure it would be easy to tell whether you're torturing someone or not. Unless a person is mentally incapable of understanding, if they've decided to follow orders that direct them to torture, I would hold them responsible. I don't know how such responsibility would be met.
In terms of causing pain with no physical signs: Has anyone ever had ultra-sound treatment in physiotherapy? My dad (the physio) told me it's used as a method of torture, and then proceeded to show me how effective it was.
It's not fun. It felt like the muscle fibres were tearing apart. SILVER Member
Hunting robot foxes
1,046 posts
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, England (UK)
Hunting robot foxes
1,046 posts
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, England (UK)
Posted:
I really don't know where I stand here. I think the use of these techniques is unjustifiable and that those responisble should be punished, and in the public view, but its hard to see how it could be done.
The perpetrators need to be punished in public view in order to send a message that the administration has changed and that such things will no longer be tolerated. Otherwise people and states will just believe the techniques to have moved underground.
But if you punish those who approved the measures you will be charging multiple people right at the top of the previous administration, its almost a declaration of open hostilities towards the (old?) republicans which is a dangerous thing, you risk contributing to a great divide.
You can charge those lower down the chain but this will be seen as nothing but a whitewash.
I dunno, I don't envy some of the choices Obama is having to make...
I really don't know where I stand here. I think the use of these techniques is unjustifiable and that those responisble should be punished, and in the public view, but its hard to see how it could be done.
The perpetrators need to be punished in public view in order to send a message that the administration has changed and that such things will no longer be tolerated. Otherwise people and states will just believe the techniques to have moved underground.
But if you punish those who approved the measures you will be charging multiple people right at the top of the previous administration, its almost a declaration of open hostilities towards the (old?) republicans which is a dangerous thing, you risk contributing to a great divide.
You can charge those lower down the chain but this will be seen as nothing but a whitewash.
I dunno, I don't envy some of the choices Obama is having to make...
Working hard to be a wandering hippie layabout. Ten years down, five to go!
SILVER Member
lurking like a ninja with no camouflage..
926 posts
Location: over yonder, New Zealand
lurking like a ninja with no camouflage..
926 posts
Location: over yonder, New Zealand
Posted:
Moving man, if the ultrasound machine really hurt he was using too much pressure on you. You dont need alot of pressure with that thing because the sound wave does all the work for you. I have had a couple of remedial massages and given a couple and felt more pain when my colleagues used thumb and elbow pressure!
Which could be classed as torture, but torture of the remedial kind is for the greater good of removing nasty knots..
I agree with WWFFJ, the people at the top would be the ones who need to be punished but could cause a massive rift if they are. Everyone has a moral stance to take, I guess it could be seen as different to those in the army/special forces etc because they have a duty to follow orders. But within that is a gut reaction, telling them whether they themselves think it is right or wrong. While they may have followed orders, they may not necessarily hve thought it was right..
I dont think torture is right, even if in the past it has prised out important information from people, and I guess that might be the only way to get information from some folk. on the other hand (as Jack Bauer says
) everyone has a breaking point and will tell you whatever you want to hear.
Moving man, if the ultrasound machine really hurt he was using too much pressure on you. You dont need alot of pressure with that thing because the sound wave does all the work for you. I have had a couple of remedial massages and given a couple and felt more pain when my colleagues used thumb and elbow pressure!
Which could be classed as torture, but torture of the remedial kind is for the greater good of removing nasty knots..
I agree with WWFFJ, the people at the top would be the ones who need to be punished but could cause a massive rift if they are. Everyone has a moral stance to take, I guess it could be seen as different to those in the army/special forces etc because they have a duty to follow orders. But within that is a gut reaction, telling them whether they themselves think it is right or wrong. While they may have followed orders, they may not necessarily hve thought it was right..
I dont think torture is right, even if in the past it has prised out important information from people, and I guess that might be the only way to get information from some folk. on the other hand (as Jack Bauer says
) everyone has a breaking point and will tell you whatever you want to hear. on spam robots - "Burn the robot! Melt him down, and then we can make lots and lots of money from his shiiiny juices!"
Owned by Brenn 
Part-time genius
59 posts
Location: Netherlands
59 posts
Location: Netherlands
Posted:
Punishing the people who actually carried out the torture (as I think it's rightly reffered to) seems like a huge, clunky and ultimate useless exercise to me. Particularly if they did have legal advice from authority figures.
Stanley Milgram's obedience study is something I feel it important to take into account. In short the study showed that 'normal' people would often have to be stopped from delivering powerful electrical shocks to people even when they could hear them screaming in pain after instructed to do so by someone in a position of authority. (The shocks weren't real and the 'victims' were actors) A more in-depth explanation can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
I think the most important thing is that these practices have now been curtailed and chasing justice is a fruitless and likely impossible task. My 2p.
EDITED_BY: Mr_Joe (1240588935)
EDIT_REASON: edited for clarity
Punishing the people who actually carried out the torture (as I think it's rightly reffered to) seems like a huge, clunky and ultimate useless exercise to me. Particularly if they did have legal advice from authority figures.
Stanley Milgram's obedience study is something I feel it important to take into account. In short the study showed that 'normal' people would often have to be stopped from delivering powerful electrical shocks to people even when they could hear them screaming in pain after instructed to do so by someone in a position of authority. (The shocks weren't real and the 'victims' were actors) A more in-depth explanation can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
I think the most important thing is that these practices have now been curtailed and chasing justice is a fruitless and likely impossible task. My 2p.
EDITED_BY: Mr_Joe (1240588935)
EDIT_REASON: edited for clarity
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
I agree Torture is wrong no matter how you look at it but I have a question.
If someone is known to have information pertaining to the possible deaths of thousands of people and he wont tell you what do you do (Not saying that anyone in guantanamo knew anything like that)? Is Sodium pentathol effective? or is that classed as torture too? could you get answers out of a person using it, then polygraph test them on their own answers?
I don't think you can punish people following orders. You would have to punish the person that Gave the orders.
I agree Torture is wrong no matter how you look at it but I have a question.
If someone is known to have information pertaining to the possible deaths of thousands of people and he wont tell you what do you do (Not saying that anyone in guantanamo knew anything like that)? Is Sodium pentathol effective? or is that classed as torture too? could you get answers out of a person using it, then polygraph test them on their own answers?
I don't think you can punish people following orders. You would have to punish the person that Gave the orders.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
journeyman
99 posts
Location: canada
99 posts
Location: canada
Posted:
Gotta live the ticking bomb arguement for defense of torture in interogations. Like some prime time supsense show. most of the people subjected to torture were low ranking insurgents or sometimes completly innocent people. It is fairly rare for a situation where the interogation is going to save 1000's of people, most of the torture carried out in afghanistan, iraq and guantanomo were completly pointless, the information that was being seeked was trivial and often the torture was carried out for no real reason at all.
Secondly, Most profesional interogators think torture is bad just for the fact that is produces very unreliable information. People will onstruct elaborate confessions, feeding off the information they pick up from the questions they are being asked just to end the torture. If infact 1000's of lives depended on a confession, id be really worried if the plan of action was based on a sleep deprivation scrambled, desperatly contrived confession as the result of physical and psychological torture.
ps-I agree with Mr joe about going after the people ordered to carry out the torture. Soldiers are conditioned to follow orders. When given advice from their superiors that they are doing something legal, and ordered to do it, I think it is unreasonable to prosecute them for following the orders. That is what they did in afghanistan when a prisoner died from injurys from physical beatings, and it's what they did with that whole fiasco in iraq. Meanwhile the brass who dished out the orders got away with it.
chaseing after those who followed the orders is going to muddy and confuse the whole situation and provide opportunitys for the brass to cover their ass. Which is disgusting and wrong.
EDITED_BY: railspinner (1240608202)
Gotta live the ticking bomb arguement for defense of torture in interogations. Like some prime time supsense show. most of the people subjected to torture were low ranking insurgents or sometimes completly innocent people. It is fairly rare for a situation where the interogation is going to save 1000's of people, most of the torture carried out in afghanistan, iraq and guantanomo were completly pointless, the information that was being seeked was trivial and often the torture was carried out for no real reason at all.
Secondly, Most profesional interogators think torture is bad just for the fact that is produces very unreliable information. People will onstruct elaborate confessions, feeding off the information they pick up from the questions they are being asked just to end the torture. If infact 1000's of lives depended on a confession, id be really worried if the plan of action was based on a sleep deprivation scrambled, desperatly contrived confession as the result of physical and psychological torture.
ps-I agree with Mr joe about going after the people ordered to carry out the torture. Soldiers are conditioned to follow orders. When given advice from their superiors that they are doing something legal, and ordered to do it, I think it is unreasonable to prosecute them for following the orders. That is what they did in afghanistan when a prisoner died from injurys from physical beatings, and it's what they did with that whole fiasco in iraq. Meanwhile the brass who dished out the orders got away with it.
chaseing after those who followed the orders is going to muddy and confuse the whole situation and provide opportunitys for the brass to cover their ass. Which is disgusting and wrong.
EDITED_BY: railspinner (1240608202)
The less people know the more they believe
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
Anyone read 1984?
Anyone read 1984?
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
i dont see the point of charging the people who committed the act while the people that authorised it go free.
surely more important than committing the act itself is bringing to justice the people in power who knowingly allowed it to happen.
i would say if the people were charged that i pity them. allowing a fallguy for the government is pretty irrisponsible on behalf of the public IMO.
i dont see the point of charging the people who committed the act while the people that authorised it go free.
surely more important than committing the act itself is bringing to justice the people in power who knowingly allowed it to happen.
i would say if the people were charged that i pity them. allowing a fallguy for the government is pretty irrisponsible on behalf of the public IMO.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
newbie
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
Posted:
Things to keep in mind:
The people who wrote the international laws (geneva conventions etc) had lived through some of the worst examples of justified response. They were fighting nazis, trench warfare, chemical weapons, all sorts of stuff.
They laid down the rules of engagement because they said that if you started to compromise you slid all the way down to the bottom real quick. That you had to stand up for whats right.
People got convicted of warcrimes and were punished. US military courts convicted and executed Japanese soldiers for the crime of waterboarding US pow's.
There is always an excuse, ticking bombs, evil enemies, whatever. But if you cross the line, then you are the one that should be punished. Doesn't mean anyone else gets let off. But you definitely get punished too.
If you torture someone to save a city of millions, then you should have no problem dieing for your morals. But then, if you knew you'd be charged with a capital crime you might consider the alternatives before you tortured someone.
If America wants to let people off because it will cause political problems. Then they should do it Knowing they have giving up the high ground. No more moralising to China and Russia about human rights. These and past actions (many) is why the US is seen as hypocritical.
Do the right thing.
-sam
Things to keep in mind:
The people who wrote the international laws (geneva conventions etc) had lived through some of the worst examples of justified response. They were fighting nazis, trench warfare, chemical weapons, all sorts of stuff.
They laid down the rules of engagement because they said that if you started to compromise you slid all the way down to the bottom real quick. That you had to stand up for whats right.
People got convicted of warcrimes and were punished. US military courts convicted and executed Japanese soldiers for the crime of waterboarding US pow's.
There is always an excuse, ticking bombs, evil enemies, whatever. But if you cross the line, then you are the one that should be punished. Doesn't mean anyone else gets let off. But you definitely get punished too.
If you torture someone to save a city of millions, then you should have no problem dieing for your morals. But then, if you knew you'd be charged with a capital crime you might consider the alternatives before you tortured someone.
If America wants to let people off because it will cause political problems. Then they should do it Knowing they have giving up the high ground. No more moralising to China and Russia about human rights. These and past actions (many) is why the US is seen as hypocritical.
Do the right thing.
-sam
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: gilimDo the right thing.
-sam
...which is?
Originally Posted By: gilimDo the right thing.
-sam
...which is?
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
newbie
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
Posted:
Obey the laws, prosecute the people involve, don't scapegoat those under orders to let those who wrote the orders off.
Judge bybee, dick cheney, george bush, george tenet, donald rumsfeld, members of congress who were briefed, et al.
There should be an investigation to see who is culpable.
Obama doesn't want to because it will derail his presidency into a witch hunt. Which is fine as far as it goes.
But if the US wants to be the standard for human rights, international law etc, then they need to find a way to do this.
This is where it gets hard to be moral.
Things happened at abu ghraib that was as bad as under Saddam. Apparently he deserved to be executed. The least that should happen is a full investigation into US actions.
Thoughts?
-sam
Obey the laws, prosecute the people involve, don't scapegoat those under orders to let those who wrote the orders off.
Judge bybee, dick cheney, george bush, george tenet, donald rumsfeld, members of congress who were briefed, et al.
There should be an investigation to see who is culpable.
Obama doesn't want to because it will derail his presidency into a witch hunt. Which is fine as far as it goes.
But if the US wants to be the standard for human rights, international law etc, then they need to find a way to do this.
This is where it gets hard to be moral.
Things happened at abu ghraib that was as bad as under Saddam. Apparently he deserved to be executed. The least that should happen is a full investigation into US actions.
Thoughts?
-sam
BRONZE Member
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
Posted:
Just curious that you appear to support the death penalty, but consider torture under any circumstances to be immoral? Seems an odd standpoint.
Personally, in a genuine 'ticking bomb' scenario- with a present and real proven danger to the lives of innocent people, which could be prevented- I'm not going to argue too strongly about how exactly information to prevent it is obtained. Sometimes all the options are bad ones.
Letting people die because of the rights of the person who's killing them is the worse option to me, and I fail to see how killing the person who made that decision is in any way beneficial. Two wrongs may not made a right, but neither do three
However, that is the *only* circumstance I would ever consider torture even arguable- getting information about something that has already occurred is not good enough. Suspiscion is not good enough.
I don't know enough about the structure of the US military to really be able to say who should take the blame for the recent incidents- it's probably more important to make sure it never happens again though.
Just curious that you appear to support the death penalty, but consider torture under any circumstances to be immoral? Seems an odd standpoint.
Personally, in a genuine 'ticking bomb' scenario- with a present and real proven danger to the lives of innocent people, which could be prevented- I'm not going to argue too strongly about how exactly information to prevent it is obtained. Sometimes all the options are bad ones.
Letting people die because of the rights of the person who's killing them is the worse option to me, and I fail to see how killing the person who made that decision is in any way beneficial. Two wrongs may not made a right, but neither do three
However, that is the *only* circumstance I would ever consider torture even arguable- getting information about something that has already occurred is not good enough. Suspiscion is not good enough.
I don't know enough about the structure of the US military to really be able to say who should take the blame for the recent incidents- it's probably more important to make sure it never happens again though.
THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!
If that's okay with you?
SILVER Member
Funky Blessings Daily
215 posts
Location: USA
Funky Blessings Daily
215 posts
Location: USA
Posted:
The problem with torture is that it is not clean cut. The subject doesn't always have your answer and in 'ticking' circumstances may easily make something up just to make success on their part more likely. Torture is just inherently unreliable, so there shouldn't be ANY excuse. That is the point of banning it in the first place, there is NO excuse.
The problem with torture is that it is not clean cut. The subject doesn't always have your answer and in 'ticking' circumstances may easily make something up just to make success on their part more likely. Torture is just inherently unreliable, so there shouldn't be ANY excuse. That is the point of banning it in the first place, there is NO excuse.
newbie
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
Posted:
I don't support the death penalty, sorry if that seems a bit vague. After WW2 it was a common policy. I'm not suggesting that guilty people should be executed. Though I think it is relevant that other people have been executed for the same crime in the past.
I don't think executing Saddam was the right response, certainly it was particularly stupid to do it on eid al-adha at 'camp justice'.
My problem with the 'ticking time bomb' argument is that it's a movie script. It involves an imaginary knowledge of events. A count down in your head that doesn't happen in reality, but happens all the time in movies.
Even if it was real. If I was in the position of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, I would hope that I wouldn't try to argue that it made it the right thing. If I had to kill someone to save someone I loved, I probably would. But murder would still be murder. It is not suddenly legal because you had a good reason. That is just mitigating circumstances which should be brought up at a trial.
If in investigation it is found that there was actually really good reasons, then the sentence is lessened.
-sam
I don't support the death penalty, sorry if that seems a bit vague. After WW2 it was a common policy. I'm not suggesting that guilty people should be executed. Though I think it is relevant that other people have been executed for the same crime in the past.
I don't think executing Saddam was the right response, certainly it was particularly stupid to do it on eid al-adha at 'camp justice'.
My problem with the 'ticking time bomb' argument is that it's a movie script. It involves an imaginary knowledge of events. A count down in your head that doesn't happen in reality, but happens all the time in movies.
Even if it was real. If I was in the position of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, I would hope that I wouldn't try to argue that it made it the right thing. If I had to kill someone to save someone I loved, I probably would. But murder would still be murder. It is not suddenly legal because you had a good reason. That is just mitigating circumstances which should be brought up at a trial.
If in investigation it is found that there was actually really good reasons, then the sentence is lessened.
-sam
yat daam - yee lek - saam gungfu
30 posts
30 posts
Posted:
Torture is never a good sign in modern warfare, unfortuatly is will allways be used in my opinion. As some people would say that "extreme measures must be used in times of war". But people forget, or more commanly dont realise who these wars are really being fought for. I'll bet not a single war has ever been fought (save some revolutions) that has been fought 'for the people' wars are allways fought because other people have somthing we want (oil), or we want them to think the same way we do (religion) etc..
And I personaly dont believe Obama is any better than Governer Bush, he has gone back on every single one of his promises since he was elected i.e. Troops in Iraq, Patriot Act, NAFTA, Borders, FEMA Camps.. And I dont believe his opinons on torture will be any different to that of Bush, but not one of the people coming out of Guantánamo Bay has ever been prosecuted so that shows you how 'useful' torture is.
I would just like to say this though, the answer to 1984 is 1776..
Torture is never a good sign in modern warfare, unfortuatly is will allways be used in my opinion. As some people would say that "extreme measures must be used in times of war". But people forget, or more commanly dont realise who these wars are really being fought for. I'll bet not a single war has ever been fought (save some revolutions) that has been fought 'for the people' wars are allways fought because other people have somthing we want (oil), or we want them to think the same way we do (religion) etc..
And I personaly dont believe Obama is any better than Governer Bush, he has gone back on every single one of his promises since he was elected i.e. Troops in Iraq, Patriot Act, NAFTA, Borders, FEMA Camps.. And I dont believe his opinons on torture will be any different to that of Bush, but not one of the people coming out of Guantánamo Bay has ever been prosecuted so that shows you how 'useful' torture is.
I would just like to say this though, the answer to 1984 is 1776..
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Originally Posted By: R0cketSh1p
And I personaly dont believe Obama is any better than Governer Bush, he has gone back on every single one of his promises since he was elected i.e. Troops in Iraq, Patriot Act, NAFTA, Borders, FEMA Camps.. And I dont believe his opinons on torture will be any different to that of Bush, but not one of the people coming out of Guantánamo Bay has ever been prosecuted so that shows you how 'useful' torture is.
I disagree with this. He has done what he can to see to it that Patriod doesn't get renewed. He has a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He's announced that Guantanamo will close. No, it hasn't happened yet, but it's in motion. He won't keep every promise he made because he can't. But he's making good.
And the fact that HE decided to leak these memos shows that his opinion of torture is quite different than Bush's.
Originally Posted By: R0cketSh1p
And I personaly dont believe Obama is any better than Governer Bush, he has gone back on every single one of his promises since he was elected i.e. Troops in Iraq, Patriot Act, NAFTA, Borders, FEMA Camps.. And I dont believe his opinons on torture will be any different to that of Bush, but not one of the people coming out of Guantánamo Bay has ever been prosecuted so that shows you how 'useful' torture is.
I disagree with this. He has done what he can to see to it that Patriod doesn't get renewed. He has a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He's announced that Guantanamo will close. No, it hasn't happened yet, but it's in motion. He won't keep every promise he made because he can't. But he's making good.
And the fact that HE decided to leak these memos shows that his opinion of torture is quite different than Bush's.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
yat daam - yee lek - saam gungfu
30 posts
30 posts
Posted:
I'm sorry but the evidence states otherwise, he voted for the reinstation of the Patriot act and this is a documented fact and his 'time table' for Iraq is a joke. He said while campagining he'd start bringing troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan on day one, and after he got in within a month he changed his mind to 16months and then decided to 'look' a bringing 'some' of the troops home then. While doubling the amount of US troops in Afghanistan.
Also his campaigners were caught talking to Candian officals during Obamas campagain and told them not to worry about his opinions on FAFTA as it was 'just campaign rhetoric".
But if you think Guantanamo Bay is THE ONLY place that terror suspects are taken and detained, then you might want to actually read the bills that Obama signed relating to the place. Because all they do is redifine certain toture methods and make it possible for the US to hold people at prisions outside of US juristiction.
EDITED_BY: R0cketSh1p (1241057808)
I'm sorry but the evidence states otherwise, he voted for the reinstation of the Patriot act and this is a documented fact and his 'time table' for Iraq is a joke. He said while campagining he'd start bringing troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan on day one, and after he got in within a month he changed his mind to 16months and then decided to 'look' a bringing 'some' of the troops home then. While doubling the amount of US troops in Afghanistan.
Also his campaigners were caught talking to Candian officals during Obamas campagain and told them not to worry about his opinions on FAFTA as it was 'just campaign rhetoric".
But if you think Guantanamo Bay is THE ONLY place that terror suspects are taken and detained, then you might want to actually read the bills that Obama signed relating to the place. Because all they do is redifine certain toture methods and make it possible for the US to hold people at prisions outside of US juristiction.
EDITED_BY: R0cketSh1p (1241057808)
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: R0cketSh1p I'll bet not a single war has ever been fought (save some revolutions) that has been fought 'for the people' wars are allways fought because other people have somthing we want (oil), or we want them to think the same way we do (religion) etc..
what is that suppossed to mean? invasions are started by the agressors for those reasons yes, but wars are fought because people are not going to let the agressors walk over them. case in point ww2. it was fought by the allies to protect ALL people against the oppression by the germans, italians and japanese.
i'll be taking your money from that bet now
Originally Posted By: R0cketSh1p I'll bet not a single war has ever been fought (save some revolutions) that has been fought 'for the people' wars are allways fought because other people have somthing we want (oil), or we want them to think the same way we do (religion) etc..
what is that suppossed to mean? invasions are started by the agressors for those reasons yes, but wars are fought because people are not going to let the agressors walk over them. case in point ww2. it was fought by the allies to protect ALL people against the oppression by the germans, italians and japanese.
i'll be taking your money from that bet now
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Mr Majestik
i'll be taking your money from that bet now
Sorry, Majestik, I'm not going to support your victory on that one.
Originally Posted By: R0cketSh1p or we want them to think the same way we do (religion) etc..
The war was started by an aggressor so the point above still holds true.
Its a really specious looking bet and I'd never support anyone in winning it, just like war itself, nobody can ever win.
Originally Posted By: Mr Majestik
i'll be taking your money from that bet now
Sorry, Majestik, I'm not going to support your victory on that one.
Originally Posted By: R0cketSh1p or we want them to think the same way we do (religion) etc..
The war was started by an aggressor so the point above still holds true.
Its a really specious looking bet and I'd never support anyone in winning it, just like war itself, nobody can ever win.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
We don't torture': Obama invokes Churchill
US President Barack Obama has denied his policies imperil American security, evoking Britain's historic war-time leader Winston Churchill and his rejection of torture.
"When London was being bombed to smithereens, (the British) had 200 or so detainees and Churchill said, 'we don't torture'," Mr Obama told a press conference to mark 100 days since he became US president.
"The reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts and, over time, that corrodes what's best in people. It corrodes the best of the country."
Mr Obama has come under pressure for his decisions to roll back Bush-era security policies, including the use of harsh interrogation methods to glean intelligence from suspected terrorists
We don't torture': Obama invokes Churchill
US President Barack Obama has denied his policies imperil American security, evoking Britain's historic war-time leader Winston Churchill and his rejection of torture.
"When London was being bombed to smithereens, (the British) had 200 or so detainees and Churchill said, 'we don't torture'," Mr Obama told a press conference to mark 100 days since he became US president.
"The reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts and, over time, that corrodes what's best in people. It corrodes the best of the country."
Mr Obama has come under pressure for his decisions to roll back Bush-era security policies, including the use of harsh interrogation methods to glean intelligence from suspected terrorists
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Mother_Natures_Son
The war was started by an aggressor so the point above still holds true.
Technically a war is NOT started by an aggressor as it is impossible for 1 side to start a war (even civil war). An aggressor initiates an "invasion/expansion" either of land or ideals, without opposition there is no war only "occupation". A war can only really be initiated by the defenders trying to STOP invasion / occupation. an agressor can declare war, but without resistance it's not really war is it.
Originally Posted By: Mother_Natures_Son
The war was started by an aggressor so the point above still holds true.
Technically a war is NOT started by an aggressor as it is impossible for 1 side to start a war (even civil war). An aggressor initiates an "invasion/expansion" either of land or ideals, without opposition there is no war only "occupation". A war can only really be initiated by the defenders trying to STOP invasion / occupation. an agressor can declare war, but without resistance it's not really war is it.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
newbie
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
Posted:
war on terror, war on drugs....
all rhetoric and semantics really
Obama's statement was interesting. The logic of it is that if America doesn't torture, and what happened previously WAS torture, then there has to be prosecutions to uphold the law.
Otherwise America did and does torture.
I can't work out if he is trying to come around to investigation/convictions or if its just rhetoric and semantics....
I haven't seen any polls asking how popular an investigation would be.... I guess that step has to happen before anything else in a political reality?
-sam
war on terror, war on drugs....
all rhetoric and semantics really
Obama's statement was interesting. The logic of it is that if America doesn't torture, and what happened previously WAS torture, then there has to be prosecutions to uphold the law.
Otherwise America did and does torture.
I can't work out if he is trying to come around to investigation/convictions or if its just rhetoric and semantics....
I haven't seen any polls asking how popular an investigation would be.... I guess that step has to happen before anything else in a political reality?
-sam
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Obama was clearly trying to appear good by opening up then sweep it all under the carpet where it will carry on but without anyone telling him probably. ergo US can continue as normal after a highly visible statement that he doesn't agree with it. I honestly believe he does feel against torture but he's been convinced of the need to protect Americans by the military.
(I don't agree with torture)
But in fairness, if a person knows they can't be hurt mentally or psychologically, can't be questioned using drugs, can't be mistreated in any way, and they are fanatical they will never open up and tell what they know. I don't like it but it'll happen much the same as police brutality. People wanting information they feel strongly about will go to even more drastic means to get it.
I agree with Doc that Obama want to make changes, but you can bet there are all kinds of things he wasn't privvy to when he made those promises which mean things will change. Also Red Tape etc the logistics would be some hard work, espescially arrangements for each prisoners movement, confinement or release.
Obama was clearly trying to appear good by opening up then sweep it all under the carpet where it will carry on but without anyone telling him probably. ergo US can continue as normal after a highly visible statement that he doesn't agree with it. I honestly believe he does feel against torture but he's been convinced of the need to protect Americans by the military.
(I don't agree with torture)
But in fairness, if a person knows they can't be hurt mentally or psychologically, can't be questioned using drugs, can't be mistreated in any way, and they are fanatical they will never open up and tell what they know. I don't like it but it'll happen much the same as police brutality. People wanting information they feel strongly about will go to even more drastic means to get it.
I agree with Doc that Obama want to make changes, but you can bet there are all kinds of things he wasn't privvy to when he made those promises which mean things will change. Also Red Tape etc the logistics would be some hard work, espescially arrangements for each prisoners movement, confinement or release.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
yat daam - yee lek - saam gungfu
30 posts
30 posts
Posted:
I think its amazing how quickly we forget the news, does anyone really not remember this "https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture". That is ofcourse the storey of Binyam Mohamed and UK resident that tried to bring his stories of torture to light, but the US threatened the UK with with holding all intelligence info so JUDGES ruled that any information held by MI5 must stay secret.
Now I am aware of the importance of sharing intelligence in any nations security, and this guy was caught with his pants down.. but what kind of country threatens their allies?
I think its amazing how quickly we forget the news, does anyone really not remember this "https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture". That is ofcourse the storey of Binyam Mohamed and UK resident that tried to bring his stories of torture to light, but the US threatened the UK with with holding all intelligence info so JUDGES ruled that any information held by MI5 must stay secret.
Now I am aware of the importance of sharing intelligence in any nations security, and this guy was caught with his pants down.. but what kind of country threatens their allies?
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
No-one barters from a position of weakness. USA were essentially taking all the risks with Guantanamo Bay and therefore decided that if UK condemned US why should they share?
A stance I myself would take. If UK didn't agree with the methods then why should they benefit from the results if they weren't going to take responsibility for the consequences?
Allies or Not, any intelligence from Guananamo etc will go towards the aid of the USA as it is their facility. They don't HAVE to share especially if said ally didn't aifd them in the process including any covering up.
flip your statement around R0cketsh1p so the country is UK instead of USA and it is still viable.
If the UK was receiving info from torture from the US then it was complicit. The Act of publicly decrying what the US was doing would be idiocy and hipocritical. no wonder the US would be p*ssed off.
No-one barters from a position of weakness. USA were essentially taking all the risks with Guantanamo Bay and therefore decided that if UK condemned US why should they share?
A stance I myself would take. If UK didn't agree with the methods then why should they benefit from the results if they weren't going to take responsibility for the consequences?
Allies or Not, any intelligence from Guananamo etc will go towards the aid of the USA as it is their facility. They don't HAVE to share especially if said ally didn't aifd them in the process including any covering up.
flip your statement around R0cketsh1p so the country is UK instead of USA and it is still viable.
If the UK was receiving info from torture from the US then it was complicit. The Act of publicly decrying what the US was doing would be idiocy and hipocritical. no wonder the US would be p*ssed off.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
newbie
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
Posted:
Generally the professional opinion is that you can do better by offering basic comforts and a kind word than you do with torture. Torture is pretty much accepted to produce unreliable information.
Part of my main problem with the official stance isn't that harsh interrogation will or won't be rubbed out due to a change in policy. It's that when you make it legal, the interrogators will push THAT boundary. Especially when it has almost no transparency or oversight.
Women and children were purposefully raped in US care in Iraq, people were beaten to death. That's the real product of the Bush administrations position on enhanced interrogation. Limited, if any, real information, but monstrous crimes.
Which of course are the actions of a few crazy individuals. Not a reflection of policy or lax chain or command. Not anyone's fault and certainly not something that we, the good and righteous, meant to happen.
Except that's what we get when we want to push the line.
-sam
EDITED_BY: gilim (1241099822)
Generally the professional opinion is that you can do better by offering basic comforts and a kind word than you do with torture. Torture is pretty much accepted to produce unreliable information.
Part of my main problem with the official stance isn't that harsh interrogation will or won't be rubbed out due to a change in policy. It's that when you make it legal, the interrogators will push THAT boundary. Especially when it has almost no transparency or oversight.
Women and children were purposefully raped in US care in Iraq, people were beaten to death. That's the real product of the Bush administrations position on enhanced interrogation. Limited, if any, real information, but monstrous crimes.
Which of course are the actions of a few crazy individuals. Not a reflection of policy or lax chain or command. Not anyone's fault and certainly not something that we, the good and righteous, meant to happen.
Except that's what we get when we want to push the line.
-sam
EDITED_BY: gilim (1241099822)
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Originally Posted By: gilimGenerally the professional opinion is that you can do better by offering basic comforts and a kind word than you do with torture.
Hmmm I don't think that would work with actual terrorists, I can't see a cup of tea and a jaffa cake getting an extremist who wants the death of capitalist americans to open up and tell his organisations plans. Maybe with standard criminals.
But I agree torture won't really work either, mostly because today with human rights it's very hard to make a person fear that they will be killed if they don't talk OR that something so bad will happen if they don't that they decide it's better for them to speak. THAT is what makes the torture so pointless by the US Government, the fact that the prisoners probably know that they can't seriously harm them, so the torture becomes torture for tortures sake rather than for information.
Originally Posted By: gilimGenerally the professional opinion is that you can do better by offering basic comforts and a kind word than you do with torture.
Hmmm I don't think that would work with actual terrorists, I can't see a cup of tea and a jaffa cake getting an extremist who wants the death of capitalist americans to open up and tell his organisations plans. Maybe with standard criminals.
But I agree torture won't really work either, mostly because today with human rights it's very hard to make a person fear that they will be killed if they don't talk OR that something so bad will happen if they don't that they decide it's better for them to speak. THAT is what makes the torture so pointless by the US Government, the fact that the prisoners probably know that they can't seriously harm them, so the torture becomes torture for tortures sake rather than for information.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
newbie
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
37 posts
Location: brisbane, australia
Posted:
I think there is a prevailing fantasy about what kind of people become 'terrorists'. If you are devoutly religious and living in a place where you get the short end of the US foreign policy stick, there is a pretty good chance you hate Americans. Not in particular, just in general.
When I was travelling in Pakistan, I didn't meet anyone who was aggressive or hateful towards me as a westerner. I mostly was up in the north western province. They were pretty relaxed. I met lots of people who used to be Afghani refugees from the Soviet invasion. As I understand it, the people in Balochistan in eastern Pakistan still live under tribal law. They are very poorly educated and don't have a very good grasp of how the world works.
These are the people who Bin Ladin is likely living with. He is a war hero from the Soviet invasion.
If you take a recruit from somewhere like that, put then in solitary confinement, play good cop bad cop with them for a while. You really think they have the navy seal training to not emotionally identify with anyone who's polite to them?
The supposed master mind behind the 911 attacks was waterboarded 184 times, apparently he told everything he knew immediately.
That sounds much more likely to me, than some fantasy super terrorist who can take it all and still come out unbroken and unbowed. I'm pretty certain that the 183 extra torture sessions were unnecessary, and I'm pretty certain the same information could have been gotten without torture.
Hopefully the files will be released, because I think a detailed examination isn't going to support the efficacy of torture.
-sam
I think there is a prevailing fantasy about what kind of people become 'terrorists'. If you are devoutly religious and living in a place where you get the short end of the US foreign policy stick, there is a pretty good chance you hate Americans. Not in particular, just in general.
When I was travelling in Pakistan, I didn't meet anyone who was aggressive or hateful towards me as a westerner. I mostly was up in the north western province. They were pretty relaxed. I met lots of people who used to be Afghani refugees from the Soviet invasion. As I understand it, the people in Balochistan in eastern Pakistan still live under tribal law. They are very poorly educated and don't have a very good grasp of how the world works.
These are the people who Bin Ladin is likely living with. He is a war hero from the Soviet invasion.
If you take a recruit from somewhere like that, put then in solitary confinement, play good cop bad cop with them for a while. You really think they have the navy seal training to not emotionally identify with anyone who's polite to them?
The supposed master mind behind the 911 attacks was waterboarded 184 times, apparently he told everything he knew immediately.
That sounds much more likely to me, than some fantasy super terrorist who can take it all and still come out unbroken and unbowed. I'm pretty certain that the 183 extra torture sessions were unnecessary, and I'm pretty certain the same information could have been gotten without torture.
Hopefully the files will be released, because I think a detailed examination isn't going to support the efficacy of torture.
-sam
yat daam - yee lek - saam gungfu
30 posts
30 posts
Posted:
Mynci: My point with Guantanamo Bay as I mentioned earlier is that there has been almost no evenidence (reliable or not) has ever come out of there and even fewer prosecutions..
Gilim:
Originally Posted By: gilimWomen and children were purposefully raped in US care in Iraq, people were beaten to death. That's the real product of the Bush administrations position on enhanced interrogation. Limited, if any, real information, but monstrous crimes.
I dont think that changing administration has any effect, and I think the whole Left/Right paradim is a false one. Also, remember who trained Bin Laden in the first place. He is a figured head, much like the President, and one they still have an investment in otherwise I believe he'd allready be dead
Mynci: My point with Guantanamo Bay as I mentioned earlier is that there has been almost no evenidence (reliable or not) has ever come out of there and even fewer prosecutions..
Gilim:
Originally Posted By: gilimWomen and children were purposefully raped in US care in Iraq, people were beaten to death. That's the real product of the Bush administrations position on enhanced interrogation. Limited, if any, real information, but monstrous crimes.
I dont think that changing administration has any effect, and I think the whole Left/Right paradim is a false one. Also, remember who trained Bin Laden in the first place. He is a figured head, much like the President, and one they still have an investment in otherwise I believe he'd allready be dead
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Mother_Natures_Son
Originally Posted By: Mr Majestik
i'll be taking your money from that bet now
Sorry, Majestik, I'm not going to support your victory on that one.
Originally Posted By: R0cketSh1p or we want them to think the same way we do (religion) etc..
The war was started by an aggressor so the point above still holds true.
Originally Posted By: mynciTechnically a war is NOT started by an aggressor as it is impossible for 1 side to start a war (even civil war). An aggressor initiates an "invasion/expansion" either of land or ideals, without opposition there is no war only "occupation". A war can only really be initiated by the defenders trying to STOP invasion / occupation. an agressor can declare war, but without resistance it's not really war is it.
exactly wars are FOUGHT( which was the term used) "for the people" because "the people" refuse to accept a condition imposed on them by the agressors.
the original statement written by ROcketsh1p only talked about why wars are started, which is much less important than why wars are fought.
Originally Posted By: Mother_Natures_Son
Originally Posted By: Mr Majestik
i'll be taking your money from that bet now
Sorry, Majestik, I'm not going to support your victory on that one.
Originally Posted By: R0cketSh1p or we want them to think the same way we do (religion) etc..
The war was started by an aggressor so the point above still holds true.
Originally Posted By: mynciTechnically a war is NOT started by an aggressor as it is impossible for 1 side to start a war (even civil war). An aggressor initiates an "invasion/expansion" either of land or ideals, without opposition there is no war only "occupation". A war can only really be initiated by the defenders trying to STOP invasion / occupation. an agressor can declare war, but without resistance it's not really war is it.
exactly wars are FOUGHT( which was the term used) "for the people" because "the people" refuse to accept a condition imposed on them by the agressors.
the original statement written by ROcketsh1p only talked about why wars are started, which is much less important than why wars are fought.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com