i never thought i would see the day when Americans justified torture and the destruction of the bill of rights
in preventing another 9/11 or wrose from happening sacrifices must be made. luckily we do not inflict bodily harm during the toughest of interrogations. and we are all still free people. great country we live in.
from what I understand it has stopped no? and I'm still not all that sorry for that particular technique. in almost all cases, nothing happens. no one has ever died. its a mind fuck.
pull out a fingernail, cut off a hand, then yes, I would consider leaving this country.
The Khmer Rouge employed the technique at Tuol Sleng prison. Do you feel comfortable knowing that we have, or still do employee, the same interrogation technique as the Khmer Rouge. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to compare our government to that of Pol Pot's but I'm not very comfortable knowing that our government is employing the same technique as a brutal homicidal regime.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
The Khmer Rouge employed the technique at Tuol Sleng prison. Do you feel comfortable knowing that we have, or still do employee, the same interrogation technique as the Khmer Rouge. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to compare our government to that of Pol Pot's but I'm not very comfortable knowing that our government is employing the same technique as a brutal homicidal regime.
but there's probably a big difference. if they prisoner didnt give information, he was most likely killed in a gruesome way. that has never happened in US captivity. even with the very man who planned 9/11.
in preventing another 9/11 or wrose from happening sacrifices must be made. luckily we do not inflict bodily harm during the toughest of interrogations. and we are all still free people. great country we live in.
You are correct that no one has dies from waterboarding, but what happens if waterboarding is not enough. What happens when we justify the use of waterboarding as an acceptable method of interrogation all in the name of security? Who is to stop the government from then escalating it to electrocution or some other more deprived method of interrogation. Our government is well known for taking a mile when given an inch. Where is the line drawn or are we going to constantly going to allow our government to sacrifice principles just so we can feel safe.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
but there's probably a big difference. if they prisoner didnt give information, he was most likely killed in a gruesome way. that has never happened in US captivity. even with the very man who planned 9/11.
Yet.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Suprising that in 1997 Middle East terrorism against the US was on par with North America itself.
(worth repeating)
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The Khmer Rouge employed the technique at Tuol Sleng prison. Do you feel comfortable knowing that we have, or still do employee, the same interrogation technique as the Khmer Rouge. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to compare our government to that of Pol Pot's but I'm not very comfortable knowing that our government is employing the same technique as a brutal homicidal regime.
It's really not so much what anyone in the US thinks but rather the rest of the world. That's where the real damage takes place imo.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Also addressing the background of the thread.. how can one advocate democracy and yet belief in the use of torture? I don't understand that.
i can't agree with you more. but to play devil's advocate, one can say that to be able to protect the people there are times inwhich you must decide that you have to do things that you don't want to save something that means alot.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
i'm not sure what you want. i don't have transcripts of the interviews handy. the stories came from attorneys of national prominence who spoke at our law school (a perk of a national law school: heavyweight speakers). attorneys who have interviewed hundreds of detainees and argued their cases before the supreme court. people with firsthand knowledge of what is happening and have access to the government's info on the detainees. and before you go telling me how liberal academia is, we have a speaker next week coming to discuss why torture is acceptable, the guy who wrote the memo. so i've heard both sides. the proponents say torture is effective, but refuse to discuss the possiblity of innocents. but those on the ground say most of the people here are innocent. the government has nothing on them aside from hearsay. that is why none of these people have trials... the government knows they don't have a godamn thing to incriminate most of the people they have detained. they get one person who drops a name, pick him up, torture him into giving two names, those people give two more... you see where it goes. and then the first guy is innocent, you can see what a wild goose chase it becomes. i don't have articles becos technically this information is subject to attorney-client privilege and cannot be published by the attorneys. so they couldn't even give us specifics like names or dates.
interesting point... all the torture defenders and defenders of these practices that i've heard speak: not one of them has ever been to gitmo or spoken to a single inmate there. the ones who have all uniformly say we are locking up and torturing innocent people for years hoping to wear them down and get useful info. they get no useful info becos these people are innocent and don't have useful info to give. they don't even know why they're there most of the time.
i can't agree with you more. but to play devil's advocate, one can say that to be able to protect the people there are times inwhich you must decide that you have to do things that you don't want to save something that means alot.
...
That was the thought of the Soviet Union.
...
Bottom line... we are supposed to be the GOOD Guys. Good guys are not torturers. If we accept these measures... we are becoming less American and more Soviet.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
i'm not sure what you want. i don't have transcripts of the interviews handy. the stories came from attorneys of national prominence who spoke at our law school (a perk of a national law school: heavyweight speakers). attorneys who have interviewed hundreds of detainees and argued their cases before the supreme court. people with firsthand knowledge of what is happening and have access to the government's info on the detainees. and before you go telling me how liberal academia is, we have a speaker next week coming to discuss why torture is acceptable, the guy who wrote the memo. so i've heard both sides. the proponents say torture is effective, but refuse to discuss the possiblity of innocents. but those on the ground say most of the people here are innocent. the government has nothing on them aside from hearsay. that is why none of these people have trials... the government knows they don't have a godamn thing to incriminate most of the people they have detained. they get one person who drops a name, pick him up, torture him into giving two names, those people give two more... you see where it goes. and then the first guy is innocent, you can see what a wild goose chase it becomes.
prove to me that no innocents have been tortured.
I'm not saying no innocents have been tortured. but again, define torture. neither of us have exact number as to how many people were innocent on a waterboarding table. we both agree that some deserve to be there and some dont. there is a fine line in the entire discussion. where its drawn is debatable.
personally I would never want torture used. and by torture I mean waterboarding being as far as it goes. they only instance I can be ok with it happening is to prevent a 9/11 or worse scenario. and if better, more acceptable, techniques are proven more effective, then i'm all for that too.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not saying no innocents have been tortured. but again, define torture. neither of us have exact number as to how many people were innocent on a waterboarding table. we both agree that some deserve to be there and some dont. there is a fine line in the entire discussion. where its drawn is debatable.
personally I would never want torture used. and by torture I mean waterboarding being as far as it goes. they only instance I can be ok with it happening is to prevent a 9/11 or worse scenario. and if better, more acceptable, techniques are proven more effective, then i'm all for that too.
that is the point though. that is the debate here. should we tacitly accept torture of innocents on the slim chance it might one day possibly avert one attack? none of this is being overseen. how do we know how cautious they are in applying it? that is scary. how do we know when they've crossed the line? for a man who is convinced the government cannot be trusted with one penny of your income in taxes, you seem pretty trusting that the government won't ever screw up or abuse this power and rather casually indifferent to who they are leaning on and what they are doing to them.
honestly, i'm not even sure id consider waterboarding torture. id certainly prefer that to the reports about playing loud marilyn manson music 24/7... THAT is inhumane! my fear is that with no one watching, it may not stop there and they may not care who they do it to or who they allow to do it. this is a VERY dangerous line to walk and it needs to be closely supervised. i get the feeling it is not.
something for the folks that have no clue what they are talking about...
Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face[1] to force the inhalation of water into the lungs.[2] Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex,[3] and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding's use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure.[4] Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.
During World War II, Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, as well the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture. The German technique was called the German equivalent of "u-boat". During the Double Tenth Incident, waterboarding consisted of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach. In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor
Numerous experts have described this technique as torture.Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States.
Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I was thinking of what Aaron Russo was saying when he tried to run in 2004.
Bush and Kerry may vary in the degree to which they support something, but they essentially support the same thing. Where is the alternative when all the candidates are in favor, just to a different degree?
As to the OP, the middle east may be better off in the end, but there is no proof that it would in-fact be a result of the current activity. The fall of the soviet union is often credited to the U.S. and Afghanistan lays claim to it aswell, but the truth may very well be the soviet economic collapse was the real cause. Still I'm sure most will view it as Success/Failure depending on some hypothetical future state of the middle east.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
...
That was the thought of the Soviet Union.
...
Bottom line... we are supposed to be the GOOD Guys. Good guys are not torturers. If we accept these measures... we are becoming less American and more Soviet.
thats is the thought of every country. for a leader in a democracy, your goal is to be re-elected. to do that you have to decide what is good for my country so that people will vote for you. the bigger the democracy the more you have to cater to the people who will vote for you.
look at the motto for the US. you have the right to "life, liberty and teh pursuit of happiness". right or wrong, life is 1st. some will say (again right or wrongly) what good is liberty if i am dead.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
personally I would never want torture used. and by torture I mean waterboarding being as far as it goes. they only instance I can be ok with it happening is to prevent a 9/11 or worse scenario. and if better, more acceptable, techniques are proven more effective, then i'm all for that too.
The only instance? Isn't that a bit of a circular point? Isn't the threat of another 9/11 always present? That's the whole basis of the war on terror. So are you saying that you are ok with torture all the time as a preventative measure, or saying that you are ok with it as long as previous intel says that the attack is coming and you're trying to get details? If that's the case...how did you get the previous intel without torturing someone?
You are correct that no one has dies from waterboarding, but what happens if waterboarding is not enough. What happens when we justify the use of waterboarding as an acceptable method of interrogation all in the name of security? Who is to stop the government from then escalating it to electrocution or some other more deprived method of interrogation.
This is where the black op prisons that jlew dismissed earlier come into play. Let's just get the Syrians (wait - aren't they on the hitlist?) to beat it out of them if they won't cooperate. it's all fucked up and just plain WRONG, I can't believe you (jlew) are defending it at all, even with your flip flop devil's advocate act.
The only instance? Isn't that a bit of a circular point? Isn't the threat of another 9/11 always present? That's the whole basis of the war on terror. So are you saying that you are ok with torture all the time as a preventative measure, or saying that you are ok with it as long as previous intel says that the attack is coming and you're trying to get details? If that's the case...how did you get the previous intel without torturing someone?
we are only talking about waterboarding which I'm not so sure I would even consider torture. and this would only happen at the highest levels of el queda like kalid shiek mohammand. there was a plot by a group of people last year to blow up the sears tower. waterboarding wasnt used. information was gathered and the attack was prevented.
I would only see it acceptable to use something like waterboarding in extreme cases. like a plot to have 4 planes slam into some of our greatest structures or a dirty bomb plot.
This is where the black op prisons that jlew dismissed earlier come into play. Let's just get the Syrians (wait - aren't they on the hitlist?) to beat it out of them if they won't cooperate. it's all fucked up and just plain WRONG, I can't believe you (jlew) are defending it at all, even with your flip flop devil's advocate act.
you obviously havnt been following my posts. never under no circumstances do I accept the government sending people to other countries to get tortured. speaking of, where is the outcry for countries who actually DO torture and 50 times worse then waterboarding. seems to be ok, cuz its not us.
You are correct that no one has dies from waterboarding, but what happens if waterboarding is not enough. What happens when we justify the use of waterboarding as an acceptable method of interrogation all in the name of security? Who is to stop the government from then escalating it to electrocution or some other more deprived method of interrogation. Our government is well known for taking a mile when given an inch. Where is the line drawn or are we going to constantly going to allow our government to sacrifice principles just so we can feel safe.
60 years ago we sentenced a Japanese soldier to 15 years in prison for waterboarding a US soldier. 30 years ago we condemned a government for using the same method against it's own citizens. 20 years ago we stated in all of our intelligence and military interrogation manuels that this form of interrogation was not to be used because of it's deprived nature. Now we want to use it and don't want to classify it as torture. The progression is pretty obvious to me. The next step is using some other form of depraved method of interrogation and once again drapping it in the American flag and calling it protecting our security.
If you, or anyone else, is willing to sell your soul and principles to feel safe fine with me. I however will not. I would rather die in a free country that upholds certain principles than live in one without freedoms that would easly cast off principles for temporary safety.
In my opinion this makes us no better than the savages who would stone a woman to death simply because she showned to much of her face in public.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
most people have no clue what is going on in the world around them
i never thought i would see the day when Americans justified torture and the destruction of the bill of rights
good job folks. keep flushing our country and ideals down the drain
in preventing another 9/11 or wrose from happening sacrifices must be made. luckily we do not inflict bodily harm during the toughest of interrogations. and we are all still free people. great country we live in.
The Khmer Rouge employed the technique at Tuol Sleng prison. Do you feel comfortable knowing that we have, or still do employee, the same interrogation technique as the Khmer Rouge. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to compare our government to that of Pol Pot's but I'm not very comfortable knowing that our government is employing the same technique as a brutal homicidal regime.
but there's probably a big difference. if they prisoner didnt give information, he was most likely killed in a gruesome way. that has never happened in US captivity. even with the very man who planned 9/11.
You are correct that no one has dies from waterboarding, but what happens if waterboarding is not enough. What happens when we justify the use of waterboarding as an acceptable method of interrogation all in the name of security? Who is to stop the government from then escalating it to electrocution or some other more deprived method of interrogation. Our government is well known for taking a mile when given an inch. Where is the line drawn or are we going to constantly going to allow our government to sacrifice principles just so we can feel safe.
Yet.
Suprising that in 1997 Middle East terrorism against the US was on par with North America itself.
(worth repeating)
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It's really not so much what anyone in the US thinks but rather the rest of the world. That's where the real damage takes place imo.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
see, sometimes we can agree.
i can't agree with you more. but to play devil's advocate, one can say that to be able to protect the people there are times inwhich you must decide that you have to do things that you don't want to save something that means alot.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
i'm not sure what you want. i don't have transcripts of the interviews handy. the stories came from attorneys of national prominence who spoke at our law school (a perk of a national law school: heavyweight speakers). attorneys who have interviewed hundreds of detainees and argued their cases before the supreme court. people with firsthand knowledge of what is happening and have access to the government's info on the detainees. and before you go telling me how liberal academia is, we have a speaker next week coming to discuss why torture is acceptable, the guy who wrote the memo. so i've heard both sides. the proponents say torture is effective, but refuse to discuss the possiblity of innocents. but those on the ground say most of the people here are innocent. the government has nothing on them aside from hearsay. that is why none of these people have trials... the government knows they don't have a godamn thing to incriminate most of the people they have detained. they get one person who drops a name, pick him up, torture him into giving two names, those people give two more... you see where it goes. and then the first guy is innocent, you can see what a wild goose chase it becomes. i don't have articles becos technically this information is subject to attorney-client privilege and cannot be published by the attorneys. so they couldn't even give us specifics like names or dates.
interesting point... all the torture defenders and defenders of these practices that i've heard speak: not one of them has ever been to gitmo or spoken to a single inmate there. the ones who have all uniformly say we are locking up and torturing innocent people for years hoping to wear them down and get useful info. they get no useful info becos these people are innocent and don't have useful info to give. they don't even know why they're there most of the time.
prove to me that no innocents have been tortured.
That was the thought of the Soviet Union.
...
Bottom line... we are supposed to be the GOOD Guys. Good guys are not torturers. If we accept these measures... we are becoming less American and more Soviet.
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm not saying no innocents have been tortured. but again, define torture. neither of us have exact number as to how many people were innocent on a waterboarding table. we both agree that some deserve to be there and some dont. there is a fine line in the entire discussion. where its drawn is debatable.
personally I would never want torture used. and by torture I mean waterboarding being as far as it goes. they only instance I can be ok with it happening is to prevent a 9/11 or worse scenario. and if better, more acceptable, techniques are proven more effective, then i'm all for that too.
A highly subjective term.
that is the point though. that is the debate here. should we tacitly accept torture of innocents on the slim chance it might one day possibly avert one attack? none of this is being overseen. how do we know how cautious they are in applying it? that is scary. how do we know when they've crossed the line? for a man who is convinced the government cannot be trusted with one penny of your income in taxes, you seem pretty trusting that the government won't ever screw up or abuse this power and rather casually indifferent to who they are leaning on and what they are doing to them.
honestly, i'm not even sure id consider waterboarding torture. id certainly prefer that to the reports about playing loud marilyn manson music 24/7... THAT is inhumane! my fear is that with no one watching, it may not stop there and they may not care who they do it to or who they allow to do it. this is a VERY dangerous line to walk and it needs to be closely supervised. i get the feeling it is not.
***crickets***
just what i thought
not bad advice...
if my country supports torture and pre-emtpive violence...
then i am not proud to be an american
you're not the best country in the world just because you repeat it constantly. actions speak louder than words. and our actions are speaking volumes
I was thinking of what Aaron Russo was saying when he tried to run in 2004.
Bush and Kerry may vary in the degree to which they support something, but they essentially support the same thing. Where is the alternative when all the candidates are in favor, just to a different degree?
As to the OP, the middle east may be better off in the end, but there is no proof that it would in-fact be a result of the current activity. The fall of the soviet union is often credited to the U.S. and Afghanistan lays claim to it aswell, but the truth may very well be the soviet economic collapse was the real cause. Still I'm sure most will view it as Success/Failure depending on some hypothetical future state of the middle east.
thats is the thought of every country. for a leader in a democracy, your goal is to be re-elected. to do that you have to decide what is good for my country so that people will vote for you. the bigger the democracy the more you have to cater to the people who will vote for you.
look at the motto for the US. you have the right to "life, liberty and teh pursuit of happiness". right or wrong, life is 1st. some will say (again right or wrongly) what good is liberty if i am dead.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
What good is being alive if you don't have liberty.
live free or die
i am just stunned at the amount of cowardice people walking around willing to hand over their freedom and liberty... all for a false sense of security
amazing, just fucking amazing
looks like you missed my response
The only instance? Isn't that a bit of a circular point? Isn't the threat of another 9/11 always present? That's the whole basis of the war on terror. So are you saying that you are ok with torture all the time as a preventative measure, or saying that you are ok with it as long as previous intel says that the attack is coming and you're trying to get details? If that's the case...how did you get the previous intel without torturing someone?
This is where the black op prisons that jlew dismissed earlier come into play. Let's just get the Syrians (wait - aren't they on the hitlist?) to beat it out of them if they won't cooperate. it's all fucked up and just plain WRONG, I can't believe you (jlew) are defending it at all, even with your flip flop devil's advocate act.
we are only talking about waterboarding which I'm not so sure I would even consider torture. and this would only happen at the highest levels of el queda like kalid shiek mohammand. there was a plot by a group of people last year to blow up the sears tower. waterboarding wasnt used. information was gathered and the attack was prevented.
I would only see it acceptable to use something like waterboarding in extreme cases. like a plot to have 4 planes slam into some of our greatest structures or a dirty bomb plot.
you obviously havnt been following my posts. never under no circumstances do I accept the government sending people to other countries to get tortured. speaking of, where is the outcry for countries who actually DO torture and 50 times worse then waterboarding. seems to be ok, cuz its not us.
you can "what if" anything...
i'm sure there is a country somewhere that will take you
hahahahaha
nope. i am staying.
60 years ago we sentenced a Japanese soldier to 15 years in prison for waterboarding a US soldier. 30 years ago we condemned a government for using the same method against it's own citizens. 20 years ago we stated in all of our intelligence and military interrogation manuels that this form of interrogation was not to be used because of it's deprived nature. Now we want to use it and don't want to classify it as torture. The progression is pretty obvious to me. The next step is using some other form of depraved method of interrogation and once again drapping it in the American flag and calling it protecting our security.
If you, or anyone else, is willing to sell your soul and principles to feel safe fine with me. I however will not. I would rather die in a free country that upholds certain principles than live in one without freedoms that would easly cast off principles for temporary safety.
In my opinion this makes us no better than the savages who would stone a woman to death simply because she showned to much of her face in public.