I feel that strongly about it, that i'd still rather die in an attack than condone a government that tortures. If i wanted that, i could've just moved to Iraq right? Oh wait, isn't that one of the reasons why we killed Saddam and invaded Iraq? Isn't that what Bush, Cheney and the gurus told us back then? They kept shoving down our throats, the horror of Saddam's torture chambers and "rape rooms" as a reason to invade. The hypocrisy is sickening.
The reason that people support torture is because they are afraid and also because they seek revenge. Is it not?
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind...
you would rather die in an attack then a terrorist be water borted to save you and your family ? :roll:
yeah sure. well guess what? I 'll still be alive and you'll be dead, Hope it was worth it.
Would you kindly explain to me, how a torture, ordered and condoned by our government, saved me and my family?
What about the rest of my post where i explain my thoughts behind the hypocrisy? Do you have any comment on that?
It makes it really hard for people to decently debate a topic like this, and maybe even learn something from each other, when you ignore the points i raise, and just focus on one thing that i have said.
I feel that strongly about it, that i'd still rather die in an attack than condone a government that tortures. If i wanted that, i could've just moved to Iraq right? Oh wait, isn't that one of the reasons why we killed Saddam and invaded Iraq? Isn't that what Bush, Cheney and the gurus told us back then? They kept shoving down our throats, the horror of Saddam's torture chambers and "rape rooms" as a reason to invade. The hypocrisy is sickening.
The reason that people support torture is because they are afraid and also because they seek revenge. Is it not?
I agree completely. I think the entire republican party is based on fear...as is US foreign policy.
nice fucking dodge. and it would happen. just substitute your mother being kidnapped to your mother working in a highrise that is targeted for attack.
it happens almost never.
another loaded question.
either i support torture or i hate my mom.
no thanks.
I am against torture ALL the time for ANY reason.
"I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life." - Craig Murray
applies to me as well.
its not a loaded question. my example is a perfectly reasonable scenario. (about an attack on where your mother works). the US government is responsible for protecting its citizens. you seem to have forgotten, but our country was attacked in 2001 killing thousands of innocent civilians. its the governments job from that happening again. so they caught some of the people responsible and needed to find out from them if another attack was imminent. (possibly against your mother or my mother, SOMEBODYS mother)
you better believe I am perfectly fine with letting a MASS MURDERER stand in an uncomfortable position for many hours, or not allow him to sleep, or splash some cold water on him, until he tells me what he knows about the next attack.
such a fucking joke, I was "tortured" worse during college hazing.
and so what if there was? say some guy provided intel, it doesn't excuse how the intel was gathered.
if it saves my mothers life or mine, its absolutely worth it...again...to make a MASS MURDER uncomfortable for a small amount of time.
rape, beatings, burning, pulling out fingernails, whipped, caned...thats torture. standing on one leg for a few hours with several doctors present is not.
you don't uphold the law only when its convenient.
sometimes there is a price to pay for a lawful society with rights. and yes. POW's have rights.
someone said it before. el queda members dont have the same rights. they dont play by the same rules and thus arent afforded the same rights. post all the links u want. its debatable.
I feel that strongly about it, that i'd still rather die in an attack than condone a government that tortures. If i wanted that, i could've just moved to Iraq right? Oh wait, isn't that one of the reasons why we killed Saddam and invaded Iraq? Isn't that what Bush, Cheney and the gurus told us back then? They kept shoving down our throats, the horror of Saddam's torture chambers and "rape rooms" as a reason to invade. The hypocrisy is sickening.
The reason that people support torture is because they are afraid and also because they seek revenge. Is it not?
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind...
absolutely not. I suggest you look up Saddam's torture tactics compared to our enhanced interrogation methods. Saddam and his sons did have rape rooms, most of the time raping mothers in from of sons and wives in front of husbands.
we made a 3 people who PLANNED 9/11, stand one one leg for a long period of time with doctors present.
How do we know for sure that whatever approved methods of interrogation were actually adhered to, and that only 3 people were subjected to those exact techniques and nothing worse?
"Because the government says so" will never be a good enough answer for me.
'US air strikes in Afghanistan on Tuesday killed dozens of civilians including women and children, officials from the Red Cross have said.
Afghan officials in Farah province, in the west of Afghanistan, told the BBC as many as 100 civilians may have died.
The civilians were said to have been hit while sheltering from fighting.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in the US for talks with President Barack Obama and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, has ordered an investigation.
Civilian deaths will be high on the agenda at the White House for Mr Karzai, who has repeatedly urged Western forces in Afghanistan to reduce the number of civilian casualties.
Mr Obama will hold bilateral talks with Mr Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, before all three hold a joint meeting.
And the BBC's Martin Patience, in Kabul, says the Washington talks could be overshadowed if the Red Cross report of dozens of civilian deaths is confirmed.
Mr Zardari arrives in Washington facing a growing crisis in his own country amid a new outbreak of fighting between the army and Taleban rebels in the Swat Valley region.
Thousands of residents there are reported to be fleeing their homes as a peace deal between the government and Taleban militants appears on the verge of collapse.
Fighting flared overnight in Mingora, the main town in Swat, and continued into Wednesday, with reports of helicopter gunships bombarding militant positions.
The government has warned that 500,000 people could try to leave if the peace deal formally breaks down, although the BBC's Mark Dummett, in Islamabad, says the army has not yet launched the offensive most are now expecting.
On Tuesday the US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, told a congressional hearing in Washington that Pakistan must do more to combat the Taleban.
Afghan officials said Tuesday's violence broke out after more than 100 Taleban militants attacked a police checkpoint in Farah, in the far west of Afghanistan, killing three police.
The insurgents then reportedly moved to a nearby village where they killed three civilians who they accused of spying for the government.
As the fighting continued, US airstrikes targeted militants thought to be sheltering in nearby houses. At least 25 Taleban fighters were reported to have died.
But a growing number of reports from the area now suggest civilians were also seeking refuge in the buildings.
Our correspondent in Kabul said local officials told him they saw the bodies of about 20 women and children in two trucks.
Officials and police sources in Farah later said they estimated the number of dead at around 100. US, Afghan and Red Cross teams were working to establish the precise number of civilians killed.
A spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross said a team of observers sent to the site of the air strikes saw houses destroyed and dozens of dead bodies, including women and children.
"We can absolutely confirm there were civilian casualties," Jessica Barry said.
"It seemed they were trying to shelter in houses when they were hit."
The governor of Farah province, Rohul Amin, backed the Red Cross verdict that civilians died in the air strikes, but could not confirm numbers.
The US military said coalition troops were called to assist Afghan forces as they attempted to fight off an insurgent attack.
A spokeswoman, Capt Elizabeth Mathias, said she was "extremely concerned" by the reports of high casualties.
"I actually sent an investigation team out to that region this morning and I expect them to be on the ground a little bit later this afternoon, and hopefully have some more information for us at that time," she said.
How do we know for sure that whatever approved methods of interrogation were actually adhered to, and that only 3 people were subjected to those exact techniques and nothing worse?
"Because the government says so" will never be a good enough answer for me.
probably because the people involved would admit to it. I read the people in the CIA who were ordered to do waterboarding, really struggled with it. I mean, do you think we are raped women? beat them with baseball bats? pulled out toenails? seems to me that alot of what happened was in classified documents, only to be recently released.
but I mean sure. you want to throw out hypotheticals. I suppose anything is possible
How do we know for sure that whatever approved methods of interrogation were actually adhered to, and that only 3 people were subjected to those exact techniques and nothing worse?
"Because the government says so" will never be a good enough answer for me.
probably because the people involved would admit to it. I read the people in the CIA who were ordered to do waterboarding, really struggled with it. I mean, do you think we are raped women? beat them with baseball bats? pulled out toenails? seems to me that alot of what happened was in classified documents, only to be recently released.
but I mean sure. you want to throw out hypotheticals. I suppose anything is possible
I don't see any reason to admit to anything that is very arguably illegal, without some sort of profit motive-- where's the book signing tours? I would think it'd be in the interrogators' best interest to NOT rat the government out on this one, if there was some real wrongdoing. They'd end up in jail just like the people responsible for the naked guy pyramid at Abu-G at the very least-- the government would do what it always does, blame it on the low level guys acting on their own, and absolve themselves of any guilt.
I wasn't there, I don't know what was done, none of us were. However, none of this would even be brought up if we weren't caught doing something questionable, so out comes the forced, "official" half-truth. The fact that only 3 men were subjected to this treatment is either bullshit, or highly inconsistent with a war that has us spending billions, and killing thousands monthly. That's a lot of gunfire, destruction, and loss of life to only find 3 people worthy of torturing to save innocent people on this piece of land from dying. So that number (3 people) is either bullshit, OR, we're not exactly supposed to be waging a war of this magnitude since our enemy isn't hundreds of thousands of angry Islamic Fundamentalists as the news media would have us believe.
If they're going to lie about the numbers of people tortured, why not lie about the techniques? I think many people would agree that the list of "approved" techniques to be used on these guys are nowhere near as hideous as the stuff that the media tells us that Sadam did to his people. Why couldn't this be a very convenient half-truth that they've told us in regards to our interrogation methods? It's an admission of torture, but not really, all at the same time-- basically, it's torture, but not horrible torture. I hate the expression, but it's "having your cake and eating it too" Again, whatever is being done is being done. The government can always distance themselves from this stuff by having someone else do the dirty work for them. It's not like Dick Cheney ever went to Gtimo to give titty-twisters to Kalik Sheed for hours on end. They can always falsely promise immunity to whoever is doing the torturing, and if incriminating information leaks, they can always throw those same people under the bus later. Then: press conference, apology, and of course, not even a slap on the wrist for the brass.
All of this, and it's not even guaranteed to provide any credible information. In summary, it's worthless in its purpose to provide a means to an end, and it only fuels these cocksuckers even more.
it was said that 3 people were waterboarded. I'm sure many others were subject to what some feel is torture. i.e. standing in uncomfortable positions, sleep deprivation, put in cold rooms, etc.
like you said, neither of us were there so we dont really know for sure.
Making a rule based off an absolute or extreme example is not legit.
Simply put, if you find it ok for US solidiers to be tortured by enemies, then please go ahead and advocate US torture of enemies, but if you do not, then you're not being honest about the issue.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Making a rule based off an absolute or extreme example is not legit.
Simply put, if you find it ok for US solidiers to be tortured by enemies, then please go ahead and advocate US torture of enemies, but if you do not, then you're not being honest about the issue.
torture needs to be defined. and that almost impossible. is being beat with a baseball bat torture? yes. is being held in a cold room for a few hours torture??
edit: I will add, how will this put our soldiers at anymore risk then they already are? el queda and saddam types have been using torture long before the US decided to use enhanced interrogations. they will continue to cut off heads regardless of our policies.
but I mean sure. you want to throw out hypotheticals. I suppose anything is possible
It's all hypotheticals. You're talking about saving my freakin Mom, man!
by your mom, I mean anyones mom. I'm talking about an attack on American citizens. thats not hypothetical, it happened.
I hear ya, man. Could it happen again? Yes. The fact that it even happened the first time was a complete abomination... So much so, that I struggle with the complete ineptness required on the part of dozens of agencies within our government for it to happen, especially with all of the information that we had. It is my belief that we could stave off another attack without the use of torture. As much as I hate what is going on in the middle east right now with the fighting, I would think that it would be very hard for extremist groups to be able to plot another attack as significant and calculated as 9/11. It's pretty chaotic over there. I'm not saying that I agree with this strategy, because I believe it's cultivating more hate for the U.S., but each new group probably has a tough time of getting anything accomplished with all the madness. I'm not saying we should let our guard down either.
We will learn more, real, factual information about another attack from good intelligence than from using torture.
Making a rule based off an absolute or extreme example is not legit.
Simply put, if you find it ok for US solidiers to be tortured by enemies, then please go ahead and advocate US torture of enemies, but if you do not, then you're not being honest about the issue.
torture needs to be defined. and that almost impossible. is being beat with a baseball bat torture? yes. is being held in a cold room for a few hours torture??
edit: I will add, how will this put our soldiers at anymore risk then they already are? el queda and saddam types have been using torture long before the US decided to use enhanced interrogations. they will continue to cut off heads regardless of our policies.
Jlew24asu, torture has already been defined. Under a 1994 UN convention, torture means "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted" to obtain information.
The convention has been ratified by 136 countries including the US. The UN explicitly banned torture after the second world war, when its general assembly included a prohibition against torture in the landmark universal declaration of human rights. Article 5 states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Because it has signed up to treaties banning torture, the US goes to extreme lengths to deny it tortures prisoners, while getting into legal contortions as to what constitutes torture or not. :(
Apparently we are now being asked to swallow that enhanced interrogation methods only mean we had the capacity to interrogate - not torture - but interrogate people to learn information, and this is all that was done?
I feel that strongly about it, that i'd still rather die in an attack than condone a government that tortures. If i wanted that, i could've just moved to Iraq right? Oh wait, isn't that one of the reasons why we killed Saddam and invaded Iraq? Isn't that what Bush, Cheney and the gurus told us back then? They kept shoving down our throats, the horror of Saddam's torture chambers and "rape rooms" as a reason to invade. The hypocrisy is sickening.
The reason that people support torture is because they are afraid and also because they seek revenge. Is it not?
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind...
you would rather die in an attack then a terrorist be water borted to save you and your family ? :roll:
yeah sure. well guess what? I 'll still be alive and you'll be dead, Hope it was worth it.
Would you kindly explain to me, how a torture, ordered and condoned by our government, saved me and my family?
What about the rest of my post where i explain my thoughts behind the hypocrisy? Do you have any comment on that?
It makes it really hard for people to decently debate a topic like this, and maybe even learn something from each other, when you ignore the points i raise, and just focus on one thing that i have said.
OK fair enough maybe it didn't save you and your family but it DID SAVE SOMEONE ELSES.Also I dont think were on the same page.The despicable acts that took place at Abeu Ghraib is horrible period. And everyone that participated in it and gave the orders should go to jail for a long time, I truly believe that it did a lot of harm to the troops that are trying to do the right thing. But as far as waterboarding, sleep deprivation,standing for long periods, Nothing that causes actual bad tissue damage is not torture IMO. Other than what happened at A.G.(Whitch should've never happened ) Nothing has ever taken place that is remotely even close to to what SADDAM and his SONS did to people
you would rather die in an attack then a terrorist be water borted to save you and your family ? :roll:
yeah sure. well guess what? I 'll still be alive and you'll be dead, Hope it was worth it.
Would you kindly explain to me, how a torture, ordered and condoned by our government, saved me and my family?
What about the rest of my post where i explain my thoughts behind the hypocrisy? Do you have any comment on that?
It makes it really hard for people to decently debate a topic like this, and maybe even learn something from each other, when you ignore the points i raise, and just focus on one thing that i have said.
OK fair enough maybe it didn't save you and your family but it DID SAVE SOMEONE ELSES.Also I dont think were on the same page.The despicable acts that took place at Abeu Ghraib is horrible period. And everyone that participated in it and gave the orders should go to jail for a long time, I truly believe that it did a lot of harm to the troops that are trying to do the right thing. But as far as waterboarding, sleep deprivation,standing for long periods, Nothing that causes actual bad tissue damage is not torture IMO. Other than what happened at A.G.(Whitch should've never happened ) Nothing has ever taken place that is remotely even close to to what SADDAM and his SONS did to people
Ok, thanks for that, i understand where you are coming from. I just feel it's so wrong to say that just because our actions are not as bad as Saddams, then, that automatically makes them acceptable because we are not as evil. It still doesn't make our actions acceptable. That's pretty much where i'm coming from.
One of the underlaying theme's of this issue is the idea of morality.
If anyone is interested, WNYC's did a great podcast on Morality and human beings sense of where it comes from and what we find ok and not (in general terms). I'd recommend the listen.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Yeah it's not like Im trying to point to bad behavior to justify other bad behavior. On another note one thing that will always stand out is D. Rumsfeld stamping his name on the letters to the Next Of Kin of a soldier that was killed in action instead of taking his time to actually sign the letter. :shock: :x WTF
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Making a rule based off an absolute or extreme example is not legit.
Simply put, if you find it ok for US solidiers to be tortured by enemies, then please go ahead and advocate US torture of enemies, but if you do not, then you're not being honest about the issue.
torture needs to be defined. and that almost impossible. is being beat with a baseball bat torture? yes. is being held in a cold room for a few hours torture??
edit: I will add, how will this put our soldiers at anymore risk then they already are? el queda and saddam types have been using torture long before the US decided to use enhanced interrogations. they will continue to cut off heads regardless of our policies.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Hey commy I think every one on the board would agree that what went down at Abeu Ghraib was horrific and a disgrace to all the men and women serving and those that have served.
Anyone with half a shred of decency and respect for their fellow man would never condone that type of behavior past or present it's barbaric simple as that.
Like I said though when it comes to waterborting all were high level AL qaeda we didnt do it just randomly to any detainee. Sure it made them uncomfortable but so what. It didn't cause any physical damage.
Hey commy I think every one on the board would agree that what went down at Abeu Ghraib was horrific and a disgrace to all the men and women serving and those that have served.
Anyone with half a shred of decency and respect for their fellow man would never condone that type of behavior past or present it's barbaric simple as that.
Like I said though when it comes to waterborting all were high level AL qaeda we didnt do it just randomly to any detainee. Sure it made them uncomfortable but so what. It didn't cause any physical damage.
The UN defines torture as "....emotional distress". they may not come away withany physical damage, but according to the UN., which the US agreed to in '94, water boarding is torture.
So the US is breaking international law, even when it waterboards.
you don't uphold the law only when its convenient.
Do you really believe that?
eh especially when its inconvenient is more accurate probably.
like the neo nazis-sucks we gotta let tehm talk, but i will defend that right with everything i have. firstyou can't speak out against race, then its the government, then we're all fucked and living 100 years ago.
you have to uphold the law especially when its inconvenient.
First they put away the dealers
Keep our kids safe and off the streets
Then they put away the prostitutes
Keep married men cloistered at home
Then they shooed away the bums
Then they beat and bashed the queers
Turned away the asylum seekers
Fed us suspicions and fears
We didn't raise our voice
We didn't make a fuss
It's funny there was no one left to notice when they came for us
Comments
Would you kindly explain to me, how a torture, ordered and condoned by our government, saved me and my family?
What about the rest of my post where i explain my thoughts behind the hypocrisy? Do you have any comment on that?
It makes it really hard for people to decently debate a topic like this, and maybe even learn something from each other, when you ignore the points i raise, and just focus on one thing that i have said.
I agree completely. I think the entire republican party is based on fear...as is US foreign policy.
its not a loaded question. my example is a perfectly reasonable scenario. (about an attack on where your mother works). the US government is responsible for protecting its citizens. you seem to have forgotten, but our country was attacked in 2001 killing thousands of innocent civilians. its the governments job from that happening again. so they caught some of the people responsible and needed to find out from them if another attack was imminent. (possibly against your mother or my mother, SOMEBODYS mother)
you better believe I am perfectly fine with letting a MASS MURDERER stand in an uncomfortable position for many hours, or not allow him to sleep, or splash some cold water on him, until he tells me what he knows about the next attack.
such a fucking joke, I was "tortured" worse during college hazing.
its really fucking sick how you trivialize 9/11 as if it didnt happen and couldnt happen again
FIRST of all, the US never pulled out anyones fingernails. second of all, its not fantasy. we'll see what the memos are released.
if it saves my mothers life or mine, its absolutely worth it...again...to make a MASS MURDER uncomfortable for a small amount of time.
rape, beatings, burning, pulling out fingernails, whipped, caned...thats torture. standing on one leg for a few hours with several doctors present is not.
someone said it before. el queda members dont have the same rights. they dont play by the same rules and thus arent afforded the same rights. post all the links u want. its debatable.
absolutely not. I suggest you look up Saddam's torture tactics compared to our enhanced interrogation methods. Saddam and his sons did have rape rooms, most of the time raping mothers in from of sons and wives in front of husbands.
we made a 3 people who PLANNED 9/11, stand one one leg for a long period of time with doctors present.
Do you really believe that?
"Because the government says so" will never be a good enough answer for me.
I think it's really fucking sick how you regard 9/11 as year zero and as the worst atrocity ever to befall mankind.
Meanwhile, the same old record keeps playing in the background like lift music:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8035204.stm
US Afghan strikes 'killed dozens'
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
'US air strikes in Afghanistan on Tuesday killed dozens of civilians including women and children, officials from the Red Cross have said.
Afghan officials in Farah province, in the west of Afghanistan, told the BBC as many as 100 civilians may have died.
The civilians were said to have been hit while sheltering from fighting.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in the US for talks with President Barack Obama and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, has ordered an investigation.
Civilian deaths will be high on the agenda at the White House for Mr Karzai, who has repeatedly urged Western forces in Afghanistan to reduce the number of civilian casualties.
Mr Obama will hold bilateral talks with Mr Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, before all three hold a joint meeting.
And the BBC's Martin Patience, in Kabul, says the Washington talks could be overshadowed if the Red Cross report of dozens of civilian deaths is confirmed.
Mr Zardari arrives in Washington facing a growing crisis in his own country amid a new outbreak of fighting between the army and Taleban rebels in the Swat Valley region.
Thousands of residents there are reported to be fleeing their homes as a peace deal between the government and Taleban militants appears on the verge of collapse.
Fighting flared overnight in Mingora, the main town in Swat, and continued into Wednesday, with reports of helicopter gunships bombarding militant positions.
The government has warned that 500,000 people could try to leave if the peace deal formally breaks down, although the BBC's Mark Dummett, in Islamabad, says the army has not yet launched the offensive most are now expecting.
On Tuesday the US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, told a congressional hearing in Washington that Pakistan must do more to combat the Taleban.
Afghan officials said Tuesday's violence broke out after more than 100 Taleban militants attacked a police checkpoint in Farah, in the far west of Afghanistan, killing three police.
The insurgents then reportedly moved to a nearby village where they killed three civilians who they accused of spying for the government.
As the fighting continued, US airstrikes targeted militants thought to be sheltering in nearby houses. At least 25 Taleban fighters were reported to have died.
But a growing number of reports from the area now suggest civilians were also seeking refuge in the buildings.
Our correspondent in Kabul said local officials told him they saw the bodies of about 20 women and children in two trucks.
Officials and police sources in Farah later said they estimated the number of dead at around 100. US, Afghan and Red Cross teams were working to establish the precise number of civilians killed.
A spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross said a team of observers sent to the site of the air strikes saw houses destroyed and dozens of dead bodies, including women and children.
"We can absolutely confirm there were civilian casualties," Jessica Barry said.
"It seemed they were trying to shelter in houses when they were hit."
The governor of Farah province, Rohul Amin, backed the Red Cross verdict that civilians died in the air strikes, but could not confirm numbers.
The US military said coalition troops were called to assist Afghan forces as they attempted to fight off an insurgent attack.
A spokeswoman, Capt Elizabeth Mathias, said she was "extremely concerned" by the reports of high casualties.
"I actually sent an investigation team out to that region this morning and I expect them to be on the ground a little bit later this afternoon, and hopefully have some more information for us at that time," she said.
mankind? no not even close. on US soil? yes.
probably because the people involved would admit to it. I read the people in the CIA who were ordered to do waterboarding, really struggled with it. I mean, do you think we are raped women? beat them with baseball bats? pulled out toenails? seems to me that alot of what happened was in classified documents, only to be recently released.
but I mean sure. you want to throw out hypotheticals. I suppose anything is possible
I don't see any reason to admit to anything that is very arguably illegal, without some sort of profit motive-- where's the book signing tours? I would think it'd be in the interrogators' best interest to NOT rat the government out on this one, if there was some real wrongdoing. They'd end up in jail just like the people responsible for the naked guy pyramid at Abu-G at the very least-- the government would do what it always does, blame it on the low level guys acting on their own, and absolve themselves of any guilt.
I wasn't there, I don't know what was done, none of us were. However, none of this would even be brought up if we weren't caught doing something questionable, so out comes the forced, "official" half-truth. The fact that only 3 men were subjected to this treatment is either bullshit, or highly inconsistent with a war that has us spending billions, and killing thousands monthly. That's a lot of gunfire, destruction, and loss of life to only find 3 people worthy of torturing to save innocent people on this piece of land from dying. So that number (3 people) is either bullshit, OR, we're not exactly supposed to be waging a war of this magnitude since our enemy isn't hundreds of thousands of angry Islamic Fundamentalists as the news media would have us believe.
If they're going to lie about the numbers of people tortured, why not lie about the techniques? I think many people would agree that the list of "approved" techniques to be used on these guys are nowhere near as hideous as the stuff that the media tells us that Sadam did to his people. Why couldn't this be a very convenient half-truth that they've told us in regards to our interrogation methods? It's an admission of torture, but not really, all at the same time-- basically, it's torture, but not horrible torture. I hate the expression, but it's "having your cake and eating it too" Again, whatever is being done is being done. The government can always distance themselves from this stuff by having someone else do the dirty work for them. It's not like Dick Cheney ever went to Gtimo to give titty-twisters to Kalik Sheed for hours on end. They can always falsely promise immunity to whoever is doing the torturing, and if incriminating information leaks, they can always throw those same people under the bus later. Then: press conference, apology, and of course, not even a slap on the wrist for the brass.
All of this, and it's not even guaranteed to provide any credible information. In summary, it's worthless in its purpose to provide a means to an end, and it only fuels these cocksuckers even more.
like you said, neither of us were there so we dont really know for sure.
Simply put, if you find it ok for US solidiers to be tortured by enemies, then please go ahead and advocate US torture of enemies, but if you do not, then you're not being honest about the issue.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
It's all hypotheticals. You're talking about saving my freakin Mom, man!
by your mom, I mean anyones mom. I'm talking about an attack on American citizens. thats not hypothetical, it happened.
torture needs to be defined. and that almost impossible. is being beat with a baseball bat torture? yes. is being held in a cold room for a few hours torture??
edit: I will add, how will this put our soldiers at anymore risk then they already are? el queda and saddam types have been using torture long before the US decided to use enhanced interrogations. they will continue to cut off heads regardless of our policies.
I hear ya, man. Could it happen again? Yes. The fact that it even happened the first time was a complete abomination... So much so, that I struggle with the complete ineptness required on the part of dozens of agencies within our government for it to happen, especially with all of the information that we had. It is my belief that we could stave off another attack without the use of torture. As much as I hate what is going on in the middle east right now with the fighting, I would think that it would be very hard for extremist groups to be able to plot another attack as significant and calculated as 9/11. It's pretty chaotic over there. I'm not saying that I agree with this strategy, because I believe it's cultivating more hate for the U.S., but each new group probably has a tough time of getting anything accomplished with all the madness. I'm not saying we should let our guard down either.
We will learn more, real, factual information about another attack from good intelligence than from using torture.
The convention has been ratified by 136 countries including the US. The UN explicitly banned torture after the second world war, when its general assembly included a prohibition against torture in the landmark universal declaration of human rights. Article 5 states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Because it has signed up to treaties banning torture, the US goes to extreme lengths to deny it tortures prisoners, while getting into legal contortions as to what constitutes torture or not. :(
Apparently we are now being asked to swallow that enhanced interrogation methods only mean we had the capacity to interrogate - not torture - but interrogate people to learn information, and this is all that was done?
OH come ON.
OK fair enough maybe it didn't save you and your family but it DID SAVE SOMEONE ELSES.Also I dont think were on the same page.The despicable acts that took place at Abeu Ghraib is horrible period. And everyone that participated in it and gave the orders should go to jail for a long time, I truly believe that it did a lot of harm to the troops that are trying to do the right thing. But as far as waterboarding, sleep deprivation,standing for long periods, Nothing that causes actual bad tissue damage is not torture IMO. Other than what happened at A.G.(Whitch should've never happened ) Nothing has ever taken place that is remotely even close to to what SADDAM and his SONS did to people
If anyone is interested, WNYC's did a great podcast on Morality and human beings sense of where it comes from and what we find ok and not (in general terms). I'd recommend the listen.
http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/02/ ... broadcast/
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Anyone with half a shred of decency and respect for their fellow man would never condone that type of behavior past or present it's barbaric simple as that.
Like I said though when it comes to waterborting all were high level AL qaeda we didnt do it just randomly to any detainee. Sure it made them uncomfortable but so what. It didn't cause any physical damage.
The UN defines torture as "....emotional distress". they may not come away withany physical damage, but according to the UN., which the US agreed to in '94, water boarding is torture.
So the US is breaking international law, even when it waterboards.
like the neo nazis-sucks we gotta let tehm talk, but i will defend that right with everything i have. firstyou can't speak out against race, then its the government, then we're all fucked and living 100 years ago.
you have to uphold the law especially when its inconvenient.
First they put away the dealers
Keep our kids safe and off the streets
Then they put away the prostitutes
Keep married men cloistered at home
Then they shooed away the bums
Then they beat and bashed the queers
Turned away the asylum seekers
Fed us suspicions and fears
We didn't raise our voice
We didn't make a fuss
It's funny there was no one left to notice when they came for us