Chicago radio host Erich “Mancow” Muller decided he’d get himself waterboarded to prove the technique wasn’t torture.

“The average person can take this for 14 seconds,” Marine Sergeant Clay South told his audience before he was waterboarded on air. “He’s going to wiggle, he’s going to scream, he’s going to wish he never did this.”

Id confess to shooting JFK after a few minutes of having this done repeatedly.
How long would You last ?

Strange.

I still don't understand why it's so bad.

What about that torture method where they insert PVC tubing up your ass, then thread barb wire/razor wire through, then remove the tubing.

Then RIPPED like you're starting a lawnmower.

I'll take waterboarding.

Doesn't leave a mark.. not torture.

hmm Id still prefer this over having my balls electrocuted.

looks refreshing imo

they use ice cold water too dont they?

that is f***ing weak

cop a set of 8ft surf on your head at south straddie and get pinned down for 2 f***en waves..

fat poofter

waterboarding pro^

lol

srsly hearing that guy sook on that video made me lol

"if i had known it was that bad i would never have done it" good one dip s***

Sounds like existence is Another volunteer for the Waterboarding Test.

When they torture terrorists and gain information they have no idea if the terrorist is telling the truth or not.
In fact a Terrorists might see Torture as yet another way to strike fear in the population of his enemy by creating fantasy scenarios that will Panic the Public.
Some people might say that also helps the government keep people in a state of panic and futhers their own agendas.

some people also say the moon landings were faked.

now, can you f*** off already?

Hmmmm maybe they should Waterboard Buzz Aldrin and see if he really did go to the moon ?
I bet he says he didnt after about 20 seconds of WaterBoarding.

We could dispense with courts and just WaterBoard suspected criminals.

Internet tough guys lolz.

pretty sure most people on here don't agree with waterboarding as an interogation technique.

pretty sure most people on here do agree with faceman shutting the f*** up once in a while.

f*** off exi, that would take anyone down no worries... it's f***ing horrible enough when you get a bit of water up your nose by accident.

Taggs,

1. No.
2. Hell yes.

There is no agreement on what waterboarding is and from what I knew, what is in this video isnt waterboarding. This is more like being straight drowned, water would eventually go into your lungs the way they are doing it. There was a video that went around of a similar thing previously: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 which is done by people from the british unit which prepares soldiers for torture (being captured) Their method looks worse because it can be sustained for long periods of time without actually drowing the person. You are still getting air, its just filled with water which makes you think you are drowning. In the OP video, you could only breathe in between water being poured down your neck.

last edited by qmass at 15:28:18 24/May/09

Apparently the most hardcore al-qaeda guy only lasted 2 minutes of this

Quintessential to our system of justice is that evidence must be tested in a court of law under strict rules. Waterboarding is a base violation of the entire ethical concept of justice.

That being the case, terrorists have no respect for human life and once they start using terror to further their political objects I say we go medieval on the mutherf***ers. Also Jack Bauer approved. I wish he used waterboarding in the latest season.

i heard the king of al-qaeda cried like a little baby after 2 seconds of waterboarding then totally ate a whole ham and wrote a letter to santa after

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg35/ggb777/bushh_dees.jpg

posting silly pictures like that is why you have no credibility.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2008/3537702405_526a31b398_o.gif

I say we go medieval on the mutherf***ers.

If the world was an eye for an eye, everyone would be blind.

Of all people on this forum I expected you to have a better moral compass infi.

(HAHAHAHHA)

last edited by Phooks at 16:05:45 24/May/09

If you can volunteer to be waterboarded, it's not torture. Checkout that video of the UAE prince torturing a merchant that he claims ripped him off. That is sickening. Equating locking someone in a room with a mosquito, making them miss meals or sleep, those methods aren't nice, they shouldn't be used but to call it torture and put it in the same class as repeatedly driving over soneones legs, whipping them with planks of wood with nails in it, breaking their fingers - it diminishes the real suffering tortured people endure and the words overuse desensitises us to the real horrors.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/17/monitor/entry4528215.shtml

there's video of him torturing at least 25 other people, all with police assistance

you know what he's doing is torture because no one would ever volunteer to undergo any of that to prove a point

Bulls***. Terrorists have no moral compass and should be eradicated. Terrorists are philosophically (even religiously) committed to chaos, terror and the harming of innocents. Focus more on the innocent people who want to be protected and less on the wrongdoers' "rights".

You sound like the social worker who found a man coming home from work bashed and robbed in the gutter. The social worker crouches down next to the injured man and says: "The person who did this to you needs help."

last edited by infi at 16:10:15 24/May/09

I got a feeling my link is wrong. Google UAE prince torture and I will fix my link next time I am on a pc

I love how infi's morals are guided and preset by the media.

Oh infi, don't ever change your ignorant ways.

What's your point? Didn't the OP post a vid of the media saying waterboarding IS torture?

You sound like the social worker who found a man coming home from work bashed and robbed in the gutter. The social worker crouches down next to the injured man and says: "The person who did this to you needs help."

That's exactly what I sound like. Plus, since were doing analogies, I'll do yours.

You sound like the s***head who found a man coming home from work bashed and robbed in the gutter. You crouch down next to the injured man and say: "The person who did this to you needs to be bashed and robbed."

Torture is not a reciprocation of the terrorist's actions. Terrorists intentionally kill innocent people. Torture is not meant to inflict casualties, in fact it needs to keep its subject alive.

So your analogy fails.

Sigh. Infi I know how arrogant you can be, so I'll make this brief.

You said yourself:

Waterboarding is a base violation of the entire ethical concept of justice.

If we use waterboarding we would be violating the entire ethical concept of justice.

No doubt, being a 60-yr old AM radio listener, you're going to pull out some s*** about torturing a terrorist to disarm a bomb to save lives, so lets fast forward.

How much torture is enough for you?

Should we torture every person we capture just to find out if there are WOMDs they're hiding? should we torture criminals to find their rapist buddies? f***, while we're at it let's torture children in war-torn countries to find out where their good old father is hiding in a cave.

Torture is wrong.

f*** off phooks you soft cock.

Torture is wrong.

Is it necessary though?

Would Jack Bauer have found the canisters without it?

The pakistani shootings, I hope they tortured the s*** out of that bitch before he went to court for his justice.

How ethical was he opening fire on a bunch of civilians and using grendes in crowded places. Should he be treated with civility, clean sheets and cups of tea?

last edited by infi at 16:48:33 24/May/09

Is it necessary

It doesn't work like that. There ARE NO CASES where it's as simple as:

Torture A to save B, C and D.

It's not as cut and dry as that.

Phooks, expert on all matters of national security.

The art of a good presentation is all about effective delivery

Protecting our country with love.

I always thought the best torture for the terrorists is to leave them in a room for the rest of their lives with their crimes.

i.e Place them in a well lit room/cell, comfy bed, 3 sqr meals a day, copy of the quran and every square inch of their walls, floor and ceiling covered with the faces, bodies and photos of the people they killed, blew up and dismembered.

This is what they wanted ... heh, now live with it.

From his 17 years of life experience. less idealism, more pragmatism will serve you well in life.

^^ Phooks, that is.

If you guys are such huge fans of torture I suggest you walk around the CBD with signs and see how far you get.

"Torture! It's the only way to save our children!"

"WHAT DO WE WANT"

"TORTURE!"

"WHEN DO WE WANT IT"

"NOW"

:)

So, if water boarding isn't torture - should we do it to people who have been arrested by the police to get a confession out of them?

Never said it wasn't torture but terrorists and other enemy combatants knew what they were getting themselves into. I sure as s*** wouldn't be giving them candy cane and fairy floss.

Do you think terrorists give a f*** about us or our rules? Whether it be a crazed Die Hard 3 style terrorist or a suicide bomber? They don't give a s*** about life, their own lives are worthless to them. Do you think the conventional justice system is even going to register?

last edited by infi at 17:16:24 24/May/09

So, if water boarding isn't torture - should we do it to people who have been arrested by the police to get a confession out of them?

Either that or read to them one of your s***ty posts.

pretty sure most people on here don't agree with waterboarding as an interogation technique.

wut?

I got no problem with terrorist being terroised

Terrorists dont give a f*** about our rules so why should we ?
Torturing prisoners makes us no better than the enemy.

Are we the good guys or just the other bad guys ?

BTW. Waterboarding doesn't become torture until you are having it done to you against your will. Then it becomes you feeling like you are on the virge of death, by somone elses hand, for hours and hours.

The s*** you see in all these videos, dudes experiancing it for a few seconds by their own will isnt the same and none of those people would ever consent to doing it without control over when it stops.

I don't really mind as long as we win.

Never said it wasn't torture but terrorists and other enemy combatants knew what they were getting themselves into.

I didn't say that you did, but people in this thread have said exactly that.

I sure as s*** wouldn't be giving them candy cane and fairy floss.

I can't remember where I saw this, but one of the intelligent contractors with the highest rating of successful information didn't use torture. Instead he used quotes from the Koran and made them draw conclusions that they were wrong in what they did.

Do you think terrorists give a f*** about us or our rules?

The only thing about terrorists I care about is de-constructing their ability to recruit new members. Creating acts of terror against people who are essentially caught in the dark ages isn't helping us. I think that's the key point here. It's not about if the Terrorists sleep in beds of roses or get forced sex changes and raped by pork sausages, it's about what's best for us. Are we the kinds of people who create terror to get our way? If so, does that make us any better than them?

Either that or read to them one of your s***ty posts.

When your ability to comprehend English gets beyond the level of your average downy child will be when I start caring if you think my posts are "s***ty" or not. I mean, the only person on this forum who is more retarded than you is FaceMan.





last edited by typo at 17:59:48 24/May/09

And the CIA operatives acknowledged that the greatest yields they ever achieved re intelligence came from waterboarding.

I will look for a source...

Internet tough guys lolz.

torture may yield results in the short-run, but is likely to increase the number of enemies/terrorists/whatever over the long-term. look at the direct connection between US foreign policy over the last 50 years and the foreign policy problems they face today. the law of unintended consequences is a powerful concept.

i can't understand how some people think it is in the interests of the developed world to condone these techniques.

When your ability to comprehend English gets beyond the level of your average downy child will be when I start caring if you think my posts are "s***ty" or not. I mean, the only person on this forum who is more retarded than you is FaceMan.

Hahah, you pompous fag. The quote storm wasn't enough, so you had to throw in "inverted" commas. Seriously though, the only thing worse than reading your posts would be to actually converse with you in person. Sharing the room with someone who's concept of personal hygiene is even more repugnant than his words, that'd have to classified as torture. Thankfully, the only time I'm likely to run into you is at a QGL lan, which is not likely to happen (shame) or while you are out shopping for another kilo box of cheezels or whatever it is fatties like you eat while you post on here.

Everything you post nF seems to be "blah blah blah I f*** n*****s".

nf has made no worthwhile contribution to QGL since 2002.

i think nef has piles

http://about-australia-shop.com/images/products/Snack_Cheezels_50g_4910.jpg

I don't really mind as long as we win.

What do you mean "we" paleface?

Water boarding is a technique to simulate imminent death. It may not be as painful as scourging someone as seen in Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ; but it's psychological effect is worse. Water boarding triggers the imminent death switch in the brain in order to make the victim confess. It is different compared to say, breaking bones sequentially, inflicting tremendous pain eventually resulting in the victim confessing to end the pain.

If you have ever had the imminent death switch triggered, you would know that it is worse than having a hollow pvc pipe filled with barbed wire and removed in such a way that only the barbed wire remains. Pain pales in comparison to imminent death.

Thanks toli for you insight on the "imminent death" switch and welcome to the forums!

Have you had such a switch turned on within yourself?

Some of you might remember the grub that raped and killed Noosa Schoolgirl Sian Kingi long time ago.
Apparently some other Inmates got the guy and raped him with Barbed wire.
Ouch !

"C'mon out ole Painless is waitin"

Thanks toli for you insight on the "imminent death" switch and welcome to the forums!

Have you had such a switch turned on within yourself?

Yes I have actually. I have narcolepsy and a symptom of which are hypnogogic hallucinations. I have had on several occasions the kind of hallucination of hands around the throat and something trying to get inside the body with the feeling of imminent death. I've gone through my fair share of pains none of which (for instance having a lumber puncture go wrong which had me largely incapacitated for three weeks) has come close to the feeling of imminent death.

If you know the feeling, you wouldn't wish it upon another person. Notice how quickly the journalist of interest changed his *deep seeded* attitude?

Yeah, it sucks.

I like to watch

to the people who are saying we shouldn't care about terrorists rights ... what about the people wrongly accused of terrorism that have been subject to it. Casualty of war?

looking at the UK one.. it actually doesnt really look like torture at all

i mean the bloke doesnt have elctrodes coming out of his cock.. or having his eyes poked out..

its just a way of stressing someone to the point of breaking with out doing physical damage..

i'll vote for waterboarding

stinky.. would you prefer your mum get waterboarded by mistake.. because anti terriost forces are allowed to do it to weed out real terrorists?

or would you like her to get blown up on a bus/train/building? because anti terrorist units wernt allowed to effectivly go after infomation that it was going to happen?

stinky.. would you prefer your mum get waterboarded by mistake.. because anti terriost forces are allowed to do it to weed out real terrorists?

or would you like her to get blown up on a bus/train/building? because anti terrorist units wernt allowed to effectivly go after infomation that it was going to happen?

haha are you serious? Looks like the govt/media fear campaigns are working well!

if my mother was waterboarded or tortured in some other form, I'm sure she'd quickly admit to being a terrorist and her fractured mind would even be able to make up a plot just to get it to stop. The tortures and those who support it would then say "look how effective it is, we found another terrorist!".

You don't interrogate people who know nothing.

Well they obviously thought it produced results

man, i so want to try this

i reckon i could last a minute, cuz i'm a hard c***

You don't interrogate people who know nothing.

So, the Government and it's agents never make mistakes?

Jesse Ventura ftw.

Give us legal cannabis ffs.

FBI director getting schooled by a senator about cannabis

The problem with coercing any information is that the information you get is useless.

People will agree to anything. They will invent things to make it stop, the more invented and looney it gets the more the nutbag torturers listen ie. it rewards making s*** up.

Bad or incorrect information is worse then no information.

People who have nothing to hide are just very good at concealing what they know.
Police Officers love it when you talk to them.
They will try to fish information out of you.

The thing about torture is there is no way for them to validate whether you're telling the truth or not, and often when you've broken and are telling the truth, they still believe you are not. Torturers and interrogators and cops and judges tend to rate themselves on being able to tell when somebody is lying, and even spout folklore about various 'signs' someone is lying to add to their credibility, but in reality people like that rely on others believing these myths to keep themselves employable. There is no way to tell what someone believes to be true in their mind. There is no cop or soldier that could prove they were significantly better than 50/50 guessing at whether something was a lie or not.

The problem with coercing any information is that the information you get is useless.

People will agree to anything. They will invent things to make it stop, the more invented and looney it gets the more the nutbag torturers listen ie. it rewards making s*** up.

Bad or incorrect information is worse then no information.

this too, imo.

Main Entry:
1tor·ture Listen to the pronunciation of 1 torture, 1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain

Water boarding puts anguish and stress on your mind..... Especially when you don't consent to it. Thread over.

edit: terrorising terroists ftw, they don't give a s*** about their victims.. they're just infidels to them. that's my pov, everyone has a different one, you'll never convince people your way is better.

last edited by Raider at 16:37:24 25/May/09

You people seem to use the 'terrorists don't care about life so let's torture' viewpoint... but what about the person who robs a 7-11 and shoots the cashier? Do they care about life?

i'm sure CIA doesnt act on a single strip of info from 1 waterboarded person.. they are looking for more then 1 person to verify what they prol allready know..

waterboard em all let god sort em out

im with you exis

you surf or f***** bodyboard?

If you have a bit of time, watch this awesome 3 part interview Jon Stewart did recently about torture etc:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I pretty much agree with everything Stewart says, and not just cuz he's on TV. Interestingly though he retracted the comments he made about Truman in the next episode of TDS... but I thought that was an interesting point as well.

I can't watch videos here... can you briefly outline his viewpoint for me?

I can't watch videos here... can you briefly outline his viewpoint for me?

Basically he says, the price of true freedom is such that sometimes you have to let the terrorists win if it means not torturing people in secret behind closed doors. I'll see if I can find the exact quote transcribed because its much more eloquent.

i'm sure CIA doesnt act on a single strip of info from 1 waterboarded person.. they are looking for more then 1 person to verify what they prol allready know..

Pretty sure you'd be wrong.

Iraq has WMDs remember ? ...
Nuclear grade blah blah blah ....

Information got by renditions or whatever they are called when the CIA gives a suspect to some dodgy 3rd world government while a CIA guy sits in the corner. That was how they did it before Bush and co allowed these extra interogation techniques.

great video trog, completely agree.

Iraq has WMDs remember ? ...
Nuclear grade blah blah blah ....

Where did that information come from? Torture? Not likely.

It actually came from informants within the Saddam's crew, who presumably wanted the Americans to get him out. They had credible information, but it just wasn't true. Its also totally unrelated to torture because they weren't under duress, they were just acting out of their own self interest.

To be honest though, I'd trust someone's information more if I had a pair of pliers on his fingernails.

In order to preserve our great democracy we have to protect the terrorists and let them spread terror.

Great. No wonder they laugh at us.

More from the daily show about the current national security debate.

To be honest though, I'd trust someone's information more if I had a pair of pliers on his fingernails.

and if they have no information ?
... rip out the finger nails!
... and threaten a finger !
so the lie and make something rediculous up
... good well done here's some medical treatment

Quick invade eastern prussia they have alien technology! Ickbad Shmellbad gave us some reliable information.

In order to preserve our great democracy we have to protect the terrorists and let them spread terror.

Great. No wonder they laugh at us.

That's the typical superficial response. But I think it's wrong, because a) freedom means an open, transparent government that is accountable to its citizens, and freedom also means freedom from being tortured by your government because they think you might be a terrorist, and b) if the government starts torturing and spying on its citizens and ALL THE STUFF THAT IS STARTING TO HAPPEN ALREADY AND HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, the terrorists don't need to do s*** - they've already won

Great. No wonder they laugh at us.

I don't get it, I though they hate our freedom, or do they laugh at our freedom? So do we give up our some of our freedom to make us more free? Or do we give up some of our freedom to so the terrorists don't hate us so much?

and freedom also means freedom from being tortured by your government because they think you might be a terrorist

I'm pretty sure freedom doesn't mean that. The rule of law is freedom. And the flip side of that is that if you break a law you forfeit that. And that includes some rights, how many they forfeit is what defines the country.

In some states of the US, one of those rights is the right to life.

The social contract states that in order to live in a safe society which enjoys law and order, individuals must give up certain freedoms as part of the two-way agreement.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There needs to be a balance.

I don't expect that waterboarding would be a commonly used technique. In fact in CIA operating procedure it is the last step on a 6 step process of interrogation techniques (another effective technique is making the suspect standing naked in a cold cell for prolonged periods of time 40 hours+), but if you know some terrorist c*** is withholding information and have used the previous 5 steps to no avail then get him a little wet is all I'm saying.

Chakas: terrorists laugh at us because we are so weak that our legal systems that make us think we are so superior do not even allow us to engage the means necessary to defeat them.

last edited by infi at 19:34:19 25/May/09

On 1 March 1757 Damiens the regicide was condemned "to make the amende honorable before the main door of the Church of Paris", where he was to be "taken and conveyed in a cart, wearing nothing but a shirt, holding a torch of burning wax weighing two pounds"; then, "in the said cart, to the Place de Grève, where, on a scaffold that will be erected there, the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs and claves with red-hot pincers, his right hand, holding the knife with which he committed the said parricide, burnt with sulphur, and, on those places where the flesh will be torn away, poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax and sulphur melted together and then his body drawn and quartered by four horses and his limbs and body consumed by fire, reduced to ashes and his ashes thrown to the winds" (Pièces originales..., 372-4).

"Finally, he was quartered," recounts the Gazette d'Amsterdam of 1 April 1757. "This last operation was very long, because the horses used were not accustomed to drawing; consequently, instead of four, six were needed; and when that did not suffice, they were forced, in order to cut off the wretch's thighs, to sever the sinews and hack at the joints...

"It is said that, though he was always a great swearer, no blashemy escaped his lips; but the excessive pain made him utter horrible cries, and he often repeated: 'My God, have pity on me! Jesus, help me!' The spectators were all edified by the solicitude of the parish priest of St Paul's who despite his great age did not spare himself in offering consolation to the patient."

Bouton, an officer of the watch, left us his account: "The sulphur was lit, but the flame was so poor that only the top skin of the hand was burnt, and that only slightly. Then the executioner, his sleeves rolled up, took the steel pincers, which had been especially made for the occasion, and which were about a foot and a half long, and pulled first at the calf of the right leg, then at the thigh, and from there at the two fleshy parts of the right arm; then at the breasts. Though a strong, sturdy fellow, this executioner found it so difficult to tear away the pieces of flesh that he set about the same spot two or three times, twisting the pincers as he did so, and what he took away formed at each part a wound about the size of a six-pound crown piece.

"After these tearings with the pincers, Damiens, who cried out profusely, though without swearing, raised his head and looked at himself; the same executioner dipped an iron spoon in the pot containing the boiling potion, which he poured liberally over each wound. Then the ropes that were to be harnessed to the horses were attached with cords to the patient's body; the horses were then harnessed and placed alongside the arms and legs, one at each limb.

"Monsieur Le Breton, the clerk of the court, went up to the patient several times and asked him if he had anything to say. He said he had not; at each torment, he cried out, as the damned in hell are supposed to cry out, 'Pardon, my God! Pardon, my Lord.' Despite all this pain, he raised his head from time to time and looked at himself boldly. The cords had been tied so tightly by the men who pulled the ends that they caused him indescribable pain. Monsieur le [sic] Breton went up to him again and asked him if he had anything to say; he said no. Several confessors went up to him and spoke to him at length; he willingly kissed the crucifix that was held out to him; he opened his lips and repeated: 'Pardon, Lord.'

"The horses tugged hard, each pulling straight on a limb, each horse held by an executioner. After a quarter of an hour, the same ceremony was repeated and finally, after several attempts, the direction of the horses had to be changed, thus: those at the arms were made to pull towards the head, those at the thighs towards the arms, which broke the arms at the joints. This was repeated several times without success. He raised his head and looked at himself. Two more horses had to be added to those harnessed to the thighs, which made six horses in all. Without success.

"Finally, the executioner, Samson, said to Monsieur Le Breton that there was no way or hope of succeeding, and told him to ask their Lordships if they wished him to have the prisoner cut into pieces. Monsieur Le Breton, who had come down from the town, ordered that renewed efforts be made, and this was done; but the horses gave up and one of those harnessed to the thighs fell to the ground. The confessors returned and spoke to him again. He said to them (I heard him): 'Kiss me, gentlemen.' The parish priest of St Paul's did not dare to, so Monsieur de Marsilly slipped under the rope holding the left arm and kissed him on the forehead. The executioners gathered round and Damiens told them not to swear, to carry out their task and that he did not think ill of them; he begged them to pray to God for him, and asked the parish priest of St Paul's to pray for him at the first mass.

"After two or three attempts, the executioner Samson and he who had used the pincers each drew out a knife from his pocket and cut the body at the thighs instead of severing the legs at the joints; the four horses gave a tug and carried off the two thighs after them, namely, that of the right side first, the other following; then the same was done to the arms, the shoulders, the arm-pits and the four limbs; the flesh had to be cut almost to the bone, the horses pulling hard carried off the right arm first and the other afterwards.

"When the four limbs had been pulled away, the confessors came to speak to him; but his executioner told them that he was dead, though the truth was that I saw the man move, his lower jaw moving from side to side as if he were talking. One of the executioners even said shortly afterwards that when they had lifted the trunk to throw it on the stake, he was still alive. The four limbs were untied from the ropes and thrown on the stake set up in the enclosure in line with the scaffold, then the trunk and the rest were covered with logs and f*****s, and fire was put to the straw mixed with this wood.

"...In accordance with the decree, the whole was reduced to ashes. The last piece to be found in the embers was still burning at half-past ten in the evening. The pieces of flesh and the trunk had taken about four hours to burn. The officers of whom I was one, as also was my son, and a detachment of archers remained in the square until nearly eleven o'clock.

"There were those who made something of the fact that a dog had lain the day before on the grass where the fire had been, had been chased away several times, and had always returned. But it is not difficult to understand that an animal found this place warmer than elsewhere

Thats how to torture someone.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
suxx to be Damiens

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There needs to be a balance.

I see your quote and raise you a Benjamin: "Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security. "

I don't expect that waterboarding would be a commonly used technique. In fact in CIA operating procedure it is the last step on a 6 step process of interrogation techniques (another effective technique is making the suspect standing naked in a cold cell for prolonged periods of time 40 hours+), but if you know some terrorist c*** is withholding information and have used the previous 5 steps to no avail then get him a little wet is all I'm saying.

And exactly what part of the last step of getting someone a 'little wet' relates to waterboarding one person 183 times in a single month. Didn't work the 182 times previously, but surely the 183rd will.

It's a shame Benjamin had no idea what terrorism was.

The words of America's greatest president:

We can't be consumed by our petty differences any more. We will be united in our common interests and you will once again be fighting for our freedom... Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution... but from annihilation. We are fighting for our right to live. To exist.

This all seems like a fairly PG discussion anyhow; Water Boarding is / is not Torture..

The really repugnant s*** was Abu Ghraib. There was alot more than Waterboarding going on there (hey, we don't even know the full extent!) and those motherf***ers should burn for it. I mean Rumsfield jumped on a grenade for that one.

But as Superform says, just cross-reference. "You work for Osama?" I've never heard of him before.. How do we know you're telling the truth!"

Anyway. The 21st century world now knows the US will send itself (and the world) into a tailspin in order to protect it's citizens. It's an expensive but probably effective object lesson.

^^ vids above

Jon Stewart is just sooo pure.

I think Cliff May gave as good as he got, in fact he showed up Jon as being a whiny bitch at times! Mr Moral High Ground Stewart.

Interesting also about the retraction. The viewers were waiting for May to say something stupid and Jon to jump on whilst he was excited, but it turned out to be Stewart..

The interesting thing I have noticed about Americans is that they will sometimes approach an issue as if it is just a single theater within a wider war. The individual merits of that issue are sometimes steamrolled by agendas.

Abortion, Gay Rights, Torture. These are all polarized points of view, Yet (in my opinion) the truth often lies somewhere in the middle.

If anything the beauty of that Interview is that contextually, it paints the issue well from both sides, and lets the viewer decide. (Except Jon is a little too leftie for my liking).

I love the "but Terrorists are scum and should be subjected to worse" argument. If you think that only Osama and his mates where put through this and much worse you're "'avin a laugh".

This kind of crap is done to randoms soldiers pick up as "suspects' because they looked at the soldier funny or refused to do some bulls*** the soldier asked them to do. Then they're thrown in a cell and subjected to all sorts of this crap by people with next to no training. There's plenty of live leak videos of the soldiers being absolute a******s to the people they're 'liberating and protecting'.

Then there's the whole your terrorist is another mans freedom fighter argument. When under all the pressure some of the so called terrorists are by certain parties whose to say you wouldn't throw some sticks at an embassy.

Imagine being a Palestinian who lived in a house for a few generations only to have to demolished and be thrown into a dirty camp with your other country men and feeling you have absolutely no recourse. Your wife has been beaten/blown up/raped, you don't know where your children are, you aren't aloud to speak to anyone from the world media.

I reckon I'd probably pick up some petrol, sticks, stones and throw them at tanks/buildings/etc.

There's many things that make people do the things they do. To just say this is fine to do and pass it off to the hands of men to decide who and who shouldn't be submitted to the acts isn't the best thing to do.

Of course if they caught anyone who could be 100% proven to be plotting to commit some monstrosity (such as ... terrorist acts) then do whatever the hell you like. But don't do it to some dude who got f***ed off being kicked around and treated like s*** and has no recourse and sure as hell don't leave it up to Billy-Bob, the southerner who had 3 months training to decide who receives the treatment and what level they receive.

Abortion, Gay Rights, Torture. These are all polarized points of view, Yet (in my opinion) the truth often lies somewhere in the middle.

If you keep the sheep focused on the tail of the one it's following they forget about most other things. It's pushed onto the yanks. If they make some no-issue the next big issue everyone focuses on that and forgets about their Senate rushing through a re-definition of the word Torture to only things that "permanently disfigure or cause death" or something.

Happens here also. Hell, it happens everywhere.

last edited by Syco at 03:52:20 26/May/09

I like how we can use torture to get information out of a alleged terrorist, but not a gay translator

john stewart is simply a typical hollywood liberal. so trendy and cool. as for calling truman a war criminal for bombing hiroshima, what a joke.

as for calling truman a war criminal for bombing hiroshima, what a joke.

A) I think in today’s terms setting off a nuke in a city would be seen as a war crime. If W had nuked Baghdad it would have been unnecessary in an age when the claim is you can hit a doorknob from 1000km away. In WW2 the justification was different, BUT:
B) Even former defense secretary Robert McNamara would disagree with you to some extent. This clip is from a documentary he was in (The Fog of War) in which he details some of the tactics used on Japanese civilians including firebombing a long list of cities (which did in total much more damage than both nukes combined). He wouldn't be defense secretary till the JFK administration, but under General LeMay he was behind the scenes working on these strategies in WW2. At the end he admits if the US had lost they would have been prosecuted as war criminals. But to cut to the point, the winners get to decide who the war criminals are and they won. If Japan had hypothetically managed to regroup and win the war do you think Truman wouldn't have been charged as a War Criminal?

john stewart is simply a typical hollywood liberal. so trendy and cool. as for calling truman a war criminal for bombing hiroshima, what a joke.

did you even watch that interview? Have you ever watched the Daily Show? He's really, really intelligent - in addition to being hilarious and trendy and cool, he's really smart and knows f***ing everything about what he talks about. There's a great interview (which I've looked for and can't find) where he tears the s*** out of someone on CNN or Fox or something when HE is getting interviewed on their show.

I've never actually thought of Truman being a war criminal, but if your definition for war criminal includes the slaying of tens of thousands of civilians, then I'd say he'd probably fit in there. I don't think anyone would argue that dropping the bomb DIDN'T save lives in the long run, but the other thing Stewart said is an interesting point - maybe if they'd fired a warning shot it might've had the same result, without the loss of life.

Of course douchebags that don't know anything about World War 2 often focus on the massive loss of life of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Regular bombing in Europe and Japan killed as more, if not many people, including the firebombing of Tokyo. That was just such a different place and the world was so different its hard to judge it by today's standards - if (either) Bush had firebombed Baghdad at the start, people would be calling for his blood as a war criminal before the fires even went out.

So, my point is, if you're going to call Truman a war criminal, you have to call Hitler one too (no brainer) and then Churchill and everyone else who ordered bombing of civilians. Interestingly, the whole bombing-of-civilian-centres started pretty much as an accident in WW2 - the Germans accidentally dropped some bombs close to London, then the Brits retaliated in Berlin, then it just escalated from there.

I don't want to sound like a rabid blind Stewart supporter; sometimes he does say things that I disagree with or I find pointless. But on this interview I think his position is very solid and it's hard for me to disagree with, ESPECIALLY in light of the bulls*** carried out by the last administration in the US.

is this the one trog? ignore the 20sec intro.

sounds to me like troggles has a big old man crush on jon stewart

Fog of war is a good documentary.

However, comparing nukes from 60 years ago is a poor comparison. Modern western society has come forward a long way since then.

So, my point is, if you're going to call Truman a war criminal, you have to call Hitler one too (no brainer) and then Churchill and everyone else who ordered bombing of civilians. Interestingly, the whole bombing-of-civilian-centres started pretty much as an accident in WW2 - the Germans accidentally dropped some bombs close to London, then the Brits retaliated in Berlin, then it just escalated from there.

So they blow up some civilians, we invade, kill randoms (it happens in war), we lock up more randoms and torture them until they tell us Elvis is alive and working in Islamabad.

Question is how do they now escalate it ?

I say do what you need to do to reach your goals. If a few people get hurt along the way who f***ing cares? Kill or be killed as they say. Life works that way, always has always will.

I watched the interview. Unfortunately it wasn't really an interview of the guest. It was more like a lecture TO the guest.

If he wants to grandstand his position on his show then fine - it's his show. But if he wants to continually interrupt and disrupt the guest from him making his point to get some laughs then that's just rude.

Stewart's a funny guy. He gives it to both sides. But aside from making fun of the politics of the matter, he sounded a bit weak reverting to the Geneva Convention (like any liberal I guess), given that the Al Quaeda operatives in question were not prisoners of war but enemy combatants. Nor did he actually outline his position on what interrogation methods were permitted.

If he wants to grandstand his position on his show

Yes, I reckon Stewart is going a bit Alan Alda / late MASH years on us. He is generally on the money but I think post-bush he has somewhat struggled to manage his own sense of relevance to the 'political discourse'. ie. His ego needs to adapt.

He is generally on the money but I think post-bush he has somewhat struggled to manage his own sense of relevance to the 'political discourse'. ie. His ego needs to adapt.

Heh, how often do you watch the show?

But if he wants to continually interrupt and disrupt the guest from him making his point to get some laughs then that's just rude.

I think they both gave as good as they got; I learned as much from the other guy as possible. It's worth noting that Daily Show made the WHOLE INTERVIEW available online to give that guy as much time to express his opinion to everyone as possible. Not many other ACTUAL REAL news shows would do that. You sound like the a******s in that video taggs posted accusing Stewart of not being a serious reporter - he's a f***ing comedian, the whole point of what he does is to point out the ridiculousness of the media and that video was a CLASSIC example of it; even while Stewart is telling those guys "hey don't be dicks", they continued to do the EXACT SORT OF DICKERY that he was trying to explain to them! WTF!

given that the Al Quaeda operatives in question were not prisoners of war but enemy combatants. Nor did he actually outline his position on what interrogation methods were permitted.

He didn't because he was interrupted, iirc.

What, why were they not prisoners of war?

Prisoners of war are associated to a national army. Al Qaeda is not a national army, they are a terrorist organisation.

why were they not prisoners of war

Yeh I have to agree with the inf on that one.

POW protections are not as altruistic as people commonly think; its more a form of reciprocity than anything else.

Terrorist organisations (much like any private militia) are not signatories to the Geneva and Hague conventions, so their combatants are not covered by the accords.

Heh, how often do you watch the show?

uh, daily, from about 2003? At least a couple of years before Colbert Report. Bizarrely, that shouldn't lend or remove any additional credibility to what I'm saying, but, if you recall he repeatedly took the piss out of himself and the show, about what they would do after the election / inauguration. Now, there's no more cheap-easy material to throw towards a unified audience.

Don't get me wrong; it's an awesome show and he does us a _real_ service by providing some rational and bulls*** free perspective, but in my opinion, now that the common enemy has been stripped, there's definitely an element of agenda from him. I'm not saying he's a crank, but what about that 15 minute tirade he made against the guy from 'mad money' ? Ok the guy probably deserved it but throughout that whole interview (especially the latter) it was like Jon was the cheerleeder for the 'hah, hah, hah, I f***ing told you so!' movement. I want solutions, not speeches from Mt Sinai!

Terrorist organisations (much like any private militia) are not signatories to the Geneva and Hague conventions, so their combatants are not covered by the accords.

Well yes and no. Its Perspective.

The Geneva convention was expanded to include civilians aiding in combat.
Hence the phrase "illegal combatants".
what makes them illegal ?

a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly

So a sniper in a yowie suit would be an illegal combatant (they aren't visible from a distance at all never mind a marking/uniform). Yet we would expect them to be treated as PoWs

A militia is fine as long as they have a chain of command, wear a uniform (even if it happens to just be a red bandanna), and carries its weapons openly.

It must churn the insides of the media elite in the US that Obama is going to turn out a bigger, more rhetoric-driven failure than even Bush Jnr!

linky

s*** I thought Bush was hopeless but Obama is just as clueless and even worse at managing money.

How about addressing the questions raised rather than trying to deflect and troll?

I have addressed every issue under discussion. WTF you smoking?

Heh, how often do you watch the show?

uh, daily, from about 2003? At least a couple of years before Colbert Report. Bizarrely, that shouldn't lend or remove any additional credibility to what I'm saying, but, if you recall he repeatedly took the piss out of himself and the show, about what they would do after the election / inauguration. Now, there's no more cheap-easy material to throw towards a unified audience.

It doesn't really, its just that I don't think he's struggling to retain relevance at all - there's still just such vast amounts of ridiculousness in the American legal system I think he has plenty of ammo. In fact I find the stuff now almost more interesting than the pre-Obama days, because there's just less s*** about what a retard Bush was. That Republican tea party thing was some funny s*** (especially the John Oliver segment).

Don't get me wrong; it's an awesome show and he does us a _real_ service by providing some rational and bulls*** free perspective, but in my opinion, now that the common enemy has been stripped, there's definitely an element of agenda from him. I'm not saying he's a crank, but what about that 15 minute tirade he made against the guy from 'mad money' ? Ok the guy probably deserved it but throughout that whole interview (especially the latter) it was like Jon was the cheerleeder for the 'hah, hah, hah, I f***ing told you so!' movement. I want solutions, not speeches from Mt Sinai!

I only vaguely remember that segment but what I do recall was that it was basically just him saying its no wonder the economy crashed when people are listening to stuff like that. IIRC he actually had the Mad Money guy on TV later and asked him why he was wrong about so much stuff - I found that pretty interesting, but don't remember the details.

I just think it's the best show on television (for Americans) and wish that everyone would watch it. Regardless of whether Stewart is personally right or wrong about issues he exposes so much of the bulls*** in the American media and I think it really, really, really encourages critical thinking, an ability most people sadly lack.

ANYWAY, off topic. I don't think Stewart is god, but he's pretty f***ing close to it. Compare that to the Australia types we get like him in similar roles: Rove. Ha.

Prisoners of war are associated to a national army. Al Qaeda is not a national army, they are a terrorist organisation.

oh, right, you were talking definitions

I guess what I really mean is, "should we let anyone be tortured", because as soon as you start, where do you draw the line (again I'm just parroting s*** Stewart said here, dammit)

I have addressed every issue under discussion. WTF you smoking?

I believe most or all of these were directed at points you made.

And exactly what part of the last step of getting someone a 'little wet' relates to waterboarding one person 183 times in a single month. Didn't work the 182 times previously, but surely the 183rd will.

If Japan had hypothetically managed to regroup and win the war do you think Truman wouldn't have been charged as a War Criminal?

Important distinction here between would he have been vs would it have been right to charge him.

Have you ever watched the Daily Show?

Nevermind, you kind of addressed this one.

So they blow up some civilians, we invade, kill randoms (it happens in war), we lock up more randoms and torture them until they tell us Elvis is alive and working in Islamabad.

Question is how do they now escalate it ?


what makes them illegal ?

last edited by Chakas at 13:02:34 26/May/09

Agreed. Hyper-polarized media bias is just ridiculous these days to the point of the industry needing regulation. Of course, then you end up with situations like state run news that only portrays the government in a positive light, so... yeah. But just look at rubbish like Fox and CNN, it's crazy. Even Keith Olbermann does go overboard a bit at times, despite how right he might be. News.com.au is the same here, though they've turned more tabloid than anything.

I can't help but think the ultimate news reporting team would consist of Penn Jillette, Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann ;)

Even though Stewart provides insightful commentary he is still part of the media. Treating journos as god-like authorities is pointless.

They don't risk anything in the debate, they win every which way. One thing I admired in Maxine McCue and Scott Emerson (new Qld MP) is that they put their money where their mouth is so to speak and jumped into the arena. Good for them.

In order to preserve our great democracy we have to protect the terrorists and let them spread terror.

Great. No wonder they laugh at us.

The ridicules thing about this if we just f***ed off out of the middle east they would be to busy killing each other to attack our "democracy".

That Republican tea party thing was some funny s*** (especially the John Oliver segment).

Heh, that was pretty cool.. And Dimitri and Kristen should be on more often!

I guess what I really mean is, "should we let anyone be tortured", because as soon as you start, where do you draw the line (again I'm just parroting s*** Stewart said here, dammit)

Well, as a parallel, where would you draw the line on Abortion?

In that case, clearly there are exceptions to both sides of the 'never ever' or the 'kill-em-all' argument. The truth is, if you parrot the company line, you leave yourself open to criticism which, as you say, is exactly the mantra the show tries to drill into it's audience. I think there are exceptions that stuff I don't want to know about is justified.

How one accounts for this is anyone's guess...

And exactly what part of the last step of getting someone a 'little wet' relates to waterboarding one person 183 times in a single month. Didn't work the 182 times previously, but surely the 183rd will.

Hey if the terrorist f***er taunts that he knows how civilians will be killed but won't give it up, then s*** might get ugly.

If Japan had hypothetically managed to regroup and win the war do you think Truman wouldn't have been charged as a War Criminal?

Hey let's think up hypotheticals all day long. It's fun!

Have you ever watched the Daily Show?

I watch it from time to time but it gets a bit repetitive. I wait for the Internet to find the good bits.

So they blow up some civilians, we invade, kill randoms (it happens in war), we lock up more randoms and torture them until they tell us Elvis is alive and working in Islamabad.

Question is how do they now escalate it ?

I dont think anything should be escalated. You can't really escalate against anyone in assymetrical warfare, you can only respond and try to prevent. But intelligence is vital to this, and interrogation is a vital part of intelligence.

The ridicules thing about this if we just f***ed off out of the middle east they would be to busy killing each other to attack our "democracy".

I agree with you. It's hard for politicians. It's like trying to get away from those Ace's you're holding even when you know you're beat.

last edited by infi at 13:12:09 26/May/09

Hey if the terrorist f***er taunts that he knows how civilians will be killed but won't give it up, then s*** might get ugly.

But if it were a recognised soldier as opposed to an 'enemy combatant' this wouldn't be allowed under the Geneva Conventions. To suggest people have different rights based on whether or not their view is officially endorsed by a government somewhere around the world is a pretty grey area to be getting into. Both at the base of it all are human beings but one is allowed to be put through torture based on the fact they couldn't find an unhinged world leader to fight for?

Hey let's think up hypotheticals all day long. It's fun!

Except when it undermines your point in which case you avoid it?

I dont think anything should be escalated.

The point is the enemy will almost always escalate based on the fact their people are being mistreated. “Hate begets hate, violence begets violence.”

last edited by Chakas at 14:09:28 26/May/09

But if it were a recognised soldier as opposed to an 'enemy combatant' this wouldn't be allowed under the Geneva Conventions. To suggest people have different rights based on whether or not their view is officially endorsed by a government somewhere around the world is a pretty grey area to be getting into. Both at the base of it all are human beings but one is allowed to be put through torture based on the fact they couldn't find an unhinged world leader to fight for?

Your point is solid from an altruistic perspective, but ignores the fact that your rights as a human being are determined 100% by your citizenship and where on the planet you happen to be at any moment in time.

For example, when you enter another country, you waive almost all of your rights as a citizen of your own, asid from whatever consular support the Government has negotiated with the country in question.

There is no binding global agreement of what constitutes fundamental human rights. The best we've seen is a lot of noise on the issue from the UN about what accords covering human rights should look like.

What constitutes appropriate behaviour to combatants is just one aspect of this.

last edited by Hogfather at 14:20:11 26/May/09

To suggest people have different rights based on whether or not their view is officially endorsed by a government somewhere around the world is a pretty grey area to be getting into.

The enemy combatants having specifically repudiated the rules of war, may not rely on the Convention.

The enemy combatants having specifically repudiated the rules of war, may not rely on the Convention.

Right... as we've seen though the "winning" country will just modify its "rules" of war to let them do whatever they want. Are insurgents enemy combatants or terrorists? How do you tell the difference?

The enemy combatants having specifically repudiated the rules of war, may not rely on the Convention.

You realise that this holds true for both sides.
As such, no country need honour them when dealing with the US.

As was mentioned by someone supporting your point of view, PoW conventions are more about reciprocity then anything else.

Insurgents conducting domestic operations will be treated according to their own domestic laws.

The US in Iraq and Afghanistan are not domestic.

No one is saying the US are insurgents. Trog was referring to the rights of insurgents as either enemy combatants or prisoners of war and I reply "neither".

Sure they are terrorists, but they are a subject to domestic laws not international ones.

Well they are only insurgents if you accept that the US is there at the request of new Iraqi government and that the new government are a constituted authority. Which obviously these insurgents feel isn't (*TYPO FIX *) the case, as well as some other places.

Its all a matter of perspective.

The Francs-tireurs from the franco-prussian wars (its where the spanish word for sniper comes from) was not dissimilar...
And they resulted in some special clauses in the Hague convention.

last edited by Obes at 15:53:49 26/May/09

Insurgents conducting domestic operations will be treated according to their own domestic laws.

even when they're taken out of that country and stored in, oh, let's pick a place at random - Guantanamo Bay?

Insurgents are imprisoned at Guantanamo? That's news to me.

Insurgents are imprisoned at Guantanamo? That's news to me.

I don't know if there's any actual Iraqi insurgents there. Would you be surprised if there was? I wouldn't... but anyway, my point is that under this stupid anti-terror campaign, the US will just take anyone that they want to throw the label "terrorist" on and use that to do whatever they feel like.

Creating an arbitrary distinction between these two groups and then saying on one you can use more extreme measures will just encourage more people to get labeled that way, surely.

wasn't the distinction created specifically so they could label people how they want and thus do to them 'legally' what they want? thats always what it seemed to me, i hadn't heard of the 'illegal combatant' or whatever it is, before the war on terror (didn't bush declare war on al qaeda, and wouldn't that make enemies then prisoners of the 'war'?)

More water boarding

Insurgents are imprisoned at Guantanamo? That's news to me.

Well which ones are PoWs? which are illegal combatants in a war zone ? and which ones were insurgents ?

I know lets waterboard them until they tell us!

Infi I was just wondering if you consider these two statements a little self defeating

Terrorists have no moral compass and should be eradicated. Terrorists are philosophically (even religiously) committed to chaos, terror and the harming of innocents.

Do you think terrorists give a f*** about us or our rules? Whether it be a crazed Die Hard 3 style terrorist or a suicide bomber? They don't give a s*** about life, their own lives are worthless to them.

To expound a little, on the grounds that they don't know us or our rules we reserve the right to eradicate them? Surely that legitimates them imposing the exact same on us?

It seems clear that claiming a religious zealot has no moral compass is ridiculous claim to make. I would in fact say that he has a highly refined moral compass or at least as refined as your own. You can legitimise slaughtering them with out mercy, seems reasonable to suggest you don't consider yourself with out a moral compass.

Whether it be a crazed Die Hard 3 style terrorist or a suicide bomber?

Have you even seen Die Hard 3, btw?!

torture may yield results in the short-run, but is likely to increase the number of enemies/terrorists/whatever over the long-term. look at the direct connection between US foreign policy over the last 50 years and the foreign policy problems they face today. the law of unintended consequences is a powerful concept.

regardless of the legal and moral problems with condoning torture (of which there are many), i'd just like to point out noone has responded to my point earlier.

It seems clear that claiming a religious zealot has no moral compass is ridiculous claim to make. I would in fact say that he has a highly refined moral compass...

I would suggest it's a very poorly refined moral compass if it's one that permits the killing of civillians to further political/religious objectives.

Have you even seen Die Hard 3, btw?!

Ahh Jeremy Irons, not the best example as he is just stealing a bunch of gold so I will revert to Jonas "Patriot" Hodges from this season of 24.

torture may yield results in the short-run, but is likely to increase the number of enemies/terrorists/whatever over the long-term. look at the direct connection between US foreign policy over the last 50 years and the foreign policy problems they face today. the law of unintended consequences is a powerful concept.

I think you could rather attribute that outlook to the Middle East's view of Westerners ever since the Crusades, then the creation of Israel and most recently the two Iraq wars. The approach to interrogation is a minute aspect (perhaps not even part of) foreign policy as such.

last edited by infi at 17:58:03 26/May/09

i'm being more specific.

such as the US sanctioned revolution in Iran leading to the best opportunity for islamic democracy in the middle east (beside Turkey) going to waste.

such as the US arming insurgents in Afganistan then wondering why they don't behave.

i don't think the morals of the situation are as black and white as john stewart. i just think that today's foreign policy problems were created decades ago. what foreign policy problems are we, as the developed world, creating in decades to come by condoning torture today?

Spoiler:
the answer is that we don't know! can i get a 'hell yeah!' for the law of unintended consequences!!!


edit: infi, surely you understand where i'm coming from. you constantly rail against the short-sightedness of american (and australian) fiscal and monetary policy. can't you see how these foreign policies are just as short sighted, with potentially even worse consequences?

last edited by taggs at 18:14:53 26/May/09

torture may yield results in the short-run, but is likely to increase the number of enemies/terrorists/whatever over the long-term. look at the direct connection between US foreign policy over the last 50 years and the foreign policy problems they face today. the law of unintended consequences is a powerful concept.

Isn't there data backing up that torture is just unreliable in most cases anyway?

How many people here would tell them whatever the hell you thought they wanted to know just to get out of there?

Well the collective West's compass is cool with it. Just because we call it collateral damage doesn't make it not killing innocent people.

Let me quote Osama real quick

"As I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."

from Wikipedia article but quoting the Al Jazeera press release in 04

Sounds strangely familiar.

I think that a compass that allows the killing of certain people in certain situations is evidence of refinement.

Terrorists don't walk into their own home and blow themselves up. When terrorists blow something up it is a carefully selected target with a carefully laid out plan.

Isn't there data backing up that torture is just unreliable in most cases anyway?

How many people here would tell them whatever the hell you thought they wanted to know just to get out of there?

i say it 'may' yield results in the sense that it may, or may not. that is a good point though and has been raised by quite a few people already in this thread.

hypothetically speaking, if we accept that torture does yield short-term intelligence results, my point still stands.

Out of interest, what information of value would someone captured in 2001/2002 have ?

Osama uses the word Oppressor and you use the word Terrorist. I don't see the difference.

infi, surely you understand where i'm coming from. you constantly rail against the short-sightedness of american (and australian) fiscal and monetary policy. can't you see how these foreign policies are just as short sighted, with potentially even worse consequences?

we are dealing with a right here right now. you have in your possession an individual who admits they have vital relevant information relating to an imminent terror attack, and they withhold that information.

do you use all reasonable interrogation methods or not?

Out of interest, what information of value would someone captured in 2001/2002 have ?

I guess they would still know some operations but surely the faces and places would have changed by now?

The US in Iraq and Afghanistan are not domestic.

I believe technically they both were at some point.

Out of interest, what information of value would someone captured in 2001/2002 have ?

What would have happened if this bloke had been captured a on September 10, 2001?

And I don't think Sept 11 was their final move, I'd imagine there were more things planned to follow. Oct 12 2002, for example. Who knows, maybe somethings were actually stopped as a result. Jon Stewart is a moron if he thinks its morally pure to ignore an obviously wishy-washy technique which could save thousands of lives. Yeah its a bit machiavellian, but it doesn't exactly put the US on the same level as a group who killed 3000 civilians in a single terrorist act. Anyone who can somehow equate torture of a prisoner to mass murder of civilians is clearly thinking in black and white. The truth isn't anywhere near as simple as that.

Also, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings war crimes? They were both significant targets from a military point of view, not quite Pearl Harbor, but still they made their point. A pretty stupid thing to say, and clearly he realised it.

What would have happened if this bloke had been captured a on September 10, 2001?

And I don't think Sept 11 was their final move, I'd imagine there were more things planned to follow. Oct 12 2002, for example. Who knows, maybe somethings were actually stopped as a result. Jon Stewart is a moron if he thinks its morally pure to ignore an obviously wishy-washy technique which could save thousands of lives. Yeah its a bit machiavellian, but it doesn't exactly put the US on the same level as a group who killed 3000 civilians in a single terrorist act. Anyone who can somehow equate torture of a prisoner to mass murder of civilians is clearly thinking in black and white. The truth isn't anywhere near as simple as that.

I think he's asking what the good of torturing someone captured in 2001 is in present times.

It *could* save thousands of lives. It also *could* just be putting totally innocent human beings through a great deal of suffering.

we are dealing with a right here right now. you have in your possession an individual who admits they have vital relevant information relating to an imminent terror attack, and they withhold that information.

do you use all reasonable interrogation methods or not?

define reasonable.

your mum!

I've got a feeling no individual would admit he has vital information that he didn't intend on handing over without having his legs broken :)

I mean honestly, we can't be all that bright if that's what we're up against.

It *could* save thousands of lives. It also *could* just be putting totally innocent human beings through a great deal of suffering.

Yeah but isn't that the concept of the "greater good". Aka, doing something that's morally wrong for a just cause.

Even the criminal justice system isn't defined in absolutes. It comes down to "beyond reasonable doubt". The wrong people go to jail all the time.

In this case a guilty person was put through a great deal of suffering to try save innocent lives. I think if you weigh each arguement on your scales of morality then the potential for good (and from what has leaked out it was a lot more than potential) was greater than the bad.

That being the case, terrorists have no respect for human life and once they start using terror to further their political objects I say we go medieval on the mutherf***ers. Also Jack Bauer approved. I wish he used waterboarding in the latest season.

Can't be bothered reading the rest of the thread, but I really hope you're being facetious, or you're a f***ing idiot.

this is also worth a read:

Alexander is a former Special Operations interrogator who worked in Iraq in 2006. His op-ed is worth reading:

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

(emphasis mine) - also

His book How to Break a Terrorist is a compelling account of the American military’s turn from highly coercive interrogation techniques, which proved consistently unproductive, to confidence-building approaches honed over decades in the American law-enforcement community, which achieved steady success.

Worth a read

Jon Stewart is a moron if he thinks its morally pure to ignore an obviously wishy-washy technique which could save thousands of lives.

As far as I can tell the only people who seem to be supporting torture as an proactive form of policy is ignorant f***wit republicans and internet heroes. If you listen to people who've actively served in the military on this topic the vast majority of them are saying that it isn't reliable and it isn't as viable as other forms of interrogation techniques. Hmm, f***wit republicans and internet heroes or special forces veterans who should we believe?

machiavellian

Have you read his work?

Also, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings war crimes? They were both significant targets from a military point of view, not quite Pearl Harbor, but still they made their point. A pretty stupid thing to say, and clearly he realised it.

The problem with WWII is that it was a total war scenario, not whatever this "War on Terrorism" is. As such, it makes it very difficult to attack, or for that matter defend, actions like the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki with current morality and perception.

Even the criminal justice system isn't defined in absolutes. It comes down to "beyond reasonable doubt". The wrong people go to jail all the time.

Except we try and prevent that with checks and balances. Suspects have to get arrested, go to court and have evidence that shows that they were guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Again, if you got arrested for a crime you did or did not commit, would it be fair for the police to water-board you for a confession?

Have you read his work?

Haha, have you? Or did you just have to google to find out what i meant?

Except we try and prevent that with checks and balances. Suspects have to get arrested, go to court and have evidence that shows that they were guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Again, if you got arrested for a crime you did or did not commit, would it be fair for the police to water-board you for a confession?

Where has it ever been said that waterboarding was used to get a confession?

Where was it suggested that people who have been waterboarded are guilty of anything ?
These interogations are outside the law. They use loopholes.

I mean this technique has an interesting list of users
Spanish Inquisition
Kempeitai
Gestapo
Pinochet
Khmer Rouge
America

The US charged and tried Japanese people with "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War" for "Water torture" ie. water boarding.
And they have convicted US cops for using it to get confessions.

Until the people of The West understand that their Wealth and Affluence comes from the Servitude and Theft of the 3rd World, Terrorism will never be understood by Whitefellas.

But Whitefellas are breeding out.
Soon the Whitefellas will become the Terrorists.
Maybe they already are ?

Where was it suggested that people who have been waterboarded are guilty of anything ?

That's irrelevant. It's not about justice. It wasn't about convictions. It was about eliminating a threat. They apparently had information, the american's sometimes used torture to get it.

Superficially you are correct, but the circumstances are very different. So yeah, you're wrong again.

Haha, have you? Or did you just have to google to find out what i meant?

1- Amateur deflection. Next time if you have the option of being a man and just answering the question or acting like a fag caught in headlights at least pretend that you're a man.

2- The reason why I asked is that I wanted you to clarify why you used the term in a strange way. Sure, Machiavelli would have supported torture, but so would have any leader during that period of life.

To answer your question, I haven't read all of his popular work only the prince and the art of war. I read them during high school.

Where has it ever been said that waterboarding was used to get a confession?

So, you didn't read Machiavelli?

So yeah, you're wrong again.

Cognitive dissonance is strong with you.

I think nF knows something that I don't. Can I torture him ?

That's irrelevant. It's not about justice. It wasn't about convictions. It was about eliminating a threat. They apparently had information, the american's sometimes used torture to get it.

Superficially you are correct, but the circumstances are very different. So yeah, you're wrong again.

So you obviously don't feel that habeas corpus applies.

2- The reason why I asked is that I wanted you to clarify why you used the term in a strange way. Sure, Machiavelli would have supported torture, but so would have any leader during that period of life.

what? machavellian is the concept that sometimes you have to do bad things in order to generally do good. as in that the end result *can* justify the means you got there with. i wasn't quoting someone from the 15th century or whatever to say "torture is ok".

heres the whole quote again:

And I don't think Sept 11 was their final move, I'd imagine there were more things planned to follow. Oct 12 2002, for example. Who knows, maybe somethings were actually stopped as a result. Jon Stewart is a moron if he thinks its morally pure to ignore an obviously wishy-washy technique which could save thousands of lives. Yeah its a bit machiavellian, but it doesn't exactly put the US on the same level as a group who killed 3000 civilians in a single terrorist act. Anyone who can somehow equate torture of a prisoner to mass murder of civilians is clearly thinking in black and white. The truth isn't anywhere near as simple as that.

anything click yet?

So you obviously don't feel that habeas corpus applies.

I think that indefinate detention is a good thing in some of these cases yeah.

On the other hand is it ok to lock someone up for the charge of conspiracy if they had no capability to commit the act? In effect they did no wrong, but are treated as though they had.

nF ...
You seem to get stuck at this point a lot. The need to be right. A topic like this is right or wrong depending on where you sit.

You believe an end justifies the means at any cost.

I don't.
We have checks and balances and a legal system in place because we expect a certain level of behaviour from our government.

If protecting lives is all that matters why don't we waterboard drink drivers, street racers, drug dealers and bikies ? what is the magical line in the sand where torture becomes ok ?

blowing bombs up in crowded public places, flying passenger jets into skyscrapers

to name a few

lol

blowing bombs up in crowded public places, flying passenger jets into skyscrapers

to name a few

Wikipedia

According to the FBI, however, between the years of 1980 and 2000, 250 of the 335 incidents confirmed as or suspected to be terrorist acts in the United States were carried out by American citizens.

How many Americans belonging to domestic terrorist organisations do you think have been waterboarded? They've blown up plenty of stuff and have plans to do more. Do they get tortured?

Arguably, criminals cause more deaths in Australia than terrorist attacks. Like, that's just statistics. I don't have the numbers, but I know it's true because the number of people that have died in Australia due to terrorist attacks is zero. And the number of people that have died due to criminal activity, is > 0.

Therefore, it makes more sense for us to torture criminals because it might save more lives than it would for terrorists.

Same is true in the US by the looks, with 16,929 murders in 2007 alone.

blowing bombs up in crowded public places, flying passenger jets into skyscrapers

But the people who were waterboarded, weren't even charged with doing that.

If it's fine etc etc.
Pass laws that say it is. Set the legal boundaries and framework. train people in how to do it properly. ie. Provide legal protections for the people being told to do it.
Do it on home soil, don't play with legal weasel words and do it in Cuba or 3rd party countries.

If you can't do that ... then it's obviously not acceptable if not illegal.

My points condensed

1) Letting morals slip a little at a time is not worth the risk
2) Whatever you say is "okay" will always be found a different way to use them and say its "okay"
3) When you say its "okay" once, it will near forever be "okay". Is it worth saving 100's 1000's or even millions of lives now, for an entire future of torture being okay?
4) Do you really think they don't already torture people? They just do it secretly now. But all this is to change is to allow them to admit they tortured someone to use as evidence.
5) Is there really enough research in this area to PROVE without a doubt there is no better way to go about this? Every alternative is worse then this? Has other alternatives really been considered enough? Is this just an easy quick fix?
6) What happens when they torture someone who was completely innocent who was a wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time?
7) What happens when someone admits to something they didn't do to stop torture?
8) What happens when someone eventually dies from this? Cardiac arrest etc?

So many points its not easy enough to say yes to. My biggest concern is actually number 5. Everyone is either like "You have to torture because otherwise you're letting them kill us" which is just a huge stretch. Its not "torture or let them kill us" its "torture, or the next best alternative".

Really I don't know what the next best alternative is so I don't think I can give any strong input. Otherwise i'd vote for the alternative if its even remotely humane.

edit: grr

last edited by skythra at 13:28:55 27/May/09

Obes: our work here is done.

People say that crashing planes into buildings is crossing a line, but to me a supposedly 'civilised' government openly conducting torture to gather information is crossing an even bigger line.

last edited by fpot at 19:58:09 27/May/09

Therefore, it makes more sense for us to torture suspected criminals because it might save more lives than it would for terrorism.

To say that a terrorist can use whatever means they deem necessary to complete their objective of killing civilians, and then also say that a government cannot defend its citizens using whatever means are necessary is naive and idealistic.

In real war, you do what it takes to win and don't stop.

It's all trendy when Obama or KRudd say they are going to do everything in their arensal to spend now and "stimulate" the economy, when in fact they are convicting future taxpayers to future generations of economic slavery.

But when Cheney or whoever says they waterboarded a self-confessed terrorist all of a sudden we are selling democracy out.

No, by failing to protect our citizens we are selling democracy out and selling our country out.

Liberals are so obsessed with defending the rights of the guilty. 99% of our population arer law-abiding citizens and deserve to be protected.

What the f*** infi? Are you really that stupid? You compare Krudd making (in your opinion) unsound financial decisions to the US openly supporting torture? Boggling.

edit: I did like the way you made 'unsound financial decisions' sound so dramatic though... 'years of financial slavery' lol (I don't often say lol unironically)




last edited by fpot at 20:19:17 27/May/09

To say that a terrorist can use whatever means they deem necessary to complete their objective of killing civilians, and then also say that a government cannot defend its citizens using whatever means are necessary is naive and idealistic.

yeh... I sort of think that's the difference between "them" and "us".

They're f***heads, we're not - right?

yeah we are so superior and cultured and stuff. makes up for all the dead civilians.

Arguably, criminals cause more deaths in Australia than terrorist attacks. Like, that's just statistics. I don't have the numbers, but I know it's true because the number of people that have died in Australia due to terrorist attacks is zero. And the number of people that have died due to criminal activity, is > 0.

I'm guessing you are ignoring Bali because it didn't happen in Australia, even though Australians were specifically targeted. Also, do you believe that torturing a meth addict that killed someone during a robbery is the same thing as torturing someone who planned the mass murder of thousands of Americans (and apparently hundreds of Australians too)?

I think you are confusing torture with punishment.

But the people who were waterboarded, weren't even charged with doing that.

As best I can tell all of them have.

As best I can tell all of them have.

Well you'd be wrong.
The second most waterboarded person by the US.
Abu Zubaydah waterboarded 83 times in 1 month. Charged with nothing.

The accusations suggest he is a pretty bad apple... but still not charged

I'm guessing you are ignoring Bali because it didn't happen in Australia, even though Australians were specifically targeted. Also, do you believe that torturing a meth addict that killed someone during a robbery is the same thing as torturing someone who planned the mass murder of thousands of Americans (and apparently hundreds of Australians too)?

I think that could be loading a little bit there NF. Timothy McVeigh didn't get tortured and he planned and more importantly executed the mass killing of innocent civilians.

The Washington Sniper didn't get tortured and he planned to kill as many people as he could before he was caught.

The argument here doesn't seem to be that torture is something America can't do it clearly can.

The argument here is that America can torture and keep the moral high ground. If you say torture is necessary then you are clearly operating on a "what ever it takes to win" policy which you decry in terrorists.

Put very simply if terrorists are evil for adopting "what ever it takes to win"
then America has to be too.

And those aren't even the best examples. There are plenty of domestic terrorist groups in the US that exactly the same rational for torture could be applied to, as with the international groups we're referring to here. In fact an argument for a greater need to torture domestic terrorists could be made as the majority if not all members are already in the country and therefore could be a more imminent threat. Instead only external terrorists that aren't part of an army are subjected to torture, and only then by exploiting loopholes and carrying it out outside of the US.

last edited by Chakas at 22:54:37 27/May/09

I think that could be loading a little bit there NF. Timothy McVeigh didn't get tortured and he planned and more importantly executed the mass killing of innocent civilians.

The Washington Sniper didn't get tortured and he planned to kill as many people as he could before he was caught.

Yeah, but they aren't equivalents. They were individuals, although they both had assistance. Once they were arrested they couldn't carry out any more attacks. No information they had could have prevented further attacks (because there couldn't be any more), and they also had no reason to withhold information. There would be no reason to torture. The only information they needed was what they needed to get a conviction. Aka, piecing together what had happened.

On the other hand, the captured de facto leader of a terrorist organisation is going to have loads of stupidly important pieces of information on methods, localities and even future targets. And clearly they got quite a lot out of them. They are absolutely not equivalent to those individual domestic terrorists with regards to the info they had. The dangers which lead to the torture of those men was in the future, real or imagined. Lives were at risk.

Which is what I'm not getting here at all with everyone whos arguing with me (and infi, etc).

Heres the quandary:

You've captured someone who has planned and been a part of multiple acts of mass murder. You believe, and he is even hinting as such, that more attacks are imminent. Potentially tens, hundreds or thousands of lives could be lost if it happens. Do you do everything you possibly can to get the information or do you take the moral high ground. And the thing is, the choice isn't that easy. Yes, torture is a truely horrible thing, but if it produces good info it could stop a far, far more evil thing from happening.

Anyone still reading this thread, answer that one for me. Personally, I think standing back and indirectly allowing people to die when you could have done something, no matter how abhorrent it seems, to stop it is not at all the noble thing that you people seem to think it is. It's doing an evil thing, to stop an even more evil thing. I don't think it's the slippery slope of moral decay either. If a line in the sand which you will not cross is how you define morals, rather than saving a life (or many), then what good are your morals? What have you saved? Your f***ing soul?

Because lets put it in perspective, its putting someone through a hellish experience in order to save lives. What about parents who have a second child to save their first born child with leukaemia? The lines are blurry.

Anyone still reading this thread, answer that one for me. Personally, I think standing back and indirectly allowing people to die when you could have done something, no matter how abhorrent it seems, to stop it is not at all the noble thing that you people seem to think it is. It's doing an evil thing, to stop an even more evil thing. I don't think it's the slippery slope of moral decay either. If a line in the sand which you will not cross is how you define morals, rather than saving a life (or many), then what good are your morals? What have you saved? Your f***ing soul?

Because lets put it in perspective, its putting someone through a hellish experience in order to save lives. What about parents who have a second child to save their first born child with leukaemia? The lines are blurry.

Do you know how many major government decisions indirectly cause some people to die. Medicines not being medicare listed because of finanicial constraints is one example. Do you think life (and by extension governement) is a series of choices wherein you compromise on the least evil course? Is it really that simple?

If morals are not a line in the sand you don't go past then you fall into the absolute pointlessness of moral realitivism -- they become meaningless. Unless you simply accept things like "f***ing babies is *never* ok" then you just wind back up at a situation where some maniac takes 20 people hostage and says "You must f*** 10 babies infront of me or I will execute every one of my prisoners" -- and you would reason that we really should put those babies through some goold ol' fashioned "hellish experience" because there's a greater good to be had here.

You can't control the actions of other people. Maybe the psycho will kill them anyway, maybe he won't. Sometimes people are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Life is fragile, and all the deeds done for the greater good won't stop people from being killed. All that you accomplish when you sell out your morals in the name of the greater good, is just to lose your morals.

On a completely different tack -- my above scenario is useful for not just reaching some sort of reasoned conclusion, but is also a nice example of a strawman argument. A ludicrous situation that we never really expect to occur. But this exactly the cornerstone of your entire "ticking bomb" proposal. When can you possibly know you're in a ticking time bomb situation -- where you need to torture *now* to avert the disaster. How can you know that the guy you're f***ing over has any information at all that can help you? Why do you think you can trust anything he says at all once he starts singing like a canary after a round of torture?

Jesus nF, it's like you watch way too much 24, where these sorts of questions don't require answering because.. well, it's a TV show.

Lastly, you seem to have a real hard time understanding what a slippery slope is. Limitations are placed on the power of our government and its agencies to protect *us* the people. You can cry all you want that people who aren't committing crimes shouldn't be worried about gross invasions of privacy as it might save the 100's *gasp* of lives we *might* lose to terrorist activities. Who will be crying in 40 years when the incumbent government has such total access and control to everyone's movements that they can never be removed from power? Just how do you think it happens if not one *needed* *innocuous* *not possibly abused* step at a time?

-----

tldr version:

nF needs to watch less 24, stop being forum hero and use his brain

plok summed that up better than i could have. gg.

Haha, I don't even watch 24.

Yes, torture is a truely horrible thing, but if it produces good info it could stop a far, far more evil thing from happening.

Anyone still reading this thread, answer that one for me.

Sure, using your own logic of comparing outcomes lets take it further. So you torture someone and get enough info to save 1000 lives. Then the fact that the US uses torture is used as a powerful propaganda tool by fundamentalists recruiting 10000 more terrorists, capable of killing far more than 1000 people. So in the end you're behind in the lives saved column even having used torture.

Secondly domestic terrorists can belong to groups too as I pointed out in addition to the points you addressed. Why isn't the same standard used in relation to them?

nF you really don't get how dangerous what you are talking is.

What if they decide that people who speak out against the government are possibly planning something.

Before you know it the political opposition is locked up being waterboarded.

Separation of powers is an important check.

When soldiers/police/cia become investigator, judge, jury and possibly accidental executioner using any and all means to extract confessions and information all in the name of "freedom" with little to no public record, no trials, not even charges. That is a dangerous ledge you stand on. Its not far from that much power to some of the worst regimes modern times have seen.

Separation of powers is an important check.

i'm glad someone has blind faith in this supposed separation of powers

Some fine smacking down by plok

nF needs to watch less 24, stop being forum hero and use his brain

Perspective is really an interesting thing.

If you're an American, you walk around with a target permanently affixed to your body. Now, while justifiably there's some good reason for this, how would you feel if you, personally, were being constantly threatened by some 'freedom-fighter / terrorist'.

It's like Mel Brooks says: 'Tragedy is when I cut my finger, Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die'.

We can harp on about how impure and oh so wrong it is to do such things, but the world is an imperfect place and our lifestyle puts us right up the very top of the global foodchain. Hope to god this never happens, but imagine if October 12 happened a little closer to home. We'd be out for blood.

Who's the terrorist when we're talking about torture anyway?

they're the one threatening mass civilian casualties. i know liberals tend to forget this sometimes...

Ok, I couldn't be bothered to read alll the rest of the thread, but from what I gather it's either for or again waterboarding of terrorists yeah?

I think it needs to be pointed out that (iirc) torture and interrogation have been shown to actually not always provide real information. Not even because the person being tortured wants to lie, but because the process is so intense that they actually come to believe things that aren't true.
And yes, I will try to find my sources to back this up...(don't hold your breath tho).

So it comes down to a question of is there any point in torture, rather than is it moral or not, because if the answer to the 1st question is no, then the 2nd question becomes null and void.

they're the one threatening mass civilian casualties.

Like the members of domestic terrorist organisations that don't get tortured?

they're the one threatening mass civilian casualties. i know liberals tend to forget this sometimes...

How many civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan ? I know Liberals tend forget people with non white skin are humans too.

Perspective is really an interesting thing.

If you're an American, you walk around with a target permanently affixed to your body. Now, while justifiably there's some good reason for this, how would you feel if you, personally, were being constantly threatened by some 'freedom-fighter / terrorist'.

It's like Mel Brooks says: 'Tragedy is when I cut my finger, Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die'.

We can harp on about how impure and oh so wrong it is to do such things, but the world is an imperfect place and our lifestyle puts us right up the very top of the global foodchain. Hope to god this never happens, but imagine if October 12 happened a little closer to home. We'd be out for blood.

when was the last time that you, personally, were constantly threatened by a terrorist? i'm guessing that your sentance was poorly worded and you were asking how one would feel, personally, if they were subject to the threats of violence that terrorist organisations make towards the US and the west in general.

anyway, your post reminded me of a quote:

"Fear of harm ought to be proportional not merely to the gravity of the harm, but also to the probability of the event." La Logique ou l’Art de Penser - 1662-8

if some monks had that figured that out by the 17th century I would have hoped that we'd be pretty clued onto it by now.

also, it seems that the pro-torture crowd keep trying to turn the debate into a discussion about morality. they keep suggesting that it's simply whether you think the ends justify the means or not. they suggest that the anti-torture crowd are being too simplistic, that they are seeing things in black and white.

this argument is based on the assumption that the information gained through torture is useful. this assumption is extremely questionable. that's not even taking into account the problems such as the potential for future foreign policy problems by condoning torture or the logical absurdities in how the techniques are applied to some suspects of terrorism and not others. and that's BEFORE the ethics/morals of the sitution are even thought of.

so really, who is taking the simplistic approach with a neat set of simplifying assumptions and who is looking at the real world?

last edited by taggs at 12:55:34 28/May/09

My sentance was not poorly worded, no.

Anyway.
They did it, obviously at the time they thought it had merit, and now Obama says they're not doing it anymore. Yay.

Here's another awesome quote:

General principles should not be based on exceptional cases -- Robert J. Sawyer

Aren't there heaps (like, in the tens of thousands) of dead iraq civs because of the war? Wouldn't the terrorists use that to justify being terrorists the same way we use our dead civs to justify torture?

Torture is good.

It can get people to confess to a crime they didn't do!

Posted on page 1:

It doesn't work like that.

There ARE NO CASES where it's as simple as: Torture A to save B, C and D.

It's not as cut and dry as that.

Aaaaand the thread has done a full circle.

However most of the trolls (fade, alt_f4, frakture) have been weeded out so you guys need not worry about abusive posts. :)

Or maybe it's just those guys are too gutless to e-bully people who are older than them?

Wouldn't surprise me. :)

so really, who is taking the simplistic approach with a neat set of simplifying assumptions and who is looking at the real world?

that's a good question.

nF you really don't get how dangerous what you are talking is.

What if they decide that people who speak out against the government are possibly planning something.

Before you know it the political opposition is locked up being waterboarded.

case closed.

General principles should not be based on exceptional cases -- Robert J. Sawyer

seems to be that these were the exceptional cases. though that aussie Habib did claim to be tortured too, but then again he also claims he is innocent.

http://gawker.com/5272691/mancows-waterboarding-was-completely-fake

Just an article explaining that what they did in the Mancow thing was not waterboarding, and he was faking being distressed. What they did was just like looking up in the shower.

Thread Necromancer!

http://jarrettsblog.com/?p=909

Sniper talking about killing people in Iraq, and waterboarding