Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 137

Thread: Torturers R US?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    and the corollary is : anyone without a brain, asks for a definition


    I read a long in depth article in The New Yorker about the goings on in Abu Grhaib. It wasn't the Army that instigated the torture there but the CIA that since the time of the Clinton administration had engaged in torture in foreign countries (rendition) such as Egypt.
    That the Army lent itself to such practices is reproachable. In the end the CIA agents got scot free for the Obama administration decided to look the other way and not to investigate and prosecute the torturers and those in higher positions for their wrongdoings.
    As usual the only ones prosecuted for Abu Ghraib were the dupes who wielded the whip and stupidly even broadcast photos of their actions.
    If only the brainless have definitions then only the brainless communicate. Since you are communicating you must be brainless.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,532
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I am not sure that the abuses that happened there would have occurred if the prison had still been staffed by regular army as opposed to national guard troops. I am not trying to disparage NG troops, but they are not as well trained as regular army troops and in my experience are often hesitant to do anything that might be considered making waves.

    For the most part regular army troops have been well indoctrinated in the fact that we do not torture and WHY we do not torture. Coupled with the almost pathological need that most regular army troops have to cover their butts on the bureaucratic end, I think we can at least say for sure that had the CIA tried to implement those programs using regular army, the decision would have been closely examined by everybody up the chain of command, possibly to the joint chiefs, and the full implications of those actions would have also been closely examined.
    The Marine Corps run Guantanamo and Army doctors supervised the waterboarding to prevent the inmates being drowned in case the 'interrogation' was too 'enhanced'.
    Without the co-operation of the Marines no 'waterboarding' would have taken place.
    The Attorney General of the armed forces always reported on the illegality of torture and spoke openly against it, but his opinion and advice were ignored by the higher ups in the Army and the Bush administration

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Right under the earth.
    Posts
    84
    The issue here is simple. Is engaging in combat, where both sides have weapons, morally different from inflicting pain on an unarmed prisoner for the same reason? (Defending the rights of the innocent.)

    The judgement to be made then, is the pain of the prisoner a suitable price to for the information gained. The equation changes when dealing with a standing army, were the soldiers are not guilty directly, and only represent the goals of the guilty.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Atlas View Post
    The issue here is simple. Is engaging in combat, where both sides have weapons, morally different from inflicting pain on an unarmed prisoner for the same reason? (Defending the rights of the innocent.)

    The judgement to be made then, is the pain of the prisoner a suitable price to for the information gained. The equation changes when dealing with a standing army, were the soldiers are not guilty directly, and only represent the goals of the guilty.
    I am of the school of thought that soldiers are responsible for making the moral decision regardless of orders. If a taxi driver ran over someone, he could not claim that his client told him 'go'.

    I think combat is fundamentally different from inflicting pain on the unarmed, I do not believe inflicting pain on the unarmed is fundamentally different from any other punishment.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Right under the earth.
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    I am of the school of thought that soldiers are responsible for making the moral decision regardless of orders. If a taxi driver ran over someone, he could not claim that his client told him 'go'.

    I think combat is fundamentally different from inflicting pain on the unarmed, I do not believe inflicting pain on the unarmed is fundamentally different from any other punishment.
    A soldier of Nazi Germany has done nothing wrong yet. He has been drafted, he has been sent to the front, he is captured. It just so happens that he knows what roads are working where, is this the same as torturing terrorists?

    To not be in that situation, he would risk death, imprisonment, and torture.

    The situation was even more extreme the farther back you go. In some places you would be given the choice to face total annihilation, or fight for the aggressor. (Middle to late Dark Ages.) The Persians gave two choices, give in, keep your religion and ways, or die wholesale.

    The need was obvious to many people during the enlightenment age that kings would go to war, and people would die. So a moderating code, for both sides, intended to limit the damage incurred by the war of aristocrats was forged socially.

    Are those rules of engagement needed now, in this conflict? Often it comes down to specifics, should one be able to torture a know bomber and genocidal maniac for information to avert thousands of deaths? Yes. Can you torture a brainwashed, slightly insane, mislead Pushtu fighter who saw only the gifts the Tali-ban gave, and the stories they told of atrocities of America?

    No.

    I see the need for a semi-secret convening authority, where by the status of a combatant is determined.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I am not sure that the abuses that happened there would have occurred if the prison had still been staffed by regular army as opposed to national guard troops. I am not trying to disparage NG troops, but they are not as well trained as regular army troops and in my experience are often hesitant to do anything that might be considered making waves.

    For the most part regular army troops have been well indoctrinated in the fact that we do not torture and WHY we do not torture. Coupled with the almost pathological need that most regular army troops have to cover their butts on the bureaucratic end, I think we can at least say for sure that had the CIA tried to implement those programs using regular army, the decision would have been closely examined by everybody up the chain of command, possibly to the joint chiefs, and the full implications of those actions would have also been closely examined.
    I agree. Nothing against NG, but...
    I started off in the Regular Army but am now Guard. I like it ok, but there is a big difference.
    "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." - Ben Franklin
    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” - James Madison
    "Those who believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities" - Voltaire
    "What if the people wake up?" - Ron Paul

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Truth Detector
    The funniest thing about such a laughable stupid claim is that it requires one to completely ignore the REAL definition of torture, requires one to pretend that 9-11 never occurred or that Islamic fanatics do not wish to randomly kill as many infidels/Americans as possible and that the efforts of Bush/Cheney were not attempts to protect the innocent lives of thousands of Americans.

    This patently naive and laughably stupid view can only come from the leftists whose ideology are a complete failure and in order to defend it, must lie, deflect, impugn and insult in order to defend it.

    I find such rhetoric repugnant in its ignorance of the facts and realities; but this is what we get when dealing with uber liberals and leftists.


    Quote Originally Posted by USAMP1980 View Post
    Well... the difference between that and I is that I do not assume that all people which are against torture pretend 9/11 never happened. Just because some Islam terrorist want to kill me doesn't scare me. I've seen people tourtured, have you?
    I would rather be virtuous than the walking dead. "Give me liberty or give me death".
    When 3,000 innocent Americans get murdered as a result of the desperate efforts of Islamic extremists whose only goal is to murder MORE; the act of selective water boarding individuals who can be coerced to talk which saves more lives makes perfect sense.

    It is easy to sit in your easy chair and second guess the efforts of the Bush administration AFTER the fact.

    You have seen torture? How easy is that to claim on an internet forum; please inform us where you have seen this torture, when you saw it and what kind of torture it was? Then please explain how it relates in any way or fashion to the limited selective use of water boarding by the Bush administration post 9-11.

    Quote Originally Posted by USAMP1980 View Post
    "He who would trade liberty for security deserve neither..." -Ben Franklin
    Yet only an idiot would believe that one can have liberty by ignoring one’s enemies who outwardly wish to murder as many as they can for no other reason than religious zealousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by USAMP1980 View Post
    I also don't label groups of people and assume they are stupid and in error because they don't believe the same beliefs.
    I think polarized people are wrong, not just the 'left...' or 'right'. I think anyone that would support a political party over their fellow man is "repugnant".
    Correctly defining ideological points of view and illustrating their ignorance is not an error based on the fact they don’t have the same beliefs. ASSuming that one can have a political debate without “labels” is repugnantly stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by USAMP1980 View Post
    "If tyranny and oppression ever come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign 'enemy" -James Madison
    Are you able to connect the dots?
    Once again we are treated to the false claim that one is losing one’s liberties through the acts of the Bush Adminstration. In EVERY instance I have seen this idiot claim and have asked for credible support to back it up, I got NOTHING. Please factually support how any American has lost their liberty as a result of the actions of this administration and the idiot claim/premise of this thread’s author that we are a nation of “torturer’s.”

    Apparently the “dots” you claim to connect are the same one’s lacking any coherent sense used by the left. You haven’t connected any dots, you have merely spilled ink all over the paper in an effort to obscure them.

    Quote Originally Posted by USAMP1980 View Post
    "Right-wingers" and modern Republicans call themselves "conservative". Nothing could be farther from the truth. The last Republican to make any sense was Reagan "At the very heart and soul of Republicanism should be Libertarinism".
    As if you had a clue what Republicans stand for while parroting the idiot talking points of the DNC.

    Quote Originally Posted by USAMP1980 View Post
    The founding fathers were liberal by 1776 standards. The day after the war they are suddenly conservative?
    Labeling people left or right is for the small-minded.
    Claiming that one cannot correctly label ideological points is naïve and stupid. But alas, all we have gotten from you are platitudes and cheap talking points. Facts apparently are not a part of your repertoire as is evident also from the author of this idiot claim that we are a nation of torturers.

    I find it ironic when individuals who have little more than convenient talking points can claim it is OTHERS who are “small minded.” Your defense of the idiot premise of this thread is a testimony to the irony in your talking points.

    Now please prove how the author of this idiot premise is not a leftist.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by simone View Post
    Opposition to torture is a mark of advanced civilization. Barbarians embrace torture.
    Claiming what the Bush administration did was tantamount to a nation of torturers is beyond asinine.

    Please show who in this nation embraces torture. What we have here is more idiot DNC talking points in a vacuum of facts or logical support.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    The funniest thing about such a laughable stupid claim is that it requires one to completely ignore the REAL definition of torture, requires one to pretend that 9-11 never occurred or that Islamic fanatics do not wish to randomly kill as many infidels/Americans as possible and that the efforts of Bush/Cheney were not attempts to protect the innocent lives of thousands of Americans.

    This patently naive and laughably stupid view can only come from the leftists whose ideology are a complete failure and in order to defend it, must lie, deflect, impugn and insult in order to defend it.

    I find such rhetoric repugnant in its ignorance of the facts and realities; but this is what we get when dealing with uber liberals and leftists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    so now we not only have a definltion of torture, but a REAL definition of torture. I am still waiting for a simple one.

    Anyway, the 'definition' of what constitute torture is irrelevant for whatever pain and suffering is administered to detainees it will never meet the 'definition' or torture of the pro-torture sadists. Oops! I mean the pro 'enhanced interrogation techniques' patriots.
    This is the type of empty laughably inept argument is what one comes to expect from those who make idiotic claims based on nothing more substantive than, "because you say so."

    Carry on; I am sure you will fill the forum with more banal empty rhetoric containing little in the way of substance, facts or coherent logic.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    Interesting so, it's almost like a race. I also like the analogy to religion, you can't convert people to faith with reason after all; they need to want to believe. What do you do with twisted people? Can't reason with them (because you have no reason), can't torture them; I guess all you can do is shoot them


    Your pattern has been:
    1. Definition - there is no definition
    2. Rationalization - reason is not needed
    3. Give up - "if you don't already know I can't explain it to you" and all such excuses
    Bravo; someone who actually "gets" it.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    THANK YOU.

    This has always been my primary argument in the torture debate. When I was in the army they taught us that you do not torture because IT DOES NOT WORK. 99% of the time it yields bad information, and the 1% of the time the information is good, you will probably never know it because you will be wasting all your resources acting on the 99% of the information that was bad.

    Torture is counterproductive to getting effective information. We heard repeatedly from FBI interrogators who worked at Gitmo that they would be working on a subject, getting good information from them and making real progress, then the CIA would start torturing them and the flow of good information stopped completely.

    It just does not work. It is counterproductive. The military has known this for years, which is why the policy of the united state military is that we do not torture. That is not because the military is full of fluffy bunny loving little girls. The people making these policies are battle hardened soldiers with some of the best military educations in history, and history tells us that while torture is an AWESOME way to make somebody confess to something, whether it is true or not, it is a TERRIBLE way to get accurate information out of an individual.

    And before anybody jumps out to point out that Abu Ghraib was a military prison...the torture program there was a CIA run program. Those soldiers were operating outside their chain of command under the direct control and supervision of CIA field agents.
    How many times does the FACT that we have proven documentation that the selective use of waterboarding resulted in stopping more terrorist attempts and resulted in the eventual capture of Bin Laden before those who make the false claims we see above stop making such false claims.

    Why are those who wallow in blissful denial destined to keep repeating the idiot talking points of the left in a continual vacuum of reality or the facts?

    What can one say but; there you go again.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    Well, America is a strange country in the sense that you have brilliant people, top universities and research institutes where an intellectual class does excellent research in many fields.
    On the other hand you have a huge mass of ignorant, dumb, bigoted, chauvinistic, xenophobic, foaming at the mouth 'patriots' ( Tea Party storm troopers ) This is just what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and now the new generation of Republicans founded with money by the Koch brothers need.

    I remember watching on TV during the past presidential election campaign Americans being interviewed and wow!I couldn't believe how ignorant, how bigoted so many of them were. These people have no qualms in supporting torture, and giving up their human rights if the flag is waved in front of their eyes and simplistic slogans shouted in their ears.

    The federal American political system has become totally disfunctional IMHO. Obama's persistent mistake has been to try to have a dialogue with his political opponents and to find common ground for the sake of the country.
    Wow, the complete repertoire of idiot DNC talking points all wrapped up in a few short paragraphs. Does the irony of claiming others are the XXXXXX escape you after making such blatantly ignorant claims above?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I am not sure that the abuses that happened there would have occurred if the prison had still been staffed by regular army as opposed to national guard troops. I am not trying to disparage NG troops, but they are not as well trained as regular army troops and in my experience are often hesitant to do anything that might be considered making waves.

    For the most part regular army troops have been well indoctrinated in the fact that we do not torture and WHY we do not torture. Coupled with the almost pathological need that most regular army troops have to cover their butts on the bureaucratic end, I think we can at least say for sure that had the CIA tried to implement those programs using regular army, the decision would have been closely examined by everybody up the chain of command, possibly to the joint chiefs, and the full implications of those actions would have also been closely examined.
    Atrocities by ALL parties to war have been well documented. Please show me a war where attrocities by BOTH parties have not been committed.

    Now back to the thread's idiot premise; this supposed “nation of torturers” not only condemned what occurred at Abu Ghraib, but prosecuted and imprisoned those who committed these acts. Unfortunately for us, our enemy will do NOTHING of the sort and when the head of Daniel Pearl was sawed off while he screamed in agony, the REAL barbarians we are fighting celebrated.

    But alas, Daniel was just another Jew, why should you or others who parrot the idiot talking points of the left care right?

    Okay, now go back and bury your head in the sand and buttocks of Obama and his followers who make such idiotic and preposterous claims.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    The Marine Corps run Guantanamo and Army doctors supervised the waterboarding to prevent the inmates being drowned in case the 'interrogation' was too 'enhanced'.
    Without the co-operation of the Marines no 'waterboarding' would have taken place.
    The Attorney General of the armed forces always reported on the illegality of torture and spoke openly against it, but his opinion and advice were ignored by the higher ups in the Army and the Bush administration
    The Attorney General of the armed forces? You truly are a caricature of your own artificial and preposterous rhetoric.

    Please provide a link of this "Attorney General of the Armed Forces" and their claims you attribute to them.

    I am laughing my butt off here.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Originally Posted by Freedom
    I am of the school of thought that soldiers are responsible for making the moral decision regardless of orders. If a taxi driver ran over someone, he could not claim that his client told him 'go'.

    I think combat is fundamentally different from inflicting pain on the unarmed, I do not believe inflicting pain on the unarmed is fundamentally different from any other punishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Atlas View Post
    A soldier of Nazi Germany has done nothing wrong yet. He has been drafted, he has been sent to the front, he is captured. It just so happens that he knows what roads are working where, is this the same as torturing terrorists?

    To not be in that situation, he would risk death, imprisonment, and torture.

    The situation was even more extreme the farther back you go. In some places you would be given the choice to face total annihilation, or fight for the aggressor. (Middle to late Dark Ages.) The Persians gave two choices, give in, keep your religion and ways, or die wholesale.

    The need was obvious to many people during the enlightenment age that kings would go to war, and people would die. So a moderating code, for both sides, intended to limit the damage incurred by the war of aristocrats was forged socially.

    Are those rules of engagement needed now, in this conflict? Often it comes down to specifics, should one be able to torture a know bomber and genocidal maniac for information to avert thousands of deaths? Yes. Can you torture a brainwashed, slightly insane, mislead Pushtu fighter who saw only the gifts the Tali-ban gave, and the stories they told of atrocities of America?

    No.

    I see the need for a semi-secret convening authority, where by the status of a combatant is determined.
    You both are wandering far off the topic. Armed forces and the treatment of prisoners of war is clearly defined in the Geneva Convention and do not relate to the treatment of non-uniformed enemy combatants (who typically can be shot as spies) captured on the battlefield and whom have known/admitted ties to global terrorism.

    But while we are off topic, perhaps those who falsely claim we tortured prisoners can look at the Geneva Conventions definition of torture and make a connection between our selective use of water boarding to save lives to that of torture.

    Again, the premise of this thread is beyond stupid.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •