rehmwa 2 #26 November 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteFirst, you need to define torture No you don't really. Of course you do. The line must be drawn or we'll get ludicrous claims that "my air conditioning was slightly too high" equals torture. Oh, wait.... that already happened. I vote no, based on what I think torture means. We all follow the rules, no exceptions. That's a left wing thing to have different rules for different people and classes. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #27 November 16, 2005 QuoteI'll go out on a limb and add. The US should never limit itself the means to possibly get information from individuals known to be involved i.e. with planting a dirty bomb that is due to go off in a unknown US city in 24 hours. Would that include jailing and torturing "suspects" that are white Americans? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #28 November 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteFirst, you need to define torture No you don't really. The proposition is that the CIA should be free from ANY laws regulating what they are permitted to do to detainees. So there's no definition of anything required - if the White House gets it's way it will be perfectly legal to do anything they want to detainees. Be that pissing on the Quoran or flaying them alive: anything could be on the cards because nothing would be illegal. Then, considering it is well known that physical torture very seldom results in reliable information, the ability to inflict torture is more pschological and any "law" passed limiting it's use would hurt the pschological advantages. Terror suspects could merely laugh at their interrogators because they would know they couldn't be tortured. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #29 November 16, 2005 QuoteShould the CIA be exempt from US laws prohibiting the use of torture? An emphatic YES! Some times you gotta do what you gotta do. All's fair in love and war. It is what it is. Whether we like it or not, the intelligence community will do what ever they want to anyway, so what does it matter anyway?-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #30 November 16, 2005 QuoteOf course you do. The line must be drawn or we'll get ludicrous claims that "my air conditioning was slightly too high" equals torture. There are laws on the books that define torture. The sleep deprivation, etc. techniques that are publicly known to be used in gitmo and Iraq do not fall under that definition. The question is should the CIA be exempt from US laws that define torture, regardless of what those definitions are. If it's good enough for the CIA, why not everyone? Why not your local police precinct? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 November 16, 2005 Quote Would that include jailing and torturing "suspects" that are white Americans? Absolutely, didn't you cheer a few years back when that white American kid got caned in Indonesia? I did. Since caning isn't allowed in the US, wasn't that considered a form of torture? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #32 November 16, 2005 No, I didn't cheer for that. And wasn't he convicted of a crime anyway? Again, you condone torturing criminal suspects in the US? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #33 November 16, 2005 QuoteI'll go out on a limb and add. The US should never limit itself the means to possibly get information from individuals known to be involved i.e. with planting a dirty bomb that is due to go off in a unknown US city in 24 hours. All methods of possibly obtaining information to save thousand should be allowed, including underwear on someones head. Where is that Man On Fire when you need him. He was pretty good at getting info. Ahhh, the Hollywood point of view. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #34 November 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteCan you provide examples of torture being used by the government in, say, Iceland Bjork! Pop stars don't count. Damn! I was going to say Aqua Oh well, seriously. The closest thing we have had are instances of prisoners with mental disorders arising from solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is common practice in Denmark in cases where the investigation is ongoing and you therefore don't want the prisoner to have communications with the rest of the prison population. If that is torture, well then of course we are guilty as charged, and the US is free to stage mock electrocutions and beat people to death. HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #35 November 16, 2005 QuoteThere are laws on the books that define torture. The sleep deprivation, etc. techniques that are publicly known to be used in gitmo and Iraq do not fall under that definition. So then torture is specifically defined and likely only includes harsh physical (injuring) punishment. Not the crap the media was moaning about (frat tricks). Then no, no esceptions. But I do think the CIA (and the like) needs to foster an image that even though they aren't legally allowed to, that they'd do it anyway to maintain the psych edge with enemies. That's where we get into the 'image' question that people like to cry about. The same ones that care about how we are perceived that simultaneously don't think derision of dead loved ones doesn't count as an attack needing defense.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #36 November 16, 2005 QuoteNo, I didn't cheer for that. And wasn't he convicted of a crime anyway? Again, you condone torturing criminal suspects in the US? Depends on the value of the information they may have. As I said previously, physical torture rarely results in reliable information, but the threat of it provides a good psychological edge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #37 November 16, 2005 QuoteAs I said previously, physical torture rarely results in reliable information, but the threat of it provides a good psychological edge. So it should be legal but only if it's never used? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #38 November 16, 2005 QuoteThat's where we get into the 'image' question that people like to cry about. The same ones that care about how we are perceived that simultaneously don't think derision of dead loved ones doesn't count as an attack needing defense.... The image of our nation is crucial to our relations with other nations. It reflects badly on all of us. My or anyone elses personal image reflects on me or them personally. If I did things that reflected negatively on others I would consider those ramifications before acting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #39 November 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteAs I said previously, physical torture rarely results in reliable information, but the threat of it provides a good psychological edge. So it should be legal but only if it's never used? Since it is well known that physical torture isn't very effective, why would it be used? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #40 November 16, 2005 QuoteSince it is well known that physical torture isn't very effective, why would it be used? Because there are sick sadistic pricks in the world. It IS used....that's a fact. Someone somewhere is being tortured right now. Condoning it is as despicable as commiting it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #41 November 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteThat's where we get into the 'image' question that people like to cry about. The same ones that care about how we are perceived that simultaneously don't think derision of dead loved ones doesn't count as an attack needing defense.... The image of our nation is crucial to our relations with other nations. It reflects badly on all of us. My or anyone elses personal image reflects on me or them personally. If I did things that reflected negatively on others I would consider those ramifications before acting. So how do you think OBL and Zarquawi view people in the US who say insulting thing about the President, call him a liar, and call for immediate withdrawl of US troops from Iraq? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #42 November 16, 2005 QuoteThe image of our nation is crucial to our relations with other nations. It reflects badly on all of us. My or anyone elses personal image reflects on me or them personally. If I did things that reflected negatively on others I would consider those ramifications before acting. True, but I just find it interesting how people pick and choose where they want to say non-physical things are important. And which bucket different people put them in. I don't have a problem with certain aspects of our society being consider 'bad' but held in restraint by our overall good will. Lose the good will, and risk losing that restraint. I also think the statement up above about "torture being legal, but not used in real life" is pretty close to the mark despite it being thrown out as ludicrous. It's a hard line to draw, I have difficulty finding it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #43 November 16, 2005 No that would be considered a form of punishment. Torture would be the use of pain (psychological or physical) to 'encourage' communication. Torture will always occur, regardless of it's legality. Special forces teams are trained to both resist and manage interrogation techniques, as it is understood that it happens regardless of the official stance by the worlds governments. In the same way that chemists and biologists in the US are working with samples of WMDs to "work on defensive measures" which also happen to include studies into dispersal techniques for maximum effectiveness ("so we can plan against it!") (living in the biomed centre of the US I have several friends who do exactly this line of work and have made exactly these comments to me). Rules give us all the veneer of humanity, allow the public to sleep safe at night in a world of bloodless wars and "protecting against insurgent terrorists". The reality is understood by anyone involved or paying attention - in the real world there are no rules except the ones made by the strongest players. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #44 November 16, 2005 I don't care much what they think. They're not worthy of worrying about their opinions...they're radical nut bags. I'm referring to general populations and diplomatic leaders, not criminals. Fuck them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #45 November 16, 2005 QuoteSince it is well known that physical torture isn't very effective, why would it be used? So why does the CIA need to be exempt from laws against it?. I'm sure fear of torture could be achieved in the detained much much easier than tacking on an exemption to a rider to an amendment to a military funding bill. The only reason the Govt. would push such an exemption is because they want to use it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #46 November 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteSince it is well known that physical torture isn't very effective, why would it be used? Because there are sick sadistic pricks in the world. It IS used....that's a fact. Someone somewhere is being tortured right now. Condoning it is as despicable as commiting it. Passing a law that makes it illegal removes an effective tool interrogators need. Supporting a ban which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands is as despicable as perpetrating the act itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #47 November 16, 2005 QuoteIt's a hard line to draw, I have difficulty finding it. i don't...it's pretty easy and I think I was pretty clear about it. It's always wrong when it is gov't sanctioned. And when it is done on a personal level, expect to pay the consequences. Removing any consequences for a governmental agency is a REALLY FUCKING BAD IDEA...has anyone ever picked up a history book? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #48 November 16, 2005 QuoteRules give us all the veneer of humanity, allow the public to sleep safe at night in a world of bloodless wars and "protecting against insurgent terrorists". The reality is understood by anyone involved or paying attention - in the real world there are no rules except the ones made by the strongest players. Good post, I couldn't agree more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #49 November 16, 2005 QuoteThe only reason the Govt. would push such an exemption is because they want to use it. nuts - the only reasong to propose such a law (that in no way would change the status quo) is so the public sees the politicians debate it and then shoot it down. Thus endearing themselves to their voting base by backing whichever position is more popular back home for each particular senator or representative. It's simply public relations and a waste of time. The only real benefit is for terrorists to observe that we even are considering it. It might (likely not) make them take a step back for a moment. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #50 November 16, 2005 QuoteSupporting a ban which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands is as despicable as perpetrating the act itself. So you're opposed to Bush's restrictions on Stem Cell Research? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
