Was the usage of torture foreseeable?

[Keevan_Colton]

So were back to classic Kast with his "if no one can stop us, it's A-OK" routine.

Once more though, I point out the problem here...those who have committed murder are afforded protections in law, due process and the like...those who are suspected of conspiring to commit murder are to be confined without any such niceties and tortured to your hearts content.

[Axis Kast]

So were back to classic Kast with his "if no one can stop us, it's A-OK" routine.

Well, yes, that's essentially how the world works. Morals should never become a factor for their own sake on the international stage.

Once more though, I point out the problem here...those who have committed murder are afforded protections in law, due process and the like...those who are suspected of conspiring to commit murder are to be confined without any such niceties and tortured to your hearts content.

So would assert that if Osama Bin Laden yields up no information by any other means, we should throw him into the dungeon and call it quits, even if torture has not been tried?

[Vympel]

So would assert that if Osama Bin Laden yields up no information by any other means, we should throw him into the dungeon and call it quits, even if torture has not been tried?

Why, so he can admit to being the Second Coming of Elvis if he was asked?

[The Kernel]

I didnt come here expecting I'd have to hold your hand through everything. Examples:

*snip quotes*

You want to explain how any of these are strawmen of your position? An insult isn't a strawman unless it is meant to intentionally distort your position and since you can't even explain what your "position" is, strawmen need not apply.

And for good measure, some other places where you've made a fool of yourself:

This should be good...

-A good way to expose yourself as a fool is to bring in completely irrelevant factoids or statements of the obvious as if they serve your point.

Sometimes a moron needs to obvious drilled into them.

-Quite amusing - as if I could be talking about any other kind of equivalence - and this once again illustrates your ignorance of the context of this discussion, this sub topic of which began when another member proposed that the torture made the US "no better" than (ie, morally equivalent to) the previous regime.

If you want to prove that the current regime is better then the previous, do so with hard facts, not bullshit hypotheticals and subjective moral judgements.

All of those were from a single post. Pretty funny stuff really.

Yes indeed. Too bad the jokes on you.

When have I been confronted with a rebuttal for this to be true? The fact is, your posts amount to nothing more than spewing fecal matter, nitpicking, constructing strawmans, and making a fool of yourself by not reading the preceding posts and thereby taking the entire discussion out of context. If anyone's bothered to keep up, I'd wager they're finding it amusing you're getting your arse kicked by a newbie -though truth be told, you've done most of the work yourself.

Ahh, I see that you've decided to emulate Darkstar's technique of claiming victory despite failing to prove a damn thing. Congrats, you've graduated from annoying hatfucker to worthless trolling palm fucker.

What do you propose the purpose of finding a legal loophole to deny them Geneva Convention rights would be if not to be able to treat them in ways that contravene the Geneva Convention? You're very naive.

Moron, he went on record saying that they would be given Geneva protection. He went on record saying no torture was happening at Gitmo. If proof was found, he would be exposed as directly lying to the American people. Sounds like a great tactic during an election year.

But I'm sure if Bush says they're being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, they must be.

I didn't say they were. Once again, you are trying to use the violation of law as an excuse to throw out the law. This tactic is amusing, but is quickly becoming tiresome.

You quoting Bush as saying they'd receive Geneva Convention rights, even though they went to such great lengths to deny them, actually strengthens my point, and refutes your own. Abu Ghraib was indeed in Iraq, and the detainees not subject to the legal loophole denying the Geneva Convention but Bush promising it anyway... and the fact that torture is being used in "Gitmo" (Lets see if you're naive enough to say "but they're only allegations!!11") demonstrates the US government/military's willingness to act contrarily to the promises of the President himself. To believe those patriotic Americans would be more likely to uphold the Geneva Convention than their President's promise is... stretching plausibility.

Dumbass, the official line is that those tortures were NOT officially sanctioned. If they are, once again that is a violation and heads will roll (gee, you wonder why people are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation?).

Is your worldview really so rosy that you believe torture will always be exposed, and justice dealt?

Crimes will not always be solved and criminals will not always be brought to justice. So what? Are you suggesting that we throw out the justice system because of it?

Hey, Weasel is my word. What startles me though is that you seem to have made the same strawman attack for the third time. Can you actually go back through this thread, and find where I say "Since torture will happen anyway, lets remove the laws so it's no longer happening illegally!". I know you cant, so I'll accept your apology in advance.

Ahem, you said:

*sigh*. There are three ways that torture can be carried out. Systematically, institutionally, on orders from higher up, as a part of a policy to achieve some national goal - perhaps security. This is very likely to become known to the Iraqis eventually, if implemented, and of course peace and prosperity will be out of the question.

In other words, you have been trying to push your agenda for a system which includes torture, and your justification has been that it occurs anyways. Done shooting yourself in the foot?

I'm glad to stick by my actual points. Work out what thsoe are -shouldnt be hard, I made a list for you. Do I need to make a diagram as well?

Your points are bullshit and are shrouded in hypothetical situations so self-serving as to be completely non-sensical.

And, as you've well demonstrated, you're too fucking dense to realise that my "mystical" hypothetical example was being used to show how Cpl. Kendall's remarks were wrong.

Oh I realize that's what you think it did, but of course what you think and what is reality are two wildly different things. Your hypotheticals are so contrived as to be useless to any realworld discussion.

If he'd said, "The use of torture by the US makes them, in terms of prisoner treatment, no better than the previous regime", I'd agree with him. What I dont agree with is that the torture alone is the basis of the US's moral equivalence with the previous regime. That's a matter of more complex reasons.

Cut your bullshit, you've been arguing for justifiable uses for torture which is what I take exception to. Your personal definitions of right and wrong are of no interest to me.

That's rich. Care to explain how you think you've won the point, what what point you're even talking about?

Naturally I don't expect you to understand your own hypocrisy.

I doubt Patriot will cost him the election -it'll either be a worsening situation in Iraq or the economy, or both.
But you know, perhaps we should put it to the people - ask them who believes that the torture of Osama bin Laden would be justified, if we assume torture is effective, and a significant number of lives are on the line. In fact, I've just created a poll to find that out.

Yeah I saw your bullshit poll. I also notice that it is so overloaded in the hypothetical assumptions that it serves no purpose other than as an attempt to inflate your ego.

Actually, you said that while I was writing a second reply to you, so I hadnt read that - and secondly, your criticism isnt remotely useful. If we are not able to consider the right or wrong of an issue, there's not a lot of point in these forums. I think your position on this is really pathetic - you really accomplished a lot in criticising me for calling Saddam evil.

My criticism isn't remotely useful? Hahaha, interesting coming from a person who outright refuses to subject their warped belief system to real world examples in favor of bullshit hypotheticals.

Amazing. You're wiling to put all of this time and effort into discussion with me, and you dont even care about my opinions? I think that's fascinating - and sad.

Read the logo of the board. Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people. Guess which activity I am engaged in right now?

[Axis Kast]

Why, so he can admit to being the Second Coming of Elvis if he was asked?

So he can tell us where the rest of his fuckers are hiding, asshole.

Torture has obvious uses. We've already seen at least one case in which torture yielded positive information. Obviously, if other means are considered more effective, those should be exhausted beforehand.

[Dahak]

Why, so he can admit to being the Second Coming of Elvis if he was asked?

So he can tell us where the rest of his fuckers are hiding, asshole.

Torture has obvious uses. We've already seen at least one case in which torture yielded positive information. Obviously, if other means are considered more effective, those should be exhausted beforehand.

Torture is wrong.
Just because you can contruct theoretical cases where it might, possibly, lead to something useful doesn't mean that it justifies it in the first place.

Your general disregard for morale and ethics doesn't make an argument...

[Axis Kast]

Your general disregard for morale and ethics doesn't make an argument...

And your insistance that we uphold vague, humanist standards for the sake of good-feeling is any better?

I'd rather we pulled some fingernails and saved some civilians than let a terrorist conceal information on the notion that were we to subject him to torture, we'd be violating some abstract principles of goodness. Nobody's going to pull out all the stops for us, either. Why bind our hands? And no, "Because it's the right thing to do," isn't an answer.

[Dahak]

Your general disregard for morale and ethics doesn't make an argument...

And your insistance that we uphold vague, humanist standards for the sake of good-feeling is any better?

I'd rather we pulled some fingernails and saved some civilians than let a terrorist conceal information on the notion that were we to subject him to torture, we'd be violating some abstract principles of goodness. Nobody's going to pull out all the stops for us, either. Why bind our hands? And no, "Because it's the right thing to do," isn't an answer.

These "vague, humanist standards" set us apart from those you look down upon.
Thousands of people died in history for those same "vague, humanist standards".
Just because you can go down to the same level, doesn't mean you should.
If you want to show the world you're the "good guys" it would be a congenial idea to actually act like "good guys", don't you think?

[Gil Hamilton]

So he can tell us where the rest of his fuckers are hiding, asshole.

Torture has obvious uses. We've already seen at least one case in which torture yielded positive information. Obviously, if other means are considered more effective, those should be exhausted beforehand.

Or give random names and locations just to make it stop. People will say anything just to make the process stop. Like Vympel says, you could torture someone into honestly admitting that they are Elvis Ressurected just to stop the torture.

[Axis Kast]

These "vague, humanist standards" set us apart from those you look down upon.
Thousands of people died in history for those same "vague, humanist standards".
Just because you can go down to the same level, doesn't mean you should.
If you want to show the world you're the "good guys" it would be a congenial idea to actually act like "good guys", don't you think?

And if securing information through devious means is the only way to save people?

Unlike you, I'm not willing to stop just short of torture in cases where thousands more have to die for those same standards of goodness to which you so foolishly cling each and every moment.

It's one thing to live your life by a personal code of ethics. It's another to think that your nation should do the same without larger ends in mind.

Or give random names and locations just to make it stop. People will say anything just to make the process stop. Like Vympel says, you could torture someone into honestly admitting that they are Elvis Ressurected just to stop the torture.

Which is why we have opined that torture should only be used in rare cases when we know people haven't divulged everything they otherwise might have, and after all other options - such as food and sleep deprivation, disorientation, truth serums, etc. - have been exhausted.

[Patrick Degan]

So were back to classic Kast with his "if no one can stop us, it's A-OK" routine.

Well, yes, that's essentially how the world works. Morals should never become a factor for their own sake on the international stage.

The music of Hitler; how it rings in your ears...

[Axis Kast]

The music of Hitler; how it rings in your ears...

Oh, I'm so sorry if I offend your sensibilities - but I've got news for you: the world is a very nasty place. Nobody will hesitate to do to you what you neglected to do to them out of regard for your misguided (or should I say unguided morality).

Did it ever occur to you, Deegan, that we've seen spectacular failures of strictly humanitarian policy before? Does Somalia ring a bell? "Helping others" isn't a legitimate foreign policy goal without some wider objective in mind. Or rather, it's a very stupid foreign policy goal.

[Aaron]

That I expect the U.S. military to use torture is no reflection on my moral fiber, idiot. And, as the Filipino case has made clear, there have been documented instances in which torture proved effective. Once more, I must agree with Predator: if all other methods – including truth serum administration – prove useless, then torture should be employed to exact information from important prisoners.

Truth serum? Me thinks that you have watched to much sci-fi, there's no such thing. At least thats been demonstrated to work.

As for laws, nobody is advocating that we torture those who steal, lie, or cheat. This treatment is reserved to ensure national security. Obviously, this torture would be administered rarely, secretly, and primarily against non-combtants or “stateless” persons, not prisoners-of-war in national armies.

This despite the fact that in the majority of cases torture has been proven to provide false information. People will say anything, admit to anything to get it to stop.

And the assertion that Berg’s death had anything to do with Abu Ghriab is simply ludircis. Terrorists also lopped the head off Daniel Pearl without remorse. The people in the Berg video used the torture as a veneer to justify their actions – but they would have killed him regardless.

Unfortunatly there's no way to prove that. The rebels specifically said that it was in retalation for the prison abuses, we have to take their word for it in the absence of any other information.

[Andrew J.]

The music of Hitler; how it rings in your ears...

Oh, I'm so sorry if I offend your sensibilities - but I've got news for you: the world is a very nasty place.

Because of people like you, of course.

[Dahak]

The music of Hitler; how it rings in your ears...

Oh, I'm so sorry if I offend your sensibilities - but I've got news for you: the world is a very nasty place. Nobody will hesitate to do to you what you neglected to do to them out of regard for your misguided (or should I say unguided morality).

Did it ever occur to you, Deegan, that we've seen spectacular failures of strictly humanitarian policy before? Does Somalia ring a bell? "Helping others" isn't a legitimate foreign policy goal without some wider objective in mind. Or rather, it's a very stupid foreign policy goal.

it's not about helping others, per se.
It's about living up to your own ideals, convictions, morale.
If you want to promote democracy, freedom, and all the other so-called "western" values it would go well with those you want to enlighten in their ways if you actually live by them.
Just because you think it is a wise move to kick millenia of cultural, moral, and humane development in the bin, doesn't mean it will make the world a better place.

Oh, and 2 + 2 = 5, if you "ask" long enough...

[Axis Kast]

Truth serum? Me thinks that you have watched to much sci-fi, there's no such thing. At least thats been demonstrated to work.

Is that so? The CIA seems to think otherwise. You had better write them a letter ...

Because I know how to dress my links, like a big boy, mommy!

This despite the fact that in the majority of cases torture has been proven to provide false information. People will say anything, admit to anything to get it to stop.

But there are also cases in which torture has proven effective. Hence the reason it's a last - but not discounted - resort.

Unfortunatly there's no way to prove that. The rebels specifically said that it was in retalation for the prison abuses, we have to take their word for it in the absence of any other information.

Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was killed under similar circumstances. There were no prison abuse pictures circulating at that time. It is clear that the terrorists have no problem killing hostages even without the supposed impetus of American brutality toward captured combatants.

Because of people like you, of course.

Your accusation changes nothing; policy must be made based on realities. One does not formulate realistic or effective national security strategies based on their conception of how the world should be or would be in somebody's idealistic pipe dream.

it's not about helping others, per se.
It's about living up to your own ideals, convictions, morale.
If you want to promote democracy, freedom, and all the other so-called "western" values it would go well with those you want to enlighten in their ways if you actually live by them.
Just because you think it is a wise move to kick millenia of cultural, moral, and humane development in the bin, doesn't mean it will make the world a better place.

And sometimes, those ideals take a backseat to survival or self-defense. They cannot be practiced at all unless there is an environment conducive to them.

Oh, and 2 + 2 = 5, if you "ask" long enough...

So we shouldn't question prisoners at all, then?

[Dahak]

Just for the record:
DRESS YOUR LINKS!

And sometimes, those ideals take a backseat to survival or self-defense. They cannot be practiced at all unless there is an environment conducive to them.

Torture is not self-defense.
If you have principles and convictions, they should be observed, no matter the cost.
All your "the ends justifies the means" talk is a morally bancrupt attitude. I really doubt you want to live in a country that handwaved rights and principles away like you think they should do when facing danger.
[/quote]

Oh, and 2 + 2 = 5, if you "ask" long enough...

So we shouldn't question prisoners at all, then?[/quote]
Questioning and torture are two different things.

[Andrew J.]

Because of people like you, of course.

Your accusation changes nothing; policy must be made based on realities. One does not formulate realistic or effective national security strategies based on their conception of how the world should be or would be in somebody's idealistic pipe dream.

Exactly; when military intelligence decided to torture prisoners, for example, their decision was based on a fantasy that they could get away with it without severe repercussions internationally and domestically.

What you never, ever, seem to consider is that when and if we act contrary to moral principles on the international stage, it pisses people off. That's not good. Do I give a damn about moral principles? No. I'd have every prisoner in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantamano drawn and quartered on live pay-per-view if I thought it would help, but it wouldn't. The world is too full of both bleeding-hearts and hypocrites that would align themselves with them against us for us to just traipse around doing whatver the fuck we want, like torture, or invading countries on false pretenses.

[Hamel]

That nekkid link fucked up the page

[Aaron]

Is that so? The CIA seems to think otherwise. You had better write them a letter ...

The effects of Sodium Pentothal are debatable. A little research turned up this, info is at the bottom of the page, but I'll quote it for you.

While under the effect of the drug, however, the patient may lose his inhibitions, but he does not lose self-control (just as in hypnosis: a person can't be hypnotized into doing something he doesn't want to do, or is unnatural to him, like robbing a bank). For that reason, a patient will not tell the truth if he chooses not to.

So as you can see, Sodium Pentothal only works if the suspect chooses to tell the truth, if he keeps his head then you'll get nothing.

But there are also cases in which torture has proven effective. Hence the reason it's a last - but not discounted - resort.

I disagree, in this case we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was killed under similar circumstances. There were no prison abuse pictures circulating at that time. It is clear that the terrorists have no problem killing hostages even without the supposed impetus of American brutality toward captured combatants.

Daniel Pearl was killed under different circumstances in a different country by different people. In the case of Nicholas Berg, the terrorists identified the reason for killing him, was in retalitation for the prison abuses. There is no information to indicate otherwise. If and when other information surfaces on their motivations I will consider it. But until then we have to take them at their word.

And sometimes, those ideals take a backseat to survival or self-defense. They cannot be practiced at all unless there is an environment conducive to them.

You don't get it do you? If the USA sinks to the level of it's enemies than it is no better than them. If they want to bring democracy and enlightentment to the world than they first have to practice those beliefs.

[Axis Kast]

Torture is not self-defense.
If you have principles and convictions, they should be observed, no matter the cost.
All your "the ends justifies the means" talk is a morally bancrupt attitude. I really doubt you want to live in a country that handwaved rights and principles away like you think they should do when facing danger.

No, torture is not self-defense. But self-defense can encompass torture. I cite the example of the Filipino prisoner.

If you observe your principles and convictions no matter the cost, it may be that you won’t be observing them very long. Inflexibility is a very dangerous thing. Your naiveté is startling.

No, I would prefer to live in a country that maintained rights and principles – but sometimes, that is an impossibility for any nation.

Questioning and torture are two different things.

Indeed. But the way you formed your question, it’s as if you ignored that.

Exactly; when military intelligence decided to torture prisoners, for example, their decision was based on a fantasy that they could get away with it without severe repercussions internationally and domestically.

What you never, ever, seem to consider is that when and if we act contrary to moral principles on the international stage, it pisses people off. That's not good. Do I give a damn about moral principles? No. I'd have every prisoner in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantamano drawn and quartered on live pay-per-view if I thought it would help, but it wouldn't. The world is too full of both bleeding-hearts and hypocrites that would align themselves with them against us for us to just traipse around doing whatver the fuck we want, like torture, or invading countries on false pretenses.
_________________

Yes, and in this case, punishment should be administered and the process revisited. Of course, that doesn’t invalidate the torture of higher-level officials in Syria or Egypt, say.

So as you can see, Sodium Pentothal only works if the suspect chooses to tell the truth, if he keeps his head then you'll get nothing

But it’s still an option.

Daniel Pearl was killed under different circumstances in a different country by different people. In the case of Nicholas Berg, the terrorists identified the reason for killing him, was in retalitation for the prison abuses. There is no information to indicate otherwise. If and when other information surfaces on their motivations I will consider it. But until then we have to take them at their word.

And yet the terrorists had similar agendas and similar goals. They were also taking hostages before the abuse photos.

You don't get it do you? If the USA sinks to the level of it's enemies than it is no better than them. If they want to bring democracy and enlightentment to the world than they first have to practice those beliefs.

And before we do that, the stones need to be discarded lest democracy fall on unprepared ground.

[Aaron]

So as you can see, Sodium Pentothal only works if the suspect chooses to tell the truth, if he keeps his head then you'll get nothing

But it’s still an option.

An unreliable one, yes.

And yet the terrorists had similar agendas and similar goals. They were also taking hostages before the abuse photos.

Yet no hostages were killed until after the photo's came to light.

And before we do that, the stones need to be discarded lest democracy fall on unprepared ground.

Would you care to explain what that means?

[Dahak]

Torture is not self-defense.
If you have principles and convictions, they should be observed, no matter the cost.
All your "the ends justifies the means" talk is a morally bancrupt attitude. I really doubt you want to live in a country that handwaved rights and principles away like you think they should do when facing danger.

No, torture is not self-defense. But self-defense can encompass torture. I cite the example of the Filipino prisoner.

In your world.

If you observe your principles and convictions no matter the cost, it may be that you won’t be observing them very long. Inflexibility is a very dangerous thing. Your naiveté is startling.

That's not inflexibilty.
That is the recognition of a level below one should never go.
I think your ideas are naive, and far more dangerous than moral steadfastness.

[Mr Flibble]

What Axis Kast fails to see is that the torture in Iraq, and the world's reaction too it shows exactly why nations like the US should stick to its own principles. The torture photos, have become a rallying tool for the forces against America in Iraq, they have galvanised world opinion against US actions, and it proves what many outside the US say about it, that the US is arrogant, orders around other nations, to follow certain principles yet refuses to follow those principles. It has turned many people against the US, and has no doubt endangered the lives of US citizens.

And yet you claim torture can be useful, even though it is showing to provide unreliable information. Unreliable information can cost as many or more lives than reliable information, for example you can end up chasing the wrong lead, because the victim told you what you wanted to hear, and ignore other avenues.

This incident has cost the US a lot of legitimacy, from now on if US soldiers are caught and tortured, the US can't criticize the perpetrators on moral ground, as many will remember what has happened in Iraq. It sends a message to the world that the US is not able to practice wat it preaches. I know that as long as the current administraion is in charge of the US I will not have faith in them to do the right thing, in my eyes, the US is drifting further and further away from a beacon of hope, into a beacon of despair, I despair, because under Bush, America is becoming less and less a democratic enlightened nation. (Note: I amnot saying that the US has lost its democracy, but that it is moving in a direction away from it)

Losing the moral ground costs a lot more than you are willing to acknowledge Axis. Quite frankly your attitude sickens me, you are too ready to throw away priniciples whenever it suits your purpose. When you do that they cease to be principles, and become, farces.

[Andrew J.]

Yes, and in this case, punishment should be administered and the process revisited. Of course, that doesn’t invalidate the torture of higher-level officials in Syria or Egypt, say.

It does unless you can absolutely fucking guarantee that nobody finds out, you idiot.