Was the usage of torture foreseeable?

[Axis Kast]

An unreliable one, yes.[/quote]

And yet one which has proven effective in certain circumstances. Torture must not be discounted when we’re dealing with al-Qaeda higher-ups whom we know have direct access to information regarding the specifics of that organization – or others like them.

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

You don’t read much news, do you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3627377.stm

Would you care to explain what that means?

It means that we can’t just declare everything finished and stand by every democratic principle while simultaneously fighting a guerilla war against insurgents and terrorists.

In your world.

Which you also live in.

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.

I’m not the one who lets a possible chance to extract valuable information slip by on the theory that I’ll reap some “higher” reward if I don’t pull Osama Bin Laden’s fingernails out after I’ve done everything else I can possibly do to get reliable information from him.

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.

First of all, we never lost the moral highground. We still treat the vast majority of the Iraqi prisoners we hold to the letter of the Geneva Conventions. One of the reasons the subject of abuse at Abu Ghriab is so large is that even thought it was on the unit scale, it’s a clear aberration in our patterns of behavior.

Torture can be useful. It’s already been proven via example. And your argument about reliability is an extremist one: we always have other information on hand to corroborate and analyze confessions. And, as I’ve said before, owing to the nature of the confessions generally acquired during torture, it would be a last resort for people we already know have something to tell us.

My attitude may sicken you, but nobody’s going to pull out any stops for me in this big, bad world. And my attempting to change things without preparation or from a position not overwhelmingly strong will merely result in my being taken advantage of.

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

That’s why we need to take precautions and limit the use of torture to the point of a last resort. If it was discovered that we tortured, say, Osama Bin Laden, or one of the other al-Qaeda bigwigs (let’s say one we have caught), you think the outcry would be similar? I seriously doubt it.

[Aaron]

And yet one which has proven effective in certain circumstances. Torture must not be discounted when we’re dealing with al-Qaeda higher-ups whom we know have direct access to information regarding the specifics of that organization – or others like them.

Yes torture has proven effective in some circumstances, it has also proven ineffective in others. The fact remains that if the USA continues to employ torture in it's dealings with POW's then others will treat their US captives the same way. We've already seen this with Nick Berg. And by the way the use of "truth drugs" is considered torture.

You don’t read much news, do you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3627377.stm

Apparently I missed that one.Point conceeded.

It means that we can’t just declare everything finished and stand by every democratic principle while simultaneously fighting a guerilla war against insurgents and terrorists.

No one said that the US should just drop it. Although I personally think that they should pull out of Iraq and call it even. But the US can't abandon it's principals and expect to be treated any better than Saddam was.

I’m not the one who lets a possible chance to extract valuable information slip by on the theory that I’ll reap some “higher” reward if I don’t pull Osama Bin Laden’s fingernails out after I’ve done everything else I can possibly do to get reliable information from him.

There's no "higher" reward here. Just the satisfaction that you did the job within the confines of the nations morals and beliefs. These morals and beliefs are what seperates the US from it's enemies.

First of all, we never lost the moral highground. We still treat the vast majority of the Iraqi prisoners we hold to the letter of the Geneva Conventions. One of the reasons the subject of abuse at Abu Ghriab is so large is that even thought it was on the unit scale, it’s a clear aberration in our patterns of behavior.

Yes the USA has lost the moral high ground. The rest of the world now sees them as being no better than Saddam was. Especially now that it's come to light that Rumsfeld endorsed this behavior. It doesn't matter whether the majority of prisoners are being treated within the confine of the Geneva COnvention or not. The minute the first prisoner was tortured the USA lost any claim to the high ground.

Torture can be useful. It’s already been proven via example. And your argument about reliability is an extremist one: we always have other information on hand to corroborate and analyze confessions. And, as I’ve said before, owing to the nature of the confessions generally acquired during torture, it would be a last resort for people we already know have something to tell us.

My attitude may sicken you, but nobody’s going to pull out any stops for me in this big, bad world. And my attempting to change things without preparation or from a position not overwhelmingly strong will merely result in my being taken advantage of.

You remember that if you ever find yourself being tortured in an unfriendly state. Remember you endorse it, so it's all ok.

That’s why we need to take precautions and limit the use of torture to the point of a last resort. If it was discovered that we tortured, say, Osama Bin Laden, or one of the other al-Qaeda bigwigs (let’s say one we have caught), you think the outcry would be similar? I seriously doubt it.

I think that if the USA was found to have tortured Osama or any other individual regardless of who they are the outcry would be the same. People are upset because it is morally and ethically wrong in western values to do stuff of this nature. Not to forget the numerous conventions and treaties that the US has signed which it has now violated.

[Axis Kast]

Yes torture has proven effective in some circumstances, it has also proven ineffective in others. The fact remains that if the USA continues to employ torture in it's dealings with POW's then others will treat their US captives the same way. We've already seen this with Nick Berg. And by the way the use of "truth drugs" is considered torture.

I don't think anybody expected any different in the first place. Most of the terrorists were probably convinced we tortured prisoners in the first place - even before the pictures surfaced.

No one said that the US should just drop it. Although I personally think that they should pull out of Iraq and call it even. But the US can't abandon it's principals and expect to be treated any better than Saddam was.

No; the U.S. can't pull out and expect others not to increasingly attempt to kill Americans whenever they dislike our policies.

There's no "higher" reward here. Just the satisfaction that you did the job within the confines of the nations morals and beliefs. These morals and beliefs are what seperates the US from it's enemies.

That satisfaction? I've yet to feel it.

Yes the USA has lost the moral high ground. The rest of the world now sees them as being no better than Saddam was. Especially now that it's come to light that Rumsfeld endorsed this behavior. It doesn't matter whether the majority of prisoners are being treated within the confine of the Geneva COnvention or not. The minute the first prisoner was tortured the USA lost any claim to the high ground.

Bullshit. The rest of the world is disappointed in the U.S.; nobody in their right mind actually equates us to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This is you trying to make mountains out of molehills. We have very serious cases of organized abuse, yes. But no, we don't have a police state in which every prisoner exits only when they're missing nine of ten toenails.

You remember that if you ever find yourself being tortured in an unfriendly state. Remember you endorse it, so it's all ok.

It's not that it's "ok" from a moral standpoint; it's that it's an unavoidable aspect of securing one's nation.

I think that if the USA was found to have tortured Osama or any other individual regardless of who they are the outcry would be the same. People are upset because it is morally and ethically wrong in western values to do stuff of this nature. Not to forget the numerous conventions and treaties that the US has signed which it has now violated.

Again, bullshit. If Osama was tortured, I'd expect there to be an outcry that it be televised at some point.

[Aaron]

I don't think anybody expected any different in the first place. Most of the terrorists were probably convinced we tortured prisoners in the first place - even before the pictures surfaced.

They may have expected the USA to torture their prisoners, that is after all what the standard is in the Middle East. But if the US hadn't tortured them, they may have changed their views. After what has happened now their behavior is justified.

No; the U.S. can't pull out and expect others not to increasingly attempt to kill Americans whenever they dislike our policies.

If their gone then it's kinda hard to kill them.

That satisfaction? I've yet to feel it.

That may be because you seem to have a distorted view of morality and ethics.

Bullshit. The rest of the world is disappointed in the U.S.; nobody in their right mind actually equates us to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This is you trying to make mountains out of molehills. We have very serious cases of organized abuse, yes. But no, we don't have a police state in which every prisoner exits only when they're missing nine of ten toenails.

You don't have a police state? I beg to differ, lets examine the facts about present day Iraq. Their is martial law, the same as under Saddam. Prisoners are being tortured, the same as under Saddam. Those two facts alone are enough to consider Iraq a police state, actually the martial law point is enough. There are after all soldiers on every street corner with the power to arrest you with no reason to prove probable cause, and there's no due process.

It's not that it's "ok" from a moral standpoint; it's that it's an unavoidable aspect of securing one's nation.

Funny my nation, Canada, manages to secure itself without resorting to torture.

Again, bullshit. If Osama was tortured, I'd expect there to be an outcry that it be televised at some point.

You honestly think that the people of the world would want or tolerate Osama being tortured? The air must be thin down there in South Africa, cus your hallucinating.

[Predator]

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.

I am having a raelly hard time believing you're this stupid. They're strawmans of my position because I've never, and you can go back and check, said that since torture is happening, we should remove the legal barriers so that it's no longer illegal to do so. Did I advocate removing all laws, when I stated that society will always have crime?

I've explained my position too many times to recount. My position is this: It's a valid observation that human nature means that torture will always happen in war, prisoners will always be abused. It's horrible, but it is a foregone conclusion.

When I say that, that isnt the same as saying "therefore we should make it legal". It's just an observation. Of course we should try to stop it, we always should. We are able to recognise though, that we'll never be truly free of it, in spite of our best efforts.

It's not that hard to understand.

Sometimes a moron needs to obvious drilled into them.

Recognising your own limitations, and striving for self improvement is a very important part of maturity. I'm glad you're able to admit this so openly, good for you. I'm sure you could have done so in private however, and not wasted my time in this thread.

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.

Believe me, I would, if that were at all what I was trying to prove.

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.

You know, that raises an interesting point; what exaftly are you trying to prove? What's your point in this discussion? Perhaps you could provide a lsit of what your position is, so I can understand it. I'll make it easy on you in fact, and set you some questions.

Do you agtree with me that torture at a low level will occur in spite of our best efforts to stop it?

Do you agree with me that we should strive to end this torture?

Do you agree with me that it was predictable that the US would systematically use torture?

Do you agree with me that, even if torture is effective and the best information extraction method in certain circumstances, the vast, vast majority of the time it is used it is morally wrong to do so?

Do you agree with me that if torture works, it is theoretically possible, if unlikely, to concieve of situations where it would be morally justified to use it?

Do you agree that it is theoretically possible that provisions for extremely limited torture could be passed into law? - a bit of a sidetrack really, not crucial to my overall thrust, but what the heck.

Do you agree with me that the torture of prisoners is not the *sole* factor upon which we should judge one regime compared to another?

If you agree with me on the above, then there's no reason for this discussion to continue. If on any of them you dont, then provide your counter argument - and make sure it's actually aimed at that point.

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.

Firstly, as I suspected you are incredibly naive - you must have a terrific faith in your president. Go, you Patriot you.

I see you ignored the links I provided. How convenient. But it goes to prove the point - you're willing to write off the Guantanimo torture allegations because you dont want to believe them - exactly what the Bush administration and the media has conditioned you to do. I'm surprised that even the torture exposed in Abu Ghraib hasnt convinced you to be less skeptical of claims of torture at the hands of the US military. In any case, this, and careful control so as not to allow pictures to be leaked as they were in Abu Ghraib, is why proof is very unlikely to be found.

Not to mention, he hasnt exactly shied away from lying or telling half truths, when you consider the build up to the invasion of Iraq. I'm sure, before this scandal broke, Bush would have been willing to make similar promises of humane treatment regarding Abu Ghraib.

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.

How the heck could you possibly read that into what I wrote? I make a comment sarcastically rolling my eyes at the thought that if Bush says they'll be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, then we can really be confident they are. You take that as me saying "Lets not abide by the geneva convention!"? I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

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?).

You point this out as if it proves torture isnt happening in Guantanimo. Perhaps you should tell the former detainees and others who are alleging it actually is.

You carefully avoided the question though, I see: If the US didnt want to be free to deny rights under the Geneva Convention to Gitmo detainees, why did they go to such lengths to create a special legal blackhole for them, if they were going to grant those rights anyway? Can you come up with a plausible explanation for that?

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?

Of course that's not my point. Why would you think it is? My point is that in spite of our best efforts, there will be torture, and there will be torture that goes unpunished, the perpetrators getting away with the crime. Once again, that *doesnt* mean I'm saying we shouldnt do all we can to end that.

*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?

That's funny - you realy think that's what I'm saying? Mentioning the fact that torture *can* happen as a result of official sanction, as part of a (doomed) policy to maintain control is *not* to say that's how it should be!
This is sort of like watching someone repeatedly walk into a brick wall. Sort of funny for a while, until they begin bleeding profusely.

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.

Dont confuse two seperate issues. There's state sanctioned torture of the kind Saddam utilised, the systematic, institutional torture of a large number of people (often completely innocent) as a part of a policy towards some national goal - control, power, and so forth.

Then there's the issue of torture in incredibly extreme circumstances, such that it'd rarely if ever be used, and only in situations where the greater good was at stake -saving a large number of lives, and so forth. This in itself is conditional on torture actually working, which is a question I cant answer.

You'd like to think the two are one in the same. It suits your purposes to try and paint the second as being the same as the first. They're not remotely similar. I have, throughout this thread, maintained opposition to the first example I give above. The second, I defend on the condition that torture actually is useful and there are no superior methods. See? That's it, summarised right there. That's what I'm saying and that's all I'm saying - you dont need to keep trying to frame my argument as "lets legalise torture so our boys arent acting illegally anymore!".

Come back when you actually have something worthwhile to say.

[Patrick Degan]

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 blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblah...

Yes, we know the world's a nasty place, shitwit. The whole point of civilisation is the effort to change that.

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.

There was a wider objective in mind with regard to Somaila —regional stability. It was not in our interests to have a nation that close to the Persian Gulf region crumble into total anarchy and famine. That the mission was fucked up is a seperate issue.

Your idiotic "might makes right" weltpolitik is the stupid foreign policy in question. Beyond the fact that we hung a bunch of people at the end of World War II for implementing policies based on precisely that sort of thinking, our adopting it for our own purposes undermines American credibility and makes coordinated action within the diplomatic and military spheres manifestly more difficult. It has already quite possibly cost us the war in Iraq, because now the Iraqis will never trust us and the rest of the Arab world now has a reason to believe Osama binLaden's rhetoric about the goals of the United States in the region.

Amusing. When your attempted Tiger Defence was exploded upon the revelation that the torture carried out at Abu Ghrab wasn't due to soldiers under stress but rather an extention of national policy, you fell back upon the tired "might makes right" excuse to handwave away the issue. Your arguments shift with the breeze.

So sorry if that offends your ego.

[Patrick Degan]

And another brick crumbles:

Linky

May 16, 2004

Abuse Scandal Focuses on Bush Foundation
By PETE YOST
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -

The Iraq prisoner abuse scandal shifted Sunday to the question of whether the Bush administration set up a legal foundation that opened the door for the mistreatment.

Within months of the Sept. 11 attacks, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales reportedly wrote President Bush a memo about the terrorism fight and prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions.

"In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions," Gonzales wrote, according to the report in Newsweek magazine. Secretary of State Colin Powell "hit the roof" when he read the memo, according to the account.

The White House did not immediately comment Sunday.

The roots of the scandal lay in a decision, approved last year by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a classified operation for aggressive interrogations to Iraqi prisoners, a program that had been focused on the hunt for al-Qaida, The New Yorker magazine reported.

The Pentagon said that story was "filled with error and anonymous conjecture" and called it "outlandish, conspiratorial." National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, in a German television interview, said of The New Yorker report, "As far as we can tell, there's really nothing to the story."

Powell said Sunday that there were discussions at high levels inside the Bush administration last fall about information from the International Committee of the Red Cross alleging prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, the focal point of the scandal.

"We knew that the ICRC had concerns, and in accordance with the matter in which the ICRC does its work, it presented those concerns directly to the command in Baghdad," Powell said on "Fox News Sunday." "And I know that some corrective action was taken with respect to those concerns."

Powell added, "All of the reports we received from ICRC having to do with the situation in Guantanamo, the situation in Afghanistan or the situation in Iraq was the subject of discussion within the administration, at our principals' committee meetings" and at National Security Council meetings.

Congressional critics suggested the administration may have unwisely imported to Iraq techniques from the war on al-Qaida.

"There is a sort of morphing of the rules of treatment," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. "We can treat al-Qaida this way, and we can't treat prisoners captured this way, but where do insurgents fit? This is a dangerous slope."

The abuse scandal goes "much higher" than the young American guards watching over Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

In early 2002, the White House announced that Taliban and al-Qaida detainees would not be afforded prisoner-of-war status, but that the United States would apply the Geneva Conventions to the war in Afghanistan.

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the reports that Rumsfeld approved a secret program on interrogation for use in Iraq raise "this issue to a whole new level."

Asked about the Gonzales memo, Powell said: "I wouldn't comment on the specific memo without rereading it again. But ... the Geneva Accord is an important standard in international law and we have to comply with it."

Powell, interviewed from Jordan by NBC, left open the possibility of problems up the line from the prison guards who engaged in abuse. "I don't see yet any indication that there was a command-climate problem higher up," the secretary said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., expressed concern over the shift in responsibility for the scandal at the prison, where military intelligence personnel were given authority over the military police.

"We need to take this as far up as it goes," said McCain.

Former CIA counterterrorism official Vincent Cannistraro said it was a major miscalculation to apply interrogation methods that were specifically designed to extract information from al-Qaida prisoners to Abu Ghraib and other holding centers inside Iraq.

"It was probably the most counterproductive move that the policy-makers could have made and it showed the complete misunderstanding of the Iraq culture," said Cannistraro.

The reasons for importing the techniques, Cannistraro said, were the frustrations at the policy level in Washington that not enough information was being obtained about weapons of mass destruction and the frustration over the lack of information about the resistance in Iraq.

---

On the Net:

Taguba report: http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/taguba.pdf

[Dahak]

In your world.

Which you also live in.

No, I'm afraid. I do live in a world where moral integrity still counts.

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.

I’m not the one who lets a possible chance to extract valuable information slip by on the theory that I’ll reap some “higher” reward if I don’t pull Osama Bin Laden’s fingernails out after I’ve done everything else I can possibly do to get reliable information from him.

And to get a non-existant "higher" reward, you spit on rights and principles thousands of people fought for with their life?

Acknoledging that there are principles that may not be violated is what sets us apart from others. Throwing that away is something you'll regret down the road.

First of all, we never lost the moral highground. We still treat the vast majority of the Iraqi prisoners we hold to the letter of the Geneva Conventions. One of the reasons the subject of abuse at Abu Ghriab is so large is that even thought it was on the unit scale, it’s a clear aberration in our patterns of behavior.

THat you treated the majority accoring to the convention is fine and dandy, but you will also have to take responsibility for the treatment of those minorities who haven't been treated according to it.

You cannot just handwave that away saying "Oh but we did treat some prisoners as we should!!".

Just face it, the little morale highground and goodwill of the Iraqi people you had, was flushed down the toilet with those photos.

Why should they ever trust you again?

[Edi]

There is also this little gem: Michael Manning on torture

This guy is a former Specialist Interrogator with the 142nd Military Intelligence Battalion, US Army National Guard, and he says that there is nothing surprising or shocking (other than the surprise and shock expressed by Americans) about the Abu Ghraib scandal, and that torture of prisoners is and has been standard US MI policy for at least the past twenty years.

Edi

[Vympel]

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

Thanks for completely missing the point, dumbass. The problem with torture has been gone over before.

Did it ever enter your malfunctioning 'cost-benefit analysis' that the United States does not exist in a vacuum and that the perceptions of the outside world and reactions based on those perceptions have a DIRECT effect on her national security? I know you're already beyond the basic moral principles that seperate us from savages when it comes to international politics (a distinction you've never satisfactorily explained, but that's for another time), but the above should be obvious even to you.

[Axis Kast]

They may have expected the USA to torture their prisoners, that is after all what the standard is in the Middle East. But if the US hadn't tortured them, they may have changed their views. After what has happened now their behavior is justified.

There is so much propaganda already in place that in Pakistan, many people already believe we used atomic weaponry in Iraq.

If their gone then it's kinda hard to kill them.

Don’t tell me your this fucking stupid. We will inevitably have to go to other places even if we were to pull out of Iraq.

That may be because you seem to have a distorted view of morality and ethics.

I’m not part of the crew who sign onto SD.net to insult other people, genius. I find it endlessly hilarious that you and people like you insist that I’ve got gross moral deficiencies when you obviously foam at the mouth to rip into anybody with a contrary opinion in the most rabid of senses.

You don't have a police state? I beg to differ, lets examine the facts about present day Iraq. Their is martial law, the same as under Saddam. Prisoners are being tortured, the same as under Saddam. Those two facts alone are enough to consider Iraq a police state, actually the martial law point is enough. There are after all soldiers on every street corner with the power to arrest you with no reason to prove probable cause, and there's no due process.

“Police state” was the wrong word; the point is that we haven’t revived Saddam’s regime in another form. Martial law went hand-in-hand with the occupation; even the most successful efforts in Iraq would have featured martial law.

Funny my nation, Canada, manages to secure itself without resorting to torture.

Did you ever consider it’s because Canada has a relatively low international profile as compared to the U.S.? You’re not exactly the most attractive target on the block when it comes to bucking Western influence. And don’t tell me nobody in Canada’s ever brutalized anybody else in the search for information, or as the fallout of a larger military operation. The Somali example was raised earlier. The chaos and conditions of war facilitate abuse.

You honestly think that the people of the world would want or tolerate Osama being tortured? The air must be thin down there in South Africa, cus your hallucinating.

Absolutely.

Yes, we know the world's a nasty place, shitwit. The whole point of civilisation is the effort to change that.

But it won’t. Because it’s made by the same people who make the same world a nasty place in the first place, moron.

There was a wider objective in mind with regard to Somaila —regional stability. It was not in our interests to have a nation that close to the Persian Gulf region crumble into total anarchy and famine. That the mission was fucked up is a seperate issue.

Your idiotic "might makes right" weltpolitik is the stupid foreign policy in question. Beyond the fact that we hung a bunch of people at the end of World War II for implementing policies based on precisely that sort of thinking, our adopting it for our own purposes undermines American credibility and makes coordinated action within the diplomatic and military spheres manifestly more difficult. It has already quite possibly cost us the war in Iraq, because now the Iraqis will never trust us and the rest of the Arab world now has a reason to believe Osama binLaden's rhetoric about the goals of the United States in the region.

Amusing. When your attempted Tiger Defence was exploded upon the revelation that the torture carried out at Abu Ghrab wasn't due to soldiers under stress but rather an extention of national policy, you fell back upon the tired "might makes right" excuse to handwave away the issue. Your arguments shift with the breeze.

So sorry if that offends your ego.

Strawman. That you don’t understand the nuances of a policy that works off strict cost-benefit analysis isn’t my problem; it’s yours. Of course, you’ll never take the time to understand it, because you’re too eager to criticize something you don’t understand at all.

And we hung a bunch of people at the end of the Second World War for slaughtering eleven million people, not for invading their neighbors. Nice lie, though.

Our use of selfish thinking should always be tempered by the kinds of issues you raise, idiot. I didn’t say we should throw all caution to the fucking wind. I do support making people accountable for the abuses in Iraq – which I agree in and of themselves served no clear purpose. I haven’t waved the torture away, you blithering moron. I’ve merely pointed out that abuses on some level are to be expected to go along with war, and that properly applied, the methods of torture can be useful in specific times and in specific situations, and thus should not be subject to a general moratorium.

No, I'm afraid. I do live in a world where moral integrity still counts.

And what world is that? Super Mario World?

And to get a non-existant "higher" reward, you spit on rights and principles thousands of people fought for with their life?

Acknoledging that there are principles that may not be violated is what sets us apart from others. Throwing that away is something you'll regret down the road.

And to get a non-existant "higher" reward, you spit on rights and principles thousands of people fought for with their life?

Acknoledging that there are principles that may not be violated is what sets us apart from others. Throwing that away is something you'll regret down the road.[/quote]

Okay, stop with the false dilemmas right now. I am in no way spitting on anybody when I point out that those ideals they fought for must sometimes be obviated in order to do long-term good. Torturing Osama bin Laden is no violation of those principles, since it’s meant to permit thousands of others to enjoy them after threats have been dealt with which could not have been identified by other means.

I acknowledge that we have principles to aspire to in order to create a society we wish to live and prosper within. Of course, blindly clinging to those morals come hell or high water will do you no good; you’ll be quite dead before you can actually spread or share them.

THat you treated the majority accoring to the convention is fine and dandy, but you will also have to take responsibility for the treatment of those minorities who haven't been treated according to it.

You cannot just handwave that away saying "Oh but we did treat some prisoners as we should!!".

Just face it, the little morale highground and goodwill of the Iraqi people you had, was flushed down the toilet with those photos.

Why should they ever trust you again?

Strawman. I never said we should ignore what happened. I, in fact, agree with whoever argued for a quick and public prospecution and punishment, a physical destruction of Abu Ghriab, and public apologies.

We’ve certainly been dealt a harsh blow, and we need to prove to the Iraqis – who, by the way, watch U.S.-sponsored television in ever larger numbers – that we’re doing everything we can to change that.

The way you love to change my argument so you can better argue against some imagined evil manifestation of something I never said is rather funny after a while.

Thanks for completely missing the point, dumbass. The problem with torture has been gone over before.

Did you even read the thread? It’s why torture is a last fucking resort in cases where we know information is being withheld.

Did it ever enter your malfunctioning 'cost-benefit analysis' that the United States does not exist in a vacuum and that the perceptions of the outside world and reactions based on those perceptions have a DIRECT effect on her national security? I know you're already beyond the basic moral principles that seperate us from savages when it comes to international politics (a distinction you've never satisfactorily explained, but that's for another time), but the above should be obvious even to you.

Which is why we need to change how we deal with low-level prisoners and reserve torture only for special cases. I haven’t said much different from what you’re saying, except in your own mind.

Any cost-benefit analysis takes into account what others think. Yes, we have damage-control to do, and this should never have happened, nor gone to the public to the degree it did after the fact. Of course, pretending as you do that a cost-benefit analysis utterly disregards its own consequences is just absolutely stupid. But nothing more can be expected from people like you, who harp to the High Heavens about international morality but lack any personal conviction when it comes to insulting everyone else in sight.

[Vympel]

Did you even read the thread? It?s why torture is a last fucking resort in cases where we know information is being withheld.

I know what you said, and as a last resort it's still as bad as a first resort. The cost is too high for dubious benefits.

Which is why we need to change how we deal with low-level prisoners and reserve torture only for special cases. I haven?t said much different from what you?re saying, except in your own mind.

The only difference is that you think it's reliable enough to justify its use for special cases. I don't think it is.

Any cost-benefit analysis takes into account what others think. Yes, we have damage-control to do, and this should never have happened, nor gone to the public to the degree it did after the fact. Of course, pretending as you do that a cost-benefit analysis utterly disregards its own consequences is just absolutely stupid. But nothing more can be expected from people like you, who harp to the High Heavens about international morality but lack any personal conviction when it comes to insulting everyone else in sight.

LOL- "insults" = "advocating any manner of atrocity on random foreigners as long as it 'benefits my nation'"- if there was anything that showed how well and truly fucked your moral compass was, this was it. Calling someone you think is an idiot exactly that doesn't make one an immoral person, dipshit- "hell fuck it, kill em, but don't CALL THEM NAMES!"

[Patrick Degan]

Yes, we know the world's a nasty place, shitwit. The whole point of civilisation is the effort to change that.

But it won’t. Because it’s made by the same people who make the same world a nasty place in the first place, moron.

No it isn't, imbecile. Warmongering dictators are not the standard by which civilisation is defined.

That you don’t understand the nuances of a policy that works off strict cost-benefit analysis isn’t my problem; it’s yours. Of course, you’ll never take the time to understand it, because you’re too eager to criticize something you don’t understand at all.

I understand it perfectly, shitwit. Our policy has resulted in the near-wreck of our effort in Iraq and has created diplomatic compications for us in the Arab world we did not have before launching this wholly unnecessary war.

And we hung a bunch of people at the end of the Second World War for slaughtering eleven million people, not for invading their neighbors. Nice lie, though.

Your lie? No, it's as clumsy as all your other arguments. Those murders took place under the aegis of the very ideology you so desperately seek to defend.

Our use of selfish thinking should always be tempered by the kinds of issues you raise, idiot. I didn’t say we should throw all caution to the fucking wind. I do support making people accountable for the abuses in Iraq – which I agree in and of themselves served no clear purpose. I haven’t waved the torture away, you blithering moron. I’ve merely pointed out that abuses on some level are to be expected to go along with war, and that properly applied, the methods of torture can be useful in specific times and in specific situations, and thus should not be subject to a general moratorium.

Nice little backpedal. Pity it doesn't save the rest of your "argument", however.

[Aaron]

There is so much propaganda already in place that in Pakistan, many people already believe we used atomic weaponry in Iraq.

I hadn't heard that. Are there any sources to back it up?

Don’t tell me your this fucking stupid. We will inevitably have to go to other places even if we were to pull out of Iraq.

There is no reason for the USA to interfere with the internal problems of a sovereign nation except in self-defense. It seems that all the invasion of Iraq did was give the fundies more of an opportunity to kill Americans and other westerners. Before the invasion they had to go out of their way to do it. Now their on the fundies doorstep.

I’m not part of the crew who sign onto SD.net to insult other people, genius. I find it endlessly hilarious that you and people like you insist that I’ve got gross moral deficiencies when you obviously foam at the mouth to rip into anybody with a contrary opinion in the most rabid of senses.

I didn't sign on to insult people but to try and have rational discussions. I do however believe that you have some ethical and moral issues to work out. If you have opinions that run contrary to the majority then you have to expect a certain amount of people are going to refute your arguments. Personally I think you somehow "get off" on this persecution complex that you seem to have.

“Police state” was the wrong word; the point is that we haven’t revived Saddam’s regime in another form. Martial law went hand-in-hand with the occupation; even the most successful efforts in Iraq would have featured martial law.

I agree that martial law would be part of the occupation initially. The Coalition has to make the revival of the Iraqi police forces a priority or the Iraqi's will see that the USA has no interest in making things better for them. As for reviving Saddams regime in another form, well people are still disappearing of the streets for no apperent reasons, and there's no due process, how is that any better than Saddam's regime?

Did you ever consider it’s because Canada has a relatively low international profile as compared to the U.S.? You’re not exactly the most attractive target on the block when it comes to bucking Western influence. And don’t tell me nobody in Canada’s ever brutalized anybody else in the search for information, or as the fallout of a larger military operation. The Somali example was raised earlier. The chaos and conditions of war facilitate abuse.

I myself have quoted the Somali Incident as an example of Canadian brutality. The difference between that incident and these is that the Canadian incident was not done in the name of "national security" or to extract information, nor was it condoned at the highest level of Canadian government like the USA prison abuses are. In fact the problems with the Canadian Airborne Regiment where contained within one company of troops, and was not brigade wide as the USA problems are. As for Canadians torturing people for information, there has never been any evidence to support that claim. All the information points to what Canada claims to be, a peaceful and just nation.

You honestly think that the people of the world would want or tolerate Osama being tortured? The air must be thin down there in South Africa, cus your hallucinating.

Absolutely.

I honestly don't believe that the majority of the worlds populace wants Osama tortured. The people of the USA might, but they don't speak for the world, thank god.

[Axis Kast]

]I know what you said, and as a last resort it's still as bad as a first resort. The cost is too high for dubious benefits.

The only difference is that you think it's reliable enough to justify its use for special cases. I don't think it is.[/quote]

Let’s investigate why.

Pro: Torture can be used to extract information from suspected terrorists.

Con: There is a high chance the person undergoing torture will provide what he or she believes are sought-after answers in order to avoid or cut short the torture process.

Conclusion: Torture should not be a primary method of interrogation, but assuming all other options have been exhausted and persons competent to analyze torture-induced admissions are present, torture may be a useful tool. One must also ask whether, if torture induces a patient to offer “bad” responses or non-actionable information, whether anything given during non-invasive interrogation wouldn’t be equally suspect anyway.

Pro: Torture can be used to extract information from high-profile persons.

Con: Torture is usually considered reprehensible by the public.

Conclusion: Nobody’s going to shed too many tears over Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. If we confine our torture to those very high-profile persons whom we already know are guilty – and have the most to divulge in the first place –, public relations “fallout” should be minimal.

LOL- "insults" = "advocating any manner of atrocity on random foreigners as long as it 'benefits my nation'"- if there was anything that showed how well and truly fucked your moral compass was, this was it. Calling someone you think is an idiot exactly that doesn't make one an immoral person, dipshit- "hell fuck it, kill em, but don't CALL THEM NAMES!"

But I don’t pretend to be driven by a moral compass when I formulate my politics. You claim a moral compass drives everything you think about or do. Obviously, that’s a falsification.

No it isn't, imbecile. Warmongering dictators are not the standard by which civilisation is defined.

And the people who go along with warmongering dictators? The majorities that sometimes sweep them to power? The hundreds of thousands guilty of mass murder? The planet is a terrible place, Deegan. This idealistic society you people keep looking toward simply cannot exist. Too many people will force too many other people to compromise themselves at great cost. So why set ourselves up for a fall in the first place? Play hardball first – on your own terms –, and then worry about what you’re going to do when you have the pennant.

I understand it perfectly, shitwit. Our policy has resulted in the near-wreck of our effort in Iraq and has created diplomatic compications for us in the Arab world we did not have before launching this wholly unnecessary war.

Now you’re confusing “War in Iraq” with “cost-benefit analysis.” How can you compare it to anything when you don’t even seem to understand it in the first place? Your idea of a “cost-benefit” analysis in action is some idiot driving a tank over people just because he can. You don’t intend to argue the merits or even the actual cons of the position – just to defame through strawmen anyone who presumes to champion it.

Your lie? No, it's as clumsy as all your other arguments. Those murders took place under the aegis of the very ideology you so desperately seek to defend.

My lie? Find me evidence that people convicted at Nuremburg were convinced for anything but war crimes and slaughter. Find me evidence that one man – one single individual – was imprisoned or put to death for the invasion of Poland or France or Czechoslovakia.

Nice little backpedal. Pity it doesn't save the rest of your "argument", however.

What backpedal? When did I ever wave the torture away? You seem to love distorting my argument, Deegan. Did you even read it in the first place?

I hadn't heard that. Are there any sources to back it up?

It was on the forum a while ago. It’s probably still in the archives.

There is no reason for the USA to interfere with the internal problems of a sovereign nation except in self-defense. It seems that all the invasion of Iraq did was give the fundies more of an opportunity to kill Americans and other westerners. Before the invasion they had to go out of their way to do it. Now their on the fundies doorstep.

In what timeframe is a position such as this realistic? The early 1900s? At this point, the world is so globalized, that everyone’s business is our business (and, to an increasing extent, our business is everyone’s as well).

Second, you didn’t even approach the actual subject, which was that pulling out of Iraq would indicate to terrorists the same thing that the Madrid bombings and Spain’s pull-out did: kill enough Westerners, and their policies will change.

I didn't sign on to insult people but to try and have rational discussions. I do however believe that you have some ethical and moral issues to work out. If you have opinions that run contrary to the majority then you have to expect a certain amount of people are going to refute your arguments. Personally I think you somehow "get off" on this persecution complex that you seem to have.

My ideas are only significantly against the grain on this board. If I have ethical and moral issues to work out about my position on foreign affairs, I don’t know what kind of doctors you need to deal with your personal aggressions.

I myself have quoted the Somali Incident as an example of Canadian brutality. The difference between that incident and these is that the Canadian incident was not done in the name of "national security" or to extract information, nor was it condoned at the highest level of Canadian government like the USA prison abuses are. In fact the problems with the Canadian Airborne Regiment where contained within one company of troops, and was not brigade wide as the USA problems are. As for Canadians torturing people for information, there has never been any evidence to support that claim. All the information points to what Canada claims to be, a peaceful and just nation.

But ensuring your national interests by going to Somalia put you in a position to commit torture. And some individuals did. That, first of all, is in part proof of my original argument: war breeds chaos, which breeds abuse. If it happens in a place like Somalia, you’re going to tell me it didn’t happen in Vietnam, in Korea, in WWII, or even in WWI? Allied soldiers used to punch the eyes out and chop the noses off Germans who used saw-bayonets.

Next, I’ll admit that not every country uses torture on a regular basis, but if you think that Canada is remotely alike to the U.S. in security needs, you need to go and retake a course in modern history. The United States can simply not afford to leave stones unturned.

[Andrew J.]

That’s why we need to take precautions and limit the use of torture to the point of a last resort. If it was discovered that we tortured, say, Osama Bin Laden, or one of the other al-Qaeda bigwigs (let’s say one we have caught), you think the outcry would be similar? I seriously doubt it.

Are you joking? The EU is opposed even to the death penalty, and that's supposed to be painless. If we tortured a criminal like Osama they'd probably demand a war crimes trial for Bush at the Hague. Never mind the Middle East, either. Torturing Osama would probably just increase terrorist recruitment by half a dozen orders of magnitude.

Just like I said before, the world is a horrible place because of people like you. The key to making the world better is to fight them and kill them after due process of law in the quickest, most painless way possible.

[Aaron]

In what timeframe is a position such as this realistic? The early 1900s? At this point, the world is so globalized, that everyone’s business is our business (and, to an increasing extent, our business is everyone’s as well).

Second, you didn’t even approach the actual subject, which was that pulling out of Iraq would indicate to terrorists the same thing that the Madrid bombings and Spain’s pull-out did: kill enough Westerners, and their policies will change.

What gives the USA the right to determine the course that other nations must take? Is it because they are the most powerful? Might does not necassarily make right. There is a reason why the UN exists, so that nations can resolve their differences and so the strong can't prey on the weak, as the USA has done these past four years.

What does it matter what message the USA sends to terrorists? Spain pulled out of Iraq because their new PM relized that the people did not support the war in Iraq. He had already promised to do this before the bombings happened. It was the will of the people and the previous PM was wrong to go to Iraq without the public's support. Spain's withdrawl had nothing to do with the Madrid bombings.

Vietnam has already shown that if you kill enough US servicemen that they will cut their losses and go home.

My ideas are only significantly against the grain on this board. If I have ethical and moral issues to work out about my position on foreign affairs, I don’t know what kind of doctors you need to deal with your personal aggressions.

How is refuting your arguments being aggressive?

But ensuring your national interests by going to Somalia put you in a position to commit torture. And some individuals did. That, first of all, is in part proof of my original argument: war breeds chaos, which breeds abuse. If it happens in a place like Somalia, you’re going to tell me it didn’t happen in Vietnam, in Korea, in WWII, or even in WWI? Allied soldiers used to punch the eyes out and chop the noses off Germans who used saw-bayonets.

Canada's involvement in Somalia had nothing to do with our national interests. We were involved because trying to bring peace to Somalia was the right thing to do. I will conceed that war does breed some abuse. It is a documented fact that it was present in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. That doesn't make it ok though. Nor does it mean, that because it happens anyways that it should become national policy.

Next, I’ll admit that not every country uses torture on a regular basis, but if you think that Canada is remotely alike to the U.S. in security needs, you need to go and retake a course in modern history. The United States can simply not afford to leave stones unturned.

I never claimed that Canada has the same security needs as the USA. You said that every country uses these methods, and I refuted that claim because I know that Canada doesn't use these methods. Even though we are closely related to the USA in regards to culture.

[Axis Kast]

Are you joking? The EU is opposed even to the death penalty, and that's supposed to be painless. If we tortured a criminal like Osama they'd probably demand a war crimes trial for Bush at the Hague. Never mind the Middle East, either. Torturing Osama would probably just increase terrorist recruitment by half a dozen orders of magnitude.

Just like I said before, the world is a horrible place because of people like you. The key to making the world better is to fight them and kill them after due process of law in the quickest, most painless way possible.

I was refering to the United States. I also happen to feel, though, that if we were discovered to have tortured Bin Laden for information, most of Europe would let it pass as virtually inevitable given our rage over 9/11 and the desire to prevent similar situations again.

Not everyone can be taken before the law without extralegal means. Nor can every danger be met solely with the restraint of legal means.

hat gives the USA the right to determine the course that other nations must take? Is it because they are the most powerful? Might does not necassarily make right. There is a reason why the UN exists, so that nations can resolve their differences and so the strong can't prey on the weak, as the USA has done these past four years.

There is no "right" in internaitonal relations. So forget your idealistic bullshit about conditions that don't exist.

What does it matter what message the USA sends to terrorists? Spain pulled out of Iraq because their new PM relized that the people did not support the war in Iraq. He had already promised to do this before the bombings happened. It was the will of the people and the previous PM was wrong to go to Iraq without the public's support. Spain's withdrawl had nothing to do with the Madrid bombings.

Tell that to the terrorists. The message Spain thought it was sending differed from the one it actually sent. And, if Americans pull out of Iraq, it will merely be a signal to terrorists: kill enough Americans, and eventually, we'll get sick of whatever we've put our mind to in the first place. It'd be a logical conclusion.

Vietnam has already shown that if you kill enough US servicemen that they will cut their losses and go home.

And this is all about proving that we're not going to let that happen again, genius.

How is refuting your arguments being aggressive?

Not the refuting, but the manner of refuting. People here don't challenge my arguments; people like Deegan and yourself simply ignore what I actually write and fight with the fucking air.

Canada's involvement in Somalia had nothing to do with our national interests. We were involved because trying to bring peace to Somalia was the right thing to do. I will conceed that war does breed some abuse. It is a documented fact that it was present in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. That doesn't make it ok though. Nor does it mean, that because it happens anyways that it should become national policy.

And it put you in a horrendous, untenable position. Humanitarian policy is stupid.

And I didn't say that torture in general was "okay." Stop strawmaning my argument.

I never claimed that Canada has the same security needs as the USA. You said that every country uses these methods, and I refuted that claim because I know that Canada doesn't use these methods. Even though we are closely related to the USA in regards to culture.

Perhaps this is a superior argument, then: torture is a useful tool for those nations seeking to ensure their security.

[Aaron]

There is no "right" in internaitonal relations. So forget your idealistic bullshit about conditions that don't exist.

On the contrary I believe there is. Maybe I'm wrong but I've spent my adult life in the Canadian Army defending such concepts.

Tell that to the terrorists. The message Spain thought it was sending differed from the one it actually sent. And, if Americans pull out of Iraq, it will merely be a signal to terrorists: kill enough Americans, and eventually, we'll get sick of whatever we've put our mind to in the first place. It'd be a logical conclusion.

I agree that if the Americans pull out of Iraq that their enemies would reach that conclusion.

And this is all about proving that we're not going to let that happen again, genius.

Yes but how many lives are the USA willing to sacrifice to achieve this aim? And how many lives is too many to bring democracy to a country that doesn't want it?

Not the refuting, but the manner of refuting. People here don't challenge my arguments; people like Deegan and yourself simply ignore what I actually write and fight with the fucking air.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with my debating methods. I am open to sugestions though.

And it put you in a horrendous, untenable position. Humanitarian policy is stupid.

And I didn't say that torture in general was "okay." Stop strawmaning my argument.

I happen to believe that humanitarian missions are worth it. We in the west have an obligation to help countries that are in need. Provided that we don't force our beliefs on them. From where I sit it sure seems like you think torture is ok, given certain circumstances.

Perhaps this is a superior argument, then: torture is a useful tool for those nations seeking to ensure their security.

Perhaps it is, personally I think the disadvantages outway the gains. The risk of getting false information is too high, and if one country employs torture against it's POW's then it's enemies will use it against them.

[Vympel]

Let?s investigate why.

Pro: Torture can be used to extract information from suspected terrorists.

Con: There is a high chance the person undergoing torture will provide what he or she believes are sought-after answers in order to avoid or cut short the torture process.

Conclusion: Torture should not be a primary method of interrogation, but assuming all other options have been exhausted and persons competent to analyze torture-induced admissions are present, torture may be a useful tool. One must also ask whether, if torture induces a patient to offer ?bad? responses or non-actionable information, whether anything given during non-invasive interrogation wouldn?t be equally suspect anyway.

Non-ivasive interrogation is less likely to be suspect because the respondent is not under extreme duress. In case you missed it, in the whole torture flurries, I've seen more than one testimony that other forms of interrogation yield superior information.

Pro: Torture can be used to extract information from high-profile persons.

Con: Torture is usually considered reprehensible by the public.

Conclusion: Nobody?s going to shed too many tears over Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. If we confine our torture to those very high-profile persons whom we already know are guilty ? and have the most to divulge in the first place ?, public relations ?fallout? should be minimal.

So your standard is "torture them if we already know they're guilty?" And who gets to make that decision?

But I don?t pretend to be driven by a moral compass when I formulate my politics. You claim a moral compass drives everything you think about or do. Obviously, that?s a falsification.

Please point out where I claimed it "drives" everything I think about or do. Furthemore, please provide your reasoning for why telling someone what you think of them when they say something you find fucking stupid immoral. What point exactly you think you're scoring here, I don't know- maybe you subscribe to an absurd Bilblical concept of sin and you think someone who advocates any atrocity as long as they get something out of it is equally as bas as calling someone a slur.

[Axis Kast]

On the contrary I believe there is. Maybe I'm wrong but I've spent my adult life in the Canadian Army defending such concepts.

But might does make right. Might determines the lay of the land in international relations. You have, in fact, spent your whole adult life preparing for the possibility that you’d have to use force to compel others to recognize ideals that you recognize, but they do not. Obviously, you use power to maintain a privilege. A “right” is a mere abstraction. Nothing but force guarantees you to live the way you wish.

Even the United Nations functions on that same level. Aggression such as that of Iraq in 1991 has become so stunning precisely because the United Nations can coordination military action against such contingencies. Canada isn’t left alone because everybody agrees with your position that all people deserve this or that right and allowance in life; it’s left alone because it’s too difficult and impractical for anyone else to seize what is Canadian.

And by the way, I question how it is that we’ve “preyed on the weak” in the four years since George Bush took office. Or do you mean to tell me you actually believe we had no right to punish Afghanistan for allowing al-Qaeda to operate with their express permission?

Yes but how many lives are the USA willing to sacrifice to achieve this aim? And how many lives is too many to bring democracy to a country that doesn't want it?

That depends; even John Kerry has promised to remain in Iraq. Obviously, Americans are willing to sacrifice a great deal of blood and treasure. Many in the highest circles of government seem to agree: the message sent pulling out of Iraq might bring even worse consequences than a death toll numbering in the thousands.

I happen to believe that humanitarian missions are worth it. We in the west have an obligation to help countries that are in need. Provided that we don't force our beliefs on them. From where I sit it sure seems like you think torture is ok, given certain circumstances.

Humanitarian missions often turn out to be disasters. In Rwanda, peacekeepers were frozen by the overwhelming determination of two groups of people to slaughter one another. In Somalia – assuming you consider that a humanitarian operation on the whole, which is something you and I seem to agree on –, we discovered very quickly that foreign aid and “benevolent” intervention came second to clan loyalty. People stood by warlords and family groups even when their own cousins and distant relatives were part of the criminal elements that confiscated the food aid meant for their children. When we went after those responsible, everybody felt obligated to shoot at us. Ultimately, we left the country no better than we found it – and ourselves with a bloody nose and boys to bury. Obviously, there is no way to help someone else without communicating something of your own ethical code and ideological beliefs.

And I think that torture can become a tool in certain situations, yes. That doesn’t make it appropriate for wide-scale use. And it certainly isn’t moral.

Perhaps it is, personally I think the disadvantages outway the gains. The risk of getting false information is too high, and if one country employs torture against it's POW's then it's enemies will use it against them.

First of all, I concur that the cost of violating the Geneva Conventions in a regular war would be too high for U.S. servicemen and women. No conventional war should ever feature torture. But when we deal with terrorists, that’s another story. Their agents are already willing to kill Americans, as we have seen. Torturing their leaders for information isn’t exactly going to invite any new response; at worst, we’ll run into the same kind of situation that befell Nicholas Berg: an American is killed as per usual terrorist methods, and then his death is linked to the torture of terrorists and combatants in order to produce a media circus.

Make no mistake: I oppose what happened in Iraq. But I am not willing to say that torture is never going to be appropriate under any circumstances whatsoever.

Non-ivasive interrogation is less likely to be suspect because the respondent is not under extreme duress. In case you missed it, in the whole torture flurries, I've seen more than one testimony that other forms of interrogation yield superior information.

Which is why it’s a last resort. The point, Vympel, is that you’re leaving stones unturned. As for duress, you need to explain again why somebody would lie under torture any less than they would lie under less invasive questioning.

So your standard is "torture them if we already know they're guilty?" And who gets to make that decision?

I think you’d agree that al-Qaeda and other terrorist higher-ups who take credit for bombings and similar atrocities can be assumed guilty.

Please point out where I claimed it "drives" everything I think about or do. Furthemore, please provide your reasoning for why telling someone what you think of them when they say something you find fucking stupid immoral. What point exactly you think you're scoring here, I don't know- maybe you subscribe to an absurd Bilblical concept of sin and you think someone who advocates any atrocity as long as they get something out of it is equally as bas as calling someone a slur.

My point, Vympel, is that you claim my morality is the most blatantly offensive thing in the world, but that you yourself are among the biggest pricks I’ve ever encountered. Hope that’s simple enough for you.

[Aaron]

And by the way, I question how it is that we’ve “preyed on the weak” in the four years since George Bush took office. Or do you mean to tell me you actually believe we had no right to punish Afghanistan for allowing al-Qaeda to operate with their express permission?

No, I supported the decison to attack Afghanistan, it was after all supporting and possibly funding Al-Queda. When I say praying on the weak I mean primarily the war in Iraq. The justification for the war has proven to be false, as I see it the only reason Bush invaded Iraq was to settle an old score. Preying on the weak also includes the treatment of prisoners in Iraq and at Gitmo who have been held without trial or representation for over two years now.

That depends; even John Kerry has promised to remain in Iraq. Obviously, Americans are willing to sacrifice a great deal of blood and treasure. Many in the highest circles of government seem to agree: the message sent pulling out of Iraq might bring even worse consequences than a death toll numbering in the thousands.

I hope that the American people have the courage to finish what their government started. Even though I think the Yanks shouldn't be in Iraq, to leave now would be irresponsible. I just hope that it doesn't turn into another Vietnam, and end up costing the Americans over 50,000 dead.

And I think that torture can become a tool in certain situations, yes. That doesn’t make it appropriate for wide-scale use. And it certainly isn’t moral.

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think torture is appropriate whatever the circumstance. Even though you and I disagree on this, I still support your right to say it.

Torturing their leaders for information isn’t exactly going to invite any new response; at worst, we’ll run into the same kind of situation that befell Nicholas Berg: an American is killed as per usual terrorist methods, and then his death is linked to the torture of terrorists and combatants in order to produce a media circus.

So do you think that Nicholas Berg would have been killed regardless of what happened in the prison?

[Axis Kast]

No, I supported the decison to attack Afghanistan, it was after all supporting and possibly funding Al-Queda. When I say praying on the weak I mean primarily the war in Iraq. The justification for the war has proven to be false, as I see it the only reason Bush invaded Iraq was to settle an old score. Preying on the weak also includes the treatment of prisoners in Iraq and at Gitmo who have been held without trial or representation for over two years now.

I can believe that George W. Bush had more invested in the subject of Iraq than Clinton before him. I can believe that his assessment of the dangers posed by the Hussein regime were inflated because of his memory of the “old” Iraq and his father’s war. I cannot, however, imagine why he would decide to “settle old scores” that didn’t seem to need settling in the first place. If you’ll recall, the Gulf War was one of the few successes with which the original Bush is credited. Only after his son raised the question of whether Iraq needed to be disarmed more thoroughly did anyone even begin to question whether our policy in 1991 was more failure and lack of foresight than brilliant victory.

Next, I fail to see how the United States is “preying on the weak” by holding combatants and terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. “Preying on the weak” implies that we obtain some sadistic pleasure from devoting resources to their detainment.

I hope that the American people have the courage to finish what their government started. Even though I think the Yanks shouldn't be in Iraq, to leave now would be irresponsible. I just hope that it doesn't turn into another Vietnam, and end up costing the Americans over 50,000 dead.

We’d pull out long before the 50,000 mark.

o do you think that Nicholas Berg would have been killed regardless of what happened in the prison?

There is no doubt in my mind.

[Aaron]

Next, I fail to see how the United States is “preying on the weak” by holding combatants and terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. “Preying on the weak” implies that we obtain some sadistic pleasure from devoting resources to their detainment.

Perhaps "preying on the weak" is the wrong term. But the fact remains that these people are being held without trial or representation for years. This is unjust, I understand that these people are terrorists but that shouldn't excuse the USA from giving them a fair trial.

[Axis Kast]

Perhaps "preying on the weak" is the wrong term. But the fact remains that these people are being held without trial or representation for years. This is unjust, I understand that these people are terrorists but that shouldn't excuse the USA from giving them a fair trial.

At this point, that may be quite difficult.

Individuals cases obviously weren't recorded. Nobody collected evidence to be used in that manner.