America: The Global Pioneer Of Torture

14 Sep 2008 06:28 pm

A new survey of global public opinion (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jun08/WPO_Torture_Jun08_packet.pdf) [PDF] reveals the appalling truth. Americans are now among the people on earth most supportive of government's torturing prisoners. The United States is in the same public opinion ballpark as some of the most disgusting regimes on the planet:

Support for the unequivocal position was highest in Spain (82%), Great Britain (82%) and France (82%), followed by Mexico (73%), China (66%), the Palestinian territories (66%), Poland (62%), Indonesia (61%), and the Ukraine (59%). In five countries either modest majorities or pluralities support a ban on all torture: Azerbaijan (54%), Egypt (54%), the United States (53%), Russia (49%), and Iran (43%). South Koreans are divided.

So America's peers in the fight against torture, in terms of public opinion are Azerbaijan, Egypt, Russia, and Iran. This is what America now is: a country with the moral values of countries that routinely torture and abuse prisoners, like Egypt and Iran. Even the Chinese, living in a neo-fascist market state, oppose torture in all circumstances by 66 percent, compared to Americans where only 53 percent do! More horrifying: a higher percentage of Americans - 13 percent - believe that torture should generally be allowed than in any other country save China, Turkey and Nigeria. And in the last two years, as the American president celebrates and authorizes the torture of people who have not been allowed a fair trail, support for torturing terror suspects has increased from 36 percent to 44 percent.

The only other countries where support for torturing terror suspects has grown are India, Nigeria, Turkey, South Korea and Egypt. In all other developed countries, support for an absolute ban on torture has actually risen in the past two years. America is now leading the way in legitimizing and celebrating torture as a legitimate tool for governments.

This is the Bush-Cheney legacy - to be continued under McCain-Palin. McCain was once a torture victim, but since 2006 has supported the torture of prisoners by the CIA. In fact, prisoners across the world who have been tortured by the CIA in the last two years can, in the terror of their cells, know that John McCain made it possible, by caving into the war criminals in the White House in 2006.

How can the country that pioneered the Geneva Conventions now be a nation more supportive of torture than any other developed nation on earth? Of course, it matters that we have had a president and vice-president actively endorsing and campaigning for the use of torture, and torturing prisoners routinely in jails where there is no escape and no due process. But the key segment of the pro-torture enthusiasts are evangelical Christians. Yes: evangelical Christians are now the greatest supporters of doing to prisoners what was once done to Christ.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/america-the-glo.html#more

Anthony Lewis writes in this week's New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21794):

Official American Sadism

Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan accused of throwing a grenade at a convoy of American soldiers in Kabul in late 2002, wounding two, was brought to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp in February 2003. He was then seventeen years old. In December 2003 he attempted suicide. The following May he was subjected to what Guantánamo officials called the "frequent flyer program." Every three hours, day and night, he was shackled and moved to another cell—112 times over fourteen days.

We know about what was done to Mr. Jawad because the military lawyer assigned as his defense counsel, Major David J.R. Frakt (Air Force Reserve), sought and won from a military judge an order for his jailers to produce the records of his captivity. Major Frakt brought out the realities of Jawad's treatment in his closing argument at a pre-trial hearing on June 19, 2008—an argument that was a remarkable display of legal and moral courage.

"Why was Mohammed Jawad tortured?" Major Frakt asked. "Why did military officials choose a teenage boy who had attempted suicide in his cell less than five months earlier to be the subject of this sadistic sleep deprivation experiment?" Officers at Guantánamo said they did not believe he had any valuable intelligence information, and he was not even questioned during the "frequent flyer program." "The most likely scenario," Major Frakt said, "is that they simply decided to torture Mr. Jawad for sport, to teach him a lesson, perhaps to make an example of him to others."

But Major Frakt did not stop with those who tormented Mohammed Jawad. He addressed President Bush's order of February 7, 2002, that those detained at Guantánamo as alleged al-Qaeda or Taliban members and supporters were not to be given the protections of the Geneva Conventions. "February 7, 2002," he said,

America lost a little of its greatness that day. We lost our position as the world's leading defender of human rights, as the champion of justice and fairness and the rule of law....

Sadly, this military commission [which was holding the Jawad hearing] has no power to do anything to the enablers of torture such as John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Robert Delahunty, Alberto Gonzales..., David Addington, William Haynes, Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld....

Major Frakt's reference to "the enablers" raised a fundamental question: How did the United States government get into the business of torturing prisoners? Sleep deprivation was by no means the only harsh technique used on prisoners at Guantánamo and elsewhere. Others included forcing prisoners into stress positions, exposing them to harsh lights and extreme hot and cold temperatures, sexual humiliation, nudity, and waterboarding, the "water cure" that inflicts partial suffocation.

It's a lengthy article chronicling the war crimes of the Bush Administration -- and that's what they are, war crimes. I seriously doubt whether any of the perpetrators will ever be brought to justice, but that doesn't mean that they should not be.

This is one of the sadist threads Ive read on this forum.
I occasionally highlight 'crimes' committed by the Bush Administration.
Rendition [kidnapping]
Internment
Torture
Absence of legal Council
Intelligence Gathering

I remember you telling me a few weeks ago that 'nobody in America cared' when I highlighted secret
CIA prisons in Poland and Bulgaria, seems you were correct.

These findings will be pumped into young minds across the Arab World for years to come.
'America being the ''evil one'' will cry out amongst Islamic school walls, and they have the evidence.

Im surprised no Internees released from Guantanamo have not taken legal proceedings against Bush yet.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/torture/2007/10/fact-check-president-bush-on-torture.html

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that torture is increasingly depicted as something unfortunate but acceptable in TV shows such as 24 h ?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that torture is increasingly depicted as something unfortunate but acceptable in TV shows such as 24 h ?I think that's part of it. But I also think there's been a general depreciation of what human rights mean and the value of upholding them. The America I grew up in prided itself in being the "good guys", whether that was actually the case or not. Today you hear a lot more "Why the hell should I care what the world thinks about us?" than you used to.

Personally, I love the show -- but I also realize it's fiction.

How can the country that pioneered the Geneva Conventions now be a nation more supportive of torture than any other developed nation on earth?

How? I'll tell you exactly how that situation exists.

Because the populace in this country includes a huge faction of ignorant **My Country Right or Wrong!!, **Might Makes Right.** dittoheads.

I think that's part of it. But I also think there's been a general depreciation of what human rights mean and the value of upholding them. The America I grew up in prided itself in being the "good guys", whether that was actually the case or not. Today you hear a lot more "Why the hell should I care what the world thinks about us?" than you used to.
Maybe because, despite our best efforts, we got tired of hearing how much they loathe us, regardless of our actions. If it doesn't really seem to make a difference, then why bother. If we deny ourselves just to be liked by a bunch of fuckin' people who wouldn't piss on our heads if they were ablaze, then what's the point? Really.

Maybe because, despite our best efforts, we got tired of hearing how much they loathe us, regardless of our actions. If it doesn't really seem to make a difference, then why bother. If we deny ourselves just to be liked by a bunch of fuckin' people who wouldn't piss on our heads if they were ablaze, then what's the point? Really.Back when John McCain thought torture was a bad idea he said something rather profound:

"They are the quintessence of evil. But it's not about them; it's about us. This battle we're in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be."

I agree we shouldn't care very much what others think of us -- but we should care very deeply about what we ourselves become.

That's the point. Really.

Maybe because, despite our best efforts, we got tired of hearing how much they loathe us, regardless of our actions.

:rolleyes:

As if there are countries who simply "hate us" for no reason. They just 'decided to hate us'.

What bullshit.

People around the world do not loathe and fear the U.S. 'regardless of its actions'.............they loathe and fear the U.S. because of its actions.

When you, as a nation, wage war against peoples and nations, overthrow people's democratically elected leaders, invade their countries and make deals with their leaders to open up those countries to predation by US Corporations, when you drop bombs on them and kill them by the thousands, it has the effect --unbelievable as it must seem to you-- of having them fear and despise you.

And sometimes it has the unfortunate effect of them trying to strike back in some way. You know, by doing things like flying airliners into buildings and such.

____________________________

The truth of the matter is that George B*sh is nothing more, and certainly nothing less, than the inevitable product of a society that has lost its way. That he and his Right-wing authoritarian cohorts could not be stopped -and that he and his vicious, incompetent enablers will get away with every vile thing they have done- is proof positive that the sickness lies not in their hearts, but in the soul of a body politic whence arose the monstrosity of their kind, their era, and its outrages.

:rolleyes:

As if there are countries who simply "hate us" for no reason. They just 'decided to hate us'.

What bullshit.
I'm more than aware that it's because of the way we do business, which is something we can't change. You pie-in-the-sky idealists simply can't conceptualize that fact. If you were able to, then you'd be forced to realize that you're crying over spilt milk.

Anyone who supports these types of actions, in really against everything America form founded upon.
If you believe in the values the United State upholds, then you wont support this type of behaviour.

Anyone who supports these types of actions, in really against everything America form founded upon.
If you believe in the values the United State upholds, then you wont support this type of behaviour.We've watched the tv as buildings toppled and thousands were killed. We've downloaded the video of Pearl gurlgliing out his last breath as his fucking head was SAWED off. Is it really suprising that more and more citizens support any means neccesary to find out what our enemy is up to and how he/she is planning to kill more of us?

We've watched the tv as buildings toppled and thousands were killed. We've downloaded the video of Pearl gurlgliing out his last breath as his fucking head was SAWED off. Is it really suprising that more and more citizens support any means neccesary to find out what our enemy is up to and how he/she is planning to kill more of us?

And what are you saying, that using these extreme measures brings an end to Muslim extremeism any closer.
Let me tell ya something, the United States is the last bastion of freedom and democracy on the planet,
the one place we can always look, and see hope.

America, ya know, the good guys, always on the side that has right on its side. That right has turned to might, its very sad.

What Bush has done is tarnish and damage that image.

And what are you saying, that using these extreme measures brings an end to Muslim extremeism any closer.
Let me tell ya something, the United States is the last bastion of freedom and democracy on the planet,
the one place we can always look, and see hope.

America, ya know, the good guys, always on the side that has right on its side. That right has turned to might, its very sad.

What Bush has done is tarnish and damage that image.I know this, if we dont handle our own affairs, none of you out there are going to come to our rescue. As usual, you'll sit on the sidelines and critique our actions. Arm chair quaterbacking is easy.

Back when John McCain thought torture was a bad idea he said something rather profound:

"They are the quintessence of evil. But it's not about them; it's about us. This battle we're in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be."

I agree we shouldn't care very much what others think of us -- but we should care very deeply about what we ourselves become.

That's the point. Really.
How do you suggest that we go about extracting information from the scumbags who won't freely give it up? If the person in question is found firing a rifle at our boys, or planting roadside bombs, then who really gives a shit? I mean, seriously - these people have NO respect for human life, period, and here, supposedly, the "best" course of action is to wage a "war" with one hand tied behind our back. Now, honestly.....does that make sense to you???

Really? ;)

All joking aside, if they can rewrite the rules - rules in which we can't play by, then they win. It's that simple. Don't believe me??? I gotta poker game I wanna invite you to. Bring money.

I know this, if we dont handle our own affairs, none of you out there are going to come to our rescue. As usual, you'll sit on the sidelines and critique our actions. Arm chair quaterbacking is easy.
Fuckin'-A, Havok.

I know this, if we dont handle our own affairs, none of you out there are going to come to our rescue. As usual, you'll sit on the sidelines and critique our actions. Arm chair quaterbacking is easy.

Armchair quaterbacking is easy thats right. Sadly when I speak here, I represent ME, no one else, if this country were to torture-kidnap-intern again as it has in the past, Id criticize it as much as I do the Bush Administration for doing so.

When you lower yourself to your opponents tactics, your no better than them.

PS: Just for the record, the United States Government has never 'came to our rescue'.

How do you suggest that we go about extracting information from the scumbags who won't freely give it up? If the person in question is found firing a rifle at our boys, or planting roadside bombs, then who really gives a shit? I mean, seriously - these people have NO respect for human life, period, and here, supposedly, the "best" course of action is to wage a "war" with one hand tied behind our back. Now, honestly.....does that make sense to you???

Really? ;)

All joking aside, if they can rewrite the rules - rules in which we can't play by, then they win. It's that simple. Don't believe me??? I gotta poker game I wanna invite you to. Bring money.

Ive said it before, I'll say it again.
Anyone caught in the 'combat zone' carrying weaponry or up to know good, sure take them in and get the information they possess, but bring them round the back and put a hole in their head after it.

These secret prisons-internment-torture, is all bullshit, politically motivated, not tactically motivated, and in doing so, once again, Americas image has been damaged by Bush.

Armchair quaterbacking is easy thats right. Sadly when I speak here, I represent ME, no one else, if this country were to torture-kidnap-intern again as it has in the past, Id criticize it as much as I do the Bush Administration for doing so.

When you lower yourself to your opponents tactics, your no better than them.

PS: Just for the record, the United States Government has never 'came to our rescue'.Then you're one of the few. However, my statment stands.




People need to realize you dont fight a war to make friends, and hope people think good things of you. You fight for survival. The kid gloves are off, as they should be.

Then you're one of the few. However, my statment stands.




People need to realize you dont fight a war to make friends, and hope people think good things of you. You fight for survival. The kid gloves are off, as they should be.

Fair enough, your view stands, so you have no problem being condemned for it either.
To you, and a great deal many more Americans, winning is much more important than how you win,
and what damage your nation suffers in the process.

Upon thinking about this further, I'd be amenable to collecting vials of saline, sending them to Iraq and Afghanistan, and instructing our interrogators to inform the detainees that they're about to be given a lethal dose of a morphine intravenously. Of course, under scrutiny, (while tapping the syringe with your finger, say...) "morphine metabolizes in the body and shows up under an autopsy as nothing more than the same chemical precursor as a heroine overdose". Let's see how quick they squirm then. Is anyone gonna die? No. Will it get positive results? Probably not every time, but then again, I'd be willing to bet my nut sack that it would 75 outta 100.

Now, I ask you - is that better than waterboarding???

Then you're one of the few. However, my statment stands.
He wasn't born yet. Of course, best case scenario, there's a strong likelihood he'd be speaking German if we hadn't intervened, but more likely than that is, he wouldn't be here now having this discussion with us.

Upon thinking about this further, I'd be amenable to collecting vials of saline, sending them to Iraq and Afghanistan, and instructing our interrogators to inform the detainees that they're about to be given a lethal dose of a morphine intravenously. Of course, under scrutiny, (while tapping the syringe with your finger, say...) "morphine metabolizes in the body and shows up under an autopsy as nothing more than the same chemical precursor as a heroine overdose". Let's see how quick they squirm then. Is anyone gonna die? No. Will it get positive results? Probably not every time, but then again, I'd be willing to bet my nut sack that it would 75 outta 100.

Now, I ask you - is that better than waterboarding???

Easy answer, just be like Havok, he doesnt care about Americas image or what foreigners think about it either.
You guys keep on abusing human rights, we'll keep on condemning ya for doing it.

He wasn't born yet. Of course, best case scenario, there's a strong likelihood he'd be speaking German if we hadn't intervened, but more likely than that is, he wouldn't be here now having this discussion with us.

Thank You for delivering us from tyrany, troture, human rights abuse, murder, starvation.
Oh wait, that was the other guys, your allies that done that, ah well.
Wir mochten uns herzlich bei lhnen fur bedanken.....as they say in these parts :rolleyes:

Easy answer, just be like Havok, he doesnt care about Americas image or what foreigners think about it either.Oh come on. Do you really care what I, as an American, care about your country's "image"?






You guys keep on abusing human rights, we'll keep on condemning ya for doing it.I find it a little strange that an admitted fire bomber is voicing concern over "abusing human rights".

Oh come on. Do you really care what I, as an American, care about your country's "image"?
I have no doubt, that you care only that the US combats Extreme Islam, with all and any means, including,
torture, kidnapping and internment.






I find it a little strange that an admitted fire bomber is voicing concern over "abusing human rights".

Why do you find it strange ?

I have no doubt, that you care only that the US combats Extreme Islam, with all and any means, including,
torture, kidnapping and internment.I dont believe it is "kidnapping" to capture a terrorist and incarcerate them. Torture, while not pleasant, is a part of any conflict. It just so happens that every action of my country is reported on the news for everyone to have an opinion on.

That said, you still did not answer my question.








Why do you find it strange ?Where were your concerns for their human rights? Is firebombing better than torture?

A couple of pertinent points that seem to have been overlooked:

1. Not everyone that's been tortured has had useful information, and some of them had no connection to terrorism at all. Even if they did have useful information, there's the question of whether that information was so critical that it justified torture.

2. One of the things that makes our current wars different is that "making friends" is a part of them and is important to our success in them. By engaging in things like torture, we cause more people in these countries to distrust and dislike us, and we consequently lose their cooperation. And yes, it even causes more of them to join the fight against us.

Thank You for delivering us from tyrany, troture, human rights abuse, murder, starvation.
Oh wait, that was the other guys, your allies that done that, ah well
True for the most part. You know, like, the people you firebombed.

At least, I know you don't hold a special regard for either one of your liberators. You're the biggest fuckin' hypocrite on these boards. Well, I think you're vying for position with FT, but whatever – I digress.

Even if they did have useful information, there's the question of whether that information was so critical that it justified torture.
It really depends on the type "torture" we're talking about, doesn't it? In the saline example I gave above, I'd say it's unequivocal.

I dont believe it is "kidnapping" to capture a terrorist and incarcerate them. Torture, while not pleasant, is a part of any conflict. It just so happens that every action of my country is reported on the news for everyone to have an opinion on.
Lets see now, alas, every action of your country is not reported. Stories of secret internment camps 'leak out' from individuals who were interned, or from personnel of foreign Governments who witnessed the camps.
Your nation signed up to a convention on human rights, has rules of engagement against hostiles, and has protocol regards the detaining of civilians.

Guantamano camp is a purely political exercise, heres why:
Military Instruction Number 10.
March 2006 the General Counsel of The Department of Defence issued Military Instruction Number 10.
'Certain Evidentary Requirements' in response to growing public concern that evidence acquired through torture might be admissible in military commission proceedings. According to the Pentagon, the 'instruction'
acknowledges the United States obligation under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Instruction prohibits the use of evidence acquired by torture. Tho allows the evidence acquired by abusive treatment, tho still falls short of the Convention.

So bringing a case against a civilian in a military court obtained under torture, is against military rules and the Convention.

The accuracy of information obtained using torture, is considered 'low grade' at best by most analysts.
Once again, politically motivated, nothing more.


Where were your concerns for their human rights? Is firebombing better than torture?
Your asking a question regarding something you know nothing about, but I will answer as best I can for you.
If your town were occupied by foreign troops who beat people in the street for no more reason than being American,
who shot and killed people for no apparent reason, then covered it up by saying they were engaged in subversive activity,
were dragged from their homes beating in front of their family then interned,
were denied a decent home and job for being American,
had their personal details handed over to death squads, for elimination,
had a police force who sided with the foreign troops,
had a shoot to kill policy,
done away with due process, and sentenced on informers word, [usually given from behind screens],
who on a daily basis, degrade and insulted you and your family, sometimes with face slapping or batoning.

Would you take up any arms at your disposal to defend yourself and your town ?
The obvious answer is yes.
Now the 'fire bombs'.
They were merely used as a decoy for weapons to be moved to a different location, life was not threatened during the incident.

True for the most part. You know, like, the people you firebombed.
No life was threatened during that incident, as Ive already said.

At least, I know you don't hold a special regard for either one of your liberators. You're the biggest fuckin' hypocrite on these boards. Well, I think you're vying for position with FT, but whatever – I digress.
What liberators are you talking about here ?
People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones mac, you defend American action at every opportunity, thinking its some kinda duty, and makes you a 'better American', all your doing is supporting Bush's abuse of human rights, whic in the long run plays into radicals hands, tho I wouldnt expect you to understand that.
Thats hypocrisy. People like Bush and his 'supporters' are a bigger threat to America than any radical ever will be.

As regards FT, I would not disagree with most of his comments here, his intelligence on most Foreign Policy is very high.

A couple of pertinent points that seem to have been overlooked:

1. Not everyone that's been tortured has had useful information, and some of them had no connection to terrorism at all. Even if they did have useful information, there's the question of whether that information was so critical that it justified torture.

2. One of the things that makes our current wars different is that "making friends" is a part of them and is important to our success in them. By engaging in things like torture, we cause more people in these countries to distrust and dislike us, and we consequently lose their cooperation. And yes, it even causes more of them to join the fight against us.

Jester dont be letting your experience and insight get in the way of the glory boys here.

They were merely used as a decoy for weapons to be moved to a different location, life was not threatened during the incident.
Oh, and I suppose the weapons weren't used to "threaten" (nice euphemism) life either, eh? You're no fucking saint.

Jester dont be letting your experience and insight get in the way of the glory boys here.
I'm sure he won't.

Oh, and I suppose the weapons weren't used to "threaten" (nice euphemism) life either, eh? You're no fucking saint.
No in the occassion your talking about they were merely a distraction.
Im no saint, thats right, but you wouldnt know anything about that ;)

Lets see now, alas, every action of your country is not reported. Stories of secret internment camps 'leak out' from individuals who were interned, or from personnel of foreign Governments who witnessed the camps.
Your nation signed up to a convention on human rights, has rules of engagement against hostiles, and has protocol regards the detaining of civilians.

Guantamano camp is a purely political exercise, heres why:
Military Instruction Number 10.
March 2006 the General Counsel of The Department of Defence issued Military Instruction Number 10.
'Certain Evidentary Requirements' in response to growing public concern that evidence acquired through torture might be admissible in military commission proceedings. According to the Pentagon, the 'instruction'
acknowledges the United States obligation under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Instruction prohibits the use of evidence acquired by torture. Tho allows the evidence acquired by abusive treatment, tho still falls short of the Convention.

So bringing a case against a civilian in a military court obtained under torture, is against military rules and the Convention.

The accuracy of information obtained using torture, is considered 'low grade' at best by most analysts.
Once again, politically motivated, nothing more.



Your asking a question regarding something you know nothing about, but I will answer as best I can for you.
If your town were occupied by foreign troops who beat people in the street for no more reason than being American,
who shot and killed people for no apparent reason, then covered it up by saying they were engaged in subversive activity,
were dragged from their homes beating in front of their family then interned,
were denied a decent home and job for being American,
had their personal details handed over to death squads, for elimination,
had a police force who sided with the foreign troops,
had a shoot to kill policy,
done away with due process, and sentenced on informers word, [usually given from behind screens],
who on a daily basis, degrade and insulted you and your family, sometimes with face slapping or batoning.

Would you take up any arms at your disposal to defend yourself and your town ?
The obvious answer is yes.
Now the 'fire bombs'.
They were merely used as a decoy for weapons to be moved to a different location, life was not threatened during the incident.Your story has changed Paul. I remember asking you before about firebombing troops and you admitted it. But whatever, you're right, I cant prove anything and I do not care to.



I think you should have used whatever was at your disposal to protect yourself and your way of life, just as my country should do. But your objections over torture are hypocritical, imo.

Your story has changed Paul. I remember asking you before about firebombing troops and you admitted it. But whatever, you're right, I cant prove anything and I do not care to.

That is correct, fire bombing troops, troops who were in APCs, the paint didnt even burn on them things.



I think you should have used whatever was at your disposal to protect yourself and your way of life, just as my country should do. But your objections over torture are hypocritical, imo.

Why are they hypocritical, I have been the victum of torture, incarceration without charge and abused thru fear, if you think Im gonna sit back and allow you guys to either brush the subject or myself under the table,
youll be a long fucken time dead man.

Im no saint, thats right, but you wouldnt know anything about that ;)
You're right, I wouldn't, but then again, I'm not the one telling you you're wrong. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It's smacks of arrogance, hypocrisy, and narrow-mindedness when they do.

You're right, I wouldn't, but then again, I'm not the one telling you you're wrong. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It's smacks of arrogance, hypocrisy, and narrow-mindedness when they do.

Answer your own question then. which one of us has been tortured, had their rights abused and incarcerated witout charge,
and which one of us grew up in a nice house in a leafy suberb, in middle class America ?

''So your a fucken liar to boot, Wonderful''.

No I aint a liar, but if it suits your argument to get personal-go for it.

Why are they hypocritical, I have been the victum of torture, incarceration without charge and abused thru fear, if you think Im gonna sit back and allow you guys to either brush the subject or myself under the table,
youll be a long fucken time dead man.
If you firebombed ANYTHING, then you're a fuckin' terrorist, period. It doesn't matter what the British did. What you should've done was capture the Prime Minister, talked to him, and resolved things diplomatically. They were citizens of a nation, you know. Have you no regard for the Geneva Conventions? Did Ireland even declare "war" on England? Jesus, you really ARE one homicidal maniac, Paul – did you know that?

''So your a fucken liar to boot, Wonderful''.

No I aint a liar, but if it suits your argument to get personal-go for it.
I erased it - I thought it a little presumptive.

If you firebombed ANYTHING, then you're a fuckin' terrorist, period. It doesn't matter what the British did. What you should've done was capture the Prime Minister, talked to him, and resolved things diplomatically. They were citizens of a nation, you know. Have you no regard for the Geneva Conventions? Did Ireland even declare "war" on England? Jesus, you really ARE one homicidal maniac, Paul – did you know that?

Terrorist-If George Washington was a terrorist-so was I.
Geneva Convention-nobody used it.
Declare war on England-no, war was declared f a community, not offically ofcourse.
homicidal maniac-dont be silly, Im more rational than youll ever be.

Now enough of the side tracking into modern Irish history.

The Bush Administration is guilty of Torture, internment and kidnapping, all hid behind the good old
Patriot Act, pure and simple.

I erased it - I thought it a little presumptive.

Speak your mind-thats what its for.

That is correct, fire bombing troops, troops who were in APCs, the paint didnt even burn on them things.You've refined your story since then. You never mentioned attacking the vehicles. I asked specifically about troops.






Why are they hypocritical, I have been the victum of torture, incarceration without charge and abused thru fear, if you think Im gonna sit back and allow you guys to either brush the subject or myself under the table,
youll be a long fucken time dead man.I know you say you have. You're identifying with terrorists Paul. They struck first. Everything that follows is earned.

You've refined your story since then. You never mentioned attacking the vehicles. I asked specifically about troops.
I never gave a specific answer originally. It was merely a term of words.
If you think I would talk specifically about incidents on the Internet, your nuts.





I know you say you have. You're identifying with terrorists Paul. They struck first. Everything that follows is earned.
Back to using this word 'terrorist.
Which 'terrorists' am I identifying with ?

I never gave a specific answer originally. It was merely a term of words.
If you think I would talk specifically about incidents on the Internet, your nuts.You're right. Of course, you didnt deny it. In fact you never reacted to my initial outrage at your admitted actions at all, as I recall. Like I said, I cant prove a thing, and dont care to. I know all I need to.







Back to using this word 'terrorist.
Which 'terrorists' am I identifying with ?The ones who have been incarcerated and interrogated, of course.

You're right. Of course, you didnt deny it. In fact you never reacted to my initial outrage at your admitted actions at all, as I recall. Like I said, I cant prove a thing, and dont care to. I know all I need to.
Thats right I didnt, why would I be outraged at any actions I committed against a foreign invader, they were
in the wrong not I.

PS: Just for your information.
I never went out with the purpose to maim-kill-or harm anyone intentionally in my life, and never did.
Glad to be of help.

The ones who have been incarcerated and interrogatated of course
As far as Im aware, those people have never been charged, never mind convicted.

The ones who have been incarcerated and interrogated, of course.
He probably assumes they're all "innocent". You know, like him....

He didn't do anything "wrong", per se, but he'll be damned if he's gonna talk about what he did do over the Internet, because, you know....the weapons he helped the IRA to move around "were merely a distraction". :rolleyes:

On that note, I can't believe he didn't understand what I was asking him.

A recap:

Me: you firebombed people...

Mental midget: no I didn't - I used firebombs as a distraction to move weapons

Me: Oh, and I suppose the "weapons" you helped "move" weren't used to "threaten" (nice euphemism) life either, eh?

Mental midget: No in the occassion [SIC] your talking about they were merely a "distraction"....

I would use the R-word, but it's not exactly (for lack of a better term) en vogue around here.

He probably assumes they're all "innocent". You know, like him....

He didn't do anything "wrong", per se, but he'll be damned if he's gonna talk about what he did do over the Internet, because, you know....the weapons he helped the IRA to move around "were merely a distraction". :rolleyes:

On that note, I can't believe he didn't understand what I was asking him.

A recap:

Me: you firebombed people...

Mental midget: no I didn't - I used firebombs as a distraction to move weapons

Me: Oh, and I suppose the "weapons" you helped "move" weren't used to "threaten" (nice euphemism) life either, eh?

Mental midget: No in the occassion [SIC] your talking about they were merely a "distraction"....

I would use the R-word, but it's not exactly (for lack of a better term) en vogue around here.

Question: Is there any reason why you refer to me as ''Mental midget''.

If yu wish to debate, do so in a civil manner, or forget it ok.

America: The Global Pioneer Of Torture
I'm surprised that no one else has commented on why this title is so preposterous.

Question: Is there any reason why you refer to me as ''Mental midget''.

If yu wish to debate, do so in a civil manner, or forget it ok.
Fair enough.

I'm surprised that no one else has commented on why this title is so preposterous.

I was going to comment upon the title, but lost the notion to during debate.
The title is wrong, very wrong. The United States championed the fight against such evil matter as torture,
all thru its history, until Bush changed all that.

I was going to comment upon the title, but lost the notion to during debate.
The title is wrong, very wrong. The United States championed the fight against such evil matter as torture,
all thru its history, until Bush changed all that.
Actually, it was the terrorists who changed it. We never had to do it when we were fighting nations; we KNEW who the enemy was, and we knew where he was hiding.

I think the number one thing we should be thinking about is: how often does torture actually get accurate results? Now I'm not exactly sure, but I know I've heard/read from multiple sources that it's not very often.

And that brings us to an obvious follow up... If torture gets accurate results 50% of the time, do those of you on Prae & Havok's side of things approve of it? How about if it gets results 25% of the time? Or 10%? At what point does it become not worth it anmore, or is there a point at all? If studies find that torture gets results 1% of the time, will you still approve of torturing potentially innocent people to get information that only has a 1% chance of being true?

I think the number one thing we should be thinking about is: how often does torture actually get accurate results? Now I'm not exactly sure, but I know I've heard/read from multiple sources that it's not very often.

And that brings us to an obvious follow up... If torture gets accurate results 50% of the time, do those of you on Prae & Havok's side of things approve of it?
Once again, the whole concept of what constitutes "torture" is somewhat nebulous, DF, and yes, I can tell you on a firsthand basis, it works more often than it doesn't.
If studies find that torture gets results 1% of the time, will you still approve of torturing potentially innocent people to get information that only has a 1% chance of being true?
Despite the "knowledge" gained by any rosy study conducted by the Lightloafer Institute for Higher Learning, if that were actually the case (and I can assure you, it's not), then NOBODY would endorse it, and the tactic itself would've failed as an experiment around 1500 BC.

Besides, if we get "false" information, then we come back. ;)

How can you say that NOT torturing someone would get any more accurate results? I mean, if a guy wont tell you the truth when you are kicking his ass why would he tell you the truth when you were not?

I think the number one thing we should be thinking about is: how often does torture actually get accurate results? Now I'm not exactly sure, but I know I've heard/read from multiple sources that it's not very often.

And that brings us to an obvious follow up... If torture gets accurate results 50% of the time, do those of you on Prae & Havok's side of things approve of it? How about if it gets results 25% of the time? Or 10%? At what point does it become not worth it anmore, or is there a point at all? If studies find that torture gets results 1% of the time, will you still approve of torturing potentially innocent people to get information that only has a 1% chance of being true?

That aside, the image of the US being the moral right' in its 'war on terror' becomes clouded.
These radicals arent stupid, they preach the America tortures Muslims, they have the evidence
in front of them, its totally wrong and a great recruiting agent for radicals.

Once again, the whole concept of what constitutes "torture" is somewhat nebulous, DF, and yes, I can tell you on a firsthand basis, it works more often than it doesn't.
How would you know 'firsthand' ?

Despite the "knowledge" gained by any rosy study conducted by the Lightloafer Institute for Higher Learning, if that were actually the case (and I can assure you, it's not), then NOBODY would endorse it, and the tactic itself would've failed as an experiment around 1500 BC.

Besides, if we get "false" information, then we come back. ;)
The main objective of torture is to install an element of fear into an individual and community primarily,
any intelligence gained is a bonus.

How can you say that NOT torturing someone would get any more accurate results? I mean, if a guy wont tell you the truth when you are kicking his ass why would he tell you the truth when you were not?
What if that guy doesnt know any information about what hes being asked ?

That is what they all say, until you sock em in the guts a few times, then their memory starts to return. It's amazing.

That is what they all say, until you sock em in the guts a few times, then their memory starts to return. It's amazing.
Ah right, its amazing how your memory can return about something you know nothing about, I think they call that 'telling them anything to make them stop'.

Thus, like DF said, torture gains little to nothing.

I disagree. In the classroom that is probably true, but when a guy knows the location of an EID that will kill you men a few shots to the ribs can do wonders.

I disagree. In the classroom that is probably true, but when a guy knows the location of an EID that will kill you men a few shots to the ribs can do wonders.

Im talking about the guy who knows NOTHING Trav.
No matter how many 'shots in the ribs' he is given, he cannot give informaton about what he doesnt know.

PS: A few shots in the ribs is illegal isnt it ?

Im talking about the guy who knows NOTHING Trav.
No matter how many 'shots in the ribs' he is given, he cannot give informaton about what he doesnt know.


And you know he knows nothing how?


PS: A few shots in the ribs is illegal isnt it ?

Isnt this what this whole thread is about? What do you think we are doing to them over in poland? hanoi hilton shit?

And you know he knows nothing how?
Simple, you dont, until he/she has been beating around the room for a few hours, then the interrogators start to conclude,
they know nothing.




Isnt this what this whole thread is about? What do you think we are doing to them over in poland? hanoi hilton shit?

The point is, who knows what your doing to them in Poland, Bulgaria, Thailand or wherever else 'secret' internment camps are located. If nothing untoward was going on, why would they be 'secret' camps ?

Simple, you dont, until he/she has been beating around the room for a few hours, then the interrogators start to conclude,
they know nothing.?

Or we could just ask them politely if they know anything and when they say now we will let them go.






why would they be 'secret' camps ?

Because we have a bunch of panty wastes that thing punching a guy in the stomach is torture.

Or we could just ask them politely if they know anything and when they say now we will let them go. May as well, the same result.


Because we have a bunch of panty wastes that thing punching a guy in the stomach is torture.Ah but where does it stop eh. Couple of big tough troopers punching someone, next thing you know, a spot of water boarding, maybe sleep deprivation.
I hope your not one of those people who view torture as a purely physical condition.

May as well, the same result.

So if you ask them a question and they give you an answer you would just say thanks and accept it as true and let them go? Do you ahve any idea of the kind of people we are dealing with?

Ah but where does it stop eh. Couple of big tough troopers punching someone, next thing you know, a spot of water boarding, maybe sleep deprivation.
I hope your not one of those people who view torture as a purely physical condition.

Fine, hold their head under water, whatever. Just get the answer from them. And if you find out they lied you come back and do it again, and make sure they know that.

So if you ask them a question and they give you an answer you would just say thanks and accept it as true and let them go? Do you ahve any idea of the kind of people we are dealing with?

Well I will answer this question in reverse.
'Do I know what kind of people your dealing with' sure, maybe better than you do.
As for the questioning, I gotta ask under what circumstances these people are viewed as a threat, as none of them are ever brought to Court.



Fine, hold their head under water, whatever. Just get the answer from them. And if you find out they lied you come back and do it again, and make sure they know that.
No doubt from this statement, youve approve of your Government using torture to extract information from suspects.

One small fact that the Bush Administration and yourself are overlooking is that these internees, who may have been normal people going about their normal business, are eventually released [maybe] as very bitter, very anti American individuals.

It really depends on the type "torture" we're talking about, doesn't it? In the saline example I gave above, I'd say it's unequivocal.There really weren't any witches during the Inquisition -- but everyone confessed to being one because they were tortured. You can invent the most efficacious means of torture ever known to man and it will accomplish exactly one thing -- you will be told what the victim thinks you want to hear. Maybe it's the truth, maybe it isn't. But that's what you will get.

One of the things that makes our current wars different is that "making friends" is a part of them and is important to our success in them. By engaging in things like torture, we cause more people in these countries to distrust and dislike us, and we consequently lose their cooperation. And yes, it even causes more of them to join the fight against us.A photo from downtown Tehran:

http://www.nuigalway.ie/geography/images/TehranMurals.jpg

:(

Well I will answer this question in reverse.
'Do I know what kind of people your dealing with' sure, maybe better than you do.
As for the questioning, I gotta ask under what circumstances these people are viewed as a threat, as none of them are ever brought to Court..

I would say the people who capture them see them as a threat or they wouldnt waste time tracking them down and capturing them.






No doubt from this statement, youve approve of your Government using torture to extract information from suspects.

One small fact that the Bush Administration and yourself are overlooking is that these internees, who may have been normal people going about their normal business, are eventually released [maybe] as very bitter, very anti American individuals.

ya ya ya, they are all just farmers who get kidnapped going to the market and sent to a torture camp in a foreign land for no reason.

A photo from downtown Tehran:

http://www.nuigalway.ie/geography/images/TehranMurals.jpg

:(

Are you sure that isn't the NYT building?

A photo from downtown Tehran:

http://www.nuigalway.ie/geography/images/TehranMurals.jpg

:(Maybe we should start hanging pictures of Daniel Pearls decapitation in Times Square to get a little perspective?

Maybe we should start hanging pictures of Daniel Pearls decapitation in Times Square to get a little perspective?
::Applauds::

What would posting pictures of extremeists murdering Americans in Times Square achieve ?

Are you sure that isn't the NYT building?Maybe we should start hanging pictures of Daniel Pearls decapitation in Times Square to get a little perspective?::Applauds::Our employment of torture strengthens our enemies.

You can ignore this fact all you want but that doesn't make it go away.

I was just thinking that after 9/11 Americans were determined that the attack and the subsequent wars wouldnt change the American way of life.

This thread clearly shows that that way of life has changed considerably.

How would you know 'firsthand' ?
When I was 15, I had a 1200-dollar bike that was stolen. I, of course, approached the 17-year-old scumbag who I thought was most likely to have done it, and I asked him politely. He denied it. He had his friends there, so I figured it was time for a change of plans. I went home, and I called 5 of my meanest acquaintances (we were all fairly big kids - I mean, most of us were on football, so I wasn't really worried about the age difference). While passing through my garage, I happened to grab my aluminum bat. I went back to where he was hanging out (with my friends in tow, of course), and I took that bat to his legs from behind. I dropped him like a bad habit. His two scumbag buddies watched in horror, which, I have to admit, did make it kinda fun. I then proceeded to drag him about 50 feet to a creek, where I submerged his crying face for about 30 seconds. As he flailed violently, I pulled his head up, let him catch his breath, and then I informed him that I had no intention of asking again. Lo and behold, he told me where I could find it. I've never looked back on torture since. The best part was, he never told his parents. I suppose he was too embarrassed. Oh, well.......last thing I heard, that putz was working at a gas station, and we were well outta high school. What a fuckin' loser.
The main objective of torture is to install an element of fear into an individual and community primarily,
any intelligence gained is a bonus
I had a good idea who wronged me, and the intelligence I gained was certainly a "bonus", so yeah....I guess you can say that. He never crossed me again.

A few shots in the ribs is illegal isnt it ?
Technically.

When I was 15, I had a 1200-dollar bike that was stolen. I, of course, approached the 17-year-old scumbag who I thought was most likely to have done it, and I asked him politely. He denied it. He had his friends there, so I figured it was time for a change of plans. I went home, and I called 5 of my meanest acquaintances (we were all fairly big kids - I mean, most of us were on football, so I wasn't really worried about the age difference). While passing through my garage, I happened to grab my aluminum bat. I went back to where he was hanging out (with my friends in tow, of course), and I took that bat to his legs from behind. I dropped him like a bad habit. You should've seen it. His two scumbag buddies watched in horror, which, I have to admit, did make it kinda fun. I then proceeded to drag him about 50 feet to a creek, where I submerged his crying head under water for about 30 seconds. As he flailed violently, I pulled his head up, let him catch his breath, and then I informed him that I had no intention of asking again. Lo and behold, he told me where I could find it. I've never looked on torture since. The best part was, he never told his parents. I suppose he was too embarrassed. Oh, well.......last thing I heard, that putz was working at a gas station, and we were well outta high school.

So you didnt take him away to a secret location and hold him indefinitely-good.
You didnt gather evidence and hand him to the police-good.

Glad you got your bike back tho.

Technically.

Right, same way technically killing someone can get you 25 years, yes.

There really weren't any witches during the Inquisition -- but everyone confessed to being one because they were tortured.
Well, with that particular example, something tells me that it was doomed to failure from the get-go. Last I heard, people can't be witches, however that's not say they can't be terrorists.

Right, same way technically killing someone can get you 25 years, yes.
Depends on the circumstances.

So you didnt take him away to a secret location and hold him indefinitely-good.
You didnt gather evidence and hand him to the police-good.
If he had murdered a family member, I would've done much worse than that.

Our employment of torture strengthens our enemies.

You can ignore this fact all you want but that doesn't make it go away.Well the reverse is also true Sedan. Their usage of torture and terror strenghtens our resolve. It IS war, after all.

These people have been fighting a holy war for thousands of years. Your fears of how we treat suspected terrorists are not the cause of their hatred. They hate all infidels just for not believing as they do.

Well the reverse is also true Sedan. Their usage of torture and terror strenghtens our resolve. It IS war, after all.All the more reason why it's stupid of them to use it.

Our employment of torture strengthens our enemies.

You can ignore this fact all you want but that doesn't make it go away.

It wouldnt matter. We could of came out with banners flying saying we will never use torture and they would have rallied their sheep behind the "they are weak and deserve to die" banner instead of the "they tortured us" banner. It does not matter, they will find a reason to hate us just as much no matter what.

It wouldnt matter. We could of came out with banners flying saying we will never use torture and they would have rallied their sheep behind the "they are weak and deserve to die" banner instead of the "they tortured us" banner. It does not matter, they will find a reason to hate us just as much no matter what.
Pretty much....

What would posting pictures of extremeists murdering Americans in Times Square achieve ?
The right reaction.

The right reaction. Bush has already seen to it that 'the right reaction' is being conducted, if you need Americans to fall into line behind him, well, that speaks for itself.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about "torture", mainly because of the murky definition of the word... Certainly, anything that causes permanent physical or psychological harm should not be allowed.

However, what it boils down to is that two wrongs never, ever, ever make a right. That's one of my fundamental beliefs, and I would not compromise it. We should not stoop down to the level of the terrorists, not least because it actually helps their cause for us to do so.

Lets see....our brand of "torture" is humiliation and discomfort. Their brand of "torture" is beheading. Hmmm....i know which one seems worse to me.

Lets see....our brand of "torture" is humiliation and discomfort. Their brand of "torture" is beheading. Hmmm....i know which one seems worse to me.
What's your point?

No point, just expressing an opinion.

Lets see....our brand of "torture" is humiliation and discomfort. Their brand of "torture" is beheading. Hmmm....i know which one seems worse to me.
Beheading isnt torture, its execution, one advantage radical groupings have over a nation is that they arent confined to Convention.

I would suggest you read up more on torture if you think its merely 'humiliation and discomfort'.

Beheading isnt torture, its execution, one advantage radical groupings have over a nation is that they arent confined to Convention.

I would suggest you read up more on torture if you think its merely 'humiliation and discomfort'.Really? Abducting someone and then filming them while you cut their head off isnt torture? I suggest you re-define the word. THAT is REAL torture. Not only the victim but their family and fellow countrymen that witness the act.