Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[Jester]

I'd guess you're right. That whole discussion is between you and kandrathe, I'm too ignorant of the topic to contribute much. Just chimed in to support the bit I had personal experience with.

Probably a wise stance to take. I've read what I can find on the topic, and can only judge from that. The memories of those who've had it done to them, and of those who teach how to resist it, usually seem pretty clear about how effective it is. I've yet to hear from anyone who went through waterboarding in the context of real torture, who is speaking boldly about resisting it.

-Jester

[Ashock]

I wonder though, if you would still trivialize the matter if one of your own children were subjected. Got a daughter? Imagine her nude, blindfolded and shackled, being thrown against a brick wall by men totally in control of her, as often as they like... Imagine yourself, completely powerless about the situation, and not knowing where she is, what else she has to endure, or even if you are ever going to see her again, dead or alive... Get the picture now?

Hmm... Imagine that one of YOUR own children is being "blindfolded and shackled, being thrown against a brick wall by men totally in control of her, as often as they like... Imagine yourself, completely powerless about the situation, and not knowing where she is, what else she has to endure, or even if you are ever going to see her again, dead or alive... " Would you waterboard the person who had information as to where she was, or would you let her die, to preserve the precious life of the scumbag who knows where she is?

For me, waterboarding would just be the start, if it did not yield pertinent info. For you, I guess you would ask them firmly and nicely... and then just accept the situation.

Get the picture now?

[kandrathe]

It must hurt you then, to realize that who-knows-how-many taxpayer dollars were spent to implement 'information retrieval techniques' that wouldn't even work on you <_<

I wonder though, if you would still trivialize the matter if one of your own children were subjected. Got a daughter? Imagine her nude, blindfolded and shackled, being thrown against a brick wall by men totally in control of her, as often as they like... Imagine yourself, completely powerless about the situation, and not knowing where she is, what else she has to endure, or even if you are ever going to see her again, dead or alive... Get the picture now?

I think I've been pretty clear. I don't condone torture. So, please stop the drama. My point was that some of the "horrifying" depictions of terrorists uncomfortable conditions are propaganda meant to garner sympathy. Some of the things are truly horrible, and others seem merely uncomfortable, and I have the experience to know the difference. Granted, most of the horrible things I've been through in my life have been my own choices. I endeavor to remain in control of my destiny.

Jester is correct though, I've led an interesting and complicated life and it's not over yet. :) I would say one of the hardest things I've done is go camping for 10 days in mid January in northern Minnesota. The average daytime temperature for that week was -15F. Each evening we would boil up water from the snow to fill our water bottles for the next days ski pack. You put the bottle by your feet in your sleeping bag to help thaw them out from the days trek, and by morning the bottle is frozen solid. We had no tents, just a tarp to keep the snow from falling on top of you. I don't remember ever being so cold for so long, and how wonderful it was to finally be able to take a warm bath again. But, then again, there are people who trek the arctic, or antarctic for much longer periods of time. In my experience, acute suffering is bearable, but chronic suffering is where my will power would wane away.

[Zenda]

Every year, people perjure themselves to avoid sending their (guilty) offspring, parents, siblings, etc., to justifiable imprisonment. Theirs is as much a valid argument against incarceration as yours is against torture.

That reading comprehension class you mentioned earlier might still come in handy.

It was an attempt to make Kandrathe realize that torture is no trivial matter. A reply to his 'rational consideration' that he would be able to withstand waterboarding, so to speak. Civilized people don't need arguments against torture, just like they don't need arguments against murder, theft, and other crimes. Arguments are needed to *favor* torture.

Would you waterboard the person who had information as to where she was, or would you let her die, to preserve the precious life of the scumbag who knows where she is?

You obviously missed the 'completely powerless about the situation' part, and propably more.

Some of the things are truly horrible, and others seem merely uncomfortable, and I have the experience to know the difference.

Are you saying that in your opinion waterboarding should not be considered torture, because *you* happen to think you can withstand it? What if I said the same about shackles, because I don't happen to have problems with wristwatches? Torture is always about things you do *not* like, remember?

[Swiss Mercenary]

For me, waterboarding would just be the start, if it did not yield pertinent info. For you, I guess you would ask them firmly and nicely... and then just accept the situation.

Get the picture now?

If you're looking to apply KGB/FSB methods, don't forget the one where friends and family are sent to the gulag, too.

[kandrathe]

If you're looking to apply KGB/FSB methods, don't forget the one where friends and family are sent to the gulag, too.

Or, like what is happening in Chechnya, villages are divided up and moved to new undisclosed locations. I figure that is newspeak for mass graves.

[kandrathe]

I thought I would add here the text of Former VP Dick Cheney's recent speech to the AEI, here.<blockquote>"And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe."</blockquote>

[Ashock]

If you're looking to apply KGB/FSB methods, don't forget the one where friends and family are sent to the gulag, too.

If we were talking about my kids or wife for real, believe me.... if that would help, I would not forget that. And more.

You got a problem with that?

ps. Don't worry though, if this were your wife and kids, I'd be firm and polite and would make sure not to violate their human rights. So, rest easy.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If we were talking about my kids or wife for real, believe me.... if that would help, I would not forget that. And more.

You got a problem with that?

ps. Don't worry though, if this were your wife and kids, I'd be firm and polite and would make sure not to violate their human rights. So, rest easy.

:) Well said.

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

I thought I would add here the text of Former VP Dick Cheney's recent speech to the AEI, here.<blockquote>"And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe."</blockquote>

And this line of logic is the same pile of BS he used to brow beat Iraq war dissenters by saying they didn't support the troops. It was full of $#%@ then, and it's full of $#%@ now.

[Zenda]

... Former VP Dick Cheney ...

Scary thought, if you ask me. Had something happened to Bush, this man would have been your president :o

Notice how he mentions 9/11 almost 30 times in that little speech, as if he wants to squeeze the last drop of usefulness out of it?

[--Pete]

hi,

Scary thought, if you ask me. Had something happened to Bush, this man would have been your president :o

Hey, at least he's a good hunting companion. :whistling:

--Pete

[Jester]

hi,
Hey, at least he's a good hunting companion. :whistling:

--Pete

Going hunting with him would be worth a shot, at least.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Going hunting with him would be worth a shot, at least.

Yes. And in all charity, 'tis better to give than to receive.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Scary thought, if you ask me. Had something happened to Bush, this man would have been your president :o

Notice how he mentions 9/11 almost 30 times in that little speech, as if he wants to squeeze the last drop of usefulness out of it?

Not really that scary. What did Bush or Cheney do that was in contradiction to the wishes of Congress? Most of the bluster and bombast (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) is just posturing to line up the voters for the next cycle.

[Thecla]

Scary thought, if you ask me. Had something happened to Bush, this man would have been your president :o

What makes you think he wasn't?;)

[Swiss Mercenary]

If we were talking about my kids or wife for real, believe me.... if that would help, I would not forget that. And more.

Hell, if we take that angle, who needs any rights? I'm sure the potential wellbeing of your family supercedes any of them.

[Zenda]

Hell, if we take that angle, who needs any rights? I'm sure the potential wellbeing of your family supercedes any of them.

I think you got to the core of the problem there. And that's no joke, nor meant to be sarcastic :(

[--Pete]

Hi,

Hell, if we take that angle, who needs any rights? I'm sure the potential wellbeing of your family supercedes any of them.

There is a fundamental difference between the rights granted to the population by the state and the actions of an individual. There are actions which are reserved to the state (e.g., incarceration), actions which both the state and private individuals can participate in (e.g., disaster relief), actions which individuals can perform which are banned to the state (e.g, censorship), and actions banned to both.

In the case of these particular rights, I am opposed to allowing any government agency to use torture. The main reason is that it is not a viable way to obtain reliable information nor to obtain a believable confession. The cost in loss of reputation and co-operation by third parties caused by using torture is not worth the benefits derived from the torture. And the position of world leader for democracy and freedom rings a bit hollow when the we adopt the methods we are supposedly fighting. If we are bastards, where does the justification for overthrowing dictatorial bastards go? And, really, does anyone want to give the right to decide to use torture to the type of person who would be willing to commit or condone the act? The potential for abuse is just too great.

Of course, the question of just what torture consists of still needs to be addressed. There is a need to extract information, there is a need to extract valid confessions, and (at least I think so) there is a need to punish lawbreaking. Somewhere between breakfast in bed at a five-star hotel and slow flaying there is a point where torture starts. Too many of the idiots who have posted on this topic seem to think that if the breakfast has marmalade instead of strawberry jam, that line has been crossed. I think that those bleeding heart idiots have contributed greatly to the lawlessness of modern society. But that's another topic.

So, no. The state should not use torture, neither internationally nor internally. And the same should (and already does) apply to the citizens. However, what an individual is willing to do for his family is not bounded by the law. Both sides in this argument have ignored that distinction. A person may be willing to break the law, even a law that he agrees with, for the sake of a family member. I tried to make this point earlier with the example of perjury. As for me, if by your pain I can save my loved ones, then you will suffer even if I eventually have to fry for it.

Hamilton understood the nature of man and the reason for government, Jefferson did not. So did Madison, but that is not pertinent here. Sorry -- brain fart.

--Pete

[Zenda]

The main reason is that it is not a viable way to obtain reliable information nor to obtain a believable confession.

Yet, you still want to address what torture consists of. Yet, you still consider it a means to extract information and valid confessions, if there is a perceived need for it. As for re-introducing torture as punishment for crimes... that was a joke, I hope.

As for me, if by your pain I can save my loved ones, then you will suffer even if I eventually have to fry for it.

Even if the danger to your loved ones was as real as the WMD in Iraq, and the knowledge of it came from the same source?

Too many of the idiots who have posted on this topic...

Nice emotional outburst, Pete, but you should learn not to loose your temper if all you can do is insult people.