Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yet, you still want to address what torture consists of.

Yes, I do because only idiots support or oppose something they cannot define. Fools and jackasses bray about what they cannot define.

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.

Where are you getting this crap from? What a person of normal intelligence would understand from what I said is that there is a need for punishment. And there is a need to distinguish punishment from torture. And that some idiots consider all punishment to be torture.

--Pete

[Thecla]

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.

This has it completely and utterly backward. Too many of the people who appear to support torture seem to think that a secret CIA jail is like an uncomfortable four star hotel, and that a 7 year incarceration in Guantanamo bay, without recourse, is no worse than a week at a slightly seedy Cuban branch of Club Med.

As far as the definition of torture goes, here is the one from the US legal code

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B ) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
© the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Anyone who thinks that the treatment of the "high-value" Al Qaeda detainees by the CIA does not meet this definition, down to the "under color of law," or that any human being (with the possible exception of kandrathe) would not be permanently harmed by such treatment is either totally lacking in imagination or is in denial. I suspect that the main issue is simply that many of the people who will not acknowledge this think the detainees got what was coming to them, and simply don't care whether or not it was torture. Of course, Khalid Sheik Mohammed et al. in the secret prisons are thoroughly guilty of plotting to kill thousands of innocent people, but torture has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the person being tortured.

It is also true, however, that many perfectly innocent people were swept up and incarcerated in the "war on terror", whether at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and who knows where else, or rendered to foreign governments. For sure, some of those innocent people were tortured also (how many? who knows?). Fortunately, none of them were family members of the posters on this board, so it's a-ok.

[--Pete]

hi,

This has it completely and utterly backward.

No, because it is not an either or thing. What you say below is true. What I said above is also true. You've fallen into the trap of thinking that only the extremes exist.

Too many of the people who appear to support torture seem to think that a secret CIA jail is like an uncomfortable four star hotel, and that a 7 year incarceration in Guantanamo bay, without recourse, is no worse than a week at a slightly seedy Cuban branch of Club Med.

OK. One more time. I DO NOT SUPPORT TORTURE. I have been against what was done by the Shrub administration since those scumbags took office. Not everybody falls into the extremes. Some of us actually think and take a more moderate view. My view is not pro-torture, but it is pro-punishment. And therein lies the rub for those who have the wit to understand. Where does punishment end, where does torture begin? I am not condoning, I am not defending what was done at Gitmo and elsewhere. I am questioning the propagandizing bastards who are using that situation to continue their demands that terrorists, murderers, rapists, and CEOs be treated not as the crap they are but as misbehaving tots.

Anyone who thinks that the treatment of the "high-value" Al Qaeda detainees by the CIA does not meet this definition, down to the "under color of law," . . .

Don't post this crap in rebuttal to me, given that I never said that in the first place, that I disagree with it, and have throughout. Quit ascribing to me feelings that I don't have, support I do not give, and opinions I do not hold.

Fortunately, none of them were family members of the posters on this board, so it's a-ok.

Up yours.

--Pete

[Thecla]

Well, I'll just say that apart from your original quote (which I strongly disagree with in regard to what was, in my opinion, a clear program of torture instituted by the Bush administration---the fault there is all on the side of the many apologists here and in the US media who minimize it, not the people who call it for what it was). My comments were generalities about anyone who claims that the US has not engaged in torture. I didn't ascribe any other opinions to you personally. Specifically, my last comment about innocents swept up in the "war on terror" is a separate question and it wasn't intended to be directed at you --- it reflects my anger at what the BUsh admistration did while in office.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I didn't ascribe any other opinions to you personally. Specifically, my last comment about innocents swept up in the "war on terror" is a separate question and it wasn't intended to be directed at you --- it reflects my anger at what the BUsh admistration did while in office.

An anger I completely share. Shrub and the Texas Oil Gang should be investigated for many things, including a needless war that served no other function than to enrich many associated with what is likely the most corrupt administration in American history.

However, you did choose one of my posts to reply to, so forgive me for taking it as an attack on me and my views. Especially since they are not my views, but rather what the troll Zenda has been, through stupidity or malice, trying to ascribe to me.

Later I will post what my problems are with the definition of torture that you quoted. Problems that are general to all definitions of torture which I've seen to date.

--Pete

[Ashock]

Hi,
:) Well said.

--Pete

Thank you.

ps. Hi.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Good posts, Pete, although I'm not particularly enthralled by the vigilantism angle, seeing as how that opens up a can of worms.

[Thecla]

However, you did choose one of my posts to reply to, so forgive me for taking it as an attack on me and my views.

No harm no foul.:)

But let me say this --- my response was not indended as an attack on you, but it was an attack on one of your views (at least as I understood it), namely that critics of the Bush interrogation program were mistaking the the lack of jam at breakfast for torture. This is exactly where I came in. To repeat my main comment ad nauseam: the US has tortured people. The real mistake is to argue that all it's done is feed detainees marmite for breakfast.

Later I will post what my problems are with the definition of torture that you quoted. Problems that are general to all definitions of torture which I've seen to date.

You can if you want, but, like pornography, I know torture when I see it.

[Zenda]

I suspect that the main issue is simply that many of the people who will not acknowledge this think the detainees got what was coming to them, and simply don't care whether or not it was torture.

My view is not pro-torture, but it is pro-punishment.

Judging by Pete's reply, your suspicion doesn't seem farfetched, Thecla. Things are even worse then I dared to suspect, apparantly:(

[Jester]

I normally persist in threads long after they have been turned into glue, but even I'm going to say that this thread has crossed over into meaningless shouting. We have returned to square one, things that were discussed in the first handful of posts, and have regressed from there.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Good posts, Pete, although I'm not particularly enthralled by the vigilantism angle, seeing as how that opens up a can of worms.

Let me be clear. I do not condone vigilantism. When it happens, it should be punished. But I can understand it happening under certain conditions. That will always remain a personal choice -- to do what one feels necessary at the time *and* to pay the consequences later.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . but it was an attack on one of your views (at least as I understood it), namely that critics of the Bush interrogation program were mistaking the the lack of jam at breakfast for torture.

Not one of my views, never was. I agree that torture was used by the Bush administration. I agree that that was wrong, for many reasons, both moral and practical. But the thread is not only about those topics. The thread is about torture in general. Specifically, Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techniques. And it is that point which I was discussing. Can that question be answered, indeed does that question even have meaning, until we define what torture is?

You can if you want, but, like pornography, I know torture when I see it.

The problem with that is that it is too subjective. The 'normal' conditions in a Turkish prison might just qualify as torture in a jail in San Fransisco, CA.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Judging by Pete's reply, your suspicion doesn't seem farfetched, Thecla. Things are even worse then I dared to suspect, apparantly:(

You are a troll. I request that you be banned.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I normally persist in threads long after they have been turned into glue, but even I'm going to say that this thread has crossed over into meaningless shouting. We have returned to square one, things that were discussed in the first handful of posts, and have regressed from there.

True. I'm done here.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Anyone who thinks that the treatment of the "high-value" Al Qaeda detainees by the CIA does not meet this definition, down to the "under color of law," or that any human being (with the possible exception of kandrathe) would not be permanently harmed by such treatment is either totally lacking in imagination or is in denial.

I was merely making the observation that we choose to do to ourselves things far worse than what is described by others to be torture. Just the other day a friend was complaining that he had lost all feeling in both his hands. When I queried what activities he had done, he confessed he had spent most of the previous day running his rototiller on rock hard clay ground. Now, I don't condone strapping people to a machine that yanks their arms from their sockets to extract information from them. That I have trained myself to endure cold, or to swim for miles, or hold my breath for a long time is something I do to myself. I fully admit that I wouldn't like to be thrown off a boat in the North Atlantic, swim with polar bears, or have my head held under water. I would say that in such a situation, I might be better able to survive it or tolerate the misery of it longer than the person who has not had such survival training (or at least until the bear killed me).

I still think I would refrain from falling for one of the classic blunders; Don't put yourself in the position of needing to be interrogated by any governmental authorities. The most famous, of course, is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[Zenda]

It turns out that you are not the only disbeliever in the waterboarding issue:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Manco...-and-Loses.html

"Turns out the stunt wasn't so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds."

And I found he wasn't the first to be 'convinced by torture':

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature.../hitchens200808

Interesting to note is that Hitchens had to sign a contract in advance, with the following indemnification clause:

“Water boarding” is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.

[kandrathe]

It turns out that you are not the only disbeliever in the waterboarding issue...

Ah, yes, the familiar internet tactic of finding an anecdotal case that supports your position.

Of what exactly am I a disbeliever? Are you thinking that I believe that "water boarding" is a Sunday picnic, or that it would not induce a fear of drowning?

[Chesspiece_face]

Ah, yes, the familiar internet tactic of finding an anecdotal case that supports your position.

In this case I think I would put more weight in the anecdotes of people who have experienced waterboarding as opposed to the anecdotes of the person who posits that their ability to hold their breath for 3 minutes at their leisure has any bearing on how they would react if they were to be put through that procedure.

[Zenda]

Ah, yes, the familiar internet tactic of finding an anecdotal case that supports your position.

I didn't know you had a monopoly on this, but these 'anecdotes' are more then just that. They show us that even those condoning torture can be persuaded to be against it... by using torture;)

Of what exactly am I a disbeliever?

I have to admit you didn't say that waterboarding is not a cruel torture method, with that many words. But why else would you bring up your remarkable capability to 'black out' when faced with drowning? It would be good if you can clear this up. Do you see waterboarding as torture (of the kind that should not be allowed, under no circumstances)? Or do you think it is an acceptable way to obtain information or confessions (if the need is high enough)?

[kandrathe]

I didn't know you had a monopoly on this, but these 'anecdotes' are more then just that. They show us that even those condoning torture can be persuaded to be against it... by using torture;)

Um, I'm not sure what kind of twisted logic you like to use, but an example is merely that, an single data point in a vast universe of data points. Now, I could go hunt up another example to try to counter your example, but that is also fruitless because we'd merely have two data points in the universe of data points.

I have to admit you didn't say that water boarding is not a cruel torture method, with that many words. But why else would you bring up your remarkable capability to 'black out' when faced with drowning? It would be good if you can clear this up. Do you see water boarding as torture (of the kind that should not be allowed, under no circumstances)? Or do you think it is an acceptable way to obtain information or confessions (if the need is high enough)?

I think you are having the same problem with me, that you did with Pete. You have assumed something that is not true, merely to carry on an argument.

In my first post I said, that not all torture is the same, and not all reasons for torture are equal. I compared the violent torture used by the sheik in revenge for a deal gone bad, to that used by intelligence professionals to elicit information of future terrorist attacks which may have cost thousands of lives. My conclusion was that even though it would be "torturous", knowing that your captors would not let you die would free you to fully submit to unconsciousness without fear of death.

Jester says that you cannot control your subconscious, and I disagree and believe that with some training you can overcome the fear of being out of control in that situation. This is what I believe much of the training I've received over a number of topics has allowed me to do, that is, control my fear so that I can continue to be functional in a dangerous situation. The thought of being locked in a room with hundreds of rats, or biting insects might be "torturous" to someone who is extremely fearful, however once conditioned to "not be afraid" you might even be stung or bit numerous times without "freaking out". The same is true of water boarding. Taking a radio host, or a DOD official, who has not been so pre-conditioned is hardly proof or disproof of what I said. Many soldiers who might find themselves in enemy hands are pre-conditioned to resist torture, including water boarding. They might be a better test case to validate my claims, wouldn't you think?