Torture v. Getting Shot in the Head

[billvon 3,008]

>i've yet to read or hear of any of the "enhanced interrogation techniques"
>that even amout to torture. (if some are torture, feel free to point them
>out)

Well, let's see:

being raped with cylumes
being beaten to death
being hoisted by your arms tied behind your back

Which one would you be OK with if it were done to a US soldier?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Because those dead pirates should have had their rights protected? We value human life, yes?

While in the process of holding someone hostage? Who says that?

Quote

I understand it very well. But the value of human life and people's rights trump that, yes?

Again, who says that? Who says that the human rights of a person protect them from negative consequences while they are in the process of committing crimes?

Do you genuinely believe we should be allowed to do to people in captivity anything that it is permissable to do to them while they are in action against us in a live situation? Do you think that anyone believes that?


A small debating tip for ya Sparky: If creating horrendous strawmen positions to argue against is the only way you can justify your own argument, you probably don't have a very good argument.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Butters 0]

Quote

But the value of human life and people's rights trump that, yes?

What about the life and rights of the person you're willing to torture?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

>i've yet to read or hear of any of the "enhanced interrogation techniques"
>that even amout to torture. (if some are torture, feel free to point them
>out)

Well, let's see:

being raped with cylumes
being beaten to death
being hoisted by your arms tied behind your back

Which one would you be OK with if it were done to a US soldier?

were those named as enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by the last administration? when do you think any of those actions were last approved by any administration? those things are clearly torture and i highly doubt anyone would argue that. the problem here is that the line between interrogation and torture has been moved so fucking far that its now best just to play it safe and stop taking prisoners on the battlefield.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Same thing that's wrong with imprisoning someone forever because of their political connections. The US Constitution (at least for those in the US.)

Ah, I thought maybe there was a moral objection.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I know quite well what has been said on the forum but I don't agree with it. I don't give a damn about our image in the world. I believe in doing what needs needs to be done. I will leave the whining, hand wringing, and denial to the Kool-Aid crowd.

Just to clarify, are you saying that you don't agree with obeying international law and, by extension, the US Constitution?

As far as "what needs to be done" goes, the experts are generally in agreement that torture does not result in reliable information, so it is very difficult to support the assertion that torture "needs to be done." The "Kool-Aid crowd" appears to be those who support the use of torture in violation of international law despite evidence that it is an ineffective interrogation method outside of Hollywood.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,008]

>Ah, I thought maybe there was a moral objection.

That too, but the Constitution is pretty clear on the subject.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I thought international law and conventions were pretty clear too. if those don't count for the OP, why would the constitution.

Hence my question to the OP, trying to figure out at what scale his reasoning changes.

[billvon 3,008]

>were those named as enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by the last
>administration?

No, that's what we actually DID.

>the problem here is that the line between interrogation and torture has been
>moved so fucking far that its now best just to play it safe and stop taking
>prisoners on the battlefield.

Or play it safe and let the experienced interrogators instead of the Jack Bauer wannabees run things.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

i've yet to read or hear of any of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that even amout to torture. (if some are torture, feel free to point them out) most of the things on that list are things our own soldiers are put through in the course of training. some of the things on the list are laughable, such as stress positions. i spent plenty of time in stress positions in boot camp. it sucked, but even when being put through it, i didn't feel i was being tortured.

it seems now that anything that makes a person uncomfortable is considered torture, so in the contest of "torture" verses shooting them in the head, i say shoot them in the head.

International law and legal precedent makes it clear that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" in question fit the legal definition of torture. We are either a country of laws or we're not. We can't claim the high ground while only obeying laws when it is convenient.

Besides, it is decidedly inconvenient to deal with the backlash caused by using torture during interrogations when we know that torture is ineffective.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

were those named as enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by the last administration? when do you think any of those actions were last approved by any administration? those things are clearly torture and i highly doubt anyone would argue that.

Apparently, I need to post this again:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0854678/

This is a documentary about what we did in Afghanistan, Iraq, & Gitmo, including interviews with the people involved.
It follows the orders up the chain of command.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I thought international law and conventions were pretty clear too. if those don't count for the OP, why would the constitution.

Hence my question to the OP, trying to figure out at what scale his reasoning changes.

He is a Texican.... from Houston.... where only the 2nd amendment is important.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

>were those named as enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by the last
>administration?

No, that's what we actually DID.

and that is a problem. the thing is, those are in a different league than silly shit like stress positions.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Coreece 190]

Quote

The "Kool-Aid crowd" appears to be those who support the use of torture in violation of international law despite evidence that it is an ineffective interrogation method outside of Hollywood.

Naw...apparently it doesn't work in the movies either:

Casino Royale - Ouch!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

International law and legal precedent makes it clear that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" in question fit the legal definition of torture.

if that's the case, then i have been tortured by my government along with every other person who has enlisted in the military. our special forces really get tortured too. when international law coflicts with the defense of our country, then the safety of our country must take priority.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Apparently, I need to post this again:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0854678/

This is a documentary about what we did in Afghanistan, Iraq, & Gitmo, including interviews with the people involved.
It follows the orders up the chain of command.

Thanks...we should all see this.

It also looks like it's up 79% in popularity this week...I'm willing to bet you might have something to do with that...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

when international law coflicts with the defense of our country, then the safety of our country must take priority.

There's no evidence that that torture is in the interest of our national defense.

Quoting a passage from an apparently obscure historical document:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There is actually more to the Constitution than the right to keep and bear arms, despite what Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh would have people believe.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,008]

>There is actually more to the Constitution than the right to keep and bear arms . . .

Bah! Details. Obviously the authors of the Constitution never saw a single episode of 24.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

International law and legal precedent makes it clear that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" in question fit the legal definition of torture.

if that's the case, then i have been tortured by my government along with every other person who has enlisted in the military. our special forces really get tortured too. when international law coflicts with the defense of our country, then the safety of our country must take priority.

It is truly breathtaking how gullible some people are.

You see no difference at all between training that you volunteer for, adminstered under controlled conditions, with safe words and the ability to drop out of the program, and the torture adminstered at Gitmo, etc?

You see no difference between involuntary confinement, transport thousands of miles from home, "enhanced interrogation techniques" that, in the past, have produced CONVICTIONS for war crimes, administered with no "safe words" or ability to drop out of the program, and harsh military training that ONE VOLUNTEERS FOR?

You are telling a sarcastic joke, right? You can't possibly compare the two, with a straight face.

This is very simple. Let me explain it in small words.

Military training is something you agree to do.
"Enhanced interrogation techniques" while jailed, thousands of miles from home, with no way to stop the "enhanced interrogation techniques", is in no way comparable to SERE training.

Shame on you for lying about this.

[regulator 0]

The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think our image is already past the point of no return regard foreign policy.

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

>were those named as enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by the last
>administration?

No, that's what we actually DID.

and that is a problem. the thing is, those are in a different league than silly shit like stress positions.

Is waterboarding "silly shit"?

We imprisoned Japanese soldiers after WWII who did it to US prisoners.

You wouldn't be advocating a double standard here, would you?

[TrophyHusband 0]

what i am saying is that i've been through things that you consider torture, AND THEY ARE NOT TORTURE! we are talking about the defense of our country and you want to make sure that our enemies aren't uncomfortable. that is insane.

by the way, my wife has been through sere, but i have not. my experience was in boot camp, navy boot camp at that. marine boot camp is a whole new level of "torture".

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

marine boot camp is a whole new level of "torture".

Yup and I was especially tortured since my drill instructors took a particular "liking" to me.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[billvon 3,008]

>we are talking about the defense of our country and you want to
>make sure that our enemies aren't uncomfortable.

No one is suggesting that. Anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between holding prisoners, torturing them, and boot camp. (And they know that "not torturing them" does not equal "making sure they are comfortable.")

[funjumper101 15]

You can type a million times that " THEY ARE NOT TORTURE" and each time you would be incorrect.

The real world is not like right wing world. Saying or typing something over and over does not make it true. A lie, is a lie, is a lie, no matter how many times it is repeated, or the emphatic way the lie is expressed.

The USA, through its operatives, has committed war crimes. The people who commited the crimes, and those that authorized the crimes to be committed, must be held accountable. Will we do it here, or should we turn the matter over to the Hague? I would hope that we, the USA, has the moral strength and ethical power to overcome the right wing apologists, and keep the matter in house. The way some righties are, the Hague may be a better venue, in the long run.

Where is the so called respect for the rule of law that the righties crow about? It seems to have gone missing. Situational ethics at their finest. The constitution doesn't mean squat to you folks.

Admit it.