The Torture Question

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 21:30
VIEWED: 10585
PAGE 11 of 16

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 29, 2005 4:33 AM

Quote:
If it's illegal, file a charge. Get someone to file a charge. Anyone. Bring a case in court, any court. If you can't get an indictment, it's just supposition. convine a Grand Jury. Get a charge before the International Court at the Hague. Prove it in court. Please...Otherwise it's just opinion.

What ARE you going on about Geezer? I thought you WANTED to discuss interrogation guidelines. You said

Quote:
If you have problems with any specific technique in the memo, I'd be glad to discuss that with you.

So, I discussed the guidelines. I followed your link and read what they allowed (including but not limited to making people think they or their family were facing imminent death or severe pain, "simulating" suffocation using dripping water, keeping people at the point of hypothermia) and I merely I created specific examples of ways that it could be done and you got all bent. I really don't understand your point. If you think the guidelines in the memo are correct, defend them. If not, reject them. But don't invite discussion and then get all snarky about it.

Quote:
You would rather string up those you disagree with

Um... as I see it you're the one who's getting all hostile, not me. I'd prefer a rational discussion. What about you?

Please don't think they give a shit.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 29, 2005 4:34 AM

gorram double post

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 29, 2005 4:41 AM

Quote:
SIGNY In fact, I don't know of a single terrorist act thwarted by aggressive detentions and coercive interrogation. (Oh yeah-Bush lied about that too.) What seems to happen is you get a bunch of low-level rebels, some average street thugs, neighbors who were turned in for the reward, a few innocent farmers etc etc who get kncoked around for no particular reason because these people really don't know anything.

FINN I imagine there's a great deal you don't know. Though if it satisfies your anti-Bush cravings you'll convince yourself of just about anything.

Actually, I was referring to Bush's speech about the ten thwarted acts of terrorism, all of which the FBI admitted weren't actual plans to do anything. But since you're the one who proposes torture, maybe it's up to you to show specific instances where it has worked, as opposed to the horrific- but apparently hypothetical- scenarios that you seem to be obessed with.

Please don't think they give a shit.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, October 29, 2005 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, I was referring to Bush's speech about the ten thwarted acts of terrorism, all of which the FBI admitted weren't actual plans to do anything. But since you're the one who proposes torture, maybe it's up to you to show specific instances where it has worked, as opposed to the horrific scenarios that you seem to be obessed with.

Like I said, you’ll convince yourself of anything.

And actually, you’re the one who brought up the torture, not me. That’s your story.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 29, 2005 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
What thread are you reading, because it certainly isn’t this one.

The one where you've been consistently saying:
"It's not torture, it's nothing like torture."
Why, which thread have you been reading?

But since you missed my point entirely and went off on a tangent, lets go with that.
What do you think of the massacre of the Kurds and Shi'a Muslims after the first gulf war, when Bush Snr promised them support that never materialised?
That would be when America and Bush Snr never got off their "righteous asses".

So, assuming it was an American captured by the police it would be perfectly alright to do exactly the same things to him/her as is being done to the detainees, assuming a similar situation.

So, because there are hard choices, if Torture is chosen we shouldn't question it, huh?
Well thanks for clearing that one up for me Finn, we can all sleep safely in our beds knowing the great Bush will protect us from the bogey men, and if we get tortured, well, it's because we must have been bad boys and girls.

Hey, you want to live in a world where two wrongs make a right, fine, but your gonna need a lot more than a magic wardrobe.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Okay, the talking ferret was a bit wierd...

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
What thread are you reading, because it certainly isn’t this one.

The one where you've been consistently saying:
"It's not torture, it's nothing like torture."
Why, which thread have you been reading?

Oh I see. So if I say that something is not torture, what you think that means is that I think it actually is torture and that I enjoy it? Sounds like a superfluous interpretation to me. Maybe you understood from my posts, only what you wanted to understand.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So, assuming it was an American captured by the police it would be perfectly alright to do exactly the same things to him/her as is being done to the detainees, assuming a similar situation.

More or less.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So, because there are hard choices, if Torture is chosen we shouldn't question it, huh?

Well, that’s your story and its not a very good one, but if you can set aside your histrionics for a moment, then consider this, if you had reason to believe that a terrorist was going to set off a bomb at a location where many civilians could be killed, as they quite commonly do, (a café, or a school) and you had captured one of the terrorist from that cell, if he refused to talk, what would you do to find out what he knows? If you fail to get the information that you need to stop this bomb, innocent people will die. So, since you’re obviously so righteous and moral, tell me how you would solve this problem.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 29, 2005 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Oh I see. So if I say that something is not torture, what you think that means is that I think it actually is torture and that I enjoy it? Sounds like a superfluous interpretation to me. Maybe you understood from my posts, only what you wanted to understand.

Why don't you make up some more stuff for me too say, you can really trash my character then.
How about insinuate that I want innocent people to die and...
Oh, you did, later on in your post.

Quote:
More or less.

Least your equal opportunities.

Quote:
Well, that’s your story and its not a very good one, but if you can set aside your histrionics for a moment, then consider this, if you had reason to believe that a terrorist was going to set off a bomb at a location where many civilians could be killed, as they quite commonly do, (a café, or a school) and you had captured one of the terrorist from that cell, if he refused to talk, what would you do to find out what he knows? If you fail to get the information that you need to stop this bomb, innocent people will die. So, since you’re obviously so righteous and moral, tell me how you would solve this problem.

Ahh, old faithful. The BS argument/question to which there is no answer. My histrionics huh, ahh, it's so easy to rubbish other peoples arguments when you don't understand them, whether that is because you're incapable or unwilling, I wouldn't like to say.
I'm impressed though, you haven't told me how dangerous it is to use the right of freedom of speech, and how we should be thankful we've got it, but should never, ever, ever use it. Which is basically what you were saying at the beginning of the thread (that it was tantamount to neglect murder or some such).

How about you explain to me how that has any bearing on the issue. How the people being held are known terrorists from a known terrorist cell that's planted a bomb in a school, café, GW Bush's underpants whatever.

But since you wish to talk unrelated scenarios to prove your point, here's how I'd deal with it in a completely unrelated way:
I'd painlessly read his mind with my supa-dupa made-up mind reading ability (well if River can do it), then I'd sprout wings, fly off too the naughty terrorist people and show them the errors of their ways through the medium of dance.
Then we all lived happilly ever after.

(Well, you wanted a fairytale).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, October 29, 2005 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Why don't you make up some more stuff for me too say, you can really trash my character then. How about insinuate that I want innocent people to die and...
Oh, you did, later on in your post.

Assuming that is true, how is that any different from you insinuating that I enjoy torture?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'd painlessly read his mind with my supa-dupa made-up mind reading ability (well if River can do it), then I'd sprout wings, fly off too the naughty terrorist people and show them the errors of their ways through the medium of dance.
Then we all lived happilly ever after.

Wonderful. You should be an interrogator for the DIA. We could use you. But since your not, it stands to reason that you’ve failed to follow your calling and left the rest of us in the unfavorable predicament of not being able to read a detainees mind. So normal people, at least those responsible enough not to ignore the issue all together, must make a decision between allowing a possible terrorist attack and the death of innocent people to go unfettered or leaning on a detainee who might have information to stop it. Clearly there are right and wrongs ways of doing this and there are lines that probably shouldn’t be crossed, but as difficult as it may be for some to accept, I do not believe that a detainee getting a full nights sleep is a fair trade for the life of an innocent person. So until you come to work for the DIA or one of the other intelligence agencies in the US or Psychic research pays off big time, some of us will have to make the difficult decision. And it is an ungrateful job, I'm sure, that is not made any easier by the righteous indignation of those who haven't even bothered to consider the issue.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 29, 2005 3:01 PM

Quote:
SIGNY: But since you're the one who proposes torture, maybe it's up to you to show specific instances where it has worked, as opposed to the horrific scenarios that you seem to be obessed with.

FINN: And actually, you’re the one who brought up the torture, not me. That’s your story.

Finn, do you know the definition of "Yes, but...."? The definition of "Yes, but...." is "NO". So

Quote:
Generally I don’t think torture does any good. But

says that you WOULD torture. So actually YOU'RE the one who brought up torture, and since you're the one who KEEPS bringin it up (like you just did- again) I invite you- again- to come up with some real life examples of where it has worked, not these hypothetical scenarios that you're obsessed with.

Please don't think they give a shit.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, October 29, 2005 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, do you know the definition of "Yes, but...."? The definition of "Yes, but...." is "NO". So
Quote:
Generally I don’t think torture does any good. But
says that you WOULD torture.

Whatever you have to tell yourself. You obviously think you know what I think better then I do, so believe whatever you want. It’s pretty much a waste of time.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE