The Torture Question
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 21:30
VIEWED: 10585
PAGE 12 of 16
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Assuming that is true, how is that any different from you insinuating that I enjoy torture?
Actually, Finn, I was insinuating the exact opposite, but whatever it's far easier for your to attack me if you twist my words out of all recognition.
Quote:
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.
Ok, I'll reiterate, since you obviously missed it.
When YOU are reasonable enough to tell me how your scenario relates to THIS issue I will give you you're answer.
Quote:
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.
The lesser of two evils is still evil, erm two wrongs don't make a right, any of this getting through at all?
America holds herself above the terrorists, so if torture or 'leaning' as you put it, which is beyond what you'd accept in your own judiciary is used, then whatever the alternative someone has to stand-up and say yeah, it wasn't right.
It seems you don't think this is the case. Nor do you seem to think that people (as long as they're American leadership, or is it just Republican?) should be held accountable for their actions and decisions.
None of your posturing and word play with the definition of torture changes the fact that none of these techniques are used on American's if they break or are accused of breaking the law.
If they're ok and oh-so effective, why not use sleep deprivation against someone accused of kidnapping or murder, for instance?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How it relates to this issue? What issue do you think we are discussing? How is it not relevant to this issue? Are you just desperate to avoid the question or do you just not know what we talking about? Neither one bodes well for the remainder of this discussion, so when you figure out what we’re talking about, I’ll come back and join you on this point.
Originally posted by citizen:
When YOU are reasonable enough to tell me how your scenario relates to THIS issue I will give you you're answer.
Quote:They are if they are considered unlawful combatants, like many of the detainees.
Originally posted by citizen:
None of your posturing and word play with the definition of torture changes the fact that none of these techniques are used on American's if they break or are accused of breaking the law.
Quote:It has been used in both cases.
Originally posted by citizen:
If they're ok and oh-so effective, why not use sleep deprivation against someone accused of kidnapping or murder, for instance?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We're talking about the 'torture' of people in internment camps.
Few (if any) of whom are known terrorists, have links to known terrorist organisations and there's nothing to suggest these unknown terrorists have planted any bombs.
We are not talking about the latest season of 24, which seems to be where you’re getting your ‘scenarios’ from.
So yeah, tell me how it relates to this issue.
It's a made up scenario, taken to the absolute extreme, and the fact you’re totally unwilling to give an indication of how it relates is very telling.
Hey, humour me; I'm obviously to 'stupid' to see the connection, so why don't you walk me through it...
Assuming there is a connection, of course.
Otherwise just ignore this post or tell me again how obvious the connection is, but I'm not intelligent enough to work it out.
But as a minor footnote, these techniques don't work. In the end people will tell you anything you want to hear to make it stop, real or imaginary.
They'll tell you there’s five lights instead of four, in fact the only time a terrorist threat has ever been averted (outside of 24) is through agents placed within the cell. Agents who obviously give their information willingly.
EDIT:
Quote:
They are if they are considered unlawful combatants, like many of the detainees.
Oh, that's alright then. Calling them unlawful combatants makes them sub-human, undeserving of judicial procedure et al.
Someone should have told Hitler, and then he could have called the Jews unlawful combatants.
Quote:
It has been used in both cases.
Name one.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:According to you. You’ve read their minds, so you should know. Or do your powers work from such a long distance?
Originally posted by citizen:
We're talking about the 'torture' of people in internment camps.
Few (if any) of whom are known terrorists, have links to known terrorist organisations and there's nothing to suggest these unknown terrorists have planted any bombs.
Quote:Yes, of course. The question of whether or not interrogation is necessary is completely irrelevant to a discussion about interrogation practices. So you want to frame this discussion with the assumptions that (1) the detainees are all innocent and none of them know anything and (2) the issue of whether interrogation is necessary is completely irrelevant and (3) if it relevant it doesn’t work anyway. So effectively, what you want to do is completely ignore any points that argue against your philosophy on the matter and go straight to everyone agreeing with you.
Originally posted by citizen:
It's a made up scenario, taken to the absolute extreme, and the fact you’re totally unwilling to give an indication of how it relates is very telling.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, first you said
Quote:and then you said
Generally I don’t think torture does any good. But
Quote:Actually, I'm just going on what you said, which leads to the conclusion that you are trying to build in some "wiggle room" for torture. Maybe you meant "Generally I don’t think coercive interrogation does any good. But I can see keeping someone awake." or "Generally I don’t think torture does any good and I would prohibit it's use" but that's not what you said. So, if I'm drawing the wrong meaning out of what you said, then tell me what you really meant. And if you WOULD allow the use of torture under some circumstances, then I didn't misunderstand you.
You obviously think you know what I think better then I do, so believe whatever you want.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Orignally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
According to you. You’ve read their minds, so you should know. Or do your powers work from such a long distance?
Well, I may not have, but must have, in order to realise that they are all supremely guilty.
Quote:
Yes, of course. The question of whether or not interrogation is necessary is completely irrelevant to a discussion about interrogation practices. So you want to frame this discussion with the assumptions that (1) the detainees are all innocent and none of them know anything and (2) the issue of whether interrogation is necessary is completely irrelevant and (3) if it relevant it doesn’t work anyway. So effectively, what you want to do is completely ignore any points that argue against your philosophy on the matter and go straight to everyone agreeing with you.
the detainees are all innocent and none of them know anything and
No of course not, America has no innocent until proven guilty policy, oh wait...
the issue of whether interrogation is necessary is completely irrelevant
I believe what you meant is that I think your particular scenario has no bearing.
if it relevant it doesn’t work anyway.
Well, those techniques in use don't, in the real world that is. How is your 24 world going?
So you want to frame this discussion with the assumptions:
1) They are all guilty, no question, of everything we want to blame them for.
2) The issue of use techniques that go beyond torture is totally irrelevant because they are always required, in all situations.
3) They always work, no matter what.
So let’s stop arguing the point and blindly agree with you and Bush, since you guys know all and see all, and never (in Bush’s case) have an outside agenda.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:(1) Guilty or not, they are deemed unlawful combatants by the military, which means they can be held without habeus. You can disagree with this all you want, but claiming they are all warm fuzzy innocent people is a stretch of lunacy.
Originally posted by citizen:
So you want to frame this discussion with the assumptions:
1) They are all guilty, no question, of everything we want to blame them for.
2) The issue of use techniques that go beyond torture is totally irrelevant because they are always required, in all situations.
3) They always work, no matter what.
So let’s stop arguing the point and blindly agree with you and Bush, since you guys know all and see all, and never (in Bush’s case) have an outside agenda.
(2) This is your imagination, since I’ve never argued in favor of torture and certainly not acts that “go beyond torture,” whatever that may be. I don’t really want to know.
(3) This is your imagination as well, since I’ve never argued interrogation always works, clearly there are times when it does not, but I do believe that it often does.
Agree with me or Bush all you want, or don’t. All I ask is that you responsibly consider the issue and don’t make stuff up.
So are you clear on the issues yet?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since you haven't answered me, and then gone and accused me of using the exact same 'imaginary' making things up, ignoring others tactics you've used all along, no I'm not all that sure of how your scenario fits into the mix actually.
Quote:
Agree with me or Bush all you want, or don’t. All I ask is that you responsibly consider the issue and don’t make stuff up.
Right back at ya.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I still didn't get a straight answer to my question: QUOTE Finn, first you said
Quote:and then you said
Generally I don’t think torture does any good.But
Quote:Actually, I'm just going on what you said, which leads to the conclusion that you are trying to build in some "wiggle room" for torture. Maybe you meant "Generally I don’t think coercive interrogation does any good. But I can see keeping someone awake." or "Generally I don’t think torture does any good and I would prohibit it's use" but that's not what you said. So, if I'm drawing the wrong meaning out of what you said, then tell me what you really meant. And if you WOULD allow the use of torture under some circumstances, then I didn't misunderstand you. ENDQUOTE I think a lot of this round and round would be eliminated if you just answered this question straight up, yes or no: Would you allow the use of torture- as YOU define it- in certain circumstances?
You obviously think you know what I think better then I do, so believe whatever you want.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’ve always known you to be a very intelligent person, and I think you have a good head on your shoulders. So forgive me for saying so, but I think you might know how it fits, and find it intellectually or emotionally simpler to avoid it. After all, it is easier to demonize the use of interrogation, if you can dismiss it as useless or unnecessary. I could be wrong. I don’t read minds, but before any rational discussion of the use of interrogation tactics by the US, one first needs to set aside this fanatical anti-American/anti-Bush myth that the US are Nazis who get a woody over causing brown-people pain. If you are operating on the conclusion that the only reason why an American would ever want to interrogate a detainee is based out of pure evil, then it is an extraordinary waste of time to further the discussion.
Originally posted by citizen:
Since you haven't answered me, and then gone and accused me of using the exact same 'imaginary' making things up, ignoring others tactics you've used all along, no I'm not all that sure of how your scenario fits into the mix actually.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME