Rumsfeld, Bush approved Iraq torture policy

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, December 11, 2004 17:27
VIEWED: 18296
PAGE 6 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 1:42 AM

Whoa there Jasonzz!

Pretty soon you'll be saying that it's OK to perform elective brain surgery on ppl who don't fit into the social norm. In the FF 'verse, you'd be a blue hand for sure.. except that I don't think they'd take anyone who can be so easily manipulated!

Torture is the infliction of physical harm or pain or emotional/psychic anguish. One favorite form of torture is sleep deprivation... people actually die sooner of sleep deprivation than lack of water, AND it leaves no marks! Another favorite form of torture is to go the the apparent head man of a village, grab one of his younger male grandchildren and start drowning the kid until your conditions are met. If anyone should wonder about the effectiveness of positional torture, one only needs to look at crucifixion. Of course, there's always the standard electric shock, rape, beatings and burnings. And simple household items- cordless drills, phone books, plastic bags- make excellent tools of the trade.

The point, Jasonzz, is that you're not about to shock me (so to speak!) but you ARE putting yourself in league with sociopaths.

Torture has very little to do with extracting information. If you torture someone enough, they'll tell you anything you want to hear just to stop the pain. Of course, it may be made up, so the value of the information is always questionable. There are drugs and other techniques that do a much better job at getting credible information.

Torture DOES have lots to do with intimidation and control. Whether it's a person trying to control his/her significant other through threats or a dictator squeezing an entire country, the effect of torture is to put some heads on pikes at the city gates and keep the opposition down.

BTW you can be guilty of torture AND murder so it's not an either/or case, but if it was "just" a case of tortuer going to far and death was unintended I suppose it would be torture and manslaughter.

RUE

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:48 AM

This is in the UN anti-torture treaty signed by the US in 1994:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
PART I
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Article 2
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

US CODE
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch113C.html
Sec. 2340. - Definitions
(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;

the Geneva Convention
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html#Article%201.1
Article 50. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

But, when it comes to news... well... If Fox "news" was here, it'd be comedy. Scary stuff goes on there, and a lot of US citizens watch it claiming it's actually good news *shiver*

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Quote:
Oh, we have our fair share of idiots here in Canada as well. Every country has them. There are just a lot fewer of them. Plus they tend to be more passive.

Please provide information to substantiate that.

Seriously, I think you are either gravely underestimating the US or supremely overestimating these 'other' countries.

Quote:

But, when it comes to news... well... If Fox "news" was here, it'd be comedy. Scary stuff goes on there, and a lot of US citizens watch it claiming it's actually good news *shiver*

Because it follows a different agenda? If you think the news you are spoon fed is somehow bias free I think you got another thing coming. Its funny, people go and spout bullsh*t off about Fox and then go and get spoonfed whatever news source appeals most to them.

I try to get the most news from a multitude of different, (in both ownership and opinion) sources and try to base my decisions off of that. (Not saying that you do not)

I just realize that if I get my news from one source it might be biased, (as Fox news is) and that if I get it from another it can be just as biased, (BBC or CNN, or CNBC, or Al Jazeera).

I don't care, I'm still free.

RUE

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:42 AM

I do the same thing. I don't come to the same conclusions.

But you yourself admit that any * single * news source, including FOX, is incomplete at a minimum.

And I'm sure you're aware that for the majority of people in the US, 'news' is a half-hour in front of the boob-tube.

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whoa there Jasonzz!

Pretty soon you'll be saying that it's OK to perform elective brain surgery on ppl who don't fit into the social norm. In the FF 'verse, you'd be a blue hand for sure.. except that I don't think they'd take anyone who can be so easily manipulated!

I don't know, you are the ones labeling people whether they fit in or not. If you give it a name, I am more than sure someone will come up with the medicine or a fix for it. If you are clever enough about those things or care enough about it - don't give it a name. If you believe that everyone's feelings and thinking are just and correct and really truly know that "to each their own" is the way to live, then don't make "a norm".

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Torture is the infliction of physical harm or pain or emotional/psychic anguish. One favorite form of torture is sleep deprivation... people actually die sooner of sleep deprivation than lack of water, AND it leaves no marks! Another favorite form of torture is to go the the apparent head man of a village, grab one of his younger male grandchildren and start drowning the kid until your conditions are met. If anyone should wonder about the effectiveness of positional torture, one only needs to look at crucifixion. Of course, there's always the standard electric shock, rape, beatings and burnings. And simple household items- cordless drills, phone books, plastic bags- make excellent tools of the trade.

That's a mixed bag of stuff. You all are lumping a whole bunch of stuff and calling it torture. I suppose a simple "nyah, nyah, nyah" taunting or the Monday morning blues is torture too. People who don't get their StarBucks in the morning are also undergoing emotional distress - yeah, those pussies are also undergoing torture. The fact is, the world is filled with this stuff in various forms and shape. The Fat, Dumb, and happy "Western cultured" people of the world's got it made, they can make themselves feel that you can just legislate all of this crap away. Yeah, keep repeating that to yourselves until some real psychopath creeps up to you in a dark parking lot some where and do something. It's real, it's out there, it's not going away. Call it torture, call it what you will. The soft belly of the society will always be the prey.

So, you named a whole bunch of stuff and called it torture. okay. now what?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

The point, Jasonzz, is that you're not about to shock me (so to speak!) but you ARE putting yourself in league with sociopaths.

Sociopaths? Thanks for the diagnosis. It would have cost me thousands of dollars and countless hours laying in a couch to be called a mixed bag of nuts. Whew! Now I know. Thanks, no need for arguments. Forget about the debate. We'll just give each other fantasy labels and move on. Haken should just dump this entire forum thing and turn it into a bunch of selection lists of labels for each other. Everyday, we can just post up a bunch of titles for ideas and then start picking labels for each other.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Torture has very little to do with extracting information. If you torture someone enough, they'll tell you anything you want to hear just to stop the pain. Of course, it may be made up, so the value of the information is always questionable. There are drugs and other techniques that do a much better job at getting credible information.

If you ask them the wrong questions, they will give you the wrong answers. We've all known this since the dumb ass sons-of-bitches social workers started cohersing little kids into fingering their adult caretakers as child-molesting demons. The fact is, different people and different situations require different techniques. The dumb unskilled sons-of-bitches rely on the same old drill (no pun intended, oh wait, maybe I did) every single time. Some nuts are tougher to crack. Some you just h

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

And I'm sure you're aware that for the majority of people in the US, 'news' is a half-hour in front of the boob-tube.

Erm, try the majority of the people, period.

I mean, do you really think that people in Spain, or France, or Britian, or Canada, are somehow more news savvy because of their geographical location?

Maybe you don't intentionally want to bash the US... just because, but from how it sounds you just love making (baseless?) generalizations. Please, feel free to prove me wrong.

I don't care, I'm still free.

RUE

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:34 AM

I lived half my life on one US border, and the other half (so far) living on the other.

I did, and do, compare news on an ongoing basis. And internet scanning at least 20 news sources every day (various countries, political positions) is a mental aberration I have. I keep thinking facts do count for something. But maybe I'm just deluded ...

Anyway, I've found US 'world' news is significantly impoverished of facts and significantly slanted to government news releases, compared to world news from elsewhere. I have done the headline-comparison thing with urls long-term for another group of people. But it's too much work to reproduce it here. In any case, I suspect it really doesn't matter what I do or don't post.

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:52 AM

Well, I am sure that means you can accurately speak for the entire US, (and all its news services) and for the rest of the world to boot.

Come now, you can make all the generalizations you want, and I am sure it might even give you, (this is purely a guess) a feeling of empowerment. You are better then those other lowly beings because you have the time to dedicate to looking at other online sources. However, that just as easily may not be the case.

Anyways, I think I find the ideas of, "news ...significantly impoverished of facts and significantly slanted to government news releases," as fairly subjective, if not based purely upon opinion, not facts. Again, if you have read all the news papers from coast to coast (not to mention local television stations), and all the news sources in the US, and then have done a comparison to all the new sources in all the other countries in the world, then done an examination, (thorough and unbiased) of the number of people in all the countries, (or to make your job easier, modern countries) and the ammount of time the populice spends on examining various news sources, then feel free to make generalizations.

I have significant doubts as to whether or not you have done this, and as such I do find your gross overgeneralizations a tad bit.. callous.

I will try to refrain from doing so, (and if I do, please call me on it) and would appreciate it if you tried to refrain from doing so in the future.

I don't care, I'm still free.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 5:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Please provide information to substantiate that.

Seriously, I think you are either gravely underestimating the US or supremely overestimating these 'other' countries.

I am Canadian and I have lived in the US. I know a number of idiots here and just about all that I met down there was a moron. And those who weren't morons were pretty much all immigrants or those there on a visa.

I have been to Scotland, England and Germany and the people in all those countries crush those in the US when it comes to intellect (generally speaking of course).

Sorry, but there are things to be said about the state of the public education systems in these countries and I won't even get into how ruined the US's is.

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Because it follows a different agenda? If you think the news you are spoon fed is somehow bias free I think you got another thing coming. Its funny, people go and spout bullsh*t off about Fox and then go and get spoonfed whatever news source appeals most to them.

I try to get the most news from a multitude of different, (in both ownership and opinion) sources and try to base my decisions off of that. (Not saying that you do not)

I just realize that if I get my news from one source it might be biased, (as Fox news is) and that if I get it from another it can be just as biased, (BBC or CNN, or CNBC, or Al Jazeera).

I get my news from the local news papers, the CBC (CBC Sunday mostly), BBC and my friends tell what are in others around the world (can't remember the exact web sites). Plus my German wife tells me what is going on in the German media and she reads multiple papers from there. So, I think that I'm pretty well informed.

But, as for Fox "news". *When* I lived in the US I watched it for a bit and they blatantly omit data to the point where they are lying. I'll provide a case.

Remember those British documents way back in the beginning of the invasion of Iraq that turned out to be based on somebodies thesis? I do, and when the BBC reported on the British governments findings they stated that one document was fine, no foul play involved. But the other one (the one the controversy was all about) was found to have a lot of foul play involved.

Now after hearing that on BBC World when I was channel surfing, I came across a Fox "news" report that stated that the Brits had completed there investigation into *the* document and they had found no foul play. That ended the report.

Now technically they didn't lie. But, this report is *very* misleading. They didn't state that there were two documents and that the one they were referring to wasn't the controversial one. But, of course, that would just screw up there agenda, right? Therefore, lying by omission.

Also, the Daily Show had a "journalist" from Fox "news" on. This "journalist" from Fox "news" actually said that there is the wrong opinion (referring to Al Jazeera) and then the right one (referring to Fox "news"). This isn't exactly anything resembling any attempt at a non-bias mentality, eh?

And no, I don't watch the BBC because it goes along with my "agenda". They've said things on there that I definitely disagreed with. I watch it because it is, IMHO, the most balanced news show on the air. And I know that there are better ones out there. But, I only speak english so I can't watch them.

Lastly, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never stated that the BBC was bias free. And never assume something that you have no basis for. I refer to the first paragraph quoted just above.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 5:58 AM

Erm, yeah, the Daily Show...

They have NO agenda what-so-ever. And EVERYTHING they report is taken in the most absolutely serious manner possible. Checked, double checked, and checked again.

I remember one episode where they had a mayor of Evansville Indiana, (IIRC) say he went to a Cher concert, and then it showed what the mayor was thinking, and it turned out to BE the Cher concert.

Its amazing technology they have at the Daily Show.

And, I find that when you are visiting another country, (be it on vacation, or whatever) you would tend to go to areas where people have a similar intellectual, (or at least comparable) level. I highly doubt you got into a "deep" philosophical discussion with random bum 1, (see script) in Scotland. Or with passing lady in Germany, (also see script). The idea that this cursory, "I went there so I am qualified to speak on the intelligence there," is more then a little absurd. Perhaps you have done indepth research, and by no means do I think that the US is the loftiest epitome of intelligence, that is most certainly not the case. I just think that it is easy to take a cursory glance of a country you have visited briefly, (say you visited friends, or went to more upstyle establishments, or whatever) then to compare it to a country you have lived all your life, seen the sad underbelly, and have seen the good and the bad. (In my experience the bad seems to stick out more prominately).

Also, I don't want to tout Fox News as an exceptional source for unbiased news, but nor would I consider BBC the most unbiased news source either. I am sure you can find cases from most any news organization where they have done faulty or dodgy reporting. I think the most obvious reasons people "pick" on Fox is because its agenda is so perpendicular to their own.

Nor, while we are talking about putting words in each other mouth's, did I say anything about Fox being unbiased. In fact, I destinctly remember saying quite the opposite.

And, while we are on the subject, can I direct you to read what you quoted me saying.

"I try to get the most news from a multitude of different, (in both ownership and opinion) sources and try to base my decisions off of that. (Not saying that you do not)"

Pay close attention to the (Not saying that you do not) part.

EDIT

Not to be a pain in the ass, still waiting for substantiatable information on how other people are more intelligent, (or informed, I forget which you said) then those geographically based in the US.

I don't care, I'm still free.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE