 sj |
||
|
||
BS: US torture
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Ireland Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:45 PM Teribus has said in his post what I wanted to, and I'm glad to see other people understand the difference between, modern interrogation techniques, and how they actually work,and torture. Put bluntly the name of the game is confusion, and the trick is how to bring that confusion about. People can be beaten/injured into a confused state, which I do not agree with. Sleep deprivation etc can also bring about the same results, after the interrogation people can always catch up on sleep. Don, there is one simple flaw in your, There was no dirty bomb and no explosives in the Statue of Liberty. The terrorist sits in his cell and laughs uproariously at those who had tortured him. "Gotcha!!", theory. The small pox was going to happen any way, do you want people to accept the inevitable and do nothing? Bit defeatist do you not think? In general interrogators and collators are not stupid, yes some may run off on wild goose chase's, but in general only if that fits the M.O. of the group that person who was interrogated belongs to. Such an example could be the arms smuggling to Ireland, popular method was shipping, so if some one says arms are going to be flown over, it would raise alarm bells. Information,name,places,times and dates all details given out during interrogation,collators use this, simple example, if A say's he and B were at a place at X time, compare that to other statements from the rest of the people. That may not be useful to the man on the street, but many a terrorist from N.I. got caught by the police using the same collated intelligence. It does work,it either eliminates or confirms the suspect from a line of inquiry. Because there is no great arms find or bombs uncovered do not be fooled into thinking that this is because the interrogation methods do not get vital info. It is the info that such interrogation gets that prevents the arms being shipped or bombs planted in the first place. Do not forget human nature,piss the prisoner off enough and he may spill the beans without realising it. To use your example the prisoner may say F--- you if the bombs don't get ya the small pox will. Not all terrorist are brain boxes or hardened men, they do make mistakes. My argument is this I would rather have modern day interrogation methods used, I do not agree with the use of torture techniques of the past. The questions put are not clever they are the dilemma that faces those in charge of our security every day. Which are backed up by the real threats from Bin Laden, a man who says there will be more Sept 11 atrocities. Quite possibly the next could involve the release of small pox, any ideas how we prepare for that or how to stop it? A good start would get as much intelligence as you can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Teribus Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:04 PM Forum Lurker, Good point - I was using "war" as the terrorists term - In Malaysia, Borneo and in Northern Ireland. The terrorists described their activities as a war, we on the other hand used the the terms "counter-insurgency", conflict, aid to the civil power. In Malaysia, Borneo and in Northern Ireland at no time was the military in control of the conduct of operations against the terrorists - Templeton in Malaya was extremely emphatic on that point - he was the man responsible for showing the importance of winning "Hearts and Minds". He succeeded - his testament was the the only instance of a communist inspired, and backed, insurrection being defeated during the period of the "cold war". Malaysia became fully independent during the course of that war and survives today as a democratic state. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Forum Lurker Date: 17 Mar 03 - 10:56 AM Teribus-very good points for the most part. The only thing I disagree with is the consistent use of the word "war" to describe our attempts to defend ourselves from and destroy terrorist organizations. War used to have a distinct legal meaning, and it is the elimination of that meaning which allows Bush to treat anyone from an Afghanistani villager to a second-generation Pakistani immigrant as an "enemy combatant," denied both civil liberties and POW status under the Geneva Accords. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Teribus Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:19 AM I think that "Ireland" has quite correctly put things into context well when he differentiates between interrogation methods and out and out physical torture. Those who state that interrogation may not produce reliable or accurate information are correct up to a point. What is the diffence between the sort of interrogations going on in G.Bay and Bagram, as opposed to say the torture being inflicted on supporters of Robert Mugabes opponents in Zimbabwe, or by Saddam's internal security forces in Iraq. The former are being conducted on a large scale to draw out information with regard to Al-Qaeda, its organisation, means of communication and capabilities, past and future. The latter is to get people to "confess", to say what the authorities want them to say in order to further the repression and eliminate possible opponents. If you are interrogating a large number of people using such methods as sleep deprivation, etc, to put them under stress. Results obtained are not of the major break-through type. The interrogation teams are conducting a large number of interviews and while their subjects may give false and misleading information - it is well nigh impossible, given the circumstances under which such interviews are conducted, for the subjects to come up with a "uniform lie". There will be discrepancies and inconsistancies, slowly, but surely, over a period of time the collators sort out the wheat from the chaff, they will identify those of their subjects who know little or nothing and those who may be able to tell them more. It does take time, but in general, I would say that the technique is effective. The techniques for interrogation are very different to those of torture. In my time in the armed forces we were taught and trained to withstand interrogation, not torture. Even then, the degree to which your training extended, recognised the fact that after you had been "in-the-bag" for a certain amount of time - any information you may have had with regard to operations - was useless, no longer relevant. Therefore your use as a source of information had a very limited shelf life. That is not the case with a captured member of a terrorist organisation (a la Guitanamo Bay prisoners) they have to be kept on hand for further interrogation as part of the information gathering process. Unlike their counterparts in the jails of Harare or Baghdad, these people, by and large, are not subjected to systematic physical abuse to the point of permanent injury and death (the two instances at Bagram are already under investigation). If you are engaged in a war, that was not a war of your own chosing. If you are engaged in a war, forced upon you by a group of international terrorists, your only real defence is intelligence - If you are serious in your efforts to protect yourselves - then you get the information you require from whatever source is available - there are no absolutes and there are no nicities - hard fact and the way of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Forum Lurker Date: 16 Mar 03 - 02:45 PM Little Hawk-I agree entirely that valid maxims are rather hard to come by. In fact, that was somewhat of my point. Morality is a human construct, and while that doesn't invalidate it, it gives perspective. McGrath-I think that rape could only be justified in a situation deliberately contrived to make rape the moral option. Even then, I imagine that most people would be sufficiently horrified by the prospect that they might not do the rationally "better" thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Mar 03 - 02:02 PM Rape is a pretty hard one to work out a situation where it might be ok. And whatever the consequences, I'd say torture is as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Mar 03 - 12:26 AM Hey, Lurker... I'm trying hard to come up with something (other than certain basic natural laws) which is valid in ALL situations... :-) Ummm...even the natural laws may be questionable, given certain unusual situations. Still trying.... Ummmm... Ha! Ha! I think I must say that there are probably no real maxims, given your definition. Morality is something people make up or learn from other people who made it up, and they constantly revise it as they go along, influenced powerfully by their culture, their religion, changing circumstances around them, emergencies, and so on. Which is not to say that morality is not valuable and vital to human development. It is both. That's because through forming our morality we decide and define who we ARE and hardly anything could be more important than that. But anyone who thinks his particular versions of morality are the ultimate truth, infallible, and written in stone is suffering mental-emotional rigor mortis as far as I'm concerned. Or to put it another way, he's probably a fanatic. Life is a continuing process of discovery and adaptation, not a blind adherence to a rigid set of rules passed on by one's elders. I would rather decide to be merciful and just and forgiving, than decide to be a torturer, a vengeance-seeker, and an oppressor. But that's just me... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Mar 03 - 05:57 PM If a situation is possible that means it may arise. If it can never arise, that means it is impossible. Just two ways of saying the same thing. And if it may arise that's also the same as saying it may never arise. Two ways of saying the same thing once more. It's a great language we've got. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Forum Lurker Date: 15 Mar 03 - 09:59 AM Little Hawk-In order for anything to be a maxim, it must be valid in all situations. If no maxims exist, then morality must be relative (a view I subscribe to). In that case, you can only worry about what's moral in one particular situation, not general rules. I agree with you that one shouldn't ever give a fallible government the ability to abuse its power, such as authorizing torture or holding persons without evidence, without charging them and without releasing their names and locations. I can only defend it in particular instances, though, because it is possible that a situation might arise where it would be necessary. McGrath-If a situation MAY never arise, but is still possible, then it means that the possibility exists that the maxim will be contradicted. If that possibility exists, it is not a valid maxim. If the invalidating situation is impossible, then it certainly can't be used in any kind of argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Mar 03 - 09:02 AM Guys....there isn't any rule you can make up that will fit ALL situations or make things perfect or "stop evil in the world". There just isn't. So stop trying to concoct bizarre lines of reasoning to prove a painfully constricted point about something that can't be pinned down and held still in the first place. It's still a generally good idea not to torture people, not to rape people, not to kill people, and not to EVER give a government legal authority to do so...because when you give them that authority they will sooner (not later) use it when and where they should not. troll - As you say, there can (in real life) be no set policy that is always adhered to by all concerned. Extraordinary situations must be (and are) dealt with by the people on the spot, in whatever way they can best work it out on their own best judgement. That is what happens in the real world. The lawyers and cops and judges can argue about it later. Just don't give cops or the military legal authority to torture people, that's all I'm asking. They do it frequently enough without legal authority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Mar 03 - 07:24 AM "Just because a situation MAY never arise doesn't mean that the situation can't invalidate a maxim." Interesting logical point there. I'm not sure it's true. If it had been "Just because a situation COULD never arise doesn't mean that the situation can't invalidate a maxim", I'm pretty sure it would have been an invalid statement, but perhaps with MAY it is valid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Forum Lurker Date: 14 Mar 03 - 08:37 PM Don- I know that polygraphs are only semi-reliable stress detectors, not lie detectors. That's why I said perfect. You would need torture to get the information at all, not to get true information. No lie detector, even one that could directly extract the veracity of a statement from your mind, can tell what the truth is when you don't say anything. The purpose of hypotheticals is to test the limits of a general rule, not to find the best course of action in that hypothetical situation. Just because a situation MAY never arise doesn't mean that the situation can't invalidate a maxim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Mar 03 - 08:16 PM "You forgot to add a little tag to your last message, Kevin. "IMO." Well, I said "I'm sure" in that post at the one point where I could have said "in my opinion". (I never write IMO - everything I say is my opinion, or I wouldn't say it, and I don't use those "acronyms" anyway.) But is there really anything in that post that you would you disagree with, Doug? Your question suggests that there is, but try as I can, I really can't see what. I wasn't asserting that, to my knowledge or belief, rape is being used as a method of torture by the US, if that is what you jibbed at, and there's nothing in my post that even suggests that. My mention of rape was to bring out the point that, just because your enemy engages in an evil practice, that does not mean that it is a good idea to go in for it yourself. Rape is, I still believe, an example of a case where most people would agree that is true, and I'd be surprised if that didn't include you. (And then I reminded us that rape is in fact quite widely used as a method of torture - it was for example in Chile under Pinochet, using German Shepherd/Alsatian dogs.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Don Firth Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:26 PM Second follow-up: In many classes and in many coffee-klatsches back when I was at the UW and taking philosophy courses, discussions abounded, as is the nature of the university environment. On the question "Is murder ever justified?" a hypothetical situation often comes up: "If you had a time machine, would you be justified in going back to the early Thirties and murdering Adolf Hitler?" On the face of it, one would think "Absolutely!" You would save the lives of millions of people and stop a devastating war. Of course, you would be justified! Now, here comes a pair of wet blankets that render the argument irrelevant to the real world: 1. You don't have a time machine, so the situation would never occur. 2. Even if you did have a time machine, you don't really know what the results of your action might be. Suppose you killed Hitler, and Goebbels took over in his place. Goebbels was reputed to be even more rabid than Hitler, and it's conceivable that he might have been even worse (several Star Trek plots have a lot of fun with the possible results of altering the "time line."). Theoretical discussions like this are lots of fun, but other than maybe opening one's mind to various possibilities and honing one's debating skills, it is theoretical, and generally inapplicable in the real world. Fun, but ". . . full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Torture is not only morally unacceptable, it is highly unreliable as a source of information. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Don Firth Date: 14 Mar 03 - 02:38 PM Follow-up. If you had a perfect lie detector (which we don't), then torture would not be necessary. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Don Firth Date: 14 Mar 03 - 02:33 PM I know the question, FL. Lie detectors are not reliable either. All a "lie detector" measures is level of anxiety, determined by breath rate, heart rate, and galvanic skin response. If you are being tortured or threatened with torture, your anxiety level would be high enough to swamp out any of the minute differences needed to infer that you might possibly be lying. They're not like they portray them on TV. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 14 Mar 03 - 01:55 PM Don-It's true that torture is usually not accurate. If you had a perfect lie detector, though, what would your answer be? The question is whether it would be acceptable to torture him if you knew that it would help you prevent an atack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Don Firth Date: 14 Mar 03 - 01:46 PM Likely scenario: Okay, Troll, so you torture your terrorist, and after a long and grueling session for all concerned, he finally spills the beans. The Statue of Liberty, he tells you, is going to be blown up in a symbolic gesture. Simultaneously, a dirty bomb, smuggled into New York harbor in a cargo container, will detonate, scattering radioactivity over a large area of the city. While the Statue of Liberty is being searched from head to foot and the waterfront is being scoured in an attempt to find which of the thousands of cargo containers contains the bomb, a smallpox-laden aerosol is released, quietly and unnoticed, in Chicago's O'Hare airport. There was no dirty bomb and no explosives in the Statue of Liberty. The terrorist sits in his cell and laughs uproariously at those who had tortured him. "Gotcha!!" Torture is not a reliable way of getting accurate information. Never has been. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:11 AM Ireland-we've been over this many, many times. Just because the terrorists are bad people doesn't mean that we can torture suspects so that hopefully, if we ren't being lied to, we might get intel which could lead to the apprehension of more suspected terrorists. You can't claim that the responsibility for government-sanctioned torture belongs to the terrorists one hopes to catch through said torture. Claiming that because the methods of torture currently admitted to by the government aren't as bad as the methods other people are known to use doesn't change the fact that it's still our government torturing suspects. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Troll Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:11 AM In the perfect world, the view from the ivory tower is always beautiful. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. I earlier put forth a hypothetical situation and was accused of being "clever" and of possibly trying to use that scenario to back up my own position on the subject of torture. Both accusations were 100% wrong. What I tried to do was to set up a situation where there was no right answer; a situation where either way a man could go, his soul would be stained. I hoped to spark some discussion about this grey area. Instead, we have simply gotten more of the same absolutist crap. So once again: it isn't always black and white, folks. There are times (witness my scenario) where the lesser of two evils MUST be chosen. This was my scenario. Date: 10 Mar 03 - 10:50 PM Hypothetical question. You have a captive whom you believe has information which can save thousands of lives. But he/she refuses to talk. If you torture him/her, you may get the information. If you do not get the information, thousands die horribly. Is there any moral justification in favor of torture? Is there any moral justification against torture? For the sake of preventing end runs, you have only 24 hours before the cataclysm occurs, and this is the only link you have. You know that it will happen but not what or where. As I said, I have no position on the subject. Each situation stands on its own merits and a decision must be made each time. There should be no set policy. THAT I would object to very strongly. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Ireland Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:31 AM What a load of emotional crap, who said that anyone involved in the G.Bay has been raped, get your terminology right people, modern interrogation methods. No way would I sanction the rape of any person male or female, try keeping to the point of modern interrogation techniques,not the crap meted out to people in S.American countries, as the introduction of such nonsense takes us away off the point. The start of this thread referred to, sleep deprivation and psychops that drove people crazy in Northern Ireland. What drives people crazy is seeing their loved ones lying in the gutter with their brains scattered all over the place, seeing young children reduced to nothing more than mince meat,no imo,unfortunately fact in my experiences. Pick up a victims arms and legs and ask what you would do to prevent the next person ending up like this. I have personally seen people shoveled into black bags, watched as their families were emotionally tortured by the sight of their loved ones blood splattered all over the place. Step this murdering up a scale and what came next Sept 11 murders, I blame those who whine because they are the very people giving impetus to such action,they are indirectly condoning it. Terrorists thrive on the notion if your doing nothing to stop us then your for us, they suck up all this human rights crap to throw it right back in our faces. They are the ones who take away the right of life,over 3000 lives in one go,and threaten more such acts. Still not one solution is put forward. And yes certain interrogation methods have paid off so lets get off the no real information band wagon, it has already be pointed out that useful intel has been gathered. So rather than equate one to the other why not put the blame were it truly lies at the feet of the terrorist. But then it could be said the torturer/terrorist past or present was doing what he/she thought was right at that time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Forum Lurker Date: 14 Mar 03 - 08:51 AM DougR- McGrath isn't saying that all rapists are torturers ( though they are, IMO). He's pointing out that one of the most common methods of torture used by interrogators is rape. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: DougR Date: 14 Mar 03 - 12:45 AM You forgot to add a little tag to your last message, Kevin. "IMO." DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 03 - 08:01 PM Anybody who uses torture are the bad guys. Even if they are up against other bad guys. I'm sure, Doug, you wouldn't say "No rape. That is the good guys can't rape. How about the bad guys? Who is going to enforce that rule on them?" (And of course rape is one widespread method of torture.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: DougR Date: 13 Mar 03 - 07:05 PM Well and good. No torture. That is the good guys can't use torture. How about the bad guys? Who is going to enforce that rule on them? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 03 - 06:53 PM Did I say that toadfrog? I somehow don't think it's too likely, except maybe for very low-level operatives, or of course people from the other side in any conflict. Even when there's a change of regime, and our friendly dictators get replaced by friendly politicians who aren't quite dictators (touch wood), the normal pattern is for there to be an amnesty about that kind of stuff, especially for the high-ups. I'd like to see those senior politicians, in any country, who talk openly in ways which clearly encourage and welcome torture, charged and brought to court. But it won't happen in our time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: toadfrog Date: 13 Mar 03 - 06:43 PM There are probably times when use of torture could be justified, morally at least. Just as there are times when cannibalism has been justified. But as the liklihood of abuse of torture is so much greater than the right to commit cannibalism when necessary, I think the rule has to be, torture is never permissible, and if someone uses it, even under circumstances so extreme as to justify it morally, that person must still take thc consequences. So I agree with McGrath. Torture should never be tolerated. Where I disagree is with his belief that someone is actually going to be able to enforce such a rule. It would be nice, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 03 - 02:30 PM I think there are some things which can never be justified, period, and torture is one of those. Imagining what the results might be if you did go over that line is just irrelevant. Perhaps the good consequences might outweigh the bad consequences in some complicated calculus, or it might be the other way round - but, once again, it's irrelevant. For citizens of all countries which have ratified the international convention against torture, this means that it is a criminal act to take part in torturing anyone or to collude in others torturing anyone on their behalf. I'm very glad to see that both the UK and the USA have ratified this. And so far as the UK is concerned at least, the newly set up International War Crimes Tribunal has jurisdiction. So far as the USA is concerned it has to be its own legal system that deals with any cases that arise. That's maybe some protection at any rate. If we go down the road that accepts and authorises torture, I think we've had it as a society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 13 Mar 03 - 01:29 PM Ireland-the people in Guantanamo aren't members of terrorist cells. Most likely, the people in a cell will not know enough to compromise another cell if their capture is known; that's the point of a cell setup. Torture is notoriously unreliable; most people will tell their interrogators what they want to hear, regardless of the truth. Most importantly, if the government can torture a suspected terrorist, what stops them from carrying the principle on to material witnesses who don't want to talk? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Bagpuss Date: 13 Mar 03 - 11:31 AM Ireland - I would say that anyone seriously advocating torture needs to look at themselves as see what *they* are capable of... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Ireland Date: 13 Mar 03 - 11:23 AM Are you saying that the guy just caught (sorry forgot his name) knows nothing about Bin Laden. Every one has a modicum of useful intelligence,whether they know it or not. Such as who are the people giving them orders,giving them weapons training,quarter master, safety houses, money, all valuable information. What use is a terrorist to his unit if he does not know at least one of the above. This could lead to identifying up to four people involved in the organisation. Any one of those four could be walking the streets of Washington or N.Y. plotting their next atrocity, the stakes are too high to rely on pure chance to weed these people out. We have too much to lose not to take any or all advantages. Your point in principle is right, but lets not lose sight of what these people and their comrades are capable off, as I said before it is the proven terrorist/aggressor I would have no problems with people using modern day interrogation against. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Bagpuss Date: 13 Mar 03 - 10:47 AM But Ireland, one question is how do you know a person has information that could prevent an attack? You aren't going to find that out till you have tortured him. And it seems most likely that, regardless of what was first told to the world, those people being held in Guantanamo Bay are mostly nothing more than foot soldiers in Afghanistan with very little info about any future plans of al-Quaida (and surely the plans get changed as soon as anyone with any knowledge is captured....). So should we torture them all just to be sure they don't know something? Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Ireland Date: 13 Mar 03 - 10:36 AM I do not think anyone is condoning torture on innocent people. What I am saying is simple I can understand the use of it on people in G.Bay or underlings of Bin Laden. That is,it is acceptable to me to use such methods to gain intelligence,to prevent another atrocity. What is not acceptable is people staying within their comfort zones, postulating and giving no real solutions to the present threats from Bin Laden. We have a person in custody who knows the in's and out's of many attacks by Bin Laden, any suggestions how intelligence information is got out of him? In intel terms not getting information from him is a waste of a valuable resource and I suggest it could be argued that those who are against modern day interrogation techniques will be among those who allow another attack to happen. My views are in relation to the Sept 11 murders and the threats Bin Laden has made against the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Forum Lurker Date: 12 Mar 03 - 11:25 PM LH-You make a very good point. A government does not make exceptions without those exception becoming rules in their own right. McGrath-The Northern Irish probably don't consider themselves first and foremost as British, where the colonists did. On topic, I find it interesting that pure sadistic pleasure is not included in the definition of torture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 03 - 10:48 PM One thing most of us discover in life as time goes by...any rule that we think is absolutely ironclad is best waived under certain unusual circumstances. For instance, a good rule to follow as a general thing is: "don't run a red light", but there are rare situations where it's probably the only wise thing to do (I'll let you figure what situations those are...). Likewise, there are a few rare situations where: It may be best to kill another human. It may be best to steal a loaf of bread. It may be best to lie. And so on.... People are now theorizing certain rare situations where it is justifiable to torture other people. Hmmmm. The reason I greet that with skepticism (and some contempt) is this: Governments do not excuse torture on the basis of a few very rare and unusual situations. They excuse it because they want to feel free to use it on people whenever and wherever they like. It then becomes a general policy which is NOT reserved for rare and unusual situations. This has happened again and again in corrupt and/or dictatorial regimes...and in war. That is why I am categorically opposed to a government sanctioning torture under any circumstance. What individuals may do in the heat of extraordinary situations is a unique individual circumstance and may be judged on its particular merits or demerits afterward by the law or the community, but it is not a national or organizational policy which necessarily perpetuates itself and may affect thousands of people through a hierarchical command structure. No government should ever be officially allowed to commit torture on anyone, and those who argue for such legalized allowance are consenting to the establishment of a dictatorship. And that is why it is against the Geneva Convention. Simple. That is also why it is illegal for any country to make a pre-emptive military strike on another country which it thinks may hypothetically attack it someday. On that basis, in fact, there would be a long list of countries which would be justified in attacking the USA immediately with all the means at their command, since the USA is in the almost perpetual habit of threatening and attacking other countries whenever it feels like doing so. The USA is like a rogue cop who claims the right to kill upon suspicion, to kill upon mere dislike, to blackmail and bribe, to torture...and then expects the general community to praise him, support him, and thank him for "rescuing" them from evil. This is in itself...evil. Either that or it's a form of self-absorption bordering on insanity. Where does such moral blindness end and true criminality begin? Or are they one and the same? That could provide much ground for philosophical debate, if you're so inclined. Nighty, night... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Mar 03 - 09:01 PM "At that time, we were still subjects of the British Crown. Saying 'The British are coming' would've been akin to saying, 'I'm coming.'" I'd question that assumption. I mean,in Northern Ireland they are all, legally speaking, subjects of the British Crown, but I think that if you said "The British are coming" in the Falls Road, they wouldn't think that meant "We are coming." Which continues the thread drift of course. A thread builds up its own momentum, and its own temporary group of posters. However I still thin that the topic of torture deserves to be addressed. This is the first time in my life, and probably many years longer, when there have been people seriously defending, in cold blood, the idea that there should be a place for torture in a civilised society. Yikes! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: GUEST,viet vet '67 Date: 12 Mar 03 - 05:37 PM Speaking of "homeland" torture. Do you think dubya 1. Buys groceries? 2. Buys gasoline? 3. Checks his 401K or IRA? 4. Is concerned whether social security will be busted? (You know retired congressmen and senators and the like dip into this fund without contribution. 5. Wonders if he can eat AND buy medication? 6. Cares about veteran's concerns? Feel free to add to this list...I have to quit thinking about it! If YES to any of the above...please justify you answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: toadfrog Date: 12 Mar 03 - 05:14 PM Doug R: As I understand it, Clinton's agreement with North Korea was that if they mothballed their Plutonium reactor, we would provide alternative nuclear reactors, so that they could generate power without producing fissionable material. We did not provide the alternative reactors, so that in fact, it was the United States which appears to have broken the agreement. But the basic fact is, Clinton was right in negotiating. It was not the agreement that caused the present problem with North Korea. It was the wrong-headed theory, which you apparently share, that a good foreigen policy is to beat up all potential enemies and run the world. The trouble with that idea is, every time you seek out an enemy and beat it up, you make two more enemies. Reagan proved that. Osama Bin Laden and Sadaam were both his proteges, in the age of the "evil empire." McGrath: Hey, threads do creep! If you have a problem with that, go complain to Max! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Don Firth Date: 12 Mar 03 - 03:21 PM Just the facts, man, the facts! From a CNN article: The [non-proliferation] treaty went into effect in 1970, and today only four other countries -- Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan -- are not signatories. (NPT Factbox)This, of course, was after the "Axis of Evil" speech. We let George do it, and he did it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Beccy Date: 12 Mar 03 - 02:37 PM McGrath- Are you talking about Paul Revere? Because what he said was, "The Regulars are coming..." and "The Red coats are coming..." At that time, we were still subjects of the British Crown. Saying "The British are coming" would've been akin to saying, "I'm coming." The poem from which most people draw the quotation took a little poetic license with the actual cry to make it a little more pleasing to the ear, meter-wise. Beccy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: can torture ever be justified ? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Mar 03 - 02:13 PM Wasn't it actually the US that failed to fulfill the terms of that agreement? But what's that got to do with this thread anyway? We seem to be wandering all over the place (and I've done my share of wandering, I admit it). Here is a link about the legal position as regard torture, and how it's defined and so forth, whcih seems relevant enough - COMPILATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW - DEFINITION OF TORTURE Since USA seems to be backed out of most agreements on international law, it'd be interesting to know what the legal situation is under your constitution when it comnes to torture, more especially when it comes to non-citizens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: DougR Date: 12 Mar 03 - 01:31 AM Toad: for the umpteenth time (and this can be validated)the Korea problem did not begin on Bush's watch. It came on Clinton's watch and was caused by Jimmy Carter's brokering an agreement with the North Koreans that they broke the moment he left the country. Just the facts, man, the facts! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: toadfrog Date: 12 Mar 03 - 12:55 AM Beccy: Doubtless Bush has better "intelligence" than we have. That is also completely irrelevant. Everyone knows there are lots of bad things to be said about the governments of Iraq, and North Korea, and Iran. And also about numerous other governments that Bush is not going to bad-mouth, for reasons of his own. "Evil" does not have a precise meaning, to be derived from "intelligence." When President Bush says, Iraq and North Korea are in the "Axis of Evil," it does not establish an objective fact. Taken in context, it means, "I, George W. Bush, am going to start a war to conquer Iraq. And when it is over, I am going after those other people, too. And everyone acts shocked when North Korea goes out and starts work on atomic bombs. What else do you expect them to do, curl up and die. So we are facing the prospect that the government of North Korea, which is desparate and unstable, is going to have atomic bombs. And may use them, or sell them to other desparate and unstable persons. And the guy who brought all these things about is GWB. The same person who wants to start the most expensive war in history, while cutting taxes for the people who financed his election. Who waded into Afghanistan, set up a puppet government, and left it in the lurch, so that that country will soon relapse into the anarchy from which we allegedly saved it. Soon, Iraq will get more of the same. Anyone who think the Iraquis will be better off should look at other countries where we imposed "regime changes" since 1945. In a word, GWB is a person who would deluge the world in blood to secure the bubbah vote, and ruin his own nation into the bargain. And screw up the environment so as to assure our grandchildren as slow and horrible extinction. And impose something that looks increasingly like a police state on his own people. When Bobert says GWB is "evil," it is not all that bad. It does not amount to a threat to kill Bush. It pm;u means he is horrified by what GWB is doing. His "intelligence" is quite good enough to determine that horrifying things are afoot. And I think you ought to seriously consider whether you really want to endorse all those things, because the world is in for some "hell." It really is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:09 PM I thought he said "The British are coming" But then the troops would quite likely have been German anyway, so maybe you're right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:53 PM The bin Ladens and Bushes are business partners. The Bushes and Hussein were business partners. The Bushes (front men for the CIA) give the orders to the bin Ladens and Husseins of the world. The Bushes are the terrorists. Don...independent thought is what will get us out of this mess. The two-party system in America is a carefully-contrived lie. You need to think outside that paradigm, amd that requires effort. The govt of the US is now the CIA. Any thoughts ANY of us have on how to re-establish the Constitutional Republic are needed. Personally, I just try to throw facts at people to break their rigid view of the world. Look at how you've been strung along by TV lately (television is the mouthpiece of the US govt)...you've accepted Afghanistan as the perpetrator of Sept 11 though not one bit of evidence was presented, now you're being led into a war with a dozen contradictory 'causes'. You're being conditioned to accept torture and the absolutely insane 'we need to trade liberty for security'. Perpetual war, loss of liberties and totalitarianism. All I know is information is the way out of the mess...information available to all on the internet...so I point out the unpleasant over and over and over and over and hope people will be able to latch onto SOMETHING that will spark their own voyage of discovery. The destruction of America and the switch to tyrannical world govt has been scripted, and the script is playing out. It can only be stopped by enough people becoming aware of the script. I suggest you quit attacking me and go back to your pre-occupation with the Constitution. I'll make people aware of how bad things are becoming, and you can make people aware of what they stand to lose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Don Firth Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:41 PM Yeah, Beccy, you're undoubtedly right. But it's so much fun to tweak his nose because of the way he overreacts. Kinda childish of me, though, I admit that (I hope it doesn't constitute torture). Anyway, I do have a serious question to pose to the Dreadful One. It is characteristic of those who subscribe to any given conspiracy theory that they get there kicks by predicting Death, Doom, and Destruction to the whole world (it's always a world-wide conspiracy—publishing companies call that "high concept," like the novels of Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum, in which the hero has to stop the villain(s) in the nick of time or the whole world goes up in a ball of fire). But the list of evil-doers and the dire prediction of their foul deeds is all they have to offer. They probably regard themselves as akin to Paul Revere, alerting people to the impending disaster. But when Paul Revere galloped through town yelling "The red-coats are coming! The red-coats are coming!" he had an idea that the people he was warning could actually do something about it provided he warned them in time. Otherwise, his legendary ride would have been an exercise in futility. So far, all the Dreadful One has done in thread after thread is spread his Gospel of Horrors to Come. So. I ask the Dreadful One this:— Assuming that all of what you say is true, 1. what do you think we should do about it? 2. what do you think can do about it? I sit at your feet, O Dreadful One, with ears cocked and notebook and pencil at the ready. I wait your instructions. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:52 PM You're right, Ireland - terrorists are terrorists. In or out ff uniform, and whoever gives them their orders, and whoever takes orders from them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Ireland Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:24 PM There is nothing hypothetical about Bin Ladens threats,he has shown what his crowd is capable off,and has promised more attacks. What should we do to stop it? We can apply all the logic we want, fact is Sept 11 happened, more acts like it are promised and logical brinkmanship will not solve the present threats. Next we will hear if we breathe through our mouths like terrorists etc etc. To look at this in a humane way, that is the terrorist giving intelligence freely,what happens to the "tout"? What happened in N.I., the tout was beaten and interrogated, by his own side btw, shot in the back of the head, in such a way the family could not view the body. Viscerated, the cavity filled with explosives so the tout's body served the terrorist one last time to kill people in a booby trap. Terrorists are terrorist, their gift to the world is murder, and any means to prevent this has to be considered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: GUEST,viet vet '67 Date: 11 Mar 03 - 04:10 PM McGrath...your elected officials lost the vietnam abortion and it looks like the US will lose its financial ass in Iraq. Aw man, what am I saying...Dubya says this economy is "real strong" and we can afford as much as he wants to spend...sorry. I agree with DG...the rich get richer, the poor get broke and dead. Some of you "lifers" need to have a plate glass window installed in your stomach so that you can see where you are going and what is going on...that is how far your heads are up your collective asses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US torture From: Beccy Date: 11 Mar 03 - 04:02 PM Don- I do believe you're encouraging him... Beccy |