"We Will Kill Your Kids and Rape His Mother!"

[RealDealNeverstop]

Trying to trash the reasoning with a bumper sticker is debating the post. But as JOW pointed out......it's merely a feeble attempt to dismiss what is not understood. If the post was comprehended we would have seen a decent rebuttle and not a Ross Perot I'm in-im out-im in let me go.

Well I wont debate this, just say this is the kind of absolutes that I disagree with. Its a lecture tailor made to appeal to the emotions of the lecturer, and so long as the ditches or reality stay on either side of the car, this is a decent path to drive on.

 

[Conservativation]

In other words, you believe RDNS's comments have no basis in reality....and you choose to not defend the reasons you believe he is unrealistic.

My defense preceeds his post. Its all there. I neednt repeat it.

You guys seem to like to argue this one. Ive essentially not drawn a line in the sand for YOU....but for ME.

Its reasonable, and Im standing by it.

Statements of moral absolutes that ignore every possible scenario and contingency , to me, are posturing. The likelihood of a particlular scenario is not relevant, any more than the likelihood that a nun and a construction worker being in a lifeboat is relevant to examine superficially the moral and practical implications of who drowns.

Its by drilling deep into the myriad possibilities and discovering if there is even an iota of a molecular quark-like possibility that there could ever be an exception or at least a pause for consideration and an acknowledgement that one doesnt know till they get there that , once that bedrock is stuck, the rest is clearer as you pull back out.

Its not supposed to be controversial, what Im saying. Its nothing if not reasonable. Ive agreed fully, and clearly about the morality of torture. Im simply calling into question the depth of conviction in such plain stated certainty on ones possible actions.

I CAN agree to disagree. Is that OK?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

That's all garbage. Your position has already accused others of not being honest followed by this gloriously wasted attempt to recover. We appreciate the honesty in admitting you personally don't know where your convictions begin and end. You should try to appreciate others may be in a different place....and that can't be done with these silly accusations.

My defense preceeds his post. Its all there. I neednt repeat it.

You guys seem to like to argue this one. Ive essentially not drawn a line in the sand for YOU....but for ME.

Its reasonable, and Im standing by it.

Statements of moral absolutes that ignore every possible scenario and contingency , to me, are posturing. The likelihood of a particlular scenario is not relevant, any more than the likelihood that a nun and a construction worker being in a lifeboat is relevant to examine superficially the moral and practical implications of who drowns.

Its by drilling deep into the myriad possibilities and discovering if there is even an iota of a molecular quark-like possibility that there could ever be an exception or at least a pause for consideration and an acknowledgement that one doesnt know till they get there that , once that bedrock is stuck, the rest is clearer as you pull back out.

Its not supposed to be controversial, what Im saying. Its nothing if not reasonable. Ive agreed fully, and clearly about the morality of torture. Im simply calling into question the depth of conviction in such plain stated certainty on ones possible actions.

I CAN agree to disagree. Is that OK?

 

[The Mighty Sword]

Freedom comes with a heavy price and those who oppose it here in the U.S.A, don't have to live here, there's plenty of room in Iran, China, Russia, anywhere but here. So if you don't have anything good to say about this free country you con't have to be here and whine, simply leave you are free to that.

 

[Gawron]

As one of many who have been deployed to the Persian Gulf region, some of what I am reading here causes me concern.

Posted by kiwimac:

“Except that NONE of the people at Guantanamo have been proven to actually BE terrorists.”

Then when the prison is closed, I suggest you take one or two of them into your home. It is the only decent thing to do.

Posted by sinner/saved:

“Alleged terrorists, please...innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.... we are still Americans.....right.....we do still believe in the standards of the constitution.....right…”

Wrong. These people are not United States citizens. They are enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield, and as such are not subject to constitutional protection as if they were US citizens. They are subject to international law governing treatment of prisoners of war.

U.S. Official Defends U.S. Treatment of Enemy Combatants

Quote:

Sept. 18, The Hague: David T. Morris to OSCE Seminar

The United States has treated and will continue to treat enemy combatants detained in the war against terrorism humanely and in a manner consistent with the principles of international law, says David T. Morris, political counselor at the U.S. Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Speaking at an OSCE seminar on human rights and terrorism September 18 in The Hague, Morris defended U.S. treatment of enemy combatants and the procedures the United States has set up for military commissions to deal with these cases.

"It is a universally recognized principle under the law of armed conflict that enemy combatants engaged in war may be captured and detained for the duration of the conflict," Morris noted. "This has been the practice of the U.S. and its allies in every war they have fought."

As for trying terrorists outside the normal criminal court system, Morris said: "Trial by military commission is a common and well-established practice recognized by international law."

End Quote. Link: http://cryptome.org/osce091803.htm

According to the Geneva Convention treaties and protocols:

“Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or
political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.”

The above does not prohibit interrogation of prisoners of war nor does it prohibit the use of disinformation during that interrogation.

Posted by Ringo84:

“How are we supposed to set an example for the rest of the world when we act like this?”

Hello Ringo.

Lets see, what kind of example is the rest of the world setting for us when members of their “armed forces” behead their captives and hang their bodies in public? In a later post you seem to imply that all forms of coercion, or “torture”, as the term is being bandied about, are equal. I disagree. Subjecting someone to sleep deprivation is not the same as shoving bamboo shoots under their fingernails. We can all agree that John McCain was tortured by his captors. I wonder how he would discuss his captivity if all had been done to him was a few lies about the safety of his family.

And again, your definition of “torture” seems to be anything which places a captive under any form of coercion. I disagree.

In addition, the article linked to in the OP is rather short and lacks real detail. I will try and find more on it, for what that is worth.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

Posted by sinner/saved:

“Alleged terrorists, please...innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.... we are still Americans.....right.....we do still believe in the standards of the constitution.....right…”

Wrong. These people are not United States citizens. They are enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield, and as such are not subject to constitutional protection as if they were US citizens. They are subject to international law governing treatment of prisoners of war.

.

Not all were "captured on the battlefield". Some were abducted from their homes.

We haven't followed any laws in the handling of these human beings.

 

[Ringo84]

Lets see, what kind of example is the rest of the world setting for us when members of their “armed forces” behead their captives and hang their bodies in public?

Our enemies' actions are, in my opinion, irrelevant. We shouldn't measure ourselves by our enemies' actions but from what's legally and morally right and wrong.

In a later post you seem to imply that all forms of coercion, or “torture”, as the term is being bandied about, are equal.

And again, your definition of “torture” seems to be anything which places a captive under any form of coercion. I disagree.

No, that's not true. I define torture not as 'any form of coercion' but the way in which it is legally and morally defined:

...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.

Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nine times out of ten when I am discussing torture on this board, I'm talking about waterboarding, since it's such a major issue right now.
Ringo

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Elephant and cross poster here. Torture always and forever inexcusable.

 

[Ringo84]

The "24" thing works against you as much as for you. You can be sure there is an alternative....and be wrong (except NOT to torture, thats always an alternative) Lacking a realistic example, it is a tad idealistic. Its a nice thought and thats about it.

I'm not an intelligence officer, so I can't think of any alternate methods off the top of my head. However, that doesn't mean that alternate methods don't exist.

Again maybe we play with words. I could torture, and still agree that it is unaccpetable. Meaning, if moral proclamations are what we are after here...fine, sign me up, I will proclaim in the strongest possible language that torture is abhorrent, evil, bad, horrible, unacceptable.

Having done so.....there is much more to be said. Its leaving it at that that is a bit idealistic. Sometimes we want to FEEL about things and not deeply dig in and consider the blatant moral greyness of certain things. If that was not the case, utopia would be a real place, somewhere near Katmandu.

I agree that there are a lot more "grays" in this world than "blacks and whites". Still, I don't see that there is a lot of "gray" with the issue of torture. If it's wrong for our enemies to use torture, it should be wrong for us to use it. Our use of torture after condemning others for using torture is hypocritical and immoral. That isn't "black and white" - that's being morally consistent.
Ringo

 

[nolongerhome]

Elephant and cross poster here. Torture always and forever inexcusable.

Certainly, but that only begs the question - what is torture?

Where does "Extreme Interrogation Techniques" (ie. nasty stuff that is fine) become "torture" (ie. nasty stuff that isn't fine).

It is all well and good to say torture is unacceptable and then, say, define waterboarding as not being torture (which is something that has been done regularly on these forums).

 

[Gawron]

Here is an interesting article concerning this topic.

Obama Administration Urged to Consider Expanded Interrogation Methods

Quote:

Questions are being raised about the effectiveness -- and toughness -- of the Army Field Manual's interrogation guidelines, the standard ordered across the board by the Obama administration in response to allegations of CIA abuse of detainees.

"The Army Field Manual is very, very restrictive in what it can do," said Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee. "For high-value detainees, it's a joke. ... In theory, it sounds great."

The guidelines are all psychological in nature. The methods include good cop-bad cop, the silent treatment, and a trick in which interrogators can pretend to be from another country.

But the administration, which is establishing a special unit for questioning high-value detainees, is now indicating it is open to examining new methods -- even as Attorney General Eric Holder launches a probe into alleged prisoner abuse under the Bush administration.

Critics say the field manual guidelines just might not be enough to shake a hardened terrorist.

End Quote. Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ation-methods/

I would agree with the last line. There are guys arrested for petty theft who won’t break under the “good-cop/bad-cop” routine. Why anyone would expect a hardened terrorist to do so is beyond me.

But note this from a bit farther down in the article:

“It permits interrogators to ask questions in a "rapid fire" sequence; repeat questions over and over; try to break the prisoner by focusing on his emotional anxieties or personal fears; change the environment in which the prisoner is being questioned; and, under very specific circumstances, keep a detainee separated from others.”

Focusing on his emotional anxieties or personal fears. Sounds like what the link in the OP was describing, doesn’t it? Quote from that link:

“CIA interrogators threatened to kill the children of a detainee at the height of the Bush administration's war on terrorism and implied that another's mother would be sexually assaulted, newly declassified documents revealed Monday.”

Sounds like this is right out of the Field Manual. The very Field Manual which Obama “designated as the standard for interrogations” when he took office. Is this another partisan witch-hunt, just to bash Bush at any and every turn?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Good grief. Yep. That broke the case wide open.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Freedom does not come with a heavy price. That is a false dilemma set up by those who can't offer a good argument.

Freedom comes with a heavy price and those who oppose it here in the U.S.A, don't have to live here, there's plenty of room in Iran, China, Russia, anywhere but here. So if you don't have anything good to say about this free country you con't have to be here and whine, simply leave you are free to that.

 

[Conservativation]

I'm not an intelligence officer, so I can't think of any alternate methods off the top of my head. However, that doesn't mean that alternate methods don't exist.



I agree that there are a lot more "grays" in this world than "blacks and whites". Still, I don't see that there is a lot of "gray" with the issue of torture. If it's wrong for our enemies to use torture, it should be wrong for us to use it. Our use of torture after condemning others for using torture is hypocritical and immoral. That isn't "black and white" - that's being morally consistent.
Ringo

I agreed its wrong. You even acknowledged that I agreed its wrong.

This is what i mean about the FEELINGS part of these dicussions. To me, we agreed, its wrong.
You keep repeating that as if its an open item in the discussion. Im guessing, but can come up with no other explanation than feelings for why you would do that. Its certainly not logical.

 

[Conservativation]

Freedom comes at a heacy price.....well lets split the difference.

I agree that these wars in Iraq and Afgan are not about our freedom, and I cringe when that rhetoric is employed by my fellow conservatives. I LOVE patriotism, not patriotic pablum. That TOO is about feelings, and not logic.

But the expression that freedom comes at a heavy price, while not applicable to this issue of these wars and torture etc.....to me.....is still demonstrably very true. Unless they have utterly decimated any semblance of truth from public school curriculum (which is possible), to suggest that that expression is made up to rationalize when no other answer is available, and nothing more, is wrong.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

What is the heavy price?

Freedom comes at a heacy price.....well lets split the difference.

I agree that these wars in Iraq and Afgan are not about our freedom, and I cringe when that rhetoric is employed by my fellow conservatives. I LOVE patriotism, not patriotic pablum. That TOO is about feelings, and not logic.

But the expression that freedom comes at a heavy price, while not applicable to this issue of these wars and torture etc.....to me.....is still demonstrably very true. Unless they have utterly decimated any semblance of truth from public school curriculum (which is possible), to suggest that that expression is made up to rationalize when no other answer is available, and nothing more, is wrong.

 

[Ringo84]

This is what i mean about the FEELINGS part of these dicussions. To me, we agreed, its wrong.
You keep repeating that as if its an open item in the discussion. Im guessing, but can come up with no other explanation than feelings for why you would do that. Its certainly not logical.

I'm not repeating torture is wrong as a mantra. I was trying to explain to you my viewpoints regarding torture and 'black and white' thinking.

It's ironic that you condemn me for using feeling over logic, as that is precisely why I have condemned people on the other side of the debate: because they're too busy allowing their minds to be clogged with the emotional impact of 9/11 to think clearly and logically about the issue.

If you want to condemn someone for using feeling over logic, condemn fellow conservatives who support torture. I'm the one trying to inject logic over feeling into this debate.
Ringo

 

[Conservativation]

This isnt an argument
Yes it is
No it isnt


Ahhhh rot.

 

[Conservativation]

I'm not repeating torture is wrong as a mantra. I was trying to explain to you my viewpoints regarding torture and 'black and white' thinking.

It's ironic that you condemn me for using feeling over logic, as that is precisely why I have condemned people on the other side of the debate: because they're too busy allowing their minds to be clogged with the emotional impact of 9/11 to think clearly and logically about the issue.

If you want to condemn someone for using feeling over logic, condemn fellow conservatives who support torture. I'm the one trying to inject logic over feeling into this debate.
Ringo

No, an irony, truly, wouldnt involve at all an external third party and what they tought about something you and I are discussing.
it may be Ironic if you found ME saying those things, or something consistent with them, but it is not ironic at all that someone else may say that. What it is is stereotyping, in the logical sense. You may well generalize ideologues , me and conservatives, etc., but to stereotype is to make mistakes.
That seems an ongoing theme.

You didnt really explain to me why therefore you surrounded proclamations about torture being wrong with persuasive language of same, knowing full well I was already agreeing? There is, by definition, no need to further explain it....to ME. If it was for others benefit, fine.

 

[Conservativation]

One more thing.

Logic may well dictate consistency, and consistency may well INSIST that a person call torture wrong.
But logic will never dictate, on the ground, in the moment, whether to DO torture or not. The doing of torture IS an emotional matter. You can pass laws and write manuals....still, it will happen.
So we can debale till the end about its right or wrong. Wont really accomplish much.

Its illogical to commit any harmful or illegal act...yet they persist. When there is not a comparison of evils presdenting, like "to murder or to maim".....when its just "to murder or not murder"...thats VERY straightforward.

The decision to torture is a lot different.