Democratic Party Leader Says to Troops: You Lost the War

right on. I can completely understand where you are coming from and agree with a lot of what you said.

AG was a mess, no doubt.

ticking bomb scenario? i assume thats the hypothetical that a bomb is winding down and you have the person with the code...do you force him to give it up?

its a good thought experiment. perhaps we need to come up with others b/c when we talk about current issues, people get stuck on their certain agenda and are less likely to truly have open talk.

 

i have now asked you at least 6 times to give me a quick definition of torture. im only talking 2-3 sentences. why is it so difficult?

i will be more than happy to provide you with the information you requested if you first give me a definition of what you consider torture.

ill even help you out a little - theres this cool website called "google" - you can go there and type in keywords like abu ghraib, torture, rape, private contractors and get all sorts of stuff.

or type in john yoo and torture.

its not that difficult.

actually, it is not that vague. that is my point (one of them). there are clear u.s. and international laws in place as to what is and what isnt torture. the soldiers who are trained to perform prison duty must know them inside and out.

experts in the field of intelligence, who know more than any of us, are against the current policies the bush administration has put in place.

 

jomama, you can learn a lot from franchiseblade.

 

DonkeyMagic;

Jomama has a fair question. What is your definition of torture?

 

i've talked about this plenty and i think that if he was truly interested in what i said he would have figured out where i stand.

i dont think he needs you to come hold his hand. he hasnt answered many of my questions. rather, he just posted irrelevant stats and labeled certain things as "facts"

the strict definition would be something that causes pain or suffering. but again, the term is very vague and people attach their own meanings to it so the strict definition means little.

 

Yes people attach different meanings to it. Where do you draw the line?

Isn't that a fair question to ask?

 

actually, i am interested in where you stand. it is hard to debate the issue w/ you because i dont know where you stand. i am trying to find common ground. you have spent far more time telling me that you already told us what you consider torture when it would have been much easier and less time consuming to just spell it out in 2 or 3 sentences and we could move on.

uh oh - more "stats" and "facts". we know how you dont like those things. if you want to challenge ANYTHING i have presented in terms of stats or facts please do so. i dare you.

how is sishir asking you to clarify your position "holding my hand"? inquiring minds want to know. i have answered all questions and presented all factual evidence for everything you asked except regarding the bush administration's policies regarding torture of children and private contractors raping children and getting away with it - as ive already said, i will be more than happy to provide the info as soon as you answer the question which i have asked of you multiple times. why should i answer your questions if you continue to refuse to answer mine? furthermore, if you really wanted to research this stuff i already showed you how (google) and provided you with the necessary keywords. as par for the course with you, i can post all the factual info i want, but you will continue to deny and ignore.

so does rape qualify as torture? organ failure? murder?

actually, it is not vague. there are clear guidelines. you are the one attaching your own meanings to it. you seem have low standards when it comes to human decency.

 

and you donkey magic, can learn alot, period.

 

well texx, you have lower standards than the u.s. and the international community. sounds more like a personal issue on your part.

what about rape and murder? is that torture to you?

so all the people that have been tortured are "terrorists", texx? you do realize that the red cross and our own military intelligence experts put out a report saying 70-90% of the people we capture in iraq are completely and totally innocent, right?

 

yeah, but i dont know if i can draw a line somewhere. Can you definitively do so?

and all this is under the assumption that its an interrogation of terrorist and the like. Not everyday activities.

On the physical side,in interrogations, i think inflicting significant pain on the person would be considered torture, i.e. Slapping him around and such. the physical side is more clear than the psychological aspect.

its the psychological side thats really tricky. i dont really think spirit breaking is really torture when done so 'properly'. i think you have to play certain mind games and even humiliate them to a point where they lose their confidence and will.

thats the rough outline. but we could go back and forth on specific examples all day long.



then again, i am not an expect by any means, in the art of interrogations. Nor do i pretend to know what exactly is and isnt done. it would be interesting to sit down with a true professional and pick his brain.

i know. the difference between you and i is that i accept that i dont know certain things.

 

glad to see you can admit that. obviously you think that the united states is carrying out torture. unless you want to deny that people are being raped and murdered over there.

i agree with this too. however, when you start getting into all the weird sexual humiliation (or fraternity pranks, as you and limbaugh call them) than by u.s. and international law it becomes torture and it is illegal. how would you feel to see our own troops subjected to the same treatment?

 

OK, here's your non-definition...

Yet in the very next sentence, you say this...

So, it's effective because it leaves no physical marks or evidence of torture? By saying it leaves no evidence of torture, aren't you saying it is, in fact, torture?

There are many things that can be done to you that leave no marks... if done right, running a bunch of electricity through your genitals doesn't leave marks... that's why the Geneva Convention describes torture the way it does and why this administration is the most repulsive in US history and the people that support this kind of thinking are anti-American... so frightened that they sell out the principles and ideals that generations of Americans fought for... always quoting "Freedom isn't free" when it's somebody else dying in a slum in Iraq, but seeking the comfort of the false assurances of safety from the government and too afraid to live like an American.

(And let's not forget that we're not talking about just standing around naked... )

 

No person who claims to support torture ever considers the psychological side of the interrogators. Torture is against the law and immoral for many reasons, and a lot of people recognize that one of those reasons is the damage it does to the torturers. By supporting torture, you're effectively saying, "I don't care if we make monsters out of some Americans."

 

Fair enough.

I will say that anything that causes physical pain and extreme emotional distress is torture. That said I would not categorically rule out torture. As 24 as it sounds I could see an extreme situation where torture might be justified. Such a situation though would be of the utmost extremity like if you know that a bomb is going to go off somewhere you know you have the person who planted it and you know you only have a very limited amount of time to do it.

I can't see such situations arising often at all and what I am extremely against is where torture becomes a tool for fishing for intel. Also if you do something like that I think it should be called what it is is. "torture" instead of some euphemism like "aggressive interrogation."

 

I find it interesting that you didn't mention "wife." You better be careful... I think this thread is revealing a bit too much about you.

 

how would you feel to see our own troops subjected to the same treatment?

of course you'd feel for them and i'd say to myself "boy, that must suck". But then i'd think that its better to have a bruised ego than a broken face.

fair enough but you have to admit that 'torture' is a harsh word and carries a very negative connotation. I dont know if i would categorize some things as torture even though one could probably fit it into the definition, (for example a naked pyramid).

 

If somone thinks a situation is serious enough to warrant torture they should be prepared to deal with the consequences legal and otherwise. People are trying to not call it torture and something like "aggressive interrogation" to avoid the ramifications of that. The problem with that is that it waters down the action and also makes it more likely to be used since legal consequences are avoided by changing the terms.

"Torture" is a harsh word and should carry negative connotation. That's the point of calling it what it is. If I hook electrodes to you and call it "aggressive interrogation" would you be OK? The point is not debasing the languange to try to finagle the legalities.

 

wouldnt the eletrodes part would classify as significant physical torture, which i did say would qualify as torture. The point is not debasing language. The point is not to throw anything that could be percieved as torture by some into a 'true' torture category.

And whos finagling legalities? I wasnt. i would personally like to leave the laws out of the discussion b/c then we start talking about what it says and how it applies, rather than having a converstion here without any restrictions of the law.

i also never said that one should not be prepared to deal with the consequences of torture.

Again, and then we can put this to bed b/c its played out now. There should be interrogational tactics that are aggressive enough to be effective. unfortunately, there is no clear distinction to what truly classifies as torture. And i think we've established that beatings, and the like, can be classified as torture. So, we discussed the pyschological aspect. i think its fair to say that those who are reasonable would allow for such tactics to a certain extent. Of course, we will never make everyone happy because there will always be a group that will consider something torture (wasnt there some outrage when prisoners were being forced to listen to metallica a few years back?). Its situations like that, that can be stressful to a person and very well could be considered "torture" under the laws, but i would say from a realistic standpoint, we could agree that its not.