it's probably because we attacked another country on the basis of guesses, speculation and rumors. yes.
so two wrongs make a right? then you dont have any right to criticize because you are doing the same thing. Sounds hypocritical to me. well secrets are everywhere. Does every secret of every govt outrage you? Lets be realistic here. misuse of power is also everywhere, but seems many only direct it at the US.
i just think if one truly opposes these things and not necessarily whoever happens to be in office, then the dirty finger would be pointed at others as well. as is, it appears as though its mostly pointed in one direction. It just reeks of personal agenda.
Honest questions: 1. Do you doubt the secret prisons really exist? 2. If not, do you doubt prisoners are really tortured there? 3. If not, do you doubt that the CIA has imprisoned and tortured people who were innocent? 4. Do you condone kidnapping people in foreign countries? 5. Do you condone punishment without due process? 6. Do you condone torture? 7. Do you think the US helps or damages its War on Terror when it cultivates a reputation that it violates the sovereignty of foreign countries by kidnapping people from them, and violates the human rights of those they kidnap with indefinite imprisonment without due process and torture?
]Honest questions: no. i dont disagree with their existence, alone. i dont know if they are or if they arent. i think prisoners may be pushed into that grey area of 'torture' but we've talked about the complexities of defining torture before. i do not believe, however that prisoners are being put on racks and stretched out for the fun of it. again, what does one consider torture? im sure every govt institution similar to the cia in function has improsoned and tortured people. Like i mentioned, it just seems the flashlight is only highlighted in one area. depends on the situation. depends on the situation. definitional debate again. depends on the situation. i dont know. I can see how it could hurt...and i could see how it could help. does it help or hurt terrorist organizations that do the same? Look, if people are just getting herded into these places without discretion and then brutally treated ,then yes there is a problem. but i dont think that such things are done with this particular topic, and not purposely just b/c they take pleasure in such things. however, I dont think these secret locations are set up for people caught with little info on...meaning, chances are these places are for the worst of the worst, would you agree with that?
rrj, I can't comprehend the flippancy, but okay. Okay, we agree so far. I certainly agree the CIA (as an institution) isn't doing it for 'fun'. As for the definition of torture, use your own. After all, I'm ultimately driving at your comfort with this practice. That's not an argument I much like. For one, we like to think we're more upstanding than all those other countries. For two, it's a fallacy to say something is okay because everyone else is doing it. For three, it sounds like a coping mechanism people commonly use to cope with cognitive dissonance -- here the dissonance between thinking we're the good guys and evidence that we're bad. And, speaking for myself only, this is not part of my anti-Bush or anti-America crusade; torture bothers me all by itself. I suppose this is the crux of it in the end. I can't think of a situation that justifies violating the sovereignty of countries we're not at war with or violating the human rights of any targeted individual (except maybe assassinations, but that's probably a whole other thread). I don't know for sure either. It seems that the negative impacts are at least more visible than anyone positive ones we might reap. I rather suspect what we see though, is really what we get. They are likely meant for the worst of the worst, but I don't know that the CIA feels like they need to have certainty before putting someone in there. I think the problem here is that you are relying on the discretion of the people in power instead of a defined system for how the CIA treats people. With a system you have the rule of law which can persist and be generally maintained. With discretionary power, it may be used carefully or might be abused. It might be okay now, but abused by the next director. It might be abused now and the next guy is an honest chap and he has to clean it all up. You don't really know, but you don't have much of a guarantee that this power will be respected. In fact, given human nature, you can almost count on it being abused. I get the feeling in the future they'll be writing about us like they write about the Holocaust -- not that it is anywhere even close to that in scope, but that it takes the same measure of compartmentalization and rationalization in Americans that it took Germans to reconcile themselves with the persecution of Jews. Since everyone dislikes Nazi comparisons, you can compare it to the rationalizations of corporate corruption in a place like Enron. Everyone knows or has heard that we're kidnapping foreign nationals and torturing them. But, we tell ourselves, "Everyone does it," or "They have it coming," or "We have to do it to preserve freedom," or "Everything changed after 9/11." In fact, I'm reading an article on corporate corruption now and they have these rationalizations as common examples, verbatim. People do it so they can reconcile their desire to think of themselves as good with the evidence that they are bad. I'd rather say we're bad if we're bad. But, I'd like it even better if we could really try to be good. Unfortunately, I'm complicit with a government (and probably they are all like this) that doesn't even try to be good. That probably makes me bad too.
we do like to think we are more upstanding, and i understand, but that may be a problem to begin with. It may sound like i am saying "because eevryone else is doing it..." but all trying to get across is that the US seems to be the catch a disproportionate amount of flack about it. Torture does bother me too, and im not advocating that the US do such ergregious things. well you are right, there are extreme situations where one would violate such things and thats all i was saying. for the most part, no, you try to do things "by the book". On thing i'd like to mention is that i think when a person is bad/evil enough then they give up their right to being treated like a man/human. Someone known to kill young kids, rape women, etc...well its my opinion that human rights no longer apply to you. that maybe where we disagree, but i cant help but feel if someone is so evil then F-them, they dont deserve anything but hardships. you are right that i am relying on the discretion of the CIA at this point. And i dont mean to sound like i think the cia is flawless, but concerning this story that seems to be based on a secret location and then rumours of abuse...then its a little thin. And you are certainly right, abuse probably is happening simply due to human error...but thats everywhere in life. heck abuse could also be happening concerning the Nowak character. well i think thats a little much, but i see the general idea. And you may be right. I hope someday they do write about us and how barberic our tactics were (and by our i mean our current civilization...not the us). assuming there is good and bad. Even a good man does bad. wish i could chat more but i got to run.
do you define rape as torture donkeymagic? you have constantly parrotted the line "torture is a loaded, vague term". so you must not agree with the bush administration when they defined it as anything short of organ failure or death. or when they claimed that for it to count as mental torture the psychologial harm must last months or even years. do you agree with john yoo, bush's former legal council and one of the authors of the patriot act and torture memos, who stated that the president has the authority to sexually torture children, and specifically have a childs testicles crushed? ive got to hear this one!!! please explain how torture could help. the idea that torture can help goes against pretty much every expert in the field of interrogation. our own military is against it. the military courts and jag officers are against it. it is not a reliable way to gather info, but thats just according to the experts. do you propse to know better then they do? you are still denying that people were brutally treated? you are either totally clueless or just ignoring the facts. but dont take my word for it. how about republican senatory lindsey graham? but you are right donkey, im sure republican senator graham is just speaking out because he hates bush and not because he doesnt want to see people tortured by his country. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience." He did not elaborate. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml "The photos clearly demonstrate to me the level of prisoner abuse and mistreatment went far beyond what I expected, and certainly involved more than six or seven MPs," said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former military prosecutor. He added: "It seems to have been planned." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/ i do not agree and neither does the red cross and our own military intelligence officers, who put out a report saying that 70% - 90% of the people they detain are totally innocent. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094
Why would anyone be 'outraged' is the real question. The 'benevolence' of American foreign policy is a myth that has been 'marketed' to Americans since the dawn of time. Believe it or not, we tend to be as 'cut-throat' as anyone when it comes to protecting our vital interests abroad; read a history book (an honest account) and you will see what I am referring too. World politics is mostly amoral. You either adopt the 'Machiavellian code' or whither and die... P.S.: I am not saying that YOU, JV, should 'read a history book', rather it's a general comment to those unfamiliar with our foreign 'adventures' over the past century plus.
Excuse me if I prefer to be outraged at a President, and an administration, that advocates torture. Nations do what they must to protect their national interests, but there is always a limit on just what is allowed, a limit created by the people who elect their leaders, in a democracy, a limit breached only from dire necessity to protect the nation from an imminent clear and danger. The people of the United States did not elect George W. Bush to conduct torture. There was no "wink wink" deal from the electorate to allow this man to trample the Constitution, which he has, trample the Geneva Conventions, which he has, ignore our allies and the United Nations, which he has, to lie to them, and the American people, repeatedly, which he has, to invade and occupy a nation that WAS NOT a clear and present danger to the United States, which he has, or to conduct torture. Now you may have the idea, incredibly, that this is just doing business, but it is not. If we lower ourselves to the basest level of our enemies, we become that which we are attempting to defeat. This is something I agree with John McCain on, something with which he has personal experience. We do not do torture. D&D. Replicant Democrat.
Yes, we do, and McCain is full of sh** if he thinks otherwise, because he knows better. What's the difference between having Americans doing the 'torturing' and outsourcing it to the Egyptians, Moroccans and Syrians? I fail to see the difference. More recently, of course, there is Abu Ghraib, but it's not the first of its kind, not by a long shot.
Bush, Cheney and their bastards do torture. The American people do not, nor do they knowingly vote into the White House those who actively support torture. If you believe that to be the case, you are off on a trip of your own making. D&D. Replicant Democrat.
a) what about water boarding? b) the notion that you go against international law and try to justify it as 'grey area' is telling. c) you add the caveat 'for fun' as if there are non-fun reasons which would be allowable? "so two wrongs make a right?" there is law on what constitutes torture. for instance water boarding was prosecuted with jail time in the united states as far back as the spanish american war. im glad in the past century we've degressed. why should we? gitmo had a ton of people that the government just released. padilla was suposedly all evil but now is charged with nothing like he originally was. and the cases go on and on. there are people in gitmo that were 15 and instead of being treated like kids who were brainwashed they're going to be tried for murder which again is against all international norms. to assume that the gov't only has the worst of the worst is absurd and idiotic.
It seems this is basically a Torture topic which is pretty close to my heart Its not hard for me to define Toture: (drawings used because you get the idea) Humiliation : of one person by another is often used as a way of asserting power over others, and is a common form of oppression or abuse. (stolen) Interrogation They all suck. I don't want any of them.
The difference is that when Clinton started the "rendition" policy, it was to get suspects back to the US so that they could face the rule of law. The new "extraordinary rendition" policy is being used to keep the suspects (and the interrogators) from having to face the rule of law. HUGE difference.
I'm not attacking anyone. I do however, think that an investigation is in order. I'd advocate exactly against what the US did, going in guns a blazin. All secret govt organizations where there are misuses of power outrage me. We need to find out of if that is the case here, don't you think?
And when battling a group whose main aim is to attack the U.S., perhaps you have to be cut throat. Yeah, American foreign policy isn't always benevolent, but American's want a benevolent foreign policy. That's why what happened in Iraq is so disturbing to Americans as a whole. BUt not sure secreat prisons are. You're right about being Machiavellian, and there are checks and balances against going to far. The question is if in this case we went to far, and I don't see the evidence for that yet.
Thanks, Jefferson... Poll: American Majority Support Torture Of Terrorism Suspects http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7001596896
