i am trying to stick to the facts in this thread, but since you asked, yes i think that the bush administration knows that torture is ineffective and they are using it as a method to further destabilize the region. that is my opinion, but i would rather stick to the facts in this thread.
2 typos..rage and rape. no intention there. you are right, the people who abuse rape and murder in cold blood should be caught and taken care of appropriately, no matter who it is. what soldiers to do what actions? was the order sent down to rape and ebat to near death? yes, raping teenage boys would be wrong. However, some of the abu-graib circumstances i dont find quite as horrible as others..for example the underwear on heads and such. personally i dont think thats torture. but again, was the policy to rape? or like you mentioned, that the act of a few untrained and unqualified people "abusing" there power. Im sure people do argue against the policy and im sure there are questions for concern but like we well know this isnt a completely black and white issue, there is a lot of gray area when determining what is and isnt torture. Which is where we see the potential for argument concerning international laws. but in all of your articles, i still havent seen the policy stating where the green light is given for rape. we arent far off from agreement here. we both agree that that abusive treatment for prisoners are wrong and that it shouldnt be done.
what region? i assume you mean iraq...but does torture of the imprisoned really causing destabilization? why would they not gain potential information by torturing, all the while making themselves susceptible to international ridicule if they do want to torture? it just doesnt make sense. But thats probably a good place to stop arguing because our starting assumptions are so different. You think they WANT to torture, i think that they want some room to operate in that 'grey area' of interrogation.
it would behoove you to actually read some of the articles i posted. we arent talking about underwear on peoples heads rush. we are talking about rape and murder. is rape torture? the policies opened the door for such abuses. you said you think it is wrong to physically beat prisoners, yet the bush administration changed the law to allow such beatings, even up to the point of organ failure or death. not really, the law is pretty clear (u.s. and international). you really seem to be the only one having problems comprehending it. the policies put forth by this administration facilitated it and when it has happened the people responsible go unpunished. the policy allows people to be beat almost to death. you stated you are against that so you must disagree with the bush administration. as the articles show, the pentagon put civilian contractors in there to carry out interrogations and to guide untrained u.s. military in doing the same - therefore, the responsibility lies with the administration. ever heard the phrase "the buck stops here"? no, we are very far off from agreement. i think your position is immoral and unamerican.
jo mama- You okay? DonkeyMagic- Naw man. I'm pretty ****in' far from okay! jo mama- What now? DonkeyMagic- What now? Well let me tell you what now. I'm gonna call a couple pipe-hittin' ******s, who'll go to work on homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. (to Zed) Hear me talkin' hillbilly boy?! I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'm gonna git Medieval on your ass. jo mama- I meant what now, between me and you? DonkeyMagic- Oh, that what now? Well, let me tell ya what now between me an' you. There is no me an' you. Not no more. jo mama- So we're cool? DonkeyMagic- Yeah man, we're cool. One thing I ask -- two things I ask: don't tell nobody about this. This ****'s between me and you and the soon-to-be-livin'-the-rest-of-his- short-ass-life-in-agonizing-pain, Mr. Rapist here. It ain't nobody else's business. Two: leave town. Tonight. Right now. And when you're gone, stay gone. You've lost your Los Angeles privileges. Deal? jo mama- Deal.
This has been an interesting thread because of an academic article on corruption I've been reading. I'd post it, but my professor seems to have done a good job clamping on his copyright. But, here's an abstract: I think this approach has applicability, even in this very thread. First the rationalizations: Denial of Responsibility: The government is doing it, not us. Bush doesn't represent me or most citizens' stance on torture. Denial of Injury: These are just rumors. We don't know the CIA is torturing people. We don't know what they do qualifies as torture, per se. Humiliation isn't torture. Denial of Victim: These guys are the worst of the worst; they've got it coming. They'd do the same to us. Social Weighting: All countries torture people. The US has been torturing people for a long time. Appeal to Higher Loyalties: Freedom isn't free, hippie. Torture is okay if we're trying to get information that will save lives. Metaohor of the Ledger: The US is the one to stop Saddam from torturing people. He also talks about how newcomers are socialized into corruption, here I think applicable to government officials especially, but the citizenry as well. Co-optation is achieved by giving inducement to play along. For us, it is security against terrrorism. Socialization is achieved incrementally. Here, first we have Gitmo, then Abu Ghraib, then secret prisons. Finally, corruption is often the result of compromise on one of two evils: here, do we torture people or do we let innocents die? He mentions a couple things about facilitation that I think are interesting. One is that corruption breeds well in a social cocoon. Most Americans operate within the confines of the American discourse and don't read and/or take seriously comment from foreign commentators. He also talks about the common practice of euphemistic language to soften corruption, like the way Nazi doctors said they were euthanizing prisoners instead of killing them. Here, we say "extraordinary rendition" and "aggressive interrogation." In talking about reversing corruption that has set in, he says one of the important things is to move quickly and make a distinct break with the past to crush corruption aggressively. The USSR saw something like this after Stalin's death. Krushchev outmanoeuvered Beria to take control and went on an extreme deStalinization program, exposing all the purges and other crimes Stalin had committed. I am hoping that our next President can do something similar -- but I'm not expecting it.
i already answered that. but again, was the rape due to overzealous guards or a policy that promotes rape? lol. if you actually tried to understand my position for 1 second rather than looking for something to bash or argue over you would realize that my position is very simple and neither of the things you mentioned.
per the myriad of articles posted it would appear that the policy in place facilitated and encouraged such practices like rape and severe beatings. lol. you think torture (at least by the legal definition, u.s. and international) is justified - that makes you immoral and unamerican, imo. very simple. you claimed that it is wrong to beat people and that we shouldnt be doing it, but you spend all this time defending just that. who is the one looking for something to argue about?
per the articles...it would appear... It certainly seems like its up for debate, but i can see not with you. You told me you think that they want to do torture which is ultimately the case for our disagreeing. i think that they want to interrogate however they needs to be some type of room to manuever. again, torture has many subjective areas, and its those areas where people disagree on that i would imagine are the areas where the policy might have changed or why the definition was altered...plus lets remember its laws, nothing is every that clear well you are outrageously wrong and i've been clear. that makes you annoying when did i defend it? look i know you want to 'get me' but please try to come at me with a little more common sense and at least try to understand my points, rather then build them up as a straw man and tell me what i think. for whatever reason it seems you have a problem with me, and thats fine, but dont let that get in the way of being able to have a honest and open discussion.
With all due respect, why should I believe that are you even on the level, considering how obscene your posts in this thread are? You have a history of posting things "just to get a reaction," so am I simply wasting my time replying? That is your America? This is my America... President Eisenhower sending federal troops to enforce integration and protect nine black students trying to go to school. The President deployed the elite 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to escort the students to their high school in Little Rock, Arkansas, on September 25, 1957. http://www.answers.com/topic/little-rock-nine Bobby Kennedy speaking to civil rights protesters in 1963, in support of them. In support of civil rights, NOT OF TORTURE. That's my America. Maybe you should find another country that suits you, NewYorker, like Mubarak's Egypt. Clearly, you don't believe in the United States of America. Not the America I believe in. I don't personally know ANYONE who supports torture. People like you turn my stomach, to put it mildly. In this country, if we discover the police conducting torture, or members of the armed forces conducting torture, we arrest and prosecute them. You, apparently, would give them a big pat on the back. D&D. Replicant Democrat.
this is an awesome post. its not just about torture, people will support anything the government does because of the same reasoning. tapping phones: well you want to catch the terrorist don't you? what do you have to hide, the government can listen to my calls. they're not listening to everyone's calls, just the bad guys, etc. its really amazing what we've accepted since 9-11. and you're also dead on about the progressive nature of what we're willing to accept. maybe we're naive and these things existed before, but I don't know if these things would have been accepted twenty years ago. but hey, 911 change everything
The eroding of Civil Liberties by a paranoid executive is merely a bi-product of AQ policy. Osama would be proud of weak minded Americans.
I am not convinced that torture can not be used effectively in any circumstance. That's what you and others are arguing. It's very difficult to prove, and just some quotes does not constitute truth. Especially since you consider the long time people have practiced torture. Torture isn't just limited to inflicting fear or pain. As I have said, it takes a lot of thinking and building a level of trust with the subject, and knowing the reasons why they are not yielding information. I have yet to see iron-clad proof to back up the claims made by many that torture never works.
I am not saying that torture would never work. I am saying there is almost always another way. I can think of no instance when there wouldn't be another way to get the same information. It rarely works, and even if it would, it should not be used, because there is always another way to get the information.
very true. But what if some consider that alternative to be torture? and then some consider the alternative to the alternative to be torture? which i think is where the problem is.
That's like saying we have proof that Iraq has WMDs but it's up to them to prove that they don't.. oh...wait...
More like saying that we shouldn't attack Iraq unless we have iron-clad proof they have WMD's. But I guess you only are for using iron-clad proof when it fits your political orientation?
