Topic: Torture (Read 2943 times)

Dannyboy · « **on:** November 11, 2006, 02:45:43 PM »

This forum seems a little dead right now, so i thought i'd go fishing.

Much as i'd love to regard the Republicans' public spanking at the polls as the verdict of the American people in an unofficial referendum on aspects of the 'War on Terror' such as detention without trial, abandonment of the Geneva Conventions and 'extraordinary rendition' of suspected terrorists to countries known to practice torture, i suspect that the mounting US death toll in Iraq is more at the root of it. So, what do people think of the above?

i've recently finished reading an excellent journalistic expose of the CIA's rendition policy - 'Ghost Plane' by Stephen Grey - which details evidence that the Agency handed people over to the security services of Middle Eastern dictatorships, often on the flimsiest of suspicions, sometimes along with a list of questions they'd like answered, and no illusions about how those answers would be obtained. As far as i can see, undeclared war or no undeclared war, this sucks.

The Bush government's further softening of US principles on human rights and the treatment of prisoners is the rootstem which has inevitably led to abuse at Abu Ghraib, murder at Bagram and unquantifiable bad feeling towards America all across the world. The complicity of Eurpoean governments in all this has been nauseating.

So, what do you think?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** November 11, 2006, 03:19:02 PM »

Its been dead because the life of the party hasn't been here. But now we see he's here....

The option I should have liked isn't on your list.

"Maybe- Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made and that's just how life is."

That's close to "Yes, in cases of extremis to save lives" I guess, but this statement could only ever be a rough summary statement.

Helpful here would be a definition of 'torture.' As I understand it, the highest 'official' degree of torture allowed by the US (now... I know that there was recently a revision) is water boarding. Now, a reporter for Fox News went through water boarding and had it recorded. Granted, he only made it to step 3, but he had some insightful comments on it. I also know that American airmen are subjected to water boarding and other measures so that they will know what to expect if they are downed behind enemy lines. Insofar as anything more severe than this may be addressed in your definition, its a moot point to the degree that Americans shouldn't by their own law be allowed to do more. They ought to be held accountable for the violation of the law.

I am not prepared to consider being forced to listen to Brittany Spears at loud volume for long periods of time is 'torture.' Also, being put naked in a cell, and uncomfortably cold conditions, and sleep deprivation. Yea, ok, this is all nasty stuff. Psychologically, I may wish to hang myself if I have to listen to Brittany, but I won't, and the effects will probably last. And yet these measures would be included in the UN's definition of 'torture,' and forbidden.

Somewhere in here there is something called common sense being blurred beyond recognition. I don't think we can meaningfully have this discussion while being propositioned or merely addressed by a woman is in the same category of 'torture' as jabbing needles under the finger nails of the prisoners.

nojc4me · « **Reply #2 on:** November 11, 2006, 10:16:58 PM »

I would have liked it if "Yes... extremis" and "terrorists" had been combined, or if I could vote twice (I won't, since you already know what my second vote would be).

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** November 12, 2006, 12:55:09 AM »

It's interesting that Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, and others may soon be tried in a German court for crimes against humanity. Perhaps Americans will finally come to understand that waterboarding, stress positions, sexual humiliation, sleep deprivation, exposure to temperature extremes, and other forms of degrading treatment are considered torture in other places in the world. What irony that it will be tried in a German court. What goes around comes around, I guess.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** November 12, 2006, 08:42:57 AM »

"Perhaps Americans will finally come to understand that waterboarding, stress positions, sexual humiliation, sleep deprivation, exposure to temperature extremes, and other forms of degrading treatment are considered torture in other places in the world."

lol, I think that it would be good that they do come to understand that- so that Americans know not to give a lick what 'other places in the world' think.

I hope this situation helps Americans realize that countries that actually do far worse things serve on the UN's Human Rights committee! Yea, boy, what a righteous judgment.

If the things in your list and mine are considered 'torture' than 'torture' itself as a word loses its meaning. I am not in the slightest agreeing that these are pleasant procedures, nor am I at this point condoning them. They'd be worthy of scrutiny in any case. But one wonders at the agenda of people who refuse to make distinctions. So much for 'nuance' from the people of 'nuance'!

Dannyboy · « **Reply #5 on:** November 12, 2006, 09:15:12 AM »

Shades of grey, shades of grey.

This, of course, being the problem - if we open up the discussion to any sort of coercive questioning (which i am not automatically against - the discussion, that is) then we quickly find ourselves of a greasy slope down into the red-hot needles under the fingernails territory. We do the same when we export our torturing, as the CIA has done with the complicity of weasly European governments.

Coercive questioning of any kind is banned under the Geneva Conventions, which Bush declared did not apply to people captured during the 'War on Terror' - a decision later reveresed by the courts.

The practical danger is that the victim (and i am prepared to call them that since they mostly have not been found guilty of any crime at this stage - an important thing to remember) is likely to say anything which his/her captors want to hear, meaning that the resulting 'intelligence' is more shaped by the prejudices of the torturer than by what the subject themselves may or may not know. Large percentages of the confessions extracted (possibly with pliers) in the dungeons of our glorious allies in the 'WOT' such as Uzbekistan have indicated clearly that Al-qaeda is hand-in-glove with local insurgent groups, thus allowing such countries to frame brutal crack-downs against them in positive ways.

I hope this situation helps Americans realize that countries that actually do far worse things serve on the UN's Human Rights committee! Yea, boy, what a righteous judgment.

Yeah, and look who US forces are handing suspects over to in order to save CIA jail space and produce politically useful confessions with the repeated application of sharp objects. It's countries like that and worse. That would be some unsteady moral high-ground you're taking there.

Simulated drowning, stress positions - these things cause acute physical and mental discomfort (speaking as someone who was once forced to stand in a relatively mild stress position - holding a basketball over my head - for half an hour at school as a punishment. It hurt. A lot). They may cause people to say exactly what they think is required in order to make it stop. They may also be quite innocent people, which should be of greater concern.

Cultural issues do also need to be considered, not treated with contempt. What is a matter of indifference to you might be a cause of lasting psychological trauma to me. That is relevant to our treatment of prisoners.

Interesting about the German court, Cop. i'll check that out.

Cheers

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** November 12, 2006, 10:05:42 AM »

"Shades of grey, shades of grey.

This, of course, being the problem"

Sure, and a problem you ought to settle here. I see no reason why we should lump all 'coercive questioning' into the category of 'torture' and agree to that lumping. Like you said, even you are not automatically against it- at least discussing- so why should I agree with that?

"if we open up the discussion to any sort of coercive questioning ... then we quickly find ourselves of a greasy slope down into the red-hot needles under the fingernails territory."

To me, all this calls for is discipline. The problem isn't solved by refusing to recognize degrees of the question, and it certainly isn't helped by refusing to enforce the usage of terms in a way that has been agreed upon. All that does is continue the problem.

I will restate, I refuse to discuss the morality of 'torture' while something as 'psychologically damaging' as being interviewed by a female officer is considered 'degrading' and therefore 'torture.' That's just nuts.

I'm not saying I'm unwilling to discuss the matter at all. I'm saying you've got to clarify what you mean straight-up. If that means putting you in the uncomfortable position of recognizing that not all of the things referred to by the UN as 'torture' are 'torture,' that isn't really my problem.

"We do the same when we export our torturing, as the CIA has done with the complicity of weasly European governments."

Any word on Germany bringing the cabinet members or leaders of these countries to trial?

"The practical danger is that the victim"

This is an argument against 'torture' but you still haven't established a meaningful use of the term. I will respond briefly to your argument even while it functionally meaningless:

"is likely to say anything which his/her captors want to hear,"

Clearly there is a lot of that- and yet if that was all of it its a wonder why history is filled with examples of it, and the modern day, too. The 'usefulness' argument must be used carefully.

"That would be some unsteady moral high-ground you're taking there."

I'm not trying to take any moral high-ground. I'm trying to keep you off of it.

Are any of these other countries going to be brought to trial? I have trouble getting my undies in a bundle on the treatment of, we'll call it 1,000, 'victims' when the nations raising the ruckus have either engaged in or allowed the deaths of millions at the hands of Hussein, the deaths of millions in Rwanda, and- watch this- right now, this very minute, THIS VERY SECOND- the deaths of 'only' a half million in Darfur. Sure, all lives are important, but I'd feel less like the US was being singled out because of nefarious reasons if I saw even half the attention directed at the US directed also at China, Indonesia, Sudan, etc.

"Simulated drowning, stress positions - these things cause acute physical and mental discomfort"

No doubt, but there is no way I'm going to let you put these in the same category as other things we may mention. I know a guy in the Air Force, and he went through ALL of these just as part of his training. I would venture to say that any procedure we use in the training of my own soldiers probably shouldn't belong in this category.

"Cultural issues do also need to be considered, not treated with contempt. What is a matter of indifference to you might be a cause of lasting psychological trauma to me. That is relevant to our treatment of prisoners."

I suppose this is a reference to being interrogated by a woman and the Muslim male's rejection of that. Just to make sure the point is rammed home properly, let me agree for discussion that every sentence you said in that paragraph is true. And yet, if you think that is 'torture' I see absolutely no reason to have a conversation about the matter. Because that's just nuts.

Copernicus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 12, 2006, 11:33:25 AM »

Quote from: Dannyboy

Coercive questioning of any kind is banned under the Geneva Conventions, which Bush declared did not apply to people captured during the 'War on Terror' - a decision later reveresed by the courts.

Not so fast, Dannyboy. In the past 6 years, creative legal minds in the Whitehouse have figured out all the angles. Laws are passed, but the President gets to decide which parts of them to enforce. Courts declare certain behavior illegal, but there is always a way to maintain and justify the behavior by means that the court didn't specifically rule on. For example, our military may be banned from using certain types of torture, but does that cover civilian contractors working on foreign soil? And, as you have already pointed out, we can hand prisoners over to trusted foreign governments, who will carry out the fondest wishes of American wannabe torturers. I doubt that that legal decision had any affect whatsoever on the treatment of people being held in secret and not-so-secret prisons.

Americans justify torture on the grounds that we fight people who do engage in torture. Hence, we can hold our heads high that we don't use the hot needles under the fingernails. We can always get that method done by foreign proxy, if necessary, so what's the big deal? We know that people will say anything to get the torture to stop, but we pretend that our methods of torture are so much more civilized than pliers and needles. We still keep the moral high ground by staying just a little bit higher than the standard set by our enemies.

People who have never been waterboarded, almost frozen to death, kept awake for days, or subjected to stress positions for hours suddenly become experts on the different types of torture--civilized vs uncivilized torture. They tend to equate it with college hazing pranks, something that Rumsfeld and Bush seem to know quite a lot about. Bush himself was a big fraternity boy back in the days when he was doing lots of booze and drugs to help him cope with the boredom of studying.

Does the torture actually save American lives? It's quite possible that it has led to some spectacularly good information that could not have been extracted quickly by more patient methods of interrogation. But who is counting net losses of life when our methods drive our enemies into even greater heights of violence? How has it affected the treatment of our own soldiers when they are captured? Our enemies, like ourselves, perform the same mental calculus to justify their own depraved behavior. And what about the prisoners who don't have vital information or who were accidentally detained? How do we justify their torture? Are they just unfortunate collateral damage?

In the end, it is a mistake to think that we torture people because we get valuable information from them quickly. Maybe we do sometimes. Maybe we don't. But let's just be honest for a moment. What really justifies our use of torture against people that we fear and hate? You won't hear people admit it, but you can see it in their eyes when they explain how much more civilized our methods of torture are. We mainly do it for revenge.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** November 12, 2006, 01:01:07 PM »

Copernicus's post illustrates exactly why this thread is dead on arrival. There is no conceivable way that being interrogated by a woman (OMG, a woman!) is in the same category as needles jabbed under the fingernails. No really rational person could fail to see the difference. Does Cop see the difference? Yes, of course he does. So the fact that he sees the difference but continues the equivocation anyway shows that there is something else at work. What this 'thing' is I suspect has nothing to do with either morality or rationality.

"People who have never been waterboarded, almost frozen to death, kept awake for days, or subjected to stress positions for hours suddenly become experts on the different types of torture--civilized vs uncivilized torture. They tend to equate it with college hazing pranks,"

Well, no. But let's first look at the bolded section. He says, 'different types of torture.' This is clear equivocation. Apparently you have to be tortured in order to talk about torture.

Except for Cop, of course. He hasn't been tortured but we still hear him yapping. Well, ok- let's accept his premise- what about the reporter at Fox News or USAF airmen? Do THEY consider it torture?

If being kept away for days is the same as being tied down over a bamboo shoot then I'm a pickle. And secondly, I don't at all believe that I'm an expert on the different 'degrees' of whatever we're talking about, but even I am educated enough to know that we are talking about more than 'college hazing pranks.' I believe that this way of thinking and the argument associated with it tells us more about Copernicus than it does the issue at hand.

I don't need to be an expert to watch a reporter get water boarded and realize that this is a different category of things. I don't need to be an expert to recognize that the training our airmen receive actually requires them to undergo all of the stuff on the equiovcation list- waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation- to know that if our airmen can endure it and come out psychologically and physically fit to fly our airplanes, 'victims' will be able, too. Unpleasant, yes. Torture? Seriously, folks. Torture?

I would think even the smallest bit of education on the matter should make that much clear. Cop doesn't see it: our choices are that he's ignorant (a real possibility), not very bright, or has some other agenda.

My money is on the last.

Please Dannyboy. There has GOT to be some common sense brought to bear here. You can't seriously expect us to follow in this equivocation which lumps everything from looking at someone cross-eyed to cutting off fingers one by one or shooting family members during the interrogation as all being 'torture.'

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** November 12, 2006, 01:17:10 PM »

Here's a wikipedia entry on the Air Force's program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SERE#Resistance_and_escape

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 12, 2006, 02:13:28 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

...Apparently you have to be tortured in order to talk about torture. Except for Cop, of course. He hasn't been tortured but we still hear him yapping. Well, ok- let's accept his premise- what about the reporter at Fox News or USAF airmen? Do THEY consider it torture?

I think that anyone who advocates a specific type of torture should have to undergo that torture before they defend it publicly. What could be fairer?

So I'll give that intrepid Fox News reporter and USAF airmen a pass on waterboarding. Not you, sntjohnny. Have someone waterboard you. Then come back an argue your case. Oh, well. I do have one quibble about the Fox News reporter. He wasn't subjected to it for hours on end, and he never really feared that those doing it to him also hated him. So maybe his experience wasn't quite as realistic as one could hope.

Quote

If being kept away for days is the same as being tied down over a bamboo shoot then I'm a pickle. And secondly, I don't at all believe that I'm an expert on the different 'degrees' of whatever we're talking about, but even I am educated enough to know that we are talking about more than 'college hazing pranks.' I believe that this way of thinking and the argument associated with it tells us more about Copernicus than it does the issue at hand.

Do you seriously think that it is a question of which kind of torture is worse than another kind? Rumsfeld actually joked about their torture techniques as not such a big deal. Cheney opined that waterboarding was a "slam dunk" for him (pun maybe not intended). These guys clearly get off on the idea that they are torturing bad guys, never innocent people. They like the feeling of giving payback to our enemies. And that is what it is really all about. Payback. If a few innocent people get tortured, so what? Anyone who opposes torturing people who want to harm us must be nuts. And we're sorry if innocent people get hurt. Wrong place. Wrong time. The important thing is that me and my loved ones aren't likely to end up being among those unlucky sods.

Quote

I don't need to be an expert to watch a reporter get water boarded and realize that this is a different category of things. I don't need to be an expert to recognize that the training our airmen receive actually requires them to undergo all of the stuff on the equiovcation list- waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation- to know that if our airmen can endure it and come out psychologically and physically fit to fly our airplanes, 'victims' will be able, too. Unpleasant, yes. Torture? Seriously, folks. Torture?

Seriously. Torture. And I notice that you had nothing whatever to say about renditions, harm to innocent victims, the ineffectiveness of torture to extract accurate information, the loss of face to our government, or the effect that torture-humiliation stories have on the captors of US soldiers.

But let's talk about how effective torture is in actually giving us valuable information. What exactly did the US learn by torturing some of the bad guys? What have we learned for illegal renditions to foreign torture farms? What is the ratio of true information vs false information? How many innocent people are trapped in this hellish nightmare? Don't know? Big surprise. It's all protected as a state secret. If there is abuse there, it gets buried. The Nazis understood these techniques better. I bet that Bush, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, and others in the administration really chafe at the fact that the "rule of law" is not supposed to discriminate. They're proud of the fact that they've ripped the blindfold off the statue in the name of expediency. Being good sports, they stop short at the really nasty stuff, in their opinions. They get others to do that stuff for them.

Quote

I would think even the smallest bit of education on the matter should make that much clear. Cop doesn't see it: our choices are that he's ignorant (a real possibility), not very bright, or has some other agenda.

Sntjohnny, if you were waterboarded, do you think that it would make you stop with the ad hominem attacks? Somehow, I doubt that even the pliers and needles would stop you.

Quote

Please Dannyboy. There has GOT to be some common sense brought to bear here. You can't seriously expect us to follow in this equivocation which lumps everything from looking at someone cross-eyed to cutting off fingers one by one or shooting family members during the interrogation as all being 'torture.'

Yes, Dannyboy. Wouldn't you rather be tortured by the CIA than the SS? We would be so much more respectful of your rights. "Sir, would you please tell me where the poison gas is hidden? You don't remember? Oh, I am so sorry sir. Well, time for a little refreshing dunker. Be thankful that we don't cut your fingers off like the bad guys do. Count your blessings, sir!"

Anybody remember the Phoenix program from Vietnam days? The CIA used to train our proxies in the best terror techniques to use against captured enemies. They didn't always have time for waterboarding. One very effective technique was to take prisoners up in a helicopter. One prisoner was picked at random and tossed outside. The others tended to talk very quickly. Much more effective than stress positions. We never would have won the war without those methods, would we?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** November 12, 2006, 03:01:41 PM »

"I think that anyone who advocates a specific type of torture should have to undergo that torture before they defend it publicly. What could be fairer?"

Begs the question. There is no reason why we should take your position seriously while you continue to make no distinctions.

I think you should put the shoe on the other foot, too:

"Oh, well. I do have one quibble about the Fox News reporter. He wasn't subjected to it for hours on end, and he never really feared that those doing it to him also hated him. So maybe his experience wasn't quite as realistic as one could hope."

So, he wasn't properly 'tortured' enough to count. And who get's to make these judgements? You apparently. Have you been tortured?

"Do you seriously think that it is a question of which kind of torture is worse than another kind?"

Begs the question. Still assumes that everything we're talking about here is 'torture.'

"And that is what it is really all about. Payback."

Here's the agenda I was talking about surfacing. This isn't about discussing an issue rationally or evaluating the merits of something. This is about your own personal brand of hatred and bigotry.

"Seriously. Torture."

If you haven't been tortured, you have no right to say whether it is or not. That's your reasoning, not mine. You'll have to defer to the judgement of hundreds of thousands of United States soldiers (and I suppose too the Muslim men who are offended by being interrogated by women) on the matter.

"And I notice that you had nothing whatever to say about renditions, harm to innocent victims, the ineffectiveness of torture to extract accurate information, the loss of face to our government, or the effect that torture-humiliation stories have on the captors of US soldiers."

I'll be glad to talk about certain things as soon as we have a definition in hand that isn't infantile and asinine.

"But let's talk about how effective torture is in actually giving us valuable information."

Begs the question. Equiovocation. A waste of our time in talking about it while depriving a man of his favorite kind of candy is in the same category as electric cables on genitals.

"Sntjohnny, if you were waterboarded, do you think that it would make you stop with the ad hominem attacks?"

There was no ad hominem there. I said that I favored the third option. Also, there is nothing insulting about merely being ignorant. Remaining ignorant after you've been informed is a different matter, but that wasn't one of the options. Besides, it's not ad hominem if its true- and as I said, I think the third option is probably the one that is right. If the shoe fits.

Now, one is compelled to wonder: Why is it that Copernicus absolutely insists on labeling even the most minor inconveniences as 'torture'? Why does he insist on talking about 'rendition' and 'sleep deprivation' and being interrogated by women as all under the banner of 'torture'?

This is bizarre behavior, and most of the options we might come up with he might feel is ad hominem, but by God, this sort of irrationality requires explanation. Its not my fault that the possible explanations aren't particularly flattering.

Dannyboy, you're going to have to intervene here with some common sense or we'll never be able to discuss the merits of your question.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #12 on:** November 12, 2006, 05:15:59 PM »

Ok stop it right now or i'm coming over there to slap the both of you.

No bickering on my thread.

Mr Johnny,

You say there's degrees of coercion to be addressed here. i say maybe. i entirely sympathise with you on the subject of the guy (mythical or otherwise) who considers being questioned by a female agent 'torture'. That's his issues, so let him deal with it. On the other hand, move that up a few notches to reports of devout muslim men being held down and straddled by semi-clothed female interogators, and there we have a problem. The fact that many Western guys hearing such reports say 'i gotta get someone to torture me like that' demonstrates nothing more than that they're dumbasses.

This is why i would prefer to maintain the ban on coercive questioning - there's too much subjective opinion and hazy areas. What is abundantly clear is that to remove the Geneva restrictions, have the President convey and therefore legitimise a macho-cr*p attitude ('bring 'em on' and 'the gloves come off', etc), and actively participate in the de-humanising of our 'enemies' the 'evul-dooeers' along with our beloved objective media, well, it'd be a miracle if no one got tortured.

You say all this needs is discipline. Sure, that's true, but you're a big fan of the 'humans are inherrently bad, we need checks and balances' idea, so where are those checks and balances? Geneva was one, a good one, but Bush tore it up and replaced it with... not much. That's the main problem here.

The other problem is intention. There has been an intention to torture, or at the least, at the very most charitable, to allow torture to occur and to facilitate its occurance in places where we retain some deniability.

You want me to define 'torture'. Ok, to keep things simple, let's go with 'Any deliberate action by another which could reasonably be expected to cause at least moderate pain or lasting psychological damage'. Now, under this definition pushing someone about is not torture, but water-boarding conceivably is (simulated drowning, remember?). Also, i threw in 'could reasonably be expected to cause' as a sop to you for the case of a guy who is permenantly traumatised by the sight of a woman, which clearly we cant plan for.

Are any of these other countries going to be brought to trial? I have trouble getting my undies in a bundle on the treatment of, we'll call it 1,000, 'victims' when the nations raising the ruckus have either engaged in or allowed the deaths of millions at the hands of Hussein, the deaths of millions in Rwanda, and- watch this- right now, this very minute, THIS VERY SECOND- the deaths of 'only' a half million in Darfur.

Well you're not talking to them - you're talking to me. This defence (if it can be called that) doesn't work anyway. If you didn't care about it then you wouldn't be here talking about it. You'd be over on the 'Save Darfur' page (here's the link, by the way, if you want to head over there now and stop wasting your time on this trivia: http://www.savedarfur.org/content?splash=yes). Plus, since i've never heard you level this 'hypocracy/proportionality' accusation at Bush when he talks about other countries harboring terrorists or condoning torture, i can only conclude that it's a dodge, and ignore it accordingly.

I know a guy in the Air Force, and he went through ALL of these just as part of his training. I would venture to say that any procedure we use in the training of my own soldiers probably shouldn't belong in this category.

Maybe. i suspect that some of the techniques used to desensitise and de-individualise our troops skirt exceptionally close to torture, but whatever. As it happens i know an ex-flyboy too, who also went through 'resistance to interogation' training. Sounded pretty horrific, but regardless, he knew (i hope) that he would not be killed and could leave if he desired to. That makes a serious difference - pretty much the same gulf that lies between sex and rape, if you think about it.

If being kept away for days is the same as being tied down over a bamboo shoot then I'm a pickle.

i don't think anyone is suggesting that it's 'the same', the question is whether it amounts to torture. Again, i have friends who have been through sleep deprivation trials (for very good money), and after about a week you are literally living in a nightmare - not knowing what is real and what is imaginary. i could be persuaded that that amounts to torture, quite easily.

Now, one is compelled to wonder: Why is it that Copernicus absolutely insists on labeling even the most minor inconveniences as 'torture'? Why does he insist on talking about 'rendition' and 'sleep deprivation' and being interrogated by women as all under the banner of 'torture'?

i think it's because of the same concerns i have. It is infinitely safer to forbid any sort of coercive questioning to avoid, well, precisely the sort of repercussions we are seeing now. My Air Force acquaintance told me that it was common knowlege that any British airman captured by Iraqi forces during the first Gulf War would be anally raped before any questions were even asked. No doubt there were plenty of senior Baathists keen to extol the utility of such treatment, while at the same time saying that, after all, these guys wouldn't be physically harmed by it, y'know, in the long term. Yes yes, the US is better than the Baathist regime, the question is; do you want to stay better?

Cop,

i am in depressed agreement with your analysis of the last six years of weasling and mendatious political manoevering surrounding the 'torture' issue. i strongly recommend the book i mentioned earlier - 'Ghost Plane' by Stephen Grey - it will make you even more depressed!

He quotes a guy who was rendered to the Egyptian (i think) security forces with a list of questions that the CIA wanted answers to. He was cut all over his body with razor blades. He said "They told me i was a member of Al-Qaeda, and i said 'no', so they tortured me until i said 'yes'. Then they said, 'tell us more', but i did not know more, so they tortured me again".

I think that anyone who advocates a specific type of torture should have to undergo that torture before they defend it publicly. What could be fairer?

i think the problem is that a person in the situation of 'trying out' a torture does not experience the psychological dimension unless he genuinely believes that he might be killed (or alternatively, never released).

One guy i read about in Guantanamo was loaded on board a plane, doped up, flown around for a little while and then unloaded into a different part of guantanamo so that he'd believe he had been flown to another country where he would be 'properly' tortured. These people understand the psychological element of torture, even if they publically disparage it.

On a side-note to SntJohnny: would you say that being locked away for several years with no access to or contact with your wife and kids would constitute a kind of 'torture'? If not, then what would it be?

Wouldn't you rather be tortured by the CIA than the SS?

i would, yes. Although, on reflection, i am kind of blonde, which might give me some leverage with the Nazi boys, so maybe that would be better. The proper answer is that i'd rather not be tortured by anyone, and the rationale for such treatment (because there always is one, and the torturers generally believe it's a good'un) doesn't matter at all.

------------------------------

Now, can we step away from the 'who is entitled to define torture' slapping match, because it is getting precisely nowhere. We all have contributions to make, so let's make them. i have proposed a definition. Run with it or question it.

Go

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** November 12, 2006, 08:51:00 PM »

"Ok stop it right now or i'm coming over there to slap the both of you."

He started it!

No bickering on my thread.

"The fact that many Western guys hearing such reports say 'i gotta get someone to torture me like that' demonstrates nothing more than that they're dumbasses."

lol, come on. Admit it. You'd like to be 'tortured' like that. The problem is that no one on the planet can view that as 'torture.' Even the devout Muslim male. I bet with Danny Pearl they weren't saying, "No, man, put away the sword. Yea... bring the girl." Now, ok, Pearl wasn't a Muslim. But I'm pretty sure that quite a lot of heads that have been found lopped off in Iraq were Muslims who on second thought would have preferred this, nor can we suppose that the head-loppers made them endure such a heinous and 'psychologically damaging' experience.

You can call me a dumbass if you like, but I join the throngs in saying it may be inappropriate, but it ain't torture- even by your definition- which I thank you for.

"This is why i would prefer to maintain the ban on coercive questioning - there's too much subjective opinion and hazy areas"

Then let me understand you correctly: its your position that there should not be any kind of interrogation whatsoever. Does this position extend to both civil and military affairs? I am also confused by this term 'coercive questioning.' Is that just code for 'torture,' or is it a more general term which conceivably would help us escape the silly notion that being interrogated by a lady is 'torture.' You want to call it 'coercive questioning' and I'll concede. You can even call it degrading. You want to call it torture, again, even by your definition, and I can't go down that way.

"so where are those checks and balances? Geneva was one, a good one, but Bush tore it up and replaced it with... not much. That's the main problem here."

That's a good direction to take this. I don't know if this really categorizes it correctly. Bush didn't tear up the Geneva conventions, he said that certain people weren't spoken to by the Geneva conventions. Agree or disagree, in general the point is valid- the Geneva Conventions were not written with global terrorists in mind. Rather than bashing Bush, why doesn't the UN step up to the plate and admit that this is an interesting, even if unforseen, twist.

If the conventions don't apply, they don't apply. You can change the definitions of words, I suppose, but most people recognize that for what it is.

"You want me to define 'torture'. Ok, to keep things simple, let's go with 'Any deliberate action by another which could reasonably be expected to cause at least moderate pain or lasting psychological damage'."

Ah, a definition. *breathes breath of fresh air.*

"Now, under this definition pushing someone about is not torture,"

How so? We've got a bunch of kids over here going into schools and shooting people under the argument that they've been pushed around and bullied. Clearly, they endured 'lasting psychological damage.'

"Plus, since i've never heard you level this 'hypocracy/proportionality' accusation at Bush when he talks about other countries harboring terrorists or condoning torture, i can only conclude that it's a dodge, and ignore it accordingly."

Sure, you could do that. And I'll do likewise- since I never hear these arguments lodged against anyone other than Bush, I can conclude that remarks solely directed at the US and/or the Bush administration is also only a dodge- and ignore it accordingly. It should be evident that when I make these comments, the reason why I do is because I sense that there is an agenda behind them. Take Copernicus, who starts a thread to go after Israel this summer... what, 1,000 people died? Tops? That many have died a week in Darfur both before and after. Where's the threads about that? No agenda, that's why. If you aren't equal opportunity in your attacks, I have trouble considering the charges credible.

"Maybe. i suspect that some of the techniques used to desensitise and de-individualise our troops skirt exceptionally close to torture, but whatever."

Well, actually I think you'd have to say that they ARE torture. There certainly is 'moderate pain' involved.

"Sounded pretty horrific, but regardless, he knew (i hope) that he would not be killed and could leave if he desired to."

That dodges the 'lasting psychological damage' issue but not the 'moderate pain' issue. Your definition is:

'Any deliberate action by another which could reasonably be expected to cause at least moderate pain or lasting psychological damage'

Or.

"i don't think anyone is suggesting that it's 'the same', the question is whether it amounts to torture."

Then you missed Cop's statement:

"Seriously. Torture."

"i could be persuaded that that amounts to torture, quite easily."

I could be persuaded that that is terribly uncomfortable and absolutely no fun at all. I might even be willing to consider that we should not allow it. I can't be persuaded that this amounts to 'torture.' Or, let me put it this way. If that is what you mean by 'torture' than I very much am at a loss to answer your poll, because even though I should like to say that I disapprove of it in all situations, sleep deprivation just doesn't rise to that level.

I've been sleep deprived. I know it ain't kewl.

"i think it's because of the same concerns i have. It is infinitely safer to forbid any sort of coercive questioning to avoid, well, precisely the sort of repercussions we are seeing now."

Safer, maybe. That depends on what you mean by 'safer.' Lurking behind all of my comments thus far is my true set of objections, and this get's us closer. I'm a little confused again by your use of the word 'coercive questioning' again. This term sounds to me more general and that it would men then if we were to forbid 'any sort' of it, it would say that we cannot ever even try to talk to these people under any conditions. Out of curiosity, can you provide a mock interview where you simulate a resistant prisoner believed to have information with the interrogator's conduct on the other side? I have trouble believe that you don't think we should interrogate people at all, but I am at a loss imagining what you would propose as acceptable.

With that behind, maybe we can get to my real objections to this whole business.

"Yes yes, the US is better than the Baathist regime, the question is; do you want to stay better?"

Hum. Well, this strikes me as equivocation again. I'm sorry, but to me anal rape and sleep deprivation are apples and oranges.

"i think the problem is that a person in the situation of 'trying out' a torture does not experience the psychological dimension unless he genuinely believes that he might be killed (or alternatively, never released)."

Don't forget your 'moderate pain' proviso.

"On a side-note to SntJohnny: would you say that being locked away for several years with no access to or contact with your wife and kids would constitute a kind of 'torture'? If not, then what would it be?"

You continue to operate under the illusion that just because I don't think something is 'torture' that I think it is acceptable. It just so happens that I think that there are a host of things that I don't think are acceptable, even if I don't think they are torture. I'm wary about arguments that rely on using loaded terms without pointing out how much is being included in the term. Its easy to be against 'torture.' What nice, religious person wouldn't be against 'torture'?

And then in the fine print we learn that 'torture' is being construed in such a way that anal rape, dismemberment, electric jolts to the genitals, etc, are being put in the same category of things to be opposed as sleep deprivation and water boarding- things we put our own people through- and not only that, but even things like our so called 'mythical' muslim male being interrogated by a woman. Well, I'm afraid that changes the question for most people.

I suspect that this would be the case with 95% of western civilization. Ask them if they oppose 'torture' under any circumstances, and you'll get 95% that say 'yes.' Ask them if they oppose sleep deprivation, etc, and the numbers are going to go down. Probably waaaaay down.

Copernicus · « **Reply #14 on:** November 12, 2006, 08:59:37 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy

'Any deliberate action by another which could reasonably be expected to cause at least moderate pain or lasting psychological damage'

Dannyboy, I would agree with that definition, although we normally think of torture as causing unbearable, rather than just 'moderate', pain. Torture is clearly intended to coerce people, but different people have different tolerances. Even moderate pain can become unbearable, e.g. so-called "Chinese water torture". In the end, it is the mental anguish that tortures most. Some people can stand up to extreme physical pain, but that is only because physical pain causes them less mental suffering than most. It is bearable. Sleep deprivation can be excruciating torture, and it was a favorite method of Communists to soften their incarcerated victims. It is, apparently, also a favorite of Republicans, too. (I am not surprised, having visited the Soviet Union in the 1960s. If there ever was a bunch that behaved more like Republicans, it was the post-Stalinist Communist Party. Believe it or not, they played Pat Boone songs in the parks, which was a kind of torture for young folks when we would rather have listened to the Beatles.

)

Quote from: sntjohnny

"Oh, well. I do have one quibble about the Fox News reporter. He wasn't subjected to it for hours on end, and he never really feared that those doing it to him also hated him. So maybe his experience wasn't quite as realistic as one could hope."

So, he wasn't properly 'tortured' enough to count. And who get's to make these judgements? You apparently. Have you been tortured?

Yes, but I've managed to get all the way through many of your posts.

Fox News exists to spout right wing propaganda, and the reporter was only doing his job. Liberal reporters don't have to undergo simulated torture, but they still have to go out and stand in hurricanes.

Quote

"Do you seriously think that it is a question of which kind of torture is worse than another kind?"

Begs the question. Still assumes that everything we're talking about here is 'torture.'

Scaring someone into spilling their guts, no matter how you do it, is cruel and inhumane punishment. Just because you don't wish to call it torture, that doesn't change the nature of what you advocate. Why do you think that George Washington forbade torture of prisoners? Because he was a softy? He hanged deserters. He just didn't torture them beforehand. Somehow, I don't think that he would have had trouble figuring out that waterboarding was torture. Frankly, I don't think that you have any trouble, either. You just think that it's less barbaric if we call it by another name.

Quote

"And that is what it is really all about. Payback."

Here's the agenda I was talking about surfacing. This isn't about discussing an issue rationally or evaluating the merits of something. This is about your own personal brand of hatred and bigotry.

Sorry, but I've been exposed to Fox News, too. I've seen all the tortured attempts to rationalize this behavior. I've seen O'Reilly drool over the thought of bad guys getting their just desserts. Once you tell the troops that waterboarding is a "slam dunk", you get Abu Ghraib. There are no clear guidelines to follow, since the basic idea is to do whatever you have to in order to get the information. Just don't leave visible marks. I'm sure that the SS and the Gestapo understood the unpleasant necessity of it all, but their masters were less fastidious about the visible marks.

Quote

"And I notice that you had nothing whatever to say about renditions, harm to innocent victims, the ineffectiveness of torture to extract accurate information, the loss of face to our government, or the effect that torture-humiliation stories have on the captors of US soldiers."

I'll be glad to talk about certain things as soon as we have a definition in hand that isn't infantile and asinine.

Now that you have Dannyboy's, you can stop temporizing. What say you on these subjects?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** November 12, 2006, 09:10:01 PM »

"Now that you have Dannyboy's, you can stop temporizing. What say you on these subjects?"

No one is temporizing... Except you. You agreed with Dannyboy's definition with the exception that 'usually' we speak of 'unbearable' pain? If that isn't temporizing, I don't know what is. You want to denounce a position ... "Scaring someone into spilling their guts, no matter how you do it, is cruel and inhumane punishment" while including really mild interrogation methods (in some cases 'mild' is by comparison, in other cases, it really is mild) and pass over the differences... and that's not temporizing?

Yea, ok. Such a tactic can only be an attempt to avoid the real issues.

Copernicus · « **Reply #16 on:** November 13, 2006, 12:03:48 AM »

Sntjohnny, look up the verb 'to temporize' in a dictionary. Nothing prevents you from addressing those issues. I am happy to go with Dannyboy's definition, but I was actually trying to tilt a little more in your direction, believe it or not. I do not consider 'moderate pain' to be real torture, unless it becomes unbearable.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #17 on:** November 13, 2006, 06:56:31 AM »

i almost feel like we're getting somewhere.

He started it!

Go and stand in the corner. Go on.

No bickering on my thread.

lol, come on. Admit it. You'd like to be 'tortured' like that.

i wouldn't hate it, completely, although i generally like a little privacy when being straddled by semi-clothed female interrogators.

Now, notice that i did not demand that this kind of treatment be labelled 'torture'. What i said was that it's a problem. Sexual humiliation was a big component of what happened at Abu Ghraib, and look at the response that produced. Whether or not it's torture, it shouldn't be allowed.

You can call me a dumbass if you like,...

Thank you. *Ahem*

...but I join the throngs in saying it may be inappropriate, but it ain't torture- even by your definition- which I thank you for.

You're welcome. Ok, we are perilously close to agreement there. Let's move on quickly.

its your position that there should not be any kind of interrogation whatsoever. Does this position extend to both civil and military affairs?

Shouldn't it? Are we going to allow civilian prosecutions to procede based on confessions signed after the suspect was subjected to simulated drowning for half an hour? Of course not. i have no objection to deals being offered (of the "tell us about the Al-Qaeda training camp and we'll charge you with a lesser offence" variety) - they don't significantly interfere with justice being done, as far as i can see - but anything which compels suspects to talk by subjecting them to something they find very unpleasant until they crack should be outlawed - it's immoral and counter-productive.

I am also confused by this term 'coercive questioning.' Is that just code for 'torture,' or is it a more general term which conceivably would help us escape the silly notion that being interrogated by a lady is 'torture.' You want to call it 'coercive questioning' and I'll concede.

Cool. Torture is an extreme form of coercive questioning. Being questioned by a woman is not torture, i don't really think it's coercive either (although it would make sense for the intelligence services to realise that they might get better cooperation out of some people with extreme anti-feminist prejudices if they had them questioned by a guy).

Bush didn't tear up the Geneva conventions, he said that certain people weren't spoken to by the Geneva conventions.

Which is tantamount to tearing them up. Sorry, but look, it is reasonable to point out that the nature of warfare has changed since the 1940s, and it's reasonable to suggest changes to international law in the light of that. There will always be some resistance to that, as i imagine there would be to suggestions about changing stuff from the US Constitution, and for good reasons - checks and balances, again. What Bush did was unilaterally declare that the people he happened to be fighting did not deserve any such protection, while still expecting it for his own troops. Remember the stink it caused when Al-jazeera showed footage of captured American soldiers. Rumsfeld attacked them for breaching Geneva (which is the biggest frikkin' joke of the decade), but strangely didn't see fit to comment on the US and UK media which routinely showed pictures of captured Iraqis.

The Geneva conventions aren't sacred, they're just important. Start an international debate on updating them, sure Mr Bush, we'll join you on that. Don't just pretend that the protections they give only apply to the 'good guys'.

It should be evident that when I make these comments, the reason why I do is because I sense that there is an agenda behind them. Take Copernicus, who starts a thread to go after Israel this summer... what, 1,000 people died? Tops? That many have died a week in Darfur both before and after. Where's the threads about that? No agenda, that's why. If you aren't equal opportunity in your attacks, I have trouble considering the charges credible.

Yes but the problem is that it kinda looks like you consistently arguing against any consideration of the behaviour of the US on the grounds that other people do much worse. We know other people do much worse, but there is a sense (i'm hoping you'll agree) that Western democracies should be held to a higher standard of morality than Third World dictatorships. We might condemn their behaviour and work to try and stop it, but it isn't exactly surprising.

Plus, if you're committed to the proportionality argument then you really ought to be spreading the word around your neighbourhood to quit all this obsessive focus on the deaths of 3,000ish people on 9/11 when on that same day (according to World Bank figures) 35,000 children around the world died of poverty - that is, from preventable diseases and/or malnutrition. That's worse, don't you think?

I could be persuaded that that is terribly uncomfortable and absolutely no fun at all. I might even be willing to consider that we should not allow it. I can't be persuaded that this amounts to 'torture.'

Fine. Sleep deprivation doesn't have to be called torture, we just have to decide whether or not we think it is acceptable. Water-boarding too, although i'm less willing to say that that isn't 'torture'. Never tried it.

i'm reminded of the guy who died (the first one, i think) at Bagram airbase following 'questioning' by Special Forces. The military tribunal ruled that he died from 'repeated application of legitimate force', legitimate force, in this case, being beating. Can we agree that any amount of force which, with repeated application, could cause someone's death cannot possibly be 'legitimate'?

I have trouble believe that you don't think we should interrogate people at all, but I am at a loss imagining what you would propose as acceptable.

Ask questions. Offer incentives to cooperate. The carrot, but never the stick - not even the threat of the stick.

Its easy to be against 'torture.' What nice, religious person wouldn't be against 'torture'?

Absolutely, which is why we avoid the word when referring to our own troops actions.

And then in the fine print we learn that 'torture' is being construed in such a way that anal rape, dismemberment, electric jolts to the genitals, etc, are being put in the same category of things to be opposed as sleep deprivation and water boarding- things we put our own people through- and not only that, but even things like our so called 'mythical' muslim male being interrogated by a woman.

This may or may not be an interesting line to follow, but i can see a strong connection between how a heterosexual western man would regard anal rape and how a devout gynophobic muslim might regard being straddled by an unclothed woman, and also with some of the associated arguments. In both cases, this is something which that particular man would find thoroughly abhorrent and degrading, despite the fact that in some parts of the world (usually parts that he would regard as immoral and degenerate) people do the same thing, consentually, for pleasure. Neither, in itself, will cause long term physical harm (ok, greater risk of STDs for the Western male, i agree), but you want to put them in entirely different categories. Worse, i intuitively agree with you. Are we being culturally narrow-minded here?

Cop,

Even moderate pain can become unbearable, e.g. so-called "Chinese water torture". In the end, it is the mental anguish that tortures most.

Agreed, that's pretty much why i went with 'moderate' pain in the definition. It would be better to establish a qualitative boundary, so that you don't find yourself permitting something which can kill if taken a little too far. Repeated application of legitimate force, etc.

Scaring someone into spilling their guts, no matter how you do it, is cruel and inhumane punishment. Just because you don't wish to call it torture, that doesn't change the nature of what you advocate.

Agreed. Cruel, inhumane and unreliable.

Dan

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** November 13, 2006, 08:28:16 AM »

lol, so I am a tad confused here. We started out with me protesting the use of the word 'torture' for a host of things that I thought made the thread DOA, I received resistance, and now my points are conceded- as though they were never disputable in the first place? Odd. Odd and weird.

First, in regards to proportionality. 2 thoughts. One, I tend to only bring up these other issues in response to what I percieve to be agenda driven posts. You haven't seen me start up a thread on Dafur OR Israel. I don't start threads specifically to puff up US policy. Two, if we applied the reasoning in the way you suggest in regards to 3,000 dead on 9/11 consistently, we should have ignored Pearl Harbor. 3k dead in both cases, eh? One committed by a state, and the other by a non-state, but both explicitly as an act of WAR.

You're a big Sam Harris Fan. Read and Enjoy: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/ Feel free to make use of it in our debate this Sunday.

And about children dying, you forget that the US is the most generous country in the history of the world. The reason why people remain hungry has more to do with the UN allowing rogue regimes to steal the help that is sent. See Somalia, 1993. See all of Africa during the 1980s. Sure, the US could unilaterally go in and defeat the Sudanese government even right now, but let's be frank, Dannyman, would that really make you happy?

Now, with this behind us let me make some other comments. You did not answer my direct question but I think you meant to. The answer to "Do you really think that we should not ever engage in coercive questioning" your answer seems to be "Yes, I really think that."

I do not think that is realistic, but let's pretend for a moment that we live in a different world and we get to enact only things that are nice and make us feel warm and fuzzy. Ok, no more coercive questioning. You get your way. Now, here is my first objection.

1. 99% of the people arguing this point are simply unpleasable. If we take 'coercive questioning' off the table, we absolutely know that there will be another event. Now, it is my position that we can't have our cake and eat it to. If we take 'coercive questioning' off the table, than we have to be willing to live with the risk of any number of rotten things happen. But this question, like so many others, is agenda driven. When the 'event' happens, you watch, the people will clamor for the heads of their leadership.

2. I am perfectly willing to live with the risk of such events occuring. However, my position is that if out of principle you're going to enact policies that increase the risk in my own life, you must permit me to be able to compensate and prepare to meet that risk myself. Once again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't tell the government to back off and then tell me to call the government if I have a problem. But this is the problem, isn't it? That's exactly what the liberals want to do here.

They want to get on their moral high horse and castigate the US government for dozens of things that if the government does not do will certainly mean there are events in our streets. Fine. But let me defend my family using my constitutional rights- deprived from me at this point, the right to bear arms (so much for the rule of law). Deprived by liberals, who live in a fairy-tale land where you can have a fairy-tale government behave and miraculously criminals and Wahabi Muslims will think "Oh gee, how can I take advantage of such nice people? I just can't, can't I say" leading the libs to fairytale conclusions, "People won't HAVE to defend themselves because people will like us!"

I'm willing to live with the result of taking coercive questioning off the table. All I ask is that I'm allowed to defend my family using at least the same amount of force that can be anticipated being used against it. But I demand as well that when events happen, as they surely will, that conservatives and liberals alike do NOT crucify their leaders for 'letting' them happen.

And so this out of the way, there is only one set of objections left.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #19 on:** November 13, 2006, 11:29:54 AM »

Briefly...

We started out with me protesting the use of the word 'torture' for a host of things that I thought made the thread DOA, I received resistance, and now my points are conceded- as though they were never disputable in the first place? Odd. Odd and weird.

i hope i've been consistent. Maybe we just had our wires crossed.

I tend to only bring up these other issues in response to what I percieve to be agenda driven posts.

Do you mean 'driven by an agenda which you do not personally subscribe to'? i mean, surely every post is agenda-driven.

Two, if we applied the reasoning in the way you suggest in regards to 3,000 dead on 9/11 consistently, we should have ignored Pearl Harbor.

i'm not suggesting that we ignore anything. i'm saying that with pretty much any deplorable state of affairs in the world today you could point in another direction and say 'look though, there's some worse stuff happening over there - why aren't we discussing that?'. i just dont consider it helpful or relevant. i would be interested to participate in a separate post about whether the misdeeds of Israel and the US receive disproportionate attention, and if so, why, but brought up here it just looks like obsfucation.

You're a big Sam Harris Fan.

Well, i'm a medium-sized Sam Harris fan. He is compelling, and i find myself agreeing with him more than i like. In some ways i can identify in myself a version of the 'wouldn't it be nice if...' rationale for believing in God, except mine applies to other people. i'd really like to think that the reasons behind islamic terrorism are mostly our fault (apart from anything else, it'd be much easier to remedy). Unfortunately there are a big chunk of reasons which are nothing to do with us and all about Islam. Or 'religion', if you want to be broader.

Not necessarily relevant to the question in hand, however. Violent single-minded extremists still deserve due process and good treatment. Merely suspected violent single-minded extremists even more so.

And about children dying, you forget that the US is the most generous country in the history of the world.

Yeah, you say this a lot and i always find it unconvincing. The US is certainly the richest country in the history of the world, but if you look at aid donations proportional to GDP you will find slightly less inspiring figures. Much of that aid is also military, which i don't count as generous. Still more of it is so politically weighted as to be almost unhelpful - an example would be the millions that Bush recently pledged to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa. Big bucks, sure, but that money can only be used by charities and organisations which promote 'Abstinence only'. ANy mention of condoms gets them barred from receiving funding. That kind of prejudicial support is likely to cost as many lives as it saves.

Sure, the US could unilaterally go in and defeat the Sudanese government even right now, but let's be frank, Dannyman, would that really make you happy?

Diplomacy would be a better route - diplomacy directed primarily at the Chinese - but clearly it isn't important, or they'd be doing it, right?

Yes, in answer to your question, i think we ought to end any form of coercive questioning. Your response to this is that then 'we absolutely know that there will be another event'. Sorry, how do we know this?

You go on to say that if coercive questioning is abandoned that you must be allowed to possess some sort of increased personal armament which is capable of producing 'at least the same amount of force that can be anticipated being used against it'. You want a dirty bomb? Or a Boeing? Slightly bewildered by that turn of events, but fortunately it's not up to me. i'd just like you to support the proposition that if we stop forcing intelligence and/or confessions out of suspected terrorists there will be more attacks on Western countries.

Thank you

Author Topic: Torture (Read 2943 times)