why dont the countries that caused all this mess by setting up the colonies in the first place step up ? why does it have to be the US leading the way again? Everytime we try we get nothing but sh*t from everyone else. Hell all of the world says nothing about the US except that we are warmongering and out to control the world. Those places should be jumping at this chance to show how humanitarian they are compared to the US. Wonder why they are not. Oh yeah there isnt any profit in doing it. The US went in already, even tho there was nothnig to gain, we got blasted by the world press. Screw that trying again. Europe broke it , we tried to fix it anyway, the world yelled at us, we left warning you this would happen and we were laughed at and called alarmist who would say anything to justify another military occupation. Now its europes turn to undo what they did. here is a big chance to take a leadership role in world politics, all you have to do is step up. Lets see how the other people who hate US and everything american handle someone elses problems. The show has been pretty weak so far , just alot of shouting that America should do something while they sit on their ass waiting for another chance to yell "You're doing it wrong!" if we do step in.
Excellent post. It seems to be a situation like "damned if you do, damned if you don't". It's pretty sad too.
Gotta say, if anyone studied the history of colonization seriously, they'd realize that the only shocking thing about the Nazis was that they killed EUROPEANS. Other than that, Nazi ethics were the dominating form of management for the European powers. Spain and the americas, Britain and India, USA and the Native Americans, and EVERYONE on Africa (the true scale of the African genocides is staggering). Even Turkey got in on the action. Though they're too stupid to realize that to be an EU member you can't restrict speech about it, you have to just handwave it and ignore it whenever it comes up. Its always shocked me that that's a bar for EU membership, the EU basically reads like a laundry list of countries with century-old atrocities.
The truly sick part is that most Europeans think that they were somehow HELPING. At least America accepts that we systemically hunted down and killed the Native Americans.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
why dont the countries that caused all this mess by setting up the colonies in the first place step up ? why does it have to be the US leading the way again? Everytime we try we get nothing but sh*t from everyone else. Hell all of the world says nothing about the US except that we are warmongering and out to control the world. Those places should be jumping at this chance to show how humanitarian they are compared to the US. Wonder why they are not. Oh yeah there isnt any profit in doing it. The US went in already, even tho there was nothnig to gain, we got blasted by the world press. Screw that trying again. Europe broke it , we tried to fix it anyway, the world yelled at us, we left warning you this would happen and we were laughed at and called alarmist who would say anything to justify another military occupation. Now its europes turn to undo what they did. here is a big chance to take a leadership role in world politics, all you have to do is step up. Lets see how the other people who hate US and everything american handle someone elses problems. The show has been pretty weak so far , just alot of shouting that America should do something while they sit on their ass waiting for another chance to yell "You're doing it wrong!" if we do step in.
Excellent post. It seems to be a situation like "damned if you do, damned if you don't". It's pretty sad too.
We dont want America to do anything, that is the entire problem with the Iraqi war. They went in there without the approval of the UN, and are now flaunting the laws of the UN that they signed and agreed to.
If it truely is a peace-keeping force, why not put the blue armband on?
This is a world wide community, not Americas playground, is it really that hard to understand that going into war without the approval of the world is going to piss off the world ?
SO why doesnt the UN go into africa they already got the blue armband.
oh yeah its the UN ,they have only what they are given( mostly by the US) and most americans know the world pissed at us and dont really feel the desire to do what a bunch of pissed off peolpe want us to do especially when the guys who already have the blue armbands are too lazy to go themselves.
I have never in history seen a nation needing( or even caring about) UN approval to look out for their own self interest. Why start demanding it now?
you advocate that no country have any direct control over looking out for itself , so give up yours 1st , bow down entirely to the UN and its desires .with the rest of the world approving. The world does not like the US and hasnt except for that brief time after WWII so how can we trust the woprld to take our national interests seriiously?
will finish later got to go ...
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
The UN does not neccsarily reflect the world's interests. Just like leaders act according to their own will, so does the UN. The world doesnt necessarily "hate" America because America meddles in the affairs of other nations. Remember the reason why America went in? Bush recieved reports from the CIA that Saddam had WMD's and were pointing them towards Israel and America. The information was correct, but Saddam smuggled them out with the help of the Russians.
Why hasnt the rest of the world heard this? Because of the mainstream media. The other country's media hates on America giving them higher ratings and creates world wide dissension. There is no reason for the "rest of the world" to hate America. Seriously, do people in Spain, France and other European countries really have ANY reason to hate America? No. Why do they hate American citizens? We are human just like you - the sad part is, the media paints and covers Americans to depict them as arrogant idiots. Ive watched a few Spanish and French movies, and the Americans are usually shown as arrogant, rich, and sometimes even cruel. Hardly the reality of the average American citizen. America the country helps countries in need so many times, and with such generosity. America extents its hand *countless* times and in general supports the rest of the world. Instead, the world hates the image of America - the image painted by the media. Of course, I'm sure this post will be ignored like so many others that actually have a bit of reason in them, so I wont bother elaborating.
Its sad to see people hating on America so much, but if America stopped its foreign relations and reverted back to some sort of non-interventionalism, the rest of the world would probably go backwards a little, and then cry, saying "Oh no, America left us, now theyre being buttholes again!" Okay, so what do they want: America to help, or America to sit back and watch ya'll suffer? See the mentality and he hypocrisy? People really need to break away from the media and think on theyre own.
The UN does not neccsarily reflect the world's interests. Just like leaders act according to their own will, so does the UN. The world doesnt necessarily "hate" America because America meddles in the affairs of other nations. Remember the reason why America went in? Bush recieved reports from the CIA that Saddam had WMD's and were pointing them towards Israel and America. The information was correct, but Saddam smuggled them out with the help of the Russians. Why hasnt the rest of the world heard this? Because of the mainstream media. The other country's media hates on America giving them higher ratings and creates world wide dissension. There is no reason for the "rest of the world" to hate America. Seriously, do people in Spain, France and other European countries really have ANY reason to hate America? No. Why do they hate American citizens? We are human just like you - the sad part is, the media paints and covers Americans to depict them as arrogant idiots. Ive watched a few Spanish and French movies, and the Americans are usually shown as arrogant, rich, and sometimes even cruel. Hardly the reality of the average American citizen. America the country helps countries in need so many times, and with such generosity. America extents its hand *countless* times and in general supports the rest of the world. Instead, the world hates the image of America - the image painted by the media. Of course, I'm sure this post will be ignored like so many others that actually have a bit of reason in them, so I wont bother elaborating. Its sad to see people hating on America so much, but if America stopped its foreign relations and reverted back to some sort of non-interventionalism, the rest of the world would probably go backwards a little, and then cry, saying "Oh no, America left us, now theyre being buttholes again!" Okay, so what do they want: America to help, or America to sit back and watch ya'll suffer? See the mentality and he hypocrisy? People really need to break away from the media and think on theyre own.
The treatment of Australian citizens in Gitmo is pretty good reason for Australians to be pissed off at Americans.
I would expect the same thing to be reciprocated if the tables were turned.
Just like America gets pissed off when Iraqi militants behead American Citizens.
Its not the same thing. So Australian citizens are mistreated at the hands of American soldiers. That does not give you any reason to hate America itself. Hate the American soldiers that did it, but dont bring your beef over to hate America.
Its the same thing with these Iraqi militants. Just because they beheaded American citizens doesnt mean we hate Iraq. Thats hardly the case, and a very narrow minded view of how global social aspects work.
The UN does not neccsarily reflect the world's interests. Just like leaders act according to their own will, so does the UN. The world doesnt necessarily "hate" America because America meddles in the affairs of other nations. Remember the reason why America went in? Bush recieved reports from the CIA that Saddam had WMD's and were pointing them towards Israel and America. The information was correct, but Saddam smuggled them out with the help of the Russians. Why hasnt the rest of the world heard this? Because of the mainstream media. The other country's media hates on America giving them higher ratings and creates world wide dissension. There is no reason for the "rest of the world" to hate America. Seriously, do people in Spain, France and other European countries really have ANY reason to hate America? No. Why do they hate American citizens? We are human just like you - the sad part is, the media paints and covers Americans to depict them as arrogant idiots. Ive watched a few Spanish and French movies, and the Americans are usually shown as arrogant, rich, and sometimes even cruel. Hardly the reality of the average American citizen. America the country helps countries in need so many times, and with such generosity. America extents its hand *countless* times and in general supports the rest of the world. Instead, the world hates the image of America - the image painted by the media. Of course, I'm sure this post will be ignored like so many others that actually have a bit of reason in them, so I wont bother elaborating. Its sad to see people hating on America so much, but if America stopped its foreign relations and reverted back to some sort of non-interventionalism, the rest of the world would probably go backwards a little, and then cry, saying "Oh no, America left us, now theyre being buttholes again!" Okay, so what do they want: America to help, or America to sit back and watch ya'll suffer? See the mentality and he hypocrisy? People really need to break away from the media and think on theyre own.
The treatment of Australian citizens in Gitmo is pretty good reason for Australians to be pissed off at Americans.
I would expect the same thing to be reciprocated if the tables were turned.
Just like America gets pissed off when Iraqi militants behead American Citizens.
Its not the same thing. So Australian citizens are mistreated at the hands of American soldiers. That does not give you any reason to hate America itself. Hate the American soldiers that did it, but dont bring your beef over to hate America.
Its the same thing with these Iraqi militants. Just because they beheaded American citizens doesnt mean we hate Iraq. Thats hardly the case, and a very narrow minded view of how global social aspects work.
It is the American Government who has created Gitmo, not the soldiers who work there.
It is the American Government who has authorised the use of waterboarding, and the American citizen who try to tell me that it is a necessity to save lives. That is who i am offended with.
And you think all the other governments are spic and span? You think the French or the Spanish or the English governments dont have their own forms of torture? Dont be so naive - please dont. Every government has their own gashes, and their own blemishes. Each government has their own way of interrogation. The government doesnt control the minds of soldiers working under its command, and I highy doubt the intent of the American government was to piss off Austrailians.
Oh and uhh, by the way, unless you can give proof that an American citizen told you that, dont even bother bringing up the last part of your argument. And even if one person did, that does not reflect the entire will of the American population. Most of the American population is also appalled at Gitmo - do you really think we dont care? How narrow minded. Such a shame.
And last time I checked, its a humanitarian value to save lives. But I guess that'll fall on deaf ears, too.
The UN does not neccsarily reflect the world's interests. Just like leaders act according to their own will, so does the UN. The world doesnt necessarily "hate" America because America meddles in the affairs of other nations. Remember the reason why America went in? Bush recieved reports from the CIA that Saddam had WMD's and were pointing them towards Israel and America. The information was correct, but Saddam smuggled them out with the help of the Russians. Why hasnt the rest of the world heard this? Because of the mainstream media. The other country's media hates on America giving them higher ratings and creates world wide dissension. There is no reason for the "rest of the world" to hate America. Seriously, do people in Spain, France and other European countries really have ANY reason to hate America? No. Why do they hate American citizens? We are human just like you - the sad part is, the media paints and covers Americans to depict them as arrogant idiots. Ive watched a few Spanish and French movies, and the Americans are usually shown as arrogant, rich, and sometimes even cruel. Hardly the reality of the average American citizen. America the country helps countries in need so many times, and with such generosity. America extents its hand *countless* times and in general supports the rest of the world. Instead, the world hates the image of America - the image painted by the media. Of course, I'm sure this post will be ignored like so many others that actually have a bit of reason in them, so I wont bother elaborating. Its sad to see people hating on America so much, but if America stopped its foreign relations and reverted back to some sort of non-interventionalism, the rest of the world would probably go backwards a little, and then cry, saying "Oh no, America left us, now theyre being buttholes again!" Okay, so what do they want: America to help, or America to sit back and watch ya'll suffer? See the mentality and he hypocrisy? People really need to break away from the media and think on theyre own.
The treatment of Australian citizens in Gitmo is pretty good reason for Australians to be pissed off at Americans.
I would expect the same thing to be reciprocated if the tables were turned.
Just like America gets pissed off when Iraqi militants behead American Citizens.
Its not the same thing. So Australian citizens are mistreated at the hands of American soldiers. That does not give you any reason to hate America itself. Hate the American soldiers that did it, but dont bring your beef over to hate America.
Its the same thing with these Iraqi militants. Just because they beheaded American citizens doesnt mean we hate Iraq. Thats hardly the case, and a very narrow minded view of how global social aspects work.
It is the American Government who has created Gitmo, not the soldiers who work there.
It is the American Government who has authorised the use of waterboarding, and the American citizen who try to tell me that it is a necessity to save lives. That is who i am offended with.
And you think all the other governments are spic and span? You think the French or the Spanish or the English governments dont have their own forms of torture? Dont be so naive - please dont. Every government has their own gashes, and their own blemishes. Each government has their own way of interrogation. The government doesnt control the minds of soldiers working under its command, and I highy doubt the intent of the American government was to piss off Austrailians.
Oh and uhh, by the way, unless you can give proof that an American citizen told you that, dont even bother bringing up the last part of your argument. And even if one person did, that does not reflect the entire will of the American population. Most of the American population is also appalled at Gitmo - do you really think we dont care? How narrow minded. Such a shame.
And last time I checked, its a humanitarian value to save lives. But I guess that'll fall on deaf ears, too.
I was furoius at my government treatment of the Children Overboard scandal. I stil am. The American government seems to be the only ones trying to justify their treatments though. Even though it wasnt their intent, they have made no amends to try and remedy the admitted problem.
As fo the proof, there are dozens for threads in this very forum that say that torture saved lived, there was even a comic stating the same that was posted on these boards. The proof is for you to find. I am not going to love all Americans because some think Gitmo is a problem, but you dont even seem to hold your own argument to such requirements.
The saving of lives is the primary concern of Humanitarians, ALL lives.
Lets say that there are "dozens of threads" on these forums that said that the torture saved lives. Maybe it did? Torture, whether humanitarian or not, does provide useful information, useful information that - when learned - may indeed save lives. There is something you have to give and take when defending your country's interests. You dont have to love all Americans, but you dont have to hate them either. Again, its more or less the image that has been created for you through the media. But honestly, does the average American citizen really support such ruthless activities? Not necessarily.
The UN does not neccsarily reflect the world's interests. Just like leaders act according to their own will, so does the UN. The world doesnt necessarily "hate" America because America meddles in the affairs of other nations. Remember the reason why America went in? Bush recieved reports from the CIA that Saddam had WMD's and were pointing them towards Israel and America. The information was correct, but Saddam smuggled them out with the help of the Russians. Why hasnt the rest of the world heard this? Because of the mainstream media. The other country's media hates on America giving them higher ratings and creates world wide dissension. There is no reason for the "rest of the world" to hate America. Seriously, do people in Spain, France and other European countries really have ANY reason to hate America? No. Why do they hate American citizens? We are human just like you - the sad part is, the media paints and covers Americans to depict them as arrogant idiots. Ive watched a few Spanish and French movies, and the Americans are usually shown as arrogant, rich, and sometimes even cruel. Hardly the reality of the average American citizen. America the country helps countries in need so many times, and with such generosity. America extents its hand *countless* times and in general supports the rest of the world. Instead, the world hates the image of America - the image painted by the media. Of course, I'm sure this post will be ignored like so many others that actually have a bit of reason in them, so I wont bother elaborating. Its sad to see people hating on America so much, but if America stopped its foreign relations and reverted back to some sort of non-interventionalism, the rest of the world would probably go backwards a little, and then cry, saying "Oh no, America left us, now theyre being buttholes again!" Okay, so what do they want: America to help, or America to sit back and watch ya'll suffer? See the mentality and he hypocrisy? People really need to break away from the media and think on theyre own.
The treatment of Australian citizens in Gitmo is pretty good reason for Australians to be pissed off at Americans.
I would expect the same thing to be reciprocated if the tables were turned.
Just like America gets pissed off when Iraqi militants behead American Citizens.
Its not the same thing. So Australian citizens are mistreated at the hands of American soldiers. That does not give you any reason to hate America itself. Hate the American soldiers that did it, but dont bring your beef over to hate America.
Its the same thing with these Iraqi militants. Just because they beheaded American citizens doesnt mean we hate Iraq. Thats hardly the case, and a very narrow minded view of how global social aspects work.
It is the American Government who has created Gitmo, not the soldiers who work there.
It is the American Government who has authorised the use of waterboarding, and the American citizen who try to tell me that it is a necessity to save lives. That is who i am offended with.
And you think all the other governments are spic and span? You think the French or the Spanish or the English governments dont have their own forms of torture? Dont be so naive - please dont. Every government has their own gashes, and their own blemishes. Each government has their own way of interrogation. The government doesnt control the minds of soldiers working under its command, and I highy doubt the intent of the American government was to piss off Austrailians.
Oh and uhh, by the way, unless you can give proof that an American citizen told you that, dont even bother bringing up the last part of your argument. And even if one person did, that does not reflect the entire will of the American population. Most of the American population is also appalled at Gitmo - do you really think we dont care? How narrow minded. Such a shame.
And last time I checked, its a humanitarian value to save lives. But I guess that'll fall on deaf ears, too.
I was furoius at my government treatment of the Children Overboard scandal. I stil am. The American government seems to be the only ones trying to justify their treatments though. Even though it wasnt their intent, they have made no amends to try and remedy the admitted problem.
As fo the proof, there are dozens for threads in this very forum that say that torture saved lived, there was even a comic stating the same that was posted on these boards. The proof is for you to find. I am not going to love all Americans because some think Gitmo is a problem, but you dont even seem to hold your own argument to such requirements.
The saving of lives is the primary concern of Humanitarians, ALL lives.
Lets say that there are "dozens of threads" on these forums that said that the torture saved lives. Maybe it did? Torture, whether humanitarian or not, does provide useful information, useful information that - when learned - may indeed save lives. There is something you have to give and take when defending your country's interests. You dont have to love all Americans, but you dont have to hate them either. Again, its more or less the image that has been created for you through the media. But honestly, does the average American citizen really support such ruthless activities? Not necessarily.
Scientific Studies show that that is not actually the case. Torturig does not produce useful or reliable information.
Well this I gotta see. Throw some links to these "scientific studies", because the only way you could "scientifically study" the effects of torture would be to torture someone.
As for waterboarding, it's been around since as early as the Inquisitions. The Cambodian and Vietnamese both practiced it, and probably still do.
And waterboarding does not compare to sawing a living persons' head off with dull fricken' knives in front of cameras ( there's the damn media again ) so that the victims' families and every sicko on the net can watch.
Also, waterboarding has a hell of a less death toll than beheading. Neither one is acceptable to me, but don't try to compare to different things = torture for info (waterboarding) against toture for death of the victim, suffering for the victims families, and the gratification of religious nutjobs ( beheading).
Well this I gotta see. Throw some links to these "scientific studies", because the only way you could "scientifically study" the effects of torture would be to torture someone.
As for waterboarding, it's been around since as early as the Inquisitions. The Cambodian and Vietnamese both practiced it, and probably still do.
And waterboarding does not compare to sawing a living persons' head off with dull fricken' knives in front of cameras ( there's the damn media again ) so that the victims' families and every sicko on the net can watch.
Also, waterboarding has a hell of a less death toll than beheading. Neither one is acceptable to me, but don't try to compare to different things = torture for info (waterboarding) against toture for death of the victim, suffering for the victims families, and the gratification of religious nutjobs ( beheading).
Beheading is not torture as it does not hope to garner any usefull information (You do understand basic biology dont you no head == cant talk) It is murder.
Regardless of the comparisions, it is still cruel and unusual.
Really? So if someone is beheading you slowly, you wouldn't consider it torture? While your family and friends are forced to watch it on t.v./the web? That wouldn't be torture to you?
Let's examinr the definition of torture:
Noun
Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment orcoercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain;agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.
So, you don't consider beheading torture, huh?
You do understand basic biology, don't you? Panic, fright, pain?
Edit: nice links. While the first one has at least some credibilty, the second is a study done by an economics professor. Hardly an expert on torture.
Well this I gotta see. Throw some links to these "scientific studies", because the only way you could "scientifically study" the effects of torture would be to torture someone.
As for waterboarding, it's been around since as early as the Inquisitions. The Cambodian and Vietnamese both practiced it, and probably still do.
And waterboarding does not compare to sawing a living persons' head off with dull fricken' knives in front of cameras ( there's the damn media again ) so that the victims' families and every sicko on the net can watch.
Also, waterboarding has a hell of a less death toll than beheading. Neither one is acceptable to me, but don't try to compare to different things = torture for info (waterboarding) against toture for death of the victim, suffering for the victims families, and the gratification of religious nutjobs ( beheading).
Beheading is not torture as it does not hope to garner any usefull information (You do understand basic biology dont you no head == cant talk) It is murder.
Regardless of the comparisions, it is still cruel and unusual.
Really? So if someone is beheading you slowly, you wouldn't consider it torture? While your family and friends are forced to watch it on t.v./the web? That wouldn't be torture to you?
Let's examinr the definition of torture:
Noun
Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment orcoercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain;agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.
So, you don't consider beheading torture, huh?
You do understand basic biology, don't you? Panic, fright, pain?
Edit: nice links. While the first one has at least some credibilty, the second is a study done by an economics professor. Hardly an expert on torture.
Fair enough, i can understand your definition of torture. I will concede that point.
See how easy it is to do when faced with evidence on the contrary to your own?
I hardly consider you an expert on torture either.
I never claimed to be, and wouldn't want to be. Again, you'd have to BE a torturer to be a torture expert. And unless that economics teacher has some awfully strange hobbies after school, he's not either. That was my point.
Well this I gotta see. Throw some links to these "scientific studies", because the only way you could "scientifically study" the effects of torture would be to torture someone.
As for waterboarding, it's been around since as early as the Inquisitions. The Cambodian and Vietnamese both practiced it, and probably still do.
And waterboarding does not compare to sawing a living persons' head off with dull fricken' knives in front of cameras ( there's the damn media again ) so that the victims' families and every sicko on the net can watch.
Also, waterboarding has a hell of a less death toll than beheading. Neither one is acceptable to me, but don't try to compare to different things = torture for info (waterboarding) against toture for death of the victim, suffering for the victims families, and the gratification of religious nutjobs ( beheading).
Beheading is not torture as it does not hope to garner any usefull information (You do understand basic biology dont you no head == cant talk) It is murder.
Regardless of the comparisions, it is still cruel and unusual.
Really? So if someone is beheading you slowly, you wouldn't consider it torture? While your family and friends are forced to watch it on t.v./the web? That wouldn't be torture to you?
Let's examinr the definition of torture:
Noun
Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment orcoercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain;agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.
So, you don't consider beheading torture, huh?
You do understand basic biology, don't you? Panic, fright, pain?
Edit: nice links. While the first one has at least some credibilty, the second is a study done by an economics professor. Hardly an expert on torture.
Fair enough, i can understand your definition of torture. I will concede that point.
See how easy it is to do when faced with evidence on the contrary to your own?
I hardly consider you an expert on torture either.
I never claimed to be, and wouldn't want to be. Again, you'd have to BE a torturer to be a torture expert. And unless that economics teacher has some awfully strange hobbies after school, he's not either. That was my point.
By the way it is that basic biology of "panic, fright and pain" that makes torture entirely useless as a information/intelligence gathering device.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Unless you are highly trained to resist torture, the slightest hope of release would make the average Joe talk.
As for the other study you linked, it is more credible in the fact it has people involved who did the actual torturing. However, that is also what discredits it's findings.
No government ( yours, mine, or anyone else) will ever admit the truth on how many people were tortured by their order or in their name, and they would therefore also never allow the knowledge of who talked and who didn't to become known. Therefore, even though the people involved in the study were torturers themselves, their numbers would be inherently inaccurate to protect their individual countries. Otherwise, you would be able to say " Torturer number one stated 5,000 people were tortured under him and 3,565 talked/didn't talk" thusly providing numbers to use against those governments. Therefore, the torturers would not have given accurate numbers/statistics, subsequently the data is flawed from the get go.
Science is based on facts. "He said/she said this amount of people" is not facts, it's hearsay. So they would have to show official documentation of each and every torture in order to accurately identify their claims as facts. Again, something they would be unable to do.
I think i have to agree to part your argument. I have never spoken to anyone in the military or out that agrees that physical torture is useful at all. I have spoken to Military people who's job it is to interrogate people and they see no use for tourture at all except maybe to be sadistic or for some sick personal pleasure , those types usually cant get a clearace to do it anyway. Its always some low-end thug like guards i think.
Like that case where they were leading prisoners naked on dog leashes to their cells ... those soldiers went to jail , I think every american was sick ,when they saw the photo's. And rightly so.
There is no point to touture .. i think the real argument is WHO defines torture.
is keeping a guy awake for 27 hours in a room while you shout questions at him torture?
what if doing that saves 1000 lives? what if one of those 1000 is your daughter?
according to that posted definition putting a criminal in a cell IS ( no way around it, it is) torture.
A basic police questioning is also torture by that definition.
as the word severe is a one of personal perception,
sitting thru "the notebook" with my wife also qualifies as torture.
So who gets to say what is acceptable or what isnt? where is the line drawn ?
but to get back on topic why are you worried about how we treat prisoners in a prison where most of them are alive , fed, and are in no danger of dying ,when as the topic says people are using machete's on babies in africa? is your hatred for the US so strong that you use it to shield you from having to face real issues in the world that you CAN do something about , you just dont want to?
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Well this I gotta see. Throw some links to these "scientific studies", because the only way you could "scientifically study" the effects of torture would be to torture someone.
As for waterboarding, it's been around since as early as the Inquisitions. The Cambodian and Vietnamese both practiced it, and probably still do.
And waterboarding does not compare to sawing a living persons' head off with dull fricken' knives in front of cameras ( there's the damn media again ) so that the victims' families and every sicko on the net can watch.
Also, waterboarding has a hell of a less death toll than beheading. Neither one is acceptable to me, but don't try to compare to different things = torture for info (waterboarding) against toture for death of the victim, suffering for the victims families, and the gratification of religious nutjobs ( beheading).
Beheading is not torture as it does not hope to garner any usefull information (You do understand basic biology dont you no head == cant talk) It is murder.
Regardless of the comparisions, it is still cruel and unusual.
Really? So if someone is beheading you slowly, you wouldn't consider it torture? While your family and friends are forced to watch it on t.v./the web? That wouldn't be torture to you?
Let's examinr the definition of torture:
Noun
Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment orcoercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain;agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.
So, you don't consider beheading torture, huh?
You do understand basic biology, don't you? Panic, fright, pain?
Edit: nice links. While the first one has at least some credibilty, the second is a study done by an economics professor. Hardly an expert on torture.
Fair enough, i can understand your definition of torture. I will concede that point.
See how easy it is to do when faced with evidence on the contrary to your own?
I hardly consider you an expert on torture either.
I never claimed to be, and wouldn't want to be. Again, you'd have to BE a torturer to be a torture expert. And unless that economics teacher has some awfully strange hobbies after school, he's not either. That was my point.
By the way it is that basic biology of "panic, fright and pain" that makes torture entirely useless as a information/intelligence gathering device.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Unless you are highly trained to resist torture, the slightest hope of release would make the average Joe talk.
As for the other study you linked, it is more credible in the fact it has people involved who did the actual torturing. However, that is also what discredits it's findings.
No government ( yours, mine, or anyone else) will ever admit the truth on how many people were tortured by their order or in their name, and they would therefore also never allow the knowledge of who talked and who didn't to become known. Therefore, even though the people involved in the study were torturers themselves, their numbers would be inherently inaccurate to protect their individual countries. Otherwise, you would be able to say " Torturer number one stated 5,000 people were tortured under him and 3,565 talked/didn't talk" thusly providing numbers to use against those governments. Therefore, the torturers would not have given accurate numbers/statistics, subsequently the data is flawed from the get go.
Science is based on facts. "He said/she said this amount of people" is not facts, it's hearsay. So they would have to show official documentation of each and every torture in order to accurately identify their claims as facts. Again, something they would be unable to do.
For these very same reasons torture is not an effective tool.
There is a assumption that the person being tortured has worthy and truthful information. If this assumption is wrong and torture continues he may talk and give them any information the torturer wants to hear out of hope of the torture stopping. Any information gained by the torturer is tainted from the very get go by this possibly baseless asumption.
Ah, but it depends on the tortured. If you torture Joe Blow off the street, you will probably get nothing because he knows nothing. However, if you torture the guy who runs the chemical factory, and throw in a few threats to his wife/children ( your wife picks the kids up at ABC school at 3p.m., wouldn't want them to drive off that cliff in the way back home, would you?), you are almost certain to get the codes for entry. And for the most part, the people in charge of getting the info find out who would have the info BEFORE they bring them in for torture. Therefore, the combination of intel and torture raises the success rate dramatically
Ah, but it depends on the tortured. If you torture Joe Blow off the street, you will probably get nothing because he knows nothing. However, if you torture the guy who runs the chemical factory, and throw in a few threats to his wife/children ( your wife picks the kids up at ABC school at 3p.m., wouldn't want them to drive off that cliff in the way back home, would you?), you are almost certain to get the codes for entry. And for the most part, the people in charge of getting the info find out who would have the info BEFORE they bring them in for torture. Therefore, the combination of intel and torture raises the success rate dramatically
This assumes guilt on behlaf of the Chemical Factory worker.
If this is not the case you have the same response as Joe Blow down the street. Then you are left with dubious information once again.
Come on, Nasica. Don't just throw out answers, actually read what I posted. Intel ( a.k.a. gathering info ) tells them he runs the factory they want into. Therefore, if he runsthe factory, he knows the codes, therefore his "guilt" as you call it is there.
The point here is that "blind" torture ( hoping you have the right guy with info you need ) will likely have a high chance of failure. "Informed" torture ( knowing everything about your targets position in regards to the info you need ) has a high chance of succeeding. Throwing in the family threat ( and maybe even grabbing his kid to show him beforehand ) has a guaranteed success rate, unless the guy would rather watch his kid die than give up info ( which if that's the case, the guy should be killed whether he talks or not anyway ).
Tied up cop: "I don't know anything. Torture me all you want."
Gangster: "Torture you. Hmm. Thats a good idea, I like that. I don't really care what you know."
LOL anyone remember Resevoir Dogs?
Point is, you don't always have to have a reason to torture people. You can just do it for kicks, if you can get away with it. Why not, it's only people. We can make more if we need them.
BTW Nasica, look on the bright side. Genocide helps the environment.
Ah, but it depends on the tortured. If you torture Joe Blow off the street, you will probably get nothing because he knows nothing. However, if you torture the guy who runs the chemical factory, and throw in a few threats to his wife/children ( your wife picks the kids up at ABC school at 3p.m., wouldn't want them to drive off that cliff in the way back home, would you?), you are almost certain to get the codes for entry. And for the most part, the people in charge of getting the info find out who would have the info BEFORE they bring them in for torture. Therefore, the combination of intel and torture raises the success rate dramatically
This assumes guilt on behlaf of the Chemical Factory worker.
If this is not the case you have the same response as Joe Blow down the street. Then you are left with dubious information once again.
Come on, Nasica. Don't just throw out answers, actually read what I posted. Intel ( a.k.a. gathering info ) tells them he runs the factory they want into. Therefore, if he runsthe factory, he knows the codes, therefore his "guilt" as you call it is there.
The point here is that "blind" torture ( hoping you have the right guy with info you need ) will likely have a high chance of failure. "Informed" torture ( knowing everything about your targets position in regards to the info you need ) has a high chance of succeeding. Throwing in the family threat ( and maybe even grabbing his kid to show him beforehand ) has a guaranteed success rate, unless the guy would rather watch his kid die than give up info ( which if that's the case, the guy should be killed whether he talks or not anyway ).
I remember Bill Clinton launching weapons at factories that intelligence was sure had something nasty in it(look bluberryhaze, im insulting democrats for stupidity as well) ended up being Asprin. Intelligence really is a loose definition when it comes to the CIA unfortunatly.
The point being is that there is a assumption of guilt being made this is why we have the presumption of innocence and the system of blind justice.
We're supposed to be discussing tactics used for success/failure at using torture for information, and you keep bringing up guilt and innocence. It's like I'm trying to have a conversation with two people at once, and one of them doesn't even know the topic.
Ah, but it depends on the tortured. If you torture Joe Blow off the street, you will probably get nothing because he knows nothing. However, if you torture the guy who runs the chemical factory, and throw in a few threats to his wife/children ( your wife picks the kids up at ABC school at 3p.m., wouldn't want them to drive off that cliff in the way back home, would you?), you are almost certain to get the codes for entry. And for the most part, the people in charge of getting the info find out who would have the info BEFORE they bring them in for torture. Therefore, the combination of intel and torture raises the success rate dramatically
This assumes guilt on behlaf of the Chemical Factory worker.
If this is not the case you have the same response as Joe Blow down the street. Then you are left with dubious information once again.
Come on, Nasica. Don't just throw out answers, actually read what I posted. Intel ( a.k.a. gathering info ) tells them he runs the factory they want into. Therefore, if he runsthe factory, he knows the codes, therefore his "guilt" as you call it is there.
The point here is that "blind" torture ( hoping you have the right guy with info you need ) will likely have a high chance of failure. "Informed" torture ( knowing everything about your targets position in regards to the info you need ) has a high chance of succeeding. Throwing in the family threat ( and maybe even grabbing his kid to show him beforehand ) has a guaranteed success rate, unless the guy would rather watch his kid die than give up info ( which if that's the case, the guy should be killed whether he talks or not anyway ).
I remember Bill Clinton launching weapons at factories that intelligence was sure had something nasty in it(look bluberryhaze, im insulting democrats for stupidity as well) ended up being Asprin. Intelligence really is a loose definition when it comes to the CIA unfortunatly.
The point being is that there is a assumption of guilt being made this is why we have the presumption of innocence and the system of blind justice.
We're supposed to be discussing tactics used for success/failure at using torture for information, and you keep bringing up guilt and innocence. It's like I'm trying to have a conversation with two people at once, and one of them doesn't even know the topic.
Well, i would assume, torturing the innocent is rather futile.
And considering that we have a system of innocent to proven guilty, then i really dont understand what you are getting at.
I am showing that torture does not produce results. No information is far better than disinformation, one only needs to look at Operation Mincemeat to understand the power of disinformation. Making people squeel untill the divulge information that may or may not be true is entirely unnecessary.
And you're assuming that every country and/or every terrorist organization out there is a.) clueless on how to gather correct intel and b.) have a system of innocent until proven guilty? Furthermore, the scenario I laid out has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. It could be a group of terrorist wanting access to a nuclear reactor, or a gang of hoodlums wanting the store safe combo and they could get it using the way I described. They don't care if you're innocent or guilty, they care if you know the damn combo. If your basing your opinion of whether torture works or not based on civilized laws or some form of inherent ethics, you really need to rethink that.
Under a "24 hour" scenario (doomsday - time critical) and if you are fairly confident your "subject" has the info (had prior intell on the guy) then maybe you can justify the use of torture. However, that TV situation simply doesn't play out in the real world often.
When you consider the moral / ethical implications of torture, its affect on the tortured / torturer, the loss of morale authority, the increased chance of public sentiment turning against you, and the fact that the information can be unreliable and requires a great deal of verification then in my opinion it simply isn't worth it to use. This is especially true considering that normal interogation techniques, spy networks (paid informats) all provide more accurate information with-out the negatives.
Jack Bauer Always got the truth out of the bad guys!
What I think...is probably not important, but ill fire it away anyhows.
The US, at this stage in the 'war on terror', probably have some info that can be cross-checked and verified, to see if the 'subject' is being honest. something, perhaps that study was lacking. Im also sure we know how to operate a torture session. We know the pyscology of this enemy and just asking questions without some sort of pyscological breakdown will absolutely yield nothing.
like i said, xchecked and verified.. the martydom types are not resistant to pyscological warfare. I think it makes more sense than to do nothing get nothing. somethings will yield results. from my POV, human rights included, people like this are the scourge of civilization. some people argue its the way they were born and bred, lifestyle, no choice for them...hijacked religion.
Jack Bauer Always got the truth out of the bad guys!
What I think...is probably not important, but ill fire it away anyhows. The US, at this stage in the 'war on terror', probably have some info that can be cross-checked and verified, to see if the 'subject' is being honest. something, perhaps that study was lacking. Im also sure we know how to operate a torture session. We know the pyscology of this enemy and just asking questions without some sort of pyscological breakdown will absolutely yield nothing.
You dont see how threatening death to an extremist who believes in martydom may be entirely useless,
or even dangerous to our own intellegence efforts ?
Having no fear of death and being an extremist doesn't make one immune to torture. It isn't about "death" but about stopping the pain.
the above question was more rhetorical than anything.
however, i just woke up from an envigorating nap and Ill pose this question.
Why is it 'right' to drop a 10 ton bomb on a al quada leader but wrong to use some 'torture'(subjective word of course) methods that will save innocent lives?
the above question was more rhetorical than anything. however, i just woke up from an envigorating nap and Ill pose this question. Why is it 'right' to drop a 10 ton bomb on a al quada leader but wrong to use some 'torture'(subjective word of course) methods that will save innocent lives?
Thats quite a simple question to answer, and one i have laready answered before
The Geneva Convention
The Human Right Agreement
The Laws of Armed Conflict
Didnt i see you complaining about ILLEGAL immigrants before? Whats wrong with ILLEGAL immigrants if you dont follow the LEGALITIES of war ?
One rule for one, another for everyone else.
Illegal immigrants will cost me money presently and in the future. they are a threat to my soveriegn homeland.
back to the subject- well, it is my opinion that people that dig for loopholes have very little humanity left in them. I know whats fair game in this game we call life. you have your opinion and I have mine. I do stress, and i dont know why, im referring to pyscological 'torture' , as i see that being more productive than fingernail stuff.
Comments
Excellent post. It seems to be a situation like "damned if you do, damned if you don't". It's pretty sad too.
agreed.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
Gotta say, if anyone studied the history of colonization seriously, they'd realize that the only shocking thing about the Nazis was that they killed EUROPEANS. Other than that, Nazi ethics were the dominating form of management for the European powers. Spain and the americas, Britain and India, USA and the Native Americans, and EVERYONE on Africa (the true scale of the African genocides is staggering). Even Turkey got in on the action. Though they're too stupid to realize that to be an EU member you can't restrict speech about it, you have to just handwave it and ignore it whenever it comes up. Its always shocked me that that's a bar for EU membership, the EU basically reads like a laundry list of countries with century-old atrocities.
The truly sick part is that most Europeans think that they were somehow HELPING. At least America accepts that we systemically hunted down and killed the Native Americans.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Excellent post. It seems to be a situation like "damned if you do, damned if you don't". It's pretty sad too.
We dont want America to do anything, that is the entire problem with the Iraqi war. They went in there without the approval of the UN, and are now flaunting the laws of the UN that they signed and agreed to.
If it truely is a peace-keeping force, why not put the blue armband on?
This is a world wide community, not Americas playground, is it really that hard to understand that going into war without the approval of the world is going to piss off the world ?
SO why doesnt the UN go into africa they already got the blue armband.
oh yeah its the UN ,they have only what they are given( mostly by the US) and most americans know the world pissed at us and dont really feel the desire to do what a bunch of pissed off peolpe want us to do especially when the guys who already have the blue armbands are too lazy to go themselves.
I have never in history seen a nation needing( or even caring about) UN approval to look out for their own self interest. Why start demanding it now?
you advocate that no country have any direct control over looking out for itself , so give up yours 1st , bow down entirely to the UN and its desires .with the rest of the world approving. The world does not like the US and hasnt except for that brief time after WWII so how can we trust the woprld to take our national interests seriiously?
will finish later got to go ...
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
The UN does not neccsarily reflect the world's interests. Just like leaders act according to their own will, so does the UN. The world doesnt necessarily "hate" America because America meddles in the affairs of other nations. Remember the reason why America went in? Bush recieved reports from the CIA that Saddam had WMD's and were pointing them towards Israel and America. The information was correct, but Saddam smuggled them out with the help of the Russians.
Why hasnt the rest of the world heard this? Because of the mainstream media. The other country's media hates on America giving them higher ratings and creates world wide dissension. There is no reason for the "rest of the world" to hate America. Seriously, do people in Spain, France and other European countries really have ANY reason to hate America? No. Why do they hate American citizens? We are human just like you - the sad part is, the media paints and covers Americans to depict them as arrogant idiots. Ive watched a few Spanish and French movies, and the Americans are usually shown as arrogant, rich, and sometimes even cruel. Hardly the reality of the average American citizen. America the country helps countries in need so many times, and with such generosity. America extents its hand *countless* times and in general supports the rest of the world. Instead, the world hates the image of America - the image painted by the media. Of course, I'm sure this post will be ignored like so many others that actually have a bit of reason in them, so I wont bother elaborating.
Its sad to see people hating on America so much, but if America stopped its foreign relations and reverted back to some sort of non-interventionalism, the rest of the world would probably go backwards a little, and then cry, saying "Oh no, America left us, now theyre being buttholes again!" Okay, so what do they want: America to help, or America to sit back and watch ya'll suffer? See the mentality and he hypocrisy? People really need to break away from the media and think on theyre own.
The treatment of Australian citizens in Gitmo is pretty good reason for Australians to be pissed off at Americans.
I would expect the same thing to be reciprocated if the tables were turned.
Just like America gets pissed off when Iraqi militants behead American Citizens.
Its not the same thing. So Australian citizens are mistreated at the hands of American soldiers. That does not give you any reason to hate America itself. Hate the American soldiers that did it, but dont bring your beef over to hate America.
Its the same thing with these Iraqi militants. Just because they beheaded American citizens doesnt mean we hate Iraq. Thats hardly the case, and a very narrow minded view of how global social aspects work.
The treatment of Australian citizens in Gitmo is pretty good reason for Australians to be pissed off at Americans.
I would expect the same thing to be reciprocated if the tables were turned.
Just like America gets pissed off when Iraqi militants behead American Citizens.
Its not the same thing. So Australian citizens are mistreated at the hands of American soldiers. That does not give you any reason to hate America itself. Hate the American soldiers that did it, but dont bring your beef over to hate America.
Its the same thing with these Iraqi militants. Just because they beheaded American citizens doesnt mean we hate Iraq. Thats hardly the case, and a very narrow minded view of how global social aspects work.
It is the American Government who has created Gitmo, not the soldiers who work there.
It is the American Government who has authorised the use of waterboarding, and the American citizen who try to tell me that it is a necessity to save lives. That is who i am offended with.
And you think all the other governments are spic and span? You think the French or the Spanish or the English governments dont have their own forms of torture? Dont be so naive - please dont. Every government has their own gashes, and their own blemishes. Each government has their own way of interrogation. The government doesnt control the minds of soldiers working under its command, and I highy doubt the intent of the American government was to piss off Austrailians.
Oh and uhh, by the way, unless you can give proof that an American citizen told you that, dont even bother bringing up the last part of your argument. And even if one person did, that does not reflect the entire will of the American population. Most of the American population is also appalled at Gitmo - do you really think we dont care? How narrow minded. Such a shame.
And last time I checked, its a humanitarian value to save lives. But I guess that'll fall on deaf ears, too.
The treatment of Australian citizens in Gitmo is pretty good reason for Australians to be pissed off at Americans.
I would expect the same thing to be reciprocated if the tables were turned.
Just like America gets pissed off when Iraqi militants behead American Citizens.
Its not the same thing. So Australian citizens are mistreated at the hands of American soldiers. That does not give you any reason to hate America itself. Hate the American soldiers that did it, but dont bring your beef over to hate America.
Its the same thing with these Iraqi militants. Just because they beheaded American citizens doesnt mean we hate Iraq. Thats hardly the case, and a very narrow minded view of how global social aspects work.
It is the American Government who has created Gitmo, not the soldiers who work there.
It is the American Government who has authorised the use of waterboarding, and the American citizen who try to tell me that it is a necessity to save lives. That is who i am offended with.
And you think all the other governments are spic and span? You think the French or the Spanish or the English governments dont have their own forms of torture? Dont be so naive - please dont. Every government has their own gashes, and their own blemishes. Each government has their own way of interrogation. The government doesnt control the minds of soldiers working under its command, and I highy doubt the intent of the American government was to piss off Austrailians.
Oh and uhh, by the way, unless you can give proof that an American citizen told you that, dont even bother bringing up the last part of your argument. And even if one person did, that does not reflect the entire will of the American population. Most of the American population is also appalled at Gitmo - do you really think we dont care? How narrow minded. Such a shame.
And last time I checked, its a humanitarian value to save lives. But I guess that'll fall on deaf ears, too.
I was furoius at my government treatment of the Children Overboard scandal. I stil am. The American government seems to be the only ones trying to justify their treatments though. Even though it wasnt their intent, they have made no amends to try and remedy the admitted problem.As fo the proof, there are dozens for threads in this very forum that say that torture saved lived, there was even a comic stating the same that was posted on these boards. The proof is for you to find. I am not going to love all Americans because some think Gitmo is a problem, but you dont even seem to hold your own argument to such requirements.
The saving of lives is the primary concern of Humanitarians, ALL lives.
Lets say that there are "dozens of threads" on these forums that said that the torture saved lives. Maybe it did? Torture, whether humanitarian or not, does provide useful information, useful information that - when learned - may indeed save lives. There is something you have to give and take when defending your country's interests. You dont have to love all Americans, but you dont have to hate them either. Again, its more or less the image that has been created for you through the media. But honestly, does the average American citizen really support such ruthless activities? Not necessarily.
The treatment of Australian citizens in Gitmo is pretty good reason for Australians to be pissed off at Americans.
I would expect the same thing to be reciprocated if the tables were turned.
Just like America gets pissed off when Iraqi militants behead American Citizens.
Its not the same thing. So Australian citizens are mistreated at the hands of American soldiers. That does not give you any reason to hate America itself. Hate the American soldiers that did it, but dont bring your beef over to hate America.
Its the same thing with these Iraqi militants. Just because they beheaded American citizens doesnt mean we hate Iraq. Thats hardly the case, and a very narrow minded view of how global social aspects work.
It is the American Government who has created Gitmo, not the soldiers who work there.
It is the American Government who has authorised the use of waterboarding, and the American citizen who try to tell me that it is a necessity to save lives. That is who i am offended with.
And you think all the other governments are spic and span? You think the French or the Spanish or the English governments dont have their own forms of torture? Dont be so naive - please dont. Every government has their own gashes, and their own blemishes. Each government has their own way of interrogation. The government doesnt control the minds of soldiers working under its command, and I highy doubt the intent of the American government was to piss off Austrailians.
Oh and uhh, by the way, unless you can give proof that an American citizen told you that, dont even bother bringing up the last part of your argument. And even if one person did, that does not reflect the entire will of the American population. Most of the American population is also appalled at Gitmo - do you really think we dont care? How narrow minded. Such a shame.
And last time I checked, its a humanitarian value to save lives. But I guess that'll fall on deaf ears, too.
I was furoius at my government treatment of the Children Overboard scandal. I stil am. The American government seems to be the only ones trying to justify their treatments though. Even though it wasnt their intent, they have made no amends to try and remedy the admitted problem.As fo the proof, there are dozens for threads in this very forum that say that torture saved lived, there was even a comic stating the same that was posted on these boards. The proof is for you to find. I am not going to love all Americans because some think Gitmo is a problem, but you dont even seem to hold your own argument to such requirements.
The saving of lives is the primary concern of Humanitarians, ALL lives.
Lets say that there are "dozens of threads" on these forums that said that the torture saved lives. Maybe it did? Torture, whether humanitarian or not, does provide useful information, useful information that - when learned - may indeed save lives. There is something you have to give and take when defending your country's interests. You dont have to love all Americans, but you dont have to hate them either. Again, its more or less the image that has been created for you through the media. But honestly, does the average American citizen really support such ruthless activities? Not necessarily.
Scientific Studies show that that is not actually the case. Torturig does not produce useful or reliable information.
Well this I gotta see. Throw some links to these "scientific studies", because the only way you could "scientifically study" the effects of torture would be to torture someone.As for waterboarding, it's been around since as early as the Inquisitions. The Cambodian and Vietnamese both practiced it, and probably still do.
And waterboarding does not compare to sawing a living persons' head off with dull fricken' knives in front of cameras ( there's the damn media again ) so that the victims' families and every sicko on the net can watch.
Also, waterboarding has a hell of a less death toll than beheading. Neither one is acceptable to me, but don't try to compare to different things = torture for info (waterboarding) against toture for death of the victim, suffering for the victims families, and the gratification of religious nutjobs ( beheading).
Well this I gotta see. Throw some links to these "scientific studies", because the only way you could "scientifically study" the effects of torture would be to torture someone.As for waterboarding, it's been around since as early as the Inquisitions. The Cambodian and Vietnamese both practiced it, and probably still do.
And waterboarding does not compare to sawing a living persons' head off with dull fricken' knives in front of cameras ( there's the damn media again ) so that the victims' families and every sicko on the net can watch.
Also, waterboarding has a hell of a less death toll than beheading. Neither one is acceptable to me, but don't try to compare to different things = torture for info (waterboarding) against toture for death of the victim, suffering for the victims families, and the gratification of religious nutjobs ( beheading).
http://www.psysr.org/tortureseminar.htm
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/519416/
that took me a total of 2 seconds
Beheading is not torture as it does not hope to garner any usefull information (You do understand basic biology dont you no head == cant talk) It is murder.
Regardless of the comparisions, it is still cruel and unusual.
Really? So if someone is beheading you slowly, you wouldn't consider it torture? While your family and friends are forced to watch it on t.v./the web? That wouldn't be torture to you?
Let's examinr the definition of torture:
Noun
So, you don't consider beheading torture, huh?
You do understand basic biology, don't you? Panic, fright, pain?
Edit: nice links. While the first one has at least some credibilty, the second is a study done by an economics professor. Hardly an expert on torture.
As for waterboarding, it's been around since as early as the Inquisitions. The Cambodian and Vietnamese both practiced it, and probably still do.
And waterboarding does not compare to sawing a living persons' head off with dull fricken' knives in front of cameras ( there's the damn media again ) so that the victims' families and every sicko on the net can watch.
Also, waterboarding has a hell of a less death toll than beheading. Neither one is acceptable to me, but don't try to compare to different things = torture for info (waterboarding) against toture for death of the victim, suffering for the victims families, and the gratification of religious nutjobs ( beheading).
http://www.psysr.org/tortureseminar.htm
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/519416/
that took me a total of 2 seconds
Beheading is not torture as it does not hope to garner any usefull information (You do understand basic biology dont you no head == cant talk) It is murder.
Regardless of the comparisions, it is still cruel and unusual.
Really? So if someone is beheading you slowly, you wouldn't consider it torture? While your family and friends are forced to watch it on t.v./the web? That wouldn't be torture to you?
Let's examinr the definition of torture:
Noun
So, you don't consider beheading torture, huh?
You do understand basic biology, don't you? Panic, fright, pain?
Edit: nice links. While the first one has at least some credibilty, the second is a study done by an economics professor. Hardly an expert on torture.
Fair enough, i can understand your definition of torture. I will concede that point.
See how easy it is to do when faced with evidence on the contrary to your own?
I hardly consider you an expert on torture either.
I never claimed to be, and wouldn't want to be. Again, you'd have to BE a torturer to be a torture expert. And unless that economics teacher has some awfully strange hobbies after school, he's not either. That was my point.
Well this I gotta see. Throw some links to these "scientific studies", because the only way you could "scientifically study" the effects of torture would be to torture someone.As for waterboarding, it's been around since as early as the Inquisitions. The Cambodian and Vietnamese both practiced it, and probably still do.
And waterboarding does not compare to sawing a living persons' head off with dull fricken' knives in front of cameras ( there's the damn media again ) so that the victims' families and every sicko on the net can watch.
Also, waterboarding has a hell of a less death toll than beheading. Neither one is acceptable to me, but don't try to compare to different things = torture for info (waterboarding) against toture for death of the victim, suffering for the victims families, and the gratification of religious nutjobs ( beheading).
http://www.psysr.org/tortureseminar.htm
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/519416/
that took me a total of 2 seconds
Beheading is not torture as it does not hope to garner any usefull information (You do understand basic biology dont you no head == cant talk) It is murder.
Regardless of the comparisions, it is still cruel and unusual.
Really? So if someone is beheading you slowly, you wouldn't consider it torture? While your family and friends are forced to watch it on t.v./the web? That wouldn't be torture to you?
Let's examinr the definition of torture:
Noun
So, you don't consider beheading torture, huh?
You do understand basic biology, don't you? Panic, fright, pain?
Edit: nice links. While the first one has at least some credibilty, the second is a study done by an economics professor. Hardly an expert on torture.
Fair enough, i can understand your definition of torture. I will concede that point.
See how easy it is to do when faced with evidence on the contrary to your own?
I hardly consider you an expert on torture either.
I never claimed to be, and wouldn't want to be. Again, you'd have to BE a torturer to be a torture expert. And unless that economics teacher has some awfully strange hobbies after school, he's not either. That was my point.
By the way it is that basic biology of "panic, fright and pain" that makes torture entirely useless as a information/intelligence gathering device.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Unless you are highly trained to resist torture, the slightest hope of release would make the average Joe talk.
As for the other study you linked, it is more credible in the fact it has people involved who did the actual torturing. However, that is also what discredits it's findings.
No government ( yours, mine, or anyone else) will ever admit the truth on how many people were tortured by their order or in their name, and they would therefore also never allow the knowledge of who talked and who didn't to become known. Therefore, even though the people involved in the study were torturers themselves, their numbers would be inherently inaccurate to protect their individual countries. Otherwise, you would be able to say " Torturer number one stated 5,000 people were tortured under him and 3,565 talked/didn't talk" thusly providing numbers to use against those governments. Therefore, the torturers would not have given accurate numbers/statistics, subsequently the data is flawed from the get go.
Science is based on facts. "He said/she said this amount of people" is not facts, it's hearsay. So they would have to show official documentation of each and every torture in order to accurately identify their claims as facts. Again, something they would be unable to do.
I think i have to agree to part your argument. I have never spoken to anyone in the military or out that agrees that physical torture is useful at all. I have spoken to Military people who's job it is to interrogate people and they see no use for tourture at all except maybe to be sadistic or for some sick personal pleasure , those types usually cant get a clearace to do it anyway. Its always some low-end thug like guards i think.
Like that case where they were leading prisoners naked on dog leashes to their cells ... those soldiers went to jail , I think every american was sick ,when they saw the photo's. And rightly so.
There is no point to touture .. i think the real argument is WHO defines torture.
is keeping a guy awake for 27 hours in a room while you shout questions at him torture?
what if doing that saves 1000 lives? what if one of those 1000 is your daughter?
according to that posted definition putting a criminal in a cell IS ( no way around it, it is) torture.
A basic police questioning is also torture by that definition.
as the word severe is a one of personal perception,
sitting thru "the notebook" with my wife also qualifies as torture.
So who gets to say what is acceptable or what isnt? where is the line drawn ?
but to get back on topic why are you worried about how we treat prisoners in a prison where most of them are alive , fed, and are in no danger of dying ,when as the topic says people are using machete's on babies in africa? is your hatred for the US so strong that you use it to shield you from having to face real issues in the world that you CAN do something about , you just dont want to?
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
As for waterboarding, it's been around since as early as the Inquisitions. The Cambodian and Vietnamese both practiced it, and probably still do.
And waterboarding does not compare to sawing a living persons' head off with dull fricken' knives in front of cameras ( there's the damn media again ) so that the victims' families and every sicko on the net can watch.
Also, waterboarding has a hell of a less death toll than beheading. Neither one is acceptable to me, but don't try to compare to different things = torture for info (waterboarding) against toture for death of the victim, suffering for the victims families, and the gratification of religious nutjobs ( beheading).
http://www.psysr.org/tortureseminar.htm
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/519416/
that took me a total of 2 seconds
Beheading is not torture as it does not hope to garner any usefull information (You do understand basic biology dont you no head == cant talk) It is murder.
Regardless of the comparisions, it is still cruel and unusual.
Really? So if someone is beheading you slowly, you wouldn't consider it torture? While your family and friends are forced to watch it on t.v./the web? That wouldn't be torture to you?
Let's examinr the definition of torture:
Noun
So, you don't consider beheading torture, huh?
You do understand basic biology, don't you? Panic, fright, pain?
Edit: nice links. While the first one has at least some credibilty, the second is a study done by an economics professor. Hardly an expert on torture.
Fair enough, i can understand your definition of torture. I will concede that point.
See how easy it is to do when faced with evidence on the contrary to your own?
I hardly consider you an expert on torture either.
I never claimed to be, and wouldn't want to be. Again, you'd have to BE a torturer to be a torture expert. And unless that economics teacher has some awfully strange hobbies after school, he's not either. That was my point.
By the way it is that basic biology of "panic, fright and pain" that makes torture entirely useless as a information/intelligence gathering device.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Unless you are highly trained to resist torture, the slightest hope of release would make the average Joe talk.
As for the other study you linked, it is more credible in the fact it has people involved who did the actual torturing. However, that is also what discredits it's findings.
No government ( yours, mine, or anyone else) will ever admit the truth on how many people were tortured by their order or in their name, and they would therefore also never allow the knowledge of who talked and who didn't to become known. Therefore, even though the people involved in the study were torturers themselves, their numbers would be inherently inaccurate to protect their individual countries. Otherwise, you would be able to say " Torturer number one stated 5,000 people were tortured under him and 3,565 talked/didn't talk" thusly providing numbers to use against those governments. Therefore, the torturers would not have given accurate numbers/statistics, subsequently the data is flawed from the get go.
Science is based on facts. "He said/she said this amount of people" is not facts, it's hearsay. So they would have to show official documentation of each and every torture in order to accurately identify their claims as facts. Again, something they would be unable to do.
For these very same reasons torture is not an effective tool.There is a assumption that the person being tortured has worthy and truthful information. If this assumption is wrong and torture continues he may talk and give them any information the torturer wants to hear out of hope of the torture stopping. Any information gained by the torturer is tainted from the very get go by this possibly baseless asumption.
Ah, but it depends on the tortured. If you torture Joe Blow off the street, you will probably get nothing because he knows nothing. However, if you torture the guy who runs the chemical factory, and throw in a few threats to his wife/children ( your wife picks the kids up at ABC school at 3p.m., wouldn't want them to drive off that cliff in the way back home, would you?), you are almost certain to get the codes for entry. And for the most part, the people in charge of getting the info find out who would have the info BEFORE they bring them in for torture. Therefore, the combination of intel and torture raises the success rate dramatically
This assumes guilt on behlaf of the Chemical Factory worker.
If this is not the case you have the same response as Joe Blow down the street. Then you are left with dubious information once again.
Come on, Nasica. Don't just throw out answers, actually read what I posted. Intel ( a.k.a. gathering info ) tells them he runs the factory they want into. Therefore, if he runs the factory, he knows the codes, therefore his "guilt" as you call it is there.The point here is that "blind" torture ( hoping you have the right guy with info you need ) will likely have a high chance of failure. "Informed" torture ( knowing everything about your targets position in regards to the info you need ) has a high chance of succeeding. Throwing in the family threat ( and maybe even grabbing his kid to show him beforehand ) has a guaranteed success rate, unless the guy would rather watch his kid die than give up info ( which if that's the case, the guy should be killed whether he talks or not anyway
).
Tied up cop: "I don't know anything. Torture me all you want."
Gangster: "Torture you. Hmm. Thats a good idea, I like that. I don't really care what you know."
LOL anyone remember Resevoir Dogs?
Point is, you don't always have to have a reason to torture people. You can just do it for kicks, if you can get away with it. Why not, it's only people. We can make more if we need them.
BTW Nasica, look on the bright side. Genocide helps the environment.
This assumes guilt on behlaf of the Chemical Factory worker.
If this is not the case you have the same response as Joe Blow down the street. Then you are left with dubious information once again.
Come on, Nasica. Don't just throw out answers, actually read what I posted. Intel ( a.k.a. gathering info ) tells them he runs the factory they want into. Therefore, if he runs the factory, he knows the codes, therefore his "guilt" as you call it is there.The point here is that "blind" torture ( hoping you have the right guy with info you need ) will likely have a high chance of failure. "Informed" torture ( knowing everything about your targets position in regards to the info you need ) has a high chance of succeeding. Throwing in the family threat ( and maybe even grabbing his kid to show him beforehand ) has a guaranteed success rate, unless the guy would rather watch his kid die than give up info ( which if that's the case, the guy should be killed whether he talks or not anyway
).
I remember Bill Clinton launching weapons at factories that intelligence was sure had something nasty in it(look bluberryhaze, im insulting democrats for stupidity as well) ended up being Asprin. Intelligence really is a loose definition when it comes to the CIA unfortunatly.The point being is that there is a assumption of guilt being made this is why we have the presumption of innocence and the system of blind justice.
We're supposed to be discussing tactics used for success/failure at using torture for information, and you keep bringing up guilt and innocence. It's like I'm trying to have a conversation with two people at once, and one of them doesn't even know the topic.
This assumes guilt on behlaf of the Chemical Factory worker.
If this is not the case you have the same response as Joe Blow down the street. Then you are left with dubious information once again.
Come on, Nasica. Don't just throw out answers, actually read what I posted. Intel ( a.k.a. gathering info ) tells them he runs the factory they want into. Therefore, if he runs the factory, he knows the codes, therefore his "guilt" as you call it is there.The point here is that "blind" torture ( hoping you have the right guy with info you need ) will likely have a high chance of failure. "Informed" torture ( knowing everything about your targets position in regards to the info you need ) has a high chance of succeeding. Throwing in the family threat ( and maybe even grabbing his kid to show him beforehand ) has a guaranteed success rate, unless the guy would rather watch his kid die than give up info ( which if that's the case, the guy should be killed whether he talks or not anyway
).
I remember Bill Clinton launching weapons at factories that intelligence was sure had something nasty in it(look bluberryhaze, im insulting democrats for stupidity as well) ended up being Asprin. Intelligence really is a loose definition when it comes to the CIA unfortunatly.The point being is that there is a assumption of guilt being made this is why we have the presumption of innocence and the system of blind justice.
We're supposed to be discussing tactics used for success/failure at using torture for information, and you keep bringing up guilt and innocence. It's like I'm trying to have a conversation with two people at once, and one of them doesn't even know the topic.
Well, i would assume, torturing the innocent is rather futile.And considering that we have a system of innocent to proven guilty, then i really dont understand what you are getting at.
I am showing that torture does not produce results. No information is far better than disinformation, one only needs to look at Operation Mincemeat to understand the power of disinformation. Making people squeel untill the divulge information that may or may not be true is entirely unnecessary.
And you're assuming that every country and/or every terrorist organization out there is a.) clueless on how to gather correct intel and b.) have a system of innocent until proven guilty? Furthermore, the scenario I laid out has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. It could be a group of terrorist wanting access to a nuclear reactor, or a gang of hoodlums wanting the store safe combo and they could get it using the way I described. They don't care if you're innocent or guilty, they care if you know the damn combo. If your basing your opinion of whether torture works or not based on civilized laws or some form of inherent ethics, you really need to rethink that.
Under a "24 hour" scenario (doomsday - time critical) and if you are fairly confident your "subject" has the info (had prior intell on the guy) then maybe you can justify the use of torture. However, that TV situation simply doesn't play out in the real world often.
When you consider the moral / ethical implications of torture, its affect on the tortured / torturer, the loss of morale authority, the increased chance of public sentiment turning against you, and the fact that the information can be unreliable and requires a great deal of verification then in my opinion it simply isn't worth it to use. This is especially true considering that normal interogation techniques, spy networks (paid informats) all provide more accurate information with-out the negatives.
What I think...is probably not important, but ill fire it away anyhows.
The US, at this stage in the 'war on terror', probably have some info that can be cross-checked and verified, to see if the 'subject' is being honest. something, perhaps that study was lacking. Im also sure we know how to operate a torture session. We know the pyscology of this enemy and just asking questions without some sort of pyscological breakdown will absolutely yield nothing.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
we are not killing them.
like i said, xchecked and verified.. the martydom types are not resistant to pyscological warfare. I think it makes more sense than to do nothing get nothing. somethings will yield results. from my POV, human rights included, people like this are the scourge of civilization. some people argue its the way they were born and bred, lifestyle, no choice for them...hijacked religion.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
or even dangerous to our own intellegence efforts ?
Having no fear of death and being an extremist doesn't make one immune to torture. It isn't about "death" but about stopping the pain.
if you support raising taxes for 'the better good' whats wrong with a lil waterboarding and lack of sleep 'for the better good' ?
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
the above question was more rhetorical than anything.
however, i just woke up from an envigorating nap and Ill pose this question.
Why is it 'right' to drop a 10 ton bomb on a al quada leader but wrong to use some 'torture'(subjective word of course) methods that will save innocent lives?
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
The Geneva Convention
The Human Right Agreement
The Laws of Armed Conflict
Didnt i see you complaining about ILLEGAL immigrants before? Whats wrong with ILLEGAL immigrants if you dont follow the LEGALITIES of war ?
One rule for one, another for everyone else.
Illegal immigrants will cost me money presently and in the future. they are a threat to my soveriegn homeland.back to the subject- well, it is my opinion that people that dig for loopholes have very little humanity left in them. I know whats fair game in this game we call life. you have your opinion and I have mine. I do stress, and i dont know why, im referring to pyscological 'torture' , as i see that being more productive than fingernail stuff.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-