Originally posted by finti
I think that really depends of what these so called white christian terrorist susoects had been responsible for
If we take a literal interpretation of the term 'terrorist', then I guess you could equate it to a government that inspires fear in the people it represents as it wages war - psychological and physical - with countries that hold idelogies different from it's own. The effects of which involve the incarceration of foreign nationals without evidence for a prosecution, and the erosion of civil liberties of the inhabitants of the home country.
"The problem with this argument is that it presupposes a majority support for the US. This isn't the case with the world's public, and the support of other governments is also waning. "
Regardless, I stand by what I say. People may dislike the US, but their efforts will still be supported by the democratic process in most countries on the idea that what they are doing is better than nothing happening at all.
People don't want to see it like that, but that is pretty much the way it is.
My point about the legal situation I think actually did belong here, because that is the only place the US is seriously going to be taken to task on, you see. All the abuses etc. are just going to sail past and be, as I say, of academic interest only. When I said the legal situation was the biggest problem, I meant that literally- not that is is the greatest wrong, but quite simply it is the biggest problem, for the US.
History will look back in future and ask if it was worth it, and I will lay odds the consensus will be yes.
If we take a literal interpretation of the term 'terrorist', then I guess you could equate it to a government that inspires fear in the people it represents as it wages war - psychological and physical - with countries that hold idelogies different from it's own. The effects of which involve the incarceration of foreign nationals without evidence for a prosecution, and the erosion of civil liberties of the inhabitants of the home countryindeed
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless, I stand by what I say. People may dislike the US, but their efforts will still be supported by the democratic process in most countries on the idea that what they are doing is better than nothing happening at all.
That's a very strange thing to state. So, is the attack on the WTC by Islamic fundamentalists better than them doing nothing at all? Hitler persecuting the Jews was better than him doing nothing at all? Don't say the comparison is invalid, because that would mean you are only looking at the current situation from a US-coalition view-point, which would negate your debate by it being unbalanced.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
My point about the legal situation I think actually did belong here, because that is the only place the US is seriously going to be taken to task on, you see. All the abuses etc. are just going to sail past and be, as I say, of academic interest only. When I said the legal situation was the biggest problem, I meant that literally- not that is is the greatest wrong, but quite simply it is the biggest problem, for the US.
This thread happens to be about the validity of torture as a means to an end, rather than the greater repercussions of the US' actions.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
History will look back in future and ask if it was worth it, and I will lay odds the consensus will be yes.
Isn't it providential you weren't born in the Middle East?
Your comparisons don't make any logical sense, and seem to have been put in for emotional effect alone, which is a cheap trick.
Sorry, but the fact is that the majority of the democratic process of the world will continue to support the US. That has bugger all comparison with the WTC attacks and Hitler'a actions.
And me pointing out that the torture issue is a smaller one than the legal one was still a relevant point to make, despite your opinion.
And yes, it is providential I wasn't born in the Middle East, and I still stand by what I said, and I still maintain that the reasonable consensus of history is going to agree.
I know you don't want that, but I am certain that is how it is.
Re: Cruel and Very Unusual Punishment: Torture in the 'War on Terror'
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Here are some of the more well-known instances of prisoner abuse committed by the US government as a means to gaining information on the 'War on Terror'.Iraqi 'Prisoners of War' and Guantanamo Bay detainees have been:
- stripped and piled naked in a pyramid.
- cloaked, hooded and electrocuted.
- smeared with the menstrual blood of prostitues.
- chained and leashed like a dog.
Then, there are the less spectacular ones, such as denying them their basic human rights as detailed by the UN. Detailed here
Those are all appalling offenses, but then things start to get a little weird...
Adam Piore was an embedded journalist in Iraq who came across a situation in al-Qa'im of Iraqi combatants being bound, hooded and gagged, placed in a shipping containers and then subjected to a song by Barney the Purple Dinosaur continuously for periods extending to 24hours. During this time, they were simultaneously subjected to bright flashing lights. When told about this situation, Sid Heal of the LA Sheriff's Department, and someone who has dedicated his life to the research of non-leathal technologies, remarked: "It could be the Bucha Effect". Explained here.
Another example of the disregard of the detainees' human rights can be viewed in the use of prostitues. According to former detainee, Jamal al-Harith, prostitues were flown in from the states to provoke detainees who found their very nature an assault to their beliefs. The prostitues would fondle the men's genitals, rub their breasts in their faces, and strip off infront of the men. The detainees would then return to their holding cells - which offered no defence against the elements - where they would not speak for days and cry to themselves. Details via Amnesty International
Another interesting detail: George W. Bush's administration had, by January 2004, channelled approximately $30 billion into the 'Black Budget'. This is a budget that funds 'Black Ops' - highly sensitive and deeply shady projects such as assassination squads, but also funds investigations into highly bizarre schemes such as funding PsyOps to research into remote-viewing.Details here regarding the Black Budget. Check out 'The Men Who Stare At Goats' by Jon Ronson for the remote-viewing stuff.
One of the most bizarre examples of a Black Budget-funded operation would be the research led by General Stubblebine and Guy Savelli into focusing the mind's ability to stare a goat to death. I'm not joking. Start here...
Anyway, I'm getting bored of typing all this out, so if you're interested in finding out more, do your own research and post it here.
Also, what do people think about torture as a means of gaining information? Is it acceptable? If so, why? How do you determine when it can and can't be used? If torture is acceptable, then why is it done covertly? Etc...
One last thing...
It could be easy for certain people to dismiss all these instances because of the absurdity of some of them, but what should bring you back to Earth is that this is state-sponsored torture by a nation that professes to take the moral high-ground. Think about it.
Oh well
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your comparisons don't make any logical sense, and seem to have been put in for emotional effect alone, which is a cheap trick.
There's that unbalanced view-point I was talking about. Of course, the comparisons appear extravagant if you are considering them from a point of view that condones current US imperialism.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, but the fact is that the majority of the democratic process of the world will continue to support the US.
Not so much due to 'democratic process' as economic necessity.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And me pointing out that the torture issue is a smaller one than the legal one was still a relevant point to make, despite your opinion.
Actually, it wasn't. Do I need to state the topic again?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And yes, it is providential I wasn't born in the Middle East, and I still stand by what I said, and I still maintain that the reasonable consensus of history is going to agree.I know you don't want that, but I am certain that is how it is.
Au contraire, mon petit fleur, I would be delighted if it worked out like that. However, I think you are incredibly naive to think it will.
"Not so much due to 'democratic process' as economic necessity."
Nah. It might be comforting to think it's all down to the money, but actually it's down to most western Government being glad that someone else is doing it for them, so that they don't have to be held morally accountable.
"Actually, it wasn't. Do I need to state the topic again?"
No, because that would only be your opinion. I think my point was relevant, and I don't care if you do not, so you will just have to live with that.
"I would be delighted if it worked out like that. However, I think you are incredibly naive to think it will."
And again, nah- I think it is naive to think that it won't. I think, actually, lots and lots of very naive people cling to the hope that history will cast down the US for this period in time. I think they are going to be very disappointed.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nah. It might be comforting to think it's all down to the money, but actually it's down to most western Government being glad that someone else is doing it for them, so that they don't have to be held morally accountable.
I don't see how, the leaders of democratic powers have no reason to start a war with Iraq or hate the lack of freedom there it doesn't really affect them and isn't really important. Most of them feared what Iraq could mean to the rest of the world. Instead of wanting it to change. If they wanted it to change they would have done something to change it after the first Gulf War, instead of leaving it alone afterall. Most world leaders would have rather stayed away then have the US invade.
And if the war was the only thing that decided the political movement of the world then I am pretty sure the US would have had very few allies this day and age. But there is a lot more to world politics then just this one war, it isn't the most important thing and therefor it doesn't decide who likes or who doesn't like the US. Country's will keep talking to them because the US has power and money if that drops then we will see how popular this war really is with western country's, if the war is still going on that is.
No, because that would only be your opinion. I think my point was relevant, and I don't care if you do not, so you will just have to live with that.
Got to agree with this...
And again, nah- I think it is naive to think that it won't. I think, actually, lots and lots of very naive people cling to the hope that history will cast down the US for this period in time. I think they are going to be very disappointed.
Its way to early to say, we don't know how the war will end and what the result of all of this will be. Perhaps the world will be thankful for the process but hate the US for the way it is done. Perhaps history will say its the greatest thing since sliced bread, or perhaps it will say it was all a terrible mistake.
Originally posted by Storm
Imo, torture is not a licit means for extracting information.If we can' t recognize and respect the dignity and rights of each human individual, then in the end we aren' t any better than those we fight against.
I agree with this. The idea of torture is barbaric, regardless of the ends.
Apparently, those who would dub such things "toture" have never left thier house. (Or watched a serious action movie.)
Bashing someone's toes with a hammer, that's toture.
Slaughtering someone's family or atleast holding them hostage and threatning to (and being honost about doing it) that's toture.
Slicing off limbs (preffebly more sensitive ones) with a machete, that's toture.
The things expressed in your topic sound like something I'd see on a bad porn movie, it's hardly on the same level of "toture" as REAL toture. It's just more of a mental thing because well, terrorists are mental cases lol..
No, I don't see any reason why toture should be banned or frowned upon or anything, we didn't become a nation by being Mr. Niceguy, if that had been the case we'd still be English and this land would (maybe) still belong to the Indians..
This is the real-world, not some comic book, and in the real world, you have to do hanus things to extract information from your enemy for the greater good, less you're willing to sacrifice your own life, your loved one's lives, and everybody else within ten thousand feet's life over your silly little code of honour. And who gave you THAT right? What makes you have the opinion of God that you can dictate what is exseptable and what is not when so many lives are at stake?
If you want to be a pacifist, you go right ahead, but don't you ever tell our goverment or how us citizens are somehow less then just because we care enough to get our hands dirty, even Superman and Vash the stampede, who had cool powers inorder to implement thier beliefs, knew not every man had that option, and kept thier mouth shut. Instead of being upset that your country does totutre (which again, this is LENIANT toture..) you should be grateful that your country is willing to do anything to protect itself. It has self-love. The same can't be said about France or pretty much every other country on the Eurepeon continent. They'd sell-out to Nazis if they made a comeback.. They really don't care about thier citizens, albeit, neither does the American goverment in some respects. (IE: When we're talking money they'll screw you over everytime) but the American goverment is as strong as an ox, and twice as stubborn, if anyone's going to destroy America, it's going to be America. That's the way our goverment thinks, and that may be one of the few things that helps me sleep at night. My enemy's enemy if you will..
I've never been one to believe in the validity of consequentialism. Likewise, morally both an intent AND the action following must be morally good or the entire act is questionable, period. Torture is never morally good, regardless of the ends achieved. If you argue otherwise, than it doesn't matter what we do so long as it comes out good.
Agreed, there are differant levels of good, intent, action, and result. And if it's not all three then it's questionable of how "good" it is, and perhaps even becomes so not good it becomes evil.
However, evil holds a special place in our universe, no-one appreciates it, nobody understands it, nothing wants to even be in it's presence, but without evil, good wouldn't know what to do with itself, something has to be worse then inorder to make a valid comparison.. Evil is the masculine, the raging yang to good's calming ying, the onimpetant sun to the rotating moon, when you begin to look at the universe not with your eyes but with your thoughts, you'll see evil as just a varation of good, the only true evil is stagnation, which though I know is not your intention, would be your result or action if you don't do something quickly. Life won't wait for you, enemy states are plotting our demise as we speak, criminals are planning thier next big gig which may or may not involve you, and bad stuff is going to happen, what will you do about it?
Or rather, what will you do about it given the limited amount of time you have to work with? Time, it's almost as unreliabale as money..