|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 10/25/2007 : 21:15:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
He isn't being nominated for a judge position, he is being nominated for the AG slot.
So if he doesn't know what torture is, and isn't, before he takes the job.... how will he be able to recognize it and prosecute it? |
Good point. That is a little disturbing. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2007 : 21:15:30 [Permalink]
|
Mab, yes, we hear about a lot of that crap. Like the guy from Canada who was "rendered" overseas when he passed through a US airport, like the guy from Seattle who's fingerprints were mistaken for one of the London bomber's, and so on.
The biggest anti-terror arrest we have had in the US is a bunch of homeless guys who gathered in a warehouse and pretended to practice martial arts and some odd form of Islam.... and all they did was talk about blowing up a building. The fact that they entirely lack the ability and resources to do such a thing apparently doesn't matter anymore.
All we have done since 9/11 is degrade civil liberty, waste trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and alienate the majority of our allies. Most of us here are beyond fed up with it. Lets hope that our next election cycle changes things enough to start correcting these fuckups. (not that I have high hopes of that happening, I just hope it does)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 06:06:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
He isn't being nominated for a judge position, he is being nominated for the AG slot.
So if he doesn't know what torture is, and isn't, before he takes the job.... how will he be able to recognize it and prosecute it?
|
He has more or less said he has no intention of pursuing whether or not the Bush Administration has sanctioned and encouraged torture. He's going to protect the Administration more or less consistent with Gonzales. He probably won't be actively encouraging and supporting it the way Gonzales did, but he's not going to look for justice or anything like that. And why should we be surprised? GW's not going to nominate anyone that might hold his toes to the fire afterall. He'd prefer to finish his term without an Attorney General, so every nominee he sends is going to be a toady in one form or another. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 06:30:50 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner wrote: | I suggest the good senators ask Judge Makasey if he will volunteer as a subject in an experiment to discover if waterboarding is a torture. Perhaps Makasey then will be able to say, "I may not be able to define torture, but I know it when I feel it." |
As much as I liked this suggestion when I read it, it wouldn't be nearly as harsh as when waterboarding is done to suspects because the suspects didn't volunteer. Sometimes people decide to be hurt on purpose (just watch the movie Jackass.) It is another thing alltogether when it is being forced on you against your will. People don't worry about torture because they assume everyone being tortured is guilty of some horrendous crime, but oftentimes they haven't even been tried yet and might in fact be innocent. And even if they are guilty, that doesn't make torture right.
As to OFFC's initial statements about torture working, whether it works or not, or how well it works is a mute point (as others here have already stated.) Torture is illegal and unethical.
Why are there so many terrorists? Surely there aren't so many naturally mentally ill sadists out there. Surely some of them have a conscience and have intentionally conditioned themselves to be able to hurt others because they think it serves a higher cause, and oftentimes terrorism works.
Those serving in our own military must do such conditioning. When my brother was in Marine boot camp he had to sing cadences about killing women and children in the middle east, and he was shown images of Japanese civilians killed by the atomic bomb and told to think this was great. Such people who have chosen to become killers or potential killers of innocents for the sake of a higher cause believe strongly in that cause, and you'll have to torture them severely to get anything useful out of them. I agree with Mab's poignent scenerio about being willing to lose some finger and toenails for the sake of protecting loved-ones. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 11:18:32 [Permalink]
|
Tim Russert put this hypothetical question to most of the Republican Presidential aspirants last week.
(I paraphrase):
"Assume that our agents have captured a high level Al Quaida agent (perhaps Osama himself) who undoubtedly has precise information on the location of, timing, and method of disarming a high-yield nuclear device hidden in Washington D.C. or New York City. We know absolutely that it is there. We have a short time to find out from Osama where the bomb is and how to disarm it, or millions will die and our government will be badly disrupted, making us more vulnerable yet!
Should we torture, really TORTURE Osama?
Most of the Republicans hemmed and hawed, beat around the Bush, and finally ended up saying yes, I guess!
What's in YOUR call it? |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 11:38:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Tim Russert put this hypothetical question to most of the Republican Presidential aspirants last week.
(I paraphrase):
"Assume that our agents have captured a high level Al Quaida agent (perhaps Osama himself) who undoubtedly has precise information on the location of, timing, and method of disarming a high-yield nuclear device hidden in Washington D.C. or New York City. We know absolutely that it is there. We have a short time to find out from Osama where the bomb is and how to disarm it, or millions will die and our government will be badly disrupted, making us more vulnerable yet!
Should we torture, really TORTURE Osama?
Most of the Republicans hemmed and hawed, beat around the Bush, and finally ended up saying yes, I guess!
What's in YOUR call it?
|
It's an absurd reality defying scenario. Sounds like the plot to a cheezy tv show. Oh, wait. The truth is people are being tortured often without their care givers knowing for sure who they are or whether they know anything at all. That is the key issue and it has plenty of historical precedent, unlike the tv show 24. The above scenario would be perfect in weeding out morons from the candidate line up - anyone who'd answer in the affirmative without attacking the stupidity of the question itself should step off the stage. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/26/2007 11:40:36 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 11:49:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
What's in YOUR call it?
|
Do you think you would get a reliable answer? There would be no way to verify until it happened. If you go with the opposite of whatever answer is given, then you are acting out the scene from The Princess Bride with the iocaine powder.
And even then, whatever instruction you get to disarm it would be suspect at best.
So what would be the point of the torture besides satiating some primal blood-lust?
The unfortunate reality is that most of the American people (IMHO) would demand it, and if it was determined the no torture happened and the bomb goes off, the the government would collapse. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/26/2007 11:51:04 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 11:51:50 [Permalink]
|
My call is this:
How do we 100% know the threat is real?
Because it does not logically follow that we can be certain, or even close to certain about such a thing, and the original source of that precise info doesn't have more info.
And really... If Osama is a dedicated guy, who believes he is going to get his 72 virgins when the bomb goes off, what makes you think you can torture the info out of him? If he is trained even the slightest bit in counter-intel then he can resist torture for some period of time, and there is the chance that if he is also a true believer that he'll resist longer.
Then, what if he is prepared with fake data, say an address that was prepared in advance (in anticipation of just such a scenario), with a FAKE bomb setup? He gets to laugh as the real one goes off, while we have once again forfeited our morality and ethics for no gain.
As chaloobi said, the entire premise is absurd. Anyone who even answers the question with anything other than a dismissal proves they are unfit to be president.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 12:11:07 [Permalink]
|
Yes, but what if a cross-dimensional demon was going to engulf the Earth in fire, but you somehow knew you could stop it if you tortured a litter of puppies, would you do it? Straight answers only, please.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 12:20:43 [Permalink]
|
Yep, stomp those puppies to death! Throw in a litter of kittens as well. Maybe a panda cub and some baby seals to spice things up.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 16:37:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Tim Russert put this hypothetical question to most of the Republican Presidential aspirants last week.
(I paraphrase):
"Assume that our agents have captured a high level Al Quaida agent (perhaps Osama himself) who undoubtedly has precise information on the location of, timing, and method of disarming a high-yield nuclear device hidden in Washington D.C. or New York City. We know absolutely that it is there. We have a short time to find out from Osama where the bomb is and how to disarm it, or millions will die and our government will be badly disrupted, making us more vulnerable yet!
Should we torture, really TORTURE Osama?
Most of the Republicans hemmed and hawed, beat around the Bush, and finally ended up saying yes, I guess!
What's in YOUR call it?
|
Straight answer. Yes, in such a scenario we should torture Osama in an attempt to locate and disarm the bomb. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 16:51:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Tim Russert put this hypothetical question to most of the Republican Presidential aspirants last week.
(I paraphrase):
"Assume that our agents have captured a high level Al Quaida agent (perhaps Osama himself) who undoubtedly has precise information on the location of, timing, and method of disarming a high-yield nuclear device hidden in Washington D.C. or New York City. We know absolutely that it is there. We have a short time to find out from Osama where the bomb is and how to disarm it, or millions will die and our government will be badly disrupted, making us more vulnerable yet!
Should we torture, really TORTURE Osama?
Most of the Republicans hemmed and hawed, beat around the Bush, and finally ended up saying yes, I guess!
What's in YOUR call it?
|
Such a scenario in the real world is very, very unlikely, I feel. Far more common would be the thousands of people tortured on the basis of this scenario being used as an excuse, or due to agents wrongly getting it into their heads that they faced such a situation. The result: Torture, and little or no good to balance the evil of the act.
So I say, "No." No torture, no exceptions. The Devil is in the rationalized exceptions. Almost certainly, in my opinion, in the real world we are better of prohibiting torture entirely. Having a policy that allows torture to be employed by the discretion of the interrogators is a policy of torture.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/26/2007 16:51:35 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 20:59:07 [Permalink]
|
dv82matt said:
| Straight answer. Yes, in such a scenario we should torture Osama in an attempt to locate and disarm the bomb. |
What if Osama has been trained and prepared for such circumstances? What if, as I mentioned earlier, he can hold out long enough to protect the operational security of his fellows? What if he is prepared with a convincing, but false, story to send us on a wild goose chase?
Our own special operations soldiers are trained in counter-intel and they know exactly how long they have to hold out to protect operational security, and they are dedicated enough (and mentally strong enough in most cases, you don't get through things like seal training unless you are) to do so.
It would be a mistake to assume an enemy is less dedicated, less well trained, and less prepared than you are.
I don't know about you, but if I were planning to get a dirty bomb or nuke into a US city, the people executing the op would not be people who I thought would crack after having a couple of fingernails pulled off with pliers. I'd want to have people I was confident could hold out long enough to maintain security.
And when you add religious fanaticism into the mix.... I don't see how you think you can scare or break a person willing to strap on a bomb vest fast enough to make a difference in the scenario described.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 23:06:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
dv82matt said:
| Straight answer. Yes, in such a scenario we should torture Osama in an attempt to locate and disarm the bomb. |
What if Osama has been trained and prepared for such circumstances? What if, as I mentioned earlier, he can hold out long enough to protect the operational security of his fellows? What if he is prepared with a convincing, but false, story to send us on a wild goose chase? |
Then torturing him is less likely to be successful. I still think one has to make the attempt given the stakes.
Our own special operations soldiers are trained in counter-intel and they know exactly how long they have to hold out to protect operational security, and they are dedicated enough (and mentally strong enough in most cases, you don't get through things like seal training unless you are) to do so.
It would be a mistake to assume an enemy is less dedicated, less well trained, and less prepared than you are. |
It would also be a mistake to overestimate them. Although yes if they've managed to get ahold of a nuclear weapon they are probably fairly competent.
I don't know about you, but if I were planning to get a dirty bomb or nuke into a US city, the people executing the op would not be people who I thought would crack after having a couple of fingernails pulled off with pliers. I'd want to have people I was confident could hold out long enough to maintain security.
And when you add religious fanaticism into the mix.... I don't see how you think you can scare or break a person willing to strap on a bomb vest fast enough to make a difference in the scenario described. |
Well I guess I'd be hoping the terrorist being interrogated was not up to snuff then. Given a lack of other options and with millions of lives under immediate threat I don't think there's any real choice in the matter. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 23:21:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Halfmooner wrote: | I suggest the good senators ask Judge Makasey if he will volunteer as a subject in an experiment to discover if waterboarding is a torture. Perhaps Makasey then will be able to say, "I may not be able to define torture, but I know it when I feel it." |
As much as I liked this suggestion when I read it, it wouldn't be nearly as harsh as when waterboarding is done to suspects because the suspects didn't volunteer. |
That's true. The experiment would have to be done on Mukasey without him volunteering, and without him expecting it in advance, and under generally ominous circumstances. If that's the only way he's going to be able to decide what is and what is not torture. I mean, he's the big prosecutor now, who says he's against torture. He should understand it better than he does.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/27/2007 02:13:04 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Mukasey won't say if "waterboarding" is torture
