"Anti-Torture Amendment"; Bush disapproves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

okay a quote now from the un human rights act "‘no exceptional circumstances whatsoever’ justify torture. that is the ruling.

---

It's a war. You don't get to hand out red cards. :rolleyes2

Seriously, I think the insistance on the "rules of war" without any thought or understanding of what the real consequences of the "rule" is. And you've never bother to show a seconds remorse for the very real people who will die, both soldiers and Iraqis, btw, because you insist on a rule.

I agree that torturing another human being is a terrible thing, and something that should never be done without a damn good reason. But I can't agree with you that it's moral to sacrifice human beings before the altar of Geneva. In fact it seems sort of sick. These soldiers are real people. They have wives, children, mothers and fathers that they want to come home to. They have dreams of who and what they want to be when they get done with the Army. They are not mindless slaves to be used and thrown away.

Yet this seems to be how you see them. They aren't really people. They're cogs in a war machine. And if parts of the war machine get blown up, that's still far better than having the war machine do something to make you uncomfortable. Except that those "cogs in the machine" are actually people. You should meet them sometime.

Quote:

---

you can only tell me that torture works when you tell me that they were real witches in the middle ages. and theur confessions were true.

and if it doesn't work it's for only one reason. it's for sick deprived people to do what they want with defenceless people. like lindy england, like mengel.

---

Well, there are real witches now. We call them Wiccans, so I would suppose there were at least a few during the middle ages.

But the bigger point here is that we aren't doing any torture for confessions. get that through your head, because I'm tired of dealing with this really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. We don't torture for any other reason than to get intelligence on where the bomb is.

Who says it doesn't work? The Homer Simpson principal of "TV says so, so it's true" just isn't good enough. Go find an article by an expert on interigations that says it doesn't work. Find a general that says it's a waste of time. Find someone who's done some research. Find anything other than a TV show, because I can point to a news program that questions whether or not we landed on the moon. I find it hard to take someone seriously whose sole source of information is a single TV special.

no you don't give out red cards. you iust execute the torturers.

yes it is possible if you believe the ticking bomb scenario that people will die. but we are fighting war. people will die. but people should not be tortured. killing people in war is fine. torturing them isn't. doing so can result in hanging.

and don't start the i don't understand thing. my family was military until my generation. and they are cigs in a machine. they signed up to that. to serve no matter what the cost. as catch-22 very well put they are part of the army as much as anyother bit of equipment used to gain an advantage in the army. and what are the wife and children going to say when it turns out daddy's a war criminal no better than mengel or lindy england?

my point about the witches is the level of intelligence you gain from torture. you will say anything. these people confessed to being witches, traitors, hethans, they almost certainly weren't. and they knew the punishment. burning at the stake. a truly horrible way to die. so why confess? to end the torture. you put someone in enough pain they will tell you whatever you want, truth or not, they may confess when innocent, make up something about where the bomb is placed even if they don't know, tell you a wholly random place altogether. is that the level of intelligence we want?

history proves torture doesn't work. the witch, traitor and hethan trials of the middle ages show it doesn't work. the spanish inquisition shows it doesn't work. give a man enough pain and he will say whatever he thinks will get him out. truth or not.

american intelligence is already hugely flawed, tora bora, wmd, links with terrorism. where did these sources come from? countries like saudi arabia, egypt, syria, lybia, uzbekistan. they have some very nasty habits. and we wonder why the intelligence was so flawed? these people said whatever random crap came to mind.

look at the men in camp x-ray. many released. they signed confessions, told where bases where, gave times and dates.

want to know what torture goes on in uzbekistan? torture from information we use. there are two very cute cases. one of a dead man who seems to have his hands immersed in boiling water and his knees and elbows smashed before he dies. another seems to have been boiled to death.

is this how we want intelligence to be gathered? http://www.channel4.com/news/microsi...ic-1863109.jpg

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsi...ic-1231720.jpg

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsi...ic-2010350.jpg

seems like selling our souls for dross to me. anyone remember alexander mitchell?

A note, if I may, on the nature of torture.

Today, torture isn't exactly what you think it is. It's not gruesome, disfiguring, and it probably won't make anyone scream. Mental torture, sleep deprevation, drugs... all those are used today, and are very effective. The most effective ways of extracting information from an un-willing person are kept as a secret.

Now, Could Number Nine, you are partially right about extreme torture leading to the wrong answers from the wrong people - but that happens only part of the time, and only to needlessly cruel and unprofessional interrogators. Today, torture isn't used for CONFESSION - that's illegal. Today, torture isn't used to get yes and no answers, but pieces of information, like "where are your friends", "who are your friends", "when and where is the next action planned for", etc. It's very difficult for a suffering man to fabricate answers for such questions.

it is documented that america uses information extracted from extreme forms of torture such as those in uzbekistan.

quantanamo bay and alexander mitchell are both huge testaments to confessing to and answering very complicated questions. i remember the story of Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul Rhuhel Ahmed. they were held in solitary confinement in camp x-ray for a 3 months. after being interrogated for 12 hours a day, daily while shackled in chains they admitted to meeting with bin laden and mohammed atta in 2000. it was later found that even though many could argue that this cruel and degrading treatement was not torture. (in america you now have to main, cause organ failure or death) they confessed. of course they had never done any of this. they had never left the country in 2000.

they then went onto tell who else met with them, the place, time, date.3 months of this treatment and they had came up with all that. but it was total crap. they wanted out. made up what was needed and job done.

wanna know what else our fun little us army has been up to in cuba?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...597412,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...540782,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...505714,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...483893,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...003584,00.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010205A.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X-Ray
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer...y404882346.asp
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blo...really_go.html

and what do you do with the innocent man you torture? "where is the bomb? "i dunno" crank up the voltage "where is the bomb" "i dunno" crank up the voltage" "oh sorry mate off you go home now"

is that the society we want. were fundamental human riights are void. dco we remember 1984 and room 101. the one thing that made winston break was not harm or pressure it was the fear of rats. is there something wrong with this? is 1984 the world we want to live in?

so what does torture achieve? false intelligence? a playground for the sickest and most depraved in the army?

it does acheive one thing. it perpetuates terrorism. after abu gahrib people were not happy. people are still un happy. torture will not save the lives of american soldeirs it will end them by the fury which it causes.

and aside from murdering american soldiers it murders the morals which we built up.

the morals we fought and died for. the morals america has seen as void.

Quote:

---

and what do you do with the innocent man you torture?

---

Aww, bloody Hell man, these men are not innocent! It's not like agents roam the flea-markets, find some by-stander, and yell "You! You appear to be an Arab! You MUST know the whereabouts of Ossama Bin Laden!". It's not like that. High-profile intelligence is sorted and used to find the right men, who always know interesting things, and then they are interrogated for several minutes to several days, and that's it. No-body's holding some poor bastard for months and years, and spend good money and work-force on his torture for such lengthy periods of time. After three months of interrogation, whatever that bloke may have to say, is no longer vital, important or even remotely interesting to the intelligence community. It's high-gear, effective interrogation that takes place. And I say once more, that if it's used to save lives, I'd rather have as many of these bastards suffering to oblivion as it takes.

This isn't some Hollywood movie where the hero spends eons in a dark basement and is tortured daily.... torture is an interrogation device, much like manipulation and various other schemes, for one thing - to recieve information, answers to burning questions. That is all.

tell that to the men in quantanamo. those arrested in pakistan. not on the battlefield. tell that to cat stevens. yeah american intelligence.........

and torture is something the american army has taken much pleasure in. throughout modern history that has been shown. bush has ljust legalized it.

it's never been about questions. tell that to the veterans of the rhineland camps, tell that to the people in vietnam, cambodia, korea, tell it to the released from camp x-ray. tell it to lindy englands victims that torture is only used when necessary. that the us can be trusted when it comes to anyone's human rights. it's a total and absolute failure when it comes down to the fundamental rights of man.

what use is guantanamo if it is only used for necessary intelligence? how much intellegence did abu gahrib bring? how much use was the man boiled to death in uzbekistan? was thr intelligence good from the men sent out to egypt, lybia, syria and sudi arabia?

there are people held in quantanamo now for 4 years. a blind cripple and children among them. people not picked up on a battlefield, people taken from their homes in pakistan. these people are subjected daily to inhuman and degrading treatment. 4 years of it. with no representation under law. a total breach of every article before.

but we continue allow this. people are here saying it is good. people are fighting for it right now. the right to inhumanity. the great american dream? is this the america we want?

the ticking bomb scenario does not exist. and if it did you have to apply serious pressure that compared to our uzbek friends previously or that of the argentinian man i showed earlier. and for what?

history judges all of us. and it is not as some people think dictated by the winners. that is in the short term. so when the history books are being written how will modern america be remembered? as a moral country on willing to fall to the level of it's enemies? so just and right that it would do everything to up hold the rights of man. or will it be remembered as another aggressive abusive country? one prepared to drop to the lowest possible level to acheive victory? a country guilty of systematic torture in the long and short term. a country that broke every single rule laid down in order to gain the advantage? no better than the rest of similar regimes?

at that time will people still be able to say god bless america?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

tell that to the men in quantanamo. those arrested in pakistan. not on the battlefield. tell that to cat stevens. yeah american intelligence.........

and torture is something the american army has taken much pleasure in. throughout modern history that has been shown. bush has ljust legalized it.

it's never been about questions. tell that to the veterans of the rhineland camps, tell that to the people in vietnam, cambodia, korea, tell it to the released from camp x-ray. tell it to lindy englands victims that torture is only used when necessary. that the us can be trusted when it comes to anyone's human rights. it's a total and absolute failure when it comes down to the fundamental rights of man.

what use is guantanamo if it is only used for necessary intelligence? how much intellegence did abu gahrib bring? how much use was the man boiled to death in uzbekistan? was thr intelligence good from the men sent out to egypt, lybia, syria and sudi arabia?

there are people held in quantanamo now for 4 years. a blind cripple and children among them. people not picked up on a battlefield, people taken from their homes in pakistan. these people are subjected daily to inhuman and degrading treatment. 4 years of it. with no representation under law. a total breach of every article before.

---

Can you prove to me that people are doing this for fun?

Can you prove we've never gotten useable intelligence from Abu Graib? Do you honestly think that they'd tell you if they did? That would negate the value of the intelligence that they were gathering. That would tell them straight up if a person gets captured, change the plans, because he'll be tortured into telling the Americans. So rather than tip off the enemy by saying so on CNN, they would probably tend to be rather quiet about the value of the intelligence.

And again, I'm not asking you to spam pictures of Abu Graib, or news articles about Abu Graib/Gitmo, I asked for a professional interrigator that says torture doesn't get the intelligence they need, or a general in the armed services of the US that says torture isn't necessary. I'll assume that the pictures you're posting mean that you can't find such an article.

Quote:

---

but we continue allow this. people are here saying it is good. people are fighting for it right now. the right to inhumanity. the great american dream? is this the america we want?

the ticking bomb scenario does not exist. and if it did you have to apply serious pressure that compared to our uzbek friends previously or that of the argentinian man i showed earlier. and for what?

history judges all of us. and it is not as some people think dictated by the winners. that is in the short term. so when the history books are being written how will modern america be remembered? as a moral country on willing to fall to the level of it's enemies? so just and right that it would do everything to up hold the rights of man. or will it be remembered as another aggressive abusive country? one prepared to drop to the lowest possible level to acheive victory? a country guilty of systematic torture in the long and short term. a country that broke every single rule laid down in order to gain the advantage? no better than the rest of similar regimes?

at that time will people still be able to say god bless america?

---

First off, what is this "we" jazz? You're Scottish, not American. There is no "we" unless you've somehow managed to become an American since the last time we debated this. So to be frank and honest, you don't get to decide what America will be like in ten years.

And I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that there has never been, nor will there ever be, a ticking bomb scenario. That seems to be something else that the intelligence people would tend to keep quiet, rather than tip off the plotters, who would change their plans so as not to get caught.

As to the History Books -- who cares. That's about 8th or 9th in priorities.

Just so we're on the same page, here's the list.

1. Human Lives. Saving the most human lives possible is the most ethical thing you can do.
2. Safety of said human lives, so as people aren't in danger of dying.
3. Human dignity. People shouldn't be mistreated etc. They should have the basics of life etc.
4. Private property.
5. Rule of Law.
6. Serving the will of my own people.
7. Diplomatic stuff. Getting along with the world.
8. The way history will view my actions.

That's how I see things. I'm not going to worry about the stuff like diplomacy or the "history book" unless I can do so while taking care of all the things ahead of it on the list. If no one is still alive, then what use is a history book? Or having Europe love us? Or having high approval numbers? Now if it were possible to have everything on that list, I'd do it in a minute. But one of the funny things about life is that you can't get everything you want. So all things being equal, I'd rather have more lives saved.

We aren't fighting for the "right to inhumanity", we're trying to stabilize a country on the brink of civil war, where any Iraqi at any time can be blown up at the moment. And for the record, the northern Kurds are more brutal with the insurgency than we are. They don't arrest insurgents in Kurdistan, they execute them.

why torture doesn't work a historical point of view. guy fawkes was captured on the 5th of november trying to blow up the houses of parliament he was found in the basement sorrunded by gun powder. no confession was needed.

what was needed were the name of his conspirators what we could class today as terrorists. roaming the streets and had just tried to blow up the king. dangerous people in deed. of high worth like any al qaeda terrorist.

so using medieval torture methods how long did it take for mr fawkes to submit? 1 hour? 6hours? a day? more than enough time for any bomb to detonate. he infact lasted a few days after being tortured by permission from the king. it was of course dangerous times there had just been a catholic plot to kill the king and they were men still capaable of doing it on the streets who knew what they were capable or had planned? but it still took days for guy fawkes to submit.

most bombs go off within about 3 hours of being planted. ambushes the same. bombs do not rest over night neither do people in ambush. you need to be pretty damn hard with what you do in order to gain information from arrest to 3 hours time. you need to be considerably harder than the medieval tactics used on guy fawkes.

you're going to need to smash some legs and use some very hot liquid to move that fast. is that the level america is at?

and that is proof that they are doing it for fun. aside from the smile on lindy england's face. it doesn't work. what was the purpose of the rhinemeadows? information? or a sick pleasure in human suffering? if it doesn't work there is one reason for it. mengel probably felt the same unless of course you belief he was doing it for science.

and the we was as a human being and member of the western world. and if the world is pushed hard enough "we" maybe the ones to decide america's future in the next 10 years.

the ticking bomb scenario doesn't work because of the amount of time given. a large scale heavily planned attack like 9-11 that takes years to plan and buidl up may be foiled. but not a road side bomb just planted on the streets of bagdhad. the ira bombs went off within less than 3 hours of being planted. you don't want to leave bombs lying around. they have a habit of being found. the best bet is to detonate them early. suicide bombers don't even need to plant bombs. you need to catch him between leaving his home and his target. you need to be pretty damn quick with the man you are torturing. better for the hammers and saws out for that then.

and torture breaks 3,5,6,7,8 anyway. i would have loved to see lindy england tried under geneva. and for real kicks i would have done it at nuremburg. or in between milosevic's trials at the hague. becuase she is no better than them. no torturer is.

a quote direct from article 17 of the geneva convention relating to captivity of pow's is "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

and there gnostic yevon you have your view. not that it doesn't work. because guy fawk'es did confess after all. but that it is simply not allowed.

article 3 says much the same.

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;"

but did guy fawke's submit in time to give any promise to the idea of the ticking bomb scenario? no. do we really believe that so many witches were killing harvests, children, animals and flying around on brooms? they confessed to it. willing to die one of the most painful deaths.

and the reason why you need dimplomacy is because it decides if you live or die. want to know why attacks in iraq went up after abu gahrib? because people don't like the idea. it doesn't save lives in that way. it makes alot of people very angry and willing to take very bloody vengence.

and that is why it is also a failure. it doesn't give good information, it's frankly slow even if it did, and it makes the world hate you and that is going to cost more lives at the end of the day.

and if it doesn't work it's for one purpose. the same reason mengel did it. not for science, not for humanity. but because he was a sick little bastard.

*sighs*

Look, there... it is obvious you don't really know what you're speaking of. Having seen, heard of and experienced the things you speak of (bomb plantings, ambushes, etc), I can tell you you're very much misguided, and your perception and knowledge are flawed.

The Intelligence Community's goal is to re-act faster than the enemy can act. That means thinking faster than the enemy, and using every possible way and manner to attain vital information, for the ultimate goal is saving lives - not keeping to the lines of some retarded, archaic document that some fart-faces that do not understand the rigors of war wrote down half a century ago.

It's just a freaking document. It's not absolute law. For me, the moral code I live by and so does my country, says that saving lives is above everything - and certainly above some high-in-the-clouds International Law, or some-such.

If we have to torture to save lives and to prevent further killings, we will do so. It's a good thing people with your line of thinking do not affect our security, Cloud Number Nine, for it is very dangerous to place ideals above the very life of people. I salute to every Intelligence soldier, officer or agent that has ever had to dirty him or herself with the cruel but necessary act of torture, when the principle of saving lives stood before their eyes.

EDIT: A little joke, that's actually at my country's expense. ;)

There's a contest between three internal security organisations - the American FBI, the Russian KGB and the Israeli Shabach. An elephant is released into the wild each time, and whomever catches after as least time has passed - wins.

The FBI's elephant is released. They deploy sensitive electronic equipment, use sattelite images, and various other hi-tech stuff, and find the elephant after two days.

The KGB's elephant is released. They use agents, informers, inside information from the woodsy animals, and find the elephant after a day.

The Shabach's elephant is released. The agents return after two hours with a cat.

"What's this?" they were asked.
"It confessed to being an elephant." The Shabach agents replied.

:D

And, again, Cloud.... you're NOT on the front lines. When you stand, ready to defend the freedoms and rights you seem to value so well. And not just hide in your little corner of the world pretending you have the first idea what it's like out there. But actually out THERE.... and you manage to apprehend someone who was trying to kill you.... and you have the chance to find out if/what they know about others. If you're willing to forego the tried-and-proven-true methods of interrogation called "torture", you will THEN have room to talk. Until then, you have no rights to judge their actions.

Besides, torture is even HONORABLE in war. Warriors, on the battlefield, understand one another. They might hate one another, but there's a mutual (if unspoken) agreement that they're going to fight with everything they're capable. It's disrespectful and insulting not to carry out that implied promise. They'll do it to us, we'll do it to them, and that's only fair.

Oh, and as a disclaimer.... the sick bastards that actually ENJOY this cruelty are an entirely different subject. When it comes to the necessities of war, it's acceptable. When it comes for the sole purpose of amusement, it's not.

Quote:

---

When it comes for the sole purpose of amusement, it's not.

---

No government does that crap for amusements. At least, I hope not. If a government agent interrogates someone for the rightheous goal, I don't care if he enjoys it, there's no law against that. I actually think it's a terrible job to have. Imagine yourself a grown man, a father and a husband, having to come back to the warmth of your home, after spending a day or more interrogating the very face of evil, using cruel methods... I'd find it difficult to hug my wife and kids with the same arms that break bones. Then again, I haven't got a wife and kids.

becaused i haven't experienced war i can't say what is right and wrong? did you experience the holocaust? can you tell me the pro's and con's of it? did you experience the dying in africa? can you tell me if that is right or wrong?

you do not need experience to judge.

the geneva convention is not just a document. it is law. and it is in fact international law. two pieces of text are the highest in this world. the geneva convention and the human rights act. those two (as well as many others). come before any other in this world. they come before your morals and your countries laws. they are the most important international law and bind everyone and everything. and breaking them can carry the heaviest penalties.

torture as we have discussed before does not prevent killings. it takes too long a time. guy fawkes took a few days. people in quantanamo took a few months. bombs and ambushes don't sit around too long. they go off within hours of being planted. they aren't left to be found and disarmed. they are detonated as soon as possible.

and unlike you war angel i would never salute mengel, lindy england, or any other torturer. i'd look at in him the same way i look at something i would wipe off my boot. there is no justification.

and udsuna tell me does this man look honorable to you?

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsi...ic-1863109.jpg

are these honorable tools of war?

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsi...ic-2010350.jpg

is this an honorable act?

http://www.jeffooi.com/archives/iraq_040506_WaPo1.jpg

did this man understand and respect his torturer?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4...rman_ap300.jpg

no the promise in battle is that you don't drop this far. there are places you just don't go. you don't use landmines, you don't use flamethrowers, you don't kill the unarmed, and you do not torture prisoners.

there is law against torture enjoyed or not. i shivver to think of mengel hugging his children. and it's a job you can refuse. nuremburg principle infact states you need to. and there is no reason except for enjoyment.

you can't spend days torturing a man when you need information in 3 hours.

This is going no-where. You keep on holding to your baseless opinions, when you're talking to people who actually know what they're talking about.

I don't think I'll post here unless you have something else to say beside 'torture is wrong, saving lives isn't everything, international law is sacred'.

So, I'll sum this up:

Torture is needed to save the lives of people threatened by the collaborators of the person torture, or the organisation he belongs to, etc. I think saving lives is MORE important than some disconnected-from-reality International Law. Those are the things I disagree on with Cloud Number Nine.

but it doesn't save lives.

and don't think you are up there with the high and mighty just because you've seen conflict. this does not make you a better man than me. you are not superior because of your occupation. don't forget that. don't stand on your pedestal there thinking you have any greater grounds for arguement than anyone else.

torture will not save lives unless you can torture a man in 3 hours. that is going to be hellishly severe. guy fawkes with stood days with medieval torture methods including probably the rack. you've got to find some way to get a man to give you enough to stop a plamnted bomb. now you've either got to totally break this man harder and faster than we managed guy fawkes or admit the futility in torture.

or you could carry on regardless because a part of you likes the power in having a man totally at your will.

Quote:

---

this does not make you a better man than me.

---

No, just a more knowledgeble one.

Quote:

---

don't stand on your pedestal there thinking you have any greater grounds for arguement than anyone else.

---

Oh, but I do. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on the subject - but I am certainly more familiar with it than you, or most people that frequent these boards. Now, if we had an internal security agent in here, that would be nice... we probably do, we just don't know who he is. :D

Quote:

---

torture will not save lives unless you can torture a man in 3 hours.

---

Why 3 hours? Why not 10 minutes? Why not 4 days? Don't get stuck on crap. No scenario has a set time-limit. A skilled interrogator can get answers out of a man in minutes - sometime mere threats are all it takes. Sometimes some blackmail works. Torture happens after everything else has failed.

Interrogation saves lives. Capturing terrorists and doing whatever it takes to divuldge information from them saves lives. Saving lives is the most important thing. That is all.