"Anti-Torture Amendment"; Bush disapproves

[Cloud No.9]

it's there for a variety of reasons. first of all it's not uncommon. it wasn't a one off event. it is typical. read about the salt pit and the deaths in baghram to see that and the stories that come out of guantanamo.

it's the photo documentation we have of american torture. which we know is systematic and not a one time event.

it makes it visual. to see what we put people through and to see the people smile as they do it.

i think people tend to dismiss torture as being okay because they don't understand it. like shunakamura. i think the actual pain involved had missed him/her. it needs to be totally degrading and unbearable.

abu gharib is also intersting in many other ways. as well as being the most well known case of american torture it is one of the lightest punishments ever seen. the raping of young boys and girls took place in that prison. murders. some horrific abuse sexual, physical and emotional. and the most anyone got was 10 years. with no mention of the rapes and murders. it was a white wash and a testament to how deep this goes.

i don't think a lot of people cared. like our radio commentator there. some people just don't see the big deal. i remember lindy england's parensts saying she was just mucking around. they killed and raped people. it was a sadist mucking around.

and that is the way torture exists. to please the torturer. it's done with a smile.

all pictures of torture are going to be nasty and i choose the ones that i though suitable. there are some truly horrific ones out there that i didn't show. what i posted could have been seen on any 6 o'clock news.

the most horrific thing is not the pictures but the things that were not shown. the rape. the events in the salt pit and baghram. the burning and sodomy with chemical lights. that is the shocking stuff.

but having it visual makes it clearer.

[Gnostic Yevon]

it makes it visual. to see what we put people through and to see the people smile as they do it.

i think people tend to dismiss torture as being okay because they don't understand it. like shunakamura. i think the actual pain involved had missed him/her. it needs to be totally degrading and unbearable.

abu gharib is also intersting in many other ways. as well as being the most well known case of american torture it is one of the lightest punishments ever seen. the raping of young boys and girls took place in that prison. murders. some horrific abuse sexual, physical and emotional. and the most anyone got was 10 years. with no mention of the rapes and murders. it was a white wash and a testament to how deep this goes.

i don't think a lot of people cared. like our radio commentator there. some people just don't see the big deal. i remember lindy england's parensts saying she was just mucking around. they killed and raped people. it was a sadist mucking around.

I agree with you that posting the pictures can show your point better than words can. The thing is that a few times it was in response to a question about what the generals thought about torture, or whether anyone in the interigation field thought it worked. There's a difference in showing torture in a newsworthy fashion and spamming pictures of torture and death.

I don't doubt that some of those involved did enjoy the torture, just as there was a porn ring sceme to trade pictures of the Iraqi war dead for porn. But that doesn't mean everyone enjoyed doing those things. Just that there are some sickos who do.

all pictures of torture are going to be nasty and i choose the ones that i though suitable. there are some truly horrific ones out there that i didn't show. what i posted could have been seen on any 6 o'clock news.

the most horrific thing is not the pictures but the things that were not shown. the rape. the events in the salt pit and baghram. the burning and sodomy with chemical lights. that is the shocking stuff.

but having it visual makes it clearer.

I understand that torture pictures are going to be nasty. But I also understand that some people read EOFF while eating their Cheerios, and I don't think they should be made to puke.

And I could find horrible pictures of maimed soldiers if I'd wanted to. I saw a picture of a suicide bomber literally blown in half by his own bomb. I've seen pictures of Iraqis with their heads blown open and their brains leaking out. And there are hundreds of those out there.

like these:

Definitely far, far to graphic. --foa

[Cloud No.9]

the pictures were censored. there was ano excess of blood, gore or nudity. but they were still sickening. and i had nothing to do with their visual content. it's the actual human suffering that is seen and implied.

now i never got into the general and expert question as it is a very difficult thing to research as it seems most generals and intelligence experts say nothing on the matter. there a few excemptions like the one who spoke up for amnesty international last month. i've been searching for a transcript of his speech at the event.

"I don't doubt that some of those involved did enjoy the torture, just as there was a porn ring sceme to trade pictures of the Iraqi war dead for porn. But that doesn't mean everyone enjoyed doing those things. Just that there are some sickos who do." they are very much identical these incidents. those who commit them are obviously sadistic and enjoy what they are doing. everyone in those photos i gave enjoyed what they did. the fun had at the salt pit and baghram is obvious. it wasn't even torture. it was cold blooded, sadistic violence.

and it was enjoyed. that is why it is done. it's a failure on intelligence, tactics, strategy and morality. but some sick bastards get off on it.

[ShunNakamura]

*cough* cloud. I definately understand it. It is just that my level of unbearable is much higher then yours. Or so I guess. And I did attempt to explain why.

The only type that I really really am against is the sodomy and the like. once again I mentioned why.

Unbearable means unbearable. Unbearable means impossible to endure or tolerate. And when you use the word as a sweeping gesture to cover everyone, you just raise the bar up high. Some people's pain tolerence is damn high.

Torture does not have to be unbearable. You just have to convince them that they don't what to put up with more of it. That the better option is to give the information out.

Cloud, pretell, do you know the purpose one has when they go out on the wrestling mat to wrestle. The way we were taught was this. When you are out there you are supposed to inflict as much pain as possible whiling trying to avoid long lasting physical damage(such as breaking other people's bones on purpose). But all of the pain inflicted, despite the fact that I have seen many wrestlers give up due to it, is quite bearable. You do realize that in some wrestling moves you could break someones back(very low chance but it puts a load of pressure there and hurts lke no tomorrow.. or so I am told and have seen/heard(some of those guys scream loud), Though, I never felt anypain myself in the move.), another puts grinding pressure into the other fellas temple, etc... The goal in wrestling is to inflict enough pain to make the guy let you pin him. By how you are using it you would make this sound unbearable. Far from it... no effect on me.. not really. And no effect on many of my freinds.

Many people are weak willed, they will give in even if the pain isn't unbearable. You would be surprised what they human race can tolerate. Hell, in there ARE cases where rape isn't unbearable. Bearable is definately dependent on the individual. But if you apply it to the human race the bar can go up awfully darn high.

[DarkLadyNyara]

Many people are weak willed, they will give in even if the pain isn't unbearable. You would be surprised what they human race can tolerate. Hell, in there ARE cases where rape isn't unbearable. Bearable is definately dependent on the individual. But if you apply it to the human race the bar can go up awfully darn high.

Hell, I kow people who cry like babies ir they get a paper cut.

[Cloud No.9]

pain is relative. but you are still putting people through unbearable pain. and it is not something that you sign up to like wrestling. it is about taking a defenceless powerless person and pushing them as hard as you can.

and some people just don't know when to stop. look at the two dead of indetical wounds in baghram. what killed them? it wasn't a strike to the head, drowining, hypothermia, strangling, it wasn't broken ribs or exposure. it was simple, they were kicked and beaten on the knees until they died. it seems stupid and not a big deal. but they were beaten to death on their knees.

that's why neds here stab people in the leg. no basic knowledge of anatomy. to them they think it's a minor inconvienence to be stabbed in the leg so it's no big deal.

and i do have a rather high threshhold of pain. played matches with broken bones etc. doesn't mean i don't understand other people's threshhold of pain being lower.

and i think rape is as unbearable as things get.

and paper cuts can be rather painful.

[ShunNakamura]

Oh yes I understand that people have different threseholds. It is just that whenever you tend to use the word unbearable I get the feeling you are implying that it is unbearable in a universal sense. Thus, the whole cause of this that and the fact I don't think torture has to be unbearable to be effective.

and i think rape is as unbearable as things get.

You and me both. But I have read(non-fiction(or so they claimed/implied) accounts of course) about the rare person who is raped and can just shrug it off. The only way I have ever seen and been able to explain it, is that some people just do not attach much to sex.. and thus it is less meaningful. It still stings thier pride and the like, but nowhere near the amount that many others go through.

Never seen such a thing personally so perhaps the accounts were just blowing smoke.

The whole wrestling thing is to try to get accross A) that pain is realitive and what is unbearable to one is bearable to another and B) that pain does not have to be unbearable to be effective in convincing someone to do what you want.

Those guys who give up and finally let you pin them in the match... well they aren't at the limit of pain they have just decided(in many cases) that it wasn't worth it. Same thing with the wrestling choke holds. If you fight to you pass out, it is no big deal. But most of the guys I have seen give up before hand.. .which pisses off most of the coaches I have met. But anyways just an example that people will give up before something becomes unbearable.

but they were beaten to death on their knees.

Blunt type damage can sometimes be more effective in killing then say a pointed weapon. A pointed type will generally cause bleeding damage(or instant(or near enough) death in the right spot), where as a blunt causes crushing, sometimes bleeding(if it is powerful enough internal bleeding isn't a far stretch), and instant(or near enough) death if hit in the right spot.

Thus it ain't hard for me to see that happening. And guess what that is? Murder. So charge them with murder.


As for the paper cut thing... I have always wondered why they sting so much. Easily enough ignored but it never fails to surprise me that it does actually hurt. Such a small wound to be causing pain. Heck I can smash my toe under a hammer and have it hurt less then that(and I mean after shock wheres off, if it ever set in.).

How about paper cut torture? would that be a viable way, that would be justifiable... then again we would probably here of someone bleeding to death due to it ... or some such.

[Cloud No.9]

"But I have read(non-fiction(or so they claimed/implied) accounts of course) about the rare person who is raped and can just shrug it off." but can we justify it?

paper cut torture would still have the same problems as anything else. you would be pushing a human being to the capability to withstand pain.

but the problem lies here. torture cannot be used for short terms bombings like in iraq. so it needs to be used for long term issues. like say to stop big plans like 9-11.

but then we end up with a guantanamo situation. which isn't good either.

there's no good way to use torture. and without a way there is no reason.

[Gnostic Yevon]

"But I have read(non-fiction(or so they claimed/implied) accounts of course) about the rare person who is raped and can just shrug it off." but can we justify it?

paper cut torture would still have the same problems as anything else. you would be pushing a human being to the capability to withstand pain.

but the problem lies here. torture cannot be used for short terms bombings like in iraq. so it needs to be used for long term issues. like say to stop big plans like 9-11.

but then we end up with a guantanamo situation. which isn't good either.

there's no good way to use torture. and without a way there is no reason.

So we should even sacrifice ordinary citizens to Geneva now? Honestly Cloud, google a few pictures of what suicide bombings actually do to people. Look at the images of people jumping off the twin towers rather than being burned to death. I could marginally see this when we were speaking of the millitary only, but civillians didn't sign on to this. I don't think it's fair to ask a non-millitary person to put himself in danger because of Geneva. With a millitary person, the general or whatever could say "take the high road etc." and the soldiers would probably be OK with it. (I am still leaving it to the generals in the field though, not to armchair generals sitting at home watching the war on CNN.)

But with a civillian, they aren't in the services. In fact, the whole purpose of millitary and police is to protect the citizen from being killed. If the millitary is going to allow a civillian to die for law, honor or anything else, that milllitary is shirking its duty to protect its citizens. If that's the case, lets save however many billions of dollars and disband the millitary now. A hammer that can't drive a nail is worthless, as is one in the hands of a person that will never use it to drive nails.

Geneva is simply not that important that we should sacrifice everything else to satisfy Geneva Conventions. It is important, and a step toward the right direction, but because it doesn't provide for self-defense or defense of your own citizens, it's fundementally flawed.

[Cloud No.9]

it makes no difference though that's the point. it will not save lives. it doesn't work for planted bombs. and guantanamo is a crappy idea that fails.

so the entire idea is flawed. and all it does is add fuel to the fire.

and that is the real essence of it. it doesn't work. and so is injustifiable. it serves but one purpose. to put a sick little smile onto the faces of sadistic idiots who have no right to be anywhere but jail.

[War Angel]

it will not save lives. it doesn't work for planted bombs.

And you say this, based on what practical knowledge you might have? I could easily find many Military and Government Intelligence men, plus many soldiers and generals, that would claim the opposite. And they, unlike you, know what they're speaking of.

Now, given the fact it DOES save lives and that it DOES prevent destruction, havoc and general trouble caused by terrorist acts, would you think it is justifiable? Should torture be excercised on a terrorist, in order to prevent more killing? Or is the price of torture too high, for saving lives?

Or, perhaps you stick by your previous argument, that the saving of lives is not worth breaching the International Law for? That your moral values are more important than the very lives of those close and dear to you?

Please don't evade a direct answer this time. I'd like to know where you stand on this... because it truly baffles me.

[Cloud No.9]

tell me how long does it take to arrest a man and torture information out of him. bear in mind that guy fawkes took a few days under harsh medieval treatment.

now tell me how long bombs are planted for. they aren't left for a few days. they are dropped off and detonated.

so it both fails and is immoral. and breaching international law causes death to the soliders who breach it (simply hang them) and it makes more bombers.

fruitless in every possible situation. made for the sick and depraved. part of the dehumanising process this world has seen over the last 4 years.

[War Angel]

Look, don't argue with facts. I'm telling you it has happened many, many times, and that's only here. There's really no point in claiming otherwise - I'm telling you this, as a man that knows a little bit, and has read and heard a bit on the subject. That 'bit' being a whole lot more than most people know.

Now, please address my question, given this aboslute axiom and unquestionable information.

And you know what, even if you still don't believe it, just ASSUME it helps, and hyopthetically, tell me if it's justifiable.

[Cloud No.9]

i will answer the question one more time. yes they can break it. but they will be tried and sentenced for it (unlike abu gahrib) the same as any other war criminal they will stand beside in history with mengel and uday hussein. no justifiable reason. not for saving lives. never.

and find me one case were we have found the ticking bomb scenario. when a planted bomb has been found in disarmed from the point it was placed to the time it was meant to have detonated. one case where torture has prevented that.

it's not about international law. law is a reflection of morality. it's about how far are willing to go. if we are better than our enemy. and right now we are not. no better than the suicide bombers in the west bank, in baghdad, in indonesia. the same torturers and murderers. different cause.

so yes. people will die for morality. that is the case with morality sometimes. but we need to remain above our enemies. to remain righteous and just.

[War Angel]

no justifiable reason. not for saving lives. never.

so yes. people will die for morality. that is the case with morality sometimes

There is no 'morality' if innocent people are dying for it. There's no 'higher ground' if you let your own people die and suffer so you don't get your hands dirty.

This is pointless. You're hopeless. I'm just glad there are real brave men and women out there who actually CARE about other people, their security, well-being and their lives. Looking after vague, disconnected-from-reality moral values, at the expense of what really counts, and what's really important is wrong. So very, very wrong. Eventually, it's no better than being like Mengale, Uday Hussein, Stalin, or any other historic figure that doesn't care for human lives, and humans themselves. They, too, put their beliefs and ideas above the value of human life.