PDA

View Full Version : Blame Canada!


Davian93
08-27-2009, 09:53 AM
The CIA used a Canadian Gov't survival manual to come up with some torture methods...I mean "enhanced interrogation" methods.

So clearly, its all Canada's fault.

LINK (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/08/27/cia-interrogation-transport-canada-cold-water841.html)



CIA interrogators used Transport Canada documents

Last Updated: Thursday, August 27, 2009 | 9:32 AM CBC News

A survival manual produced by Transport Canada was used by U.S. interrogators to set limits on dousing detainees with cold water, according to documents released this week.

Newly declassified CIA documents, which were released by the U.S. administration, indicate the Canadian-made handbook was used to fine-tune cold-water interrogation techniques during renditions and the detention of "high value prisoners" being held at prisons, including the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The previously top-secret CIA memos were turned over to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

A CIA manual, intended for medical officers monitoring the interrogation of suspects, describes 20 methods of interrogation. Water dousing which the manual said could be combined with nudity, stress positions and slaps was ranked fifth most severe on the list of methods.

The 2005 CIA manual refers to the Transport Canada publication "Survival in Cold Waters: Staying Alive" to set the limits on cold water exposure. The 92-page Transport Canada document was written for seafarers and boaters and outlines conditions that can induce hypothermia and lead to death.

'Safe to undertake'

Water dousing, which differs from waterboarding, can include repeatedly dousing detainees with water or immersing them in cold water at intervals over a time period of up to six hours.

"In our opinion, a partial dousing ... would therefore be safe to undertake within these parameters," the CIA memo said.

Based on the research included in the Transport Canada manual, the CIA memo recommends that detainees be placed in water ranging from 5 to 15 C for up to 60 minutes at a time. It added the detainee could be allowed some time to warm up and then be placed back in the water.

"These standards are derived from submersion studies, and represent two-thirds of the time at which hypothermia is likely to develop in healthy individuals submerged in water, wearing light clothing," according to the CIA memo.

The interrogation method should be stopped if there is evidence of hypothermia, the memo states.

"Materials that were meant to help insure that people can better survive when they are immersed in cold water was in fact being used in this program to insure that cold water could be used to inflict the maximum pain and suffering possible," said Alex Neve, head of Amnesty International Canada.

Though it is impossible to control how Canadian publications are used, it is incumbent on the Canadian government to express that it is "very upset to see that this information was used this way," Neve said.

Christine Collins, president of the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, said it is "appalling" and "unacceptable" to learn that a Canadian government document was used to help facilitate the interrogation of the detainees.

"To take this type of document, which is clearly intended to save lives, to see the information manipulated in this manner, needs to be addressed," Collins said.

The Canadian government should express its condemnation of the use of Canadian safety expertise for the interrogations, Collins said.

Zanguini
08-27-2009, 10:01 AM
Well you have to go to the best experts to get the best information. And in this case being dowsed by freezing water there is really only the canadians to go to.

Of course that doesnt stop you for blaming canada for many many things. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSYipouABI)

Often (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfBbR6L0M)

after all they did give us celine dion ... which is auditory torture.
http://caitlincoyle.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/celinedion-resize-s925-s450-fit.jpg

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2009, 10:05 AM
Come on, Mengele got famous for that type of behavior. Is it really fair to withhold that opportunity for fame to American doctors?
Name their names, bring it into the open. Let people know who they are dealing with.

Ishara
08-27-2009, 10:21 AM
I agree. I can't help thining about the person who wrote the memo in the first place. HOW can you possibly live with yourself when you put those words on paper? Someone directed someone else to do it - the names should really be started from the top on down.

Frenzy
08-27-2009, 11:16 AM
i wonder if dunking prisoners in cold Canadian beer would've been more effective.

i'm also amused that someone in the CIA took the time to find out where the line was. This tells me that either the CIA actually care about the status of the prisoner, or that they're too amateurish to know how to properly "coerce" someone without killing them.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 11:22 AM
I do have a question, though, to all of you being outraged at torture (which I don't condone, btw). How do you propose to get urgent and possibly life-saving information from someone who clearly has it, but won't give it up?

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2009, 11:33 AM
A related case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8224357.stm) (we don't know what tortures have been used, because that's classified).
One of the youngest detainees held at the US detention centre in Guantanamo Bay will sue the United States for compensation, his lawyers say.

Mohammed Jawad was released and arrived in his native Afghanistan earlier this week. His family says he was 12 at the time of his detention in 2002.Now, this time my question is not about his detention (though one can ask plenty of questions about that).
Mr Jawad's family say he was 12 when he was arrested in 2002.

The Pentagon says a bone scan showed he was about 17 when taken into custody.Now, assuming that this bone scan was done by a licensed doctor, that's a violation of patient-doctor confidentiality right there. Quite apart from the issue of carrying out medically unnecessary experiments on a prisoner, possibly being party to child kidnapping, child abuse, child pornography (if any pictures of the boy in undressed state were made) and so forth.

Now, naturally, those doctors will return to the USA and start practicing there once again. Would you want your children to be treated by them?

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 11:40 AM
And what does that have to do with my question?

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2009, 11:44 AM
How do you propose to get urgent and possibly life-saving information from someone who clearly has it, but won't give it up?If you know that he or she clearly has it, then it is very likely that either you can't get it in time anyway, no matter what you do, or you don't need his cooperation.

If they know where the A-bomb is, and that it'll blow in twenty minutes, then they can simply sent your guys into the adjacent building, and then wait for the bang. If you also know where the bomb is, then you don't need him to tell you.

Of course, giving the police a license to torture anyone suspected of having information which could save someone else may be what you have in mind. If not, how do you plan to distinguish between the cases where you do think it is justified and the ones that aren't in a law which would regulate this?

Let me be clear: if I ever find myself in a situation of the type that you're suggesting, then I might possibly apply some torture myself. I can't imagine a scenario which is reasonable enough to merit "plausible", but I can't absolutely rule it out either.
In such a case, I would probably freeze up. But suppose that I actually did torture the culprit, and got the information which then saved innocent lives. Then I would confess what I had done, and go to prison knowing that the law which sent me there was also protecting innocents, just as I had done. If I were let off, on a technicality like "let's move forward" or something like that, then I would know that there was not such a law which protects the innocents from being tortured.

Because, make no mistake: tens of thousands were tortured in Argentina during the rule of the junta there, on the pretext of "protecting the innocent". Tens of thousands were tortured in Persia, Iraq, Chili, and lots of other countries all around the world, using precisely that same 'excuse'.

If the state is allowed to torture under any circumstances, then you have a terrorist state. That's where terrorism comes from, actually: the Terror Regime which held sway during part of the French Revolution.
All those who claim that terrorism is a matter of non-state parties only are liars. During the twentieth century, non-state terrorists may have killed hundreds of thousands. State terrorism probably killed over a hundred million.

Edited to add:
Gil, you were simply too impatient. I know, having to wait is torture and all that, but then: I'm not a state, so it could be a thousand times worse.

Kurtz
08-27-2009, 11:53 AM
Being tortured in Chili sounds particularly nasty

ShadowbaneX
08-27-2009, 12:02 PM
I do have a question, though, to all of you being outraged at torture (which I don't condone, btw). How do you propose to get urgent and possibly life-saving information from someone who clearly has it, but won't give it up?
Catch 22: You either compromise your principles and torture the guy, or let their plan play out and possibly let people die.

Sucks to choose.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 12:03 PM
Catch 22: You either compromise your principles and torture the guy, or let their plan play out and possibly let people die.

Sucks to choose.

Shoot the hostage?

Ishara
08-27-2009, 12:04 PM
I know he meant Chile, and he's right.

And Gil, sorry but you're never going to get me to provide a justification for what happened here. I just don't agree.

ShadowbaneX
08-27-2009, 12:05 PM
Shoot the hostage?
in a sense, ie be willing to accept casualties.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 12:08 PM
I know he meant Chile, and he's right.

And Gil, sorry but you're never going to get me to provide a justification for what happened here. I just don't agree.

If you torture the guy be willing to pay the price legally. Either way, you need to realize there are consequences for your action legally and morally.

There was a Colonel during the initial Iraq invasion that threatened to kill a POW and went to the point of shooting his sidearm by the guy's head to get him to talk (he saved his battalion/brigade from an ambush with the information he got) and said afterwards that it was worth it even though it ended his military career. He was kicked out of the military shortly afterward and I believe he even lost a step in rank as a result. He saved his men's lives with that info and knew he was crossing the line when he did it but was willing to pay that price.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 12:26 PM
So, Ishara, you'd let 9/11 happen? Because torture's wrong?


(I'm actually just trying to understand something, here.)

Ishara
08-27-2009, 12:42 PM
But that's an illogical assumption Gil. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but circumstances weren't applicable to the situation of 9/11. To bring it up just adds a layer of emotion that doesn't need to be there.

I know you're trying to understand my position. I don't have one other than to do it is wrong, and I can see why some people would feel otherwise. Paying the price is ceratinly key, but doesn't make it okay.

Frankly, I KNOW and LOVE people who have been tortured by the state for supposed information. There was none. I may be the wrong person to ask. Your filter is 9/11, and that's part of mine certainly, but not all.

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2009, 12:50 PM
Being tortured in Chili sounds particularly nastyAm I supposed to remember that you lot use the Spanish version of the name of the country instead of the far more sensible Dutch version?
So, Ishara, you'd let 9/11 happen? Because torture's wrong?Can you give a plausible scenario under which torture could have prevented 9/11?

If you knew who was going to be involved in it, you could have prevented them from getting on the planes. If you didn't know, then who would you torture? Brian, just in case he happens to have overheard something? Tamyrlin, because as Admin he is supposed to be responsible? Every single Muslim in the USA, on the off chance that someone somewhere is planning something?

My suggestions may seem frivolous, but they are at least a part of why torture was abolished as a way of getting info. If you torture people, you almost always get answers. Those answers will let you grab other people, who, when tortured, give you more answers. That's how the witch trials generally worked.
Would you care to make an estimate how many actual witches were caught that way?

And, on the other hand, do you think that there would be any reason why Iran shouldn't be just as justified in torturing US citizens they get their hands on, just in case those happen to be terrorists?
We know they've convicted a number of US citizens for terrorism, we know Iran has been hit by terrorist attacks, so obviously the threat is real.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 01:01 PM
Your filter is 9/11, and that's part of mine certainly, but not all.

Actually, my filter is Bryan, the rest of my family and my friends, of which you are a member, dear.

I'm aware, Gonzo, that torture is a faulty method. (And, uh, which Brian are you talking about?) But like I said, if you had reliable reasons to believe this person knew something (and there are no reliable reasons to believe every Muslim or American is a terrorist or knows anything about anything), and that information could stop it... (And no, I'm not talking about 20 minutes from now, or whatever your examples were, cause you kinda picked examples specifically where torture wouldn't work.)

And actually, Gonzo, if they had real intelligence (not fabricated or questionable or simply just to piss us off) that an American citizen was part of, let's say al'Quaida, have at them. I'm not one to believe that Americans should only be tried in America.

Kurtz
08-27-2009, 01:07 PM
Torture's a mess and should be left alone. Much like incest. I'm not even being glib.

There's much argument in favour of it, but the dangers and abuses are just too great.

Ishara
08-27-2009, 01:44 PM
Gil I'm not doing a good job here. I didn't mean to say that you think it's okay. I wouldn't presume to say that. I just meant that 9/11 is going to colour your way of thinking about it - just as your concern for family and friends (hug) will. Same goes for me as a Canadian, with the added fact that as a Chilean I have seen the effects of the other side.

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 01:51 PM
And what does that have to do with my question?

Torture is never justified. I'll say whatever I think you want to hear to get you to stop torturing me, whether it's true or not. You just can't be sure about the reliability of it, and even so, you can't be 100% this person knows something -- because if you did, you'd know what they supposedly know, and you wouldn't have to torture them in the first place.

I can't condone torture at all.

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2009, 04:01 PM
I'm aware, Gonzo, that torture is a faulty method.Yet, later in this post, you say "have at them".
(And, uh, which Brian are you talking about?)Brian, Bryan, who cares?
Of course, in recent years the USA has actually tortured people because they got the wrong one in such a case of mistaken identity, but then ... if they're Al Qaeda (Brian, or Bryan, or whomever), then "have at them".

Let's say that Bryan Blaire gets tortured for a couple of months, because the CIA made a clerical error. Would you then suggest "moving on", with no repercussions for anyone involved (apart from the torture victim. of course), or would you be an Al Qaeda sympathiser and try to take them to court?

But like I said, if you had reliable reasons to believe this person knew something (and there are no reliable reasons to believe every Muslim or American is a terrorist or knows anything about anything), and that information could stop it... (And no, I'm not talking about 20 minutes from now, or whatever your examples were, cause you kinda picked examples specifically where torture wouldn't work.)I will be honest: I do not think that any such reason could be reliable enough to warrant torture. I'm not entirely confident of my own ability to hold on to that principle in all circumstances, but based on cold blooded reason I would say that torture is wrong.

Now, you seem to think that it may sometimes be warranted. You mentioned the possibility of preventing 9/11 with it. I asked you how. You ignored that. Do you plan to answer, or are you trusting enough of the "we know where the WMD are" US government to give them carte blanche in this matter?

And actually, Gonzo, if they had real intelligence (not fabricated or questionable or simply just to piss us off) that an American citizen was part of, let's say al'Quaida, have at them.To be honest, I think that the provision against being forced to testify against yourself, in the 5th Amendment to your Constitution, is a good general principle that should be upheld all over the world.
So I do not think that Iran would be justified in torturing Americans, even though Americans feel justified in torturing other people. The fact that terrorists use reprehensible tactics does not give other people the right to do the same.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 04:09 PM
Brian, Bryan, who cares?
Of course, in recent years the USA has actually tortured people because they got the wrong one in such a case of mistaken identity, but then ... if they're Al Qaeda (Brian, or Bryan, or whomever), then "have at them".

Let's say that Bryan Blaire gets tortured for a couple of months, because the CIA made a clerical error. Would you then suggest "moving on", with no repercussions for anyone involved (apart from the torture victim. of course), or would you be an Al Qaeda sympathiser and try to take them to court?

Cute tactic proposing my husband in this. I'm asking a question, not condoning the practice, Gonzo. Until you can stop using extreme tactics, I'll talk to Ishara and not you, m'kay?

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 04:14 PM
Cute tactic proposing my husband in this. I'm asking a question, not condoning the practice, Gonzo. Until you can stop using extreme tactics, I'll talk to Ishara and not you, m'kay?

I don't think so. He's refuting your claim that torture could have prevented 9/11, and he's asking you to back up your statement, which you're not.

Sinistrum
08-27-2009, 04:30 PM
I don't think so. He's refuting your claim that torture could have prevented 9/11, and he's asking you to back up your statement, which you're not.

Um Camel/Gonzo its called a hypothetical question. Thus meaning it can be asked without being reflective of the personal views of the person asking it. Apparently some people here aren't familiar with the Socratic method.

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2009, 04:31 PM
Cute tactic proposing my husband in this. I'm asking a question, not condoning the practice, Gonzo. Until you can stop using extreme tactics, I'll talk to Ishara and not you, m'kay?The point is: it is not an extreme. At least some of the people who were actually tortured under the actual policy we are discussing here are the victims of precisely that type of mistake. It is not a hypothetical, this situation has made the headlines a number of times.
One example is Khalid El-Masri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri), but he was not the only one. As you can read on the Wiki page to which I refer, no one has been held responsible for his kidnapping and torture as far as we know. So whoever did this knows that they got away with it, and that if they do it again they will likely once again get away with it.

So, can you actually answer my questions:
How did torturing the innocent Khalid El-Masri prevent another 9/11?
How could torturing anyone (presumably before 9/11) have prevented it, if the secret services didn't know about the plot (if they had known, they could have had the hijackers arrested, after all)?

I am mentioning Bryan because that is the reality: unless Bryan is capable of actually proving his innocence of whatever he might be suspected by whomever captures him (he may not hear the charges, so he will have to guess right what to defend against), he and everyone else would be liable to torture under your proposed scheme.
I know that you are merely asking why it may or may not be a good idea. I try to show why it isn't a good idea by making you consider how Bryan (or you, for that matter) could provide proof of innocence while being waterboarded.

And I mention Bryan because you may have the courage to accept the risk for yourself, but people usually get a lot more careful when deciding to let their loved ones be tortured or killed. It may not be nice, but it is realistic.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 04:37 PM
Actually, I never said any such thing. Where I mentioned 9/11:


So, Ishara, you'd let 9/11 happen? Because torture's wrong?

I alluded to it here:
I'm aware, Gonzo, that torture is a faulty method. (And, uh, which Brian are you talking about?) But like I said, if you had reliable reasons to believe this person knew something (and there are no reliable reasons to believe every Muslim or American is a terrorist or knows anything about anything), and that information could stop it... (And no, I'm not talking about 20 minutes from now, or whatever your examples were, cause you kinda picked examples specifically where torture wouldn't work.)

I never CLAIMED torture could have prevented 9/11, I asked IF IT COULD HAVE, should it have been done, would it have been justified?


So, which of those posts allows him to bring in Bryan? I told Ishara I might consider it in the case of my husband, family and friends to save them. I never said out and out that I'd do it or support it.

Gonzo:
Now, you seem to think that it may sometimes be warranted. You mentioned the possibility of preventing 9/11 with it. I asked you how. You ignored that. Do you plan to answer, or are you trusting enough of the "we know where the WMD are" US government to give them carte blanche in this matter?

I don't know how, since I'm not familiar with the events that led to the intelligence fuck up that let it happen. It's called a hypothetical. Since you've been to college, perhaps you've heard of that type of question?

And yes, my "have at them," was rather flippant. However, if an American committed a real act of terrorism (not some military action that pissed off that country, or a snooping journalist), like blowing up a Starbucks (or something) in the middle of Tehran, yeah, he deserves what the Iranians give him, assuming he survived his own bomb.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 04:40 PM
Gonzo, I don't fucking care about your reasons for bringing my husband into this. I don't go around picking personal details about your life and using them in an argument.

So, can you actually answer my questions:
How did torturing the innocent Khalid El-Masri prevent another 9/11?
How could torturing anyone (presumably before 9/11) have prevented it, if the secret services didn't know about the plot (if they had known, they could have had the hijackers arrested, after all)?

Since those are the questions I asked, how about you answer them yourself.

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2009, 04:53 PM
All right, so we were busy confusing each other. Why did you have to break that up?

Anyways, could you explain what you meant with:
So, Ishara, you'd let 9/11 happen? Because torture's wrong?That seems like a "torture might have prevented 9/11" scenario to me, but now I think that's not how you meant it. That does leave me rather befuddled on what you did mean by it, though.
I never CLAIMED torture could have prevented 9/11, I asked IF IT COULD HAVE, should it have been done, would it have been justified?The problem here is that this is a hypothetical which is too hypothetical. It is a type of situation which appears quite often in stories, movies, television series and such, but rarely if ever in real life. It is known as the "ticking bomb scenario".
I would be surprised if anyone could come up with a genuine real life example where this scenario occurred.

Yet without that, what you have (what we actually have in reality), is "does the goverment have the right to torture whomever it wants, on the off chance that this may enhance security".

Consider the 9/11 case: if some of the hijackers had been arrested on a suspicion (which did exist, but got lost in the system), then if they had been tortured they might have revealed the plan. Assuming one of the few who knew it had been caught, since most do not seem to have been aware that it was a suicide mission. That would have prevented 9/11.
However, if they hadn't been tortured, but instead had been thrown out of the country because their visa were outdated, then 9/11 would also have been prevented. That's just one of the snags, of course, I am sure that someone familiar with law enforcement could come up with others.

Showing that torture actually produces better results than not using torture in real world scenarios is not at all an easy task. I am not sure it can be done at all, which is why I am defending the "it can't be done" part of that argument.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 05:05 PM
All right, glad we cleared that up. Don't use Bryan in an arguement with me again and we'll get along.

I'm a writer, Gonzo. It's my job to play with the what-ifs.

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2009, 05:07 PM
Gonzo, I don't fucking care about your reasons for bringing my husband into this. I don't go around picking personal details about your life and using them in an argument.I sneakily protected myself against that sort of thing by not getting married.


Since those are the questions I asked, how about you answer them yourself.I'll try.

-How did torturing the innocent Khalid El-Masri prevent another 9/11?
Torturing innocents did not help at all in preventing any terrorist attacks. On the contrary, it made it more likely that such attacks would be carried out. This case and others were wonderful propaganda coups for Al Qaeda, courtesy of the CIA.

-How could torturing anyone (presumably before 9/11) have prevented it, if the secret services didn't know about the plot (if they had known, they could have had the hijackers arrested, after all)?
If the secret services had gone about randomly torturing people, and if by chance they had picked up the right ones for this torture, then they could indeed have learned about the plot in time and prevented it from happening. Of course, there would have been some collateral damage, which you seem to disapprove of just as much as I do.
If everyone could be subjected to torture on the merest suspicion, then I suspect that quite a lot of organisations like Al Qaeda would be discovered and dismantled. Of course, there would be even more collateral damage with this scenario, so there may be drawbacks to it.

Does that answer your questions?
If you are willing to live under the Spanish Inquisition, then the government can keep a tight check on what everyone is doing. If you want freedom for yourself (and you happen not to be the Grand Inquisitor), then the government must not be free to torture.

If everything worked perfectly, then I am sure there could be situations where torture was justified. (Of course, if everything works perfectly, torture isn't necesary, which sort of removes the justification.) But if you add in human fallibility than justification for torture falls apart.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 05:16 PM
Thank you, Gonzo.

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 05:21 PM
All right, glad we cleared that up. Don't use Bryan in an arguement with me again and we'll get along.

If you can bring up hypothetical scenarios that don't exist and play on emotional fears (i.e. 9/11), then why can't Gonzo?

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 05:23 PM
Um Camel/Gonzo its called a hypothetical question. Thus meaning it can be asked without being reflective of the personal views of the person asking it. Apparently some people here aren't familiar with the Socratic method.

Sure, it's a hypothetical question that implied her belief that torture may have prevented 9/11. Gonzo and I disagree.

The Socratic method is the use of questions to provoke thought. She provoked us into response. I fail to see how we're missing the point here.

Asking a rhetorical question is not the same as using the Socratic method.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 05:28 PM
Who said anything about a rhetorical question?


And no, Camel, bringing Bryan into this was uncalled for. Had I said his mother/father/pet hamster was in the Towers on 9/11, then I could see bringing Bryan into it. But I did nothing of the sort.

Sinistrum
08-27-2009, 05:48 PM
Sure, it's a hypothetical question that implied her belief that torture may have prevented 9/11. Gonzo and I disagree.

The Socratic method is the use of questions to provoke thought. She provoked us into response. I fail to see how we're missing the point here.

Asking a rhetorical question is not the same as using the Socratic method.

Of course you don't. Not understanding that you're missing the point is a part of missing the point. But see the bolded section above? That's where you're going wrong here. You're assuming that her hypo is reflective of her personal views on the matter. As she's already clearly explained (well at least to everyone but you) with this:

I never CLAIMED torture could have prevented 9/11, I asked IF IT COULD HAVE, should it have been done, would it have been justified?

she was just setting up a premise to ask questions about the views of people like you and Gonzo. Which is how the Socratic method is done. You give a premise and then ask questions to draw ideas out of that premise. Nowhere does it state that the person giving the premise actually has to agree with it, which is what you are assuming.

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 05:51 PM
she was just setting up a premise to ask quesetions about the views of people like you and Gonzo. Which is how the Socratic method is done. You give a premise and then ask questions to draw ideas out of that premise. Nowhere does it state that the person giving the premise actually has to agree with it, which is what you are assuming.

Hmm. I didn't see that post. Whoops. To be fair, the original post did imply that she felt that way.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 05:57 PM
No, it didn't. Because you see, I don't.

tworiverswoman
08-27-2009, 05:58 PM
The problem with using torture as an interrogation method, at least from the standpoint of most of us lay-people, is that most of what we think we know about it comes from novels, movies, stuff we hear from friends.

When Jack Bauer uses torture on some guy - the guy always tells him what he needs to know to take us to the next plot point. But what if the guy didn't know anything? Or if he lied?

I'm one of those people on the fence who says, "it OUGHT to produce useful results, dammit!" but... if it doesn't, was it justified? Even if it DOES, was it JUSTIFIED? I would dearly love to believe America stands for something better than that. When I was growing up, that's the perception I had.

One of the people who writes for a local paper was a POW in Vietnam - and he was tortured in a variety of ways, including some of the stuff they're using now, AND some of the stuff you expect to see only in Rambo movies. He pointed out that people have a tendency to think "well, as long as they're not pulling out his fingernails, or nailing his testicles to the ground, it doesn't qualify as "torture." This is a mistake. Torture is anything a person finds intolerable over time. Fingernails on a blackboard? Check. Piece of food between my teeth? Check. Bastinado? Double check.

Humiliation, sleep deprivation, loud dissonant noises, physical trauma, fear, etc. etc. At what point do we become the evil tyrant?

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 06:02 PM
No, it didn't. Because you see, I don't.

God, you really are stupid, aren't you? How are you a writer when you can't understand a simple word such as "implied"? Whether you do or not doesn't matter to my original posts. Your post IMPLIED that you believed that. That doesn't mean that you DO believe that; it means that your words SUGGESTED that you did. THAT is what I was responding to, until Sinistrum pointed out your later post (which I missed somehow). My points were valid given the implications of your original post. It wasn't until later clarification that my points became invalid, which I admitted here.

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2009, 06:02 PM
The problem with using torture as an interrogation method, at least from the standpoint of most of us lay-people, is that most of what we think we know about it comes from novels, movies, stuff we hear from friends.

When Jack Bauer uses torture on some guy - the guy always tells him what he needs to know to take us to the next plot point.There have been very persistent stories that at least some of the American torturers got their ideas on torture's effectiveness from watching Jack Bauer's successes. So it is not only lay people who fall for this, it is also the professionals. Which, when you think about it, seems to be an argument against having such professionals in your organisation in the first place.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 06:03 PM
God, you really are stupid, aren't you? How are you a writer when you can't understand a simple word such as "implied"? Whether you do or not doesn't matter to my original posts. Your post IMPLIED that you believed that. That doesn't mean that you DO believe that; it means that your words SUGGESTED that you did. THAT is what I was responding to, until Sinistrum pointed out your later post (which I missed somehow). My points were valid given the implications of your original post. It wasn't until later clarification that my points became invalid, which I admitted here.

Are you in a personal attack mode or something? Camel WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM???

John Snow
08-27-2009, 06:14 PM
and it could be framed almost as a cliche - what means justifies an end. Doesn't matter whether the means works or not, in fact the question is maybe more important if it does work. Is torturing a bombing suspect's small child in front of him to find the bomb that will destroy New York City a just means to the end of saving all those people? Take it to the extreme people, when do you get morally repulsed?

As a complete digression, I have a friend who spent many years as an army interrogator (I know, odd friend for me to have, right? We Quakers are odd that way, among others). He claims torture is one of the least effective methods, although it can work, but what he did was something like reverse brain-washing - befriending, empathy, that kind of thing. Takes a little longer, but tons more effective. The Jack Bauer scenario is fantasy, and not the best choice of a philosophical foundation for policy decisions.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 06:19 PM
Foxnews is criticizing Obama's stance on torture and interrogation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/27/critics-question-shift-interrogations-away-cia/

He must be doing something right if this is happening. "The Sept 10 Mentality" is priceless copyright...keep it up Fauxnews.

StrangePackage
08-27-2009, 06:31 PM
Foxnews is criticizing Obama's stance on torture and interrogation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/27/critics-question-shift-interrogations-away-cia/

He must be doing something right if this is happening. "The Sept 10 Mentality" is priceless copyright...keep it up Fauxnews.

I just want to agree that Fauxnews is hilarious.

And that torture is wrong.

Ivhon
08-27-2009, 08:45 PM
I just want to agree that Fauxnews is hilarious.

And that torture is wrong.

I would think that FauxNews is hilarious, except that too many voting idiots believe there shit and bring guns to presidential speeches and tell their congressmen that they are right wing terrorists (one incident) and that they will take their guns to Washington (another incident) if other people will join them. In at least one of those incidents the congressman called the self-proclaimed terrorist an "american hero."

So no. I dont find it hilarious. I find it dangerous. We may have our differences, but this country was founded on democracy...not pick up your guns and kill when your side loses.

Sinistrum
08-27-2009, 09:04 PM
We may have our differences, but this country was founded on democracy...not pick up your guns and kill when your side loses.

Actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 09:09 PM
Actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

First of all, as British colonies, we were not represented, therefore we weren't bound by the ideals of democracy. Second, the war itself was not the founding of our country but the severing of our ties as colonies to England and the beginning of our independence. Third of all, this country wasn't founded until the 1780s, well after the American Revolution was over.

Finally, as the Civil War proved, taking arms against our elected officials is a Bad Idea(tm).

Davian93
08-27-2009, 09:12 PM
First of all, as British colonies, we were not represented, therefore we weren't bound by the ideals of democracy. Second, the war itself was not the founding of our country but the severing of our ties as colonies to England and the beginning of our independence. Third of all, this country wasn't founded until the 1780s, well after the American Revolution was over.

Finally, as the Civil War proved, taking arms against our elected officials is a Bad Idea(tm).

The Civil War proved that a country with 20 times the industrial might and 4 times the population of a largely agrarian state will prevail in a protracted armed conflict.

Sinistrum
08-28-2009, 12:31 AM
First of all, as British colonies, we were not represented, therefore we weren't bound by the ideals of democracy. Second, the war itself was not the founding of our country but the severing of our ties as colonies to England and the beginning of our independence. Third of all, this country wasn't founded until the 1780s, well after the American Revolution was over.

And all of that is meaningless without a bunch of people who got pissed off that their side lost on the issue of taxes and a bunch of other stuff and decided to take up arms against their government.

JSUCamel
08-28-2009, 12:39 AM
And all of that is meaningless without a bunch of people who got pissed off that their side lost on the issue of taxes and a bunch of other stuff and decided to take up arms against their government.

This is true. But Ivhon said our country was founded on using democracy to achieve our goals, not marching on Washington with guns, and he's correct. Your example, while a very true example of using violence to achieve political goals, has nothing to do with Ivhon's statements regarding THIS country.

Now, whether I agree with him (or you) or not is an entirely different matter that I don't feel like hashing out tonight. ;)

Gilshalos Sedai
08-28-2009, 09:37 AM
God, you really are stupid, aren't you? How are you a writer when you can't understand a simple word such as "implied"? Whether you do or not doesn't matter to my original posts. Your post IMPLIED that you believed that. That doesn't mean that you DO believe that; it means that your words SUGGESTED that you did. THAT is what I was responding to, until Sinistrum pointed out your later post (which I missed somehow). My points were valid given the implications of your original post. It wasn't until later clarification that my points became invalid, which I admitted here.

For the record, I'm not going to bother responding to someone who resorts to personal attacks.