Torture poll

[oggbashan]

...

Seriously, other nations. Show us your lunatics! Share. Please.

[/threadjack]

Challenge accepted: The British National Party

We also have more harmless lunatics who believe that world peace and economic salvation will be achieved if we all practice Yogic Flying.

Wiki extract:
UK Natural Law Party
The first Natural Law Party was launched in the UK, with Dr. Geoffrey Clements as Party Leader. The UK manifesto, like other NLP platforms in the subsequent decade, was founded on two assertions: (1) that the development of consciousness, in particular through the practice of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program including Yogic Flying, can enhance individual capability to resolve societal problems, and (2) that the practice of these techniques by a critical mass of the population, or else their group practice, in particular the group practice of Yogi Flying, results in overall improvements in society, including reduced crime, accidents and hospital admissions and improvements in prosperity, security and quality of life. The party quoted peer-reviewed published scientific research for many of its assertions.

In the 1992 general election, 310 candidates stood for the NLP in the UK, garnering 0.19% of the vote; every candidate lost his or her deposit, for failing to receive at least 5% of the vote. A significant number of constituencies were contested by nationals of countries outside the UK, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India, as British electoral law allows any member of a Commonwealth country to stand for Parliament. A week before the 1992 general election, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi tried to convince George Harrison, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr to stand for election as MPs for Liverpool for the NLP. Although they declined to stand for election, Harrison put on a fund-raising concert for the NLP during the campaign.

The NLP ran 16 candidates in the 20 by-elections held between 1992 and 1997 averaging 0.30% of the vote; every candidate lost his or her deposit.

In the 1997 general election, the NLP ran 197 candidates for Parliament in the UK, garnering 0.10% of the vote; every candidate lost his or her deposit.

The NLP ran 8 candidates for the 16 by-elections held between 1997 and 2001, averaging 0.10% of the vote; every candidate lost his or her deposit.

The NLP did not run any candidates for Parliament in the 2001 general election or in the succeeding by-elections.

The party ceased to submit accounts to the Electoral Commission from 2004.

Og

 

[Pure]

torture deaths; waterboarding

that there are deaths in torture, including that inflicted by the US, has been downplayed by apologists such as amicus. of course we know that this pro lifer will kill any number of suspects, including innocents, to preserve the American Way, as would a few other posters. so guys, be upfront; torture to death is fine if it's for the 'greater good.' you may be 'objectivists' or 'absolutists,' but you'll sacrifice the individual to the group in an instant, if it's your group.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4738008.stm

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/729edac0-a3d3-11da-83cc-0000779e2340.html

Human rights group blames US for detainee deaths

By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington

Published: February 22 2006 19:09 | Last updated: February 22 2006 19:09

A human rights group accused the Bush administration on Wednesday of failing to take responsibility for the nearly 100 detainees who have died in US custody, including eight who were tortured to death, since August 2002.

In Command?s Responsibility, a report on the ?war on terror? released on Wednesday, Human Rights First said 100 detainees had died in US custody, including 34 deaths that the Pentagon had classified as suspected, or confirmed, murders.

The group said the facts surrounding another 11 of the nearly 100 deaths ?suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention?. The report criticises the administration, saying ?only 12 detainee deaths have result-ed in punishment of any kind for any US official?.

Bryan Whitman, deputy Pentagon spokesman, on Wednesday described the claims that the Pentagon had not held people accountable as ?hogwash?.

The report says that only half of the eight cases where detainees were allegedly tortured to death had resulted in punishment, with the steepest sentence being five months.




http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml

McCain: Japanese Hanged For Waterboarding
GOP Candidate Says There Should Be "Little Doubt" It Is Torture
Comments 10

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., Nov. 29, 2007
•


(AP) Republican presidential candidate John McCain reminded people Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.

"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans," McCain said during a news conference.

He said he forgot to mention that piece of history during Wednesday night's Republican debate, during which he criticized former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney after Romney declined to publicly say what interrogation techniques he would rule out.

"I would also hope that he would not want to be associated with a technique which was invented in the Spanish Inquisition, was used by Pol Pot in one of the great eras of genocide in history and is being used on Burmese monks as we speak," the Arizona senator said. "America is a better nation than that."

Waterboarding generally makes breathing difficult and can cause the subject to think he's drowning. It's banned by domestic law and international treaties, but those policies don't cover CIA personnel and President Bush's administration won't say whether it has been allowed against terrorism detainees

 

[Verdad]

I appreciated Slyc's post because it illustrates my wondering about the lines, but also allows me to reiterate a point a number of us have made before. Personal moral decisions are different from institutionalizing torture. If I were in an action-movie situation, the bomb was ticking, the options were exhausted, and I had a sudden insight the guy would tell if I sliced something off him, I'd say fuck it, I'm going to jail but I'm doing it. At least, the rhetoric 'I' would.

That's a hell of a lot of if's on the one side, though, a spin of the roulette in the middle, and the jail is still on the other. It's a world of difference from granting free reign to a bunch of sadists just because it's not entirely impossible it might, maybe, conceivably, once in a while, work.

Oh, and excellent post, Pure.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If the stakes are important enough you'll torture them, then kick their balls just because.

George Patton said it correctly, WHEN YOU LOOK INTO THE GOO THAT USED TO BE YOUR BEST FRIEND'S FACE...YOU'LL KNOW WHAT TO DO.

 

[sr71plt]

You don't really know what you'd do in that or similar circumstances until/unless you are in that circumstance, JBJ. The ones who talk a good John Wayne are the ones most likely to freeze and do nothing, in my experience. Just a lot of hot air.

 

[amicus]

As this debate widens and deepens, both at the highest levels, the blogosphere and forums similar to this one, some things begin to clarify and settle out.

It should surprise no one that it has become a clearly 'partisan' issue, with the right defending actions to defend the nation and the left claiming, well, claiming what? That interrogations went too far? That the methods, whatever they were, did not work?

That a great deal of the uproar is political, has now become obvious as balloons to test the air are flying all over the nation's capitol; will there be investigations and who will be investigated and what is to be gained?

The right claims the left wants revenge on the former administration and is using the issue to cloak the uncertain policies of the new administration.

The left claims they want to serve justice and punish the guilty for acts that were illegal and damaging to the status of the nation.

In any case, the issue is moot as the new administration is facing the same threats as before, perhaps intensified as the intelligence community has been hamstrung by the 'tone' of the new administration in terms of pursuing terrorists and limiting both resources and methodology in the techniques of surveillance and interdiction.

This, not so humble observer, suggests that an increase in terrorist activity and then larger events visited upon the western world, perhaps the U.S. included, will be promulgated to 'test' the response of the western world.

Amicus

as an afterthought; read through Pure's post #252 and see if you can sense a motive aside from an attack on my philosophy as an attempt to find a contradiction. What possible motive would you ascribe to that rant against American policies in this issue, knowing that the procedures were approved by Congress and tested in the Courts and found to be within the guidelines of the law.

Purely political, as I have said time and time again concerning the repetitive content of Pure's posts. Basically anti American, anti everything Perhaps the poster should have been a literary critic, a film critic or a restaurant critic; those who never find anything good to say about anything unless they are paid to.

~~~

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

Maybe for the CIA every confrontation is a novel experience, but most soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are conditioned like rats to perform according to training.

A buddy of mine was assigned to the CIA in Laos, when the North Vietnamese hit the camp the CIA people bugged out, leaving the military people behind.

So I believe you, you just never know what in hell a spook is gonna do.

 

[sr71plt]

A buddy of mine was assigned to the CIA in Laos, when the North Vietnamese hit the camp the CIA people bugged out, leaving the military people behind.
[/B]

Another one of your convenient little stories.

I remember that event. Your buddy was running off with the beer, which we had gone to great lengths to deliver to him chilled, so, after dispatching the Viets, we chased him down. He'd peed his pants, he was so scared.

Now, it's your turn to tell another tall tale to "prove" your point.

 

[shereads]

those proclaiming absolute principles has, above, offered little specifics except to say that absolute respect for life requres torture to preserve American society, and, anyway, we're dealing with barbarians.

the absolute, self evident value systems are riddled with holes and exceptions and defended most often with insults of 'relativist', 'traitor,' 'idiot, 'subversivie' 'insane'.... name calling.

absolutist don't agree among themselves on most issues.

since the liberal case against torture is rather straight forward, and has been offerend in parts by several posters, i will summarize it here, in point form.
============

BASICS OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY (REVISED UTILITARIANISM)

[the points are either axioms, plausible truths, or reasonably well- supported empirical statements; hence the conclusion is 'most likely', but a sound basis for action]

A. happiness of humans is the highest human value. it's based in the objective satisfaction of basic and other needs and desires, and fulfillment of potential.

B. human individuals are equal.

C. the happinesses of individuals are to be treated as equal, hence their being more widely spread as compared to less, is a social good.

D. hence the greatest happiness of the greatest number (common good; maximal 'well being'(welfare) of the society) is the objective standard for morality, what's 'good' in the realm of action. ... thus the recommended action--the one that's most good, i.e. best-- is that which generates more of the common good, and less common evil, than the alternatives.

qualifications: 1) acts are to be objectively evaluated by their generic "type" and in accord with the issue of general practice of that type of action, that is, following a *rule.*

2) 'fairness', and due process for achieving it is a objective social good.

3) as far as the ingredients of happiness go, wherever possible we balance/weigh, objectively, similar items or similarly important items. IOW, we weigh the life of my family members versus the life of the home invader.

but we do not weigh the entertainment of my family against the life of someone [the neighbor whom we could murder so as to get his money.] iow, there is a hierarchy of 'goods'/ingredients to happiness; the weighings honor it.

4) respect for human dignity, in objective terms, is a crucial ingredient in individual happiness and in the welfare of a society.

5) political/social freedom, in objective terms, is another crucial component of social well being.

===
Torture considered, according to the basic principles, above.

a) torture objectively offends against human dignity. 4.

b) torture usually objectively offends against due process. [i.e. it's used against 'suspects'] 2.

c) torture offends, objectively, against political social freedom. 5.

d) liability to torture and fear of it objectively undermines the general welfare. D.

e) while there are occasionally benefits, of a particular act or torture, to the whole [prevention of attacks, for example] the actual benefits of most acts are small or non existent; OR they are
achievable, often, without torture. D., 3.

Hence, from the principles and from a) to e):
e) torture as a rule/practice, then, on balance objectively, is (most likely) not good.

f) an act of torture is, objectively, is (most likely)not good.

Let's not dismiss the "consequential" argument: torture as a policy is likely to have unintended dire consequences to society: ie, help the enemy to recruit more suicide-bombers, etc. When Cheney & Co. crow about having obtained "high-quality info" that prevented a terrorist attack, I wish someone would challenge them to prove that their policy hasn't caused more deaths-by-terrorism than it has prevented.

 

[shereads]

The ones who talk a good John Wayne are the ones most likely to freeze and do nothing, in my experience. Just a lot of hot air.

Like John Wayne. And Ronald Reagan. Two of the greatest hawks who never fought a war outside of a sound stage.

 

[Corylea]

Can't they ever be from someplace besides the United States? It's embarrassing, as if the AH is an international film festival and the American entry is always "Birth of a Nation." Even on Ignore, these people have Ku Klux Klan written all over them and half the time, they spell KKK incorrectly.

Seriously, other nations. Show us your lunatics! Share. Please.

[/threadjack]

Thank you for that! It's been awfully embarrassing to be an American, these past eight years.

 

[amicus]

]Thank you for that! It's been awfully embarrassing to be an American, these past eight years[/I].

~~~

How similar that sounds to the now, 'first lady', who was never proud of America before the election.

You got what you wanted; enjoy it.

Amicus

 

[slyc_willie]

SLICK

'Torture' works when its necessary to use it. Most people dont have the stamina to resist intense and chronic pain. But there are worse things you can do to get cooperation, and they involve no pain at all.

Anything that involves extracting information from an enemy involves pain, in one form or another. If you really are a wartime vet, I'd think you would already know that.

I appreciated Slyc's post because it illustrates my wondering about the lines, but also allows me to reiterate a point a number of us have made before. Personal moral decisions are different from institutionalizing torture. If I were in an action-movie situation, the bomb was ticking, the options were exhausted, and I had a sudden insight the guy would tell if I sliced something off him, I'd say fuck it, I'm going to jail but I'm doing it. At least, the rhetoric 'I' would.

That's a hell of a lot of if's on the one side, though, a spin of the roulette in the middle, and the jail is still on the other. It's a world of difference from granting free reign to a bunch of sadists just because it's not entirely impossible it might, maybe, conceivably, once in a while, work.

Oh, and excellent post, Pure.

It's the application of torture that muddles the ground between making it an institution and just a "backup plan." There really is no easy way of determining when torture could be called into play; from what I've seen, it's more of a roll-of-the-dice call on the part of interrogators. It's inclusion is no more an absolute way of gaining answers than anything else. Torturing a suspect is only best used (and I hate to use such a term) when the subject is "conditionally difficult." That is to say, most terrorist suspects.

Thank you for that! It's been awfully embarrassing to be an American, these past eight years.

In the last twenty years, as far as I'm concerned, it's always been embarrassing to be an American traveling abroad. If only we gave as much weight to the history of the cultures and traditions that predated us as we do our own . . . .

 

[oggbashan]

Any American citizen who feels embarrassed about travelling the world should visit the D-Day beaches in Normandy.

Every town, village, crossroad, gun emplacement, museum, memorial - flys the Stars and Stripes proudly.

Any surviving veteran has free admission almost anywhere and has had for many years. Any who turn up now are likely to be embarrassed by the warmth of their welcome.

The French, and many other countries including my own, are sophisticated enough to recognise and honour both the fighting troops of then and the troops fighting now, and the difference between individual Americans and an unease with the changing policies of Washington.

Og

 

[DesertPirate]

Og, I was there in 76 and it was exactly like that. Stood in the Cemetary at Omaha Beach, the museum at Arromanches-les-Bains. Hell, in uniform we would get treated bettr in England than at home. Remember the anti-military Vietnam syndrome in the States at the time.

 

[Pure]

Torture is a recommendation from the chickenhawks, not the Military.

Rummy liked it. The armed forces people did not approve of "enhanced interrogation." The Army Field Manual does not allow torture.

Are all these military folks "soft" and "unrealistic" as JBJ suggests. simply unwillingt to what's needed to deal with our enemies. No, they are ultimate realists. Hency top military persons typically do NOT beat the drums of war, but leave that to weekend warriors like GWB.

http://www.military.com/news/article/exinterrogator-torture-doesnt--work.html


Ex-Interrogator: Torture Doesn't Work

December 06, 2008

McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

Writing under the pseudonym of Matthew Alexander, a former special intelligence operations officer, who in 1996 led an interrogations team in Iraq, has written a compelling book where he details his direct experience with torture practices. He conducted more than 300 interrogations and supervised more than a thousand and was awarded a Bronze Star for his achievements in Iraq. Alexander's nonviolent interrogation methods led Special Forces to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. His new book is titled "How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq."


"It's extremely ineffective, and it's counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish," he told reporters. "When we torture somebody, it hardens their resolve," Alexander explained. "The information that you get is unreliable ... And even if you do get reliable information, you're able to stop a terrorist attack, Al-Qaeda's then going to use the fact that we torture people to recruit new members." Alexander says torture techniques used in Iraq consistently failed to produce actionable intelligence and that methods outlined in the US Army Field Manual, which rest on confidence building, consistently worked and gave the interrogators access to critical information.

Publication of the book was delayed for six weeks to allow the Pentagon to scrutinize it. Alexander said he wrote it under a pseudonym for security reasons. He says the US military's use of torture is responsible for the deaths of thousands of US soldiers because it inspired foreign fighters to kill Americans.
His revelations are significant as, last July, a poll showed that 44 percent of Americans supported torture on "terrorist suspects."





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fbi-werent-the-only-ones_b_190708.html


On October 1, the commander in charge of detainee interrogation at Guantanamo Bay wrote a memo requesting authority to use "aggressive interrogations techniques" that were similar to those outlined in the Bybee memo. It reached the desk of Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Staff solicited opinions before making a decision. Here's what came back to them in November 2002 (PDF):

Air Force: Had "serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques...Some of these techniques could be construed as 'torture' as that crime is defined by 18 U.S.C 2340." Further, they were concerned that "implementation of these techniques could preclude the ability to prosecute the individuals interrogated," because "Level III techniques will almost certainly result in any statements obtained being declared as coerced and involuntary, and therefore inadmissible....Additionally, the techniques described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in military order to treat detainees humanely and to provide them with adequate food, water, shelter and medical treatment." They called for an in-depth legal review.


Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITM): Chief Legal Advisor to the CITF at Gitmo, Maj Sam W. McCahon, writes "Both the utility and the legality of applying certain techniques identified in the memorandum listed above are, in my opinion, questionable. Any policy decision to use the Tier III techniques, or any techniques inconsistent with the analysis herein, will be contrary to my recommendation. The aggressive techniques should not occur at GTMO where both CITF and the intelligence community are conducting interviews and interrogations." He calls for further review and concludes by saying "I cannot advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principal that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business."

Army: The Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans writes: "As set forth in the enclosed memoranda, the Army interposes significant legal, policy and practical concerns regarding most of the Category II and all of the Category III techniques proposed." They recommend "a comprehensive legal review of this proposal in its entirety by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice."

Navy: recommends that "more detailed interagency legal and political review be conducted on proposed techniques."

Marine Corp: expressed strong reservations, since "several of the Category II and III techniques arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution." Called for further review.

Legal adviser to the Joint Chiefs, Jane Dalton, commenced the review that was requested by the military services. But before it was concluded, Myers put a stop to it -- at the request of Jim Haynes, the Department of Defense General Counsel, who was told by Rumsfeld that things were "taking too long." Over the objections of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force, Haynes recommended that the "aggressive technique" be approved without further investigation. He testified that Wolfowitz, Feith and Myers concurred.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I had to explain water boarding to someone last night.
I also read that one victim was put through this over 100 times. I find that beyond torturous.
IMO, torture doesn't work.

 

[NoJo]

IMO, torture doesn't work.

Works for me

 

[sr71plt]

Anything that involves extracting information from an enemy involves pain, in one form or another.

Not the way I did it.

 

[sr71plt]

Any American citizen who feels embarrassed about travelling the world should visit the D-Day beaches in Normandy.

Every town, village, crossroad, gun emplacement, museum, memorial - flys the Stars and Stripes proudly.

Any surviving veteran has free admission almost anywhere and has had for many years. Any who turn up now are likely to be embarrassed by the warmth of their welcome.

That's true. I found it heartwarming.

 

[shereads]

double post

 

[shereads]

A quick way to begin defining torture could be: if we have prosecuted it as a war crime when an enemy did it to one of our own, it's a war crime.

We hanged Japanese interrogators for waterboarding. Ergo, either waterboarding is a war crime or those hangings were.

THIS JUST IN:

Keith Olberman on MSNBC issued a challenge to Fox News' Sean Hannity, who supports Cheney's contention that waterboarding is not torture: he'll donate a dollar to a veterans' charity for every minute of waterboarding that Hannity can endure.

I'm guessing there will be zero minutes. Any other guesses?

 

[Pure]

clarification re waterboarding. lite v. heavy

i wasn't aware of the two types, roughly.

1. waterboarding 'lite' is done to US personnel in SERE training and involves two sessions of under a minute.

the cloth is over the face and the primary event is suffocation; the cloth is kept wet, but not much water is used and little goes inside the nose and throat.

2. waterboarding heavy, as done to "top" al qaeda suspects is rather different. a cloth may even go into the mouth. large quantities of water poured onto the covering cloth insure that water goes through the nose to the sinuses and into the throat. the throat also fills. as some point, the person has no choice but to inhale some water into the lungs. carried forward, it's essentially controlled drowning, the early stages.

one could discuss whether either or both amount to torture, according to duration of the single event and the repetition within a day, week, etc.


This distinction is set out in the Bradbuy memo of May 10, 2005:

Bradbury to Rizzo, May 10, 2005

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05102005_bradbury46pg.pdf


Discussion of water boarding begins p. 41


[see http://waterboarding.org/]

[from the Bradbury memo]

[note] 51.[page 41] The IG Report noted that in some cases the waterboard was used with far greater frequency than initially indicated, see IG Report at 5, 44, 45,103, 104 and also that it was used in a different manner. See id. at 37 (”The waterboard technique was different from the technique described in the DOJ opinion and used in the SERE training. The difference was in the manner in which the detainee’s breathing was obstructed. At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion, the subject’s airflow is disrupted by by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the Interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner.

By contrast, the Agency interrogator… applies large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee’s mouth and nose. One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency’s use of the technique is different than that used by in SERE training because it is ‘for real’ and is ‘more poignant and convincing’.”)

The Inspector General further reported that "OMS contends that the expertise of the SERE psychologist/interrogators on the waterboard was probably misrepresented at the time, as the SERE waterboard experience is so so different from the subsequent Agency usage as to make it almost irrelevant. [c]onsequently, according to OMS, there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.”

===

for a detailed account of waterboarding heavy, see,

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/18/11525/713

 

[shereads]

FBI: Key Sept. 11 Leads Obtained Without Torture

by Dina Temple-Raston (NPR, "All Things Considered," today, April 24)

excerpt:

{Abu Zubaydah's}case is often held up as the quintessential example of why enhanced interrogation techniques are a necessary evil. But several FBI agents and others involved say Zubaydah provided pivotal intelligence on the Sept. 11, 2001, plot before brutal tactics were ever used.

full story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103475220&ft=1&f=1001

 

[wmrs2]

Can't they ever be from someplace besides the United States? It's embarrassing, as if the AH is an international film festival and the American entry is always "Birth of a Nation." Even on Ignore, these people have Ku Klux Klan written all over them and half the time, they spell KKK incorrectly.

Seriously, other nations. Show us your lunatics! Share. Please.

[/threadjack]

It does not become the ethics of the AH to refer to fellow authors as lunatics. As a black girl you need to ignore me if you don't like me but to use what is considered hate speech should be avoided by you at any coast. I am in no way a member of the KKK. Amicus and I do not hijack threads like you, sr71plt, Ogg and others in the AH gang do. Amicus and I use logic and reasoning.

It does not become a lady to cry about being depressed and mentally ill and then refer to others as being lunatics. Mental illness is nothing to make light of. That is what should be embarrassing to you.

Pure is your friend and to bring up these old wars is not a friendly act to do on her thread. Try to remember what Voltaire said about freedom of speech. That should be all authors' great motto, don't you think? I am trying to make a good impression on this forum. If you would stop making derogatory third person comments about me, it would be much easier for this black author to fit in better. I plead with you, show me some of your enlightened mercy and stop torturing me.