CIA used mock executions etc.

[OneToughHerring]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8215722.stm

"Handguns, electric drills and mock executions were used by CIA agents to elicit information from terror suspects, US media have reported.The reports contain details of a 2004 review by the CIA's inspector general that has been kept secret but is now due to be released next week."


All these methods are from the 'School of Americas' training manual for torture. When they dig a little deeper I'm sure they'll find the rest including all the nasty physical torture etc.

[Jimbuna]

Here we go again *heads for bunker*

[Aramike]

"Handguns, electric drills and mock executions were used by CIA agents to elicit information from terror suspects, US media have reported.The reports contain details of a 2004 review by the CIA's inspector general that has been kept secret but is now due to be released next week."Oh NO!!! That dastardly CIA frightened people into giving information!All these methods are from the 'School of Americas' training manual for torture. When they dig a little deeper I'm sure they'll find the rest including all the nasty physical torture etc. Just like we could all dig deeper to find the love child you spawned with Rosanne Barr.

Oh gee, look at me ... I just made a stupid assumption about someone just because I'm not too fond of them...

You're rubbing off, OTH.

[Cohaagen]

Here's a good idea for a thread: a poll for a dedicated politics forum...and preferably a US politics subforum.

I mean, there are tens of thousands of blogs and sites which cater to every form of political view, including the extreme sentiments often voiced here. It's got so bad that a lot of folk don't feel like even looking at this part of SUBSIM, much less post here.

[OneToughHerring]

Oh NO!!! That dastardly CIA frightened people into giving information!

Ok so it would be ok to use these and also other methods against US soldiers/citizens...?

Just like we could all dig deeper to find the love child you spawned with Rosanne Barr.

Oh gee, look at me ... I just made a stupid assumption about someone just because I'm not too fond of them...

You're rubbing off, OTH.Drinking already, Aramike? Remember not to drive.

[Aramike]

Ok so it would be ok to use and also other methods against US soldiers/citizens...? Wait - you mean its NOT being used already? Surely you must mean that because I don't recall ever seeing you complain about the methods the US' adversaries use...

Your hypocrisy is deep. Try not to drown in it.Drinking already, Aramike? Remember not to drive. Not yet, but will be shortly.

[OneToughHerring]

Wait - you mean its NOT being used already? Surely you must mean that because I don't recall ever seeing you complain about the methods the US' adversaries use...

Your hypocrisy is deep. Try not to drown in it.

Oh so you're using the "they started!" - defence, am I right? And now the US is 'getting even' by using torture, both physical and mental?

[Aramike]

Oh so you're using the "they started!" - defence, am I right? And now the US is 'getting even' by using torture, both physical and mental?Who said anything about revenge, or "getting even"?

Please stick to the argument and avoid trailing off into absurdities.

My point is that I really don't give a damn if we scare people into giving information needed to protect the second most sought after target in the terrorist world (behind Israel). The fact is that our opponents are using these methods (and far worse) anyway. Therefore, there is no reason/benefit to us restricting our methods of information extraction.

People like you just want to see us fight the threat with both hands tied behind our backs, as it were. Due to your complete intrasigence on this topic, your credibility is quite low.

I know you have difficulty comprehending this, but in the real world, being nice for the sake of being nice gets people killed.

[OneToughHerring]

Who said anything about revenge, or "getting even"?

Please stick to the argument and avoid trailing off into absurdities.

My point is that I really don't give a damn if we scare people into giving information needed to protect the second most sought after target in the terrorist world (behind Israel). The fact is that our opponents are using these methods (and far worse) anyway. Therefore, there is no reason/benefit to us restricting our methods of information extraction.

People like you just want to see us fight the threat with both hands tied behind our backs, as it were. Due to your complete intrasigence on this topic, your credibility is quite low.

I know you have difficulty comprehending this, but in the real world, being nice for the sake of being nice gets people killed.

There's a lot of people, and I'm not just talking about peacefolks and hippies, who think that using torture is much more problematic then it helps. It may produce some info but more often then not it's false info. It also plays right into the hands of people who claim the US is using unethical tactics.

And I'm saying this from a pro-US point of view, I don't think torture is the smart way to go. There's decades of torture use in places in like US-proxy states in South America, it's not like this stuff is exactly new.

[Aramike]

There's a lot of people, and I'm not just talking about peacefolks and hippies, who think that using torture is much more problematic then it helps. It may produce some info but more often then not it's false info. It also plays right into the hands of people who claim the US is using unethical tactics.

And I'm saying this from a pro-US point of view, I don't think torture is the smart way to go. There's decades of torture use in places in like US-proxy states in South America, it's not like this stuff is exactly new.Indeed, that's the common argument against torture. However, it discounts a couple things:

First, some methods of "torture" are more effective than others. Fear has always worked more effectively than pain, for instance. That's due to the nature of fear.

Secondly, the argument that torture doesn't work fails heavily when one considers that, if it wasn't working, it wouldn't be used.

Regarding ethics, the argument fails when the question is asked: what is more unethical? To me, allowing a disaster to happen because of weak-kneed intel methods is far worse than scaring someone into telling what they know.

Let's say we capture a known terrorist ringleader. He isn't saying anything, but we know a plot is about to unfold. To me it is morally repugnant to NOT use so-called enhanced methods of interrogation in that case. In essense, we are forced into making a decision between to distasteful things ... yet you want to fault us for making the decision that benefits us.

[OneToughHerring]

Indeed, that's the common argument against torture. However, it discounts a couple things:

First, some methods of "torture" are more effective than others. Fear has always worked more effectively than pain, for instance. That's due to the nature of fear.

Secondly, the argument that torture doesn't work fails heavily when one considers that, if it wasn't working, it wouldn't be used.

Regarding ethics, the argument fails when the question is asked: what is more unethical? To me, allowing a disaster to happen because of weak-kneed intel methods is far worse than scaring someone into telling what they know.

Let's say we capture a known terrorist ringleader. He isn't saying anything, but we know a plot is about to unfold. To me it is morally repugnant to NOT use so-called enhanced methods of interrogation in that case. In essense, we are forced into making a decision between to distasteful things ... yet you want to fault us for making the decision that benefits us.

What's much more likely is that torture becomes an everyday occurrence. And not just in use by the military but also all branches of the police force. Capture a suspect and he's not talking? Might as well slap him around, get an answer, any answer. Before you know it you have innocent people on the death row, can't imagine this type of thing happening? IMO these methods are just corrupting and no better to what the nazis used.

Also to go into this particular case, it seems that the whole point is that these guys don't necessarily have much info if indeed any. So by torturing them they become kind of martyrs.

[Max2147]

The Iranians used mock executions on the American hostages during the hostage crisis.

I'm generally not a fan of using fear/pain-inducing methods to get information out of prisoners, because it corrupts the quality of information you get. When the prisoner will say anything in order to please his captors, that's not a good thing.

[OneToughHerring]

The Iranians used mock executions on the American hostages during the hostage crisis.

Dude, that was in 1979?

The US instituted the Shah who had Savak carry out torture etc. operation throughout his reign. The USA also gave 'pointers' to Egypt when it comes to torture.

Pretty big article on Wikipedia about the subject.

Torture and the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States)

Also, what they talk about in the article, about shooting a gun in the next room and telling the person that they shot a person. That's also typical stuff from the School of Americas. They used to play a tape of women and children screaming in the next room and tell the person that it's his wife and children being tortured/killed. This stuff went on for years in South America and also in the Middle East, in nations that the US had relations to at some point in time.

[August]

IMO these methods are just corrupting and no better to what the nazis used.

Only you could compare some ultimately harmless mind games to breaking bones, tearing off finger nails, gouging out eyeballs and the many other truely horrific and destructive tortures favored by the nazis.

[Letum]

ultimately harmless mind games

There is a long list of conditions, such as PTSD, that are likely to arise from
such torture. Oftern they make the sufferer's life not worth living or lead
to suicide.

Workplace stress is sometimes enough to cripple a persons mind for life; let
alone the strain that the malice of an experienced torturer can place upon
someones mind when trying to 'break' them. It can very easily remove a
person's ability to function normally.

The magnitude of the effects of torture means it is certainly not 'harmless'.

[August]

The magnitude of the effects of torture means it is certainly not 'harmless'.

It's nothing compared to what the nazis did to their victims and oth knows it.

[Letum]

It's nothing compared to what the nazis did

That's one hell of a justification.

[August]

That's one hell of a justification.

I didn't justify it. I rejected Herrings equalization.

[CaptainHaplo]

"It leads to PTSD and often times suicide."

Uhm... the problem? If a terrorist wants to X himself, I got no problem with it, providing he doesn't kill or harm anyone else in the process.

You make it sound like a dead terrorist is a bad thing.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

"It leads to PTSD and often times suicide."

Uhm... the problem? If a terrorist wants to X himself, I got no problem with it, providing he doesn't kill or harm anyone else in the process.

You make it sound like a dead terrorist is a bad thing.

If it turns out you have missed, will you be willing to execute yourself in recompense?

I don't have problems with End over Means, but on two conditions:
1) You can't complain when anyone else does it on similar computations, past present or future.
2) If you missed, then all you have is the Bad End from your Means, so you should be willing to pay the commensurate price. If you hit, you still better hit the jackpot or you should still be willing to pay for the remnant "blow back".

It's nothing compared to what the nazis did to their victims and oth knows it.

How is it incomparable? In both cases, the result is the same, a badly damaged person.

Our present world, IMO, overemphasizes the physical over the mental, the repairable hardware over the software. Scream at a person, insult them for all you are worth, but for some reason the moment he throws one punch at you he's the bad guy and is likely to defend himself, even though really the mental damage you have inflicted is arguably more than the damage from the punch, which would probably quickly heal to nothing...

[Letum]

"It leads to PTSD and often times suicide."

Uhm... the problem? If a terrorist wants to X himself, I got no problem with it, providing he doesn't kill or harm anyone else in the process.

You make it sound like a dead terrorist is a bad thing.

If someone held you in the contempt that you rightly hold terrorists in, would
you be happy for them to use the same justification against you?


Of course it is a bad thing.
Why would it be a good thing?

[Stealth Hunter]

Uhm... the problem? If a terrorist wants to X himself, I got no problem with it, providing he doesn't kill or harm anyone else in the process.

The problem is that most of these people have been arrested and detained as "terrorists" on unreliable information, at best. If you've ever watched National Geographic's special on the CIA (which was on about two months ago), you'll see how they "find" these people: by running around to farmers and asking them for information on neighbors and strange things happening in their locality. That's it. Surprised? So was I.

You make it sound like a dead terrorist is a bad thing.

IF they're a terrorist. You've definitely got a few in there- it's inevitable when you amass that many people. The question is, which ones are in ties with terrorism?

[CaptainHaplo]

See - this is where it becomes impossible to discuss this topic, because some here look at a terrorist who would cut their throat, shoot their children and rape and kill their wife - as someone who deserves some level of "humane treatment".

It boils down to this for those who see things in a way similiar to the way I do:

#1 A terrorist is someone who is willing to commit murder on the innocent to achieve his goals.

#2 Willingness to be a terrorist therefore is a willful denial of the human rights of others.

#3 Such willful denial creates a humanoid animal - like a rabid dog. As such, just like a rabid dog, the animal is a threat to innocent life and thus should be put down.

And before you try to turn the argument around by claiming that denying a human being "humane treatment" would therefore make us terrorists, recall that it was their acts - carried out, attempted or simply planned, that removed them from the status of Homo Sapien, and thus there is no loss of humanity in putting down a rabid dog to save a child, a family, or a society. If they weren't out to kill the innocent, they wouldn't be terrorists, and thus would have rights to humane treatment. But they aren't. So, better to have them dead. Or would you rather they take out your family members next? *Yes - its rhetorical because some here can't seem to get it through their heads that you can't just "talk" to a rabid dog.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

See - this is where it becomes impossible to discuss this topic, because some here look at a terrorist who would cut their throat, shoot their children and rape and kill their wife - as someone who deserves some level of "humane treatment".

For better or for worse, Western civilization has raised the "humane treatment" part into something of a deontological principle rather than a utilitarian calculation. Probably it has to do with the history that making it a matter for utilitarian calculation doesn't seem to wind up real well in practice.

It boils down to this for those who see things in a way similiar to the way I do:

#1 A terrorist is someone who is willing to commit murder on the innocent to achieve his goals.

#2 Willingness to be a terrorist therefore is a willful denial of the human rights of others.

#3 Such willful denial creates a humanoid animal - like a rabid dog. As such, just like a rabid dog, the animal is a threat to innocent life and thus should be put down.

And before you try to turn the argument around by claiming that denying a human being "humane treatment" would therefore make us terrorists, recall that it was their acts - carried out, attempted or simply planned, that removed them from the status of Homo Sapien, and thus there is no loss of humanity in putting down a rabid dog to save a child, a family, or a society. If they weren't out to kill the innocent, they wouldn't be terrorists, and thus would have rights to humane treatment. But they aren't. So, better to have them dead. Or would you rather they take out your family members next? *Yes - its rhetorical because some here can't seem to get it through their heads that you can't just "talk" to a rabid dog.

Mere self rationalization. If it is immoral acts that are "carried out, attempted or simply planned" that disqualify a person from the status of Homo Sapien, then it follows that whether you do it First or Second, you can disqualify yourself.

Now, let's look at the "planned" part. If you arrest a supposed terrorist that's supposedly planning, but you EXECUTED your "terror" part first, then who went First in the end?

As for "a terrorist is someone who is willing to commit murder on the innocent to achieve his goals" ... well, wow, the entire Strategic Air Command, RVSN, every SSBN crew ... etc are all terrorists.

[Skybird]

There are two kinds of torture: one that aims at gaining information, and one that aims at intimidating a people by terorrising randomly chosen persons.

I once was involved with treatement of examples of the latter, which were Balkan victims. Currently the same kind of mass terror is used in Kongo and Somalia. It has been used in many military regimes, also regimes supported by the US. South Korea and Chile are two examples.

I found the experience of dealing with such individuals totally depressing and heartbreaking. They were living zombies who just wished they would not exist, sometimes had not spoken for months, and had completely retreated into themselves to a degree that it was impossible for anyone to follow them there and meet them there. It sometimes is said that the soul cannot be hurt and is eternal - but a soul can be shattered nevertheless.

Governments and leaders and commanders ordering random torture for mass terrorising a population, I want to see dead. That simple: I want them dead. Irrational or emotional or whatever, wishing them death still is a mercy and a very civilised retaliation, compared to what they have in mind.

Torture for gaining information sees the two major problems of

- how to guarantee that no innocents are made subject of it,
- and where to draw a line in the severity of crimes and situations that decides when to accept torture eventually, and when not.

And these are the only real problems I have with it, despite my experiences descriobed above. Because the excuse that torture makes the subject confess anything the interrogators want to hear in order to just make them stopping, ignores that torture depends on the kind of info it produces or hopes to produce: you could effectively use it only if the subject knows that what info it gives can and will be checked for validity within reasonable time - by that the subject knows that it cannot escape by giving false info. There is a difference between verifiable info, and general info. General info gained from torture is object to the argument that torture produces untrustworthy info eventually: you do not know if the subject told the truth, or not.

It also is often said that if using torture against a bad boy in order to gain info that helps to save innocents, this would make you like the bad boy is himself. That is pseudo-moral rubbish. Claiming that the wellbeing and interest of the bad boy has to be rated higher than the wellbeing and/or survival of the victims - that is what is immoral. A pattern we often see at cpurt, where legal hairsplitting and rules often make sure that the interests and rights of the perpetrator get better protected than the interest of his victims. Often that becomes very obvious that is in cases of rape putting to court.

Before anyone thinks that this writing is my excuse to accept in principal the use of turture, I need to calm that impressison a bit by reminding that statistics show that the death penalty is in very frequent use in some countries - although statistics also show a very troubling quota of misjudgements and innocents having been excecuted as well. The argument that death penalty also has no deterring effect that could be shown to be statistically significant, also is valid, but has no place in this debate here. It is true that in cases for which I have strict and rare definitions on my mind, I eventually accept the use of torture, like for accoridngly strictly defined cases I also accept the execution of criminals, not as a "death penalty" but a means of prevention ongoing serious crime to which that person is dominantly attached. But I also know that if you create such legal defintions and standards for either the one or the other, they can and will be intentionally abused, and they can and will accidentally see the occasional - or the regular! - number of innocents suffering from them as well. Also, political lying is a symptom for things already derailing. That now already three European countries have been confirmed to have hold secret CIA torture prisons, is such a symptom. Things happend without being under any better control than random arbitrariness of dubious individuals you do not know anything about, and whose standards of selection are mystery. Be careful before accepting a society where such things can happen and such persons can live in without being under any authority's surveilance that has any kind of legitimation by the most highest sovereign there is, and that is not a parliament or a president, but: the people. that bis the most basic idea all modern Western nations have been founded and based upon since the French revolution. Just leaving things to the rulers at the top: is embracing tyranny. they can AND WILL abuse the power you give them. Bush's government was a prime example of secrecy forming lies forming abuse of power. and that means: before implementing torture as a tool of anti-terror operation or law enforcement, you need to gain a public consensus about it. If the majority says Nay, don't use it. Even if it backfires against that society then, it's people's own fault then. I am opponent to the idea that people must be forced for their luck.

There is no legal system imaginable that is totally fail-safe and immune to mistaking. What it comes down to, pragmatically, is what ammount of overall justice is being acchieved as a general outcome, in the end, if you compare all the individual cases as a whole - and ignore the individual case. So the only realistic question we need to ask is:

How many mistakes being made do we find acceptable for using "death penalty" nevertheless - or torture? What is the quota in percent? Necessarily the answer you give not only says something on the issue, but says something about yourself, too.

Answering "zero" is an invalid answer here that ignores realities we live in, for this is an imperfect world and we are failing humans. That leaves moralists being strictly against these things in an uncomfortable position, but what value have morals that do not take the one reality we live in into account? That are unreal morals.

[Letum]

Skybird: On pain of contradiction you can not make a moral case for or against anything.

Morals that are having no fundament in reality, are no morals of any value, Letum. They are ficton only.

[Skybird]

Skybird: On pain of contradiction you can not make a moral case for or against anything.
Good you understood that, have you!?

[OneToughHerring]

Only you could compare some ultimately harmless mind games to breaking bones, tearing off finger nails, gouging out eyeballs and the many other truely horrific and destructive tortures favored by the nazis.

How do you know it's just that? Would the CIA or whatever US military/private military/ally admit if it was using physical torture? IMO this is like them saying "Ok we torture but not physically". Excuse me but I don't believe it stays there. The 'extraordinary renditions' etc. that they used talk of a much larger system at work with flights going around the world, even in Scandinavia with people ending up who knows where. Places where there are no journalists or lawyers. Yea you're right, it's not like the nazis. The nazis never had a global transportation system for torture and, who knows, probably killing as well.

I don't believe the Americans at all in this issue and they are supposed to be kinda like our military allies in the world right now, or something.

Edit. And to call mental torture "harmless"? Well, that kinda sums the mentality according to which torture is acceptable.

[Letum]

Good you understood that, have you!?

Then why are these 'problems' for you?

Torture for gaining information sees the two major problems of

- how to guarantee that no innocents are made subject of it,
- and where to draw a line in the severity of crimes and situations that decides when to accept torture eventually, and when not.



Why does it matter to you if innocents are tortured if you reject morality as having no value?

[Thomen]

OTH, you don't need to look over the pond, if you want to blame someone for the use of torture. You make it look like the US invented it. In recent history, France was a worse offender (see Algeria) and they even trained Argentinians on how to use 'enhanced methods'. Russia has a history of torture use, so does China, Japan, Germany and so on. Hell you will have a hard time not to come up with a country that did not commit torture or atrocities at some point in the last 100 years. Even Finland did it.

Your blaming of the USA for everything becomes very tiresome, and is IMO far removed from reality.

Torture happens, and yes it sucks, but blaming torture solely on the US is very foolish and narrowminded.

[OneToughHerring]

I don't think any other nation uses torture in the scale that US does. France? Where does France torture today? Algeria was a long time ago. Japan? Germany? Out of the nations you mention maybe Russia and China are iffy when it comes to their own domestic situation and treatment of prisoners but even they don't wage global wars let alone have global systems for torturing people. Also even if both Russia and China are becoming more wealthy I would not count them as rich nations like the US that could afford not to use torture, that is torture isn't due to bad condition in prisons or something like that. If US tortures, it's deliberate.

Blaming the US tires you? Oh I'm so sorry, have a cup of coffee or something.

[Thomen]

I don't think any other nation uses torture in the scale that US does. France? Where does France torture today? Algeria was a long time ago. Japan? Germany? Out of the nations you mention maybe Russia and China are iffy when it comes to their own domestic situation and treatment of prisoners but even they don't wage global wars let alone have global systems for torturing people. Also even if both Russia and China are becoming more wealthy I would not count them as rich nations like the US that could afford not to use torture, that is torture isn't due to bad condition in prisons or something like that. If US tortures, it's deliberate.

Blaming the US tires you? Oh I'm so sorry, have a cup of coffee or something.

All you do is, just to prove how narrow minded you and your agenda is. Now you are making excuses for China, Russia and the like, just so you can keep the blame on the US. While I comment that you seem to be comfortable enough to voice your opinion and stand by it, it also seems to become clear that all you realy want to do is stirring the pot and cause trouble.

All I see here is bunch of crap so you can keep on your track. Do you have any data on backing up your claim that the US is the biggest torturer out there? And don't come with that 'richest nations' stuff. That artificially narrow your selection like a bad poll does. Either you torture or you don't. Circumstances do not matter.

[OneToughHerring]

All you do is, just to prove how narrow minded you and your agenda is. Now you are making excuses for China, Russia and the like, just so you can keep the blame on the US. While I comment that you seem to be comfortable enough to voice your opinion and stand by it, it also seems to become clear that all you realy want to do is stirring the pot and cause trouble.

All I see here is bunch of crap so you can keep on your track. Do you have any data on backing up your claim that the US is the biggest torturer out there? And don't come with that 'richest nations' stuff. That artificially narrow your selection like a bad poll does. Either you torture or you don't. Circumstances do not matter.

Data about what? The secret rendition flights? History of US torture and connections to other nations that used torture, like for example South Africa during the apartheid era? I don't know how many centuries of torture is needed for people to be able to critizise the US.

Also, could you explain how torture somewhere else makes US torture ok? Would torture say in the Philippines make it ok for Finns to use torture?

[Skybird]

Letum,

don't make this an abstract complication again. I denied that a demand for zero faults in a legal system is realistic and I said that any moral argument insisting that it should be that way (zero mistakes) is an unreal demand. We should try to minimise faults, without ever hoping to avoid them alltogether and without rejecting the reality we live in in an attempt to avoid situations where we could fail, eventually. Deciding we must, even if we must decide on two options we both do not like. Just saying "I cannot do that, I do not like both choices", is not good enough, and a society doing that is doomed to suffer paralysis. The interesting thing is what consequences we will to accept, and what consequences we do not will to accept - that difference determines the individual treshhold for what we accept in measures, and what not. Just demanding a zero tolerance for faults being made, is unrealsitic, and could only be accieved by refusing to adress reality as it is, and replacing it with unproductive mindgames only (like dreaming of an utopia where no faults take place by the very nature of things).

I also said that since you can judge a legal system only by it's general justice being achieved in summary of all it's individual cases, not by the one and single individual case that shows a fault, the deciding issue is the treshold at which you claim it to be a working system, or not.

How you assume by that that no effort should be undertaken in an attempt to minimise errors and faults in legal proceedings, is beyond me. >> In fact I warned against accepting too many wrong-goings too easy-mindedly. <<

I argued in favour of morals who are adressing the reality we have to deal with - not for morals fixiated on philosophic abstractions disconnected from realities (and by that easily doing more harm than good, like they have throughout history: many of the greatest crimes anc cruelties have been conducted in the name of totally disconnected morals, which especially includes formalised, institutionalised religions)).

We can wish as long as we want that the world just should not be the way it is, and just should be something different. But still we need to deal with the issues of the world as it is, no matter what we desire it to be. Thinking in absolutes therefore is not working well in 19 out of 20 cases - especially in the field of politics, as this forum has given evidence of time and again.

I need to leave now, I am currently staying with friends in Wismar, and we are about to launch for Berlin this evening, staying there over the coming week. I doubt I have time and opportunity to answer in the next days.

[Thomen]

Data about what? The secret rendition flights? History of US torture and connections to other nations that used torture, like for example South Africa during the apartheid era? I don't know how many centuries of torture is needed for people to be able to critizise the US.

Also, could you explain how torture somewhere else makes US torture ok? Would torture say in the Philippines make it ok for Finns to use torture?

Nobody is saying that critizing is not ok. Putting the sole blame, like you do, is what people have a problem with.

Nowhere I said that it is ok to torture. You where the one that started to make excuses for other countries uses of those methods just to keep the focus on a single entity. So, either pay up or shut up, as the saying goes. Provide proof that the US is biggest contemporary global torturer.

[Letum]

I argued in favour of morals who are adressing the reality we have to deal with


How can you square that with thinking there "are are no morals of any value"?

Provide proof that the US is biggest contemporary global torturer.

Isn't the US the only 'global' torturer in so far as no other country is reported to be carrying out torture in several continents.

[OneToughHerring]

Nobody is saying that critizing is not ok. Putting the sole blame, like you do,

Where have I put the sole blame for torture on the US? How can that even be done?

I would say that it is you who is trying to find a way for the country that you live in to use torture. How does it feel to try to excuse the use of torture that your country uses?

is what people have a problem with.Again, wrong. It is the strawman that you created and you have a problem with. Read the thread again if you have problems in understand what it is about.

Nowhere I said that it is ok to torture. Then why are you actively trying to defend US torture? Be my guest and create threads about torture in other nations. Since you are pro-torture I don't think that you will actually do that. So who is condoning torture...?

You where the one that started to make excuses for other countries uses of those methods just to keep the focus on a single entity. Again, wrong. I said my opinion when comparing countries like Russia, China and US when it comes to torture. Or do you claim that they are all fighting wars? That they are equally wealthy? And most importantly, which ones are considered 'western civilized nations'?

So, either pay up or shut up, as the saying goes. Provide proof that the US is biggest contemporary global torturer.I don't have to prove you anything. From what you write you are like a religious person, facts don't work on religious people.

[Skybird]

How can you square that with thinking there "are are no morals of any value"?

I can square that by correcting your quote and reminding you of what I actually said:

Morals that are having no fundament in reality, are no morals of any value, Letum. They are ficton only.

Have a nice day. ;)

[Letum]

...so you disagree with the statement "there are no morals of any value"?

Anyhow, it reads the same quoted in full:


I argued in favour of morals who are adressing the reality we have to deal with


How can you square that with thinking that "Morals that are having no fundament in reality, are no morals of any value, Letum. They are ficton only. "?

[Thomen]

Where have I put the sole blame for torture on the US? How can that even be done?

I would say that it is you who is trying to find a way for the country that you live in to use torture. How does it feel to try to excuse the use of torture that your country uses?

Again, wrong. It is the strawman that you created and you have a problem with. Read the thread again if you have problems in understand what it is about.

Then why are you actively trying to defend US torture? Be my guest and create threads about torture in other nations. Since you are pro-torture I don't think that you will actually do that. So who is condoning torture...?

Again, wrong. I said my opinion when comparing countries like Russia, China and US when it comes to torture. Or do you claim that they are all fighting wars? That they are equally wealthy? And most importantly, which ones are considered 'western civilized nations'?



Now.. now.. you are trying to distract from the issue. I do not defend the use of torture nor do I make excuses for certain countries. You are the one that is making them.
And you are still making excuses to narrow down your selection.

You are of course right, you do not have to prove anything. But it would give your side more leverage in an argument if you could back up claims. But since you referr from doing that, it seems all you want to is baiting people and 'stirring the pot.



From what you write you are like a religious person, facts don't work on religious people


Now, that is just too funny. Is the pot calling the kettle black here?

I do not defend the use of torture in any case, please, do yourself a favor and brush up on your reading comprehension.

[OneToughHerring]

Now.. now.. you are trying to distract from the issue. I do not defend the use of torture nor do I make excuses for certain countries. You are the one that is making them.
And you are still making excuses to narrow down your selection.

You are just like other Americans although you claim not to be one, you defend your nations use of torture. And it makes perfect sense to me, I think where a person is, physically, matters a lot. Even more so when a person lives in a place, a country for a long time. To choose to live somewhere is a very big political statement. Love it or leave it, isn't that what the Americans say, no?

Again, you are free to make threads about torture in Russia or China. In fact I'll support your points in those threads.

You are of course right, you do not have to prove anything. But it would give your side more leverage in an argument if you could back up claims. But since you referr from doing that, it seems all you want to is baiting people and 'stirring the pot.

You mean the CIA is 'baiting people' by admitting the use of torture.

Now, that is just too funny. Is the pot calling the kettle black here?

I do not defend the use of torture in any case, please, do yourself a favor and brush up on your reading comprehension.

Of course you are. The fact that you are blind to it yourself is kind of scary, really. But I guess that's what living in the US does to a person. First you become fat then you condone the use of torture. :)

[Aramike]

don't think any other nation uses torture in the scale that US does. Really? Do you want a chance to research and ammend that comment before I show the concept to be complete rubbish?

Not only do SEVERAL nations (in the double digits, btw) apply torture regularly, but EVERY SINGLE ONE of them use methods that are physically disfiguring.

[Aramike]

What's much more likely is that torture becomes an everyday occurrence. And not just in use by the military but also all branches of the police force. Capture a suspect and he's not talking? Might as well slap him around, get an answer, any answer. Before you know it you have innocent people on the death row, can't imagine this type of thing happening? IMO these methods are just corrupting and no better to what the nazis used.

Also to go into this particular case, it seems that the whole point is that these guys don't necessarily have much info if indeed any. So by torturing them they become kind of martyrs. This argument, as you presented as a response to my earlier post, makes no sense.

Why exactly would the CIA use of enhanced interrogation methods (limited applications of mental torture) result in an entire nation abandoning its Constitutional laws as applied to its citizens? You left out the middle part there and just assumed a slippery slope, even though the CIA isn't at the summit of the hill, as it were.

[Aramike]

Torture for gaining information sees the two major problems of

- how to guarantee that no innocents are made subject of it,
- and where to draw a line in the severity of crimes and situations that decides when to accept torture eventually, and when not.

And these are the only real problems I have with it, despite my experiences descriobed above. Because the excuse that torture makes the subject confess anything the interrogators want to hear in order to just make them stopping, ignores that torture depends on the kind of info it produces or hopes to produce: you could effectively use it only if the subject knows that what info it gives can and will be checked for validity within reasonable time - by that the subject knows that it cannot escape by giving false info. There is a difference between verifiable info, and general info. General info gained from torture is object to the argument that torture produces untrustworthy info eventually: you do not know if the subject told the truth, or not.Well put, Skybird. I agree and this rings of the argument I've been making for quite some time regarding torture.

[OneToughHerring]

Really? Do you want a chance to research and ammend that comment before I show the concept to be complete rubbish?

Not only do SEVERAL nations (in the double digits, btw) apply torture regularly, but EVERY SINGLE ONE of them use methods that are physically disfiguring.

That makes it ok for the US to use torture? Maybe you and everyone in the world should stop referring to the US as 'civilized' from now on.

Why exactly would the CIA use of enhanced interrogation methods (limited applications of mental torture) result in an entire nation abandoning its Constitutional laws as applied to its citizens? You left out the middle part there and just assumed a slippery slope, even though the CIA isn't at the summit of the hill, as it were.

Nice euphemism. But the CIA and several other branches of the US use torture and not just mental but also physical. They have used it and encouraged using it in other countries ever since the US was founded. Torture is as American as apple pie.

[Aramike]

That makes it ok for the US to use torture? Maybe you and everyone in the world should stop referring to the US as 'civilized' from now on.Nice try at a deflection. You said that you don't think any other nation uses torture on the same scale as the US. That idea is patently false and the fact that you make it shows that you haven't researched this issue one damned bit but have grabbed onto it in order to further your constant demonization of America.


Ironically, you referred to the "scale" of US torture but never actually described the scale. I suspect you have no clue but have decided to just go on the premise of "America bad" as always. Nice euphemism. But the CIA and several other branches of the US use torture and not just mental but also physical. They have used it and encouraged using it in other countries ever since the US was founded. Torture is as American as apple pie. Not all torture is the same. Frankly, I have no problem with waterboarding, fake executions, etc. Let's just say it really doesn't bother me if a career terrorist suffers from PTSD.

I *DO* have a problem with torture that involves physical disfigurement, though. And there are 13 nations in the world that have recently engaged in those activities fairly openly (guess who's NOT on that list? The United States, shocking right?).

Sorry dude, but your arguments have failed miserably, mainly as a result of your clear bias. You're trying to sway people on the simplistic idea of "torture bad". It's a bit more complicated than that however.

[OneToughHerring]

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

Does any other nation have this kind of system for global transportation of people to be tortured? I don't think so. This system also includes physical torture.

[CastleBravo]

What is the point of this thread? To point out that torture is bad? Is it a black and white issue? Is one man's torture another man's interogation?

In the face of public execution, beheadings, 3000 lives lost, is moral equivilence the issue we should be discussing? Or, should it be defeating the foe which threatens us all?

Mock execution seems very mild in the face of groups and individuals, dedicating their lives to the wholesale murder of non-believers.

[OneToughHerring]

What is the point of this thread? To point out that torture is bad? Is it a black and white issue? Is one man's torture another man's interogation?

In the face of public execution, beheadings, 3000 lives lost, is moral equivilence the issue we should be discussing? Or, should it be defeating the foe which threatens us all?


It's not just mock executions, it's also physical torture.

"groups and individuals, dedicating their lives to the wholesale murder of non-believers"

Who would that be, people from the Bible-belt? CIA, Blackwater or maybe the US military? Born again christians?

[CastleBravo]

It's not just mock executions, it's also physical torture.

"groups and individuals, dedicating their lives to the wholesale murder of non-believers"

Who would that be, people from the Bible-belt? CIA, Blackwater or maybe the US military? Born again christians?

You seem to have issues with christian religions and are unable to see the difference between them and other philosiphies. The angels weep for you, and I will pray for you.

Wee-weed up

[Max2147]

A few things:

- You can talk all you want about how terrorists deserve it when it comes to torture, but what about innocents? I'm sure there are people in CIA custody whose only crime was being in the wrong place in the wrong time. Just because some people who look like them have committed horrific atrocities doesn't mean that innocent people deserve to be tortured for it.

- Torture is ineffective at best, and counter-productive at worst. A person who is being interrogated under duress doesn't say what he knows, he says what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. You get a vicious cycle. The interrogator thinks that XYZ plot is about to happen. The detainee knows that the interrogator thinks XYZ plot is about to happen, even though XYZ plot is actually pure fiction. So in order to please the interrogator and avoid torture, the detainee tells the interrogator all about XYZ plot. The interrogator's belief in XYZ plot is reinforced. After a few interrogations like that, the interrogator will consider XYZ plot to be an indisputable fact, even though it's not.

- Torture can produce self-fulfilling prophecies. Suppose you've been wrongfully accused of being part of XYZ terrorist group, and you're detained and tortured for it. If your captors realize their mistake and release you, what's the first thing you're going to do? Join XYZ terrorist group!

- Maintaining the moral high ground is vital to any fight against terrorists. Most terrorist groups aren't defeated by their enemies - the groups defeat themselves. The groups overplay their hand and become excessively violent. That extreme violence ends up alienating the very people who the group relies upon for support, and the group implodes. That's what happened to the IRA, that's what happened to the insurgency in Iraq, and that's what's started to happen to the insurgents in Pakistan. These groups weren't defeated by torture, they were defeated because they lost the moral high ground, and thus public support, to their enemies.

As Americans, our values and ideals are vitally important to us in any war. They're the greatest weapon in our arsenal. We need to keep them strong in order for our country to stay strong.

[Aramike]

A few counter-points:You can talk all you want about how terrorists deserve it when it comes to torture, but what about innocents? I'm sure there are people in CIA custody whose only crime was being in the wrong place in the wrong time. Just because some people who look like them have committed horrific atrocities doesn't mean that innocent people deserve to be tortured for it.Your premise is faulty. Indeed, all steps must be taken to prevent the capture and subsequent custody of innocents. However, that does not mean we should just abandon the program.

Your premise is akin to saying that we shouldn't have prisons because some innocent people may be incarcerated in them. I suggest that we fix the system, not just abandon it.Torture is ineffective at best, and counter-productive at worst. A person who is being interrogated under duress doesn't say what he knows, he says what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. You get a vicious cycle. The interrogator thinks that XYZ plot is about to happen. The detainee knows that the interrogator thinks XYZ plot is about to happen, even though XYZ plot is actually pure fiction. So in order to please the interrogator and avoid torture, the detainee tells the interrogator all about XYZ plot. The interrogator's belief in XYZ plot is reinforced. After a few interrogations like that, the interrogator will consider XYZ plot to be an indisputable fact, even though it's not.Complete rubbish.

For one, if it didn't work it wouldn't be used.

For two, that's not how interrogations go (you clearly don't know, because any professional would tell you that your sequence of events is silly at best). Also, even more silly is your idea that a person under the duress of torture can actually think clearly enough to figure out what the interrogator wants to hear.

The bottom line is that interrogators know somethings and don't know others. They use that information to ascertain a base of what can and cannot be believed.Torture can produce self-fulfilling prophecies. Suppose you've been wrongfully accused of being part of XYZ terrorist group, and you're detained and tortured for it. If your captors realize their mistake and release you, what's the first thing you're going to do? Join XYZ terrorist group!Sure, right ... do you have ANY facts to back this up?

I know of innocent people being released from prison and they don't just go and become outlaws, which is your premise.

[Letum]

if it didn't work it wouldn't be used.

The same could be said of many, many things that really don't work.

[August]

The same could be said of many, many things that really don't work.

Such as?

[Aramike]

The same could be said of many, many things that really don't work.What August said.

Besides, what facts do you have to support the claims that these methods just aren't working?

When they cease to produce results, the use of these methods will end.

[Letum]

if it didn't work it wouldn't be used.
The same could be said of many, many things that really don't work.
Such as?

Things that don't work (arguably), but are used/done anyway:

Witchcraft, chopsticks, business jargon cliches, homeopathy,
arguing with people on the internet, prayer, go-faster stripes,
political spin, global warming prevention, digital rights law,
trying to appeal to 'the youth', petitioning the SHIII devs.,
resisting arrest after your in the police station, invading Russia,
looking for answers in philosophy, passing unenforceable laws,
speculating about SHV features, etc.


Besides, what facts do you have to support the claims that these methods just aren't working?

I didn't make such a claim, but if someone else does the burden of proof
would be on those claiming that it did work.

[Tribesman]

I didn't make such a claim, but if someone else does the burden of proof
would be on those claiming that it did work.
It does work , just look at KSM...a little bit of water to stop him from being able to breath and straight up you have a confession.
OK so maybe he wasn't really responsible for all the crimes he admitted, but hey a confession is a confession.

[August]

Chopsticks work just fine for me and i'm not even Chinese.
Hindenburg would disagree with you about invading Russia.
Political spin won the last Presidential election.
Witchcraft works just fine for those who believe in it.
Homeopathy is a multi-billion dollar a year business.
Prayer does work because she got her period.

In order to prove your point you'll need better examples Letum!:up:

[Aramike]

Witchcraft, chopsticks, business jargon cliches, homeopathy,
arguing with people on the internet, prayer, go-faster stripes,
political spin, global warming prevention, digital rights law,
trying to appeal to 'the youth', petitioning the SHIII devs.,
resisting arrest after your in the police station, invading Russia,
looking for answers in philosophy, passing unenforceable laws,
speculating about SHV features, etc.Other than the fact that you're clearly (hopefully) being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, do you have anything analogous to the topic?I didn't make such a claim, but if someone else does the burden of proof
would be on those claiming that it did work. Umm, right. Either they have gained solid information from torture or they have not. We have 1000s of years of the former.

The seems to constitute the proof that it works.

[Letum]

It does not need to be analogous with torture because I am not contesting as
to whether or not torture works; I'm just contesting the argument you used
that has the format:

If 'x' didn't work then people wouldn't use it
People use 'x'
Therefore 'x' works

I don't care what you put in place of 'x', the argument doesn't work by
necessity because there are cases, such as some of those I listed, where
even if both premises where true, the conclusion would be false.

[Aramike]

It does not need to be analogous with torture because I am not contesting as
to whether or not torture works; I'm just contesting the argument you used
that has the format:



I don't care what you put in place of 'x', the argument doesn't work by
necessity because there are cases, such as some of those I listed, where
even if both premises where true, the conclusion would be false.But that wasn't my argument. You just made it into such.

My argument was that trained CIA agents responsible for allocating their time towards extracting information as efficiently as possible use it, therefore it works.

[Letum]

That's about as convincing as saying that trained UMF agents responsible for
allocating their time towards extracting information as efficiently as possible
don't use it, therefore it doesn't works.

[Aramike]

That's about as convincing as saying that trained UMF agents responsible for
allocating their time towards extracting information as efficiently as possible
don't use it, therefore it doesn't works.No its not.

Just because something works doesn't mean something else does not work. Furthermore, there may be differences in the urgency of a given situation, the resolve of the subject, the agency's threshold for acceptance of incomplete information, etc. Furthermore, who's to say that such agencies prohibited from such methods don't wish they could employ them?

Oh, and here's an obvious point - when comparing the relative effectiveness of any technique of anything, doesn't it make far more sense to make comparisons with an agency ALLOWED to do somethings, rather than not?

In any case, your rebuttal is irrelevant.

[Letum]

If your saying that the CIA wouldn't do something if it didn't work, then why
can't I say that the UMF wouldn't not do something if it did work.

[Aramike]

If your saying that the CIA wouldn't do something if it didn't work, then why
can't I say that the UMF wouldn't not do something if it did work.You mean you can't figure out why some organizations would use an effective tactic and others would not?

:har:

Here's an easy example: the Air Force dropping bombs is an effective tactic for destroying things. What happens when they run out of bombs? Or the political will to use them disappears?

Does that then mean the tactic of dropping bombs does not destroy things?

[Letum]

Every sovereign country could or could have allow(ed) torture if it wanted to.

If the fact that the CIA can, and do use it is evidence that it is effective,
isn't the fact that other countries could and don't evidence to the contrary?


I don't think that either the former or the latter are good evidence either way,
but if you want to use one, then the other must be accounted for.

[Aramike]

If the fact that the CIA can, and do use it is evidence that it is effective,
isn't the fact that other countries could and don't evidence to the contrary?No.I don't think that either the former or the latter are good evidence either way,
but if you want to use one, then the other must be accounted for. No it doesn't.

In fact, the idea that it must be accounted for is logically preposterous.


Your argument is akin to this:

Man uses legs to cross street. Ergo, legs effective for crossing street.
Other man does not use legs to cross street. Ergo, the first man's legs are useless for crossing street.

Utterly ridiculous.

[FIREWALL]

Chopsticks work just fine for me and i'm not even Chinese.
Hindenburg would disagree with you about invading Russia.
Political spin won the last Presidential election.
Witchcraft works just fine for those who believe in it.
Homeopathy is a multi-billion dollar a year business.
Prayer does work because she got her period.

In order to prove your point you'll need better examples Letum!:up:


Letum doesn't work quite right. Oh he's not on your list of things that do work right. :har::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Letum]

Man uses legs to cross street. Ergo, legs effective for crossing street.
Other man does not use legs to cross street. Ergo, the first man's legs are useless for crossing street.


No, the (invalid) arguments run:

If 'x' works then people would use it
People use 'x'
Therefore 'x' works

If 'x' works then people would use it
People don't use 'x'
Therefore 'x' doesn't works i.e.

If using legs to cross the street works then people wouldn't use legs to cross the street
People use legs to cross the street
Therefore using legs to cross the street works

If using legs to cross the street works then people would use it
People don't use legs to cross the street
Therefore using legs to cross the street doesn't work

Neither argument is valid because they are of the form:

If 'x' then 'y'
'y'
Therefore 'x'

If 'x' then 'y'
Not 'y'
Therefore not 'x'

In the 'legs' example 'x' is "using legs to cross the street works" and 'y' is
"people (would) use it".
In the torture example 'x' is "Torture works" and 'y' is "[any given
intelligence organiseation] (would) use it".

[Aramike]

No, the (invalid) arguments run:

i.e.

If using legs to cross the street works then people wouldn't use legs to cross the street
People use legs to cross the street
Therefore using legs to cross the street works

If using legs to cross the street works then people would use it
People don't use legs to cross the street
Therefore using legs to cross the street doesn't work

Neither argument is valid because they are of the form:

If 'x' then 'y'
'y'
Therefore 'x'

If 'x' then 'y'
Not 'y'
Therefore not 'x'

In the 'legs' example 'x' is "using legs to cross the street works" and 'y' is
"people (would) use it".
In the torture example 'x' is "Torture works" and 'y' is "[any given
intelligence organiseation] (would) use it".You crack me up with the fact that whenever you can't win an argument, you try to break it down into a formula that supports ... well, really nothing substantively.

Man crosses street using legs. Therefore legs are effective at crossing street.

That's invalid? :har:

Sure, buddy.

Problem is, you're flat-out wrong, and the "Man Crossing Street" analogy is far more clear than your formula, and far more accurate.

[Letum]

I work with logic because it produces logical answers. I can't see why you object to that.

"Man crosses street using legs. Therefore legs are effective at crossing street."

Could be tidied up to be valid, but

"If using legs to cross the street works then people wouldn't use legs to cross the street
People use legs to cross the street
Therefore using legs to cross the street works"

i.e. "if it didn't work it wouldn't be used. It is; therefor it does."
is not valid.

[Aramike]

I work with logic because it produces logical answers. I can't see why you object to that.

"Man crosses street using legs. Therefore legs are effective at crossing street."

Could be tidied up to be valid, but

"If using legs to cross the street works then people wouldn't use legs to cross the street
People use legs to cross the street
Therefore using legs to cross the street works"

i.e. "if it didn't work it wouldn't be used. It is; therefor it does."
is not valid.
*Sigh*

See, here's the thing - you (and anyone else breathing with a basic comprehension of the English language) knew exactly what I meant. But, instead of discussing the merits of the issue at hand, you decided to attempt to demonstrate the fallibility of written word versus mathematical constructs.

The problem is that you failed to take into account that such formulas cannot represent the total possibilities laid into place by the original argument. This is why people write with words and not formulas.

For instance, you wrote: In the torture example 'x' is "Torture works" and 'y' is "[any given
intelligence organiseation] (would) use it".

Now, who said anything about "any given intelligence organization"? My original statement could have referred to axiomatic reasonings only related to the CIA (which your formula doesn't account for). Or, it could have been exclusionary (which your formula also doesn't account for). Ultimately, YOU chose to ascribe the most simple reasonings you could think of and base your logic around them in order to attempt to "invalidate" a perfectly reasonable argument that you couldn't logically counter with equal complexity.

The bottom line is, though, in order for any of your simplistic arguments on formulaic logic to work, the issue said formulas represent must be equally as simple. This issue is not. It is rather exceedingly complex.

Now, to your point that you're TRYING to make but using the route most obfuscated: Does the CIA using torture mean that torture works?

No, of course not. That statement taking by itself with no axiomatic, historical, documented context is indeed an invalid argument. But we're not aliens visiting planet Earth for the first time and rendering moral judgement without regard to context, are we? Rather, we are human beings with experiences to temper our understandings, and that is where the context must be laid.

So, let's see ... why would a trained CIA interrogator use torture...let's examine some motivations, shall we?

1 - Just for the hell of it.
2 - Under orders from people who have no idea that methods are ineffective.
3 - Methods are effective.
4 - Personal, vindictive motivations.
5 - All other methods have failed.

Now, using common sense, I'm going to eliminate 1, 2, and 4. Number 1 just doesn't make any sense and there are safeguards in place to prevent the odd individual who would engage in such sadistic activities. The same applies to #4.

As for #2, I see it as unlikely because the people in charge would have to be ridiculously moronic to continue a somewhat black program that has been ineffective for decades. In a bureaucracy of budgets, every dollar and minute is accounted for. Furthermore its a game of results that, for all of its shortcomings, the agency has been winning. You only hear about the successes - not the failures.

So, 2 doesn't seem to ring very true.

That leaves us with 3 and 5. I have no problem with either, so long as torture does not involve disfigurement and/or permanant physical disability, AND it is only applied in cases of learning specifics we KNOW the subject is privvy to (as opposed to just beating down a guy and saying "tell us what you know", which seems to be the only thing lefties think the CIA does using enhanced interrogation).

The bottom line is that, using logic tempered with some common sense and seasoned with some historical and modern perspective, the argument can be made and it is perfectly valid...

...and if you want to write the formula that takes all of that into account, go right ahead. I'm going to stick with words - that's why we use them.

[Tribesman]

AND it is only applied in cases of learning specifics we KNOW the subject is privvy to
Apart from the fact that you can't really know with certainty.
Which is why innocent peope get tortured.

[OneToughHerring]

So who's in favor and who's against torture?

In favour of torture:
Aramike
Thomen
CastleBravo
CaptainHaplo
Skybird

Against torture:
Me
Letum
Max2147

Those who feel they are misrepresented may ask to be changed into a different category.

[August]

Against torture:
Me

But you torture every person who reads your posts! :D

[OneToughHerring]

NY Times story (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24detain.html?hp) about the ongoing torture revelations.

August,

put me in ignore. Then I'd be a proud member of your ignore list. :D

[Letum]

My original statement could have referred to axiomatic reasonings only related to the CIA

It could, but it would be taking appeal to authority a bit far to claim that
the CIA are in an utterly unique position.

The bottom line is, though, in order for any of your simplistic arguments on formulaic logic to work, the issue said formulas represent must be equally as simple. This issue is not. It is rather exceedingly complex. The issue of torture is certainly too complex, but the "if it didn't work it
wouldn't be used." argument is not.



Does the CIA using torture mean that torture works?

No, of course not. That statement taking by itself with no axiomatic, historical, documented context is indeed an invalid argument. But we're not aliens visiting planet Earth for the first time and rendering moral judgement without regard to context, are we? Rather, we are human beings with experiences to temper our understandings, and that is where the context must be laid.

So, let's see ... why would a trained CIA interrogator use torture...let's examine some motivations, shall we?

1 - Just for the hell of it.
2 - Under orders from people who have no idea that methods are ineffective.
3 - Methods are effective.
4 - Personal, vindictive motivations.
5 - All other methods have failed.

Now, using common sense, I'm going to eliminate 1, 2, and 4. Number 1 just doesn't make any sense and there are safeguards in place to prevent the odd individual who would engage in such sadistic activities. The same applies to #4.

As for #2, I see it as unlikely because the people in charge would have to be ridiculously moronic to continue a somewhat black program that has been ineffective for decades. In a bureaucracy of budgets, every dollar and minute is accounted for. Furthermore its a game of results that, for all of its shortcomings, the agency has been winning. You only hear about the successes - not the failures.

So, 2 doesn't seem to ring very true.

That leaves us with 3 and 5. I have no problem with either, so long as torture does not involve disfigurement and/or permanant physical disability, AND it is only applied in cases of learning specifics we KNOW the subject is privvy to (as opposed to just beating down a guy and saying "tell us what you know", which seems to be the only thing lefties think the CIA does using enhanced interrogation).
Again, that same argument could be applied to things in my list.

So, let's see ... why would a trained some highly skilled medical professionals use homeopathy...let's examine some motivations, shall we?

1 - Just for the hell of it.
2 - Under orders from people who have no idea that homeopathy is ineffective.
3 - Homeopathy is effective.
4 - Personal, vindictive motivations.
5 - All other methods have failed. or

So, let's see ... why would a trained some highly skilled environmental scientists use are trying to prevent climate change...let's examine some motivations, shall we?

1 - Just for the hell of it.
2 - Under orders from people who have no idea that trying to prevent climate change is ineffective.
3 - trying to prevent climate change is effective.
4 - Personal, vindictive motivations.
5 - All other methods have failed. Come to think of it, it can be turned back on torture:

So, let's see ... why would the witch finder general use torture to find witches...let's examine some motivations, shall we?

1 - Just for the hell of it.
2 - Under orders from people who have no idea that methods are ineffective.
3 - Methods are effective.
4 - Personal, vindictive motivations.
5 - All other methods have failed.

Now, using common sense, I'm going to eliminate 1, 2, and 4. Number 1 just doesn't make any sense and there are safeguards in place to prevent the odd individual who would engage in such sadistic activities. The same applies to #4.

As for #2, I see it as unlikely because the people in charge would have to be ridiculously moronic to continue a somewhat black program that has been ineffective for decades. [...etc]
In every case there is clearly more options to be considered.

For homeopathy the choice that appeals to me most goes something like:
6 - A mix of the placebo effect and confirmation bias makes homeopathy
appear to be effective

and for torture someone could use:
6 - Torture appears to work because the questions that are asked have to
be leading questions, the information it produces is rarely verifiable and
regardless of whether it is working to seek the truth, it will always work
to add to confirmation bias as torture victims will always eventually say
what they think the torturer wants to hear; true or not.


All that aside, I'm not sure that anyone who says the CIA is wrong has to
give a reason why they would make the mistake. The burden of proof isn't
on them to do so.

[August]

NY Times story (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24detain.html?hp) about the ongoing torture revelations.

August,

put me in ignore. Then I'd be a proud member of your ignore list. :D

I don't have an ignore list. That's not how I roll.

[Thomen]

So who's in favor and who's against torture?

In favour of torture:
Aramike
CastleBravo
CaptainHaplo
Skybird
OneToughHering


Against torture:
Letum
Max2147


Those who feel they are misrepresented may ask to be changed into a different category.

Fixed for you.

I never said that torture is ok, you are, once again misinterpreting and misrepresenting things. In fact, it was you, who said that other countries procedures do not count, therefore, it is you (once again) who supports or ingnores torture in other countries, as long as you can blame the US.

Oh and just for kicks and giggles.. Since you are so adamant that Americans are fat or living here also makes you fat, you are aware that there are, percentage wise, more obese people in Finland than there are in the USA or most other European countries?

But I have to admit, reading your weird and twisted reasonings make an interesting read for rainy gloomy days of boredom and are a nice distraction from most of the other political threads that end in a partisan slug fest. :haha:

[Thomen]

I don't have an ignore list.

Ditto.. otherwise one might miss a lot of the 'good stuff'.

[OneToughHerring]

Fixed for you.

I never said that torture is ok, you are, once again misinterpreting and misrepresenting things. In fact, it was you, who said that other countries procedures do not count, therefore, it is you (once again) who supports or ingnores torture in other countries, as long as you can blame the US.

Oh and just for kicks and giggles.. Since you are so adamant that Americans are fat or living here also makes you fat, you are aware that there are, percentage wise, more obese people in Finland than there are in the USA or most other European countries?

But I have to admit, reading your weird and twisted reasonings make an interesting read for rainy gloomy days of boredom and are a nice distraction from most of the other political threads that end in a partisan slug fest. :haha:

Nope. You are agreeing with the notion that it's ok for US to torture if other nations do it as well. I wonder if this logic includes or excludes the many South American nations where the US 'imported' torture through the School of Americas? The extraordinary renditions have also transported people to be tortured to places like Syria. Does this make it ok for US to use torture?

Nope, the US is the fattest nation in the world.

[Thomen]

Nope. You are agreeing with the notion that it's ok for US to torture if other nations do it as well. I wonder if this logic includes or excludes the many South American nations where the US 'imported' torture through the School of Americas?

Nope, the US is the fattest nation in the world.

Where did I say that I agree that it is ok, if other nations do it?

Once again, you make assumptions without any solid facts to back you up.

And nope, they aren't the fattest.. atleast the Finns are fatter, according to a study done by an institute in Finnland ;)

[OneToughHerring]

Where did I say that I agree that it is ok, if other nations do it?

Once again, you make assumptions without any solid facts to back you up.

And nope, they aren't the fattest.. atleast the Finns are fatter, according to a study done by an institute in Finnland ;)

Well why is torture ok then?

According to an American study the Americans are fattest. And according to a German study...oh, wait you're not German.

[Thomen]

Well why is torture ok then?

According to an American study the Americans are fattest. And according to a German study...oh, wait you're not German.


Once again, you are trying to deflect from the issue. Where did I say that torture is ok? Please point it out.

So, who are the obese people then? Once again you are being very selective in what you want to see or understand.

[OneToughHerring]

Once again, you are trying to deflect from the issue. Where did I say that torture is ok? Please point it out.

So, who are the obese people then? Once again you are being very selective in what you want to see or understand.

The subject of this thread is torture by the US. Stick to the topic.

[Thomen]

The subject of this thread is torture by the US. Stick to the topic.

That is all you got?
I am on topic. Where did I say the stuff you accuse me off?

[OneToughHerring]

That is all you got?
I am on topic. Where did I say the stuff you accuse me off?

Well then clarify your point instead of endless dribble,

Edit. Well I'd consider flooding a thread with useless off-topic messages to be worse then 'fatty', but that's just me.

[Thomen]

Well then clarify your point instead of endless dribble, fatty.

Ahh.. so you got nothing left and now you are down to name calling? How apropo.

Being 6ft 2 and 180lbs makes me truly an obese person, I 'spose.

Can you point out the things you accuse me off, or not? ;)

[OneToughHerring]

So you're not in favour of torture? Good. I'll make a change to the list.

In favour of torture:
Aramike
CastleBravo
CaptainHaplo
Skybird

Against torture:
OTH
Letum
Max2147
Thomen

All you had to was ask but I guess that was too difficult, eh?

[Tribesman]

Nope, the US is the fattest nation in the world.
What absolute drivel, there are several pacific nations who are proud of their record in being the fattest nations in the world.
But hey how about the latest EU report into Lard


In parts of Europe the combination of reported overweight and obesity in men exceeds even the 67% prevalence
found in the USA’s most recent measured survey. Finland, Germany, Greece, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Slovakia
and Malta all have overweight rates which surpass that of the USA.

Oh look its finland :rotfl:

Isn't it sad that in such a simple case as putting up a viable position against torture you are simply unable to make a coherent arguement Herring , instead you just go off on an "It's America" rant again.

[OneToughHerring]

What absolute drivel, there are several pacific nations who are proud of their record in being the fattest nations in the world.
But hey how about the latest EU report into Lard


Oh look its finland :rotfl:

Isn't it sad that in such a simple case as putting up a viable position against torture you are simply unable to make a coherent arguement Herring , instead you just go off on an "It's America" rant again.

Well you're free to attack Finland if you feel like it. Freedom, it's a nice thing, innit?

[August]

Well you're free to attack Finland if you feel like it. Freedom, it's a nice thing, innit?

Maybe he has too much class to attack an entire nation just because he's irritated with a single individual.

[OneToughHerring]

Maybe he has too much class to attack an entire nation just because he's irritated with a single individual.

Yet he attacks the entire nation instead of me. :doh:

In a feeble attempt to bring this thread back on topic, take a look at that list I posted. It tells you clearly that there are people, mostly Americans, who are in favour of torture. Some people, mostly Europeans, are against torture. I think that's the whole point. Some people agree with the use of torture and some don't.

[Aramike]

It could, but it would be taking appeal to authority a bit far to claim that
the CIA are in an utterly unique position.It would be except for the fact that they are.The issue of torture is certainly too complex, but the "if it didn't work it
wouldn't be used." argument is not.Clearly, if taken by itself (which I specifically said in the last post). Yet when considered along with other axiomatic factors the argument becomes complex and your formula becomes useless in describing it.All that aside, I'm not sure that anyone who says the CIA is wrong has to
give a reason why they would make the mistake. The burden of proof isn't
on them to do so. Anyone making a claim has a burden of proof. This isn't a negative claim of "no it doesn't happen" and therefore is unprovable. We know that something happens and that there is a verifiable result.

Your burden of proof argument (which you really should leave at the metaphysical door, by the way) doesn't apply in instances of measurable results. That would be like me saying that water doesn't freeze at 32F and putting the burden of proof on you to show that water DOES indeed freeze at 32F.

[Aramike]

In a feeble attempt to bring this thread back on topic, take a look at that list I posted. It tells you clearly that there are people, mostly Americans, who are in favour of torture. Some people, mostly Europeans, are against torture. I think that's the whole point. Some people agree with the use of torture and some don't. Thank you, Admiral Obvious!

[OneToughHerring]

Thank you, Admiral Obvious!

It may be obvious to you but I'm sure to a lot of Finns it isn't. And now with the US being the 'special ally' of Finland it's increasingly important that Finns know how Americans feel about these kinds of things.

[SteamWake]

Dont fret Barry has it under control

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/24/obama-administration-sets-new-interrogation-unit/

[Aramike]

It may be obvious to you but I'm sure to a lot of Finns it isn't. And now with the US being the 'special ally' of Finland it's increasingly important that Finns know how Americans feel about these kinds of things.Well, you go right on educating them. :yawn:

Somehow I have a feeling that there's a diversity of opinion on the matter there as well as everywhere else. And I'm pretty sure you don't represent Finland as a whole. :yep:

[OneToughHerring]

Well, you go right on educating them. :yawn:

Somehow I have a feeling that there's a diversity of opinion on the matter there as well as everywhere else. And I'm pretty sure you don't represent Finland as a whole. :yep:

Oh you mean that you are relying on finding people in Finland who would say yes to USA's right to use torture? I wouldn't bet too much on that one.

[Aramike]

Oh you mean that you are relying on finding people in Finland who would say yes to USA's right to use torture? I wouldn't bet too much on that one.I'm sure there are some. And I'm sure they are minority.

And, most of all, I'm sure most Americans just don't give a damn what the citizens of Finland think of us. :salute:

[OneToughHerring]

I'm sure there are some. And I'm sure they are minority.

And, most of all, I'm sure most Americans just don't give a damn what the citizens of Finland think of us. :salute:

"Pride goes before the fall", it's a saying we have here. Not that America really has that high to fall from.

[August]

"Pride goes before the fall", it's a saying we have here. Not that America really has that high to fall from.

Proverbs 16:18

[OneToughHerring]

Oh I didn't know that's a biblical quote, I just translated verbatim the Finnish saying. I guess there is lots of this biblical stuff in everyday sayings.

[August]

Oh I didn't know that's a biblical quote, I just translated verbatim the Finnish saying. I guess there is lots of this biblical stuff in everyday sayings.

Must feel strange to you to be using quotes from a religion that you hate so much eh?

[OneToughHerring]

Must feel strange to you to be using quotes from a religion that you hate so much eh?

Shouldn't the Americans all be you know, Mormons or Jehova's witnesses? I mean, those are their religions, invented by them? Why are Americans taking a mostly European religion and then perverting it? And more importantly why are you sending those ****ing Mormons and Jehovas into Europe?

[August]

Shouldn't the Americans all be you know, Mormons or Jehova's witnesses? I mean, those are their religions, invented by them? Why are Americans taking a mostly European religion and then perverting it? And more importantly why are you sending those ****ing Mormons and Jehovas into Europe?

It's that pesky freedom thang. You wouldn't understand.

[Jimbuna]

If anyone feels like a little time out from this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3khTntOxX-k

:DL

[OneToughHerring]

It's that pesky freedom thang. You wouldn't understand.

Yea I get it. That door swings both ways though.

But tell me, as a 'christian', who would Jesus torture? I mean, besides the capitalist money lenders.

[ETR3(SS)]

Shouldn't the Americans all be you know, Mormons or Jehova's witnesses? I mean, those are their religions, invented by them? Why are Americans taking a mostly European religion and then perverting it? And more importantly why are you sending those ****ing Mormons and Jehovas into Europe?For someone who has the morality to denounce the use of torture, you also show that belittling other people religions isn't beneath you at all.

[OneToughHerring]

For someone who has the morality to denounce the use of torture, you also show that belittling other people religions isn't beneath you at all.

You should've heard what I told the last two Jehova's witnesses that came to my door.

Btw, are you against or for torture?

[Letum]

That would be like me saying that water doesn't freeze at 32F and putting the burden of proof on you to show that water DOES indeed freeze at 32F.


Quite so, I was wrong.
The burden of proof would only be on you if I made no claim about water
freezing/CIA being right.
Even so, there isn't a case for CIA infallibility.


In what way is the CIA in a unique position to find torture beneficial?


Clearly, if taken by itself (which I specifically said in the last post). Yet when considered along with other axiomatic factors the argument becomes complex and your formula becomes useless in describing it.


If the basic argument doesn't work then it still won't work; what ever
baggage you add to it.

[Aramike]

"Pride goes before the fall", it's a saying we have here. Not that America really has that high to fall from.Funny, but somehow your grandoise prediction doesn't ring very true when confronted with reality.

[OneToughHerring]

Funny, but somehow your grandoise prediction doesn't ring very true when confronted with reality.

When it comes to torture, right? You think that torturing has a bright future in the USA?

[Aramike]

If the basic argument doesn't work then it still won't work; what ever
baggage you add to it. Wrong.

The argument only becomes "basic" when you simplify it out of context. Sorry, but you have no authority to simplify the expression and context of an argument in order to invalidate it. Doing so changes the argument. As such, it becomes YOUR construct, and YOU end up only arguing against yourself.

Dude, give it a rest.

[OneToughHerring]

Wrong.

The argument only becomes "basic" when you simplify it out of context. Sorry, but you have no authority to simplify the expression and context of an argument in order to invalidate it. Doing so changes the argument. As such, it becomes YOUR construct, and YOU end up only arguing against yourself.

Dude, give it a rest.

How about you take a break from trying to defend torture? How about a little bit of that, eh?

[OneToughHerring]

Also, what they talk about in the article, about shooting a gun in the next room and telling the person that they shot a person. That's also typical stuff from the School of Americas. They used to play a tape of women and children screaming in the next room and tell the person that it's his wife and children being tortured/killed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8219307.stm

"CIA agents threatened to kill a terror suspect's children as part of interrogation techniques, a newly declassified report has revealed."

Who told you first? What? Who?

I'm telling you I know this stuff. I'll tell you one more thing, we haven't reached the bottom of the US scum bucket yet, we're not even halfway yet. There'll be more of this stuff so better prepare ya'll. :salute::haha:

[Aramike]

When it comes to torture, right? You think that torturing has a bright future in the USA?Umm, I was referring to "the fall", as you wrote it. Not torture.

But see, what really makes you look foolish is this idea you have that, not only do some of us approve of the use of certain forms of torture in interrogations, but that we actually like it.

I don't like it. I doubt anyone here does. But, I don't find personal distaste to be the northern point on my moral compass, either.

See, frankly I'm sure you think that all of us who support limited applications of torture, under very strict guidelines, to be morally bankrupt. To that I say, oh well. Frankly, if my position is morally bankrupt, YOURS is morally DEPRAVED.

You would literally limit yourself on extracting information from a known terrorist in custody to whatever that person feels like saying, even to the risk and detriment of countless civilians. And, you'd do it just because going any further makes you feel queasy.

Hell, I'd even go for drugs to be used on such people in lieu of waterboarding, etc ... but that's torture too...

You can hate us all you want while reveling in your own percieved intellectual superiority in your little irrelevant corner of the world ... but it isn't going to change how the world really works. Somehow, we've managed to prosper as a nation of 60X the population of yours along with all of the diversity and associated problems. And we keep coming out on top.

[Aramike]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8219307.stm

"CIA agents threatened to kill a terror suspect's children as part of interrogation techniques, a newly declassified report has revealed."

Who told you first? What? Who?

I'm telling you I know this stuff. I'll tell you one more thing, we haven't reached the bottom of the US scum bucket yet, we're not even halfway yet. There'll be more of this stuff so better prepare ya'll. :salute::haha:Yeah, umm, so?

Did the CIA actually have those children at gunpoint? Did they actually kill the children? No??? Wow!

Must have been emotionally awful to hear that for the terror suspect. Like I give a damn.

First you're crying about the physical well-being of terrorists. Now you want them to be emotionally comfortable too. What next, a suite at the top of the Hyatt?

[OneToughHerring]

The whole hidden pattern of torture is being revealed and stuff like the Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions and now this are all parts of. And more will be revealed.

The US 'stocks' are declining in the world, has been for decades. I see no change in that trend except maybe a quicker spiral down. Population figures vs. Finland won't change that, unfortunately I think it's the other way around.

[Aramike]

The whole hidden pattern of torture is being revealed and stuff like the Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions and now this are all parts of. And more will be revealed.

The US 'stocks' are declining in the world, has been for decades. I see no change in that trend except maybe a quicker spiral down. Population figures vs. Finland won't change that, unfortunately I think it's the other way around.Sure buddy. You seem to be intent upon proving the rest of us that you have no idea what you're talking about, and the whole basis of your arguments are an anti-US bias. Were you abused as a child by an American or something?

Your sense of righteous indignation has no credibility for the reasons I said early on in this thread.

[OneToughHerring]

Sure buddy. You seem to be intent upon proving the rest of us that you have no idea what you're talking about, and the whole basis of your arguments are an anti-US bias. Were you abused as a child by an American or something?

Your sense of righteous indignation has no credibility for the reasons I said early on in this thread.

Oh I'm sure the Americans would love to torture me too, I mean they really have this kinky thing about torture. :DL

[AngusJS]

Wrong.

The argument only becomes "basic" when you simplify it out of context. Sorry, but you have no authority to simplify the expression and context of an argument in order to invalidate it. Doing so changes the argument. As such, it becomes YOUR construct, and YOU end up only arguing against yourself.

Dude, give it a rest.

Actually, you repeatedly made the silly argument that becuase the CIA was doing it, it must work. Letum just showed how your reasoning was fallacious. Only later did you expand on it to try and get out of that sinkhole....by an appeal to authority.

Secondly, the argument that torture doesn't work fails heavily when one considers that, if it wasn't working, it wouldn't be used.History is full of instances when groups of experts have screwed up royally. You have to provide something more than your appeal to the authority of the CIA, how they are in a special position and are therefore suitably immune to confirmation bias, and are not simply the latest in a long line of experts who have been dead wrong. The burden of proof is on you because torture had previously been thought to be ineffective. You have to show why now it magically works and is perfectly justified, now that the US is doing it.

Regarding the charge of hypocrisy against those who decry torture in America but who are supposedly silent when it happens in places like China: baloney. If there was a thread about torture in China, I would register my disgust there. It's only hypocrisy if you oppose it in one instance, while actively supporting it in another instance without suitable justification.

It's just, gosh, I hold the US to a higher standard than the People's Republic, silly me.

[Tribesman]

Maybe he has too much class to attack an entire nation just because he's irritated with a single individual.
Thank you , that should be obvious
Yet clearly...
Yet he attacks the entire nation instead of me.
...some people can't understand something that simple .
Simple steps to follow , get an adult to help if you get stuck on them Herring
1 Someone writes a pile of crap
2 A scientific report on the subject is quoted and shows that to be a pile of crap
3 It simply shows that the claim was a pile of crap.

Easy isn't it
Unless of course we live in your alternative reality where the steps are
1 You write a pile of crap
2 Someone shows you have written crap
3 As you are from Finland they are obviously showing that they hate Finland and think all Finns are as silly as you are.

So back to the main topic .
Some people have mentioned as a justification the effectiveness of torture for gaining information.
What does the released document from the insector general of the CIA say about the effectiveness?

[OneToughHerring]

Thank you , that should be obvious
Yet clearly...

...some people can't understand something that simple .
Simple steps to follow , get an adult to help if you get stuck on them Herring
1 Someone writes a pile of crap
2 A scientific report on the subject is quoted and shows that to be a pile of crap
3 It simply shows that the claim was a pile of crap.

Easy isn't it
Unless of course we live in your alternative reality where the steps are
1 You write a pile of crap
2 Someone shows you have written crap
3 As you are from Finland they are obviously showing that they hate Finland and think all Finns are as silly as you are.

So back to the main topic .
Some people have mentioned as a justification the effectiveness of torture for gaining information.
What does the released document from the insector general of the CIA say about the effectiveness?

Is it really that difficult for you to stay on topic, tax evader?

[Aramike]

Actually, you repeatedly made the silly argument that becuase the CIA was doing it, it must work. Letum just showed how your reasoning was fallacious. Only later did you expand on it to try and get out of that sinkhole....by an appeal to authority. Not at all. I was making an argument based upon the idea that it only makes sense that the CIA would act logically. Logically speaking, they wouldn't use the techniques if they didn't work.

Now, if you want to argue that the CIA is illogical then you should provide reasonings and motives.

Letum's argument is a failure (and subsequently, so is yours) because he's trying to reduce a matter of justifiable opinions into an absolute construct. First of all, to even try that is foolish. Secondly, he's only doing it to distract from the actual discussion, because he can't actually counter the point.History is full of instances when groups of experts have screwed up royally. You have to provide something more than your appeal to the authority of the CIA, how they are in a special position and are therefore suitably immune to confirmation bias, and are not simply the latest in a long line of experts who have been dead wrong. We're not talking about a behavior being employed with long lasting, unforseeable implications. We're talking about a behavior that either works relatively immediately and verifiably, or does not.The burden of proof is on you because torture had previously been thought to be ineffective. You have to show why now it magically works and is perfectly justified, now that the US is doing it.It cracks me up when lefties with weak arguments try to assign a burden of proof. Torture either works or it doesn't. Both are verifiable claims. Therefore, in a debate, the burden of proof falls onto BOTH sides to show why they're right. This isn't a discussion on theism where neither side is verifiable, but only one side is positing a claim.Regarding the charge of hypocrisy against those who decry torture in America but who are supposedly silent when it happens in places like China: baloney. there was a thread about torture in China, I would register my disgust there. It's only hypocrisy if you oppose it in one instance, while actively supporting it in another instance without suitable justification.Don't make me laugh. Your reasonings are flawed.

We're not talking about a thread that just magically appeared here - we're talking about a thread that the individual in question started. Furthermore, he's shown a clear bias, and instead of making the general moral argument as a foundation for his disgust, he only frames it within a certain context. It's just, gosh, I hold the US to a higher standard than the People's Republic, silly me. Unfortunately your standards don't make the world turn.

[Tribesman]

Is it really that difficult for you to stay on topic, tax evader?
I hate to break it to ya, but if someone writes....

the US is the fattest nation in the world.
.....in a topic then any response following that on the same issue are on topic:yep:
Oh, and everyone avoids tax if they have a functioning brain , therefore I take it that you don't try and avoid tax.

Torture either works or it doesn't. Both are verifiable claims. Therefore, in a debate, the burden of proof falls onto BOTH sides to show why they're right.
What does the report say on the effectiveness of torture?
Surely as you are arguing in support of the CIAs use of torture then their own report backs you up decisively.

[OneToughHerring]

I hate to break it to ya, but if someone writes....


.....in a topic then any response following that on the same issue are on topic:yep:

No it isn't.

Oh, and everyone avoids tax if they have a functioning brain , therefore I take it that you don't try and avoid tax.

Tax evasion is a crime.

Back on topic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8217414.stm

"The US justice department is calling for about a dozen prisoner abuse cases to be reopened, US media say.The recommendation could lead to the prosecution of CIA employees and contractors over the treatment of terrorism suspects, the reports say."

[Tribesman]

No it isn't.
Simple steps again.
1. someone writes something in a topic
2. someone writes a response to what was written in the topic
Step 2 is on topic because Step 1 is in the topic

Tax evasion is a crime.

Tax avoidance isn't a crime. It is a fundamental right for every person to pay as little tax in as they legally can.
Is that concept simply beyond your grasp?
Or perhaps you just don't understand how the tax systems work and how to use them properly.

[OneToughHerring]

Simple steps again.
1. someone writes something in a topic
2. someone writes a response to what was written in the topic
Step 2 is on topic because Step 1 is in the topic

I think you're confusing the concept of thread with the concept of topic.

But anyway.

Tax avoidance isn't a crime. It is a fundamental right for every person to pay as little tax in as they legally can.
Is that concept simply beyond your grasp?
Or perhaps you just don't understand how the tax systems work and how to use them properly.

Yea it must be that then.

Again, posting something relevant to the thread.

http://www.soaw.org/article.php?id=98

[Jimbuna]

Oh no!!....it's come back to life

http://home.att.net/~alanmania65/onoz_omg2.gif

:DL