CIA used mock executions etc.

08-22-09, 12:55 PM

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 · 08-22-09, 01:13 PM

Here we go again *heads for bunker*

Aramike · 08-22-09, 01:22 PM

Quote:

"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!

Quote:

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 · 08-22-09, 01:30 PM

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.

08-22-09, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

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...?

Quote:

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 · 08-22-09, 01:32 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Drinking already, Aramike? Remember not to drive.

Not yet, but will be shortly.

08-22-09, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

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?

Skybird · 08-23-09, 09:57 AM

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.

Letum · 08-23-09, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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"?

Quote:

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.

Skybird · 08-23-09, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

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 · 08-23-09, 10:23 AM

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

Anyhow, it reads the same quoted in full:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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. "?

08-22-09, 12:55 PM	#1
OneToughHerring Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	CIA used mock executions etc. 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.

08-22-09, 01:13 PM	#2
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,499 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Here we go again heads for bunker __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

08-23-09, 09:57 AM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,609 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 08-23-09 at 10:08 AM.

08-22-09, 01:30 PM	#4
Cohaagen Frogman Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UK Posts: 296 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	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.