Cheney confirms that detainees were subjected to "waterboarding&q

[buckthesystem]

So what you people want is basically REVENGE, not justice or "gaining information".

You must know that torture is an extremely unreliable form of "ve have vays of making you talk" because a person being tortured will often say anything (make up a story, tell the torturer what you think they WANT to hear) to MAKE THE PAIN STOP, however temporarily.

The catchphrase of "if it will save lives of Americans" is utterly ludicrous, you know this. Torture advocates often excuse it by saying things like "it is no worse than what "they" do to our troops", but it has to be considered that "they" will also think that this justifies torturing American POWs. It works both ways and two wrongs don't make a right.

Gee, "waterboard" me and I'll confess to being on the grassy knoll and then sending Anthrax to politicians.

[Giaour]

Maybe if we ask them nicely, they will spill their guts to us.

[ted]

So what you people want is basically REVENGE, not justice or "gaining information".

No, what I want is an end to these people using terrorist actions against the world to push their little causes and cramming their allah down our throats.

If sitting down and asking nicely to stop would work, then I'm all for it. If they wish to divulge their info as to plans, troop movements to us without scaring them a little, then all is well.

Being the "nice" guy does, in fact, have limited success, too, BTW. It's yet another technique to make them spill the beans.

Now, we all know that we really don't want to be nice to them and offer them cool rewards for their info, but we do it for the desired results.

Is being nice to them and treating them all dreamy to get their info a form of torture, as well? After all, it's simply just another technique to extract info.

You must know that torture is an extremely unreliable form of "ve have vays of making you talk" because a person being tortured will often say anything (make up a story, tell the torturer what you think they WANT to hear) to MAKE THE PAIN STOP, however temporarily.

You are, again, correct. Torture, as in physical pain, does not produce the effect we want in regards to information extraction. The threat of physical pain, however, does produce a better product. If they think they are in for a rough time, many will cooperate to the best of their abilities.

What you are not understanding is the very process of the extraction of information, as it applies to the military.

In reality, there is very little conduct which causes large numbers of people serious physical pain. What little there is happens before a large audience of their peers so that each one can get it into their heads that it can happen to them.

See the difference? While you won't hear that in the news, it very much true. So, in your head, you may have the vision of hundreds of thousands of prisoners being tortured beyond their physical threshold, but it's simply not true. In the real world, very few are subject to any real physical pain, but many others see this and are convinced that it could happen to them.

It's a mind game, for sure, but one which is better than injuring thousands out of sheer pleasure in the false hopes of gaining information. Can't you see what's going on? Basically, we trick them into thinking they are in for some serious pain.

The trouble with that, however, is that our techniques of accomplishing this are being exposed and it's seriously compromising our ability to enact these measure effectively! In fact, the newest edition of the Army's FM dealing with interrogations is now out on the web in full view of the enemies which will be subject to it's doctrine! Can you believe how utterly stupid that is??

Why would something like that be in full view of the world? It takes away any advantage we may have had. Now, it's simply a matter of them waiting us out during interrogations, because they now know the deal.

Pure stupidity.

And why was it released? So people who don't understand what's going on won't cry up a storm and make idiots out of themselves, thereby causing a little emabarrassment on the part of those that are trying to defeat these animals.

In other words, this war has gotten so beaten down by simple-minded non-actors that there is almost no real hope of actually winning this thing any longer.

It's gotten that bad.

Interrogations is just the latest thing to get nailed, too. Wire tapping was a good idea until the NY Times decided it would sell a few more thousand dollars worth of newspapers by publishing the activity, rather than deciding to shut up about it until after we have a better handle on this war. Why the ones responsible for printing that story haven't been brought up on treason charges is a mystery to me.

Again, pure stupidity.

But who cares, right? As long as it makes Bush look dumb, it's ok for some people.

Hopefully things will never get to the point where we are fighting terrorists in large numbers in the streets of the US, but if it gets to that point, I know just where to put the blame: Squarely on the shoulders of the people who wouldn't let us fight this war the way it needed to be fought in the first place. It is because of these people that we are not further ahead in these battles than what we are today, not because of some mythical "failed" policy on the part of the President.

One day, these people will have to look their children in the eyes and tell them, flat out, that they are the reason why they have to worry about getting on the school bus.

Somehow, I don't think they'll have the courage to do even that much.

But, all of that said, real pain bearing torture does tend to produce minimal results. But, the idea that someone may have to go through it works wonders.

And that is what we are trying to achieve. Though some may not agree with the practice, there are times where they should simply step back and let the ones who are entrusted with the defense of the nation do their jobs.

Besides, I'm not really even a big fan of real torture. It's much more effective to line people up, ask them nicely once to talk, and then shoot them if they don't. Eventually, one will be willing to talk, and I promise that it won't take more than one or two people to go down before someone decides to cooperate.

-Just kidding about that last part, btw.

Have a good night.

t.

[apothanein kerdos]

So what you people want is basically REVENGE, not justice or "gaining information".

You must know that torture is an extremely unreliable form of "ve have vays of making you talk" because a person being tortured will often say anything (make up a story, tell the torturer what you think they WANT to hear) to MAKE THE PAIN STOP, however temporarily.

The catchphrase of "if it will save lives of Americans" is utterly ludicrous, you know this. Torture advocates often excuse it by saying things like "it is no worse than what "they" do to our troops", but it has to be considered that "they" will also think that this justifies torturing American POWs. It works both ways and two wrongs don't make a right.

Gee, "waterboard" me and I'll confess to being on the grassy knoll and then sending Anthrax to politicians.

This is what I mean...you make an emotional appeal but don't really substantiate your claims.

You say it is not reliable...but if you do it right then it is. The thing is, you keep the person until you can verify the information. Likewise, if you have 100 people saying the same thing, this narrows down the chances of it being false. This argument only works if we presuppose that only one person is being tortured...add more into the configuration and it begins to make less sense.

You say that it works both ways, but again, why is torture wrong?

[buckthesystem]

So what you people want is basically REVENGE, not justice or "gaining information".

You must know that torture is an extremely unreliable form of "ve have vays of making you talk" because a person being tortured will often say anything (make up a story, tell the torturer what you think they WANT to hear) to MAKE THE PAIN STOP, however temporarily.

The catchphrase of "if it will save lives of Americans" is utterly ludicrous, you know this. Torture advocates often excuse it by saying things like "it is no worse than what "they" do to our troops", but it has to be considered that "they" will also think that this justifies torturing American POWs. It works both ways and two wrongs don't make a right.

Gee, "waterboard" me and I'll confess to being on the grassy knoll and then sending Anthrax to politicians.

This is what I mean...you make an emotional appeal but don't really substantiate your claims.

You say it is not reliable...but if you do it right then it is. The thing is, you keep the person until you can verify the information. Likewise, if you have 100 people saying the same thing, this narrows down the chances of it being false. This argument only works if we presuppose that only one person is being tortured...add more into the configuration and it begins to make less sense.

You say that it works both ways, but again, why is torture wrong?

How is using a word like "revenge" and merely stating the way peoples' statements come across, an "emotional appeal"?

This is all my "OPINION". I don't know what you're looking for, or what you're hinting at, but an "opinion" by definition cannot be "substantiated". An opinion is not a "claim".

The American system has worked quite well for centuries without official torture, so what is so special about now?

To your last statement, torture is wrong because we are humans, we are not stupid, and there are some things which it is obvious to us, are plainly wrong. Torture is one of them. To torture someone shows a nasty, sadistic nature, and to deliberately inflict pain on someone (and delight in it, as the torturer must, to be able to do it in the first place) shows that the perpetrator of the torture must have a twisted personality disorder. You might just as well say "why is theft wrong"? If you were the victim of torture would you even need to ask that question?

[Giaour]

Just heard Lynn Chaney in an interview say that her husbands words were misquoted and misrepresented.

Her husband is not in favor of torture.

[ted]

The American system has worked quite well for centuries without official torture, so what is so special about now?

Sorry, Buck, but you're wrong about that. Our nation has always used interrogation techniques which some consider to be forms of torture.

Labeling it official or not doesn't mean a thing. If it was conducted under the authority of the US Government, it was sanctioned. I'm sorry if you are just now learning that we do interview enemy combatants, as well as official POW's, with these techniques, but we've done it since we made war with the British, and in every conflict since.

It's not a matter of it being used more in modern times, but a matter of so many more people taking an interest in the idea these days.

The again, we've never had a period in our history where so many were dedicated to the fall of our nation as we are suffering through today.

See any connections?

t.

[Sweet Servent]

Read this before ""Cheney's remarks fuel torture debate" it explains what it is all about.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...nathan_s_landay

Thank you for posting this, and for being brave enough to buck the system. I know some Christian's don't want to face certain facts and claim that it's the lunatic fringe or the liberal media reporting that the USA has and is using torture. We all know it's wrong and it's hurting our credibility around the world.

In Christ,

Sweet Servant

Edited October 31, 2006 by Sweet Servent

[Christian]

Here's my suggestion:

First, let's set a date- say Jan 1st, 2007. That should be enough time for the big news to spread to every home in the world.

The big news? Well, we will give them this ultimatum: One single terrorist action- one bombing, one kidnapping, one roadside bomb, anything, after the Jan 1 deadline, will be cause enough to blow Mecca, Medina, Kabul, Kahndahar, Pyongyang, and Tehran off the map with all the nukes we can muster.

If they continue after that, we can then target other cities in Syria, Jordan, lebanon, and France, as well.

Perhaps it's time to make them pay?

, Where do I sign ?

[apothanein kerdos]

The American system has worked quite well for centuries without official torture, so what is so special about now?

In the past we were in battle against civilized...or at least somewhat civilized...nations. In an actual war where civilians are not at threat, there is little incentive for torture. Most soldiers will carry any orders on them thus negating the need for torture.

The current conflict is not so nice and tidy - we are fighting an enemy who's orders are often autonomous from any main organization short of gathering funds and the time to attack. Likewise they are not civilized. When fighting such types, torture is generally the best method.

To your last statement, torture is wrong because we are humans, we are not stupid, and there are some things which it is obvious to us, are plainly wrong.

You're trying to claim that torture is wrong because it is self-evident - you need to establish why it is wrong before thrusting it into some "self-evident" category. If torturing one man saves 100, then it is beneficial and no longer immoral according to some moral constructs. Therefore, you need to establish why torture is wrong before claiming, "It just is."

To torture someone shows a nasty, sadistic nature, and to deliberately inflict pain on someone (and delight in it, as the torturer must, to be able to do it in the first place) shows that the perpetrator of the torture must have a twisted personality disorder.

Or it shows he has such a great compassion for the people he is trying to protect, he will go to any means in order to protect him. Need I remind you of the Old Testament?

Think of the movie "Man on Fire." In this movie, the man tortures and kills whoever he needs and however he must in order to get information on where a girl is located (that has been kidnapped). Is it sadism that motivates such an action? Does he get some sort of pleasure out of it? Of course, not, he does it because he loves. Likewise, I have no problem admitting I would torture anyone if it would help save the ones I love. Does this make me a sadist? It would be difficult to argue this considering the reason why I am torturing.

Of course, you're using yet another emotional appeal. Anyone who supports torture MUST be a sadist...but you fail to quantify this.

You might just as well say "why is theft wrong"?

It's condemned in the Bible. Where is torture condemned?

If you were the victim of torture would you even need to ask that question?

And another emotional appeal.

You're making non-sequitors and emotional appeals, both of which are logical fallacies. Why is torture wrong, and explain without using an emotional appeal or a leap in logic.