http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-12-15T201338Z_01_DIT474032_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-TORTURE.xml

Some crazy ass General on Fox news was just saying though how he has tortured people, and that our county needs to be able to do this. All you right wing military nut jobs can suck it.

the ban covers

Quote :

"cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners"

[Edited on December 15, 2005 at 4:47 PM. Reason : -]

12/15/2005 4:46:05 PM

wow, torture will definitely never happen now

12/15/2005 4:54:20 PM

It doesn't hurt to put in writting what we are already thinking (I hope)

12/15/2005 5:16:50 PM

Yea....umm general hunt on fox news just explained how he personaly tortured someone for information.

He thinks we are hamstringing our troops. Fucking psycho.

[Edited on December 15, 2005 at 5:19 PM. Reason : - ]

12/15/2005 5:18:47 PM

first military person i've heard of who thinks torture is a good idea

12/15/2005 5:56:10 PM

^he made it sound like all military people use torture

id think there are more effective ways of getting info, cutting deals, truth serum ect

[Edited on December 15, 2005 at 5:58 PM. Reason : -]

12/15/2005 5:58:13 PM

The hypocracy is the White House saying how the U.S. doesn't use torture tactics and then Cheyney wanting the CIA exempt from the ban.

12/15/2005 6:02:56 PM

HEY MAN, THOSE VIETNACONG TORTURED US, WHY CANT WE TORTURE?

12/15/2005 6:04:26 PM

^^

well cheney got pwnt on this one

bush actually stood up to him

12/15/2005 6:08:23 PM

So why is murder illegal or stealing or rape I mean criminals do it why shouldn't everyone? C'mon the laws are there for a reason even those in the higher levels of government and beyond act as though they are above it!

12/15/2005 6:10:07 PM

I would think that any officer that goes against his Commander-in-Chief on public television likes the notion of career suicide.

12/15/2005 6:14:54 PM

Are you kidding me! This officer is just the kind of whack job that they need! Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out!

12/15/2005 6:17:15 PM

^^ Except when you're a sick fuck, you can always work as an "expert" on fox News.

12/15/2005 6:18:38 PM

um, i'm sure he was a retired General officer.

12/15/2005 6:26:26 PM

WOO HOO
BACK ON THE MORAL HIGH GROUND!

12/15/2005 6:32:09 PM

What happens though when more allegations of torture leak out... won't this make the US look even worse?

12/15/2005 6:53:22 PM

yea he was a retired general

12/15/2005 7:06:09 PM

I'd like a more concrete example of torture than "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

Chinese water torture, iron maiden, the pear, etc are all obvious examples of torture. But then I see some guy on TV saying "OMG they made me stand in the same spot for 6 hours! It was horrible!" I hear that and think maybe we should use the military to liberate the cashiers at Food Lion.

12/15/2005 7:33:05 PM

I'm kind of conflicted about this.

Yeah, we agree, torture is abominable. But I can envision situations (that have not transpired as yet to my knowledge) in which I would rather the option be available.

If you ask me, "Would you have tortured somebody who had information on the 9/11 attacks in order to prevent them?" I will respond in the affirmative.

Of course, my having said that will now be blown up into me being the leader of the Abu Ghraib Prison Fan Club. If there's been an incident where "tortue" as defined in the ban was used in Iraq where I think it had any business being used, I haven't heard of it.

I also expect MathFreak to say, "But it is a moral absolute not to use t3h t0rtur3!!!!1"

What I suspect will happen, and what I can accept, is that the ban will pass, but if we ever get our hands on a guy whose info could save hundreds or thousands of lives, we'll break the rule and torture the shit out of him.

[Edited on December 15, 2005 at 9:31 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2005 9:31:14 PM

^the biggest argument against torture is that it doesn't produce results. People just lie and tell the torturers what they want to hear.


That's pretty much the bottom line -- if we cant get reliable info from people using torture, it's fundamentally purposeless.

12/15/2005 9:37:01 PM

if im being tortured and the dude is like, TELL ME WHO HELPED YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

im gonna say the first sorry bastard that comes to mind.

12/15/2005 9:46:36 PM

It's not particularly reliable, but that doesn't mean it equates to inevitable failure. I'm just saying that when all other alternatives have been exhausted and the information must be obtained (especially if it must be attained quickly)...well...you do what has to be done.

12/15/2005 9:47:53 PM

^sounds like sophistry

1. how do you sort out the truth from fiction
2. how do you know that there is some info that you need urgently
3. how do you know that the guy even has the info

It's actually pretty sad and unnerving if any defense folks are banking on toture as a critical part of any defense strategy.

12/15/2005 9:58:48 PM

Quote :

"John McCain makes Jack Bauer Cry"

12/15/2005 10:01:41 PM

Quote :

"If you ask me, "Would you have tortured somebody who had information on the 9/11 attacks in order to prevent them?" I will respond in the affirmative. Of course, my having said that will now be blown up into me being the leader of the Abu Ghraib Prison Fan Club."

Nah, just being a stupid prick unable to follow simple logic, which is pretty typical of you anyway.

Basic accepted fact: Torture is unreliable. People who are tortured will say anything you want them to, and you cannot really act on their information. It's completely untrustworthy.

Grumpy (trying his darndest to look very reflective as he usually does when spitting his usual pile of meaningless shit):

Yeah... but I was thinking... What if this untrustworthy information were trustworthy? What do you guys think about this brilliant idea? I would support a thing if it weren't the thing that it is.

12/15/2005 10:10:40 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, we agree, torture is abominable. But I can envision situations (that have not transpired as yet to my knowledge) in which I would rather the option be available."

Yeah, basically. I think we should have a ban on torture. Actually, what I really think is that a bad shouldn't even be necessary, but that's not the real world. I'm not spending much time arguing in favor of this point because frankly, I don't think there's much of a debate surrounding this matter among sane men. I put that in bold so all of you will remember my general thoughts on the matter after you read the next few paragraphs.

I wouldn't mind having a clause for dealing with an unforeseen critical scenario. I'd want restrictions on it, though, like having to be authorized by someone very high up, and mandatory disclosure to the public within a specified timeframe...or something like that, anyway.


and of course torture is unreliable. that's the practical reason for not employing it (besides the psychological toll it takes on some who are required to perform it and the loss of the moral high ground and right to demand--though maybe not expect--humane treatment of Americans). Then, of course, there are the ethical reasons not to torture.

all of that is beside the point, though. if you are down to your last ditch effort because nothing else has worked, something is better than nothing. the times when i could justify torture are extremely few and far between, but i could dream up some scenarios where i'd go to work on a dude with a cattle prod and a cheese grater myself, and you'd better believe that I would obtain SOME sort of information that MIGHT avert a catastrophe.

basically, as always, the devil is in the details. it's that damned grey area where everything gets difficult. I think the grey area on this one is pretty small, but it's there. I hate to call out one person specifically, but MathFreak is notoriously unable to see grey areas, and it shows again here (if I'm correctly interpreting his last comment). We've had this discussion before about his being quite the ideologue rather than a pragmatist. Sticking to your convictions is one thing, and I know you don't see it this way, but it's almost like using a crutch to avoid having the operate in the grey areas, because as long as you stay in the black and white zones, it's easy to make the call.

[Edited on December 15, 2005 at 10:59 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

12/15/2005 10:58:22 PM

Is it still called a deal if Bush just did what McCain wanted?

12/15/2005 11:01:32 PM

I'll call it McCain doing just what Bush wanted if that's what it takes politically to make the right thing happen.

12/15/2005 11:03:27 PM

Quote :

"MathFreak is notoriously unable to see grey areas"

Between torture and non-torture? Nah, I'm not able at all see any grey areas there.

12/16/2005 12:17:50 AM

Quote :

"Is it still called a deal if Bush just did what McCain wanted?"

i bet john mccain will be mr. fundraiser for the next 6 months

then again, there are plenty of folks who say they wouldn't have mccain campaign for them even if HE wanted to (of course that is probably the rhetoric of people who could never get a national figure like mccain to campaign for them)

12/16/2005 12:27:56 AM

ahem. They must think we're REALLY gullible.

Quote :

"It's reported that the Army is forwarding a classified addendum to the new Army Field Manual on interrogation operations. According to these reports, the 10-page addendum provides dozens of examples of what procedures may and may not be used by interrogators, and it informs commanders on the circumstances for their employment. This move amounts to an attempt by the Army to use the back door to establish secret interrogation techniques at the same time the new Field Manual on interrogation operations is coming out (later this month)"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402193.html

12/16/2005 7:35:25 AM

Quote :

" All American 6025 Posts user info edit post Is it still called a deal if Bush just did what McCain wanted? "

Yea...I agree I shouldnt have used the wording from reuters.

12/16/2005 8:52:32 AM

Quote :

"Yeah... but I was thinking... What if this untrustworthy information were trustworthy? What do you guys think about this brilliant idea?"

You're mischaracterizing the argument.

Information acquired through torture is untrustworthy. "Untrustworthy" does not mean "patently and inevitably false." What I'm saying is that a time may come when when even the untrustworthy evidence provided by torturing an individual may, for all of its flaws, be the best information we have available. That is not the same as calling it "trustworthy." That's calling it "better than nothing."

Quote :

"1. how do you sort out the truth from fiction 2. how do you know that there is some info that you need urgently 3. how do you know that the guy even has the info"

Questions 2 and 3 are completely contingent on the circumstances. As should be obvious from what I've said, I would say torture is absolutely out of the question unless those circumstances in some way give us a near-certainty that the guy has urgently-needed, life-saving information. Meaning those ducks (and others) have to be all in a row before torture even becomes a remote consideration.

Question 1 I've covered to some extent with MathFreak. Yeah, you're probably going to get some lies and some mistaken answers from the individual. You might get all lies. But it seems pretty likely that torture must have yielded somebody some good information before, or else we would have given it up a long time ago.

I should also think that a man competent in psychology (or at least certain elements of it) would be qualified to pick out at least some of the useful information, and certain techniques could increase the truthfulness of the answers. Even with that, we may be looking at a lot of plain bullshit, but any kernel of truth in that bullshit could, under some circumstances, be better than what any other means could produce.

12/16/2005 5:20:27 PM

I don't even see the big deal guys. Remember? "We do not torture." Why is this even an issue?

12/16/2005 5:45:01 PM

Quote :

"bush actually stood up to him"

Bush didn't oppose Cheney and agree that we shouldn't torture people. HE SIMPLY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES. He had to agree to what Congress voted on because Congress could override his veto. The Senate voted in favor of the torture ban like 90-9 or something.

Quote :

"Is it still called a deal if Bush just did what McCain wanted?"

Exactly. They White House is spinning it as a "deal" to save face.

[Edited on December 16, 2005 at 5:49 PM. Reason : `]

12/16/2005 5:48:41 PM

but they haven't effectively BANNED anything, people! they've banned "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," but the definition of that is going to be changed in the new version of the army field manual!

12/16/2005 6:21:40 PM

^ Bingo.

12/16/2005 6:41:58 PM