Montreal Escorts

CIA's torture got nod from White House

mass1965

New Member
Apr 5, 2005
191
0
0
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10725444

So are these in violation of International law or treaties? What about invading Iraq without justification (lieing about the reasons). So if not illegal what about just plan decency?

So what does this make Bush and some members of his administration?

Should they be held accountable via international law (crimes against humanity)?
 

beautydigger

Banned
Oct 11, 2005
539
0
16
Hmmm….I guess some good ol’ Bush bashing is what the libs need after a pathetic showing in the election.
 

mass1965

New Member
Apr 5, 2005
191
0
0
beautydigger said:
Hmmm….I guess some good ol’ Bush bashing is what the libs need after a pathetic showing in the election.

? Your comment doesnt make any sense. There is no connection. I live in the US and am not involved in Canadian politics.
 
Last edited:

bumfie

New Member
May 23, 2005
688
0
0
No surprise here re the White House. And soon, good riddance after they waterboarded America for eight long years.
 

beautydigger

Banned
Oct 11, 2005
539
0
16
mass1965 said:
? Your comment doesnt make any sense. There is no connection. I live in the US and am not involved in Canadian politics.
So why are you envoking international law? Traitor perhaps?
 

Agrippa

C o n s u l
Aug 22, 2006
583
0
0
www.merb.ca
mass1965 said:
Should they be held accountable via international law (crimes against humanity)?
Yes they should. As is always the case with a president stepping down and a new one being inaugurated, won't there be a series of pardons and immunities issued? Wasn't the whole point of the reworking of the definition of torture to avoid prosecution.

They should, but they won't.
 

Kepler

Virgin User
May 17, 2006
572
0
0
mass1965 said:
re: torture

I think it's too bad that we've never had a real debate about this whole issue.

First, people hear "the CIA tortures" and think "oh, they whip people, pull finger nails, burn, electrocute, etc." But in fact they don't. They use "bright lights, sleep deprivation, water boarding, etc.". All techniques that cause no permanent physical harm. Are these torture? Are there different levels of torture? Are all levels of torture equally bad and unacceptable?

Second, what do you do when faced with a captured terrorist who has information about future plots and no fear of the criminal justice system? What actions are acceptable? Which aren't? Is torture ever allowed in such cases? What if 300 people are at risk of dying? or 3000? or 30,000?
 

Kepler

Virgin User
May 17, 2006
572
0
0
beautydigger said:
Depends if you are a whimp lib or a strong conservative.


Your every intervention convinces me that you're a closet communist trying to get people to vote against conservatives by acting like a ... . Well, you can figure it out.

You are no conservative, sir.
 

beautydigger

Banned
Oct 11, 2005
539
0
16
Kepler said:
Your every intervention convinces me that you're a closet communist trying to get people to vote against conservatives by acting like a ... . Well, you can figure it out.

You are no conservative, sir.
What is it that you don't understand? Should I sugar coat it for you?
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 16, 2003
2,409
2
0
Her Hot Dreams
Kepler said:
Your every intervention convinces me that you're a closet communist trying to get people to vote against conservatives by acting like a ... . Well, you can figure it out.

You are no conservative, sir.

Hello Kepler,

"Communist"...I don't get that sense. A rabid, pretty closed-minded ultra-conservative (fairly well off WASP thinking only of himself)...YUP!

Cheers,

Korbel
 

mass1965

New Member
Apr 5, 2005
191
0
0
Kepler said:
I think it's too bad that we've never had a real debate about this whole issue.

First, people hear "the CIA tortures" and think "oh, they whip people, pull finger nails, burn, electrocute, etc." But in fact they don't. They use "bright lights, sleep deprivation, water boarding, etc.". All techniques that cause no permanent physical harm. Are these torture? Are there different levels of torture? Are all levels of torture equally bad and unacceptable?

Second, what do you do when faced with a captured terrorist who has information about future plots and no fear of the criminal justice system? What actions are acceptable? Which aren't? Is torture ever allowed in such cases? What if 300 people are at risk of dying? or 3000? or 30,000?

It would be interesting to have a good discussion on this as you said.
The way I look at it is you need to have some standards in how you treat people or you become no better than those you are trying to protect yourself from. In addition I believe that waterboarding is forbidden. As for the other, if you allow yourself the excuse of "the end justifies the means" where do you draw the line? I think this becomes a very slippery slope. So life isnt safe and no matter what you do you can not make it so. So how much of your standards are you willing to give up?
 
Last edited:

mass1965

New Member
Apr 5, 2005
191
0
0
Korbel said:
Hello Kepler,

"Communist"...I don't get that sense. A rabid, pretty closed-minded ultra-conservative (fairly well off WASP thinking only of himself)...YUP!

Cheers,

Korbel

Actualy I think an unhappy person that is acting out his frustration by trying to stir things up
 

Kepler

Virgin User
May 17, 2006
572
0
0
Korbel said:
A rabid, pretty closed-minded ultra-conservative


I've always been amazed at how the political spectrum is not a line but a circle. Opposites meet at their extremes. Ultra-conservatives (fascists, etc.) and Ultra-Liberals (communists, etc.) actually have lots in common.

Luckily in Canada, the (mostly) pragmatists have been in power since 1867.
 

Kepler

Virgin User
May 17, 2006
572
0
0
mass1965 said:
The way I look at it is you need to have some standards in how you treat people or you become no better than those you are trying to protect yourself from.

I know what you're trying to say, but tell me: is a CIA agent who tortures a suspected terrorist really no better than a man who would blow up a bomb on a Madrid train killing dozens?

I definitely think that some sort of "due process" must be in place. That means, at a minimum: independent review of the evidence against the person. Some sort of legal assistance to challenge this evidence. Independent authorities to decide "if" and "to what level" interrogations can go, while considering the potential harm caused otherwise.


mass1965 said:
So how much of your standards are you willing to give up?

Good question. I think putting minimum "due process" systems in place ensures that no egregious violations take place.

So, how many dead people are you willing to risk to retain your standards? :)
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 16, 2003
2,409
2
0
Her Hot Dreams
Kepler said:
I know what you're trying to say, but tell me: is a CIA agent who tortures a suspected terrorist really no better than a man who would blow up a bomb on a Madrid train killing dozens?

I definitely think that some sort of "due process" must be in place. That means, at a minimum: independent review of the evidence against the person. Some sort of legal assistance to challenge this evidence. Independent authorities to decide "if" and "to what level" interrogations can go, while considering the potential harm caused otherwise.


Good question. I think putting minimum "due process" systems in place ensures that no egregious violations take place.

So, how many dead people are you willing to risk to retain your standards? :)

Hello Kepler,

The threat is the possibility such harsh tactics become SOP. Do people who are willing and allowed to inflict torture already have the inclination to do so. If they do this does it become frequent SOP for difficult interrogations? If it is effective how do they limit it to more extraordinary cases giving up on reliable techniques on other cases where critical information is needed? Can it just become totally endemic? What does using torture do to their psychology and social understanding of human rights for citizens? Do we really want to rely on a cache of de facto sadists gathering critical intelligence and becoming the standard of justice?

Issssh,

Korbel
 

rollingstone

Member
Sep 4, 2006
655
3
18
Korbel said:
Hello Kepler,

The threat is the possibility such harsh tactics become SOP. Do people who are willing and allowed to inflict torture already have the inclination to do so. If they do this does it become frequent SOP for difficult interrogations? If it is effective how do they limit it to more extraordinary cases giving up on reliable techniques on other cases where critical information is needed? Can it just become totally endemic? What does using torture do to their psychology and social understanding of human rights for citizens? Do we really want to rely on a cache of de facto sadists gathering critical intelligence and becoming the standard of justice?

Issssh,

Korbel

This is a very good point. There are many countries out there where torture has gradually become SOP for all sorts of crimes. The other problem is that the person being tortured is far more concerned with telling his interrogator what he wants to hear, as opposed to what is actually true. Right now many are content as long as it is something that happens to foreigners and on foreign soil. People will not make a big issue out of it until it happens to someone they know. Sad but true.

As for torture not causing any physical harm, there is a good reason for that. You don't want any permanent marks to show on the person's body after the fact. There is no such thing as humane torture, its all about covering your ass. Besides, we hear something new everyday. Can anyone say for certain that its only sleep deprivation, bright lights and water boarding? I've read about people leaving Guantanamo bay, after they were cleared, in a wheel chair and without the use of their legs. There is also that fighter who was taken to Gitmo when he was 16. Rolling stone had an article about him and part of the torture was denial of medication for wounds he sustained when they captured him in Afganistan. So there is no line drawn for minors. What information were they supposed to get out of this 16 year old foot soldier? Sounds to me like a lot more is going on.
 
Last edited:

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,164
2,466
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
"Why Terrorism Works"

On this topic, I would suggest all of you read Alan Dershowitz's book "Why Terrorism Works", in which he advocates the selective use of torture to counteract terrorism. It's the most intelligent discussion I have ever read on the issue. Dershowitz devotes a whole chapter in the book to the proposed use of torture by the government.

Dershowitz is no nitwit. He graduated number 1 in his class from Yale Law School, which means he is a pretty smart cookie. I found his book to be very interesting and his arguments pretty persuasive. The book also contains an interesting history of how modern terrorism developed and I believe most of his theories and arguments are very sound. Dershowitz essentially blames the European nations and their policy of appeasing terrorism as the primary means for its growth as a political tool and weapon. His ideas for counteracting it by selective use of torture are interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Terrorism-Works-Alan-Dershowitz/dp/0300097662

More on Dershowitz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz
 
Last edited:

rollingstone

Member
Sep 4, 2006
655
3
18
Dershowitz is not a nitwit but he is a great advocate of Israeli policy on torture. Has that solved their problems? I don't claim to be a terror expert, but in my opinion, people generally resort to it when they are powerless to right the wrongs (or perceived wrongs) against them.
 

JustBob

New Member
Nov 19, 2004
921
0
0
Rent or buy the DVD of the 2007 Oscar winning documentary by Alex Gibney "Taxi to the Dark Side". It does a good job exposing the use of torture in Bagram (Afghanistan), Abu Ghraib (Iraq), and Guantanamo.

At the center of the story is a young Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar, who was arrested by US forces in 2002 along with his three passengers, and taken to Bagram Air Force base prison. He was interrogated, chained standing up with his hands above his head to the ceiling of his cell and repeatedly beaten on the legs (with knee strikes) until, after 5 days, he was found dead. And although the coroner's report clearly indicated "Homicide" (the report stated that his legs were "pulpified"...), nobody heard about Dilawar afterwards. Until that is, the pictures from Abu Ghraib came out and prior "detainee" deaths were investigated.

Main points:

1. Pressure to get results ("gloves off" policy) combined with vague directives on what techniques of interrogations were acceptable produced a "fog of war" where interrogators, often with limited or no experience, were put in an environment conducive to the worst behavior.

2. This of course came from the top. From Cheney, approved by Bush, brought down the chain of command by Rumsfeld and facilitated by a variety of unscupulous government officials and lawyers. Of course the soldiers who "tortured" Dilawar (all of which believed he was innocent) were accused and found guilty. But their superiors and those at the top? Nope!

Note 1: An ABC report which came out earlier this year confirmed that high level meetings about torture involving Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld & all frequently occured at the White House. Ashcroft was even quoted as saying "I can't believe we are having these discussions here..."

Note 2: The Bush administration later passed a bill that absolved all higher-ups from any responsibility...

3. The overwhelming majority of experts agree that torture is NOT an efficient means of obtaining reliable information. Gaining the confidence of the prisoner and convincing him you can help him and/or his family is. Of course, you need the necessary skills in order to do that...

4. The "ticking time bomb" scenario often used to justify the morality of torture is a red herring. One, this isn't "24" where Jack Bauer tortures the bad guy, discovers where the bomb is and saves millions of lives. Two, what is the likelihood of such a scenario occuring? I.e. that you'd capture some terrorist, a few hours before some bomb went off, who knew exactly where said bomb was? Well (except on tv) this has never happened, and if it did, that terrorist would have a) a bigger commitment to die than to tell you anything about his evil plot or b) send you on wild goose chase so you'd stop tickling his balls with electrical wires.

Now, I remember an Israeli writer (his name escapes me...) saying something like: "The longer you fight terrorists, the more likely you are to become like them"

So, one should ask himself: If the goal of terrorism is to undermine Western values and principles, isn't throwing said values and principles out the window in difficult situations proof that terrorism is achieving it's goal?

P.S. I also recommend the 2008 documentary by Errol Morris "Standard Operating Procedure", which also deals with the issue of torture but concentrates on Abu Ghraib.
 
Last edited:
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts