CIA staged mock executions

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/23/cia.prisoner.report/index.html


Newsweek also said that, according to its sources citing the inspector-general's report, interrogators staged mock executions to try to frighten detainees into talking. In one instance, Newsweek reported, a gun was fired in a room next to one terrorism suspect so he would think another prisoner was being killed.


What a surprise! You allow one thing, and inevitably, it will lead to more abuses...

And just in case anyone isn't aware, mock executions are illegal.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/five-forms-of-torture5.htm

[Bender]

but Jack Bauer uses mock executions to get what he wants.

[hater]

I have no problem with mock executions. In fact they should be used more often in the day to day

[IceColdBrewski]

Pretend killings?

Oh the horror. :lol

[doobs]

Seriously, what's wrong with this?

[clambake]

using this to make people confess to something they didn't do?

brilliant. so much for intelligence.

[LnGrrrR]

Before you go and say, "What's so bad about mock executions?", please, look at the data, especially those that have survived such incidents.

Is it the new feeling of conservatives that the ONLY thing that defines torture is permanent physical disfigurement? Is there no such thing as torture that is mental in nature?

[doobs]

Before you go and say, "What's so bad about mock executions?", please, look at the data, especially those that have survived such incidents.


Is it difficult to survive a mock execution?



Is it the new feeling of conservatives that the ONLY thing that defines torture is permanent physical disfigurement? Is there no such thing as torture that is mental in nature?


Scaring a guy is not nearly as bad as actually hurting a guy. Apples and oranges, don't you think?

[nkdlunch]

Scaring a guy is not nearly as bad as actually hurting a guy. Apples and oranges, don't you think?

is that so? let's see. If you HAD to pick between spanking your child or performing a mock execution to discipline him, which one would you pick?

[LnGrrrR]

Scaring a guy is not nearly as bad as actually hurting a guy. Apples and oranges, don't you think?

Point blank: Do you believe there is such a thing as mental torture?

[doobs]

is that so? let's see. If you HAD to pick between spanking your child or performing a mock execution to discipline him, which one would you pick?

Do you actually hurt your children when you spank them? That's child abuse, man.

[DarrinS]

If you want information from an Al Qaeda prisoner, all you need to do is ask politely.

[nkdlunch]

Do you actually hurt your children when you spank them? That's child abuse, man.

answer my question

[doobs]

answer my question

You answer mine.

I can play this game all day.

[nkdlunch]

You answer mine.

I can play this game all day.

of course you hurt your kids when you spank them. why they cry then? ok now answer my question

[doobs]

Point blank: Do you believe there is such a thing as mental torture?

Yes, if it results in permanent severe psychological damage. But I also think it's important to observe a distinction between physical torture and psychological torture. Apples and oranges, like I said.

[clambake]

i don't care if it's accurate.....i want that confession!

[doobs]

of course you hurt your kids when you spank them. why they cry then? ok now answer my question

If you're doing it right, you're not actually hurting them. They cry out of embarrassment, sadness, anger . . . whatever . . . but it shouldn't be because of physical pain. So you're an abuser. Good to know.

You're the one comparing spanking to physical torture, right? What a dumbshit thing to say. Of course I would rather spank my child than subject him to a mock execution. But I'd rather subject him to a mock execution than rip his fingernails out.

Do you see why your question is so fucking stupid?

[nkdlunch]

Scaring a guy is not nearly as bad as actually hurting a guy. Apples and oranges, don't you think?


Of course I would rather spank my child than subject him to a mock execution.

thank you for participating :tu

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, if it results in permanent severe psychological damage. But I also think it's important to observe a distinction between physical torture and psychological torture. Apples and oranges, like I said.

Then mock executions are torture.

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

Go to any reputable website for psychiatrists/psychologists/medical professionals, and not one of them will deign to say that mock executions aren't a form of mental torture. They're forbidden by the Army Manual for interrogation as well.

Of course, some countries love using it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447110/Blindfolded-Britons-tell-moment-guards-guns-clicked.html

[LnGrrrR]

If you want information from an Al Qaeda prisoner, all you need to do is ask politely.

Do you believe there is such a thing as mental torture?

[LnGrrrR]

You're the one comparing spanking to physical torture, right? What a dumbshit thing to say. Of course I would rather spank my child than subject him to a mock execution. But I'd rather subject him to a mock execution than rip his fingernails out.


Why must it be an 'either or' equation?

So, because we're not ripping out their fingernails, it therefore doesn't equal torture?

[SonOfAGun]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell

[LnGrrrR]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

-- George Orwell


The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. - George Orwell

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, if it results in permanent severe psychological damage. But I also think it's important to observe a distinction between physical torture and psychological torture. Apples and oranges, like I said.

So when the people who have studied the effects of mock executions say that is exactly what happens do you simply disregard their opinions or do you stick to what you just said?

[LnGrrrR]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

-- George Orwell


Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. - George Orwell

[LnGrrrR]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

-- George Orwell


All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. - George Orwell

[LnGrrrR]

Oh, and finally...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations



"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Alternative: "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."
In his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", Orwell claimed that the statement, "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf" was a "grossly obvious" fact. "Notes on Nationalism" (http://www.george-orwell.org/Notes_on_Nationalism/0.html)
Notes: allegedly said by George Orwell (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Orwell) although there is no evidence that Orwell ever wrote or uttered either of these versions of this idea. They do bear some similarity to comments made in an essay that Orwell wrote on Rudyard Kipling, when quoting from one of his poems. Orwell did write, in his essay on Kipling, that the latter's "grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very sound. He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them." (1942)

"Yes, making mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep" - Rudyard Kipling (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rudyard_Kipling) (Tommy)
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it." - Aaron Sorkin (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aaron_Sorkin) (A Few Good Men (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Few_Good_Men))

Alternative: "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill) (miscellaneous quotation, no date)

[SonOfAGun]

In that case..



"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

-- SonofaGun


I call dibs on royalties.

[ChumpDumper]

If you want information from an Al Qaeda prisoner, all you need to do is ask politely.That worked better than any torture technique.

[DarrinS]

Do you believe there is such a thing as mental torture?


Yes. I just don't obsess over it happening to Al Qaeda prisoners.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes. I just don't obsess over it happening to Al Qaeda prisoners.

Ah, so everyone in GTMO was guilty? Is that your claim? Or that we managed to torture only those who were definitely guilty?

Or is that you don't care if some of the people in GTMO weren't terrorists? Is it your assumption that America never gets the wrong person, but shouldn't care if we accidentally do?

[SpurNation]

i don't care if it's accurate.....i want that confession!

The gray area in this is if the detainee is known to have information regarding the questioning or if it just a random prisoner being used to obtain covert information.

Knowing that a detainee has information useful to preventing other attacks on innocent people...What's the harm in using mock executions to obtain that info if no innocent person is being physically harmed?

And by the way...dealing with terrorists isn't the same as dealing with just your average crook.

[coyotes_geek]

Ah, so everyone in GTMO was guilty? Is that your claim? Or that we managed to torture only those who were definitely guilty?

Or is that you don't care if some of the people in GTMO weren't terrorists? Is it your assumption that America never gets the wrong person, but shouldn't care if we accidentally do?

According to Obama it doesn't matter if they're guilty or not.

[LnGrrrR]

According to Obama it doesn't matter if they're guilty or not.

I don't give a sh*t what Obama thinks. He's wrong too.

So, you're telling me not ONE board republican/conservative will say, "Hey, maybe mock executions are too far over the line."?

The whole point of not officially endorsing 'enhanced interrogation', in my view, is that people tend to step over the line. If you keep pushing that line further and further, eventually there will be no line. There should be a basic line of decency, of morality, that we hold ourselves to.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Is it difficult to survive a mock execution?


oh that's brilliant numbnuts...

is it difficult to survive a mock execution? it is when you think you're about to die... jackass.

[LnGrrrR]

The gray area in this is if the detainee is known to have information regarding the questioning or if it just a random prisoner being used to obtain covert information.

Knowing that a detainee has information useful to preventing other attacks on innocent people...What's the harm in using mock executions to obtain that info if no innocent person is being physically harmed?

And by the way...dealing with terrorist SUSPECTS isn't the same as dealing with just your average crook.

What's the harm? Really? What's the harm? Are you THAT high on moral relativism?

A few counters:

1) If the point is all about saving lives, then why not bring in relatives of the terrorist suspect, perhaps a daughter, and torture her? If we're only worried about lives being saved, then we should be willing to make the 'hard sacrifices'.

2) Do you think if Americans are captured, that this won't be used against us in the same reasons? Sure, bad guys do it already, but it provides us with the higher moral ground. Don't underestimate having the moral ground. Most countries would like to be seen as moral, seeing as how it's tough to run a country immorally.

3) You realize these are PEOPLE, right? They may have done horrible things, killed soldiers, etc etc. That doesn't mean we have the right to do with them whatever we please, with no regards to the consequences. We should place certain limits on our behavior towards them, so as to maintain our own humanity. Both those tortured and those who have done the torturing often suffer greatly afterwards.

[SpurNation]

I don't give a sh*t what Obama thinks. He's wrong too.

So, you're telling me not ONE board republican/conservative will say, "Hey, maybe mock executions are too far over the line."?

The whole point of not officially endorsing 'enhanced interrogation', in my view, is that people tend to step over the line. If you keep pushing that line further and further, eventually there will be no line. There should be a basic line of decency, of morality, that we hold ourselves to.

I can see your point regarding a basic line of decency and morality.

But what if the person being interrogated is known to have information pertinent to helping save the lives of other innocent individuals?

Would it not be considered a lack of concern or moral decency to let that happen if you could prevent such an act from taking place?

[LnGrrrR]

I can see your point regarding a basic line of decency and morality.

But what if the person being interrogated is known to have information pertinent to helping save the lives of other innocent individuals?

Would it not be considered a lack of concern or moral decency to let that happen if you could prevent such an act from taking place?

And how would someone "know" that, infallibly? Is God interrogating this person? Or is just "pretty sure"?

And if it IS just "pretty sure", then surely, it won't be a big issue when we think there's a 50/50 chance we could get good information if we torture someone, right?

And of course, if we're willing to accept 50/50 chances, and the information is of such importance that we're willing to take extreme measures, then we could torture someone even if there was a slight possibility that they knew about a ticking time bomb, right?

In many cases, people don't "know" that someone has information. They're just guessing with a high rate of probability. Even if they DO know, there's no way to ensure the information they give is correct.

Finally, your idea is akin to the "kill a child to save 1,000" answer. Do you think it's moral to do such? If so, do you think it would still be moral if your odds were only 50/50 to save 1,000? What about 25%?

[coyotes_geek]

I don't give a sh*t what Obama thinks. He's wrong too.

So, you're telling me not ONE board republican/conservative will say, "Hey, maybe mock executions are too far over the line."?

The whole point of not officially endorsing 'enhanced interrogation', in my view, is that people tend to step over the line. If you keep pushing that line further and further, eventually there will be no line. There should be a basic line of decency, of morality, that we hold ourselves to.

I'm not telling you anything. The board republican/conservatives can speak for themselves.

The problem with the whole "line" concept is that everyone has their own definition of where it is. Unless you can provide a clear cut definition of exactly where that line of decency and morality is, how are "we" supposed to hold ourselves to it? Especially considering "we" are nothing more than a collection of individuals all with individual opinions. What if someone out there believes that the simple act of locking someone in a cell and only letting them out for one hour a day is mental torture? Should we no longer allow ourselves to lock up anyone?

[SonOfAGun]

Funny how we are suppose to hold our government to a basic line of decency and morality in times of war, when domestically they push their self-promoting agenda regardless of the harm it does to their country.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Funny how we are suppose to hold our government to a basic line of decency and morality in times of war, when domestically they push their self-promoting agenda regardless of the harm it does to their country.

I'd pay to tortue you.

[SonOfAGun]

I'd pay for you to torture me /hubba hubba

[SpurNation]

And how would someone "know" that, infallibly? Is God interrogating this person? Or is just "pretty sure"?

And if it IS just "pretty sure", then surely, it won't be a big issue when we think there's a 50/50 chance we could get good information if we torture someone, right?

And of course, if we're willing to accept 50/50 chances, and the information is of such importance that we're willing to take extreme measures, then we could torture someone even if there was a slight possibility that they knew about a ticking time bomb, right?

In many cases, people don't "know" that someone has information. They're just guessing with a high rate of probability. Even if they DO know, there's no way to ensure the information they give is correct.

Finally, your idea is akin to the "kill a child to save 1,000" answer. Do you think it's moral to do such? If so, do you think it would still be moral if your odds were only 50/50 to save 1,000? What about 25%?

Where did interoggating children come into this equation. Now you're the one assuming the unknown.

Again....if that information led to saving the lives of many innocent people you seem to take into account the life of just that one known terrorist (not child or family member) to stop trying to prevent the loss of many other innocent people?

I don't get your rationing there. And I'm not an evil I don't care who gets hurt person either.

All I was saying is IF the person being interoggated is KNOWN to have information that could help save the lives of other innocent people...I wouldn't have a problem with the "mock"...get it "MOCK" execution to derive that information.

Oh...and yeah...do you really think we would be so STUPID to just let a person walk after retreiving the info until we see if the info is correct.

[LnGrrrR]

The problem with the whole "line" concept is that everyone has their own definition of where it is. Unless you can provide a clear cut definition of exactly where that line of decency and morality is, how are "we" supposed to hold ourselves to it? Especially considering "we" are nothing more than a collection of individuals all with individual opinions. What if someone out there believes that the simple act of locking someone in a cell and only letting them out for one hour a day is mental torture? Should we no longer allow ourselves to lock up anyone?

So, given that numerous psychiatrist/psychologist groups have defined mock execution as torture, and given that mock execution has been defined as torture for decades, would you agree or disagree that 1) it IS torture and 2) the US should refrain from it?

Sure, there are lines to mental torture. That doesn't mean that there isn't such a thing.

[LnGrrrR]

Where did interoggating children come into this equation. Now you're the one assuming the unknown.

Again....if that information led to saving the lives of many innocent people you seem to take into account the life of just that one known terrorist (not child or family member) to stop trying to prevent the loss of many other innocent people?

So, you're ok with torturing a terrorist suspect to save lives, but you wouldn't be ok with torturing a relative of said suspect? If the concern is that the enemy has information that could save lives, what does it matter how we get that information? Why couldn't we torture a relative in front of him to get it?


All I was saying is IF the person being interoggated is KNOWN to have information that could help save the lives of other innocent people...I wouldn't have a problem with the "mock"...get it "MOCK" execution to derive that information.

How often does one "KNOW" something, 100%? And what if the person they are interrogating DOESN'T know? How would we know, for 100% certainty, that they knew the information?


Oh...and yeah...do you really think we would be so STUPID to just let a person walk after retreiving the info until we see if the info is correct.

You're missing my point. If they go to find said location, it could be a trap. It could be something to lead people off-course. It could just be SOMETHING HE MADE UP TO SAY BECAUSE HE WAS BEING TORTURED.

[LnGrrrR]

Also something I'd like to point out. Prisoners don't know these executions are "mock" until the very moment of discovery (ie, the guns have blanks instead of real bullets).

Do you all not think that such an incident (expecting your imminent death) might be traumatic? Traumatic to the point where we shouldn't perform these actions?

(Not to mention their illegality...)

[SpurNation]

So, you're ok with torturing a terrorist suspect to save lives, but you wouldn't be ok with torturing a relative of said suspect? If the concern is that the enemy has information that could save lives, what does it matter how we get that information? Why couldn't we torture a relative in front of him to get it?

No I wouldn't support this because we would be interogating the wrong person if we KNEW the suspect had information. You can KNOW a person has information doesn't mean they are willing to divuldge that information.



How often does one "KNOW" something, 100%? And what if the person they are interrogating DOESN'T know? How would we know, for 100% certainty, that they knew the information?.

Again...you could KNOW the person has information because of surveilance, proof of their being at a location and to what degree the person would be involved etc...But it doesn't mean they will voluntarily give up that information.




You're missing my point. If they go to find said location, it could be a trap. It could be something to lead people off-course. It could just be SOMETHING HE MADE UP TO SAY BECAUSE HE WAS BEING TORTURED.

You don't think they would be cautious about that possibility? Do you think the people doing this are rookies? I'm sure they hold all precautions top priority knowing who they are dealing with.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you think the people doing this are rookies?Yes.

[coyotes_geek]

So, given that numerous psychiatrist/psychologist groups have defined mock execution as torture, and given that mock execution has been defined as torture for decades, would you agree or disagree that 1) it IS torture and 2) the US should refrain from it?

Sure, there are lines to mental torture. That doesn't mean that there isn't such a thing.

How many of those psychiatrists/psychologists have ever been put in a situation of having to decide whether or not lives could be saved by their ability to extract information from someone? One thing to just sit back in the academic world and define torture as forcefully subjecting someone to situations they'd prefer not to be in and then decide that you'd never do something like that. Quite another to be in a situation where you know that lives are at stake. Or worse yet, to be in a situation where you don't know, and it's your job to find out whether or not lives really are at stake.

[LnGrrrR]

How many of those psychiatrists/psychologists have ever been put in a situation of having to decide whether or not lives could be saved by their ability to extract information from someone? One thing to just sit back in the academic world and define torture as forcefully subjecting someone to situations they'd prefer not to be in and then decide that you'd never do something like that. Quite another to be in a situation where you know that lives are at stake. Or worse yet, to be in a situation where you don't know, and it's your job to find out whether or not lives really are at stake.

Surely, I don't need to have my arm cut off to see that it's painful, correct?

In the same manner, one doesn't need to be tortured in order to see the effects on one's patients.

And I'm never saying that torture won't occur, or even that in a miniscule number of cases, it shouldn't. I'm saying that we shouldn't enshrine that capability, to 'enhanced interrogate' anyone, PRECISELY due to reasons like this. If people think waterboarding is ok, but they REALLY want information, then they'll take the next step.

Again, if you knew lives were on the line, what's wrong with REAL torture in the case you cited? What's wrong with pulling off toenails and fingernails, burning the man, or cutting off fingers? I mean, LIVES ARE AT STAKE!

Or is there a line you wouldn't cross either?

[LnGrrrR]

No I wouldn't support this because we would be interogating the wrong person if we KNEW the suspect had information. You can KNOW a person has information doesn't mean they are willing to divuldge that information.




Again...you could KNOW the person has information because of surveilance, proof of their being at a location and to what degree the person would be involved etc...But it doesn't mean they will voluntarily give up that information.

You don't think they would be cautious about that possibility? Do you think the people doing this are rookies? I'm sure they hold all precautions top priority knowing who they are dealing with.

If they weren't rookies, then why did they break the law and stage mock executions? If you read the article, you'd see that administration officials admit that these were over the line and totally contrary to the administration's aim. Obviously, the people performing these interrogations were either A) not experts or B) didn't care about the law.

[SpurNation]

If they weren't rookies, then why did they break the law and stage mock executions? If you read the article, you'd see that administration officials admit that these were over the line and totally contrary to the administration's aim. Obviously, the people performing these interrogations were either A) not experts or B) didn't care about the law.

C) Given authority but are now scape goats due to public knowledge.

I'm really curious to know what was learned and in what was learned how many innocent lives were saved. That's a fact that will never become public knowledge.

[LnGrrrR]

C) Given authority but are now scape goats due to public knowledge.

I'm really curious to know what was learned and in what was learned how many innocent lives were saved. That's a fact that will never become public knowledge.

You're missing my point.

Tell me, how many lives need to be saved to make torture acceptable? What's the number?

[sabar]

I'm going to be bold and say that the cost of maintaining prisons and paying the whole system is more than just bearing the cost of a possible terrorist attack. What exactly have we prevented? Terrorists have all been terrorizing europe and the U.K. the past several years, what are we looking for? If it's to help them, then they can do it themselves. And what business does the CIA even have in this field? Leave the whole thing to the military, not a civilian agency.

[sabar]

C) Given authority but are now scape goats due to public knowledge.

I'm really curious to know what was learned and in what was learned how many innocent lives were saved. That's a fact that will never become public knowledge.

You could just read the hundreds of studies that show that torture produces a bunch of false confessions that just murk the waters.

I know for a fact that I would lie about a crime I didnt commit if I was about to get executed or shocked or told my family was gonna die.

[SpurNation]

You're missing my point.

Tell me, how many lives need to be saved to make torture acceptable? What's the number?

I guess we will agree to disagree though I do understand your point about any "innocent" person being mentally tortured. But I guess you will never understand my point.

By the way...how many innocent lives need to be lost because one person known to have information would not be pushed to divuldge the information?

[clambake]

they were all known to have information.......u get it?

[SpurNation]

You could just read the hundreds of studies that show that torture produces a bunch of false confessions that just murk the waters.

I know for a fact that I would lie about a crime I didnt commit if I was about to get executed or shocked or told my family was gonna die.


Again...I'm not talking about just possibilities...I'm saying if they know a person would have information.

[LnGrrrR]

I guess we will agree to disagree though I do understand your point about any "innocent" person being mentally tortured. But I guess you will never understand my point.

By the way...how many innocent lives need to be lost because one person known to have information would not be pushed to divuldge the information?

I understand your point; I just disagree.

Since you are the one arguing for it, you tell me: how many potential innocent lives would YOU be willing to torture for? Hm?

[SpurNation]

they were all known to have information.......u get it?

got it...and apparently so did they...and how many lives were saved?

[SpurNation]

I understand your point; I just disagree.

Since you are the one arguing for it, you tell me: how many potential innocent lives would YOU be willing to torture for? Hm?

I'm not the only one arguing a point...so are you. :toast

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not the only one arguing a point...so are you. :toast

Ok fine, I'll answer first. None. :)

Your turn!

[SpurNation]

Ok fine, I'll answer first. None. :)

Your turn!

Torture for? - If I knew they had info that would help save innocent lives -any of them that fell into that category.

To innocently kill to retrieve info...none.

[LnGrrrR]

Torture for? - If I knew they had info that would help save innocent lives -any of them that fell into that category.

To innocently kill to retrieve info...none.

So, you'd be willing to torture someone to save one innocent life?

[SpurNation]

So, you'd be willing to torture someone to save one innocent life?

If torturing (not killing) one "known" individual to be an enemy and it would save one innocent person...yes. Especially if that innocent person is a child.

[jack sommerset]

:lol People have problems with mock executions. Fucking classic :lol

Personally I'm for watrerboarding over pretending to kill people in other rooms. If it works then more power to them. I support torture to save even one american life.

[Jacob1983]

If torturing terrorist suspects would have saved everyone on 9/11, would you be for or against it? Sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to saves people lives. You may not like it and it may be wrong but people's lives are more important than whether or not torture is right.

[ChumpDumper]

There has been nothing beyond third hand anecdotal evidence that torture worked.

[Clandestino]

Terrorists kill our people after they torture them..

We subject them to a bit of stress and act like we killed someone in the next room.. umm... what's worse?

[jack sommerset]

There has been nothing beyond third hand anecdotal evidence that torture worked.

That and common sense is good enough for me.

[clambake]

Terrorists kill our people after they torture them..

We subject them to a bit of stress and act like we killed someone in the next room.. umm... what's worse?

this is not the right thread for you.

[ChumpDumper]

That and common sense is good enough for me.Common sense tells me that torture worked to get false confessions in the past. That's all that has proved.

[jack sommerset]

Common sense tells me that torture worked to get false confessions in the past. That's all that has proved.

That is also true. Life sucks.

[hope4dopes]

Before you go and say, "What's so bad about mock executions?", please, look at the data, especially those that have survived such incidents.

Is it the new feeling of conservatives that the ONLY thing that defines torture is permanent physical disfigurement? Is there no such thing as torture that is mental in nature?

I'm not paying good tax money to scare some shithead, I want the real executions damn it.

[Jacob1983]

I will ask the question again. If torture would have saved all of the lives lost on 9/11, would you have supported it or been against it? Saving thousands of lives or do nothing and bitch about whether torture is right or wrong? Which do you choose?

[Nbadan]

The Bush administration tortured innocent people to cover up the fact that they were asleep at the intelligence-wheel for 8 months before the 911 attacks...they lost track of Muhammad Atta despite intel. reports from Germany that he was meeting with some bad people in Hamburg...then slipped back into the U.S. unnoticed...

[PEP]

What's the harm? Really? What's the harm? Are you THAT high on moral relativism?

A few counters:

1) If the point is all about saving lives, then why not bring in relatives of the terrorist suspect, perhaps a daughter, and torture her? If we're only worried about lives being saved, then we should be willing to make the 'hard sacrifices'.

2) Do you think if Americans are captured, that this won't be used against us in the same reasons? Sure, bad guys do it already, but it provides us with the higher moral ground. Don't underestimate having the moral ground. Most countries would like to be seen as moral, seeing as how it's tough to run a country immorally.

3) You realize these are PEOPLE, right? They may have done horrible things, killed soldiers, etc etc. That doesn't mean we have the right to do with them whatever we please, with no regards to the consequences. We should place certain limits on our behavior towards them, so as to maintain our own humanity. Both those tortured and those who have done the torturing often suffer greatly afterwards.
Airman, US servicemen that are captured dont have to worry about mock executions, they are going to be executed by probably having their heads chopped off. And before you come back by saying its because we "tortured" some of them at Gitmo or Abu Ghrab, they have been doing this even before that happened, they've never needed a reason to do so.

If it saves one innocent human life I dont care how they get information out of a terrorist, oh excuse me, a "suspected" terrorist.

You must have a huge chip on your shoulder buddy, what happened, did you get deployed to the UAE or MacDill during your deployment rotation. You must really have a problem with WWII, Korean, and Vietnam vets also since they did more "interrogating" than has been done in Iraq/Afghanistan.

[Jacob1983]

Let me guess, the Holocaust was Bush's fault too?

[Nbadan]

Yeah, let's sink to their de-civilized level, that'll work..so what if 10 innocent people get tortured, we could have saved American lives IF the suspects knew anything...which they didn't, but hey, let's play the Al-Queda-does-it-so-we-should-do-it card, that'll make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside...

[Nbadan]

Let me guess, the Holocaust was Bush's fault too?

Only if your talking about the Holocaust of 2-3 million Iraqis, but their mostly Muslims, so they don't get a holocaust..

[Winehole23]

If you want information from an Al Qaeda prisoner, all you need to do is ask politely.One very successful interrogation involved sugar-free cookies. No shit.

Search terms:

Bobby Ghosh
Abu Jandal
Ali Soufan

BTW, mock executions are bad because we've signed treaties and passed laws outlawing them.

If you think they're no big deal, you think the rule of law is no big deal.

[Yonivore]

Before you go and say, "What's so bad about mock executions?", please, look at the data, especially those that have survived such incidents.

Is it the new feeling of conservatives that the ONLY thing that defines torture is permanent physical disfigurement? Is there no such thing as torture that is mental in nature?
Yes, there is.
http://www.granitegrok.com/pix/911_jumping_man.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

You must have a huge chip on your shoulder buddy, what happened, did you get deployed to the UAE or MacDill during your deployment rotation. You must really have a problem with WWII, Korean, and Vietnam vets also since they did more "interrogating" than has been done in Iraq/Afghanistan.

There's a difference between a lone person interrogating someone and taking the risk to break the law, and ENSHRINING that action into law. Do you not see the difference?

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, there is.


At least you're honest. However, given that torture has ALSO been defined as mental torture, maybe we should at least keep with our international treaty obligations huh?

Also, by accepting mental torture as "ok" (which is really pretty amazing that you're willing to do so), then you also accept it as "ok" for other countries to do so to us.

[LnGrrrR]

If torturing (not killing) one "known" individual to be an enemy and it would save one innocent person...yes. Especially if that innocent person is a child.

What if you didn't know for sure? What if it was only a 50/50 chance? Would you still take the risk?

[LnGrrrR]

I gotta say, it's interesting where the conservatives here fall.

Not one of them has been willing to say that mock executions are a form of torture, it seems.

Not one of them has been willing to go against mock executions because we've signed international treaties, making them illegal.

And most of them are willing to torture or kill for the sake of one life.

Now, put in that situation, would I be willing to do such myself? Maybe if it were a family member or friend, I might. I'm not saying it would be the right, moral thing to do, but I might. HOWEVER, that does mean it should be made law, no moreso than it should be made law that I get to shoot someone I find sleeping with my wife.

[coyotes_geek]

Surely, I don't need to have my arm cut off to see that it's painful, correct?

In the same manner, one doesn't need to be tortured in order to see the effects on one's patients.

And I'm never saying that torture won't occur, or even that in a miniscule number of cases, it shouldn't. I'm saying that we shouldn't enshrine that capability, to 'enhanced interrogate' anyone, PRECISELY due to reasons like this. If people think waterboarding is ok, but they REALLY want information, then they'll take the next step.

Again, if you knew lives were on the line, what's wrong with REAL torture in the case you cited? What's wrong with pulling off toenails and fingernails, burning the man, or cutting off fingers? I mean, LIVES ARE AT STAKE!

Or is there a line you wouldn't cross either?

Sure, there's a line I wouldn't cross. Just like there's a line you wouldn't cross. Odds are my line doesn't match your line and neither of our lines match anyone elses. That's what makes this whole issue impossible to resolve. It's all about personal interpretations. We lock up our criminals in institutions where they're going to be beaten up and sodomized by other criminals. Is that torture?

[DarrinS]

I gotta say, it's interesting where the conservatives here fall.

Not one of them has been willing to say that mock executions are a form of torture, it seems.



You didn't count me.




Not one of them has been willing to go against mock executions because we've signed international treaties, making them illegal.

And most of them are willing to torture or kill for the sake of one life.

Now, put in that situation, would I be willing to do such myself? Maybe if it were a family member or friend, I might. I'm not saying it would be the right, moral thing to do, but I might. HOWEVER, that does mean it should be made law, no moreso than it should be made law that I get to shoot someone I find sleeping with my wife.

[/QUOTE]

To save one of my kids, I'd do it myself. You have a moral obligation as a parent. By the way (unrelated), I don't know what you decided, but the CDC is considering recommending routine circumcisions for baby boys born in US
to help fight HIV.

[LnGrrrR]

You didn't count me.

Thanks Darrin.


To save one of my kids, I'd do it myself. You have a moral obligation as a parent. By the way (unrelated), I don't know what you decided, but the CDC is considering recommending routine circumcisions for baby boys born in US
to help fight HIV.

And thanks again. We're leaning towards doing such as of this moment, about 75/25, and we most likely will. Less than two months to go...

[LnGrrrR]

Sure, there's a line I wouldn't cross. Just like there's a line you wouldn't cross. Odds are my line doesn't match your line and neither of our lines match anyone elses. That's what makes this whole issue impossible to resolve. It's all about personal interpretations. We lock up our criminals in institutions where they're going to be beaten up and sodomized by other criminals. Is that torture?

Well, that "line" has been defined by international treaty, which the United States signed/agreed to in 1988.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

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



Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.


Now, you can play the "who gets to define 'severe pain and suffering'" game if you would like. However, if you do want to play that game, I'd like you to find an international/nationally recognized group of medical professionals who would be willing to go on the record saying mock executions aren't a form of mental torture.

There are lines to EVERYTHING in this world. Is the statue of David a work of art, or pornography? However, there is a big difference between mock executions and a prisoner saying he feels 'tortured' because he doesn't get his favorite book to read. One is internationally recognized as torture, the other isn't.

[coyotes_geek]

Now, you can play the "who gets to define 'severe pain and suffering'" game if you would like. However, if you do want to play that game, I'd like you to find an international/nationally recognized group of medical professionals who would be willing to go on the record saying mock executions aren't a form of mental torture.

There are lines to EVERYTHING in this world. Is the statue of David a work of art, or pornography? However, there is a big difference between mock executions and a prisoner saying he feels 'tortured' because he doesn't get his favorite book to read. One is internationally recognized as torture, the other isn't.

The "who gets to define 'severe pain and suffering'" game is the entire point. The medical professional who is completely detached from the situation and the person faced with the responsibility of extracting information that could save lives from someone who doesn't want to divulge it are coming from completely different perspectives.

[LnGrrrR]

The "who gets to define 'severe pain and suffering'" game is the entire point. The medical professional who is completely detached from the situation and the person faced with the responsibility of extracting information that could save lives from someone who doesn't want to divulge it are coming from completely different perspectives.

That's for an obvious reason. The whole point of PREVENTING torture is to prevent the harm associated with said torture, correct?

If the people who were worried about getting information were writing the prohibitions against torture, do you not think that they'd be a little more lax? After all, it is not the interrogators who see the AFTER EFFECTS of said torture.

As a society, America has said that we're not willing to lower ourselves to a certain level in order to potentially gain information, and we've signed that into law.

Conservatives are willing to defend age-old definitions of marriage... why are they so quick to discard age-old definitions of torture?

[clambake]

its amazing how much information is retained by every single person we've taken prisoner.

[rjv]

If torturing terrorist suspects would have saved everyone on 9/11, would you be for or against it? Sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to saves people lives. You may not like it and it may be wrong but people's lives are more important than whether or not torture is right.

welcome to philosophy 101. does the means justify the end or is it the other way around ? or as socrates asked: " is something pious because it is loved by the gods or is it loved by the gods because it is pious ? ".

[LnGrrrR]

Another article on it: http://washingtonindependent.com/56363/the-information-feedback-loop


According to the 2004 CIA inspector general report on torture (http://washingtonindependent.com/56175/the-2004-cia-inspector-generals-report-on-torture), the CIA didn’t know a tremendous amount about al-Qaeda to inform its interrogations. Quoth the report, “This lack of knowledge led analysts to speculate about what a detainee ’should know,’ vice information that the analyst could objectively demonstrate the detainee did know.”

Here's the thing. Once you open up the door to torturing those who "definitely" know something, you're opening the door to torturing those who "might" know something.

[SonOfAGun]

Going to war...

brb getting rule book.

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/24/ig_report/



Perhaps worst of all, the Report notes that many of the detainees who were subjected to this treatment were so treated due to "assessments that were unsupported by credible intelligence"


Why is it so bad for governments to gain more power, but we imagine that some government agencies will never abuse the power we give to them?

[LnGrrrR]

From the same link:



As I wrote rather clearly, numerous detainees died in U.S. custody, often as a direct result of our "interrogation methods." Those claiming there was no physical harm are simply lying -- death qualifies as "physical harm" -- and those who oppose prosecutions are advocating that the people responsible literally be allowed to get away with murder.

[LnGrrrR]

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/08/the-ig-report.html



The highlights include: (1) mock executions; (2) threatened rape of family members; (3) threatened murder of children; (4) kicking and beating a detainee with a metal flashlight to death; (5) threatening naked hooded detainees with power drills; (6) blowing cigar smoke in detainees' faces until they got sick; (7) waterboarding with massive volumes of water far beyond what OLC authorized (to make it "poignant"); (8) stress positions that nearly caused shoulder dislocations; (9) scraping detainees with stiff brushes; (10) choking a detainee with one's bare hands until they nearly pass out; (11) subjecting detainees to extremely cold temperatures and water dousing; (12) "hard takedowns" (sometimes in diapers); and (13) beating detainees with butts of rifles (followed by kicking them).


Willing to support all of those, conservatives? I'm sure Yoni is... what about the rest of you?

[jack sommerset]

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/08/the-ig-report.html



Willing to support all of those, conservatives? I'm sure Yoni is... what about the rest of you?

It is a case by case situation but YES I would support the CIA.

[clambake]

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/08/the-ig-report.html



Willing to support all of those, conservatives? I'm sure Yoni is... what about the rest of you?

you just don't have the power to pretend that every single detainee is a high level, ultra death planning lex luther.

when you are ready to pretend that, then you'll be ready to marshal some of the facility's we're planning.

[LnGrrrR]

It is a case by case situation but YES I would support the CIA.

So you're fine with beating someone to death with a flashlight?

[SpurNation]

What if you didn't know for sure? What if it was only a 50/50 chance? Would you still take the risk?

I don't know why you keep posting about a 50/50 chance with regards to my posts. I clearly sited that if it is "known" that a detainee had information that could help in preventing innocent lives being lost I would not mind the performing of interogation tactics that would help retrieve that information.

Whether lawful or not I guess is in the interpretation of the law both internatinal and domestic and to which extent (definition) were these prisoners considered labeled.

It's an interesting read and if you have the time:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/final%20publication.pdf

You can see why there is such adverse and debatable context regarding this whole issue. This discussion took place just prior to the presidential election.

One very interesting aspect of the discussion is how democrats never viewed this as an important enough issue to make a stand on but rather let it be something Republicans argued at the time since McCain was oposed to Bush's decesion regarding the interrogation process.

[LnGrrrR]

Because most Democrats don't care about torture either, sadly.

I'm only pressing on the 50/50, because it seems somewhat strange to me that if you KNEW he had information, you'd definitely do it. However, you wouldn't be willing to take the chance, even if lives were on the lines, with torture. If there are lives on the line, don't you think pressure might lead you to doing such anyways?

And worse than that, let's say you DID hold to those beliefs. Good on you! But who's to say you won't be cast aside for someone who is willing to bend those beliefs a bit more, who's willing to take the 50/50 chance?

[LnGrrrR]

And regarding the Wilson document, those who always say that "cruel and inhumane punishment are tough to define" never try to define it themselves, it seems. They can say what it ISN'T, but not what it definitely IS.

Here's another interesting link from the Wilson Center:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1416&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=510315

I would be more than welcome to get more specific guidelines on what constitutes torture. I'm positive that mock executions would fall under those guidelines.

[SpurNation]

I would be more than welcome to get more specific guidelines on what constitutes torture. I'm positive that mock executions would fall under those guidelines.

Regarding the first part of your response is what makes the second part a not so "positive" aspect but more so an opinion.

On a side note...Ever see the Samuel L. Jackson movie "The Negotiator" where he basically interrogates his captures using scare tactics and "mock" execution?

It's funny how the Liberally based motion picture industry produces, promotes and shows such movies and portrays these characters as heroes and then has a problem with the U.S. Government doing the same in real time situations.

Kind of confusing to the general public I would think.

[ChumpDumper]

Kind of confusing to the general public I would think.Yeah, the general public thinks there are really sentient robots that turn into trucks and planes too.

[SpurNation]

Yeah, the general public thinks there are really sentient robots that turn into trucks and planes too.

The only reponse I can have to this is that I know you're pretending to be ignorant of the comparison and if your not pretending....well

[ChumpDumper]

The only reponse I can have to this is that I know you're pretending to be ignorant of the comparison and if your not pretending....wellMovies are not to be used as an excuse for ignorance of the law. It was a useless comparison you made -- I just pointed that out.

[clambake]

Movies are not to be used as an excuse for ignorance of the law. It was a useless comparison you made -- I just pointed that out.

yes......and the pounding music peaks and strategic pauses are mesmerizing.

wild comma is still bewitched from "sum of all fears".

[SpurNation]

Movies are not to be used as an excuse for ignorance of the law. It was a useless comparison you made -- I just pointed that out.

I didn't use the movie as an excuse for ignorance of the law...which by the way has not been clearly defined as illegal regarding mock executions through any international agreement concerning torture.

There are "opinions" and "interpretations" regarding mock executions but nothing clearly defined.

And it's not a useless interpretation when millions of Americans define their "interpretation" of law through movies. Especially when movies portray people doing "unlawful" things as heroes.

All I'm referring to is that many people might view the interrogation that is being used by the CIA today as acceptable if the only view they have of such type of interrogation is portrayed in a movie they might see.

I know. One should investigate upon their own if they think it's illegal or curious but many form beliefs of what government is like and accepted through adaptations in the movies.

[LnGrrrR]

Regarding the first part of your response is what makes the second part a not so "positive" aspect but more so an opinion.

On a side note...Ever see the Samuel L. Jackson movie "The Negotiator" where he basically interrogates his captures using scare tactics and "mock" execution?

It's funny how the Liberally based motion picture industry produces, promotes and shows such movies and portrays these characters as heroes and then has a problem with the U.S. Government doing the same in real time situations.

Kind of confusing to the general public I would think.

Yeah, I think it's pretty stupid too. It's why I'm not a fan of 24.

Throughout history, mock executions have been considered a form of torture. As well, all reputable medical professionals recognize it as torture. Given such, I'm positive it would be considered such. There's no true deliberation in the medical community that mock executions don't often introduce serious mental trauma upon its victims.

I think we can gain information without resorting to either longlasting physical abuse, or by resorting to tactics that are considered by the international community to be too degrading/cruel/inhumane. I would rather we don't go down the road of threatening people with death, or the deaths of their family, or smearing menstrual blood on them, on getting them naked besides a hood and threatening them with power drills, etc etc.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure, people are ignorant and stupid and believe fiction is true. The fake board conservatives prove that every day.

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't use the movie as an excuse for ignorance of the law...which by the way has not been clearly defined as illegal regarding mock executions through any international agreement concerning torture.

There are "opinions" and "interpretations" regarding mock executions but nothing clearly defined.

And it's not a useless interpretation when millions of Americans define their "interpretation" of law through movies. Especially when movies portray people doing "unlawful" things as heroes.

All I'm referring to is that many people might view the interrogation that is being used by the CIA today as acceptable if the only view they have of such type of interrogation is portrayed in a movie they might see.

I know. One should investigate upon their own if they think it's illegal or curious but many form beliefs of what government is like and accepted through adaptations in the movies.

There's also "interpretation" and "opinions" on the idea that sexual molestation is harmful to children, if you ask NAMBLA. Does that mean we shouldn't outlaw it?

It may not be clearly defined in the GENERAL population, but the medical community has had a good definition of it for years now.

[ChumpDumper]

Torture is defined in part as "the threat of imminent death" in the US Code.

I don't see how anyone can describe a mock execution as anything else.

[Wild Cobra]

Torture is defined in part as "the threat of imminent death" in the US Code.

I don't see how anyone can describe a mock execution as anything else.
If I recall, you are right. However, what else and what context is that in? Have the code# and section so I can look it up please

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
OK, a set of laws for operating in the USA. Was this alleged crime committed inside the USA?

[ChumpDumper]

OK, a set of laws for operating in the USA. Was this alleged crime committed inside the USA?(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html

[Wild Cobra]

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html
Yes. I read that. Was the person doing the interrogation (alleged torture) either in the defined united states, or a US national?

I was in the process of looking at that version also. Is that change in code newer than the crime? In that case, it would be an ex-post-facto law.

[ChumpDumper]

Could be. I don't know the history of that particular statute.

If nothing else, I'm glad the door is now closed. Seems there is a reason the law was changed if it was made to specifically include mock executions.

[SpurNation]

There's also "interpretation" and "opinions" on the idea that sexual molestation is harmful to children, if you ask NAMBLA. Does that mean we shouldn't outlaw it?

It may not be clearly defined in the GENERAL population, but the medical community has had a good definition of it for years now.

Sexual molestation to a child is a defined act to that child.

A mock execution is the visualization of an act that really is not being done for the purpose of deriving information. No One Is Physically Hurt.

By the way...I've never heard of a movie depicting sexual molestation as a heroic event.

[LnGrrrR]

Sexual molestation to a child is a defined act to that child.

A mock execution is the visualization of an act that really is not being done for the purpose of deriving information. No One Is Physically Hurt.

By the way...I've never heard of a movie depicting sexual molestation as a heroic event.

1) Define molestation.

2) Molestation doesn't have to cause physical hurt.

(Note: I am obviously not ok with child molestation, but let me show you how easily some "obvious" cases can be defined away to be "difficult".)

[SpurNation]

1) Define molestation.

2) Molestation doesn't have to cause physical hurt.

(Note: I am obviously not ok with child molestation, but let me show you how easily some "obvious" cases can be defined away to be "difficult".)

Main Entry: molest http://o.aolcdn.com/esp/en/US/esp/010411/001/img/audio.png mu-!lest
Pronunciation: \ mə-ˈlest \
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French molester, from Latin molestare, from molestus burdensome, annoying; akin to Latin moles mass
Date: 14th century
Results
1. 1 to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect
2. 2 to make annoying sexual advances to especially to force physical and usually sexual contact on


As far as mock executions...the prisoner/detainee that information is wanting to be retrieved from while apparently witnessing an execution of another is neither physically harming, humiliating or degrading to the prisoner/detainee themselves.

Now IF the person that is perpetrated in the mock execution is being effected with either physical injury, humiliation or degradation...then violation of the law is certainly committed to that individual.

But there is nothing in law that states it's a violation of an individual's rights in witnessing that act.

[Wild Cobra]

Could be. I don't know the history of that particular statute.

If nothing else, I'm glad the door is now closed. Seems there is a reason the law was changed if it was made to specifically include mock executions.
OK, what I found so far is that section 2340 was last modified by public law 108-375 (http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/PL108-375.pdf) (HR 4200 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h4200pp.txt.pdf). The section assigned to it was the following:
SEC. 1089. DEFINITION OF UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL
CRIME OF TORTURE.
Section 2340(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
‘‘(3) ‘United States’ means the several States of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories,
and possessions of the United States.’’.

I haven't found the effective date other than it is one year after the regulations are adopted by the commission.

It appears you complain about a crime where the law was changed after the fact.

[ChumpDumper]

Eh, there's enough in the UN convention against torture and other agreements that the US ratified before Iraq to make me include mock executions as torture.

I complain about a law before the effect. The code statute seems to be overkill, simply clarifying and putting some federal teeth into what is already law so people like you can't try to weasel out of it.

[LnGrrrR]

Main Entry: molest http://o.aolcdn.com/esp/en/US/esp/010411/001/img/audio.png mu-!lest
Pronunciation: \ mə-ˈlest \
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French molester, from Latin molestare, from molestus burdensome, annoying; akin to Latin moles mass
Date: 14th century
Results
1. 1 to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect
2. 2 to make annoying sexual advances to especially to force physical and usually sexual contact on


As far as mock executions...the prisoner/detainee that information is wanting to be retrieved from while apparently witnessing an execution of another is neither physically harming, humiliating or degrading to the prisoner/detainee themselves.

Now IF the person that is perpetrated in the mock execution is being effected with either physical injury, humiliation or degradation...then violation of the law is certainly committed to that individual.

But there is nothing in law that states it's a violation of an individual's rights in witnessing that act.

But wait, who gets to determine when a child is annoyed, hm? And how can you even tell if a child is annoyed? It's not like they can tell you, can they? How do you know, for sure?

And are you of the opinion that there is no such thing as mental torture?

[SpurNation]

And are you of the opinion that there is no such thing as mental torture?

So we are to assume that "witnessing" a mock execution is mental torture? Do you not think they are already under mental and physical distress just by being in the camp/prison?

How can one "force" anyone to witness an execution real or mocked?

The only way to force somebody to witness this is to bind them in such a way where they cannot move their head up or down or from side to side and wire their eyes open.

That would be in violation.

To me it looks like you wouldn't even have these people placed in holding since it would be "mental" torture to even have them existing in a confined space.

[LnGrrrR]

You forgot to answer my question about child molestation.

[coyotes_geek]

To me it looks like you wouldn't even have these people placed in holding since it would be "mental" torture to even have them existing in a confined space.

I tried making that point earlier. Our entire correctional system in this country involves putting criminals in institutions where we know full well that they'll be physically assulted. Shouldn't that meet the definition of torture?

[LnGrrrR]

So we are to assume that "witnessing" a mock execution is mental torture? Do you not think they are already under mental and physical distress just by being in the camp/prison?

How can one "force" anyone to witness an execution real or mocked?

The only way to force somebody to witness this is to bind them in such a way where they cannot move their head up or down or from side to side and wire their eyes open.

That would be in violation.

To me it looks like you wouldn't even have these people placed in holding since it would be "mental" torture to even have them existing in a confined space.

You're missing the point, again. The point is very real THREAT OF IMMINENT DEATH. If a person brings a gun into your cell, then points it at your head, you are being threatened with imminent death, which is considered torture. It doesn't matter whether or not you "see" the gun.

Being confined is not defined either by US law or by international standards as "torture". Threat of imminent death is. Nice try.

[LnGrrrR]

I tried making that point earlier. Our entire correctional system in this country involves putting criminals in institutions where we know full well that they'll be physically assulted. Shouldn't that meet the definition of torture?

We don't "know" they'll be physically assaulted. There is a chance it may occur, which is why we have prison guards and whatnot. We don't 'accept' that abuse may occur and not guard them, and we certainly don't authorize physical assault, enshrine it into law, and have the guards perform it themselves.

Tell me Coyotes, what would YOU define as torture? Give me your concrete, surely-can't-be-twisted-around definition.

[SpurNation]

You're missing the point, again. The point is very real THREAT OF IMMINENT DEATH. If a person brings a gun into your cell, then points it at your head, you are being threatened with imminent death, which is considered torture. It doesn't matter whether or not you "see" the gun.

Being confined is not defined either by US law or by international standards as "torture". Threat of imminent death is. Nice try.

I never said the threat was being made to the detainee. I am referring to a detainee witnessing somebody else's mock execution.

[Wild Cobra]

You're missing the point, again. The point is very real THREAT OF IMMINENT DEATH. If a person brings a gun into your cell, then points it at your head, you are being threatened with imminent death, which is considered torture. It doesn't matter whether or not you "see" the gun.

Being confined is not defined either by US law or by international standards as "torture". Threat of imminent death is. Nice try.
Except that happened before 2004. The law was changes after the fact.

[LnGrrrR]

You still haven't answered my question about child molestation. How do you know the child is being annoyed?

[LnGrrrR]

I never said the threat was being made to the detainee. I am referring to a detainee witnessing somebody else's mock execution.

So, you don't see how the belief that the person next door to you was just killed by gunfire might cause the fear of imminent death?

Or that the sound of a power drill being used in your room while you were naked and hooded might cause the fear of imminent death?

[SpurNation]

You still haven't answered my question about child molestation. How do you know the child is being annoyed?

Why do you ask? And how does it pertain to this topic? I don't recall anything about detainee molestation being discussed or even the issue.

But...How do you know if a child is being molested? I would guess there is suspicion...followed by investigation to be followed up with arresst and arrainment of the person suspected after all the proof is gathered.

[LnGrrrR]

Except that happened before 2004. The law was changes after the fact.

As Chump said, I would think that mock execution would fall under our treaty obligations.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html



For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.


I don't think anyone can argue that mock executions are used for this specific purpose. I agree that the above explanation would be better served by a more concrete definition, but I would argue that mock executions fall under this, and wouldn't be covered under "pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions.

And yes, the Treaty covers everyone, not just lawful combatants.

[SpurNation]

So, you don't see how the belief that the person next door to you was just killed by gunfire might cause the fear of imminent death?

Or that the sound of a power drill being used in your room while you were naked and hooded might cause the fear of imminent death?

What person in a prisoner of war camp wouldn't have fear of imminent death. The fear of imminent death would already be a factor in their mental psyche regardless.

Again...you wouldn't even have these people detained much less worried about what the rules of detainment were.

[ChumpDumper]

What person in a prisoner of war camp wouldn't have fear of imminent death.The ones not being threatened with imminent death.

[LnGrrrR]

Why do you ask? And how does it pertain to this topic? I don't recall anything about detainee molestation being discussed or even the issue.

But...How do you know if a child is being molested? I would guess there is suspicion...followed by investigation to be followed up with arresst and arrainment of the person suspected after all the proof is gathered.

It's to show that it's hard to legally quantify what torture is. You can do the same thing with nearly any kind of mental abuse though. It's obviously not easy to see, because it's mental. That doesn't mean it's not there.

You can get around mental abuse, if you really want to. I could argue circles with you, redefining child abuse to fit my needs, or, like you, arguing about who gets to make the decision on what is considered abuse or not. But we all know what child molestation/abuse is. And the same should go for torture.

[coyotes_geek]

We don't "know" they'll be physically assaulted. There is a chance it may occur, which is why we have prison guards and whatnot. We don't 'accept' that abuse may occur and not guard them, and we certainly don't authorize physical assault, enshrine it into law, and have the guards perform it themselves.

So in other words, if we play dumb, turn a blind eye and don't condone it, it's not torture. I guess all the CIA has to do is turn over the detainees to some "independent contractors" and explicitly tell them not to torture those guys and then they're off the hook. After all, they won't have known that those detainees would be tortured. And if it happened, well they certainly didn't condone it.


Tell me Coyotes, what would YOU define as torture? Give me your concrete, surely-can't-be-twisted-around definition.

Um, I'm the one who's been saying throughout this thread that there's no such thing as a concrete, surely can't be twisted around definition. I have my definition, you have yours. Let's take mock executions. If we're just talking about letting a detainee hear screams and a gunshot from the next room, I'll say no, that's not torture. Extremely unpleasant and unnerving? Yes. Torture? No. I don't think that's any worse than a police detective trying to get a confession out of a murder suspect by bringing up the death penalty. You've gone on record and said yes, it is torture. Okay, we disagree. Now what?

[LnGrrrR]

What person in a prisoner of war camp wouldn't have fear of imminent death. The fear of imminent death would already be a factor in their mental psyche regardless.

Again...you wouldn't even have these people detained much less worried about what the rules of detainment were.

Way to conflate. There's a difference between a fear of death (hey, I might get hit by a car today) and an imminent fear of death (hey, a car is rushing to hit me headon at 100 MPH).

Additionally, the fear of death in these cases is ACTIVELY generated by the captors. They are DELIBERATELY INDUCING this fear in order to gain information.

[Wild Cobra]

As Chump said, I would think that mock execution would fall under our treaty obligations.

That becomes very subjective. Cannot convict without solid definitions. We all have different beliefs of things worded in generalities.

Is a mock execution torture? That depends on the person I would say, if you are going to consider such things. Myself, I would prefer to be executed than being locked up for life. I would call it a relief, not torture.

Perspectives and points of view are hard to legislate. Without specifically mentioning threats of death, as a form of torture, you cannot call it torture in my opinion.

[LnGrrrR]

So in other words, if we play dumb, turn a blind eye and don't condone it, it's not torture. I guess all the CIA has to do is turn over the detainees to some "independent contractors" and explicitly tell them not to torture those guys and then they're off the hook. After all, they won't have known that those detainees would be tortured. And if it happened, well they certainly didn't condone it.

That's already happened... see extradition...

But the difference is that we take active steps to PREVENT those conditions in jail. Guards/jailors aren't the ones performing the torture.


Um, I'm the one who's been saying throughout this thread that there's no such thing as a concrete, surely can't be twisted around definition. I have my definition, you have yours. Let's take mock executions. If we're just talking about letting a detainee hear screams and a gunshot from the next room, I'll say no, that's not torture. I don't think that's any worse than a police detective trying to get a confession out of a murder suspect by bringing up the death penalty. You've gone on record and said yes, it is torture. Okay, we disagree. Now what?

You may say it's not torture, but the majority of medical professionals and legal scholars say it is. Who should we side with?

Your false equivalence is the same as saying, "Well, I think that child molestation is bad, but NAMBLA says its ok. How will we ever determine what's right and moral?"

[ChumpDumper]

That becomes very subjective. Cannot convict without solid definitions. We all have different beliefs of things worded in generalities.

Is a mock execution torture? That depends on the person I would say, if you are going to consider such things. Myself, I would prefer to be executed than being locked up for life. I would call it a relief, not torture.

Perspectives and points of view are hard to legislate. Without specifically mentioning threats of death, as a form of torture, you cannot call it torture in my opinion.Mock executions are a fun pastime for the whole family.

[Wild Cobra]

Additionally, the fear of death in these cases is ACTIVELY generated by the captors. They are DELIBERATELY INDUCING this fear in order to gain information.
Yes, fear I would say is the primary focus of psychological torture.

Do you think terrorists fear dying?

[LnGrrrR]

Perspectives and points of view are hard to legislate. Without specifically mentioning threats of death, as a form of torture, you cannot call it torture in my opinion.

To me, that's like saying you can't prosecure child molestation unless you specifically list the acts in the bill against it.

[Wild Cobra]

That's already happened... see extradition...
extradition, or do you mean rendition?

Extradition and rendition are two entirely different things, and often confused (purposely by the left.)

[Wild Cobra]

To me, that's like saying you can't prosecure child molestation unless you specifically list the acts in the bill against it.
No, there are plenty of definitions for child molestation, and a child is not considered at the age of consent. We are talking about age of consent terrorists, aren't we?

[coyotes_geek]

That's already happened... see extradition...

But the difference is that we take active steps to PREVENT those conditions in jail. Guards/jailors aren't the ones performing the torture.

So despite our steps to prevent convicts from being subjected to physical abuse, what percentage of the convict population do you think has been physically abused?


You may say it's not torture, but the majority of medical professionals and legal scholars say it is. Who should we side with?

Medical professionals and legal scholars also say it's wrong to take a life. Do we need to try every soldier who has killed someone in battle or every citizen who shot someone in self defense for murder? Or do the circumstances play a role in our assessment of whether or not the action was justified?


Your false equivalence is the same as saying, "Well, I think that child molestation is bad, but NAMBLA says its ok. How will we ever determine what's right and moral?"

Huh? If there's a false equivalence here it's you trying to equate underage children to terror suspects.

[SpurNation]

The ones not being threatened with imminent death.

How is a person "witnessing" a mock execution being threatened with imminent death?

[ChumpDumper]

How is a person "witnessing" a mock execution being threatened with imminent death?The implicit or explicit intimation that the same will happen to that person if he doesn't cooperate. Otherwise, why would it even be done?

Don't be disingenuous.

[DarrinS]

Since the left now has absolute power, why don't they just dismantle the CIA.


They've always hated it.

[LnGrrrR]

extradition, or do you mean rendition?

Extradition and rendition are two entirely different things, and often confused (purposely by the left.)

Technically, I was referring to "extraordinary rendition".

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

[LnGrrrR]

No, there are plenty of definitions for child molestation, and a child is not considered at the age of consent. We are talking about age of consent terrorists, aren't we?

There's plenty of definitions of torture as well, and all of them that have been put forth by recognized medical facilities include mock execution as torture.

[LnGrrrR]

Medical professionals and legal scholars also say it's wrong to take a life. Do we need to try every soldier who has killed someone in battle or every citizen who shot someone in self defense for murder? Or do the circumstances play a role in our assessment of whether or not the action was justified?

Are there not laws that rigidly condone a soldier's actions? Just because a soldier can take a life in battle, does that mean he can take one at home? Of course not. Yes, circumstances DO play a role in our assessment in whether or not an action is justified. But that's usually reserved for JURIES to decide, not laws.

Set the law as being against torture, and then, if a person if found to have gone over that line, send them to court, and let a jury determine if the action was justified.

Edit: Additionally, we haven't signed any treaties saying we won't kill anyone. We HAVE signed treaties saying we won't torture.

[Wild Cobra]

Technically, I was referring to "extraordinary rendition".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
I though so, but do you have any examples? As far as I know, all cases said to be that turned out to be deportation. The fist one that comes to mind is the Canadian citizen. He became a naturalized Canadian, but committed crimes in his home country, and was deported to there by the USA rather than sent to Canada.

That's why I said liberal intentionally confuse the two.

[Wild Cobra]

There's plenty of definitions of torture as well, and all of them that have been put forth by recognized medical facilities include mock execution as torture.
That's the first I heard. Can you source that?

[LnGrrrR]

I though so, but do you have any examples? As far as I know, all cases said to be that turned out to be deportation. The fist one that comes to mind is the Canadian citizen. He became a naturalized Canadian, but committed crimes in his home country, and was deported to there by the USA rather than sent to Canada.

That's why I said liberal intentionally confuse the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_El-Masri

[SpurNation]

The implicit or explicit intimation that the same will happen to that person if he doesn't cooperate. Otherwise, why would it even be done?

Don't be disingenuous.

Now we're splitting hairs and bringing into account that we can assume what an individual will think.

What happened to not assuming and basing arguement on the letter of the law and not the interpretation of the law.

You know I consder myself neither Liberal or Conservative though I tend to have more conservative values with my day to day life.

But let me share a story with you that reminds me of almost every Liberal I have a discussion with.

The questioned was asked one day...Why are Fire Engines Red

A predominant Liberal answered:

There are 12" in a ruler and Queen Elisabeth is a ruler. Queen Elisabeth is also one of the largest ships to sail the seven seas. The seas have fish...the fish have fins...the Fins have been fighting the Russians for years and Russia's color of their flag is red.

[ChumpDumper]

Now we're splitting hairs and bringing into account that we can assume what an individual will think.So what is the purpose of staging a mock execution?

Don't be disingenuous.

[LnGrrrR]

That's the first I heard. Can you source that?

Find me a medical professional group that DOESN'T include mock execution as torture...

http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/198506.aspx

And as listed above, the definition for torture under the Treaty. Most definitions list torture as "cruel, unusual and inhumane" punishment, because it's nigh impossible to list all the possible things that might fall under the term "torture" in specific details.

[Wild Cobra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_El-Masri
I forgot about that example. Again however, he was not a German born citizen. Now I agree the CIA was wrong to kidnap him in Germany. Still, how many people are locked up all the time who are innocent. No way to stop it. Accidents happen. It would be nice to know if his allegations are true or not, and I hope he was given some kind of money for loss of time, work, etc.

Another Tenent blunder it looks like to me...

[LnGrrrR]

Now we're splitting hairs and bringing into account that we can assume what an individual will think.

What happened to not assuming and basing arguement on the letter of the law and not the interpretation of the law.

You know I consder myself neither Liberal or Conservative though I tend to have more conservative values with my day to day life.

But let me share a story with you that reminds me of almost every Liberal I have a discussion with.

The questioned was asked one day...Why are Fire Engines Red

A predominant Liberal answered:

There are 12" in a ruler and Queen Elisabeth is a ruler. Queen Elisabeth is also one of the largest ships to sail the seven seas. The seas have fish...the fish have fins...the Fins have been fighting the Russians for years and Russia's color of their flag is red.

Thanks for the non-sequitur.

Tell me, is it possible to list EXACTLY what torture is? If not, how should we write a provision against torture? Shouldn't we favor the side of being more humane, rather than less?

[LnGrrrR]

I forgot about that example. Again however, he was not a German born citizen. Now I agree the CIA was wrong to kidnap him in Germany. Still, how many people are locked up all the time who are innocent. No way to stop it. Accidents happen. It would be nice to know if his allegations are true or not, and I hope he was given some kind of money for loss of time, work, etc.

Another Tenent blunder it looks like to me...

Sure, accidents happen. But it's good to recognize when they do, and not just blow it off as "Whoops". It's one thing to be locked up, it's another to be kidnapped, flown off to a foreign country, and interrogated.

[SpurNation]

So what is the purpose of staging a mock execution?

To see if it will generate information.

And the last time I looked...being disingenuous isn't against the law either.

You are "opinionating" it should be against the law because of your "interpretation" of the law. But it's not against the law in how the law is written...prior to 2004 or after it's mandation.


For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Where does it say witnessing a mock execution of another as inflicting pain or suffering to the person witnessing the act?

Being there consequently will place you in an inherent or incidental situation that may occur to somebody else.

[ChumpDumper]

Blah, blah, blah.You didn't answer the question.

What is the purpose of staging a mock execution?

How would it gain information? Why would it compel someone to cooperate as opposed to other methods?

[LnGrrrR]

So, are you trying to argue that a mock execution arises from, is inherent to, or is incidental to lawful sanctions? REALLY? That's what you're trying to argue?

[ChumpDumper]

So, are you trying to argue that a mock execution arises from, is inherent to, or is incidental to lawful sanctions? REALLY? That's what you're trying to argue?Yes, he's trying to say there is a law that allows for prisoners of war to witness mock executions of other prisoners or have themselves subjected to mock executions.

[SpurNation]

Blah Blah Blah???

Are you really that adolescent in your older age?

If you want to erase my posts and replace them with your own "interpretation" of my posts and quote them as my words then their is no sense in discussing this with an adolescent mind.

I thought I was having a discussion with an adult until you did that.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you really that adolescent in your older age?

If you want to erase my posts and replace them with your own "interpretation" of my posts and quote them as my words then their is no sense in discussing this with an adolescent mind.

I thought I was having a discussion with an adult until you did that.Anything to avoid answering the questions, eh?

I have little tolerance for your kind of stalling and misdirection ("Oh, that reminds me of an amusing anecdote that might take up some time....").

What is the purpose of staging a mock execution?

How would it gain information? Why would it compel someone to cooperate as opposed to other methods?

[SpurNation]

So, are you trying to argue that a mock execution arises from, is inherent to, or is incidental to lawful sanctions? REALLY? That's what you're trying to argue?

Are you saying if I witnessed a crime (or mock crime) I am perpetrated in that act or just a witness?

[SpurNation]

What is the purpose of staging a mock execution?

How would it gain information? Why would it compel someone to cooperate as opposed to other methods?

Your still asking questions that pertain to opinion and not law. Your opinion is what you believe and mine (and as I gather I'm not the only one) is my opinion.

You choose to question me...I give answers...You don't like the answer...you defend your own... I ask you questions...it's a revolving door.

I beleive it is not against the law to stage mock executions...you do.

As it stands now....it's both just a matter of opinion.

[ChumpDumper]

Your still asking questions that pertain to opinion and not law. Your opinion is what you believe and mine (and as I gather I'm not the only one) is my opinion.

You choose to question me...I give answers...You don't like the answer...you defend your own... I ask you questions...it's a revolving door.

I beleive it is not against the law to stage mock executions...you do.

As it stands now....it's both just a matter of opinion.On the contrary, these questions have everything to do with the law as it defines torture.

That's why you refuse to answer them.

[SpurNation]

On the contrary, these questions have everything to do with the law as it defines torture.

That's why you refuse to answer them.

You're contrary...not the laws. You're of an opinion...not a mandate.

It's the same as all Libertarian Socialist across the nation...squeeky wheel gets the grease...throw enough crap on the wall something will stick...difuse this countries founding principles one anarchist idea at a time.

All I know is that I might be the minority now compared to what is happening today via litigated cohersion but I do know I will not go down without a fight (literally) for the beliefs I know were once that of our founding fathers.

Would you ever face that imminent danger in the face and hold your ground? I think you are the type that would turn and run.

[LnGrrrR]

Are you saying if I witnessed a crime (or mock crime) I am perpetrated in that act or just a witness?

You're a witness. However, if you stage a fake crime in order to dupe someone, you're probably liable.

Of course, crimes don't, on their own, generate an immediate threat of death. The thought of the people interrogating you shooting a person in the next room probably would.

[LnGrrrR]

You're contrary...not the laws. You're of an opinion...not a mandate.

It's the same as all Libertarian Socialist across the nation...squeeky wheel gets the grease...throw enough crap on the wall something will stick...difuse this countries founding principles one anarchist idea at a time.

All I know is that I might be the minority now compared to what is happening today via litigated cohersion but I do know I will not go down without a fight (literally) for the beliefs I know were once that of our founding fathers.

Would you ever face that imminent danger in the face and hold your ground? I think you are the type that would turn and run.

Wtf? You really think the Founding Fathers would support this? That it's an IDEAL of theirs?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/



An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Thomas Paine


http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=277


It seems that after the battle, the Continentals were preparing to run some of the British Empire’s German mercenaries through what they called the “gauntlet.” General Washington discovered this and intervened. As Horton explained in the Huffington Post, Washington then issued an order to his troops regarding prisoners of war:

“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1217-30.htm


His thoughts on the subject, expressed in a 1777 letter to his wife, might make a profitable read for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as we endeavor to win hearts and minds in Iraq. Adams wrote: "I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this — Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best Policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won't prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed."


In accordance with this proud American tradition, President Lincoln instituted the first formal code of conduct for the humane treatment of prisoners of war in 1863. Lincoln's order forbade any form of torture or cruelty, and it became the model for the 1929 Geneva Convention. Dwight Eisenhower made a point to guarantee exemplary treatment to German POWs in World War II, and Gen. Douglas McArthur ordered application of the Geneva Convention during the Korean War, even though the U.S. was not yet a signatory. In the Vietnam War, the United States extended the convention's protection to Viet Cong prisoners even though the law did not technically require it.

Don't go wrapping yourself in the flag to support mock executions in the name of the Founding Fathers. Do it with your own voice.

[Stringer_Bell]

I really could give two shits about what happens to the people in these detention camps and secret prisons. If "we" know for a fact that we're dealing with a bad guy, all options should be available to extract information.

To me, the much more important issue is understanding how they come to be in these places and under what evidence they are being held. Often militias just pick up Arab looking dudes and sell them to the US in exchange for money/weapons, claiming they are terror suspects or militant extremists. That's the problem. You can't torture people you don't have any evidence on because they'll lie to get out of it or honestly have nothing to say.

[ChumpDumper]

You're contrary...not the laws. You're of an opinion...not a mandate.

It's the same as all Libertarian Socialist across the nation...squeeky wheel gets the grease...throw enough crap on the wall something will stick...difuse this countries founding principles one anarchist idea at a time.

All I know is that I might be the minority now compared to what is happening today via litigated cohersion but I do know I will not go down without a fight (literally) for the beliefs I know were once that of our founding fathers.

Would you ever face that imminent danger in the face and hold your ground? I think you are the type that would turn and run.Would you ever answer a question when it is presented to you directly?

I know you are the type that turns and runs.

Coward.

[ChumpDumper]

It's the same song and dance every time.

Once someone here has painted himself in a corner and knows it and is faced with a question he doesn't want to answer, he:

1) Pretends the question was never asked.

2) Tries to pretend the question isn't relevant.

3) Starts making speeches and flails around posting nonsense as a stalling tactic.

4) Launches personal attacks against strangers on a message board.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh look, micca's here to demonstrate!

[hope4dopes]

Hey LnGrr you have any kids?

[SpurNation]

LnGrr...I am not advocating injuring any prisoner of war through physical means. I never in this thread condoned such action. I have merely stated that if it is known that a person...not the general encampment of prisoners...is to have information that would help lead to saving the lives of innocent people and a mocked execution might derive that information I would be for it.

Also...it is an opinion that that might be illegal but it is not clearly defined. One could assess either way because of the generality of the law.

George Washington and the troops of the revolution war did not deal with an enemy of the likes we are dealing with regarding terrorists. They do not have a national affiliation with any country. They hold no regard for anything other than their radical religous beliefs and have tortured, mamed and killed countless of innocent civilians to brutally and unmercifully obtain their objective. I don't think Washington would have a problem with what I just explained and IMO if they had a single prisoner that they knew had valuable information I think the means of extractment might have been more brutal than of today.

I enjoy this discussion with you. I can at least voice opinion and extract useful information I might not have known otherwise with your posts.

Unlike that with some other Chumps posting in this thread.

[DrHouse]

Torture has never been proven to generate reliable information. People are simply going to say whatever their captors want them to say to get out of a potentially painful situation. When you look at the positives and negatives of condoning the kinds of torture that went on during the Bush administration it's impossible to argue that we are better off as a country for having allowed it to happen.

It seems as if conservatives want all options on the table no matter what if lives are at stake. The problem with that is without a clearly defined statue of limitations we have rampant abuses of power. If you believe what went on in Abu Gharib was acceptable you are a sick human being and frankly not someone who believes in the principles this country was founded upon.

We cannot claim any sort of moral superiority or higher ground if we act like savages ourselves. We must set the example. You all have no idea how glad I am that Obama is president and we no longer have Neanderthal conservative monkeys running the show. The Conservatives in this nation are now outcasts, and after reading the tripe they post on this forum I am fucking happy as a clam.

[SnakeBoy]

It's the same song and dance every time.

Once someone here has painted himself in a corner and knows it and is faced with a question he doesn't want to answer, he:

1) Pretends the question was never asked.

2) Tries to pretend the question isn't relevant.

3) Starts making speeches and flails around posting nonsense as a stalling tactic.

4) Launches personal attacks against strangers on a message board.


Yeah, I hate it when you do that.

[Jacob1983]

It if saves lives, do it. Don't be a hippie or pussy. Just suck it up and do it. If you have to beat the shit out of someone to save people from a terrorist attack, then that's what you do. People's lives are more important than the legality of torture. We get it. Torture is bad and wrong but if it saves people's lives then who gives a fuck? I'm not an expert on torture. I'm sure there have been more times where it's been ineffective than effective. If you're dealing with a terrorist that acts like the way The Joker did in The Dark Knight with the line "you have nothing to threaten with me", then you might be fucked. You might have to call in Jack Bauer. Jack Bauer is a better at torture than Batman. Batman cares too much. Bauer does not give a fuck.:ihit He will doe whatever it takes to save American lives. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

The Joker....The Dark Knight....Jack Bauer.....Batman....:lol

[LnGrrrR]

Hey LnGrr you have any kids?

One on the way.... and before you ask this silly question, I will post what I've posted before.

If it were my OWN child, or family, yes, I might be willing to do something like that. That doesn't make it moral, and that certainly doesn't mean we should make it "ok" by signing it into law. Just like if my wife cheats on me, I don't think it should be legal for me to go shoot the man she cheated on with.

[LnGrrrR]

LnGrr...I am not advocating injuring any prisoner of war through physical means. I never in this thread condoned such action. I have merely stated that if it is known that a person...not the general encampment of prisoners...is to have information that would help lead to saving the lives of innocent people and a mocked execution might derive that information I would be for it.

Also...it is an opinion that that might be illegal but it is not clearly defined. One could assess either way because of the generality of the law.

George Washington and the troops of the revolution war did not deal with an enemy of the likes we are dealing with regarding terrorists. They do not have a national affiliation with any country. They hold no regard for anything other than their radical religous beliefs and have tortured, mamed and killed countless of innocent civilians to brutally and unmercifully obtain their objective. I don't think Washington would have a problem with what I just explained and IMO if they had a single prisoner that they knew had valuable information I think the means of extractment might have been more brutal than of today.

I enjoy this discussion with you. I can at least voice opinion and extract useful information I might not have known otherwise with your posts.

Unlike that with some other Chumps posting in this thread.

Spurnation, the same towards you. I can understand you having an opinion and wishing to debate it. I just hold this issue somewhat close to my heart. I love America, and it's one of the main reasons I serve in the Air Force. It hurts me to see people accepting this, as I think it's a stain on our nation's honor.

Washington, Adams and the other founding fathers knew that by treating the British soldiers well, we would convince them of the righteousness of our cause. Only by being better morally would we ultimately win the people over to our cause. Otherwise, what's the point of siding with us?

The people we are interrogating may only believe in their gods and wish the worst on us. But do you think everyone that is against us is a complete radical? By seeing things like this, other nations will not feel that there is something BETTER about America. Something UNIQUE. A set of morals that we hold, that make us who we are.

Even if this information could save lives, I am against allowing people to do so legally. Torture is not just physical damage. Torture can be mental damage too, and it has been classified as such throughout history. And yes, sometimes just the DEGREE of something can make such torture. Is it torture to slap someone? Of course not. Would it be considered torture though if you slapped someone repeatedly, say, for an hour, every day, while in solitary confinement? Tough to say. What about if you punched them every day instead? It's a matter of degree.

The same goes with mental torture. Is it torture to keep someone up for a day? How about two days? Three? The same action which might be legal when kept to ONE day could be considered torture when set to, say 5 days without sleep, or 7, or 10.

Mock executions have been used a method of information extraction for centuries, and it's been shown by medical technicians and physicians to lead to traumatic events later in life, such as flashbacks and PSTD. The only way it is effective is if it breaks down the individual on a basic level; you take away a bit of his humanity, turn him into an animal.

This is not even mentioning the fact that many interrogators say the most effective way to interrogate is the 'normal' method... gaining a captive's trust after building a rapport with him. But people cite the "ticking time bomb" and are willing to take the short route. Sadly, a few interrogators who have taken the short route have lived to regret it, and share stories of how it not only debased the men they have tortured, but themselves as well.

Staging things like mock executions, forcing prisoners to strip naked and threatening to use drills on them, smearing menstrual blood on them, threatening to rape them, waterboarding... these methods should never, in my opinion, be used by America. They are methods that have been used by repressive regimes throughout history, and not they are being used by us. What does that say about us as a country?

[jman3000]

How is it ok to say it's fine to do this kind of stuff because the forefathers didn't foresee the kind of enemy we'd be facing, and not ok to say that the forefathers didn't foresee the kind of firearms we'd be producing nowadays, so guns shouldn't be so freely wielded?

Give me guns and give me civility towards our prisoners, even if they would not bestow the same civility towards myself.

It seems like compromise with our values is only ok when it suits our needs.

[LnGrrrR]

Another point:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/the-american-way-of-torture-ctd.html



We need to see the blacked out portions of the 2004 report, including how four prisoners were tortured to death.

[LnGrrrR]

What we considered torture during WWII:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-gestapo-precedent-for-eits.html#more

[LnGrrrR]

Why torture might make it tougher for the FBI to operate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2227085/?from=rss

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/15/bagram/index.html



Yesterday, the Obama DOJ -- as expected -- filed a legal brief (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/US-Bagram-brief-9-14-09.pdf) (.pdf) which adopted the arguments originally made by the Bush DOJ to insist that detainees whom they abduct from around the world and then ship to Bagram (rather than Guantanamo) lack any constitutional rights whatsoever, including habeas review. The Obama administration is appealing from a decision (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZS.html) (.pdf) by Bush-43-appointed District Court Judge John Bates which, applying Boumediene, held that detainees at Bagram who are originally detained outside of Afghanistan have the right to habeas review (Afghan citizens detained in Afghanistan have none, he found). In other words, after Obama praised Boumediene as "defending the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy," he's now attempting to make a complete mockery of that decision by insisting that it is inapplicable as long as he decides to ship detainees from, say, Thailand to Bagram rather than Guantanamo. Obama apparently sees "our core values" as nothing more than an absurd shell game, where the U.S. Government can evade the limits of the Constitution by simply moving the locale of its due-process-free detention system.