Reply With Quote
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. - 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
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. - George Orwell
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"
- Notes: allegedly said by 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 (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 (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 (miscellaneous quotation, no date)
In that case..
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- Sono un
I call dibs on royalties.
That worked better than any torture technique.
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?
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.
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.
oh that's brilliant numbnuts...
is it difficult to survive a mock execution? it is when you think you're about to die... jackass.
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.
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%?
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?
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.
I'd pay for you to torture me /hubba hubba
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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...)
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions