CIA staged mock executions

[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 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 .

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.

[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 ins utions 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 cir cisions 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 cir cisions 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 ins utions 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_...gainst_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/563...-feedback-loop

According to the 2004 CIA inspector general 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/greenwa.../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/obsid...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?