CIA staged mock executions

[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/sh...ad.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 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 ins uted 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 s 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 ing 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 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 ? 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 ed. 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 . He will doe whatever it takes to save American lives.

[ChumpDumper]

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

[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.co...rture-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.co...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/greenwa...ram/index.html

Yesterday, the Obama DOJ -- as expected -- filed a legal brief (.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 cons utional rights whatsoever, including habeas review. The Obama administration is appealing from a decision (.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 s game, where the U.S. Government can evade the limits of the Cons ution by simply moving the locale of its due-process-free detention system.