U.S. Outsourcing Torture

[CptStern]

ah! Maher Arar ..spent the better part of pages 1 - 6 talking about that in this very thread ...that's what all the bickering was about

 

[Calanen]

and what may I ask, is this post?

This has nothing to do with my topic. Please remove. Same with you Stern

please keep this thread on topic. Keep your petty problems with Stern to PM's.

If he launches into a tirade, I think I get a right of reply, or maybe I don't even get that now?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

My thread buddy, I have a right to ask people who are dragging it off topic with petty fights to stop.

First, I'm not your buddy.

Second, I have a right to ask you as one lowly member to the next, not to take up a moderators duties and attitudes -- the reprecussions of such are members acting like little Gods and Monsters.

If you wished to express that you had superiority in this discussion, it would've been better had when your title turns to that of a moderatorship.

Until then, you have no superiorty -- your just a lowly minion like us.

Give me a single thing in this post that correlates in any way shape or form to the US outsourcing of terror which I posted this thread to discuss.

Bullshit. He's simply highlighting your arrogance, which is even more evident above.

Seems as you explicity ignore those you prefer, and dog after those which you dont. :/ Shameful. Oh, and it was'nt a question you posted -- it had a period at the end. :/

If he launches into a tirade, I think I get a right of reply, or maybe I don't even get that now?

No you don't. Its how the forums work here! They say something "bigot, asshole, etc." -- nothing happens. We say "bigot, asshole, etc." ... well, then we just start getting wacked as if we were in a Saprano mafia.

 

[Maxi]

Oi seriously! stop yelling at eachother and let's actually discuss the subject... mmkay?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

US Outsourcing torture

Okay, question to all the people who support the ideal the US is outsourcing torture -- if the US is so bad, how come they have to take their alleged prisoners to other countries simply to torture them?

Doe'snt it make those countries just as bad if not worse, for harboring such indecent human rights to begin with?

 

[Calanen]

1. Incidentally, Nazi expansion started out with using a certain doctrine as a scapegoat to 'free' states from their national government; the parallels are there if you look hard enough, but bear in mind Bushes intentions are irrelevant at this stage

2.

The USA is equal to Nazi expansion? And did they subjugate Europe when they rid you of your problems with Nazi expansion? No - they left you in peace to bitch and moan and complain about Bush being the leader of the Fourth Reich. The freedom you have now to complain about the USA, was provided to you by the very policies you condemn - ie America having the balls to rid the world of tyrants overseas, including the Nazis. When its Europe being subjugated by a dictator, hell, USA come on over! But if its anywhere else....America just wants the oil and to oppress the people of Iraq! But in Europe, it was just fine to remove the Third Reich, because they were oppressing you guys. And America did not plunder Europe, or put people into slavery. They just fixed the place, gave you billions in aid, wrote the money off, and then left.
Why you now think they are going to do anything different in Iraq is astonishing.

You can apply all the same arguments about why there should have been no Iraqi war to why the USA should never have stormed the beaches at Normandy and liberated Western Europe. Hitler posed no threat to the continental USA, ie he could not do an amphibious invasion of California. Hitler was of the USA's own creation, Stern would say, which means that you don't have to do anything to stop him.

And you can't bomb Germany either, because, you might hit a water treatment plant and then the kiddies would have no water, which is baddy bad bad. So maybe the USA should have just imposed some sanctions on Hitler and let Europe tough it out under the Third Reich? But then again, sanctions cause food shortages and so on, which is also baddy bad bad - so maybe, the USA should have done nothing....

Seems like by the way the Euroliberals carry on nowadays, they would thank the USA for adopting such a sensible and non-interventionist policy, and that the Americans should have stayed out of the war in Europe and just fought Japan. After all, there is no oil in Europe (or not much) so why go there right?

 

[kmack]

Okay, question to all the people who support the ideal the US is outsourcing torture -- if the US is so bad, how come they have to take their alleged prisoners to other countries simply to torture them?

Doe'snt it make those countries just as bad if not worse, for harboring such indecent human rights to begin with?

because, we condemn torture on one hand (chastizing these countries and pushing for reforms), and then on the other, we bring SUSPECTS to these countries to be tortured (I listed 4 specific examples, all of which resulted in no formal charges).

In my opinion, saying you don't believe in torture, condemning those that do, and then bringing your own prisoners to those very torturers and the continuing to pretend to hate torture is hypocritical and unnacceptable.

 

[kmack]

First, I'm not your buddy.

Second, I have a right to ask you as one lowly member to the next, not to take up a moderators duties and attitudes -- the reprecussions of such are members acting like little Gods and Monsters.

If you wished to express that you had superiority in this discussion, it would've been better had when your title turns to that of a moderatorship.

Until then, you have no superiorty -- your just a lowly minion like us.




Seems as you explicity ignore those you prefer, and dog after those which you dont. :/ Shameful. Oh, and it was'nt a question you posted -- it had a period at the end. :/



No you don't. Its how the forums work here! They say something "bigot, asshole, etc." -- nothing happens. We say "bigot, asshole, etc." ... well, then we just start getting wacked as if we were in a Saprano mafia.

Tell me one thing in that post that correlates to my thread.

 

[Calanen]

No you don't. Its how the forums work here! They say something "bigot, asshole, etc." -- nothing happens. We say "bigot, asshole, etc." ... well, then we just start getting wacked as if we were in a Saprano mafia.

I think the proponents of the left get more of a pass to be personally insulting and troll than those on the right do, given the sound of some crickets chirping after some particularly outrageous things were recently said that had I posted I would have expected, and the left would have demanded, that I received warnings or banning for. Thats just human nature though, and few rise above it to police their own.

That said, Kmack is on 8 warnings and he's a leftie dude.

 

[CptStern]

I think the proponents of the left get more of a pass to be personally insulting and troll than those on the right do, given the sound of some crickets chirping after some particularly outrageous things were recently said that had I posted I would have expected, and the left would have demanded, that I received warnings or banning for. Thats just human nature though, and few rise above it to police their own.

That said, Kmack is on 8 warnings and he's a leftie dude.

I dont agree, no one on the left has said racist remarks, no "lefty" has harrassed members, no one on the left has uttered death threats, or wished for another member to be tortured or even killed ...and I'm just talking about my own experience ..I've recieved them all ...btw Calanen I know you're referring to me when you say: "after some particularly outrageous things were recently said "

would you care to elaborate as to why the are "outrageous"? ...maybe before you start listing it you can take a second look at all the hate you've aimed my way recently


"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

 

[jondy]

The USA is equal to Nazi expansion? And did they subjugate Europe when they rid you of your problems with Nazi expansion? No - they left you in peace to bitch and moan and complain about Bush being the leader of the Fourth Reich. The freedom you have now to complain about the USA, was provided to you by the very policies you condemn - ie America having the balls to rid the world of tyrants overseas, including the Nazis. When its Europe being subjugated by a dictator, hell, USA come on over! But if its anywhere else....America just wants the oil and to oppress the people of Iraq! But in Europe, it was just fine to remove the Third Reich, because they were oppressing you guys. And America did not plunder Europe, or put people into slavery. They just fixed the place, gave you billions in aid, wrote the money off, and then left.
Why you now think they are going to do anything different in Iraq is astonishing.

You can apply all the same arguments about why there should have been no Iraqi war to why the USA should never have stormed the beaches at Normandy and liberated Western Europe. Hitler posed no threat to the continental USA, ie he could not do an amphibious invasion of California. Hitler was of the USA's own creation, Stern would say, which means that you don't have to do anything to stop him.

And you can't bomb Germany either, because, you might hit a water treatment plant and then the kiddies would have no water, which is baddy bad bad. So maybe the USA should have just imposed some sanctions on Hitler and let Europe tough it out under the Third Reich? But then again, sanctions cause food shortages and so on, which is also baddy bad bad - so maybe, the USA should have done nothing....

Seems like by the way the Euroliberals carry on nowadays, they would thank the USA for adopting such a sensible and non-interventionist policy, and that the Americans should have stayed out of the war in Europe and just fought Japan. After all, there is no oil in Europe (or not much) so why go there right?

1. You're talking about two very different wars.

2. The only reason you guys 'came over' and helped us out was because Japan bombed the shit out of you. Before that, you sat by and offered a little financial support, but did sweet F.A else.

3. America made itself one of the great economic world powers out of the second world war by keeping the cash flowing, so don't pull the 'generosity' line on me.

4. This was a tiny part of my post that you chose to nitpick at. You ignored the rest of my points. If you want a discussion ( or a thankyou for you guys bailing us out in a time before you were even born ) start a new thread, but don't derail the discussion here.

5. I didn't post that message in this thread. Wrong one.

I think that's about it

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Tell me one thing in that post that correlates to my thread.

The fact you started it in your thread. But please, keep such qualitive drivel to my PM's box from now on.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I dont agree, no one on the left has said racist remarks, no "lefty" has harrassed members, no one on the left has uttered death threats, or wished for another member to be tortured or even killed ...and I'm just talking about my own experience ..I've recieved them all ...btw Calanen I know you're referring to me when you say: "after some particularly outrageous things were recently said "

Right stern, you've never insulted the Right? That is laughable at best. You're reasoning behind it: They deserved it.

 

[CptStern]

sure I've insulted ..but I've never made racist remarks, I've never threatened anyone or wished torture on them.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

No-ones even said that to you Stern. Not even I.

I think your making this up to gain sympathies you dont really need -- and if people are sending threats, why not report them?

sure I've insulted ..but I've never made racist remarks,

Admiting to one does'nt count ...

 

[CptStern]

No-ones even said that to you Stern. Not even I.

I think your making this up to gain sympathies you dont really need

ya, as if my motivation is popularity ..if that were true I'd be saying the exact opposite of everything I say

-- and if people are sending threats, why not report them?

I havent received any threats a long time, although I do occasionaly get nasty pm's ..nothing too shocking just the same ol "anti-american" nonsense people tend to say when they're outraged. Shellback recently made a few racist innuendos and someone else said I should be tortured but more often then not it's the same ol tired rhetoric of anti-american, commie, hippie etc

Admiting to one does'nt count ...

I can never tell what you're getting at, you make so little sense

 

[mabufo]

This needs to be locked... obviously no one is capable of adding anything else to the topic...

 

[gh0st]

Stern would you say that the quote in my sig is badass?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I can never tell what you're getting at, you make so little sense

Well folks, thats the trade-off you get for attempting to speak idiot to a real idiot ... sigh*

I mean, the only two things on this earth who've mastered the language of idiot were the Charismatic Church and Milk Gurgeling babies, so excuse me Mr. Stern if something did'nt translate right. :/

 

[T.H.C.138]

screw it..I think we should pull all our people out of ANY other country,no more funding for any country from us..

no more immigration,no more anything...they want our help and piss on us for it,well have fun without our help..

seriously most of you seem to forget history..war is hell..shit happens in war,both sides do some f'ed up things...

do they ever talk of the treachery and cruelty of the viet cong? no its evil america again...the holocaust? that never happened,right?

we didn't need america's help,they forced it on us..we wanted to be slaughtered and enslaved...right?

you don't like america?fine,don't like it..

but don't cry when someone doesn't like YOU or your country after hearing you piss on about their country for months on end with never a good thing to say..

this is actually directed at many people not just one in particular...american or otherwise

/end rant

 

[Mechagodzilla]

After reading through this thick morass of a thread, I've noticed a trend of blame-shifting about the entire topic at hand.
'Clinton invented extraordinary rendition' and 'Iraq and Syria are much worse though.' and 'but they're just lousy terrorists'.

Those, and responses like them are needless and really just muddy the waters of an absolutely clear point.
That point, for those who are unsure, is that TORTURE IS WRONG, and yet THE U.S. DOES IT ALL THE TIME.

Torture is, in essence, a form of rape. I don't care how you spin it. It is. It is supposed to be banned from happening in our countries because of it is horrific and inhuman.

This is the war on terror, with 'freedom on the march'. 'Bringing the lawless terrorists to justice'.
Yet people seem so steadfastly to support torture: the act of removing essential human rights and freedoms from an individual in an effort to control them.
It is the antithesis of freedom. It is illegal on the international scale.

So, here we are, above the law, inflicting pain on people. No trials, no evidence. Just terror for the people vaguely suspected of being guilty of something undefined.
I hate to say it, but at least bin Laden bothered to make his motivations crystal clear when he did it.

Oh, but Saddam was much worse? I guess there is a line to cross before torture starts being reprehensible.

You hear this a lot when people talk about WW2: "The U.S. exterminated 10 000 jews, but Hitler exterminated far more!"
No, wait, that never happened. America didn't kill any innocent people.
But why didn't they? After all, it would have been okay, since they wouldn't be the worst, right?

The reason they didn't is simple. When something is absolutely horrible, you don't just keep going with an awkward limbo of "how low can you go?" while still trying not to stop. You stop.

As for the argument that 'they're just terrorists', that's just wrong on many levels.
-First, these are suspected terrorists. In our society, we do not punish people who are not yet convicted. That's the idea behind pretty much the entire legal system that forms a good third of our civilization.
-Second, even if they were terrorists, the first point combined with laws against cruel and unusual punishment, torture, and a host of other laws that define our cultural morality, all state clearly the wrongness of these actions.

If torture is so great, so useful, and so minor in american hands, why not pass a law that allows all americans to be tortured without accusation or trial? Vigilante rape as justice? Why not!
If we're just going to keep doing these things anyways, so unabashedly and without any consequences, might as well make it nice and official.

See, we're just descending to their level. In order to stop corruption and human rights violations, the right thing to do is to corruptly violate human rights. But do it slightly less so that we stay the good side.

As for that Arar case: Why did the government think that he was a terrorist?
Answer: Because they said they thought he was a terrorist.
What was their evidence?
Answer: They said they thought he was a terrorist.

Actually, circular logic does not count as an answer. But it does point out the reason why we actually have trials. So that it doesn't devolve into a bout of "he said she said." Neither Stern nor whoever he was arguing with had the slightest fact. Because, for whatever obtuse reason, the facts are being deliberately withheld from us.
the 100% evidence is secret. It could just as easilly exist as not.

So, the result is that the American legal system turns into most of this thread. A thick unregulated pile of conflicting reports, mistrust, flat-out assumption and a large-scale abandonment of the most key ideas and important rules.
Except people's lives are on the line in reality.
That's why we have a legal system. We shouldn't throw it away so readily when faced with fear.

 

[mabufo]

Your saying that like america is the only country on the face of the earth that interrogates people? How about hitler and his gang of thugs? The viet cong, russians.

It's a common thing really.. but until you can define the actual 'torture' taking place... you have no argument.

I'd draw you a flowchart in MS paint about the legal system, but I'm not that big of an asshole.

 

[Calanen]

Your saying that like america is the only country on the face of the earth that interrogates people? How about hitler and his gang of thugs? The viet cong, russians.

You're not helping.....

 

[Calanen]

Torture is, in essence, a form of rape. I don't care how you spin it. It is. It is supposed to be banned from happening in our countries because of it is horrific and inhuman.

But the question becomes - if you have a terrorist, 911 type dude, who you know - is aware of where a nuclear device has been set with a timer to blow. Say, somewhere in New York city. You know he knows from intel. You can threaten to kill him but then he goes to Allah so he does not care. So what do you do? Torture is a possibility, but truth serum may work as well.

Even if it is not a nuclear pot, but some form of al quada plot - should the person be tortured to provide it? Not an easy answer. Some would say, no, spare the terrorist pain and let the nuclear device he planted wipeout NY, because torture is always wrong. My vote, would be, hang him from meathooks by piano wire until he talks.

 

[kmack]

Your saying that like america is the only country on the face of the earth that interrogates people? How about hitler and his gang of thugs? The viet cong, russians.

It's a common thing really.. but until you can define the actual 'torture' taking place... you have no argument.

Good, I'm glad America is torturing people along with the noble regimes of Hitler and the Viet Cong. Good point.

The torture that is taking place (in at least one of the countries) as according to the former british ambassador to the country in question (Uzebekistan) is the boiling of limbs, tearing skin off with pliers, tearing off toenails and fingernail, as well as simple beatings.
read my post, its all there in my original source:
Just like extraordinary rendition beginning with Bush I.

 

[kmack]

But the question becomes - if you have a terrorist, 911 type dude, who you know - is aware of where a nuclear device has been set with a timer to blow. Say, somewhere in New York city. You know he knows from intel. You can threaten to kill him but then he goes to Allah so he does not care. So what do you do? Torture is a possibility, but truth serum may work as well.

Even if it is not a nuclear pot, but some form of al quada plot - should the person be tortured to provide it? Not an easy answer. Some would say, no, spare the terrorist pain and let the nuclear device he planted wipeout NY, because torture is always wrong. My vote, would be, hang him from meathooks by piano wire until he talks.

It's pretty funny, the people who are in here arguing FOR the U.S. to take SUSPECTED terrorists to brutal regimes to have them tortured (and then release them with no charges in some cases). are in

HERE

Defending the SUSPECTED TERRORISTS right to purchase firearms legally in the U.S.


Look at the very first reply please.

:smoking:

 

[CptStern]

But the question becomes - if you have a terrorist, 911 type dude, who you know - is aware of where a nuclear device has been set with a timer to blow. Say, somewhere in New York city. You know he knows from intel. You can threaten to kill him but then he goes to Allah so he does not care. So what do you do? Torture is a possibility, but truth serum may work as well.

Even if it is not a nuclear pot, but some form of al quada plot - should the person be tortured to provide it? Not an easy answer. Some would say, no, spare the terrorist pain and let the nuclear device he planted wipeout NY, because torture is always wrong. My vote, would be, hang him from meathooks by piano wire until he talks.

soooo, they terrorists at abu gharib knew where the nukes were planted in NY? Is that why you tortured them?


here ya go, this details the methods used ..according to the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Your saying that like america is the only country on the face of the earth that interrogates people? How about hitler and his gang of thugs? The viet cong, russians.

Again, the "other countries do it therefore it's okay" argument.
Maybe you didn't read what I wrote.
Just because everyone does it does not stop it from being a crime.

Obviously it's bad when other countries torture people. So why does the US do the same things? Everyone's quick to point out the horrors of Hussein's torture facilities when justifying the war in Iraq, but then condone similar actions taken by the US when fighting that war.

Surely they would take the higher ground, right?
I mean, look at your argument. You're comparing your country favorably to the Nazis and the vietcong based purely on numerical value. "We torture them the same way as the nazis did, but we do it less." And you're saying it as though that's a good reason.

It's a common thing really.. but until you can define the actual 'torture' taking place... you have no argument.

Actually... maybe you missed the entire first half... of this thread.

All that stuff about boiling and pliers. Imprisonment without trial in squalid conditions. People screaming with pain. Practices clearly outlawed by the Geneva convention.
Treatment of suspects, in any crime, is regulated by strict laws. Torture is illegal on the national and international scale.

The basis of it is that we are supposed to treat even the worst criminal with at least some modicum of humanity. Because we are supposed to be better than than them.

We are supposed to be better than the vietcong, better than Saddam, and better than Hitler.
And not just a little better. A lot better.

Even if it is not a nuclear pot, but some form of al quada plot - should the person be tortured to provide it? Not an easy answer. Some would say, no, spare the terrorist pain and let the nuclear device he planted wipeout NY, because torture is always wrong. My vote, would be, hang him from meathooks by piano wire until he talks.

Except that things aren't so dramatic as in that cinematic scenario. Not by a long shot. Please tell me of one terrorist attack that has been prevented through use of torture. Surely there's been one, right?

But we're not even given the dignity of being told why the torture is justified. It's not like George Bush is going on TV and saying "We know that terrorists are going to attack new York with a nuke in three days, so we have no choice but to torture this man to find out where."
If this is so noble, and for the greater good, why is it being done in secret, in Syria?
If it is justified because of evidence or a real threat, why aren't we being told of the threats? Why is no evidence presented?
Surely if there were enough good reason, judges would allow it on american soil, right?
No, all that's happening is that we're taking random prisoners and torturing them based purely on the assumption that if you harm enough people, eventually it'll pay off.

There's no reasoning beyond that. No extraordinary circumstances. No threats. No corroboration from actual evidence or anything.
It's like trying to stop an old lady from being hit by a bus, by finding another bus driver and punching him in the face until the bus stops moving.

This use of torture is an indication that the US has no faith in its security. No trust in its intelligence and ability to protect people.
It's apparently a belief that no, the CIA can't tell us when the next attack will happen. They can't find the terror cells. Homeland security can't stop the bomb. Can't know in advance what will happen.
It's basically an admission of defeat.
Or, worse, a way to cut corners by trudging through the worst possible shortcut.

So instead of facts, and instead of intelligence, instead of doing the right thing, it's the meakhooks and piano wire that we turn to when we're scared.
It's nothing more than gambling with rape. And it's on a losing streak.
People might hope for a payoff, but it's not going to happen.

 

[Calanen]

soooo, they terrorists at abu gharib knew where the nukes were planted in NY? Is that why you tortured them?

Thats irrelevant. And thats not what I said. For a man who says I twist his words, you have got the Chubby Checker cd on endless playback.

I did not torture anyone...so your 'you' is misplaced. If the 'you' meant Australians, then there are no Australians Abu Graib. If you mean the Coalition forces, then I would accept we are part of that.

And I never argued that the POWs at Abu Graihb should have been tortured. That was a disagrace - and I think you saw the post that said I would have executed any GI that failed to standown when ordered to do so who was abusing prisoners, and I would have sent it up the chain of command.

I know what the people in Abu Graibh did was wrong. But it seemed to be a case of low rranks being idiots, than a top down conspiracy. Certainly a top down conspiracy would have said, now don't video it and photograph it all and send it via email to your friends.

 

[Calanen]

Again, the "other countries do it therefore it's okay" argument.
Maybe you didn't read what I wrote.
Just because everyone does it does not stop it from being a crime.

Obviously it's bad when other countries torture people. So why does the US do the same things? Everyone's quick to point out the horrors of Hussein's torture facilities when justifying the war in Iraq, but then condone similar actions taken by the US when fighting that war.

Surely they would take the higher ground, right?
I mean, look at your argument. You're comparing your country favorably to the Nazis and the vietcong based purely on numerical value. "We torture them the same way as the nazis did, but we do it less." And you're saying it as though that's a good reason.



Actually... maybe you missed the entire first half... of this thread.

All that stuff about boiling and pliers. Imprisonment without trial in squalid conditions. People screaming with pain. Practices clearly outlawed by the Geneva convention.
Treatment of suspects, in any crime, is regulated by strict laws. Torture is illegal on the national and international scale.

The basis of it is that we are supposed to treat even the worst criminal with at least some modicum of humanity. Because we are supposed to be better than than them.

We are supposed to be better than the vietcong, better than Saddam, and better than Hitler.
And not just a little better. A lot better.




Except that things aren't so dramatic as in that cinematic scenario. Not by a long shot. Please tell me of one terrorist attack that has been prevented through use of torture. Surely there's been one, right?

But we're not even given the dignity of being told why the torture is justified. It's not like George Bush is going on TV and saying "We know that terrorists are going to attack new York with a nuke in three days, so we have no choice but to torture this man to find out where."
If this is so noble, and for the greater good, why is it being done in secret, in Syria?

If you think that the US military, the CIA, or George Bush would go on television to say anything about operational matters, you are pretty naive. And if you think you would read about the 'neaer misses' that the US has from Al Quada, you will hear of some but not a lot of others. I know of some - but I cannot post them here or anywhere, nor should I.

Forget movies that is irrelevant too.

But I am just throwing open the argument - is torture ever acceptable? Some would say no, let the nuke go off in NY. Others would say, yes it is, you will save 10 million people by torturing this one man (yeah there are more than 10 mil in NY, but people always survive the blast, for a while at least....)

And im not saying that any people who may have been tortured knew where nukes were - which should have been obvious but apparently was not for some.

 

[kirovman]

Something I thought maybe pertinent to the topic:

From Reservoir Dogs-

Nice Guy Eddie: If you ****ing beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it ****ing so!

I feel it draws a good parallel to the situation.

Just bear it in mind, torture doesn't necessarily produce truthful statements.

Is there any proof torture DOES produce truthful statements and confessions that another process could not extract?
Now that I would like to see.

 

[mabufo]

I feel that my point was miscommunicated.. but it's too late for reconciliation. I'm done.

 

[Calanen]

http://www.charleswarner.us/articles/tortureart.htm

Have a look at this. Where the Philipinos tortured an Al Quada dude. I remember that, (not the torture bit) but the fact that they got som1 and then arrested a whole heap of others.

 

[CptStern]

ya that makes a lot of sense ..he could have said "we were going to nuke the sun, drill down to the earth's core and bring pluto closer to earth" ...using your logic they were successful because none of it came true

 

[Calanen]

None of it came true because they arrested all the people involved with the plots and smashed the cells. Having apartments full of explosives is a lot more realistic than drilling into the earth's core.

The other people they arrested who were involved in the sophisticated plots, the equipment they confiscated, and the links they had to the initial guy arrested, show that it had nothing to do with 'Pluto' Stern....so let's get back on to planet earth and deal with reality instead of smarmy rhetoric.

 

[bliink]

Calanen and Stern, you two need to lay off the fighting.

Calanen, don't come and complain to me that you aren't fighting while you still have that sig.

 

[GhostFox]

Calanen, don't come and complain to me that you aren't fighting while you still have that sig.

Stern has called just about everyone who has ever disagreed with him a bigot of some sort, so I don't see how the sig is unfair or a sign of fighting. In fact I think baselessly calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot has to be a violation of the rules and needs to be addressed by the moderation of this board.

 

[Calanen]

I dont agree, no one on the left has said racist remarks, no "lefty" has harrassed members, no one on the left has uttered death threats, or wished for another member to be tortured or even killed ...and I'm just talking about my own experience ..I've recieved them all ...btw Calanen I know you're referring to me when you say: "after some particularly outrageous things were recently said "

Just for the record:

1. I have uttered no death threats against any1;

2. I have never wished for another member to be tortured or kiled;

3. I have never said a racist remark.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

If you think that the US military, the CIA, or George Bush would go on television to say anything about operational matters, you are pretty naive.

What about after the fact, then? What about when the suspect is in custody and there is no clear and present danger?
The problem is that there's no accountability here. The US is torturing people, but no-one knows why. You can assume it's because they have noble intentions and evidence, and I can assume they have nothing.
It makes no difference because there aren't any watchdogs or judges. No attorneys, since there are no trials. no charges, no declared results, postive or otherwise. No nothing.
They could literally be torturing anyone for any reason. Good or bad, noble or evil. It's vigilante justice, and it's dangerous because we cannot know if it is misguided.
It's just a big featureless machine that churns out torture, and no-one knows it's inner workings. But people keep getting thrown in anyways.

Forget movies that is irrelevant too.

But I am just throwing open the argument - is torture ever acceptable? Some would say no, let the nuke go off in NY. Others would say, yes it is, you will save 10 million people by torturing this one man (yeah there are more than 10 mil in NY, but people always survive the blast, for a while at least....)

And im not saying that any people who may have been tortured knew where nukes were - which should have been obvious but apparently was not for some.

Torture could very well be 'acceptable' as such a last resort to save ten million lives. But, as a result of the utter lack of regulation and control over these tortures, there is absolutely no indication it is a last resort.
But there's every indication that it's the first resort. The secrecy, the many mistakes. The lack of trials or evidence. Everything points not to the government doing this not because they have to, but because they want to.

Law is regulated by various checks which prevent abuses and mistakes done in the name of security.
However, these tortures are taking place without any such checks.
They are being outsourced to places like Syria specifically for the purpose of circumventing the laws and abusing the system.

So, although in some way torture might be justified in imagined events of the far-off future, it definitely is not justified now.

And if you think you would read about the 'neaer misses' that the US has from Al Quada, you will hear of some but not a lot of others. I know of some - but I cannot post them here or anywhere, nor should I.

Eh? Why cover up the successes and keep secret the events that have been rectified?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Torture could very well be 'acceptable' as such a last resort to save ten million lives. But, as a result of the utter lack of regulation and control over these tortures, there is absolutely no indication it is a last resort.

Then we need to redefine torture -- I'm all for humiliation.