board77

This is excellent... give it a minute to play out

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/op ... inionsbox1" target="_blank" target="_blank

That cartoon makes no sense, as torture is already illegal in the US, and hasn't been done here recently in any way.

I disagree, Hal. I believe (as do many other people) that waterboarding is torture. And the US (shamefully) engaged in it at Gitmo.

I know many people who have been concerned that our country has been secretly (and, yes, illegally) torturing prisoners with the knowledge and tacit approval of our government.

So to hear the Commander-in-Chief say straight out that it's not going to happen is heartening. At least, to me.

I thought the cartoon made a lot of sense. In case you didn't get the symbolism, the Statue of Liberty is in the pose that a prisoner (in the US) was forced to take, with electric wires attached to his hands and a hood over his head.

And our previous commander in chief said that it was not, and did not happen, but you choose not to believe him.

Fair enough, but I find it far more likely that Obama, being the intelligent guy he is, will simply resort to having such things handled by our less prominent allies around the world, and keep his hands clean.

Make no mistake, torture ( or things many would call torture, but personally I have no clue where to draw the line...) will always be around.

halplm wrote:

Make no mistake, torture ( or things many would call torture, but personally I have no clue where to draw the line...) will always be around.

Maybe so. Doesn't mean our government has to be part of it, or condone it - even tacitly.

FWIW, I blame Cheney for much of what went on at Gitmo. Waterboarding certainly went on and was never denied by the government. It is a torture technique from the Middle Ages.

What went on at Gitmo, whether it was "technically torture" or not, was shameful stuff, in my opinion. It has nothing to do with believing Bush or not. It has to do with what he actually said happened. The admissions of the government are shameful.

And I think you probably have a "clue" where to draw the line.

Regardless of your personal opinion, the cartoon certainly DID "make sense." You might not like the cartoon. You obviously hate Obama. You don't like what the cartoon is implying. But it makes sense and you understand it.

So I guess those actual real life true photographs of crap going on there is not evidence?

I don't hate Obama. I think he's said a lot of good things... although granted, nothing he's done so far is good in any way IMHO.

I don't have a clue where to draw the line. I know if someone in my family was in danger, and I could beat the crap out of someone to get them out of that danger, then I probably would. That's torture by any definition, and at the same time justified in many people's eyes.

Is "justifiable" torture on a different level than torture in general? Is waterboarding someone to save someone elses life such a bad thing, when the person being waterboarded will be perfectly fine afterwards?

You do understand the difference between the actions of a private citizen and the actions of the legal governbment of a nation... right? And you do understand that if you did what you claimed you would do that you would be subject to the laws and penalties for those actions?

sauronsfinger wrote:

You do understand the difference between the actions of a private citizen and the actions of the legal governbment of a nation... right? And you do understand that if you did what you claimed you would do that you would be subject to the laws and penalties for those actions?

Your first point is irrelevant, as in this instance we're talking about what is or what isn't torture, and thus there is no difference between an individual or a government.

Your second point is irrelevant because well... it's irrelevant.

Obama's only been in office a couple of days. You must disagree with his decision to close Gitmo, then? And his various meetings with different people - he shouldn't be meeting with them?

"Beating the crap out of someone" in order to prevent or prohibit them from hurting someone else is not torture. You beat them, they stop, you go help your loved one. You don't strap them to a table and administer electric shocks until they pass out, then revive them and start over. Torture is sustained, repetitive pain or suffering with the goal being to continue the pain for as long as possible until some result (presumably) is reached - OR until the torturer decides to stop.

Quote:

Is waterboarding someone to save someone elses life such a bad thing, when the person being waterboarded will be perfectly fine afterwards?

Waterboarding never saved anyone's life. It is a documented fact (and I will find the citation) that information elicited under torture is totally unreliable and non-admissible. Bottom line is - it doesn't work. It doesn't provide any information. It doesn't help anyone. Our own government has admitted this and that is why torture is supposedly banned by the CIA. It doesn't work.

If it DID work - if waterboarding or other forms of torture really did get positive, valid and useful information - then you might have a case. I would still disagree with you, as I think it should not be used under any circumstances - but you'd at least have a case.

But it doesn't do that. The only possible reason for the torture that went on in Gitmo was to punish/show power over/hurt/humiliate the prisoners...many of whom were not even charged with anything. Some of whom were in their early teens.

It was wrong, wrong, wrong.

from Halplm

Quote:

Your second point is irrelevant because well... it's irrelevant.

from Halplm

Quote:

You are welcome to take what I say that you find so distasteful, and argue the ideas on their merits, which I have never seen you do, but is what discussion of ideas should be about.

'nuff said.

SF, why don't you wait for other people to post before you jump in again.

You know, you could comment on MY posts, instead of just Hal's.

You could just let the thread move along and see if anyone else posts in it. It would be nice to hear from some other folks. It's not a chat room, it's a message board. It takes time. Give it a few hours and see if anyone else has some opinions.

You, too, Hal.

jewelsong wrote:

Obama's only been in office a couple of days. You must disagree with his decision to close Gitmo, then? And his various meetings with different people - he shouldn't be meeting with them?

If you gave me a complete list of all he's done so far, I could point out exactly why I thought it was bad. Yes closing Gitmo was bad. No, meeting people isn't bad, but he has done things poorly in how he has met people... or called them, for instance calling the Palastinians before the Israelies... not good. etc. etc. If he does something I think is a good thing, I'll try to remember to let you know

Quote:

"Beating the crap out of someone" in order to prevent or prohibit them from hurting someone else is not torture. You beat them, they stop, you go help your loved one. You don't strap them to a table and administer electric shocks until they pass out, then revive them and start over. Torture is sustained, repetitive pain or suffering with the goal being to continue the pain for as long as possible until some result (presumably) is reached - OR until the torturer decides to stop.

I meant getting information out of them in order to stop the danger, not stopping them personally.

Quote:

Quote:

Is waterboarding someone to save someone elses life such a bad thing, when the person being waterboarded will be perfectly fine afterwards?

Waterboarding never saved anyone's life. It is a documented fact (and I will find the citation) that information elicited under torture is totally unreliable and non-admissible. Bottom line is - it doesn't work. It doesn't provide any information. It doesn't help anyone. Our own government has admitted this and that is why torture is supposedly banned by the CIA. It doesn't work.

If it DID work - if waterboarding or other forms of torture really did get positive, valid and useful information - then you might have a case. I would still disagree with you, as I think it should not be used under any circumstances - but you'd at least have a case.

But it doesn't do that. The only possible reason for the torture that went on in Gitmo was to punish/show power over/hurt/humiliate the prisoners...many of whom were not even charged with anything. Some of whom were in their early teens.

It was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Well, I disagree. I think the whole "it doesn't work" claim is a ideological and political one, that has been "backed up" by studies that are simply done with the result already in mind (same as AGW, incidentally). Of course the CIA claims to believe this and says they've banned torture. That means nothing unless you define exactly what they call torture.

sauronsfinger wrote:

from Halplm

Quote:

Your second point is irrelevant because well... it's irrelevant.

from Halplm

Quote:

You are welcome to take what I say that you find so distasteful, and argue the ideas on their merits, which I have never seen you do, but is what discussion of ideas should be about.

'nuff said.

I'm afraid it's not "'nuff said." as I have no idea what your point is. Are you saying that asking if I understood that I would be punished in my hypethetical scenario, was arguing my idea on its merits? Because it wasn't. It was bringing up an entirely unrelated issue in a derogatory and condescending manner.

Sorry, JS.

Quote:

Well, I disagree. I think the whole "it doesn't work" claim is a ideological and political one,

Lots of confessions were obtained in the MIddle Ages under torture. People confessed to all sorts of things...being witches and turning into cats and causing crop failures and so on.

People will say anything under torture. Anything to make the pain stop.

I don't believe one bit of information obtained at Gitmo has proved the least bit useful in the "war on terror." And surely putting prisoners on dog leashes while naked was not designed to get valuable information. Do you also agree with that tactic and think it is useful? Maybe you do. Obviously some people do.

Quote:

that has been "backed up" by studies that are simply done with the result already in mind

Why do you think this? You think that torture "works" and the studies have been falsely done? Why?

Quote:

Is "justifiable" torture on a different level than torture in general? Is waterboarding someone to save someone elses life such a bad thing, when the person being waterboarded will be perfectly fine afterwards?

You pose the question without answering it but from what you said I guess you believe there are occasions when it may be justified.

Would you then welcome Obama introducing it into the local US police precincts? I mean you may know someone who drives under the influence. Were you to decline to reveal their name to the police, a spot of waterboarding might save a life. After all if waterboarding doesn't endanger the suspect's life why not introduce it as a police tool?

Must agree with Jewelsong here. She is right when she cites that any information obtained from torture is unreliable. What is the point of torture if the information is then unreliable?

The Spanish Inquisition (is what Jewel I think is referring to) seemed to establish that hundreds of years ago.

If these people in Cuba did violate the law, why were they simply not tried, convicted and punished?

Good point raised by Tosh on domestic torture.

I think, if torture didn't work, then it wouldn't be done by people actually seeking information, because we would develop better ways of doing so more accurately.

Certainly torture can be used to obtain false confessions, and has been so used by many people throughout all of human history. Certainly people can use torture (or things many would define as torture) in horribly unproductive ways with no purpose, because they are bad people.

Torture is by no means a good thing, and if we lived in a better world, I'd be right there with you on it never being used in any way for any reason.

So you are in favour of introducing it into the US because it's useful?

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:

Quote:

Is "justifiable" torture on a different level than torture in general? Is waterboarding someone to save someone elses life such a bad thing, when the person being waterboarded will be perfectly fine afterwards?

You pose the question without answering it but from what you said I guess you believe there are occasions when it may be justified.

Would you then welcome Obama introducing it into the local US police precincts? I mean you may know someone who drives under the influence. Were you to decline to reveal their name to the police, a spot of waterboarding might save a life. After all if waterboarding doesn't endanger the suspect's life why not introduce it as a police tool?

An interesting question. As I said up above, I don't know where the line should be. As you imply, this seems to be on the side of the line where it doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, if you let the example more closely match the situations in gitmo, say... you know a fraternity is planning a big party, where they all get as wasted as they can, and all go driving in order to inflict a lot of damage or hurt people... and the police find out about it and want you to tell them what fraternity, and when and where it will be... then maybe that's not on the wrong side of the line.