Torture - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Synikul · **Torture -** 10-20-05

Quote:

The McCain amendment
President Bush has threatened to veto the measure, which would ban cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
A Times Editorial
Published October 16, 2005

The U.S. Senate recently took a step to help restore America's reputation as a country that stands by the rule of law. Despite the threat of a presidential veto, 90 senators voted to ban abusive treatment of prisoners in American custody. Now lawmakers need to hold firm.

Thanks to the efforts of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a former Vietnam prisoner of war, the Senate added a measure to the massive $440-billion defense appropriations bill that would send an important message to the world. First, it would limit the military to only those interrogation methods approved by the Army Field Manual. Second, it would prohibit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. government custody.

The move was an attempt to insist that the executive branch live up to the international treaties and domestic laws prohibiting the torture and abuse of detainees, a policy that America has championed for the last 50 years.

President Bush is fiercely opposed to the amendment and has threatened to veto the bill if it reaches his desk. Imagine that. Bush has not vetoed a single bill since becoming president, yet he is ready to use his veto to defend torture.

Veto threat or not, the bill should arrive on the president's desk with the McCain amendment intact. The House version doesn't include the amendment, so holding the line will be left to the conferees.

As chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, will be one of those conferees. While he claims he has an "open mind" on the matter, Young already has a litany of arguments against the amendment. "I have little sympathy for those who represent this (terrorist) movement," Young said, positing that even those detainees who might be innocent of any terrorist acts don't deserve protection from abuse at American hands. "(T)hey are still part of the terrorist movement."

McCain has a ready answer for this kind of crimped thinking. On the Senate floor, he reminded his colleagues that as Americans "we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation."

Young and his fellow conferees have an obligation to rise above partisanship and uphold principles that should be beyond debate in a civilized society.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/16/Op...mendment.shtml

I'm against any concrete rule against torture. I can imagine too many possible scenarios where it would be a good idea to use any means necessary to get vital information quickly.

thefr0g · 10-20-05

The problem being that confessions under torture are often not accurate. People will say anything to stop the pain.

masochist · 10-20-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefr0g

The problem being that confessions under torture are often not accurate. People will say anything to stop the pain.

I agree. While I don't think there has been a single society that has not used torture, I think it is a fucked up thing to do.

Sin · 10-21-05

I'm with thefr0g on this one, once you start allowing torture at one level, where do you stop it?

thefr0g · 10-21-05

I never said I was against torture! Just that its an unreliable source of confessions.

Actually I'm kidding, I'm against it. But like Synikul says... if a few bamboo shoots would have stopped 9/11, its kind of hard to say no.

Shadowborn · 10-31-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefr0g

The problem being that confessions under torture are often not accurate. People will say anything to stop the pain.

Yep. There was a guy in charge of a POW camp during WWII...can't remember his name offhand, but he wrote a book about interrogation and stated that the best and most accurate information he ever got was from being friendly and personable with his prisoners. Get 'em talking about things that any soldier can relate to ("I can't stand taking orders from my CO, he's a dick,") and they start talking. Then you pick out the important stuff.

Synikul · 11-02-05

Quote:

CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons
Debate grows within agency about legality, morality of approach

By Dana Priest
The Washington Post
Updated: 7:57 a.m. ET Nov. 2, 2005

The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

FULL ARTICLE

Interesting.

If it prevents attacks, then it's all good with me.

B'Aqu-anir · 11-02-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

I'm against any concrete rule against torture. I can imagine too many possible scenarios where it would be a good idea to use any means necessary to get vital information quickly.

I would be against allowing torture for same reason I'm apposed to state sponsored assassination. Once you agree it's okay for your side to do it, you also agree it's okay for everyone else to do.

Synikul · 11-02-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by B'Aqu-anir

I would be against allowing torture for same reason I'm apposed to state sponsored assassination. Once you agree it's okay for your side to do it, you also agree it's okay for everyone else to do.

Everyone does it, it's just kept secret as much as possible. I happen to like the idea of having a few mean, nasty people on our side doing the dirty work of protecting the country.

thefr0g · 11-03-05

Yes, but you like a lot of other really bad ideas too. Thankfully, you're not in control.

As a dominant power in the world, we should set an example. Barbaric interrogation methods like torture are not the example we should be setting. We cannot lambast another country for torturing our POWs, when we are doing it ourselves.

And no, I'm not deluded, I know its happening. I just don't think it should be, or at the very least it should be left in the dark.

B'Aqu-anir · 11-03-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefr0g

As a dominant power in the world, we should set an example. Barbaric interrogation methods like torture are not the example we should be setting. We cannot lambast another country for torturing our POWs, when we are doing it ourselves..

I am in total agreement here. As the dominant and only remaining "Super Power" we set an example that the rest of the world will follow. Good or bad. Not all of them follow our lead, but if we are setting the right example, at least we can point to the low lifes in the world and say, "Ay, what the f*** do ya think YOU'RE doin'!!!" and NOT come off as a Super Powerful frikking HYPOCRIT!

Shadowborn · 11-04-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

I happen to like the idea of having a few mean, nasty people on our side doing the dirty work of protecting the country.

Huh. You just described most of our law enforcement and military folk.

Dark Messiah · 11-04-05

Torture inhumanizes the people that use it, secures quick information at the cost of reliability, and will eventually be turnedagainst the citizenry.

Actually, it parallels many of the problems with corporal punishment nicely, but that's a seperate issue I suppose.

Synikul · 11-04-05

Anyone ever watch the show 24? What about the scenario that was presented in the second season? It's not an impossible situation. Terrorists had a nuclear weapon in L.A., the gov't agents knew it was there, but they didn't know who had it, or exactly where it was. If that situation happened in real life, and our guys had a prisoner who knew where the bomb was, or knew other people who might know where the bomb was, would you be OK with torture? In that hypothetical, but very plausible scenario, I say break out the car battery and nipple clamps. That's why I'm against any blanket rule against any torture ever.

Dark Messiah · 11-04-05

What makes the torturee in this case be inclined to tell the truth?

Synikul · 11-04-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Messiah

What makes the torturee in this case be inclined to tell the truth?

In that case, if the guy is refusing to talk, what do you have to lose?

Dark Messiah · 11-04-05

Time, spent chasing after wrong answers, the humanity of the agents involved, and our freedom once it becomes common place enough that it's begun to be used on civilians.

Synikul · 11-04-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Messiah

Time, spent chasing after wrong answers, .

Possibly wrong answers, which are better than no answers if time is an issue.

Quote:

the humanity of the agents involved

Which has probably already been compromised, or they wouldn't have the job in the first place. When you sign up for this kind of career, that's what happens. Part of my humanity is gone for good, and I never did anything that even approached this.

Quote:

and our freedom once it becomes common place enough that it's begun to be used on civilians.

Highly unlikely given the way our system works. I'm not proposing that we abolish the right of interested parties(ACLU, etc.) to challenge any individual incident. The option to use any means necessary has to remain on the table, or our enemies will take it as a weakness.

Dark Messiah · 11-04-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

Possibly wrong answers, which are better than no answers if time is an issue.

And going after leads that entail possible good answers is the correct option.

Quote:

Which has probably already been compromised, or they wouldn't have the job in the first place. When you sign up for this kind of career, that's what happens. Part of my humanity is gone for good, and I never did anything that even approached this.

Most government agencies make it a point to avoid turning their agents into psychotic sadists, however.

Quote:

Highly unlikely given the way our system works. I'm not proposing that we abolish the right of interested parties(ACLU, etc.) to challenge any individual incident. The option to use any means necessary has to remain on the table, or our enemies will take it as a weakness.

Policies should not be formed with the ideal in mind of having our enemies thinking we're cool.

Synikul · 11-04-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Messiah

Policies should not be formed with the ideal in mind of having our enemies thinking we're cool.

Which is exactly what others in this thread are suggesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B'Aqu-anir

I am in total agreeme