Torture complex found in Iraq

[Kitchener]

Last resorts are better than no resort at all. To bring it down to a moral question means you already lost. Simply apply a drill to the mofos knees and be done with it. If in the end the attack or lives you wished to save are still lost, you have the consolation that one mofo has knees that will never have water on them.

Of course the various hysterical Cassandras of the coming Islamo-Invasions will now jump up to point out that this is basically what the torturers were doing in the article linked in the OP. Right?

<Cue the crickets...>

When they do it, it's barbarism. But we'd do it because we're against barbarism! It looks identical from the outside, of course, but if only the purity of our secret heart of hearts were known, it would be clear that one is barbaric and the other is just standing up for what's right.

[Peter F]

Now, Peter...I won't 'strawman' you if you won't do it to me. If you've read my posts you'll know I'm already against torture.

That aside, the torture complex described was used to terrorize the local population into submission. Something that it did very well (re: is torture effective?). It would be pointless and very 'un-American' for the Allies to engage in like-wise behaviour.

Torture is used to terrorize. I couldn't say it better myself. I thought you were trying to say something different - my mistake.

[bush_cheney2004]

There's a reason I put "ticking time bomb" in quotes, so your moronic question in response to my comments is just that-- moronic. Guess that's the best you can come up with, eh?

If you say so....ticking time bomb!

As for "Daniel Pearl's severed head," suppose you explain to me how your condoning torture helped him. Or go one better and cite me one instance where torture saved a "Daniel Pearl's severed head." That's all I'm asking. So far no one has been able to come up with a single instance.

Who gives a crap what you are asking....so you can sleep cozy without a self inflicted conscience? There are real people responsible for intelligence gathering and that includes interrogations with all manner of "field manual" methods. If actionable intel or even supporting corroboration can be so obtained, maybe we save a head....or two. Doing nothing is guaranteed to save zero heads.

But since you insist while stamping your feet...torture is reported to have "worked" in the case of the Pakistani terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad:

After the Philippine National Police tortured him for 67 days and then threatened to ship him to Israel, he finally revealed how his childhood friend and fellow jihadi Ramzi Yousef had organized the 1993 truck-bombing of New York City's World Trade Center.

But this was only part of Murad's story. On Ramzi Yousef's computer, the police found plans to assassinate Pope John Paul II and President Bill Clinton, and to hijack several aircraft simultaneously and blow them up over the Pacific. Murad's torturers reportedly asked him about all this, about another terrorist running-mate named Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who would go on to mastermind the attacks of 9/11, and about one other item of note - the idea of using aircraft as flying bombs.

[Wilber]

No, my question wasn't much tougher. It was the same question-- "Which is more important, your standards or the life at stake." In either hypothetical, it's your/my standards vs. someone else's life. So you are saying there are times when you think your standards might take precedence over someone's life. I'm saying I would hope that you wouldn't torture an innocent child; I'm saying as hard as it is, I think there are times when standards need to take precedence. My hypothetical, though, fits right in with this thread and people saying they would do 'whatever it takes to make someone talk.' In some instances, this is what it would/might take.

It was definitely not the same question. You intentionally complicated it to avoid answering mine. I'm saying that there are times when you have to decide which it the least repulsive action. You can't take that decision until you are confronted with the situation.

My answer is I believe people have to live life by their standards. If they don't, what good are their standards? There's more to it than that, though, and I'll explain it more later in this post.*

If they put their personal standards ahead of an innocent persons life, their standards are no good. That is playing god.

I'm not the one who's "getting the idea." I realized from the beginning that it's not "a simple question." Seems to me you are the one who's now getting the idea. You are realizing that it's not as cut and dried or as simple as you claimed.

Aw come on, I've said several times that I am not in favour of torture to get information, I just don't arbitrarily declare that it is purely a moral issue and that it may never be necessary.

I never claimed the people you are describing have ever pondered the morality of torture. I'm not them, though; nor do I desire to be. Nor do I desire any more people to be like them than already are. That's why I have pondered it. That's why I'm against torture. You cannot draw the line. If you torture, you cannot condemn anyone else doing it. If we torture, we cannot make laws saying our troops can't be tortured. We have to practice what we preach.

Me either. I don't believe torture is moral. People like this don't care how many laws you pass or what you practice. They will do whatever they feel they have to in order to beat you.

So I believe while in some instances torture may save lives, I think it also ends up being responsible for other lives lost. So I don't think ultimately there is anything to be gained from it. I don't think lives are saved that aren't lost elsewhere.

That may be so, but you can't say, I'm not going to try and save these lives because it might cause the loss of a life somewhere or sometime else.

I do believe our mistreatment of prisoners puts our troops in more danger. I do believe it makes them more likely to be tortured. I believe in my/our nation(s) taking the high road. I believe in my/our nation(s) setting an example by doing. I think we, and the rest of the world, would be better off for it; and I think that's ultimately what would save the most lives.

I agree, gratuitous mistreatment is stupid. It serves no purpose at all.

[Oleg Bach]

It was definitely not the same question. You intentionally complicated it to avoid answering mine. I'm saying that there are times when you have to decide which it the least repulsive action. You can't take that decision until you are confronted with the situation.

If they put their personal standards ahead of an innocent persons life, their standards are no good. That is playing god.

Aw come on, I've said several times that I am not in favour of torture to get information, I just don't arbitrarily declare that it is purely a moral issue and that it may never be necessary.

Me either. I don't believe torture is moral. People like this don't care how many laws you pass or what you practice. They will do whatever they feel they have to in order to beat you.

That may be so, but you can't say, I'm not going to try and save these lives because it might cause the loss of a life somewhere or sometime else.

I agree, gratuitous mistreatment is stupid. It serves no purpose at all.

People who condone torture are bad. Those that say that it brings about usefull information are liars - those that toruture or faciltiate torture are defective and sexually dysfunctional men..they all suffer from a deformity of character called sadism. Yes - if you condone torture..you may as well admit that you are pathetic and just like hurting people because you are weak and lacking true power and grace..losers condone torture and state sponsored murder...weaklings..

[jbg]

A better question is why does anyone who criticizes our country when we do wrong "hate the west?" Since when is being critical synonymous with "hate?" I thought we were supposed to enjoy freedom of speech in the west. I thought one of our 'luxuries' in our democracies was freedom of speech. Yet when we practice it, we are accused of "hating the west." That's about as ridiculous as it gets.

The intent of people criticizing Western information-gathering techniques might not be harmful, but the effect is to tie both hands behind the West's back fighting the full fury of this enemy.

[Oleg Bach]

The intent of people criticizing Western information-gathering techniques might not be harmful, but the effect is to tie both hands behind the West's back fighting the full fury of this enemy.

So weasilish "Western information gathering techniques" - so darkly Orwellian and sadistically Draconian wouldn't you say - Pleeeease! "tied both hands behind fighting the full fury of the enemy" ? To paraphrase - firstly - Islam and the west are allied together creating this chaos - when are you going to figure this out - there are no terrorists - just a bunch of bearded atheist in the east and some very shrewd clean shaven guys in New York called Smith - that are playing the whole world with this terrorist crap and YOU - are but a pawn of very cleaver and sinister men who are so-called Islamics - so-called Christians - and so called Jews.......THIS IS BUISNESS - NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS - AND the world is duped into thinking it's some ideology - some religious question - it's not - it is a power and money maker for east and west and we suckers suffer in the middle like cannon fodder....that generates wealth and prestiege to a select few. We are suckers...This so-called war on terror could be stopped immediately if there was a will to do so - there is not.

[Guest American Woman]

It was definitely not the same question. You intentionally complicated it to avoid answering mine. I'm saying that there are times when you have to decide which it the least repulsive action. You can't take that decision until you are confronted with the situation.

It was the same question. Slightly different circumstances, but the same question. Your question is "Which is more important, your standards or the life at stake." That's the very same question I asked you. You seemed to imply that the life at stake was always more important than a person's standards, so I gave you a slightly different scenario to demonstrate that a person's standards can be just as important.

If they put their personal standards ahead of an innocent persons life, their standards are no good. That is playing god.

Yet you said you don't know what you'd do if the situation required you to torture a child. Sounds to me as if your standards make you question that, and if you refused to torture a child to get information, you would be putting your personal standards ahead of an innocent person's life. So does that mean your standards are no good? That you would be playing God?

Aw come on, I've said several times that I am not in favour of torture to get information, I just don't arbitrarily declare that it is purely a moral issue and that it may never be necessary.

You're the one who accused me of "starting to get it." I've "gotten it" right from the start. I've given this a whole lot thought, and in the process I've asked myself the same question you asked me. My beliefs aren't based on simple-minded "I have to think this way because it's the righteous thing to believe" line of thought. I've explained my views, my beliefs, and why I feel as I do.

I don't believe torture is moral. People like this don't care how many laws you pass or what you practice. They will do whatever they feel they have to in order to beat you.

As I already said, yes. There are some people who don't care how many laws are passed or what we practice. But there are many more who DO care-- particularly about what we do. Life has proven that laws make for a more peaceful, less 'criminal' society. Sure there are still people who break the law, but there would be more people engaging in criminal behavior if it weren't for the laws. That's why we have them.

That may be so, but you can't say, I'm not going to try and save these lives because it might cause the loss of a life somewhere or sometime else.

Yes, we can say it. We can say that the practice of torture should never be condoned because not only is it ammoral, but it causes as many deaths as it prevents. If I say "I'm going to torture this person to save this life" and I do, and that torture makes others so angry that they cut off someone else's head in retaliation, has it served a purpose for the "good?" Was the first person's life more valuable than the seconds'?

Until someone starts doing what's right, nothing is ever going to change.

Edited January 5, 2008 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

It was the same question. Slightly different circumstances, but the same question. Your question is "Which is more important, your standards or the life at stake." That's the very same question I asked you. You seemed to imply that the life at stake was always more important than a person's standards, so I gave you a slightly different scenario to demonstrate that a person's standards can be just as important.

Yet you said you don't know what you'd do if the situation required you to torture a child. Sounds to me as if your standards make you question that, and if you refused to torture a child to get information, you would be putting your personal standards ahead of an innocent person's life. So does that mean your standards are no good? That you would be playing God?

You're the one who accused me of "starting to get it." I've "gotten it" right from the start. I've given this a whole lot thought, and in the process I've asked myself the same question you asked me. My beliefs aren't based on simple-minded "I have to think this way because it's the righteous thing to believe" line of thought. I've explained my views, my beliefs, and why I feel as I do.

As I already said, yes. There are some people who don't care how many laws are passed or what we practice. But there are many more who DO care-- particularly about what we do. Life has proven that laws make for a more peaceful, less 'criminal' society. Sure there are still people who break the law, but there would be more people engaging in criminal behavior if it weren't for the laws. That's why we have them.

Yes, we can say it. We can say that the practice of torture should never be condoned because not only is it ammoral, but it causes as many deaths as it prevents. If I say "I'm going to torture this person to save this life" and I do, and that torture makes others so angry that they cut off someone else's head in retaliation, has it served a purpose for the "good?" Was the first person's life more valuable than the seconds'?

Until someone starts doing what's right, nothing is ever going to change.

Any one who promotes torture under the guise that is saves lives is a liar and is attempting to further debase society - When for instance the Bushites say that terroizing a man tied to a table by humiliation and physical pain - is a hypocrite - Look at George Bush when he was governor - look at the hundreds of poor blacks that were jailed under his wardship - how many he executed. The execution and torture of human beings is only practiced by those that are sadistic and crazed with power- those who have to much money - who seek the thrill that even money can not buy - the cheap thrill of making others suffer. As Christ the most logical man in history said - "I have not come to save the whole flock but to find the ONE sheep that has fallen into the pit" - in other words when the rights of ONE singular individual are breached - the human rights for all are breached. BUT we now live in a society that if a dog is tormented there will be protests in the streets - BUT if a human being is tormented - we stand silent because we have been conditioned by our sadistic leaders to hate our fellow human beings - and not to love them - hate abounds - and love and compassion and justice are dispised.

[Wilber]

That's the very same question I asked you. You seemed to imply that the life at stake was always more important than a person's standards, so I gave you a slightly different scenario to demonstrate that a person's standards can be just as important.

It is a very different scenario. The scenario you present is having to chose which innocent's life is more important. It would take one cold fish not to have a problem with that. Yes, an innocent persons life is always more important than ones self imposed personal standards. To presume otherwise is just self indulgent arrogance. Sorry old chap but my principles are more important than your skin. I'm sure you understand. Ta Ta.

Yet you said you don't know what you'd do if the situation required you to torture a child. Sounds to me as if your standards make you question that, and if you refused to torture a child to get information, you would be putting your personal standards ahead of an innocent person's life. So does that mean your standards are no good? That you would be playing God?

Yes, my standards would question that and yes, it would be playing God but someone would still have to make the decision who lives and who dies. If someone dies as a result of your decision (and doing nothing when you can do something is a decision) you will bear some responsibility for that death no matter how noble you claim your principals to be.

You said that torture would not influence the parent but torturing or threatening to their child would get you what you wanted. The fact that the parent could not bare to watch their child tortured would save the life of someone else. There's the dilemma, two live children (one traumatized) or one untraumatized live child and one dead one. No problem right?

Yes, we can say it. We can say that the practice of torture should never be condoned because not only is it ammoral, but it causes as many deaths as it prevents. If I say "I'm going to torture this person to save this life" and I do, and that torture makes others so angry that they cut off someone else's head in retaliation, has it served a purpose for the "good?" Was the first person's life more valuable than the seconds'?

Lets hope we never have to put our convictions to the test. Lets hope we never have to make life and death decisions for others based on our personal principals. After all, they may not give a rats ass about our personal principles, they might just want to stay alive. Lets hope that our lives or the lives of our loved ones never have to depend on someone else having to answer those questions.

Edited January 5, 2008 by Wilber

[Liam]

How do you know there has never been such an instance? We often hear of plots being thwarted because of intelligence gained from so and so, or from such and such a place.

The only people telling us that certain plots have been thwarted are the very ones who want to keep using torture and who have shown, in a variety of ways, why we should not believe much of what they say.

[Wilber]

The only people telling us that certain plots have been thwarted are the very ones who want to keep using torture and who have shown, in a variety of ways, why we should not believe much of what they say.

Wonderful, lets get rid of intelligence gathering altogether. There are no plots to be thwarted. Never have been.

[DogOnPorch]

That's the very same question I asked you. You seemed to imply that the life at stake was always more important than a person's standards, so I gave you a slightly different scenario to demonstrate that a person's standards can be just as important.

French WW1 ace Georges Guynemer got his first kill in July 1915. Since the plane went down on the French side, he eagerly asked his father to find his "Boche" for him. His father drove out to where the German crashed and removed the serial numbers and an Iron Cross from the wing. Thus began Guynermer's macabre collection of downed aircraft parts...a hobby picked up by the Red Baron and others.

By the late summer of 1917...and more than 50 kills later...a good number being two-seaters...Guynemer was reduced to turning on his SPAD's engine in the hangar and screaming his head off at the top of his lungs, haunted by the goggled faces of the men he had killed.

On Sept 11, 1917 he never returned from a dawn patrol. He was an old man by then...22 years old.

Do something rotten long enough...one begins to rot, as well. No matter how 'into it' you are at the start. (???)

So, perhaps our standards change depending upon how close one is to the sh*t hitting yon fan. (???)

However...

British WW1 ace Albert Ball apparently avoided such a breakdown by playing solo violin concertos by red-flare light, avoiding friendships, and tending a small vegetable garden. However, his preserved 'sanity' was betrayed by his overzealous habit of entering a fight even when outnumbered. He crashed and died in foggy conditions after a large running battle with Richthofen's brother, Lothar, and several dozen other "Huns'. He was 21.

I bring this up since intimate death was these fellow's profession. Often they knew exactly whom they were fighting by personalized markings on the aircraft. I'm aware that it is apples and oranges re: torture.

--------------------------------------------------------

It is a pity that my collection of trophies contains not a single Russian.

---Rittmeister Manfred von Richthofen

Edit:Photo of some of the Red Baron's trophies...

Edited January 5, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[Guest American Woman]

It is a very different scenario. The scenario you present is having to chose which innocent's life is more important. It would take one cold fish not to have a problem with that. Yes, an innocent persons life is always more important than ones self imposed personal standards. To presume otherwise is just self indulgent arrogance. Sorry old chap but my principles are more important than your skin. I'm sure you understand. Ta Ta.

So in saying an innocent person's life is always more important than one's personal standards, you're saying you would torture a child if it came to that?

If someone dies as a result of your decision (and doing nothing when you can do something is a decision) you will bear some responsibility for that death no matter how noble you claim your principals to be.

Then you have to apply that same line of thought to yourself regarding your decision-- If you torture someone, making 'the enemy' even more angry and they torture and kill some of our POWs in retaliation (meaning they die as a result of your decision), you will bear some responsibility for those deaths.

There's a reason we don't torture suspects to get information/confessions within our criminal justice system. There's a reason the best we can do is subpoena someone to testify in court and hope they tell the truth rather than use torture to get testimonies out of them.

And that reason is our standards. Our principles.

Edited January 6, 2008 by American Woman

[Wilber]

So in saying an innocent person's life is always more important than one's personal standards, you're saying you would torture a child if it came to that?

I am saying that my personal standards are not so high and mighty that I could use them to excuse my responsibility for another persons death. You can interpret that any way you want.

[Guest American Woman]

I am saying that my personal standards are not so high and mighty that I could use them to excuse my responsibility for another persons death. You can interpret that any way you want.

I interpret it as having hit a nerve. That's pretty obvious.

So you'd torture a child. That's what it comes down to. You'd torture an innocent, helpless child. Either that or your standards are "high and mighty," as you put it, even as you hypocritically lash out at me.

Edited January 6, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmmm......standards so high that millions of "children" are aborted each year for nothing at all.

[Wilber]

I interpret it as having hit a nerve. That's pretty obvious.

So you'd torture a child. That's what it comes down to. You'd torture an innocent, helpless child. Either that or your standards are "high and mighty," as you put it, even as you hypocritically lash out at me.

I would hope I could take the action which would give what I saw as the least worst result without allowing myself the luxury of principles or squeamishness. I take it that you would walk away and allow an innocent person to die while claiming the moral high ground. One thing I would never do is claim some kind of moral superiority to justify my actions either way. If I took your course I would spend the rest of my life wondering if my so called principles were just bullshit and the real reason that innocent person was dead is because I just wasn't willing to do what it took to save them.

Regardless of what you decide to do there will be real consequences which you will have to live with so stop acting so god damned pious.

[Guest American Woman]

I would hope I could take the action which would give what I saw as the least worst result without allowing myself the luxury of principles or squeamishness. I take it that you would walk away and allow an innocent person to die while claiming the moral high ground. One thing I would never do is claim some kind of moral superiority to justify my actions either way. If I took your course I would spend the rest of my life wondering if my so called principles were just bullshit and the real reason that innocent person was dead is because I just wasn't willing to do what it took to save them.

Regardless of what you decide to do there will be real consequences which you will have to live with so stop acting so god damned pious.

I'm sorry if you think having principals is a bad thing, but I hate to think of what our criminal/justice systems would be like if our nations had no principals. So I'll continue seeing having principals as a good thing.

I wouldn't engage in torture, and I've already explained why over and over again. I've also explained time and again that I believe saving lives/attempting to save lives through torture results in other lives lost in retaliation and by even more people engaging in torture. So I don't think lives are saved. I think more people suffer as a result.

And fyi, if I took your course, I would spend the rest of my life reliving the horror of torture-- of torturing an innocent child if necessary-- and wondering if every time I heard of others torturing and killing in retaliation for such actions, if my decision was the reason why these people died.

But here's something you might want to consider when you simmer down. Stating my beliefs is not "acting god damned pious," so chill out and quit telling me I don't have a right to state my opinion. If you have a problem with the road you would take, suck it up and deal with it instead of taking it out on me.

Edited January 6, 2008 by American Woman

[Wilber]

I'm sorry if you think having principals is a bad thing, but I hate to think of what our criminal/justice systems would be like if our nations had no principals. So I'll continue seeing having principals as a good thing.

Having principals is not a bad thing. Expecting innocent people to die so you can feel secure in your principals is a very selfish thing.

And fyi, if I took your course, I would spend the rest of my life reliving the horror of torture-- of torturing an innocent child if necessary

My point exactly, there will be a cross to bear which ever way you go.

But here's something you might want to consider when you simmer down. Stating my beliefs is not "acting god damned pious," so chill out and quit telling me I don't have a right to state my opinion. If you have a problem with the road you would take, suck it up and deal with it instead of taking it out on me.

I will if you stop making me out as some kind of freak who gets his jollies by torturing innocent children. That does strike a nerve and won't be taken lying down.

[Guest American Woman]

I will if you stop making me out as some kind of freak who gets his jollies by torturing innocent children. That does strike a nerve and won't be taken lying down.

Where did I so much as insinuate that you're a freak and/or you get your jollies by torturing innocent kids?? Like I said, you need to simmer down and not accuse me of things I've never even slightly hinted at, much less said. :angry:

[bush_cheney2004]

Where did I so much as insinuate that you're a freak and/or you get your jollies by torturing innocent kids?? Like I said, you need to simmer down and not accuse me of things I've never even slightly hinted at, much less said. :angry:

Yes you did, to wit:

"So you'd torture a child. That's what it comes down to. You'd torture an innocent, helpless child."

Personal attacks are not permitted.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes you did, to wit:

"So you'd torture a child. That's what it comes down to. You'd torture an innocent, helpless child."

Personal attacks are not permitted.

That wasn't a personal attack, it was repeating his views; and since this has nothing to do with you, I'm not getting into it with you now. So here's a tip. If you think I've insulted him, report it. If not, then bugger off since Greg has made it clear that such accusations have no place in discussion threads.

Edited January 6, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

That wasn't a personal attack, it was repeating his views and since this has nothing to do with you, I'm not getting into it with you now. So here's a tip. If you think I've insulted him, report it. If not, then bugger off since Greg has made it clear that such accusations have no place in discussion threads.

Your blatent disregard of forum rules impacts all members. Personal attacks are not permitted...and yours is a long history of such things. Try playing the ball instead of personalizing and attacking other members.

[DogOnPorch]

Try playing the ball instead of personalizing and attacking other members.

Plus, one never knows if one is simply dealing with a Devil's Advocate...or not...

---------------------------------------------------------

Pleased to meet you...won't you guess my name?

---The Rolling Stones