Ignore Terrorist Plots

[bloodyminded]

We're not stooping to their level. We're trying to save lives. They're trying to destroy lives.

Plagiarized from epic poems or children's tales.

By simple virtue of being WEestern nations, we are not always and automatically acting on benign intentions of what is good and just.

Anyone who thinks so has no business debating on the subject at all.

[Shady]

I'm asking which types you would accept--and why. Why these, and not others.

Like I said. I would accept waterboarding, for the information gathering of terrorist plots. I'd also accept sleep deprivation. However, I wouldn't condone any real torture such as physical violence and brutality.

By simple virtue of being WEestern nations, we are not always and automatically acting on benign intentions of what is good and just.

Anyone who thinks so has no business debating on the subject at all.

Plagarized from a Noam Chomsky book.

Anyways, I didn't assert that western nations are always and automatically acting on benign or good intentions. That was your premise, which I'm sure you'll begin to critique soon. Which is usually how strawman arguments go.

[bloodyminded]

Like I said. I would accept waterboarding, for the information gathering of terrorist plots.

You didn't understand my question. I wasn't asking why you'd accept certain forms of torture. I was asking why these ones, in particular, and why not other ones.

I'd also accept sleep deprivation. However, I wouldn't condone any real torture such as physical violence and brutality.

Leaving aside your judgement call of what constitutes "real" torture....why not?

Plagarized from a Noam Chomsky book.

This itself is plagiarized from that sector of the right who thinks every critique can be boiled down to "Noam Chomsky."

Anyways, I didn't assert that western nations are always and automatically acting on benign or good intentions. That was your premise, which I'm sure you'll begin to critique soon. Which is usually how strawman arguments go.

It's not a strawman argument. This is what you said:

We're not stooping to their level. We're trying to save lives. They're trying to destroy lives.

It is what it is; I didn't write it for you.

Edited September 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

For me, the standard would probably be: forms of torture that do not (or are very unlikely to) result in permanent physical injury. The reason should be obvious. Cutting off someone's fingers: no. Cutting off someone's sleep prematurely: yes.

However, in (and only in) a real "ticking time bomb scenario", where many innocent lives are at stake, any and all means should be utilized.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

For me, the standard would probably be: forms of torture that do not (or are very unlikely to) result in permanent physical injury. The reason should be obvious. Cutting off someone's fingers: no. Cutting off someone's sleep prematurely: yes.

But why? Why should that be a criteria?

However, in (and only in) a real "ticking time bomb scenario", where many innocent lives are at stake, any and all means should be utilized.

We don't need new regulations, since this would already be the case, obviously.

[Bonam]

But why? Why should that be a criteria?

If you were wrong and the person you tortured was innocent or did not possess the needed information, if you have not inflicted any permanent injury, they can get back to their lives as normal, with some bad memories perhaps. If you have permanently injured them, you have just ruined the life of someone that did not deserve it. The long term ramifications of inflicting permanent injury are very different than those of inflicting temporary pain or discomfort.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

If you were wrong and the person you tortured was innocent or did not possess the needed information, if you have not inflicted any permanent injury, they can get back to their lives as normal, with some bad memories perhaps. If you have permanently injured them, you have just ruined the life of someone that did not deserve it. The long term ramifications of inflicting permanent injury are very different than those of inflicting temporary pain or discomfort.

True. However, if the person you tortured was innocent, you have committed a grievous assault. Aggravated assault and torture. Sleep deprivation and waterboarding (the latter of which is certainly torture, and has been prosecuted as such) are incontestably acts of serious assault. So the torturer, and whoever ordered the torture, belongs in prison. People have been incarcerated for far less.

Edited September 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

True. However, if the person you tortured was innocent, you have committed a grievous assault. Aggravated assault and torture. Sleep deprivation and waterboarding (the latter of which is certainly torture, and has been prosecuted as such) are incontestably acts of serious assault. So the torturer, and whoever ordered the torture, belongs in prison. People have been incarcerated for far less.

Look, I don't pretend to like torture. Obviously, as any normal person would, I find it distasteful. But if in the course of a conflict, our government decides to use what it terms "enhanced interrogation" techniques (that do not cause permanent injury) on individuals who are deemed to have a high probability of possessing critical intelligence, I guess I won't really shed a tear. Call me an evil sadist for that or something but that's the honest truth right there.

Now, as to the legal results, whether the person who ordered/carried out the interrogation should be punished... that obviously depends on the regulations in place. I haven't followed the story in great depth but it sounds like some interrogation techniques that you would like to call torture have been allowed at various points over the last 10 years, at least by the US. I doubt that the legality of these techniques ended up depending primarily on whether useful information was actually extracted or not. You are committing "assault" either way, whether the subject has information you need or not. The question is whether that assault is justified, both in a legal and a moral sense. My default (not unchangeable) stance would probably be that the individuals in question are just doing their best to carry out their jobs under incredibly stressful and taxing circumstances, but of course if someone goes beyond what is needed or enjoys hurting people in this context then that is something that should definitely be investigated.

Shrug, maybe my views of this issue have been distorted by watching too much 24.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

Look, I don't pretend to like torture. Obviously, as any normal person would, I find it distasteful. But if in the course of a conflict, our government decides to use what it terms "enhanced interrogation" techniques (that do not cause permanent injury) on individuals who are deemed to have a high probability of possessing critical intelligence, I guess I won't really shed a tear. Call me an evil sadist for that or something but that's the honest truth right there.

I don't think you're a sadist at all. Very, very few people who defend such techniques are genuinely sadistic, I assume.

Now, as to the legal results, whether the person who ordered/carried out the interrogation should be punished... that obviously depends on the regulations in place. I haven't followed the story in great depth but it sounds like some interrogation techniques that you would like to call torture have been allowed at various points over the last 10 years, at least by the US. I doubt that the legality of these techniques ended up depending primarily on whether useful information was actually extracted or not. You are committing "assault" either way, whether the subject has information you need or not. The question is whether that assault is justified, both in a legal and a moral sense. My default (not unchangeable) stance would probably be that the individuals in question are just doing their best to carry out their jobs under incredibly stressful and taxing circumstances, but of course if someone goes beyond what is needed or enjoys hurting people in this context then that is something that should definitely be investigated.

Shrug, maybe my views of this issue have been distorted by watching too much 24.

It's true I was slightly overzealous; cases are all different from each other, and performing legal interrogations, while clealry often abusive, cannot open the interrogator to prosecution, unless they've crossed some line.

But we certainly must determine where that line is...that we have failed to do so expresses a certain coy, have-it-both-ways method of government in these matters.

For example, I think Lynndie England & co. were railroaded, scapegoats for the higher-ups who were actually responsible for the Abu Ghraib abuses.

I haven't followed the story in great depth but it sounds like some interrogation techniques that you would like to call torture have been allowed at various points over the last 10 years, at least by the US.

That appears to be the case, and it seriously raises questions about the legal responsibility of the administration and the Attorney General.

But more egregious, and more sly, is the parceling out of suspects to torture-friendly regimes. This should not be a way to conduct torture with impunity, but it is. (And in fact, all the Western nations, including the US, are signatories to laws forbidding exactly that...which is why the Afghan detainee abuses could literally constitute Canadian criminality.)

We know the leaders are playing a devious semantics gane about this behaviour; because their defenses and justifications are so laughable. (ie the American stance that, when they deported Mahir Arar to Syria--and then received (faulty) information from the torturers about Arar--"we didn't know that the Syrians would torture him." As if torturing him wasn't the very reason they sent him there.)

Edited September 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

But more egregious, and more sly, is the parceling out of suspects to torture-friendly regimes. This should not be a way to conduct torture with impunity, but it is. (And in fact, all the Western nations, including the US,

Yes, the "US" is considered to be a "Western" nation.

We know the leaders are playing a devious semantics gane about this behaviour; because their defenses and justifications are so laughable. (ie the American stance that, when they deported Mahir Arar to Syria--and then received (faulty) information from the torturers about Arar--"we didn't know that the Syrians would torture him." As if torturing him wasn't the very reason they sent him there.)

Arar was not tortured, nor was torture demonstrated to any standard. Just so happens that prison life sucks in Syria, especially for military deserters.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, the "US" is considered to be a "Western" nation.

That's correct.

Arar was not tortured, nor was torture demonstrated to any standard. Just so happens that prison life sucks in Syria, especially for military deserters.

Sure, well Canada officially recognized that he was tortured. But because the US denies it (having not looked into the matter), the dewy-eyed nationalist says it didn't happen.

Your reality determined by your doctrinal obedience.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's correct.

I know it's correct....as always, a redundant "US" adds extra mustard.

Sure, well Canada officially recognized that he was tortured. But because the US denies it (having not looked into the matter), the dewy-eyed nationalist says it didn't happen.

Canada helped to send Arar to Syria, and paid a handsome guilt ridden prize. The USA owes Arar nothing, and would promptly send his ass right back to Syria according to domestic and "international" law.

Your reality determined by your doctrinal obedience.

Thank you....I have a country...you don't.

[bloodyminded]

I know it's correct

I know you know it's correct.

Canada helped to send Arar to Syria

That's right.

, and paid a handsome guilt ridden prize.

Rightly so.

The USA owes Arar nothing, and would promptly send his ass right back to Syria according to domestic and "international" law.

Sure, the frightened little cowards would possibly do just that.

Thank you....I have a country...you don't.

As a citizen, obviously I have a country, by definition.

But I don't get all trembly and servile about it. That's your shtick.

[bush_cheney2004]

....As a citizen, obviously I have a country, by definition.

But I don't get all trembly and servile about it. That's your shtick.

But I do....hence the fun and higher ratings.

[bloodyminded]

But I do....hence the fun and higher ratings.

Well, if it makes you happy, then no harm done.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, if it makes you happy, then no harm done.

No harm done at all except to Canadian taxpayers...Arar actually made money on the deal!

Edited September 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

For me, the standard would probably be: forms of torture that do not (or are very unlikely to) result in permanent physical injury.

Yikes. Thats scary as hell.

Heres a few quick techniques you could use that dont cause permanent injuries.

1. Raping detainees with foreign objects.

2. Raping and abusing the familiy members of detainees in front of them.

3. Electric shock (provided you dont turn up the amperage too much).

4. Carefull application of burns.

5. Violent beatings as long as you dont go too far.

None of those things necessarily cause "permanent injury". So those are all ok?

Youre completely ignoring the fact the torture is pshycological not just physical.

[bloodyminded]

Yikes. Thats scary as hell.

Heres a few quick techniques you could use that dont cause permanent injuries.

1. Raping detainees with foreign objects.

2. Raping and abusing the familiy members of detainees in front of them.

3. Electric shock (provided you dont turn up the amperage too much).

4. Carefull application of burns.

5. Violent beatings as long as you dont go too far.

None of those things necessarily cause "permanent injury". So those are all ok?

Youre completely ignoring the fact the torture is pshycological not just physical.

Yeah, the raping...raping sounds like an effective technique.

Again...any takers, among the torture advocates?

If not...why not? Why "thus far and no further"?

Edited September 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Peter F]

No harm done at all except to Canadian taxpayers...Arar actually made money on the deal!

I see no wrong to Canadian Taxpayers. Attemps to make whole are part and parcel of what taxes are for.

[jbg]

I see no wrong to Canadian Taxpayers. Attemps to make whole are part and parcel of what taxes are for.

So you're willing to work hard yourself to allow hush money to be paid to a terrorist's family? I mean come on, Tunisia and Afghanistan are not exactly vacation paradises.

Edited September 20, 2010 by jbg

[Peter F]

So you're willing to work hard yourself to allow hush money to be paid to a terrorist's family? I mean come on, Tunisia and Afghanistan are not exactly vacation paradises.

"Vacation paradises"? I cudnt give two shits about vacation paradise. Travelling to foriegn lands is not a crime nor even indicative of crime.

See Terrorist Paradise!

So get a grip. Hush money my ass.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Peter F

[jbg]

"Vacation paradises"? I cudnt give two shits about vacation paradise. Travelling to foriegn lands is not a crime nor even indicative of crime.

See Terrorist Paradise!

So get a grip. Hush money my ass.

Why don't you get a grip, unless you have a death wish for us living our way of life, in freedom.

[Peter F]

Why don't you get a grip, unless you have a death wish for us living our way of life, in freedom.

Freedom? The freedom to buy an airplane ticket to Tunisia? That kind of freedom?

[bloodyminded]

So you're willing to work hard yourself to allow hush money to be paid to a terrorist's family? I mean come on, Tunisia and Afghanistan are not exactly vacation paradises.

Arar is not a terrorist.

Or do you believe that American officials' bland assertion sans evidence, that he is (and not agreed upon by all American officials, either, some of whom complained of the wrongs done to the man) trumps Canada's official inquiry?

And if so, why?

Why don't you get a grip, unless you have a death wish for us living our way of life, in freedom.

Yes, freedom-loving countries kidnap people and send them to be tortured.

Edited September 20, 2010 by bloodyminded

[ButterFlyStorms]

Not only is torture illegal it produces problematic results. Anyone guilty of torture should be arrested and taken to court. I've been wondering why Canada has not proceeded with the extradition of Americans who used torture for years upon Omar Khadr.

Unfortunately we have a right wing snob in power who won't help this boy, now a man, and ignores the fact that the Americans are admitting their guilt of using torture when they say that they will use any information (right or wrong) against Omar Khadr.

It would seem that Harper lacks the motivation to stand up for the rights of Canadians. He is too much a lover of America to see straight any more.

Too many innocent people have been detained by the Americans and, if we want information via torture, these innocent people will be tortured. I know the America big claims but they are essentially lies because so many of the detainees that have been brought in to the Americans for reward money are just innocent people. America doesn't care about reality it only cares about show.

The USA also promoted water boarding as a good way to 'get information'. However, we must remember that in the US run Japan Tribunals post second world war found water boarding a major offense. Any Japanese having anything to do with water boarding was hung until dead.

I think that this understanding is the same now as it was then