US torturers to go free

[paximperium]

I agree with most of this, but would just like to point out that, in these cases, torture was not warranted or useful.

Oh, and I just don't see the point in continuing to be derailed by EJ not being able to read, so I won't be addressing the silly 'play write' thing.

Just curious. What cases are these?

I'm aware of how unreliable torture is but it does occasionally pick up useful information. Unfortunately it is often mixed in with useless stuff as well. I oppose torture in these scenarios and am only leaving a very small possibility for its use and only in extreme circumstances.

 

[tyr_13]

Just curious. What cases are these?

I'm aware of how unreliable torture is but it does occasionally pick up useful information. Unfortunately it is often mixed in with useless stuff as well. I oppose torture in these scenarios and am only leaving a very small possibility for its use and only in extreme circumstances.

Most all of the ones from the released documents, all the useful information coming before torture was applied it looks like. Obviously they couldn't have known at the time it was all the useful information, but that's just one more strike against using torture.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You may need to read the clauses that the US inserted into the convention.

You may need to cite them and explain their significance, instead of hoping I'll do all your work for you.

Because it was written by a committee tasked for that sole purpose. They believe in what they wrote and I can say that they are wrong.

That's some fast backpedalling, but it's not an answer to the question I intended to ask.

Why do you think those people believed that state torture should never be used, even in situations where the government felt that it really, really needed to torture someone? We know that was their belief. What reasons do you think they had to hold that belief?

 

[Drysdale]

Most all of the ones from the released documents, all the useful information coming before torture was applied it looks like. Obviously they couldn't have known at the time it was all the useful information, but that's just one more strike against using torture.

According to Drudge,Cheney claims Obama did'nt release all the documents,particularly the ones that indicate the waterboarding etc. extracted info preventing more attacks like 9-11.


http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcm.htm

 

[paximperium]

@Kevin Lowe:
Current discussion:Is torture ever warranted?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140772

 

[tyr_13]

According to Drudge,Cheney claims Obama did'nt release all the documents,particularly the ones that indicate the waterboarding etc. extracted info preventing more attacks like 9-11.


http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcm.htm

Yeah, I saw a clip of Cheney saying that on Fox News. But it's Dick Cheney.

Yes, I just said that Dick Cheney is an unreliable source. Why? Because he's Dick Mother****ing Cheney.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Dick Cheney, dick Nixon, dick them all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

According to Drudge,Cheney claims Obama did'nt release all the documents,particularly the ones that indicate the waterboarding etc. extracted info preventing more attacks like 9-11.

And is there any legal support for saying that you can justify torture if you think it will help you prevent a terrorist attack? I've read the Convention Against Torture and the U.S. Code on torture, and must've missed the clause where it makes that exception.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nevermind--I misread the context of a question.

 

[tomwaits]

Obama's Intel Chief says that "harsh interrogation techniques worked" (although it doesn't say when and how)

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Obama's Intel Chief says that "harsh interrogation techniques worked" (although it doesn't say when and how)

From the same link

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

I have nothing to add to that.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Well since EJ has decided to go on his rant and now in his mudslinging phase and is claiming things I don't believe it is rather sad to see him drool with glee at his "gotcha" moment. Unfortunately he is currently in his "abuse abuse, pip pip" brainless mode.

Shrug. To set things straight, I don't believe torture is all that use or even that effective. However, I believe there are rare occasions where it may be necessary to save the lives on innocents. In these situations, which should be exceedingly rare, torture may be the only valid way to get the information required. Any use of such a "tactic" should be properly vetted through legal, public and through appropriateness systems. I may even require that the President of the United States approve these rare events and bear responsibility for their outcomes.

EJ can keep claiming whetever he wants, just like he misquotes his news articles to support his nonsense, I have little doubt he will keep ranting about what I believe and keep claiming that I support torture or hate human rights.

Now How sad all this is.

As a self confessed torture supporter when it suits you would say all this wouldn't you.

Let me quote your own words yet again.
"...Sometimes there are reasons to torture. ..."
"...However, I believe there are rare situations where it is definitely necessary especially when it comes to imminent life threats. ..."
"...Would you torture one to save a million? I would. ..."
"...Because I have no issue with torturing individuals when it comes to saving lives when it comes to an impending and imminent threat. ..."

To this you have now added the unambiguous statement that you support torture again when it suits you and the USA. Don't you realise yet that however many times the USA chooses to redefine torture that does not change what torture is. I have suggested that you read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but it appears that you have not done so.

In making this last post and hurling more abuse at me in the process for being against torture you have confirmed you self confessed status as a supporter of torture when ever it suits you.

You also bizarrely called me a 'vile person' for being against torture in every circumstance. being called vile by a self confessed supporter of torture whenever it suits you just makes my point so eloquently that I should thank you for all your efforts on my behalf.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

...
Oh, and I just don't see the point in continuing to be derailed by EJ not being able to read, so I won't be addressing the silly 'play write' thing. ...

Is your position really so bereft of support that you have to continually hurl personal abuse at me across every thread I start. The evidence that is building up to suggest that you and some others do - everywhere on this site. Odd that - isn't it?

Now - either you are in support torture whenever it suits you - as Pax has repeatedly stated he is or you are against torture in every circumstances - as people who believe in human rights and the law are.

Which side do you take?

 

[paximperium]

Now How sad all this is.

As a self confessed torture supporter when it suits you would say all this wouldn't you.

Let me quote your own words yet again.
"...Sometimes there are reasons to torture. ..."
"...However, I believe there are rare situations where it is definitely necessary especially when it comes to imminent life threats. ..."
"...Would you torture one to save a million? I would. ..."
"...Because I have no issue with torturing individuals when it comes to saving lives when it comes to an impending and imminent threat. ..."

To this you have now added the unambiguous statement that you support torture again when it suits you and the USA. Don't you realise yet that however many times the USA chooses to redefine torture that does not change what torture is. I have suggested that you read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but it appears that you have not done so.

In making this last post and hurling more abuse at me in the process for being against torture you have confirmed you self confessed status as a supporter of torture when ever it suits you.

You also bizarrely called me a 'vile person' for being against torture in every circumstance. being called vile by a self confessed supporter of torture whenever it suits you just makes my point so eloquently that I should thank you for all your efforts on my behalf.

Looks like this has always been about EJ. Oh well.
EJ posted the above, well after he had already read this:

After doing some additional reading(and "soul" searching), I've reversed my position on torture. It doesn't work and its use is too often misused to allow its use under any situations even the hypothetical "ticking time bomb" scenario.

The ethical thing to do would be ban all use of torture, no matter the cause.

Since he is continuing to fling his claims that "I'm a torture supporter", despite knowing my change in position, his honesty is open to see.

 

[Donal]

So, EJ, when exactly did you decide to end your association with reality? So far in this thread:

You've likened the US to Nazi Germany

You have dared the US to invade Holland

You seem to think moral outrage over said invasion of Holland would somehow be a shield against cruise missiles.

You claim an international organization that is reliant on the cooperation of its members doesn't have to be concerned when member nations don't take it seriously.

 

[tyr_13]

Is your position really so bereft of support that you have to continually hurl personal abuse at me across every thread I start. The evidence that is building up to suggest that you and some others do - everywhere on this site. Odd that - isn't it?

If you want to talk about evidence building from people's posting patterns in threads, I think there is more to support the idea that you're just an adversarial ideologue only interested in demonizing things you are predisposed to dislike and not a person in search of open and honest discourse. It is also odd that you see that your actions draw criticism that for some reason you call personal abuse, and yet assume the problem is with everyone else. If you want to talk about it further, open a thread on posting patterns and your personal confirmation bias.

Now - either you are in support torture whenever it suits you - as Pax has repeatedly stated he is or you are against torture in every circumstances - as people who believe in human rights and the law are.

Which side do you take?

This is a false dichotomy. There are more than two positions to take. Also, your wording makes this a leading question. A person could support the use of torture techniques in very limited circumstances, and yet believe in human rights in every other case. You could be against torture, but against the right of women to vote, or Catholics to live, or the US to exist.

As far as what you meant, or should have meant, in your question I can understand why people use torture or feel that they need to and even forgive it is some cases. I don't believe the genin need to be prosecuted, although I would support arresting the higher ups who ordered and tried to justify it. However, ultimately, I'm against torture in just about all the circumstances that I can think of.

 

[applecorped]

What charges could be brought against "higher ups"?

 

[tyr_13]

What charges could be brought against "higher ups"?

I assumed that we have laws against torture. I could be mistaken.

 

[applecorped]

But higher ups didn't actually torture so what could they be charged with?

 

[tyr_13]

But higher ups didn't actually torture so what could they be charged with?

Conspiracy to torture. Ordering people to torture, collusion to torture, conspiracy to deny human rights, conspiracy to commit cruel and unusual punishment, criminal negligence, abuse of power, etc.