• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Waterboarding Rocks!

BaC, given the plainly worded laws of the Convention Against Torture and the U.S. Code, do you have any qualms at all about violating these laws? (This is even assuming torture can be effective, even though I'm not willing to cede that point.)

Doesn't this open the door to justified torture by virtually anyone anywhere?
 
So tell us. If you had in your custody a person who you knew with 100% certainty was involved in a plot to detonate a nuclear weapon in an American city ... a plot where the device was already in place ... a plot where you had just hours before it was set to go off ... and this person was likely to know the location of the device ... would you torture? Or would you in your high minded view of things just let several hundred thousand Americans die? :D

24 isn't reality TV, dear.
 
Yay for hypothetical situations.

Except you can't know with 100% certainty that he will lie under duress. You have to admit there IS some chance he won't lie. There are many historical examples where valuable intel has been obtained through torture. There is some non-zero probability that he will tell you the location of the bomb to stop whatever pain you inflict. That is the reality. And that being the reality, are you telling us you wouldn't be willing to torture the person if that chance of him not lying were 10%? Or even just 1%? Wouldn't you be willing to apply some pain to a person if there were a 1% chance that doing so would save several hundred thousand American lives? Or do the lives of those hundred thousand fellow citizens (who employed you to defend them from such scum) really matter less to you than the scum? Sorry, but I really don't think you can claim any high and mighty ground to stand on here, TK.
 
Is that a tu quoque argument? Is it somehow supposed to excuse torture?

No, I simply put the issue in a context that shows how little your side in this debate values American lives. :D

He should certainly be using the bully pulpit to call for prosecutions.

I hope he does. I hope he does establish the precedent that previous administrations should be held accountable to the law that was enforce at the time. Once that happens, there are a number of laws that the Clinton administration clearly violated for which there is no statute of limitations. And I'm almost certain we will find plenty of similar examples during Obama's administration. :D
 
Except you can't know with 100% certainty that he will lie under duress. You have to admit there IS some chance he won't lie. There are many historical examples where valuable intel has been obtained through torture. There is some non-zero probability that he will tell you the location of the bomb to stop whatever pain you inflict. That is the reality. And that being the reality, are you telling us you wouldn't be willing to torture the person if that chance of him not lying were 10%? Or even just 1%? Wouldn't you be willing to apply some pain to a person if there were a 1% chance that doing so would save several hundred thousand American lives? Or do the lives of those hundred thousand fellow citizens (who employed you to defend them from such scum) really matter less to you than the scum? Sorry, but I really don't think you can claim any high and mighty ground to stand on here, TK.

Hey, if in your hypothetical we are 100% certain he knows where the bomb is, then he is also 100% lying about it in mine.

As I said:

Yay for hypothetical situations.
 
That has been pretty much an accepterds fact pf psychology since the 1960s, at least. I know it was brought up in some of the Psych and Special Ed classes I took in 1970-77. Sorry I can't cite a study right nopw, but sensory depravation can be used to induce a condition similar to schizophrenia. You start to halucinate after a while.

There's a growing body of research on the deprivations associated with solitary confinement. This is in use all over the world in normal operations of prisons - we're not just talking about "enemy combatants" here.

Some of the side effects of long-term isolation include: higher rates of recividism, long-lasting psychological ailments, an inability to socialize, increased rage reactions to what would appear to be innocuous triggers.

This New Yorker piece was quite excellent regarding this subject:

"It’s an awful thing, solitary,” John McCain wrote of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam—more than two years of it spent in isolation in a fifteen-by-fifteen-foot cell, unable to communicate with other P.O.W.s except by tap code, secreted notes, or by speaking into an enamel cup pressed against the wall. “It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.” And this comes from a man who was beaten regularly; denied adequate medical treatment for two broken arms, a broken leg, and chronic dysentery; and tortured to the point of having an arm broken again. A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam, many of whom were treated even worse than McCain, reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered.

And what happened to them was physical. EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement. In 1992, fifty-seven prisoners of war, released after an average of six months in detention camps in the former Yugoslavia, were examined using EEG-like tests. The recordings revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury.

...

After a few months without regular social contact, however, his experience proved no different from that of the P.O.W.s or hostages, or the majority of isolated prisoners whom researchers have studied: he started to lose his mind. He talked to himself. He paced back and forth compulsively, shuffling along the same six-foot path for hours on end. Soon, he was having panic attacks, screaming for help. He hallucinated that the colors on the walls were changing. He became enraged by routine noises—the sound of doors opening as the guards made their hourly checks, the sounds of inmates in nearby cells. After a year or so, he was hearing voices on the television talking directly to him. He put the television under his bed, and rarely took it out again.

One of the paradoxes of solitary confinement is that, as starved as people become for companionship, the experience typically leaves them unfit for social interaction. Once, Dellelo was allowed to have an in-person meeting with his lawyer, and he simply couldn’t handle it. After so many months in which his primary human contact had been an occasional phone call or brief conversations with an inmate down the tier, shouted through steel doors at the top of their lungs, he found himself unable to carry on a face-to-face conversation. He had trouble following both words and hand gestures and couldn’t generate them himself. When he realized this, he succumbed to a full-blown panic attack.

...

Craig Haney, a psychology professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, received rare permission to study a hundred randomly selected inmates at California’s Pelican Bay supermax, and noted a number of phenomena. First, after months or years of complete isolation, many prisoners “begin to lose the ability to initiate behavior of any kind—to organize their own lives around activity and purpose,” he writes. “Chronic apathy, lethargy, depression, and despair often result. . . . In extreme cases, prisoners may literally stop behaving,” becoming essentially catatonic.

Second, almost ninety per cent of these prisoners had difficulties with “irrational anger,” compared with just three per cent of the general population.* Haney attributed this to the extreme restriction, the totality of control, and the extended absence of any opportunity for happiness or joy. Many prisoners in solitary become consumed with revenge fantasies.​
 
No, I simply put the issue in a context that shows how little your side in this debate values American lives. :D



I hope he does. I hope he does establish the precedent that previous administrations should be held accountable to the law that was enforce at the time. Once that happens, there are a number of laws that the Clinton administration clearly violated for which there is no statute of limitations. And I'm almost certain we will find plenty of similar examples during Obama's administration. :D
As Darth Rotor remarked on the other thread, torture isn't quite the same as a blow job.

Frankly, I'm appalled at Obama's decision to allow rendition. If torture results from this policy, then I will be in favor of prosecuting Obama as well. At this point, I don't think there's any evidence of it (yet I will continue pressuring Obama to change the policy).

During the Bush administration, we have very strong evidence of many instances of torture, including instances where prisoners were tortured to death. These are extremely serious crimes. We're not talking about an extra-marital affair here.
 
I reject this hypothetical as impossible.

I guess we "know with 100% certainty" the same way we knew about the WMDs in Iraq.

Let's provide more detail. You've caught this guy. He's a known al-qaeda. He was on a watch list which is why you were able to pick him up. You arrest him in a warehouse. You discover that he's radioactive as hell. You discover a room in the warehouse that is radioactive as hell with lots of radioactive tools lying around. Several months ago you received warnings from the Russians that a muslim group got away with enough material to build a dirty bomb (by the way, did you see the news recently with regards to that threat?). Other intel indicates al-Qaeda has the technical expertise to build such a bomb. And now Al-qaeda has sent out announcements that the Fist Of Mohammed will strike an American city on the 19th of the month. Just 10 hours from now. So ok. You don't know with a 100% certainty that they've built a bomb or that this man is involved. But you have more than a little reason to be concerned. This is not at all out of the realm of possibility. Again, are you telling us that under such circumstances you'd be unwilling to apply any non-lethal pain to this individual in order to find out how he and that room became so radioactive?

That's part of the reasoning, I think, that the C.A.T. specifically says that there is no circumstance whatsoever that may be used to justify torture.

Which I find utterly ludicrous. The C.A.T. was written by people detached from reality.
 
well I find it amusing how often people chalk up their differences to the inner minds of those they're debating with.

Had a particularly nasty debate yesterday w/ a new-age CTer and he couldn't help himself from describing, in detail, my "limitations" and mental shortcomings that combine to immunize me from learning the Truth about sacred geometry, the one consciousness, and the 9/11 false flag.

But just as BeaChooser sees the idea, held by many upstanding and acutely intelligent individuals with real world experience in interrogations, that torture is always a crime and nothing can be used to justify it as proof of a detachment from reality - I'm sure many of them would see the invocation of a scenario lifted directly from a fictional TV show as something of dubious relevance to "reality".

The real answer is to uphold the criminalization of torture in all cases - if in the unlikely event that BeAChooser's fiction comes to pass in reality and someone tortures the individual (and that torture somehow gets a martyr to crack and reveal helpful info when he knows all he has to do is last 10 hours), then the officials who ordered the torture and the agents who implemented it can explain their rationale in front of a judge.

if it truly did prevent a dirty bomb attack I'm sure the sentence would be lenient or suspended.

We don't have legalized murder because in some cases it is done in self-defense - one outlier can't be used to create a general rule. If the murder was in self-defense then that gets proven in a court of law and the sentence is reduced or the defendant is found guilty of a lesser charge.
 
Last edited:
Again, are you telling us that under such circumstances you'd be unwilling to apply any non-lethal pain to this individual in order to find out how he and that room became so radioactive?
Yes. It's illegal and immoral to torture under any circumstances. Even in your strained hypothetical, you still don't know for sure what you think you know for sure. And allowing it in the case YOU think is justified opens the door for other people to justify torture when THEY think it makes sense.



Which I find utterly ludicrous. The C.A.T. was written by people detached from reality.
And I suppose it was signed and ratified by the U.S. because every American involved was being coerced somehow? It really is U.S. law, you know.

You come up with the most strained and unlikely hypothetical and you claim that people who think it's wrong to torture are detached from reality?

Wow.
 
You can make that argument, but if you're going to make it - make it. Don't **** around with comparisons to mild stuff like Halloween. If you think making people fear they are going to die doesn't constitute torture, say that you think making people fear they are going to die doesn't constitute torture. Don't try to minimize it and make it sound like a frat prank.
The definition of torture is so vague that Halloween pranks could be considered as such if allowed to extend beyond any reasonable explanation.

If the person isn't in any imminent physical danger than how is it torture? I can understand mental and emotional distress, but if you can't die from it, should it really be considered torture? I don't believe it should, but once again, we're back to whether or not the definition of torture is sufficient. It is not, or the topic wouldn't be so widely debated.
 
If the person isn't in any imminent physical danger than how is it torture?

John McCain wasn't in any physical danger when he was isolated in solitary confinement for years, and he is quoted - on this page - as describing that isolation as more torturous than anything physical he was subjected to.
 
Then it was illegal before that animal Yoo and the war criminal Rummy authorized it. They should both be taken out of the country in shackles.

Except that Maddow made the whole thing up. No Japanese tried at the Tokyo Trials was hanged for waterboarding.
 
The definition of torture is so vague that Halloween pranks could be considered as such if allowed to extend beyond any reasonable explanation.

If the person isn't in any imminent physical danger than how is it torture? I can understand mental and emotional distress, but if you can't die from it, should it really be considered torture? I don't believe it should, but once again, we're back to whether or not the definition of torture is sufficient. It is not, or the topic wouldn't be so widely debated.

How is the person meant to know if they are in imminent physical danger or not? Who provides them with this information?
 
Let's provide more detail. You've caught this guy. He's a known al-qaeda. He was on a watch list which is why you were able to pick him up. You arrest him in a warehouse. You discover that he's radioactive as hell. You discover a room in the warehouse that is radioactive as hell with lots of radioactive tools lying around. {snip}
Oh NOES!! I can only imagine how many times something this contrived could possibly happen outside of TV and the movies!!! I am now thoroughly PANICKED!

We should torture kids who speed, just in case!!!

:aaa!
 
The definition of torture is so vague that Halloween pranks could be considered as such if allowed to extend beyond any reasonable explanation.
Here's the same argument again. It's wrong. Halloween pranks don't even come close to fitting the definition of torture. To summarize, for it to be torture, you've got to have people acting in the public name (government agents) inflicting severe mental or physical pain on someone in their custody in order to extract information or a confession or as punishment.

A Halloween prank fulfills pretty much . . . none of the elements of torture.



If the person isn't in any imminent physical danger than how is it torture? I can understand mental and emotional distress, but if you can't die from it, should it really be considered torture?
Read the definition of torture. It includes mental pain. For that matter, waterboarding most definitely does include the threat of imminent death (that's rather the point of it).

I don't believe it should, but once again, we're back to whether or not the definition of torture is sufficient. It is not, or the topic wouldn't be so widely debated.
That's a bogus argument. That's like saying we need to cave in to the Creationists with regard to how science is taught in public schools because they perceive a controversy.

Torture is NOT vaguely defined. I invite you to read the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the U.S. Code on torture. I've linked to both several times in all these torture threads.
 
Last edited:
If the person isn't in any imminent physical danger than how is it torture? I can understand mental and emotional distress, but if you can't die from it, should it really be considered torture?
So, are the following torture or not, according to you? They are not fatal.

- Ripping out fingernails
- Water dripping
- Mock executions
- Extended sleep deprivation
- Extended sensory deprivation
- Electric shocks
etc...
 

Back
Top Bottom