Discussion: Torture

[War Lord]

But did it work in providing USEFUL information?

You'll have to ask John McCain.

During WWII, Japanese war prisoners became fluent in Japanese in a few months because each time they screwed up, they got tortured.

 

[Darthphere]

Wow..

 

[Grim Goblin]

I'll ask someone who has actually experienced torture to see if it really works in getting USEFUL info, though I doubt Senator McCain will read my letter.

It all depends on the will power of the subject.

What? I've been forced to listen to a whole Celine Dion album, that qualifies as torture my friend

And I can personally sleep through pretty much every form of direct contact short of punching me. I'm sure others can do it too so that's not necesarilly a great torture.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Where is the Rebel Base?

I am against that form of torture because you get the burning hair and it stinks up the room and you say, "HEY! We had an agreement!" and Darth Vader goes, "I am stinking up the romm. Pray I do not stink it up further."

 

[War Lord]

I think that nearly all forms of pain should not be used for interogation techniques.

It's tough to draw a line in the sand. It all depends on the seriousness of the situation, but I do draw a line in the sand in terms of injurious torture techniques.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Wow..

just..."wow"?

 

[raybia]

US backs 'torture' methods to question terror suspects

ANDREW PICKEN (//=0;i-=2){d+=unescape('%'+e.substr(i,2));};document.write(d);//]]> [email protected])
TOUGH new interrogation laws allowing sleep deprivation and induced hypothermia have been passed by the US senate.
Members have backed President George Bush's controversial bill designed to prohibit blatant abuses of detainees but does grant him power to decide what interrogation techniques are permissible.
Human rights groups have said the techniques border on torture.

Bush's Republican party has also been criticised for rushing through the laws to spotlight their tough stance against terrorism in time for parliamentary elections in November.
The new legislation will also set up special tribunals to question and try the hundreds of suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A Supreme Court ruling in June said that the original military tribunals set up by the Bush administration to prosecute these detainees were unlawful.
Another piece of legislation passed in the United States yesterday means the president will be able to order surveillance on a suspect without going to court for approval. Both laws could reach the president's desk within days to be signed into law.
Democrats said the Republicans' rush to muscle the measure through Congress was aimed at giving them something to boast about during the forthcoming election campaign for control of the House of Representatives and Senate. "There is no question that the rush to pass this bill, which is the product of secret negotiations with the White House, is about serving a political agenda," said Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy.
But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who helped draft the legislation during negotiations with the White House, said the measure set up a system for treating detainees that the nation can be proud of. He said the goal "is to render justice to the terrorists, even though they will not render justice to us".
The interrogation laws establishes military tribunals that would give defendants access to classified evidence being used to convict them, and allow limited use of evidence obtained by coercion.
The new Republican-backed spying legislation outlines when and how a president can order warrantless surveillance. The president would be permitted to do so, for example, after an "armed attack", "terrorist attack" or when the president deems there is an "imminent threat".
Backers contend the legislation would bolster congressional oversight and better protect civil liberties. But critics claim it expands presidential powers and further threatens the rights of law- abiding Americans.
"Hidden in the fine print are provisions which grant the administration authority to maintain permanent records on innocent US citizens, giving it new authority to demand personal records without court review, and terminating any and all legal challenges to unlawful wiretapping," said John Conyers, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican and chief sponsor of the measure, said the bill would protect the nation as well as individual liberties.
She said: "Intelligence is the first line of defence in the war on terror. Excesses are best prevented when the intelligence activities are operated within a framework that controls government power by using checks and balances among the three branches of government."


And here is a video of Hilary Clinton rejecting the bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNXxednKNtg

Well, why not since we all know that Muslims are the only ones who are terrorists anyway.

 

[hippie_hunter]

i feel bad for any soldiers who are gonna get captured and tortured.

Chances are that if our soldiers were captured by terrorists or an unfriendly nation (like Baathist Iraq, North Korea, etc.), that they're gonna get tortured in the first place even if we didn't practice it.

 

[Darthphere]

just..."wow"?

No, I had two dots as well.

 

[Darthphere]

Chances are that if our soldiers were captured by terrorists or an unfriendly nation (like Baathist Iraq, North Korea, etc.), that they're gonna get tortured in the first place even if we didn't practice it.

See, but were supposed to be better than them....

 

[War Lord]

See, but were supposed to be better than them....

And we are better then them The interrogative techniques we use don't result in permanent injuries or permanent mental conditions.

 

[raybia]

Chances are that if our soldiers were captured by terrorists or an unfriendly nation (like Baathist Iraq, North Korea, etc.), that they're gonna get tortured in the first place even if we didn't practice it.

Thats the spirit! An Eye for an Eye!














Leaves everyone blind.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

No, he's right. Treating people humanely is only reserved for those that treat us humanely.
If we're dealing with inhuman, sadistic monsters, then, we can be inhuman, sadistic monsters back. See?
And if a guy rapes your wife, then hell, just rape him...eye for an eye.

 

[Darthphere]

And we are better then them The interrogative techniques we use don't result in permanent injuries or permanent mental conditions.

Thats yet to be seen.

 

[raybia]

No, he's right. Treating people humanely is only reserved for those that treat us humanely.
If we're dealing with inhuman, sadistic monsters, then, we can be inhuman, sadistic monsters back. See?
And if a guy rapes your wife, then hell, just rape him...eye for an eye.

Rape him? What about his wife?

 

[War Lord]

Thats yet to be seen.

And it's yet to be seen whether it will go too far, so why complain?

 

[Darthphere]

And it's yet to be seen whether it will go too far, so why complain?

Why defend it?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Rape him? What about his wife?

Sorry, I never think of a rapist as a person who is married

 

[raybia]

Sorry, I never think of a rapist as a person who is married

No what I meant was, "You said rape him!"

 

[War Lord]

Why defend it?

Because what passed the Senate is defendable.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

No what I meant was, "You said rape him!"

Yeah, 'cause these people think that if someone is evil and commits a heinous crime, then you're justified in matching their level of evil and commiting a comparable crime, but I never think of a rapist as a married guy, so your only outlet would be to rape him back on behalf of your wife. See?

 

[Addendum]

Why does the Senate need defending

 

[JLBats]

these people think that if someone is evil and commits a heinous crime, then you're justified in matching their level of evil and commiting a comparable crime

Well, yeah, just as long as you live in a nice house with a white picket fence and go to church.

 

[Darthphere]

Because what passed the Senate is defendable.

Subjective. And if you believe the whole Abu Ghraib debacle is going to be an isolated incident youre far too naive, they are pretty much now giving them a free ride to commit atrocities.

 

[Darren Daring]

Yeah, 'cause these people think that if someone is evil and commits a heinous crime, then you're justified in matching their level of evil and commiting a comparable crime, but I never think of a rapist as a married guy, so your only outlet would be to rape him back on behalf of your wife. See?

Do you think Revenge is enough to get it up?

Well, revenge, and the exhilerating tightness of a virgin hole.