Conquer Club

So with the announcement that the Red Cross has officialy classified nearly all forms of US interrogation techniques as torture, why are they still not considered torture to our justice department? Is there really a debate anymore?

Old news...
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34 ... 80401.html

I was looking for this report specifically, but this was all I could find = ( UN denounces torture
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-randall170206.htm

Amnesty International
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep20 ... -s25.shtml

Official Website for action
http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.p ... at=Torture

torture is a wide subject.

wouldn't any human mistreatment fall into the category?

and if so, could we distinguish between the u.s. methods of sleep deprivation and the like from the british "beat the everloving shit out of them" or the israeli "just enough to keep them breathing" techniques. not to say all three don't adopt, mix and match; but there is quite a difference between these and say, sawing the heads off of civilian contractors.

all in all dirty business, but i dont see it as simply a black and white matter. as much as the
"western" countries would love to have had a much more benevolent history with the middle east, we have to make due with the miserable present; avoiding more skyscrapers toppling and trains derailing due to someone's idea of political statement. nevertheless, we'd all like there to be more "intelligence" in rounding up people who genuinely need to be "questioned", and the surest way to reach the desirable is to have the freedom to talk about and criticize procedure.

Prestor Jack wrote:torture is a wide subject.

wouldn't any human mistreatment fall into the category?

and if so, could we distinguish between the u.s. methods of sleep deprivation and the like from the british "beat the everloving shit out of them" or the israeli "just enough to keep them breathing" techniques. not to say all three don't adopt, mix and match; but there is quite a difference between these and say, sawing the heads off of civilian contractors.

all in all dirty business, but i dont see it as simply a black and white matter. as much as the
"western" countries would love to have had a much more benevolent history with the middle east, we have to make due with the miserable present; avoiding more skyscrapers toppling and trains derailing due to someone's idea of political statement. nevertheless, we'd all like there to be more "intelligence" in rounding up people who genuinely need to be "questioned", and the surest way to reach the desirable is to have the freedom to talk about and criticize procedure.

... Damn, that was so middle-road and reasonable I don't know how to react.

... Are you new to the culture wars that is the CC Chatterbox Forum?

....

I'm don't know guys. The UN, Amnesty International, and now the Red Cross all define many of our American techniques as torture.
The Red Cross is the big-ey. How can we still have a discussion about whether it is still considered torture?

A lot of the US methods go beyond sleep deprivation.

Anyone hear about that case a while back where an young(7?) Afgani boy had his testicals crushed with a car battery in front of his family? The CIA was trying to get his father to talk. The boy had nothing to do with it. An extreme case I'm sure, but I haven't been able to learn what happened to the agents responsible.

There is a movement to redefine torture as any form of cruelty and if people are successful in their efforts it will undermine the ability of the state to protect it's citizens. "Torture" as practiced by the United States is a far cry from torture in the traditional sense of the word while the enemies of the United States have no problem practicing it in it's most gruesome form (cutting someone's head off and posting it on the internet).

To clarify, torture should be defined as extreme abuse which leaves lasting physical harm. Breaking bones, cutting off fingers, mangling genitals, putting cigarettes or other burning hot surfaces on the skin all qualify as torture.

Holding someone under water and then bringing them up leaving no lasting physical harm of any kind may or may not fall under the category of torture in it's most mild form but regardless of this it was not practiced widely by the United States. If my memory serves me it was used on only three people in an effort to save thousands of lives and is therefore completely forgivable if not essential to our survival.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I'm don't know guys. The UN, Amnesty International, and now the Red Cross all define many of our American techniques as torture.
The Red Cross is the big-ey. How can we still have a discussion about whether it is still considered torture?

A lot of the US methods go beyond sleep deprivation.

Anyone hear about that case a while back where an young(7?) Afgani boy had his testicals crushed with a car battery in front of his family? The CIA was trying to get his father to talk. The boy had nothing to do with it. An extreme case I'm sure, but I haven't been able to learn what happened to the agents responsible.

If this is true it would be a form of torture. Do you have some kind of evidence to back up this allegation or are you just slandering my country?

i'd like to think that the u.s. is PC enough to pursue stories like those and prosecute those invloved should the story be justified, even if the sympathy is all for show. negative publicity does more to keep the u.s. gov in line than the whim of a celebrity politician. i'm quite sure some abuses go beyond the general level of acceptance, though not as rampant as in the lesser-scrutinized countries.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I'm don't know guys. The UN, Amnesty International, and now the Red Cross all define many of our American techniques as torture.
The Red Cross is the big-ey. How can we still have a discussion about whether it is still considered torture?

Exactly. I know it's nice to talk about how torture is defined and where we should draw the line and if the pro's outweigh the con's but you're forgetting the simple fact that what the US is doing is considered torture by everyone.

The debate has already taken place. We've already established what torture is, but then the current administration decided to just ignore it and use some bullshit Jack Bauer justification to deal with the questions arising. Torture doesn't work, numerous officials have said so.

This debate is not about "well the other countries are doing it too!!!11" but about whether you're willing to sacrifice the moral highground to obtain shaky information at best.

And of course if you're not allowed to use the evidence you get, because it was extracted by extreme means, the whole thing becomes worse than nasty and silly, it becomes pointless.

GabonX wrote:If this is true it would be a form of torture. Do you have some kind of evidence to back up this allegation or are you just slandering my country?

I'm American!!!! Are you saying someone named Juan has to be from Mexico or something? If this is true than Someone named GabonX must be the missing Lemur-Monkey link. Yeah, that's right, I know what a Gabon is.

And that case was fairly big news about two years ago! I watched a discussion on it on PBS's Nightly News. It was during there expose on the White House. I remember that the last episode that they discussed it was the one where they broke the story about the White House(Bush) having closed door discussions about Nuking Iran.
Anyway, it WAS an isolated case. It's not policy or anything, and the participaters were arrested.

Anyway, these People literally did what I described, but the case kinda just vanished away from the news....

GabonX wrote:Breaking bones, cutting off fingers,

They were talking about just this subject on The Power Hour Radio show this morning. That's why i brough up this subject. These two things were the Red Cross'es biggest quibbles with the US torture policy, but I'm sorry, I am unable to find the source. The Power Hour didn't link it on their website.
Anyway, someone did have their finger cut off(they noted that it wasn't an important one like your thumb, or index finger) and there were a few bones broken during simulated torture. But these are all believed to be accidents.
The other big quibble was about the Red Cross being denied visits to certain prisoners who were being interagatted, and being denied access to prisoners held in certain foriegn prisons. Most notably the secret Polish Prison.

But again, I can't find the Red Cross source.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:I'm don't know guys. The UN, Amnesty International, and now the Red Cross all define many of our American techniques as torture.
The Red Cross is the big-ey. How can we still have a discussion about whether it is still considered torture?

Exactly. I know it's nice to talk about how torture is defined and where we should draw the line and if the pro's outweigh the con's but you're forgetting the simple fact that what the US is doing is considered torture by everyone.

The debate has already taken place. We've already established what torture is, but then the current administration decided to just ignore it and use some bullshit Jack Bauer justification to deal with the questions arising. Torture doesn't work, numerous officials have said so.

Exactly-Exactly! There's no arguement anymore, unless they get some new tactics.

booooohooooo so we torture terrorists who want to waste our "infidel" lives who gives a shit anything to keep my family and friends safe is cool wit me!

GabonX wrote:There is a movement to redefine torture as any form of cruelty and if people are successful in their efforts it will undermine the ability of the state to protect it's citizens. "Torture" as practiced by the United States is a far cry from torture in the traditional sense of the word while the enemies of the United States have no problem practicing it in it's most gruesome form (cutting someone's head off and posting it on the internet).

To clarify, torture should be defined as extreme abuse which leaves lasting physical harm. Breaking bones, cutting off fingers, mangling genitals, putting cigarettes or other burning hot surfaces on the skin all qualify as torture.

Holding someone under water and then bringing them up leaving no lasting physical harm of any kind may or may not fall under the category of torture in it's most mild form but regardless of this it was not practiced widely by the United States. If my memory serves me it was used on only three people in an effort to save thousands of lives and is therefore completely forgivable if not essential to our survival.

The thing is, several medical studies have shown that torture that screws with you psychologically can be not only more effective but more damaging in the long run than physical torture. Wounds heal, a broken mind does not.

JACKAZZTJM wrote:booooohooooo so we torture terrorists who want to waste our "infidel" lives who gives a shit anything to keep my family and friends safe is cool wit me!

Most of the "terrorists" we've tortured have been innocent men. See Abu Ghraib.

JACKAZZTJM wrote:booooohooooo so we torture terrorists who want to waste our "infidel" lives who gives a shit anything to keep my family and friends safe is cool wit me!

Yeah....we only torture terrorists....

Snorri1234 wrote:

JACKAZZTJM wrote:booooohooooo so we torture terrorists who want to waste our "infidel" lives who gives a shit anything to keep my family and friends safe is cool wit me!

Yeah....we only torture terrorists....

hahahahaha what do u think that were just running around torturing random people? get a grip you lunatic!

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:I'm don't know guys. The UN, Amnesty International, and now the Red Cross all define many of our American techniques as torture.
The Red Cross is the big-ey. How can we still have a discussion about whether it is still considered torture?

Exactly. I know it's nice to talk about how torture is defined and where we should draw the line and if the pro's outweigh the con's but you're forgetting the simple fact that what the US is doing is considered torture by everyone.

The debate has already taken place. We've already established what torture is, but then the current administration decided to just ignore it and use some bullshit Jack Bauer justification to deal with the questions arising. Torture doesn't work, numerous officials have said so.

Exactly-Exactly! There's no arguement anymore, unless they get some new tactics.

Contrary to your opinions what is and is not considered torture is a hotly contested issue today. The debate rages on and to deny the reality of this is extremely manipulative. It has also been argued that because the terrorists detained do not fight for an existing nation that they are not protected. As for there being a unified definition as to what constitutes torture, no such thing exists. The extremes of torture, which are not now and never have been condoned by the United States, are obvious but the lesser forms are not clearly defined. For example, the articles posted claim that sleep depravation is a form of torture which is not universally agreed as a form of torture. Regardless, we know that torture in it's worst form is practiced by the enemies of the United States while what the United States has done may not even be a form of torture. Based on this I think it's clear that the United States still holds the moral high ground over entities like Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

You all seem quick to condemn torture but none of you have offered any explanation as to what it is. So far I've been the only one to do so. At this point it is necessary for those of you on the other side who have claimed that "everyone agrees what torture is" to provide some kind of document which outlines what it is. You have given up the luxury of making up your own definition by making such comments.

Juan, my question still stands.. Do you have something to back up the allegation you made or are you merely trying to spread slander?

Frigidus wrote:

JACKAZZTJM wrote:booooohooooo so we torture terrorists who want to waste our "infidel" lives who gives a shit anything to keep my family and friends safe is cool wit me!

Most of the "terrorists" we've tortured have been innocent men. See Abu Ghraib.

Actually the issue with Abu Ghraib isn't that we were torturing innocent people but that it was wrong to torture anyone at all, regardless of whether or not they were murderers.

I'm sure many if not everyone the United States has imprisoned claims that they are innocent. This doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them are not.

JACKAZZTJM wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

JACKAZZTJM wrote:booooohooooo so we torture terrorists who want to waste our "infidel" lives who gives a shit anything to keep my family and friends safe is cool wit me!

Yeah....we only torture terrorists....

hahahahaha what do u think that were just running around torturing random people? get a grip you lunatic!

Not entirely random, but yes.

Abu Ghaib!!!!!!!! Who really gives a shit about that anymore those disgusting terrorists freaks got what they deserved!

GabonX wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

JACKAZZTJM wrote:booooohooooo so we torture terrorists who want to waste our "infidel" lives who gives a shit anything to keep my family and friends safe is cool wit me!

Most of the "terrorists" we've tortured have been innocent men. See Abu Ghraib.

Actually the issue with Abu Ghraib isn't that we were torturing innocent people but that it was wrong to torture anyone at all, regardless of whether or not they were murderers.

I'm sure many if not everyone the United States has imprisoned claims that they are innocent. This doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them are not.

Well, sure, the fact that we're even discussing torture as a legitimate option is horrifying. What are we, barbarians? I remember in another thread along these lines, someone made a reference to discussing the legitimacy of rape as along the same lines, and SOMEONE ACTUALLY SAID THAT THERE MIGHT BE SITUATIONS WHERE RAPE IS OK. What the hell is wrong with us.

Plus, it wasn't a small minority who were innocent in Abu Ghraib. They'd literally imprison people for months on nothing but anonymous tips. Plus, there have been occasions in which the family of the suspects were also tortured.

Bottom Line: Torture is never, ever, ever right, and even if it was, the US government is one of the last organizations I would entrust the privilege to.

JACKAZZTJM wrote:Abu Ghaib!!!!!!!! Who really gives a shit about that anymore those disgusting terrorists freaks got what they deserved!

Hey, fucktard. HALF OF THE PEOPLE THERE WERE INNOCENT. Hold on, let me clarify what type of stupidity this is.



Question: Which of these people should be tortured if there are vague suspicions that they are a terrorist?

A) People in the Middle East

B) Anyone who isn't a citizen of the United States

C) Anyone




KEY:

If you answered A, you're a racist!

If you answered B, you're a self-centered, apathetic asshole

If you answered C, you're a lunatic totalitarian.

JACKAZZTJM wrote:Abu Ghaib!!!!!!!! Who really gives a shit about that anymore those disgusting terrorists freaks got what they deserved!

I'm pretty sure that's the exact same attitude al-Qaeda has towards the victims of it's vicious attacks, be they in the USA, London, or Spain.

We must be better than our enemies, or else we are our own.

GabonX wrote:Contrary to your opinions what is and is not considered torture is a hotly contested issue today.

Only by a bunch of right-wing republicans.

It has also been argued that because the terrorists detained do not fight for an existing nation that they are not protected.

The f*ck? That's the most retarded argument ever.

As for there being a unified definition as to what constitutes torture, no such thing exists. The extremes of torture, which are not now and never have been condoned by the United States, are obvious but the lesser forms are not clearly defined. For example, the articles posted claim that sleep depravation is a form of torture which is not universally agreed as a form of torture.

It is by the UN, Red Cross and all european nations.

Regardless, we know that torture in it's worst form is practiced by the enemies of the United States while what the United States has done may not even be a form of torture. Based on this I think it's clear that the United States still holds the moral high ground over entities like Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

No.
You fail to grasp the fact that when you torture others, even if you say and are right that the enemy does much worse, you cannot claim the moral high ground. You are doing the same thing that you condemn others for. It might not be as bad as other forms of torture, but we simply don't know the psychological effects of the torture the USA uses though it seems it seems the effects are much worse than one might think at first glance.

The thing is, you can always compare yourself with Al Qaeda and Saddam to claim you hold the high ground. You can torture deserters and claim that since the enemy executes deserters that you somehow are still better than them. You can cut of little fingers or use half-electrocution and still claim you're better than the enemy who tortures to death. It doesn't make it so however.

You all seem quick to condemn torture but none of you have offered any explanation as to what it is. So far I've been the only one to do so. At this point it is necessary for those of you on the other side who have claimed that "everyone agrees what torture is" to provide some kind of document which outlines what it is. You have given up the luxury of making up your own definition by making such comments.

Just check the UN-definition of what torture is. Honestly, it's not hidden or anything.