metametameta: Joe Blowme: metametameta: I don't care if a lawyer gave the okay, lawyers can be wrong. Heads need to roll, and I'm talking life in prison, not some namby pamby 2 years. We've lost all moral authority if we don't.

We can start with Cheney and work our way down this shiat mountain.

If you had to choose between your life or having moral authority, what would you choose?

/would you eat the moon if it was made of ribs?

You see this is the core of the idiocy: That somehow torture makes us safer. Give me one iota of proof that torture has made us safer. Give me one solid, uncontestible instance where lives were saved by "enhanced" techniques. Give me some solid proof that normal interrogation techniques that do not involve torture don't work.

Even if you don't care about facts and science and all that reality-checking stuff, doesn't it make you feel kinda cowardly to throw away your principles out of fear?

Give me proof it hasnt. Without access to classified information we will never know. So, what would you choose? Life or moral high ground?

I would throw you away to save the life of friends or family, what would you do?

/why do you hate ribs?

FarkinHostile: Here is an excerpt from The Manipulation of Human Behavior:

I know that you really dig reading this cool torture book and everything, but does it mention at all how to tell if a person has no relevant information to give?

No one is denying that information can be extracted through coercion. Anyone with a smaller sibling can tell you that. The argument is that the false positives gained through torture outweigh the value of real information gathered.

This shiat certainly doesn't make me proud to be an American. Quite the contrary, it makes me want to puke. Speaking of which, anyone got any Liquid Ensure, cuz it'd come in quite handy right about now? Whatever happened to taking the moral high road? I wonder if there will come a time when we all shake off the Bush Cheney nightmare, and collectively revile these acts of torture like the Germans revile their Nazi past? Listen, we stooped to their level, and we by default lost. End of story, the fat lady is singing, and sadly, the fat lady that I'm speaking of is Lady Liberty. We've got blood on our hands, and no amount of saline solution is going to remove the stains.

Remember folks, our grandparents gave their lives in World War I and World War II in part to prevent other nations from using these types of reprehensible tactics to collect information. So, if when you visit the cemetery and you see that an unusually large amount of ground has been turned, it's not that the grounds crew has been diligently caring for the memories of those who died for us. On the contrary, the disturbed earth results from the manic grave spinning that's been going on since our forefathers discovered how we've been sullying their good names.


/ Thanks gramps, I'm sorry we've let you down.

TheyCallThisWork

I know that you really dig reading this cool torture book and everything, but does it mention at all how to tell if a person has no relevant information to give?


Yes. That is why it takes a skilled and knowledgeable torturer to separate the wheat from the chaff and tell if the subject/victim has anything useful.

I dig reading anything to do with psychology, and read that book after the subject was in the news back in the Bush administration. But thank you for trying to insinuate that I am pro-torture because I happened to read a book and know about the subject.

mikroky: As far as your own decision of passivity in the face of violence, that's considered by some religions and philosophies to be a great thing, admirable choice if you are of that mind and able to accept the consequences. You must do as your heart dictates. Mine is hard towards those who want only to destroy. Just recently while some were choosing their government, others took it as a great opportunity to murder and instill fear. If a day of misery of one of those murderers saved one family who was concerned with voting and contributing from being where an attack would occur, would that not justify at least keeping this technique in our arsenal?

I don't advocate non-resistance in the face of violence. I lack the patience and temperment. I do, however, believe that when violence must be done, it should be quick, clean and with such overwhelming force to minimize the likelihood of a second necessitation.

Waterboarding is none of those things. It is unethical, as the long term consequences disintegrate the moral high ground we claim to stand on--other nations will not follow a hypocrite. It is immoral, as it is a sadistic, cruel practice where the goal is to cause so much anguish the target will agree to anything to make it stop. It is illegal, inhumane, and completely reprehensible. There is no honor, no virtue, no respect in torture. There never has, there never will be.

We are a nation founded on laws, founded on principles. Throughout the years we have grown as a people, matured slowly, leaning away from a might-makes-right society to something better, something better than the sum of our parts.

Compromising our principles is foolish--it undermines the very thing for which we fight. It will make any victory Pyrrhic at best, if there is even victory to be had. I will not do evil to defend that which is good lest I become the monster I seek to defeat. Where it is in my power, I will stop others from doing so as well.

fakeeyes: This shiat certainly doesn't make me proud to be an American. Quite the contrary, it makes me want to puke. Speaking of which, anyone got any Liquid Ensure, cuz it'd come in quite handy right about now? Whatever happened to taking the moral high road? I wonder if there will come a time when we all shake off the Bush Cheney nightmare, and collectively revile these acts of torture like the Germans revile their Nazi past? Listen, we stooped to their level, and we by default lost. End of story, the fat lady is singing, and sadly, the fat lady that I'm speaking of is Lady Liberty. We've got blood on our hands, and no amount of saline solution is going to remove the stains.

Remember folks, our grandparents gave their lives in World War I and World War II in part to prevent other nations from using these types of reprehensible tactics to collect information. So, if when you visit the cemetery and you see that an unusually large amount of ground has been turned, it's not that the grounds crew has been diligently caring for the memories of those who died for us. On the contrary, the disturbed earth results from the manic grave spinning that's been going on since our forefathers discovered how we've been sullying their good names.


/ Thanks gramps, I'm sorry we've let you down.

So water boarding is now = holocaust
got it...


/too many lead paint chips
//Dont they teach history anymore? We went into ww1 and ww2 to stop waterboarding terrorist?

Wow

Farkomatic: scrubs everything and then postulates that I'm a coward with a handy FTFY

and

Cyclometh: mikroky: palelizard: mikroky:
Horseshiat. He never espoused passivity. You create a false dichotomy that says "torture or pacifism" and build an appeal to emotion on it.

Who conveniently ignored the part of the reply I was quoting
'Their evil does not justify us becoming evil. We should not do these things. "Well, it's not as bad as they would do..." is not a moral or ethical justification for an abhorrent act of calculated malice. Didn't your mother ever teach you two wrongs don't make a right?

We are better than them. It is not enough that we remain just barely better. We need to be objectively good, not just relatively.'

Way to blow off the context. I'm saying that's fine for him to feel that way, just don't throw all of us in the 'we think waterboarding is never justified because we are too good for that' basket. And yes, he espouses passivity. To draw a conclusion from his words, aggression as shown by terrorists is an abhorrent act of calculated malice. And 'two wrongs do not make a right'. So if that's not a passive stance, please explain.

But I understand, my reply was to someone who I can sense has a rational point and perhaps a persuasive argument. This was different from the 'other peoples' views don't matter' type of responses that you two chucked out without a thought.

doglover: Because torture religion works. 10000 2000 years is a long ass time. If torture religion didn't work, we'd have stop doing it to each other by now.

FTFY

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

doglover: Because torture works. 10000 years is a long ass time. If torture didn't work, we'd have stop doing it to each other by now.

If it really worked we'd be doing it for domestic purposes.

Facts are people lie to get out of torture. If you believe reports, soldiers died from some of these lies.


Fact: US constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, not interrogation. It's illegal but not unconstitutional for police to waterboard a US citizen. Federal law can be changed pretty easily. I believe an executive order from the president can technically make it happen.

If it really worked... we'd be doing it domestically a long time ago. Would save lots of kidnapped children and missing white women. Start with the family, then neighbors and friends and move outward until you find the guilty party.

fakeeyes

Remember folks, our grandparents gave their lives in World War I and World War II in part to prevent other nations from using these types of reprehensible tactics to collect information.


How Torture Helped Win WWII

by Andrew Roberts

"A slight air of unreality has permeated the debate over "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the war against terror, with historians embarrassedly studying their toecaps over the issue. For the truth is that there has not been a war in history in which torture has not been employed in some form or another, and sometimes to excellent effect. When troops need information about enemy capabilities and intentions-and they usually need it fast-moral and ethical conventions (especially the one signed in Geneva in 1929) have repeatedly been ignored in the bid to save lives.

In the conflict generally regarded today as the most ethical in history, World War II, enhanced interrogation techniques were regularly used by the Allies, and senior politicians knew it perfectly well, just as we now discover that Nancy Pelosi did in the early stages of the war against terror. The very success of the D-Day landings themselves can largely be put down to the enhanced interrogation techniques that were visited upon several of the 19 Nazi agents who were infiltrated into Great Britain and "turned" by the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) between 1939 and 1945. Operation Fortitude-the deception plan that fooled the Germans into stationing 450,000 Wehrmacht troops 130 miles north of the Normandy beaches-entirely depended upon German intelligence (the Abwehr) believing that the real attack was going to take place at the Pas de Calais instead. The reason that Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, was utterly convinced of this, was because every single one of his 19 agents, who he did not know had been turned, told him so.

If anyone believes that SIS persuaded each of these 19 hard-bitten Nazi spies to fall in with Operation Fortitude by merely offering them tea, biscuits, and lectures in democracy, they're being profoundly naïve.

If anyone believes that SIS persuaded each of these 19 hard-bitten Nazi spies to fall in with Operation Fortitude by merely offering them tea, biscuits, and lectures in democracy, they're being profoundly naïve. An SIS secret house located in Ham Common near Richmond on the outskirts of London was the location where the will of those agents was broken, using advanced interrogation techniques that reportedly started with sleep deprivation but went on to gross mental and physical abuse. The result? Many thousands of Allied servicemens' lives were saved because the German 15th Army stayed well away from beaches such as Omaha, Utah, and Sword. And another 100,000 others were stationed in Norway for another attack that never came."



Guess what? The Allies tortured during WWII and I.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

I know this stuff sucks, but it's reality.

Joe Blowme: /would you eat the moon if it was made of ribs?

What kind of sauce? I don't like mustard based, and I'm kinda blah on vinegar. A good spicy teriyaki BBQ, though... So, provisionally, "Yes, depending on the sauce or meatrub".

FarkinHostile: Yes. That is why it takes a skilled and knowledgeable torturer to separate the wheat from the chaff and tell if the subject/victim has anything useful.

How does one, exactly, get to be a skilled and knowledgeable torturer?

Torture...60% of the time it works, every time.

palelizard

How does one, exactly, get to be a skilled and knowledgeable torturer?


Um....study of torture techniques? Practice?

I have seen no compelling evidence that the net national gain by using torture outweighs the net national loss-- just false dichotomies and appeals to emotion.

Isn't it amazing whent hese little truths slip out. The neocons are evil and depraved more than we know.

DIGITALgimpus: Fact: US constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, not interrogation. It's illegal but not unconstitutional for police to waterboard a US citizen. Federal law can be changed pretty easily. I believe an executive order from the president can technically make it happen.

5th Amendment, no self-incrimination. I'm fairly certain a confession obtained under duress (particularly violent) would violate that bit.

006andahalf: I have seen no compelling evidence that the net national gain by using torture outweighs the net national loss-- just false dichotomies and appeals to emotion.

Because we dont have access to classified info

Headso: Institutionalizing it and making the torture so scientific makes it seem even worse.

Everyone's a critic these days. How about giving them credit for studying physiology in order to PREVENT the subject from dying or suffering physical harm, huh?

so?

FarkinHostile: Um....study of torture techniques? Practice?

I'm aware you've said you don't advocate it, so I think that second part somewhat undermines the book's stance on the efficacy of torture, at least on a practical level.

Book: "It will work if you're good at it. Keep trying."
Torturer: "How do I know when I'm good at it?"
Book: "When it works."

If anyone believes that SIS persuaded each of these 19 hard-bitten Nazi spies to fall in with Operation Fortitude by merely offering them tea, biscuits, and lectures in democracy, they're being profoundly naïve.

So on one side you have an Argument from Incredulity that doesn't list any sources.

And on the other side you have the actual WW2 interrogators I quoted above claiming that YES, they did manage to get vital information by being nice.

Mouser

Everyone's a critic these days. How about giving them credit for studying physiology in order to PREVENT the subject from dying or suffering physical harm, huh?


You know who else studied physiology in order to PREVENT the subject from dying or suffering physical harm?

"Paging Dr. Mengele. Dr. Mengele to the operating room."


palelizard

I'm aware you've said you don't advocate it, so I think that second part somewhat undermines the book's stance on the efficacy of torture, at least on a practical level.


I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of techniques are well known to people in the biz, but to become skilled at something takes practice under supervision.

I would bet there are "trainers" who teach how to do this sort of thing, and I would bet some of them work for the US government.

Joe Blowme: 006andahalf: I have seen no compelling evidence that the net national gain by using torture outweighs the net national loss-- just false dichotomies and appeals to emotion.

Because we dont have access to classified info

What evidence we do have indicates that the net gain does not outweigh the net loss. Thus the onus falls on those who would claim otherwise to produce credible evidence for the populace.

schattenteufel: The country wasn't set up to have two parties check on each other, it was set up to have the three branches do the checking & balancing.

I understand that, but Obama ran on a platform that included investigating some of the legacy of the Bush presidency, and the minute he became president he said to do that would be a "witch hunt" and it wasn't going to happen.

What we seem to have inherited is a system by which neither party wants to be too harsh on the other, because they take turns being in power. And when my party is in power, I want the freedom that the other party has right now. So let's just let them get away with it for a few years. So what we get is people freaking out about a blow job and not about fake reasons for war.

006andahalf: Joe Blowme: 006andahalf: I have seen no compelling evidence that the net national gain by using torture outweighs the net national loss-- just false dichotomies and appeals to emotion.

Because we dont have access to classified info

What evidence we do have indicates that the net gain does not outweigh the net loss. Thus the onus falls on those who would claim otherwise to produce credible evidence for the populace.

Unless its classified

erewhon: Pfft. Amateurs. The trick is to keep them NPO for 12 hours prior to waterboarding. Of COURSE you're gonna puke. If you don't want them inhaling the chunky bits, just don't give them any food for 8-12 hours.

The low blood sugar adds to the stress and reduces their resistance, too. So it's a win-win situation.

Throw in an "epi-pen" to the equation and multiple plain water enemas (cold) for a real treat.

/barfs

Farkomatic: Sentry1407: Trust me when I say this.

This stuff is child's play.

That so called "torture" is nothing, NOTHING compared to what I would do to those animals to gather information that would either
A: lead to an arrest of another scumbacg animal terrorist coward
Or
B: lead to info that would stop an attack.

Lucky for your pansies that it's the CIA doing those interrogations and not me.

See, here is the difference between me - someone who has a brain -and you, a functional retard.

Sometime in the near future, we will be fighting an enemy who is not some religious nutjob. That enemy will capture our sons and daughters and proceed to torture them - however they "legally" define it - to save lives for their side. The reason we don't want to justify torture or even redefine it to what we want it to be is because our enemies can do the same thing.

If one of my nephews or a friend's son/daughter gets captured and is "enhanced interrogated", I will put the blame squarely where it belongs - at the shoes of morally bankrupt douche bags like you. And I say that as a former Marine, lifelong republican, and someone that wishes all Muslim extremists dead.

Fark you. And everyone like you.

A "republican" sure.......
and I'm a lifetime member of the Democratic underground.

Let's be clear about what I was saying. I was talking about what I would do, not what the US Govt. should do. Go back and read what I said. Since you're the one with "the brain", you should be able to figure that part out the 2nd time around.

I said it before and I'll say it again. If a known terrorists is captured and has information about an attack, there are no limits to the pain that I would induce on that person to get him to talk. Of course, this is all theoretical as I would never be in this position.

One other thing. I can guarantee 100%. My beliefs, or even my existence, has no impact whatsoever on whether or not one of your nephews or friends son's or daughters will get tortured. I can promise you with every bit of my being. If Al Qeada captures one of them or any other American, they will suffer a horrible death. They always have, always will. But, I guess that's just because our policies made them do that.

Cubicle Jockey

So on one side you have an Argument from Incredulity that doesn't list any sources.

Andrew Roberts is a well respected historian and journalist. That quote IS the source.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/how-torture-helped-wi n -wwii/

And on the other side you have the actual WW2 interrogators I quoted above claiming that YES, they did manage to get vital information by being nice.


Yes, because confessing to torturing people has zero repercussions vs confessing how nice you treated someone.

Who the fark in their right mind would confess to personally torturing someone? Even executioners wore masks.

Joe Blowme: Unless its classified

You don't justify something simply by saying, "the information necessary to justify or invalidate a point is classified." You cannot assign a value to something in the cost-benefit equation by refusing to declare its value. It is not the responsibility of the people to somehow know or imagine that this unknown value outweighs the known (and perhaps additional unknown) costs.

Here we are going on over and over about transparency in government, but when it's something that threatens not only our national interest, our very national souls, something the evidence for which is spurious at best, we're told "move along, citizen."

Oh, and for the record, I believe that it is unlikely that the information gained in this way was a net positive for the war effort and American security, as stated by EdTheHead.

Cyclometh: You can't defend evil by saying that what you support is a lesser evil. It's still evil.

What are you talking about? Don't you know that anything better than something evil is automatically okay?

Like, take the Holocaust and kittens. Kittens make everything better. So if the Nazis had given each victim who went into the ovens or the showers a kitten right beforehand, it would have been peachy! Except the kitten would have died too, then... Which would be worse. Okay, so they get to hold a kitten for ten to fifteen minutes before they go into the wherever, but then they have to leave it behind. Which is kinda sad, especially if the kitten loved them. So... worse.

Okay, fark it. Adding kittens to the Holocaust would not have been better, but I think you see my point.

Joe Blowme:
Give me proof it hasnt. Without access to classified information we will never know. So, what would you choose? Life or moral high ground?

I would throw you away to save the life of friends or family, what would you do?

/why do you hate ribs?

So basically you are taking it completely on faith that it has worked, when there is ample documented evidence and studies that it doesn't. I see you put a high price on your moral integrity.

/The only good ribs are Kalbi. The rest is just nasty.

006andahalf: Joe Blowme: 006andahalf: I have seen no compelling evidence that the net national gain by using torture outweighs the net national loss-- just false dichotomies and appeals to emotion.

Because we dont have access to classified info

What evidence we do have indicates that the net gain does not outweigh the net loss. Thus the onus falls on those who would claim otherwise to produce credible evidence for the populace.

NO WMD's in Iraq. Trillions wasted. Shiatload of US soliders dead. All because they tortured a guy to give a false confession.

FarkinHostile: Mouser

Everyone's a critic these days. How about giving them credit for studying physiology in order to PREVENT the subject from dying or suffering physical harm, huh?


You know who else studied physiology in order to PREVENT the subject from dying or suffering physical harm?

"Paging Dr. Mengele. Dr. Mengele to the operating room."

I think he was making a joke...

Hey,some of you exhibit more vitriolic hatred towards me than for the terrorists! I've seen none of you 'puking at the thought of us torturing' say anything about feeling sorry about people destroyed by attacks that actually did occur, or heard none of you 'puking at the thought' of Americans being targeted around the world and groups celebrating anything that harms us.

I've heard you mention that people who consider that waterboarding might be a viable technique are amoral evil souls who should not procreate, and that now you are ashamed because good people should never do anything bad and that people even consider this is a devastating comment on our society.

Amazing that waterboarding is so awful as to make you sad to be in the same hemisphere with someone who might consider it a useful technique - yet some of you gleefully speculate on horrible things that should befall GWB and Cheney and pretty much anyone who doesn't see things exactly through your lens of what is right and what is wrong no matter what. And the whole time, all that rage and anger has never been focused at the people who are actually trying to end this society, but on whom again?

Headso

I think he was making a joke...


Oh...


Tough to tell who is being serious with some of the thinking in this thread. I mean, look at this post:

NO WMD's in Iraq. Trillions wasted. Shiatload of US soliders dead. All because they tortured a guy to give a false confession.

Yup, all because of one guy and no secret agendas. Yup, that's it.

Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.


"He who does battle with monsters needs to watch out lest he in the process become a monster himself. And if you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss will stare right back at you."

Who the fark in their right mind would confess to personally torturing someone? Even executioners wore masks.

Again, Arguement from Incredulity.

If the WW2 folks did torture, and it did work, why would they say otherwise? They could have kept their mouths shut. Instead, they specifically repudiated it. Is it your opinion that they lied to hurt US intelligence gathering for some reason?

Andrew Roberts is a well respected historian and journalist. That quote IS the source

Appeal to Authority

I will respond with an Ad Hominem. The man writes for the Daily Mail. Unless I see sources, I won't give him much credit.

Cubicle Jockey

Again, Arguement from Incredulity.

Actually that's common sense.

If the WW2 folks did torture, and it did work, why would they say otherwise? They could have kept their mouths shut. Instead, they specifically repudiated it. Is it your opinion that they lied to hurt US intelligence gathering for some reason?


Now who is using an Arguement from Incredulity?

US/everyone intelligence has always used torture, and if you don't believe they have you are naive. Plenty of evidence out there.

I mean for Christs sake, we are talking about how our government tortures NOW, mind during a World War 50+ years ago.

I pointed several sources of information on this subject to you, get back to me after you have read them.

FarkinHostile: Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.


"He who does battle with monsters needs to watch out lest he in the process become a monster himself. And if you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss will stare right back at you."

Nietzsche. I'm not usually a fan of his philosophy, but I think this is fairly accurate.

Hey,some of you exhibit more vitriolic hatred towards me than for the terrorists!

Well, as soon as one of them starts posting here, we can make actual comparisons.

But as someone else other then an actual terrorist is asking us to forsake some of the principals that this country was founded on ("And for the support of this declaration [of Independence], we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, & our sacred Honor.") that someone else should expect to have a few barbs tossed their way.

Cubicle Jockey

Appeal to Authority

What, pray tell, do you call this?:

And on the other side you have the actual WW2 interrogators I quoted above claiming that YES, they did manage to get vital information by being nice.

Hey man, if you want to believe that our side didn't use torture techniques during a World War with millions of lives on the line, fine. Common sense and historians disagree with you.

palelizard

Nietzsche. I'm not usually a fan of his philosophy, but I think this is fairly accurate.


Perfectly for this thread, as well as most cop/prison guard threads.

Cubicle Jockey doesn't appear to be very reasonable, and his argumentation is terrible. He's either dumb or trolling. If you want to play with him, just know you're only playing. You can't get anywhere with someone who denies every premise he doesn't like, even when making very weakly supported assertions. A lot of people on the internet follow his ego compensation style of arguing where he simply refuses to grant any premise that doesn't work with his dumb conclusion.

It's amusing how it has the exact opposite effect of what he intended. He desperately wants to look like an intelligent and informed person when being absurdly obtuse and ignorant. Whether torture is good or bad, there are too many well documented examples of it working. There are better arguments for those who want to put more work into it (and those who are capable of making reasonable arguments).

Expect more and more of this hysteria. The hope and change crowd has lost their hope. Even Obama is hugely in favor of torture via covert cells and foreign proxies. Probably a lot worse than Bush ever dreamt of being. Not because Obama is a bad man. Because this is one tool that is useful and hard to resist when stakes are high.