Torture

[Gary M]

 

It depends on your definition of "torture," which is the entire problem of comparing McCain's experience to Gitmo. McCain was beaten for two hours a day for an extended period, suffering permanent, crippling injury for which medical attention was withheld, and was fed so poorly that he had dysentery for most of his stay, and lost a lot of body weight. Gitmo detainees were...forced to watch infidels handle the Koran, be interrogated by women in skirts, and were overfed to the point of gaining excessive weight.

 

The US is the first country in history to be accused of torture by providing sufficient, healthy food to prisoners.

 

By that standard any one in section 8 housing or the public school system is being tortured.

[Deranged Rhino]

I love listening to liberals whine about government policies that don't work, all the while ignoring the well documented fact that their entire political ideology is an abject failure.

 

Torture is now considered a government policy?

 

That guy's funny as hell. Why haven't i heard of him before?

 

www.youtube.com/lastweektonight

 

Here's a link to more of the shows. It's all online the day after it airs on HBO. He's done lots of good stuff in his short run.

 

John Oliver is a funny dude. Having said that, some tortures work for some people and don't work for others. Each person has different pressure points and levels of thresholds of pain that they can endure. To say one way or another in a definitive manner only speaks to your own ideological bias.

 

Being for or against torture is NOT based in political ideology. To conflate the two, like Darin's post above is nonsense.

[birdog1960]

 

It depends on your definition of "torture," which is the entire problem of comparing McCain's experience to Gitmo. McCain was beaten for two hours a day for an extended period, suffering permanent, crippling injury for which medical attention was withheld, and was fed so poorly that he had dysentery for most of his stay, and lost a lot of body weight. Gitmo detainees were...forced to watch infidels handle the Koran, be interrogated by women in skirts, and were overfed to the point of gaining excessive weight.

 

The US is the first country in history to be accused of torture by providing sufficient, healthy food to prisoners.

yes, because dying of hypothermia while being mistakenly identified in a secret prison, shackled to a wall is a picnic compared to a daily beating...

 

it's more properly called murder.

Edited June 16, 2015 by birdog1960

[KD in CA]

This thread is torture.

[birdog1960]

Senate Intelligence Committee's report of CIA torture[edit]

On December 9, 2014 the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture was published.^[1] According to that report he had been subjected to total darkness, sensory overload, sleep deprivation, cold shower, "rough treatment", short shackling and finally froze to death. The report said he was the only captive known to have died in CIA custody.

Steven W Hawkins, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, writing in the The Guardian, reported that he found that the CIA official responsible for Rahman's death, was not only not punished, or sanctioned, rather, he received a cash bonus for his "consistently superior work".^[6]

 

^{gul rahman, from wiki.}

^{i guess they didn't use over feeding on this prisoner.}

[....lybob]

 

It depends on your definition of "torture," which is the entire problem of comparing McCain's experience to Gitmo. McCain was beaten for two hours a day for an extended period, suffering permanent, crippling injury for which medical attention was withheld, and was fed so poorly that he had dysentery for most of his stay, and lost a lot of body weight. Gitmo detainees were...forced to watch infidels handle the Koran, be interrogated by women in skirts, and were overfed to the point of gaining excessive weight.

 

The US is the first country in history to be accused of torture by providing sufficient, healthy food to prisoners.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal

 

 

 

Detainees were forced to stand on broken limbs for hours, kept in complete darkness, deprived of sleep for up to 180 hours, sometimes standing, sometimes with their arms shackled above their heads.

Prisoners were subjected to “rectal feeding” without medical necessity. Rectal exams were conducted with “excessive force”. The report highlights one prisoner later diagnosed with anal fissures, chronic hemorrhoids and “symptomatic rectal prolapse”.

The report mentions mock executions, Russian roulette. US agents threatened to slit the throat of a detainee’s mother, sexually abuse another and threatened prisoners’ children. One prisoner died of hypothermia brought on in part by being forced to sit on a bare concrete floor without pants.

Edited June 16, 2015 by ....lybob

[reddogblitz]

 

Because McCain's experience of torture is substantially different from the CIA's use in Gitmo. Not all "torture" is equal, so generalizations like McCain's aren't valid.

 

WOW

 

Here's how the Geneva Convention (which we were a part and signed) definition describes torture:

 

"Article 1

"1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

 

You can rationalize it all you want Tom, but to quote Barack, "we tortured some folks."

 

As far as McCain's take, it's called wisdom. People who have lived through things have a clearer picture of it and it's impact. We don't value it much in America as evidenced by the ridiculous comments I've seen on here and elsewhere.

[Magox]

 

Torture is now considered a government policy?

 

 

www.youtube.com/lastweektonight

 

Here's a link to more of the shows. It's all online the day after it airs on HBO. He's done lots of good stuff in his short run.

 

 

Being for or against torture is NOT based in political ideology. To conflate the two, like Darin's post above is nonsense.

Learn to read.

 

That's not what I said.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1. Being for, or against, torture may, or may not, have something to do with one's political ideology. It's OK to conflate the two if your political ideology conflates the two.

 

2. John McCain's experience does not uniquely qualify him to speak as a definative source on torture. It certainly qualifies him as an anti-torture advocate, but does not confer on him special knowedge about the overall effectiveness of rendition.

 

3. A stance for, or against, torture for the purposes of national defense is neither moral nor immoral, but rather is amoral. War is a brutal thing, with the only objective being to win, and defeat your enemies in a way that is total and complete, leaving a favorable field for your side. To say that torture is immoral is to say that war itself is immoral; which is an absurd statement.

[birdog1960]

 

WOW

 

Here's how the Geneva Convention (which we were a part and signed) definition describes torture:

 

"Article 1

"1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

 

You can rationalize it all you want Tom, but to quote Barack, "we tortured some folks."

 

As far as McCain's take, it's called wisdom. People who have lived through things have a clearer picture of it and it's impact. We don't value it much in America as evidenced by the ridiculous comments I've seen on here and elsewhere.

except when it's one of the right wing posters own experience and then it becames an absolute.

[Deranged Rhino]

Learn to read.

 

That's not what I said.

Sure it is. Peoples opinion on whether or not toruture is effective is determined by their ideology.

 

It's nonsense.

[Magox]

Sure it is. Peoples opinion on whether or not toruture is effective is determined by their ideology.

 

It's nonsense.

That's not what you said, nincompoop.

 

You said

Being for or against torture is NOT based in political ideology.

 

 

Which means you were referring to the morality of torture.

 

My comments were to the effectiveness of torture. Which of course, anyone with any common sense whatsoever would know that some forms of torture works with some people and that it doesn't work with others. Depends on the individual.

[Alaska Darin]

 

Torture is now considered a government policy?

 

Let's see: Torture, performed by government employees while being paid by the government in response to a situation brought to you directly based on failed government decisions is absolutely policy. The President of the United States signed an E.O. directly related to how prisoners can be interrogated. So yes, it was government policy. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.

 

And to be PERFECTLY clear: I do not support "torture" in almost any circumstance. It has long term consequences which should be obvious even to partisan politicos. There are documented techniques that work to get people to talk without creating yet another terrorist recruiting tool.

yes, because dying of hypothermia while being mistakenly identified in a secret prison, shackled to a wall is a picnic compared to a daily beating...

 

it's more properly called murder.

Brought to you by the incompetence of the big government you pine for. Welcome to consequences, hippie.

[Deranged Rhino]

That's not what you said, nincompoop.

 

You said

 

Which means you were referring to the morality of torture.

 

My comments were to the effectiveness of torture. Which of course, anyone with any common sense whatsoever would know that some forms of torture works with some people and that it doesn't work with others. Depends on the individual.

 

Your post makes it clear you feel that determination of torture's effectiveness is ultimately decided by one's own political ideology: Each person has different pressure points and levels of thresholds of pain that they can endure. To say one way or another in a definitive manner only speaks to your own ideological bias.

 

And that's nonsense. It's also absurd because it makes torture analogous to common politics when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL AFFILIATION OR IDEOLOGY. None. The question of whether or not to torture is entirely based on one's ethical and moral make up, not political ideology.

 

To say otherwise, as your post does and you do here, is nonsense. Typing it twice doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

[Magox]

 

Your post makes it clear you feel that determination of torture's effectiveness is ultimately decided by one's own political ideology: Each person has different pressure points and levels of thresholds of pain that they can endure. To say one way or another in a definitive manner only speaks to your own ideological bias.

 

And that's nonsense. It's also absurd because it makes torture analogous to common politics when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL AFFILIATION OR IDEOLOGY. None. The question of whether or not to torture is entirely based on one's ethical and moral make up, not political ideology.

 

To say otherwise, as your post does and you do here, is nonsense. Typing it twice doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

You are one thick-skulled dude.

[Deranged Rhino]

Let's see: Torture, performed by government employees while being paid by the government in response to a situation brought to you directly based on failed government decisions is absolutely policy. The President of the United States signed an E.O. directly related to how prisoners can be interrogated. So yes, it was government policy. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.

 

And to be PERFECTLY clear: I do not support "torture" in almost any circumstance. It has long term consequences which should be obvious even to partisan politicos. There are documented techniques that work to get people to talk without creating yet another terrorist recruiting tool.

Brought to you by the incompetence of the big government you pine for. Welcome to consequences, hippie.

 

If you think I'm a liberal, or in any way in favor of big government, you're not paying attention.

You are one thick-skulled dude.

 

Explain what you meant by your words then: Each person has different pressure points and levels of thresholds of pain that they can endure. To say one way or another in a definitive manner only speaks to your own ideological bias.

[TakeYouToTasker]

And that's nonsense. It's also absurd because it makes torture analogous to common politics when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL AFFILIATION OR IDEOLOGY. None. The question of whether or not to torture is entirely based on one's ethical and moral make up, not political ideology.

 

If one says that they would only vote to elect an individual who believes torture to be an acceptable practice in some situation, or if one says that they would only vote to elect an individual who believes torture to be unacceptable in any situation; then it absolutely has something to do with political ideology.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

If one says that they would only vote to elect an individual who believes torture to be an acceptable practice in some situation, or if one says that they would only vote to elect an individual who believes torture to be unacceptable in any situation; then it absolutely has something to do with political ideology.

 

Except that presumes that torture is acceptable under any circumstance. The United States is supposed to be above this, as evidenced by multiple resolutions signed over our nation's history. No politician runs on a platform that promotes torture, or enhanced interrogation, because it's untenable to most Americans. It's a clear ethical and moral dividing line, it's not about political parties or ideologies.

[Magox]

 

If you think I'm a liberal, or in any way in favor of big government, you're not paying attention.

 

Explain what you meant by your words then: Each person has different pressure points and levels of thresholds of pain that they can endure. To say one way or another in a definitive manner only speaks to your own ideological bias.

 

Let's start with the fact that I am not referring to the morality of the issue. Whether it's right or wrong, whether it's something that I support or that I don't.

 

What I was speaking to is that some torture techniques produce the intended results of the torturers on some individuals And some of those same techniques won't work on other individuals, because in some cases their levels of thresholds of pain are higher than some others or that they have been mentally conditioned to not succumb to such tactics.

 

To say definitively that torture works in all cases or that it never produces any results, most-likely says that you're defending your ideology on this position without well-thought reason.

 

My guess is that you aren't that thick to believe that torture never works and that you misunderstood what I was saying.

[Chef Jim]

 

If you think I'm a liberal, or in any way in favor of big government, you're not paying attention.

 

 

Are you stoned again?