Pac_Man Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 Just saw it- it looks to me as if they are mocking Newsweek's portrayal, although either way, it is in poor taste. The media must be taught that they are accountable for their actions, because they dont think they are 344023[/snapback] I saw it as an accusation against our interregators--that they are guilty of killing people through torture.
Britbillsfan Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 I had not heard of these reports. If you have a link, I would appreciate it. 343844[/snapback] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4570631.stm The bit from Chained to the Ceiling goes into some detail about the 2000 page report. Also that one of the dead was believed by most of the interrogators to be a poor innocent sap that was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. Torture is occuring, it is wrong, and innocents are being caught up in it. And some people are dying (8 deaths in custody in Afghanistan alone that have been admitted to by the US, I would imagine that there would be more elsewhere). The idea of the cartoon (IMO) was to highlight that bad things that should not happen are happening, and was not meant to be funny.
Britbillsfan Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 Yes, let's all cry for people who blow up a school bus or hijack and crash a plane.Boohoo! 343837[/snapback] Or how about a taxi driver who was just returning from a fare and passed by when an attack took place. Obviously he deserved the 4+ days of being tortured, beaten and then left to die without medical attention. Those scum taxi drivers deserve everything they get. And most his interrogators thought he was innocent too. I do not really give a flying f**k about the guilty, but it is becoming increasingly clear that abuses are occuring, that they are more widespread than the Abu Graib incident, murder by torture is occuring and some of those dead are innocent of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time or being pointed out as a terrorist due to faulty intelligence (some of which comes from tortured subjects who would say anything to get the torture to stop). An in case you are wondering I am aware that abuses are occuring amongst British forces too, I am in favour of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan but both Bush and Blair both overstated their reasons for going to war in the former case (to put it mildly). I also see the probelms as fairly widespread but neither see it as a problem (at the moment) that is indicative of the conduct of the vast majority of the military in both places but if action is not seen to be taken soon the problems in Iraq at the moment will seem like nothing compared to what will occur in the not too distant future.
RkFast Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 sigh....another thread down the tubes... 343935[/snapback] Thats PPP these days with its backwards laaahjik. Where regular posters come to talk politics in good faith, even with an self-admitted novice knowledge of the subject are looked at as complete morons, but an old !@#$ who fashions himself as a sh---throwing primate and whose main contribution is whining about how "smart" he is while throwing high-school level insults at the afformentioned contributors is looked at as a forum elite. And even encouraged by the mods.
KRC Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 And even encouraged by the mods. 344090[/snapback] bull sh--. Enjoy your vacation.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4570631.stm The bit from Chained to the Ceiling goes into some detail about the 2000 page report. Also that one of the dead was believed by most of the interrogators to be a poor innocent sap that was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. Torture is occuring, it is wrong, and innocents are being caught up in it. And some people are dying (8 deaths in custody in Afghanistan alone that have been admitted to by the US, I would imagine that there would be more elsewhere). The idea of the cartoon (IMO) was to highlight that bad things that should not happen are happening, and was not meant to be funny. 344069[/snapback] If it takes the torture of one to save the liives of hundreds, is it worth it?
philburger1 Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 Or how about a taxi driver who was just returning from a fare and passed by when an attack took place. Obviously he deserved the 4+ days of being tortured, beaten and then left to die without medical attention. Those scum taxi drivers deserve everything they get. And most his interrogators thought he was innocent too. I do not really give a flying f**k about the guilty, but it is becoming increasingly clear that abuses are occuring, that they are more widespread than the Abu Graib incident, murder by torture is occuring and some of those dead are innocent of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time or being pointed out as a terrorist due to faulty intelligence (some of which comes from tortured subjects who would say anything to get the torture to stop). An in case you are wondering I am aware that abuses are occuring amongst British forces too, I am in favour of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan but both Bush and Blair both overstated their reasons for going to war in the former case (to put it mildly). I also see the probelms as fairly widespread but neither see it as a problem (at the moment) that is indicative of the conduct of the vast majority of the military in both places but if action is not seen to be taken soon the problems in Iraq at the moment will seem like nothing compared to what will occur in the not too distant future. 344071[/snapback] Right, the US army is far worse than the Islamic Terrorists. All they do is cut the head of construction workers who are there to rebuild the country. And then people in Iraq cry that the services are not being fixed quick enough. Let's not forgot the shooting of charity workers in the back of their heads. Where are the cartoons about those actions?
Thurman's Helmet Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 Right, the US army is far worse than the Islamic Terrorists. All they do is cut the head of construction workers who are there to rebuild the country. And then people in Iraq cry that the services are not being fixed quick enough. Let's not forgot the shooting of charity workers in the back of their heads. Where are the cartoons about those actions? 344144[/snapback] Islamic "Freedom fighters" - GOOD US Military - BAD Bush< Hitler Anyone not left of Chomsky and Lenin - Nazis
Adam Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 I saw it as an accusation against our interregators--that they are guilty of killing people through torture. 344030[/snapback] after looking at their other cartoons, I agree with you. Prolly a bunch of preschoolers doing that garbage
Pac_Man Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4570631.stm The bit from Chained to the Ceiling goes into some detail about the 2000 page report. Also that one of the dead was believed by most of the interrogators to be a poor innocent sap that was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. Torture is occuring, it is wrong, and innocents are being caught up in it. And some people are dying (8 deaths in custody in Afghanistan alone that have been admitted to by the US, I would imagine that there would be more elsewhere). The idea of the cartoon (IMO) was to highlight that bad things that should not happen are happening, and was not meant to be funny. 344069[/snapback] Given that there is a report about the killing of two Afghans in custody, there was more credibility to the cartoon's accusation than I'd realized. I apologize for my words about the cartoon's author.
Britbillsfan Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 If it takes the torture of one to save the liives of hundreds, is it worth it? 344117[/snapback] Short answer is No, ultimately, because torturing people, even the right people, will in the end cause more innocent deaths in the long term. Consider that torture is efficient in getting the subject to say anything that he thinks will make the torture stop rather than any real facts, it is a very inaccurate way of gaining real intelligence, even from known bad guys the intel can prove to be inaccurate in the long run and always will need substantive supporting evidence. And since the now widespread use of torture (since the US appears to be looking the other way more and more countries with REALLY bad records are taking advantage of the situation by basically saying that - well you are doing it, why can we not?) is only going to increase the amount of hate and vitriol towards the US (since the US is supposed to lead the way in human rights) then there is a case in saying that the use of torture will end up causing a lot more deaths of innocents than it saves. Like I said I do not care about the terrorist scum but it certainly appears this is getting to be a provocation to many, making them more likely to attack America / the west rather than being of any real help to the longer term war on terror.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 Consider that torture is efficient in getting the subject to say anything that he thinks will make the torture stop rather than any real facts it is a very inaccurate way of gaining real intelligence, even from known bad guys the intel can prove to be inaccurate in the long run and always will need substantive supporting evidence. And since the now widespread use of torture (since the US appears to be looking the other way more and more countries with REALLY bad records are taking advantage of the situation by basically saying that - well you are doing it, why can we not?) is only going to increase the amount of hate and vitriol towards the US (since the US is supposed to lead the way in human rights) then there is a case in saying that the use of torture will end up causing a lot more deaths of innocents than it saves. Like I said I do not care about the terrorist scum but it certainly appears this is getting to be a provocation to many, making them more likely to attack America / the west rather than being of any real help to the longer term war on terror. 344428[/snapback] You may be right. But, and this is a huge point, what incentive do these criminals and murderers have to talk without coercion?
Britbillsfan Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 Given that there is a report about the killing of two Afghans in custody, there was more credibility to the cartoon's accusation than I'd realized. I apologize for my words about the cartoon's author. 344277[/snapback] Which is a fair statement. Unfortunately a lot of media are obsessed with the dramatic and the trivial and tend not to highlight underlying problems (the US press in its chase for ratings has never been that good) then it is no surprise that important stuff like this needs a cartoonist (for Pete's sake!) to get some attention to it. What is scarey, to me, is the belief in some quarters that torture, long term, can solve anything. And the refusal to think that US personel can do this is astounding, even with Abu Ghraib. The mere size of the US (or even the much smaller UK) military means there are going to be individuals in it whos' character is, shall we say, less than ideal, despite the fact that I believe that the vast majority of servicemen and women are decent people who have to deal with some pretty awful things in their chosen career and deserve the utmost respect.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 Does anyone consider sensory deprivation followed by the use of sodium pentathol to be torture? Or a technique? New scenario. You are the father of a 14 year old girl. She turns up missing. You suspect somebody. On him is a videotape showing him sodomizing her, with four other guys in the background you don't recognize. You know he knows them, and also exactly where she is. But he won't tell...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 Does anyone consider sensory deprivation followed by the use of sodium pentathol to be torture? Or a technique? New scenario. You are the father of a 14 year old girl. She turns up missing. You suspect somebody. On him is a videotape showing him sodomizing her, with four other guys in the background you don't recognize. You know he knows them, and also exactly where she is. But he won't tell... 344466[/snapback] If I may quote Marcellus Wallace, I'd "go midieval on his ass". He'd tell or would soon be contemplating life as a puddle...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 If I may quote Marcellus Wallace, I'd "go midieval on his ass". He'd tell or would soon be contemplating life as a puddle... 344470[/snapback] Well, it should be pretty easy to extrapolate from that. You have in custody a fellow that you know has full operational knowledge of an upcoming mass casualty terror attack. He won't tell.
Campy Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 New scenario. You are the father of a 14 year old girl. She turns up missing. You suspect somebody. On him is a videotape showing him sodomizing her, with four other guys in the background you don't recognize. You know he knows them, and also exactly where she is. But he won't tell... 344466[/snapback] IMO, your scenario is a perfect example of why interrogation should be done by those devoid of an intense and personal interest in the case/suspect/interrogation. Due to my interpretation of God's will, I am against the death penalty. Does this mean that I wouldn't want to shoot someone who (God forbid) raped or killed my wife? Hell no. But that's why I shouldn't/wouldn't be involved, other than just being granted the opportunity to speak during sentencing.
Pac_Man Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 Which is a fair statement. Unfortunately a lot of media are obsessed with the dramatic and the trivial and tend not to highlight underlying problems (the US press in its chase for ratings has never been that good) then it is no surprise that important stuff like this needs a cartoonist (for Pete's sake!) to get some attention to it. What is scarey, to me, is the belief in some quarters that torture, long term, can solve anything. And the refusal to think that US personel can do this is astounding, even with Abu Ghraib. The mere size of the US (or even the much smaller UK) military means there are going to be individuals in it whos' character is, shall we say, less than ideal, despite the fact that I believe that the vast majority of servicemen and women are decent people who have to deal with some pretty awful things in their chosen career and deserve the utmost respect. 344446[/snapback] You are right about the long-term disadvantages of torture. Unfortunately, torture is nothing new for the U.S. military. Torture and the threat of torture were used on various prisoners to extort confessions during and after WWII.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 IMO, your scenario is a perfect example of why interrogation should be done by those devoid of an intense and personal interest in the case/suspect/interrogation. Due to my interpretation of God's will, I am against the death penalty. Does this mean that I wouldn't want to shoot someone who (God forbid) raped or killed my wife? Hell no. But that's why I shouldn't/wouldn't be involved, other than just being granted the opportunity to speak during sentencing. 344476[/snapback] And who would this Christ-like person be? I would be suspicious of anyone who interrogated a terrorist that wasn't a representative of the US government. Sodium Penethol is hardly torture in the classic sense.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 IMO, your scenario is a perfect example of why interrogation should be done by those devoid of an intense and personal interest in the case/suspect/interrogation. Due to my interpretation of God's will, I am against the death penalty. Does this mean that I wouldn't want to shoot someone who (God forbid) raped or killed my wife? Hell no. But that's why I shouldn't/wouldn't be involved, other than just being granted the opportunity to speak during sentencing. 344476[/snapback] The point, Chris-is not that-it's having a finite period of time to prevent something bad from happening. From what I gather, many people here would rather see the Sears tower blow up and kill a few thousand people rather than accept the fact that it can be prevented by using some fairly forceful measures. I'm frankly pretty disgusted that there are so many here, and elsewhere who are firmly convinced it is better to allow their own family, friends and neighbors die in the impression that whatever else happens, we have to show the world how nice we all are. that, after all is what is truly important. Me, I'll be charging the cattle prod if you need me for anything.
Recommended Posts