Torture Report

[T Town Tommy]

So, when they decidd to commit an act of terrorism in your home town to retaliate for the shit that we've done to them in the name of gaining access to information, I'll be sure to remember that you deserved it because, you know, you are guilty of inflicting torture on innocent people ... by association, of course. I am more than likely the only persone on IE who has actually been to GTMO and Camp XRay (I was there to cover the building of the prison and the detainees were still living in dog kennels). Their daily living conditions were absolutely appauling. The prison was, by design, a instrument of psychological torture. It was made of of shipping containers -- metal boxes sitting in the oppressive heat of Cuba. I spoke with several of the Army Corps of Engineers officers who were overseeing the construction (by Pakistani workers hired by Halliburton.) They had industrial fans that came on at the specifiic temperature that was the temperature at which people would go crazy with prolongued exposure. The fans were calibrated to run at the decible level that would drive a person crazy. But, at least they got breaks to be waterboarded and sodomized. Go USA!!!

So, what's your answer? Invite them over for steak and eggs and ask them what's up?

Bad things happen when bad things happen. And I have said I am torn on the issue. A part of me says that tortue of any kind is wrong but another part of me says that if I had a family member that was killed by terrorists then I would probably be reaching for a cattle prod to jam up the terrorist's as*. And I would probably not give it a second thought.

 

[woolybug25]

So, what's your answer? Invite them over for steak and eggs and ask them what's up?

Bad things happen when bad things happen. And I have said I am torn on the issue. A part of me says that tortue of any kind is wrong but another part of me says that if I had a family member that was killed by terrorists then I would probably be reaching for a cattle prod to jam up the terrorist's as*. And I would probably not give it a second thought.

I would argue that our methods before and after have been effective. No one is saying that there aren't levels of interrogation that have to happen. But they need to be a) Effective and b) within our scope of humanity.

No one is saying that we feed them steak, we are saying you shouldn't sodomize detainees. There is a lot of grey between those two points.

 

[tussin]

Sadly we could have avoided all the horrible torture if the Bush administration adopted Obama's strategy of using unsanctioned drone strikes to kill potential terrorists (and likely all civilians in the vicinity) right on the spot.

That has to be preferable to water boarding right?

 

[FLDomer]

How do you know it isn't broken as far as the report claims? It was a report that was well researched and backed up with documentation. Also, they weren't all "Al Qaeda conpirators" and many of them had treatment that exceeded what is allowable according to the Geneva Convention.

Also, many "prisoners" (ie captures) were kept up farther than two days. Many were kept up over 7 days, with ice baths/water boarding/ rectal forced feeding. Do you find that treatment to a capture appropriate?

Is it suddenly ok to break international war law?

Not saying I agree or disagree with you regarding the issue but I do not believe they fall under the Geneva Convention because they are labeled "Terrorist".

 

[T Town Tommy]

I would argue that our methods before and after have been effective. No one is saying that there aren't levels of interrogation that have to happen. But they need to be a) Effective and b) within our scope of humanity.

No one is saying that we feed them steak, we are saying you shouldn't sodomize detainees. There is a lot of grey between those two points.

I do agree with both a and b. But then again I have never been directly affected by terrorism. But yeah... gotta be some sort of higher ground for us. What that is would certainly be up for debate.

 

[woolybug25]

Sadly we could have avoided all the horrible torture if the Bush administration adopted Obama's strategy of using unsanctioned drone strikes to kill potential terrorists (and likely all civilians in the vicinity) right on the spot.

That has to be preferable to water boarding right?

Two completely separate scenarios that do not bare any ties to eachother. Just because you are appalled by torture of detainees, does not automatically mean that you agree with all of the drone strikes.

Kinda unfair of you to act like one thing, automatically makes you the other.

 

[tussin]

Two completely separate scenarios that do not bare any ties to eachother. Just because you are appalled by torture of detainees, does not automatically mean that you agree with all of the drone strikes.

Kinda unfair of you to act like one thing, automatically makes you the other.

I didn't mean to imply that. My apologies if you thought I did.

However, I would argue that the topics aren't entirely unrelated. The previous administration captured suspected terrorists and used some morally-questionable techniques to extract information; this administration favors identifying suspected terrorists and taking them out via drone strikes. I'd guess Bush's approach was driven more by increased on-ground presence in the Middle East and if he were in office now he'd have a similar drone policy to Obama.

Many, many news outlets (both liberal and conservative) have made the comparisons. But I don't want to bore you with "opinion" pieces, we can wait for the Senate Committee findings in a few years.

 

[pumpdog20]

So, when they decide to commit an act of terrorism in your home town to retaliate for the shit that we've done to them in the name of gaining access to information, I'll be sure to remember that you deserved it because, you know, you are guilty of inflicting torture on innocent people ... by association, of course. I am more than likely the only persone on IE who has actually been to GTMO and Camp XRay (I was there to cover the building of the prison and the detainees were still living in dog kennels). Their daily living conditions were absolutely appauling. The prison was, by design, a instrument of psychological torture. It was made of of shipping containers -- metal boxes sitting in the oppressive heat of Cuba. I spoke with several of the Army Corps of Engineers officers who were overseeing the construction (by Pakistani workers hired by Halliburton.) They had industrial fans that came on at the specifiic temperature that was the temperature at which people would go crazy with prolongued exposure. The fans were calibrated to run at the decible level that would drive a person crazy. But, at least they got breaks to be waterboarded and sodomized. Go USA!!!

What happened to those journalists and peacekeepers is a travesty, but it had nothing to do with the treatment of these detainees. That is, of course, unless you want to consider that our actions may have CAUSED them to seek revenge by beheading people on television.

So is it ok for them to do it? This sentence kind of makes it seem like you can see their point. If that's the case, then I'm not sure how you're so appalled about us torturing detainees at GTMO.

 

[Wild Bill]

IMO, "they do it to our prisoners" or "they do things that are worse" are very bad justifications for us to do something. We can't be outraged and claim moral outrage at what they do unless we hold ourselves to a higher standard.

And...it doesn't work anyway.

I think the justification is that we want to prevent them doing things that are worse, not merely that they do things that are worse.

 

[woolybug25]

I didn't mean to imply that. My apologies if you thought I did

Judging by your last comment, surely...

However, I would argue that the topics aren't entirely unrelated. The previous administration captured suspected terrorists and used some morally-questionable techniques to extract information; this administration favors identifying suspected terrorists and taking them out via drone strikes. I'd guess Bush's approach was driven more by increased on-ground presence in the Middle East and if he were in office now he'd have a similar drone policy to Obama.

They used morally reprehensible techniques "attempting" to extract information. If you take a look at the report, the effectiveness of the torture presumably didn't even yield results. That being said, they are two entirely different topics. One has to do with how we are treating detainees and one is how we attack our enemies in acts of war. The only commonality is that they are both topics on war/terrorism. Your comments clearly outlined an "either/or" scenario.

Many, many news outlets (both liberal and conservative) have made the comparisons. But I don't want to bore you with "opinion" pieces, we can wait for the Senate Committee findings in a few years.

Or maybe i'll just stick to the original topic instead of venturing off into different areas to avoid having to actually do any research or make valid points regarding the report.

 

[woolybug25]

So is it ok for them to do it? This sentence kind of makes it seem like you can see their point. If that's the case, then I'm not sure how you're so appalled about us torturing detainees at GTMO.

You seem to believe that since our enemies torture us, that it's okay for us to do it to them, correct?


What some of us are saying is that we do not believe, under any circumstance, that our country should be torturing in this manner. We believe that we are in the moral authority in this scenario, so in order to be that, we cant commit the exact crimes in which we are appalled by.

Does that make sense? If not, I can try to elaborate.

 

[enrico514]

Two things are important to me:

#1: CIA lied to Congress and american peolple... once again!

#2: There is a clear lack of empathy for other human beings on this board. I truly hope this is not reflective of what the majority think. I've read more than a few times that torture is justified based on they have done to the US in the past. Guess what... it isn't and as human being we should protect the lives of the innocent. On that last point. A study came out last week I believe that showed that US drone strikes kill 28 innocent/unknown for every intended target.

 

[tussin]

Two things are important to me:

#1: CIA lied to Congress and american peolple... once again!

#2: There is a clear lack of empathy for other human beings on this board. I truly hope this is not reflective of what the majority think. I've read more than a few times that torture is justified based on they have done to the US in the past. Guess what... it isn't and as human being we should protect the lives of the innocent. On that last point. A study came out last week I believe that showed that US drone strikes kill 28 innocent/unknown for every intended target.

Shhhhhhhhh.... that's entirely unrelated!

Do you not understand how? Do you want me to explain it to you?

 

[GoIrish41]

So is it ok for them to do it? This sentence kind of makes it seem like you can see their point. If that's the case, then I'm not sure how you're so appalled about us torturing detainees at GTMO.

I'm saying that we have no moral authority to judge what they have done if we have tortured people. I absolutely am disgusted by the beheadings just like I'm disgusted by crushing up a prisoner's food and jamming it up his ass and into his colon. Rectal feeding, they called it. What kind of a sick SOB would do something like that? And who gave him the authority to do it on behalf of the citizens of this country?

As I said earlier, none of the acts are at question. Nobody is refuting that they happened. The only think being refuted are the legal distinctions of what constitutes torture and how effective the techniques were. We committed these vile acts on prisoners and we have lost our ability to stand in judgement of their actions.

 

[woolybug25]

Shhhhhhhhh.... that's entirely unrelated!

Do you not understand how? Do you want me to explain it to you?

Quit attacking me! [/said in a whiny crybaby voice]

 

[T Town Tommy]

But even that is based on a partisan committee and thus could be considered as much "opinion" as fact. Others with much more information on the intel that was actually gathered dispute the claims made in the report. Somewhere in the middle is the probable truth.

 

[woolybug25]

They used morally reprehensible techniques "attempting" to extract information. If you take a look at the report, the effectiveness of the torture presumably didn't even yield results. That being said, they are two entirely different topics. One has to do with how we are treating detainees and one is how we attack our enemies in acts of war. The only commonality is that they are both topics on war/terrorism. Your comments clearly outlined an "either/or" scenario.
But even that is based on a partisan committee and thus could be considered as much "opinion" as fact. Others with much more information on the intel that was actually gathered dispute the claims made in the report. Somewhere in the middle is the probable truth.

Hence, "presumably".


That has always been aside from my point though. Some people justify torture with results, my point was even that (regardless of the morality of it), may not be the case.

 

[T Town Tommy]

.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Hence, "presumably".


That has always been aside from my point though. Some people justify torture with results, my point was even that (regardless of the morality of it), may not be the case.

ok... thanks for clarifying.

 

[jerboski]

Two things are important to me:

#1: CIA lied to Congress and american peolple... once again!

#2: There is a clear lack of empathy for other human beings on this board. I truly hope this is not reflective of what the majority think. I've read more than a few times that torture is justified based on they have done to the US in the past. Guess what... it isn't and as human being we should protect the lives of the innocent. On that last point. A study came out last week I believe that showed that US drone strikes kill 28 innocent/unknown for every intended target.

1. It is unreasonable to expect the CIA, an intelligence agency, to supply the American people with all of their information. I would believe that every intelligence agency in the world has lied to their people at some point to protect a source or mitigate a threat. I feel like the CIA is being hammered here but the truth is we haven't had an attack on this country since 9/11 and we have in fact eliminated Bin Laden as well as other high targets so to say the CIA hasn't been effective in some ways is not true

2. I don't think there is lack of empathy for people as much as a lack of empathy for terrorists. Some of us take a different stance that in order to stop or slow down terrorist activities means we might have to do some inhumane things. I do not personally agree with some of the techniques used by the CIA in this report however I do believe some of this report is political posturing as some have already mentioned. I see a discussion about whether our techniques are inhumane however for the ones arguing against it, what do you suppose we do? In the report, Israel is mentioned as using torcher if in dire need, I believe they have dealt with terrorists for along time and probably have a good understanding if it works or not. I am not advocating for torcher or saying the CIA is completely right or justified in their actions however it is hard to argue their success at this point seeing as we haven't had anymore successful terrorists attack on our country. I would love to hear some of you give some insight on what the CIA should do rather than standing behind your moral objections. It is easy to shake your head and right them off as a dirty agency however I want to hear solutions

 

[tussin]

But even that is based on a partisan committee and thus could be considered as much "opinion" as fact. Others with much more information on the intel that was actually gathered dispute the claims made in the report. Somewhere in the middle is the probable truth.

I believe I effectively said the exact same thing about 40 posts earlier. But in this thread, you can't make simple statements of fact until you've read all 528 pages.

Did you even read the whole thing? It's a pretty simple read, broken into three parts... just did it over my lunch break.

 

[woolybug25]

I believe I effectively said the exact same thing about 40 posts earlier. But in this thread, you can't make simple statements of fact until you've read all 528 pages.

Did you even read the whole thing? It's a pretty simple read, broken into three parts... just did it over my lunch break.

Or just respond like a normal human being like, Tommy. Who I responded to and have had civil conversation with. He asked for clarification on it, I answered. See how that's done? Grown up talk?

But keep comparing your attack on the credibility of the report without actually knowing anything about it.

 

[GoIrish41]

1. It is unreasonable to expect the CIA, an intelligence agency, to supply the American people with all of their information. I would believe that every intelligence agency in the world has lied to their people at some point to protect a source or mitigate a threat. I feel like the CIA is being hammered here but the truth is we haven't had an attack on this country since 9/11 and we have in fact eliminated Bin Laden as well as other high targets so to say the CIA hasn't been effective in some ways is not true

2. I don't think there is lack of empathy for people as much as a lack of empathy for terrorists. Some of us take a different stance that in order to stop or slow down terrorist activities means we might have to do some inhumane things. I do not personally agree with some of the techniques used by the CIA in this report however I do believe some of this report is political posturing as some have already mentioned. I see a discussion about whether our techniques are inhumane however for the ones arguing against it, what do you suppose we do? In the report, Israel is mentioned as using torcher if in dire need, I believe they have dealt with terrorists for along time and probably have a good understanding if it works or not. I am not advocating for torcher or saying the CIA is completely right or justified in their actions however it is hard to argue their success at this point seeing as we haven't had anymore successful terrorists attack on our country. I would love to hear some of you give some insight on what the CIA should do rather than standing behind your moral objections. It is easy to shake your head and right them off as a dirty agency however I want to hear solutions

I don't want to put words in enrico514's mouth, but I think this thread has posts that are a small sliver of the lack of empathy that is abundant on IE. The politics thread, the "rioting in St. Louis" thread, the white priveledge thread, and many others are full of posts that demonstrate a lack of human empathy. Not sure if he was speaking that broadly or talking about this thread in particular, but I agree with the point either way.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I don't want to put words in enrico514's mouth, but I think this thread has posts that are a small sliver of the lack of empathy that is abundant on IE. The politics thread, the "rioting in St. Louis" thread, the white priveledge thread, and many others are full of posts that demonstrate a lack of human empathy. Not sure if he was speaking that broadly or talking about this thread in particular, but I agree with the point either way.

Just because some disagree with your positions, that does not show lack of empathy. I have plenty of empathy towards all humans, but I just happen to disagree with your position on the majority of the threads you mention. It's ok to disagree on the topics of today. It's not ok to state people lack empathy due to them disagreeing with you. Entirely different.

 

[tussin]

But keep comparing your attack on the credibility of the report without actually knowing anything about it.

...and you can keep insisting that I know nothing about the report. That's a really productive way to respond to anyone who disagrees with your POV.

 

[enrico514]

Very well justified but in the end they lied because they were ashamed of what they did. Since you mentioned 9/11 I would like to point out that none of us have a clear understanding of what lead to and happened that day but according to the congressmen who have seen the full report... we will be shocked when we do find out.

I don't have a perfect solution but it could be easily be argued that the US has "created" more terrorists themselves by their actions. So stop the actions that create terrorists.

1. It is unreasonable to expect the CIA, an intelligence agency, to supply the American people with all of their information. I would believe that every intelligence agency in the world has lied to their people at some point to protect a source or mitigate a threat. I feel like the CIA is being hammered here but the truth is we haven't had an attack on this country since 9/11 and we have in fact eliminated Bin Laden as well as other high targets so to say the CIA hasn't been effective in some ways is not true

2. I don't think there is lack of empathy for people as much as a lack of empathy for terrorists. Some of us take a different stance that in order to stop or slow down terrorist activities means we might have to do some inhumane things. I do not personally agree with some of the techniques used by the CIA in this report however I do believe some of this report is political posturing as some have already mentioned. I see a discussion about whether our techniques are inhumane however for the ones arguing against it, what do you suppose we do? In the report, Israel is mentioned as using torcher if in dire need, I believe they have dealt with terrorists for along time and probably have a good understanding if it works or not. I am not advocating for torcher or saying the CIA is completely right or justified in their actions however it is hard to argue their success at this point seeing as we haven't had anymore successful terrorists attack on our country. I would love to hear some of you give some insight on what the CIA should do rather than standing behind your moral objections. It is easy to shake your head and right them off as a dirty agency however I want to hear solutions

 

[woolybug25]

...and you can keep insisting that I know nothing about the report. That's a really productive way to respond to anyone who disagrees with your POV.

You didn't know anything about the report. You clearly stated:

This report was clearly written with a anti-CIA bias

In which, I stated that you "clearly" hadn't read the report. Especially considering a section of the report is written by the CIA.

Then you acted like I was attacking you, acted like you couldn't pull up the report because you "had a job" (apparently I am to assume that you believe that I do not), tried to change the subject to drones and now accusing me of attacking anyone with an alternative POV (despite Tommy and I having a cordial discussion merely a few posts ago).

Am I missing anything in this timeline?

 

[pumpdog20]

You seem to believe that since our enemies torture us, that it's okay for us to do it to them, correct?


What some of us are saying is that we do not believe, under any circumstance, that our country should be torturing in this manner. We believe that we are in the moral authority in this scenario, so in order to be that, we cant commit the exact crimes in which we are appalled by.

Does that make sense? If not, I can try to elaborate.

No, I completely understand that you think we should be better. It's just hard for me to fathom it really. My question to GoIrish had to do with the fact if he thought it was ok or maybe justifiable for them to behead us and do everything they do in retaliation, but is appalled that we retaliated in the manner we did.

I'm saying that we have no moral authority to judge what they have done if we have tortured people. I absolutely am disgusted by the beheadings just like I'm disgusted by crushing up a prisoner's food and jamming it up his ass and into his colon. Rectal feeding, they called it. What kind of a sick SOB would do something like that? And who gave him the authority to do it on behalf of the citizens of this country?

As I said earlier, none of the acts are at question. Nobody is refuting that they happened. The only think being refuted are the legal distinctions of what constitutes torture and how effective the techniques were. We committed these vile acts on prisoners and we have lost our ability to stand in judgement of their actions.

Well, we are in disagreement. I don't believe in the moral authority angle under these circumstances. For the ones who were completely innocent, I'm sorry this happened to you. I'm sure a large majority of those detained were picked up from the battle fields, and I know some where wrong place wrong time detainees. Nothing we can do about it, collateral damage is unfortunately a part of war. Hopefully, we can give them some of their dignity back some way or the other. To those who we tortured, and are our enemy, f'em.

 

[Wild Bill]

Very well justified but in the end they lied because they were ashamed of what they did. Since you mentioned 9/11 I would like to point out that none of us have a clear understanding of what lead to and happened that day but according to the congressmen who have seen the full report... we will be shocked when we do find out.

I don't have a perfect solution but it could be easily be argued that the US has "created" more terrorists themselves by their actions. So stop the actions that create terrorists.

Convert to Islam? That would have saved some Christians in Syria. Being Christians seemed to be their only "crime".

Let's not get confused here, the people we are interrogating want us dead for believing what we choose to believe. They like to pimp us with these types of arguments. As if they give a shit about human rights.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Convert to Islam? That would have saved some Christians in Syria. Being a Christian seemed to be their only "crime".

Let's not get confused here, the people we are interrogating want us dead for believing what we choose to believe. They like to pimp us with these types of arguments. As if they give a shit about human rights.

It doesn't matter if they care about human rights. We should.

Also, torture doesn't work.