|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 15, 2014 6:19:55 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to compare the SS, Stasi and KGB to the CIA here. vosa makes a very valid point above about the form that "torture" takes. It's not all created equal. If I were faced with a choice between spending a month on the rack and being blown to bits with a Hellfire missile, I'd probably pick the missile. Indeed, I'd pick the missile under any circumstance I can imagine where torture would lead to my death. But that's not what the CIA is known to have done here. In fact, that's why it's dangerous to talk about what the CIA has done as torture. When we use the word torture, it conjures an image of the Spanish Inquisition. Even based on Feinstein's report the CIA didn't do anything close to that. Comparing the Spanish Inquisition... or the Stasi, SS or KGB to this defines torture down to the point where we cheapen what the victims of the Inquisition, Stasi, SS and KGB suffered. And that is morally disgusting and evil in it's own way. When a society engages in activities that must be done in 'secret'; when that activity must be couched in terms by some wordsmith; it makes me as a citizen wonder...... When it becomes dangerous to even talk about our government activities...... it's just way too late. When a society supports a government that can't operate in the light of day, it sends a message that the citizens are best served by also becoming 'secret' and forming their own shadow society. The reason I believe it's "dangerous" to discuss what the CIA has done is has more to do with defining torture down than anything else. Beyond that though, EVERY government has secrets it tries to keep, and for good reason. We don't want al Qaida knowing who we have, and what techniques we've used to get information out of them because we don't want them to be able to train their people for resistance.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Dec 15, 2014 10:09:05 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to compare the SS, Stasi and KGB to the CIA here. vosa makes a very valid point above about the form that "torture" takes. It's not all created equal. If I were faced with a choice between spending a month on the rack and being blown to bits with a Hellfire missile, I'd probably pick the missile. Indeed, I'd pick the missile under any circumstance I can imagine where torture would lead to my death. But that's not what the CIA is known to have done here. In fact, that's why it's dangerous to talk about what the CIA has done as torture. When we use the word torture, it conjures an image of the Spanish Inquisition. Even based on Feinstein's report the CIA didn't do anything close to that. Comparing the Spanish Inquisition... or the Stasi, SS or KGB to this defines torture down to the point where we cheapen what the victims of the Inquisition, Stasi, SS and KGB suffered. And that is morally disgusting and evil in it's own way. When a society engages in activities that must be done in 'secret'; when that activity must be couched in terms by some wordsmith; it makes me as a citizen wonder...... When it becomes dangerous to even talk about our government activities...... it's just way too late. When a society supports a government that can't operate in the light of day, it sends a message that the citizens are best served by also becoming 'secret' and forming their own shadow society. Do you think that all wartime activities should be public? No I don't think you mean this. In war there have to be secrets, these interrogations were war related during an active war. After the war then the activities can be brought to light, we are not done with this war yet (can you say ISIS?)
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 15, 2014 10:57:47 GMT -5
And for those that don't, the only thing that can be said is "they USED to exist..." I'd prefer that we cease to exist, and someone try something else, than that we become depraved. You represent yourself as a Christian but I must say that what I remember of the philosophy is nothing like the values I see in you.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 15, 2014 12:02:30 GMT -5
And for those that don't, the only thing that can be said is "they USED to exist..." I'd prefer that we cease to exist, and someone try something else, than that we become depraved. You represent yourself as a Christian but I must say that what I remember of the philosophy is nothing like the values I see in you. This post is a perfect example of my point to rentedmule that it is dangerous to discuss what the CIA has done in terms of torture. What the CIA did was take a very small number of exceptionally nasty men (perhaps homunculi is more accurate) and got urgently important information out of them by making them uncomfortable and humiliating them. The Democrats have called this torture. Calling this torture compared to the generally understood meaning of the word, is like asserting 3 kids playing catch in their backyard is the same as Eddie Murray, Cal Ripken, and Rick Dempsey playing in the 1983 World Series. Yes, in both scenarios some people are tossing a baseball around. The similarity ends there. So far as I know, no ones eyes were gouged out. Or genitals electrocuted, or stretched on a rack, or branded, or pressed, or spent time with a pear of anguish, or forced to eat their own excrement, or even just whipped. THESE are the sorts of things that leap to mind when one mentions torture. Using such imagery to condemn water boarding is intellectually dishonest. Going further, and asserting, as EY has here that the country should cease to exist because it has become depraved shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the world we exist in, and the meaning of the word "depraved."
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 15, 2014 12:45:43 GMT -5
What the CIA did was take a very small number of exceptionally nasty men (perhaps homunculi is more accurate) and got urgently important information out of them by making them uncomfortable and humiliating them. Step One: dehumanize your enemy. We do not consider them human beings, so we can do whatever we like to them. The Democrats have called this torture. Calling this torture compared to the generally understood meaning of the word, is like asserting 3 kids playing catch in their backyard is the same as Eddie Murray, Cal Ripken, and Rick Dempsey playing in the 1983 World Series. Yes, in both scenarios some people are tossing a baseball around. The similarity ends there. Step Two: When people object, pretend their objections are unreasonable. Pretend they don't understand the meanings of words. - The G.O.P. Manual on War-Fighting You apologists would be more amusing if you weren't frightening.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 15, 2014 14:36:05 GMT -5
What the CIA did was take a very small number of exceptionally nasty men (perhaps homunculi is more accurate) and got urgently important information out of them by making them uncomfortable and humiliating them. Step One: dehumanize your enemy. We do not consider them human beings, so we can do whatever we like to them. LMAO. Right. I dehumanized KSM. The fact that I don't consider him human has nothing at all to what he did to this country on 9/11. That couldn't possibly be where I got the impression he's some sort of sub-human thing. Your repeated assertions that people who disagree with you are somehow immoral is essentially the same thing. The simple truth though, is that NOTHING about this is morally or ethically simple. Your rigid absolutism is costing lives. Again, how many people do you want to sacrifice on your altar of moral superiority?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 16, 2014 13:12:30 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to compare the SS, Stasi and KGB to the CIA here. vosa makes a very valid point above about the form that "torture" takes. It's not all created equal. If I were faced with a choice between spending a month on the rack and being blown to bits with a Hellfire missile, I'd probably pick the missile. Indeed, I'd pick the missile under any circumstance I can imagine where torture would lead to my death. But that's not what the CIA is known to have done here. In fact, that's why it's dangerous to talk about what the CIA has done as torture. When we use the word torture, it conjures an image of the Spanish Inquisition. Even based on Feinstein's report the CIA didn't do anything close to that. Comparing the Spanish Inquisition... or the Stasi, SS or KGB to this defines torture down to the point where we cheapen what the victims of the Inquisition, Stasi, SS and KGB suffered. And that is morally disgusting and evil in it's own way. When a society engages in activities that must be done in 'secret'; when that activity must be couched in terms by some wordsmith; it makes me as a citizen wonder...... When it becomes dangerous to even talk about our government activities...... it's just way too late. When a society supports a government that can't operate in the light of day, it sends a message that the citizens are best served by also becoming 'secret' and forming their own shadow society. While I disagree with most of the secrecy that especially this regime uses to hide their criminal activity, every viable government has to have some secrets, even from it's own citizens. Otherwise, it's enemies will know everything they do, and they won't last long at all.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 16, 2014 13:14:52 GMT -5
And for those that don't, the only thing that can be said is "they USED to exist..." I'd prefer that we cease to exist, and someone try something else, than that we become depraved. You represent yourself as a Christian but I must say that what I remember of the philosophy is nothing like the values I see in you. "Depravity" is letting your fellow citizens be killed, in excruciating ways, when you could have prevented it. Especially when the prevention consisted of making the enemy uncomfortable, or tired. That's not torture, unless you are willing to condemn the entire Democrat Party for torture. They humiliate, make uncomfortable, and make tired nearly everyone in this country on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 16, 2014 13:19:16 GMT -5
What the CIA did was take a very small number of exceptionally nasty men (perhaps homunculi is more accurate) and got urgently important information out of them by making them uncomfortable and humiliating them. They are absolutely human. Prehistoric humans, but humans. That doesn't mean we have to commit suicide to accommodate their religion.The Democrats have called this torture. Calling this torture compared to the generally understood meaning of the word, is like asserting 3 kids playing catch in their backyard is the same as Eddie Murray, Cal Ripken, and Rick Dempsey playing in the 1983 World Series. Yes, in both scenarios some people are tossing a baseball around. The similarity ends there. When you have to redefine commonly understood terminology, terminology that's been the same for centuries, you have no real arguments against it. And that's exactly what you have done. You, and the Democrats, have redefined "torture" to the level that even asking questions in anything other than a soft, sultry voice is so defined. This report is a lie, from beginning to end, and was released for no reason other than the fact that the great unwashed failed to recognize the brilliance of the Communist Party, so must be punished.
|
|
|
Post by com6063 on Dec 17, 2014 12:48:05 GMT -5
I don't think torture should be used.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Dec 18, 2014 7:57:02 GMT -5
When a society engages in activities that must be done in 'secret'; when that activity must be couched in terms by some wordsmith; it makes me as a citizen wonder...... When it becomes dangerous to even talk about our government activities...... it's just way too late. When a society supports a government that can't operate in the light of day, it sends a message that the citizens are best served by also becoming 'secret' and forming their own shadow society. While I disagree with most of the secrecy that especially this regime uses to hide their criminal activity, every viable government has to have some secrets, even from it's own citizens. Otherwise, it's enemies will know everything they do, and they won't last long at all. Perhaps the notion of 'secrecy' is being confused with transparency? Can citizens live with the same rules as government?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 19, 2014 18:56:42 GMT -5
I don't think torture should be used. In this case, it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 19, 2014 19:09:16 GMT -5
While I disagree with most of the secrecy that especially this regime uses to hide their criminal activity, every viable government has to have some secrets, even from it's own citizens. Otherwise, it's enemies will know everything they do, and they won't last long at all. Perhaps the notion of 'secrecy' is being confused with transparency? Can citizens live with the same rules as government? I think the answer to that is no. Government has national security responsibilities that go FAR beyond what an individual citizen does. The entire world would have been better off had the Rosenburg's not given up the secrets to the nuclear bomb. But more to the point, if the government hadn't been able to keep the secrets to the Manhattan Project secret during WWII... well, just imagine the devastation if Hitler had the bomb. Citizens should have a natural right to privacy, but I expect the government to have secrets. Some of them are necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 19, 2014 22:21:19 GMT -5
I don't think torture should be used. In this case, it wasn't. It's not torture if it's done to people redleg doesn't like...
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Dec 20, 2014 7:41:58 GMT -5
Perhaps the notion of 'secrecy' is being confused with transparency? Can citizens live with the same rules as government? I think the answer to that is no. Government has national security responsibilities that go FAR beyond what an individual citizen does. The entire world would have been better off had the Rosenburg's not given up the secrets to the nuclear bomb. But more to the point, if the government hadn't been able to keep the secrets to the Manhattan Project secret during WWII... well, just imagine the devastation if Hitler had the bomb. Citizens should have a natural right to privacy, but I expect the government to have secrets. Some of them are necessary.You have your expectation realized. A citizen who operates in secrecy is a criminal. A government employee who operates in secrecy is a patriot. www.politicususa.com/2014/03/23/jimmy-carter-correctly-thinks-nsa-reading-email.html
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 20, 2014 10:42:38 GMT -5
I think the answer to that is no. Government has national security responsibilities that go FAR beyond what an individual citizen does. The entire world would have been better off had the Rosenburg's not given up the secrets to the nuclear bomb. But more to the point, if the government hadn't been able to keep the secrets to the Manhattan Project secret during WWII... well, just imagine the devastation if Hitler had the bomb. Citizens should have a natural right to privacy, but I expect the government to have secrets. Some of them are necessary.You have your expectation realized. A citizen who operates in secrecy is a criminal. A government employee who operates in secrecy is a patriot. www.politicususa.com/2014/03/23/jimmy-carter-correctly-thinks-nsa-reading-email.htmlActually, I suspect, if you thought about it, you'd discover that citizens generally enjoy more privacy than the government.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 20, 2014 10:44:01 GMT -5
It's not torture if it's done to people redleg doesn't like... Or, maybe it's not torture if you can get up and walk away from it without any significant medical attention when it's over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 10:54:44 GMT -5
It's not torture if it's done to people redleg doesn't like... Or, maybe it's not torture if you can get up and walk away from it without any significant medical attention when it's over. That's some pretty cockeyed view of what denotes torture.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 20, 2014 22:55:37 GMT -5
It's not torture if it's done to people redleg doesn't like... Or, maybe it's not torture if you can get up and walk away from it without any significant medical attention when it's over. In the Star Trek episode "Whom Gods Destroy" a villain named Garth devised a chair that subjected those sitting in it to excruciating pain but did them no physical harm. Obviously a fictional device, but... would you consider an individual who sat in such a chair to be a victim of torture?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 21, 2014 10:01:00 GMT -5
Or, maybe it's not torture if you can get up and walk away from it without any significant medical attention when it's over. In the Star Trek episode "Whom Gods Destroy" a villain named Garth devised a chair that subjected those sitting in it to excruciating pain but did them no physical harm. Obviously a fictional device, but... would you consider an individual who sat in such a chair to be a victim of torture? I don't know EY. I occasionally get kidney stones. I would describe that pain as excruciating. And, once the stone is out, I don't need medical treatment. It's REAL unpleasant, but I don't think I'd call it torture.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 21, 2014 11:34:32 GMT -5
I don't know EY. I occasionally get kidney stones. I would describe that pain as excruciating. And, once the stone is out, I don't need medical treatment. It's REAL unpleasant, but I don't think I'd call it torture. Supposed I administered some drug that cause you to form a kidney stone? Would it be torture then? The distinction, of course, being whether it happens as a result of illness or whether someone does it to you - most people don't regard illness as torture. Unpleasant, certainly, and excruciating sometimes too. But torture involves an actor (the torturer) who causes that pain.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Dec 21, 2014 12:47:32 GMT -5
I don't know EY. I occasionally get kidney stones. I would describe that pain as excruciating. And, once the stone is out, I don't need medical treatment. It's REAL unpleasant, but I don't think I'd call it torture. Supposed I administered some drug that cause you to form a kidney stone? Would it be torture then? The distinction, of course, being whether it happens as a result of illness or whether someone does it to you - most people don't regard illness as torture. Unpleasant, certainly, and excruciating sometimes too. But torture involves an actor (the torturer) who causes that pain. Whether or not it's torture also depends on intent IMHO. Homicide is the killing of a human being. So is murder. But there is a big difference, legally, and morally, between murder and homicide (resulting from self-defense). If you were a doctor administering a healing drug to me that had a side of effect of producing a kidney stone, that would not be torture (in the true sense of the word). However doing the same thing to someone in order to get them to divulge certain information could be considered torture, especially if the stone were so large that it would not pass.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 21, 2014 14:16:40 GMT -5
I don't know EY. I occasionally get kidney stones. I would describe that pain as excruciating. And, once the stone is out, I don't need medical treatment. It's REAL unpleasant, but I don't think I'd call it torture. Supposed I administered some drug that cause you to form a kidney stone? Would it be torture then? The distinction, of course, being whether it happens as a result of illness or whether someone does it to you - most people don't regard illness as torture. Unpleasant, certainly, and excruciating sometimes too. But torture involves an actor (the torturer) who causes that pain. Honestly, EY, I'd hesitate to call it torture. Yeah, I'd be pretty miserable, and pissed at you for doing it to me. But knowing it's temporary, and knowing I'll be Ok in the end... I don't think that would be torture. Maybe it's just because I'm not a pu**y. Either way, it would certainly be preferable to being droned to death.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 21, 2014 14:17:56 GMT -5
Supposed I administered some drug that cause you to form a kidney stone? Would it be torture then? The distinction, of course, being whether it happens as a result of illness or whether someone does it to you - most people don't regard illness as torture. Unpleasant, certainly, and excruciating sometimes too. But torture involves an actor (the torturer) who causes that pain. Whether or not it's torture also depends on intent IMHO. Homicide is the killing of a human being. So is murder. But there is a big difference, legally, and morally, between murder and homicide (resulting from self-defense). If you were a doctor administering a healing drug to me that had a side of effect of producing a kidney stone, that would not be torture (in the true sense of the word). However doing the same thing to someone in order to get them to divulge certain information could be considered torture, especially if the stone were so large that it would not pass. I don't think it really depends on intent either. To me, torture is something that leaves a permanent mark. It has to leave a legacy.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 21, 2014 14:43:49 GMT -5
To me, torture is something that leaves a permanent mark. It has to leave a legacy. The dictionary does not agree: torture
|
|