At least bring common sense to the table
I don’t like it...
Published on June 12, 2011 By BoobzTwo In War on Terror

          When I think of torture the first thing that comes to mind is Vietnam and the rat pits and well you should know what I mean.  But there is no end to the chain of torture throughout man’s history. Of course there was Rwanda and Darfur to name a couple to bring things to more modern times. If I think of religion then I think of the inquisitions while States and City States speak for themselves. We have at least a 20,000 year history of torture … when is enough going to be enough. Is it just impossible for mankind to actually grow up?

          Torture always was a methodology for inflicting pain for political and moral (theological) reasons. I am sure there are few instances in history where torture resulted in much more that that ... pain and suffering. This method of what ??? ‘Gathering intelligence’ is absurd and as archaic as the cave man. How is that for a model to look up to, geeze…? What in the world would you be squawking as you were being water boarded for intelligence … I wonder indeed???

 


Comments
on Jun 13, 2011

I just dumped a long, rambling squeak about how waterboarding ain't torture.  It is scary for the subject, for sure, but it doesn't maim or kill.  I'll just leave it at that and watch the peanut gallery rant about my attitude.  Might add more later.

on Jun 13, 2011

I did not have a specific ‘torture’ in mind but I suppose most are talking about waterboarding. Because of this, I have to agree with BFD. If the USG is flaunting it, then it is of little consequence in the scheme of things. I suppose I meant more like “do unto others as you would have others do unto you”, pretty simple really. But there needs to be a standard and that was the Geneva Conventions. Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of political re-education, interrogation, punishment, coercion and much is state-sponsored. We are on a slippery slope here and need to think this out rationally is all.

on Jun 16, 2011

I am surprised this article didn't draw more fire.  I agree that as a nation we have to have standards and they cannot be based on reactions to other nations' actions.  Our standards should be higher than those of the third world (not hard...most of them have no standards at all).  But we also have to be realistic, water-boarding and other "harsh techniques" serve to break down the resistance and are unpleasant, but are not in the league of real torture that was dished out at the Hanoi Hilton, or in the dungeons of Europe, or the basement at Lubyanka.  I am no expert but I do have opinions...we shouldn't stoop to the level of the Jihadists, but should not shrink away from what might need to be done.  The ticking bomb scenario may not be the norm...but it cannot be discounted, either.

on Nov 29, 2011

I guess torture is ok then as long as there is what ... justification for it? I expected a lot more here too!

on Dec 01, 2011

Five months?  Guess it's just us and we seem to almost in agreement...gonna get a fight goin' we need a different subject, I guess.   Hope you had a good Turkey Day.

on Dec 01, 2011

BoobzTwo
I guess torture is ok then as long as there is what ... justification for it? I expected a lot more here too!

I think what people do is simply reclassify certain things and then they feel it is justified. What our government did was reclassify certain detainees as "unlawful combatants". The Military Commissions Act of 2006 exempts "unlawful combatants" from the Geneva conventions. Then of course there is the CIA and their so called "black sites". 

Then you have others who change the definition of torture to suit their needs. It doesn't kill so its not torture? Since when is killing someone "torture" and not murder (or maybe manslaughter,etc.) and maiming not maiming? These things are forbidden in the Geneva Conventions as well, but done so separately from where they forbid torture. 

As far as waterboarding goes it can cause lung damage, brain damage, and in extreme cases death. So it can maim and even kill.

If you were drowning and thought you were going die would that not be psychologically painful? That is what waterboarding is. It is an act used to make you think you are being drown.

on Dec 01, 2011

Semantics with people lives huh, go figure. Just change the classification and do what feels good. There is no doubt in my mind that I would peel the finger nails off of someone holding my child and time was essential … and that would just be the start. So what does that make me? For some reason, I can only envision this on a personal level though. To torture people over things that may happen down the road (maybe) is different (I think) and ‘lives saved’ (jobs saved) is meaningless blather. Torture was used by the RCC for the purpose of getting confessions and finding witches (don’t even mention heresy here) … yep it always worked. But those were medieval times and I would like to believe we have at least changed somewhat for the better. Institutional torture is out … personal torture is in … still a hard sale until you become personally involved. This deep personal involvement however is about as likely as winning the lottery IMO … but people do win the lottery.

on Dec 02, 2011

I question whether torture is even effective. Beating people is all about fear and submission. Some people will say anything truthful or not. Maybe it works for some people but when you are promised your pick of virgins in the afterlife I tend to think lying, deception, trickery and other such mind games might be much more effective on people who seem to be inherently vulnerable to these things to start with.

There are several books on the market written by people who were involved in some of the more recent terrorist related interrogations. They talk about the psychological methods they use to get information out of some well known cases. Ali Soufan is probably the most widely known but I would suggest reading several sources.  Seems to me the "enhanced interrogation methods" as we have come to know them were proposed by politicians and private contractors not career FBI and CIA interrogators. Go figure.

on Dec 06, 2011

Well, I for one can and would use torture under the right (extreme) personal conditions ... but I cannot in good conscience support institutional torture for any reason. I suppose the best guideline I can think of here is an old quote of mine “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

on Dec 06, 2011

BoobzTwo
Well, I for one can and would use torture under the right (extreme) personal conditions

I assume you are thinking about revenge not the collection of intelligence? Things like revenge and fear are very good motivational tools often used to rally the masses but the ultimate goal of the situation we face is not to seek revenge. I think you already realize that, so don't take that as me thinking otherwise.

I certainly want the gathering of intelligence to be effective at stopping future acts of terrorism, however I believe violence often does nothing more than just breed more of the same, and I certainly do not want an endless cycle of violence. I can find examples where certain people claim water-boarding for example was effective. Are they saying that to protect themselves for the decisions they made or because it is true? Was it to confirm already acquired information or not, as others claim? Why did certain government officials and agencies destroy documents regarding the matter if they are so convinced that what they did was right and justifiable? As one document destroyer stated....because the consequences of making this information public were far worse than the debate about just water-boarding. I believe that is very likely the case and don't wish to rehash old debate to point fingers but rather decide the best course going forward. What we did was an experiment and I suspect many things were learned from it. I do not expect the politicians or ideologues to admit where they were  wrong, I expect them to cover their own butts and egos so I tend to give more weight to information from others and sometimes just look at the politically motivated for instances where they inadvertently contradict themselves. What are the consequences of those actions? Was it necessary, and are there better techniques to achieve the desired goal which is not just preventing any single act of violence but to prevent the maximum amount of violence looking forward. If we want to teach people that something is not good for them or society, it is sometimes best to not do the very same thing you are advocating against.

BoobzTwo
I suppose the best guideline I can think of here is an old quote of mine “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

That is a great guideline. Much better than "an eye for an eye". Some live by an "eye for an eye" and then end up with no eyes.

 

on Dec 06, 2011

No, revenge is not enough for me (not what I was thinking though) … that is what a good punch (or three) in the nose is for. I am talking about the abduction of my husband or children say ... and time was very relevant ... and circumstances were just so; which I know is about as likely as winning the lottery but... Personally I don’t think much for the excuses used to justify warped political logic. The only reason documentation needs to be destroyed is as stated; the lesser of two evils (sort of like building 7). As far as I am concerned, if we are seeing it in the media … then we haven’t seen anything that counts … only what we are presented to argue over. Until we get a better handle on the black ops, we can only guess what has really been happening.

on Dec 07, 2011

Boobz:  Black Ops are named that for a reason.  It is like sausage, we enjoy the final product but shouldn't watch how it is made.

on Dec 07, 2011

BFD, I understand and agree to an extent. I suppose I should have found a better description, sorry. I understand that field work requires a ‘blind eye’ at times and I have no problems with that … right or wrong … it is what it is. I was referring more to arrangements we have with other nations that provide us ‘sanctuary’ to do post fieldwork in. It is the moral infringement that bothers me. Wikipedia has this blurb about ‘black ops’: “Black operations may include such things as assassination, sabotage, extortion, spying on allied countries or one's own citizens, kidnapping, supporting resistance movements, torture, use of fraud to obtain funds, use of child soldiers, human experimentation, trafficking in contraband items, and false flag operations, among others.” This nonsense delves much deeper into an ‘I have the biggest stick’ philosophy than national moral righteousness. How many democratically elected leaders in South America alone were disposed through direct intervention from the USG using false flag and black ops? Where was the moral compass I wonder? I know … plausible deniability … which is about as forthright as ‘for national security’ is.

on Dec 07, 2011

BoobzTwo
Where was the moral compass I wonder? I know … plausible deniability

Their moral compass is akin to this.....I deserve these rights but you don't. Governments and those who control them use their power to dominate and control others. These things are done in sanctuary countries because the governments and laws of those countries allow for such things. It is the big stick philosophy but which utopian government rules with a philosophy of national moral righteousness? Many of the people who actually control our government hate our laws and hate our freedoms. They like to have those rights and freedoms for themselves but many obviously think others do not deserve them as well. They like the laws that protect themselves but obviously do not like the laws that protect everyone else.

 

on Dec 17, 2011

Of course there is no moral compass ... we are talking about the USG after all. Except for 9/11 as many feel they found it just that one time hahaha.

Meta
Views
» 867
Comments
» 15
Category
Sponsored Links