Waterboarding

[mkemse]

Should "Waterboarding" by the United State Military Be Outlawed And Made Illegal??

This is WaterboWaterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]

[DOMLORD]

forgive my ignorance, but what is "Waterboarding" and why does it matter?

[mkemse]

forgive my ignorance, but what is "Waterboarding" and why does it matter?

Sorry i need to explain it here it is:
The Military wants to and has used it to interogate People and President Bush said any bill(which is now pendng in Congress) that makes Waterboarding illegal he will veto


Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]

Waterboarding was used for interrogation at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition[6] to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. It is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[4][7] politicians, war veterans,[8][9] intelligence officials,[10] military judges,[11] and human rights organizations.[12][13] In 2007 waterboarding led to a political scandal in the United States when the press reported that the CIA had waterboarded extrajudicial prisoners[14] and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure.[15] The CIA has admitted waterboarding Al-Qaida suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[16]

[Alex Bragi]

Well, call me a cynic, but I not convinced that outlawing it will actually stop it happening.

Look at the Lindi English case, an isolated incident? I think not.

I feel that the Military often brings out the very best and the very worst in people.

[mkemse]

Well, call me a cynic, but I not convinced that outlawing it will actually stop it happening.

Look at the Lindi English case, an isolated incident? I think not.

I feel that the Military often brings out the very best and the very worst in people.

I realize that, it will still be used but should it be outlawed??
would you support a law outlawing it's use??

[DOMLORD]

hmm... i can see where the use might be atractive (especially for Water Bondage).
however most info elicited in this fassion is false. thats why most interogation techniques (lawful ones) always disorient the interogatee instead of harming them.
still i couldn't support it being outlawed because we can always threaten its use and fear is the most important weapon in an interogator's arsenal.

[cadence]

hmm... i can see where the use might be atractive (especially for Water Bondage)..

I have read some accounts elsewhere of others using this type of water torture in BDSM play. I wouldn't reccomend it to anyone who wasn't terribly experienced in edge play. Basically the end result is the reciprocating person puking. It doesn't sound too appealing to me.



however most info elicited in this fassion is false. thats why most interogation techniques (lawful ones) always disorient the interogatee instead of harming them.
still i couldn't support it being outlawed because we can always threaten its use and fear is the most important weapon in an interogator's arsenal.

Waterboarding can lead to permanent damage, and death. Torture techniques are designed to prolong agony, and yes can eventually harm the person.
Personally I don't care either way about waterboarding, I would think that the CIA is doing damage control right now, since this waterboarding has leaked out into the public foray.
Heaven forbid the american government would use any form of torture intended to harm another. I am sure that there are other forms of torture that are used as well, they just haven't been leaked out.

[_ID_]

For those that are unsure...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS4sGYmzCuA

[countrystud]

Waterboarding is an interrogation technique. Basically, the person under investigation is tied down, their body declined. A rag is forced into the person's mouth and water is poured onto their face.

In my opinion, America should do what is necessary to protect her soldiers. I think waterboarding is an exceptable interrogation technique because it is not this brutal thing that everyone thinks it is. Its not like the person is having a finger cut off, or they are being flogged or electrocuted until they talk. I'm not saying that it is the best method, but it certainly isn't the worst. And it has been proven to work.

Now, if someone has a better way of getting information about from these guys, I'm all for it. But personally, i would rather have a human being think that he is choking to death, rather than having to beat the crap out of him. Either way, it sucks...but I think waterboarding is the lesser of the two evils.

[denuseri]

personally )and i am the daughter of a former marine gunerery sgt who happened to be a vietnam pow and he would say the same if he was still with us) wtf the united states of america is not suposed to condon torture of any kind what so ever, in that being the laying of hands on another to deliberatly harm them, etc,, we are supposed to be the good guys,, the very fact that we are even considering the legal technicalities of weather or not torture is torture speaks volumes about what our culture is becoming and frankly its not looking to be a good transition, sure the job is harder without some kinds of info, but that doesnt mean we lower ourselves to using the enemeys tactics, torture is wrong period

[Thorne]

I think waterboarding is an exceptable interrogation technique because it is not this brutal thing that everyone thinks it is. Its not like the person is having a finger cut off, or they are being flogged or electrocuted until they talk. I'm not saying that it is the best method, but it certainly isn't the worst. And it has been proven to work.

Now, if someone has a better way of getting information about from these guys, I'm all for it. But personally, i would rather have a human being think that he is choking to death, rather than having to beat the crap out of him. Either way, it sucks...but I think waterboarding is the lesser of the two evils.

I suggest you try a little experiment. Lie down in your shower or tub, place a cloth over your face and allow the water to pour (or even spray) over the cloth, while you hold your hand behind your back. No turning the head away to breath, just let the water soak the cloth. I would bet that you don't last too long before you either turn your head away or pull the cloth away, just so you can get a breath.

Now imagine that you cannot turn away, and your hands (and everything else for that matter) are tied down, unusable. And then imagine that this goes on for hour after hour, day after day, your tormentors only allowing you enough air to keep you alive and conscious, but never enough to quell the burning, searing ache in your lungs.

Or, you can imagine sitting in a chair, probably secured, but not necessarily, being injected with a drug, then waking in your cell with no ill effects other than a mild headache, perhaps, but knowing that in all likelihood you've told your interrogators everything you knew.

Which would you prefer?

Torture, of any sort, is not only cruel and inhumane, it's virtually useless. Any information gotten from it cannot be trusted because the victims will usually say whatever they think you want to hear, just to make you stop, even if only for a short while. Drugs, psychology and even hypnosis are far more reliable and safe as an interrogation technique.

[mkemse]

I suggest you try a little experiment. Lie down in your shower or tub, place a cloth over your face and allow the water to pour (or even spray) over the cloth, while you hold your hand behind your back. No turning the head away to breath, just let the water soak the cloth. I would bet that you don't last too long before you either turn your head away or pull the cloth away, just so you can get a breath.

Now imagine that you cannot turn away, and your hands (and everything else for that matter) are tied down, unusable. And then imagine that this goes on for hour after hour, day after day, your tormentors only allowing you enough air to keep you alive and conscious, but never enough to quell the burning, searing ache in your lungs.

Or, you can imagine sitting in a chair, probably secured, but not necessarily, being injected with a drug, then waking in your cell with no ill effects other than a mild headache, perhaps, but knowing that in all likelihood you've told your interrogators everything you knew.

Which would you prefer?

Torture, of any sort, is not only cruel and inhumane, it's virtually useless. Any information gotten from it cannot be trusted because the victims will usually say whatever they think you want to hear, just to make you stop, even if only for a short while. Drugs, psychology and even hypnosis are far more reliable and safe as an interrogation technique.


I agree with you 100%

[mkemse]

Also, keep in mind who is allowing this to go on?? and interstingly enough when our current Attorney Genenral was being ask questions by congress before his confirmation, he even said "I will not pass judgment on whether Wateboarding is Torture or not, or if it should be allowed or not" keeping this in mind, remember who nominated him for Attorney General, with the current Adm. it seems that as long was what THEY do serves THEIR puporse, it makes no different what is legal, what is torture ect as long as THEY get the results THEY want also add into this the Bush is always talk about human rights,around the world like in in China and other countries, he believes in human rights and dignity yet he let's waterboarding go on, a bit hypocritical would you say he wants everyone to be treated in a humane fashion but allows Waterboarding

[denuseri]

lol, well what do u expect from a leader thats never really fought in a war to defend his country before?,, i think its a primary character flaw to have any commander in chief that has no experience in the military, (i know many will disagree) but only those that have stood next to one another with thier lives on the line understand the sacrifices made,, as for the hypocrisy well thats common now days,, after bold face lies told by prior presidents caught red handed, whats a lil truth bending today?,, arrrgh politicians make me sick,, i mean hell, we might as well vote for the sexiest president right? after all arent we just going to get fucked by whoever it is regardless? lmao

[denuseri]

so my new election of officals formula is: elect the one yu would like to fuck you the most,,,

[mkemse]

only time will tell

[MMI]

First thought (I've not read the whole thread, so apologies to anyone who has already made this point): no-one should vote FOR it until they've tried it.

Second: It's done everywhere, but when it's discovered, it should be punished harshly. We are SUPPOSED to be the "good guys" as someone said. Then let us make sure that anyone letting down the standards we aspire to is made to pay.

Third: It makes no difference that "the enemy" would do it to us. It's still wrong.

Fourth: "It's justifable because it's the only way to get information that might save lives." No it isn't! The ends do not justify the means, especially when it is not always certain what the "ends" might turn out to be.

I could go on ...

But no-one can justify it except to say that it's better than doing something worse. Well, of course!

[denuseri]

i so agree with you on this one MMI,,nice points too, i just think its a bad sign of the devalueing of our ethical compass that we obviously engadge as a country in theses activities, smh,, wtf ever happened to the geniva convention? My dad never liked to talk about being tortured when he was a pow, but every so often an old buddy of his from the corps would drop by and i would hear them talking in thier gruff voices through the wall of our living room where i had snuck off too to spy on em, and some of it was just terrible, but the real eye opener, was going to spokane at Fairchild AFB with my Husband/Master and taking a tour of the resisitance training corse at the survival school annex where he used to teach, and phewie,, the things they said where done to american pow's by the vietmanese and koreans was incredible,, i mean heck the nazis treated pows better,, but anyway i digress, our determination to be a leader in world politics, which we kinda took on after WW2 may partlly out of nessesity absolutly requires that We Set the Example,, that we dont do certian things like torture ,just becuz the other guy did etc,, we used to set that example too, now days we have fallen woefully short.

[Venom]

...i mean heck the nazis treated pows better


Well, but you (the USA) treated pows better, too. Of course, the US had tortured certain axis prisoners during and even after WWII. But the normal soldiers didn't go to places like Guantanamo Bay. A father's friend narrated of the "Fritz-Ritz", the US-camps for German POW's. They even were free to celebrate the "Führergeburtstag" (Birthday of Hitler, 20th of April).

[Captain]

Folks, these terrorists want to kill us. Kill all of us. Now they are trying to bankrupt the U.S. by controlling the price of oil. Now I agree with denuseri about her assessment of our politicians. They're the one's that got us into this mess by not allowing drilling on our own land, the building of new refineries, and the use of nuclear energy. Both parties are to blame for that! But our National Security must be our first priority, at whatever means!!! Without our National Security, we wouldn't be able to say these things without the fear of retribution. We're still the best country and best government in the world, and we need to maintain that status.

[mkemse]

Folks, these terrorists want to kill us. Kill all of us. Now they are trying to bankrupt the U.S. by controlling the price of oil. Now I agree with denuseri about her assessment of our politicians. They're the one's that got us into this mess by not allowing drilling on our own land, the building of new refineries, and the use of nuclear energy. Both parties are to blame for that! But our National Security must be our first priority, at whatever means!!! Without our National Security, we wouldn't be able to say these things without the fear of retribution. We're still the best country and best government in the world, and we need to maintain that status.

We can do that without Torturing Prisoners
If the Major Oil corporation can post $35 BILLION in Profits for 1 quarter and pay their CEO's $12-14 Million a years, they can bulid more refineries, they have their own land build them there, or upgrade the ones that they have and expand there capablities,
Any major Cororation that shows a $35 Billoin Profit for 3-4 months Pays their CEO's Over $10 Milloin a year while we pay $4.00+ for gas, i have no sympathy for the oil companies, they have the money to do what is needed, they simply won't build more, expand more refineries, that would at least be astart

[denuseri]

too true, plus allmost half that price of the gallon is infact generated by state and federal taxes, heck our county just raised a tax for gas to help pay for a public transportation system that is only used by a small portion of people in our inner city,, wtf am i paying extra for, i live like 20miles out,lol,, as for torture i am asstonished that any red blooded american would even consider it,,let alone condone it, like rome we americans have many jealous of our prosperity, its not a question of those who would be our enemies intentions, like the Japanese admiral suposably said just after pearl harbor "i fear we have awakened a sleeping giant" the bad guys should watch the f out,, but that doesnt mean we have to compromise the ethical standard that made our nation great to begin with by playing down to our opositions level

[Mr.FixIt]

double posted dammit

[Mr.FixIt]

double posted dammit

[Mr.FixIt]

Water boarding, especially with the previous examples described here in this thread, SOUNDS QUITE EFFECTIVE!

Hate me if you will. But these people hate you more, and have for hundreds of years. They declared war on us hundreds of years ago, and we still haven't woken up to realize it and face it. They will kill themselves to kill you, your families, your children. So what is a little torture? We're not killing them or their families, right? Their women, their children, and their men are trained to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up, in our airplanes, in our football stadiums, in our high school graduations--whatever event that might have a solid impact on the fear of our nation (Is this not torture?). Why? Because they hate us. Period. They hated us long before we needed their oil, in fact, before we even knew what oil might be used for. So please don't even try to make that point. (And, Yes, I hate Bush too!!!)

Imagine that while you are at work tomorrow, an airplane flies into the side of the building that you work in, or that your wife works in, or where your daughter is in daycare, and you (or your loved one) and 3,000 other poor souls are dead by the afternoon. Imagine that you are the child of one of those poor dead souls and you have to live with this for the rest of your life. Imagine that you are one who doesn't know if their loved one made it through the horrors that have taken place, walking the streets, looking at bulletin boards to see if you still have the possibility of a life with your Master/slave, submissive/Dom(me), husband/wife, children, whatever-it's all fucking over anyway. Imagine being the ones who watched as their family members' hands, cell phones still in grasp, were found in the rubble at ground zero, NYC, USA. Right here, under the flag, where the torture of a nation began. And imagine that you could have prevented it all with a water hose and some fucking rope, with a technique that is not deadly, but very frightening (sounds a bit like BDSM now, doesn't it?).

Now, imagine that you didn't get that hose out because other people might think it's too cruel. Could you live with your action...or lack thereof?

Imagine that you are in an airplane (Flight 93 Maybe?) and you know that you are headed for the side of a building. Imagine that you had the choice of water boarding the fucker with the plan in mind and you chose not to because you had a little moral dilema with the whole issue. Imagine that you could have prevented the whole situation for all of the American families involved, but you chose to do the "right thing" and now you have to live with your weak-assed, humanity lovin', PC (politically correct) decision for the rest of your life. I say, "Let's Roll!"

Imagine that Timothy McVeigh had been water boarded during interrogation prior to the incidents at OKC. (The attack that claimed 168 lives and left over 800 injured). How might that have changed history?

Imagine that you knew that your next door neighbor intended to mutilate, rape, and destroy your family simply because of his extremist religious beliefs, and you had no defense against it. Would you water board (regardless of the congressional definition of torture) the mother-fucker to prevent it from happening, or would that be taking it easy on the poor defenseless son-of-a bitch?

I say water board on! If it saves my family, my neighbors, my neighborhood, my city...water board on! Make it an extreme sport. Sign me up--I own a waterhose and everything! Put it on a reality TV show--Like snowboarding, rock climbing, or tornado chasing, or whatever. I'd watch it. It would be better entertainment than "Fear Factor" or "Survivor!"

Bear in mind that we do not send video tapes of torture to the families of the poor slobs after the water boarding, like our families have the privilege to watch the torture and beheadings of our loved ones on CNN (Chicken Noodle News), or youtube (where you can watch the beheading of Saddam).

You're damn right we're better than them! And you're damn right we're the good guys.

Moderators and fellow forum members: My intent is not to "flame". Please note that I am not directing my opinions towards any of the previous posts. But, I feel VERY strongly about this one, and I am only expressing my freedom of speech, as an American, that is guaranteed through such tactics as water boarding or whatever!

Obviously, I am speaking to the BDSM community, where we have limits, rules, and consent--that we all agree upon. Of course, water boarding would be way outside of what we might agree to (depending on how far you take it). So, if water boarding is too much, bring these fuckers to my house, and I will whip their fucking asses into confession and submission. BUT, SOMEONE ELSE would think that this would be too "cruel and unusual" as well.

I say, whatever it takes to protect my family, my freedom, and my life is acceptable by me, and I support the honorable efforts of the soldiers that are risking their lives to ensure our American freedoms. Fuck the PC movement!

Sincerely,

Christopher L. ____________
SPC, U.S. Army Veteran, 1st Infantry Division
(time served dammit!)

[Krougar]

lol I didn't want to make this my first post but after reading this thread I feel I have to.

America without American values is no longer America, better to die standing for something then to live for nothing.

[debaser]

Waterboarding is an interrogation technique. Basically, the person under investigation is tied down, their body declined. A rag is forced into the person's mouth and water is poured onto their face.

In my opinion, America should do what is necessary to protect her soldiers. I think waterboarding is an exceptable interrogation technique because it is not this brutal thing that everyone thinks it is. Its not like the person is having a finger cut off, or they are being flogged or electrocuted until they talk. I'm not saying that it is the best method, but it certainly isn't the worst. And it has been proven to work.

Now, if someone has a better way of getting information about from these guys, I'm all for it. But personally, i would rather have a human being think that he is choking to death, rather than having to beat the crap out of him. Either way, it sucks...but I think waterboarding is the lesser of the two evils.
So it would be perfectly acceptable for an al queda "freedom fighter" to torture an GI to get info on the next napalm strike on Theran?

[Venom]

Reading all this a question comes to my mind: What if the CIA or who'ever is in charge got the wrong guy?

If one is running around, ready to bomb away a kindergarten and has deposit his package somewhere, well - shit on his rights and make him talk!
But hundreds or even thousands of innocent people has been abducted and interrogated. Known to be innocent because after some month(!) the US has declared them innocent and set them free. I don't think they let terrorists go...

[debaser]

"Beware while fighting monsters unles you become one too."

[mkemse]

Reading all this a question comes to my mind: What if the CIA or who'ever is in charge got the wrong guy?

If one is running around, ready to bomb away a kindergarten and has deposit his package somewhere, well - shit on his rights and make him talk!
But hundreds or even thousands of innocent people has been abducted and interrogated. Known to be innocent because after some month(!) the US has declared them innocent and set them free. I don't think they let terrorists go...

True but as I understand it they are saying ALL peole in US custody are intitled to certain human rights, that does not mean I agree with it, but they are bound by the Geneva Convnetion regadless of if they are Terrorits or not
And there hav been claim and harges that those at Gitmo are protected by the Gevena Convnetion, Not sayingthis is right or wron,g only what has been said plus because others Torture people does not mean it is ok for the United States to do so, and if they do, who knows if any info they get is even credable?? most people who face this will say what ever they need to to end the treatment be what they say is valid or not
Like someone being abused by their local police, they may confess, but did they confess because they were gulity or because they wanted the abuse to end

look over the last few years how many gulity people have been freed because thier "forced" confessions were determined to have been given under duress a forced confesion is torutre to some extent

[Thorne]

Sorry, Mr.FixIt. I have to disagree with many of your statements.

Hate me if you will. But these people hate you more, and have for hundreds of years. They declared war on us hundreds of years ago, and we still haven't woken up to realize it and face it. They will kill themselves to kill you, your families, your children. So what is a little torture? We're not killing them or their families, right? Their women, their children, and their men are trained to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up, in our airplanes, in our football stadiums, in our high school graduations--whatever event that might have a solid impact on the fear of our nation (Is this not torture?). Why? Because they hate us. Period.
You paint with a broad brush here. The vast majority of "these people" are simple, peace-loving, hard working human beings who deplore much of the atrocities which are being committed in their names. It's only a handful of Muslim extremists who are trying to terrorize the rest of the world simply because their beliefs are in the minority. And let's not forget, it's us (Christians) who started this mess by launching the Crusades.

Now, imagine that you didn't get that hose out because other people might think it's too cruel. Could you live with your action...or lack thereof?
So, we should torture anyone we even think might be a threat, based only upon their religion, or the color of their skin, or perhaps the color of their hair, or eyes? Or maybe anyone who doesn't speak English? That's absurd! Do you really think that kidnapping some poor farmer from his fields, transporting him thousands of miles from his home, then torturing him for hours and hours is going to get you information? The guy doesn't know anything! He's just a farmer! But you would go right on torturing him until you've either killed him or turned him into a vegetable, just because you THINK he might know something? That's nuts!

Imagine that you are in an airplane (Flight 93 Maybe?) and you know that you are headed for the side of a building. Imagine that you had the choice of water boarding the fucker with the plan in mind and you chose not to because you had a little moral dilema with the whole issue. Imagine that you could have prevented the whole situation for all of the American families involved, but you chose to do the "right thing" and now you have to live with your weak-assed, humanity lovin', PC (politically correct) decision for the rest of your life. I say, "Let's Roll!"
This is a completely different story. Here you are not looking for shadows under the bed, you have a tangible threat right in front of you. Yet you would rather torture some guy while his cronies fly the plane into the building? Fuck that! "Let's Roll" indeed! Charge the cockpit, try to regain control of the plane, just as those heroes on Flight 93 did. With luck, you capture and/or kill the terrorists and regain the plane. At worst, as really happened, the terrorists fly the plane into the ground, preventing even worse loss of life. But torturing a guy to get the plan while the plane is diving on the building isn't going to accomplish anything.

Imagine that Timothy McVeigh had been water boarded during interrogation prior to the incidents at OKC. (The attack that claimed 168 lives and left over 800 injured). How might that have changed history?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but was McVeigh suspected of being a home-grown terrorist prior to his actions? I don't believe so. So you're saying we should have tortured him anyway, just in case? That would justify our government being able to pick anyone up off the streets, including your wife, or your daughter, and allow them to torture them just in case they were planning a terrorist attack. Which brings us to:

Imagine that you knew that your next door neighbor intended to mutilate, rape, and destroy your family simply because of his extremist religious beliefs, and you had no defense against it. Would you water board (regardless of the congressional definition of torture) the mother-fucker to prevent it from happening, or would that be taking it easy on the poor defenseless son-of-a bitch?
What proof do you have that he's planning on doing this? Has he threatened you? Or them? Has he been recruiting people to help him attack your home? Has he done anything other than spout what you consider to be "extremist religious beliefs"? If so, then you have a right to defend your family. So kill the bastard! Or turn him over to the police. What's the point in torturing him if you already know what he's going to do? Or perhaps you only suspect he's planning this? Then the obvious course of action is to torture his wife and his children to learn what he's planning. They may not know anything, but what the hell! You're protecting your family!

Bear in mind that we do not send video tapes of torture to the families of the poor slobs after the water boarding, like our families have the privilege to watch the torture and beheadings of our loved ones on CNN (Chicken Noodle News), or youtube (where you can watch the beheading of Saddam).
You're damn right we're better than them! And you're damn right we're the good guys.
How does emulating our enemies make us better than them? You say that we don't show tapes of the torture and murder of our victims, yet you advocate doing just that! That doesn't make you one of the "good guys", that makes you one of them!

I say, whatever it takes to protect my family, my freedom, and my life is acceptable by me, and I support the honorable efforts of the soldiers that are risking their lives to ensure our American freedoms. Fuck the PC movement!
I, too support the honorable efforts of the soldiers. I especially support those honorable men and women who are leaking information about the atrocities committed at Guantanamo Bay, in my name, by a government which is getting out of control. I can love my country without loving the people who are leading it. I have always honored those soldiers who have sacrificed so much in the defense of freedom. Even during the Viet Nam era, when it was "fashionable" to harangue and insult soldiers returning from war, I supported them and praised them for the work they did.
I do not support, will never support, those political and business leaders who allow such atrocities to happen, who send those young men and women out to fight a war to insure their profits, who permit and encourage illegal and immoral acts in the name of National Security.
And as for religious extremists, I am far more concerned with the actions of the Christian Right Wing fanatics right here in the US than I am with some poor Muslim store clerk in Baghdad.

[stripedangel]

How does emulating our enemies make us better than them? You say that we don't show tapes of the torture and murder of our victims, yet you advocate doing just that! That doesn't make you one of the "good guys", that makes you one of them!



I think you misunderstood this one.....no one is advocating sending tapes out to families...the point to this was to say that when they torture our soldiers, their families must live through that torture as well, because tapes are sent out to them, and it's posted on the web. We don't do that. And think about what is on THOSE tapes....electrocution, cutting, amputation, beatings, hammers used to smash limbs, torches used to burn the flesh. They are not just torturing one person, they are torturing the person's entire family. We're not talking about the store clerk here. We're talking about extremists.


i KNOW how these people feel about us-even Mr. Store Clerk, who flies out of the airport to his homeland, carrying thousands of dollars-enough that they must declare it, which means more than $10,000...it's going where our oil money is already going! Store Clerk looks at me across the counter, and solemnly berated the country where he has gained this mass amount of money(as well as the gold rings that he has on all of his fingers, his watch, and his wife's adornments), berated me for being an infadel, and cursed my children. All after i'd gone the extra mile to treat him with respect and serve his needs as my customer. Think he's an anomole? Wrong, i've got countless stories of the same nature from the year and a half that i worked at the airport.
EVERY one of them has treated me like i'm a piece of shit--in MY country, on MY terf, paying with MY country's currency that they saved up with the help of MY government-no taxes due for 5 years because they opened a business here. i saw one man once a week, carrying at least 10 grand in his wallet-wonder how much was in his suitcase? But he's just taking ALL of that to care for his poor family back home.


Waterboarding is frightening. Sure. But we could do MUCH worse. If the schoolyard bully gets after you at school, and you tell on him, he's gonna beat you up...but if you knock him out, he'll leave you alone. These guys don't care if you knock them out, so long as you go down with them. Kind and gentle does no good. If it did, we would be doing that instead, since you can catch more flies with honey, and diplomacy goes a long way....except when they believe that you're the devil, and have since biblical times.

[Thorne]

I think you misunderstood this one.....no one is advocating sending tapes out to families...the point to this was to say that when they torture our soldiers, their families must live through that torture as well, because tapes are sent out to them, and it's posted on the web. We don't do that. And think about what is on THOSE tapes....electrocution, cutting, amputation, beatings, hammers used to smash limbs, torches used to burn the flesh. They are not just torturing one person, they are torturing the person's entire family. We're not talking about the store clerk here. We're talking about extremists.
Mr.FixIt said in his post, "Put it on a reality TV show--Like snowboarding, rock climbing, or tornado chasing, or whatever. I'd watch it. It would be better entertainment than "Fear Factor" or "Survivor!" While not the same as sending it to their families, how is it any different than posting it on the web?

As for your experiences with these people, I agree, that there is a serious problem here in this country with our immigration laws. We let these people send, or take the money away without penalty. Almost any other country in the world it would be against the law, resulting in long term imprisonment. That doesn't make them terrorists, any more than gay-bashers are terrorists, or anti-semites. They could be terrorists, but that has yet to be proven. Besides, when they are treated like shit just because they are Muslim, why should we expect them to treat us any better? What goes around, comes around.

Waterboarding is frightening. Sure. But we could do MUCH worse.
That would be like kicking a guy in the head to put him in a coma, then saying, "Hey, it's not that bad! I could have killed him!"
Either way, it's wrong. Especially since the majority of those people being tortured down in Cuba are not proven terrorists or sympathizers. Many of them are just ordinary people who happen to be Muslim.


If the schoolyard bully gets after you at school, and you tell on him, he's gonna beat you up...but if you knock him out, he'll leave you alone. These guys don't care if you knock them out, so long as you go down with them. Kind and gentle does no good. If it did, we would be doing that instead, since you can catch more flies with honey, and diplomacy goes a long way....except when they believe that you're the devil, and have since biblical times.
Again, that sounds all well and good, but make sure you take out the real bully, not some guy who lives in the same neighborhood. Part of the problem with dealing with terrorists as that its damned near impossible to take them out without a lot of collateral damage. It's not like being at war with a country and dropping bombs indiscriminately on the enemy cities. While they may not like us, might even hate us, most of the people in those cities hate the terrorists just as much, until we move in and start throwing our weight around, virtually forcing them to side with the terrorists.

Remember, now, I'm not saying we shouldn't interrogate the prisoners. All I'm saying is that torture has historically been shown to be the worst method for gathering intelligence. Especially in modern times, drugs and psychology can get you more reliable information, more quickly, and with less negative feedback than torture. Then, once you've gotten the information and proven that the subject was a member of a terrorist organization, go ahead and kill the bastard! Just do it humanely. Most of us wouldn't treat a rabid dog the way we treat these suspects.

And also remember, once we allow our government to virtually kidnap people off the streets and lock them away for interrogation with no evidence against them other than their race or color, we are opening the doors to having ourselves and our families treated the same way, for any reason some government agency might concoct, or for no reason at all. That way lies totalitarianism. And the end of the United States as we know them.

[Mr.FixIt]

Sorry, Mr.FixIt. I have to disagree with many of your statements.

You paint with a broad brush here. The vast majority of "these people" are simple, peace-loving, hard working human beings who deplore much of the atrocities which are being committed in their names. It's only a handful of Muslim extremists who are trying to terrorize the rest of the world simply because their beliefs are in the minority. And let's not forget, it's us (Christians) who started this mess by launching the Crusades.

It's the (handful of?) extremists that I'm referring to here. The handful that will proudly kill you, me, our families, etc. I do not believe that "peace loving, hard working human beings" are being water boarded. Let's focus on what and whom we are talking about here.

"Cursades?" What the hell do you call a gihad? I didn't start a gihad, I'm sure that you didn't start a gihad, did you? But let's not make this about religion. Please note that I didn't mention religion (or musims in particular) at any point in my response. Why would you assume that I was talking about muslims? I was talking about the same "handful (tens of thousands) of extremists" that you were talking about.


Again, that sounds all well and good, but make sure you take out the real bully, not some guy who lives in the same neighborhood. Part of the problem with dealing with terrorists as that its damned near impossible to take them out without a lot of collateral damage. It's not like being at war with a country and dropping bombs indiscriminately on the enemy cities. While they may not like us, might even hate us, most of the people in those cities hate the terrorists just as much, until we move in and start throwing our weight around, virtually forcing them to side with the terrorists.

You're exactly right! That's why we're water boarding one fucker, and not bombing the whole town!

[denuseri]

as convincing an argument proponents here on this site (of both sides of this issue) are making i think it shall perhaps not be resolved any time soon, our government seems to be just as deadlocked on the legality of it and or its effectivness, and its clearly a non-partisan debate, no one party wholehaertedly supports eaither side of the argument, sure the president is for it, but the man representing his party in the next election is adamantly against it, of course he (McCain) is a former pow, no wonder he dislikes the very idea of we americans commiting acts of torture

[Thorne]

It's the (handful of?) extremists that I'm referring to here. The handful that will proudly kill you, me, our families, etc. I do not believe that "peace loving, hard working human beings" are being water boarded. Let's focus on what and whom we are talking about here.
It's easy to believe that innocent people aren't being tortured, but the fact is that the majority of those being held in Guantanamo Bay have not been proven to be terrorists. We would like to believe that they are there because they did something which makes us believe they are terrorists, but it's my belief that some of them are there simply because of their race or religion. That is unacceptable to me. I should be unacceptable to all of us. That's what our country was founded upon.

"Cursades?" What the hell do you call a gihad? I didn't start a gihad, I'm sure that you didn't start a gihad, did you? But let's not make this about religion. Please note that I didn't mention religion (or musims in particular) at any point in my response. Why would you assume that I was talking about muslims? I was talking about the same "handful (tens of thousands) of extremists" that you were talking about.
I used the Crusades to explain part of the reason why things are the way they are in the Middle East. And why going in there and blasting away indiscriminately will not solve the problem, only make things worse. And let's face, at this time the biggest terrorist threat to the world does seem to be Muslim fanatics. It has nothing to do with true religion, though, just happens to be a fact.

You're exactly right! That's why we're water boarding one fucker, and not bombing the whole town!
But that's my whole point! We've selected one person from the town and are torturing him to find out things he doesn't know, while the real threat is back home rousing the rest of the town against us for our inhumanity. And planning his next strike against us. All I'm trying to say is, make sure the guy you've arrested and are holding (illegally, by the way) is one of the bad guys, and not some innocent bystander.

[MMI]

God! Some of the stuff I've read here is mind boggling!

In no particular order:-

Waterboarding is not an acceptable interrogation technique: it's torture. And it can cause death. "Interrogation Technique"!!! I ask you .... Say what you bloody-well mean, don't tart it up with pretty words.

Could you compare flying a couple of planes into the WTC with the British/US carpet-bombing of Dresden, or the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The targets were the same: non-combatants. Yes, I know Britain and America were at war with Germany and Japan at the time of Hiroshima and Dresden. But they were both already defeated by then. If any pother countries had done that, we'd have called them war crimes.

Moslems hate us? No more than Christians and atheists in Russia and Africa do.

Arabs hate us? Well, those we have invaded for no valid reason might. Those who live in anticipation of unprovoked invasion fear us. But as a people, they are noble and do not hate us.

Jihads were a Moslem response to the Christian invasion of the Holy Land, not the other way round. Before the Crusades, Christians and Jews lived more or less peacefully with Arabs in Palestine. OK, some Christians were slaves, but slaves who could rise to high status within Ottoman society (cf St John of Damascus). The Crusades were wars against Islam, not against Arabs

As for America being the best country in the world, what's so great about xenophobia and paranoia? USA is a good country there's no denying that, but it's no better than many many other countries. France, Holland, Sweden, and Australia are all just as "good". Germany, Canada, Japan are just as "free". They are not as rich, that's all.

If USA wanted peace inthe Middle East, it would stop nurturing moslem totalitarian states like Saudi Arabia the one hand, and it would stop invading moslem totalitarian states like Iraq on the other. It would deal with them even handedly, and if it wished to influeence their political systems, it would do so peacefully. If, however, it wished to stop genocide within those countries, it wouldn't wait until oil prices rose too high ...

I'll stop here: if I say anything else, I'll be accused of flaming ...

[Mr.FixIt]

Moslems hate us? No more than Christians and atheists in Russia and Africa do.

Arabs hate us? Well, those we have invaded for no valid reason might. Those who live in anticipation of unprovoked invasion fear us. But as a people, they are noble and do not hate us....

I'll stop here: if I say anything else, I'll be accused of flaming ...

Well said, and I didn't sense any indicaiton of flaming here. Apparently you stopped at exactly the right point!

Please allow me to clarify my standpoint by reitterating myself. I don't believe that I ever claimed that Arabs, Muslims or otherwise hated us. But if I was unclear, I appologize. I intended to state my belief that the religious extremist terrorists hate us. I do appreciate the history lesson--it really was quite informative, and please don't think that I have any intentions of sarcasm. However, I had nothing to do with the crusades. My (ancient) ancestors started this one, and I refuse to pay for it.

I don't believe that we're grabbing up some poor inocent random fellow at his place of business, only to water board him for things that he has no involvement in. If we are, then the fuckers that are responsible should and will burn in hell for their irresponsible actions. If such attrocities are occuring, then I am certain that my descendants will pay for it like we are now paying for the actions of the crusaders.

But how else do you propose that we get information that might save our lives? Someone previously, here, proposed the use of drugs. I believe that what we're talking about is "Truth Serum". So, let's take a look at this "Truth Serum" that has been suggested as a more humane alternative to things such as water boarding.

From Wikipedia.com:
Barbiturates are a class of drugs that act on the GABAA receptor in the brain and spinal cord. The GABAA receptor is an inhibitory channel which decreases neuronal activity and the barbiturates enhance the inhibitory action of the GABAA receptor. Barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and alcohol all bind to the GABAA receptor, but the barbiturates bind with the highest affinity with longer receptor binding half-lives. This explains why overdoses of barbiturates may be lethal whereas overdoses of benzodiazepines alone are typically not lethal. Another explanation is that barbiturates can activate GABA receptors in the absence of the GABA molecule, whereas benzodiazepines need GABA to be present to have an effect: this may explain the more widespread effects of barbiturates in the central nervous system. Barbiturates have anesthetic, sedative, and hypnotic properties. Barbiturates do not have analgesic effects

Uses:

Anesthesia
Thiopental is an ultra-short-acting barbiturate and is most commonly used in the induction phase of general anesthesia. Following intravenous injection the drug rapidly reaches the brain and causes unconsciousness within 30–45 seconds. At one minute, the drug attains a peak concentration of about 60% of the total dose in the brain. Thereafter, the drug distributes to the rest of the body and in about 5–10 minutes the concentration is low enough in the brain such that consciousness returns.

A normal dose of thiopental (usually 4-6 mg/kg) given to a pregnant woman for operative delivery (caesarian section) rapidly makes her unconscious, but the baby in her uterus remains conscious. However, larger or repeated doses can depress the baby.

Thiopental is not used to maintain anesthesia in surgical procedures because, in infusion, it displays zero-order elimination kinetics, leading to a long period before consciousness is regained. Instead, anesthesia is usually maintained with an inhaled anesthetic (gas) agent. Inhaled anesthetics are eliminated relatively quickly, so that stopping the inhaled anesthetic will allow rapid return of consciousness. Thiopental would have to be given in large amounts to maintain an anesthetic plane, and because of its 11.5–26 hour half-life, consciousness would take a long time to return.

In veterinary medicine, thiopental is also used to induce anesthesia in animals. Since thiopental is redistributed to fat, certain breeds of dogs, primarily the sight hounds can have prolonged recoveries from thiopental due to their lack of body fat and lean body mass. Thiopental is always administered intravenously, as it can be fairly irritating; severe tissue necrosis and sloughing can occur if it is injected incorrectly into the tissue around a vein.

Medically induced coma
In addition to anesthesia induction, thiopental was historically used to induce medical comas. It has now been superseded by drugs such as propofol.

Thiopental has a long Context Sensitive Half Time (CSHT) meaning infusions saturate peripheral compartments (Fat, muscle etc). When the infusion is stopped, the drug re-distributes from the peripheral tissues back into the blood, prolonging the effect.

Thiopental also exhibits zero order kinetics at higher doses. The rate of clearance becomes fixed which slows elimination from the body.

Patients with brain swelling, causing elevation of the intracranial pressure, either secondary to trauma or following surgery may benefit from this drug. Thiopental, and the barbiturate class of drugs, decrease neuronal activity and therefore decrease the production of osmotically active metabolites which in turn decrease swelling. Patients with significant swelling have improved outcomes following the induction of coma. Reportedly, thiopental has been shown to be superior to pentobarbital[5] in reducing intracranial pressure.

Euthanasia
Thiopental is used intravenously for the purposes of euthanasia. The Belgians and the Dutch have created a protocol that recommends sodium thiopental as the ideal agent to induce coma followed by pancuronium bromide.

Intravenous administration is the most reliable and rapid way to accomplish euthanasia and therefore can be safely recommended. A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg thiopental sodium (Nesdonal) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). Then a triple intravenous dose of a non-depolarizing neuromuscular muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium dibromide (Pavulon) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should preferably be given intravenously, in order to ensure optimal availability. Only for pancuronium dibromide (Pavulon) are there substantial indications that the agent may also be given intramuscularly in a dosage of 40 mg.

Lethal injection
Along with pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride, thiopental is used in 36 states of the U.S. to execute prisoners by lethal injection. A megadose is given which places the subject into a rapidly induced coma. Executions using the three drug combination are usually effective in approximately 10 minutes, but have been known to take several times this length. The use of thiopental alone is hypothesized to cause death in approximately 45 minutes.

Truth serum
Thiopental is still used in some places as a truth serum. The barbiturates as a class decrease higher cortical brain functioning. Psychiatrists hypothesize that because lying is more complex than telling the truth, suppression of the higher cortical functions may lead to the uncovering of the "truth". However, the reliability of confessions made under thiopental is dubious; the drug tends to make subjects chatty and cooperative with interrogators, but a practiced liar or someone who has a false story firmly established would still be quite able to lie while under the influence of the drug.


Psychiatry
Psychiatrists have used thiopental to desensitize patients with phobias, and to "facilitate the recall of painful repressed memories."One psychiatrist who worked with thiopental is Professor Jan Bastiaans, who used this procedure to help release trauma in victims of the Nazis.


Metabolism
As with all lipid soluble anaesthetic drugs, the short duration of action of STP is almost entirely due to its redistribution away from central circulation towards muscle and fat tissue. Once redistributed the free fraction in the blood is metabolised in the liver. Sodium thiopental is mainly metabolized to pentobarbital,[9] 5-ethyl-5-(1'-methyl-3'-hydroxybutyl)-2-thiobarbituric acid, and 5-ethyl-5-(1'-methyl-3'-carboxypropyl)-2-thiobarbituric acid.


Dosage
The usual dose range for induction of anesthesia using thiopentone is from 3 to 7 mg/kg; however, there are many factors that can alter this. Premedication with sedatives such as benzodiazepines or clonidine will reduce requirements, as do specific disease states and other patient factors.

Side effects
As with nearly all anesthetic drugs, thiopental causes cardiovascular and respiratory depression resulting in hypotension, apnea and airway obstruction. For these reasons, only suitably trained medical personnel should give thiopental in an environment suitably equipped to deal with these effects. Side effects include headache, emergence delirium, prolonged somnolence and nausea. Intravenous administration of sodium thiopental is followed instantly by an odor sensation, sometimes described as being similar to rotting onions. The hangover effects may last up to 36 hours.

Although molecules of thiopental contain one sulfur atom, it is not a sulfonamide, and does not show allergic reactions of sulfa/sulpha drugs.

Drug interaction
Co-administration of pentoxifylline and thiopental causes death by acute pulmonary oedema in rats. This pulmonary oedema was not mediated by cardiac failure or by pulmonary hypertension but was due to increased pulmonary vascular permeability.


History
Sodium thiopental was discovered in the early 1930s by Ernest H. Volwiler and Donalee L. Tabern, working for Abbott Laboratories. It was first used in human beings on March 8, 1934, by Dr. Ralph M. Waters in an investigation of its properties, which were short-term anesthesia and surprisingly little analgesia. Three months later, Dr. John S. Lundy started a clinical trial of thiopental at the Mayo Clinic at the request of Abbott.

It is famously associated with a number of anesthetic deaths in victims of the attack on Pearl Harbor. These deaths, relatively soon after its discovery, were due to excessive doses given to shocked trauma patients. Evidence has however become available through freedom of information legislation and has been reviewed in the "British Journal of Anaesthesia". Thiopentone anaesthesia was in its early days, but nevertheless only 13 of 344 wounded admitted to the Tripler Army Hospital did not survive.

Thiopental is still rarely used as a recreational drug, usually stolen from veterinarians or other legitimate users of the drug; however, more common sedatives such as benzodiazepines are usually preferred as recreational drugs, and abuse of thiopental tends to be uncommon and opportunistic.

Sounds like perfectly humane stuff, right? How many injections should I give my child when I think he's lying to me? Or would that not be appropriate?! Of course, water boarding my child would not be appropriate either, but to suggest that water boarding is wrong and drugging is better is simply incorrect. But if you want to feel better about yourself, just forget about the whole thing...Forget that we started this hundreds of years ago, Forget that they hate us, Forget that they flew planes into our buildings and killed thousands of us, Forget that they will do it all over again--given the opportunity. Just forget about it all while you drive your brand new SUV that gets 18 GSM (gas stations per mile), because we're the best country in the world! Right?! And that kind of thinking will lead us to the next wake up call that won't wake us up either.

If water boarding is wrong, then certainly drugs are wrong too! So, now what action should we take that is politacally correct, favorable to all, that does not cause controversy for you while you tank up for a cruise in your SUV? Tickle torture maybe? I know, let's make them watch America's Funniest Home Videos, or America's Funniest Pets till they fucking puke!!! Actually, I really like this concept!!!!!!!!

And to further clarify myself--

I am not proposing that we should video tape or publicly broadcast our torture (self preservation) tactics--that was sarcasm.

[stripedangel]

Moslems hate us? No more than Christians and atheists in Russia and Africa do.

Yeah, but i haven't heard of either of those countries using our planes as missiles...and why did Russia back down? Because of a deterrent called nukes.


As for America being the best country in the world, what's so great about xenophobia and paranoia?

No one is fearful of strangers, it's the ones who come here illegally, and deplete our welfare systems, and use our tax dollars to defend themselves in court when they break the law....and use our own technology to learn our ways, use our own belongings to kill nearly 4,000 people in one shot. As for paranoia-sheeesh, man, the whole world is paranoid to one extent or another. Everyone has hightened security now....wonder why? It's not like the USA is the only country that's been hit. They're going after those who are not our allies as well.


If USA wanted peace in the Middle East, it would stop nurturing moslem totalitarian states like Saudi Arabia the one hand, and it would stop invading moslem totalitarian states like Iraq on the other. It would deal with them even handedly, and if it wished to influence their political systems, it would do so peacefully. If, however, it wished to stop genocide within those countries, it wouldn't wait until oil prices rose too high ...

Absolutely, cuz you can do that-treat them all the same, because they all behave the same, right?

Waterboarding is still far less serious than the tactics that the extremists are using against our soldiers. But how about the hostages that they take who are nonmilitary--like Christians who are there on missioanry status, with permission of their country's government? They torture them as well, and broadcast it for all to see...because of who they are- and they're not all from America.

There is no kind way of doing this. There is not a great solution. i hate that these issues must be debated-whether or not to torture someone. But if you want to run with the big dogs, you have to, at least, be able to keep up with them. You can't just expect everyone to be good lil girls and boys, and if you dealt with them with a soft hand, what deterrent is there?

"oh, yeah, the people at the USA facility were really nice, they got me high and asked me some questions...i lied and the idiots believed me and then they let me go."

Since drugs are unreliable, and waterboarding is out, what? What do we do? Just sit back and wait for them to attack us again? Then, who do we go after? Well, we kinda have to find that out through interrogation and investigation.

How about the tens of thousands of boys who are signed up for the extremist training facilities? They are taught to hate us-it's becomming a tradition. They are fed and clothed and given guns-when you're desolate, those camps make a mighty nice alternative, don't you think? Peaceable folks, tho.

AND did you ever think about the fact that we usually only get one side of the story-the media there wants everyone to think that we are just big bullies. The media here hates Bush and will do whatever it takes to slam him (not that i think he's a great leader-he's a COD). No one ever watches the 700 club, i take it...maybe you should check out their news segment for about a week-you'll get the rest of the story.

As for the jackasses who had such a great time humiliating and abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib....i don't even know what to say about this, except that they should be publically horsewhipped for that crap.

[MMI]

Well said, and I didn't sense any indicaiton of flaming here. Apparently you stopped at exactly the right point!

I did, didn't I? <deep breath ... count to 10>


Please allow me to clarify my standpoint ... I don't believe that I ever claimed that Arabs, Muslims or otherwise hated us. But if I was unclear, I appologize.

You were perfectly clear. You referred specifically to acts perpetrated by Al Qaeida, a group commonly understood to be moslem terrorists, and I do not believe you did that unaware of the west's - particularly USA's - dread of militant Islamic fundamentalists. Don't insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.

But you DID mention gihads (sic) in a later post. A specifically moslem religious duty. And quickly withdrew from wanting to talk about religion. Forgive me if I think you were being disingenuous there.

(You did also refer to McVeigh, who wasn't a religious terrorist, but you did so separately.)


I don't believe that we're grabbing up some poor inocent random fellow at his place of business, only to water board him for things that he has no involvement in. If we are, then the fuckers that are responsible should and will burn in hell for their irresponsible actions.

To meet this criterion, you must try the wretch lawfully and establish his guilt before you can waterboard him. Nevetheless, I agree with your sentiment. After all, we're the good guys, aren't we, and we have standards to maintain.

Oh! Does that include the Americans in who rounded up the hundreds of poor farmers, tourists, students and non-combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan on suspicion of being terrorists ... no not even that; just because they were in the wrong place ... and deported them to a concentration camp outside the reach of US law or any other, kept them there - in cages - without charge or right of hearing (let alone appeal) for years and years and years. Who were frequently subjected to "disorientation Techniques" (another euphemism). Who, because they couldn't decide if they were prisoners of war (entitled to be treated with proper respect as captured soldiers and to be released as soon as the war was over), or criminals (entitled to know the charges against them, and to be able to put forward a defence to a properly constituted court without unreasonable delay). And who were then, for nothing more than political reasons, released without hearing, apology or compensation. If you were imprisoned for years without knowing why, and then let go without explanation, you'd expect an apology and compensation, wouldn't you?

Does it include the victims of "extreme rendition" - yet another euphemism for getting others to do our dirty work for us?

And what about the ones who ordered/condoned it?


But how else do you propose that we get information that might save our lives?

I don't know. Maybe we'll just have to take more care. But torture (waterboarding IS torture, and CAN kill, despite what you say) on any level in order to obtain information is totally unacceptable. What you are saying is, if you think there's a possibility that some American soldiers might face jeopardy, then it is legitimate to torture anyone just in case he knows whether that possibility is a reality. How many people are your prepared to torture before you get to the one who has that information? All of them? And how will you know? Information gained under torture is notoriously unreliable. People's safety might easily be jeopardised by acting on it.

And, as someone else has already said, that approach gives your opponents carte blanche to do exactly the same without fear of criticism from you.


Someone previously, here, proposed the use of drugs. I believe that what we're talking about is "Truth Serum". So, let's take a look at this "Truth Serum" that has been suggested as a more humane alternative to things such as water boarding.

Wasn't me, so let's not bother. I don't condone that any more than waterboarding.

[MMI]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
Moslems hate us? No more than Christians and atheists in Russia and Africa do.
Yeah, but i haven't heard of either of those countries using our planes as missiles...and why did Russia back down? Because of a deterrent called nukes.

Whatever! If you mean the Bay of Pigs incident, USSR also had nukes. But Kreuschev blinked first, and we only have Kennedy's word that he would have destroyed the developed world in order to stop missiles being landed in Cuba.
Nevertheless, USA never dared attack USSR any more than USSR would have dared attack the West.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MMI
As for America being the best country in the world, what's so great about xenophobia and paranoia?
No one is fearful of strangers, it's the ones who come here illegally, and deplete our welfare systems, and use our tax dollars to defend themselves in court when they break the law....and use our own technology to learn our ways, use our own belongings to kill nearly 4,000 people in one shot. As for paranoia-sheeesh, man, the whole world is paranoid to one extent or another. Everyone has hightened security now....wonder why? It's not like the USA is the only country that's been hit. They're going after those who are not our allies as well.

Sounds like xenophobic paranoia to me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
If USA wanted peace in the Middle East, it would stop nurturing moslem totalitarian states like Saudi Arabia the one hand, and it would stop invading moslem totalitarian states like Iraq on the other. It would deal with them even handedly, and if it wished to influence their political systems, it would do so peacefully. If, however, it wished to stop genocide within those countries, it wouldn't wait until oil prices rose too high ...

Absolutely, cuz you can do that-treat them all the same, because they all behave the same, right?

"Even-handedly" doesn't mean "exactly the same". But any nation will respond appropriately to the way it is treated by another.


Waterboarding is still far less serious than the tactics that the extremists are using against our soldiers.

Doesn't justify anything


But how about the hostages that they take who are nonmilitary--like Christians who are there on missioanry status, with permission of their country's government? They torture them as well, and broadcast it for all to see...because of who they are- and they're not all from America.

... and your argument is, waterboarding will stop this?


There is no kind way of doing this. There is not a great solution. i hate that these issues must be debated-whether or not to torture someone. But if you want to run with the big dogs, you have to, at least, be able to keep up with them. You can't just expect everyone to be good lil girls and boys, and if you dealt with them with a soft hand, what deterrent is there?

Torturing someone is not "running with the big dogs" it's making one insignificant person suffer degrading, humiliating, treatment for no particular reason than to get non-specific information which is probably false. A mug's game.

AND did you ever think about the fact that we usually only get one side of the story-the media there wants everyone to think that we are just big bullies. The media here hates Bush and will do whatever it takes to slam him (not that i think he's a great leader-he's a COD). No one ever watches the 700 club, i take it...maybe you should check out their news segment for about a week-you'll get the rest of the story.

We get the West's version of the story, even if it's slanted against Bush. Go to Al Jazeera for another viewpoint. Or go to Islamic websites for a full blooded exposition of why the West is hated. You'll be shocked at how differently people beyond your borders see us. And they consider that THEY are the "good guys".

[Mr.FixIt]

I did, didn't I? <deep breath ... count to 10>



You were perfectly clear. You referred specifically to acts perpetrated by Al Qaeida, a group commonly understood to be moslem terrorists, and I do not believe you did that unaware of the west's - particularly USA's - dread of militant Islamic fundamentalists. Don't insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.

But you DID mention gihads (sic) in a later post. A specifically moslem religious duty. And quickly withdrew from wanting to talk about religion. Forgive me if I think you were being disingenuous there...

You are forgiven for thinking that I might ever be disingenuous, but then you don't know me yet, and therefore I understand. Occasionally, when I give instructions to my occupational subordinates that may seem to them to be unusual or out of the ordinary, they ask, "Are you sure?" I always respond in the same manner, "I don't say anything unless I am sure--I may be wrong, but I am always sure." So, I will respond to you, now, in the same manner, as I would respond to anyone else whether they agree with me or otherwise. I, (genuinely), have no issue with any specific religion, nor do I take issue with any religion. For all I care, the terrorists of 9/11 may as well have been southern baptists--the religion of the terrorists makes no difference to me, and is not the matter that I have any issue with. Who gives a good cod damn what religion the fuckers were. We might as well be arguing what astrological sign they were, or what hobbies or interest they had, or--Hell, if you want, we can take up Clinton's debate of the meaning of the word "IS"! Airplanes smashing into the side of buildings is not a religious matter, it's an extremist, political activist, terroristic, chicken-shit sucker punch of a matter that killed thousands.

I understand, however, how you might think that I am, "insult(ing) (y)our intelligence by pretending otherwise." Most Americans don't think like I do, but I am not most Americans. I am Me, and I speak for Myself--and I don't pretend shit!

I previously asked, "But how else do you propose that we get information that might save our lives?"

You replied, as anyone else might, "I don't know".

So let's suppose that now YOU (you meaning whomever might be reading this thread) are ultimately responsible for making such decisions, and you are now responsible for the outcome of thousands of innocent individuals, the fate of families, the fate of nations and the fate of a few fuckers that publicly proclaim to hate us and publicly proclaim their intent to kill us. What would you do?

Would you, strategically and politely, ask them to pretty please tell us all about the details of their devious intentions? I don't think so.

You see, it is easy to pretend that we might make the most moral and humane decisions if we were in charge--while we are sitting here on our computers, in our air-conditioned homes, while our BDSM slaves are fixing drinks and preparing our dinners (you know, the whole armchair quarterback theory), but if you REALLY put yourself in the shoes of the fucker in charge, you would probably think a little differently.

Ask me to wear the shoes of the fucker in charge, and I will still say WATER BOARD ON! (Then I will ask myself why I am wearing someone else's shoes!)

[Thorne]

I've made my points here already, so I'm not jumping back into the waterboarding issue. But I have to comment about one statement you made.

Could you compare flying a couple of planes into the WTC with the British/US carpet-bombing of Dresden, or the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The targets were the same: non-combatants. Yes, I know Britain and America were at war with Germany and Japan at the time of Hiroshima and Dresden. But they were both already defeated by then. If any pother countries had done that, we'd have called them war crimes.
Regarding the firebombing of Dresden, and some other German cities, I would probably have to agree with you: it did nothing to end the war sooner, and if we had lost the war, instead of winning, our military leaders would probably have been tried as war criminals. Winners make the history, after all.
But Hiroshima and Nagasaki were something quite different. Although the Japanese military forces had been thoroughly trounced by then, they did not, and would not surrender. We had two options: drop the bomb and scare them into surrender, or invade the home islands and crush them. The problem with the latter is that the Japanese people, not just the military, were preparing to fight to the death to stop us! Dropping the bomb saved thousands of American lives, and probably saved millions of Japanese lives in the long run. In my opinion the US has nothing to apologize for in those instances.

[Mr.FixIt]

Many of you seem to be staunchly against water boarding, but no one has suggested an a viable or reasonable alternative.

[denuseri]

lets see ,sir, hummm, well formulating more "soft" intellegence assets through covert means, on the ground, ie buying people off to spy on each other etc to include the spread of pro american propaganda as well as the development of friendly auxilleries would have to be number one,,
more tech coverage, better aplication of field intellegence to begin with, our ucav's and other spy satcom type of tech is only good if deployed, lol,, yu should really have this conversation with my husband he was an AF resistence training survival instructor (which means he really really knows his torture and phycological manipulation skills)and he would be the first to tell you that u dont have to torture someone at all phisically to break them and or extract wonderful intellegence,
in fact he told me the only reason they water board prisoners is cause its much faster and thats the only thing it is,much more accurete information is extracted through more subtle phycological manipulation, but that takes more time, so basically they water board for the sake of time and money alone,
the info is less accurate, shrugs what can i say:
more over we the USA doesnt ned the bad rep as a country that will torture you if you surender practicality speaking: during desert storm you never hear about us torturing people becuase we didnt have too, they surrendered in droves, we out teched and intelled them,we also had a very good reputation back then
it was garenteed we wouldnt torture u in fact the oppiste was true, we would feed cloth and shelter you, of course by that argument we would have to give all the insurgents welfare lol,
but really sir, if we continue on this path our credibility is shot, we have hardened our enemies against us with each and every step in the direction we have been taking that led up to 911 and recently within the invasion of iraq
, vietnam was a stain on or honnor for a reason,and to ignore the historical parrelles of the two is to court our own folly again
if things dont change this will be a second vietnam or worse, its allready spread into two countries and is being suported through iran and syria if not suadia arabia, i am not saying cut and run, i am saying we need something different and if i knew what it was i would be wearing stars and bars instead of a collar sir , winks and hugs for you and stripey

[MMI]

Mr Fixit: I previously asked, "But how else do you propose that we get information that might save our lives?"

You replied, as anyone else might, "I don't know".

So let's suppose that now YOU (you meaning whomever might be reading this thread) are ultimately responsible for making such decisions, and you are now responsible for the outcome of thousands of innocent individuals, the fate of families, the fate of nations and the fate of a few fuckers that publicly proclaim to hate us and publicly proclaim their intent to kill us. What would you do?

Would you, strategically and politely, ask them to pretty please tell us all about the details of their devious intentions? I don't think so.

First of all, I object to your use of the word "fuckers" in this context. It's perjorative and does you no credit.

So let us now suppose I am in the situation you describe. Would I order someone to be tortured? Well, I would start in the knowledge that torture is illegal and immoral. Am I prepared to break the law and betray my moral standards. I am certain that I would not, unless I was compelled to. What would compel me?

I would have to know (I would accept "high probability" - at least 51% probability, but I would still be hesitant at that level) that there was vital information to be had. By vital I mean significant life or death information. "Significant" is intended to imply (very) many lives at risk.

Now, how many individuals do you suppose are in possession of information about a forthcoming atrocity that would take away so very many lives? Supposing there was such an atrocity pending, how do I tell if the man I am considering putting to the torture actually knows about it? (The key to terrorism is to operate in small cells so that each individual knows only one or two other members, and is aware only of his role in whatever plans are laid at the last possible moment.)

I would have to be virtually certain - say 97%+ that the individual being considered for torture possessed that information.

I would then have to assess what forms of torture would be effective against the intended victim and how much resistance I could expect: would the amount of pain necessary to be inflicted exceed my ability to inflict it? Or would the victim accept painful death rather than part with the information? (Because, if so, waterboarding would be a waste of everyone's time.)

Next, I would have to assess whether the information to be extracted from the "subject" would be reliable. Was I wrong? Does he know nothing, but will give me the information he thinks I want anyway, just to escape the torture? Or does he know everything I want to know, but gives me false information to misdirect me?

And as in all probability, my answers to those questions would be against proceeding with the torture, I am sure I would not give the order in the end.

You ask for a reasonable alternative. There is none. Only ones that are unreasonable and inhuman.

That is, after all, why torture was outlawed.

[MMI]

I've made my points here already, so I'm not jumping back into the waterboarding issue. But I have to comment about one statement you made.

Regarding the firebombing of Dresden, and some other German cities, I would probably have to agree with you: it did nothing to end the war sooner, and if we had lost the war, instead of winning, our military leaders would probably have been tried as war criminals. Winners make the history, after all.
But Hiroshima and Nagasaki were something quite different. Although the Japanese military forces had been thoroughly trounced by then, they did not, and would not surrender. We had two options: drop the bomb and scare them into surrender, or invade the home islands and crush them. The problem with the latter is that the Japanese people, not just the military, were preparing to fight to the death to stop us! Dropping the bomb saved thousands of American lives, and probably saved millions of Japanese lives in the long run. In my opinion the US has nothing to apologize for in those instances.

Why cities? Why not military targets?

[Thorne]

Why cities? Why not military targets?

Actually, they were military targets. According to Wikipedia, "During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping."

And Nagasaki's "main industry was ship-building. This very industry would eventually make it a target in World War II, since many warships used by the Japanese Navy during the war were built in its factories and docks."

However, doing some research on this to determine the kinds of targets, I found some disturbing information. Apparently, Truman's military advisers didn't think dropping the bomb was necessary, that carpet bombing and embargo could have forced a Japanese surrender, especially if the Allies would have backed off of their unconditional surrender stance. It may be that Truman's primary reason for dropping the bombs was to frighten Stalin. I find this quite disturbing.

On the other hand, though, carpet bombing, even with conventional weapons, would probably have resulted in far more casualties, and infrastructure damage, to the Japanese than these two bombs.

This discussion probably should be moved to a separate thread, though, if the moderators agree.

[Alex Bragi]

Hi Thorne, this thread drift is fine. I actually find thread drift kind of interesting, but perhaps if you were to start a new thread (under a new heading) it might attract many more people who may be specifically interested in this topic that's evolved? :)

[denuseri]

true this thread has a drifting eye,, but then again any debate of this length has a tendency to ebb and flow, i just hope we all remember its a debate, not a pecking on each other in the chicken coop thing lol, hugs to all

[Alex Bragi]

Many of you seem to be staunchly against water boarding, but no one has suggested an a viable or reasonable alternative.


No, I don't have an alternative to this torture.

I think it's all totally barbaric and inhuman.

I mean can you honestly sit there and tell me that you believe that bitch Lindy English and her sadistic cohorts tortured those prisoners for the purpose of: " ...saving my family, my neighbors, my neighborhood, my city...." ?

And, please, don't try to tell that was an unfortunate or isolated incident. Google, Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib and you'll come up with some of the most sicken stories of real life torture you're ever likely to read about. Is it necessary? Or, is it perhaps just a way of venting and acting out some kind of self satisfying revenge?

Oh sure, throw up September 11. I know we're told that torturing of prisoners has only come about in the USA since then, but does this really justify it? Is it really acceptable that while other countries are dealing with a legacy of torture by declaring "Never again!", that so many Americans should quell their guilt by crying "Never before"?

[MMI]

I don't see the need to move the A-bomb digression to another thread. It's probably finished now anyway. I accept Thorne's statement of the facts.

Conventional bombing of cities was routine in WW2, although that wouldn't have had the desired effect in this case. If carpet bombing had been used instead, we would have just had another Dresden - another war crime.

I just feel it was wrong to A-bomb 2 cities when exclusively military targets could have been used.

[stripedangel]

Look, folks, no one believes that torture is anything less than barbaric, and inhumane. It has been a "tactic" used for centuries. But then, carpet bombing, A-bombing, and embargo (as well as other sanctions) are also cruel and unusual. Starving a whole country till they cave...sounds like MASS torture to me.

So, then it comes down to the question of sacrificing the few to save the many. Right here, in small town Texas, there is a known terrorist sleeper cell. They are located all over the US....and Britain, and Germany, and so on. No one can do a thing, though, until they come out into the open and cause mass harm...unless they slip up and grab the attention of authorities. Maybe one of the sleepers works at the city water dept. Maybe the beef packing plant...or pharmaceutical company.

In a perfect world, we have no need to worry...but this world isn't perfect. i don't trust GWBitch to run a garden hose, much less a country. And i do believe he is ordering and allowing WAY too much. It's his personal vendetta, IMO.

That little cunt English and all of her friends should be placed in a glass box on display, holding a sign that says, "i deserve to be tortured too and humiliated too....but it's too cruel"

i am one who has no idea of how to stop terrorist acts before they get a good start. Apparently, no one else here has a better solution, either. i'm out, have nothing else to say on this topic, and hope that everyone can get past a thread and still treat each other with respect, even with the differing opinions.

Those of you who enjoy debate (arguing)..........****ay on!

[stripedangel]

...ONE more thing.......denu, i agree with your points, absolutely- But remember, the net was still very new back then. Now, they can broadcast much more than they did back then. Everyone was not informed of the things that happened "off screen" like they are now. However, i do believe that if Stormin Norman had been the general in charge of this crap they call a war (because of GWBitch's declaration without the backing of congress), things might have been handled MUCH differently.

Much love to ya, denu, i don't believe a debate or difference in opinion should cause hard feelings! xoxo

[MMI]

Myself, I love debate. I'll debate things I don't believe in, just for the hell of it. I'm here for the duration.

But I DO believe in what I have said here, and I acknowledge others see things differently. That's why I keep posting: to try to make them see how wrong they are and how right I am. They reply with a similar purpose in mind.

Having said that, I want to address stripedangel's comment about the "known terrorist cell" that the authorities can do nothing about. The reason they can do nothing is, presumably, because, although the cell has an association with illegal organisations, it has not actually done anything wrong yet - at least, so far as anyone knows. To lock the members up because they condone something that is generally unacceptable is a form of thought control, and I don't think anyone is in favour of that.

It seems to me that torturing a suspected sleeper would be counter productive, because the sleeper would have almost nothing to say except he was waiting for orders from his handler, whom he only knows as "Big Al". But Big Al would notice the sleeper had disappeared and would realise the game was up. So he'd vanish to his hideaway and start making fresh plans.

[stripedangel]

Myself, I love debate. I'll debate things I don't believe in, just for the hell of it. I'm here for the duration.

But I DO believe in what I have said here, and I acknowledge others see things differently. That's why I keep posting: to try to make them see how wrong they are and how right I am. They reply with a similar purpose in mind.

Having said that, I want to address stripedangel's comment about the "known terrorist cell" that the authorities can do nothing about. The reason they can do nothing is, presumably, because, although the cell has an association with illegal organisations, it has not actually done anything wrong yet - at least, so far as anyone knows. To lock the members up because they condone something that is generally unacceptable is a form of thought control, and I don't think anyone is in favour of that.

It seems to me that torturing a suspected sleeper would be counter productive, because the sleeper would have almost nothing to say except he was waiting for orders from his handler, whom he only knows as "Big Al". But Big Al would notice the sleeper had disappeared and would realise the game was up. So he'd vanish to his hideaway and start making fresh plans.



LOL dangit, MMI, now i gotta reply!!!

No one knows what/when they will make a move-which is why no one can do a thing...but in the meantime, they are able to slide by under the law's radar and learn our systems, our ways, and blend in quite well. In the USA, we accept aliens and i (believe it or not) don't believe in being prejudiced about it all- everyone deserves their shot.

My experiences with most folks of middle eastern heritage has been bad...with the exception of a family from India, who i met while on a trip to Dallas. These people were absolutely wonderful to me and my son. They treated us like family, even though they knew us for a whole 20 minutes. We were welcomed with hugs the minute the door opened to us, given all sorts of treats and the family matriarch stroked my son's face and told him that she hoped he would never forget her. She fed him multiple times-"here, try this," and "oh, you'll like that" He won't forget her. Smiles and peace filled their house, which was also very lovely. i could have stayed in that house forever, and been so very happy. The matriarch told us to come back and visit any time we wish, and if we ever need anything at all, please, to let them know, "we're all family on this earth ."

i can't say that any American-born citizen has ever treated me quite so well. I wish the whole world behave in such a manner. i hate war. i hate wondering if i'm going to wake up tomorrow to the radio telling me that we are under attack, like i did on 9/11, or hear that we're all gonna die because some chicken turd has spiked our water supply three days ago. And i wish i knew what to do to prevent it all.

MMI, i fully understand your position and support it, just like i support and understand Master's opinion. Trying to change someone's mind about such things will take much more than words. Everyone's experiences create their opinions. Master has a Government Job, and He sees, almost on a daily basis, some of the evidence and intel that you and i don't. Right or wrong, His opinion is not just based upon what He THINKS might be happening.

This is absolutely my last post in this thread-i really do hate to argue...no, really!

[MMI]

It's a shame you are withdrawing. If it's not because they haven't broken any laws, I'd like to know what your Master thinks the reason is for not rounding up those cell members.

Let me reassure you, Americans as individuals are considered as hospitable as any other national.

[denuseri]

well it seems like we have really said just about all we can say about some topics, yet we keep chugging away dont we,lol i believe we are all here posting becuz we care about this subject, i personally love to debate different issues, heck i will even play devils advocate for the sake of debate, you are all a really nice bunch of people here, and i respect you and your beliefs, your statments and most of all your veracity, i am sad to hear that some of you feel negativly about certian types of people, i myself was born in beruit and am of mixed racial heritage so i am no stranger to discrimination paticularly post 911, but my father was an american marine and pow so ive allways lived on both sides of the divide so to speak,,
there was a study done about prison gaurds done back in the 70's if i remember correctly which found that even people chosen at random weather they were assigned a position as a gaurd or a prisoner: all began to behave along certian stereotypes after a specific time period up to and including prisoner abuse which ultimately led to the experiments end
could it be a natural inclination or human phycological function to mis treat those captured that are considered enemy?
i think we in the bdsm comunity would tend to disagree vehmemently with such a proposal,(outside of histories prevelant examples )where as our own personal ethics are in consideration
but we are of course much more experienced with the paticulars of dealing with a person under ones power so to speak

[Mr.FixIt]

It's a shame you are withdrawing. If it's not because they haven't broken any laws, I'd like to know what your Master thinks the reason is for not rounding up those cell members.

Let me reassure you, Americans as individuals are considered as hospitable as any other national.

As requested MMI...

In WWII, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the US Government rounded up all of the Japs (as they were referred to at the time) and put them in prision camps (similar to Hitler's concentration camps) where hundreds of thousands were mistreated through unheard of interrogation tactics--probably water boarding too--but chicken noodle news (CNN) wasn't there to report their (unbiased?) opinion on it, were they? Only now, decades later, has the true story of the mistreatment of these legally immigrated Japanese-American Citizens leaked out. And to my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong, no super secret intel was gathered from the captivity and torture of any of those Japs. At this same same point in the US history, we still, even long after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclomation and the US Civil War, were mistreating African-Americans simply because of their skin color (and they didn't even attack us!) And, I could go on and on about the genocide that we inflicted on the American Natives (Indians)! Or we could talk about the burning of innocent women and men during the Salem witch trials. We're not the good guys, we have a horrible history. If I have left out any religion or nationality that has been historically mistreated by my government, I assure you it was simply an oversight.

Now that this dark era in American history is general public knowledge due to the freedom of the media (and their abuse of that freedom), and through our own history of atrocious mistreatment of numerous groups of people, surely our government knows that public knowledge of such attrocities would not fare well in the media. So, the prisoners at Abu Ghraib (and other camps as well) were fed food appropriate to their religions, allowed the freedom to practice their individual religions within reason, and were within reason officially treated with dignity and respect. But, all it took was for a couple of ignorant backwoods fuckers (yes fuckers, just as I referred to the 9/11 terrorists in a previous post as fuckers) to fuck it all up and ruin the reputation of our well intentioned government. Now the whole water boarding thing is public knowledge too. To my knowledge, we haven't water boarded thousands of suspects randomly as some here have suggested. Surely this type of tactic has been reserved for a specific few that, based on credible intel, have implicated that use of such an extreme tactic would prove beneficial to uncover further life saving credible intel. If my certainties are wrong, then I lay down my entire argument, and the latest reality show "Water Boarding for Intel" should be cancelled before the pilot even airs!

I work for the US Government in a security occupation, If I tell you who I work for they will have to kill me! :) The actions that we take on a daily basis are specifically related to the intel that we are provided. But the public is, and should be for national security reasons, ignorant of most of said intel. Therefore, the public assumes that our security processes are ignorant because of their lack of knowlege about the rationale. I can only assume, based on my specific experiences, that the same applies to our lack of understanding in the water boarding debate and the consequential public outcry.

Based on American history, what do you think would happen if we started rounding up sleeper cells--no matter what wonderful, humane, and comfortable living accomodations might be intended--for the purpose of imprisionment? At this point, how well do you think that it would go for the popularity of the US Government in this politically correct atmosphere that we have forced upon ourselves? Not to mention--it's an election year with a lame duck president in the driver's chair. And as anyone who has served a day in the military knows, nothing goes well in an election year! As you requested, that (IMHO) is why we are not currently rounding up the known sleeper cell members.

[denuseri]

lmao, sweet post Mr Fix It,,my owner and i paticularly loved the chicken noodle news parody,is it possible that sleeper cells are allowed to continue as an intellegence resorce? like we watch who and what they do to lead us to other cells etc?

Also not to be confused,, i personally am against torture for any reasons( but hey i am a girl with a pow dad), my owner however says torture is a grey area in practical aplications especially on the battle field,
the whole water boarding issue (which my owner says is preformed for training purposes on our some types of our own troops like combat controllers and other wet work spe******ts) sounds like something the cia would do with spys and the like without anyones sensibilities getting in an up roar like under the table ,
He and I personally believe that between the White House especially the VP and his former boss Sec Def rumsfield, that the iraq issue was broached because both chenny and he wanted to invade the first time and got shot down by bush sr,
the use of water boarding was probably presented by the cia too the military and for reasons of cost and expediency (as i allready mentioned in a previous post) it was utilized as one of the most humane ways to extract intell, at least my owner says it is,, the other cheap way is to expose them to extreme cold tempuratures for short periods of time (which according to hubby we do to our own troops in basic survival resistence training to show them how easy it is to be broken)
after limited sleep deprivation, suposably if the body reaches a certian tempurature in the right conditions a person will do practically anything to get warm including betraying their "fucker" buddies, shrugs, go figure its a basic human response to be warm allmost as basic as breathing , and of course for legality reasons gitmo is a lot cheaper and closer than shiping the people off to alaska in the winter

i sure wish in some ways that some things were more like they were in the fifties or earlier as regards my knowledge as a public citizan of the things my government does, weather its genuinly on my behalf or to push some other agenda, but the world is what it is, we shape it by our actions today, i only hope we do a better job for our posterity than the baby boomer generation apears to be doing for us

i kinow it sounds like i am flipping my position but i am not, i really wish we didnt do some of the things we do, it seems weve lost our honor recently in this country for the sake of what? even higher gas prices? some people think we should nuke em all and be done with it but thats just crazy talk, personally i think we should choose our responses to terrorists with more care, i am sure some military statagos must have warned our leadership of the problems associated with trying to track down an enemey that has no single country and wears no uniform etc,, i just think the politicians over ruled that advice so they could say they acted they did something during thier watch , which of course means they are more electable, but hey isnt a politician just another kind of "fucker"

[Thorne]

I work for the US Government in a security occupation, If I tell you who I work for they will have to kill me! :) The actions that we take on a daily basis are specifically related to the intel that we are provided. But the public is, and should be for national security reasons, ignorant of most of said intel. Therefore, the public assumes that our security processes are ignorant because of their lack of knowlege about the rationale. I can only assume, based on my specific experiences, that the same applies to our lack of understanding in the water boarding debate and the consequential public outcry.

I can understand the need for keeping secrets in any government. Revealing everything they know could compromise some intelligence assets, both here and abroad. An enemy who knows what we know could figure out how we came to know it. I don't have a problem with keeping those kinds of secrets. Or about strategic assets, such as the stealth program, which was extremely secret at one point, though apparently less so now.

But it's my understanding (and I have no first-hand knowledge of this) that the vast majority of information which has been classified "Secret" by any government, is done so more to protect the reputations and/or dignity of government officials, not to protect the security of the country. It's my opinion that keeping information regarding the activities at Guantanamo Bay secret is, for the most part, one of those kinds of secrets.

[stripedangel]

i just wanted to add a few links to assist here.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2004/10/freed_guantanimo_terrorsis/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3042907.stm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=President%27s_Military_Order_of_No vember_13%2C_2001%2C_Detention%2C_Treatment%2C_and _Trial_of_Certain_Non-Citizens_in_the_War_Against_Terrorism

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/index.php?s=torture

and one about Desert Storm...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/talk/

There are some interesting articles here, and some vid clips to watch as well. You can check out other items as too, and most of these sites have more than just the articles that i have linked.

Dangit i said i wasn't gonna debate this issue any farther, and i meant it lol. However, i am interested in the views of others, and wish to assist with the obvious learning trend that has been created in here. So, i'll research and if i find anything of interest (to either side of the argument, as you'll see), i'll post it.

Dunno if i need to start another thread or not (as i'm sure that Alex will let me know in Her sweet way if that's the case, so i'm not worried about it), but wanted to post these links in here because i feel they're pertinent to the discussion.

Let me just add that i would rather not even know about these "fuckers"-terrorists, politicians, etc, and their actions. There is nothing that i can do about it, and nothing's changing, even though we all know now what's been happening. Torture has gone on since the beginning of time, and it's not stopping now, just because we're all unhappy about it...and i'm not proud to hear what my own countrymen and women are doing to other human beings. i would rather just be oblivious, in my little bubble, thinking every person has some level of good in them. There is no way i myself could inflict any harm on any individual and i cannot see how others can-but i understand the basic working of things....and i fucking HATE politics. Every other day there's a story about one that has abused his/her position, using tax dollars for personal gain, and don't even get me started on how my tax dollars may have paid for a high priced call girl so a politician could be unfaithful to the most important vow he ever made.

Master and i spoke about this last night after He posted to this thread, and We dug to the very basic middle of the matter:

If there were no criminals, we would have no need for the law-no attorneys, no judges, no police. Same as if we had no terrorists, there would be no need for the hightened security measures and everyone involved would be out of a job. If the Middle Eastern terrorists kill us all (infadels) like they want to do, there would be no one for their countries to sell their oil to. If there were no war, the bigwig corporations would have no "ground zeros," here and in the Mideast, to rebuild...and couldn't keep fleecing us all for funding. Lobbyists would actually have to lobby for meaningful causes, and they're not good at that unless it's lining their pockets....c'mon, y'all, they need their kickbacks, poor souls. AND if there were no torture, the news folks would have alot less to report- they'd only be working part time, and the terrorists would have no way to prove that we're the meanest country in the world.


The Bible says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." i tend to believe it.

[denuseri]

we keep sucking yu back in stripey,, lol, hugs and kisess,, nice post sweetie, its too true and sad that it is the way the world goes round, i wish it was different too, i really think its all the politicians and big business "fuckers" that have gotten us into this mess with the jiyad "fuckers" at least this last time around,, mabey like in robert hienline's book (please forgive the spelling) starship troopers, the veterans will someday do something about it , the legions sure changed the way rome was ran in a hurry when they got fucked by thier 'fuckers" one to many times

[MMI]

That's a long answer! Do I do it injustice by summarising it as, the government knows that rounding up sleeper cells would prove unpopular, and in election year, it would be foolish to alienate voters?

What a cynical risk for them to take with people's lives, just to avoid political disadvantage. Stripedangel said that we don't know where or when they [the sleepers] will attack. That's presumably the Government line. So, there's a risk that there'll be another WTC, and the authorities know this. Yet they are prepared to gamble on US lives - or if they are lucky, on Spanish, British or Saudi lives instead - so as not to jeopardise McCain's chances of election. From over here, the Democrat vote looks split anyway, and most anti-torture, bed-wetting liberals would tend to vote Democrat rather than Republican, so why worry?

On the other hand, you imply that in any other year, they would be rounded up. What? Has this world-wide cell only just been discovered (assuming it really does exist, and is not just made-up to keep us all on edge)? I don't think so. It's not election year in Britain or France or Spain (so far as I know). Why don't those countries round them up? Answer - they can't. They have no proof of wrong-doing.

Going back to the question of torture, I think, that despite the fact that politicians are a bunch of self-seeking megalomaniacs with no real thought for the well-being of their constituents, other than to keep them voting the way they "should", they do pay more than lip-service to the rule of law. After all, they make the laws and the rules of the dirty game they are playing. Even they have to observe certain rules. It is the politicians who have signed up to treaties and conventions against torture because even they are not prepared to condone it openly.

The USA has signed and ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, so it should not now cavil about it. No torture means no torture: there are no exceptions -


Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

However, reading your post again, I feel we have achieved some kind of consensus. Torture is futile. You say, "no super secret intel was gathered from the captivity and torture of any Japs." I'm sure you are right, and conclude that all that was done was to cause unnecessary pain and humiliation.

But then you go on to say that your "well-intentioned" government has been ham-strung by people-who-engage-in-sexual-intercourse (you do that, don't you?) from waterboarding one or two of its unwilling guests - how else do you describe people who have been picked up at gunpoint, deported to a place that is (hopefully) subject only to military (do I mean summary?) justice, kept in cages like animals, subjected to mental torture and deprived of legal representation or POW rights, and then let go without charge or proof of guilt of any kind. Well-intentioned be buggered! I'm sorry, I just can't accept that good intentions justify degrading people for no good and certain purpose. Nor do I accept the supposition that the government is well-intentioned.


Mr Fixit: Surely this type of tactic has been reserved for a specific few that, based on credible intel, have implicated that use of such an extreme tactic would prove beneficial to uncover further life saving credible intel."

It hasn't though, has it? As for "credible intel", I seriously doubt the West is capable of gaining it: so let's not have more "WMD" scare stories.

You say the public should be unaware of most of what your intel says. Why? Because it reveals illegal acts that, if the public knew were taking place, it just would not tolerate it? Or because it's based on a universty student's essay that draws upon information already in the public domain, and the public would be horrified at the government's ineptitude, and the money and lives it was costing?


I cannot answer your question "Based on American history, what do you think would happen if we started rounding up sleeper cells" My knowledge of American history is limited because it played a relatively insignificant role in the British Imperial History course I followed - something about France winning your independence for you, so you could pay higher taxes and have fewer freedoms than when you were subjects of King George I seem to think. But you appear to be guiding my thoughts when you suggest that, despite the most luxurious cages provided and the free trips to foreign countries on the Extreme Rendition Express given to your political prisoners, some lily-livered wimps might still make life uncomfortable for the government.

Wouldn't that be a shame?

Stripedangel. I will look at the links you have provided. Thanks.

I, too, would like the world to be a perfect place, and know that it never will be. But things do get better over time, don't they? I mean, 500 years ago, I'd probably have been advocating that the terrorist be hanged, drawn and quartered, or spit-roasted live. 250 years ago, I'd probably have settled for hanging. 150 years ago, transportation might have been enough.

There's room for optimism.

[stripedangel]

we keep sucking yu back in stripey,, lol, hugs and kisess,, nice post sweetie, its too true and sad that it is the way the world goes round, i wish it was different too, i really think its all the politicians and big business "fuckers" that have gotten us into this mess with the jiyad "fuckers" at least this last time around,, mabey like in robert hienline's book (please forgive the spelling) starship troopers, the veterans will someday do something about it , the legions sure changed the way rome was ran in a hurry when they got fucked by thier 'fuckers" one to many times

Yeah, denu, xxx i hate to argue, but i can't keep my effin mouth shut!!!

MMI, i believe what Master was saying about the election year is that it's the cherry on top of the whole reasoning process for not rounding folks up like they did back then. GWBitch (btw i posted a joke in the Biker Jokes thread about him lol) has some low ratings and has had the same low ratings for years now. He promised to get the terrorists...Osama, in particular...now almost 8 years and nothing. Funny, our Prez can't find Osama, but the guy who did that show, "Supersize Me", says he saw the bastard and has 15 minutes of footage to prove it, to be shown at the Sundance Film Festival...wonder if that's true?

Donald Rumsfeld was the one blamed for the false intelligence according to NPR...and GWBoob just followed along - it supported what he wanted to do anyway. i must state though, that i find it interesting that if Saddam had no WMDs, why did he disallow the UN inspectors and begin trucking everything from his warehouse (for lack of a better term) immediately? They did find remnants of supplies used to build certain WMDs. Sounds to me like a "breach of contract" since Saddam himself agreed that he would no longer *dabble* in this sort of thing, in order to be free from some of the sanctions that had been laid upon him (and his people) for his basically childish way of running his country.

i do believe that if the draft was brought back, and NO exceptions allowed, there would be many more children of these politicians involved in the war...then they might be a bit more sparing with the amount of troops they are willing to risk at war...and how many prisoners get tortured, as well, since the possibility of their own kin being treated the same way.

Thanks for looking at my links, i hope they are all helpful. Some of them i've read and some i just scanned, but i found them all interesting. Here is another, to a site that appears to be quite informative, as far as this issue, and others raised in this thread, are concerned....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/

But particularly these...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-torture-guidelines.htm
(you'll need to read the PDFs to see the whole thing)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2007/12/sec-071211-voa01.htm

If you use the search function on this site and type in waterboarding, you will find all sorts of interesting things about it. The more i view this particualr site, the more i like it.

i guess i'm not gonna withdraw. LOL. Like i said before, i can't keep my trap shut.

[denuseri]

oooo i would love to so not retort to the so called superior british version of american history lmao, that would require a whole seperate thread, or at least i say i aint weg, but because i am such a naughty lil subbie (and history majior) here goes, and i do mean this as respectfully as possible :
though i can see after loosing two wars against us "colonials" the view would get slanted by those with political swing in england to lessen the lesson so to speak, a similar thing has went on in southern states (formerly known as slave states) over our little civil war and subsequent reconstruction ,,and one can see many other examples of the loosers attempting to re write history , look how bright and shiney athens made itself out to be with hindsight after loosing to sparta in a thirty year war that basically crushed athens hopes of empire permamently (which is exactly what athens was trying to do build an empire)
basically if i want an expert opinion on brittish history do i go to austrailia or america to get it? Likewise one may think it best to go to the horses mouth , for instance if i want to know about the different reason the brittish empire fell to pieces after ww2 or why brittian gave full support to the surrounding arab countries and did everything in thier power to stop the formation of isreal as a state, etc etc.
as for france wining the war for us, oh dear smh, the french (other than the young layfeyette who btw was an aide to washington) didnt really fight all that much here stateside, though a small bit of thier navy did show up to claim some glory when we finally finished the red coats off in the end of the war, but lets not go there really
all its going to do is start another debate and i am certian your scorces are just as credible to you as mine to me,

[MMI]

Oh denuseri, denuseri: it wasn't your nose I was tweaking!

But my sources are American (there's virtually nothing online from British sources). But I would look at them all, not just one side's version, if I could.

There were 2 wars? Oh yes. That other one. It was a stalemate (and of even less interest to Britons than the Rebellion: Bonaparte was much more of a problem). Neither side lost anything or won anything - except we developed Bermuda and organised a great fireworks display in Washington. But, then, your lot had fun in the Battle of New Orleans. Honours even. Canada regards it as a British (Empire) win because they thwarted US expansionist plans.

I don't know much about British involvement in trying to prevent Israel being formed (I had believed we were closely involved in its formation - but apparently I'm wrong. I do remember my father cursing the Israelis for behaving just like terrorists, though - for example, by murdering a captured British soldier, stringing up his body and mining the ground underneath him, to kill whoever tried to cut the poor man down. I hastily add that I bear no such grudge.) What I do know is, Britain had been involved in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottonman Empire, and many of the arab countries were under our protection. Many others were involved with France.

Our experience of dealing with the arab nations and tribes was that they were ruthless fighters. They were also tolerant, independent, proud and noble people with a great sense of right and wrong, and enormous loyalty to their friends and allies. We probably let them down. We certainly laid the foundations for all the problems that exist in the Middle East now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American Rebellion by Rudyard Kipling.


1776


BEFORE

TWAS not while England's sword unsheathed
Put half a world to flight,
Nor while their new-built cities breathed
Secure behind her might;
Not while she poured from Pole to Line
Treasure ships and men--
These worshippers at Freedom's shrine
They did not quit her then!

Not till their foes were driven forth
By England o'er the main--
Not till the Frenchman from the North
Had gone with shattered Spain;
Not till the clean-swept oceans showed
No hostile flag unrolled,
Did they remember what they owed
To Freedom--and were bold.

AFTER

The snow lies thick on Valley Forge,
The ice on the Delaware,
But the poor dead soldiers of King George
They neither know nor care.

Nor though the earliest primrose break
On the sunny side of the lane,
And scuffling rookeries awake
Their England's spring again.

They will not stir when the drifts are gone,
Or the ice melts out of the bay:
And the men that served with Washington
Lie as still as they.

They will not stir though the mayflower blows
In the moist dark woods of pine,
And every rock-strewn pasture shows
Mullein and Columbine.

Each for his land, in a fair fight,
Encountered, strove, and died,
And the kindly earth that knows no spite
Covers them side by side.

She is too busy to think of war;
She has all the world to make gay;
And, behold, the yearly flowers are
Where they were in our fathers' day!

Golden-rod by the pasture wall
When the columbine is dead,
And sumach leaves that turn, in fall,
Bright as the blood they shed.

[tessa]

But my sources are American (there's virtually nothing online from British sources). But I would look at them all, not just one side's version, if I could.

Quite an astute perspective to have. Also rare. One might say almost an impossible one to have.


There were 2 wars? Oh yes. That other one. It was a stalemate (and of even less interest to Britons than the Rebellion: Bonaparte was much more of a problem). Neither side lost anything or won anything - except we developed Bermuda and organised a great fireworks display in Washington.
This made me laugh a little. Thanks for that. :)


We certainly laid the foundations for all the problems that exist in the Middle East now.
"...all the problems" ...wow. Hmm...kind of taking far too much credit here, I'm thinking. Play a part in creating the structural outlay, sure, but to state it as an all-encompassing idea works against your "all sides" philosophy.


the use of water boarding was probably presented by the cia too the military and for reasons of cost and expediency
Respectfully, I have to say "not so". I believe it's used because there are some extremely malignant minds out there in this world of ours who are in the position to infect others with their thinking. It has been and will continue to be. That is why when it comes to whatever form of torture we choose as topic, as Alex said, it will never be outlawed.

Torture exists because there are people who are not only willing to think it up and inflict it, but feel an inner need to do so. They can provide whatever "justifications" they deem suitable, but it's the same as Bush arguing that he can "be victorious" in war- none of the reasoning makes any sense. Really, it boils down to the fact that the tormentor wants to torture. It just isn't possible to outlaw innate bloodlust and because there will always be people who desire to act in barbarous ways, no government anywhere will ever be able to provide legislation to rid us of that evil.


i wish i knew what to do to prevent it all
We should all probably spend more time pondering just that.

[MMI]

Quite an astute perspective to have. Also rare. One might say almost an impossible one to have.

I'd like to say scholarly, but, alas! I'm no scholar.


"...all the problems" ...wow. Hmm...kind of taking far too much credit here, I'm thinking. Play a part in creating the structural outlay, sure, but to state it as an all-encompassing idea works against your "all sides" philosophy.

OK - we're not entirely responsible. I have no trouble conceding that point.


Torture exists because there are people who are not only willing to think it up and inflict it, but feel an inner need to do so. They can provide whatever "justifications" they deem suitable, but it's the same as Bush arguing that he can "be victorious" in war- none of the reasoning makes any sense. Really, it boils down to the fact that the tormentor wants to torture. It just isn't possible to outlaw innate bloodlust and because there will always be people who desire to act in barbarous ways, no government anywhere will ever be able to provide legislation to rid us of that evil.

No argument from me about that.


We should all probably spend more time pondering just that.

Doesn't this thread form part of that contemplation?

[Mr.FixIt]

That's a long answer! Do I do it injustice by summarising it as, the government knows that rounding up sleeper cells would prove unpopular, and in election year, it would be foolish to alienate voters?

Yes, through your summarization, you have definitely done injustice to my answer. The election year is only the cherry on top of the point that I have made. As I explained before, due to the atrocities and injustices incurred by numerous racial, tribal, and religious groups at the hand of the American people and the American government over the last couple-hundred years, we are now in apology mode--an era of political correctness, AKA PC, which has handicapped us from being able to deal appropriately with crimes that have been committed against us. Because of this PC handicap, we are afraid to arrest illegal immigrants unless they have committed a felony crime. And once they have committed a felony crime, we put them into our prison systems that are supported by our tax dollars, which consequently drains our national resources further, rather than deport them to the countries from which they came, which might appear to be paranoia to the media and consequently the public, and that just wouldn't be PC would it?! But isn't illegal immigration in itself a crime? And aren’t the members of these sleeper cells mostly illegal immigrants? Yes, they are! And, yes, they have committed a crime and should be "rounded up". Note: I didn't say torture them because they are illegal immigrants--ha ha, I headed you off at the pass on that one didn't I!


The USA has signed and ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, so it should not now cavil about it. No torture means no torture: there are no exceptions

The destruction of our buildings and death of 3,000 of our innocent U.S. citizens, (non-combatants) was a breach of contract, IMO. The contract is ,IMO, now null and void. Also, wasn't Saddam Hussein a WMD all by himself?


However, reading your post again, I feel we have achieved some kind of consensus. Torture is futile. You say, "no super secret intel was gathered from the captivity and torture of any Japs." I'm sure you are right, and conclude that all that was done was to cause unnecessary pain and humiliation...

...It hasn't though, has it (gained credible intel)? As for "credible intel", I seriously doubt the West is capable of gaining it: so let's not have more "WMD" scare stories.

Your feeling of mutual consensus is ill-founded. Please see the following:

By VOA News
11 December 2007

A former CIA officer said interrogators used a simulated drowning technique on a senior al-Qaida member, and that he believes the method is torture.

Former agent John Kiriakou said in interviews, first on ABC News Monday, the technique known as waterboarding helped break senior al-Qaida suspect Abu Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

In response, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino Tuesday said President Bush approved a lawful program to interrogate "hardened terrorists." She said the program, announced in 2006, is safe, effective and legal. The White House has never confirmed any specific interrogation technique.

Kiriakou said the day after the waterboarding, Zubaydah agreed to cooperate and provided key intelligence that disrupted a number of attacks. Kiriakou was part of the CIA team that interrogated Zubaydah, but said he did not witness the waterboarding being done.


But then you go on to say that your "well-intentioned" government has been ham-strung by people-who-engage-in-sexual-intercourse (you do that, don't you?) from waterboarding one or two of its unwilling guests - how else do you describe people who have been picked up at gunpoint, deported to a place that is (hopefully) subject only to military (do I mean summary?) justice, kept in cages like animals, subjected to mental torture and deprived of legal representation or POW rights, and then let go without charge or proof of guilt of any kind. Well-intentioned be buggered!

I’ve already responded to this point. I am only quoting you here to explain the following misinterpretation from across the pond:

Buggers=Fuckers=shit heads=assholes=terrorists=politicians :)

The term “fuckers”, in this context does not refer to “people-who-engage-in-sexual-intercourse”. I’ll assume for the sake of keeping this a clean debate, that this was an honest regional misinterpretation on your part, and that you are not intentionally mincing words here. But yes, in your interpretation of the word, I am a fucker, and I am quite good at it! :starwars:


You say the public should be unaware of most of what your intel says. Why? Because it reveals illegal acts that, if the public knew were taking place, it just would not tolerate it? Or because it's based on a universty student's essay that draws upon information already in the public domain, and the public would be horrified at the government's ineptitude, and the money and lives it was costing?

"Loose Lips Sink Ships," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com

Millions volunteered or were drafted for military duty during World War II. The majority of these citizen-soldiers had no idea how to conduct themselves to prevent inadvertent disclosure of important information to the enemy. To remedy this, the government established rules of conduct. The following is excerpted from a document given to each soldier as he entered the battle area.

WRITING HOME
THINK! Where does the enemy get his information -- information that can put you, and has put your comrades, adrift on an open sea: information that has lost battles and can lose more, unless you personally, vigilantly, perform your duty in SAFEGUARDING MILITARY INFORMATION?

THERE ARE TEN PROHIBITED SUBJECTS

1. Don't write military information of Army units -- their location, strength,, materiel, or equipment.

2. Don't write of military installations.

3. Don't write of transportation facilities.

4. Don't write of convoys, their routes, ports (including ports of embarkation and disembarkation), time en route, naval protection, or war incidents occurring en route.

5. Don't disclose movements of ships, naval or merchant, troops, or aircraft.

6. Don't mention plans and forecasts or orders for future operations, whether known or just your guess.

7. Don't write about the effect of enemy operations.

8. Don't tell of any casualty until released by proper authority (The Adjutant General) and then only by using the full name of the casualty.

9. Don't attempt to formulate or use a code system, cipher, or shorthand, or any other means to conceal the true meaning of your letter. Violations of this regulation will result in severe punishment.

10. Don't give your location in any way except as authorized by proper authority. Be sure nothing you write about discloses a more specific location than the one authorized.

TALK
SILENCE MEANS SECURITY -- If violation of protective measures is serious within written communications it is disastrous in conversations. Protect your conversation as you do your letters, and be even more careful. A harmful letter can be nullified by censorship; loose talk is direct delivery to the enemy.

If you come home during war your lips must remain sealed and your written hand must be guided by self-imposed censorship. This takes guts. Have you got them or do you want your buddies and your country to pay the price for your showing off. You've faced the battle front; its little enough to ask you to face this 'home front.'

CAPTURE
Most enemy intelligence comes from prisoners. If captured, you are required to give only three facts: YOUR NAME, YOUR GRADE, YOUR ARMY SERIAL NUMBER. Don't talk, don't try to fake stories and use every effort to destroy all papers. When you are going into an area where capture is possible, carry only essential papers and plan to destroy them prior to capture if possible. Do not carry personal letters on your person; they tell much about you, and the envelope has on it your unit and organization.

[stripedangel]

........And just so there's no mincing about it...


Intel= where Osama is hiding, where Saddam was hiding (wonder who told, and why they told?), Where Saddam was building his WMDs, Where they were/are planning on striking next, where their terrorist camps have moved to, the names of the people who are in their groups, the names of the sleepers in our country, etc. These are things that the public (including the sleepers who are here to spy and gain intel) should not know about before the military has had a chance to deal with it. Intel is NOT confessions of maltreatment at a military base. It should not be twisted up just to suit your purposes. i thought you should know the difference, being the intelligent, articulate person that you are, MMI.

It's not about what we are doing to them, it's what we gain from them with the tactics we use....that is INTEL. If you're playing a game of Chess, you're not about to let your opponent in on your plans for future moves. By the same token, if the public (which includes the illegal immigrants who might be at the ready with a telephone to call Al Quaida, or whatever group is opposing us at the time) hears all of the details such as what i stated in the above examples, they will change their strategy and THEN the poor sap was waterboarded for nothing...and i believe that's even worse than waterboarding in the first place.

The news of waterboarding is no surprise to anyone, is it? Really? Were you actually surprised to hear about it? i was not at all surprised-that's what happens, and has happened all through history. This is not new news.

"It hasn't though, has it? As for "credible intel", I seriously doubt the West is capable of gaining it: so let's not have more "WMD" scare stories." You say...

Well, i say, the WMD "scare stories" are all a part of why we're waterboarding in the first place...Saddam was a WMD who had proven himself to be such by killing MASS amounts of people, including his own countrymen. Four airplanes were used as WMDs. A WMD is anything used to cause.....Mass Destruction . If a person kills 5 or 10 people, he/she is a MASS MURDERER. And as for the gaining of credible intel, see FixIt's post above, where he quotes a page from one of my links, which refers to Abu Zubaydah, who was the suspect waterboarded in that particular link. i think we are capable of doing just that.
From Wikipedia:

On November 20, 2006, Basic Books published Inside the Jihad: My Life with al Qaeda, a Spy's story, an account by Omar Nasiri of certain operations of al Qaeda. According to PR Newswire, "Contrary to popular reports that Zubayda is mentally retarded and delusional, Nasiri's account shows that he was in fact a powerful figure with responsibility for every mujahid entering and exiting the training camps.

In his memoir, former CIA Director George Tenet writes:

"A published report in 2006 contended that Abu Zubaydah was mentally unstable and that the administration had overstated his importance. Baloney. Abu Zubaydah had been at the crossroads of many al-Qa'ida operations and was in position to - and did - share critical information with his interrogators. Apparently, the source of the rumor that Abu Zubaydah was unbalanced was his personal diary, in which he adopted various personas. From that shaky perch, some junior Freudians leapt to the conclusion that Zubaydah had multiple personalities. In fact, Agency psychiatrists eventually determined that in his diary he was using a sophisticated literary device to express himself. And, boy, did he express himself."

POOR SAP!

I'm sure they don't just put their arms around some guy on the street and say,"C'mon, let's go get you waterboarded, it's your turn, we haven't seen you yet," without some sort of intel. i'm also sure that there are plenty of Lynndie England types out there who abuse their postitions, and consider it entertaining to humiliate and injure the prisoners in their custody.

Now, for the Japanese Americans who were rounded up during WWII--Come on, MMI, are you kidding me? Simply to degrade and humiliate? That really sounds like an argument for the sake of argument, and i find it offensive that you would say it. People were afraid. The attack on Pearl Harbour caused them to believe that all Japanese came to this country to infiltrate its defenses. What would you expect them to think, they'd just lost thousands! It was a mistake (which wasn't repeated here in the US when the WMDs hit our Pentagon and WTC). No one set out to do that! It was the end result, of course, but they were rounded up and placed in camps because our paranoid government
was trying to keep our intel from getting into the wrong hands. It was wrong, absolutely, but it wasn't done simply out of spite, or just to humiliate and degrade.

[denuseri]

lmfao, at Mr Fix It's fucking stormtrooper pic ,omg rof

[denuseri]

honest to gawds ppl, this isnt a american vs brit thing is it,, lol, if i remember the brits are or at lest were right there with us in iraq,, as for torture, ask the brits what they do to the irish? of course they have slightly different laws over on that side of the pond

[Mr.FixIt]

I coincidentally found this elsewhere in the threads here, (Thanks WB), and thought it was quite appropriate:

Political Correctness

The following is the winning entry from an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

This year's term was Political Correctness.

The winner wrote:
“Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

;ha

[denuseri]

omg lmao,, awsome,, dont forget new osha standards state that all turds in excess of six inches must be handd lowered to the surface of the water

[tessa]

Doesn't this thread form part of that contemplation?

Yes, and hopefully, if we contemplate throughly enough, something positive will start to emerge from the mess the world's governments have made.

:wave:

ps. You may not be a scholar, but you play the role wonderfully. :)

[MMI]

If what you say is so - about the "sleeper cell" - then my retort is, don't be so bloody stupid. If they've broken the law, they've broken the law. Al Capone wasn't picked up for the Valentine's Day Massacre, was he? Don't tell me that the US "PC Brigade" supports terrorists. I can only assume that there's no evidence that they are illegal immigrants, or your Imigration Department isn't doing its job.


I'm horrified at the thought that the American government (assuming your opinion reflects that of the government, even though you obviously don't represent it here) has reneged on the UN Convention Against Torture, and doesn't have the courage to admit it publicly. What would the rest of America think about that - the People, I mean?

The Convention was not a contract, where value is given by consenting parties, but an undertaking freely given to the world at large.

As for 9/11, your claim that 3,000 American deaths (actually it was less than that, there were non-Americans who died there too) cancelled any obligation the US had assumed. WRONG! WRONG!! WRONG!!!

I quoted Article 2 in my last post. I refer you to it again. It says NO EXCEPTIONS.

In any case, at the time of writing (0000hours GMT on 31/5/2008) between 84,099 and 91,762 Iraqis have paid with their lives*. Just how many more deaths are needed until American blood-lust is sated?

As for Saddam, no he wasn't a WMD all by himself, or even with his army beside him. His army had the fortitude of a wet paper bag and he carried the threat of a pussy cat. No WMD's could be found, could they? Why? Because they didn't exist. The only threats he posed were to Israel (but he'd never have attacked them), Iran (as proxy for USA), and to his own Kurdish and Shi'ite population. USA has helped him to power and was content to let him massacre his own people for decades before it decided to stop him. Ha! (If that sounded like a hollow laugh, it's because it was.)

In my opinion, Bush jr had a score to settle with him dating back to the previous Gulf War, and that was the primary cause for the second war. The decision was made long long before 11/9/2001, but the attack on the twin towers gave him the excuse, and he fed that lie to the American people and to the rest of the world. SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 OR BIN LADEN, and had Bin Laden sought refuge in Iraq immediately after the attacks, Saddam would surely have handed him over.


Your feeling of mutual consensus is ill-founded.

Then we must continue to disagree. I don't see how the article you quoted helps, other than to demonstrate how far apart we really are.


I’ve already responded to this point. I am only quoting you here to explain the following misinterpretation from across the pond:

Buggers=Fuckers=shit heads=assholes=terrorists=politicians

The term “fuckers”, in this context does not refer to “people-who-engage-in-sexual-intercourse”. I’ll assume for the sake of keeping this a clean debate, that this was an honest regional misinterpretation on your part, and that you are not intentionally mincing words here. But yes, in your interpretation of the word, I am a fucker, and I am quite good at it!

No - you already dealt with a different point. The point you dealt with was that you can't round up suspected criminals in your own jurisdicition and treat them as if they had no legal rights, because the American people wouldn't stand for it.

My point was that USA had kidnapped innocent Iraqis and foreign nationals in Iraq, and sent them to a concentration camp to languish for years without any of the rights you consider "inalienable". Apart from hacking off a few heads, that kind of behaviour is no different from the terrorists who kidnap and behead Western journalists.

As for your use of the word "fucker," I have already pointed out that you are using it perjoratively. Terrorists are not fuckers: they are terrorists. Illegal imigrants are not fuckers, they are illegal imigrants. Foreign residents in USA are not fuckers, they are foreigners. Stop calling them fuckers! It won't undermine your arguments, will it?


"Loose Lips Sink Ships,"

In Britain, we had the slogan Careless Talk Costs Lives

The document you have quoted was, no doubt, very useful for GI's and prevented many of them from giving away the location of their units.

But we are talking about forcefully extracting significant information about impending attacks on American people from prisoners that we hold, and that is quite another thing.

__________________________________________________ ________________________

Intel= where Osama is hiding - intell: no idea
... where Saddam was hiding - you got that one!
... Where Saddam was building his WMDs - when will you admit the WMD's were either a myth or a lie?

... Where [terrorists] were/are planning on striking next - I don't believe you get much success by torture (despite the VoA report quoted by Mr Fixit: OK - a few, but I'll bet a dollar to a dime that most intel comes from disaffected terrorists themselves in return for protection, and without it, the government would be virtually helpless).

... where their terrorist camps have moved to, the names of the people who are in their groups, the names of the sleepers in our country, etc. - This is not the sort of information that saves American lives, it's just general strategic information.

... These are things that the public (including the sleepers who are here to spy and gain intel) should not know about before the military has had a chance to deal with it. - Hell - you have already said you know about a sleeper cell and the government refuses to do anything about it. Why torture someone to find out that information?


Intel is NOT confessions of maltreatment at a military base. It should not be twisted up just to suit your purposes. i thought you should know the difference, being the intelligent, articulate person that you are, MMI. Sweet of you to say so, but if I have twisted the truth to suit my purposes, I am far being an intelligent person, and if I am articulate too, then that makes things worse!

It's not about what we are doing to them, it's what we gain from them with the tactics we use....that is INTEL.

The ends are never justfied if the means are acts of torture.

Sometimes, when playing chess, your opponent is as aware of your plans as you are. The game is won or lost by his ability to counter that plan in fewer moves than it takes to complete it. But I take your point - if you have useful intelligence, it is utter foolishness to tell the enemy.

But isn't it paranoid to assume that all illegal immigrants are potential terrorists? Pedro from Agua Prieta? Francoise from Quebec?

If you allow torture for supposed terrorists, why not for suspected drug dealers?

Why not for wives of parking ticket dodgers to find out when hubby will be coming home?


The news of waterboarding is no surprise to anyone, is it?

Nope. Not at all. ... Well, let me rephrase that. The news of torture was not "news". Waterboarding was a new method, and the Whitehouse cavils about it being tortue because it doesn't cause actual pain. (The UN Convention describes torture as the infliction of severe pain, whether mental or physical, on a person.)

If waterboarding can cause a committed terrorist to reveal all he knows in 35 seconds flat (Mr Fixit's example) then, if it doesn't cause severe pain, it must do something terrifying (unfortunate word, but never mind) ... make the person feel he is about to die, perhaps? Does that count as mental pain?


Well, i say, the WMD "scare stories" are all a part of why we're waterboarding in the first place...Saddam was a WMD who had proven himself to be such by killing MASS amounts of people, including his own countrymen.

But he was no threat to USA or anyone else. He was certainly not able to mobilise WMD's against the United Kingdom at 45 minutes' notice, as Tony Blair said as he took us to war, with Bush's approval. As I have said, Saddam had no WMD's.



Four airplanes were used as WMDs. A WMD is anything used to cause.....Mass Destruction . If a person kills 5 or 10 people, he/she is a MASS MURDERER.

Conceded.


Now, for the Japanese Americans who were rounded up during WWII--Come on, MMI, are you kidding me? Simply to degrade and humiliate? That really sounds like an argument for the sake of argument, and i find it offensive that you would say it. People were afraid. The attack on Pearl Harbour caused them to believe that all Japanese came to this country to infiltrate its defenses. What would you expect them to think, they'd just lost thousands! It was a mistake (which wasn't repeated here in the US when the WMDs hit our Pentagon and WTC). No one set out to do that! It was the end result, of course, but they were rounded up and placed in camps because our paranoid government
was trying to keep our intel from getting into the wrong hands. It was wrong, absolutely, but it wasn't done simply out of spite, or just to humiliate and degrade.

I didn't say that, or if I did, I didn't mean to. I meant that as torturing the Japs in those camps yielded virtually no useful intelligence, according to Mr Fixit, then the only result of torturing them was to humiliate and degrade them. If you feel that national fear justifies torturing civilian prisoners just in case they know something (which Mr Fixit says, by and large, they didn't), then I'm surprised at you.

__________________________________________________ _______________


honest to gawds ppl, this isnt a american vs brit thing is it,, lol, if i remember the brits are or at lest were right there with us in iraq,, as for torture, ask the brits what they do to the irish? of course they have slightly different laws over on that side of the pond

We went in with you but it is generally accepted that we were taken in on a lie (see above) and it is felt that Blair was nothing more than Bush's British yes-man. The war is deeply unpopular over here, and we have a lot of admiration for France and Germany who stayed out and said why. The Labour Party is in for a kicking at the next Gerneral Election over so many things, but especially over this war.

As for Ireland, yes we tortured people in the H blocks who had not been convicted of acts of terrorism. We have been convicted in the European Court of Human Rights for subjecting prisoners to wall-standing, starvation, sleep deprivation, noise subjection and hooding (not torture but degrading treatment), but we have done far worse. I do not defend that at all. It doesn't make things right for America, however, that we did it first.


“Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

I suppose political reality is where a person realises that self-levitation not possible at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

:) @ tessa



__________________________________________________ ________________________
* Source Iraq Body Count (www.iraqbodycount.org/)

[Wind_Walker25]

You can debate these things all you want, would love to live in a perfict world.
They are people who hate us, not because of our Goverment, but because we do not believe as they do, now we can kiss their ass and give them all they ask for.
But at the end of the Day, THEY HATE US!!!
If I can take a beautiful slave strip her down spank her ass. I have no probs with water boarding, it does not really hurt them ,just scare the hell out of them

[MMI]

Wind-Walker. I wonder if you would like to waterboard your beautiful slave for us and tell us how far that gets you.

BDSM torture is consensual, aimed at fulfilment and carried out with respect. Love and affection are usually involved. Trust is, certainly. It is done subject to limits - if not the slave's, then those of the law.

Torture of the kind we are discussing is non-consensual, aimed at breaking a person and carried out without any respect for the victim at all. Hate and contempt are usually present. Fear is always. It is, per se, outside the limits of the law.


And that is really the nub of this debate. Torture is illegal, like it or not. It's primitive - mediaeval at best. Advocates are backwards-looking and (I dare say) defeatist: if we can't beat them, we'll sink to their level.

[stripedangel]

However, reading your post again, I feel we have achieved some kind of consensus. Torture is futile. You say, "no super secret intel was gathered from the captivity and torture of any Japs." I'm sure you are right, and conclude that all that was done was to cause unnecessary pain and humiliation.





I didn't say that, or if I did, I didn't mean to. I meant that as torturing the Japs in those camps yielded virtually no useful intelligence, according to Mr Fixit, then the only result of torturing them was to humiliate and degrade them. If you feel that national fear justifies torturing civilian prisoners just in case they know something (which Mr Fixit says, by and large, they didn't), then I'm surprised at you.

Ummm, YES you did!

What's surprising is that no matter what is said, you keep going back to the digs on Americans. i am not up for you downing my country and the people in it any longer. You behave as though we all just lined up to be assholes to every other country, and have an utter disregard for the fact that we disagree with most of it.

And you have a problem with FixIt's use of the word "fuckers". Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiitttttttt, man, that's enough. Your country's prince is right there on the front lines too. Your country has been following our lead -- even with the idiot that we have in office.

Here's my FINAL standpoint on this issue...

If we have absolute proof, as in the case of Abu Zubaydah, who was obviously a terrorist, and that person is not being forthcoming with intel that might save lives, and since this form of torture is much less extreme........waterboard the FUCKER! Beat the FUCKER until he caves! Compared to my American son, this FUCKER matters NOT.

And i will not debate with someone who uses so many forms of insult and degradation to prove a point. Funny that you are so high and mighty. Remember that Americans were once from across the pond also. You are correct in saying that your country laid the groundwork for the mess in the middle east, and your country also laid the groundwork for this mess right here, if you really want to get down to brass tacks.

As for sleeper cells, they're in your country too, and attacked your subway systems. You have whole communities of sleeper cells (several were interviewed on international TV, hooded and proud of what they'd done, right there in London!). But you go on and ask them nicely to please o please stop, and they just might.

Y'all have fun, i'm out.

[MMI]

If you're out, there's no point in replying, but you are quite wrong in several respects (not in all, I admit). I am left with the impression that the American government, as portrayed in this thread, does not care for the rule of law, just what is politically expedient.

However, I still say advocates of torture are backwards-looking and defeatist, and I think I will now add "vindictive" to that description.

[MMI]

Double posting

[denuseri]

ok please people lets shake hands , hug whatever, copulate even, we are not each others enemies,, hugs and kissess all of u its been a fantastic debate,

we are on the same side:especially the britts and americans we are allies along with many other countries that see terrorism as a serious threat to modern society

i really dont doubt that all our respective governments have thier good and bad sides,
i also think we have more than established our opinions on the matter of water boarding and torture etc,

respectfully to all:may this lil kajira sugjest .. mabey its high time we choose a new thread or topic for this one lol

[MMI]

I'm sorry if my jibes about America were taken to heart: they were intentionally provocative, to keep the debate lively, but I was not intending to insult the USA or Americans at all. I felt Mr Fixit would stand up to me whatever I said. Her government (past and present) is a different matter.

And I am quite willing to admit that Britain has committed more and worse atrocities than USA has. Our imperial history has been shameful in many respects, and our present government is worse than yours, being its lapdog.

However, the debate/argument about torture is an important one, whatever your point of view (unless you have no viewpoint) and I know that nothing anyone says is likely to change anyone else's viewpoint. But at least, I will understand a bit more about why I believe what I do if I have to state my reasons to someone who disagrees with me, and thereby find out where my opinions are flawed. And maybe others will gain similar insights.

Mr Fixit, stripedangel: if I have been out of line, I apologise. I was enjoying the "disagreement".

[stripedangel]

I'm sorry if my jibes about America were taken to heart: they were intentionally provocative, to keep the debate lively, but I was not intending to insult the USA or Americans at all. I felt Mr Fixit would stand up to me whatever I said. Her government (past and present) is a different matter.

And I am quite willing to admit that Britain has committed more and worse atrocities than USA has. Our imperial history has been shameful in many respects, and our present government is worse than yours, being its lapdog.

However, the debate/argument about torture is an important one, whatever your point of view (unless you have no viewpoint) and I know that nothing anyone says is likely to change anyone else's viewpoint. But at least, I will understand a bit more about why I believe what I do if I have to state my reasons to someone who disagrees with me, and thereby find out where my opinions are flawed. And maybe others will gain similar insights.

Mr Fixit, stripedangel: if I have been out of line, I apologise. I was enjoying the "disagreement".


i must apologise as well, i'm female and my feelings tend to be a bit more tender than Master's...or maybe even other females. Thanks for this post.


xxx stripey

[Mr.FixIt]

MMI, To be honest...

I firmly believe that forceful tactics (i.e. torture, waterboarding, and the like) if applied under appropriate circumstances (a known terrorist has speciffic knowledge about a credible plan to destroy thousands of innocent non-combatants--American, British, or otherwise) should be used. In any religious, political or philosophical debate, you can't expect to change the other party's mind, you can only hope to give the spectating audience thoughts to ponder.

Again, to be honest, my opinion of the matter is still firm, but in retrospect of my original post, when I made the statement, "make it an extreme sport", I was attempting to sort out those who firmly oppose my standpoint to fire up a good debate, and my tactic was quite effective--I fired you up. I didn't know who would respond, but I knew someone would, and I knew that it would be a lively debate! I'm glad that it was you that responded, and now I know where you stand and what you are about, and you have likewise learned a bit about me. I respect your opinion, and I do not fault you for sinking to the same tactic that I initiated.

I must say, you are a formidable opponent, but you would make a much better ally! After all, we both are looking toward the same finish line, but only with different paths to get there.

However, stripey was an unintended casualty of war. I did not intend to have her wrapped up in this one. She has an extremely big heart, and tends to take things more personally--but only because she is personal, she gets eagerly involved and always tries to help, most of the time to her own detriment or heartache. This not a weakness, but a strength that she posesses. And all of this was a good exercise of her strength, and she has benefitted from this as well.

Now that we have beaten this argument to death, let's get back to why we are all here: EXPLORING and ENJOYING the BDSM lifestyle, right?!!!!!!!!!!!

For those of you that have been afraid to speak your mind on this matter, what's holding you back? MMI and I haven't concerned ourselves with others' judgments, and for that I hold MMI in high regard.

Touch&#233;, MMI!

[tessa]

MMI and I haven't concerned ourselves with others' judgments...
Good example to provide. None of us should do it. What a waste of grey matter that is.


...I know that nothing anyone says is likely to change anyone else's viewpoint. But at least, I will understand a bit more about why I believe what I do if I have to state my reasons to someone who disagrees with me, and thereby find out where my opinions are flawed. And maybe others will gain similar insights.


Exactly my reason for a debate and/or discussion- not seeking to win or defeat, but just to learn more. And hopefully more.

Spot on there, MMI.

:)'s back

[Virulent]

I think it should be encouraged for submissively-inclined terrorists.

[Kuskovian]

I have finally found this oft spoken of topic in my house. Greetings to all here of interest.
Just how many people in this disscussion have ever been water boarded other than myself?

[MMI]

Not I. But I argue from the point of view that I don't want to be waterboarded, nor should anyone else be waterboarded against their will.

If they want to be waterboarded, I have nothing to say on the matter.

[Kuskovian]

Perhaps I should clarify:

I can tell you from personal experience...it is perhaps the most humane way; outside of long term phycological conditioning, of effectively breaking a prisoner in a short period of time.

Long term efforts of course lead to better results.

A trainned individual however can still give false information and or mislead his captors in a wide variety of ways.

We train certian critical assets (meaning important personel such as pilots etc) in our military to do this very thing.

It is called resistence trainning.

Those of us that have had the previlage to instruct such training don't mince words.

We call water boarding what it is: torture.

[MMI]

Thank-you for that.

It is, as you say, torture; and torture is illegal throughout most of the world.

[Virulent]

The first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror.

Or, to paraphrase Foucault, 'Punishment can be moderated only in so much as it is certain'. The more likely that someone can escape punishment, the more terrible it need necessarily be. This is visible in retrograde in most modern societies; as the percentage of murders that are left unsolved goes down, societies tend to relinquish capital punishment.

When one detonates an explosive belt, they guarantee they will not be punished. For this reason, they are nearly impossible to deter; you can put mechanical obstructions which prevent them from reaching their target (though all you're really doing is forcing them to choose different targets), or you can capitulate to their demands (in which case you have reinforced the maxim that 'war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means'), or you can confront them at a morally equivalent level. If every suicide bombing was answered by dropping a carpet of incendiaries on the home town (or some arbitrary town in their nation) of the suicide bomber, societies would do everything in their power to prevent their people from engaging in these sorts of attacks.

Are the people that would be killed in retributive attacks responsible for what they are being targeted for? Certainly not! If the Israelis announced that the next time Hezbollah mortared Sderot, they'd make Beirut look like Dresden, would it stop Hezbollah? Certainly not! Most people seem to expect that civility is a handicap that cannot be set down. I do not think it would take many examples to convince the poor and weak of this world that the wealthy still maintain the will and the power to keep them poor and weak though.

[Thorne]

Or, to paraphrase Foucault, 'Punishment can be moderated only in so much as it is certain'. The more likely that someone can escape punishment, the more terrible it need necessarily be. This is visible in retrograde in most modern societies; as the percentage of murders that are left unsolved goes down, societies tend to relinquish capital punishment.

When one detonates an explosive belt, they guarantee they will not be punished. For this reason, they are nearly impossible to deter; you can put mechanical obstructions which prevent them from reaching their target (though all you're really doing is forcing them to choose different targets), or you can capitulate to their demands (in which case you have reinforced the maxim that 'war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means'), or you can confront them at a morally equivalent level. If every suicide bombing was answered by dropping a carpet of incendiaries on the home town (or some arbitrary town in their nation) of the suicide bomber, societies would do everything in their power to prevent their people from engaging in these sorts of attacks.

Are the people that would be killed in retributive attacks responsible for what they are being targeted for? Certainly not! If the Israelis announced that the next time Hezbollah mortared Sderot, they'd make Beirut look like Dresden, would it stop Hezbollah? Certainly not! Most people seem to expect that civility is a handicap that cannot be set down. I do not think it would take many examples to convince the poor and weak of this world that the wealthy still maintain the will and the power to keep them poor and weak though.

I'm not sure I get your point here. On the one hand you seem to be advocating massive retaliation against innocent civilians for acts of terror (thereby committing another act of terror) while on the other hand you seem to be stating the futility of doing so. And it would, indeed, be futile, adding fuel to the fires which forge these insanities.

No, the only way to stop such things is to remove those who advocate and support them. If a man straps a bomb to his chest and blows up a school, it's not necessarily his village or even his family who should be held responsible, but those who built the bomb for him, and those who paid for that bomb, and those who preached to him that he would receive his reward in some mythical afterlife after committing an act of madness and murder.

The way to stop Hezbollah, or any other radical terrorist organization, is to stop their financing. If they cannot pay for weapons, cannot pay for bomb builders, cannot pay to train their suicide bombers, then they will slowly die off. But this cannot be done passively. It must be handled aggressively and, in many cases, illegally. Bin Laden would quickly lose his power in the terrorist world if the civilized world seized and confiscated his wealth. The money is there, in banks around the world. Probably some of it even here in the US. Find those banks, seize those assets, and use them to compensate the victims of his madness, and see how quickly that madness grinds to a halt. And if a foreign nation decides to finance him in some way, then seize their assets as well. Take the war on terror out of the streets where innocent civilians are being killed and maimed and move it into the boardrooms and throne rooms of the wealthy and powerful. Instead of letting them become even more rich and powerful, make them pay the real price for their greed and stupidity.

[Virulent]

Would it be futile? I suppose it depends on your goal. If you're trying to eliminate terrorism, then you can't do so by committing terrorism. If you're trying to prevent a particular group of people from engaging in terrorism, then I disagree - I think that killing them indiscriminately is probably expedient and effective.

Who used terrorism against the Nazis? To a very small degree, German Jews... but mostly, the Czechs, the French, and German Christians were responsible for almost all of the clandestine internal resistance faced by the Nazis. Why is that? Because Jews are inherently docile? I don't believe that for a second. Rather, I think it was because the Jews were being exterminated, a precondition that makes it difficult to fight back.

Financial restrictions probably work well against well-funded guerrillas... the Iraqi insurgency, or Hezbollah, which are both heavily equipped and funded by Iran would lose a lot of their ability to harass the American and Israeli militaries respectively if their money was taken away... but according to Todd Sandler, a University of Texas "expert in transnational terrorism", a suicide vest costs $150 (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-pointofcontact_25edi.ART.State.Edition1.467eadf.ht ml). I suspect that taking away expensive things like explosively-formed penetrators and radio detonators from the Insurgency would just make them go low-tech, at which point they would start targeting civilians more.

To be clear, I don't like State-sponsored anything, let alone violence; I'm a strident anarchist. I do think though that things could be an awful lot worse. The present is actually a fantastic time to be alive (when compared with a non-nostalgic understanding of the past).

[Thorne]

Would it be futile? I suppose it depends on your goal. If you're trying to eliminate terrorism, then you can't do so by committing terrorism. If you're trying to prevent a particular group of people from engaging in terrorism, then I disagree - I think that killing them indiscriminately is probably expedient and effective.
I disagree. Random killings as you prescribe only serve to help the terrorist organizations recruit new members. True, they wouldn't be from the particular village or town which you've eradicated, but their neighbors, friends and relatives in other villages and towns would be more likely to join their "freedom fighter" comrades than try to stop them.


Who used terrorism against the Nazis? To a very small degree, German Jews... but mostly, the Czechs, the French, and German Christians were responsible for almost all of the clandestine internal resistance faced by the Nazis. Why is that? Because Jews are inherently docile? I don't believe that for a second. Rather, I think it was because the Jews were being exterminated, a precondition that makes it difficult to fight back.
They weren't docile, but the Jews in Europe were notoriously non-violent, apparently believing that keeping a low profile would help. By the time they became aware of what was actually happening in Germany it was far too late for armed resistance. There were too few of them left.
In other countries, German attempts to put down "terrorists", or guerrilla fighters, such as the French underground, by executing civilians after any activity, was grossly ineffective. More people were driven to the underground
by these acts than were turned into informants for the Nazis.
In Czechoslovakia, after a high-ranking SS officer was assassinated, the Nazi's murdered all the men and older boys, and sent all of the women and children to the camps. True, none of those people, who'd had little or nothing to do with the actual assassination, were much of a problem any more. But the action did nothing to stop anti-Nazi activity throughout the occupied territory.


Financial restrictions probably work well against well-funded guerrillas... the Iraqi insurgency, or Hezbollah, which are both heavily equipped and funded by Iran would lose a lot of their ability to harass the American and Israeli militaries respectively if their money was taken away... but according to Todd Sandler, a University of Texas "expert in transnational terrorism", a suicide vest costs $150 (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-pointofcontact_25edi.ART.State.Edition1.467eadf.ht ml). I suspect that taking away expensive things like explosively-formed penetrators and radio detonators from the Insurgency would just make them go low-tech, at which point they would start targeting civilians more.
You are never likely to stop all terrorist activity in an area, regardless of what means you use. Stopping the funding is more than just restricting their ability to create bombs, though. They need that money for recruiting new members, for propaganda outlets which inform the people just how wonderful they are. If you stop the money, you stop those television broadcasts and web sites which can influence so many. Eventually the more rational education systems will change people's attitudes. And you are less likely to have mass attacks such as the 9-11 and London bus bombings, among others.



The present is actually a fantastic time to be alive (when compared with a non-nostalgic understanding of the past).
Here we are in full agreement. Advances in science, medicine and technology have made life much more comfortable, for most of us at least. True, they also allow much more dangerous threats, such as dirty bombs and nuclear disasters, but all in all the good outweighs the bad.
I have this image in my head of the first man to "tame" fire, walking into his tribes cave with a burning branch and a piece of cooked meat. Just imagine all the elders and religious leaders gathering around and deciding that the fire is just too dangerous to be used. Too many things can go wrong. We'd still be eating raw meat and grunting, I think. Anti-technology advocates today are just the same, too worried about the possible problems which can be caused to see the real problems which can be solved.

[Virulent]

When you say "the Jews in Europe were notoriously non-violent, apparently believing that keeping a low profile would help.", I think we're looking at two sides of the same coin. Were the Jews non-violent because they are/were passive people? Or because they guessed that violence would be useless against unrestrained state-sponsored violence?

Look at what the Janjaweed accomplished in '03-'04 in Darfur. It is now 4 years after the bulk of the genocide, and the indigenous people haven't even formed a substantive militia yet. The Janjaweed, further, are a bunch of cattle-herds on horses with guns. Imagine what a real military force would have done.

I think the reason why so many believe that "violence never solves anything" is because they're used to the modern style of restrained and rationalized violence. If one were to say that "half-measures never solve anything", or "unrestrained state-sponsored violence is horrible and shouldn't be used to solve anything", I would agree with them, but not the former. You can't have problems without people.