Breaking News hundred of torture camps found right here in the U.S.

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The UNCAT definition seems to work ok for the rest of the civilized world, no?

Oh you mean this one that considers coercive interogation as torture it doesn't work for me:


"... any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Do you have a link for that?

No I saw it on the news or in a documentary where they were interviewing U.S. military interegators.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Oh you mean this one that considers coercive interogation as torture it doesn't work for me:

Coerce: forcing somebody to do something: the use of force or threats to make people do things against their will.

I don't know which dictionary you use, but my New American Webster College Dictionary 3rd ed. does't mention threat. Coercion is force. Force doesn't work. What is the argument if it doesn't even work? Now threats and intimidation, I agree with you assuming some guidelines, but I don't think coersion has anything to do with the threat of using force. But I've been wrong before.

No I saw it on the news or in a documentary where they were interviewing U.S. military interegators.

Another example of how threats and intimidation appear to be effective and maybe should be allowed to some extent.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I don't know which dictionary you use, but my New American Webster College Dictionary 3rd ed. does't mention threat. Coercion is force. Force doesn't work. What is the argument if it doesn't even work? Now threats and intimidation, I agree with you assuming some guidelines, but I don't think coersion has anything to do with the threat of using force. But I've been wrong before.

co·er·cion

co·er·cion [kō úrsh’n]
n
1. forcing somebody to do something: the use of force or threats to make people do things against their will
2. force used to compel somebody: force used to make somebody do something against his or her will



-co·er·cion·ar·y [kō úrsh’n èrree], adj
-co·er·cion·ist, n adj
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

If you've got microsoft word you can check it yourself under the dictionary feature under tools.

Another example of how threats and intimidation appear to be effective and maybe should be allowed to some extent.

Exactly but with this bills passing it will never be used again plus K.S.M. broke in two minutes under water boarding and water boarding also prevented an attack in the U.S. by a dirty bomb.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Webster let me down, that son of a ...

 

[Binary_Digit]

plus K.S.M. broke in two minutes under water boarding and water boarding also prevented an attack in the U.S. by a dirty bomb.

That I won't believe without a link. I have tried to verify that on Google with no luck, the closest being al'Qaeda operatives reportedly agreeing to talk after minutes on the water board. Nothing about a dirty bomb plot, not even a word about how reliable the information even was.

Even if it is consistently successful, that should be saved for only when we know 100% that there is in fact a "ticking time bomb" endangering lives, that the person actually knows the information we need, that there is no alternative way to get the information in time, and that the person is likely to tell us the truth under that kind of duress. Only then could I imagine that being morally just. But I really don't think it's very common to have the luxury of being certain of all those things at once. I would go so far as to say it's far-fetched.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That I won't believe without a link. I have tried to verify that on Google with no luck, the closest being al'Qaeda operatives reportedly agreeing to talk after minutes on the water board. Nothing about a dirty bomb plot, not even a word about how reliable the information even was.

Even if it is consistently successful, that should be saved for only when we know 100% that there is in fact a "ticking time bomb" endangering lives, that the person actually knows the information we need, that there is no alternative way to get the information in time, and that the person is likely to tell us the truth under that kind of duress. Only then could I imagine that being morally just. But I really don't think it's very common to have the luxury of being certain of all those things at once. I would go so far as to say it's far-fetched.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866&page=1

I agree that it shouldn't be regular practice but if the bill goes through it will never be able to be used because there is not an extenuating circumstance clause in amendment 1977 yet another reason why I think that passing the bill would be a huge mistake.

 

[Binary_Digit]

That says nothing about preventing a dirty bomb attack, or even whether the information he gave was useful. It only says he was "begging to confess," and that means very little. Most people would confess to killing Abraham Lincoln under torture.

 

[hipsterdufus]

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

What does this prove?

OK I'll admit it. Water Board my son and in two seconds I'll tell you that Bush is the best damn president ever!

I'll say that yes, there was a 9/11- Iraq link.

I would say almost anything to stop it.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Can't reward them that would be considered coercion. In fact you can't really interogate them at all they might get intimitaded and that would be in violation of the amendment.

Why do you hate you native tongue?

Reward is torture
war is peace
inarticulate is smart!

question: Have you read the amendment? I mean you hate language, so I would suspect you not even try Dr. Suess, let alone legal texts. Or, are you doing the "pundits told me so, and I believe them," routine?

"(d) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984. "

http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/mccain_text.html

You know what that means? ALL IT MEANS IS FOLLOW OUR OWN LAWS ALREADY ESTABLISHED UNDRED THE CONSITUTION AND RONALD REAGAN.

read for yourself! OMG, with the trash you spwed it's clear you never read this thing. OUR LAWS ALREADY DEFINED WHAT "degrading" means. lame. Much ado about nothing. This will not hinder the military or CIA.

 

[libertarian_knight]

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866&page=1

I agree that it shouldn't be regular practice but if the bill goes through it will never be able to be used because there is not an extenuating circumstance clause in amendment 1977 yet another reason why I think that passing the bill would be a huge mistake.

Cellophane wrapped over their face? Sound more like suffocating them.


"According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment. "

Hey is this the same al Libbi that they caught (in pakistan I believe) and said was al Queda's number three man, that wasn't? I remember his name, because it's almost like alibi.

 

[Red_Dave]

Is it immoral to kill/torture 1 to save 1,000,000 innocents?

The categorical imperative, when faced with contradictory choices, fails.
At that point, one must revert to the utilitarian model.

Is it moral to use chemical weapons on inocent people? *Makes woshing sound* There goes the moral high ground

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Is it moral to use chemical weapons on inocent people? *Makes woshing sound* There goes the moral high ground

I don't get this are you saying that we used chemical weapons on innocent people care to prove this?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why do you hate you native tongue?

Reward is torture
war is peace
inarticulate is smart!

question: Have you read the amendment? I mean you hate language, so I would suspect you not even try Dr. Suess, let alone legal texts. Or, are you doing the "pundits told me so, and I believe them," routine?

"(d) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984. "

http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/mccain_text.html

You know what that means? ALL IT MEANS IS FOLLOW OUR OWN LAWS ALREADY ESTABLISHED UNDRED THE CONSITUTION AND RONALD REAGAN.

read for yourself! OMG, with the trash you spwed it's clear you never read this thing. OUR LAWS ALREADY DEFINED WHAT "degrading" means. lame. Much ado about nothing. This will not hinder the military or CIA.

lmfao yes I rescended that comment already and you should really read the posts before you open your mouth because I've posted all this stuff that you put in here. But regardless according to the definition of coerce you will not even be able to threaten a terrorist suspect, good freaking plan man.

Questions for you have you rad the UNCAT definition of torture, it says that you will not be able to use coercive or mental techniques to interogate a suspect as for the reward idea do you really think that giving something to some one who would just as well assume to kill himself to kill an American, will get a person like that to talk?

Hay buddy read my posts before you come out here talking out of your ass I've read the bill and I've read the fifth eight and fourteenth amendments and the UNCAT definitions for torture and guess what giving civil rights to alQaeda members is freaking retarted and so are these people who are trying to make it seem that if you don't support amendment 1977 that by inference you support torture, when that is the furthest thing from the truth it's just that your definition of torture sucks, you think taking naked pictures of poor terrorists is torture :roll: gimme a freaking break.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Cellophane wrapped over their face? Sound more like suffocating them.


"According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment. "

Hey is this the same al Libbi that they caught (in pakistan I believe) and said was al Queda's number three man, that wasn't? I remember his name, because it's almost like alibi.

Terrorist attacks thwarted by coercive interogation techniques:

Terrorist Plots on U.S. soil We Have Discovered And Thwarted…

Here are just three of the many terrorist plots American intelligence units have uncovered and thwarted…

In 2002, U.S. agents caught a group of terrorists planning to hijack aircraft and wreak more havoc on innocent Americans.

In 2002, a group of terrorists were plotting to bomb U.S. apartment buildings. They planned to use a dirty bomb – i.e., a conventional bomb filled with radioactive material. Didn’t happen. U.S. intelligence agents discovered the plot. Under the McCain amendment, do you suppose their interrogation techniques included “degrading treatment”?

And in 2005, American intelligence operatives uncovered and foiled a plot to bomb New York subways. Were the interrogation methods used to stop this plot “degrading punishment”?

And, we’ve also stopped terrorists from committing atrocities elsewhere in the world.

In 2003, we helped to grab would-be hijackers before they could attack and destroy Heathrow Airport.

In 2004, we helped prevent two bombings in Britain. The terrorists were planning to target civilians.

We also exposed two plots to attack ships, one in the Arabian Gulf, the other in the Straits of Hormuz.


Your plea to help this nations enemies falls on deaf ears . . . atleast with me.

 

[DeeJayH]

I haven't seen the actual bill so I can't really argue against that but let me just say that yelling or slapping a terrorist subject would be even harder to regulate then torturing. The whole idea is to improve our image and thats what matters. Refusing this bill says 'Okay world. We condone torture because we turned down a No-Torture bill.' We're hated enough already. We don't need people to say we're torturing now.

sounds like the french
we are weak and a declining influence on the world, but our **** dont stink
there has to be a balance between ideals and the real world
coercive interrogation is done by cops, very effectively every day, and twice on sunday
eliminating it from the military's arsenal only makes us weaker, and therefor more vulnerable

 

[libertarian_knight]

lmfao yes I rescended that comment already and you should really read the posts before you open your mouth because I've posted all this stuff that you put in here. But regardless according to the definition of coerce you will not even be able to threaten a terrorist suspect, good freaking plan man.

Questions for you have you rad the UNCAT definition of torture, it says that you will not be able to use coercive or mental techniques to interogate a suspect as for the reward idea do you really think that giving something to some one who would just as well assume to kill himself to kill an American, will get a person like that to talk?

Hay buddy read my posts before you come out here talking out of your ass I've read the bill and I've read the fifth eight and fourteenth amendments and the UNCAT definitions for torture and guess what giving civil rights to alQaeda members is freaking retarted and so are these people who are trying to make it seem that if you don't support amendment 1977 that by inference you support torture, when that is the furthest thing from the truth it's just that your definition of torture sucks, you think taking naked pictures of poor terrorists is torture :roll: gimme a freaking break.

Well, if you don't say wrong things, you won't have to retract them.

I really don't care anymore that you feel upset because you support tortue. I've spent the better part of three years being told I love Saddam, which is utter rubbish.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well, if you don't say wrong things, you won't have to retract them.

I really don't care anymore that you feel upset because you support tortue. I've spent the better part of three years being told I love Saddam, which is utter rubbish.

Well, if you would follow the thread then I wouldn't have to explain myself to you would I?

That's the whole point you accuse me of supporting torture when that is an outright lie intended to skew the issue.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Well, if you would follow the thread then I wouldn't have to explain myself to you would I?

That's the whole point you accuse me of supporting torture when that is an outright lie intended to skew the issue.

What would you call wrapping cellophane around a person's face again? Tough love?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What would you call wrapping cellophane around a person's face again? Tough love?

Did I say that I agree with that? The issue is that this bill is going to take away the power of the military and intel communities to use any and all forms of coercive interogation techniques, this in effect will tie the hands of the interogators. This is a short sited amendment meant to pander to public opinion it seems to me that the president has now decided to fight the war on terror based on opinion polls. Like I said it's short sited and can only lead to ruin.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Did I say that I agree with that? The issue is that this bill is going to take away the power of the military and intel communities to use any and all forms of coercive interogation techniques, this in effect will tie the hands of the interogators. This is a short sited amendment meant to pander to public opinion it seems to me that the president has now decided to fight the war on terror based on opinion polls. Like I said it's short sited and can only lead to ruin.

You certainly implied you did, by frequently posting about and quoting articles and excerpts regarding water boarding, and thier benefits. Or did you just miss the part on how water boarding uses cellophane over the face?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You certainly implied you did, by frequently posting about and quoting articles and excerpts reagrding water boarding, and thier benefits. Or did you just miss the part on how water boarding uses cellophane over the face?

I wasn't aware that it was done with cellophane, if it is then I retract my statement that I don't agree with it because I do because waterboarding is effective and not life threatening but how would using cellophane simulate drowning I am under the impression that it is done with a cloth:

The current practice of waterboarding was known previously as "the water cure." It involves tying the victim to a board with the head lower than the feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation. However, it is relatively difficult to aspirate a large amount of water since the lungs are higher than the mouth, and the victim is unlikely actually to die if this is done by skilled practitioners.

 

[DeeJayH]

I wasn't aware that it was done with cellophane, if it is then I retract my statement that I don't agree with it because I do because waterboarding is effective and not life threatening but how would using cellophane simulate drowning I am under the impression that it is done with a cloth:

The current practice of waterboarding was known previously as "the water cure." It involves tying the victim to a board with the head lower than the feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation. However, it is relatively difficult to aspirate a large amount of water since the lungs are higher than the mouth, and the victim is unlikely actually to die if this is done by skilled practitioners.

thats my understanding of how waterboarding is done

 

[Saboteur]

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866&page=1

I agree that it shouldn't be regular practice but if the bill goes through it will never be able to be used because there is not an extenuating circumstance clause in amendment 1977 yet another reason why I think that passing the bill would be a huge mistake.

Do you know about the Malmedy Massacre committed by the Germans during WWII? They took some American P.O.W.'s, surrounded them with trucks that had covered boxes. The covers were removed to reveal machine guns which were then used to kill the P.O.W.'s. After the firing stopped they started call out American names like John and if someone answered they'd give them another round. Some P.O.W.'s luckily got away by running the minute they saw the guns.

After this incident the word spead. But there was no retribution carried out against the German P.O.W.'s. Instead the P.O.W.'s were interrogated without being tortured. The process was the same as the police do it now. They kept asking them to repeat their story looking for discrepancies. After they had filtered through several prisoners the main suspects of the massecre were brought one at a time into a room lit by a single candle sitting on a desk next to a bible and a crucifix. Three Americans were seated at the desk and began to ask questions of the German solider. All the Germans, believing they were at a trial confessed to their crimes.

After that most of them were killed via firing squad or hanged. But not one of them got their heads dunked under water of a German shepard siced on them or an unloaded gun's trigger pulled while at their heads. Nor did they receive any belly slaps or blows to the face....

That's how we used to do it. Now we're just wussing out and beating people, sometimes for no reason at all.

You keep saying that we're making it look like you support torture because you don't support bill 1977. But you haven't said that you didn't either.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Do you know about the Malmedy Massacre committed by the Germans during WWII? They took some American P.O.W.'s, surrounded them with trucks that had covered boxes. The covers were removed to reveal machine guns which were then used to kill the P.O.W.'s. After the firing stopped they started call out American names like John and if someone answered they'd give them another round. Some P.O.W.'s luckily got away by running the minute they saw the guns.

After this incident the word spead. But there was no retribution carried out against the German P.O.W.'s. Instead the P.O.W.'s were interrogated without being tortured. The process was the same as the police do it now. They kept asking them to repeat their story looking for discrepancies. After they had filtered through several prisoners the main suspects of the massecre were brought one at a time into a room lit by a single candle sitting on a desk next to a bible and a crucifix. Three Americans were seated at the desk and began to ask questions of the German solider. All the Germans, believing they were at a trial confessed to their crimes.

After that most of them were killed via firing squad or hanged. But not one of them got their heads dunked under water of a German shepard siced on them or an unloaded gun's trigger pulled while at their heads. Nor did they receive any belly slaps or blows to the face....

That's how we used to do it. Now we're just wussing out and beating people, sometimes for no reason at all.

You keep saying that we're making it look like you support torture because you don't support bill 1977. But you haven't said that you didn't either.

Thank you for proving my point that technique is considered coercive interogation according to the McCain amendments definition of torture you're not allowed to use mind games to interogate people, and now thanks to McCain tagging a bullshit amendment to the Military Appropriations bill techniques; such as those, will no longer be able to be employed.

I really suggest you actually read this legislation before you comment on it you can find it on the libary of congress web site.

 

[Saboteur]

Thank you for proving my point that technique is considered coercive interogation according to the McCain amendments definition of torture you're not allowed to use mind games to interogate people, and now thanks to McCain tagging a bullshit amendment to the Military Appropriations bill techniques; such as those, will no longer be able to be employed.

I really suggest you actually read this legislation before you comment on it you can find it on the libary of congress web site.

Actually, the technique that I explained was considered questionable even in 1945.

So were do you stand on torture at all?

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

I suggest you read this.

And I was nice enough to give you a link.