CIA Running Secret Terror Prisons

[ANAV]

Maybe if was ask them nicely, "Please tell me everything" it would work better.

Let me through a hypothetical situation at there;

If a known child sex offender was in custody and you had proof that he has a child hidden away that would die if not found, what would you do to him to get the information? Would you keep him in jail and let the child die? Or would you approve extreme measures by the police to do everything possible (including torture) to find out where the child is being hidden? What if it was your child, or that of a family member of friend?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Maybe if was ask them nicely, "Please tell me everything" it would work better.

Funny you should mention that. It seems in at least some cases, that actually works.

"some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subjects. They were nice to them."

"I often tell a prisoner right at the start what my attitude is! I consider a prisoner (i.e. a man who has been captured and disarmed and in a perfectly safe place) as out of the war, out of the picture, and thus, in a way, not an enemy … Notice that … I used the word "safe." That is the point: get the prisoner to a safe place, where even he knows … that it is all over. Then forget, as it were, the "enemy" stuff, and the "prisoner" stuff. I tell them to forget it, telling them I am talking as a human being to a human being."

http://www.budiansky.com/atlantic0506.html

Let me through a hypothetical situation at there;

If a known child sex offender was in custody and you had proof that he has a child hidden away that would die if not found, what would you do to him to get the information? Would you keep him in jail and let the child die? Or would you approve extreme measures by the police to do everything possible (including torture) to find out where the child is being hidden? What if it was your child, or that of a family member of friend?

Ticking Bombs and Torture Warrants
John Kleinig

There is a familiar argument that goes somewhat as follows:

An evil scientist, Dr Doom, has planted a nuclear device capable of devastating the whole of the Melbourne metropolitan area. However, he and his devilish plot are discovered only after the device has been activated, and it will explode within an hour. There is no way to evacuate the area in time. In such circumstances, would we not be justified in using whatever means necessary – including torture – to get Dr Doom to reveal the whereabouts of the device so that it can be deactivated?

Expecting our assent – even if grudging – proponents of the argument then go on to suggest that this shows the issue of torture to be less than cut-and-dried; it is not something to be absolutely prohibited, but a matter of circumstances. It is not whether but when. So, where and how shall we draw the line?

We have seen a lot of this kind of argument – most recently in The Age but especially since 9/11 – though in fact it was heard, and was even used to form public policy, well before that as others sought to address the challenges of terrorism. From 1987, when the Israeli government accepted the Landau Commission Report, until 1999 when its High Court finally ruled against it, what was euphemistically called “moderate physical pressure” was standardly employed by the General Security Service in Israel when interrogating those suspected of having terrorist connections. (It goes back further, of course, to British policies and practices in Northern Ireland.)

Some people use the ‘ticking bomb’ argument to justify the expanded use of torture. That was the way it was used in the Landau Report: the ticking bomb was used to sanction an almost routine use of torture in the Israeli war on terrorism. For others, though, the ticking bomb argument is appealed to in order to rule out such a resort. It is said to set the bar for its use impossibly high.

How should we understand it?

If faced with the situation I initially described, I guess that most of us, whatever we might think of torturing Dr Doom, would be somewhat relieved to have the bomb-defusing information tortured out of him. Perhaps, as Max Weber famously put it in his 1918 essay, ‘Politics as a Vocation’, we would prefer to have people in power who were not so concerned about their personal purity that they would give it priority over their commitment to the public good. Taking on a political role requires that we give a certain preference to the public weal, one that we might not otherwise accord it.

Nevertheless, if it takes the ticking bomb argument to justify torture, we might wonder whether it ever justifies any actual torture that we might encounter. For, consider what gives the ticking bomb argument such persuasiveness as it has:

First, it posits a known – and not merely a possible or even probable – threat. Second, there is a pressing need for action. Third, the threatened evil is of enormous magnitude. Fourth, only torture is likely to succeed in getting the information needed to avert the evil. Fifth, the person to be tortured is the perpetrator of the threat. And finally, as a result of the torture, the evil is very likely to be averted.

The first assumption requires that we can, if you will, ‘hear’ the ‘ticking bomb’, know it to be such, and know that unless deactivated it will go off. If torture is ever to be justified, it will have to be justified for the strongest possible reasons, and not simply because of a conjecture or hunch or even prima facie case that some evil will occur. Rarely, if ever, will we be as well placed as the argument supposes. Yet it is the known fact of there being a ‘ticking bomb’ that gives us the urgency and epistemic warrant required by the argument.

The second assumption focuses on the imminence of the danger – or at least on the need for immediate action if the evil is to be averted. This is not a situation in which one has the luxury of exploring too many – or any – alternatives. The bomb will go off in an hour. Any delay will be costly.

The third assumption envisions a catastrophe of such magnitude that only an upholder of the maxim, ‘let justice be done, though the heavens fall’, could be expected to cavil at the overriding of principle. Although not originally intended as such, the maxim might be considered a reductio ad absurdum. Any hesitation on the grounds of principle – a refusal to do what is necessary – will smack of a type of rule worship, moral self-indulgence, or a narcissistic concern with one’s own virtue, though the exact moral status of any such overriding is left unclear. Even so, we might wonder whether this is a case in which torture would be justified, or excusable, or merely regrettable, or sanctioned by a necessity that nevertheless leaves one’s hands dirty? Nevertheless, whatever we might want to say, in the ticking bomb argument there is some proportionality between the action to be taken and the end that is sought.

The fourth assumption is that we have good – or good enough – reasons to believe that other ways of getting this essential information (within the available time frame) will fail. Perhaps the device could be located using some other means – but not to our knowledge and almost certainly not within the present time frame. Torture is not resorted to simply as a convenient short cut or as something that will do the job. Here it answers the demands implicit in what is known as the principle of ‘the least restrictive alternative’, namely, that we should use the least costly means to the achievement of our ends.

The fifth assumption is that the person tortured is not an innocent conduit but the very one who has initiated the threat. The argument will not work nearly as well if Dr Doom is ‘encouraged’ to talk by torturing his baby daughter before his eyes – or even by torturing his ageing mother, should she just happen to know (but be unwilling to disclose) where the bomb has been hidden. It is not that Dr Doom has fewer rights than others, but that if those rights can be overridden, they can be more easily overridden in his case. If torture can be justified or rationalised at all, torture of the guilty for all-important ends whose endangerment they have initiated will provide the most plausible context.

The sixth and final assumption is that what is learned will – or will very likely – enable the threat to be averted. If the information that is sought will not enable the bomb to be deactivated, or if getting it will leave too little time for it to be deactivated, the justificatory story loses much of its momentum (as it does when Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry tortures the psychopathic Scorpio). If the bomb will go off anyway, what good and presumably ‘justifying’ end will be secured? Are good – and even reasonably well-grounded – intentions enough? Or do we, perhaps, as Kant seemed to think, still produce a morally better world by ‘punishing’ the miscreant in advance?

These are very strong assumptions, and in the form in which I have stated them they are unlikely to be replicated in the real world. Even so, how necessary they are, how interdependent they are, and whether they may be modified, still remain to be seen. But because the assumptions are so strong in the argument’s primary version, it does not immediately provide the kind of moral warrant sought by our current crop of users of the third degree or torture. For them, raisons d’état tend to constitute their own warrant, unconstrained by moral niceties.

web.gc.cuny.edu/Philosophy/kleinig_ticking_bombs.doc

 

[Calm2Chaos]

And that's ok with you? You're comfortable with sitting idly by and watching the United States of America torture its enemies? I'm sorry, but I want to live in America, not the USSR. We should set the standard for human rights, not pretend like it's a normal part of life. And we wonder why they hate us.

First off.... I don't wonder why they hate us. I don't care why they hate us. And I don't know a single person that wonders or cares why they hate us. This is some liberal horseshit put out there to make us feel bad. But people honestly don't worry about it, least not many anyway, not in my opinion.

Secondly....Yes it's ok with me. If they are torturing our ENEMIES (Terrorist) that are trying to kill us and our soldiers.. Yes i am ok with that !!!! If you come after my family then you deserve what you get. You want to not be tortured, don't blow **** up, don't assosiate with people that do. Don't aide, assist,feed,cloth, give sustanance to, medical treatment, advice or acceptance. If they start torturing American citizens, Then I will be completely outraged. I am not all to worried about human rights for people that don't act like humans. If terrorists rights need to be violated to save Americans then there screwed

No, humane interrogation techniques are better, because, among other reasons, they actually work better.

Because if torture works there going to tell you right? Torture works......They are not going to tell you this though. To do so would mean that it's hapening. Although they are going to use what they must to get the information. Nobody is all to fired up about saying we got the info through torture. And asking nicely i'm sure is a great second option for you. But I am thinking if your in charge of intelligence gathering we are screwed. How about after asking the terrorist to please give us the information that we then go and try and visit santa or the easter bunny. We all know that after a full day of killing children and woman that theres nothing more a terrorist wants to do then give up his secrets to a smooth talking representative of the great satan..

Yes there is a moral superiority in war, it's called utilitarianism. Maximize the good and minimize the bad. The amount of good that comes from torture does not outweigh the amount of bad that comes from it. Consistently. The experts I've seen are all in agreement. I've looked for compelling arguments that torture can lead to good information, and I've only found a few references to isolated cases. No trend, no consistent findings, no quotes from guys in the field, almost no credibility to the argument at all.

Once again, there will never be. They are not going to admit there succeses from torture. They have no problem with you thinking that it doesn't work. And unless you have been in multiple torture sessions then you are being told whatever they want you to hear. I can not prove it works, but I also can't prove it doesn't. i'm just not to concerned over the welfare of the throat cutters and kid killers.

But you keep looking for your moral highground on the pile of dead woman and children, innocents and soldiers alike.

Torturing terrorists is not a good way to fight terrorism. It's a good way to get more people to hate us enough to become terrorists themselves.

Because them being terrorist is our fault.
Then they get killed like the other terrorist.
Hell.... I'm for making being a terrorist to expensive. These people are murdering, killing, rabid animals. And they should be treated as such.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Funny you should mention that. It seems in at least some cases, that actually works.

"some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subjects. They were nice to them."

"I often tell a prisoner right at the start what my attitude is! I consider a prisoner (i.e. a man who has been captured and disarmed and in a perfectly safe place) as out of the war, out of the picture, and thus, in a way, not an enemy … Notice that … I used the word "safe." That is the point: get the prisoner to a safe place, where even he knows … that it is all over. Then forget, as it were, the "enemy" stuff, and the "prisoner" stuff. I tell them to forget it, telling them I am talking as a human being to a human being."

http://www.budiansky.com/atlantic0506.html



Ticking Bombs and Torture Warrants
John Kleinig

There is a familiar argument that goes somewhat as follows:

An evil scientist, Dr Doom, has planted a nuclear device capable of devastating the whole of the Melbourne metropolitan area. However, he and his devilish plot are discovered only after the device has been activated, and it will explode within an hour. There is no way to evacuate the area in time. In such circumstances, would we not be justified in using whatever means necessary – including torture – to get Dr Doom to reveal the whereabouts of the device so that it can be deactivated?

Expecting our assent – even if grudging – proponents of the argument then go on to suggest that this shows the issue of torture to be less than cut-and-dried; it is not something to be absolutely prohibited, but a matter of circumstances. It is not whether but when. So, where and how shall we draw the line?

We have seen a lot of this kind of argument – most recently in The Age but especially since 9/11 – though in fact it was heard, and was even used to form public policy, well before that as others sought to address the challenges of terrorism. From 1987, when the Israeli government accepted the Landau Commission Report, until 1999 when its High Court finally ruled against it, what was euphemistically called “moderate physical pressure” was standardly employed by the General Security Service in Israel when interrogating those suspected of having terrorist connections. (It goes back further, of course, to British policies and practices in Northern Ireland.)

Some people use the ‘ticking bomb’ argument to justify the expanded use of torture. That was the way it was used in the Landau Report: the ticking bomb was used to sanction an almost routine use of torture in the Israeli war on terrorism. For others, though, the ticking bomb argument is appealed to in order to rule out such a resort. It is said to set the bar for its use impossibly high.

How should we understand it?

If faced with the situation I initially described, I guess that most of us, whatever we might think of torturing Dr Doom, would be somewhat relieved to have the bomb-defusing information tortured out of him. Perhaps, as Max Weber famously put it in his 1918 essay, ‘Politics as a Vocation’, we would prefer to have people in power who were not so concerned about their personal purity that they would give it priority over their commitment to the public good. Taking on a political role requires that we give a certain preference to the public weal, one that we might not otherwise accord it.

Nevertheless, if it takes the ticking bomb argument to justify torture, we might wonder whether it ever justifies any actual torture that we might encounter. For, consider what gives the ticking bomb argument such persuasiveness as it has:

First, it posits a known – and not merely a possible or even probable – threat. Second, there is a pressing need for action. Third, the threatened evil is of enormous magnitude. Fourth, only torture is likely to succeed in getting the information needed to avert the evil. Fifth, the person to be tortured is the perpetrator of the threat. And finally, as a result of the torture, the evil is very likely to be averted.

The first assumption requires that we can, if you will, ‘hear’ the ‘ticking bomb’, know it to be such, and know that unless deactivated it will go off. If torture is ever to be justified, it will have to be justified for the strongest possible reasons, and not simply because of a conjecture or hunch or even prima facie case that some evil will occur. Rarely, if ever, will we be as well placed as the argument supposes. Yet it is the known fact of there being a ‘ticking bomb’ that gives us the urgency and epistemic warrant required by the argument.

The second assumption focuses on the imminence of the danger – or at least on the need for immediate action if the evil is to be averted. This is not a situation in which one has the luxury of exploring too many – or any – alternatives. The bomb will go off in an hour. Any delay will be costly.

The third assumption envisions a catastrophe of such magnitude that only an upholder of the maxim, ‘let justice be done, though the heavens fall’, could be expected to cavil at the overriding of principle. Although not originally intended as such, the maxim might be considered a reductio ad absurdum. Any hesitation on the grounds of principle – a refusal to do what is necessary – will smack of a type of rule worship, moral self-indulgence, or a narcissistic concern with one’s own virtue, though the exact moral status of any such overriding is left unclear. Even so, we might wonder whether this is a case in which torture would be justified, or excusable, or merely regrettable, or sanctioned by a necessity that nevertheless leaves one’s hands dirty? Nevertheless, whatever we might want to say, in the ticking bomb argument there is some proportionality between the action to be taken and the end that is sought.

The fourth assumption is that we have good – or good enough – reasons to believe that other ways of getting this essential information (within the available time frame) will fail. Perhaps the device could be located using some other means – but not to our knowledge and almost certainly not within the present time frame. Torture is not resorted to simply as a convenient short cut or as something that will do the job. Here it answers the demands implicit in what is known as the principle of ‘the least restrictive alternative’, namely, that we should use the least costly means to the achievement of our ends.

The fifth assumption is that the person tortured is not an innocent conduit but the very one who has initiated the threat. The argument will not work nearly as well if Dr Doom is ‘encouraged’ to talk by torturing his baby daughter before his eyes – or even by torturing his ageing mother, should she just happen to know (but be unwilling to disclose) where the bomb has been hidden. It is not that Dr Doom has fewer rights than others, but that if those rights can be overridden, they can be more easily overridden in his case. If torture can be justified or rationalised at all, torture of the guilty for all-important ends whose endangerment they have initiated will provide the most plausible context.

The sixth and final assumption is that what is learned will – or will very likely – enable the threat to be averted. If the information that is sought will not enable the bomb to be deactivated, or if getting it will leave too little time for it to be deactivated, the justificatory story loses much of its momentum (as it does when Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry tortures the psychopathic Scorpio). If the bomb will go off anyway, what good and presumably ‘justifying’ end will be secured? Are good – and even reasonably well-grounded – intentions enough? Or do we, perhaps, as Kant seemed to think, still produce a morally better world by ‘punishing’ the miscreant in advance?

These are very strong assumptions, and in the form in which I have stated them they are unlikely to be replicated in the real world. Even so, how necessary they are, how interdependent they are, and whether they may be modified, still remain to be seen. But because the assumptions are so strong in the argument’s primary version, it does not immediately provide the kind of moral warrant sought by our current crop of users of the third degree or torture. For them, raisons d’état tend to constitute their own warrant, unconstrained by moral niceties.

web.gc.cuny.edu/Philosophy/kleinig_ticking_bombs.doc

Admitedly I didn't read your whole response to that post. But I did notice one thing... You never actually answered the question he put forward to you...hmmmm

 

[Binary_Digit]

First off.... I don't wonder why they hate us. I don't care why they hate us.

Considering there's a difference between understanding and excusing, I don't see how you can NOT want to better understand why things like Sept. 11th happen. Understanding the causes, and removing those causes, is the only way to prevent it from happening again. I'm sure you can agree with that.

Terrorists aren't the cause. They are a symptom. The cause is centered on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East since 1953, dubbed "the folley of intervention" by historians. Please take a look at this article, it really explains a lot:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

If you come after my family then you deserve what you get. You want to not be tortured, don't blow **** up, don't assosiate with people that do.

Most people in the Middle East would tell us the same thing. America has been going after Middle Eastern families for decades, by way of UN sanctions. Sanctions cause civilians to suffer and die from starvation and disease. And Madeline Albricht said this is "worth it." Nobody who knows history would argue that America is not without fault in this war on terror.

Because if torture works there going to tell you right? Torture works......They are not going to tell you this though. To do so would mean that it's hapening. Although they are going to use what they must to get the information. Nobody is all to fired up about saying we got the info through torture.

Once again, there will never be. They are not going to admit there succeses from torture. They have no problem with you thinking that it doesn't work. And unless you have been in multiple torture sessions then you are being told whatever they want you to hear. I can not prove it works, but I also can't prove it doesn't. i'm just not to concerned over the welfare of the throat cutters and kid killers.

With all due respect, that argument is a copout. Any 3rd grader can say the government is hiding the "real" truth from us, which ironically enough would just happen to "prove" your case. :2razz:

And asking nicely i'm sure is a great second option for you. But I am thinking if your in charge of intelligence gathering we are screwed. How about after asking the terrorist to please give us the information that we then go and try and visit santa or the easter bunny.

Perhaps my argument has been too one-sided, and I've misrepresented myself. I'm not standing against "not nice" interrogation. I am against *extremely* not nice interrogation. Beatings, burns, electric shock, etc.

Because them being terrorist is our fault.

Ironcially, there's a lot of truth in your sarcasm.

Admitedly I didn't read your whole response to that post. But I did notice one thing... You never actually answered the question he put forward to you...hmmmm

You didn't see my answer because you didn't read the whole response. It paints an even better scenario to justify torture than the one ANAV suggested, analyzes all the assumptions, and makes a conclusion that I agree with. The whole thing is my answer. If all those assumptions could be met, I would support torturing Dr. Doom. But since reality won't hand us that kind of situation on a silver platter, I don't think torture will ever be that justified in a real situation.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Considering there's a difference between understanding and excusing, I don't see how you can NOT want to better understand why things like Sept. 11th happen. Understanding the causes, and removing those causes, is the only way to prevent it from happening again. I'm sure you can agree with that.

I agree ... But all the understanding in the world is not going to change the fact that there murdering animals.

Terrorists aren't the cause. They are a symptom. The cause is centered on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East since 1953, dubbed "the folley of intervention" by historians. Please take a look at this article, it really explains a lot:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

The symptom is killing 1000's all over the world. The symptom has absolutely no consideration for civilians, woman, children and innocents.

Lets face it.. Our foriegn policy sucks on many levels IMO. I know it's far from perfect. Let face something else also. The ME has been a **** hole for centuries. Our foriegn policy did not cause the downfall of the ME society or value system. There leaders did this and continue to do it. They use there utter and complete oppression of there people to churn out killers. The famine and poverty are not the making of the US. It is the making of there leaders repeatdly raping there very own society for there own benifit.

Most people in the Middle East would tell us the same thing. America has been going after Middle Eastern families for decades, by way of UN sanctions. Sanctions cause civilians to suffer and die from starvation and disease. And Madeline Albricht said this is "worth it." Nobody who knows history would argue that America is not without fault in this war on terror.

I don't want sanctions personaly. I would rather pull every soldier, every dollar, every interest, every american company out of the ME. Let there leaders take care of there own people. And if they crash and burn, then we fill the space with someone less likely to hunt us for sport. We keep them in there "area" not because we want to oppress them. But because we don't want them infecting or killing others with there hate and there violence around the globe. That being said.... As useless as the UN is. It is the forum used by the global community to try and riegn in the mavericks that seem to pop up. Oddly they seem to pop up in the ME a lot. There has to be some recourse for your actions or inactions. Your anoyed by sanctions and by a military option. I believe the reality of the situation is clear. You have some people that are going to take what they want and don't care who says what about it. And they will continue this until forced to stop. The fact that sanctions don't work is a testimony to the complete lack of compassion or concern for there very own people. This would seem to be enough to raise these people to oust the men that are slowly letting them die. But instead they join the group that straps C4 to there chest and kills children

With all due respect, that argument is a copout. Any 3rd grader can say the government is hiding the "real" truth from us, which ironically enough would just happen to "prove" your case. :2razz:

The point is, I don't think tere going to announce how well torture works for getting info. It's still a public relations game in the end. And when your trying to fight a PC war you better make sure you cover those PC bases

Perhaps my argument has been too one-sided, and I've misrepresented myself. I'm not standing against "not nice" interrogation. I am against *extremely* not nice interrogation. Beatings, burns, electric shock, etc.

The difference being? What the middle ground there, yelling at them with an angry look on your face?

Ironcially, there's a lot of truth in your sarcasm.

Not Really .... They decided on there own to be murdering animals. There leaders filled them with asinine ideas and they accepted it.

You didn't see my answer because you didn't read the whole response. It paints an even better scenario to justify torture than the one ANAV suggested, analyzes all the assumptions, and makes a conclusion that I agree with. The whole thing is my answer. If all those assumptions could be met, I would support torturing Dr. Doom. But since reality won't hand us that kind of situation on a silver platter, I don't think torture will ever be that justified in a real situation.

I like the original question because it was short, sweet and straight forward.

The answer: You do whatever it take to get the information needed to save the child. He gave up his right to be treated fairly when he decided to kidnap a child

 

[Binary_Digit]

Why didn't you read the article I linked?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

 

[SixStringHero]

I don't think dying would be better, but when it comes down to it I think this should only be a last resort when we know without a doubt that said prisoner knows life saving information.

And we should never relish in the fact and make such a practice common place. That to me, would set a dangerous precedent.

 

[Donkey1499]

Does this sort of secrecy threaten a society that is suppose to be free and open?









http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051102...sETv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Of course the CIA wouldn't admit its existance. Because then the cells wouldn't be "secret". And so what if they have "secret" prisons? We don't need that scum here, they ain't even Americans. So why should they be subject to American Laws?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Why didn't you read the article I linked?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

It's read... And I undertsand the policy ramifications. Hell I even said that our foriegn policy is a problem. We have made a lot of bad choices and backed some bad people. Not to say that ALL have been bad. Just to say that it all hasn't been good.But the death and strife in the ME did not start with us. No matter how much you might like to think that it did. The area is a mess and was long before we got there. Your either all in or all out as far as this region goes. My vote is to pull out, pull everything out. We are not the cause for the death and the poverty in this region. It was there along with oppression long before we arrived.

Doesn't change anything I said in my last post though.

The article as a whole I find suspect when one of the first person listed in his notes to thank was noam chomsky.

 

[Deegan]

Why didn't you read the article I linked?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

I read it, and it's nothing new, blah blah blah, blame America, blame Israel, blame everyone but the religious fanatics who cut out their womans genitels, govern by fear and brutality, and preach hatred for anyone who does not subscribe to their Muslim religion, the "infidels". I guess I missed that part in this fine gentlemans rhetoric, I also did not hear much about how if not for us, they would most likely be speaking Russian, and may not have a religion anymore. Yes, we secured the oil we needed to defend these ignorant bastards, but do we ever hear a thank you, hell no, only how we are so evil, and screwed up the M.E, like that's possible, LOL.:roll:

 

[gordon]

I read it, and it's nothing new, blah blah blah, blame America, blame Israel, blame everyone but the religious fanatics who cut out their womans genitels, govern by fear and brutality, and preach hatred for anyone who does not subscribe to their Muslim religion, the "infidels". I guess I missed that part in this fine gentlemans rhetoric, I also did not hear much about how if not for us, they would most likely be speaking Russian, and may not have a religion anymore. Yes, we secured the oil we needed to defend these ignorant bastards, but do we ever hear a thank you, hell no, only how we are so evil, and screwed up the M.E, like that's possible, LOL.:roll:

no it is nothing new America has quite a history on covert ops
Only to Americans would this be a revelation
The world Already knows all about the iran contra and drug dealing cia and the covert ops to train al queda etc...
American history the real history not the **** you learn in school would make you pee your pants

 

[TimmyBoy]

no it is nothing new America has quite a history on covert ops
Only to Americans would this be a revelation
The world Already knows all about the iran contra and drug dealing cia and the covert ops to train al queda etc...
American history the real history not the **** you learn in school would make you pee your pants

Heh heh, you know about the CIA dealing drugs. I usually don't mention it because most Americans would think I was nuts if I did. I am not 100% sure if the CIA has done such things, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I have heard alot dealing with these allegations.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

So, ..who gives a damn? I do not advocate justice for known terrorists, or those that support terrorists; & mark anybody for death in their typical reprobate islamic ideology.

I prefer them all dead, ..those that seek out, & murder, & draw no distinction between combatins, & non-combatins, & revel in beheadings, & the videoing of their murders in order to terrorize, AND the same who chant DEATH to America, & DEATH to Israel as well!

The sons a bytches should have NO rights; except the right to choose in which fashion they should be put to death by!

Be assured, ..if the "internationalist" appeasers, & apologists (mainstream liberal media) are hell bent on setting them free because the g-damn intellectual liberals want to BELIEVE they should have rights for such savages as they are, & in fact THEY destroy everybody's elses right to even live, ...they can rest assure themselves they will be rounding them up again but only AFTER they have wrecked more murder, & savagery upon the rest of civilized society.

Terrorists, ..who have NO respect for the rule of law....& yet the g-damn liberals are more concerned about their so called "rights"!!

My only wish is, is that the milque toast liberals are not themselves running loose in Iraq at the very mercy of the terror bastards themselves.

Perhaps a personal experience with the terror savages would help to re-educate them real quick like.

I do not want to see terrorists, & terror supporters mistreated in prisons. Hell no; ...I prefer they get liquidated on the battlefield while engaging the forces of freedom.

Its the whacko liberal who wants to "debate" guilt, or innocence for the terrorists in an american court type setting after they have surrendured, ..& even some idiots like democrat Dick Durbin even have suggested that terrorists recieve "constitutional rights"??????

ABSOLUTE INSANITY, ..but now that also describes the modern democratic party of today quite well, now doesn't it?:shock:

 

[Lucidthots]

Does this sort of secrecy threaten a society that is suppose to be free and open?

 

[Binary_Digit]

It's read... And I undertsand the policy ramifications. Hell I even said that our foriegn policy is a problem. We have made a lot of bad choices and backed some bad people. Not to say that ALL have been bad. Just to say that it all hasn't been good.But the death and strife in the ME did not start with us. No matter how much you might like to think that it did. The area is a mess and was long before we got there. Your either all in or all out as far as this region goes. My vote is to pull out, pull everything out. We are not the cause for the death and the poverty in this region. It was there along with oppression long before we arrived.

Doesn't change anything I said in my last post though.

The article as a whole I find suspect when one of the first person listed in his notes to thank was noam chomsky.

If you read it, then why do you still say things like "the symptom is killing 1000's all over the world. The symptom has absolutely no consideration for civilians, woman, children and innocents." ? America's involvement in the ME has been a catalyst for exactly what you describe. We didn't do it on purpose, I'm sure. And we definately weren't the only factor. But you cannot solve a problem by discounting all of your own responsibility in the problem. That's irresponsible and dishonest.

You claim to understand the policy ramifications of Truman breaking his promise to Iran and leaving the country to collapse in economic ruin. You claim to understand the policy ramifications of Israel launching massive raids against entire villages to retaliate against a handful of violent refugees. You claim to understand the policy ramifications of U.S.-endorsed sanctions that are responsible for more civilian death than all the terrorist attacks in modern history combined. But when it comes to terrorists, everything is fair game, because they target civilians!

Let me be clear that I'm NOT defending terrorists, dictators, religious fanatics, or anyone else! I'm not that stupid! I am only condemning our part in the problem. Unfortunately, people like Stu interpret this to mean I'm sympathizing with the terrorists. He can't separate understanding from excusing. He doesn't understand the fact, or the irony, that we are accused of the same sort of atrocities he points to in order to justify not trying to understand why we are accused. The cycle of violence will continue as long as this mentality exists on either side. No disagreement is ever peacefully resolved when there is a blatent lack of desire to understand the disagreement.

The only way to prevent another 9/11 is to remove the causes. The only way to remove the causes is to first understand them. We have only focused our efforts on one of the causes: the terrorists. We have not adequately focused on the other cause: why they're pissed off at us. We are in denial of the answer to that question, and thus, it's only a matter of time before another one happens.

So I'm with you on one thing Calm2Chaos, we should not be over there asserting ourselves and our interests.

 

[President.Bush]

Bend the **** over, and I will make a secret terror prison in your ****ing ass. Worship me.

 

[alienken]

Heh heh, you know about the CIA dealing drugs. I usually don't mention it because most Americans would think I was nuts if I did. I am not 100% sure if the CIA has done such things, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I have heard alot dealing with these allegations.

Yes, the CIA is the modern day boogey men. It's why the congress stripped their funding, i think in the mid 1970's. This is why the Bush admin had to depend on British intellegence so much leading up to the Iraq war. How can the CIA have operatives all over the world when they are grossly underfunded?....I am all for the secret prisons. They need more power to do the things necessary to get information. I just wish they could keep it secret.By the way, why is OK for the media to expose top secret installations but it is SOo terrible that Wilsons wife was re-identified as a CIA agent who had not been covert for 5 years? ANSWER: Media cares about keeping secret CIA info secret only when it hurts the Bush admin.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

If you read it, then why do you still say things like "the symptom is killing 1000's all over the world. The symptom has absolutely no consideration for civilians, woman, children and innocents." ? America's involvement in the ME has been a catalyst for exactly what you describe. We didn't do it on purpose, I'm sure. And we definately weren't the only factor. But you cannot solve a problem by discounting all of your own responsibility in the problem. That's irresponsible and dishonest.

Because I am not about to go and release them from there deeds like you.. THEY are killing 1000's, nobody is forcing them to pull the trigger or light the fuse. THEY are actively targeting woman and children. You seem all to willing to dismiss these murderers because there are politics going on n the ME. Sorry but they are to b lame for the deaths. They think, plan and institute plans to kill others. And I think its naive to think that majority of these murdering scumbags are political activist. I think this has a lot more to do with religious meaning then political deals.

You claim to understand the policy ramifications of Truman breaking his promise to Iran and leaving the country to collapse in economic ruin. You claim to understand the policy ramifications of Israel launching massive raids against entire villages to retaliate against a handful of violent refugees. You claim to understand the policy ramifications of U.S.-endorsed sanctions that are responsible for more civilian death than all the terrorist attacks in modern history combined. But when it comes to terrorists, everything is fair game, because they target civilians!

Isreal has to defend itself. There is no way of telling who the bombers are. They are fighting back the same way they are being fought against.

So no war and no sanctions.. you leave no alternatives for retaliation or defense. So I guess we appease them with whatever they want and hopefully they don't attack us again? If they do though we just give them more and hide in the corner from them?

Like it or not we need the oil. We should have been well into the development of alternative fuels and resources by now. Theres no way to keep a hands off policy when we are so dependent on that import. And if left up to there own devices I have no doubt our industry would be no where near its current success. And we would be paying 30 bux a gallon for gas.

But we also have not been spending the last 40 years randomly invading the ME and killing its citizens. We have backed those that we thought supported our cause. And lets face it, our decisions in this regaurd are not good to say the least. But when your pumpimg that much time, money, technology and lives into a region. Your going to want some sort of stability and assurance. Let also remeber that with out the US the ME would still be a complete and utter **** hole with little industry and less prospects. Theres good that came with the bad, and thats usually the way it works.

Let me be clear that I'm NOT defending terrorists, dictators, religious fanatics, or anyone else! I'm not that stupid! I am only condemning our part in the problem. Unfortunately, people like Stu interpret this to mean I'm sympathizing with the terrorists. He can't separate understanding from excusing. He doesn't understand the fact, or the irony, that we are accused of the same sort of atrocities he points to in order to justify not trying to understand why we are accused. The cycle of violence will continue as long as this mentality exists on either side. No disagreement is ever peacefully resolved when there is a blatent lack of desire to understand the disagreement.

They want us gone, thats pretty much the gist of it. And we aren't leaving. In some cases we entered on our own and on othes we were invited in by the government. But in either case they don't want us there. So it's a no win situation. There beef it seems should be with there leaders and not with us. They should be rioting against those that have kept the enormous wealth flowing through that region for themselves. But instead build palaces one after another instead of helping there own people to advance from their poverty. Build alternative industries and technologies to create work and a future for the same people that are dying from that poverty. This isn't our job to do though. We have our interest, maybe the people that are running these countries should have some intrest in there own people....

The only way to prevent another 9/11 is to remove the causes. The only way to remove the causes is to first understand them. We have only focused our efforts on one of the causes: the terrorists. We have not adequately focused on the other cause: why they're pissed off at us. We are in denial of the answer to that question, and thus, it's only a matter of time before another one happens.

They want us out. I don't think its all that complicated. But I think thats not the only reason they hate us. They also hates us because we are not them. We don't belive what they belive and there book says that we should die for that. There is not a lot you can say or do to combat that kind of thinking.

So I'm with you on one thing Calm2Chaos, we should not be over there asserting ourselves and our interests.

I say we pull everything out of the area. But with that we take our industry our technology our money our support and our aid. When I say out I mean out totally.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Bend the **** over, and I will make a secret terror prison in your ****ing ass. Worship me.

Your fukn brilliant.. You should be impressed with yourself for that insight peice of information. Don't you have school or something to occupy you?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Because I am not about to go and release them from there deeds like you.. THEY are killing 1000's, nobody is forcing them to pull the trigger or light the fuse. THEY are actively targeting woman and children. You seem all to willing to dismiss these murderers because there are politics going on n the ME. Sorry but they are to b lame for the deaths. They think, plan and institute plans to kill others. And I think its naive to think that majority of these murdering scumbags are political activist. I think this has a lot more to do with religious meaning then political deals.

Release them from their deeds? What?!? I guess I wasn't clear enough when I said "Let me be clear that I'm NOT defending terrorists, dictators, religious fanatics, or anyone else! I'm not that stupid! I am only condemning our part in the problem." Are you saying you don't understand the difference between understanding and excusing either? I've been consistent, I'm not dismissing anything. I'm pointing at our part of the problem, but somehow you're taking that as though I'm blaming America for the whole damn thing. I'm not!

As for "religious" motivation, I think that's another road block to understanding the problem:

"In an interview with The American Conservative magazine, Robert Pape, author of the book Dying to Win, said "The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign — over 95 percent of all the incidents — has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Terrorist_view

So no war and no sanctions.. you leave no alternatives for retaliation or defense. So I guess we appease them with whatever they want and hopefully they don't attack us again? If they do though we just give them more and hide in the corner from them?

I'm not arguing against retaliation. I don't have a problem with self-defense. I have a problem with using it as the only solution. I have a problem with pretending they are the only ones responsible for civilian death and suffering. I have a problem with completely ignoring the points they make, believing instead that it's nothing more than religious fanaticsm that drives their hatred.

But we also have not been spending the last 40 years randomly invading the ME and killing its citizens. We have backed those that we thought supported our cause. And lets face it, our decisions in this regaurd are not good to say the least. But when your pumpimg that much time, money, technology and lives into a region. Your going to want some sort of stability and assurance. Let also remeber that with out the US the ME would still be a complete and utter **** hole with little industry and less prospects. Theres good that came with the bad, and thats usually the way it works.

That's a good point. Nobody knows how many problems the ME would have without America's involvement, or if the situation would be better or worse than it is now. But like you said, our decisions haven't always been the best. And like I said, we didn't do it on purpose, I'm sure. And we definately weren't the only factor. But you cannot solve a problem by discounting all of your own responsibility in the problem. And, to stress this point again, that does NOT mean blame yourself for the entire thing. That would be just as dishonest as pretending we aren't to blame at all. Both sides are at fault, but I'm focusing on America's responsibility in the problem because it gets less attention over here. Not because it's worse or less justified or anything else. That's another debate.

I say we pull everything out of the area. But with that we take our industry our technology our money our support and our aid. When I say out I mean out totally.

More and more I agree with that.

 

[alienken]

"In an interview with The American Conservative magazine, Robert Pape, author of the book Dying to Win, said "The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign — over 95 percent of all the incidents — has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Terrorist_view


I'm not arguing against retaliation. I don't have a problem with self-defense. I have a problem with using it as the only solution. I have a problem with pretending they are the only ones responsible for civilian death and suffering. I have a problem with completely ignoring the points they make, believing instead that it's nothing more than religious fanaticsm that drives their hatred.

1).The strategy to get a democratic state to withdraw may be the goal but they use an extream twisted version of the Muslim religion to pull it off. The rewards from ala,the virgins,etc..2).Self defense IS the only solution.You can't make nice with these people. There goal is to kill us and to stop them we must kill them first! 3). They are not the only ones responsible for civilian death but they are responsible for OUR civilian death-remember Sept. 11?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Release them from their deeds? What?!? I guess I wasn't clear enough when I said "Let me be clear that I'm NOT defending terrorists, dictators, religious fanatics, or anyone else! I'm not that stupid! I am only condemning our part in the problem." Are you saying you don't understand the difference between understanding and excusing either? I've been consistent, I'm not dismissing anything. I'm pointing at our part of the problem, but somehow you're taking that as though I'm blaming America for the whole damn thing. I'm not!

As for "religious" motivation, I think that's another road block to understanding the problem:

"In an interview with The American Conservative magazine, Robert Pape, author of the book Dying to Win, said "The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign — over 95 percent of all the incidents — has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Terrorist_view


I'm not arguing against retaliation. I don't have a problem with self-defense. I have a problem with using it as the only solution. I have a problem with pretending they are the only ones responsible for civilian death and suffering. I have a problem with completely ignoring the points they make, believing instead that it's nothing more than religious fanaticsm that drives their hatred.


That's a good point. Nobody knows how many problems the ME would have without America's involvement, or if the situation would be better or worse than it is now. But like you said, our decisions haven't always been the best. And like I said, we didn't do it on purpose, I'm sure. And we definately weren't the only factor. But you cannot solve a problem by discounting all of your own responsibility in the problem. And, to stress this point again, that does NOT mean blame yourself for the entire thing. That would be just as dishonest as pretending we aren't to blame at all. Both sides are at fault, but I'm focusing on America's responsibility in the problem because it gets less attention over here. Not because it's worse or less justified or anything else. That's another debate.


More and more I agree with that.

There is NO room for negotiation or interpretation. There is NO room for caring or understanding. There is NO room for discussion or peace. There is NO room for anything until they STOP killing people. There is NO room for anything until they stop targeting the innocent. There is NO room for anything until they start to act like human beings and not religious zealots and fanatics.