Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[RedskinsFan44]

25 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 my big takeaway was that defining torture is kinda like defining porn. But I know it when I see it ...

 

Maybe that is why they destroyed the tapes.

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

On the question of what is/what isn't "Torture" wasn't the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" purposely made up in order to muddy the waters on that question?

 

 

I believe so.  But that is just my opinion.  Doesn't change the question though.

2 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

Maybe that is why they destroyed the tapes.

Look!  Someone else unable to define it.  Care to address the points made?

[visionary]

11 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

Maybe that is why they destroyed the tapes.

Good point.  It is one thing to talk about something, but another to watch it play out  and see it’s effects on someone’s mind and body.

[The Evil Genius]

It's already defined in code.

 

18 USC § 2340 - 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

 

And yes, I know Dubya's admin gave themselves an out in 2006 with the Military Commissions Act. This is because they were afraid they were violating the 1996 War Crimes Act (they were).

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RedskinsFan44]

9 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I believe so.  But that is just my opinion.  Doesn't change the question though.

Look!  Someone else unable to define it.  Care to address the points made?

One way would be to take into account if we would consider it torture if an adversary used it on our troops. I think there is a pretty strong consensus that waterboarding is torture.A lot of the argument I here from the defenders of these techniques is that they work, not that they aren't torture.
 

 

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

On the question of what is/what isn't "Torture" wasn't the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" purposely made up in order to muddy the waters on that question?

 

 

 

Absolutely. If you read the UN's definition it's very specific - then ends with an exception of "unless it's legal." It's not a coincidence that everyone with any potential responsibility for it is using the words they're using...

 

It's unreasonable to not expect the definition of torture to change over time. Science and research show us how things can be damaging that weren't thought to be so beforehand. We also just grow as people and care more about certain things.

 

What is unreasonable is to use a word that has no concise definition and then go after people using it. If we can't at least define what we're talking about, then the conversation is pointless.

 

 

18 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

Maybe that is why they destroyed the tapes.

 

That and to get rid of direct evidence of who did exactly what.

 

They're not wholly lying when they say they were trying to protect their people

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Two, you made a good point about "torture".  I'd like to hear what people think is torture and what isn't.  Is it a physical and/or mental thing?  Drill bit through the knee cap I think we can all agree is torture.  I think most here would say pretty much all physical considerations would be torture.  So what about mental?  Waterboarding is a mental treatment.  I imagine most here would be against it.  What about sleep deprivation?  Is that torture or just softening up the mind a bit?  Is there an hours limit?  What about good cop/bad cop?  Not in a violent manner but someone walks in and acts like a jerk then someone else comes in and plays good cop.  That could easily be mental torture.  Point is where is your line?  And why does that need to be the line of the whole country?  Like tshile said, the questions were far too broad.

 

Everyone seems to pretty much skip points 1 and 3 I made.  But 2 was probably the most important anyways so I will quote it.  Please note I said "Waterboarding is a mental treatment.  I imagine most here would be against it."  But what about the rest of the statement?  If you notice, the law pretty much draws the line at the word "severe".  Who defines that?  And are you willing to admit that just asking someone if they are against torture is far to broad a question when so many options are available with differing definitions?

[RedskinsFan44]

20 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Absolutely. If you read the UN's definition it's very specific - then ends with an exception of "unless it's legal." It's not a coincidence that everyone with any potential responsibility for it is using the words they're using...

 

It's unreasonable to not expect the definition of torture to change over time. Science and research show us how things can be damaging that weren't thought to be so beforehand. We also just grow as people and care more about certain things.

 

What is unreasonable is to use a word that has no concise definition and then go after people using it. If we can't at least define what we're talking about, then the conversation is pointless.

 

 

 

That and to get rid of direct evidence of who did exactly what.

 

They're not wholly lying when they say they were trying to protect their people

 

If only there was some way to obscure people's identity on video...

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

If only there was some way to obscure people's identity on video...

You seem to enjoy avoiding points made in lieu of making snarky posts.  twa, is that you? 

[visionary]

 

[RedskinsFan44]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

You seem to enjoy avoiding points made in lieu of making snarky posts.  twa, is that you? 

Claiming the tape was destroyed to protect id's is absurd. I made my point that I don't believe the debate is about what torture is but rather is it alright to use it. I also gave you my criteria for defining torture, which is would it be considered torture if done to US troops. I am highly confident 99% of Americans would not be ok with what was on those tapes being done to our guys. Probably close to half would be ok with it being done to terrorists, particularly if we don't have to see it and we call it enhanced interrogation. That's  as deep into the torture subject as I care to go.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Two, you made a good point about "torture".  I'd like to hear what people think is torture and what isn't.  Is it a physical and/or mental thing?  Drill bit through the knee cap I think we can all agree is torture.  I think most here would say pretty much all physical considerations would be torture.

 

I can tell you what the arguments were, on ES, back when the GOP was first trying to justify torture.  

 

Side note:  I'll point out that a lot of the folks in Washington's opinions on the matter, vary depending on which letter is after the name of the current occupant of the White house.  When W is trying to justify it, a lot of R's were gung ho on justifying it, too.  Then Obama took office, and he's a horrible President because he didn't outlaw it, and didn;t close GTMO.  The fact that the R's in Congress forbid him from doing so is brushed aside.  Then Trump comes in, outright making it a campaign promise that he's eager to fire it up again, and they're trying to justify it again.  And yes, a lot of Dems also flip flopped, just in the opposite directions.

 

One game that was popular back then, was to loudly announce that "The US doesn't torture".  But to then attempt to come up with all kinds of reasons why the things which we do do, don't count.  

 

I recall several posters loudly announcing, repeatedly, that If there exists some form of abuse that's worse than the one we're discussing, then the one we're discussing isn't torture. (And, since I claim it's not torture, therefore it's perfectly OK with me, since as we all know, any act that doesn't fit my intentionally narrow definition means it's perfectly OK to use on anybody we want.)

 

My low opinion of Congress causes me to believe that one reason why you were hearing the word "torture" thrown around, was Senators who were actively wanting her to play the "loudly condemn the word 'torture'.  And then, after you've cleared the confirmation, you can go ahead and do all of the 'things we claim aren't torture' things." game.  

[Cooked Crack]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I wasn't around for those conversations I don't believe.  And it says something quite sad about our politicians and our society that whether or not is torture depend on the letter after your name.  

 

We don't need to totally rehash "what is torture" here but I just want people to admit that it isn't a clear cut definition.  And that is why the question was garbage.  After all, many legal experts argue that waterboarding isn't technically torture.  And I'm pretty sure that is what most of everyone is talking about.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'd like to hear what people think is torture and what isn't. 

 

2 hours ago, tshile said:

That's the problem - everyone has a different definition. Maybe a more accurate way to word it is: there are a lot of different defintions.

 

From where I sit - everyone appears to be against Torture. We all just define it differently. We all have different standards for everything - the context of a situation matters.

 

2 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Everyone opposes torture as long as they get to define it.

 

Few years back, I took an Ethics class at the local community college.  (It gave me extra credit towards trying to get into their nursing program.  One of the topics debated was the ethics of torture.  

 

One of the required readings was excerpts from a ruling by the Israeli supreme court on the matter of the use of various techniques, when interrogating suspected terrorists. 

 

One of the things which struck me was the similarities of the methods used, to the ones which the US was then trying to justify.  I think the ruling described every single method the US was trying to justify, except waterbooarding.  

 

Another thing which struck me was that the arguments used by the Israeli government to justify the treatments, exactly matched the justifications being used to justify the US doing so.  (For example, "stress positions" was attempted to justify as being done for the safety of the interrogators.)  

 

The ruling by the Israeli supreme court?  

 

1)  They ruled that the justifications offered by the government, to justify the treatments, were all so laughably untrue that they were all dismissed out of hand.  

 

2)  They ruled that, whether these treatments were "torture" or not, was a red herring.  That the matter before the court was not "is this torture?", but "is the Israeli government allowed to interrogate suspected terrorists this way?'.  And therefore, the court would not rule on the former question, but on the later.  

 

3)  And they ruled that no, the security forces of the state of Israel were not permitted, under Israeli law, to perform any of the described methods, even the most mild.  

 

Note:  

 

I just went to Google, to attempt to find the actual ruling that we studied in class.  Got a ton of hits, but it looks like I'm seeing hits on two rulings.  The one we studied in class, forbidding prisoner abuse, seems to have been handed down in 1999.  But it looks like the Israeli court, in 2014, made a different ruling, authorizing torture, under a "necessary action" principal.So it looks like the ruling I studied has been at least partially reversed, later.  

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

 

One way would be to take into account if we would consider it torture if an adversary used it on our troops

 

 

Maybe. I think this is another conversation on its own, that’s rarely if ever had. 

 

Do we consider the highest elements of a terrorist organization on the same level as our troops? I don’t think there is a right answer here, I think it’s subjective. 

 

(The following is my opinion. I accidentally wrote it as if “this is fact” and I don’t have the patience to rewrite it on my phone) 

 

The ksm’s Of the world are not the same as ground troops for isis and Al Qaeda. I’m not sure if those troops are the same as our troops, I can go either way on it. And troops are not the same as civilians. 

 

Context is important - unless you think everyone should be treated the same (which I think is naive in many ways, and we obviously don’t treat them the same in many ways so not sure why people would argue otherwise.)

 

In a world where certain people are planning devastating attacks on *civilians* in a way in which there is no reasonable end in sight, and kidnapping young girls from school to sell them into sex slavery, and burning people in cages for display purposes, I think it’s absurd and ridiculous to not at least be willing to rediscuss what were previous norms and what is and isn’t acceptable. 

 

Especially since the word torture is completely subjective. 

 

And i think it’s absurd that none of this is considered when evaluating certain people’s actions, especially in the context of the moment. 

 

Thinking otherwise, to me, is the benefit of never having the responsibility of protecting the civilians of our country, and others, in those crucial moments when you have someone like ksm.  

[RedskinsFan44]

Right, I said the debate is basically is it ok to torture terrorists. But we don't torture, so let's call it enhanced interrogation. Perhaps the real question is does it work, and do we have lines we aren't willing to cross. The argument the Geneva Convention doesn't  necessarily apply to terrorists may be valid, but it's a slippery slope.

---

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I’d be a terrible spy or service member. As soon as I was strapped into a chair and they turned the lamp so it shined on my face I’d immediately start from birth and tell them every damn thing I know in my life to be true. 

 

I figure I’m going to die either way, I’m going out as painlessly as possible 

[TheGreatBuzz]

@Larry  I consider it an inexcusable form of torture to open a parenthesis and then not close it.

 

Good post though.  I really want a court to answer clearly what is torture.  But then people would just be trained to resist whatever is deemed not torture.   To ME, waterboarding skates the line.  Things short of that I'm good with.  Things over that I have issue with.  And tshile brings up a good point.  The person, the level of knowledge we believe they have, the level of certainty we have that they have that knowledge, and the severity of the action they have knowledge of all play a part in it.

 

Sleep deprivation to get someone to admit witnessing to jay walking is a too far.  A blow torch to the testicles of a person we KNOW has the disarm code of a nuclear bomb in NYC, go for it.

[tshile]

40 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

That's  as deep into the torture subject as I care to go.

Well, then consider my above post address to the rest of the people. If you’re not willing to discuss it then don’t. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I really think we need to consider the opinion of this guy.

 

[Fresh8686]

Lol, did anyone see Michael Hirschorn call Trump a “thirsty ****”  on Ari Melber a couple minutes ago?

 

Was in the context of his obsession for  tv ratings, specifically Trumps comments to the dudes brought home from NK earlier this morning. 

[Larry]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Maybe. I think this is another conversation on its own, that’s rarely if ever had. 

 

Do we consider the highest elements of a terrorist organization on the same level as our troops? I don’t think there is a right answer here, I think it’s subjective. 

 

The ksm’s Of the world are not the same as ground troops for isis and Al Qaeda. I’m not sure if those troops are the same as our troops, I can go either way on it. And troops are not the same as civilians. 

 

Context is important - unless you think everyone should be treated the same (which I think is naive in many ways, and we obviously don’t treat them the same in many ways so not sure why people would argue otherwise.)

 

In a world where certain people are planning devastating attacks on *civilians* in a way in which there is no reasonable end in sight, and kidnapping young girls from school to sell them into sex slavery, and burning people in cages for display purposes, I think it’s absurd and ridiculous to not at least be willing to rediscuss what were previous norms and what is and isn’t acceptable. 

 

Especially since the word torture is complicit subjective. 

 

And i think it’s absurd that none of this is considered when evaluating certain people’s actions, especially in the context of the moment. 

 

I'll also point out, from the long-ago discussion:  

 

1)  According to the people who wrote the Geneva Conventions, every person is covered by the conventions.  (There are four.  One applies to soldiers, one to civilians, and I forget who the other two are for.  (I think one is for medical and other 'non-combatant' personnel.)  But while each of the four contains criteria to assist in determining which of the four categories an individual fits into, their intent was for all people to be covered under one or the other.  

 

2)  And all four of them forbid the use of any treatment, advantageous or disadvantageous, used for the purpose of extracting information.  They don;t just forbid "torture" (however it's defined.)  They forbid offering a prisoner a piece of carrot cake with his dinner if he smiles at his interrogators.  

 

3)  Yes, Geneva does permit prisoners to be tried, and punished, as a war criminal.  (The classic "Since you are out of uniform, American swine, I can have you shot as a spy".)  However, while a "spy" can be tried, and executed, he still, under Geneva, cannot be offered a piece of carrot cake if he cooperates.  

 

---

 

And, also from the ethics class:  

 

The impression I got is that most of the writings in the ethical discussion of the subject was of the opinion that no, there should not be a firm definition of what is torture (or, what is forbidden.)  The reasoning was that, if a precise definition is written, then it invites interrogators wo micro analyze said definition, and to try to find ways to get as close as possible to that line, while still not actually fitting it.  

 

Specifically defining what isn't allowed, gives approval to every action which does not fit that precise standard.  If you state that holding a subject's head under water for 60 seconds is torture, then you have given written permission for every interrogator to hold his prisoner's head under water for 59 seconds.  (And then let it up for one second.  And then back in for another 59.  And repeat, forever.)  

[Fresh8686]

The definition of torture is easy for me. 

 

Its the act of systematically breaking someone down over a sustained period of time in order to get something from the person. And breaking means the creation of trauma  

 

That breaking can be physical, mental, or both. And has verifiable symptoms either way. 

 

As someone recovering from trauma that was both physical and mental I know the signs/symptoms very well. 

 

Torture or sustained trauma changes who you are you as a person and it takes time to regain your previous shape.