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

[skinsmarydu]

25 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

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.

I took the same oath as you. And it IS a clear cut definition. I knew about the Geneva Convention before I enlisted, it all boils down to "don't torture us, we won't torture you".

And we went back on our promise. It's that simple.

And you know this. No one should be kept awake for a week, chained to the ceiling. 

****ing NO ONE. (I would say "except your boss", but I'm not even that mean.)

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

It all boils down to "don't torture us, we won't torture you".

Right, and the people were talking about didn’t and don’t agree to that. 

 

Al Qaeda and isis torture everyone. 

 

We water boarded and sleep deprived a handful of people running Al Qaeda 

 

no tears here

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

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.

 

The pieces I read, for my Ethics paper on the subject, gave me the impression that pretty much all of the debate on the subject, in ethical discussion, seemed to agree that.  

 

1)  Torturing people to get information is unethical.

2)  But, the "ticking time bomb scenario", while it no doubt will be used to try to justify lots of non-time-bomb situations, cannot be fully dismissed as completely impossible.  

 

And the debate was over how an ethical society should reconcile the facts that we need to forbid forceful interrogation, while still allowing for the time bomb scenario.  

 

The impression I also got was that the two sides of the debate consisted of:  

 

1)  Alan Derschowitz

2)  Everybody else, who wanted to attack his position.  

 

Derschowitz's position was that the ethical position was to create some body, who had the authority to issue a "torture warrant" - a ruling from a court that yes, there was sufficient cause to justify the use of torture in this one, rare, selected case.  

 

Everybody else's position was that doing things that way created a mechanism in which an interrogator, once given this warrant, had a blank check.  And to observe that history suggests that over time, the standards for issuing things like search warrants seem to have loosened.  The counter argument is that we don;t want precise rules.  And to note that the "ticking time bomb" scenario, used to justify the need for these techniques, means that you don't have time to go through said procedures, when you're in the very scenario that was used to justify them.  

 

instead, they argue, the ethical way to deal with the "ticking time bomb scenario", is for the interrogator to go ahead and torture the prisoner, knowing that doing so is illegal, and to then employ a "necessity defense" at his trial, after the fact.  To have a jury decide, after the fact, to acquit the torturer, if the jury felt that this one case was an exception to the rules.  

 

In my paper, I pointed out what I thought was a flaw in this notion.  Specifically, that it assumes that the government will actually bring a torturer to trial.  I pointed out that, if the government wanted to torture people, they could simply not prosecute anyone, and therefore there was no due process to torture at all.  No ruling, ever, on whether it was justified in any cases at all.  I noted that at least in Derchowitz's system of getting permission in advance, it at least guarantees that there will be a court date at which the matter is debated.  

 

 

17 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

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. 

 

Pointing out that your definition eliminates attempting to use the "ticking time bomb justification".  Since that scenario contains, as a fundamental part of the scenario, the claim that the information needs to be obtained quickly.  

 

Hard to justify a month of sleep deprivation by claiming that you need the information within the next hour.  

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I took the same oath as you. And it IS a clear cut definition. I knew about the Geneva Convention before I enlisted, it all boils down to "don't torture us, we won't torture you".

And we went back on our promise. It's that simple.

And you know this. No one should be kept awake for a week, chained to the ceiling. 

****ing NO ONE. (I would say "except your boss", but I'm not even that mean.)

I agree we took the same oath but disagree it is a clear cut definition.  And I think Larry did a good job pointing out why there is not a clear cut definition.

 

To use your example, I agree no one should be kept awake for a week chained to a ceiling.  What about six days chained to a ceiling?  What about ten days completely free to move but in a space 10" too short to stand, 6" too short to lay down?

 

How about this:  You are questioned by police about a crime you actually know nothing about.  After 10 hours of questions, you are taken to a different room.  In that room is only a wobbly chair, a table with various items (power drill, wood saw, vice, etc), and a pit full of red hot coals.  I come in and get a fire poker red hot.  I carry it around while walking circles around you on that wobbly chair.  Someone comes in and I direct them to remove your shoes and socks.  I look at you and say "I really would like you to answer my questions.  There are many tools at my disposal, don't you think?  I promise you I will not touch your face.  It would be cruel to scar something so beautiful.  However, I think there are other parts of your body that are much more sensitive yet you could still show your face it public.  Now, please admit that you robbed that bank." 

 

Is that torture?  Never touched you, never threatened you.  Please tell me again how it is a clear cut definition.  

 

 

@Larry  That sounds like a very interesting class.  I would have fun there.

[RedskinsFan44]

45 minutes ago, tshile said:

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

I responded to you directly below your post. I do not care to try to come up with a hard definition of torture, because I don't believe it can be done. 

[Fresh8686]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

Pointing out that your definition eliminates attempting to use the "ticking time bomb justification".  Since that scenario contains, as a fundamental part of the scenario, the claim that the information needs to be obtained quickly.  

 

Hard to justify a month of sleep deprivation by claiming that you need the information within the next hour.  

 

 

Fair point. Let's add on to the definition along the lines of trauma that is either under duration or intensity to such a degree as to create a breaking event within a person. And of course there are different iterations like high intensity/short duration or undulating mid to staged threshold edge high intensity/long duration.



 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

Walking around threatening is not the same as PERFORMING SAID THING. 

We didn't just threaten horrible things. 

We DID horrible things. 

 

If you don't see the difference,  you're up there with your boss. Step up, your medal awaits. 

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

How about this:  You are questioned by police about a crime you actually know nothing about.  After 10 hours of questions, you are taken to a different room.  In that room is only a wobbly chair, a table with various items (power drill, wood saw, vice, etc), and a pit full of red hot coals.  I come in and get a fire poker red hot.  I carry it around while walking circles around you on that wobbly chair.  Someone comes in and I direct them to remove your shoes and socks.  I look at you and say "I really would like you to answer my questions.  There are many tools at my disposal, don't you think?  I promise you I will not touch your face.  It would be cruel to scar something so beautiful.  However, I think there are other parts of your body that are much more sensitive yet you could still show your face it public.  Now, please admit that you robbed that bank." 

 

Is that torture?  Never touched you, never threatened you.  Please tell me again how it is a clear cut definition.

 

 

 

Another thing I remember from the discussion, was examination of Roman law on the subject.  

 

Roman law was very specific.  And it had high standards that had to be met, to convict someone of a crime.  Basically, to convict, the court had to have either a confession, or testimony from two witnesses.  

 

Since people tried very hard not to commit crimes in front of two witnesses, this was a standard that was hard to meet.  They pretty much had to have a confession, or no conviction.  

 

But, Roman law also had a kind of a "probable cause" standard.  If there was half enough evidence to convict (meaning, if there was one accuser), then that was good enough reason to justify torture.  (And torture was used, not just on the accused, but also on witnesses, to verify that their testimony was true.)  

 

Now, the Romans recognized that a person being tortured might make a coerced confession.  So, they had rules for that.  When the accused confessed, the torture stopped.  He was then brought before the court, the next day, and asked to confess.  If he confessed the next day, then his confession was ruled non-coerced, and he was convicted.  

 

However, if the victim recanted his confession the next day, then he wasn't acquitted.  Instead, the court would rule that well, the court has contradictory information.  And the accused was sent back to the torturer, to reconcile the conflicting information.  

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, skinsmarydu said:

Walking around threatening is not the same as PERFORMING SAID THING. 

We didn't just threaten horrible things. 

We DID horrible things. 

 

If you don't see the difference,  you're up there with your boss. Step up, your medal awaits. 

So you are cool with mental torture, just not physical torture?  I can threaten to kill everyone you know as long as I don't actually do it?  Or are there lines there also?  You seem to have such a clear distinction in your mind, I'd like you to define it for us all to a point that no one could find a work around of your words.  After all, that is what got us into this spot.  Some WH lawyer found a way around the rules by using narrow interpretations of laws on the books.

 

And please don't attempt to put me in the same boat as my boss.  I do deserve better than that.

 

 

 

On a side note, does everyone think there are things that our government does that the world should just not know about but are however "right"?

 

 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

On a side note, does everyone think there are things that our government does that the world should just not know about but are however "right"?

 

Another point that I tried to make, back then.  

 

I think most would agree that torture might be justified, for the guy who planted a nuclear bomb in Philly.  

 

(Well, OK, maybe not Philly.  Or Dallas.  Orlando?)  

 

But when you torture the location of the bomb out of the terrorist, and the bomb doesn't destroy Orlando, then you don;t let the person go.  (If nothing else, he might have another one.)  That person never gets let loose.  He never sees the light of day again.  

 

However, most of the people we sent to GTMO, over the years, we released.  

 

To me, this tells me that the standard we used, for sending people to GTMO, isn't "nuclear bomb in Orlando".  It's "He might know something useful".  

 

We're attempting to justify the "He might know something useful" standard, by pointing at the "nuclear bomb in Orlando" hypothetical.  

[bearrock]

8 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

On a side note, does everyone think there are things that our government does that the world should just not know about but are however "right"?

 

 

If it's right, why shouldn't the world know?  Im assuming you're not talking about national security type concern where bad actors will do bad things with it, but that the public and the rest of the world are better off not knowing about it at all for some different reason.

[Fresh8686]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So you are cool with mental torture, just not physical torture?  I can threaten to kill everyone you know as long as I don't actually do it?  Or are there lines there also?  You seem to have such a clear distinction in your mind, I'd like you to define it for us all to a point that no one could find a work around of your words.  After all, that is what got us into this spot.  Some WH lawyer found a way around the rules by using narrow interpretations of laws on the books.

 

And please don't attempt to put me in the same boat as my boss.  I do deserve better than that.

 

 

 

On a side note, does everyone think there are things that our government does that the world should just not know about but are however "right"?

 

 

I don't think our government should hide the dirty **** they've done. I'm an eyes open kind of guy. I want to know my ugliness and my country's ugliness so I know the line I need to set to redeem ourselves.

And in regard to your first paragraph, I would say it would only constitute as mental torture if it caused a breaking event in the person, which has verifiable symptoms post event as shown by trauma survivors.

There is no justification for torture, but in some very extreme cases it might be worth the consequences.

[skinsmarydu]

13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 Some WH lawyer found a way around the rules by using narrow interpretations of laws on the books.

 

 

 

 

Apparently you approve. 

And for the record, you ARE in your boss's boat. Literally. 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

If it's right, why shouldn't the world know?  Im assuming you're not talking about national security type concern where bad actors will do bad things with it, but that the public and the rest of the world are better off not knowing about it at all for some different reason.

I was actually focusing on the national security type concerns.  But that is another "where exactly is the line".  Some would argue that everyone who got waterboarded was a national security concern (I wouldn't) and others would say anything short of the ticking time bomb is not a national security concern.  

 

This all goes back to how "are you against torture" was a bad question to ask and only used so talking heads and suck could drive their agenda home as they needed.

1 minute ago, Fresh8686 said:

And in regard to your first paragraph, I would say it would only constitute as mental torture if it caused a breaking event in the person, which has verifiable symptoms post event as shown by trauma survivors.
 

That is a poor criteria to use.  Everyone has different mental lines.  Being an effective leader requires being able to tell where different peoples lines are.  I know there are certain people I can just shake my head and walk away to bring tears to their eyes.  Others, doesn't matter what I say because they don't give a crap.  You cannot set a line of "this is mental torture" when everyone's mental breaking point is different.

[visionary]

34 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

How about this:  You are questioned by police about a crime you actually know nothing about.  After 10 hours of questions, you are taken to a different room.  In that room is only a wobbly chair, a table with various items (power drill, wood saw, vice, etc), and a pit full of red hot coals.  I come in and get a fire poker red hot.  I carry it around while walking circles around you on that wobbly chair. 

 

Someone comes in and I direct them to remove your shoes and socks.  I look at you and say "I really would like you to answer my questions.  There are many tools at my disposal, don't you think?  I promise you I will not touch your face.  It would be cruel to scar something so beautiful.  However, I think there are other parts of your body that are much more sensitive yet you could still show your face it public.  Now, please admit that you robbed that bank." 

 

Is that torture?  Never touched you, never threatened you.  Please tell me again how it is a clear cut definition.  

Not sure if it’s technically torture, but it sounds kind of illegal.

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, visionary said:

Not sure if it’s technically torture, but it sounds kind of illegal.

Even if it happens at a blacksite in Thailand?  What law is broken?

 

 

Okay everyone, my point here is not to define torture, although I do enjoy nitpicking it.  My point is that there can be no clear definition of torture.  Torture to one is effective police tactics to another.  Each of us can say what we think is torture.  Unfortunately our individual opinions don't mean crap in a court.  This is why I didn't like the question being asked that way during her confirmation.  I would have preferred "do you think waterboarding is torture and would you do it going forward?"  Or "do you think X, Y, or Z are appropriate forms of interrogation?"  Broad questions such as were asked are only opportunities for politicians and talking heads to twist them to fit their narrative.  And thus further expand the great divide that has become our current political situation.

[Fresh8686]

16 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

That is a poor criteria to use.  Everyone has different mental lines.  Being an effective leader requires being able to tell where different peoples lines are.  I know there are certain people I can just shake my head and walk away to bring tears to their eyes.  Others, doesn't matter what I say because they don't give a crap.  You cannot set a line of "this is mental torture" when everyone's mental breaking point is different.

I don't think you're properly understanding how severe a breaking event truly is. It's not a bout of crying or anything as shallow as an emotional state crash. Being broken changes who you are as a person and can take years to heal from. You show physical symptoms of panic or emotional distress when reintroduced to the event, certain emotions or levels of feeling or intimacy are cut off from you. There is a clear identifiable difference and loss between who you were before and after the event.

But, you are right though that there are different breaking thresholds depending upon the resiliency of a person. However, there are clear signs that distinguish between standard emotional distress and crossing the threshold of a true breaking event.

Have you ever had severe trauma like that? I've been fighting my way out of one for the past 9 months, while also consciously mapping the process of trauma and the healing/building back up from it. 

If you want to know the definition of torture ask someone whose been broken by it or something like it first-hand.

[visionary]

49 minutes ago, tshile said:

Right, and the people were talking about didn’t and don’t agree to that. 

 

Al Qaeda and isis torture everyone. 

 

We water boarded and sleep deprived a handful of people running Al Qaeda 

 

no tears here

We should not compare ourselves to terrorists.  We don’t go by their moral or legal code and to say, ‘well we’re still better than Al Qaeda or ISIS’ is a ridiculously lowered standard.

 

Also I seriously doubt we only mistreated a few terrorist high ups.  In addition to the enhanced interrogation/torture we illegally detained many random people, and humiliated various prisoners and created a dangerous and pervasive culture that hurt us very badly around the world and still does to this day.  Plus it makes it more likely for others to use it on us and easier to justify the usage (fairly or unfairly).

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Fresh8686 said:

Have you ever had severe trauma like that? I've been fighting my way out of one for the past 9 months, while also consciously mapping the process of trauma and the healing/building back up from it. 

Yes.

 

I am 30 years past the event and I still to this day cannot be in a house that is on a corner lot.  Even thinking about it gives me struggles.  When my wife and I were buying out home, I thought I could get past it.  Within a few minutes of being in the house I started crying and ended up vomiting in the front yard.  

 

See my post above.  This isn't about defining torture.  It is about that fact that torture cannot be defined to a point where there is a clear, black and white line that would stand up in court.

 

(wow, even thinking about that house caused me to tear up).

[bearrock]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

This all goes back to how "are you against torture" was a bad question to ask and only used so talking heads and suck could drive their agenda home as they needed.

 

Well, I think you can answer that question pretty easily.  Yes, no, only under xyz circumstances.  Then I assume the senator can ask "Do you consider xyz to be torture?".  And you can answer "yes" "no" or "depending on factors xyz".  Whether a CIA chief nominee believes torture is ever warranted and under what circumstances and what he/she defines torture to be seems pretty important areas to cover.

 

Lots of legal terms are subject to difficult line drawing.  You could think up thousands of scenarios where reasonable people may disagree about whether a particular act constitutes torture, justifiable homicide, self-defense, etc.  But as country, we still need to decide where to draw the line on these questions and someone as important as a potential CIA director should be asked detailed questions on the subject of torture during a confirmation hearing. 

 

[Fresh8686]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Yes.

 

I am 30 years past the event and I still to this day cannot be in a house that is on a corner lot.  Even thinking about it gives me struggles.  When my wife and I were buying out home, I thought I could get past it.  Within a few minutes of being in the house I started crying and ended up vomiting in the front yard.  

 

See my post above.  This isn't about defining torture.  It is about that fact that torture cannot be defined to a point where there is a clear, black and white line that would stand up in court.

 

(wow, even thinking about that house caused me to tear up).

I feel you man. The same thing happens to me in my own way.

That to me is something that when consciously done to another person for gain or pleasure is torture.

I'd recognize it the moment I saw it and I could prove it's severity of damage after the fact.

 

[visionary]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Even if it happens at a blacksite in Thailand?  What law is broken?

Oh, in Thailand? I thought the hypothetical was taking place in the US . I think I took a wrong turn somewhere around Bangkok.  

 

I mean that may very well be legal in Thailand, for all I know.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Well, I think you can answer that question pretty easily. 

If you go back and watch the interview though, questions were not phrased in that manner and answers they did not like were cut off.  If you are interviewing someone for DCIA, I sure as hell hope there are times when she would resort to torture.  I watched the whole thing.  The clips shown on the news don't do justice.  The fact that Leon Penatta (sp?) supports her carries a lot of weight in my book though.  In fact, I would take his opinion over any doubts that I had in my mind because he is probably a lot more qualified to make that call than I am.

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

Oh, in Thailand? I thought the hypothetical was taking place in the US . I think I took a wrong turn somewhere around Bangkok.  

 

I mean that may very well be legal in Thailand, for all I know.  

I was half-joking because that was the big thing with a lot of these "tortures".  We didn't do them on US soil, we took them to a different country and tortured the **** out of them.  That somehow made it legal.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

can we all take this to the torture thread