Breaking News: Bush Personally Authorized Torture

[Ted Striker]

Yes I know but those are exceptions to the rule

Actually what IS interesting is that there was a career US prison administrator who was handpicked to a prominent role in Abu Gharib. He took his great "organizational skills" with him.

Can't remember the guy's name but he is dirty as ehll.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yes I know but those are exceptions to the rule

And have been determined to be subsequently illegal or if legal at the time, illegal now.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And have been determined to be subsequently illegal or if legal at the time, illegal now.

Thank you

The point I was making was that they aren't standard, sanctioned practice

[mrmitchell]

Come on. Not letting you sleep is torture? Scaring you with dogs is torture? It's not very nice, but I don't think you can call it torture.

Okay...

Why is torture used?
-To get information.
Then why are we using things that aren't torture?
-Uh...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yes I know but those are exceptions to the rule

And someone caught strapping a bomb to his or chest is not?

Come on now, how partisan do you wish to be simply because a man named Bush sits in the office?

You would wish defeat because of a leader you dislike?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And after all, the European Court on Human Rights has called this behavior (the hooded prisoners, sleep and food deprivation, etc) inhumane behavior violating the law BACK IN 1980 in the case of Ireland v. United Kingdom. If police are still doing them stuff in London, Paris, and Berlin, they are violating their law.

Too bad some of those things are done on a daily basis to prisoners in domestic criminal cases.

Is an interrogation that runs for 36 or 48 hours thorough, or sleep deprivation?

Can you show me cases where such interogations are tossed? I have heard of them frequently, in convictions that were not overturned. I thought they were not entirely fair, and I would like to read of instances where they were tossed.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And someone caught strapping a bomb to his or chest is not?

So we should assume everyone we catch is going to strap a bomb to his chest and therefore it's okay to subject them to torture? Good logic there stud.

Secondly torture completely destroys our credibility.

How can we come in and claim to be liberators when we turn around and have a bunch of idiots doing the same damn thing?

"Hey Saddam, stop torturing those people or we are going to kill you and torture them ourselves!!!"

Come on now, how partisan do you wish to be simply because a man named Bush sits in the office?

You would wish defeat because of a leader you dislike?

Nice try, but I was still weakly giving Bush the benefit of the doubt UNTIL THIS VERY INCIDENT pushed me over the edge MONTHS AGO. It is old news to me and the straw that broke the camel's back.

Work on your cause and effect skills genius.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Too bad some of those things are done on a daily basis to prisoners in domestic criminal cases.

Is an interrogation that runs for 36 or 48 hours thorough, or sleep deprivation?

Can you show me cases where such interogations are tossed? I have heard of them frequently, in convictions that were not overturned. I thought they were not entirely fair, and I would like to read of instances where they were tossed.

You were the one that brought up those methods being used routinely by police, you provide the burden of proof first before demanding it from others.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Imran, if there are a few sane people out there that have decided the laws you refer to are useless, self-defeating, illogical bullshit good on them. The world has to turn even if people like you (in this instance) are intent on stopping it.

Other people break sane laws in that time honored tradition revered here on Apolyton known as civil disobediance, I will apply the concept here to our valiant intel guys and troops risking jail and estrangement for your own good.

Holy ****, you're crazier than a loon. If folks like you are running the intel services, no wonder we have hooded people with electrodes attached to them. This is the rationale of evil men to commit evil acts.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Nice try, but I was still weakly giving Bush the benefit of the doubt UNTIL THIS VERY INCIDENT pushed me over the edge MONTHS AGO. It is old news to me and the straw that broke the camel's back.

Work on your cause and effect skills genius.

The point is it shouldn't matter WTF is president. If your forces are doing the right thing, they are the right thing under Clinton, Gore, Bush, Kerry, or anyone else.

Can you see this in anything other than an anti-Bush light? That is what I was asking.

[Ted Striker]

As an aside, for those of you with time on your hands, here is a nice article written about how torture doesn't make much practical sense:

A Consequentialist Argument against Torture Interrogation of Terrorists, Jean Maria Arrigo, Ph.D., Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics


They don't go into defining what is, and isn't torture, but it is very interesting to read.

Here's an interesting excerpt:

A greater obstacle to torture interrogation than bodily frailty of the subject is the mental resistance of fanatics, martyrs, and heroes to coercion. A former U.S. intelligence liaison officer, Paul Copher, gave this example of an interrogation by the Turkish National Police [TNP] in the late seventies:[22]



In 1979 the [TNP] team captured Nalan Gurtas. She had personally killed 32 Turkish National Police officers.... Trying to obtain intelligence out of one of the most violent people on earth is a bit of trouble.... She screamed, spat, kicked, ripped up her holding facility, refused to talk....She tried to cut her wrists with a plastic knife; she ran full force with her head onto the wall. She threw feces at all of us. Then the word came down to go to Level 1 [i.e., potentially fatal torture]. .... She stayed silent.... [During transport] she tried to jump from the speeding vehicle...after laughing she loved shooting police and Americans. She was between the car and the ground when they fired 32 rounds into her, which was one hell of a hard shot to make.....

http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE03/Arrigo03.html

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The point is it shouldn't matter WTF is president. If your forces are doing the right thing, they are the right thing under Clinton, Gore, Bush, Kerry, or anyone else.

--- > HE WAS THE ONE THAT SIGNED THE EXECUTIVE ORDER < ---

[Ted Striker]

And even if he pulled a Rumsfeld and had someone else sign it, if he is aware of the thing he should take responsiblity for it and repeal it.

In any case it is well known a document was circulating the Executive Branch trying to find out what the most torture we could do that was also marketable/acceptable to the American public.

The very fact that the Executive Branch (i.e. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION) has to ask the very question of what is and is not "acceptable" forms of coercion, is the most troubling thing of all.

[notyoueither]

You think things would be much different in that order under a Democrat? On what basis?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
And even if he pulled a Rumsfeld and had someone else sign it, if he is aware of the thing he should take responsiblity for it and repeal it.

In any case it is well known a document was circulating the Executive Branch trying to find out what the most torture we could do that was also marketable/acceptable to the American public.

The very fact that the Executive Branch (i.e. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION) has to ask the very question of what is and is not "acceptable" forms of coercion, is the most troubling thing of all.

Under FDR you rounded up 100s of thousands of Japanese Americans. Was FDR a total ****? Would his Republican opponent have done better?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You think things would be much different in that order under a Democrat? On what basis?

You are making poor assumptions. Just because someone doesn't like Bush you think they are partisan. Wrong. This man has taken everything good conservative leaders stood for and has perverted it to extremes and disgraced the good ideals put forth by Reagan.

I supported Reagan, I waited 17 hours in line to see him at his funeral when he died this summer. That was a REAL conservative leader. I am also a big fan John McCain. Both of them are Republicans.

I harshly criticized California Governor Gray Davis, who was completely incompetent and lacked any personal responsibility for leadership. He was a democrat.

I support Governor Arnold and Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn, who are both Republicans.

I harshly criticized Clinton while in office, but looking back he did a good job.

Would you rathar have someone who lies about getting their d1ck sucked in the White House or someone who lies about reasons for invading an entire country?


Partisan.

You have no clue.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
You are making poor assumptions. Just because someone doesn't like Bush you think they are partisan. Wrong. This man has taken everything good conservative leaders stood for and has perverted it to extremes and disgraced the good ideals put forth by Reagan.

I supported Reagan, I waited 17 hours in line to see him at his funeral when he died this summer. That was a REAL conservative leader. I am also a big fan John McCain. Both of them are Republicans.

...


Partisan.

You have no clue.

No. It's not just because you don't like Bush. It's the shrill nature of the criticism. I don't like Bush, but I do not feel the need to crow about it at every opportunity and twist every issue to make me look good for not liking him. You seem to need to do so.

You supported, and continue to support Reagan, but you seem willing to overlook the egregious deeds done under his watch in places like Nicaragua and with such unsavory characters as drug dealers and the Ayatollahs.

You're seeming to be very selective, Ted.

Partisan? Look in the mirror.

[Ted Striker]

Bush warrants a super high degree of criticism because he has made a super number of high degree of ****ups.

Dude, Reagan wasn't perfect, but DON'T EVEN put Bush in the same category as Reagan, it's disgusting, Reagan's own son said he was an idiot.

I'm glad you find the need to follow me around in every thread though. I'm flattered that you have shown me so much attention.

The high degree of irritation you get from my criticisms only shows that they ring truth, and that's why they bother you so much.


Now, speaking of selective, where is that proof about sanctioned police torture you were telling us about?

[Ted Striker]

And by the way this crap about "trying to look good" by dogging him out is nonsense. I dog him out because he's a dumbass. Another poor assumption on your part.

Plus, I look good regardless.

[notyoueither]

Why is it disgusting, Ted?

You think torture, real nasty varieties of it, didn't happen in various American clients with not only American tacit approval, but actual training for the gaolers in American 'colleges'? Where have you been these last thirty years?

BTW, you flatter yourself. The fact that I show up in some threads you do is perhaps because some of the same things interest us. Perhaps we end up discussing things because you say the damnedest things, and I find pulling the wings off flies to be amusing from time to time.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why is it disgusting, Ted?

You think torture, real nasty varieties of it, didn't happen in various American clients with not only American tacit approval, but actual training for the gaolers in American 'colleges'? Where have you been these last thirty years?

No sh1t Sherlock.

I was just going to mention in this thread about how we have been doing it for the last 40 years and especially in Central America. We weren't only training the foreign governments to do it, we had our own guys in the same room at the time.

Big difference between that and when the most powerful man in the world signs an Executive Order, and/or tries to decide what is or is not "acceptable" forms of torture, and does it by trying to see who can stretch the limits the most.

BTW, you flatter yourself. The fact that I show up in some threads you do is perhaps because some of the same things interest us. Perhaps we end up discussing things because you say the damnedest things, and I find pulling the wings off flies to be amusing from time to time.

Yeah, right, you follow me around and self pwn yourself and then resort to name calling and personal attacks. If you really could win an argument by actually making one and backing it up, you wouldn't get so desparate. It was cute for a while but now you're starting to waste my time.

Where are those police torture links anyway?

notyoueither:

Spends 1/10 of the thread talking about 1/10 of the topic
Spends 9/10 of the thread talking about Ted Striker



Pimpin' ain't easy except when you got hoes like notyoueither around.

[Ted Striker]

And by the way I always flatter myself.

[notyoueither]

yadda, yadda, yadda.

Keep your impure thoughts to yourself, Ted. I'm not interested.

Originally posted by Ted Striker
No sh1t Sherlock.

I was just going to mention in this thread about how we have been doing it for the last 40 years and especially in Central America. We weren't only training the foreign governments to do it, we had our own guys in the same room at the time.

Big difference between that and when the most powerful man in the world signs an Executive Order, and/or tries to decide what is or is not "acceptable" forms of torture, and does it by trying to see who can stretch the limits the most.

And I'm still waiting to see where the authorisation to beat, and rape, and murder is.

Sorry, Ted, sleep deprivation don't cut it for a scandle.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
And by the way I always flatter myself.

Nobody ever would have noticed if you hadn't mentioned it.

[Pekka]

Well the way I see it, sleep deprivation is not torture, but it becomes torture if it's kept going too long. If you are waken up in the middle of the night to be interrogated, when you were just interrogated the whole day before, I don't see that as torture. Do this for a long time, it might become that. Added stress bonus would be the dogs, but I don't see that as torture. These are all, of course, to break the individual mentally and psychologically.

Sensor deprivation, not sure. Using hoods I don't think is torture of any form, just stress bonus. But sure if you're up there few years, subjected to tehse all the time.. then I'm not sure but the hoods alone shouldn't be a concern. Maybe when this whole thing is wrapped together, it dances in the lines of it. But not necessarily torture than just hard interrogation.

What I DO consider torture is stress positions. That doesn't mean you're in uncomfrotable 40 dollar chair. It means you are put into positions and can't move, that are known to be painful. Static pain etc.. That has been regarded as torture before, and that's what they do to you in many weird places when they torture you. That I can't see as anything else While I think these others might give a full spectrum, where the absolute extreme can be a little shady, but other than that not necessarily, stress positions I see the spectrum as the extreme light version as not torture, but everything more than that is torture, and I don't see why I need to trust the use of the light side than the other.

[ixnay]

Surprised nobody's posted about this section yet:

Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the ‘FBI’ interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public."

Am I the only one somewhat troubled by the DoD planning to pin everything on another government agency?

[child of Thor]

Sleep deprivation isnt done just for a few nights you know?
People can go insane permantly from long exposures.
For those who dont think its torture, get whomever you share you life with to not let you sleep properly for.....say 5-6 days, see if you agree its not torture after that
How long have those suspects been in Guantanamo?

But if any of this is true(and these measures are kind of 'normal' practise in the context of past wars), then fair enough i say. Just dont get so pissed when the bad guys chop of your guys heads on tv - alls fair in love and war.
Its one of the reasons that kept the whole IRA thing going in such a nasty way for so long here in the UK. Torture and worse was done on both sides and it kind of crystalised the hatred, making even more extreme forms of inhuman activity possible.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
There was an anecdote about how that treatment was given to IRA guys.

After a week those guys were delirious to the point that one guy couldn't even remember his name.

But hey, they were IRA scum and deserved it right???

(no offense British people)

That whole point about being able to "sell" torture to the American people, Shi's post is EXACTLY the thing I am talking about.

Actually Ted, I seem to recall a few complaints from your side of the pond about the abuses of human rights and the torture meted out to the 'freedom loving' I.R.A. terrorists.

Probably to do with those Irish American voters, and rather less to do with a concern for human rights.


However, such activities are deemed torture over here now, and are not permitted.

See if you can find a copy of this:

Taylor, P. (1980) Beating the Terrorists : Interrogations in Omagh, Gough and Castelreagh. Harmondsworth : Penguin

It will seem terribly familiar....

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
There was an anecdote about how that treatment was given to IRA guys.

After a week those guys were delirious to the point that one guy couldn't even remember his name.

But hey, they were IRA scum and deserved it right???

(no offense British people)

That whole point about being able to "sell" torture to the American people, Shi's post is EXACTLY the thing I am talking about.

Yes, it was disgraceful. Shameful part of our history. And even more shameful that we didn't react to it more, although I was probably a bit too young to really be aware of it.

[MikeH]

Not to say we aren't doing some shitty stuff now, like locking people up without charge - something the government's just had a court ruling against it saying they are acting illegally. EU human rights help us again. Good work courts!