What do you know? American "torture" worked...

[Arrian]

Perhaps it's irrational, Ogie, but I cling to the idea that we can be better than that.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ogie, you're Libertarian?

To the extent I want government as small as possible and out of my bedroom, yes.

Actually not affiliated with any party.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Perhaps it's irrational, Ogie, but I cling to the idea that we can be better than that.

-Arrian

On an everyday basis yes. The proof in the pudding comes down to a stress on the system. In those cases the thin veneer of civilization comes off and the more visceral feelings come to the fore for most people. Happens in every war in US history.

[Pekka]

Ogie, then you're like me. I'm not affiliated nor do I want to be affiliated. I see party politics as redundant and counter productive. I'm all for government getting out of my nose and everyone elses too. Especially bedroom. Government should reduce some of it list of tasks, cut 90% of issues out and focus on more important things that doesn't concern our way of life or opinions for that matter.

Weird, I thought you were 200% Republican.

[Velociryx]

Og, I agree with what you say, and in that case, I would add this:

Then....if we know this to be the case, I would contend that our laws should be shining beacons of the HIGHEST of those ideals, rather than slinking into the sewers of the lowest. In this way, we can at least STRIVE for the ideals we claim to hold dear, rather than trying to have it both ways.

It seems (and is) false to hold one's nation up as the "beacon of liberty and freedom" for the rest of the world, while hustling off those who oppose our vision to back rooms where they can be beaten and have battery cables attached to their testicles.

These two things....simply do not mesh.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

This, btw, is relevant to the current discussion, and quite fascinating.

A three part bbc series on google video..."The Power of Nightmares."

Recommended.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+power+of+nightmares&hl=en

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Pekka

Weird, I thought you were 200% Republican.

I come across that way because of my undying hatred of all things Democrat and socialistic.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Og, I agree with what you say, and in that case, I would add this:

Then....if we know this to be the case, I would contend that our laws should be shining beacons of the HIGHEST of those ideals, rather than slinking into the sewers of the lowest. In this way, we can at least STRIVE for the ideals we claim to hold dear, rather than trying to have it both sides.

It seems (and is) false to hold one's nation up as the "beacon of liberty and freedom" for the rest of the world, while hustling off those who oppose our vision to back rooms where they can be beaten and have battery cables attached to their testicles.

These two things....simply do not mesh.

-=Vel=-

Actually they do kind of. I beleive we do try to strive for those laws with highest ideals when we are not stressed as laws are supposed to be the general will of the people as expressed by representatives. The problem comes down in part to the stress times (and maybe a bit of truth in what Tassy was alluding to) when the will of the people says laws that are not of the highest ideal are indeed acceptable nay preferred (a will of the people being reinforced and fed by a culture ripe with depictions of rogue antihero good guys bucking the system. Translation "Well damn it, it's time to change the system to let those guys do their job!!")

Part of the debate of course is whether the system is actually stressed and the basis for claims of imminent threat.

[Velociryx]

If that is truly the case though, then the "great experiment" has failed, and we are NOT what we claim to be, and if *this* is the case, then again, the answer is clear....we need to either drop the ("good guy") act, and admit that we're just as capable of being evil b@stards on par with those we stand against--give up the moral high ground--OR, we can keep the moral high ground and act the part.

Unfortunately, it cannot be both ways in the same breath.

-=Vel=-

[Pekka]

Ogie, ah ok.. well..

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Vel,

I see it as a fit of steps and stumbles as opposed to a complete failure of the 'great experiment". We fail and fail miserably every time we enter into a war. history tells us this is the case. Every war resulted in a closer alignment to a police state. However, when at peace we do our best and return to what we can best aspire to.

The point of course being that ill defined goals of war on terrorism or war on drugs present an opportunity for government (as expressed by the will of the majority) to clamp down as long as they wish. My beef is the lack of vision as to what victory and end of war will look like so that a finish can be understood and a subsequent return to normalcy. That more than anything is what I hold Bush accountable for regarding foreign policy. Do I believe we are at that end state yet, NO. Do I want to understand what that end state needs to be so that a return to normalcy (and presumably a chance to aspire to our best form) can be anticpated, absolutely.

[Velociryx]

And therein lies the problem. As defined presently, this "War on Terror" will last a thousand years, and beyond.

There IS no end, and that's what the NeoCons want.

That's why we're seeing legislation like we are.

I view it as dangerous in the extreme, and would count those who are pushing this agenda on us to be among the worst criminals in our nation's history, for the very reasons you cited in your excellent post, which provides a synopsis of the current situation.

Our laws, whatever the topic, should be formed not out of hatred or secrecy, and not out of some knee-jerk reaction to current events, but out of careful consideration and close adherence to the ideals that our forefathers cherished. To do less is to do a grave disservice to the nation they forged for us and left in our care.

Sadly, we are seeing signs of exactly such negligent behavior, expressed only too clearly by the posturing of the sitting administration.

If it does not stop...if WE do not stop it, then the long slow slide gains momentum.

-=Vel=-

[Blaupanzer]

We signed a treaty that no previous President had a problem with called the Geneva Convention agreeing not to torture. Anyone doing it post 1950 broke the law, plain and simple. Waterboarding was a known form of torture at that time, no if ands, or buts. Also naked exposure, especially in the cold and splashed with water, violates that treaty. So, those individuals doing this should be prosecuted. If the President says he authorized this, then he should be prosecuted too. Plain and simple, no question of left or right on the political spectrum.

The legal counsels of all three military services testified these practices are both illegal and do not work. The President, who claims he is a Christian, then appears before Congress to testify in favor of torture. What is really going on?

It has all gone insane. But no nation may claim to be an example of the "proper" form of Government, if it won't enforce its own laws.

[Dis]

I think it was better torture when they were playing Metallica music (I say this even though I'm a fan )

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: What do you know? American "torture" worked...

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Whether you consider the following techniques...

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

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

... to be "torture" or not, it has become pretty clear that they work and have played an important role in the fight against Al Qaeda.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/

So I ask you, why should I give a **** about the CIA using these techniques on high-ranking al Qaeda leaders when a) use of these techniques is effective and helps prevent future terrorist attacks on America, b) these al Qaeda leaders don't qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention and sure as **** don't display a regard for the treatment and dignity of our servicemen and civilians that would call for reciprocity on our part, and c) these techniques don't seem to cause intense pain or lasting physical damage, thereby falling short of what I and who knows how many others actually consider to be "torture"? I know I'm supposed to be outraged or something, but can someone please explain to me why?

meh............. I put up with a lot worse torture as a kid. Who are these al-Qaeda guys? "Pink" muslims?