Originally posted by sasquatch672out of interest does Paul source his claims?
The idiocy of defending torture
By PAUL CAMPOS
Nov 16, 2005, 05:24
I know a man who tortures his dog. He ties the dog to a board, tilts the board downward, smothers the dog's face with a cloth, and then soaks the cloth with water. The terrified creature feels as if it is drowning, but because its lungs remain higher than its mouth, it doesn ...[text shortened]... e in the pursuit of sufficiently important ends. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden would agree.
Originally posted by sasquatch672I'd like to see a few members from the editorial board of the WSJ experience the water board treatment everyday for 180 days.
The idiocy of defending torture
By PAUL CAMPOS
Nov 16, 2005, 05:24
I know a man who tortures his dog. He ties the dog to a board, tilts the board downward, smothers the dog's face with a cloth, and then soaks the cloth with water. The terrified creature feels as if it is drowning, but because its lungs remain higher than its mouth, it doesn ...[text shortened]... e in the pursuit of sufficiently important ends. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden would agree.
I wonder what kind of editorials they'd write about torture then?
Originally posted by sasquatch672Im from the UK! I just had not heard. Have you watched Farenheit 9/11? What did you think?
Yeah man, there are whole bunches of memos out there, in the public record - where have you been? It's all over the place. It apparently doesn't happen in the lower 48. But all kinds of prisoners in the custody of the US military and the CIA.
Originally posted by Silver SlayerPentagon lawyers in 2003 argued the following in memos at http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/30603wgrpt.html
The pentagon admited to turture being carried out in the USA on defenceless prisoners?
Its crazy and wrong
1. The treaties against torture are only binding on the US so far as specific acts of torture violate US law;
2. The US statute defining torture by government employees only bans torture OUTSIDE the US (really they argued this) and since Gitmo is within the territorial jurisdiction of the US, you can't violate US law by torturing there;
3, That since the torture statute requires a "specific intent" to cause "severe physical or mental harm" that if the torturers merely knew that they would cause such harm but didn't intend it, they were not guilty under the statute;
And
That's up to page 6 of a 48 page document; I don't have enough Rolaids to read the rest.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe system is morally currupt, or the lawyers are working to justify that king of torture.
Pentagon lawyers in 2003 argued the following in memos at http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/30603wgrpt.html
1. The treaties against torture are only binding on the US so far as specific acts of torture violate US law;
2. The US statute defining torture by government employees only bans torture OUTSIDE the US (really they argued this) and sinc ...[text shortened]...
That's up to page 6 of a 48 page document; I don't have enough Rolaids to read the rest.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell in that case the goverment who make and uphold the laws must be to blame for the shocking loopholes in the law.
The lawyers were doing what lawyers do; presenting arguments to justify the existing position of their client which in this case was a desire to torture "terror" suspects.
What makes the whole torture issue even stranger is that torture is not the most effective way of extracting information.
A quick google search on the effectiveness of torture turns up a whole media of research on the subject, but when I was living in Israel I talked to a man who was an expert on such issues and he suggested that torture is at the most counter-productive (people will tell you anything to get you to stop). So it's no news to me.
There's also a second argument to oppose torture as a nation. Do as you would have others do unto you. If you condone the use of torture as a nation, then other nations/groups are not going to blink at torturing your people should they get the chance. Besides this, it's not good diplomatically (which, admittadly has never been the US's strongest point anyway).
Besides these two points, I also have a behavioural point of view (which is my personal point of view) on the matter of torture. I believe torture is like a form of dominance and gives the torturer a feeling of all-mighty-power. This will lead to abuse of power and obviously will attract the same sort of person who would abuse handicapped people in homes and the like.
Just look at the abuse (torture anyone?) in that prison in Iraq. That is absolute power going to one's head and that is never a good thing.
Here's one article on the effectiveness of torture:
"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again," Bush said. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law."
Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.) said on NBC's 'Today' show Monday that torture should not be a part of any U.S. policy.
"Look at the other side of it, if the United States of America is torturing people, or treating them in a cruel or inhumane fashion, then it hurts our image dramatically throughout the world. ... It doesn't work and it harms our image very badly," he said.
Retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs, an MSNBC analyst, joined MSNBC's Chris Jansing on Monday to discuss torture, its effectiveness and what tactics he believes are most useful.
"At the end of the day, it's very easy to distinguish between the right thing and the wrong thing to do. If you do the wrong thing, you're not going to get any positive payoff from it and it's going to be of at some great cost," Jacobs said. "We get much more information if we treat people properly."
That means that there is a fine line of how aggressive an interrogator can be, said Jacobs, who recently visited the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay and served in Vietnam.
"You need to be aggressive to get the information you want, but if you treat people inhumanely, they're just going to tell you what they think you want to hear," he said. "They'll do anything just to get the mistreatment to stop, so you get nothing from mistreatment."
Speaking of his experiences, Jacobs said he has had the best success by being decent to people.
"Down in Guantanamo Bay, there are instances in which lots of al-Qaida people will tell you anything that you want to know and tell them as much truth as you want them to tell you if you give them the candy bar that they want or the magazine that they require," he said.
"When I was in Vietnam, we were given the most intelligence, the best intelligence and had the most success with captors if we gave them cigarettes, medical care, food (and) water. Almost always, you get the best success from treating people properly," Jacobs said.
Jacobs added that that being viewed as a country that opposes torture can have other benefits.
"I'm not a big fan of being concerned about what other people thing, but I have to say, that if we don't have a good name in the international community, getting our own objectives accomplished in the wider variety of different venues, is going to be very difficult," he said.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9958544/