38 replies to this topic

[MSpencer]

Last week, it was revealed that the CIA had destroyed torture-related tapes back in 2005, citing... well... nothing, not even operational security, despite the fact that "federal courts had prohibited the Bush administration from discarding evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before," according to the Associated Press.
So, what did the Glorious Imperator have to say about this one? Seems pretty grim, I mean, if your own spy agency is destroying potentially sensitive, unconstitutional tapes which possibly contain blatant violations of international law on torture, you should probably know; right?
Eh... maybe not. According to ABC News,

Bush: My first recollection of whether the tapes existed or whether they were destroyed was when Michael Hayden briefed me. There is a preliminary inquiry going on, and I think, I think you will find a lot more data. Facts will be coming out in an orderly fashion, and that is good. It will be interesting to know what the true facts are.

Remember for a second that this is the same administration which produced the bobblehead Gonzales, who purjured himself to save the President's basic judicial validity (In collusion with Karl Rove's magically disappearing emails, and their borderline-illegal, conflict-of-interest use of Republican National Committee email inboxes), so the Bush Administration is already behind on the ball here.

But wait, that's irrelevant. Actually, that's really... not unacceptable, compared to what was said by the President the LAST TIME something like this happened. We all remember the Plame scandal, where Karl Rove and Scooter Libby violated... laws... and the CIA's non-official cover rules by exposing Valerie Plame-Wilson as a CIA employee in a calculated political strike at her husband, Ambassador James Wilson (Before Libby was pardoned for being a good patsy. There are almost too many scandals to remember.).
Back then, Bush said:

"I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Good work, asshat!
I'm not quite sure who presides over a more legitimate presidency, George Bush, or Robert Mugabe?

But there's more!!
The International Herald Tribune has a bit more on the story. Apparently, facts won't be so forthcoming as they were in the last case. In other words, despite the fact his administration clearly has no respect for the validity of the CIA, Bush doesn't want to have to pardon any more clearly guilty people. There's a legacy to think about! More important things to do, like veto health care for children, destroy Iraq, devastate America's credibility, and set us up for war with Iran!

The Justice Department asked the House Intelligence Committee on Friday to postpone its investigation into the destruction of videotapes by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2005, saying the congressional inquiry presented "significant risks" to its own preliminary investigation into the matter.

(snip)

The Justice Department and the CIA's inspector general have begun a preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey said the department would not comply with congressional requests for information now because of "our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence."

In other words; Justice refuses to collaborate with the House of Representatives (Hey! Unconstitutional!) as long as they... well... plan on investigating the rather ridiculous destruction of tapes which would show the CIA torturing people to extract possibly unreliable information at what is essentially a concentration camp conveniently located in Cuba, so we can say that they don't really have rights since they're not on American soil! Is waterboarding torture? Nope, not as long as you can't see how they do it! If you did... hmm... maybe you'd change your minds, so no, we can't have that. No investigation for you, elected representatives of the people and their interests. You're too likely to compromise operational security, sort of like why there were no tours of Cambodian prison camps for western journalists (They were waterboarding people too, and it was torture then!).

So, recap:
1. Violation of a court order
2. Violation of the constitution
3. Waterboarding IS torture.

It's all very simple.

[duke_Qa]

strange how nations always finds a way to get around human rights to fit their own needs. in a world where your own interests are the only interests, how can we expect people to play by the rules? we are living in the age of espionage and proxy-wars. its a bit like greek mythologies about Hercules and other heroes who gets support from the gods. the gods won't fight each-other, but they don't have any problem supporting mere mortals.

its hard to imagine how to avoid law-breaking. if you follow the laws blindly, you will be left behind in the race. if you break too many of the laws, your people either gets pissed or suppressed. democracy is in the end a very useless tool for action. the same goes for human rights.

[MSpencer]

Thus it's perfectly morally acceptable to torture people who are illegally held in an illegal prison camp which basically violates about a hundred conventions? Everyone does it; why try to prevent it? That's a bit... evil, honestly.

Edited by MSpencer, 18 December 2007 - 06:47 PM.

[duke_Qa]

you know what they say, its good to be bad. we're all basically evil in some fashion, especially when it comes to our own "hard-earned" comforts.

the west will do evil things as long as it stops us from deteriorating. if we can get away with smaller crimes than others doesn't mean that we are less evil than them. if we were in the same situation as others we would probably go for the same tactics. (certain things are more easily exploited by evil though, fanatism, ignorance, populistic rhetoric, nationalism etc etc.)

but even though the world at large still is a barbaric place, the rules that we have applied to ourselves have greatly reduced human suffering. we can't expect world peace though, humans are not really designed for that(unless someone makes a gene-virus that alters peoples genetics in a lobotomizing fashion). the rules help, and when people break the rules, someone should face the consequences. but with the information flow being more open these days, we will most likely hear more about it than we would have.


it will be interesting so see if i still live in 50 years, and look back at this time. to see if we were the new nazi's, or if the rest of the world were the new nazi's. most likely i think the west has centuries of experience in this field, and we will most likely come out on top of it. and you know its the winner who writes history.

[Hostile]

Thus it's perfectly morally acceptable to torture people who are illegally held in an illegal prison camp which basically violates about a hundred conventions? Everyone does it; why try to prevent it? That's a bit... evil, honestly.

What do you do with these people other than put them in a jail outside the US. How long does it take to get useful info out of someone, might as well send them to trial and do SOMETHING with them. Sitting for years in a prison with no trial seems over the top to me.

Question for you. If you could look back in time, would you have water boarded someone if it could have prevented 9/11? It's a serious question.

1) if you answer no, than you place the human rights of one individual over the murders of over 3k people.
2) if you answer yes than you contradict yourself.

Remember there is only two answers yes or no and of course an explanation why you chose it.

[MSpencer]

We have to decide where we're going to draw the line. We have to decide what liberties we'll give up for security. I don't think it's right to torture people to produce lacklustre intelligence. Humans are fallible and humans lie. Humans especially like telling people what they want to hear, and if you're being tortured to give up an "ace of intelligence," after a while, you're just going to start making things up to make them stop.
Torture extracted intelligence is barely ever right. It's ineffective and a violation of human rights.
That, and you didn't address the fact that the President is violating a court order, obstructing investigation of the destruction of these tapes, and trying his best to keep anyone from raising questions, sort of like the Valerie Plame case. You can't rebut my rebuttal to someone else and think you've tackled the real problem.

[Cossack]

Whether the ends justify the means or not, the american position on torture is highly hypocritcal, as is almost all american foreign policy.

The United States cannot go around bombing people for torturing and war crimes when they themselvs do it.

[Hostile]

We have to decide where we're going to draw the line. We have to decide what liberties we'll give up for security. I don't think it's right to torture people to produce lacklustre intelligence. Humans are fallible and humans lie. Humans especially like telling people what they want to hear, and if you're being tortured to give up an "ace of intelligence," after a while, you're just going to start making things up to make them stop.
Torture extracted intelligence is barely ever right. It's ineffective and a violation of human rights.
That, and you didn't address the fact that the President is violating a court order, obstructing investigation of the destruction of these tapes, and trying his best to keep anyone from raising questions, sort of like the Valerie Plame case. You can't rebut my rebuttal to someone else and think you've tackled the real problem.

I'd love to draw the line, I did it in my last post when I said answer a simply yes/no question. I got the typical left wing response. No answer, just more questions. Are you jewish? It's typical for a jew to answer a question with a question when they have no answer?

Am I racist, absolutely. I married a jew. I also love to ask questions and answer my own questions. So once again why not stop spinning and answer.

Question for you. If you could look back in time, would you have water boarded someone if it could have prevented 9/11? It's a serious question.

1) if you answer no, than you place the human rights of one individual over the murders of over 3k people.
2) if you answer yes than you contradict yourself.

Remember there is only two answers yes or no and of course an explanation why you chose it.

And just to end this on a good note (Matt I love and respect you sir) let me tell you a joke I just made up.
There is this jew, a comedian, and a scientist sitting at a bar.

The comedian says "who cares about the planet, mother earth can take care of itself. Seeing as we're both athiests, who cares what happens to the planet. Unless you care only about passing on your DNA."

The scientist say "I don't understand, you know knothing about climate change and nothing about DNA? What makes you qualified to even talk about it?"

The jew says "Why am I in this joke again?"

The comedian says "Because it's all your fault?!"

The scientist says "I don't get it."

If you don't get the joke, it's ok. That's why you're the scientist.

[CodeCat]

If I kill Hostile now I'll stop him from crashing into a school bus in a few years. I get the impression that seems like a fair tradeoff.

[Phil]

Question for you. If you could look back in time, would you have water boarded someone if it could have prevented 9/11? It's a serious question.

1) if you answer no, than you place the human rights of one individual over the murders of over 3k people.
2) if you answer yes than you contradict yourself.

The question is tough of course, because you can only choose between bad and bad. If I'd have to answer it exactly this way, I really wouldn't be sure.

The point behind it is though that in realilty, you'll never get to ask yourself this question. It then sounds more like:
"Would you waterboard a hundred people in order to get vital information out of one that might be right or might be wrong?" And seriously, I think I can anser that one...

[MSpencer]

I'd place the numbers at over a thousand, and have we ever heard of reliable intelligence coming from Guantanamo Bay?
The fact of the matter is that it's torture and it isn't working.

[Phil]

Heh, I had actually written one thousand, but then decided to change it because it seemed to overdone...

[MSpencer]

It might be underdone, there are very few statistics out there.

[Hostile]

If I kill Hostile now I'll stop him from crashing into a school bus in a few years. I get the impression that seems like a fair tradeoff.

Fortunately I can only be killed by drive by shootings, not drive by postings.

Question for you. If you could look back in time, would you have water boarded someone if it could have prevented 9/11? It's a serious question.

1) if you answer no, than you place the human rights of one individual over the murders of over 3k people.
2) if you answer yes than you contradict yourself.

The question is tough of course, because you can only choose between bad and bad. If I'd have to answer it exactly this way, I really wouldn't be sure.

The point behind it is though that in realilty, you'll never get to ask yourself this question. It then sounds more like:
"Would you waterboard a hundred people in order to get vital information out of one that might be right or might be wrong?" And seriously, I think I can anwser that one...

But todays waterboarding prevents tomorrows 9/11. Maybe you'd feel differantly if you had someone killed by terrorists. Fortunately I didn't know anyone who died. It was abit troubling driving home from work with F-16's flying overhead. Expects liberal answer ("but that's how those poor people live in other countries")

I'd place the numbers at over a thousand, and have we ever heard of reliable intelligence coming from Guantanamo Bay?
The fact of the matter is that it's torture and it isn't working.

People who get waterboarded don't die or have physical damage. That's pretty freaking humane when it comes to torture in my book. Most last less than 30 seconds. Not a long torture there.

And many Fed/CIA officers get waterboarded as part of thier training. They don't walk around and twitch for the rest of thier lives. You make it sound like they pull finger nails off of people.

[CodeCat]

Fortunately I can only be killed by drive by shootings, not drive by postings.

Huh?

[duke_Qa]

hostile, you have forgotten to put into the equation that if someone actually knew 9/11 would happen for sure, that answer would most likely always be "yes".

the problem is we can't go around and say "the world is going to end if we don't get the information out of this guy" if we have no idea that this guy is actually some sort of evil genius which knows how to stop that from happening. if people are just being tortured because they "might" know something about a terrorist attack that could kill thousands, thats just guessing.

basically, if i knew that 9/11 would happen, i would most likely not wait around for some terrorist to spill his guts, i would rather scramble jets to shoot down planes not following orders. its easy to see what one might have tried to do afterwards. if you had the chance to kill Hitler before he got popular, would you do that? i personally wouldnt as i've played too much red alert, but its the same thing.

[Hostile]

Fortunately I can only be killed by drive by shootings, not drive by postings.

Huh?

Silly man, don't you realise you're a drive by poster? You come into conversations and drop 2 sentence forums bombs and leave. Notice most of your thoughts are spammy and have no material or thoughts behind them. Why even post if you have nothing to contribute?

hostile, you have forgotten to put into the equation that if someone actually knew 9/11 would happen for sure, that answer would most likely always be "yes".

the problem is we can't go around and say "the world is going to end if we don't get the information out of this guy" if we have no idea that this guy is actually some sort of evil genius which knows how to stop that from happening. if people are just being tortured because they "might" know something about a terrorist attack that could kill thousands, thats just guessing.

basically, if i knew that 9/11 would happen, i would most likely not wait around for some terrorist to spill his guts, i would rather scramble jets to shoot down planes not following orders. its easy to see what one might have tried to do afterwards. if you had the chance to kill Hitler before he got popular, would you do that? i personally wouldnt as i've played too much red alert, but its the same thing.

So what would you do? Strap him in a chair and throw flowers at them? Waterboard them. Why act nice, really? Prove to him Allah doesn't exist as well as God by any other name.

Why not? I'd like to start my own religion. PROVE Perpetual Removal of Voluntary Evidence. Stop volunteering evidence for why I should do what I do, think what I think, or behave as I should. PETA, stop telling me to eat animals, I'll eat whatever I want, and die happy.

I challenge anyone to admit that when a natural disaster happens that you're not rooting for nature (deep down inside). Hoping for maximum casualties! It's our nature to get excited by ENORMOUS amounts of death. 300k? Not enough, I want to see 1mil dead. Now that is funny...

Same reason people love to see a good fist fight. We gather around like monkeys hooting and hollaring. Like chimpanzees. Just watch Youtube.

If I'm a born again athiest, why should I care about life on earth. Religion, death, torture, poverty. Who cares. I have no children and care little for humanity. I want to see the whole system come down.

If mankind is the pestilence that many believe, than why not expedite it's removal? Destroy the earth, heh. We're not capable.

Once you divorce yourself from humanity, than you come to a peaceful point. Who Cares Zen Field!

Slaughter the animals, burn down the forests, experiment on humans scientifically. As long as it's not me. Who cares?

Really, I'm not promoting it. I could care less what happens to anyone but me at this point. It's a summation of my life experience. NO ONE "really" cares about other people in the macro scale of events in ones life. Everyone might as well be a cardboard cutout as you are the only real person in your life.

Why do we spend so much time caring about others when ultimately if you make bad choices, spouse hates you, kids (if you have any) hate you, job works you like a dog, people slam you with advertisements to buy things that'll make you happy.

Maybe I'm already happy and don't need to "take something" Despite those clever pharmacutectal company ads.

Maybe I find it funniest if...
1) We stop embracing our inner child and start embracing our outer adult.
2) Stop living a good life and feel guilty so you pretend to care about 'those other people"
3) Stop kidding yourself and being a wimp and think if I look high enough, I'll see God. If you look high enough you go so far back you'll see your own ass.
4) Stop voting, marching like little army ants to the election booths. They already know the winner. And it's not you.
5) Stop living under the illusion that we can line up in a communal hive based society. That is really against my new religion of PROVE.
6) Stop thinking your Ipod will make you happy. (insert any technology here)
7) Stop thinking you're so important that what you do actually matters?!
8) Stop letting people tell you you can't put mayonaise on a pastrami sandwhich.
9) Stop telling me I can only drive 55mph, when I've been driving 70mph on the same road for years.
10) Stop telling me pedophiles aren't people too.

So why is waterboarding bad again? Why is torture bad? It's not like they are torturing you. And who's to say they didn't have it coming anyway. Consider it a karma rectifier.

Remember boys and girls to always when using humor.

[MSpencer]

This has nothing to do with religion.
This has everything to do with a psychologically scarring torture technique that was previously used in Cambodia.

Also you have no right to consider this a serious political discussion if you're unwilling to put any seriousness into it. I'm highly doubting the validity of this whole racket...

Edited by MSpencer, 21 December 2007 - 05:38 PM.

[Casen]

Also you have no right to consider this a serious political discussion if you're unwilling to put any seriousness into it. I'm highly doubting the validity of this whole racket...

I can't help but agree. Hes not taking it seriously.

And Codecat; a suggestion: I've learned from participating in endless political, religious, and conspiracy debates on AboveTopSecret.com for roughly a month's short of two years (I was banned on Sunday. e.e) that using metaphors and similes constantly in debates is not a good thing; leads to chains going back and forth not going anywhere.

This tends to hold true for practically all religious debates, though definitely possible in others.

[Phil]

But todays waterboarding prevents tomorrows 9/11.

And you say that with total conviction. How can you know there is tomorrow's 9/11? How can you know those people you're torturing actually have got anything to do with that? So basically you're putting that 'national security'-thing above the human rights. Simply because it might lead somewhere...

Maybe you'd feel differantly if you had someone killed by terrorists. Fortunately I didn't know anyone who died. It was abit troubling driving home from work with F-16's flying overhead.

Yeah right, let's go down the emotional path. Make sure to turn off reason on the way. That certainly clears one's vision and let's one think better.

People who get waterboarded don't die or have physical damage. That's pretty freaking humane when it comes to torture in my book. Most last less than 30 seconds. Not a long torture there.

And many Fed/CIA officers get waterboarded as part of thier training. They don't walk around and twitch for the rest of thier lives. You make it sound like they pull finger nails off of people.

We are speaking of the same thing though, right?

Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.