• SeanRenaud said on Jun 12, 2008....

  WTF?  How is this not torture in anybody's eyes?  I mean I'm willing to debate dressing somebody up in women's clothing and call them a faggot.  I've been through the military, my brothers have gone through college.  I haven't seen any lasting damage.
   
  I'm willing to debate waterboarding, but it is torture.  But slashing a the scrot?  What is it not torture if the person survives?

• bloc said on Jun 12, 2008....

  the argument we'll here from the wingnuts is that we didn't do it and we were told the prisoners wouldn't be tortured when we gave them to foreign countries to be interrogated for us. We all know that's b.s., but that's what we'll hear.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 12, 2008....

  Still that should be, hey they were tortured we made a poor decision.  Or the truth which is (imo) the general public doesn't have the stomach to deal with what needs to be done. 
   
  I wonder how many things there are that most people wouldn't do if they knew the steps involved.  I know thatI can watch a slaughterhouse video and say that's really gross then immediately order a peparoni, sausage, and chicken pizza.  But I think a lot of people are VERY detatched from the slaughter process and eat meat.  I mean not even the cruel things that are focused on, I think considerablly less people would eat chicken if they had to slit the throats themselves.
   
  I'm more than willing to accept that it seems that "non violent" interogation works as well or better than torture.  Since it defies what to me sounds like common sense I find it dubious but the studies seem to be solid.  That said I believe in mission accomplishment.  If it ever came down to it I'd be honest.
   
  Which has always been one my major annoyances about the Bush criticism is that I've never met anybody who didn't believe that the government had your fingerprints on file from the moment you were born taken from your birth certificate and they weren't following you around.  Since my father and uncle were both Black Panthers and HAVE actually FBI files on them perhaps my paranoia (as well as many people who are in close contact with me) have justifiable "paranoia" *If the goverment investigates me they are gonna find that I'm a gamer who watches a bit too much porn, plays too many video games and blogs.  They can eat their hearts out I don't even have a parking violation or speeding ticket to my name* but most people belive that the government is tapping phone calls.  So Bush said you know how you've always suspected we were doing this?  Wellg uess what I am!  So I get annoyed.'
   
  Still I'd just say this is what is going on and it's required to keep you safe.  Deal

• bloc said on Jun 13, 2008....

  i agree with you excpet for the "needs to be done" and "required to keep us safe" parts. I can make a convincing argument that it makes us less safe in the long run.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 13, 2008....

  I wasn't at the moment making the case that it needs to be done or is required, I was saying if I were in charge I would just say this what I'm doing, this is why I'm doing it.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 14, 2008....

  I find this case very interesting, especially the spin on it. 

  1st-If you read Wikipedia's account of the story:

  "After 9/11, he went to Pakistan. On April 10, 2002, Mohamed was arrested at the Karachi airport by Pakistani authorities as a suspected terrorist. Mohamed contends that he was a subject of the United States extraordinary rendition policy, and entered a "ghost prison system" run by US and UK intelligence agents."

  Please note it says "Mohamed contends" so we are taking the word of a suspected terrorist, drug addict, and a liar.

  2nd-It then says: "Before his transfer to Guantanamo Bay, Mohamed states that he was incarcerated in prisons in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan, and that while in Morocco, interrogators tortured him by using scalpels to cut his chest and penis."

  I thought it was his genitals?  This says his chest and penis, which is it?  And where does it say he was tortured by the U.S.

  As proof this cockroach is lying he says in a statement:

  "It is now August 11. They have betrayed our trust (again). Hisham from Tunisia was savagely beaten in his interrogation and they publicly desecrated the Qur'an (again). Saad from Kuwait was ERF'd [visited by the Extreme Reaction Force] for refusing to go (again) to interrogation because the female interrogator had sexually humiliated him (again) for 5 hours _ Therefore, the strike must begin again."

  The allegations of the Qur'an are flat out lies, and bloc you were in the military, do they have females in Gitmo that go in and sexually humiliate detainees for 5 hours? 

  Going back to your USA Today article:

  "Reprieve quoted Mohamed as saying that an American female photographed his wounds before he boarded a plane in the Moroccan city of Rabat on the night of Jan. 21, 2004."

  Quoted Mohamad....Once again they have females now photographing Muslim mens genitals? 

  Why don't you question this as maybe being a bunch of bullshit.  Obviously he was tortured by someone or himself, but to claim we did it based only on his word is kind of naive isn't it?

   

   

• bloc said on Jun 14, 2008....

  "do they have females in Gitmo that go in and sexually humiliate detainees for 5 hours? "
  
  
  It's well documented that we've used female interrogators to sexually humiliate detainees.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 14, 2008....

  What exactly is sexual humiliation?  I'm sorry I have no pity for somebody being dressed up as a girl and told their a fag.  I've gone through High School and the Marines.  I do worse things than that to people I like.

• bloc said on Jun 14, 2008....

  @sean
  
  I'm amazed you'd resort to the same flawed logic as Rush Limbaugh. First, being held captive and forced to do things for which you have no control, no idea how far it will go, and no idea how long it will last is not if close to the same as what you do in high school or to friends. You know that right?
  
  Second, you fail to understand the power of culture. It can be traumatic if you have deeply held beliefs and are forced to do things that go against those beliefs while captive. Imagine taking a serious homophobe and have a man sexually humiliate them!
  
  Regarding sexual humiliation:
  
  
  
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 14, 2008....

  I dunno blooding (pinning the medals into the chest)
  Earning your blood stripe (lots and lots of kneeing to the thighs)
  I've also never been present for a hazing that stopped because somebody asked,
   
  I think that first guy is being choked. 
   
  I always got the impression that the batch with that girl in it wasn't torture for information, it was torture for the sake of torture.

• bloc said on Jun 14, 2008....

  "I always got the impression that the batch with that girl in it wasn't torture for information"
  
  
  They were told to soften up the prisoners for interrogation. 
  
  
  Blooding is not remotely comparable to being a captive against your will and forced to endure physical pain. Are you really suggesting that it is?

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 14, 2008....

  But no two kinds of torture are exactly the same.  Waterboarding is different from having a dick rubbed against your face. 
   
  So it becomes what is acceptable and why and under what circumstances. 
   
  Besides I was genuinely curious what qualified as sexual humiliation.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 14, 2008....

  Lets try to stay on topic, the people who participated in Abu Graib were punished and the mulitude of investigations have shown it and isolated incident by a few bad apples.

  I don't like those pictures and I think they are terribly disgraceful of our military, BUT IT IS NOT TORTURE. 

  If it is torture then it is time to shut down all prisons everywhere in the world, shut down any sort of solitary confinement, everywhere. 

   "It's well documented that we've used female interrogators to sexually humiliate detainees."

  No, it is not, you can't tell me with all you people running around crying about the feelings of these poor detainees that they allow females to do what Mohammed above described.

  The problem I have here is if the POTUS says it is not the policy of the United States to torture people you guys right that off as another of the hundreds of lies he has told (without proof) but this sub-human above makes up a bunch of crap and you guys just believe every word.  Even when there are stark contradictions in his statements.

   

• bloc said on Jun 14, 2008....

  @sean
  You seem to be changing subjects on me, or at least avoiding my disagreement with some of your claims. Do you really believe that something someone chooses to be a part of is equivalent to what is done to a captive held against their will?
  
  
  @smb
  LOL, the idea that the pictures we see is done by guards in every prison in america is amusing. 
  
  
  It wasn't a few bad apples, everything we see in these pictures are authorized techniques from the Bush admin. Hooding, sensory deprivation, forced nudity, stress positions, sexual humiliation, etc. These were all authorized, I've even shown you the memo with Rumsfeld signature on it authorizing many of these. 
  
  
  "Even when there are stark contradictions in his statements."
  
  
  As there are in Bush's, Alberto Gonzales', MuKasey's, Yoo's, and on we go. This wouldn't be believable if Bush hadn't authorized torture and tried to cover it up. Blame Bush authorizing torture which makes these claims believable in the first place.
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 15, 2008....

  @Bloc: To be fair I don't know many people who agreed to be hazed.  There is an honor code of not screwing over your fellow guys but it's not an agreement.  Not anymore so than the fact that if two guys get into a fight that neither are going to press charges.  It's part of being an adult.
   
  The problems with this (for me) like in a few major points.
   
  1. What is torture and who gets to define it?  There are lines in the Bible (and I presume the Koran) that one should only wear pure fabrics.  Where do we draw the line and one what basis?  Are going to use some equivalent of the Indecency test (Miller Test) which roughly says I can't define obscene but I'll know it when I see it?  Or is there a solid written in blood answer of when something becomes torture and when and how it is justified.  We need to answer this and preferably as a nation.  Unfortunatly it requires two things one of which is (in my opinion) detrimental to our troops.  a) Open and honest discussion over what we want to allow, what we think it will accomplish and the facts as unbiased as is possible.  b) for America to decide.
   
  The second thing I think is dangerous.  I don't believe that civilians are really qualified to make decisions about situations they have never even potentially experienced.  Still that's the only route I can see.
   
  You constantly claim that grabbing a guy the collar and shoving him up against he wall isn't torture, or that you saying "Hey work with me here, the guys over me want to send you to ALIEN and you know what he'll do.  I don't agree with that but I can't help you if you don't help me" isn't a thread *when to me it clearly is a threat* but you defend this.  You constantly reject the "hot cocoa and cookies" as the only alternative but  it's hard to really say where the line is and more importantly why it's there and that's vital to everything that follows. 
   
  I'll be honest I would really like a solid answer as to why better treatment yields better results, and to know if this is universal, or not.  Maybe it's my Repulican Captialist Flag Waving Pig self coming out but I can't see betraying my country without either being tortured or being made a king.  Not just good treatment.  I assume that people who are willing to strap bombs to themselves are much more dedicated than I am and probably wouldn't break under torture.  I've no idea what it would take to break me but I'm fairly certain everybody has a break point.  It's merely a matter of if you hold out long enough that whatever you give them is ancient and useless. 
   
  Maybe I'm just stubborn to the facts but the facts simply don't line up with reality as I recognize it.  Anything else you want to take from somebody is simply more effective with force or the threat thereof.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 15, 2008....

  bloc-We've done this and you have proved time and time again your definition of torture is weak.  If all those things are torture then what is solitary confinement.  The last traitor, either Ames or the other guy got life in solitary confinement.  He spends 23 hours a day in a large concrete cell.  If your definition of torture is in context to the real world then solitary confinement is cruel and inhumane and dare I say, torture.  You've heard of people being raped in prison, beaten up, sexually humiliated, the list is endless.  By your rational of torture we allow torture in our prisions.
   
  I have spent endless hours searching every scummy website and news organization to find proof that the Bush administration seriously tortures people in real world context and have found nothing.  Every source eventually traces back to an original article from PBS, or the New York Times and all are incidents blown way out of proportion.
   
  We did not authorize what happened at Abu Graib, if we did people would not have been prosecuted.
   
  Let get back to Mohammed.  His story is full of holes and you believe it, that is a problem.  Do people use scapels in order to torture for information?  Logically if you want to torture someone for info you are looking to inflict pain not something that is going to cause a lot of blood and severe injury.
   
  Sean- I think every case is different.  There are some of these detainees that would probably respond to reward programs and simple easy techniques and probably will and have yielded results.  There are also some that we know hold intelligence value but throw feces and spit when asked questions.  This is where the harsh interrogations come in. 
   
   

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 15, 2008....

  We don't authorize, approve or (logically I'm sure you could cook something up) benefit from prison violence.  It's just something that happens.  So they aren't fair to compare, asside from solitary and even that is corrective.  So again it's not a fair comparison.
   
  I wouldn't put it past torturers to use scapels, or dildos, or slabs of bacon.  So discounting something on a tool is pretty silly.  I bet pictures of you huging ALIEN with semen on your smiles sent to your families would have some pretty fucked up effects.
   
   

• stopmediabias said on Jun 15, 2008....

  Sean-my comparison is pointing to the harshness of certain techniques and prisons.  We provide environments and allow prison violence to happen.  A lot people cry about Gitmo, compare Gitmo to some of the prisons in the US and worse overseas. 

   I personally either wouldn't put it past bad people to use a scalpel, I was alluding to the fact that logically speaking this post by our friend bloc is pointing right at the US, if we wanted information why not just waterboard him?  A scalpel makes no sense, we need this guy to talk so lets cause a large open wound on his nuts, something isn't right.  If we are going to accuse our own people of such atrocities I think we should have more credible evidence.

  If you are into the whole male with the semen on the face thing that is your business, I myself am straight and am not at all interested.:>

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 15, 2008....

  I still think your analogy is faulty.  We might provide an enviorment but it wasn't the goal.  If the Gitmo detainees were brutalizing each other I doubt anybody would care. . . I take that back some lweenie would point out that we didn't segregate Shits from Turds from Sunni.  But most people wouldn't care. 
   
  Since torture, for the most part goes on behind closed doors approved or not I'm sure that it mostly comes to.  I'm gonna go over here and close my eyes, you do that thing you do where they start telling us stuff.  Scapel makes as much sense as anything else.
   
  I'm not gay I'm just saying that for somebody who's so vehemently anti gay as ALIEN (it occurs to me that I cant' recall your stance on it and I'm assuming your anti-gay marriage and pro choice based on your other stances and certain beliefs seem to travel in packs.) ALIEN I can't think of a worse torture than than forced homosexuality.

• bloc said on Jun 15, 2008....

  @sean
  "To be fair I don't know many people who agreed to be hazed."
  
  
  Most people going into a group that hazes knows that upfront. Anyway, I don't know what your saying with regards to hazing. If blooding is done in groups does that make sticking nails in prisoners something less than torture?
  
  
  "Are going to use some equivalent of the Indecency test (Miller Test) which roughly says I can't define obscene but I'll know it when I see it?  Or is there a solid written in blood answer of when something becomes torture and when and how it is justified. "
  
  
  It's impossible to write something that is absolutely clear for an infinite number of scenarios. 
  
  
  "I don't agree with that but I can't help you if you don't help me" isn't a thread *when to me it clearly is a threat* but you defend this. "
  
  
  I don't think I ever said it wasn't a threat. Threats and torture are different things. It also depends on what that crazy Alien is believed to be capable of. 
  
  
  "it's hard to really say where the line is "
  
  
  And it always will be. This is how many things in life work. The solution is to not approach the line. 
  
  
  "I'll be honest I would really like a solid answer as to why better treatment yields better results, and to know if this is universal, or not. "
  
  
  This highlights one of my biggest pet peeves about torture. You are only thinking about the immediate result and not the long term consequences of torture. You aren't asking if torture creates more terrorists and if so is it worth it even if it gives us some intel every once in a while. There is far more at play here than if torture in a single instance may or may not yield good intel faster. Btw, I've posted before about why better treatment often yields better results. It's psychology. Human beings are social animals. We want to connect with other people, we want to share our stories. We want people to know our thoughts and opinions. This is true of bad people as well.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 15, 2008....

  Its true we're social, I just can't believe that anybody who wwas loyal to cause would EVER betray that cause without being under duress.  The cafts here just don't line up with reality as I understand it and it makes it difficult.
   
  Torture creating more terrorists only works if our media is honest.  I mean if we weren't covering this, or better yet if we were flooding the world with no we didn't then we'll this problem would ever a) go away, or b) people are going to believe what they are going to believe and nothing is going to fix that. 
   
  I honestly believe that if Barrack Obama were to go to an Islamic nation and say America forced him to surrender his heritage because the Christian Dogs hate Islam, they'd all jump up and agree.  We are talking about people who had riots and death threats over cartooons a few years back.
   
   

• bloc said on Jun 15, 2008....

  except that our media isn't the only media and you can't assume an ideal situation where you can torture and it won't get out that you are torturing. 
  
  
  culture is dynamic. Our actions affect the views and beliefs of muslims. Most muslims are moderate, not crazy jihadists. They are deeply affected by our actions.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 15, 2008....

  Though there are exceptions which I point out when I find and you do as well, the majority of Muslims are silent, which to me is still highly troubling.  Still I agree that jihadists aren't the norm.
   
  On media our media isn't doing us any favors, and we can't control the media of other nations at all.  The way I see it, particularly in countries that don't like us is to assume their media is run by J. Jonah Jameson and we're Spiderman. 

• bloc said on Jun 15, 2008....

  "the majority of Muslims are silent, which to me is still highly troubling"
  
  
  and so are the majority of americans about torture, habeas corpus, presidential lawlessness, and on and on. I'm not sure what we can extrapolate from such points.
  
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 15, 2008....

  That at best most don't care. I really think you are in a minority as far as caring how those who are perceived as enemies of America are treated.  Note that has no bearing on you being right or wrong.  I think MOST people have a strict it ain't me rule.

• bloc said on Jun 15, 2008....

  "I think MOST people have a strict it ain't me rule."
  
  
  Then this isn't american any longer

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 16, 2008....

  In that way I doubt it ever was.  Even in the Revolution there were a lot of people who didn't support the British or Us.  If it doesn't effect their daily life most people find it difficult to really care, particularly if they are working.

• bloc said on Jun 16, 2008....

  america has always been the opposite of a "strict it ain't me rule". If we no longer believe in rule of law, due process, and the constitution then lets be honest about it and throw out the constitution instead of your nod and wink.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 16, 2008....

  I don't think that you could back that historically. 

• bloc said on Jun 16, 2008....

  The founding of our nation, and writing of our constitution is a good start isn't it?

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 16, 2008....

  A bunch of guys who'd just finished winning a war against an oppressive government writing laws to prevent such a thing from repeating isn't looking out for their own interests?  That's why the slaves were freed in 1776. . .
   
  No wait that's why the civil war was fought, no wait. . .
   
  No that's why the President called out the ARMY integrate schools. . .
   
  No wait that's why we give so much in foreign aid. . .cept if you look at it per captia instead of raw numbers we dont' give shit.
   
  I really think your giving America way more credit than it deserves.
   
   

• bloc said on Jun 17, 2008....

  I think there are two aspects to "america". There are our ideals that we try to live up to, and never will because we aren't perfect, and then there are our flaws. You seem to be saying that we should give up our ideals because we will never live up to them anyway. I guess this means I should stop trying to be a better programmer because I will never be the best programmer in the world ;)

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 17, 2008....

  No I'm saying that I don't think that America ever had these values.  While I'm sure that some where somebody did just that I've never heard of anybody immigrating to America to improve America, or to feed America's starving.  Or to improve human rights.
   
  People come to America to find opportunity and lead a better life. 
   
  We are a nation that by the large prides itself on being capitalist, we haven't accomplished what we have because we are selfless.  We can debate how a mixed economy is better than purely one way or the other, but even socialism is government mandated giving a shit about your neighbor.  Humans might be social animals but we still worry about us first and everybody else, if and when we have that luxury.  (and sometimes not even then)

• bloc said on Jun 17, 2008....

  i think you changed the subject on me. I'm talking about the idea of individual liberty and human rights, not economics.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 17, 2008....

  OK, we can talk human rights.
   
  Focusing there I don't see historically America performing altruistic acts.  I mean lets completely ignore what happened to the Indians, or the blacks.
   
  Lets talk about the treatment of the Chinese in the West. Hell the freeing of the Slaves wasn't the purpose of the Civil War.   It doesn't seem like there are many prominant white male figures in any of the suffrage movements.

• bloc said on Jun 17, 2008....

  we certainly aren't perfect, and there are giant black spots on our record, but our Constitution is something we've always moved towards. We've gotten better and it's a result of the ideals of the Constitution and the reminder it brings. I'm arguing that it serves a noble function and we should continue striving for those ideals. You seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't and should just accept that the world is dog eat dog and let the fighting for power begin in earnest.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 17, 2008....

  The Consitution is pretty much all about individual rights though, it does lead towards great ideals.
   
  Though I think the fall of communism, and the general failure of socialism shows what happens when you try to pretend that dog doesn't eat dog.  The thing is that  in most cases the sucess of one person isn't detrimental to his neighbors, and often it is to his advantage.

• bloc said on Jun 17, 2008....

  pick any country were the government has no real power. Mexico, afgahnistan, etc. Would you rather live there or America? You really don't want a dog eat dog world, you want balance.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 17, 2008....

  Setting rules doesn't prevent dog eat dog, it just prevents the fighting from being fatal.  Look at say any sport.  Even "no rules" MMA has rules.
   
   

• bloc said on Jun 17, 2008....

  ok, i can accept that, but I don't think that's what most people mean by dog eat dog ;)

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 17, 2008....

  I think most people have an unrealistic view of dog eat dog.  I mean for starters most people aren't in direct competition with each other.  Microsoft stands as a great example.  While people making Xbox games are "smaller dogs" than Bill they don't want him destroyed, nor he they.  They are mutually beneficial. 
   
  Even once you get to people who are in direct competition often times it wouldn't benefit them for the competition to be gone simply because they lack the resources, but admitedly that's not completely true.
   
  In Mexico best I can tell dog eats dog merely to prove he's larger.  They don't actually benefit from the actions they take, and arguably they are harmed by preventing small fish from getting big enough to eat for lack of better terms.
   
  I believe that in most cases a rising tide raises all ships. 

• bloc said on Jun 18, 2008....

  OMG, I can't believe you just used "dog eat dog" and "I believe that in most cases a rising tide raises all ships" to describe your views ;)

Comment on "Disturbing new claims of torture, possibly with hard evidence"

Currently tagged	torture politics bush spin lies (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment