• speaking_up said on Oct 15, 2009....

  This whole post is torture. 

• stopmediabias said on Oct 16, 2009....

  substance!  substance! 
   
  Just calling it as I see it, don't shoot the messenger.

• kevinunknown said on Oct 16, 2009....

  SMB water boarding is torture, just because it works doesn’t mean it’s not torture, and are you really telling me that the pictures that came out of Abu-ghraib oppression weren’t torture. People were disciplined for what when on over there and that was torture sanctioned by bush administration. The argument that it works, there for its not torture its total rubbish, electrodes to the genitals could also work but I think even you will agree that it’s still torture.

  I would also like to point out that I don’t mind them torturing this guy to get information that could stop a potential terrorist attack. They are terrorists if they can’t accept the possible punishment (legal or otherwise) for their actions then they shouldn’t be doing it, just like a murderer knows he/she could be sentenced to death for their crimes. I am sorry but I really can’t take you seriously until u accept that America has in the past and probably still is torturing terrorist suspects.
  

  
  

• stopmediabias said on Oct 16, 2009....

   Look at this debate from this angle:
   
  1-If we did in fact torture people then it was American's that did it in a volunteer military.  These are our brother and sisters etc.  If we are going to accuse our own people of such an atrocity then our proof needs to be reasonable otherwise we are accusing people who volunteered to risk their lives to protect us and represent our country falsely. 
   
  2-There is a remedy for people who have been tortured and survived.  Because of this people can claim they were tortured when they weren't to bolster an accusation or for other fraudulent purposes.  This means there has to be a clear strong definition of torture which is: intentional infliction of pain and suffering that rises to the level of extreme.  
   
  Find a single case of any person in the US government in the last eight years that has intentionally inflicted extreme pain and suffering on a person in their custody as a matter of policy or non-policy.  Even further find anyone convicted of torture.  The waterboarding that we performed is no where near this definition from our intentions to the actual severity of the procedure.
   
  Look at the time frame Abu Ghraib happened in, the size of the place-it is not widely reported that the Abu Ghraib facility is the size of a small town, look at the severity of the crimes, look at the investigations into Abu Ghraib.  All of these things will tell you Abu Ghraib was a hazing on steroids in a pressure cooker brought about by incompetant leaders, vague procedures on handling detainees, and improper supervision.
   
  All of the photos while completely horrible and grotesque were not torture.  Not a single person was convicted of torture but many were convicted of a lot of other bad things.  When put into the context of war if you were a prisoner would you want to be held by nasty Americans who are going to humiliate you and rough you up or held by Saddam's people who will mercilessly torture you until you die.

• javadewd said on Oct 17, 2009....

  Hey, he unblocked me... Maybe he ran out of people to debate who would actually read his torturous posts?
  
  Anyway, I've been asking some logical and pointed questions, but I'm not getting much out of him yet. I keep chiseling away at the fact that what he's all riled up about isn't torture at all... It's something deeper.
  
  Well, come one, come all, the thread is still hot and laced with my unique brand o' humor!
  

• kevinunknown said on Oct 17, 2009....

  SMB- I agree with you that torture is sometimes a necessary evil, it’s very easy for people like bloc and shelter to start talking about how evil, immoral and wrong it is, but with respect to them they, like us have no idea what the whole picture is and therefore, in my mind are in no place to judge.

  But you have to accept that what went on was torture otherwise they and myself well never take you seriously. How can you argue with them about the rights and wrongs of America touring terrorist suspects when you flatly deny that torturing even went on? The American government are never going to admit that they done wrong because that is how governments work, Obama is probably also letting torture go on so he’s not going to investigate it.

  I strongly disagree with your views on what torture is because pain is subjective and cannot be accurately measured therefore that definition cannot be used. Under international law just about any form of physical abuse and psychological abuse is considered to be torture. This includes but is by no means limited to water boarding, solitary confinement, beatings and sexual abuse, all obscenities that went on at Abu-Ghraib with the consent of the Bush administration.  If you want go and read the United Nations Convention against Torture

  http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/world/the-reach-of-war-abuse-testimony-ties-key-officer-to-concealing-of-iraqi-death.html This article refers to the death of a prisoner at Abu-Ghraib prison.

• stopmediabias said on Oct 17, 2009....

  Java-Bloc baffles me.  This debate from Bloc's side should be a good thing if he is proven wrong because it means we Americans that stand on the front line are not the same as the Iranians, Saddam's Iraq, etc...  Regardless of the overwhelming evidence that contradicts his whole premise he has taken the crazy road and believes everything but logical facts.
   
  Kevin-"SMB- I agree with you that torture is sometimes a necessary evil.it’s very easy for people like bloc and shelter to start talking about how evil, immoral and wrong it is, .."
   
  What is wrong with you?  I am not an advocate of torture and neither is our government.  Torture is evil, immoral, and wrong.
   
  "But you have to accept that what went on was torture otherwise they and myself well never take you seriously."
   
  You are just a waste of my time.  I personally have tried to find reasonable evidence to prove the US government tortured people during the Bush years.  Go to every sicko wacko left-wing garbage site and read about all the atrocious accounts of sodomy and cuttings and all these endless accounts of torture at the hands of the evil Bush/Cheney regime.  After this trace every story back to it original source and you find one of two things, either every bit of evidence comes from the cockroach terrorists with no supporting evidence or it comes from some left-wing pundit who took incidents out of context and/or made mountains out of molehills. 
   
  So if you think torture actually happened please enlighten me, show me your proof. 
   
  "Under international law just about any form of physical abuse and psychological abuse is considered to be torture."
   
  International law is a fucking super joke.  If physical and psychological abuse can be considered torture that what isn't torture?  If we followed international law or the Convention against torture then there is no single thing we could do to any detainee that could not be construed as torture.  This is dangerous to a monumental level.  Following the guidlines from the Geneva convention rules on what they call torture means our civilian police interogations could be considered torture.
   
  "This includes but is by no means limited to water boarding, solitary confinement, beatings and sexual abuse, all obscenities that went on at Abu-Ghraib with the consent of the Bush administration."
   
  This is flat out lie and shows you have read nothing in regards to Abu-Ghraib.  If there was any consent coming from the Bush administration then why were people convicted of crimes and why did other solidiers get rewarded for blowing the whistle on the subhumans that did it?
   
  Read the actual story of the iceman, it is far more complicated than the retards on the left who claim death from torture.  All of you people should be ashamed.  You make these accusations after reading little snipits of left-wing garbage.  The bottom line is prove it or shut it.
   
   

• javadewd said on Oct 17, 2009....

  And like I mentioned on the other thread : Bush authorized torture? So what? What does that show? Nothing. Nothing unless the underlings who carried it out were doing it against their will or against their morals. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Kev.

• kevinunknown said on Oct 18, 2009....

  FM 2-22.3 (FM 34-52) - Human Intelligence Collector Operations FM 2-22.3 (FM 34-52) - Human Intelligence Collector Operations

  SMB- are you really saying you’re ok with the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program, which is torture but you’re against torture at the same time, that makes no sense but then again for someone who ignorantly dismisses anything that contradicts your world view its predictable.

  I think you might actually belief Nixon was being honest when he said “When the President dose it, that means it’s not illegal”. Sorry but your wrong and so was Nixon just because Bush singed of on the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program doesn’t make it legal, it’s just breaking the law with presidential backing. Clinton done the same when he issued a capture or kill order to the CIA’s SAD division on Bin Linden, so Bush isn’t the only one.

  The CIA’s enhanced interrogation program has its roots in SERE training. The part we’re concerned with just now is the resistance to interrogation segment of their training; hear soldiers are put through some pity harsh intermigration techniques including waterboarding. The techniques used during SERE training originate from Vietnam and WWII the basic principle is to bring about what is called a state of “learned helplessness” this is where by the prisoners become totally reliant on their captors and are there for much more likely to cooperate with questioning. Country to what Bloc and shelter would have you belief this dose work as you have pointed out with the case of KSM. This type of torture is not mindless violence there is psychological science behind it, and it was SERE that the CIA used to develop their enhanced interrogation techniques despite being condemned under international law.

  The UN’s convention against torture defines torture as “Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him..... Information” prolonged physical and particularly extended mental suffering are the key components to bringing about a state of “learned helplessness”. “learned helplessness” is a form of severe mental suffering because it is a prolonged form of torture, and studies have shown it has lasting effect’s and as can be seen from the definition above that is in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture.

  Under American law severe pain and suffering is described as;

  "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;”

  This is a very interesting statement; firstly it says that the threat of severe physical pain in its self can be considered to be torture. Part “C” is also interesting because it states that the imminent threat of death is also to be considered as torture, the point of waterboarding is to make the victim feel that he/she is drowning and that death is imminent and that is therefore definitely torture under this definition.

  Waterboarding is further outlawed under the US army’s field manual FM 2-22.3. Human Intelligence Collector Operations 2006 which says that

   

  “5-75. If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to—

  •                     Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.

  •                     Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.

  •                     Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.

  •                     “Waterboarding.”

  •                     Using military working dogs.

  •                     Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.

  •                     Conducting mock executions.

  •                      Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care”

   

  The UN Convention Against Torture also says that “No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” Clearly then the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program is in breach of that part of international law, Brittan are also breaching this law.   

  The UN’s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners states that “17. (1) Every prisoner who is not allowed to wear his own clothing shall be provided with an outfit of clothing suitable for the climate and adequate to keep him in good health. Such clothing shall in no manner be degrading or humiliating.” I would say that the atrocities going on at Abu-Grhaib were in breach of this rule.

  The rules also say that “31. Corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences.” One of the documented techniques used by the CIA was sensory deprivation for this you’re placed in a cell so small you can’t move or stand, usually the victim is naked, starved, and white noise is played. The act of sensory deprivation is therefore Cleary breaching rule 31.

  Everything I have talked about in this post is legal fact it’s not coming from some terrorist suspect or some left wing “wako”. To you international law might be a “super fucking joke” but if it wasn’t for international law people like Milorad Trbic, who was this week convicted of genocide would still be walking the streets.

  Torture is torture just like a dog is a dog stop trying to pretend torture is something else in order to justify it. Once u accept that your government has and probably still is torturing how can you argue with people about the rights and wrong of your government torturing therefore until you accept it went on then I like other people cannot take you seriously, just admit your wrong.

• javadewd said on Oct 18, 2009....

  Sigh.
  
  Makes me want to go out and waterboard somebody...
  
  Thanks, Kev.

• kevinunknown said on Oct 18, 2009....

  Sorry java, really am not turning into shelters clone it’s just the only way I could get the legal points across was to quote them directly. But if you want to waterboard someone might I suggest SMB as he seems the think it’s not torture so am sure he won’t mind, hey and who knows maybe if you do waterboard him he’ll realise it is torture  

• stopmediabias said on Oct 18, 2009....

  There are some severe problems in your line of thinking.  First of all the UN Convention Against Torture is a seriously laughable joke and anyone who quotes them, sources them, alludes to them as experts, uses them as a basis for anything in reasonable debate, (I could go on) is quite ignorant of what is happening in the real world.  The UNCAT cries about Americans splashing water on mass murderers faces while Iran and Syria and some of these other backward countries are drilling holes in peoples knees. 

  "The UN’s convention against torture defines torture as “Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him..... Information” prolonged physical and particularly extended mental suffering are the key components to bringing about a state of “learned helplessness”. “learned helplessness” is a form of severe mental suffering because it is a prolonged form of torture, and studies have shown it has lasting effect’s and as can be seen from the definition above that is in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture."

  So then logically according to the UNCAT we torture people in our own prisons and we allow people to be tortured in our own prisons.  I've worked in jobs where I could call it torture under this definition.  A 6'6" tall police officer technically can be charged with torturing a teenager if he yells at him.  This is why they are joke.  You cannot have a specific definition of torture that includes mental suffering because it is too easy for people to fake.  Learned helplessness is a form of torture?  Are really fucking serious here?  Is there one single thing you cannot define as torture under this ridiculous definition?  There is also a difference between severe and extreme in both mental and physical actions. 

  Once again you list all of these nasty things but you cannot prove that anyone was actually tortured.  Read the memo above on the lengths we went to protect both the physical and mental well-being of the 3 people we waterboarded, that is not torture.  Be specific, your can come up with a laundry list of all these atrocities but until you give specific examples as to where they were applied on actual people to the extent they could be called torture then you are just wasting more time. 

• kevinunknown said on Oct 19, 2009....

  To you international law might be a “joke” but that is your opinion it’s not a “fact” therefore your whole argument then is based on your personal opinion, where as mine was mostly factual. Everything there is legal fact you might disagree with it but that does not change the fact some aspects of the enhanced interrogation program were illegal. The difference in sever and extreme pain is irrelevant because the law says “sever”, it’s just one example of your typically preposterous arguments, your entire argument hear week at best.

  I could show you a picture of Bush beating a restrained prisoner with a baseball bat and you would still insist that it never happened because it contradicts your ridiculous world view. Why don’t you just do us all a favour and admit that you’re wrong and torture has taken place

   

• javadewd said on Oct 19, 2009....

  Sigh. Somebody give me a bucket and a gallon of water... I'm out going waterboarding...

• stopmediabias said on Oct 19, 2009....

  Kevin-"To you international law might be a “joke” but that is your opinion it’s not a “fact” therefore your whole argument then is based on your personal opinion, where as mine was mostly factual."

  Then answer my questions.  What isn't torture under the UNCAT?  Aren't we under international law allowing people to be tortured in our prisons just by the use of solitary confinement and allowing people to be beaten and sodomized?  UNCAT is a joke because the purpose it serves does not work.  Has the UN stopped one single person from real torture anywhere in the world?  No!  But they manage to invite the people who hold a policy of torture right into their organization.   

  You also seem to skip over the fact that you people claiming our enhanced interrogation programs are torture refuse to take in account intent.  Under your logics a person who gets pissed off and backs over his wife would be charged with murder not manslaughter.  It is the same with torture.  In order to meet the definition of actual torture there has to be intentional infliction of extreme pain and suffering, otherwise liberals can claim everything was torture.

   If you get into a bar fight and stomp someones fingers into the pavement you are technically inflicting extreme pain and suffering but you would not be charged with torture because it wasn't your intention to torture.  Research any precedent in which someone was charged and convicted of torture.  In every case the prosecutor must prove the defendant intentionally caused extreme pain and suffering. 

  Again and again, I will admit straight out I was wrong when someone shows be substantiated proof of torture.  You can't that is why you are getting frustrated. 

  Just answer this one question and skip over all the other stuff.  Do you think our military people who are being accused of torture deserve the benefit of the doubt and shouldn't we have rock solid proof if we are going to make such accusations?   

• kevinunknown said on Oct 21, 2009....

  The main difference between torture and assault is that in torture the aim is usually to extract information its premeditated and the victim is kept in some form of captivity and has no way to fight back. Your point about intent is really stupid unless you think they just walked into a room and suddenly thought waterboarding was a good idea sorry but that just doesn’t hold up. There was intent every time the enhance techniques were to be used permission had to be sought and forms had to be filed so of course there was intent.

  I don’t need to give you examples because America used waterboarding and as I have explained above waterboarding is torture.

• stopmediabias said on Oct 21, 2009....

    "Your point about intent is really stupid unless you think they just walked into a room and suddenly thought waterboarding was a good idea sorry but that just doesn’t hold up."

  It is not stupid it is the same as what separates murder from manslaughter.  If a court doesn't have to prove intent to torture then once again what is not torture?  Virtually anytime a person is subjected to any amount of pain they can claim they were tortured.  When a cop picks a suspect up who is handcuffed by his arms isn't he technically torturing the suspect?  Ya ever felt what it feels like to be picked up by your arms when handcuffed behind your back?

  "There was intent every time the enhance techniques were to be used permission had to be sought and forms had to be filed so of course there was intent. "

  There was not intent to torture and anyone who has read Obama's memo can see this.  If it was our intent to cause extreme pain and suffering do you think we would waste time with waterboarding?  Also beyond this if we actually wanted to torture someone do you think we would have doctors and monitors and stringent guidlines in place to protect the detainee?

  "I don’t need to give you examples because America used waterboarding and as I have explained above waterboarding is torture."

  If you make one more comment on this post without reading the details regarding waterboarding as performed by Americans I am just going to delete anything you say.  It is the link below, humor me.

  http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/missing_memos/28OLCmemofinalredact30May05.pdf

  When we waterboarded the 3 people that we did we did not torture them, that is a fact.  If you can somehow get out of this memo(which says our waterboarding causes no pain) that what we did was torture then don't bother commenting again because your just a moron. 

  You also keep immitating bloc here with this selective answering of questions, it is a serious sign you are losing the debate.  I honestly want to understand bloc and you because for the life of me I cannot comprehend the fact Americans volunteer, go into horrible places and risk their lives in a job that doesn't pay well, the job they are doing involves protect us and our families and other Americans accuse these Americans of a crime that is on the same level as rape and/or murder and take tiny snipits of woefully circumstancial evidence as proof these crimes were committed.  I can't get past how absolutely despicable that is. 

   

• kevinunknown said on Oct 22, 2009....

  SMB—me and bloc have very different views on torture; in that he is categorically against torture were as I am pro-torture, as long as it is for utilitarian reasons and not purely for the sake of it. I belief that the Americans’ that where torturing were doing so for utilitarian reason’s and therefore I don’t disagree with their actions.   The problem I have with you is not that you disagree with the use of torture, which is perfectly understandable, but rather it is the ignorance in which you have deluded yourself into thinking that it never went on.

  I have already explained why waterboarding is torture; under the American definition torture can be considered to be something that threatens imitate death, waterboarding is simulated drowning, drowning leads to death therefore waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding also dose cause pain and can lead to heart attacks, lung problems and psychological disorders such as PTSD.

  Your threats to block me just prove how week your argument is you know you can’t win so you going to silence me by blocking me or deleting my comments, how very mature of you. I am not losing the debate, you have already lost, just wake up! And admit you are wrong.

• javadewd said on Oct 22, 2009....

  Okay, Kev, at least now I understand your position. I don't totally agree, but I like it. Now will you stop torturing the rest of us eventually with it?

• stopmediabias said on Oct 22, 2009....

  Kevin- It is sad, it is just so sad that you are so woefully out of touch with reality that this whole debate has been a waist of time.  You are such a chicken shit that you didn't read the memo which explains clearly our version of waterboarding which is about as close to torture as hitting someone in the face with supersoaker.

  I didn't threaten to block you I threatened to delete your nonsense.  I'm finished.   If you believe we actually tortured people then prove it outside of the waterboarding sillyness.  And of course the Democrats agreed to the use of waterboarding so technically them and you agree with torture.  Someday you people will be held accountable for your treason, some day.

  Java-He doesn't have a position except immitating a zombie repeating over and over "waterboarding torture.... waterboarding is torture...."

• kevinunknown said on Oct 22, 2009....

  SMB- do you really belief that the US government is going to admit that they were involved with torture? Of course they’re not! Obama will never prosecute anyone for torture because in all probability he is allowing torture to carry on, he’s just better at hiding it. Even if he were to prosecute then that would only prove my point that America has been torturing people.

   

   

• javadewd said on Oct 22, 2009....

  I thought Kev was a Brit (located somewhere else in Europe). They don't torture, they succumb to the will of terrorists, so his view of torture is swell, so long as the government is doing it to the bad guys seems sane... It's just too bad they don't put it into practice over there. Hell, I think trying to have a decent debate with bloc is torture most times, but I don't want a special prosecutor to climb up his ass with a microscope!

• stopmediabias said on Oct 22, 2009....

  Kevin-What I am saying here is if you are going to accuse the good guys of torture you should have at least reasonable proof.  There is no reasonable proof and nearly every single claim of torture comes from the healthy fattened detainee who has no proof just words.  Go into any prison in the United States and ask any hardcore criminal if they have been tortured by prison guards.  How many do you think will say "of course we were tortured!"  People in captivity hate their captures, that is a fact.

  Read the list of detainees on Wiki and you see a number of them started hunger strikes.  Do people being tortured attract attention to themselves?  Did any of our guys in the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam put on hunger strikes or did they try as best as they could to be invisible? 

• javadewd said on Oct 22, 2009....

  SMB, I thought Kev just said that he was cool with torture so long as the government was doing it to the bad guys. Are you simply hammering him over the word "torture?" Dude? Hammering a nail in with your forehead is torture. Stop the madness!

• kevinunknown said on Oct 22, 2009....

  SMB—in American prison’s enhanced interrogation techniques are not used against the everyday murderer or rapist, although I think there is a case for them receiving the techniques as a form of punishment.

  Do you agree that some aspect of the enhanced interrogation program, although justifiable under the circumstances, in the end amounted to torture?

   

• stopmediabias said on Oct 23, 2009....

  Java-My entire premise in this arguement is this:  We send our men and woman who volunteer off to very bad places for the overall purpose of keeping us safe so if someone believes one of more of them tortured someone then we should have substantial proof that it happened.  The torture accusations started with scummy lawyers listening to detainees cry and claim they were tortured.  I think we should have more evidence if we are going to demonize these kids and so far NOBODY has come up with any reasonable evidence.

  Kevin-"Do you agree that some aspect of the enhanced interrogation program, although justifiable under the circumstances, in the end amounted to torture?"

  NO, not even close. 

• kevinunknown said on Oct 23, 2009....

  So what you’re saying then is that you are still denying it because you think international law is a “super fucking joke”, no one in the American armed forces would ever consider hurting a prisoner and all the claims of torture you think came from “scummy lawyers”.  You belief all this despite me showing you very clearing some aspects of the enhanced interrogation program were legally torture, the ICRC, Amnesty International, and the Human Rights Watch all reporting that America was illegally torturing people, even some of Americas ally’s showing concerns about American torture programs, the mainstream media reporting torture and American politician’s speaking out against American torture programs.  You seem to be the only one who beliefs that America doesn’t torture people it’s quite sad really.

• javadewd said on Oct 23, 2009....

  I thought it was the CIA doing the "torturing," not military foot-soldiers. I agree that trial lawyers are simply trying to spawn in a new cesspool market of defending terrorists in court. I guess somebody has to at some point, so why wouldn't it originate with them?
  
  I still find it quite interesting that bloc would probably agree that "we should have more evidence" or "reasonable evidence" that these detainees are really terrorists, too, which is why I tried to explain to him how he is fighting one end of the argument while guys like you and Alien are fighting on the other end. I guess what I'm saying is that where the line is drawn as to what is sufficient enough to call one end a "terrorist" and the other end committing "torture" seems to be a polar argument with no means or vehicle to come to any sort of compromise or agreement.
  
  Beyond that I'd have to say that Kev is just poking the bear... Or, again, torturing the rest of us.
  

• stopmediabias said on Oct 23, 2009....

  Kevin- You my friend are a moron.  If you think you have a case then lets see the proof, otherwise stop wasting time.  You can't prove it and you know you can't prove it that is why you keep up with these nonsensical platitudes and avoid tough questions. 

  Java-There is no compromise here because these guys have not put forth any substantial proof and if you actually go and research this subject, look at everything from a non-biased perspective, and follow every source to its original beginning you will discover exactly what I did.  And that is the U.S. government does not torture people and this belief that they do comes from the radical crazy left whose agenda is to make money and/or create power out of smearing people they disagree with.

• javadewd said on Oct 23, 2009....

  Matter and anti-matter, SMB. I shit you not, that statement you just made to Kev used the same verbiage that bloc used on me the other day... And I was trying to be civil with him, because I thought maybe he had a point beyond "torture."
  
  I guess I'm just not up to speed on this whole polar argument. It's like a logarithm that I can't plot or a problem I can't solve. Pfft.
  

• kevinunknown said on Oct 24, 2009....

  SMB—there is no point in me going to find and source examples of American’s torturing suspected terrorist suspects because you will ignorantly dismiss whatever I find, much in the same way you have dismissed the legal proof I shave showed you that aspects of the enhanced interrogation program are torture.

  Java—I am aware of that argument you having with Bloc but I have not bothered to read all 66 comments so am not going to get involved with it but I will say this. I get really annoyed at people like bloc that go on and on about how wrong torture is, I am sure he would change his mind if he discovered that a terrorist attack could have been stopped if they tortured a suspect. I can understand why on a moral level someone might have a problem with torture but for me it is a necessary evil and is justifiable as a last resort and for utilitarian purposes. Bloc like us has no idea what the whole picture is so how can he criticize with having all the facts?

• stopmediabias said on Oct 27, 2009....

  Kevin-Checkmate

• kevinunknown said on Oct 27, 2009....

  SMB—am guessing that was in reference to what I said to java, that argument is about the rights and wrongs of torture, not about what is and is not torture, two different debates. Aspects of the enhanced interrogation program were torture, what I was saying to java was that although this is torture how can one criticise when not aware off the full facts. It could well be that there was no alternative but to torture KSM based on the evidence his interrogators had, that have not been made public for reason’s of national security.

   Your last comment has also led me to think that there is a chance the reason you can’t accept torture went on, is because you are confused between the argument of what is and is not torture and the argument concerning the rights and wrongs of torture, which are completely different arguments.

• kevinunknown said on Oct 27, 2009....

• stopmediabias said on Oct 27, 2009....

  "Aspects of the enhanced interrogation program were torture"

  No they weren't, we do not have a policy of torture and there were no aspects of our interrogations that involved extreme pain and suffering. 

  My position is there is no proof that anyone was tortured and your position is to just believe something you cannot prove. 

  Too talk about the rights and wrongs of torture is to surpass right and wrong.  War surpasses rights and wrongs.  Is it wrong to napalm on a city and kill 80,000 people in one night?  Yes.  But if those 80,000 will stop the slaughter of 100 million then it is the right thing to do.  It is a paradox and the only thing we can do decide on a case by case basis. 

  I don't know what this is----->"<!--[if gte mso 9]-->"

  Are you trying to post a link?

• stopmediabias said on Oct 27, 2009....

  Java: So what is the deal here?  You are buzzing around.  Are you actually going to get into the debate?

  And good God man don't compare me to bloc.  There is no bigger cunt in all of soulcast.  Wait!  I take that back, Sheltercrow is bigger.

• kevinunknown said on Oct 28, 2009....

  
  

• kevinunknown said on Oct 30, 2009....

  SMB—you said that “I am not an advocate of torture and neither is our government.  Torture is evil, immoral, and wrong.” So you are against torture.

  You also said in your last post that it was ok to kill 80000 people to save 100 million people. If you take a utilitarian view of murder, then why can’t you take the same view of torture? Surly you must agree that it is justifiable to torture one person to save 1 million.

• stopmediabias said on Oct 31, 2009....

  No, that is not where I'm at.  I was pointing out that war surpasses right and wrong because we have to do things that are absolutely horrible that may be right in the context of winning a war but are inherently wrong.  The ticking time-bomb scenerio is almost impossible it is so rare and almost a completely different subject. 

• kevinunknown said on Oct 31, 2009....

  Sorry SMB am just trying to understand when you do and do not agree with torture. America is said to be in a “war on terrorism” so do you think that torture surpasses right and wrong in the context of this “war” and what is your stance on the argument over the rights and wrongs of torture, do you agree with its use in the ticking time bomb scenario?

   

• stopmediabias said on Oct 31, 2009....

  Everyone agrees with its use on a real ticking time bomb scenerio. 

  I do not agree with the use of torture under any circumstances outside of a real ticking time bomb scenerio.

  Even under a TTBS can we say it is the right thing to do?  This is why in the context of saving thousands and maybe millions of lives right and wrong can not be applied. 

   

Comment on "More of Bloc's Torture Nonsense"

Currently tagged	torture bloc politics I would rather be waterboarding (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment