REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Torture Question

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6016
PAGE 1 of 4

Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:11 PM

CANTTAKESKY


For those who have not seen PBS Frontline's "The Torture Question," the show is now available to watch online.

It is a must-see.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
The government is a body of men, usually notably ungoverned.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 9:34 PM

LIMINALOSITY


Thanks for the link. I meant to watch this, but, now I can.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 9:44 PM

HKCAVALIER


It was so dispiriting to see this now. All this information has been available for years and Rummy is still running his "war on terror." It was all there--Rummy's pissing contest with the CIA and the FBI, the think tank lawyers, the 90% of prisoners taken "at random," the broom handle, etc.

One piece of info that was new to me was the utterly appalling fact that Abu Ghraib is located in a combat zone! That fact alone creates unbelievably hostile and dangerous conditions for the detainees. The 19 and 20 year old guards are watching their friends and fellow soldiers killed and maimed by enemy fire during the day and then they're given absolute power over these "enemy combatants" behind closed doors at night. The decision to hold these people under such conditions is a recipe for horrendous abuse from the get go. Am I to believe that the top brass didn't consider that fact? Creating a situation where spontaneous sadism is a given is the perfect cover if you want plausible deniability, idnit?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:26 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Yep. This situation was deliberate on so many levels.

What disturbs me, though, more than issues revealed in this documentary, are some of the letters Frontline has received. For example:

Quote:

Dear FRONTLINE,

This show, this despicable show, you treasonous cowards, I am appalled how you put our soldiers at risk and enlighten the enemy!

I am so sickened by watching this show, this disgrace, this true treasonous act! You should be ashamed for selectively picking cowards who would rather see this great country be degraded for the sake of ratings, liberal base, than the protectors of this great country, how dare you, you should be ashamed.

Thank god for tough action, strong will and a dogged determination to see through your devise, destructive, and dangerous airing of this terrible betrayal of the men and woman who are protecting everything you have and everything you ever will have, I'm sick!

Wayne Woran
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/talk/index7.html



What does it say about us as a nation that we have folks who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret.

Then there were all those people who say, "That's not torture!" I'm not sure if they just didn't watch the program or if they simply blocked out the part where "Detainee 07" was sodomized or where someone was kept in continuous hypothermia at the verge of death.

This blind "patriotism" baffles, and scares, me. What have we become, and where are we headed, as a country?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 2:17 AM

CITIZEN


Firstly, thanks for the link CantTakeSky, I plan on watching those episodes as I get the time.

Quote:

Originally posted by CantTakeSky:
What does it say about us as a nation that we have folks who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret.


It says America is full of people...
I'll clarify later...
Quote:

Then there were all those people who say, "That's not torture!" I'm not sure if they just didn't watch the program or if they simply blocked out the part where "Detainee 07" was sodomized or where someone was kept in continuous hypothermia at the verge of death.

Cognitive Dissonance?
Quote:

This blind "patriotism" baffles, and scares, me. What have we become, and where are we headed, as a country?

It's always the same. It's a big reason I worry about you guys, with GWB and the patriot act and so on.
You start passing patriot acts and your on a slippery slope, because anyone who dissagrees with it is NOT a patriot and IS a traitor.
Blind patriotism is always a problem, and the blind patriots are ussually blissfully ignorant of the fact that such attitudes are exactly what allowed Hitler and the Nazis to take control of Germany (afterall, it could never happen here, could it?).
The whole 'climate of fear' both here in Britian and in America is incredibly disturbing for me. People will give up all kinds of freedoms and will do and allow all kinds of terrible things to happen in order to feel safe.
For the Nazis it was Jews, today could it be Muslims, and the ever present threat of a 'pandemic' flu? I mean last year it was SARS, this year it's bird flu, what's brewing for next year, lizard flu? Terminal flatulants?
It is articles such as this that give me cause to worry about 'the leader of the free world':
Quote:

Bush may turn out to be a transition figure, our version of Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck used "values" to energize his base at the end of the 19th century and launched "Kulturkampt," the word from which we get "culture wars," against Catholics and Jews. Bismarck 's attacks split the country, made the discrediting of whole segments of the society an acceptable part of the civil discourse and paved the way for the more virulent racism of the Nazis. This, I suspect, will be George Bush's contribution to our democracy.
...
The Institutes of Biblical Law called for a Christian society that was harsh, unforgiving and violent. Offenses such as adultery, witchcraft, blasphemy and homosexuality, merited the death penalty. The world was to be subdued and ruled by a Christian United States. Rushdooney [Rousas Rushdooney, Founder, The Reconstructionist movement] dismissed the number of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust as an inflated figure and his theories on race echoed Nazi Eugenics.

"The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires...," he wrote. "The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity has been governed by radically different considerations."

"The background of Negro culture is African and magic, and the purposes of the magic are control and power over God, man, nature, and society. Voodoo, or magic, was the religion and life of American Negroes. Voodoo songs underlie jazz, and old voodoo, with its power goal, has been merely replaced with revolutionary voodoo, a modernized power drive." (see The Religious Right , a publication of the ADL, pg. 124.)


http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm

EDIT:
It interests me that many say 'Muslim states' are violent and 'backward' because of their justice system.
Just take a look at the justice that Rousas Rushdooney wants for the global 'United Christian Empire'.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:13 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

Blind patriotism is always a problem

Not according to the present administration.

Heil Bush! Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:15 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
plausible deniability

Second only to the Golden Rule, politically speaking.

Chrisisall, CT to the end

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:30 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Chrisisall:
Heil Bush! Chrisisall


I think it's a little harsh to compare Bush with Hitler, I mean, do you think Bush could inspire the masses through a speech...
Hitler could warp an entire nation largely through words...
Bush would be a stand-up-comic, assuming he'd actually meant to be that funny...

Afterall, there's no word in the English language for 'Dictator'...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:44 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Afterall, there's no word in the English language for 'Dictator'...


No, but there is a phrase- Old Money.

"Right from downtown Washington, welcome the comedy stylings of Georgie Bush!"
*applause*
"Thanks for that welcome, you know I could have you all seized into custody using the Patriot Act, and you'd never be heard from again..."
*laughter, applause*

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 9:29 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


I’ve not seen the show so I can’t commit on it, but I can certainly understand and even agree with the necessity of keeping certain things secret. “Torture” is one of those things that should be dealt with very carefully, especially during wartime. I don’t agree with the use of torture, and I certainly think that if our military or defense agencies are wantonly practicing such things then that is legitimate news. On the other hand I do find it despicable that the issue of torture in the news seems to be more often a political tool to attack an administration for reasons that have nothing to do with torture. Since this is likely to inflame threats against our military men, citizens and US supporters abroad as well as raise the overall threat against the US, it is not only despicable but may be ethically tantamount to negligent homicide.

Furthermore the issue of torture is very subjective. What some seem to consider torture, I do not. For instance, I don’t consider sleep deprivation and aggressive, loud and/or threatening speech torture. I don’t consider defacing or destruction of religious items, to include the Koran, in front of prisoners, torture. Nor do I think that such things are newsworthy. However, the unnecessary discussion, even innocently, on the news can inflame threats against our people. We are fighting an enemy that is very fanatical and driven to fits of inhuman psychopathic and/or suicidal fanaticism that will be inflamed by even the notion that the US defaces a Koran. Innocent people, including Americans, may die as a result of simply discussing so called torture in the news.

The issue of torture is one that must be dealt with very responsibly. And while many in the news frequently attack the administration politically or demand the administration take responsibly for a particular interpretation or dubious and/or spurious claims of torture, the news itself does not seem willing to take responsibility for its own part, which could possibly have far worse ramifications if inappropriate or unworthy news is used as propaganda to further or even escalate war against the US.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:06 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
What does it say about us as a nation that we have folks who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret.



It says we're a nation of individuals with differing opinions. The folks who produced "the Torture Question" expressed their opinion and Mr. Moran expressed his. Or would you rather that only "acceptable" opinions be expressed?

Although I have problems with the changed guidelines for treatment of Afgan and Iraqi prisoners, I can see how the search for intelligence to prevent acts of international terrorism or Iraqi insurgent attacks could have been a strong motivation for people with responsibility for stopping these acts to step over the line.

I'd think that if we were truly evil, as a nation, we'd have had better provision for coercive interrogation in place from the get-go. The slap-dash manner in which it developed, and the relatively low-grade techniques used really do seem like a scramble for some useful info, rather than a pre-orchestrated and systematic torture machine.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:15 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Ok Finn, help me out here- and I swear I'm not being trollish or snarky, I'm asking legitimately- but I really don't understand your position vis a vis torture. You say this:

Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t consider defacing or destruction of religious items, to include the Koran, in front of prisoners, torture.



Then you turn around and say this:

Quote:

We are fighting an enemy that is very fanatical and driven to fits of inhuman psychopathic and/or suicidal fanaticism that will be inflamed by even the notion that the US defaces a Koran.


Most Muslim fanatics (as well as many non-fanatics) would rather be killed or beaten than be religiously or sexually humiliated. We of the western world would probably rather escape with our lives than worry about a book (I know I would) or being photographed naked. But is a definition of what constitutes torture only applicable to the people giving, or is it somewhat based on the people receiving it? I would propose that defacement of a Koran in front of a Moslem cleric is tantamount to torture on a level that we as westerners are unfamiliar with. If another culture considers an act to be torturous, shouldn't we as a civilized nation respect that? My personal position on torture is no way no how, because I see us as being better than that (as well as its actual effectiveness has always been in question). But people who actually debate things like, 'where is the line' always confuse me on points like this. Sure it isn't torture to you, but a maybe a better question to ask is, 'is it torture in regards to their culture.'

Interested in anyone's thoughts on this.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:19 AM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Finn, you act as if the Arab world has no news agencies. They were all over the scandal at Abu Ghraib, long before us. All the info we're getting from the Frontline program is years old. "The enemy" sure doesn't need to get their info from PBS.

Our news agencies covering these stories isn't inflaming anyone outside this country. Our news agencies covering these stories actually presents a level of sanity and accountability that the rest of the world finds hopeful. As Bush has so often pointed out, one of the things that makes the U.S. a much better place than Iraq under Saddam is the fact that when members of our military commit atrocious acts, there are consequences. Stories in our country's free press are part of those consequences. The commitment of Americans to take the inquiry to the highest level of government is another thing that makes this country great.

And Finn, you really oughta watch the program before you comment, unless you just want to muddy the waters with issues that may or may not be germane.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:24 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
we'd have had better provision for coercive interrogation in place from the get-go. The slap-dash manner in which it developed, and the relatively low-grade techniques used really do seem like a scramble for some useful info, rather than a pre-orchestrated and systematic torture machine.




I'm in agreement with you on this, Geezer. I don't think there is a torture 'machine' in place, I think that as a result of certain policy statements and general post-9/11 fear, coupled with a wartime threat, we're engaging in practices we shouldn't be. Some wrong signals were sent from the top down (re: Geneva Convention) into a high-pressure situation that simply boiled over.

What bothers me the most is the failure of upper level accountability. I find it very difficult to believe that the grunts in the field should be taking the most punishment for what went on. Their commanding officers (and probably their commanding officers as well) should be being court-martialled as well. Though I cannot remember the Latin, I believe the phrase is "who watches the watchmen?"

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:48 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t consider sleep deprivation and aggressive, loud and/or threatening speech torture. I don’t consider defacing or destruction of religious items, to include the Koran, in front of prisoners, torture. Nor do I think that such things are newsworthy.

I agree.
Quote:

However, the unnecessary discussion, even innocently, on the news can inflame threats against our people. We are fighting an enemy that is very fanatical and driven to fits of inhuman psychopathic and/or suicidal fanaticism that will be inflamed by even the notion that the US defaces a Koran. Innocent people, including Americans, may die as a result of simply discussing so called torture in the news.
Free speech isn't free. Maybe it would be better to take our people out of harm's way than hope human(ie fallable, weak and/or viciously opportunistic) media has a conscience, and the ability to follow it.
Quote:


if inappropriate or unworthy news is used as propaganda to further or even escalate war against the US.

Um...you mean.....
What do you mean?
Did someone start a war with us? (I haven't seen the news yet today...)

Sorry, okay- the 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' thing; I get it. But they're cuttin' off heads over there. We should not have gone there the way we did, we should not be there now, it should not matter what our media says about anything, true OR inflamatory.

And if the American people don't know the bad things that go on (as they obviously don't), it WILL continue full force. Change of some kind is necessary, and it's always painful.

What am I talking about- why should we have zero tollerance for torture, when we have 50% tollerence for unfit leaders like Bush?

Yes, unfit, he's dumb, he's a dry-drunk, he's a 'I'll show Daddy!!!' boy, he's a bad manager, blagh, blagh, and it's all true....Chrisisall

P.S. Finn, I don't see you on the General Discussion boards much, what did you think of the BDM? I loved it!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:02 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Most Muslim fanatics (as well as many non-fanatics) would rather be killed or beaten than be religiously or sexually humiliated. We of the western world would probably rather escape with our lives than worry about a book (I know I would) or being photographed naked. But is a definition of what constitutes torture only applicable to the people giving, or is it somewhat based on the people receiving it? I would propose that defacement of a Koran in front of a Moslem cleric is tantamount to torture on a level that we as westerners are unfamiliar with. If another culture considers an act to be torturous, shouldn't we as a civilized nation respect that? My personal position on torture is no way no how, because I see us as being better than that (as well as its actual effectiveness has always been in question). But people who actually debate things like, 'where is the line' always confuse me on points like this. Sure it isn't torture to you, but a maybe a better question to ask is, 'is it torture in regards to their culture.'

Multiculturalism in all its ridiculousness.

I seem to remember an “art” piece a few years ago that involved defacing the image of the Mother May with feces. Many Christians found this to be in rather poor taste. Was the artist “torturing” Christian clerics? Should that artist be arrested for practicing torture? Or does a reverence of ones religion only apply to fanatical Muslim clerics? If we are going to elevate the defacing of a religious book to the level of torture, then we have essentially eliminated the freedom of speech, if we are to apply this new found reverence for religious articles fairly.
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Our news agencies covering these stories isn't inflaming anyone outside this country. Our news agencies covering these stories actually presents a level of sanity and accountability that the rest of the world finds hopeful. As Bush has so often pointed out, one of the things that makes the U.S. a much better place than Iraq under Saddam is the fact that when members of our military commit atrocious acts, there are consequences. Stories in our country's free press are part of those consequences. The commitment of Americans to take the inquiry to the highest level of government is another thing that makes this country great.

I agree, but it doesn’t change the fact that there are those, even in this country, who wish to use the issue of torture as a political weapons against the president.
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And Finn, you really oughta watch the program before you comment, unless you just want to muddy the waters with issues that may or may not be germane.

I don’t think so. I was honest in reporting that I had not seen the show and admitted that I wasn’t criticizing this show.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:14 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Multiculturalism in all its ridiculousness.

I seem to remember an “art” piece a few years ago that involved defacing the image of the Mother May with feces. Many Christians found this to be in rather poor taste. Was the artist “torturing” Christian clerics? Should that artist be arrested for practicing torture? Or does a reverence of ones religion only apply to fanatical Muslim clerics? If we are going to elevate the defacing of a religious book to the level of torture, then we have essentially eliminated the freedom of speech, if we are to apply this new found reverence for religious articles fairly.



You brushed off my post without answering it at all, and gave an example that had no relevance to my point. As I made perfectly clear, we in the west don't take our iconography as seriously as the Islamic world does. Is that act torturous as we define it in America? No, nor would I equate it with a freedom of speech issue here in America. A Moslem American defacing the Koran gets the same rights/punishments/priveliges as a Christian defacing a Bible. That's because it's our society's rules, not theirs. That wasn't the point- we live by a different societal code here.

The point was, had someone in Iran made a Koran art piece like the Xtian one you point out, he wouldn't have lived to see it on display. That's a fact. So, since something like that would be illegal at best, murderous heresy requiring stoning more than likely in a Moslem country, it doesn't matter whether it's freedom of speech in ours. I'm asking if we should treat the issue in that respect. Just because we define torture one way doesn't mean someone else's definition is a perfect match.

Now answer, Finn, should the culture of the tortured be taken into account?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:16 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Free speech isn't free. Maybe it would be better to take our people out of harm's way than hope human(ie fallable, weak and/or viciously opportunistic) media has a conscience, and the ability to follow it.

I agree. I think it would be best to take our people out of harms way. I think, however, we have different opinions of what constitutes “harms way,” and how to get our people out of it.
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Did someone start a war with us?

Yep.
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Sorry, okay- the 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' thing; I get it. But they're cuttin' off heads over there. We should not have gone there the way we did, we should not be there now, it should not matter what our media says about anything, true OR inflamatory.

Are you suggesting that it doesn’t matter whether our media puts forth rational and honest news? I would say that that kind of thinking with regard to the media is exactly what I was talking about.
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
And if the American people don't know the bad things that go on (as they obviously don't), it WILL continue full force. Change of some kind is necessary, and it's always painful.

I think the American people get an ear full of the bad things that go on over there. So much so that I think the good things, which are just as important, often get ignored.
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
P.S. Finn, I don't see you on the General Discussion boards much, what did you think of the BDM? I loved it!

I posted a few times. I never really got around to posting my review of the movie. I thought it was good. I saw it twice for entertainment sake, and I’m waiting a few weeks to see it again when I will try to be more critical. In the meantime, the expansion to Rome Total War came out a few weeks ago and all my free computer time has been spent throwing virtual hordes of Vandals, Franks and Saxons at the frontier provinces of the Roman Empire.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:18 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I agree, but it doesn’t change the fact that there are those, even in this country, who wish to use the issue of torture as a political weapons against the president.

There comes a point though, where the nature of the political weapon trumps the partisan motives, don'it? I mean, using the fact that a Senator is a drug dealer to make sure he doesn't get re-elected is a good thing, even from his opponant who stands to gain substantially from the scandal? Illegally promoting sadism and torture in the ranks of the U.S. Army is something any President should get in trouble for. That a bunch of folk have been waiting for the opportunity is a political commonplace. At least Bush would be taken down for something a bit more substantive than a bj.

I could have been more direct with my remarks about watching the video than I was. Sorry. The real point is that the familiar argument about making prisoners wear underwear not being torture, would, hopefully, not have come up if you'd seen the documentary because the documentary deals with acts that any sane person would surely agree upon. If your time is limited, I recommend you watch part 6 at least, that's where the toughest stuff is dealt with.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:32 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
As I made perfectly clear, we in the west don't take our iconography as seriously as the Islamic world does. Is that act torturous as we define it in America? No, nor would I equate it with a freedom of speech issue here in America.

I would agree that in general that is true, but it is not true of everyone in the West, I’m sure. I’m certain that some very devout Catholics in the West were as infuriated and insulted by this particular piece of art as some Moslem clerics from the Middle East might be about the defacing of the Koran.
Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
The point was, had someone in Iran made a Koran art piece like the Xtian one you point out, he wouldn't have lived to see it on display. That's a fact. So, since something like that would be illegal at best, murderous heresy requiring stoning more than likely in a Moslem country, it doesn't matter whether it's freedom of speech in ours. I'm asking if we should treat the issue in that respect. Just because we define torture one way doesn't mean someone else's definition is a perfect match.

The answer is no. That’s an excellent example of why there is no moral equivalence between a theocratic totalitarian culture and the US, and why I have so much distain for multiculturalistic ideals. What if in some hypothetical country it is required, under pain of death, to kill Jews? Is it then torture, if the US chooses not to kill Jews? I don’t believe that one can’t use a countries’ culture, particularly a country with a history or fanaticism and totalitarianism, as the defining aspect of what constitutes torture.


-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:42 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
It says we're a nation of individuals with differing opinions. The folks who produced "the Torture Question" expressed their opinion and Mr. Moran expressed his. Or would you rather that only "acceptable" opinions be expressed?


I don't think anyones saying that, Geezer.
There is, however, a difference between saying Neo Nazis are evil, and keeping them silent.

What I mean is:
This Mr. Moran strikes me as the kinda guy who would have been cheering at the front of Hitler's Nuremberg rallies, shortly before chucking a Molotov cocktail through some Jewish families window.
All the time saying it's for the good of the nation, that these weasels deserve to die because they're trying to hurt the country...
Strikes me as the same sort of personallity would do that if society made it acceptable.

I would say that the treacherous one is Mr Moran, who evidently wants the Goverment to never be questioned (first step to glorious fascism, yay!), and believes that your consitution, which is, I believe the bedrock of American society, be entirely ignored.
Maybe you should put policy in Mr Moran's hands, no more worrying about Muslim terroists, when every muslim is either dead or in a concentration camp.

So... In the interests of freedom of speech, let Mr Moran scream at the top of his lungs about how anyone who doesn't hold his view should be 'gagged' because their obviously traitors.
But hey, while he's doing it, freedom of speech means we can all say:
"What a dick"
Or
"haha, look at the crazy person! haha, come on everyone, look at the nutter!"



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:46 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Illegally promoting sadism and torture in the ranks of the U.S. Army is something any President should get in trouble for. That a bunch of folk have been waiting for the opportunity is a political commonplace. At least Bush would be taken down for something a bit more substantive than a bj.

*The crowd goes wild with the recognition that the verbal precision with which he cut to the heart of the matter was much like a surgeon's*

AND, he worked in the funny Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:50 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

The point was, had someone in Iran made a Koran art piece like the Xtian one you point out, he wouldn't have lived to see it on display. That's a fact. So, since something like that would be illegal at best, murderous heresy requiring stoning more than likely in a Moslem country, it doesn't matter whether it's freedom of speech in ours. I'm asking if we should treat the issue in that respect. Just because we define torture one way doesn't mean someone else's definition is a perfect match.



Slippery slope alert. Next might be: "Just because we find slavery (or subjugation of women, or genital mutilation of teen girls, or religious intolerence) a socital evil doesn't mean someone else's definition is a prefect match.

There are some things about which reasonable people can agree to disagree. There's others that are just wrong.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:57 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Are you suggesting that it doesn’t matter whether our media puts forth rational and honest news? I would say that that kind of thinking with regard to the media is exactly what I was talking about.

I'm saying that our media should be able to report that there is no torture, Brad Pitt's leading the torture guard, or 100% of Americans use Korans as kitchen flooring; it should have no bearing on how safe our soldiers or citizens are, except, of course, we have them over there- our greatest mistake....

Chrisisall, Isolationist CT

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
This Mr. Moran strikes me as the kinda guy who would have been cheering at the front of Hitler's Nuremberg rallies, shortly before chucking a Molotov cocktail through some Jewish families window.
All the time saying it's for the good of the nation, that these weasels deserve to die because they're trying to hurt the country...
Strikes me as the same sort of personallity would do that if society made it acceptable.



Just as there's people who post here who would ever so regretfully decide what is best for the rest of us because we obviously don't know the right way to think or we'd have elected John Kerry, or Hugo Chavez. They also know they are right, and would do anything, if capable, to remake the world to their prefect model.

I tend to be of the "leave me alone" persuasion, but there's lots out there on both sides who'd be glad to run my life, and yours.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:04 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Slippery slope alert. Next might be: "Just because we find slavery (or subjugation of women, or genital mutilation of teen girls, or religious intolerence) a socital evil doesn't mean someone else's definition is a prefect match.

There are some things about which reasonable people can agree to disagree. There's others that are just wrong.

Why Geezer, another point we can agree on.
Let's not a habit of this, eh?

The black and white Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:11 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I'm saying that our media should be able to report that there is no torture, Brad Pitt's leading the torture guard, or 100% of Americans use Korans as kitchen flooring; it should have no bearing on how safe our soldiers or citizens are, except, of course, we have them over there- our greatest mistake....

Oh. That’s not going to happen no matter where our troops are. As long as there are fanatical fruitcakes with aspirations of mass murder there will always be a need to report the news honestly and fairly to avoid unnecessarily providing a pretext to their fruitcakeyness.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:11 PM

CITIZEN


Geezer:
My original point was no one was suggesting that Mr Moran or his misguided, and yes he IS misguided, views should be 'gagged'.

They were suggesting that he was not all there, which is an opinion.

I'm saying it's alright to say someone how wants to stiffle freedom of speech to protect our (at least your) way of life is a crackpot.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:25 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Geezer:
My original point was no one was suggesting that Mr Moran or his misguided, and yes he IS misguided, views should be 'gagged'.

They were suggesting that he was not all there, which is an opinion.

I'm saying it's alright to say someone how wants to stiffle freedom of speech to protect our (at least your) way of life is a crackpot.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't



"What does it say about us as a nation that we have folks who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret."

And I was (or should have been) pointing out that Mr. Moran's statements have nothing to say about our nation other than the fact that he is free to make them in our nation. Nuts on all sides inhabit the country, but that doesn't make it a proto-Nazi Reich, a Commie-pinko commune, or an Anarchist free-for-all. Tarring the entire country with Mr. Moran's jingoistic brush is a bit simplistic.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:55 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As long as there are fanatical fruitcakes with aspirations of mass murder there will always be a need to report the news honestly and fairly to avoid unnecessarily providing a pretext to their fruitcakeyness.

I do, however, see your point.

Chrisisall, again with the cake issues

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:58 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Tarring the entire country with Mr. Moran's jingoistic brush is a bit simplistic.


Who did that, and when. I see no statements, by anyone, who say such a thing.

Your statement was paramount to accussing cant of wanting to barr freedom of speech, by simply dispairing at such a bizzare and blinkered opinion as Mr Moran's, which I didn't see as the case.
Furthermore, I dispair that anyone can be so blind to the logical extent of their position.
Frankly Mr Moran's comments do invite the idea of a fascist system, if they were more prevelant within American society.
Cant's comments were not indicative of trying to gag Mr Moran or anyone like him, but of disparing at someone with such an idiotic view.

Extending that to be a bad reflection on the entire nation is too much, but it's not the same thing as saying "these people shouldn't be allowed to speak". I'd still say cant wasn't tarring all of America with that brush, as cant said some folks...

Saying such a thing would, in essence, make 'us' as 'bad' as him.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:05 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

Slippery slope alert. Next might be: "Just because we find slavery (or subjugation of women, or genital mutilation of teen girls, or religious intolerence) a socital evil doesn't mean someone else's definition is a prefect match.

There are some things about which reasonable people can agree to disagree. There's others that are just wrong.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Actually, the slippery slope started when you and Finn equated cultural sensitivity regarding religious artifacts with genital mutilation and rape rooms. If you take moral relativity out to its far end (which I am in no way justifying, let me make myself perfectly clear), then yes, you get that aspect. On the other hand, you two lads fall into the same range with moral absolutism. They're two sides of the same coin. You don't like our way? Hahaha, too bad, we're right and you're wrong, so we'll desecrate and torture all we want, and if you have a problem with it it's irrelevant because our way is always 100% right (which is 100% wrong, and frankly, evil).

There has to be a middle ground, and your way isn't cutting it either. Even you admit that all 'our way or the highway' does is fan the flames of hatred in the Moslem world. What I'm saying is that since they seem to get all shades of wound up over us dicking with the Koran, maybe we ought to stop dicking around with the Koran, not that we ought to let them go around raping at will.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 3:11 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Tarring the entire country with Mr. Moran's jingoistic brush is a bit simplistic.


Who did that, and when. I see no statements, by anyone, who say such a thing.




"What does it say about us as a nation that we have folks who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret."

Duh.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 3:35 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Actually, the slippery slope started when you and Finn equated cultural sensitivity regarding religious artifacts with genital mutilation and rape rooms.



When the cultural sensitivity relating to a religion extends to the determination that anyone who doesn't believe in their particular form of religion is less than human and that killing them insures you a place in heaven...I have a problem with that. I have just as much problem (or maybe not quite, since they aren't out to actually kill me) with the folk who propose "intelligent design" and are sure (their) god hates gays, contraception and abortion.

I'm beginning to wonder if any evangelical religion hits a violently expansionist phase about 1200 years after its inception. Consider that the crusades, with their fanaticism and various abominations, started around 1200 A.D. (give or take a century). Islam started about 866 A.D. It's time for their "Crusades", eh?.

Totally off topic, there's a wonderful statement in the November Smithsonian, from Edward O. Wilson, who proposed most of human behavior derives from biology and natural selection. He noted that "...the religious right's increasingly vocal opposition to Darwinian theory is rooted in a "dislike of human sociobiology", especally the idea that human values flow from biology rather than from a nonphysical soul." I couldn't have put it better myself.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 3:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


OOPs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 4:23 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Now answer, Finn, should the culture of the tortured be taken into account?
Another way to ask this question: When does intimidation and degradation cross the line and become torture?

(The UN defines torture as: "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGACT750042000)

Intimidation and degradation is very much subject-defined. Interrogators find what subjects are afraid of and push that button. Whether that fear is a result of a cultural, personality, gender, racial or age sensitivity is moot.

The question is: at what point does the button pushing become torture? When is the pain too severe?

It is in answering that question that our cultural biases come into play. Westerners cannot fathom mere religious violations to constitute "severe" pain or suffering. You ask a devout Arab Muslim though, and they can well imagine the severity of the subject's suffering. More to the point, so can the interrogators. That is why they picked that tactic to begin with--they are *trying* to cause suffering just severe enough to cause the subject to break and give them what they want. Obviously, if the suffering is indeed severe enough to break the subject, then it should be severe enough to be labeled torture.

But the amount of pain required to break the will of subjects varies greatly from person to person. Should someone not be considered tortured simply because he can endure more pain than others? Amnesty International proposes that the intention to break a victim coupled with acute suffering should be sufficient. AI proposes that 4 elements make up torture:
Quote:


1. the involvement of at least two people, the torturer and the victim;
2. the infliction of acute pain and suffering;
3. the intention to break the will of the victim;
4. systematic activity with a rational purpose.
(see link above)


To answer the original question, I would say: If acute intimidation and degradation was inflicted systematically with the intention of breaking an individual for punishment/ information, it is torture. Obviously, I would say all those humiliation tactics used at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are torture. Much of that torture may be milder than other instances, but they are torture nonetheless.

The REAL question for me is not the definition of torture, but whether torture is ever justified. Should a society tolerate or endorse mild forms of torture in order achieve greater objectives such as saving lives? THAT is the real moral dilemma we are wrestling with.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 4:42 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...I can certainly understand and even agree with the necessity of keeping certain things secret. “Torture” is one of those things that should be dealt with very carefully, especially during wartime.


The tactics used by our military in this war constitute torture by standards set by the UN and human rights organizations. However, I understand that you don't see those tactics as torture. So questions on secrecy:

1. Would you support keeping what you know so far of Abu Ghraib/Gitmo interrogations secret until after the war is over?

2. What activities would you consider to be enough torture to warrant public exposure during wartime?

Quote:

...I do find it despicable that the issue of torture in the news seems to be more often a political tool... Since this is likely to inflame threats against our military men, citizens and US supporters abroad..., it is not only despicable but may be ethically tantamount to negligent homicide.

I would like to know if you think this Frontline program is despicable or ethically tantamount to homicide after you've seen the program. Do you think programs like this should be suppressed until after the war so as not to inflame threats against our soldiers?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 5:46 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Canttakesky:
"What does it say about us as a nation that we have folks who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret."

Let me rephrase.

What does it say about us as a nation that we have a significant percentage of citizens who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret?

I could write Mr. Woran off as a loony. Every nation has those. But his sentiments are shared by a good number of others who also wrote Frontline, even if his wording was more hysterical than the rest.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:07 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Actually, the slippery slope started when you and Finn equated cultural sensitivity regarding religious artifacts with genital mutilation and rape rooms.

Actually that is an equation you made. All I said is that I don’t think defacing the Koran is torture. You’re the one who seems to insist that torture is dependent on the religious fanaticism of the detainee, and that the US should be held responsible for the fanaticism of its enemies.

I don’t know many Moslems outside this country, but I know many in the country, and they would likely be offended by the claim that they or their culture can’t tell the difference between defacing a Koran and torture.
Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
1. Would you support keeping what you know so far of Abu Ghraib/Gitmo interrogations secret until after the war is over?

2. What activities would you consider to be enough torture to warrant public exposure during wartime?

1. I think Abu Ghraib was newsworthy. I think it went to too far and exposing it and prosecuting the offenders was the right thing to do. I think however that it is important to keep things in perspective and accusing the US of being a “torture nation” as some have is not perspective. I haven’t looked into it lately, but I don’t remember anything at Gitmo that would constitute torture.

2. That’s a difficult call. One needs to carefully weigh the importance and confidence of the evidence against the lives that will be lost as a result of exposure. Certainly not the continued release of images that provide nothing substantive on a particular event already exposed, or dubious or unsupported claims. Solid evidence of the use of electrodes or instruments designed to inflicted physical pain might be newsworthy. Somewhere in between may be a judgment call.
Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I would like to know if you think this Frontline program is despicable or ethically tantamount to homicide after you've seen the program. Do you think programs like this should be suppressed until after the war so as not to inflame threats against our soldiers?

I haven’t seen it, so I can’t comment. I don’t know when I’ll have time to sit down and watch it. I certainly don’t think that information should necessarily be suppressed, although at the government level sensitive information should be controlled. I’d like to think that we have a responsible media that is capable and willing to provide its own policing and can make responsible judgments about what can and should be released. The freedom of the press is a hallmark of American liberty and abusing it, from either end, can have serious implications.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:30 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

I have just as much problem (or maybe not quite, since they aren't out to actually kill me) with the folk who propose "intelligent design" and are sure (their) god hates gays, contraception and abortion.



I'm with you 100% on this one. There's that bizarre sect out of Kansas that protests at soldier funerals with signs like "God kills Marines because they support a country with fags in it" and such. Crazy people. Far-right-wing Evangelical Xtians who believe the rapture is only a glass parking lot away make me very nervous. There's a group in (I believe it was) New Hampshire that constructed a prop missile and had its members dress in fatigues for a "spiritual warfare" project, supposedly "in support" of our troops. I'm sorry, but folks like that are only our constitution away from Taliban-ing themselves. And that's the kind of moral absolutism I'm talking about - The "I know for 100% certain God Hates Fags and I'll show you" crowd.

Quote:

I'm beginning to wonder if any evangelical religion hits a violently expansionist phase about 1200 years after its inception. Consider that the crusades, with their fanaticism and various abominations, started around 1200 A.D. (give or take a century). Islam started about 866 A.D. It's time for their "Crusades", eh?.


You know, I don't think it's a 1200 year itch, but I do think it comes in cycles, and this is their turn. I think it happens when society moves on from religion, and the faithful can't immediately orient themselves to the new way of doing things. With Islam, it has existed for years with an anti-female, anti-Jewish mindset that is now completely incompatible with the structure of the modern world; the faithful go into violent 'seizures' until the religion as a whole comes into alignment. I worry the same thing is due to happen (though nowhere near as violently) with regards to Xtianity and science.

Quote:

Totally off topic, there's a wonderful statement in the November Smithsonian, from Edward O. Wilson, who proposed most of human behavior derives from biology and natural selection. He noted that "...the religious right's increasingly vocal opposition to Darwinian theory is rooted in a "dislike of human sociobiology", especally the idea that human values flow from biology rather than from a nonphysical soul." I couldn't have put it better myself.



I'll have to look at that - sounds interesting.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:49 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
insist that torture is dependent on the religious fanaticism of the detainee, and that the US should be held responsible for the fanaticism of its enemies.



You make my point for me right here without even realizing it. Torture is dependent on the one being tortured. Look at it this way. Here's 7% - American, male, etc. - so you decide to try to torture me with porn. That's right, porn. You force me to watch it 24 hours a day, non-stop. Am I being tortured? Nope. In fact, I'm having a blast. But, take someone whose cultural beliefs are that porn is the devil ("everything's the devil with you, momma"), and you have a different story. Canttakesky's argument is valid - any means that is employed to psychologically break someone down, if taken to its conclusion, IS torture. In a culture that finds sexual humiliation to be the lowest degredation of a person, some naked pictures are like hot pokers to them. Just not to us, so we don't see it.


Quote:

I don’t know many Moslems outside this country, but I know many in the country, and they would likely be offended by the claim that they or their culture can’t tell the difference between defacing a Koran and torture.



They are westernized. That's my point. I know many Moslems myself (I used to have a daily chess game with an Egyptian immigrant while I was earning my BA), but they are all westernized. They drink, they smoke, they cuss, they skip prayer. They are no longer of their home culture, they are ours. A Saudi-American, who has lived here for ten years is going to have a completely different mindset than a Saudi that has lived his whole life in Saudi Arabia. The Americanized Saudi is going to find himself having a harder time getting worked up over the same stuff his counterpart does. They are no longer culturally identical.

Now, I'm not saying, as I'm sure you seem to think I am, that we should kiss terrorist ass. But, from the things I'm reading, we can't be sure we're even holding terrorists, and the things we are doing are making more people want to go out and BECOME terrorists. That's a serious problem. That's why we need new, clear rules, and if being a little relativistic prevents moderates from becoming nutbags, put me on the relativist page.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 7:07 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
In a culture that finds sexual humiliation to be the lowest degredation of a person, some naked pictures are like hot pokers to them. Just not to us, so we don't see it.

So what are hot pokers like to them, then? I don’t think it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusions of fanatics.
Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
They are westernized.

I also don’t think that the Arab and Moslems cultures are necessarily so incapacitated with religious fanaticism that they are incapable of reason. I think the Moslems who find “porn” as “painful” as a hot poker are not representative of their culture. I think they are fanatics, even within their own culture. Delusional. Fruitcakes, to use a word I like. I don’t think islamofacist terrorists are representative of the Arab or Moslem culture or religion anymore then I think Nazis are representative of the German culture. And even if fanatics are representative of the Moslem culture, they are still human beings capable of the same ability to reason as I am. I don’t that Western people are any smarter then Eastern people, and if Western people can tell the difference between defacing a Koran and torture, then so can Moslems. So strictly speaking I don’t think it has anything to do with culture. I think that is an oversimplification. I don’t think that it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusion of fanatics, and I don’t think it is fair to use the Arab and Moslem culture as an excuse for fanaticism and terrorism. Clearly many do both, but I don’t have to agree with it.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 7:38 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I also don’t think that the Arab and Moslems cultures are necessarily so incapacitated with religious fanaticism that they are incapable of reason.



I don't either. But detaining and torturing their countrymen who may not be terrorists isn't really reasoning with them, now is it? What it's doing is pissing them off.

Quote:

I think the Moslems who find “porn” as “painful” as a hot poker are not representative of their culture. I think they are fanatics, even within their own culture. Delusional. Fruitcakes, to use a word I like.


Heh. I use that word too, oddly enough. I think we're in disagreement over what I'm implying about norms. Yes, the terrorists are a minority population of true fruitcakes, unrepresentative of the majority. The problem is, it doesn't take much of a deviation from a norm to turn someone into a nutjob. Look at the effect 9/11 had on the US. There was an incredible lurch to the right that left many moderates as "the new left." You have to avoid turning the moderates into nutjobs, and desecrating objects and torturing civilians is what does it. Flushing a Koran might be the spark that makes 100 moderates into martyrs, and that's not a good thing; when all you need to avoid it is to not use someone's religion to torture them (especially if you aren't getting any tangible results from the process).

Quote:

And even if fanatics are representative of the Moslem culture, they are still human beings capable of the same ability to reason as I am.


Don't assume that all people have the same capacity for reason. Look at some of the things we debate in this country.

Quote:

and if Western people can tell the difference between defacing a Koran and torture, then so can Moslems. So strictly speaking I don’t think it has anything to do with culture. I think that is an oversimplification.


Chew on this then. We have people in America- rational, thinking people- with the ability to reason, that would near murder someone that burned a flag. At least 2 or 3 times a year there is an article about a protester that gets the crap knocked out of him for lighting a flag on fire. We go ballistic when we see on the news the Palestinians burning our flag, and normally rational people start talking about nuking the whole lot of them. Now I ask you - isn't that what we are doing to them in reverse? Only we aren't using a flag, we're using their holy book. It's the kind of thing that makes normally rational moderates blow a gasket.


Quote:

I don’t think that it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusion of fanatics, and I don’t think it is fair to use the Arab and Moslem culture as an excuse for fanaticism and terrorism. Clearly many do both, but I don’t have to agree with it.




I'm not using Arab culture as a justification for terrorism, and I'm only holding the US responsible insofar as their actions are an indirect cause. If it's against the rules for you to hit me, but I keep calling your sister a whore, when you hit me you legitimately break the rules. But me claiming my actions had nothing to do with it is ridiculous.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 7:50 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Finn,

This Frontline program exposes the paper trail and systematic policy changes that fostered the abuses that began at Gitmo and were found later at Abu Ghraib. It details which kinds of tactics were authorized and just how far soldiers took liberties in a climate of dehumanization. It might just change your mind on whether the media lost perspective in their reporting, or whether indeed, torture is now authorized by the state. I would be curious to know if the interviews and documentation in this film was sufficient to change your mind.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:25 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
This Frontline program exposes the paper trail and systematic policy changes that fostered the abuses that began at Gitmo and were found later at Abu Ghraib. It details which kinds of tactics were authorized and just how far soldiers took liberties in a climate of dehumanization. It might just change your mind on whether the media lost perspective in their reporting, or whether indeed, torture is now authorized by the state. I would be curious to know if the interviews and documentation in this film was sufficient to change your mind.

It might. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve changed my mind about something. My guess is that the show probably details stuff I already know, but assessed from the assumption that certain things constitute torture, and whether or not it changes my mind about the policies of the current military and administration will probably be heavily dependent on whether they can sell me their particular definition of torture. I can’t seem to access it online. I’ve tried several times, and I’m reluctant to spend too much time searching for it, elsewhere. But if I can watch it I will.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:41 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
"What does it say about us as a nation that we have folks who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret."

Duh.


Sorry, couldn't let a Duh comment hang in the air...
"What does it say about us as a nation that we have folks who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret."
Folks, clearly meaning some, even a minority.
The statement means:
What does it say about us as a nation if some people can have such a warped and anti-freedom view?
[My Interpretation]
Not:
One person said it so all Americans are evil freedom hating Nazis. [Which seems to be your interpretation]

Finn.
Let’s spin your argument around.
Let’s assume there’s a culture that sees nothing wrong in mutilating oneself, or others, cutting skin with a knife etc.
These people capture an American soldier and mutilate him/her.
This, of course, is not torture. Just because the soldier sees it as torture doesn't mean this other culture should bow to his or her delusion, does it?
These people can't hold themselves to account for other cultures delusions, now can they?




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:25 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Finn.
Let’s spin your argument around.
Let’s assume there’s a culture that sees nothing wrong in mutilating oneself, or others, cutting skin with a knife etc.
These people capture an American soldier and mutilate him/her.
This, of course, is not torture. Just because the soldier sees it as torture doesn't mean this other culture should bow to his or her delusion, does it?
These people can't hold themselves to account for other cultures delusions, now can they?

You mean sort of like a culture that thinks it is okay to rape someone to death, eat their flesh and sew the victims' skins into their clothing, and not necessarily in that order?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 5:11 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
don’t think it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusions of fanatics.

No, the US is not responsible for delusions. But the US is responsible for finding which buttons to push, and for pushing them systematically for the express purpose of causing acute pain and suffering.

It would be like dumping a cupful of spiders on someone with a severe spider phobia. No, you're not responsible for the phobia, but you sure are responsible for dumping the spiders deliberately to be cruel. Maybe this person deserved it, and maybe you have a very noble reason to be cruel--but it is still cruel.

For me, it is disingenuous to disown responsibility for intentionally inflicting pain on the prisoners, just because the same action would not cause *us* pain. We know it causes *them* pain--that's why we did it! It is better to accept responsibility for that difficult choice and defend why we believe limited amount of torture is necessary.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 5:32 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
It would be like dumping a cupful of spiders on someone with a severe spider phobia. No, you're not responsible for the phobia, but you sure are responsible for dumping the spiders deliberately to be cruel. Maybe this person deserved it, and maybe you have a very noble reason to be cruel--but it is still cruel.

No. It wouldn’t, because dumping a cupful of spiders on someone is doing something to that person. It directly influences the person through physical contact. Defacing a Koran, on the other hand, does not directly influence the person, and in fact, is as much the right of the defacer, if we are to accept freedom of expression, as the detainee to hold a fanatical belief in the Koran. They are completely different things.
Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
For me, it is disingenuous to disown responsibility for intentionally inflicting pain on the prisoners, just because the same action would not cause *us* pain. We know it causes *them* pain--that's why we did it! It is better to accept responsibility for that difficult choice and defend why we believe limited amount of torture is necessary.

How do we know it causes them pain? Because we think their fanatical opinions constitute a “red hot poker?” Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it is just something the detainee is trained to say in order to illicit a more tolerable form of interrogation. When you elevate someone’s disapproval of your religious opinion to the level of torture you are buying into a level of fanaticism that brings with it many wholly unknowable and largely academic aspects. I think the US may believe that it causes them pain, and I don’t disown responsibility for that at all, but I also don’t elevate religious disapproval to the level of torture.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 23, 2005 6:06 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It directly influences the person through physical contact.

Oh, interesting. The Sticks-and-Stones standard. So you would say physical contact is necessary to inflict the severe / acute suffering involved in torture.

So if you were a prisoner, and the interrogator masturbates on the picture of your 5 year old daughter while mouthing obscenities, that would infuriate and scare you, but it wouldn't be torture.

Hmmm. I can live with that.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:17 - 7469 posts
The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts
GOP House can't claim to speak for America
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:50 - 12 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL