main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Torture

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by KnightWriter, Apr 3, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. beezel26

    beezel26 Jedi Master star 7

    Registered:
    May 11, 2003
    Dear god, the bush administration broke the 11th commandment, Thou shall not get caught!

    Seriously, the CIA have been torturing people since the existence of the agency. They will always do it as will other countries will as well. The Bush administration got extremely stupid and thought Jeez if we get permission and memos to these guys then its fine. Honestly the smart thing would have the CIA do its job, torture and kill whomever to get the job done and leave it at that. The mistake by the Bush administration was to make it a media event and have them all shipped to Cuba. They would not have had problems had the officials at the CIA had done their jobs and fallen on their swords when the time came to get exposed. Apparently these guys at the CIA and above were so afraid of losing their asses that they decided to get the justice dept to attempt a legal runaround of torture.


    This is what was supposed to happen, The CIA does its job, gets the info from the tortured guys and fall on the swords when the Media gets wind of it. Then at the eleventh hour the president issues a presidential pardon to all involved and they all get jobs working for companies owned by the president and his donors.

    Thats what was supposed to happen. Apparently someone in the CIA or the president's office thought they could better but instead they just left a papertrail that really was going to get everyone in trouble.

    Let's face it, the Bush administration instead of letting the turd rot, they tried to shine it up and make it look good. But it still was a turd.



     
  2. Sven_Starcrown

    Sven_Starcrown Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 10, 2009

    Let's face it, the Bush administration instead of letting the turd rot, they tried to shine it up and make it look good. But it still was a turd.


    Well neocons are terribly dogmatic thinkers. They can ,,get high" on power easily and a couple of months glory is enough for them to think evryone is like them.
     
  3. henchman24

    henchman24 Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Feb 22, 2008
    All of this debate over what does or doesn't constitute torture is rediculous.

    Anything short or long of locking someone in a cell and bringing them 3 squares a day is inappropriate and everyone knows it. Even this approach could be considered torture in the case of wrongful imprisonment. The issue of how far to go for information is a post-torture discussion, because at this point its already been justified.

    If its debatable then its torture.
     
  4. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Interesting stuff for the debate:

    Torture? It probably killed more Americans than 9/11

    A US major reveals the inside story of military interrogation in Iraq. By Patrick Cockburn, winner of the 2009 Orwell Prize for journalism

    The use of torture by the US has proved so counter-productive that it may have led to the death of as many US soldiers as civilians killed in 9/11, says the leader of a crack US interrogation team in Iraq.
     
  5. yankee8255

    yankee8255 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2005
    The Major's comments remind me a bit an interview I saw once with Bill Clark, a former NY police detective who was a consultant on the show NYPD Blue. He was talking about one character's propensity for using violence to get confessions out suspects, he talked about how you were typically far more successful getting the suspect to think you understood him and were on his side.
     
  6. BandofClones

    BandofClones Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Why do you suppose the "major" writes under a pseudonym?
     
  7. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Because of people like you? Sort of obvious, I'd say.
     
  8. BandofClones

    BandofClones Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2009
    It's not obvious to me. Explain your meaning.
     
  9. AnakinsGirl

    AnakinsGirl Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 2, 2001
    It didn't seem like a pseudonym to me. In the article it says his name is "Major Alexander".

    Dude you and I both know that people use pseudonyms for a lot of reasons. If one is revealing sensitive information, it could cost that person their job or get them arrested in order to silence them or punish them for speaking out, or sometimes people fear being acted out against violently for revealing information they aren't "supposed" to share. Duhh...
     
  10. BandofClones

    BandofClones Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2009
    So, do you think he's revealing information he's not supposed to share? And is that the makings of a trust-worthy individual? And it is a pseudonym. Go do a little more research, hon.
     
  11. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    You're not going to discuss the content of the article, are you, Clones? Just trying to discredit the source, eh?
     
  12. Paladin307

    Paladin307 Jedi Master star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 24, 2004
    He isn't supposed to share it, but WHY isn't he supposed to share it?? Perhaps he has some sort of conscience. I mean the people who helped cover up the My Lai Massacre...helped hide the murder of hundreds of people, but I mean, who cares?? They were probably trustworthy.
     
  13. BandofClones

    BandofClones Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Discuss the article? Heck, no. It's just a review. Once I read the book (if I do), I'll be happy to discuss it. However, I admit that I'm not really into reading unauthorized accounts.

    My point still stands -- if the man were authorized to discuss these things, he should feel no qualms whatsoever about using his real name. And believe me, it will not be difficult to pinpoint precisely who he is if he reveals any protected information. If all he's doing is giving his opinion about the things he did or saw without revealing protected information, then he'd be just like any other disaffected employee. If he's still employed by any outfit that engages in interrogation, then that makes his conduct even more reprehensible. Let's be honest. If you betray one employer, people will always suspect you of being able to betray the next.

     
  14. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Nonsense. Generalizations.
     
  15. BandofClones

    BandofClones Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2009
    What sorts of specifics are you looking for?
     
  16. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    I'm not looking for specifics.
     
  17. BandofClones

    BandofClones Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2009
    So, whether I give you specifics or generalizations, you just won't accept anything? Ah, such a nice, cookie-cutter liberal! Some things in life are predictable!
     
  18. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    The ad hominem gets nobody anywhere on either side.

    My point still stands -- if the man were authorized to discuss these things, he should feel no qualms whatsoever about using his real name.

    Mark Felt was not "authorized" to discuss what he knew. But that didn't change the fact that Richard Nixon was doing what he was doing. Because he allowed himself to be referred to as "deepthroat" clearly did not make the subject matter incorrect. In order to do that, you have to address the subject matter itself.

    If it turns out that this is the story resulting from "a lying liar who lies", that's something that has to be established. That no name is given is merely a superficial note: it is pure conjecture to base a judgement on the content because of it. By that logic nothing in Wikipedia can be taken as truth becuase Wikipedia sometimes gets facts wrong.

    Yes, sometimes peopel giving monikers lie. Sometimes people giving thier OWN names lie. There's no supportive statistic stating that anonymous sources are any more trustworthy than printed ones since it's the journalist themselves -- or associated editors -- that do the vetting.

    If you are untrustworthy of these journalists and editors, this too has to be based on the person in question. It's true that journalism is not a perfect field. But because one fellow working for the NYT once made up stories or did not do due dilligence on the issue of WMD in Iraq does not mean that Morley Safer's stories with anonymous sources are not trustworthy because they use anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are just that, anonymous. Making a judgement about the content based on that is premature, and before coming to any conclusion on it you need to bring the identities of the individuals who ARE known that are attached to the story under scrutiny.
     
  19. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Please avoid the generalizations about the nature of "liberals" and "conservatives." It's off topic.
     
  20. BandofClones

    BandofClones Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2009
    First of all, that is exactly how I feel about Wikipedia. As a primary source, I do not trust it in the least.

    Second, with regard to Nixon, we have a fundamental difference. The methods used on the prisoners were approved by lawyers working for the Administration. I'm not sure Nixon's operatives' activities were given official government approval. One action was doing something illegal. The other was doing something deemed legal by lawyers and then deciding to go public to make some money on it. If he felt that strongly, why not just go to the press. Why bring forth this information in a book (to make royalties).

    The danger we risk is that whenever an administration decides to prosecute the activities of the previous administration, which acted on the advice of its lawyers, we just turn the entire situation into a game of political ping-pong.
     
  21. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    That's a first: I'm being called names for promoting the discussion of the contents of an Independent article.
    Clones, you seem to have a knack for baiting yourself.

    First you tried to discredit the source.
    Now you're trying to discredit the messenger.
    Are you going to discuss the article?
     
  22. BandofClones

    BandofClones Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Truly, tell me what there is to discuss? "Major Alexander" says aggressive interrogation caused more harm than help. Dennis Blair, DNI, says it yielded high value information.

    You believe a review about a book that hasn't come out yet, written by a man whose identity we don't know. I'm taking the word of the Director of National Intelligence -- who, btw, is not a supporter of torture and wishes we had done things differently. But he has the integrity to admit that aggressive interrogation worked.

    So, what would you like to discuss about the article?
     
  23. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    She already said no. I'm not sure what value there is in pressuring for any in-depth involvement when clearly it's much more apropos to fling mud at the facts and individuals with whom you disagree.
     
  24. BandofClones

    BandofClones Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2009
    See my comment above. What, precisely, is it about that article you want to discuss? It's a book review. Ask me questions and I'll give you answers -- about the REVIEW.

    And by the way, as far as dodging discussions, I might point out that NO ONE here has ever answered my question, asked many times, about what they consider to be acceptable means of interrogation except to say, "Oh, whatever's in use by our police departments or in the field manual." But when it comes down to specifics, no one here as answered. No one seems to know what those "other" methods are except in general terms.

     
  25. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    First of all, that is exactly how I feel about Wikipedia. As a primary source, I do not trust it in the least.

    Then I would advise against that. Wikipedia is meant in much the same manner here, in getting general and even particular specific facts and information. It is monitored regularly and it's rules adhere to similar encyclopedic rules.

    It is NOT in any way meant to be a source for research information. If you were writing a paper on Ancient Rome, the information available on Wikipedia is often basic enough it requires no citation. But this does not mean it has absolutely no value, or that it is 180 degrees wrong in so many cases that it can never be relied upon for anything. If that were the case, nobody would use it.

    Similarly here: the lack of perfection in the source material is not grounds to discount everything said within it. And the reason is that in order for all of it to be wrong then someone would have to be in serious breach of ethics, whether it be the source or the reporter vetting the source. The far more likely scenario is that if there are things within the source that are not true, then they are the exception rather than the rule.



    Second, with regard to Nixon, we have a fundamental difference. The methods used on the prisoners were approved by lawyers working for the Administration. I'm not sure Nixon's operatives' activities were given official government approval. One action was doing something illegal. The other was doing something deemed legal by lawyers and then deciding to go public to make some money on it. If he felt that strongly, why not just go to the press. Why bring forth this information in a book (to make royalties).

    Well of course, Nixon having been a lawyer himself, one has to wonder about that. And of course information eventually came out that the operatives had Nixon's approval.

    Regardless, the decision to speak out on the matter is the same. Lawyers first of all, do not fill the role of interpreting the law but arguing possible interpretations. It is the role of judges to do that. Whether or not the act was deemed legal by lawyers is independant of the matter of speaking out on it: that's relevant to whatever the current administration deems the level of secrecy to be. Once the information is public, there's nothing unethical about speaking out on the matter provided you do not name previously unidentified individuals who do not wish to be named (ie: other interrogators -- not well known names like General Casey or David Petraeus).

    Also the level of money made on a given book can be circumspect. Having been in the publishing industry, I can tell you that the amount of money made is highly dependant on the recognition of the name. The Major has a given market of individuals, but the amount of money he makes is going to be dependant on the contract for a first book and it's likelihood on the return of investment. Since it's very likely this book may not make money, or not a substantial amount since it's for a select readership and may or may not prove popular with that readership, the royalties gained are unlikely to be significant. When Bill Clinton writes a book he stands to gain a lot of money. When an unknown person writes one, the situation is very different.

    Although the reasons are the person's own, one could contend that he chose to write a book because the scope of the book covers much more than the article states. It may wish to discuss certain matters and resonings in more depth than a journalist may be willing to dedicate thier time to, and may not relay the points in the way the author wishes it. In fact, he would have stood to make MORE money had he gone to the press first to get his name sufficiently known, THEN wrote the book. Publishing under a pseudonym is rarely done, and it's only done be people that are cautious because it's an extra hassle: if you decide to write a follow-up that makes money, you have to keep using the pen-name.


    The danger we risk is that whenever an administration decides to prosecute the
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.