Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But yes, in case my logic gives the wrong impression, the actual terrorists (those that kill innocent people to promote any religious or political agenda - whether they are Al Qaeda, African militants, or the American government) can go screw themselves.

Those are the ones I mean. Actual terrorists, the ones we already know are guilty. In my opinion, once you're found guilty you ought to be treated in the harshest possible manner, as you no longer have rights of any kind.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Those are the ones I mean. Actual terrorists, the ones we already know are guilty. In my opinion, once you're found guilty you ought to be treated in the harshest possible manner, as you no longer have rights of any kind.

Found guilty how? By what grounds is someone "found guilty?"
In the U.S., you are "found guilty" after you have had a fair trial. In the "war on terror," you are found guilty by suspicion, which is, often, either by association, or completely false.

So, by which grounds of being "found guilty" are you talking about, exactly?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So, by which grounds of being "found guilty" are you talking about, exactly?

Uhm, found guilty as in being charged as guilty of the crime by a judge. I'm not saying that those in the pictures are guilty. Those are the exceptions to the rules. I mean the way things should be. And once found guilty of such Inhuman acts as terrorism you should no longer have Human rights granted or observed. Personally, I think a swiftly-enforced death penalty would be in order.

Alright, I'll stop talking now.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

*coughcoughOnce Againcough*

And to add to that:

Exporting Torture: US Rendition and European Outrage

U.S. Treatment of Terror Suspects and U.S.-EU Relations

CIA Chief Defends US Rendition, Detention Policies

I'm pretty sure the debate on whether or not the U.S. tortures (and by that, I do include "shipping people off of U.S. soil and/or taking enemy combatants that never touch the U.S., to places where it's reasonable to believe they will be tortured") has been, pretty much concluded. (Or, as to cover all my bases, there is much more supporting evidence for the argument that they do, than that they don't.)

I still don't agree. Scaring people into thinking they will be tortured for not doing something they can and should control is not torture. And sending terrorists off to countries where torture is legal is not torture committed by us. It is just a situation of giving them to those who will do it, but not ourselves. So torture is not a government policy.

As far as the morality of sending terrorists to places where torture migh happen, I have no problem with it as long as they are known terrorists, as in people who shot at our soldiers or people who were caught setting up road side bombs and that sort of thing. Those people can have bottle rockets blown up in their penis holes for all I care. They will never have my sympathy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I still don't agree. Scaring people into thinking they will be tortured for not doing something they can and should control is not torture. And sending terrorists off to countries where torture is legal is not torture committed by us. It is just a situation of giving them to those who will do it, but not ourselves. So torture is not a government policy.

Lol. UM...

Say I was a mob boss, and one of my goons caught you sneaking around my house, trying to get into my safe. He then brings you up to me, bound and gagged, and says "What you want I should do with this guy, boss?" and, without missing a beat, I say "Take him out to the docks and empty a clip in him. Make sure he's never found."

Now, say the conversation was eavesdropped upon, by the Feds. The would-be thief is killed, but I'm caught on tape, giving the order...

What...do you think I'm just going to get off, scott-free? No. I'm going to get a murder charge. Whether you agree or not, shipping people off to be tortured, is a torture policy, no matter what kind of a liability loophole they want to try to cover it up with.

It's like. I cut his head off, but the knife did it.

Of course by this definition the US tortures combatants. I defy you to find me any nation at war that would not torture to find information.

Right now, the US is the bad guy because we started a questionable war and we are a super power. But, when this war ends and another one starts, those nations will be shown to torture too. Torture is a war tactic, and I dont care what nation you are, it happens....it doesnt make it right. I wish they didnt do it. and I am all for trying to get nations to stop it, but how would you go about doing that?

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Right now, the US is the bad guy because we started a questionable war and we are a super power.

Yeah, except we didn't start this war. By the way, have any of you noticed how many countries are actually fighting the Middle East right now? Have any of you noticed just how long they've been in conflict with their neighbors and half of the world? So don't even try to blame the US for the current state of things.

As tkdyo just said, we are in the spotlight because we are such a superpower. But I submit that it's NOT because "we started it", which anyone who is observant will be able to say that we did not start it. We're just tired of being the punching bag for a bunch of ruthless tyrants that happen to not agree with what we stand for.

They don't fight with each other, illegitimate kings and dictators that execute dissidents fight with each other. A war is not the way to get rid of these corrupt rulers, and the US makes a terrible liberator. Everytime we claim to bring peace we have only brought more turmoil. What are you going to do, site WW2 as a counter example? In the dozens upon dozens of countries we have occupied since ww2 we have not brought real democracy to a single one. Realize that and maybe one day we'll be on the same page. Realize all this 1984 new speak doesn't work on everybody, GH, some of us still know the US track record.

We let the attacks happen and then used them as an excuse to put a pipeline through afghanistan and let our companies replace the bombed ones in Iraq so a bunch of money gets funneled to Bush's main campaign contributors.

Yeah and if you say making money is just a coincidence, then how come companies like Halliburton are given no bid contracts? Is it really just a coincidence that Halliburton was one of Bush's main campaign contributors?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Lol. UM...

Say I was a mob boss, and one of my goons caught you sneaking around my house, trying to get into my safe. He then brings you up to me, bound and gagged, and says "What you want I should do with this guy, boss?" and, without missing a beat, I say "Take him out to the docks and empty a clip in him. Make sure he's never found."

Now, say the conversation was eavesdropped upon, by the Feds. The would-be thief is killed, but I'm caught on tape, giving the order...

What...do you think I'm just going to get off, scott-free? No. I'm going to get a murder charge. Whether you agree or not, shipping people off to be tortured, is a torture policy, no matter what kind of a liability loophole they want to try to cover it up with.

I'm just saying that we don't do the torturing, as far as I know. But handing over terrorists to torturers sounds like a nice happy medium. I wish I had their email addresses so I could send them some ideas.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I'm just saying that we don't do the torturing, as far as I know. But handing over terrorists to torturers sounds like a nice happy medium. I wish I had their email addresses so I could send them some ideas.

Umm no, thats not a happy medium, thats just as bad. You can't just pass off responsiblity on some other country. If you know they are going to torture people you can't send them there, or your just as bad as they are.

See the thing you have to understand is, its not about making the US look bad or not because we torture. What its about, is torturing other living beings. And the torture is still taking place, so its just as bad.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I'm just saying that we don't do the torturing, as far as I know. But handing over terrorists to torturers sounds like a nice happy medium. I wish I had their email addresses so I could send them some ideas.

So, lets look at this from a personal level, not a technical one:

Your child - your teenager that is old enough to think for his/herself - hears a rumor that you are a vicious crime boss, who doesn't take any shit from anybody, and kills whoever gets in your way. But, the truth is, while you are that same vicious crime boss, you refuse to do any of the killing yourself, because you don't want blood on your hands, even though all murders are being carried out under your direct order.

One day, your child comes to you and asks you, son (or daughter) to man, straight up, if you kill the people that you feel have wronged you in some way. And, knowing that you have them killed, but don't kill them yourself, you say "No. I don't kill people," and, as added support, you have scores of 'humanitarian documents' throughout the house that, in writing, re-enforce your portrayal of murder as an inhumane act that, because of humanitarian issues, you would never condone, support, or aid in.

Does this not make you a liar? And if so (or if not, just the same) should your child find out that you order your enemies killed, and that you skirted the truth in such a way, knowing exactly what your child was feeling, and the purpose of the question, when it was asked, should your child ever feel that they should have blind trust in you, for anything, knowing that you would stretch the truth to give them an answer they want to hear?

Which brings us back to the OP.

If this sort of misdirection is what we except, support and/or encourage from our government, what does that stop them from getting away with? Nothing.

"Mr. President, was the American government responsible for the events of 9/11?"

"No. It was Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists."

In the above answer, the fact that our government funded, trained and armed Al Qaeda means nothing. In a sheepish world, the answer given would be sufficient. In all possibility, though (not saying this is the case, but using an example) that same misdirection that is being given in "The U.S. does not torture" could be the same misdirection that hides the potential fact that Al Qaeda was created by the U.S. government, to carry out that very same attack, as a pretext for this "greater good" war.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

If you condone misdirection, on any level, you are practically condoning it on all levels, as long as the misdirector can rationalize and convince you that it's "for the greater good." That is a dangerous ideology.

There is a difference between having terrorists tortured and handing terrorists over to those who happen to engage in torture when they happen to decide to. If the U.S. is ordering the torture or making arrangements for it, then the U.S. is having people tortured. But if we are just putting them in the hands of people who sometimes torture at their own discretion, then we are not torturing those terrorists any more than we are raping people by sending them to prison.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There is a difference between having terrorists tortured and handing terrorists over to those who happen to engage in torture when they happen to decide to. If the U.S. is ordering the torture or making arrangements for it, then the U.S. is having people tortured. But if we are just putting them in the hands of people who sometimes torture at their own discretion, then we are not torturing those terrorists any more than we are raping people by sending them to prison.

If we are sending them to the prisons that are most notorious for rape, for the simple fact that they are most notorious for rape, then yes, we are.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If we are sending them to the prisons that are most notorious for rape, for the simple fact that they are most notorious for rape, then yes, we are.

All prisons other than the federal minimum security prisons are notorious for rape.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

All prisons other than the federal minimum security prisons are notorious for rape.

You're skating around my point.

If all prisons weren't notorious for rape, and we sent them to prisons that were notorious for rape, simply because they were notorious for rape, we would be doing it with the goal of having them raped.

It was a hypothetical, not based on the state of the real-world.

Of course we wouldn't be sending them there unless we expected them to be tortured. You pretty much just admited it yourself we would be sending them off to be tortured. You just some how think its ok, because they don't always torture people. Thats a poor excuse, and it doesn't fool anyone.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I definitely agree 100%. And to the "terrible" cases where a poor, helpless terrorist gets his jaw shattered or is forced to wear underwear on his head I say: "So fucking what. Sometimes people actually get what they deserve." They have no rights. They were dead to rights the moment they joined the wrong team.

Have you ever seen proper media in all of your life?

Quite some people that turned out not to be terrorists after they had been tortured and abused by (people working for) the US Army / CIA.

Also, if you approve of (pointless) torture, you should be revoked your right to vote, you clearly can't restrain your primal urges for pointless vengeance and aggression.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You're skating around my point.

If all prisons weren't notorious for rape, and we sent them to prisons that were notorious for rape, simply because they were notorious for rape, we would be doing it with the goal of having them raped.

It was a hypothetical, not based on the state of the real-world.

If he did it "simply because" they are notorious for rape? Then there would be a difference in intent from what I was talking about. That would show that the point is to have them raped. But sending them somewhere where he merely knows rape is a possibility does not mean the judge has a policy of rape.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Have you ever seen proper media in all of your life?

Every day.

Also, if you approve of (pointless) torture, you should be revoked your right to vote, you clearly can't restrain your primal urges for pointless vengeance and aggression.

When did I say I approve of pointless torture? And with respect to that, we probably won't agree on what defines "torture" and what defines "pointless".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If he did it "simply because" they are notorious for rape? Then there would be a difference in intent from what I was talking about. That would show that the point is to have them raped. But sending them somewhere where he merely knows rape is a possibility does not mean the judge has a policy of rape.

Ha. Ok, we can build from that.

Of all the allies that we have, we send them to places that are notorious for violating human rights. (Which you cannot argue, even with a skewed, presumptuous statistic, is the case for all possible places where we can ship potential terrorists to be interrogated.) This the same as saying "No. We don't want them going here, here, or there. We want them going to places that we know are most likely to torture."

We must then look at the legality and/or possible intentions of choosing such destinations.

From some of the links I posted:

The allegations are part of a continuing debate between the United States and European governments on the practice of "extraordinary renditions," or the overseas arrests or abductions of suspected terrorists by U.S. officials. British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who supported the U.S. war in Iraq, wrote to Washington on behalf of the European Union (EU) asking for formal clarification of the policy—specifically raising the issue of covert prisons in Eastern Europe and CIA airplanes stopping in European bases, which may be in violation of international law.

The extent of U.S. agencies' legal authority to carry out renditions remains unclear. The United States is a signatory to the UN's Geneva Convention Against Torture that prohibits the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners. But although President Bush issued a February 2002 directive stating all detainees should be treated "humanely," Washington has determined the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the war on terrorism. A still-classified March 19, 2004, draft memo by the Justice Department authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to render terrorism suspects out of Iraq to foreign countries for interrogation. The CIA was also granted broader authority to act independently by a still-classified presidential directive signed just after 9/11. And in 2002, another Justice Department memo (PDF) for President Bush's then-legal counsel Alberto Gonzalez—now the U.S. attorney general—advised the White House that torturing al-Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified."

The controversy touches on a broader European discomfort with the Bush administration's approach to countering terrorism. Experts say the outrage over the clandestine prisons and secret flights stems from two broader issues plaguing transatlantic relations: Europe's discontent with Washington's unwillingness to grant due process to terror suspects and making assurances that these suspects' human rights were not violated during allegedly abusive interrogations. Experts say both issues—due process and the alleged use of torture—are in contradiction with European norms on human rights.

In response to media reports that the United States is detaining top al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons in eight countries, including Romania and Poland, European officials have launched a series of investigations. These moves follow a spate of stories in Europe alleging that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is ferrying terrorist suspects by air between the so-called black sites and countries in the Middle East that regularly torture detainees.

"Since it began ... in the spring of 2002, fewer than 100 people have been detained at CIA's facilities," Hayden said, adding that the number of renditions was even smaller, in the "mid-range two figures."

"These programs are targeted and selective. They were designed for only the most dangerous terrorists and those believed to have the most valuable information, such as knowledge of planned attacks," he said. "But they also have been the subject of wild speculation, both here and overseas."

Why send the "most dangerous terrorists and those believed to have the most valuable information" to such sites, if it was not implicit that they would be interrogated more harshly?

When Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated on International Human Rights Day that international human rights law was a casualty of the so-called war on terrorism [recorded video], one might have expected the United States, a self-styled “champion” of human rights and democracy globally, to take notice. But since it was US policy at issue - specifically, attempts by US policymakers to redefine torture to make virtually any act permissible and to redefine and limit the range of persons protected by international humanitarian law - US criticism was turned not on the torturers, but on Arbour. US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton immediately denounced Arbour’s critique as illegitimate and inappropriate [recorded video], notwithstanding her position as the senior international civil servant for human rights and a highly-respected jurist.

The Bush Administration’s attempts to redefine human rights and its own humanitarian obligations put it squarely on a collision course with European countries even before news of secret prisons in Europe and the use of European airports and airspace for the transfer of rendered persons emerged earlier this month. US attempts at redefinition and obfuscation reveal a cultural chasm; European countries take their human rights obligations seriously, not as mere annoyances to be shelved when national security is at risk, but as serious constraints to be respected by law-abiding nations. By contrast, the debate in the US suggests a view that human rights obligations constitute unjustified interference by lawyers into the important business of fighting terrorism.

The divide between Europe and the US concerns the interpretation and application of the 1984 Convention against Torture [text], but it runs even deeper, as proscriptions against torture have become more legally entrenched and elaborated in Europe, thanks to the work of the European Court of Human Rights. In analyzing analogous language in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court has been quite clear: it is simply impermissible to deport or otherwise remove a person to a country where she might be tortured.

Whatever the real reason, it is important to note the "F.YOU" stance that we are taking, when it comes to shipping suspected terrorists to places where they might be tortured.

The outrage of Europeans, ranging from the German and British leaders to EU members of Parliament, has forced US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to clarify US policy on torture: the United States, she said on her recent European trip, does not transport terrorism suspects "for the purpose of interrogation using torture" and "will not transport anyone to a country when we believe he will be tortured." She further indicated that the US sought reassurances from countries to which suspects have been rendered that these detainees will not be tortured.

This is, however, insufficient to meet US obligations under the Torture Convention, or to guarantee that suspects will not actually be tortured.

Let’s consider the specific obligations under the Torture Convention: states parties are obliged not only to refrain from torture, but article 3.1 bars states from returning or extraditing individuals to countries where there are “substantial grounds for believing” that they might be tortured. This assessment is made, under article 3.2, by examining a state’s record, looking for the presence of a “consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.” It is not enough, based upon the plain language of the convention, to ask for a promise that a suspect will not be tortured, not where all of the evidence makes clear that the suspect will likely face torture.

So...with all of the evidence that seems to back the theory that the extraordinary rendition of suspects to these countries is being done for the purpose that they are most likely to be tortured there, what evidence do you have that this is not the case, besides the statement of the Administration that "we're not doing it for that reason?"

What exactly does that extremely biased opinion piece prove? Some European media outlets claim we take terrorists to sites in countries where some people are tortured even though the people working for us are told not to torture the terrorists?

I cannot prove that the terrorists are not being tortured. I also cannot prove that they are not being dressed up like clowns and sent up in hot air balloons. You are the one making an accusation, so all I can do is question your accusation. I am not even sure the terrorists are being taken to the "black sites". I just gave you the benefit of the doubt on that and argued in hypothetical terms. It looks like the only proof that they are even being taken to those sites is that the media has made claims and there is "an investigation", and that's only if that truth stretching journalist is telling the truth about even that. That is not proof that the terrorists are being taken to the black sites. If they are, it could be because we need cheap interrogation sites to take prisoners as we catch them by the net loads like shrimp. But now I am not even close to being convinced that the terrorists are being taken to those locations in the first place. It looks like an empty accusation at this point.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What exactly does that extremely biased opinion piece prove?

"That extremely biased opinion piece?" You do realize that those quotes were pulled from 3 different sources, right? Did you read the articles, the first time I posted them?

I cannot prove that the terrorists are not being tortured. I also cannot prove that they are not being dressed up like clowns and sent up in hot air balloons. You are the one making an accusation, so all I can do is question your accusation. I am not even sure the terrorists are being taken to the "black sites". I just gave you the benefit of the doubt on that and argued in hypothetical terms. It looks like the only proof that they are even being taken to those sites is that the media has made claims and there is "an investigation", and that's only if that truth stretching journalist is telling the truth about even that. That is not proof that the terrorists are being taken to the black sites. If they are, it could be because we need cheap interrogation sites to take prisoners as we catch them by the net loads like shrimp. But now I am not even close to being convinced that the terrorists are being taken to those locations in the first place. It looks like an empty accusation at this point.

But if you were looking a little closer, you'd realize that I wasn't trying to "prove" anything, with that last post. I was simply providing evidence. I could have sworn I said that. My reason for doing so was so that you could also provide evidence that the U.S. was not torturing. If you can't provide any evidence that would match the facts that are stated in the above quotes (and there are quite a few there) then the scales of "whether there is reason to believe the U.S. is aiding/supporting/endorsing torture or not" should tip, in any open-mind to the side that proposes that they are.

If you have evidence to the contrary, that rivals the facts presented above, then it is only fair that the scales tip in the opposite direction.

So...do you?

UM, are you really so scared of terrorists that you are willing to compromise the most basic human rights and every principle that this country should stand for just to feel a little safer? I think any one of our odds of being killed in traffic are much, much greater than a terrorist ever getting us. It's just not something I worry about a lot. Yes, a horrible thing happened, but they got really lucky, we were really stupid, and they are obviously so incompetent they really aren't much of a danger.

They are nothing but primitives who happen to be sitting on something that makes us want to deal with them and give them huge sums of money. If they didn't have oil, they would have nothing. If we put all the resources into alternative energy that we've spent on the stupid wars and "Homeland Security"*, they would go back to being nothing but starving nomads living on piles of sand and useless goo, begging us for food, and they'd go back to being more concerned with killing each other than us.

A little off topic maybe; but relevant, I think. I just don't feel like they are enough of a threat to compromise on something like torturing people. I think all the fear-spreading is a tactic of politicians. They might get lucky once in a great while, but overall the danger is minimal to any individual person.


*Which is a joke; did you see the latest statistics about the tests of airline security--bombs getting thru like 50-75% of the time? I know from personal experience if I forget to take a knife out of my purse, I can get on the plane no problem, but they are really worried about my lip gloss and mascara for some incomprehensible reason. Bunch of fucking retards.)