Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

I'm not in any way suggesting that all terrorist groups are working together. What I'm saying is that they adhere to the philosophy that "the enemy is my enemy is my friend." While it's true that even they have qualms between themselves but they do see eye to eye that we are a major hurdle to each of them. So they will exploit each other on superficial levels to try to destroy us. Then, they will resume their blood lust against each other. Business as usual. Terrorist organisations are opportunists. They exploit any weakness they can. They also happen to be masters at using our greatest weakness against us: our own media. Our enemies are masterful propagandists and we're just dumb enough to fall right into the trap. Again, the whole bleeding-heart issue comes to mind. Damn Liberals...

Originally Posted by Alric

Except that Iran hasn't been our target until recently.

That's simply not true. They may not have been explicitly called out on official terms but they are, always have been, and will continue to be the primary target. What has you confused is the fact that they too dangerous to attack directly because they are just the kind of rabid dogs that wouldn't think twice about using a nuke. Sometimes you've got to tickle the foot to get the face near enough to slap.

You seemed confused by that though. Just because they are friends with each other doesn't mean they think exactly the same. Which was the entire point, you claiming all terrorist want to destroy us because we are "infidels". No thats just one group of them.

Originally Posted by Alric

You seemed confused by that though.

Nope, not at all.

Just because they are friends with each other...

Didn't I just say point out that they are NOT necessarily friends or working together? Yes, yes I did.

...doesn't mean they think exactly the same.

And where did I say that they all think alike? Nowhere.

Which was the entire point, you claiming all terrorist want to destroy us because we are "infidels".

And where, pray tell, did I say that? Nowhere, that's where. I said that Iran claims that stance. And I also pointed out that Iran is the biggest threat (to the world, by the way). Not only are they hell-bent on destroying the entire "Infidel" world, but they are aiding (financially, militarily, and by proxy (remember, terrorists are opportunists)) other terrorists factions that have the same idea of outsiders being the devil that must be destroyed. Iran is such a problem also because they are an entire country being fed this hatred and encouragements to kill outsiders.

You've obviously never seen the "kill Infidels" and suicide bombing CARTOONS that air in Iran to Iranian CHILDREN. You obviously aren't aware of the songs the Iranian children are taught. You obviously aren't aware of the things in their textbooks. That's a hell of a lot of things about their culture that you obviously are not aware of. I know damn well that you are not aware of them or you'd change your tune real quickly. I have seen some of their cartoons, I've seen the "kill Americans" interviews with Iranian kids, I've heard the lyrics to some of the songs the kids are taught in school, I have seen the speeches - subtitled by extremely reliable sources. I have seen the hatred state-sponsored rhetoric spewed forth by the likes of Ahmadinezhad.

I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my ass: I've seen and heard it with my own eyes and ears. Don't try to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because you are sorely mistaking.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Throwing people in a freezing room while periodically throwing cold water on them is pretty extreme. Putting someone that is deathly afraid of dogs into a pen, blindfolded, surrounded by barking, snarling dogs that are just out of range is pretty, psychologically, extreme. (And, to use other examples that probably aren't being done, but fall in the same line...) Putting a fake bullet in a revolver and playing Russian Roulette with a detainee, clicking the hammer and spinning the barrel every time you ask them a question and they do not answer to your liking, is pretty extreme. Sticking them under a pendulum with a rotating saw blade that drops down toward their stomach an inch a minute, until they tell you what you want to here (even if you don't plan on dropping it the final inch) is pretty extreme. Hanging someone off of the Empire State building, by their ankles, and threatening to drop them, if they don't tell you what you want to hear, is pretty extreme.

I'm sorry, UM, but this is torture. Torture is both a physical and psychological concept. Take into account the testimonies of the WWII interrogators in the article posted. Would they felt dishonorable for doing the type of things that are being done, today, if they didn't consider them torturous?

I don't think any of that is torture if they have a reasonable, viable, moral way of avoiding what has been threatened. If I know where your daughter is being held captive and you put a gun to my head and tell me to tell you where your daughter is, I am not being tortured. That is because I will gladly tell you where your daughter is and, with that knowledge, I will know that I do not have to fear death or severe pain. Shooting me in the knee would be torture. Threatening to shoot me in the knee if I don't do something I can do and should do any way is not torture. It is not severe pain. It is the threat of severe pain in a situation where I can easily avoid the severe pain by doing what I morally should do.



Alric, Iran supports, funds, and trains terrorist groups. Islamofascist terrorist groups. Those groups and other Islamofascist terrorist groups have common enemies-- the United States, Israel, and the entire West. We are dealing with fundamentalist Muslims, which means they take the Koran literally, and the Koran says this...

Originally Posted by three and four

8.55 For the worst beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject him: they will not believe.

5.51 O ye who believe! Take not Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other.

9.30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the Son of Allah. (…). Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth.

9.29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (…).

4.76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith fight in the cause of Evil. (…).

61.4 Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause.

4.74 Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah – whether he is slain of gets victory – soon shall We give him a reward of great value.

3.169&170 Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance from their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah. (…). The martyrs glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they cause to grieve.

4.76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith fight in the cause of Evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan (…).

4.84 Then fight in Allah's cause – thou art held responsible only for thyself – and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the unbelievers, for Allah is the strongest in might and punishment.

8.65 O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty among you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred. If a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers: for these are people without understanding.

3.151 Soon We shall cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers (…): their abode will be the Fire: and evil is the home of the wrong-doers.

8.12 Remember thy Lord inspired the Angels with the message: "(…) I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them".

8.59&60 Let not the unbelievers think they have escaped (…). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of your enemies.

4.74 Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah – whether he is slain of gets victory – soon shall We give him a reward of great value.

Do you see what we are dealing with? That is what has those sick sons of bitches pissing on the world. It is the reason we ever got involved with the Middle East in the first place. It is a disease on this planet, and it is the disease that might end up leading to an insane nuclear war ruins the world. It is not something to take with a grain of salt, and it sure is Hell is not something to use just for some neat social image that makes you look cool at the coffee house (not that you do that... It's just that too many people do.) This is the most serious issue the world has ever known, not some stupid VH1 red carpet show.

I keep saying I am talking about the other terrorists groups outside of Iran, yet you constantly reply with things about iran, and then use them to suggest all terrorists are the same. A couple of the times we were talking specifically about Bin Laden in which you replied I was wrong and gave examples of things Iran did which proved I was wrong. Obviously they are two different groups and you can't quote one to prove how the other thinks. Clearly you are either confused or you think they are the same thing. Otherwise you just like to argue Oneironaught

Alric, Iran supports, funds, and trains terrorist groups. Islamofascist terrorist groups. Those groups and other Islamofascist terrorist groups have common enemies-- the United States, Israel, and the entire West. We are dealing with fundamentalist Muslims, which means they take the Koran literally, and the Koran says this...

You seem to forget that the USA armed and trained such groups not to long ago. The taliban and Al qaeda where all once supported/trained by the USA. Most notably when the Soviet Union invaded afghanistan the usa gave weapons to the Mujaheedens.

Osama bin laden was one such Mujaheeden who rose to promincance using american donated weapons hmmm....

How many times in Latin america has the united states supplied such guerrilla groups to foster instability? Countless time's!

When the Mujaheedens are fighting the soviets (in Afghanistan) you call them
F-R-E-E-D-O-M F-I-G-H-T-E-R-S. When you invade them and they resist you they are
T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S all of a sudden.

When you label a country communits (Guatemala) they are eveil and oppressive and the USA overthrows the "communist" (infact socialist democractice Gov).
One mans terrorist is onothers freedom fighter.

When you say a person take a rocket or what have you and blow the fuk out of an american Humvee you cry
T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T and when someoen else see's it they say H-E-R-O.

It's all a matter of perspective.

One man's Terrorist is onother ones freedome fighter.

And you know what i know you try to avoid saying muslims are the disease but that is what you are obviously inferring my freind.

In reality you can find many passages from holy books of other relegions that can be used to fit such a context.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's all how you read it to, it says Un-beleivers in one particular passage and many people say INfedel means unbeliver and that is but one meaning, like the word Jihad takes on many positive inotation's itself.

The word (Infidel) for example comes from the time of Islam's conception in Mohamed's time when beleive it or not by the various pagan's islam was being persecuted, the word Infedel was used toward's the Pagan's.

They had to be fought because they where attackign thus some of the passages you see are remincent of Islam's struggle to come into being.

I find it kind of funny when people read a passage of the qu'ran and say the Marty who takes many infedels with him to the death goes to heaven yadyaya.

People act shocked and stuff because autmatically they associate that with sucide bombers,car bombers you get the point.

In fact back then they didnt have bombs, so you must know it means someone who fought really hard and died in battle.

You can take a passage(s) and twist it however you like and say whatever you like but in reality such passages have various means ie words INfedel and Jihad-many meanings.

And the context of them has usually to do when they where written and under what conditions.

Threatening to shoot me in the knee if I don't do something I can do and should do any way is not torture. It is not severe pain. It is the threat of severe pain in a situation where I can easily avoid the severe pain by doing what I morally should do.

Severe pain (to get information or for whatever reason) is torture, the threat of severe pain is like-wise phychological torture.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

You seem to forget that the USA armed and trained such groups not to long ago. The taliban and Al qaeda where all once supported/trained by the USA. Most notably when the Soviet Union invaded afghanistan the usa gave weapons to the Mujaheedens.

The Muhajadeens were fighting for a raional cause then, to prevent Soviet take over of Afghanistan. The Soviets had completely selfish and malicious goals, and they were out to take over the world with their oppressive form of government. Our arming and training of the Mujahadeen was not about getting them to blow themselves up so they can kill lots of innocents out of rage and despair and to be able to screw virgins. Those fighters have a completely different aim now, and we have to deal with it accordingly.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

It's all how you read it to, it says Un-beleivers in one particular passage and many people say INfedel means unbeliver and that is but one meaning, like the word Jihad takes on many positive inotation's itself.

What's the difference? The Koran says to kill people for not being Muslims and that the killers will be rewarded for it. Does it not?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Severe pain (to get information or for whatever reason) is torture, the threat of severe pain is like-wise phychological torture.

Why is the threat of reasonably avoidable pain torture?

Saying its avoidable doesn't change anything. The entire point of torture is to try and force them to say something they do not want to say.

Originally Posted by Alric

A couple of the times we were talking specifically about Bin Laden in which you replied I was wrong and gave examples of things Iran did which proved I was wrong. Obviously they are two different groups and you can't quote one to prove how the other thinks. Clearly you are either confused or you think they are the same thing. Otherwise you just like to argue Oneironaught

Well, if you're talking specifically and only about Bin Laden then I didn't realise that was the case. And I don't know enough about Bin Laden and his ways to say anything so, I've been confused about your point apparently.

Though I do support what I said before and still want it to be clear that there are more subtle ties between the groups than many people think. So, to consider the actions of one group, a better understanding can be obtained when the bigger picture is also observed.

Originally Posted by Alric

Saying its avoidable doesn't change anything. The entire point of torture is to try and force them to say something they do not want to say.

The mere threat of torture can accomplish the same goal, obviously.

The Muhajadeens were fighting for a raional cause then, to prevent Soviet take over of Afghanistan. The Soviets had completely selfish and malicious goals, and they were out to take over the world with their oppressive form of government. Our arming and training of the Mujahadeen was not about getting them to blow themselves up so they can kill lots of innocents out of rage and despair and to be able to screw virgins. Those fighters have a completely different aim now, and we have to deal with it accordingly.

The USA gave weapons to the Mujahedeen's for the same reason they invaded Vietnam, namely to stop the advance of the soviet union's sphere of influence and stop the spread ok communism.

The aim of the mujaheedens now is the same as it was back in the soviet days to get rid of the occupier.

Who's to say the USA's intention are completely noble?

The government of Afghanistan is corrupt right from the top.

Hamid Kharzai was at one point in time an executive of Haliburton, the company that Dick Cheney owned, if you didnt know.

It seem's they are giving favours to old friends.

What's the difference? The Koran says to kill people for not being Muslims and that the killers will be rewarded for it. Does it not?

My point was that any book (even your bible) can be interpreted in such away but the context of the way it was written was not in the way you interpret it at all, which was to fight the pagans who where persecuting them at that time.

Why is the threat of reasonably avoidable pain torture?

I should have been more clear, just pounding a hammer against your palm and saying your gonna get an ass kicking if you dont talk isn't torture but soemthing that goes on for long periods of time like dunking a persons head in and out of the water for long period of time constitutes ase torture both phychologically and physchically.

It get's fuzzy depening on what is being done, but the grey area might be playing really loud music so the person might sleep.

Cuba is only about 70 mile's off the shore of the USA and they have guntamino bay. If cuba is so close to the USA why have guantinimno off USA soil?

Well because if they are off american soil there rights that they would be entitled to can easily be perverted and ignored like the righ to a fair trial and torture can be more easily used.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The USA gave weapons to the Mujahedeen's for the same reason they invaded Vietnam, namely to stop the advance of the soviet union's sphere of influence and stop the spread ok communism.

The aim of the mujaheedens now is the same as it was back in the soviet days to get rid of the occupier.

Who's to say the USA's intention are completely noble?

The government of Afghanistan is corrupt right from the top.

Hamid Kharzai was at one point in time an executive of Haliburton, the company that Dick Cheney owned, if you didnt know.

It seem's they are giving favours to old friends.

Taking over the world with a Soviet form of government is clearly not noble. Overthrowing governments far more oppressive than the Soviet form and replacing them with governments that suddenly allow people to have real elections and allow women to get educations and for the people to have actual freedom is noble, especially when the aim is to take the power away from terrorist governments. If you think there is an extra motive in there that is sinister, you are talking about something hidden and unprovable. Also, the types of governments in existence now are not the types the Mujahadeen has any business trying to take down. The motives of what has become Al Qaeda are inexcusable in this situation.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

My point was that any book (even your bible) can be interpreted in such away but the context of the way it was written was not in the way you interpret it at all, which was to fight the pagans who where persecuting them at that time.

My Bible? I'm an atheist, and I think that the Bible says things equally as horrible. The Koran flat out says to kill people for not being Muslims, and the fundamentalist Muslims we are fighting think the Koran is the literal word of God, not a book of suggestions for a long ago time period, and they are following those perceived orders. The difference, however, is that a much smalller percentage of Christians follow the orders to kill people for being nonbelievers. There is no Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda in the U.S. at this time. Not even close. But that is beside the point because I am about a trillion light years from agreeing with the Bible. I think it has extremely dangerous potential too, and that dangerous potential has taken real form in the past.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I should have been more clear, just pounding a hammer against your palm and saying your gonna get an ass kicking if you dont talk isn't torture but soemthing that goes on for long periods of time like dunking a persons head in and out of the water for long period of time constitutes ase torture both phychologically and physchically.

It get's fuzzy depening on what is being done, but the grey area might be playing really loud music so the person might sleep.

Cuba is only about 70 mile's off the shore of the USA and they have guntamino bay. If cuba is so close to the USA why have guantinimno off USA soil?

Well because if they are off american soil there rights that they would be entitled to can easily be perverted and ignored like the righ to a fair trial and torture can be more easily used.

What is being done is in Guantanamo is obviously controversial. If Guantanamo were here, it would be even more controversial. Putting it in Cuba was a wise decision. I still haven't see why threatening to cause severe pain for not giving away terrorist attack information is torture when all the scum has to to is give away the terrorist attack information to avoid the perceived potential pain.

The problem is thats its often less perceived and more real.

Originally Posted by Alric

The problem is thats its often less perceived and more real.

That is never a reason to jump to conclusions.

How does a torturer determine that a given prisoner has the information he's looking for? There is no feasible way to determine, with reasonable surety, what a prisoner knows, so the threat of torture or death would most certainly not get information out of many of the prisoners. His accomplices would abandon any plans he knew about anyway, wouldn't they?

When the prisoner, under threat of death, does give the correct information, does it end there? No, since he may have more information. The threats continue until he has given every bit of useful information he knows. At that point, the prisoner can't give any more and appears to be withholding additional information, even more valuable than the rest. The natural reaction in this case would be to escalate to actual torture(he can avoid it just by telling us what we want, right?), and escalate the torture until he convinces his captors of his ignorance or he is dead. Is that a plausible scenario?

He is, after all, an inhuman terrorist, capable of withstanding the gravest torture imaginable to be a martyr and cause the death of innocent people, or so he appears. They all appear to be.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Juroara, you finally (somewhere in another one of your incredibly long posts) gave a somewhat specific answer to my question. We teach severely brainwashed (often from childhood) terrorists that what they are doing is not what God wants. Good luck with that one! How exactly do you propose accomplishing that amazing feat?

It would be an amazing feat wouldn't it. It requires americans striking at the root of terrorism rather than just the terrorist, and the terrorist listening to that thing called a conscious. It's possible, but it would be near miraculous

but I wouldn't trust any information taken from torture from a brainwashed terrorist anyways. when you're a loony terrorist who will do the extremes for some political jerk, who says part of the plot isn't to get captured, beaten and then talk to mislead the americans??

if they are willing to fly into buildings, why would that be such a far-fetched plan to get captured?

so rather than looking at this as a black and white situation where we have to get information from a terrorist one way or the other - I think we need to get on the inside to get the information ourselves. dangerous, deadly and just as near impossible - but at least the information we would get that way would be more reliable and trustworthy

Juroara, it has worked a great deal in the past. The most valuable source of information it worked on was Khallid Sheik Muhammed. Whether our techniques work is not an issue. Part of the threat is that they will get what's coming to them if their information turns out to be false. The technique has been working very well. Taking the terrorists to get ice cream has never proven to work.

The root of the terrorism problem is mainly the literal interpretation of a religius book that demands violence against nonbelievers, mixed with horrible poverty and oppression and the angry, suicidal despair that results from that. Democracy is the best cure for that we know of. You can't just explain the absurdity of religious fanaticism and make it go away. You can't even talk to calm mannered, good religious people and get them to change their minds in most cases. You know that from the Religion forum. If somebody thinks you are Satan and wants to kill himself so that you will die, a few moments of politeness toward him at the snow cone shack are not going to do the trick. We are dealing with rabid animals who grew up in the belly of Hell.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think any of that is torture if they have a reasonable, viable, moral way of avoiding what has been threatened. If I know where your daughter is being held captive and you put a gun to my head and tell me to tell you where your daughter is, I am not being tortured. That is because I will gladly tell you where your daughter is and, with that knowledge, I will know that I do not have to fear death or severe pain. Shooting me in the knee would be torture. Threatening to shoot me in the knee if I don't do something I can do and should do any way is not torture. It is not severe pain. It is the threat of severe pain in a situation where I can easily avoid the severe pain by doing what I morally should do.

Assuming that you know where my daughter was and then stripping you naked, throwing you in a Burger King freezer and dumping ice water on you every five minutes to get information that you might not even have, for an untold length of time (remember, you are assuming that all of these people being interrogated actually have the information), would be torture.

A story:
Someone I served with at the army, lost a small top-secret device dew to carelessness (The device was lost during a transfer between bases, and he was responsible. )
He wanted to avoid punishment, which could have been like 2 weeks in military jail, so he made up a story about how it got lost, that would make him look less responsible.
The military police that questioned him didn't buy his story, so they decided to search his house.
They found a few secret or semi-secret docs in his house, that he took home with him when he was at some military course, so that he can study them at home, and have better grades.
So they transfered him the secret police, do see if he was a spy.
They didn't torture him, just scared the shit out of him using psychological methods.
After a month there he was allowed to be visited from his direct commander, and he said that the poor guy seemed to have been regressed into a 3 years old kid.
After a while he was released and sent back to his unit, though at a lower secrecy classification, and he was very weird ever since.

Moral:

Physically painful torture is not the only thing that can hurt a person, psychological methods, that are pretty much accepted at secret police forces world wide, can be damaging, and cause long term harm.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The root of the terrorism problem is mainly the literal interpretation of a religius book that demands violence against nonbelievers, mixed with horrible poverty and oppression and the angry, suicidal despair that results from that. Democracy is the best cure for that we know of. You can't just explain the absurdity of religious fanaticism and make it go away. You can't even talk to calm mannered, good religious people and get them to change their minds in most cases. You know that from the Religion forum. If somebody thinks you are Satan and wants to kill himself so that you will die, a few moments of politeness toward him at the snow cone shack are not going to do the trick. We are dealing with rabid animals who grew up in the belly of Hell.

that's exactly why I said 'show' and not 'explain' and why it won't work. I care more about striking the heart of terrorism than finding information that might not be accurate

and I how I feel we should strike at the heart of terrorism is the same way you have shown to feel about it

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Assuming that you know where my daughter was and then stripping you naked, throwing you in a Burger King freezer and dumping ice water on you every five minutes to get information that you might not even have, for an untold length of time (remember, you are assuming that all of these people being interrogated actually have the information), would be torture.

Yes, it is under the assumption that they have the information. If our government is not doing a solid job of making sure they are dealing with terrorists who are in positions of knowledge during their "offer he couldn't refuse" interrogations, then what our government is doing would qualify as torture, at least of the psychological kind. Cold temperatures are not so bad right at first, so if there is a reasonable way out, I would not call the cold temperature stuff torture. But the threat of remaining in there when the detainee does not have information that would get him out would be psychological torture, and if he remains in there until he is dealing with agonizing cold, it would be a situation of physical torture. We can definitely agree on that.

have you ever considered america creates enemies faster than they can kill them?

What is being done is in Guantanamo is obviously controversial. If Guantanamo were here, it would be even more controversial. Putting it in Cuba was a wise decision.

Keeping them out of the USA would make it easier to deny them their rights to trail and representation. Many of them have not been formerly tryed with anything, and lawyers have a hell of hard time coming to visit their clients.

Its an obvious attempt to deny them their right's to fair trial and give the Gov its sweet time to do what it wants.

I still haven't see why threatening to cause severe pain for not giving away terrorist attack information is torture when all the scum has to to is give away the terrorist attack information to avoid the perceived potential pain.

like dodo bird said such heavy phyochological interogration if thats what you wanna call it can cause long lasting damage, imagine how it is in a prison atmoshpere and you are saying that assuming the detainee's in question are terrorists or have advanced knowledge of some sort of plot which they don't neccesarily do.

Two more relevant articles:

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Torture Appeal

President Carter says U.S. Tortures Prisoners