Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

. I hope you caught that point in my posts, if you actually have been reading my posts.

Well I'm trying. I may miss the point sometimes.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

but I did say that I have no sympathy for the terrorists if they are secretly being tortured.

I just don't think that they're having fair trials or any trials at all, so they may be innocent. Despite the fact that they shouldn't be tortured even if they are guilty, but I guess that is not what we are talking about.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Now you are really starting to lose your marbles. You just accused me, without backing up your claim, of having a horrifically evil mentality.

I realized later that you would think that I was saying that. I didn't really mean to call you a fascist nazi, but I do think you use lawyer-talk to obscure and confuse the issue.

Sorry. I hate reading long posts, as much as the next person, but sometimes you leave me no choice, because there is so much to respond to. Lol.

Black:
"Because if someone is abusing you physically or psychologically, you pretty much say anything to get them to stop."

Coleman:
"This is a very highly classified area, but I have to say that all you need to know: There was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11," Black said. "After 9/11 the gloves come off."

According to one official who has been directly involved in rendering captives into foreign hands, the understanding is, "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Coleman and Black seem to be talking about using harsh interrogation methods, which I definitely believe exist. The government admits it very freely and very publicly. "Kicking the *%&# out of them" is most likely a metaphor for that. But as I said in the early pages of this thread, I don't think the methods the government has admitted to qualify as "torture".

The government, as far as I know, hasn't even admitted to so much as head-slapping. It is suspected and rumored, but they have not admitted to that. Your assessment that "Kicking the *%&&# out of them" is mostly likely a metaphor" for accepted measures of interrogation is, in fact, an assumption. You are assuming that it is most likely. I asked you if you had anything to back it up, and you said: "Yes, he is a government official who would have his life turned upside down if he leaked real torture tactics..." But if his statement wasn't so vague that it could be easily misconstrued, you couldn't even make that argument. However, in the context of everything else that I've been presenting, it does serve as a slight bit of evidence toward the speculation of black sites, as there is nothing countering that peripheral evidence.

As does this:

Originally Posted by Black

"No Limits" aggressive, relentless, worldwide pursuit of any terrorist who threatens us is the only way to go and is the bottom line.

Moving on:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"...when the government has a supposed no torture policy plus a Geneva Convention to follow."

Like the provisions they had, to follow a policy of getting a congressional warrant for wiretapping? We all know how well they stuck to that one.

Memorandum on the Geneva Conventions

Bybee memo

Originally Posted by Excerpt

"Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." The memo also concluded that for purely mental pain to constitute torture it "must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years."

Leaves a lot of wiggle-room for acts not to be "officially" categorized as torture, doesn't it? (At least) 2 problems with this: 1) Do you have any idea of the amount of physical torment I could put you through, without "being equivalent to the pain accompanying such things as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death?" 2) When you're psychologically tormenting someone, do you have some kind of gauge that tells you, in that person's specific situation, how long their psychological harm will last? If so, how exactly does that work?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So you would find them liable (Of having black sites, that is.) in civil court but not guilty in criminal court. In criminal court, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In civil court, the standard is "more probable than not". You apparently think that burden of proof has been met. Based on what you have shown, I don't think you are out of your mind for thinking that. But I don't think it has been met.

Well, judging by what information that we have (which includes pictures getting out from Abu Ghraib, declaration that secret prisons exist, a governmental willingness to bypass legislation that ties the administration to the responsibility of getting a congressional warrant before wiretapping Americans, countless accounts of prisoner's being held saying they were tortured, documentation outlining a willingness for government factions to circumvent present laws for any particular purpose, testimony (albeit vague) testimony from government officials that we "send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them" and that "Abu Zubaida, who is believed to be the most important al Qaeda member in detention, was shot in the groin during his apprehension in Pakistan (where one of the alleged black sites are) in March," and a stockpile of evidence) I would say that probability stacks up that the "need to know basis" concept (which has been in place in American Government for as long as it's been around) still applies. Secrets are kept and lies are told. If the government wasn't able to justify a policy of lying to the people, we would know everything that they were doing, all the time. And we couldn't have that, now, could we?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

...but I do think you use lawyer-talk to obscure and confuse the issue.

No offense, but I do have to agree with Moonbeam on this one. If there is one thing you've said in the past, that I will never forget, is that you admit to "usually picking one side and just sticking with it." I feel that if you have a vested interest in something, you can very effectively fight for that side. That's not, fundamentally, a bad thing, but sometimes I think you slip into "technicalities" and "talking points." It's really hard to debate when (somehow) the burden of proof is on me, and I'm supposed to "convince" someone that slaps away the majority of evidence as "that's not good enough." It would be like being a prosecutor in a courtroom with no judge or jury, and a defense attorney that just says "that's not good enough" when evidence is presented. I think that if we had more people actually engaged in this conversation we could get some more outside opinion on who's stance is actually gaining some sort of ground.

I agree, if UM were really trying to discuss things instead of just regurgitate fox news talking points, why doesn't he ever join in discussions about how America's economy is being destroyed by bankers?