TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What is torture?

What is torture?

Certainly not waterboarding or making a person wear panties on his head. I can't wait for the moral equivalence arguments. This is how you torture somebody, complements of our good ole friends in Al Quaeda. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that someone will claim that this evidence was planted by the U.S.

Well a few of our captives did die during torture so I would say that's pretty equivalent.

Oh yea and the kid getting raped too, I'd say that's fairly equivalent.

But isn't it unquestionable that waterboarding is indeed torture?

I'd prefer pulling fingernails out with pliers.

Torture methods have been around since antiquity. you can pretty much image cavemen torturing someone with crude stone tools. As long as the necessity to inflict pain exists, techniques of torture will exist regardless of how much we evolve. You may not find any justification in the morality of torture but for someone having undergone a similar situation, it's a different story. People who torture for sadistic pleasure or political gains (like Al Qaeda perhaps) are sick perverted bastards who need to be institutionalized.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well a few of our captives did die during torture so I would say that's pretty equivalent. Oh yea and the kid getting raped too, I'd say that's fairly equivalent.

A couple of isolated events vs. a training manual for it? Refresh me about the rape--I'm drawing a blank.

quote:

But isn't it unquestionable that waterboarding is indeed torture?

I'm not convinced. I guess it depends on who you ask. I consider the iron to the skin to be a little worse. There is also a difference between pain and physical harm, but I'm trying not to let things bleed into shades of grey because by and large this is a pretty black/white contrast between our methods and the methods of our enemy. Then again, maybe they're just that much better at it.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider But isn't it unquestionable that waterboarding is indeed torture?

Won't it depend on your definition of torture ? By the UN definition it will be, I guess.

quote:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

But if you come to think of what the Iraqi militia will do to a US soldier, maybe not.

Clarify this for me, are you saying that torture methods used by the US are somehow permissible because in contrast with those used by Al-Qaeda they seem to cause less physical pain. Is that your point? Or are you sincerely wanting to discuss what would classify as torture? Because with the contrast your first post implies I would say you are trying to somehow justify torture as long as it is less severe than what the enemy is doing.

Edit: As for manuals for torture, don't forget the US even had a school for training people on torture methods.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Clarify this for me, are you saying that torture methods used by the US are somehow permissible because in contrast with those used by Al-Qaeda they seem to cause less physical pain. Is that your point? Or are you sincerely wanting to discuss what would classify as torture? Because with the contrast your first post implies I would say you are trying to somehow justify torture as long as it is less severe than what the enemy is doing. Edit: As for manuals for torture, don't forget the US even had a school for training people on torture methods.

How should the US conduct interrogation procedures for detainees known to have vital information? Would psychological stress induced without physical injury be acceptable to you? I'm wondering exactly where you draw the line on interrogation methods are acceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Clarify this for me, are you saying that torture methods used by the US are somehow permissible because in contrast with those used by Al-Qaeda they seem to cause less physical pain. Is that your point? Or are you sincerely wanting to discuss what would classify as torture? Because with the contrast your first post implies I would say you are trying to somehow justify torture as long as it is less severe than what the enemy is doing. Edit: As for manuals for torture, don't forget the US even had a school for training people on torture methods.

What school was that?
Ivy League Despondency 101?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the States version of a 'torture' school wasn't open to public enlistment.
But a Joe-Blow manual on torture for Global Jihad?
Probably comes standard with the Al-Qaeda intro package...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What school was that? Ivy League Despondency 101? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the States version of a 'torture' school wasn't open to public enlistment. But a Joe-Blow manual on torture for Global Jihad? Probably comes standard with the Al-Qaeda intro package...

Become an AL QAIDA franchisee!! Start your own cell, anywhere you want!! Free cell phone, computer, food, lodging, etc., pending you sacrifice yourself to kill as many infidels as possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What school was that? Ivy League Despondency 101? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the States version of a 'torture' school wasn't open to public enlistment. But a Joe-Blow manual on torture for Global Jihad? Probably comes standard with the Al-Qaeda intro package...

School of the Americas ring a bell for ya?
And in any case, does it matter? It still doesnt validate torture.

Edit: Also, good work from you and krypton in avoiding my argument. It is irrelevant if the states had a school for torture or not, if they had a manual or not. It still doesnt answer my question as to why does alqeda having a torture manual validates the US comitting torture.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How should the US conduct interrogation procedures for detainees known to have vital information? Would psychological stress induced without physical injury be acceptable to you? I'm wondering exactly where you draw the line on interrogation methods are acceptable.

Sadly I am not in a place to dictate US policy, I am not even a citizen or live there. If I had a say, I would engage in activities to reduce the chances of an attack, such as bilateral talks, and helping moderates secure power in countries where extremists rule. I would abstain from direct intervention. I would provide monetary support but include requirements such as improving education tied to that monetary aid. There are many different ways to go around this. As I said before in another thread, to you actually, it is cheaper to prevent an infection than to try and cure it afterwards. All US efforts are usually misguided in that they never address the real problem, they just try to patch it up. Using torture may prevent one attack but it will also in the long run increase the chances of an attack. I already conceded in another thread that in some cases torture should be allowable. However I do not think that just because the enemy uses torture, torture should be an acceptable method of interrogation. It should be used only in extreme cases.

I would think the U.S. would wanna stay away from torture methods used by evil terrorists.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX School of the Americas ring a bell for ya? And in any case, does it matter? It still doesnt validate torture. Edit: Also, good work from you and krypton in avoiding my argument. It is irrelevant if the states had a school for torture or not, if they had a manual or not. It still doesnt answer my question as to why does alqeda having a torture manual validates the US comitting torture.

But that's not the point of the thread; no one here is condoning torture; we're condoning the fact that there's such a thing as a student manual in Al-Qaeda hands.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r But that's not the point of the thread; no one here is condoning torture; we're condoning the fact that there's such a thing as a student manual in Al-Qaeda hands.

I did ask someone to clarify that for me. But instead you and krypton went on a tangent. If you guys stayed on topic, we wouldn't have had this little detour. No where in my post did I denied the existence of the Al-Qaeda toture manual. I asked about the relevance of it. As of yet no one has answered that question.

I see we've sunk to a new low. "Let's define redefine torture now that it's common practice by our goverment."

quote:

Originally posted by venomX All US efforts are usually misguided in that they never address the real problem, they just try to patch it up. Using torture may prevent one attack but it will also in the long run increase the chances of an attack.

Bingo. Increasingly alienating the Middle East doesn't safeguard American security - it just increases the need and ways in which we actually do have to safeguard it, by breeding additional disdain and hatred. Your entire post echoes my sentiments.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka A couple of isolated events vs. a training manual for it? Refresh me about the rape--I'm drawing a blank. I'm not convinced. I guess it depends on who you ask. I consider the iron to the skin to be a little worse. There is also a difference between pain and physical harm, but I'm trying not to let things bleed into shades of grey because by and large this is a pretty black/white contrast between our methods and the methods of our enemy. Then again, maybe they're just that much better at it.

Every major world power since during and after WWII has had far more complex guides than this made on ways to torture--er, I mean, "interrogate".

Google it, there are CIA manuals that have been released to the public via the Freedom of Information Act.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I see we've sunk to a new low. "Let's define redefine torture now that it's common practice by our goverment."

Agreed.

It's like some sort of game to some people; they just don't understand where the line needs to be drawn, they simply point fingers away from themselves. This post's very existence is a roundabout way of doing that.

That's what happens when someone doesn't understand the concept of dignity.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I did ask someone to clarify that for me. But instead you and krypton went on a tangent. If you guys stayed on topic, we wouldn't have had this little detour. No where in my post did I denied the existence of the Al-Qaeda toture manual. I asked about the relevance of it. As of yet no one has answered that question.

Subject? We're talking about torture aren't we?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Subject? We're talking about torture aren't we?

I'll make it simple for ya'. State your views on torture, and it's relevance to the news item posted. Then we'll be able to talk. We are not talking on torture as whole. We are talking about the torture manual alqaeda has. It was also implied by some of you that since they have a manual US torture is somehow legitimized because it is more benign. Stop giving me the run around. Put your points on the table, and then we can discuss. Posts like the one above are senseless, you haven't added anything to the discussion. You just muddied the waters, I have no f'ing clue as to what you're trying to say with the above.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I'll make it simple for ya'. State your views on torture, and it's relevance to the news item posted. Then we'll be able to talk. We are not talking on torture as whole. We are talking about the torture manual alqaeda has. It was also implied by some of you that since they have a manual US torture is somehow legitimized because it is more benign. Stop giving me the run around. Put your points on the table, and then we can discuss. Posts like the one above are senseless, you haven't added anything to the discussion. You just muddied the waters, I have no f'ing clue as to what you're trying to say with the above.

How have I digressed from the topic?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I'll make it simple for ya'. State your views on torture, and it's relevance to the news item posted. Then we'll be able to talk. We are not talking on torture as whole. We are talking about the torture manual alqaeda has. It was also implied by some of you that since they have a manual US torture is somehow legitimized because it is more benign. Stop giving me the run around. Put your points on the table, and then we can discuss. Posts like the one above are senseless, you haven't added anything to the discussion. You just muddied the waters, I have no f'ing clue as to what you're trying to say with the above.

Forgive me--I wasn't trying to imply that some of the less than honorable tactics used by a few in the U.S. somehow legitimized torture as an information gathering strategy. I do not believe that the U.S. is beyond reproach and I readily admit that mistakes have been made.

However, what is pretty shocking is that not a single person has spoken up and said "woah--these are the tactics regularly and systematically implemented and condoned by the people(animals) that we are up against. It's a pretty obvious contrast, not just a few shades of grey. So forgive me if I find it just a little ironic that there is never any shortage of condemnation of the U.S., while there is no condemnation and almost nothing short of condoning of the ordinary tactics used by the opposition. That alone provides ample evidence, imho, as to why we are at odds with Al Quaeda and other extremist groups--a continual complete disdain for all human life.

To quote Steyn:

quote:

Look at Ms. Drabble's list of grievances. If you lived in Poland in the 1930s, you weren't worried about the Soviets' taste in soft drinks or sentimental Third Reich movies. America is the most benign hegemon in history: its' the world's first non-imperial superpower and, at the dawn of the American moment, it chose to set itself up as a kind of geopolitical sugar daddy. By picking up the tab for Europe's defense, it hoped to prevent those countries lapsing into traditional power rivalries. Nice idea. But it also absolved them of the traditional responsibilities of nationhood, turning the alliance into a dysfunctional sitcom family, with one grown-up presiding over a brood of whiny teenagers--albeit (demographically) the world's wrinkliest teenagers. America's preference for diluting its power within the UN and other organs of an embryo world government has not won it friends. All dominant powers are hated--Britain was, and Rome--but they're usually hated for the right reasons. America is hated for every reason. The fanatical Muslims despise America because it's all lap-dancing and gay porn; the secular Europeans despise America because it's all born-again Christians hung up on abortion; the anti-Semites despise America because it's controlled by Jews. Too Jewish, too Christian, too godless, America is George Orwell's Room 101: whatever your bugbear you will find it therein; whatever you're against, America is the prime example of it...

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I'll make it simple for ya'. State your views on torture, and it's relevance to the news item posted.

That's easy.
Al-Qaeda doesn't follow rules of engagement as set by the Geneva Convention which the States and others (should) do.

The article below, which I'm not going to cut and paste because it's a little large and ostentatious, (<-- your new word of the day and yes I knew what it meant before I posted) pretty much explains it all and gives realivance to the post.

For example, in the opening paragraph:

quote:

In 1998, an article by Colonel Charles J. Dunlap Jr. appeared in the United States Air Force Academy�s Journal of Legal Studies warning that a new form of warfare lay ahead. Because our military resources are so far beyond those of any other country, Dunlap argued, no society can today meet us through symmetrical warfare. Therefore, our 21st-century opponents will stop confronting us with weapons and rules that are the mirror counterparts of our own. They will instead use asymmetrical or �neo-absolutist� forms of warfare, resorting to unconventional weapons and to procedures forbidden by international laws.

>>Rules of Engagement - Why Military Honor Matters<<

Keep in mind the year in which the Colonel's article was written; this military dilemma is not new and the assumption would be that they knew all to well what kind of war they'd be fighting (and were fighting) even before stepping into Iraq.

As far as condoning torture, I'm pretty sure I answered that question, but unless the enemy is withholding vital information that will save hundreds (or heaven forbid thousands) of lives then yes, it is worth it.
I will stress though that there better be a great reason to even consider it in the first place AND if it can be done without physical harm (ie. dripping water) that would be best.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.