logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
PoliticalGround >> United States does not torture?
| 12/27/06 12:49 AM | |
Yougottawanna
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 09/21/2001 Posts: 20138 |
"I do not believe any president or administration does these things other than to try and protect our country, again that doesn't make it all OK" It's not the president or the administration, it's the SYSTEM. I doubt Bush is personally signing off on any of this. You may trust the president not to abuse his power, but what about a lower-level employee? Someone hired rather than elected? Are they incorruptible? Our current system seems to trust them to be. "the vast majority of the time these people being "tortured" are not american citizens, so they do not get the same rights, although that should mean they dont get any rights at all" Not the same rights, but if we are to be a modern country then we need to recognize that there are certain rights granted to you just by virtue of being a human being. A canadian citizen was arrested without charge and imprisoned for nearly a year, and tortured - imagine if Canadian police arrested an American citizen and did the same. Would you trust the canadians with the perogative to do that? Certain people we DO have reason to believe are working with terrorists, or are members of a terrorist organization themselves. Whether or not we have the moral authority to torture them is a seperate question, perhaps we do, I have my own views on that but they're for another thread. But currently the definition of "terror suspect" is being stretched so thin that it could easily encompass you or I if the right person decided it was so. If they come for the Arabs and you say nothing, then they come for the people who were photographed with Arabs and you say nothing, who's going to say something when they come for you? "you are trying to compare regular crime with terrorims, that is a big reason why we are losing the war on terror, its not a police action" Whether it's a police action, a conventional war, something in between, or something entirely different, this is not about them but about us. We need to continue to hold ourselves to the standards on which this country was founded, and the principle of due process is one of them. "I give my government the benefit of the doubt in a case like this until everything is proven, if its all proven, then he should be compensated" The government does not disclose who it takes, to where they are taken, or what is done to them when they get there. There could be a hundred cases just like this one and we would have no way of ever knowing. Given the number of abuses that have been brought to light so far, I do NOT give my government the benefit of the doubt. |
| 12/27/06 1:01 AM | |
|
Yougottawanna
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 09/21/2001 Posts: 20140 |
Conservatoro, this is not the thread for what you're trying to do, just take it elsewhere please. |
| 12/27/06 1:17 AM | |
Redneck
47 
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 24516 |
Whoa!! The thread police are here. Like this thread is any more or less important than any other thread on the OG. |
| 12/27/06 1:26 AM | |
|
Yougottawanna
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 09/21/2001 Posts: 20143 |
I never said it was more important, but if you want to do that you can always make your own thread, you shouldn't do it to other peoples' IMO. |
| 12/27/06 3:20 AM | |
|
metrocksncn
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 07/08/2005 Posts: 493 |
I think torture is a neccessary evil. We should acknowledge that it exists, when has anyone ever treated us fairly during a conflict. Fight fire with fire. If torturing a terror suspect saves this country from a terrorist attack, then I would say it was justified. "LOL @ the US torturing people, a couple of games of nude twister is nothing compared to kidnapping people and hacking there heads off with a blunt knife. Some of you whiny liberals have your prioritys messed up. " I agree 100% Conservatoro. "Conservatoro, this is not the thread for what you're trying to do, just take it elsewhere please" hey yougottawanna, why does he hsve to take it somewhere else, it sounds like a good counterpoint to me, although the "nude twister" comment was written in poor taste. With all things considered, if I was a captive and all that happened to me was that I was forced to pose nude and be intimidated by dogs I would consider myself lucky at the end of the day. |
| 12/27/06 5:35 AM | |
|
Good Adam
Edited: 27-Dec-06 05:43 AM Member Since: 12/17/2003 Posts: 13599 |
Information, what do you think he'll uncover in his research which changes his mind and makes it morally justifiable? I don't know that it's something that can just be reversed by looking into which Presidents implemented the policy, or who the people subjected to it were - because I don't think his problem lies with the ends (which criminals) or something as shallow as political parties (which Presidents). It's something which strikes him (and myself) as something that's just bad moral policy, and too bitter a pill to swallow regardless of its ends. |
| 12/27/06 10:30 AM | |
|
Tidbits
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 3106 |
Torture is wrong, period. I don't care what adimistration is practicing it. Whether or not previous admins did it or not isn't the issue. The issue is, it is now common knowlwedge and should stop. hell in my opinion all people responsible for it from the President down to the lowest man on the totem pole need to be held accountable for it. As for what constitutes torture there is a simple litmus test really, If you would not want it done to a member of your immediate family (mom, dad, son, daughter etc) it's torture. |
| 12/27/06 2:10 PM | |
|
Tidbits
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 3107 |
"Would you want your son to be handcuffed? I wouldn't. So I guess putting handcuffs on a detainee is now torture. " Nice way to use literal interpretation. You and everyone else here knew exactly what I meant. For the record no I would not want my son handcuffed for no reason, or water boarded or subjected to sleep deprivation or loud music for days on end or any number of other "acceptable" interrogation tecniques. So stick to the question, would you want or allow any member of your family subjected to any of the "acceptable" tecniques or unacceptable ones for that matter. |
| 12/27/06 2:22 PM | |
|
CPracer16
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 06/06/2006 Posts: 1929 |
I love how you people are trying to make it a left or right issue. It is PROOF that it does not matter what NEO CON or NEO LIB is in office. They have the same agneda and it is not the will of the american people. You seem to be making excuses like the abuse and torture is ok because we have been doing it for a long time |
| 12/27/06 4:55 PM | |
|
Floppy Divac
8
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 52779 |
"C'mon, Adam. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that such protestations are not politically flavored." wow, fucking wow. |
| 12/27/06 5:18 PM | |
|
MrFixit
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 09/09/2006 Posts: 1476 |
Nice to have you all on board. I've been bitching about American using torture since the Carter Admin. I really don't see who is in office at the time having much effect on the morality of it, or in the need to stop the practice now rather than letting it carry over to yet another administration. |
| 12/27/06 5:24 PM | |
|
Tidbits
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 3108 |
"As it stands, however, if my son were part of plot to murder innocent people, as much as it pained me I would support whatever measure it would take to prevent the attack. What would you do? " So what you are saying is if your child was "suspected" of being a terrorist you would support torturing him to gain information? Coz that is what this is really about. It is about the incarceration and torturing of those who are "suspected", not those who have had their association or guilt proven. I'm sorry but the ends NEVER justify the means. There is a standard and principle upon which the United States is built upon, and to use the methods of those we oppose or despise and call murderers, terorrists, despots etc demeans the legacy and the sacrifices of all those men and women who have given their lives in defense of the ideal. |
| 12/27/06 5:39 PM | |
|
Yougottawanna
Edited: 27-Dec-06 05:40 PM Member Since: 09/21/2001 Posts: 20148 |
"Look, you're probably a young guy who is coming to some sort of political "revelation" at the moment. I can understand. However, you have to temper that with a little bit of realism." What is with all the amateur psychology on this thread? Is no one capable of actually responding to my posts? It doesn't matter who I am. I could be a five year old kid, an angry vegetarian hippie, a 50-year old congressional staffer, it doesn't matter. "How about doing some basic research into the topic? That would go quite some way towards convincing me you are serious about the issue." You think I'm not SERIOUS about the issue? You think I'm just PRETENDING to be against torture? This insistence you have that I somehow prove myself worthy of having my message, rather than your assumption of what my politics are, responded to is not only patronizing, it's downright bizarre. If you don't think I'm worthy of being responded to then just go to another thread. "C'mon, Adam. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that such protestations are not politically flavored. Maybe that's just my bias. However, I remember that there were exposes on the practice prior to Bush being in office, and the clamor of outrage we have today far exceeds anything we saw at that time. People want a reason to dislike this Administration." Once again the constant second guessing. Let me put it in capital letters: RENDITION AND TORTURE HAS HAPPENED UNDER BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS. Are you satisfied yet that this is more that partisan sniping? Or are you going to continue to address the messenger rather than the message? This is borderline surreal. "What am I trying to do? Im trying to put into perspective your whiny torture BS posts. We make them stand on chairs and play nude twister." We do more than that. Maher Arar was beaten with electrical cables, shocked, burned with cigarette butts, and imprisoned for ten months in sometimes below-freezing temperatures. Another prisoner, Binyam Mohammed, had his chest and genitals cut and mutilated with razor blades. There is more, much much more, happening than "nude twister." "They kidnap us and chop our heads off and video tape it. Please tell me, which one do you think is the worse "torture"?" Obviously getting your head chopped off is worse than "nude twister". Whether it's worse than some of the other torture is a matter of opinion. But just because what we do is slightly less barbaric than what they do is no excuse for it. |
| 12/27/06 5:44 PM | |
|
taba
12
Edited: 27-Dec-06 05:58 PM Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 5355 |
You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Yougottawanna? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Maher Arar and you curse the CIA. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Maher Arar's imprisonment and torture, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty... we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. [edited for clarity] |
| 12/27/06 5:45 PM | |
|
MrFixit
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 09/09/2006 Posts: 1478 |
"Name ONE US Citizen who has been tortured by our goverment." How would citizenship affect the overall morality of the act itself? |
| 12/27/06 5:55 PM | |
|
Yougottawanna
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 09/21/2001 Posts: 20149 |
"No, that isn't what this is about. If that were what this is about, then you wouldn't be questioning the practice of torture-- only the practice of torture as it is used on those who have not been proven "guilty". Or are you OK with torture for those that are proven "guilty"?" In this thread, that IS what I'm questioning. Maher Arar was never charged with a crime and a later review of the evidence (conducted by the canadian government, see the link in my first post) suggesting him to even be peripherally associated with any terrorists was almost comically thin. Now you may be thinking "okay, this was a mistake, but USUALLY the people rendered and tortured must have a more concrete case against them, right?" Well, there's no way of knowing. Those rendering these suspects (we don't know who they are) haven't so far shown any inclination to wait for even the amount of evidence necessary to justify a warrant for surveillance, much less the kind of evidence necessary for a judge to justify torturing a suspect (and there is no established criteria for that anyways). |
| 12/27/06 6:02 PM | |
|
Yougottawanna
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 09/21/2001 Posts: 20150 |
"Name ONE US Citizen who has been tortured by our goverment. JUST ONE!!" I can't name one. But it is ENTIRELY possible that it has happened, even likely considering what little we do know about our government's use of rendition so far. What's the stop the people who flew a Canadian suspect to Syria to be tortured from doing it to an American one? The need for a warrant, or to charge him with a crime? As this and other cases illustrate, they don't need either. Approval from a judge, or some other type of approval from an overseeing agency? They don't appear to need that either. This is the point I made in an earlier post. Whether or not torture is ever justified is not an argument I'm trying to make in this thread. But anyone who shares something even remotely close to my, and many other people's idea of the ideals upon which this country was founded should agree that IF we are going to torture people, there needs to be a check on the authority of those doing the torturing, and right now there isn't. |
| 12/27/06 6:06 PM | |
|
taba
12
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 5356 |
that you believe there no check upon the authority proof you unserious, Yougottawanna. |
| 12/27/06 6:30 PM | |
|
taba
12
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 5357 |
so the US, acting on *Canadian* intelligence that identified Arar as an extremist, sent him (holding a *Syrian* passport) home. and you blame not the Canadians for their handing off of responsibility, or the Syrians for their disregard of civil rights, but the US?? btw, since Maher Arar was freed, he's been thought to have visited Afghanistan to train at a jihad terrorist camp. http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=099A65B3-96BC-4DA0-A601-6D2E1737FAEC |
| 12/27/06 6:36 PM | |
|
Yougottawanna
Edited: 27-Dec-06 07:01 PM Member Since: 09/21/2001 Posts: 20151 |
Yes, that's it. No one is "capable" of responding to your posts. You've made such a stunningly original, completely unexpected argument that you've disabled people's ability to respond. Look, you acknowledge that your thread title is a direct reference to something that Bush said. You made the following statement: The abuse of power that so many people, myself included, though COULD happen IS happening, and has been happening for some time. Are you claiming that this sentence is not a direct reference to the perceived "abuse of power" on behalf of the Bush Administration? Or is it your claim that you were concerned about "abuse of power" even under Clinton? I admit that during Clinton's administration I was not aware of this issue. During Clinton's administration I was in high school and I didn't know the OG existed. That's why you didn't see me making threads about it then. And I admit I didn't even know the extent of this until recently, and I still don't. And I admit that my knowledge about this subject is hardly encyclopedic. But as I have said, multiple times before this, whether this happened under other administrations or not has no bearing on my judgement of its ethics. No, I don't. I think you want to be upset about something (as witnessed by your dramatics about me leaving the thread and people not being "capable" of answering your posts) and this is the issue of the moment for you. Then I can only say to you what I said the Souljacker earlier: you're simply wrong. Your theory that I only "care" about torture because there is currently a Republican in the white house, and because I enjoy the feeling of being offended about something, is simply wrong (and insulting). If you think my irritation about your claims, which you make despite never having met me and knowing nothing about me personally, is an example of "dramatics," then fine. But I don't second-guess your motives for making posts, I respond to them. As for you not being "capable" or responding to my posts, that was the wrong wording. But for every one word you've written about the practice of rendition and torture itself on this thread, you've written five speculating about the partisan motives for me making this thread. If you were serious, you'd do your best to learn as much as possible about the issue, which you have not done. I AM trying to learn as much as possible about this issue. And I've learned some things in the process of making this thread. I didn't know everything when I made it, and I still don't. When will I know enough for you to believe that I'm "serious" about this issue? And by what authority do you declare yourself to be the arbiter of whether or not my knowledge is broad enough to qualify my views as valid? Stop being so dramatic. I never said you have to "prove" anything-- I simply pointed out that your argument contained factual errors. Expecting an argument to be factually correct is now asking you to prove yourself? That makes me a bad guy now, or a partisan sniper? I said this: "While extraordinary rendition was in use before the current administration, previously rendered suspects like Carlos the Jackal and Ramzi Yousef were rendered to the country that seized them, not sent to a third country to be detained." and you provided an example of this type of extraordinary rendition before the current administration. Since I wrote that, I have acknowledged the case of Saleh, and when it happened, numerous times. As soon as I found out the details of his case my very next post contained this: "So Ahmed Osman Saleh appears to be a rendered and tortured prisoner in 1998. My mistake." And yet you continue to claim that my motivation for this thread is nothing more than partisan, as you claimed in this sentence: "No, I don't. I think you want to be upset about something (as witnessed by your dramatics about me leaving the thread and people not being "capable" of answering your posts) and this is the issue of the moment for you." This is funny. You don't research the topic (or at least perform poor research), make errors in fact, and then proclaim we should focus on your message. Your message contained factual errors. I addressed the factual errors. My message contained one factual error, which you pointed out and I acknowledged several posts ago. If there are more, by all means point them out. What's more, you did not merely address factual errors. You have constantly speculated about my political motives for making this thread. Now your point is simply, "Torture is bad," right?" My point in this thread is the problem with a lack of oversight, and I've explained it more than once. I'll copy and paste an earlier explanation: "We assume they're doing it to try and help the country. And in this case you may be right, however misguided and negligent they were. However, one of the purposees of a legal system is to allow the accused to see and respond to the evidence and charges against him or her. This is to prevent abuse of power, and in this case and many others it's simply not happening. There is nothing stopping government agents from imprisoning and torturing completely innocent people based on their personal agenda or views but their own sense of restraint. And no matter how admirable or well-developed their sense of restraint is, this is simply not an acceptable check on their power. Even a cursory study of history tells us that when the potential for abuse of power without any kind of oversight or check is there, the actual abuse is inevitable. What seperates the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the US, which work for the public good, from those of a totalitarian country in which the "law enforcement"'s first job is to intimidate or dispose of rivals to the current politicians in power? The answer is checks, oversight, transparency, all the things that are being continuously chipped away at even as I type this." |
| 12/27/06 6:43 PM | |
|
Yougottawanna
Edited: 27-Dec-06 06:47 PM Member Since: 09/21/2001 Posts: 20152 |
that you believe there no check upon the authority proof you unserious, Yougottawanna. To what check are you referring? So then you're OK with torture as long as the person is "proven guilty"? In certain, very specific circumstances, yes I am "okay" with torture. But as I've already stated on this thread numerous times, my complaint on this thread concerns the process that determines whether or not torture is justified, and the fact that the process currently seems to be little more than the personal opinion of the people doing the torturing. so the US, acting on *Canadian* intelligence that identified Arar as an extremist, sent him (holding a *Syrian* passport) home. and you blame not the Canadians for their handing off of responsibility, or the Syrians for their disregard of civil rights, but the US?? Just because I haven't specifically blamed the Canadians or the Syrians on this thread doesn't mean I think they're blameless. Yes, they both acted inappropriately. But so did we. btw, since Maher Arar was freed, he's been thought to have visited Afghanistan to train at a jihad terrorist camp. http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=099A65B3-96BC-4DA0-A601-6D2E1737FAEC The link you posted said the article is "no longer available." |
| 12/27/06 6:52 PM | |
|
taba
12
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 5365 |
Dozens of Canadians join Jihad terror camps There has been a slow but steady procession of Canadian Muslims to jihad over the past decade, many of them via the terror training bases of eastern Afghanistan, where recruits were indoctrinated into radical anti-Western ideology and taught how to make explosives and chemical weapons. Among them: Amr Mohamed Hamed, a British Columbia man killed at a training camp in Afghanistan in 1998; Mohammed Jabarah, a Catholic school graduate from St. Catharines, Ont., who oversaw an al-Qaeda bombing conspiracy in Southeast Asia; and Abderaouf Jdey, a Montreal man whose suicide note, in which he pledged to die a martyr, was found in Kabul. A classified RCMP intelligence report warns that recruiting will likely continue in Canada. "Terrorists and organized crime groups may exploit flaws in migration controls to blend into and recruit from immigrant communities and also to move associates into Canada," it says. "In Canada, over 17% of the population is foreign born, making Canada more vulnerable to these tendencies than are other developed nations," says the April 30, 2003, report, released under the Access to Information Act. "By contrast, only 9% of the U.S. population is foreign born." *** Since Maher Arar was released from a Syrian jail after a year in custody, reports have claimed that in 1993, the Ottawa engineer also made the trek to Afghanistan. In a brief interview this week with the Post, he declined to discuss the accusation. "I can't really answer any questions right now," he said. His family insists he has no links to terrorism. *** While they make up only a tiny minority of the Muslim population, Canadian jihadis have nonetheless caused significant damage. They have attacked allied soldiers, participated in plots to kill hundreds of civilians and sullied Canada's international reputation along the way. None of them has ever faced any criminal charges in Canada for terrorist activities. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8674&only |
| 12/27/06 6:59 PM | |
|
Yougottawanna
Edited: 27-Dec-06 06:58 PM Member Since: 09/21/2001 Posts: 20153 |
Since Maher Arar was released from a Syrian jail after a year in custody, reports have claimed that in 1993, the Ottawa engineer also made the trek to Afghanistan. In a brief interview this week with the Post, he declined to discuss the accusation. "I can't really answer any questions right now," he said. His family insists he has no links to terrorism. Do you have any additional details about the report alluded to in the article? I ask because according to O'Connor, the head of the commission on his case, Arar has been the subject of a smear campaign. I will quote O'Connor: "Unnamed" government officials who sought to smear him before his story had embarrassed them leaked accusations against him to the press. Even before Arar's return, one "anonymous" Canadian official described him as a "very bad guy," and said he had undergone trainning with al-Qaeda - a claim he denies and for which no evidence has been produced . . . Some of the leaks, O'Connor concluded, "were purposefully misleading in a way that was calculated to do him harm." |
| 12/27/06 7:17 PM | |
|
Yougottawanna
Edited: 27-Dec-06 07:18 PM Member Since: 09/21/2001 Posts: 20154 |
Put this tired horse to rest. No one has yet said that it affects the ethical standing of such a practice. What is being said is you don't have the information necessary to make such a determination. How can you make a definitive judgement on something such as this without knowing all of the facts? What further information do I need? A man was arrested without a charge or a warrant, taken to a third-world country, and held without trial for ten months, during which time he was tortured. To me, this reveals a flaw in our system, a huge one. What information am I lacking that will reveal my above judgement to be incorrect? Not necessarily a Republican-- just Bush. Then you're wrong about that too. You're asking me to prove that I DIDN'T make this thread to bash Bush? Well I can't prove that, I can't prove a negative. Then I ask again-- how can you make a definitive judgement about the practice if you admit you are not well versed in it? You're holding to me to an unreasonable standard of expertise. No one person can know everything about this issue, not in the least because the vast majority of the cases of extraordinary rendition are still classified. And yet you set a standard of knowledge as the minimum for which you will even entertain the possibility that I might have a point that trancends whatever you think my politics are, but offer no specifics as to what I have to do to meet that standard. I have told you what I know - which in the case of my first post was the details of the Maher Arar case - and what my objections to that case were. When I believe you'll be "serious"-- when you actually do something besides make OG posts. This is extraordinarily weak, isn't it? How do you know what I have or haven't done about this issue besides make OG posts? Have you hired a detective to shadow me? What should I do in addition to making OG posts to satisfy you? When I believe you'll be "serious"-- when you actually do something besides make OG posts. My authority-- I have none. However, you're the one who objects to my viewpoint, so obviously there is some sort of perceived authority. So you have no authority, and if I read this post right, you have no objection to my viewpoint either. In that case, hopefully the discussion of my motives and personal politics is over and the thread can continue with the discussion of extraordinary rendition. |
| 12/27/06 7:48 PM | |
|
Tidbits
Edited: 27-Dec-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 3109 |
"If that were what this is about, then you wouldn't be questioning the practice of torture-- only the practice of torture as it is used on those who have not been proven "guilty". Or are you OK with torture for those that are proven "guilty"? Of course you aren't. So please, answer my question-- what would you do if your son was involved in a plot to murder innocent people? " Answer mine first - would you want or allow any member of your family subjected to any of the "acceptable" tecniques or unacceptable ones for that matter? Just to show you, if my son were involved he should be subject to the full extent of this country's LAWS! Read what I said before, the end NEVER justifies the means. Torture is wrong now matter who, U.S. citizen, non citizen I don't care. It's morally and societally wrong. Period. No discussion. As for speaking for those people who have fought and died for this country, but I can say that the principles and ideals upon which the U.S. was founded do not include torture of any person. |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
