Article

2005-11-29 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Captain America 2005-11-29 12:18|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Well DUH! Who didnât know that torture does in fact work? Trust me you deprive a person or cause them discomfort long enough they are going to crack. Only the LLL still believes torture doesnât work. But what out guys are mostly doing is called âaggressive interrogationâ because it doesnât cause (lasting) physical harm. What McCain wants to do is redefine aggressive interrogation as torture and that would be a bad thing. With all due respect to McCain, does he expect our people to just as âpretty pleaseâ until the terrorists give them any information?

Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge 2005-11-29 12:39|| 2005-11-29 12:39|| Front Page Top

#2 Not only a two faced liar, but a fucking traitor also. I'm glad you didn't lie to them, asshole.
Why don't you do the most damage you can to the Democrats and switch parties. You already vote their way the majority of the time anyway.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-11-29 12:42|| 2005-11-29 12:42|| Front Page Top

#3 so the second time he broke, and signed something that wasnt true. Wouldnt that show that torture is ineffective? And the first time he gave them info of low value - is anyone suggesting we use torture to get low value intell?

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-11-29 12:52|| 2005-11-29 12:52|| Front Page Top

#4 LH, the second time they got him to make a political statement by signing the war crimes confession. By that time they had all the operational information they needed. So they were being sadistic and just using him for propaganda. As far as I know we are not using the prisoners for propaganda and I doubt we could get much mileage out of them that way.

Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge 2005-11-29 13:02|| 2005-11-29 13:02|| Front Page Top

#5 LH - Mebbe, except he would've signed the paper if it WAS true. At that point, it seems he would've told them anything, or done anything, true or false. If anything, it argues that a broken man will tell you what he thinks you WANT to hear.

Posted by Bobby 2005-11-29 13:12|| 2005-11-29 13:12|| Front Page Top

#6 But what out guys are mostly doing is called âaggressive interrogationâ because it doesnât cause (lasting) physical harm.

And also because it's done by Americans, ofcourse. But when any other country in the world did it *to* Americans, there was no doubt at all that it was torture.

As a sidenote, I think that rape usually doesn't cause lasting physical harm either. Would you claim that the rape of prisoners wouldn't qualify as torture?

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-11-29 14:09|| 2005-11-29 14:09|| Front Page Top

#7 Aris, rape can certainly cause lasting physical harm in addition to the obvious psychological damage that it does. Stop already with the idiotic hair-splitting you always get into.

Posted by remoteman 2005-11-29 14:27|| 2005-11-29 14:27|| Front Page Top

#8 remoteman, "psychological harm" is besides the point, as we've been told (only permanent *physical* harm matters, it seems).

And certainly rape *can* cause lasting physical harm, depending on the levels of brutality involved, but in cases it might also not. So would you claim that if rape was done with the proper care so as not to cause lasting *physical* harm (eg you may drug female jihadists first and then rape them "gently"), it would not be torture but rather a legitimate "aggressive interrogation" technique?

This is not "hair-splitting", babe. This is determining how far your idiotic definition about "lasting physical harm" is about to take you. This is determining how low you are willing to fall as a society.

Perhaps *you* know differently on gut instinct, but I'm not at *all* sure that the male Rantburgers here atleast aren't just a few years away from condoning rape of jihadis using the very argumentation I outlined above (also with a few more jeers inserted about how those mooselimbs are all a bunch of pedophilic homosexuals anyway, so what are they complaining about?)

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-11-29 14:50|| 2005-11-29 14:50|| Front Page Top

#9 jumped on rape pretty quick, butt boy. You truly don't think, do you? It's all about meeeeeee

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-11-29 15:11|| 2005-11-29 15:11|| Front Page Top

#10 now didn't aris once say he was never going to post on rantburg again???
never trust a greek!

Posted by Crunter Wheregum8095 2005-11-29 15:19|| 2005-11-29 15:19|| Front Page Top

#11 (Sigh)...Anis...

Please learn basic logic...stating that aggressive interrogation does not cause lasting physical harm is not an endorsement of ANY technique that doesn't cause lasting physical harm. It is merely differentiating our true current policy from what the media widely confuses as current US policy-which we would likely all agree was torture. Your response seems to assume that, if one endorses a form of interrogation that does not produce lasting physical harm, they are then implicitly indifferent to whatever psychological harm might be caused. If that were the case, then we would not have prosecuted an officer for firing his weapon during an interrogation DESPITE the fact that no physical harm was caused. The US military is the most powerful and benevolent in the world because it does not err in its logic or consistency the way you do in your argumentation.

True regardless of how many straw man arguments you erect so that you may browbeat us with your EUrophiliac moral superiority.

Posted by mjh">mjh 2005-11-29 15:30|| 2005-11-29 15:30|| Front Page Top

#12 Go Do Greek Aris.

Posted by Dawg 2005-11-29 15:31|| 2005-11-29 15:31|| Front Page Top

#13 never trust a greek!

Indeed. But your racism is besides the issue. My posting here in violation of past promises is also besides the issue (I'm not asking you to vote for me, after all). The issue is not about me at all, the issue is about torture and the definition thereof.

Tell me whether you consider torture as to include or exclude rape. And then justify it based on whichever definition of torture you support.

jumped on rape pretty quick, butt boy. You truly don't think, do you? It's all about meeeeeee

When I hate you for being a moron, I call you a moron. When I hate you for being a fascist, I call you a fascist. When I hate you for being a lowlife amoeba-like non-sentient creature, I call you a lowlife amoeba-like non-sentient creature. When I wish you dead I say "Drop dead".

But when you hate my arguments or my debate tactics, you call me "butt-boy". Or you bring my nationality into this. Or you search my livejournal for ugly photographs of me. Or a number of other nice little tactics, all meant to avoid the actual issue.

Well call me whatever you wish, but that doesn't make your support of torture any less vile. Or your evasive tactics any less cowardly.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-11-29 15:38|| 2005-11-29 15:38|| Front Page Top

#14 Damn, when did Aris get back long time no see, still being anal I see.

Posted by djohn66 2005-11-29 15:52|| 2005-11-29 15:52|| Front Page Top

#15 "Please learn basic logic...stating that aggressive interrogation does not cause lasting physical harm is not an endorsement of ANY technique that doesn't cause lasting physical harm"

Mjh, that's ofcourse a very legitimate position to take. Namely, that there are tactics that may not be, strictly speaking, "torture", but they are equally vile to torture on a moral level.

But please see for yourself that it's not actually the position taken by the vast majority of conservative debaters. They use "It was not torture because it didn't cause permanent harm" as a by-definition moral argument of superiority.

If *your* argument was the one they believed in, namely that there are lots of deplorable things that are not torture, but are equally vile to it, then these debaters wouldn't find it sufficient at all to proclaim something as "not torture" in order to defend it. As is currently being the case.

Your response seems to assume that, if one endorses a form of interrogation that does not produce lasting physical harm, they are then implicitly indifferent to whatever psychological harm might be caused.

An assumption borne on the quite easily *seen* indifference to psychological harm, displayed in Rantburg : see defending waterboarding tactics, dismissing them with commentary like "Me and the Mrs do worse things on each other every night"

"If that were the case, then we would not have prosecuted an officer for firing his weapon during an interrogation DESPITE the fact that no physical harm was caused"

It's not the Rantburg majority that prosecuted said officer, and as far as I remember nor did the Rantburg majority want his prosecution. Rantburgers can't take credit for things that they *opposed*.

True regardless of how many straw man arguments you erect so that you may browbeat us with your EUrophiliac moral superiority

My EUrophiliac moral superiority is also besides the issue.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-11-29 15:54|| 2005-11-29 15:54|| Front Page Top

#16 Don't pick at the scab... it won't heal

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-11-29 15:57|| 2005-11-29 15:57|| Front Page Top

#17 Not with that disease, anyway.

Posted by Darrell 2005-11-29 16:29|| 2005-11-29 16:29|| Front Page Top

16:35 ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding
16:35 .com
16:34 Edward Yee
16:34 Barbara Skolaut
16:29 Darrell
16:28 Steve
16:26 Barbara Skolaut
16:25 Darrell
16:22 BH
16:19 Ol Dirty American
16:17 liberalhawk
16:13 .com
16:11 Zenster
16:10 .com
16:10 2b
16:09 Shipman
16:06 Shipman
16:06 Dawg
16:01 Covert Floridian
15:59 Alaska Paul
15:57 Frank G
15:54 Alaska Paul
15:54 Aris Katsaris
15:54 2b