Jump to content

Senate report revelals CIA's use of torture


Pistolvania

Recommended Posts

A newly released report from the US senate has exposed a lot, or maybe even just some of their use of torture and goes to an extent into detail about their use of torture on specific people.

 

To quote a small part of the article:

 

 

The Senate’s newly released report on CIA torture practices tells a story of two wars, dozens of intelligence officials, an unknown number of detainees and a system of “black sites†and torture techniques used around the world. As various revelations about the US’ post-9/11 torture program have been leaked into the public over the years, a clear cast of characters has emerged.

[...]

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri

A Saudi Arabian charged in a military commission for planning the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. He spent years in CIA black sites. 

The CIA has previously admitted to having waterboarded al-Nashiri. Interrogators also revved a power drill by his temple, fired a pistol near his head, removed his clothing and threatened to sexually assault his mother, according to legal proceedings reported about his case. He is in custody at Guantánamo Bay and has been charged with war crimes.

 

Full article here: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-cast-of-characters

 

Is this acceptable coming from the "World's Greatest Democracyâ„¢"?
Can use of torture / Use of torture in this extreme shape be justified?
Do you think this will have further consequenses?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There's nothing wrong with torturing people who would sooner torture us than even consider being human. Fricking savages. We're totally in the right to be torturing people who kill our own.

 

 

Being a great democracy does not mean we should give up our will... Our right to adequately punish and retrieve information from dangerous people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone knew and does know everything they did. Not a huge shock

I find the reason that "it will hopefully avoid future torture", but that's a load of bullshit. It will continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with torturing people who would sooner torture us than even consider being human. Fricking savages. We're totally in the right to be torturing people who kill our own.

 

 

But CIA killed at least one of the people in the article. How is us killing them any better than they killing us? 

 

 

 

Being a great democracy does not mean we should give up our will... Our right to adequately punish and retrieve information from dangerous people.

 

What makes this adequate then? Elaborate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But CIA killed at least one of the people in the article. How is us killing them any better than they killing us? 

 

 

What makes this adequate then? Elaborate.

If we just put them in jail or kill them, they get to go up to their supposed seventy-two virgins and a life in the love of allah. 

 

And killing them doesn't make us better than them, but NOT killing them definitely makes them better than us. It makes us pussies. Our government is very fearful of becoming politically incorrect and doesn't want to dirty its hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this acceptable coming from the "World's Greatest Democracyâ„¢"?

Can use of torture / Use of torture in this extreme shape be justified?
Do you think this will have further consequenses?

 

 

1) no.  torture of any kind is not acceptable.

2) no, the use of torture is not justifiable as it is not and never has been a reliable means of intelligence gathering.

3) yes, it will have further consequences.  people are less likely to surrender if they believe they will be tortured, and more likely to surrender if they believe that they will be treated well.  this means that a policy of torture actually costs lives on both sides of a conflict where one or both sides use it.

 

in the art of war, sun tsu said that an enemy with no escape will fight their hardest and to the bitter end, but an enemy with a way out will not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you really not think that CIA tortured people? It's not particularly moral or right, but I wouldn't be totally against it. I wouldn't have the stomach for it myself, but if someone else does, I would be ok with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being in prison implies what exactly? Nelson Mandela was in prison forever, what's your point LOL

Uhhhh... My point being that pacifism didn't grant him the greatest life. I don't know if you're acting dumb or trying to mock me, but that was pretty clear. 

 

Being peaceful in a world of hateful people isn't going to get you far, only a few exceptions to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torture in itself shouldn't be banned.

 

And I don't know the guy but I'm pretty sure he's damn messed up. Though I'm skeptical towards CIA/Mi6/AIVD shit I think he gets what he deserves. He won't be in there for cuddling kittens. He won't be put on trial because your justice system sucks (OJ).

 

Oh and didn't Bush declare a war on terror. He's a terrorist and thus from an enemy nation sort of. Its not right to shoot a random guy on a street, when you're at war with his nation and he's in the army it is. Different rules apply to war than to normal everyday life.

 

It's because Muslim extremists are being stopped by such actions that since 9/11 the US have had little to no problem, whilst Europe due to proximity and less powerful secret services has had problems. Madrid, London, Paris and Marseille just to name a few.

 

If the CIA were doing this to some guy who got a speeding ticket you should be outraged. Now you should just calm down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how would his life have been improved by being hateful or violent instead? Get himself locked up in prison anyways?

Being violent or hateful, in a world of hateful people, just breeds more of the same activity. Suffering to establish peace (being locked up in prison as a peaceful political enemy/threat) should be considered a virtuous hallmark, not a reason to avert from living and preaching a peaceful way of life if it makes a difference.

 

Edit: It doesn't matter if the guys in question were violating international treaties and conventions on acceptable warfare: jumping off the "moral cliff" along with those monsters should not be considered the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The torture they were conducting was mostly waterboarding.

In case you're unaware, you basically get chocked until you pass out. It's said to simulate feelings of death by asphyxiation, and is one of the cruelest forms of torture out there.

No, there's no reason for our government to be doing this, much less keeping it out of the eyes of the public for 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this acceptable coming from the "World's Greatest Democracyâ„¢"?

Can use of torture / Use of torture in this extreme shape be justified?
Do you think this will have further consequenses?

 

Impressive questions here. 

 

1) You simply asked this to include your "Greatest Democracy". Can torture be acceptable from one country yet unacceptable from another? Are you suggesting that we should hold some countries to different standards than others? Humans rights are universal. Either way, quality bait.

 

2) Yes, I think it can be justified. Can it be justified as punishment? Tough question. I think there are people who no doubt deserve torture as punishment, but I don't think it would be a great idea to allow the government to torture people. For intelligence? Depends. There are times when torture can greatly aid interrogation, and there are times when it can greatly impede interrogation. I will say, however, that it even if it will aid interrogation, it should only be done when the safety of the public is at risk (a terror plot is known, we want details, etc). I don't think it should ever be used to solve more petty crimes, like theft (for which it is probably never effective anyway). Honestly, we should go case by case here.

 

3) I think people will step down, but there probably will be no actual punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The torture they were conducting was mostly waterboarding.

In case you're unaware, you basically get chocked until you pass out. It's said to simulate feelings of death by asphyxiation, and is one of the cruelest forms of torture out there.

No, there's no reason for our government to be doing this, much less keeping it out of the eyes of the public for 10 years.

It so is not one of the cruelest forms of torture. There are way, way worse forms especially with all the devices we have today. I won't go in detail because it will get off-topic but waterboarding is too fast, not painful enough and too certain for it to be the cruelest.

 

And @ space Jesus.

He already was hateful and violent. There's a reason he's in there. He's no political enemy, he's a terrorist murderer. That's not even in the same league. And when you as a nation go around cuddling terrorists because of your high moral standards you will only encourage it. When there is no CIA to act on you, why not do it? If you get caught you're not allowed to suffer apparently so who cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a big difference between "coddling" (or cuddling, either act doesn't sound like what we're doing) a terrorist, and having the humanity to not torture him. You still capture them, send them to prison, or shoot them on the battlefield. If you actually equate the choice to not torture, with being "soft" on terrorism, then this discussion is already dead and has nowhere to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a big difference between "coddling" a terrorist, and having the humanity to not torture him. You still capture them, send them to prison, or shoot them on the battlefield. If you actually equate the choice to not torture, with being "soft" on terrorism, then this discussion is already dead and has nowhere to go.

"Jumping off the moral cliff should not be considered the solution"

That's what you said. Torturing sometimes is necessary to get information to save countless lives.

I would much rather have a terrorist suffer than even a 1% chance of saving innocent men, women and children from terrorist attacks. The CIA aren't monsters. They're not torturing him because they feel like it.

If you just throw Osama Bin Laden's second in command in jail he won't be of much use. If you use him to find out secrets that can save people that's way better.

The goal permits the means (not the correct translation of that expression I know) in this case.

 

There is a difference between normal people and those with the intention to murder innocent people just to get attention for their cause. The latter should not be treated with any dignity or respect. They threw their rights on those away when they planned their terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with torturing people who would sooner torture us than even consider being human. Fricking savages. We're totally in the right to be torturing people who kill our own.

 

 

Being a great democracy does not mean we should give up our will... Our right to adequately punish and retrieve information from dangerous people.

 

There's a thing called due process, which is in place so we don't wrongfully punish people. What if one of the people being tortured was innocent of anything?

 

Imagine if it was you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Jumping off the moral cliff should not be considered the solution"

That's what you said. Torturing sometimes is necessary to get information to save countless lives.

I would much rather have a terrorist suffer than even a 1% chance of saving innocent men, women and children from terrorist attacks. The CIA aren't monsters. They're not torturing him because they feel like it.

If you just throw Osama Bin Laden's second in command in jail he won't be of much use. If you use him to find out secrets that can save people that's way better.

The goal permits the means (not the correct translation of that expression I know) in this case.

 

There is a difference between normal people and those with the intention to murder innocent people just to get attention for their cause. The latter should not be treated with any dignity or respect. They threw their rights on those away when they planned their terrorism.

 

Total myth.  As I said, torture has never been a reliable means of intelligence gathering.

 

What it is reliable for is getting people to tell you things that aren't true (a.k.a. false confessions).

 

As for the so-called hypothetical "ticking time bomb" scenario used to defend torture, that too is a myth.  You're only going to see that particular fantasy as a TV and movie trope.

 

I will now quote my own previous post in this thread for good measure.

 

1) no.  torture of any kind is not acceptable.

2) no, the use of torture is not justifiable as it is not and never has been a reliable means of intelligence gathering.

3) yes, it will have further consequences.  people are less likely to surrender if they believe they will be tortured, and more likely to surrender if they believe that they will be treated well.  this means that a policy of torture actually costs lives on both sides of a conflict where one or both sides use it.

 

in the art of war, sun tsu said that an enemy with no escape will fight their hardest and to the bitter end, but an enemy with a way out will not.

 

In my view, torturing people is morally repugnant.  There is no defense for it.  It is impractical and it actually harms the side that uses it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US gave them the weapons, training and encourage them to fight other tribes.

 

US invade the country to "stop" the violence, and install """"democracy"""" . 

 

Then they get horrified because "terrorists" kill US ppl in war.

 

Then they capture "terrorists" and torture them.

 

That's not right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Total myth.  As I said, torture has never been a reliable means of intelligence gathering.

 

What it is reliable for is getting people to tell you things that aren't true (a.k.a. false confessions).

 

As for the so-called hypothetical "ticking time bomb" scenario used to defend torture, that too is a myth.  You're only going to see that particular fantasy as a TV and movie trope.

 

I will now quote my own previous post in this thread for good measure.

 

 

In my view, torturing people is morally repugnant.  There is no defense for it.  It is impractical and it actually harms the side that uses it.

Enemy torture might improve the morale of soldiers. But even this is dubious. People (fighting tribesmen of Iraq/Kurdistan mostly) still surrender to IS(IS). They're without doubt the worst torturers around these days.

But what torture also does is scare away new recruits. You will be less willing to do something if there was a high chance of torture for you because you don't exactly like it. In that sense it is a useful attribute in a war. And soldiers might not surrender to you, if they desert the enemy you're still gaining advantage.

 

If we're throwing military quotes around: "A prince (leader) should always attempt to follow the path of good, but if necessary he should know how to follow evil"  is what Macchiavelli said. If the US were to fight against Canada they shouldn't torture Canadians, they didn't plan on murdering civilians. When they're fighting IS or Al-Qaeda it might be necessary to follow the less desirable route. You don't win wars by being nice.

And torture most certainly has given away useful knowledge on enemies in the past which proved vital to winning the battle and the war.

The French won the battle for Algiers due to torture.

The British gained vital German coding knowledge due to torture, one of the contributing factors to Britain winning the Battle of Britain.

 

Torture shouldn't be supported, but when necessary it should be a tool that you are allowed to use to gain vital information

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enemy torture might improve the morale of soldiers. But even this is dubious. People (fighting tribesmen of Iraq/Kurdistan mostly) still surrender to IS(IS). They're without doubt the worst torturers around these days.

But what torture also does is scare away new recruits. You will be less willing to do something if there was a high chance of torture for you because you don't exactly like it. In that sense it is a useful attribute in a war. And soldiers might not surrender to you, if they desert the enemy you're still gaining advantage.

 

If we're throwing military quotes around: "A prince (leader) should always attempt to follow the path of good, but if necessary he should know how to follow evil"  is what Macchiavelli said. If the US were to fight against Canada they shouldn't torture Canadians, they didn't plan on murdering civilians. When they're fighting IS or Al-Qaeda it might be necessary to follow the less desirable route. You don't win wars by being nice.

And torture most certainly has given away useful knowledge on enemies in the past which proved vital to winning the battle and the war.

The French won the battle for Algiers due to torture.

The British gained vital German coding knowledge due to torture, one of the contributing factors to Britain winning the Battle of Britain.

 

Torture shouldn't be supported, but when necessary it should be a tool that you are allowed to use to gain vital information

 

A few reportedly successful cases of torture should not blind anyone to the fact that it is overall unreliable.  A broken watch can be right twice a day, but for every other moment it is consistently wrong.  No country or group should ever make it a policy to use torture.  While I agree that in war, one must keep their options open, it does not mean that we should then just grant the practice of torture a foothold.

 

As for those who have surrendered to ISIS, I cannot say why they did so, but ask yourself if you would surrender knowing the horrors in store for you.  I would not.  I would sooner take my own life and perhaps the life of an enemy in the process rather than be tortured and possibly beheaded in front of a camera for the world to witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...