I define torture differently than you do.

I think abusing people with no evidence to support that the person being questioned has specific information on a specific issue could be torture and would be a waste of time.

I think in order for us to understand each other we have to refine the questions. So basically I can honestly say I agree with you and then honestly say I disagree with you. I think randomly abusing prisoners to seek some random piece of information basically will not useful. On the other hand if you have a target who has specific information and that target is questioned with specificity with increasing severity eventually you will get the information you seek.


You have given no clear guidance to the basic questions on the table. When does it become torture and what makes it torture? If I had a clear answer to those questions, I would agree with you. The 'I know it when I see it' argument is not helpful for people like me, who see the world in 'black and white', I don't get the shades of gray stuff. Define it so I can understand it.

Again, you fail at reading and quite possibly comprehension.

Torture has a place. It exists. No matter how much you state that it doesn't and shouldn't it does.

Really? It cannot control? Seems like the Talilban had control over the people.

Seems like the House of Terror in Budapest the building that housed the KGB and the Nazis where unspeakable torture happened, seems to disagree having tortured and controlled its people from the 1940s until the 80s.

Torture controlled many people for decades. Looking at the length of the Spanish Inquisition 1480 - 1530, it seems to have again controlled people for a considerable length of time.

Torture is still used by 81 governments some openly admitting to torturing their citizens. http://thereport.amnesty.org/document/47

this is from a little further down the page in the same extract you posted, cyn.

I would volunteer for it, if it would save the life of a person I cared for. If I volunteer for it, how could you define it as torture?

In states that require grounds for divorce, they often use pain and suffering as a basis. We all know that is generic bull shit. So now you throw in "severe" and call it torture? All I am saying is that your guidance would be of no value to me. So you tell me not to waterboard, then I come up with something else, so the cycle goes on and on. Why can't you clearly define torture?

Drowning or having the sensation of drowning is unpleasant, but so are many other things. Earlier I stipulated that waterboarding was torture, then I went through what if's to try to get clarify some of the vague terms like "severe", "extreme" in the context of how you view the issue.
Here we go again. What is an "extended" period of time? I think when some people get baptized they get their heads dunk in water.

I have been asking you for clarification. Again if I were your CIA guy in the field, I would have no understanding of your view other than waterboarding being torture.

Is isolation torture?
Is sleep deprivation torture?
Is being subjected to extreme temperatures torture?
Is depriving someone of toilet paper torture?
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

rb, that is a very poignant part of the book and lead me to many other books and reports on the Genovese effect.

I'm not believing that there is an order to the universe, I'm taking the position that it exists from the range of humanity. Humans can do beautiful wondrous things, and heinous and deplorable things. My statement isn't about world thinking or even group thinking because if I was doing either, I'd be sitting exactly next to you and your mode of thinking.

I'm again stating that in order for me to process it in a different understanding. I have not choice but to look at it holistically from 70,000 feet before I get into the weeds. History sides with me that it has and will happen again, more than likely in my lifetime. The questions for me aren't the knee jerk reaction, "It's wrong!" but to see and understand the rationalizations as to the "Why did that person/government make that choice to do so such a thing?"

That is probably a better way of explaining it. Just decrying the end action doesn't prevent future actions.

on that we agree, actually cyn--where the important question really is. how to prevent this. what can be done.

the difference really is in what the next move is when you or i try to think it out.

this is an interesting question and it gets really disturbing really quickly once you start to pursue it...maybe tonight i'll play around with it...

There's no need to explore impossible hypothetical situations. Torture was used on people that were kidnapped or captured in order to get intelligence to fight the GWOT, but in that function it proved to be at best unreliable and in truth a huge problem.
The UN clearly defines torture. Your getting hung up on adjectives isn't an issue of clarity, it's an issue of intellectual dishonesty. You're proposing that because the language isn't unreasonably clear there's a big gray area. There's not. Waterboarding is mental pain and is therefore torture.
Extended periods of time was intended to communicate "up until the point where the individual has run out of oxygen and is a few seconds from passing out". You see what I mean by unreasonably clear descriptions? I know you're feigning ignorance on the issue, that'd be clear to a blind person (a person unable to see due to a physical factor).
Isolation can become torture when it reaches a point of causing hallucinations, insomnia, attempts at suicide, speaking to people that aren't there, and shaking. Sleep deprivation has similar markers (minus insomnia, of course) and should never exceed 36 hours. The human body has temperature points at which it cannot function properly, and interrogation methods should never be within 15 degrees F of those temperatures for any period of time (I'm not a biologist, but I believe the extremes without proper protection are around 45 F and 110 F, which would mean no colder than 60 F and no hotter than 95 F). Depriving someone of toilet paper for more than maybe 12 hours without providing an alternate method of cleaning can cause the skin to become irritated and even can cause the skin to break which could lead to infection, so I'd say you should leave the TP in the room.

Keep em coming. I can do this all day long.

I get you. You're right, now that I'm re-reading your posts, we're more on the same road than it seems like. You're just on the road much further. I think that's why you're statements of it not being about utility etc, is because you've already moved past where I am and have invalidated those elements to help as a prevention method. In this context, since were post, it's harder for me to see it in the prevention light, but since I'm trying to strip away the emotional responses from it, I see you down the road.

Meanwhile, on an adjacent yet less abstract road...
In the context of the GWOT and the Bush Administration, torture represented desperation giving way to foolishness. That hardly justifies it. Something existing doesn't mean it has a place.
You think torture and torture alone kept "control" over the "people" of Afghanistan? No other factors there? No social and cultural factors? No religious factors? No economic factors? Are you really willing to sum up the Taliban situation in Afghanistan before the invasion as "it's torture, stupid"?
Same as above. Torture was implemented with the intention of intimidation, but was used with a host of other strategies. Can you perhaps find an instance where torture alone was used to control?

Step away from the coffee machine Beavis.

I not once ever said anything about GWOT and the Bush Administration being justified in using torture. It hasn't been a SINGLE post of mine.

You may not find that it has no place in your world. There are vast tracts of history you should not read since there's torture all over it.

Again, you're trying to oversimplify a larger point of view that I have into some internet meme that jives with you you live. I'm sorry but you'll not be able to do so with my points of view on this matter.

Really? Intimidation? Oh so it has a use.....

I never said you did, but this thread is about something specific: the GWOT and the US using torture, and, more specifically, accountability. When you said, waaay back in the OP, that you're fine with torture, you made that statement in the context of the article you linked, which was talking about accountability for torture. This conversation isn't happening in a vacuum regardless of how abstract the conversation gets.
I'm not making the case that torture hasn't happened, I'm making the case it has no function beyond selfish reasons like masochism and vengeance. It cannot do what it was supposedly used for in the GWOT, extracting intelligence. That alone should tell you that even though something may be used often, it isn't necessarily functional in what it's being used for.
"I'll say flat out, I'm fine with torture..." Can you reconcile this with you not approving of it's use in the GWOT?
I said the intention of intimidation. What was it earlier you said about reading comprehension?

Yes, I can reconcile it..... please read my above posts.

I'll say it again. "I've said that I find torture to be a mode and method that people use for various reasons and I'm fine with that."

Maybe I should try different languages because you're not understanding my point of view.

I've taken an extensive amount of time to write them. You've only taken moments to skim through them and pick out your leaps of understanding and conviction.

You're the one taking extreme leaps of logic and understanding, not me. I'm not the one parsing my sentences, you are. You continue to leapfrog your point of view through mine not making any sense whatsoever in the context of what I'm engaged in on my side of the discussion.

People judge by ACTIONS not intentions. Using torture for the "Intention of intimidation." Still works in my reading comprehension world. I'm not sure it works in yours. See, again, it has a use. I don't care how many nouns, adjectives, and adverbs you put in front of it, it still is torture and still has a function. It may not be a function that you agree with but the person who is implementing the acts of torture feels and understands that it has a function, that VALUE is what makes it happen and persist as an aspect of humanity.

Well, the course of action should be clear.

The buck starts with CIA agents and stops with Bush. What do you recommend, assuming waterboarding is torture and the evidence shows it was done and authorized? Do you suggest execution? Prison? What? Then do we go back and look at other administrations and do the same investigation, same punishment?

Investigation, arrests, prosecution, and then, assuming a guilty verdict, whatever punishment is appropriate under the law.

Under whose jurisdiction?
Should members of Congress, who may have been informed, be investigated and brought up on charges and face punishment as well, for being complicit?
Should the investigation include past administrations?
Would you allow foreign governments, under the UN jurisdiction convict and administer punishment to members of our CIA, and former member of our executive branch including a former President?

If all this is so clear, why is the Obama administration sending mixed signals? If I believed what you believed and what many in Obama's administration believes, my actions on this subject would be clear and with no doubt or hesitation on my part. Seems like, unlike you, Obama lacks convictions. I have a problem with that.

I believe the appropriate first step is congressional investigation of the CIA along with an internal military investigation.
That depends on the findings of the first investigations.
Same.
That depends on the outcomes of the US investigations. It would make sense to have independent oversight of the military and congressional investigations. Still, we can't simply assume that they will both be corrupt. The UN should only get involved if they can demonstrate systemic corruption of the investigations.
The Obama administration is made up of Democrats, and Democrats historically lack balls. If you remember, many Democrats were quick to sign the AUMF and Patriot Act, fearing they'd be labeled soft on terrorism if they didn't. Similarly, the Obama administration, quick to pick a fight with Afghanistan and Pakistan, is scared shitless they'll be labeled soft on terrorism. Instead of elevating the level of discourse by refusing to play the bullshit games, they are victimized by them over and over again. I remember watching Clinton scramble his fat ass toward the center time and again. We're seeing the same thing now.

I doubt I'll get to see a proud liberal president in my lifetime. It will be liberals forcing themselves to be centrists and chickenhawk conservatives for the rest of my days.

...and that's why I believe in reality, not some pink cloud sun kissed pipe dream. There are real world factors of human beings that come into play not just ideologies and dogmas, but actual psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Surely someone as collegiate schooled in the human being understands that.

I understand that making excuses for torture can enable torture. I learned about enabling in a collage psychology class.

decopage collage psychology?

You keep believing that I'm standing in Times Square holding up a sign saying "I heart Torture." :shakehead: I've not made a single excuse.

Your reading comprehension is just horrid these days. Stating that I am trying to understand the human condition enables torture is like saying that I enable great works of art and great engineering. Such extreme leaps of logic...maybe you should be Evel Knievel of logic because those are some extreme and daredevil leaps you're taking.

You started the thread with "I'm fine with torture", not "I'm studying the human condition". The insane level of acrobatic backpedaling you've done since then would put even the most accomplished daredevil to shame. While it's sad you're unwilling to simply say, "I didn't mean I was fine with torture, I mean that there's nothing I can do about it", it's not altogether unexpected. You're just as stubborn as I am at times.

Like i said, "I'm fine with torture."

Since you're claiming to be stubborn in reading, maybe the repetition is enough for you to understand it.

I'm done.

You're still saying essentially the same thing. You're aware people torture, you're aware they have their reasons, and, AGAIN, you're fine with torture. You're alright with people torturing for their own reasons. That's not a defense of your position, it's an elaboration at best, and it's still inexcusable.

Why is it that you never responded to my question about your position on other horrible acts? Are you fine with genocide? Are you fine with child prostitution? Are you fine with slavery?

will, zero reading comprehension. I am saying EXACTLY the same thing, not ESSENTIALLY, EXACTLY. No, my opinion isn't inexcusable, it's my opinion.

You're willing to take flying leaps like the Flying Burrito Brothers but you're not willing to understand my position enough to take the necessary logical steps to answer your own questions.

Since you need someone to hold your hand to make this particular leap, let me walk you down the path. You're free to substitute the word TORTURE for just about anything else the range of a human being is capable of doing, both NEGATIVE and POSITIVE. There is no ethical or moral judgments taking place at this level of the discussion for my point of view.

You're trying so hard to convince my that my position is wrong, instead of trying to understand what my position means. Read post #72 again.

once again, i only have a couple minutes while i finish my last cup o joe before pitching outward...

the main reason that i have trouble with the abstracting of this use of torture by the cia out of its context, so out of its institutional framework, is that it is the bureaucratoc framework itself that makes this kind of thing so problematic. we've touched on this from time to time--doing one's job, compartmentalization: the way in which one's functions in a bureaucratic setting fragment the understanding, separating for example what's normal as part of the job from its effects--the extreme case is the holocaust which would not have been possible without an entire bureaucracy devoted to murder as an administrative matter....a bureaucracy, for all its efficiencies at the level of information movement from place to place etc, is a really stupid system in that ANYTHING can theoretically be made a normal objective, reduced to an administrative problem, worked on by absolutely regular folk like you and me with no malicious intent who just do their 9-5 the best they can....this is not to say that the fact of being in such a position changes anything about the outcomes--torture is still torture---but it does explain how it is that the starting place of an isolated or abstract individual standing in no particular place may describe how you or i writing here might react to this information, but in terms of thinking it through with an idea of how one would prevent this sort of thing from happening, it's the wrong place.

if a bureaucracy is a stupid kind of system in that it implements directives without providing space to think about the directives, and this as a function of how power is distributed, what a vertical organization is, how it works, then it is the fashioning of the rules that is a particular Problem in this case---i think that the people who worked out this policy should face charges. it is not ok to legitimate torture. it is not ok to create a situation in which torture is routinely applied. because from certain positions of power, it is all too easy to do it. to lapse into theological/ethical language, this process is the banalization of evil.

it's not a coincidence that international conventions that impose limits on technological systems that can be used in combat (gas for example) and human rights conventions (which extends to the geneva conventions) are products of the 20th century, which was a period of the explosion of bureaucratic forms of administration...

rb, I'm with you on that. The bureaucracy of any administration or heirarchy removes the directness of the cause and effect since they aren't directly the cause. They pushed the paper or made the call and they didn't directly do the acts. IMO it's not much different than the capos and the soldiers isolating the don from any kind of responsibility. Even at that simple framework, the soldiers have footmen who may have done the deeds to further isolate.

This again is why I'm looking at it from that loop, even going to the Spanish Inquisition, you've got a framework that is isolating and compartmentalizing the processes into acceptable bite size parts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/op...r=2&ref=global

so to make things clear:
we know from the memos that the military resisted implementing these torture techniques.
We know from the memos that the CIA agents involved in some of these cases didn't want to implement them, but people all the way back in Virginia and DC ordered them to.
And now we know from someone who was there that they were useless, and that the worst stuff to come out of these torture sessions is still not declassified.

And some people still insist on defending this?

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

U.S. Soldier Who Killed Herself--After Refusing to Take Part in Torture

We also know that the FBI resisted implementing the techniques.
We know that torture was in fact not used to stop a terrorist attack in LA, in fact there's no evidence at all that any torture resulted in lives saved or attacks prevented.

Also, just as a reminder, the US had no trouble prosecuting Japanese soldiers for torturing people by waterboarding.

Thanks for those links, Will.

Can I summarize?

1. Torture is wrong.
2. Torture is illegal, both in US and international law.
3. Agents of the US government tortured people, with the encouragement of those at the highest levels of government - at least Cheney, and possibly with the approval or knowledge of Bush.

regarding the prosecution of japanese for waterboarding--again remember that the way these things work, there really is only one real crime against humanity and that crime is losing a war.

I am personally troubled by my feelings on the matter of torture. I think torture is horrible and if asked if I condone it my immediate reaction is hell no. However if faced with specific details about a situation I can imagine many circumstances where not only would I condone it I would strongly support it. Maybe this is the result of watching too many crime dramas and shows like 24.

I haven't read enough about the charges against the CIA, etc..But I suspect my position on the matter would depend on the details of every case of suspected torture.

paul krugman makes an eloquent case for the pursuit of serious investigations on this issue.
from this morning's ny times:

Yes,

...and...to make things worse, I am going to call Obama and his administration a "biatch", if they don't act in a manner consistent with what they think are the facts and their so called moral compass. There are those willing to do what needs to be done, like Bush, and their are people who live in a theoretical 'la la' land, like I think Obama does.

---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------

We don't need further investigation, we know enough to bring charges. Why make this more complicated than it needs to be. Why can't they make their decision on what we know? Obama has all the documents, we know the victims, no one is going to voluntarily incriminate themselves in an investigation, we know the buck stops with Bush. I suggest they either file formal charges or move on.

Needs to be done? Have you not read anything in this page at all?
Even the people in the fucking torture room are publicly saying that it wasn't needed, nor was it effective. That is was pushed from Langley and DC, with the intent of finding the Al Qaeda Iraq link, and that some of the false info obtained through torture was even cited by Powell in the UN.

It's counterintuitive for most people that torture cannot really function as a tool for gaining intelligence, but it's something we should all deal with. As entertaining as 24 is, and it's certainly that, if jack Bauer were real, he likely would have extracted false confessions half the time he tortured and might have gotten his fellow characters killed. Of course Jack Bauer isn't real. Los Angeles was never nuked, the first black president wasn't assassinated and replaced by a traiter, African militants never breached the White House and kidnapped the president, and there's no way Kim Bauer could be that stupid and unlucky... there's just no way.

According to virtually every expert (REAL experts, people that have actually witnessed or carried out torture), not only does it not work but there are better and more humane options. We can remain the "good guys" AND attain life-saving intelligence. Does that seem like the best option? Instead of sacrificing our dignity and morality for unreliable intelligence, we can remain steadfast and respectful to the principles upon which this country is founded while simultaneously effectively gaining reliable intelligence.

ace---like it or not, the investigations are about bringing criminal charges.
it doesn't matter whether you like it or not; it doesn't matter whether you imagine--against all evidence--that there's a justification for using torture.
personally, i think it'd be a considerable step forward in making it more difficult for regimes to engage in such practices were there to be such prosecutions. it's be a step toward placing legal limits around authoritarian reactionary regimes like that of george w bush.

One thing that "needs to be done" is enforce laws. I don't think the law was broken, you Obama, and other do. So explain to me what his problem is? I accept that many don't see the issue the way that I do, now I have moved on...my question now is what are you going to do about it? Not literally you, but "you" in the context of everyone who is disturbed by Bush's blatant violation of clearly defined law for no purpose.

---------- Post added at 07:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

I understand that, but I also know that charges can be brought without "perfect" information.

I find it odd that some here find it unbelievable that someone like me can even question if torture actually occurred or if waterboarding is torture, they take the stance that it is a done deal - slam dunk - no need for discussion - etc., and now you and some others are saying we need further investigation????

It is not about what I like, it is about me not understanding the 'fog' you folks are in. I say enjoy the sun, enjoy the rain and get out of the fog. If it is clear that the law was broken, then the next steps are clear. Either take the legal action if you think the law was broken, or say that you think the law was broken but that you are not going to take legal action for whatever reason, or say you don't think the law was broken. Seems simple to me.

there you go again, ace. your "sunshine" apparently involves neither reading the available information nor thinking real hard about what you do take in. so by "fog" i assume you refer to that state of being in contact with actual information.

if you'd actually read this thread, it was pretty clear from the outset why bringing charges against the bush people would be a problem--it's also become clear over the past few days that the obama administration isn't able to do what it wanted to do, which was release this information and let the matter drop. this isn't over by a long shot, and people like you who still defend the bush administration's actions, based on paper-thin thinking in your case, will have ample time to go all gordon liddy and argue that there is no torture in any of the practices so long as a republican administration is behind them of course. the issue will end up being the limits placed on executive power by international convention. as an authoritarian, you would probably not recognise any such limits...but i think yours is an outworn worldview and one of the reasons that i think the trials--should they come--would be so beneficial for the united states is that they'd spell the absolute end of the possibility for folk who think as you do about power from ever holding it here.

i think that's a win-win situation.

enjoy the "sun"...

Our differences are pretty clear. It doesn't seem that we are even reading the same information or even what has been posted here.

Another difference is I can state my view in a simple declarative sentence. If it is clear the law was broken, press charges against those who violated the law. I understand "the problem" with bringing charges against a former President and that is why I say act one way or the other. What is it that needs further investigation? If your point is that this is not as "clear" as some believe, perhaps you should direct your comments to those folks, because I already know it is not "clear".

I agree. I understand that tortured people would say whatever you want to hear, anything to make it stop, I know I probably would. You want me to say the world is really flat, fine, just stop the pain. But I can't get over the idea that there may be rare circumstances where it should be allowed.