For f*** sake... when will this stop? When will people say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" and jump off these ISPs and stop being their customers?
In my area it's Comcast and Qwest. Qwests prices are significantly higher than Comcast.
When Comcast called me and said that 300 Gb/mo is way to much, I simply asked them if I could pay more for them to stop harassing me about bandwidth usage. So for another $30/mo I went from being a 'home' user to their business class connection. And even though their home and business connections are listed at the same speed (8 Mb), I now actually get 10-12 Mb. (Plus I go from 768 up to a full meg).
Now, since I'm a business class user, they expect traffic levels they would see from a business that has anywhere from a few computers to fifty computers. Now 300 Gb/mo doesn't seem so high when you compare it to one of the sites I do contracting for--they have 40 workstations, 3 servers, and are constantly transferring high res x-rays to other sites.
The only part that pissed me off about Comcast calling was that they simply never told me of their magical cap, and they refused to tell me what it was--just that I had run over it.
I would have had no problem if they flat out told me their rates and caps--like 500 Gb for $80/mo.
Lets remove the sarcastic bits that were a result of your over the top reply to his comments and we are left with this statement:
I obviously disagreed with it
To confuse the intent of that simple statement, and go on a childish rant, really takes a...'special' mind.
Uuh yeah, he said he disagreed with it. But than to show why he disagreed with it, he pretty much summarized the original posters point. If you are old and going to die soon anyways, a life sentence could only be a year. So moron turned around and more or less said "Yeah, I disagree with you because you would probably die in jail".
...and then you come along with your value-added comment. Meh.
Well--I now have a 'freak'. Two more and I win the scavenger hunt.
No, you apparently didn't read it. And I have no idea where you get that I disagree with anything. I was simply making an informed statement that you may very well be mentally retarded.
Here, let me show you how I arrived at that conclusion:
...the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence or even execution wouldn't bother me because I wouldn't have much life left to lose
That was the original poster saying that he would do whatever--simply because a life sentence for him was probably only a few short years as opposed to someone my age who would be in jail for 50ish years.
Now here's where the retardedness slips in. It's where you start talking:
At that age, a simple 5 year prison sentance might as well be a death sentance.
...and that was the whole point of the original poster. If you are going to die in a year, do something sorta selfless. Rob a bank, give it to your kids, and then die. I'm assuming that's opposed to just sitting around for a year, degenerating and dying.
Don't forget your reflective vest, special shoes, and over-padded bike helmet when you leave.
You're making the dangerous assumption that government workers are more competent and less subject to being corrupted by power than the rest of us. Fact is, government employees make mistakes. They have emotions like any other human being. And you're saying that they should be given the power to torture?
I will never defend the government as being competent. That's why we have a system of checks and balances. And I don't think the military prisons should be these super-secret places where this type of stuff could happen.
That's pretty funny, because that's exactly what Hitler's attitude was when he invaded Poland. Germans == Aryans == RIGHT. Poles == Slavs == WRONG. Aryans need more land (Lebensraum). Slavs have land. Therefore it is okay for the Aryans to take land from the Slavs.
Oh my God! You're right. And did you know Hitler breathed air? I do too! OMG! And Hitler wore clothing. Holy shit. I do too.
Just because something I said sounds vaguely like something Hitler said doesn't put us into any sort of correlation. I'm sure if we picked your brain long enough we'd find something that you've said that Hitler said too.
But to respond to your half-assed attempt at an argument: The Poles didn't start the war by flying a plane into a German building and killing thousands of their citizens. The difference is that the Poles did not to anything wrong. Al Queda did, does, whatever.
But in many cases they aren't. They're just torturing people who are the wrong race, or in the wrong place at the wrong time. And so far, none of this has achieved any useful results, except making the US even more hated.
And once again we're back to this circle-jerk argument.
I'm not saying I support torture of innocent people. I'm saying if you have someone like khaled shaikh muhammad in custody and you want information about future attacks on the US, yeah, torture him.
Strangely enough, it worked. He confessed, and gave up a lot of information which lead to us stopping several planned attacks.
how does torturing thousands of people safeguard the nation or its people? It just puts it in greater danger.
First off, you're trying to make it sound like I'm saying that we should just go out and torture and random thousands of people. I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that if a captured terrorist has information that we need to prevent an attack that will cost hundreds or thousands of lives--or even just one life, torture him if need be to get the information out of him.
But I fail to see how it puts us in any greater danger than we already are. What are the terrorists going to do? Try to nuke us? Oh yeah, they already want to kill us all because we believe in freedom of religion, speech, etc...
Because there is none. There is no recorded evidence of torture saving any lives, only destroying them.
Yeah, because the CIA totally published "torture weekly" for anyone and everyone to read about how they do it. The government has that stuff classified for a reason.
As for destroying lives? Sure, I'll bet it does. But cry me a river, a terrorist has his life destroyed. Boo hoo. We should be nicer--let him get away with whatever he wants... (I'm sure you are no stranger to sarcasm.)
But how do you know the person you are torturing is a terrorist? There's plenty of evidence that many of the people tortured or imprisoned in the "war against terror" are no terrorists or connected with them.
Hmm...maybe because the government can listen in on communications of suspected terrorists if one part of the call terminates in this country. Probably other countries too. I'm sure there are people who are falsely imprisoned and/or tortured. That seriously sucks. But there are people in JAIL in our country who are falsely imprisoned, but I don't hear you calling to shutdown the jails. That's the problem with an imperfect human system.
but once you torture, you are not "right" any more. You have become the enemy.
By what freak of logic? Because a known terrorist (like say khaled shaikh muhammad) was flown around the world to various secret prisons and tortured because he played a major role in the 9/11 attack which murdered thousands of US citizens... How are we flying planes into buildings full of innocent people?
That seems to be what you are avoiding. Torture is never right
According to whom? What deity died and made you the moral guidepost of humanity? Who says you set what is right and wrong? According to the terrorists, torture is ok. So is suicide bombinb, murder, genocide, and rape. So is that right or wrong? And if it's wrong, what should we do to stop them from harming others? Write an angry letter? Impose sanctions? Go to war? Maybe take prisoners? Get information out of them to stop them from harming the side of good?
Where and why do you arbitrarily draw the line where you do? By engaging in it, you remove any moral high ground you might claim. If you truly believe in liberty and justice, you must apply the same to your enemy. You are the one trying to make a gray area of what is a bright line between right and wrong. Good people don't torture, only evil people do.
And according to them, good people believe in the koran and being suicide bombers. Bad people believe...well, actually bad people is everyone in the US and they must die.
Who is right?
In a war against good and bad, good must always win. At any cost. Because what if bad wins?
And the cost of winning is that good men must sometimes do bad things to save what they hold dear: Family, friends, and even a great nation.
If you are going to say that sometimes it works you had better provide an example to back you up. That article you provided is interesting and it also makes my point exactly.
That's what the article was for.
I have never argued that torture doesn't get people to talk
Well there we go. Torture gets people to talk.
Yeah--sometimes you get incorrect information. Or sometimes people talk (See that John McCain article). So what if McCain didn't give up anything useful. He did say that he gave *more that he was supposed to*.
Another reason why this McCain article doesn't make your case is that this wasn't a ticking time bomb case.
I don't think the CIA, FBI or whomever is suddenly going to release a document saying that a bom *was* going to go off in LA last month, but thanks to torture they figured it out and stopped it just in time. We'll probably just get a news blurb that terrorists were found in anytown USA and they were captured with bomb making materials.
So, torturing thousands of people is worth it to save the life of one American? How so? Especially as there is no evidence it would save even one life.
Absolutely.
That's the job of our nation. To safeguard it's people.
Where do you get off saying there's no evidence it would save even one life? You are talking about a fictitious situation that you just made up. I could just as easily tweak your sentence to say "Especially as there is no evidence it wouldn't save a life". There is no proof either way. And I don't see the CIA or whomever publishing their stats anytime soon...
What if you were the person being tortured?
No one would like being tortured. I'd hate it just as much as the next guy.
Would you think your own torture was worth saving the life of one Iraqi? What happens when the tables turn? You are justifying the torture of yourself.
This is where things get way out into left field.
The beliefs of the terrorists are pretty much this:
* Americans don't believe in the koran.
* We must kill all americans
Let me spell this out clearly. They *ARE WRONG*. We *ARE RIGHT*. So we being in the right, have to stop those who are in the wrong. Even if it means going to war. Even if it means using torture to get information that will prevent the deaths of those who *ARE RIGHT* by those who *ARE WRONG*.
There isn't a nice fuzzy gray area that most people on the left seem to love. There is a right, and a wrong.
Except you think it will never happen to you. Well, guess what - innocent people get tortured. Just because you're not a terrorist doesn't mean you won't be subjected to it.
So why ruin their plans when the terrorist can just give bad information and end his torture while the attack can still go on as planned. They have nothing to fear since after the attack it's no longer a ticking time bomb situation so what are we going to do to them when we find out they gave bad intel?
Because sometimes it works. And if a city like LA were going to be nuked, I'd personally take the chance on possibly getting intel that will save lives. Plain and simple.
Like I posted a few minutes ago in another thread. McCain said it worked on him...
It does not give us answers or better intelligence. It only hurts us, and destroys the values we hold dear.
You know what else is inhuman? A nuke blowing up in downtown LA and killing millions.
All I'm saying is that before you say that the US is evil and wrong for torturing information out of *people who want to kill us all*, you might look at the part where they are trying to get this information out of *people that want us all dead*.
It's inhuman. And if you're going to commit inhuman atrocities, you'd better have a damn good reason, rather than simply "Why not?"
I don't commit inhuman atrocities--I'm a geek. I occasionally disconnect a few hundred users from halflife by unplugging the wrong connection. My reasoning doesn't boil down to "why not". I was simply asking for your take.
Most importantly, you fail to comprhened what is the basis of concern regarding the suspension of habeas corpus. It is a preeminent right to the state, and that means it is not just something the the Government must allow for its citizens.
I never said anything about the government controlling that freedom.
Hell--someone could pass a law tomorrow that said you don't have the freedom of speech--that doesn't make it legal. If it goes against the constitution, it's not legal.
Your assertions regarding the humans detained at Abu Ghraib in 2004 are wrong and reprehensible. Most of the detainees then had been picked-up in sweeps during the insurgency's infancy:
I've said it in other comments--I don't know very much about Abu Ghraib. I never bothered to sit down and wade through hundreds of hours of documents, video, and what-not.
The article you linked to required payment to view anything but the abstract summary. But the summary ends with some low-level army guy handing over a disc of photos.
If this is the disc I remember from all the news stories a while back, who gives a shit?
The pictures I remember showed people peeing on the Koran, and a bunch of people naked and blindfolded. That's not torture.
Now maybe those were only pictures that were somewhat appropriate for TV news. Maybe additional pictures show true torture. And if someone who is innocent of a crime is being held illegally and is being tortured, I absolutely decry it.
But if someone is being held because they are a non-US citizen, terrorist, whatever--and they have useful information to help the US win a war and come out victorious--go ahead and torture.
* A citizenry that believes its rights are a gift from a beneficent government will never be free.
I never said our rights come from the government. Our rights come from the people, and from God.
* A criminal system that has multiple standards of applicability, based solely upon citizenship is foundationally unjust.
Why should people who want to destroy our beliefs, system of justice, freedoms and lives have the very benefits they won't grant others?
* An American future in which the people did not once again chain and muzzle their leviatian, which in the fire of retribution's desire after 911, was set loose upon the earth as rabid wolf among the sheep, will never again know peace.
You are saying that often torture yields false information.
Agreed.
But if it yields truthful information even just once to save any number of American or allied lives, it's worth it.
Of course I would hope whatever 'shadow' organization in the government that does this (cia, nsa, whatever) isn't just throwing a net over an entire town or neighborhood in Iraq (or wherever). I would think they are more precise--tracking terrorists down via the internet, listening to phone calls, using operatives and contacts, etc...
...extreme pain either forces the prisoner to clam up in defiance, or say whatever they perceive the torture wants to hear.
That doesn't make sense to me. The torturer wants to hear (for example) when, where, and how the attack is going to take place. I personally wouldn't just make shit up or tell them what *I thought* they wanted to hear.
I mean--seriously, if the torturer is saying "When is the attack going to take place" *PUNCH*, I'd be like "ok--it's taking place tomorrow at 1 PM." I wouldn't think to myself "Gee--I think he wants to hear me say in three weeks at 5 AM, so I'll say that."
Now granted, there will be operatives and soldiers that hold out, or give false information as has already been said--but isn't the point of torture to 'break' their will/spirit so you just give them what they want?
So, it's insane to not torture? I don't think so. You haven't demonstrated in any way that torture would be more effective in obtaining information. And false information is an "oh well" for you? What if the false information results in more people getting killed, because it is used to divert resources on a wild-goose-chase? What if it results in innocent people getting detained or killed? What if the information is actually a part of the terrorist plot?
I'm sure terrorists could give false information. What is your solution. Do nothing? Let people die? Or would you rather take a shot at getting accurate information out of him and stopping everything?
Yeah--he could have said (in the example from the last post) that the attacks were going to happen in Chicago. Do you really think they would have pulled firefighters, police, and EMS workers from New York to go over to Chicago 'just in case'? How would that information have lead to more deaths? How would possibly evacuating the Sears tower in Chicago put more lives in jeopardy?
Rather than me argue endlessly why I think it's a good idea, why do you think it's a bad idea?
How would torturing help get accurate information?
How would tossing him in jail, and calling a lawyer get accurate information?
I don't work for the CIA obviously, so I don't know what sort of training they go through, but I would guess it boils down to making sure the terrorist realizes the following:
* Torture hurts
* Telling us the information we want to know will stop the torture
* Not telling us what we need to know will end up with more torture and/or you dead.
The difference that sets us apart from the 'bad guys' is that once we get the information, we don't just kill them.
Of course I'd want him treated constitutionally. The Constitution is not just for US citizens. It is the ideal of what America stands for. If we don't treat others the same way, then that's hypocrisy, and makes a mockery the nation's values and the constitution.
Why should someone be given the very liberties they are trying to destroy? Do you think they believe in freedom of religion? How about the right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness? Do you think they would let the people they rule over have the right to own a gun, or the right to a fair trial?
The answer is hell no.
If you are fighting to destroy our nation, and the freedoms that come with being a United State Citizen, you don't get treated to those freedoms.
Ahh, the whole "ticking bomb" fallacy. Which is, of course, a fallacy. Can you show me one real-world example of this having actually happened? And even if you did do it, how would you know the person being tortured is giving you correct information? They could just as easily be giving false information to distract you while the bomb goes off somewhere else.
I'm sorry you failed to see the point of the ticking bomb example. Maybe I should have explained that it doesn't have to actually be a ticking bomb like the London subway bombings--but it can be some equally urgent situation where life is in danger.
What if we managed to catch one of the terrorists behind 9/11?
What if we caught him only a few days or a few hours before it all went down?
Do you want the terrorist treated like an American Citizen (which he isn't) and have his lawyer contacted, his rights read, and a trial date set--or do you want to obtain the information that may save lives by any means necessary?
Any sane person would chose the 'by any means necessary' method. It has more potential for saving lives. If a terrorist gives false information, oh well. At least we took a gamble on saving lives. It sucks if we lose, but it's great if we win.
Sounds like you've been watching a little too much 24.
I watched it last season, and it pissed me off. There's a lot of nice action, but the entire show seems to be based around one retarded idea:
Jack Bauer saves the day by continually breaking the rules and telling authority to get bent.
I'm not trying to be an ass, I would just like to know exactly how much you think your life is worth.
I don't take any offense--it's a good question. But personally, I don't place much value on my life or death. I was born, and I will die someday--I don't know when, and I don't care much.
Now if it were my wife's life or my son's, that would be entirely different.
Lets say for example that *you* were that "one American life" (and it was only your life that was the target) and that the USA could not catch the people who were trying to kill you but they could get access to their wives. How many wives would you be prepared to have tortured to save your life?
None. Unless it could be shown that they are actively supporting this terrorist guy who wants to kill my wife or son.
Put yourself in that situation if you can. If some terrorist or group of terrorists decided for some reason that their sole purpose was to murder your family. What would you expect the government to do to try and stop them?
I would expect the government to try and find out who was responsible and detain or kill them. If they can't find the people responsible, go after their families and detain them, find out what they can from them.
To change things around once more, if I decided to be a terrorist and I wanted to go to Russia for example and kill some group of people...and Russia came over here and nabbed my family, I'd immediately stop what I was doing and get them to release my family--even if it meant giving myself up. But that's logical and probably not what a terrorist would do. But we have to try.
those people being detained have not actully done anything yet
If they give aid and/or comfort to one who would harm this nation or it's citizens, yeah--they have done something.
If Adam bombs the US, he is directly responsible.
If Bob makes the bomb for Adam knowing what he will use it form, Bob is supporting Adam and he should pay.
If Charlie gathers bomb parts for Bob and knows that Bob builds bombs for terrorists who do things like attack the US, Charlie is supporting Bob and Adam and should be held accountable.
Now I'll happily tell you that I don't have a clue what really goes on behind closed doors in Abu Gahrib, Gitmo, or wherever. And I don't know the stories behind the individuals held there.
But can anyone here give an example--like a name and/or story of someone's wife being held wrongfully? In other words, a wife that refused to help her terrorist husband, but somehow she ended up in a military prison and was tortured.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you - see New York Times v. United States, where they ruled that the possibility of censoring for the cause of "national security" is unconstitutional.
...and that's just fine. They are the Supreme Court. It's their job to deal with that stuff. And if they say that a non-US citizen gets those rights when dealing with the US, then so be it. They have that authority.
I personally disagree with it--but so what. I'm just an opinionated jerk behind a keyboard.;)
What's more, how fucking lazy do you have to be if you can't type in "Iran Contra" on Wiki?
Blueberry pancakes were a higher priority than some shit that occurred in the 80s.
But after reading the summary you pasted, yeah--Iran Contra seems pretty fucked up. In my original post, I wasn't saying that Republicans are perfect and Democrats are idiots.
I'm saying that Republicans for the most part are pretty good. But yeah, Democrats are still idiots.
While I agree with most of your points, I must say that the one of the important things distinguishing us from the barbarians attacking us is that we don't torture, while they do. Incidents like Abu Ghraib and the CIA torture memos undermine that important distinction and begin to lower our society to the same level as our enemies.
I shared your views a few years ago.
But if the torture gives us good information that saves just one American life--or the lives of our allies, I'm all for it.
Now I'm not familiar with the intimate details of Abu Ghraib, but if one of the terrorists there were...say...plotting to detonate a nuke in downtown LA, Chicago, DC, or a city of an ally like Germany, Turkey, etc...--it would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans or their allies.
Torture the guy to get information out of him? Absolutely.
My memory must be failing me. I seem to recall that the framers of the Bill of Rights never used the word "citizen," but rather "people." Can you show me where it says that only citizens get freedom of speech, etc.?
You can argue that 'people' means everyone in the world, or you can argue that 'people' means United States Citizens.
My personal view is that the rights and liberties do not apply to the 'people' who are trying to destroy our rights and liberties.
Take the second amendment for example: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Should someone who is living in the US illegally who is trying to cause harm to it's citizens have that right? No.
Of the sixth amendment which deals with a public trial. Should a terrorist have a public trial? It's debatable. What if during the trial they cough up sensitive information that could harm the safety of our military personnel engaged in active operations?
My opinion is that if you want these awesome rights that we have, get on board and help the United States. Become a legal citizen, and enjoy the rights.
Oh really? Did they start a war for profit in the 80's?
Oh God. Here we go again.
By the way, when did you libs collectively decide to call is a 'war for profit' rather than a 'war for oil'? Was it when oil jumped to over $90/barrel and your whole argument that we're over there to murder and steal oil crumbled?
Did they abolish habeas corpus?
I'll admit the president tried with the power granted in the Presidential Military Order, but thanks to the conservative founding fathers, and conservative judges on the bench of the supreme court, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld showed that US citizens still have the right to seek writs of habeas corpus.
Did they gut the 4th amendment?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Where was that 'gutted'. I can't seem to find this new 'gutted' version you are talking about. What you are probably *trying* to say is that someone *violated* it or has passed a law contradicting it. So what? All it takes is conservative supreme court judges to uphold the constitution and throw the contradicting law out.
Abu-Ghraib?
What? Are you pissed off that there is a military prison for detaining people that want to kill every last person in the US? Or are you pissed off about those 'pictures'?
Man--I'd be pissed off too. Some soldiers take some odd pictures of naked Iraqi men...
Of course what pisses me off more is the Iraqis that *VIDEO TAPE* our citizens getting their heads slowly cut off while they are screaming and gurgling, and dying. Those pictures suddenly pale in comparison. And lets face it. They are at war against the United States. They aren't United States Citizens, so they get no protection under our founding documents.
Iran-Contra? Rendition?
As for your other two points--I was born in the early 80's, so I don't even remember Iran-Contra, and I have no clue what you are talking about with rendition. I'm lazy and want breakfast--otherwise I'd look 'em up.
Slashdot Mirror
For f*** sake... when will this stop? When will people say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" and jump off these ISPs and stop being their customers?
In my area it's Comcast and Qwest. Qwests prices are significantly higher than Comcast.
When Comcast called me and said that 300 Gb/mo is way to much, I simply asked them if I could pay more for them to stop harassing me about bandwidth usage. So for another $30/mo I went from being a 'home' user to their business class connection. And even though their home and business connections are listed at the same speed (8 Mb), I now actually get 10-12 Mb. (Plus I go from 768 up to a full meg).
Now, since I'm a business class user, they expect traffic levels they would see from a business that has anywhere from a few computers to fifty computers. Now 300 Gb/mo doesn't seem so high when you compare it to one of the sites I do contracting for--they have 40 workstations, 3 servers, and are constantly transferring high res x-rays to other sites.
The only part that pissed me off about Comcast calling was that they simply never told me of their magical cap, and they refused to tell me what it was--just that I had run over it.
I would have had no problem if they flat out told me their rates and caps--like 500 Gb for $80/mo.
And since it's Microsoft code your chance of missing a bug is minuscule. *Bada Bing*
...and if MS switched to programming in python, you'd even be able to hit white-space and hit bugs.
Lets remove the sarcastic bits that were a result of your over the top reply to his comments and we are left with this statement: ...'special' mind.
...and then you come along with your value-added comment. Meh.
I obviously disagreed with it
To confuse the intent of that simple statement, and go on a childish rant, really takes a
Uuh yeah, he said he disagreed with it. But than to show why he disagreed with it, he pretty much summarized the original posters point. If you are old and going to die soon anyways, a life sentence could only be a year. So moron turned around and more or less said "Yeah, I disagree with you because you would probably die in jail".
Well--I now have a 'freak'. Two more and I win the scavenger hunt.
No, you apparently didn't read it. And I have no idea where you get that I disagree with anything. I was simply making an informed statement that you may very well be mentally retarded.
...the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence or even execution wouldn't bother me because I wouldn't have much life left to lose
...and that was the whole point of the original poster. If you are going to die in a year, do something sorta selfless. Rob a bank, give it to your kids, and then die. I'm assuming that's opposed to just sitting around for a year, degenerating and dying.
Here, let me show you how I arrived at that conclusion:
That was the original poster saying that he would do whatever--simply because a life sentence for him was probably only a few short years as opposed to someone my age who would be in jail for 50ish years.
Now here's where the retardedness slips in. It's where you start talking:
At that age, a simple 5 year prison sentance might as well be a death sentance.
Don't forget your reflective vest, special shoes, and over-padded bike helmet when you leave.
If you are really old then you have everything left to lose.
Wow. Just wow. Did you even read the comment you were replying to?
You're making the dangerous assumption that government workers are more competent and less subject to being corrupted by power than the rest of us. Fact is, government employees make mistakes. They have emotions like any other human being. And you're saying that they should be given the power to torture?
I will never defend the government as being competent. That's why we have a system of checks and balances. And I don't think the military prisons should be these super-secret places where this type of stuff could happen.
That's pretty funny, because that's exactly what Hitler's attitude was when he invaded Poland. Germans == Aryans == RIGHT. Poles == Slavs == WRONG. Aryans need more land (Lebensraum). Slavs have land. Therefore it is okay for the Aryans to take land from the Slavs.
Oh my God! You're right. And did you know Hitler breathed air? I do too! OMG! And Hitler wore clothing. Holy shit. I do too.
Just because something I said sounds vaguely like something Hitler said doesn't put us into any sort of correlation. I'm sure if we picked your brain long enough we'd find something that you've said that Hitler said too.
But to respond to your half-assed attempt at an argument: The Poles didn't start the war by flying a plane into a German building and killing thousands of their citizens. The difference is that the Poles did not to anything wrong. Al Queda did, does, whatever.
But in many cases they aren't. They're just torturing people who are the wrong race, or in the wrong place at the wrong time. And so far, none of this has achieved any useful results, except making the US even more hated.
And once again we're back to this circle-jerk argument.
I'm not saying I support torture of innocent people. I'm saying if you have someone like khaled shaikh muhammad in custody and you want information about future attacks on the US, yeah, torture him.
Strangely enough, it worked. He confessed, and gave up a lot of information which lead to us stopping several planned attacks.
how does torturing thousands of people safeguard the nation or its people? It just puts it in greater danger.
First off, you're trying to make it sound like I'm saying that we should just go out and torture and random thousands of people. I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that if a captured terrorist has information that we need to prevent an attack that will cost hundreds or thousands of lives--or even just one life, torture him if need be to get the information out of him.
But I fail to see how it puts us in any greater danger than we already are. What are the terrorists going to do? Try to nuke us? Oh yeah, they already want to kill us all because we believe in freedom of religion, speech, etc...
Because there is none. There is no recorded evidence of torture saving any lives, only destroying them.
Yeah, because the CIA totally published "torture weekly" for anyone and everyone to read about how they do it. The government has that stuff classified for a reason.
As for destroying lives? Sure, I'll bet it does. But cry me a river, a terrorist has his life destroyed. Boo hoo. We should be nicer--let him get away with whatever he wants... (I'm sure you are no stranger to sarcasm.)
But how do you know the person you are torturing is a terrorist? There's plenty of evidence that many of the people tortured or imprisoned in the "war against terror" are no terrorists or connected with them.
Hmm...maybe because the government can listen in on communications of suspected terrorists if one part of the call terminates in this country. Probably other countries too. I'm sure there are people who are falsely imprisoned and/or tortured. That seriously sucks. But there are people in JAIL in our country who are falsely imprisoned, but I don't hear you calling to shutdown the jails. That's the problem with an imperfect human system.
but once you torture, you are not "right" any more. You have become the enemy.
By what freak of logic? Because a known terrorist (like say khaled shaikh muhammad) was flown around the world to various secret prisons and tortured because he played a major role in the 9/11 attack which murdered thousands of US citizens... How are we flying planes into buildings full of innocent people?
That seems to be what you are avoiding. Torture is never right
According to whom? What deity died and made you the moral guidepost of humanity? Who says you set what is right and wrong? According to the terrorists, torture is ok. So is suicide bombinb, murder, genocide, and rape. So is that right or wrong? And if it's wrong, what should we do to stop them from harming others? Write an angry letter? Impose sanctions? Go to war? Maybe take prisoners? Get information out of them to stop them from harming the side of good?
Where and why do you arbitrarily draw the line where you do?
By engaging in it, you remove any moral high ground you might claim. If you truly believe in liberty and justice, you must apply the same to your enemy. You are the one trying to make a gray area of what is a bright line between right and wrong. Good people don't torture, only evil people do.
And according to them, good people believe in the koran and being suicide bombers. Bad people believe...well, actually bad people is everyone in the US and they must die.
Who is right?
In a war against good and bad, good must always win. At any cost. Because what if bad wins?
And the cost of winning is that good men must sometimes do bad things to save what they hold dear: Family, friends, and even a great nation.
If you are going to say that sometimes it works you had better provide an example to back you up. That article you provided is interesting and it also makes my point exactly.
That's what the article was for.
I have never argued that torture doesn't get people to talk
Well there we go. Torture gets people to talk.
Yeah--sometimes you get incorrect information. Or sometimes people talk (See that John McCain article). So what if McCain didn't give up anything useful. He did say that he gave *more that he was supposed to*.
Another reason why this McCain article doesn't make your case is that this wasn't a ticking time bomb case.
I don't think the CIA, FBI or whomever is suddenly going to release a document saying that a bom *was* going to go off in LA last month, but thanks to torture they figured it out and stopped it just in time. We'll probably just get a news blurb that terrorists were found in anytown USA and they were captured with bomb making materials.
So, torturing thousands of people is worth it to save the life of one American? How so? Especially as there is no evidence it would save even one life.
Absolutely. That's the job of our nation. To safeguard it's people.
Where do you get off saying there's no evidence it would save even one life? You are talking about a fictitious situation that you just made up. I could just as easily tweak your sentence to say "Especially as there is no evidence it wouldn't save a life". There is no proof either way. And I don't see the CIA or whomever publishing their stats anytime soon...
What if you were the person being tortured?
No one would like being tortured. I'd hate it just as much as the next guy.
Would you think your own torture was worth saving the life of one Iraqi? What happens when the tables turn? You are justifying the torture of yourself.
This is where things get way out into left field.
The beliefs of the terrorists are pretty much this:
* Americans don't believe in the koran.
* We must kill all americans
Let me spell this out clearly. They *ARE WRONG*. We *ARE RIGHT*. So we being in the right, have to stop those who are in the wrong. Even if it means going to war. Even if it means using torture to get information that will prevent the deaths of those who *ARE RIGHT* by those who *ARE WRONG*.
There isn't a nice fuzzy gray area that most people on the left seem to love. There is a right, and a wrong. Except you think it will never happen to you. Well, guess what - innocent people get tortured. Just because you're not a terrorist doesn't mean you won't be subjected to it.
So why ruin their plans when the terrorist can just give bad information and end his torture while the attack can still go on as planned. They have nothing to fear since after the attack it's no longer a ticking time bomb situation so what are we going to do to them when we find out they gave bad intel?
Because sometimes it works. And if a city like LA were going to be nuked, I'd personally take the chance on possibly getting intel that will save lives. Plain and simple.
Like I posted a few minutes ago in another thread. McCain said it worked on him...
Because torture doesn't work.
Some people might disagree.
It does not give us answers or better intelligence. It only hurts us, and destroys the values we hold dear.
You know what else is inhuman? A nuke blowing up in downtown LA and killing millions.
All I'm saying is that before you say that the US is evil and wrong for torturing information out of *people who want to kill us all*, you might look at the part where they are trying to get this information out of *people that want us all dead*.
It's inhuman. And if you're going to commit inhuman atrocities, you'd better have a damn good reason, rather than simply "Why not?"
I don't commit inhuman atrocities--I'm a geek. I occasionally disconnect a few hundred users from halflife by unplugging the wrong connection. My reasoning doesn't boil down to "why not". I was simply asking for your take.
Most importantly, you fail to comprhened what is the basis of concern regarding the suspension of habeas corpus. It is a preeminent right to the state, and that means it is not just something the the Government must allow for its citizens.
I never said anything about the government controlling that freedom.
Hell--someone could pass a law tomorrow that said you don't have the freedom of speech--that doesn't make it legal. If it goes against the constitution, it's not legal.
Your assertions regarding the humans detained at Abu Ghraib in 2004 are wrong and reprehensible. Most of the detainees then had been picked-up in sweeps during the insurgency's infancy:
I've said it in other comments--I don't know very much about Abu Ghraib. I never bothered to sit down and wade through hundreds of hours of documents, video, and what-not.
The article you linked to required payment to view anything but the abstract summary. But the summary ends with some low-level army guy handing over a disc of photos.
If this is the disc I remember from all the news stories a while back, who gives a shit?
The pictures I remember showed people peeing on the Koran, and a bunch of people naked and blindfolded. That's not torture.
Now maybe those were only pictures that were somewhat appropriate for TV news. Maybe additional pictures show true torture. And if someone who is innocent of a crime is being held illegally and is being tortured, I absolutely decry it.
But if someone is being held because they are a non-US citizen, terrorist, whatever--and they have useful information to help the US win a war and come out victorious--go ahead and torture.
* A citizenry that believes its rights are a gift from a beneficent government will never be free.
I never said our rights come from the government. Our rights come from the people, and from God.
* A criminal system that has multiple standards of applicability, based solely upon citizenship is foundationally unjust.
Why should people who want to destroy our beliefs, system of justice, freedoms and lives have the very benefits they won't grant others?
* An American future in which the people did not once again chain and muzzle their leviatian, which in the fire of retribution's desire after 911, was set loose upon the earth as rabid wolf among the sheep, will never again know peace.
eh?
You are saying that often torture yields false information.
Agreed.
But if it yields truthful information even just once to save any number of American or allied lives, it's worth it.
Of course I would hope whatever 'shadow' organization in the government that does this (cia, nsa, whatever) isn't just throwing a net over an entire town or neighborhood in Iraq (or wherever). I would think they are more precise--tracking terrorists down via the internet, listening to phone calls, using operatives and contacts, etc...
...extreme pain either forces the prisoner to clam up in defiance, or say whatever they perceive the torture wants to hear.
That doesn't make sense to me. The torturer wants to hear (for example) when, where, and how the attack is going to take place. I personally wouldn't just make shit up or tell them what *I thought* they wanted to hear.
I mean--seriously, if the torturer is saying "When is the attack going to take place" *PUNCH*, I'd be like "ok--it's taking place tomorrow at 1 PM." I wouldn't think to myself "Gee--I think he wants to hear me say in three weeks at 5 AM, so I'll say that."
Now granted, there will be operatives and soldiers that hold out, or give false information as has already been said--but isn't the point of torture to 'break' their will/spirit so you just give them what they want?
Sorry--I forgot to reply to your last point.
So, it's insane to not torture? I don't think so. You haven't demonstrated in any way that torture would be more effective in obtaining information. And false information is an "oh well" for you? What if the false information results in more people getting killed, because it is used to divert resources on a wild-goose-chase? What if it results in innocent people getting detained or killed? What if the information is actually a part of the terrorist plot?
I'm sure terrorists could give false information. What is your solution. Do nothing? Let people die? Or would you rather take a shot at getting accurate information out of him and stopping everything?
Yeah--he could have said (in the example from the last post) that the attacks were going to happen in Chicago. Do you really think they would have pulled firefighters, police, and EMS workers from New York to go over to Chicago 'just in case'? How would that information have lead to more deaths? How would possibly evacuating the Sears tower in Chicago put more lives in jeopardy?
Rather than me argue endlessly why I think it's a good idea, why do you think it's a bad idea?
How would torturing help get accurate information?
How would tossing him in jail, and calling a lawyer get accurate information?
I don't work for the CIA obviously, so I don't know what sort of training they go through, but I would guess it boils down to making sure the terrorist realizes the following:
* Torture hurts
* Telling us the information we want to know will stop the torture
* Not telling us what we need to know will end up with more torture and/or you dead.
The difference that sets us apart from the 'bad guys' is that once we get the information, we don't just kill them.
Of course I'd want him treated constitutionally. The Constitution is not just for US citizens. It is the ideal of what America stands for. If we don't treat others the same way, then that's hypocrisy, and makes a mockery the nation's values and the constitution.
Why should someone be given the very liberties they are trying to destroy? Do you think they believe in freedom of religion? How about the right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness? Do you think they would let the people they rule over have the right to own a gun, or the right to a fair trial?
The answer is hell no.
If you are fighting to destroy our nation, and the freedoms that come with being a United State Citizen, you don't get treated to those freedoms.
Ahh, the whole "ticking bomb" fallacy. Which is, of course, a fallacy. Can you show me one real-world example of this having actually happened? And even if you did do it, how would you know the person being tortured is giving you correct information? They could just as easily be giving false information to distract you while the bomb goes off somewhere else.
I'm sorry you failed to see the point of the ticking bomb example. Maybe I should have explained that it doesn't have to actually be a ticking bomb like the London subway bombings--but it can be some equally urgent situation where life is in danger.
What if we managed to catch one of the terrorists behind 9/11?
What if we caught him only a few days or a few hours before it all went down?
Do you want the terrorist treated like an American Citizen (which he isn't) and have his lawyer contacted, his rights read, and a trial date set--or do you want to obtain the information that may save lives by any means necessary?
Any sane person would chose the 'by any means necessary' method. It has more potential for saving lives. If a terrorist gives false information, oh well. At least we took a gamble on saving lives. It sucks if we lose, but it's great if we win.
Sounds like you've been watching a little too much 24.
I watched it last season, and it pissed me off. There's a lot of nice action, but the entire show seems to be based around one retarded idea:
Jack Bauer saves the day by continually breaking the rules and telling authority to get bent.
I'm not trying to be an ass, I would just like to know exactly how much you think your life is worth.
I don't take any offense--it's a good question. But personally, I don't place much value on my life or death. I was born, and I will die someday--I don't know when, and I don't care much.
Now if it were my wife's life or my son's, that would be entirely different.
Lets say for example that *you* were that "one American life" (and it was only your life that was the target) and that the USA could not catch the people who were trying to kill you but they could get access to their wives. How many wives would you be prepared to have tortured to save your life?
None. Unless it could be shown that they are actively supporting this terrorist guy who wants to kill my wife or son.
Put yourself in that situation if you can. If some terrorist or group of terrorists decided for some reason that their sole purpose was to murder your family. What would you expect the government to do to try and stop them?
I would expect the government to try and find out who was responsible and detain or kill them. If they can't find the people responsible, go after their families and detain them, find out what they can from them.
To change things around once more, if I decided to be a terrorist and I wanted to go to Russia for example and kill some group of people...and Russia came over here and nabbed my family, I'd immediately stop what I was doing and get them to release my family--even if it meant giving myself up. But that's logical and probably not what a terrorist would do. But we have to try.
those people being detained have not actully done anything yet
If they give aid and/or comfort to one who would harm this nation or it's citizens, yeah--they have done something.
If Adam bombs the US, he is directly responsible. If Bob makes the bomb for Adam knowing what he will use it form, Bob is supporting Adam and he should pay. If Charlie gathers bomb parts for Bob and knows that Bob builds bombs for terrorists who do things like attack the US, Charlie is supporting Bob and Adam and should be held accountable.
Now I'll happily tell you that I don't have a clue what really goes on behind closed doors in Abu Gahrib, Gitmo, or wherever. And I don't know the stories behind the individuals held there.
But can anyone here give an example--like a name and/or story of someone's wife being held wrongfully? In other words, a wife that refused to help her terrorist husband, but somehow she ended up in a military prison and was tortured.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you - see New York Times v. United States, where they ruled that the possibility of censoring for the cause of "national security" is unconstitutional.
...and that's just fine. They are the Supreme Court. It's their job to deal with that stuff. And if they say that a non-US citizen gets those rights when dealing with the US, then so be it. They have that authority.
;)
I personally disagree with it--but so what. I'm just an opinionated jerk behind a keyboard.
What's more, how fucking lazy do you have to be if you can't type in "Iran Contra" on Wiki?
Blueberry pancakes were a higher priority than some shit that occurred in the 80s.
But after reading the summary you pasted, yeah--Iran Contra seems pretty fucked up. In my original post, I wasn't saying that Republicans are perfect and Democrats are idiots.
I'm saying that Republicans for the most part are pretty good. But yeah, Democrats are still idiots.
While I agree with most of your points, I must say that the one of the important things distinguishing us from the barbarians attacking us is that we don't torture, while they do. Incidents like Abu Ghraib and the CIA torture memos undermine that important distinction and begin to lower our society to the same level as our enemies.
I shared your views a few years ago.
But if the torture gives us good information that saves just one American life--or the lives of our allies, I'm all for it.
Now I'm not familiar with the intimate details of Abu Ghraib, but if one of the terrorists there were...say...plotting to detonate a nuke in downtown LA, Chicago, DC, or a city of an ally like Germany, Turkey, etc...--it would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans or their allies.
Torture the guy to get information out of him? Absolutely.
My memory must be failing me. I seem to recall that the framers of the Bill of Rights never used the word "citizen," but rather "people." Can you show me where it says that only citizens get freedom of speech, etc.?
You can argue that 'people' means everyone in the world, or you can argue that 'people' means United States Citizens.
My personal view is that the rights and liberties do not apply to the 'people' who are trying to destroy our rights and liberties.
Take the second amendment for example: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Should someone who is living in the US illegally who is trying to cause harm to it's citizens have that right? No.
Of the sixth amendment which deals with a public trial. Should a terrorist have a public trial? It's debatable. What if during the trial they cough up sensitive information that could harm the safety of our military personnel engaged in active operations?
My opinion is that if you want these awesome rights that we have, get on board and help the United States. Become a legal citizen, and enjoy the rights.
Oh really? Did they start a war for profit in the 80's?
Oh God. Here we go again.
By the way, when did you libs collectively decide to call is a 'war for profit' rather than a 'war for oil'? Was it when oil jumped to over $90/barrel and your whole argument that we're over there to murder and steal oil crumbled?
Did they abolish habeas corpus?
I'll admit the president tried with the power granted in the Presidential Military Order, but thanks to the conservative founding fathers, and conservative judges on the bench of the supreme court, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld showed that US citizens still have the right to seek writs of habeas corpus.
Did they gut the 4th amendment?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Where was that 'gutted'. I can't seem to find this new 'gutted' version you are talking about. What you are probably *trying* to say is that someone *violated* it or has passed a law contradicting it. So what? All it takes is conservative supreme court judges to uphold the constitution and throw the contradicting law out.
Abu-Ghraib?
What? Are you pissed off that there is a military prison for detaining people that want to kill every last person in the US? Or are you pissed off about those 'pictures'?
Man--I'd be pissed off too. Some soldiers take some odd pictures of naked Iraqi men...
Of course what pisses me off more is the Iraqis that *VIDEO TAPE* our citizens getting their heads slowly cut off while they are screaming and gurgling, and dying. Those pictures suddenly pale in comparison. And lets face it. They are at war against the United States. They aren't United States Citizens, so they get no protection under our founding documents.
Iran-Contra? Rendition?
As for your other two points--I was born in the early 80's, so I don't even remember Iran-Contra, and I have no clue what you are talking about with rendition. I'm lazy and want breakfast--otherwise I'd look 'em up.
I thought that was illegal :-)
Not when a company does it. Just when you do it.