Definition of torture:

as would (and did) bobby seale to whom the slogan is authoritatively attributed.

i can hardly wait for ingrahim's next effort. titled "power flows from the barrel of a gun", it will be custom-formatted to fit hairshhirt pockets and bound with a red cover.

our nation and each of the states specifically prohibits police from coercing confessions.

you ever know anyone who was taken for 'a ride' by cops or other agents of the law?

i'm guessing you prolly do (may even have been the invitee yourself as have i).

it was (and may still be) a fact of life in two cities i've lived in--a sorta silly exercize seemingly intended to provide ride-givers a pass against perjuring themselves should they need to deny under oath having forcibly violated rights of suspects in their custody. after all, 'a ride' ain't anything official or documented as is 'in custody.'

how do you explain the need for special renditions and interrogations in dungeons built and formerly operated by local incarnations of ss/kgb agencies fielded by previously totalitarian governments of eastern european nations? those have been authorized and approved by the administration.

imagine what woulda gone on in detroit and chicago had their mayors and district attorneys issued a finding approving them 'rides'.

would any of those--utilized the way you've characterized them--persuade you to do or reveal anything you were determined not to do or reveal? how about all of them at the same time?

if not, why would they be so effective in breaking terrorist fanatics eager to jimjones their asses into infinity?

unlike those stupid charmin bears, these guys wipe their asses with one of their hands.

you know the felony stop procedure during which suspects are ordered to lay face-down, arms spread, feet crossed in the street? fortunately for all concerned, i've avoided it so far cuz i'm never gonna submit to that. i'm no zealot and i'm not expecting paradise, virgins or anything else after death as a motivator. it's got nothing to do with a perceived duty to a higher power or giving my all to benefit my blood or associates. anyone who hopes to get any info outta me best do it before trying to make me lay down in the street--while i'm still able to speak.

I hardly find myself in my last bastion when people brings up stupid examples like this. It's like me saying "you should not cut them 1 inch of limb every time they refuse to answer". It's ludicrous to suggest such absurdity.

And it's the last bastion of every side to resorting to such attacks, MM. desperation is not carried only by the lefties.

And would you believe me that in my country, I am considered a somewhat strong conservative?




regular and legal ways of interrogation. Simply get them uncomfortable conditions - caused by the lack of comfort, such as nice food, or nice beds, etc.. -, and interrogate them for hours every day.

Strong music can be considered as psychological torture, be damaging for the ears.
Too cold/hot rooms can cause health problem, which should not be allowed.

Outside of that, I don't know much about interrogation. But I know what should not be allowed. You owe it to your country to uphold it's ideals.




The trick for a nation to use such means is simply to lay blame to "rogue" elements, but until they are found out, they put a blind eye to their activities. Section 31 in Star Trek is the perfect example of questionnable organisation working for a so-called "Good" governement.

If you truly believed in the ideals of no-torture, you would not resort to loopholes argument such as "they are not citizens, they are unlawful combattant, i would not call "this" torture". You find reason to uphold an ideal you believe in, not reasons to bypass it.

And on the long run, these activities are doing much more harm to America in it's WoT efforts than anything else. The idea is: terrorist organisations are like bacteria. They grow, and when you use a special drug to cure it, you rarely manage to get rid of them all forever. The strongest, smartest elements will survivre, learn from it's previous defeat, and attack even stronger than before.

Al-Qaeda was "crippled" (by the words of the US Gov last year), but now, it seems it's stronger than ever. It learned from it's past defeats.

You should not try to "kill" Al-Qaeda, but beat it by attrition, by relieving it of it's growing base.. or its "food-source" (if you compare it to a living organism). Make all the lands unfertile to it's developpement, and the threat will become trivial over time.

Torture them, attack countries, you will simply create more recruits for them.

 

 

eply By: CikomyrPosted: Sunday, October 14, 2007

I AM still waiting for you to define what is ok to use to interrogate terrorists to gather important information, I already know what you do not approve of, but how about telling us what you think is alright to do to break a hardened terrorists? regular and legal ways of interrogation. Simply get them uncomfortable conditions - caused by the lack of comfort, such as nice food, or nice beds, etc.. -, and interrogate them for hours every day. Strong music can be considered as psychological torture, be damaging for the ears. Too cold/hot rooms can cause health problem, which should not be allowed.

We are dealing with people that are use to the conditions you describe, how would treating them that way differ from what they are use to?

Besides, what a few people do even if the number is as high as one thousand Americans breaking the law and using methods defined as torture, that is hardly a dent in the amount of people that have served {around 500,000 or more} and hardly makes it American policy. We do not torture people! period.

 

The strenght of the chain is defined by it's weakest link

Not in the case of people. To condemn an entire country because of the behavior of a miniscule amount of people is bigoted.

You more than often condemn an entire ideology because of the behavior of its minuscule - but loud - minority. Liberals jump to minds.

there are not just a few liberals in this country trying to take complete control.

issuing special presidential findings and directives approving extraordinary rendition and setting up detention centers offshore does exactly that--makes it american policy.

Rendition, while it can be torture, is not by definition. The issue is not rendition, but torture. DO you understand the difference?

The thing is, you take people in absolute legal dark with Renditions. Then, what happens then, may or may not be torture... ... ...?!

Come one! WHY is there rendition?! To put these people where none can see what happens to them. You think they are going to give them scotch and soda?

This is allowing torture to exist, this is condoning it

No, you are falling for the same error kb did. It is neither condoning or abetting it. It can be (as I stated). But does not mean it is. There are many reasons for rendition, one of which is torture. To say that all As are Bs is not the same as saying all Bs are As. If you would like to prove that rendition == torture, you are free to do so. But then not even Amnesty International - no friend of America - is saying that.

actually that would be torture to people who don't drink.

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Monday, October 22, 2007 Not in the case of people. To condemn an entire country because of the behavior of a miniscule amount of people is bigoted. You more than often condemn an entire ideology because of the behavior of its minuscule - but loud - minority. Liberals jump to minds.

No! I am condemning the loud mouth Liberals and make it plain which ideology I am talking about.