Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: torture report (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter johnnycakes
- Start date
at these 24 and Hollywood-esque scenarios the mouth breathers are coming up with to justify torture.Lutherman2112
Footballguy
What was released was a 500 page Executive Summary...there is still 6000 pages of a complete report to be released.
You and your ilk should take advice from a fictional character; The Wolf in Pulp Fiction: "Well, let's not start sucking each other's ##### just yet."
Koya
Footballguy
I generally laid out my thoughts above - but the hard "risk/reward" scenario obviously changes, a lot.
Should that be the case, providing at least "some" more justification for the use of certain techniques, you'd need to have some sense of transparency and at the least, judicial oversight and due process whenever / wherever possible (at least getting some order of the court i.e. a search warrant).
Also, if it's something we believe is, in the end, just, in the full balance and context of the situation (lives saved vs. one bad guy that meets some bar of guiltiness), then there should be no need, in general to hide nor deny the fact that we do it. As they saw, own it, if indeed it's most just.
timschochet
Footballguy
Torture is not the main reason Jack Bauer is able to stop bombs from going off on 24 anyhow. The main reason is his ability to get from the San Fernando Valley to Orange County in 10 minutes.
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
If Godzilla actually existed, would it change your mind about nuclear weapons and nuclear energy?
Good god are you dumb. Will you please just shut up? Pretty please? With sugar on top?
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
Don't see what is dumb about a legitimate hypothetical. Sometimes the absurd alternative reality is the best way to better understand this one - which is pretty absurd in it's own right.
timschochet
Footballguy
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
Luther has nothing but name calling. Lack of any ability to rationally discuss--just name calling.
tommyboy
Footballguy
Wiki is your friend
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyboy
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
tommyboy
Footballguy
Dont watch it, at all. Did 10yrs ago though...
Im pointing out hypothetical that are extreme examples to prove the point that we should not preemptively remove torture from the possible techniques we might use. Further point being that our adversaries dont need to know in advance what we are unwilling to do. Better to keep them guessing, imo.
So in this case we allegedly tortured a handful of terrorist shortly after 9-11. Big deal
tommyboy
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
Link Away. I've certainly been wrong before.
But this is an issue that, as McCain says, involves who and what we are, and represent, as a nation and a people.
You are entitled to your belief that torture in these cases, was/is totally acceptable.
I am entitled to not want to associate with, nor be represented by, those who find this shortsighted, gross inhumanity not only acceptable, but preferred practice.
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
Well this settles it--George Bush invented torture, Thank God he is out of office because it never happened before he got in and hasn't happened since. Glad we solved this problem. Now lets move on to the Royals in New York or how to lose weight from eating too much over the holidays.
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
First off, Tim really needs to just ####. If he was in my circle of friends, we would pummel him over and over again for his absolute inability to let things go and continually spew his hypotheticals.
This hypothetical is completely absurd; of course torture would be used over and over again IF it was 100% effective.
But torture, for the purpose of gleaning actionable information, does not work. It works in the effort to get false confessions, it works to get false associations of guilt (who do you work for? who do you work with), it works to terrorize targeted groups of people (please see Saddam Hussein), and it works to get the torturers' rocks off.
Morality is a subjective exercise and can differ from person to person as well as culture to culture. Morality truly boils down to our gut instincts and how we make sense of those instincts. If torture was 100% effective, then our morality would not only approve of torture, it would make torture an imperative.
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
Is this what you really think (honest)?
Because, unless I am mistaken about all this, we did a lot more than torture a "handful" in some short period of time - it seems a pretty widespread practice over a long course of time. Not to mention G-Bay and the horrors we perpetrated there, further denigrating who and what we are as a nation and a country. We became a machine at this - and should be ashamed just as we were when we interned Japanese en masse in camps in WWII, etc.
Koya
Footballguy
Huh?
Can't speak for others, but Bush is a very small piece of this puzzle. He had barely even come to mind for me on this issue to be honest. It also appears Obama is likely no better, and in that way probably more hypocritical. It's hard to know that level of specifics though - objective truth is so rarely ever told.
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
Because acting moral has more power in the long run than acting like the terrorists. The "terrorists" have a very short window of action compared to the long arc of justice that we, the US, should be striving.
Koya
Footballguy
Well put.
I should add there is something to acting moral because, well, it's moral. It is right, it is just. That is part of that power, I suppose, and that power imo, should not be overlooked.
The standards by which a society holds itself, even (especially) during times when there are threats to their own safety and security, represents who and what that society, and the people that comprise it, really are.
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
I was being sarcastic, but Koya you are right--it is just the way this is coming out is wrong. It is being politicized plain and simple. This isn't a "Hey, let's change something that is wrong." This is a let's point fingers and use it to score points against the other side at the expense of the USA. Even the most objective person can see this. The problem is, it pretty much kills everything this president has tried to foster from day one when he went on his "Obama Apology Tour" right when he took office. This basically opens old wounds and puts it all back at square one with some nations.
If Feinstein was in any way interested in making this better, she would have presented her findings to the President. Talked to the people involved. Worked to change things within. But no, she basically held a press conference. And keep in mind, she DIDN"T INTERVIEW ANYONE DIRECTLY INVOLVED!! What is she going to do when the other side of the story comes out?
Last edited by a moderator:
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
If I was in your circle of friends would it still be a circle? Or would it be a somewhat larger, still circular shape, but not exactly a circle?
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
tommyboy
Footballguy
Jim11
Footballguy
tommyboy
Footballguy
Jack White
Footballguy
The United States of Torture: It's Who We Are
Here the lesson is basic libertarianism, 101: government attracts the worst of the worst. Yes, there were some at the CIA who disputed the legality and morality of what was being done, and the report makes this clear, but in any statist society these people in government are a distinct – and usually powerless – minority. The sadistic punks and sociopathic perverts who inflicted torture on helpless prisoners merely reflected the mindset of their superiors, who ordered the torture and tried to distance themselves from their own handiwork as much as possible. In short, the torturers represented "the dysfunction, disorganization, incompetence, greed and deception" of the American political class in the latter days of the empire: these words were used byNew York Times reporter Scott Shane to describe the Senate report’s depiction of the CIA program, but they fit our rulers to a tee (and not just the Bush gang).
Here the lesson is basic libertarianism, 101: government attracts the worst of the worst. Yes, there were some at the CIA who disputed the legality and morality of what was being done, and the report makes this clear, but in any statist society these people in government are a distinct – and usually powerless – minority. The sadistic punks and sociopathic perverts who inflicted torture on helpless prisoners merely reflected the mindset of their superiors, who ordered the torture and tried to distance themselves from their own handiwork as much as possible. In short, the torturers represented "the dysfunction, disorganization, incompetence, greed and deception" of the American political class in the latter days of the empire: these words were used byNew York Times reporter Scott Shane to describe the Senate report’s depiction of the CIA program, but they fit our rulers to a tee (and not just the Bush gang).
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I am uncertain as to how to define torture. Is it any adverse or coercive experience, or is it somewhere along a continuum of adverse or coercive experiences? I mean I get that Torquemada stuff is torture. I get that the crew of the Pueblo and the boys at the Hanoi Hilton where tortured, but sleep depravation, hunger, cold, I am less clear on this. When people here talk about torture I truly do not know what they are speaking about.
As for the ticking bomb scenario folks say it never happens. I suppose literally that is true, but metaphorically I do not know. Certainly terrorist plots involve timelines and action hours. 911 had an action hour, Pearl Harbor, the Murray building. If before those jumped off, say 4 hours before, we had some inkling that they might be about to occur, we have a ticking metaphorical time bomb. Certainly there are emergencies and certainly plots have been foiled before fruition. There have been and are ticking time bomb situations.
As for the efficacy of torture, to say it is never effective is counter intuitive and does not stand up to evidence. To say that it often is ineffective or produces false info has also been shown. The frequency, the relative numbers I have no real feel on as I believe we receive colored information or false information on this front.
I believe this. I believe if folks think we are torturing and otherwise interrogating captives that they necessarily have to change plans or timelines because they can't know what information we may get. That fact hinders operations so there is some utility there. That utility, and the utility vis a vis other methods of interrogation and intelligence gathering I cannot possibly know.
As for the moral or legal questions they are hard to get to for me absent some fixed and acceptable definition of torture. The subject for me is one that really pits principles against pragmatism. I am not open-minded on th subject right now as much as I am confused and searching.
I don't yet have a cogent philosophy on the subject so I am enjoying your discussion.
As for the ticking bomb scenario folks say it never happens. I suppose literally that is true, but metaphorically I do not know. Certainly terrorist plots involve timelines and action hours. 911 had an action hour, Pearl Harbor, the Murray building. If before those jumped off, say 4 hours before, we had some inkling that they might be about to occur, we have a ticking metaphorical time bomb. Certainly there are emergencies and certainly plots have been foiled before fruition. There have been and are ticking time bomb situations.
As for the efficacy of torture, to say it is never effective is counter intuitive and does not stand up to evidence. To say that it often is ineffective or produces false info has also been shown. The frequency, the relative numbers I have no real feel on as I believe we receive colored information or false information on this front.
I believe this. I believe if folks think we are torturing and otherwise interrogating captives that they necessarily have to change plans or timelines because they can't know what information we may get. That fact hinders operations so there is some utility there. That utility, and the utility vis a vis other methods of interrogation and intelligence gathering I cannot possibly know.
As for the moral or legal questions they are hard to get to for me absent some fixed and acceptable definition of torture. The subject for me is one that really pits principles against pragmatism. I am not open-minded on th subject right now as much as I am confused and searching.
I don't yet have a cogent philosophy on the subject so I am enjoying your discussion.
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Bill Maher is an idiot we killed over 800,000 civilians to defeat the Nazis.
I love it when a 1%'er tries to make himself out to be aligned with the 99%. He is morally corrupt and a hypocrite.
Your Mother's Twin Sister
Footballguy
tommyboy
Footballguy
You asked for the other side. That is the other side, that website is from former cia guys.
If you want to argue in good faith, im ok. If you want to be a ####, just ignore me
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
Ladies and gentlemen, the above statement(s) is a perfect example of mumbo jumbo.
Reminds me of this: link
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
I would be more than willing to argue with YOU in good faith...not a link to a website that was created days ago.You asked for the other side. That is the other side, that website is from former cia guys.
If you want to argue in good faith, im ok. If you want to be a ####, just ignore me
Please, step up to the plate.
tommyboy
Footballguy
I think its ok and desirable to have different rules for differing situations. I also dont think anything we do matters to the world. I also dont think we should announce to our enemies preemptively what we are or are not willing to do.
If you can morally defend hiroshima, you can also morally defend waterboarding KSM.
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
So again Luther, instead of name calling, linking other articles, do you have any rationale thoughts of your own?
Bucky86
Footballguy
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
I want no part of, but absolutely approve of torture of the right people under the right circumstances.
There is a huge moral difference between what we do and the terrorists do. When we legitimately (Abu Ghraib being illigetimate) torture someone it is to try to save lives, maybe one, maybe thousands. When ISIS tortures it is for no other reason than to hurt or influence another group of people. It is NEVER to save lives.
If you cannot see the moral difference between the two, you are indeed naive or ignorant.
I hope it stays hidden and quiet but for the right reasons I hope we continue to try to save people anyway we have to.
There is a huge moral difference between what we do and the terrorists do. When we legitimately (Abu Ghraib being illigetimate) torture someone it is to try to save lives, maybe one, maybe thousands. When ISIS tortures it is for no other reason than to hurt or influence another group of people. It is NEVER to save lives.
If you cannot see the moral difference between the two, you are indeed naive or ignorant.
I hope it stays hidden and quiet but for the right reasons I hope we continue to try to save people anyway we have to.
timschochet
Footballguy
We've basically been discussing the ethics of torture and the effectiveness of torture. But there's a third issue we haven't really discussed: that in the past we signed treaties agreeing not to do this. Among other agreements, this nation solemnly signed the Charter of the United Nations (which we also basically wrote), the Geneva Convention on War Crimes, and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Now I realize we don't always abide by treaties- just ask any Native American. But that was over a century ago and it's a shameful aspect of our history. For us to go back on our sacred promises in the 21st century would IMO be a terrible message to send to the world.
One thing I agree with most conservatives about, and disagree with many progressives, is that I am a true believer in American exceptional ism. I really think that, despite our faults, we have been and remain the greatest nation in the history of the world. But it's not a static condition. For us to continue to be great we have to work at it. Failing to keep our pledges on an issue as serious as torture works against that goal.
Declaration of Human Rights.
Now I realize we don't always abide by treaties- just ask any Native American. But that was over a century ago and it's a shameful aspect of our history. For us to go back on our sacred promises in the 21st century would IMO be a terrible message to send to the world.
One thing I agree with most conservatives about, and disagree with many progressives, is that I am a true believer in American exceptional ism. I really think that, despite our faults, we have been and remain the greatest nation in the history of the world. But it's not a static condition. For us to continue to be great we have to work at it. Failing to keep our pledges on an issue as serious as torture works against that goal.
timschochet
Footballguy
Also, by committing torture, we effectively give credence to the Nazis who tried at Nuremberg after World War II. Their major argument, apart from the notion that they were "just following orders", was that we had no right to try them, since there is no morality in warfare, and our prosecution took place only because we were the victors and not out of any moral certitude. (This same argument was made nearly a century before when Henry Wirz, the Confederate commander if Andersonville prison camp, was charged with mistreating and killing Union soldiers).
Our response at Nuremberg was the same as it had been at the Andersonville trial: that there exists an objective set of moral rules in warfare, and we have the ethical right to prosecute those who break these rules. For is to justify torture now would be to admit that we were wrong before and our critics were correct in their complaint.
Our response at Nuremberg was the same as it had been at the Andersonville trial: that there exists an objective set of moral rules in warfare, and we have the ethical right to prosecute those who break these rules. For is to justify torture now would be to admit that we were wrong before and our critics were correct in their complaint.
timschochet
Footballguy
Moat members of ISIS honestly believe that by beheading westerners they are creating terror that will serve to remove their oppressors from the Middle East, thus "liberating" the Arab people from the yoke of western imperialism. To them, that is as moral a goal as saving lives is to you.
Similar threads
