Smashedbrainr
Almost everyone has access to some type of video recording device.
So many images of the horrors are making it out of the area that there is no way a governmnet can stop it.
My point was to show how the corporate warlords are trying to keep the mainstream press, with the largest audience of viewers, from reporting on the truth about what's happening on the ground.
One such method is imbedding reporters.
I'm glad you gave up so easily on your WWII theories.
You must have closed that gaping maw long enough to reconsider. For that I thank you.

Do you assume everyone that doesn't argue your stupidity has changed their point of view rather than realized the futility of their efforts?

You must consider yourself some type of genius then...

Maybe if you paid a little more attention to creditable news sources, you'd notice the "general public" isn't the only outlet reporting the horrors of war.

---

Do you assume everyone that doesn't argue your stupidity has changed their point of view

Looks like the 'designated spokesperson' has spoken... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Maybe if you paid a little more attention to creditable news sources, you'd notice the "general public" isn't the only outlet reporting the horrors of war.

Quite, and it's those creditable news sources that are reporting on the use of torture techniques by the civilised West.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Congress to clash with Bush over 'torture' technique

Elana Schor in Washington and Mark Tran
Thursday December 6, 2007


Congress is set to clash with George Bush on the contentious practice of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques as it prepares legislation on intelligence funding.

Senate and House officials have included the ban on waterboarding - condemned by human rights groups as a form of torture - in their respective bills authorising 2008 spending for intelligence programmes.

The move would set up another veto fight with Bush, who last summer issued an executive order allowing the CIA to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" that go beyond what is allowed in the 2006 army field manual.

Language added to the funding bill by Democrats would require the CIA to follow the US army field manual when questioning suspected terrorists. Congress has already limited the Pentagon to the field manual, which prohibits waterboarding, electric shocks and other methods that are widely considered forms of torture.

"This is the minimum necessary to begin reclaiming the honour of the US," said Democratic representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, who pushed to add the torture ban to a $50bn (£25bn) Iraq funding bill.

"I hope the administration does not further sully its honour by vetoing or threatening to veto this."

Democrats have sought to restrict interrogation techniques since they took control of Congress after the 2006 midterm elections, describing it as a human rights priority. Senior members of the party opposed the confirmation of attorney general Michael Mukasey after he wavered on whether he considered waterboarding torture.

But Republicans - with a few notable exceptions, such as Arizona senator John McCain and upstart presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee - oppose the army field manual standard for interrogations. While limiting military interrogators to the military manual makes sense, Republicans contend, the CIA and other intelligence agencies need more freedom to conduct their business.

"The Pentagon is an agency that deals primarily with uniformed combatants," said Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the senior Republican on the intelligence committee in the House of Representatives. "The CIA deals with a much different animal."

Hoekstra predicted that the bill might not stall outright, but that Republicans in the Senate would try to raise a point of order in a bid to strip out the interrogation language added by Democrats.

A veto threat from Bush is almost certain to arrive once the bill is released publicly today. Hoekstra said other provisions in the intelligence bill raise the spectre of a veto threat, including earmarks added for particular spending projects and the creation of an inspector general to oversee the nation's spy agencies.

Bush issued an order earlier this year that officially barred the CIA from torturing terror detainees while leaving the administration broad leeway to determine what techniques qualify as too harsh.

Waterboarding, which dates at least to the Spanish Inquisition, has been used by regimes such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. In some versions, prisoners are strapped to a board, their faces covered with cloth or cellophane, and water is poured over their mouths to stimulate drowning; in others, they are dunked head-first into water.

The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, sparked a furore last year when he spoke in favour of waterboarding. In a radio interview, Cheney agreed that subjecting prisoners to "a dunk in water" was a "no-brainer" if it could save lives.

After being asked about this technique, he said that such interrogations have been a "very important tool" used against high-level al-Qaida detainees such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and that they did not, in his view, constitute torture.

The CIA has used waterboarding on three prisoners since the September 11 2001 attacks but none since 2003, according to officials.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees in US custody, including CIA prisoners. The CIA director, Michael Hayden, last year prohibited waterboarding but has been publicly silent on other interrogation techniques.

In a speech in September to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he said he did not believe the CIA should be constrained by military interrogation rules. "It's clear that what it is we do as agency is different from what is contained in the army field manual," he said. "The CIA handles a very small number of senior al-Qaida leaders."

Hayden argued that CIA interrogators were older and as a rule better trained than military interrogators. "We weren't consulted about the army field manual, and no one ever claimed that the army field manual exhausted all the lawful tools that America could have to protect itself," he said.

The 384-page army field manual prohibits waterboarding and sensory deprivation. Prisoners may not be hooded or have duct tape put across their eyes. They may not be stripped naked or forced to perform or mimic sexual acts.

They may not be beaten, given electric shocks, burned or otherwise physically hurt. They may not be subjected to hypothermia or mock executions. The manual does not allow food, water or medical treatment to be withheld, and dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation.

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

The leadership in the United States is insane.
Who would have thought discussions of this sort would ever be happening in our lifetime?

I suppose the best way to sort this out is to put the Bush and Cheney families into the dunk tank and then ask these two men if waterboarding is torture.

I think after watching their children's limbs writhing while the glug glugs were ringing in the room, old George and Dick would reconsider their position.

i have only read half of these posts, from what i can see some feel very passionate about their answers and some are obviously ansering before they even think in a typically soicial camelion sort of way.

mine is yet another tiny voice to get lost in the masses, but i would like to speak anyway.

Firstly on the rediculous matter of whether this waterboarding IS actally a torture, of course it is. ANY action which causes discomfort in an unwilling individual for the purposes of extracting information is torture plain and simple.

Secondly and most importantly should we consider torture as an acceptable military practice. well this is a topic that cant really be answered off the cuff. So for myself, when i try to answer my own questions pertaining to the 'Big Picture' i try to look at the little picture first and scale up.

so from that stance, i ask you not if its right to torture people, but i ask, what would you do to protect and defend your own sons and daughters.

If for example a gang broke into your house and took your children to use later for sport but in the struggle one of them was injured and left behind. would you do whatever it takes to make him tell you where they are? well i know what i would do, so i cannot condemn the use of torture.

if you find that your aswers to these questions start to look like mine, then for us the question moves from 'is torture right' to 'can we trust our leaders to do the right thing for their people'

from that view i have serious doubts about the competance of our leaders and that of the leaders of our 'special friends' the Americans.

Sincerely
random British citizen no:97592

---

If it was know that terrorists were in the process of planting a nuclear bomb in an American city and were about to detonate it...I'd say bring it on in the worst ancient brutal torture a la Chinese/Medival fashion...when the lives of hundreds of thousands is at stake, the nerve endings of one person should not be of any consideration.

Sorry, harsh language and threats just wouldn't cut it...no pun intended.

Why does the USA use other countries to do their torturing in. Why not do it in the USA. What are they frightened of ?. ( everything is covered by Rendition).

---

If it was know that terrorists were in the process of planting a nuclear bomb in an American city and were about to detonate it...I'd say bring it on in the worst ancient brutal torture a la Chinese/Medival fashion...when the lives of hundreds of thousands is at stake, the nerve endings of one person should not be of any consideration.

Sorry, harsh language and threats just wouldn't cut it...no pun intended.

Why does the USA use other countries to do their torturing in. Why not do it in the USA. What are they frightened of ?. ( everything is covered by Rendition).

Please stop it!!! I feel harassed!... other's commentary against me makes me feel threatened! omg.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

If it was know that terrorists were in the process of planting a nuclear bomb in an American city and were about to detonate it...I'd say bring it on in the worst ancient brutal torture a la Chinese/Medival fashion...when the lives of hundreds of thousands is at stake, the nerve endings of one person should not be of any consideration.

Sorry, harsh language and threats just wouldn't cut it...no pun intended.

I can see where you are coming from here and in a situation like this I could see using torture as a means to save lives. But under most circumstances torture should not be tolerated.

---

All joking aside, let's just say that waterboarding is torture and the way it's praciticed gets results that saves lives.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin.

thats good bobby, you have given us quotes from dead people in times gone by.
how about you give us a quote from bobby on current affairs =p

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin.

thats good bobby, you have given us quotes from dead people in times gone by.
how about you give us a quote from bobby on current affairs =p

OOOO...unfair jab.

The truth remains just as valid no matter how long ago it was presented.

Some of the scenarios cited as a good excuse for torture are actually deflecting the question.

National policy is not dictated by specific moments of extreme duress or passion, rather, by calm deliberation by rational people. (This has not been the case in America during the Bush years)

The examples cited by some of our more fervent posters as justification for torture are simply attempts to place those opposed to torture in a no-win situation. If one lives by their principles a loved one dies and if one performs the torture a loved one lives.

Some of these people won't be happy until our courts start using torture to elicit confessions from the accused in criminal cases.

Like I said before...Who would have thought we would be having this kind of discussion in our lifetime?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin.

thats good bobby, you have given us quotes from dead people in times gone by.
how about you give us a quote from bobby on current affairs =p

OOOO...unfair jab.

The truth remains just as valid no matter how long ago it was presented.

=) i concede that was a little rough around the edges, but if flowed onto the page so easily. =/

i guess what i was trying to say, is it would be nice to hear what bobby felt in his own words, its not to imply that those quotes are meeaningless.
im having difficulty explaining what im trying to say so ill use a crude analogy.
there are several thousand different shades of red, and the shade of red that bobby likes may be several lumins different from the shade of red Jefferson may likes and different still from Franklins taste.


As to the 'truth', its very rare a truth is universal. and in todays climate of changing laws and freedoms, america is certainly not following Benjamin Franklins view of the truth.

I do condone the use of torture, however that is NOT to say i would have it dished out like candy, it is a neccisary evil in some cases to prevent a greater evil, and i know you say

The examples cited by some of our more fervent posters as justification for torture are simply attempts to place those opposed to torture in a no-win situation. If one lives by their principles a loved one dies and if one performs the torture a loved one lives.

for myself i do not belive that is true. these extreme examples you speak of are unfortunatly a very real part of life. you get all sorts of freaks in the modern world and the described scenarios are a very real possibility. if i am to follow a belief system, it has to stand up to the realities of life as we know it. if it doesnt then its just an idealistic pipe dream.

as to mr Bush. it is my opinion that he be dragged from his office and charged with gross negligence on pretty much most of his actions. of all the things America may consider shamefull to its heriatage, bush would be the top spot hands down....please get rid of that fool before he makes our two countries into the 'axis' and the eastern world as the 'allies'!!

---

i guess what i was trying to say, is it would be nice to hear what bobby felt in his own words

I believe I've stated my own views in this thread. To summarize, torture can only be acceptable if the person conducting (or ordering it, etc) it *knows* the person being tortured has knowledge that will cause greater suffering that s/he is suffering, and that the torturer (or the person ordering the use of torture, etc) does not have this knowledge already. However, such a situation is virtually impossible for me to imagine. It is not enough to suspect the person to be tortured has the information, as the suspicion could well be wrong.

As for modern quotes, I noted the wording of the Geneva Conventions here to which the Western democracies have all signed.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

i guess what i was trying to say, is it would be nice to hear what bobby felt in his own words

I believe I've stated my own views in this thread. To summarize, torture can only be acceptable if the person conducting (or ordering it, etc) it *knows* the person being tortured has knowledge that will cause greater suffering that s/he is suffering, and that the torturer (or the person ordering the use of torture, etc) does not have this knowledge already. However, such a situation is virtually impossible for me to imagine. It is not enough to suspect the person to be tortured has the information, as the suspicion could well be wrong.

As for modern quotes, I noted the wording of the Geneva Conventions here to which the Western democracies have all signed.

thanks, thats accurate for me to understand.
so just to confirm.

if you have a prisoner your sure planted some bombs, but claims he has no idea what you mean, then its not ok to torture him.

conversly if you have a prisoner, that admits (without duress)to planting bombs, but refuses to tell you where they are, its more acceptable to apply greater pressure till he gives up the info.

as to the geneva convention, i certainly dont think it applies to some of my previous civilian examples of the need for torture, and iirc the geneva convention prevents the military from using dum dum rounds but does not prevent the police from using them, so the geneva convention is far from perfect, and if we were going to use torture as an acceptable means of aquiring info, it could just be done by the civil authorities.

i also belive that IF we ever officially condone torture, there should be a sub clause of ' no perminant or psychological damage '

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin.

Yet you advocate both the abnigation of liberty and safety, Bobby. What gives? You and R.Waite and others do it in the name of socialism/fascism/statism. Strange.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Atlantean makes some important distinctions too. These enemies never signed a Geneva convention.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin.

Yet you advocate both the abnigation of liberty and safety, Bobby. What gives? You and R.Waite and others do it in the name of socialism/fascism/statism. Strange.

Umm, anything I specifically said that justifies the statement that I advocate the abnegation of liberty and safety? Or that I support socialism, fascism or statism? For a person that criticizes the use of state sponsored force when it comes to taxation you appear to have a surprisingly contrary view when it comes to the state exerting direct force against an individual.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...