| Non-motoring > The C.I.A. and torture. | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Dutchie | Replies: 110 |
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 20:56
The C.I.A. and torture. - Dutchie
|
|
Report came out regarding the intelligence agency of torture in quantanamo bay. What has gone on here and is torture justified in any circumstance? After 911 the world has never been the same regarding terrorism but what did torture achieve.Any opinions and where will this all end? |
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 21:21
The C.I.A. and torture. - Zero
|
| In my opinion, and opinions will differ, torture is not justified. By using such techniques we merely lower ourselves to the level of those who would terrorise us. We become just as bad as them. |
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 21:23
The C.I.A. and torture. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> In my opinion, and opinions will differ, torture is not justified. By using such techniques >> we merely lower ourselves to the level of those who would terrorise us. We become >> just as bad as them. Pretty much spot on. |
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 21:24
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
|
Worse, we aid recruitment by the groups we try to combat. We did much the same in Northern Ireland if perhaps on a smaller, less industrial scale. Would be disappointed if no prosecutions come from this but I expect lots of 'kicking the ball into the long grass' will now ensue. Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 10 Dec 14 at 21:25
|
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 21:35
The C.I.A. and torture. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> We did much the same in Northern Ireland if perhaps on a smaller, less industrial >> scale. 'We' did pretty much exactly same things in NI - hooding; sleep deprivation; subjection to white noise etc. Certain that for a time the IRA's best recruiting sergeants were paid by Her Maj. |
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 21:41
The C.I.A. and torture. - Fullchat
|
|
Ok I hear the above. But if you are fighting with both hands tied behind your back you are going to loose. Western values and rules are a long way away from those of some of the groups we are in conflict with. Martyrs who are willing to blow themselves up for 'the cause' are wired differently to what we consider the norm. They will see our do gooding hand wringing purely as a weakness to be exploited, nothing else. So we give them all a £1M, beg forgiveness for our behaviour and promise not to do it again. Will it change things? Doubt it. There is a deep seated loathing of the West by a minority but can inflict maximum damage by terrorist means. Last edited by: Fullchat on Wed 10 Dec 14 at 21:43
|
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 22:43
The C.I.A. and torture. - Old Navy
|
|
I doesn't make it right but does anyone here think that the British Empire was created without torture and slavery? Should the SAS have gone into the Iranian embassy with machine guns or tea and biscuits? Should we have sunk the Belgrano or let it sink one of our aircraft carriers? The world is a tough place. Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 10 Dec 14 at 22:46
|
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 22:52
The C.I.A. and torture. - CGNorwich
|
|
>> I doesn't make it right but does anyone here think that the British Empire was >> created without torture and slavery? I doubt it >> >> Should the SAS have gone into the Iranian embassy with machine guns or tea and >> biscuits? Obviously the former >> >> Should we have sunk the Belgrano or let it sink one of our aircraft carriers Depends on whether you believe that was ever the intention or within the capability of the Argentinians Navy Should you torture prisoners No |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 16:06
The C.I.A. and torture. - Old Navy
|
|
>> >> Depends on whether you believe that was ever the intention or within the capability of >> the Argentinians Navy >> The Belgrano was not in a war zone on a pleasure cruise. I know it was just outside the declared 200 mile exclusion zone but we had informed Argentina (via Switzerland) that we would defend ourselves beyond that zone. The Belgrano was sunk because it was headed in the direction of the UK fleet, way out gunned any ship we had there and was armoured so our ships could only inflict limited damage even if they could get close enough. The Belgrano was also heading into water that was too shallow for HMS Conqueror to follow her while submerged. I was not in Conqueror but I knew her crew, worked with them, and discussed the technical aspects of the attack with them at a later date. Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 11 Dec 14 at 16:08
|
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 20:18
The C.I.A. and torture. - CGNorwich
|
| But whether that is right or wrong what is all that got to do with believing it is right to torture people? |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 20:56
The C.I.A. and torture. - Old Navy
|
| It illustrates that people are prepared to take the tough decisions that you can't or won't. |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 20:58
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>>It illustrates that people are prepared to take the tough decisions that you can't or won't. ......or that you think are wrong. |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 21:04
The C.I.A. and torture. - Old Navy
|
|
>> >>It illustrates that people are prepared to take the tough decisions that you can't or >> won't. >> >> ......or that you think are wrong. >> You may think they are wrong but they are still made to defend you and yours in the long run. And for the record I do not think we should have gone into Iraq or Afghanistan, but think we were right to defend the Falklands. Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 11 Dec 14 at 21:08
|
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 21:09
The C.I.A. and torture. - Zero
|
|
SQ for Mr Lazy ;) >> You may think they are wrong but they are still made to defend you and >> yours in the long run. In this case they cocked up, they over reacted, locked up and tortured the wrong people and made things worse. It was panic. Blind clueless panic. Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 12 Dec 14 at 01:20
|
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 21:11
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
But you only allowed for people who were unable or unwilling to make a decision, ignoring those who fully understood, were fully prepared, but would have decided differently. And if a decision was made in the belief that it would protect me, then I am grateful for the sentiment. But that doesn't necessarily make it right. Because many people and groups have thought such a thing; The IRA, IS, The Confederates, and so many more. "Right" frequently depends what side of the fence one is standing. |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 21:16
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
Oh, and by the way, had the decision been mine, I might not have ordered the conflict, but given that it had started, I too would have ordered the sinking of the Belgrano. That still doesn't make it right, but perhaps understandable. |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 21:29
The C.I.A. and torture. - Zero
|
| Dunno how the belgrano incident got into this, that was merely one military target sunk by another. |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 21:36
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>>that was merely one military target sunk by another. Absolutely. But because people try to make it more than that, it becomes corrupted. To the Argentinians; you were being aggressive, we blew up your ship. Get over it. To the British who object; s*** happens in war, get over it (yeah I know, conflict). |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 21:49
The C.I.A. and torture. - CGNorwich
|
|
No it doesn't. The decision to engage with a military target in a war situation has no connection with a policy of to torturing unarmed prisoners which you seem to condone. Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 11 Dec 14 at 21:50
|
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 21:52
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>>a policy of to torturing unarmed prisoners which you seem to condone. Me?? |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 22:02
The C.I.A. and torture. - CGNorwich
|
| A response to ON. Follow the arrow |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 22:03
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
| Doh. Sorry. |
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 22:56
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
I'm with the hard men here. It isn't ever justifiable, but it may sometimes be seen as necessary. It's just not a moral issue. As they say, the world is a tough place. And evil with it sometimes. |
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 23:04
The C.I.A. and torture. - CGNorwich
|
|
You can't take a moral view and then put it aside when it suits. It is wrong for a civilised state to execute people. It is wrong for a civilised state to torture prisoners. Expediency is not an excuse. To condone torture is to devalue the very values that we as a nation would like to promote. |
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 23:13
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Expediency is not an excuse. There isn't an excuse. It can't be justified. But there may be very pressing reasons why those responsible may overcome their principles and everything we stand for as a civilised state and all that palaver, and do it anyway. Later they may be held to account for it. Serves them right, everyone thinks sanctimoniously. Takes a certain type of person to do that work. Not my sort of thing or most people's. The rest of the world doesn't think we never do it. It thinks we do it very seldom and usually manage to hide it. It knows we're better than most, even when it hates us for good reason. |
|
New Wed 10 Dec 14 23:05
The C.I.A. and torture. - Zero
|
|
>> I doesn't make it right but does anyone here think that the British Empire was >> created without torture and slavery? Did it achieve anything? Yes but we are paying for it now. >> Should the SAS have gone into the Iranian embassy with machine guns or tea and >> biscuits? Did it achieve anything? Yes >> Should we have sunk the Belgrano or let it sink one of our aircraft carriers? Did it achieve anything? yes Torture, has it ever achieved anything? No. >>The world is a tough place. Sure, and torture keeps it that way. |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 00:36
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
'Just as bad as them.' Tee hee! The trick is to be much worse than them, bad enough to come down on them like a ton of bricks, without ever admitting it or being caught. It's a tall order however evil and cunning you are (or other people are on your behalf). The British are past masters at it and even they get rumbled. Decent people look the other way. Why raise a big fuss about the bleeding obvious? |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 14:55
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>>There is a deep seated loathing of the West by a minority but can inflict maximum damage by terrorist means. And there may be little or nothing one can do about them. There will, however, be a set of people who are just slightly outside that minority who cannot see a reason to join in. Torture simply gives them a reason. The conflict in Northern Ireland didn't stop because anybody had greater military might. It stopped because of the reduction in, almost removal of, anything for the masses to fight against. Because being part of the UK or indeed not part of the UK, was not a sufficient reason to drive most people to murder and so they didn't continue to join in with those for whom it was. Protecting their own side against brutality, torture and mistreatment by an evil bogey man was previously sufficient though. Violence and fighting will never truly defeat someone who believes that they are right, even if they are wrong. You don't teach a child to stop bullying by beating them. In fact, you reinforce the lesson that big means you can hit. By and large my opinion of torturing low-life scumbags is about the same as my view of hitting children. Mostly it just doesn't work. Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Dec 14 at 14:56
|
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 15:57
The C.I.A. and torture. - Dutchie
|
|
Torture is a means to a end.Regarding achieving anything I don't know. No matter how tough you think you are you will talk or say anything to relieve the pain or discomfort. |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 16:41
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> You don't teach a child to stop bullying by beating them The people who torture suspected terrorists and other bad guys aren't trying to teach them anything FMR. Their views are usually well known and known to be unshakeable by normal means. Torture is intended to intimidate and frighten the bad guys and their colleagues, or to extract the identities of colleagues so that they can be intimidated (or eliminated) in their turn. These are brutal and absolute acts, not at all the same as slapping a nipper on the back of the wrist or hitting him round the head with a piece of timber (depending on your family ethos). Normal people don't 'torture' children, not even teachers. Of course it hurts to be caned but in my experience the punisher didn't usually get any unholy pleasure from doing it, and one was told why it was being done. Of course sometimes it seemed reasonable, sometimes a bit unfair, but that's life. Modern spoiled hysterical people can't see the difference and sometimes squeal that they have been tortured, but any proper adult can tell the difference between torture and routine punishment. |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 16:52
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
As Dutchie points out, very few people can resist torture for long and quickly tell the torturers everything they know, or a load of fairy stories if that's what the torturers seem to want. Personally I'd recite the whole of Hiawatha from memory at the mere sight of the pliers and tongs. They wouldn't have to lay a finger on me. The Chinese water torture - the one that drives you mad with the constant sound of a dripping tap or pipe - sounds quite good fun though. Improvising jazz riffs around the rhythm of the drip could keep you sane for a good couple of days if you were at all musical. :o} |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 21:34
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>> >> You don't teach a child to stop bullying by beating them >> >> The people who torture suspected terrorists and other bad guys aren't trying to teach >>them anything FMR. The "Child" in my example, is not the individual you are torturing, but rather the "other side". But I see the whole issue as pretty obvious; We don't like Team X because they abuse people's rights who can't defend themselves. (rape, murder, etc. etc.) So, to show them that abusing people's rights just because you are stronger than them is wrong, we abuse their rights because we're stronger than them. Or perhaps we think that it is wrong to abuse people just because you believe yourself to be correct; yet torture is the act of abusing people just because you believe yourself to be right. Presumably the opposing view is that one can show them that you're so strong and tough that they will give up on their beliefs? Like that has ever happened to anyone ever. The people think that they are correct. However wrong that you think they are, however wrong that they actually are, they believe themselves to be right. Now, consider that you believed yourself to be correct, consider that you believed yourself to be defending your religion, your way of life, your future, your family and you were doing it against people who had no religion, were not worthy of respect, and had no value who were corrupting and destroying everything you believed in. What would stop you? I suspect, like IS, absolutely nothing. You know what stopped the IRA? Or what stopped the Native American tribes? Getting manipulated in negotiations, not confronted in war. All this aggressive, in your face, we'll show 'em who is boss, bomb the b******s, hunt them down s***e is just that; Expensive, ineffectual, counter productive s***e. Jeez, half you lot can't cope with immigrants never mind what you consider to be invading forces. |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 21:39
The C.I.A. and torture. - MD
|
| I read your post with interest..........until the last Paragraph. |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 21:47
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
Sorry, really. I shouldn't have said it like that. Let me put it another way; If you consider how challenging one can find immigrants who are doing little more than turning up, imagine the impact that it must have when invaders turn up and, at least to you, appear to threaten your entire approach to life in your own region. I mean no offence, but I do mean the point is worth thinking about. Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Dec 14 at 21:49
|
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 00:45
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> The "Child" in my example, is not the individual you are torturing, but rather the "other side". The 'other side' doesn't resemble a child in any way and can't be taught anything. It thinks it knows everything necessary. It consists of ignorant armed men whose way of dealing with civilisation is to pretend to despise it. Despicable stupid crap. It has to be eliminated or frightened so badly that it shrinks away and gives up, or ideally thinks again and learns a thing or two. It isn't even a side, it's more a coalition of many potential sides. Not easy at all. But seeing it as a child that can be taught something is hopeless and doomed. |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 01:16
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>it thinks it knows everything necessary You're right. Not like any child I know. >>It has to be eliminated or frightened so badly that it shrinks away and gives up That's just naive at best. Can you give me any example of any time that its worked? |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 11:27
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Can you give me any example of any time that its worked? Why should I? You're the security expert here it seems. But the fact it's still tried must indicate that it has worked a few times in the past, wouldn't you think? You seem vehemently against the idea that superior force can prevail. I'm almost tempted to ask what you think would prevail, but I don't think I really want to know, thinking about it. Sure to be too complicated for me to understand. |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 12:28
The C.I.A. and torture. - WillDeBeest
|
|
Of course superior force can prevail, but how often does it achieve the desired result in the long term? Yes, in 1945 Germany and Japan were crushed and recovered to become good global citizens, but that's because their people recognized that their leaders had led them to disaster and there were better ways to succeed in the world, but that was an exceptional situation. More often, the superior force comes to be viewed as an aggressor or even an oppressor, which motivates people to take up arms who might not otherwise have cared. The US went to 'war on terror' in 2001, but I'd bet there are more terrorists and potential terrorists now than there were then - and more than there would have been if Bush had taken 9/11 on the chin and focused on making friends instead. |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 12:39
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
|
Mahatma Gandhi undoubtedly wielded 'superior force' - just not in the way AC views it. WDB is almost certainly correct, but a large bulk of the US populace would have, and still do struggle to deal with the fact opponents need accommodated rather than suppressed and eradicated. I have little doubt there are significant opposition movements in N.Korea and China, and anywhere there is extreme authoritarianism - the media however can obviously be a useful tool to present everything as being lovely (or horrid) depending upon the needs of the controlling powers. How long does it take the US to fill 3000 graves due to smoking? Two days. Where's the 'war on smoking'? Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 12 Dec 14 at 12:44
|
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 12:50
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> often, the superior force comes to be viewed as an aggressor or even an oppressor, Yes. That's why this stuff goes on and on and on. >> more than there would have been if Bush had taken 9/11 on the chin and focused on making friends instead. Doubtless that works sometimes. But you can't really expect the US or anyone else to 'make friends' with people who already see them as limbs of the Great Satan. Trying to wheedle those people just makes them sneer. As you would in their position. |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 13:03
The C.I.A. and torture. - Fullchat
|
|
"......but I'd bet there are more terrorists and potential terrorists now than there were then - and more than there would have been if Bush had taken 9/11 on the chin and focused on making friends instead." There maybe are but there would still be a nucleus who would globally continue to commit such atrocities in the name of their cause. You don't expect to commit such an atrocity as 9/11 or on a smaller scale 7/7 and there not be some repercussions. The trouble with the war on terrorism, unlike conventional warfare, is that the enemy are hidden within and hide behind normality waiting for the opportunity to strike. Bit like someone attacking you from behind - its dirty and not within the rules. So maybe unconventional means are needed to attempt to intervene. |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 18:19
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> - and more than there would have >> been if Bush had taken 9/11 on the chin and focused on making friends instead. Do you really believe that? If you do, you amaze me. You smack a bully right in the eye, if not they think they've got the upper hand and will keep doing it. There's a lot more happening in the world at the moment, because there's a lame US President in charge who will not kick ass when it's needed... so the bad guys know they can push the boundaries. George W Bush wasn't perfect, but one thing he was good at was decisiveness and the willingness to make the difficult decisions. There are some people in life who will only ever recognise strength ... and if you get people like ISIS then you have to accept it's going to be a difficult job...but one thing's for sure, negotiating with them isn't going to work... or do you think it would? |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 18:40
The C.I.A. and torture. - WillDeBeest
|
|
George W Bush wasn't perfect, but one thing he was good at was decisiveness and the willingness to make the difficult decisions... ...that Dick Cheney told him to make. Bush was in charge for more than seven years post-9/11, during which the situation just got worse. Obama hasn't helped by being neither one thing nor the other. He had Bin Laden killed, remember - but I don't detect that that has fixed anything; the fire just flares up somewhere else. |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 18:49
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
Dubya was a chimp and marionette. Obama is being savaged by the Republican far right which represents the financial powers that be, as all principled Democrat presidents are. He's cool, but who'd be in his shoes? Guh... |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 19:06
The C.I.A. and torture. - madf
|
|
"George W Bush wasn't perfect, but one thing he was good at was decisiveness and the willingness to make the difficult decisions." Like in s sorting out the New Orleans flood? GWB if President now would have bombed Stria and Damascus and made things even worse. He has form on the matter. After all, Al Quaeda were created by the USA.As a matter of policy. To stuff the Soviets.. Last edited by: madf on Fri 12 Dec 14 at 19:07
|
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 19:38
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>>You smack a bully right in the eye........... And teach him what? That he was absolutely correct in his behaviour in hitting people smaller than him, as proven when he got hit by someone bigger than him? There's always someone bigger, then what will you do? If you hit a bully, then you run the risk that the bully's brother / friend /whatever will then hit you. Even if they don't perhaps they'll sneak up and scratch your car in the night. Or perhaps they'll go and pick on some other kid to get their "kudos" back. Then you;ll go and get your friends. etc. etc. Or have you truly met bullies who got thumped and so thought "oh, I see where I've gone wrong now, I'll change and never be like that again". I entirely understand the wish to thump them. But all you do is reinforce the sentiment that its ok to hit people if you think you're right and you're bigger than them. So you may make that individual suffer, and maybe you will feel better because they suffer, but not only will you change nothing, you will probably exacerbate the problem. And right now IS thinks that it is in the right and is bigger than those it is hitting. As did Al Qaeda when it attacked the US and as did the US when it tortured, etc. etc. etc. Overly simplistically; Why did the US get attacked on 9/11? Why did those people wish to target the US? Why did the US do what it did that then caused that enmity? What did those people do to cause the US to carry out that course of action? and on and on .... So where is this approach of answering violence with violence solving anything? Now, I am not saying that anybody should turn up their toes and let it all happen, but what has caused conflicts to end in the past? Because its not and it has never been violence. What did G W Bush solve? Because he didn't make the terrorists go away. In fact, he changed what to most was an intangible enemy into a tangible bogey man and got attacked more. Why is there now less conflict in Northern Ireland? Because I don't think the IRA got scared and ran away. Neither did the Unionists nor the British Army. |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 20:24
The C.I.A. and torture. - Zero
|
|
>> You smack a bully right in the eye, if not they think they've got the >> upper hand and will keep doing it. Indeed, and that is what Al Qaeda did Or think they did. For many nations and races Americas foreign policy has made them appear to be that bully. >> There's a lot more happening in the world at the moment, because there's a lame >> US President in charge who will not kick ass when it's needed.. Ok provide some facts and examples to back that one up. >> difficult job...but one thing's for sure, negotiating with them isn't going to work... or do >> you think it would? It Did with the IRA. Next question? |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 23:12
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
| Appeasement does not work with some people. |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 23:32
The C.I.A. and torture. - Manatee
|
|
>> Appeasement does not work with some people. Works with very few of the violent kind I imagine, unless you are prepared to give them everything they want. Difficult when what they want is your complete annihilation. And, should your enemy have any prospect of being able to do that, it might be best to get your retaliation in first. In short, not a simple problem, and no simple solution. Ask the Israelis. |
|
New Sat 13 Dec 14 10:16
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> Indeed, and that is what Al Qaeda did Or think they did. For many nations >> and races Americas foreign policy has made them appear to be that bully. For all the faults the US undoubtedly has... they have a proud history of being willing to stand up for people who need it by putting feet on the ground. >> Ok provide some facts and examples to back that one up. Vladimir Putin, Libya, Syria. >> It Did with the IRA. Mostly, there's still republican terrorism out there, but nothing like the same scale, i'd agree. However, do you really believe ISIS is open to negotiation? |
|
New Sat 13 Dec 14 12:01
The C.I.A. and torture. - Zero
|
|
>> Vladimir Putin, Without resorting to invasion of the Ukraine, he has done all you could and the Russians are hurting. >>Libya, Why would he get involved in Libya? Whats that got to do with him. who would he support? There is no global threat there. >>Syria. Ah Syria - yes. Now who do you think he should have supported? The Syrian Government or the rebels? The same rebels who are now IS SO before you go accusing someone of not going in there and kicking butt and asking questions later, which appears to be your favoured tactic, do tell us what should have been done and to whom? No wonder you like G Dubya, the same lack of forethought. You do realise that the Syrian thing and the rise of ISIS you expect Obama to fix was caused by G Dubya don't you? Last edited by: Zero on Sat 13 Dec 14 at 12:02
|
|
New Sat 13 Dec 14 20:38
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> Without resorting to invasion of the Ukraine, he has done all you could and the >> Russians are hurting. A strong US President would have prevented Vladimir's incursion in the first place. >> >> Why would he get involved in Libya? Whats that got to do with him. who >> would he support? There is no global threat there. See above. >> Ah Syria - yes. Now who do you think he should have supported? The Syrian >> Government or the rebels? The same rebels who are now IS >> >> SO before you go accusing someone of not going in there and kicking butt and >> asking questions later, which appears to be your favoured tactic, do tell us what should >> have been done and to whom? Syria is more problematic, but the situation has gotten more out of control because of inaction and faff at the beginning of the problem. >> >> No wonder you like G Dubya, the same lack of forethought. You do realise that >> the Syrian thing and the rise of ISIS you expect Obama to fix was caused >> by G Dubya don't you? No, I do not......and I can't wait for the Zero take on it. >> |
|
New Sat 13 Dec 14 20:42
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
Your outlook is your outlook and you're free to have it. But genuinely I find it deeply concerning that you were a policeman, and since I think you enjoyed it and felt comfortable, that therefore many other police-people potentially feel as you do. Meet violence with violence? potential violence should be pre-empted with violence? Hit people to stop them being violent? I find it disturbing. |
|
New Sat 13 Dec 14 20:58
The C.I.A. and torture. - Fullchat
|
| Worry not. Whilst a Friday and Saturday night on the streets of the UK can sometimes be described as a 'battlefield' it is leagues apart for what we are debating here which is terrorism and world conflict where death and genocide on a large scale can be the outcome. |
|
New Sat 13 Dec 14 21:02
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
| Dear God, I hope so FC, but surely one's attitude continues throughout various levels? Mine does. |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 11:43
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> But genuinely I find it deeply concerning that you were a policeman, and since I >> think you enjoyed it and felt comfortable, that therefore many other police-people potentially feel as >> you do. >> >> Meet violence with violence? potential violence should be pre-empted with violence? Hit people to stop >> them being violent? >> >> I find it disturbing. I really cannot work out why. I am as a person very much a talker rather than a fighter and firmly believe that negotiation is the proper way forward in most circumstances..... .... however, in the circumstances we are talking about here, you have to have something up your sleeve AND be prepared to use it if you meet people who are ultimately only ever going to respect force. So be it the friday night thug versus the local Old BIll... or ... a rogue State versus a powerful democracy and anything in between....you have to have the 'kick ass' option AND be prepared to use it. If you are not prepared to use it, the ultimate thug will take advantage. That's the way it is. You are making the mistake of assuming people like me would use the force option right from the word go or would relish the idea. That is not correct. People like me would consider all the options and use the one correct for the circumstance...and rein in those that would like 'action' right from the start, as well as pushing forward the hand wringers and permanently indecisive. Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 14 Dec 14 at 11:45
|
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 17:49
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>>people who are ultimately only ever going to respect force. They already believed that "force" should be respected as the only important power and the only way to ultimately win. You're just reinforcing that belief for them. And ultimately you will both be proven wrong. as every dictatorship, empire or occupier ultimately realised. All that force you're so keen on NEVER works. Never has, never will. Your simplistic attitude fails in that one respect - it does not work. |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 18:09
The C.I.A. and torture. - sooty123
|
|
>> >> All that force you're so keen on NEVER works. Never has, never will. >> Do you mean force 'never' works in all aspects, including say state on state conflict or in the context of torture? Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 14 Dec 14 at 18:09
|
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 18:25
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>Do you mean force 'never' works in all aspects, including say state on state or in the context of torture? I think I mean that the *use* of force never works. But where does success come from force? As a deterrent it works until the day it is used, and then it becomes entirely counter productive. I guess there must be some times when total annihilation will stop the problem, but even then it'll rise up again in the future. one has to differentiate between the acts of individuals and the acts of groups. a simplistic example; A bully thinks about bullying me; - Decides I am too big and beats up on someone else. My problem was avoided, society's was not. - Decides I am weak and so bullies me. I turn around and beat him senseless. What next? 1) He experiences a change of state, realizes bullying is wrong and never does it again. 2) He realizes bullying me doesn't go well. So he; a) restricts himself to bullying others b) brings friends the next time he wishes to bully me 1) will never happen. 2) will happen as either a) or b). I may have resolved my own issue, or perhaps not, but I will *NOT* have resolved society's issue. Its pretty much the same with gangs, states, countries and dictators et al. If you want the enjoyment of beating up on the individual, then crack on. But not only will you solve nothing, you'll probably make society's problem worse. With the Falklands, a well respected "conflict in the UK, the commonly held belief is that the war was unnecessary on both parts. As an aside, read this; its wrong in several ways, but does communicate the idea that pretty much every act of violence results in another. richmcsheehy.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/911-why-did-al-qaeda-attack-the-united-states/ |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 18:39
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> If you want the enjoyment of beating up on the individual, then crack on. But >> not only will you solve nothing, you'll probably make society's problem worse. What a strange way of looking at life. I don't get any pleasure at 'beating upon the individual' actually, in fact I find it sickening.... but .. I found myself employed in a role where I was expected to look after other people, many of them vulnerable.. and.. took that role seriously. I soon found out that the bully was in fact few and far between and that most people are quite pleasant.. and.. contrary to your thoughts, force does work. Not all the time, I'll agree, but it does work. I happen to think that the strong in life (and that includes those like the army/police etc.. or even a country like the US) should look after those that cannot look after themselves... and that there are those out there that have warped minds, but they do respect strength even if they don't like it, call it a 'reluctant respect'. I'd agree that this doesn't always work, but, what is the alternative, let the bully have a free rein? ...... Er, no thank you. |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 19:06
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
|
>>I don't get any pleasure at 'beating upon the individual' actually, in fact I find it sickening Hmm, unless you were employing hyperbole I seem to recall you'd be pushing to the front of the line to open the trapdoor when hanging comes back. Police keep order and investigate crime - as soon as they become prosecutor and punisher they risk becoming corrupted. Plenty of examples of miscarriages of justice out there, and almost entirely because the police got too big for their job description. |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 21:14
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> Hmm, unless you were employing hyperbole I seem to recall you'd be pushing to the >> front of the line to open the trapdoor when hanging comes back. Sorry to disappoint, no hyperbole. There's nothing incongruous in my statements, you just don't understand the viewpoint. Mostly compassion and respect, with a tinge of frustration at the seemingly unwillingness of some to do or sanction what is sometimes necessary, with the realisation that unless you do, some very unpleasant people walk all over the rest of us and in particular usually the vulnerable in our midst. Think of it as a separating of the act. Unnecessary violence is sickening. Necessary violence is still pretty unpleasant and I wouldn't wish to view it at its extremes, however I think it is sometimes necessary... e.g death penalty or having a war to prevent Hitler or a cop shooting a bad guy in the correct circumstance. >> Police keep order and investigate crime - as soon as they become prosecutor and punisher >> they risk becoming corrupted. >> >> Plenty of examples of miscarriages of justice out there, and almost entirely because the police >> got too big for their job description. Wouldn't argue with any of that. |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 18:46
The C.I.A. and torture. - sooty123
|
|
>> >Do you mean force 'never' works in all aspects, including say state on state or >> in the context of torture? >> >> I think I mean that the *use* of force never works. But where does success >> come from force? I'm thinking wars like WW2, in that the objectives were achieved wholey by means of force. Of course whether it was worth the cost (of various types) but that is another matter. But I think it can work in that force of arms can achieve the objectives. Indeed it can even make people change. In Germany and Japan societies post WW2 became anti-militaristic, not all people of course but enough to change enough people's minds. Of course some people will be born after the event and that muddles things further. Although I could be getting the wrong end of the stick, as you say it's different whether we are talking of one person or a country. |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 19:00
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
SQ >> 1) will never happen. >> 2) will happen as either a) or b). >> >> I may have resolved my own issue, or perhaps not, but I will *NOT* have >> resolved society's issue. You might do if you subscribe to an 'anti-bullying patrol' you could call it 'The Police' or in some instances 'The Armed Forces'. Then when the bully goes for a weaker person than you, you can look after them as well. We'd both agree the bully will never change his ways..but...if the consequences of the bully's actions are to have his hide kicked by your anti-bully patrol, even the thickest bully would realise there are consequences to his/her actions. The alternative is to shrug your shoulders and leave the weak to fend for themselves, which apart from being unpalatable I find immoral. Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 15 Dec 14 at 00:55
|
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 17:50
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>> I find it disturbing. >I really cannot work out why. I am sure that in real life you're a dead nice chap. You just hold beliefs that I'd really prefer were not held by police officers. |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 18:25
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> You just hold beliefs that I'd really prefer were not held by police officers. Give over FMR. One of the functions of a police officer is to keep order among the population, by force if necessary. So not believing that force can work isn't within a police officer's remit (if that's the word). In any case it's perfectly obvious that force often works on all levels, however much the very idea of beastly coarse horrible force may raise bien-pensant hackles. And it's just as well, considering what the population is capable of without even thinking about it when a bit excited. You can argue that force was used inappropriately or unnecessarily in a given case and people often do, often quite rightly. But to claim it's always wrong or never works is just idiotic. Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 14 Dec 14 at 18:28
|
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 18:30
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>But to claim it's always wrong or never works is just idiotic. "Always wrong"? Well, no, I probably wouldn't say that; Depends on your definition of "wrong", I guess. "Never works"? Well, yes, I would certainly say that; Depends on your definition of "works", I guess. |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 18:53
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> I am sure that in real life you're a dead nice chap. You just hold >> beliefs that I'd really prefer were not held by police officers. >> Let me give you an example. Fri/Sat nights were becoming problematic in an area that I used to police (North Finchley). That area is within an affluent Outer London Borough and isn't usually that bad compared to some London areas, but nevertheless was getting worse. Some analysis showed that it was probably 'lads' from the London Borough of Haringey coming over the policing border to our patch, because their Borough was having a clamp down on anti-social behaviour and criminality and had some extra resources to help them. So, what did we do? I briefed my lot that we were going to have a clamp down and have a zero tolerance approach to disorder .. arranged for some (limited) extra resources e.g. a spare van and saved a few custody spaces (when we weren't supposed to) and went up there myself with a few extra numbers...and chose the biggest or the loudest oik and regardless of the abuse or how much they kicked off 'in they came' kicking and struggling. Now one loudmouth nicked in front of his mates and bundled unceremoniously into a police van and carted off to the nick has a message to the rest of them. Within a month, problem solved. Yes, i'd agree he'll still be a loudmouth somewhere else, but the people of North Finchley weren't suffering it and that's where I was paid to police. Your alternative would have ignored it and it would still be happening now. |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 20:40
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
Your alternative would have ignored it No, it would not. That's your problem, you see it as violence or nothing. Your only weapon is force. Like I said, I am sure that you're a perfectly nice chap, its just that as far as I am concerned you have beliefs that I would rather not see in a police officer. Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 14 Dec 14 at 20:40
|
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 21:19
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> No, it would not. That's your problem, you see it as violence or nothing. Your >> only weapon is force. >> >> Like I said, I am sure that you're a perfectly nice chap, its just that >> as far as I am concerned you have beliefs that I would rather not see >> in a police officer. >> Well do enlighten me then. A, How would you have dealt with it if you'd been in charge?...and B, What bit of that example do you find unacceptable in a public servant paid to police that part of London?...and C, What beliefs would you like to see in your police? Should I have offered them tea and biscuits and said 'please'? |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 21:32
The C.I.A. and torture. - Fullchat
|
|
In which case if you had the veto you would be without a Police service. In some circumstances the Police have the right to take a life - reasonable force in the circumstances. Or do they walk away and let them get on with their criminality? By and large the Police have a strong moral outlook on life which it comes with dealing with the weak, vulnerable, devious and criminal. What is abundantly clear is that ultimately to enforce the rights of the weak you need to be in a position of power and escalate if required. Legislation and Common Law gives that power. If not chaos and anarchy would rule. The level of force depends on the circumstances prevailing at the time but must be Justified Authorised Proportionate Authorised and Necessary. Meanwhile back to the subject. How would you suggest that we deal with the words conflicts? |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 13:57
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
As I said, power/force /strength is an effective deterrent. But the moment you use it is becomes counter productive in the big picture. However, clearly you have to have it, especially in order to protect others. Firstly, stopping someone in one area and moving them on to the next area, as per WP's example, achieves nothing insofar as addressing the problem is concerned, it simply moves into to where you can't see it. It has solved nothing. As WP says, it made the problem move for North Finchley, and he wasn't paid to care about the next borough over and as such has done the job he was asked and paid to do. But as WP also said, "he'll still be a loudmouth" so the problem has NOT been resolved by the use of force. Now I don't know how that problem could be solved, but I also don't see how anybody can believe that it could be solved with force. >>Your alternative would have ignored it and it would still be happening now. This is part that I don't feel comfortable with - the belief that there is force or ignoring the situation. There is a range of stuff in between doing nothing and using force. It at least needs considering. Neither am I comfortable with the idea that a problem moved onto the next patch is a problem resolved. I can see how a police force is driven towards both of those results, but I don;t like the belief that this is a good or acceptable thing. >>How would you suggest that we deal with the worlds conflicts? I cannot see any sign that force will effectively deal with terrorism. Most of the terrorism we currently have is resulting from previous uses of force, however long ago. I think the core is understanding. (Not the same as being a wuss and doing nothing). But if you want to stop a group doing something, then first understand why they are doing it. And understand it is much more complex than one motivation for all. also, it is not likely to be their stated cause. And understand that the core thinks it is right. It is fighting for something it believes in. And you would do the same. (although hopefully you would actually be right, rather than just believing that you were). Everybody else is fighting against US foreign policy, revenge for some previous act of violence, invading forces etc. etc. etc. None of which could exist without forceful interference. Think of Northern Ireland as one example; How long was the IRA attacking in the name of a cause that the majority of the people did not actually want? But where that situation was hidden by tit-for-tat outrages. What ultimately stopped the violence? 1) Killing, beating and imprisoning? One side kicking crap out of the other? 2) Movement back from violence and encouragement of a situation where the IRA's fight was not with an armed force, but with the majority of normal people who didn't agree with them? Overly simplistic, of course. But valid nonetheless. How many did Hussein kill each year? (worst estimate I can find, 1m in 20 yrs, 50k per year) How many die each year in Iraq now? (1.5m since 2003, so 150k per year ish) (those figures may well be dodgy, having come from 5 minutes on Google, but the point remains). Which problem did we actually solve? Of course he was disgusting and evil, of course the situation could not have been allowed to continue. But what did the force used actually resolve for the world? (His incursion into Kuwait was about as inevitable as the Argentine's into the Falklands) Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 15 Dec 14 at 13:58
|
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 14:19
The C.I.A. and torture. - Manatee
|
|
>>As I said, power/force /strength is an effective deterrent. But the moment you use it is becomes counter productive in the big picture. Whilst it's pretty obvious that there are circumstances in which force should be the first response, there's a massive logical flaw in the idea that you can have a deterrent and never use it, once the event that you are trying to prevent occurs. |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 14:35
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>> there's a massive logical flaw in the idea that you can have a deterrent and never use it Yes, there is. The same for prison, smacking a child, etc. etc. At some point force may simply be the question of survival and so I guess the capability needs to be possessed.. But as will all threats, the art is in avoiding someone calling on you. I always wonder about parents who say "if you don't come now I'm leaving you here". Perhaps it does shift your child out of the playground 9 times out of 10, but what happens when they say "Go on then"? Simply daft to get into that position in the first place. |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 14:40
The C.I.A. and torture. - Manatee
|
| I meant to say "force should NOT be the first response..." of course |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 19:20
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> As I said, power/force /strength is an effective deterrent. But the moment you use it >> is becomes counter productive in the big picture. I don't follow the logic. The moment you use it, some people know what it feels like and don't want it again. Yes there are some who will carry on regardless, but they are the ones that the initial threat wouldn't have bothered too much either. >> However, clearly you have to have it, especially in order to protect others. ...including the actual application of it..as explained above >> >> Firstly, stopping someone in one area and moving them on to the next area, as >> per WP's example, achieves nothing insofar as addressing the problem is concerned, it simply moves >> into to where you can't see it. It has solved nothing. It has solved something, it has solved the problem in that area. I'd agree it hasn't solved the problem in its entirety, but not many of us have the command or resources to achieve that. >> But as WP also said, "he'll still be a loudmouth" so the problem has NOT >> been resolved by the use of force. It was in North Finchley for that time period. >> >> Now I don't know how that problem could be solved, but I also don't see >> how anybody can believe that it could be solved with force. If the whole of London used that or other tactics, then the whole of London would have been 'solved'...(although that is far easier said than done and overly simplistic). I agree with this: tinyurl.com/lmozxkt >> >> >>Your alternative would have ignored it and it would still be happening now. >> >> This is part that I don't feel comfortable with - the belief that there is >> force or ignoring the situation. There is a range of stuff in between doing nothing >> and using force. It at least needs considering. Fair enough... but what is it? >> >> Neither am I comfortable with the idea that a problem moved onto the next patch >> is a problem resolved. Neither am I , but it's the best I could achieve. >> >> I can see how a police force is driven towards both of those results, but >> I don;t like the belief that this is a good or acceptable thing. Why not..something is better than nothing. >> I cannot see any sign that force will effectively deal with terrorism. Most of the >> terrorism we currently have is resulting from previous uses of force, however long ago. >> >> I think the core is understanding. (Not the same as being a wuss and doing >> nothing). Then what? |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 20:08
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>>The moment you use it, some people know what it feels like and don't want it again. Absolute codswallop. I know you wish it was true, I know life would be easier if it was true, but have you look at re-offending rates? Or is that just because they weren't birched? >>something is better than nothing. Perhaps. But what you achieved was nothing. Which is nothing. And therefore no better than nothing. >>If the whole of London used that or other tactics, then the whole of London would have been 'solved'. No. As in the North Finchley example, nothing was solved. It was moved, but not solved. This is my issue. You think force resolves problems. It does not. But you thinking it does, and working with that in mind, is what I find disturbing in a police officer. Force is not merely a tool in your toolbox, it is your solution. And, as in North Finchley, you believe that moving it to where you can't see it is a "solution". Force can, perhaps, be a management tool. But it is not, has never been, nor will it ever be, a solution or a means of resolving. However, I've said everything useful I have to say. Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 15 Dec 14 at 20:09
|
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 20:13
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
|
>>Perhaps. But what you achieved was nothing. Which is nothing. And therefore no better than nothing Hmmm - do you think that's why crime rates have not risen despite a 25% cut in the Police budget? |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 20:23
The C.I.A. and torture. - No FM2R
|
|
>>do you think that's why crime rates have not risen despite a 25% cut in the Police budget? No. Do you think it was because of the use of force? Be clear, I was talking specifically and only about Westpig's North Finchley example. |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 20:32
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
|
>>Be clear, I was talking specifically and only about Westpig's North Finchley example. And I was extrapolating that much of what the police do is 'move it on' with the end result being little change overall. Which suggests the possibility that crime reduction has less to do with 'policing' (in a reactive sense) and more to do with prevention (?education/?jobs/?benefits/etc) Not bashing the cops, but I reckon they largely tidy up the mess, but stopping the mess in the first place is outside their sphere of influence. The other possibility is that the vast bulk of criminality remains unpunished so any tweaking at the investigation/prosecution end has no real effect on the crime statistics. If the 'Holy Cow' NHS lost 25% of its budget I bet you'd hardly see a blip on the health stats of the nation either (although unemployment would go up a tad!). |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 20:35
The C.I.A. and torture. - Fullchat
|
|
"Hmmm - do you think that's why crime rates have not risen despite a 25% cut in the Police budget?" And you don't think those stats are massaged just like those issued about the NHS? The impacts of the 25% cut have not yet had a direct impact on frontline Policing but keep watching. |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 20:46
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
|
>>The impacts of the 25% cut have not yet had a direct impact on frontline Policing but keep watching Considering we're apparently halfway through austerity I'm more concerned about the next fat chunk to be knocked off. |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 20:29
The C.I.A. and torture. - Manatee
|
|
I don't see how you could improve on WP's solution in North Finchley, in practical terms. He might possibly be moving the problem to where he can't see it, but if there is another WP there doing his job properly then the sociopath will either give up eventually for a quiet life, or end up in prison. That's the system. WP couldn't police the entire country, or justify shadowing the potential troublemaker everywhere he went. I believe such remedies as sending hooligans on holiday to e.g. the Caribbean have been tried, I don't know how successfully. Was that what you have in mind, or would you just let the yobbos get on with it? Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 15 Dec 14 at 20:31
|
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 20:46
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> >>The moment you use it, some people know what it feels like and don't want >> it again. >> >> Absolute codswallop. I know you wish it was true, I know life would be easier >> if it was true, but have you look at re-offending rates? >> I'd love to know why you think it is codswallop...when IMO it is true. Matey boy and his cohorts in N. Finchley moved from Tottenham to Finchley when there was a crack down there....then either behaved or moved elsewhere when we kicked ass in Finchley. If Camden, Islington, Harrow, Wembley and Enfield did the same, then they'd either give up or have to travel further. At what point do they give up, how far would they realistically travel? >> This is my issue. You think force resolves problems. It does not. But you thinking >> it does, and working with that in mind, is what I find disturbing in a >> police officer. What bit of it is disturbing? You keep typing this, but don't explain it. What's the alternative? >> Force is not merely a tool in your toolbox, it is your solution. Who says? You? >> And, as in North Finchley, you believe that moving it to where you can't see >> it is a "solution". >> >> Force can, perhaps, be a management tool. But it is not, has never been, nor >> will it ever be, a solution or a means of resolving. >> However, I've said everything useful I have to say. You are talking in riddles. Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 15 Dec 14 at 20:47
|
|
New Sat 13 Dec 14 21:02
The C.I.A. and torture. - Zero
|
|
> >> >> No wonder you like G Dubya, the same lack of forethought. You do realise >> that >> >> the Syrian thing and the rise of ISIS you expect Obama to fix was >> caused >> >> by G Dubya don't you? >> >> No, I do not......and I can't wait for the Zero take on it. No I know you don't. It wasn't a question it was a statement about your knowledge on world diplomacy and attitude to peace keeping. Last edited by: Zero on Sat 13 Dec 14 at 21:07
|
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 11:49
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> No I know you don't. It wasn't a question it was a statement about your >> knowledge on world diplomacy and attitude to peace keeping. >> See my response at 1143. Time and place and all that. All options open, talk is best etc... but when talk runs out, then what? |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 12:09
The C.I.A. and torture. - Zero
|
|
>> Time and place and all that. All options open, talk is best etc... but when >> talk runs out, then what? Talking runs out? Then what? Well lets take a lesson from your Hero G Dubya. Let us for example invent a crisis with lies and falsehoods, lets then march into and invade country in a sensitive region, with no international mandate or backing to do so. Let us kick that country back into the dark ages, remove any forces of order or law, and over a period of 9 years end up with over 25 thousand dead, over 100,000 injured, more or less leading to the current Sryian crisis with nearly 300,000 people killed. Talking runs out? the talking didn't even start, there was no talking, only one option - just bullying threats and GW Bush wading in to kick ass for no good reason. And you support of such a stupid massive egotistical prick? Fine its up to you. |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 16:16
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> And you support of such a stupid massive egotistical prick? >> >> Fine its up to you. You are doing what you usually do... and taking one part of an arguement and then exaggerating it. I haven't said I supported everything Dubya did..and I don't.. I do however think he was decisive and I supported that element.. and there are others. It would be very unusual if someone was all wrong or indeed all right. |
|
New Sat 13 Dec 14 21:29
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> A strong US President would have prevented Vladimir's incursion in the first place. Actually Wp a strong US president wouldn't have let those right-wing money men pay a whole lot of soi-disant 'Ukrainian nationalists' to overthrow the elected government and threaten the Russian presence down at the other end, on the Bosphorus. Causing the unfortunate Putin to have to defend the Russian presence there, dating via the Soviet presence to God knows way back when, and be shouted at by smug western carphounds for doing his very obvious and predictable duty. Putin's quite right, the West in this instance is stinking pants and the aggressor. So there. Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 13 Dec 14 at 21:30
|
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 01:03
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> the West A clique of mad far-right politicians and their backers, not an important western government or a party even. But there must have been quite high-level collusion, ghastly cigar-chomping Senators from both US parties and some bad city slickers too. Ukraine was a central state of the Soviet Union which stabilised it after the horrors of the Second War. A lot of its old folk look back longingly on that time and can't understand what's happening now. |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 11:51
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> Actually Wp a strong US president wouldn't have let those right-wing money men pay a >> whole lot of soi-disant 'Ukrainian nationalists' to overthrow the elected government and threaten the Russian >> presence down at the other end, on the Bosphorus. Causing the unfortunate Putin to have >> to defend the Russian presence there, dating via the Soviet presence to God knows way >> back when, and be shouted at by smug western carphounds for doing his very obvious >> and predictable duty So we are in agreement then, a strong US President is a good thing. |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 19:14
The C.I.A. and torture. - MD
|
|
>> You don't teach a child to stop bullying by beating them. In fact, you reinforce >> the lesson that big means you can hit. I've never thought of it that way. That makes a lot of sense. >> By and large my opinion of torturing low-life scumbags is about the same as my >> view of hitting children. Mostly it just doesn't work. Again, I do believe you're right Sir. MD |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 19:08
The C.I.A. and torture. - MD
|
| +1 |
|
New Thu 11 Dec 14 20:02
The C.I.A. and torture. - Roger.
|
| Do not think that British forces were above a bit of cold water treatment. |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 13:29
The C.I.A. and torture. - Manatee
|
|
>> In my opinion, and opinions will differ, torture is not justified. By using such techniques >> we merely lower ourselves to the level of those who would terrorise us. We become >> just as bad as them. Perhaps not quite as low, if you hold the view that the aggressors are to blame and your actions are a consequence of theirs (i.e. you think you are in the right - but assume that they think that they are, too). Is it about ethics, or consequences? If it is about ethics, is it the ethics of your direct actions or the ethics of risking the consequences of them? If you are with your family, and an attacker sets upon your wife/children, do you - use all force at your disposal to stop him, if necessary lethal? - implore him to stop because you don't want to lower yourself to his level? If you kill him to protect your family, is that morally /ethically worse than allowing him to kill them? You have made a choice that resulted in their deaths, how can that be better? Most people would agree that violence or torture as a punishment, revenge, deterrent etc. is wrong. When you have good reason to believe that the prisoner is withholding information that could enable you to prevent another disaster on the scale of 9/11, the utilitarian approach would be to consider coercion by whatever means will work. A utilitarian will also consider whether the use of torture will do more harm than good (e.g. by extending the conflict or provoking greater atrocities), but that is not a moral consideration, just a practical one. If there was a nuclear device in London that would destroy the entire city, set to explode in three hours, and you have in custody a person who knows but won't tell you where it is and how to disarm it, what are you going to do? It's not surprising that politicians employ secret services to get on with this dirty stuff without enquiring too deeply. I read yesterday that emails have been unearthed discussing whether Co-lin Powell should be briefed on "enhanced interrogation techniques" as he would in all likelihood "blow his stack". |
|
New Fri 12 Dec 14 13:45
The C.I.A. and torture. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> It's not surprising that politicians employ secret services to get on with this dirty stuff without enquiring too deeply. It's not surprising at all. It's been bog standard state practice since the dawn of history. Finicky moralists crop up all the time in politics, but they tend to be rare among hands-on state officials. Perhaps just one or two in the Legal Department... |
|
New Sat 13 Dec 14 13:37
The C.I.A. and torture. - Manatee
|
|
There is the other minor point that torture is illegal under the UN Convention Against Torture - Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, interal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. - which presumably the USA and UK subscribe to. Perhaps the let-out here is "territory under its jurisdiction". The Geneva Conventions seem more complex and qualified, and indeed the George W Bush administration seems to have taken advantage of that: GCIII covers the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) in an international armed conflict. In particular, Article 17 says that "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." POW status under GCIII has far fewer exemptions than "Protected Person" status under GCIV. Captured combatants in an international armed conflict automatically have the protection of GCIII and are POWs under GCIII unless they are determined by a competent tribunal to not be a POW (GCIII Article 5). GCIV covers most civilians in an international armed conflict, and says they are usually "Protected Persons" (see exemptions section immediately after this for those who are not). Under Article 32, protected persons have the right to protection from "murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments...but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by non-combatant or military agents". Geneva Convention IV exemptions GCIV provides an important exemption: Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention [ie GCIV] as would ... be prejudicial to the security of such State ... In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity (GCIV Article 5) Also, nationals of a State not bound by the Convention are not protected by it, and nationals of a neutral State in the territory of a combatant State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, cannot claim the protection of GCIV if their home state has normal diplomatic representation in the State that holds them (Article 4), as their diplomatic representatives can take steps to protect them. The requirement to treat persons with "humanity" implies that it is still prohibited to torture individuals not protected by the Convention. The George W. Bush administration afforded fewer protections, under GCIII, to detainees in the "War on Terror" by codifying the legal status of an "unlawful combatant". If there is a question of whether a person is a lawful combatant, he (or she) must be treated as a POW "until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal" (GCIII Article 5). If the tribunal decides that he is an unlawful combatant, he is not considered a protected person under GCIII. However, if he is a protected person under GCIV he still has some protection under GCIV, and must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention" (GCIV Article 5) |
|
New Sun 14 Dec 14 18:53
The C.I.A. and torture. - Dutchie
|
|
Could this end up in the international court in the Hague or have they got no jurisdiction over these matters? Most of us are not naive to know that torture is and has always will be going on in warlike situations.But special camps have been set up by American and others involved to torture people. |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 14:10
The C.I.A. and torture. - madf
|
|
The Americans refuse to recognise the International Court and is not a participant in it. For an example see "Washington has refused to allow the UN International Court of Justice (IJC) to hear Argentina’s claims that US court decisions on the country’s debt have violated Argentina's sovereignty. “We do not view the ICJ as an appropriate venue for addressing Argentina’s debt issues, and we continue to urge Argentina to engage with its creditors to resolve remaining issues with bondholders,†the US State Department told Reuters in an email. " rt.com/news/179228-argentina-us-un-debt/ "The International Criminal Court in The Hague has been a controversial addition to the global justice system since it began operating in 2002. The court has been ratified by 121 countries - but not by the US." www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11809908 |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 17:02
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
|
To try to drift back to the OP, maybe WP and FC can advise us of times that police brutality/torture has actually garnered useful and solid evidence. Not that scumbags would incriminate their own grannies, or the innocent incriminate themselves ever... |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 17:26
The C.I.A. and torture. - Fullchat
|
|
Well, not having actually witnessed or been involved in 'brutality or torture' I couldn't tell you. I have however been involved in robust and physical Policing as and when the situation necessitated that level of force and a cup of tea and a biscuit clearly were not going to cut it. That also includes on occasions removing individuals from A&E who were making the lives of staff and other patients intolerable.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Mon 15 Dec 14 at 17:26
|
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 19:01
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> To try to drift back to the OP, maybe WP and FC can advise us >> of times that police brutality/torture has actually garnered useful and solid evidence. I can't work out why you've asked me that? The answer, of course, is never. >> >> Not that scumbags would incriminate their own grannies, or the innocent incriminate themselves ever... Quite agree. What is your point? |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 19:11
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
|
The point is, how effective is torture in getting the right information? It's not. You'll know that the correct amount of pressure to apply in an interrogation is just enough. How many of the witnesses/perps that the Police interrogate using their harshest legitimate techniques will suffer chronic physical and psychological damage as a result? None other than the guys who get stitched up (but that's more to do with their unjustified jail/fines/family&livelihood wreckage - or execution going back 50yrs) There's a huge difference between a tough interrogation and torture, both in value and damage caused. And morally/legally too but that seems to float over a lot of heads. Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 15 Dec 14 at 19:13
|
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 19:28
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
>> The point is, how effective is torture in getting the right information? >> >> It's not. I disagree. Torture could garner information, but it wouldn't be valuable as evidence. I don't advocate torture and fully agree with the general view that it should be banned.. except in the odd exceptional case. So if you had a kidnap victim buried somewhere and you've arrested the suspect who refuses to tell you where she is and she'll die in 'x' hours... then IMO a form of torture in those circs to recover the victim alive would be acceptable. |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 19:31
The C.I.A. and torture. - Westpig
|
|
...and to nail my colours to the mast. If the CIA have used water boarding or whatever similar to get information out of terrorist suspects.. and that information has or could save lives...then I have no problem with it. It's a necessary evil. |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 19:35
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
| And if it has inadvertently led to the radicalising of hundreds of thousands of muslims, including many here in the UK, thus leading to an escalation of the problem... you ok with that too? |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 19:38
The C.I.A. and torture. - MD
|
| Prove it. |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 19:49
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
|
>>Prove it Prove the actions of the US has made the world safer in the past decade |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 19:36
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
|
>>So if you had a kidnap victim buried somewhere and you've arrested the suspect who refuses to tell you where she is and she'll die in 'x' hours... then IMO a form of torture in those circs to recover the victim alive would be acceptable Don't be an anus - that's a movie - Dirty Harry - if I was Scorpio I'd have told Callahan any number of false places where I'd buried the kid. |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 20:36
The C.I.A. and torture. - Zero
|
|
>> Don't be an anus - that's a movie - Dirty Harry - if I was >> Scorpio I'd have told Callahan any number of false places where I'd buried the kid. Kid was dead anyway, and Scorpio got let off because of the torture. |
|
New Mon 15 Dec 14 20:43
The C.I.A. and torture. - Lygonos
|
|
Is probably the coolest movie scene from 1971 though, with the camera panning back out of the stadium as Harry employs 'enhanced interrogation techniques' www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GvNc24yQZA |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
