Jon Stewart debates torture with Cliff May [Archive]

Elam

April 30th, 2009, 11:20 PM

Blahm

May 1st, 2009, 12:21 AM

yes I find it sad that poeple in my generation are forced to run to a tool like John Stewart for their news/politics.

s.ketch

May 1st, 2009, 12:38 AM

I disagree with all of you, it makes me feel intelligent for doing so.

Grief

May 1st, 2009, 12:58 AM

660196

Straight Edge Ryan

May 1st, 2009, 01:40 AM

I thought they were both fairly polite and had a healthy humor about the whole thing. They got close to getting a little heated at times but they always kept it respectful, which is good. Especially when you compare it to some Bill O'Reilly debates which seem to be nothing more than O'Reilly putting his fingers in his ears and saying "you're wrong! you're wrong! you're wrong! I'm right! lalalala I can't heeeear you"

Anyway they both made valid arguments but I'm leaning more with John on this one

James Kei

May 1st, 2009, 01:18 PM

What's clear in this conversation is that Cliff May has actually read the torture memos and John Stewart has not. At least Stewart does not rebut this assertion at the beginning.

It's interesting that Stewart's bottom line is that we shouldn't 'torture' because A). We signed the Geneva Convention and B). We're the US and we don't 'torture' because we're better than that. May goes on to quote the actual wording of the Geneva convention, which essentially says the US cannot inflict 'discomfort'. Stewart waffles and logical mayhem ensues. It seemed to me that Stewart was clearly outmatched in this debate and hasn't thought this out all the way through. He's thinking with emotion, not logic.

Speaking of which, has anyone ever watched the Buckley-Chomskey (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI) debates? It's so serene and polite. Modern news has devolved to a point where the Daily Show is now considered a valid forum for debate, even if it resembles the Collesium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum).

So you believe that torturing people is "logic"? Cliff May's responses have me think that his position is based more on vengeance than on logic. He is using the Torture Memo's as some way of justifying revenge on an unarmed prisoner.
Regardless if Jon Stewart read the Geneva conventions or not, his position would remain the same. Which is that we shouldn't be torturing people in captivity, period. And I agree with him. And yes, I would classify waterboarding as "discomfort", as noted by the GC. (I know this is an oxymoron, but there is still a code of honor in war.)

edit: I would rather that the youth plug into the satire of Stewart's show, than the the direct manipulation offered by the likes of Fox snooze and Rush Lim-bag.

Arshes Nei

May 1st, 2009, 01:45 PM

...some of the "torture" was like stuff I hear about going on in people's bedrooms :x

I'm kinda mixed on this really. I know about taking the higher ground and stuff, but at the same time the other side doesn't care. That doesn't mean entirely stooping to the opposition's level but...compared to what's happened on the other side of things this is rather mild.

Meloncov

May 1st, 2009, 03:19 PM

...some of the "torture" was like stuff I hear about going on in people's bedrooms :x

You do realize that that argument can justify rape, right?

Arshes Nei

May 1st, 2009, 03:20 PM

You do realize that that argument can justify rape, right?

Uhh...no it does not.

James Kei

May 1st, 2009, 04:15 PM

Arshes, I see where you're coming from. All I'm saying is that the "eye for an eye" mentality has never been a benefit to any society.

Arshes Nei

May 1st, 2009, 05:34 PM

Yeah I just think it's a philosophical disagreement because I'm certainly not the "eye for an eye" type but, some things are done are just distasteful.

By most people's nature, we don't like seeing others in physical pain regardless of the circumstances because we understand pain.

It's perfectly understandable that people don't want to see it done at all.

I'm saying unfortunately there are mindsets where this won't change, blame it on religion, culture or whatever. I'm just saying you realize the other side doesn't care. The fact we show that we do care about how people are treated, is and advantage for them to twist against us.

Like I said I really don't go for the eye for eye mindset because that's why you see really stupid religious battles for hundreds of years because one side or both sides didn't learn to let go.

That's why I said I have mixed feelings about the whole matter and I honestly can't see this as a black and white issue.

Meloncov

May 1st, 2009, 05:45 PM

Uhh...no it does not.

I was saying that to point out the fallacy of your statement, not to defend rape.

In other words, the fact that people due something consensually does not mean it is in any way ethical to do to prisoners.

Straight Edge Ryan

May 1st, 2009, 06:31 PM

moral issues like this are never black and white. It's in my personal opinion that we shouldn't resort to torture, a lot of these middle eastern extremists are raised with the idea that we're heartless and cruel and if we want to prove that to be wrong then we have to be willing to take the higher road. It takes a lot of strength to show hospitality and kindness to an enemy that clearly has no interest in showing any toward you, and while I don't doubt that we have used torture to get valuable information from captured insurgents, I'm sure there has been a lot that was motivated by personal hatred and resent. Historically, a lot of innocent people have suffered when soldiers developed personal grudges against an enemy, just look at the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, U.S. soldiers slaughtered 400+ civilians after spending months in the jungles losing their friends to enemy vietnamese attacks, ambushes, snipers and booby traps

I'm not trying to demonize the troops or put Al Qaeda on a pedestal, hell I know Al Qaeda would kill me in a heart beat, and though I'm sure I sound like a hippy by saying this, a lot of the jihad and extremist movements in the middle east (and everywhere really) are motivated by ignorance and hate, regardless of what causes people use to justify this be it political, social, religious or philosophical, hate and fear remains the root of the problem. Fighting fire with fire only makes a bigger fire, if we want a real long term solution we have to start trying to fight fire with water. Hatred never ceases through hatred, only by love

Arshes Nei

May 1st, 2009, 06:35 PM

I was saying that to point out the fallacy of your statement, not to defend rape.

In other words, the fact that people due something consensually does not mean it is in any way ethical to do to prisoners.

I know what you were trying to do, but what you did was pull this:

http://galatiansc4v16.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/strawman2.jpeg

Which ironically is a logical fallacy.

So no, fail.

Elam

May 1st, 2009, 08:27 PM

So you believe that torturing people is "logic"? Cliff May's responses have me think that his position is based more on vengeance than on logic. He is using the Torture Memo's as some way of justifying revenge on an unarmed prisoner.
Regardless if Jon Stewart read the Geneva conventions or not, his position would remain the same. Which is that we shouldn't be torturing people in captivity, period. And I agree with him. And yes, I would classify waterboarding as "discomfort", as noted by the GC. (I know this is an oxymoron, but there is still a code of honor in war.)

edit: I would rather that the youth plug into the satire of Stewart's show, than the the direct manipulation offered by the likes of Fox snooze and Rush Lim-bag.

Hi James,

As I heard Mr May, and as I've read him on this subject in the past, this is not at all about revenge. It's about preventing disasters and saving lives. The whole point of interrogation is to gather information, not payback. That's what the memos make clear. If you don't know this, you haven't been paying attention.

The absurdity of Stewart's position is that he can't define torture, except by referencing the Geneva Convention , which itself claims that no prisoners of war can be 'discomforted'. I won't rehash the logical falicies that May brings to bear, but Stewart doesn't really have an answer to the conclusions that result from applying the GC to Al-Quaeda.

But, in an interesting exchange, May gets Stewart to call Harry Truman a war criminal for bombing Japan, which saved millions of lives, both Japanese and American. Stewart to his credit, apologized today. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225918&title=harry-truman-was-not-a-war)

Elam

May 1st, 2009, 08:39 PM

h I'm sure I sound like a hippy by saying this, a lot of the jihad and extremist movements in the middle east (and everywhere really) are motivated by ignorance and hate.
Hate? Yes. Ignorance? Not so much.

I don't know how your defining ignorance, but I get the impression your visualizing some goat herder with no job, no education and no teeth. But Al Qaeda has many educated members. So does Hamas and Hezbollah. How did Germany, arguably the pinnacle of an advanced, cultured Western society put human beings into ovens?

Ignorance has it's place, but I'd say that ideology trumps all. You can turn a guy with a phd into a murderer. It's human nature.

Bill

May 1st, 2009, 08:50 PM

May and Stewart agree that discomforting prisoners is fair game, but have differing opinions on just how much we ought to able to "discomfort" a prisoner for the sake of obtaining information. That's an opinion oriented conversation, there is no right or wrong.

May's opinion is understandable, I think. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Al Qaeda because they never signed it. Waterboarding highly important members of that organization when it is known that life saving information can be gained... this doesn't sound unreasonable, especially when the degree of waterboarding is safer and to a much lesser degree than what has been considered criminal in the past.

Stewart feels that to Waterboard at all makes us hypocrites and that that comes with a price outweighing any gained information. He never suggests that we should abstain from ever "discomforting" a prisoner but that we ought to seek alterior methods of gaining information. This also sounds reasonable.

Two men voiced differing opinions, gave the rationales behind their opinions, shook hands and went on their way.

This is how it ought to work.

Meloncov

May 1st, 2009, 10:23 PM

I know what you were trying to do, but what you did was pull this:

Which ironically is a logical fallacy.

So no, fail.

I don't see how it is a strawman. You claimed, or at least implied, that because people, under certain circumstances, did something consensually it was not torture. I provided an example where that thesis broke down. How is that not addressing the argument?

Now if I had exaggerated your claim, that would be a strawman; say, if I were to claim that, because you've probably heard of someone murdering someone in your bedroom, you were condoning murder. However, I was taking an example from what was clearly part of your defined set ("stuff I hear about going on in people's bedrooms").

Elam

May 1st, 2009, 10:32 PM

He never suggests that we should abstain from ever "discomforting" a prisoner but that we ought to seek alterior methods of gaining information

Bill, you wrong. Did we watch the same video?

Stewart said as plain as day that since we signed the GC, we should stick to it, regardless of who our enemy is. He went so far as to say that if a lot of American's die because we didn't waterboard some AQ member, then, well, that's the price we pay for living in a democracy

The whole point of May's line of questioning is that any 'alterior methods' we use can potentially violate the GC. Playing Eminiem too loudly can violate the GC, for instance. It's such an absurd exercise, that he easily led Stewart into blurting out something stupid.

Reality, at some point, kicks in.

Arshes Nei

May 1st, 2009, 10:48 PM

I don't see how it is a strawman. You claimed, or at least implied, that because people, under certain circumstances, did something consensually it was not torture. I provided an example where that thesis broke down. How is that not addressing the argument?

I did not. That's exactly why it was a strawman argument. You exaggerated a claim I did not make. You jumped and drew the wrong conclusion from a statement and tried to make it an argument.

Again, you fail.

Bill

May 1st, 2009, 10:49 PM

Bill, you wrong. Did we watch the same video?

Stewart said as plain as day that since we signed the GC, we should stick to it, regardless of who our enemy is.

Stewart seemed to be fine with the idea of imprisoning terrorists while acknowledging that imprisonment would be "discomforting". Therefore his attitudes allow for a degree of discomfort... which is what I said.

If the GC allows for imprisonment but not discomfort then the document would seem to contain a minor contradiction.

Instead of telling me that I'm wrong, could you please just ask what I meant?

Elam

May 1st, 2009, 10:56 PM

Instead of telling me that I'm wrong, could you please just ask what I meant?

I quoted you. It seemed pretty concrete to me.

My point is, Stewart can't have it both ways. He can't say 'adhere to the GC no matter what' and then say, 'well, it can be bent a bit.'

He contradicted himself over that whole debate, is my point.

TASmith

May 1st, 2009, 11:08 PM

"In other words, the fact that people due something consensually does not mean it is in any way ethical to do to prisoners."

No she didn't imply this at all. She was merely saying, some of the torture methods sounded like S&M. For example, a "heathen, unclean" woman would strip and sit on the detainees and provoke them in all sorts of ways, as a way to try to get them to talk. It's disturbing on many levels. Imagine being a US Servicewoman, going through years of training, living in an environment where you have to follow orders, and then your superiors basically turn you into a , to torture Muslims.

The result is very close to rape, but there's no implication in any post in this thread condoning it. Re-read for comprehension.

As to the two stances on torture, I'd say there is no credible evidence gained from torture, and many of the news articles I've been reading on this lately have confirmed my view - recent memo's coming from the White House, etc.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103475220
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103570033
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103627997
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103394097
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103582533

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1209530,00.html

EDIT: as to the role of ignorance in all this, Ryan is quite right in pointing out its significance. Sure, many of the organizers of Al Queda went to fancy universities in the west, but the ones who actually kill themselves in suicide squads all come from poor areas of the globe with no access to education apart from Madrassas.

Meloncov

May 1st, 2009, 11:31 PM

I did not. That's exactly why it was a strawman argument. You exaggerated a claim I did not make. You jumped and drew the wrong conclusion from a statement and tried to make it an argument.

Again, you fail.

You compared torture to consensual sexual activity, and in the same post described current tactics as acceptable. Assuming one point was intended to support the other was not unreasonable, but may have been incorrect.

If the first statement was not intended as support for the second, than I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Straight Edge Ryan

May 1st, 2009, 11:50 PM

Hate? Yes. Ignorance? Not so much.

I don't know how your defining ignorance, but I get the impression your visualizing some goat herder with no job, no education and no teeth. But Al Qaeda has many educated members. So does Hamas and Hezbollah. How did Germany, arguably the pinnacle of an advanced, cultured Western society put human beings into ovens?

Ignorance has it's place, but I'd say that ideology trumps all. You can turn a guy with a phd into a murderer. It's human nature.

When I say ignorant I mean anyone who forms a strong opinion on someone or something without really knowing anything about it. I didn't mean to imply that Al Qeada is some collection of idiots with guns (though I know some people who would argue otherwise) but they're extremists, and as such immediately disagree with those who don't see things their way. Hate is a byproduct of fear and fear comes from ignorance, so really when I say hate and ignorance I'm kind of talking about the same thing. People fear what they don't understand, and while many approach things they don't understand by distancing themselves from it, others respond with anger.

And you're right ideologies can be dangerous, but an ideology is just an idea, and more often than not, ideas are influenced by emotions such as fear that come from states of being such as ignorance. And it is true that a man with a phd can become a murderer but not just with an ideology, there has to be a motivator there as well. Nazi Germany advanced as far as it did only because of fear, first it was the fear of what minorities were doing to Germany's infrastructure, then once the nazi regime was established, it became the fear of being beaten or executed for speaking out against the atrocities. The nazi ideology wouldn't have gotten as far as it had, and arguably it probably wouldn't even have existed if fear and hate wasn't there to create the ideology in the first place

But again that's just in my humble opinion

TASmith

May 2nd, 2009, 12:29 AM

another article detailing gitmo treatment: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1071284,00.html

Arshes Nei

May 2nd, 2009, 12:46 AM

You compared torture to consensual sexual activity, and in the same post described current tactics as acceptable. Assuming one point was intended to support the other was not unreasonable, but may have been incorrect.

I think you need to level up on reading skills, period.

1. You're all twisted up in your conclusions you decide to make assumptions.
2. Even if I observed some of the acts of torture akin to sexual activity, (consenting or otherwise) you still made a strawman argument.
3. It's "do" not "due" which drove me nuts in your first reply to me.

Grief

May 2nd, 2009, 12:52 AM

garfield the cat is totally ignorant to the obesity crisis in america and i'm sure he has not read the articles i have.

aylap

May 2nd, 2009, 01:33 AM

Did you see his interview with Jim Cramer from 'Mad Money'? Talk about awkward to watch. I couldn't help but to imagine that the whole time Cramer was squirming, he couldn't stop thinking of crossfire's cancellation after Stewart's appearance.

"I swear to God I'll pistol whip the next guy that says 'shenanigans'."

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n43/aylap1990/Shenanigans.png

Kaffinated

May 2nd, 2009, 05:40 PM

I'd take water boarding over getting tea bagged by Larry King.

ChristianWeeks

May 2nd, 2009, 06:55 PM

Bill, you wrong.

Reality, at some point, kicks in.

I'm least likely to believe anything you say because you seem to believe that you are right and that everybody else is living in fantasy land. People are more open to your opinion when you are more open to theirs.

Instead of telling me that I'm wrong, could you please just ask what I meant?

But again that's just in my humble opinion

I am more likely to believe both of you because you are polite and attempt to understand both sides of the argument and understand that just because somebody has an opposite opinion from you doesnt mean they are irrational or ignorant.

TASmith

May 3rd, 2009, 12:45 AM

I just watched the interview on www.thedailyshow.com Just click on videos and scroll down to the first unedited clip.

It was a cordial debate. Cliff even said it was the best and most honest one he'd had on television. I don't even think John needed to apologize for the Truman question, because he elaborated on it enough right after to explain himself.

All in all, the crux of Cliff's position was that strong discomfort should be used to save lives, and that terrorists should face more discomfort than POW's and US prisoners. John's retort was simply that this was unAmerican. My retort is that it doesn't work. The only result of torture is to drive someone out of their mind. I didn't read the memos because I don't know where to get access to them, but I've read the report about them from Time, and these terrorists were talking to themselves, they were so far gone. Now, in that situation, even when a person thinks he's telling you the truth, how can you believe him, and use that information to save lives?

Instead, all we're seeing is the US trying to use that information in criminal cases to charge one inmate based on another inmate's testimony - and none of this testimony is holding up in court, because of the torture. What's even more damaging to Cliff's argument is the patient approach the US used in wearing down these hostages/detainees over long periods of time. If you really want to save lives from another attack, then time is a factor, and you'd expect to see much harsher treatment dished out to all the detainees - not the steady routine of - turn up the heat - turn up the cold - sleep deprivation - blasting Christina Aguilera - on and on for years.

It serves no purpose, and takes away any moral superiority we'd like to have when facing terrorists.

Sidharth Chaturvedi

May 3rd, 2009, 03:15 AM

^-- What he said. If your confession comes from a guy who will say anything to make the pain stop, it's probably not worth very much.

There's a pretty good book about interrogation without torture that I read recently, imaginatively titled "How to Break a Terrorist". Author's name is Matthew Alexander (pseudonym), definitely worth checking it. It's a quick read about how they tracked down Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Without waterboarding :).

drd

May 6th, 2009, 09:20 PM

I know hypotheticals are useless, but answer me this, because I need to know:

Am I vengeful and sadistic if, in a situation where the choices were either torture one terrorist or allow mass death of innocents, I choose to torture the terrorist?

I keep getting told on another forum by a guy that is adamant in his view that I am a self-righteous dick who loves driving thumbscrews into old grannies and peeling back the fingernails of innocent people that I'm a sadistic fuck with putrid morals.

But, in that hypothetical situation, you have to make a choice. And I try to explain to him that I would only allow torture in that hypothetical scenario, in which we would know for certain that he has information, that we know for certain that if we don't get this info, hundreds of people could die, and we would know for certain that nothing else we could try would work.

Those are the parameters in which I would allow torture. He then replies "that wouldn't fucking happen DR TORTURE you sadistic fuck"

And I already know the chances of that happening are probably extremely low. Does this make me a sadistic person?

Jovian M

May 6th, 2009, 09:50 PM

Jon lost, s'far as I'm concerned. Kind of unfair for May, though; the audience was filled with Jon Stewart fans, not Cliff May fans.

Elam

May 6th, 2009, 10:03 PM

@ TASmith & Sidarth

Your begging the question. It's not whether 'torture' works. It the dubious definition of torture. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDQyMWQyMjE4NDZlMDFmNzA0N2YwMTRlOTY5OGZjMmY=) Interrogation works. Different people, different methods.

I didn't read the memos because I don't know where to get access to them,
A ONE SECOND GOOGLE SEARCH. (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html)

It serves no purpose, and takes away any moral superiority we'd like to have when facing terrorists.
rofl. 'Abu Hamza, I fear the moral superiority of the infidels.'

Moral superiority is only useful to people who, ya know, have morals. (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090426/twl-children-blown-up-by-bomb-in-a-footb-3fd0ae9.html)

TASmith

May 6th, 2009, 11:49 PM

"Am I vengeful and sadistic if, in a situation where the choices were either torture one terrorist or allow mass death of innocents, I choose to torture the terrorist?"

I would say you're not, just misinformed. The choice you're presenting doesn't exist. Torture doesn't extract information, it only drives people insane. It doesn't work, and I don't need to have torture defined to me by the likes of George Bush or Condaleeza Rice, who twist its definition to suit their purposes. Just because you go along with it, Elam, it doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong. I do believe there's a degree of soul selling in telling yourself it's not torture.

Moral superiority is a major factor in gathering support from other countries and governments. If you want to combat terrorism, you need your intelligence network to cooperate with those in the Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the Phillipines, Indonesia, and any other place where Islam is a potent force. All of these places care a great deal about whether the US is a leading moral beacon, even if they're not. The world's attention will always focus on the US, throughout this struggle.

Meloncov

May 7th, 2009, 12:19 AM

"Am I vengeful and sadistic if, in a situation where the choices were either torture one terrorist or allow mass death of innocents, I choose to torture the terrorist?"

I would say you're not, just misinformed. The choice you're presenting doesn't exist. Torture doesn't extract information, it only drives people insane. It doesn't work, and I don't need to have torture defined to me by the likes of George Bush or Condaleeza Rice, who twist its definition to suit their purposes. Just because you go along with it, Elam, it doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong. I do believe there's a degree of soul selling in telling yourself it's not torture.

Also, in the unlikely event that such a situation to occur, the legal policy on torture becomes rather irrelevant. The person responsible for the interrogation contacts the white house, explains the situation, and uses the presidents authority to temporarily ignore the law (through promise of a pardon).

Elam

May 7th, 2009, 06:55 AM

The choice you're presenting doesn't exist. Torture doesn't extract information, it only drives people insane.
This is clearly not true. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. By the way, whats torture(for the 100th time)?
If you want to combat terrorism, you need your intelligence network to cooperate with those in the Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the Phillipines, Indonesia, and any other place where Islam is a potent force. All of these places care a great deal about whether the US is a leading moral beacon, even if they're not.

Well, in reality, all of those countries have 'human rights' standards much lower than ours. The interrogation that goes on in those jails is considered torture by many of the bleating mouths that decry Guantanamo today. Morality has little to do with this, outside of Western Europe and America. And even then, it's lip service.

I got a news flash for you: People don't like America, never really have. Teenagers are in the business of being liked, not countries. And morality is defined differently everywhere.

Your missing the larger point, so I give up.

TASmith

May 7th, 2009, 12:27 PM

What is torture? You want to turn this into a debate of degree as opposed to that of philosophy. I find it hard to define, it's a difficult question, and a good one. I think it's easiest to point it out when it occurs - lists are easier.

1. waterboarding is torture, and potentially lethal.
2. extreme temperatures are torture.
3. extremely loud noises are torture.
4. extremely nauseating smells are torture.
5. sleep deprivation beyond 18 hours is torture, as is repeatedly waking someone, every couple hours or so. It's even worse when prolonged.

I wouldn't allow any of these things to occur. As for whether torture ever works, I'll admit I'm not an expert, and you'd have to study the use of it over the last 3,000 years to really know everything about it. But, one thing I do know is it doesn't stand up in any court, nor should it.

"I got a news flash for you: People don't like America, never really have. Teenagers are in the business of being liked, not countries. And morality is defined differently everywhere."

First of all, talking in absolutes is silly. Second, I worry less about what others think of my country than what I think of my country and my own definition of morality, and I don't like having a fool for president who tortures. It's silly to say that our actions don't shape how we're perceived.

s.ketch

May 7th, 2009, 02:47 PM

I got a news flash for you: People don't like America, never really have. Teenagers are in the business of being liked, not countries. And morality is defined differently everywhere.

I got a news flash for you: The world is a crummy place because of people like you who give up on any sort of human decency in exchange for cool cynicism.

It's like that really fat chick in high-school who nobody really likes because she has an attitude of "I don't care what you think about me, I do what I want." The real reason nobody likes her is not because she has tits on her back but because she has a shitty attitude toward everyone else because one person made fun of her freshman year. If you don't give a fuck about your image, no one will.

So yeah. lets kick in doors and cut the heads off of every turban-wearing foreigner because they gave some camels to Osama bin Laden or was cleaning his office and may have seen some sort of evil master plan to steal all the freedom from the poor Americans. We can video tape it too, just like they do. We don't care what other countries think! The crazy rag heads don't view it as torture so why should we? This is a life and death situation in which we just focus on the death part.

There is a price for living in a civilized, free country. It's the price we pay when we send troops in on foot and make them search door to door instead of carpet bombing the place. It's the price we pay when an IUD blows up a truck full of kids fresh out of high school. It's the price we as a free and civilized nation to guarantee that we are not terrorists. People are going to die, it's called war for a reason. It is supposed to be terrible and the price is supposed to be high enough to keep us from doing it.

It doesn't matter what torture is defined as somewhere else. It doesn't matter if America is the only country playing by the rules. That's why we are the good guys, we have rules. There are places we won't go. I understand the feel good part of it. I understand that there are a bunch of middle-aged men who want to be Jack Bauer and do whatever it takes to save the world and be all bad-ass. But if we throw away everything we stand for, what have we really saved? If you really think this war is about who has the bigger guns, then you're wrong. This has always been a moral war. It is a war on values, a war of faith, a war of culture. Its a giant mind-game. If we take the moral high-ground then we ultimately win.

They can fly planes into our buildings, and we will go to their country and kill the group who is responsible. Anyone we bring back, we will put them in a 8x8 cell with three square meals a day. Everyday they wake up they will wake up in America, the country they hate. Every time they look out of the window, they will see an American flag waving. When they are hungry they will get some American food. They will be treated with courtesy and greeted with a smile. That's torture.

Being bitter and throwing aside the law is just a sign of emotional failure. You want to throw a temper tantrum and hit the mean bully who hit you. It will not solve anything, ever. Grow up, and start being a human being instead of a caveman.

Grief

May 7th, 2009, 03:19 PM

just a recap of this thread so far:

"lol jon is entertaining"
"jon stewart isn't a real news man. i know real news man, an' he aint it"
"jon stewart is right."
"lol no he dumb fake news man who dun read articles"
"go read the articles"
"no you go read articles"
"google it bitch!"
"no u lern 2 google"
"ur mom googles!"
"ur mom is a terroroist"
"i torture ur mom with my dick"
"thats funny she said ur dick wasn't even big 'nuff to be a stress position"
"dats cuz i'm american and i dun torture"
"ur no american you hate 'merica."
"no u hate americaz!"
"i love america so much i'll kill innocent people and blindly follow politicians without remorse"
"u hate america so much you damage her integrity by making us look dumb1!!"
"ur face shames america"
"ur face is located around a terrorist butt, which u let poo all over you"
"i no weak on evil, evil is bad"
"i am american man i know wuts best"
"u no have real world experience, i google mine experiences"
"i know wuts best cuz i watch uber kewl fox show 24"
"ya dat show rad, fox is teh best. he all torturing n shit and saving day on a cell phone"
"cell phones are cool"
"i like arguing with you dawg"
"you too homes, wanna make out?"
*slobber slobber*
"you make out like ur mom does."
"i lerned from her."

ChristianWeeks

May 7th, 2009, 04:18 PM

Straight Edge Ryan

May 7th, 2009, 09:13 PM

Grief, I love you for always lightening up uptight threads <3

Elam

May 7th, 2009, 09:35 PM

Oh dear. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/06/poll-dont-investigate-torture-techniques/)
.
.
.
.

Its a giant mind-game. If we take the moral high-ground then we ultimately win.

Really? Like Nuking Japan? Firebombing Germany? Razing Atlanta? Settling the West? Please enlighten us Weasel. What war have we won when we took the moral high ground? You sound like a kindergartner(no offense to them). In fact, when we have taken the moral high ground( Rebuilding and protecting Europe, Korea, bombing Serbia, massive aid infusions to just about every country that TASmith listed) we haven't gotten a whole lot in return.

Morals are pliable, and they certainly vary from time to time. I'm no cynic, nor do I think war is 'cool' or any of the other blathering nonsense your going on about. You could of saved yourself the 30 minutes it took you to type that and just have said 'I'm clueless'.

The world is not a crummy place. Some places it is, others its alright, some it's great. Once your done with that great life experience called college, get out in the real world and see it. Draw an experienced conclusion to form your opinions instead of throwing emotional temper tantrums.

s.ketch

May 7th, 2009, 09:49 PM

Oh dear. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/06/poll-dont-investigate-torture-techniques/)
.
.
.
.

Really? Like Nuking Japan? Firebombing Germany? Razing Atlanta? Settling the West? Please enlighten us Weasel. What war have we won when we took the moral high ground? You sound like a kindergartner(no offense to them). In fact, when we have taken the moral high ground( Rebuilding and protecting Europe, Korea, bombing Serbia, massive aid infusions to just about every country that TASmith listed) we haven't gotten a whole lot in return.

Morals are pliable, and they certainly vary from time to time. I'm no cynic, nor do I think war is 'cool' or any of the other blathering nonsense your going on about. You could of saved yourself the 30 minutes it took you to type that and just have said 'I'm clueless'.

The world is not a crummy place. Some places it is, others its alright, some it's great. Once your done with that great life experience called college, get out in the real world and see it. Draw an experienced conclusion to form your opinions instead of throwing emotional temper tantrums.

Well I have more thanks than you so I win. If the world you live in is the "real world" then I won't be moving anytime soon.

Elam

May 7th, 2009, 09:50 PM

Sure you will. It's called reality. Usually kicks in around 30. Or when you move out of your parents house.

Although, according to Oprah, 30 is now the new 20. So, eh, maybe not.

s.ketch

May 7th, 2009, 10:04 PM

If turning thirty made you a sage then we wouldn't have most of our problems. If reality does kick in, it's quickly kicked out.

Bill

May 7th, 2009, 10:10 PM

Can't you two get along? Both of your avatars have assinine haircuts and both of your sig's are assinine quotes. It seems like there ought to be some common ground in there somewhere.

s.ketch

May 7th, 2009, 10:12 PM

What's wrong with my haircut?

Grief

May 7th, 2009, 10:17 PM

well this is certainly on its way to being locked.

buckweisel you should update your sketchbook.

elam, i would be very interested in seeing what type of work you do. from your post history it appears you have yet to share any art.

go draw folks

Elam

May 7th, 2009, 10:23 PM

I just got done with a 3 hour life drawing session.

I'll post at some point. I doubt you'll be interested.

TASmith

May 7th, 2009, 11:06 PM

I'm 30 :)

I'd like to see your art too, and I'm not saying that in a judgmental way.

Wiggles

May 8th, 2009, 12:05 AM

My, my what a wonderful thread.

Okay, just to clarify a simple point: Water boarding is not a form of torture. I'm sorry if that seems like I'm trying to trump your argument but let me ask you a question: What do you classify as torture? Not what you're told what is torture, but what do you know in your heart to be torture?

I could never classify any of the techniques we use as torture. Individuals experiencing our methods may not be feeling the most pleasant sensation, but hey neither is being punished by one's parents with a paddle. Only difference between our country's methods and your parents (besides the difference in authority) is that both teach the irresponsible individuals respect (revere parents/the government by honoring ie telling them information that they need to know). If you look at it, our parents function just like the government, in that both teach discipline. So unless if you consider your parents, the government as well, as facilitators of torture then you might have bigger issues (unless if you were honestly beaten and cut and burned, I apologize now).

Now, are you ready to hear what torture is?

This excerpt comes from Gomorrah:

"Less than twenty-four hours after the boss's arrest, a Polish kid is found at the Arzano roundabout, trembling like a leaf as he struggles to throw an enormous bundle in the trash. He is smeared with blood and crippled with fear. The bundle is a body. A mangled, tortured, badly disfigured body; it seems impossible that a person could be treated that way. If he had been made to swallow a mine that then exploded in his stomach, it would have wrecked less destruction. The body belonged to Edoardo La Monica, though his features were no longer recognizable. Only his lips were still intact; the rest of his face was completely crushed. His body was riddled with holes and encrusted with blood. The had tied him up and tortured him with a spiked bat - slowly, for hours. Every blow cut new holes, piercing his flesh and breaking his bones as the nails sunk in and were then yanked out. They had cut off his ears, cropped his tongue, shattered his wrists, gouged out his eyes with a screwdriver - all while he was still alive, awake, conscious. Then to finish him off the smashed his face with a hammer and carved on his lips with a knife."

For all of you who think we're torturing these people, think again my friends. It is a sad day when this country no longer realizes what torture for what it really is. Torture is the spilling of blood, the shrieking and crying for death, the ripping of flesh and shattering of bones, the despicable mutilation of another human being as if they were a chunk of raw meat. This is what torture is! This is what we are not told! Use your logic like Elam has said! We are not torturing with our methods! Stop being controlled by such simple pathos that the media blasts as "torture"!

-Wiggs

PS I had to stop a couple of times from typing that except. It was so nerve wracking...

TASmith

May 8th, 2009, 12:38 AM

Prometheus|ANJ

May 8th, 2009, 12:51 AM

That truly is hardcore torture. I actually live neighbour to an eastern European guy who was tortured for years. He can still walk somewhat upright and has his eye sockets intact with eyes and all. I guess he wasn't tortured then. He'll be so relieved to hear that!

I would like to present the wild idea that human are psychological creatures, and it's really the mind which the torturer would like to get to. Hurting the body is just one way to do that. For me, the worst kind of torture is that which keeps you alive in a highly unpleasant state for as long as possible.

I guess this must have been posted: The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Article 1: 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, bla bla bla bla

Yeah, that's UN. Pretty much all definitions of torture which I've looked at has involved the mental aspect.

Edit: I haven't been water boarded of course, but I can guess the worst part of it (the constant feeling of drowning aside) would be to know that it's so easy for them to just keep doing it, perhaps indefinitely.

Edit: Am I replying to a troll here? :/

TASmith

May 8th, 2009, 01:35 AM

Promethius - if alot of care isn't taken, waterboarding can kill in less than 2 minutes (as what sometimes happened when the Japanese did it to us in WWII)

Prometheus|ANJ

May 8th, 2009, 01:40 AM

That may be, but I would guess that if the intent of water boarding is to keep the victim alive. There are more efficient ways to kill someone in an unpleasant way in under two minutes.

Water boarding looks so clean doesn't it? Almost kind of silly. Yet some torturers choose it over doing some more gruesome physical things. (Edit: Even the Spanish Inquisition did it.)

Wiggles

May 8th, 2009, 06:01 AM

PS, your opinion of torture is yours, and mine is mine. I suppose the best way for the US to define torture is to elect a representative who best reflects the nation's consensus on torture... which we did.

Comparing a CIA interrogator to the parent of a young child, as someone who simply needs respect, because he knows what's best for a terrorist... I mean, how many parents waterboard their children - and if they did, how would local law enforcement respond? You realize, Wiggles, that there are other better ways for parents and governments to earn respect?

I understand what you are saying and in my mind it makes some sense...

I wasn't saying parents should be waterboarding or even implied that they could be; I was giving an example of parents disciplining through paddling with it being the equivalent of the government waterboarding. There are many more ways of extracting the information, yes, but I cannot think of a more effective and less damaging way of getting information that you need. Verbal intimidation works perfectly, but that fits under "mental abuse" which would probably be under a list of "torture" techniques.

TAS, I think I understand where you are coming from, but I see no reason to classify what we do now as torture. Were your parents told to stop disciplining you by your neighbors, your teachers, or your friends? If not, then why are people telling the government to stop disciplining its prisoners by the very people they are trying to protect? Is it because they are led to believe what we do is "torture"? Here's an interesting idea: look up what Al-Quida's methods of interrogation are and then compare them to ours. Their means of torture seems to be far more painful and terrible than what our country does.

Please define what forms of peaceful interrogation techniques we could use instead of what was used - and remember, you can't have them feeling any sort of pain of any kind because that would be "torture". Your comment about the US already "[defining] torture [by electing] a representative who best reflects the nation's consensus on torture" occurs to me to be a smart ass response to what you personally believe is torture, not that I think you were intending that to be as such. I implore you to readdress your position with what form of torture you think is torture, not based your opinion on some "consensus".

-Wiggs

TASmith

May 8th, 2009, 06:06 AM

Wiggles

May 8th, 2009, 06:27 AM

That truly is hardcore torture. I actually live neighbour to an eastern European guy who was tortured for years. He can still walk somewhat upright and has his eye sockets intact with eyes and all. I guess he wasn't tortured then. He'll be so relieved to hear that!

I would like to present the wild idea that human are psychological creatures, and it's really the mind which the torturer would like to get to. Hurting the body is just one way to do that. For me, the worst kind of torture is that which keeps you alive in a highly unpleasant state for as long as possible.

Oh you silly, I haven't forgotten physiological torture! There are so many terrible things you can do to a human's mind to make him ball his eyes out in terror. Of course, what would you rather have: waterboarding along with other methods of being mental intimidation or having your flesh burned with hot iron and being whipped with hooks? In one case you will have the memories of sitting down, or being strapped down, and interrogated with terrible and rather convincing sensations that make you feel like you are dying. In the other case you will have the memories of the feelings, the smells, the sounds of sizzling, chard flesh and ripping off of muscles and skin. So tell me, what is more torturous: mental, with its fabricated sensations, or physical torture, with the severing of nerves?

I have sympathy for your neighbor and I'm not saying he wasn't tortured if he is not coming back with missing limbs or terrible scars. I'm sure he was tortured, but how and why was he tortured? He could of been beaten, whipped, starved, raped, etc. albeit, those are not nearly as bad as loosing massive amount of blood and seeing your own bones snap out from underneath your skin. Was he a prisoner of war? Why was he tortured? How he was might be too personal, but knowing would be beneficial.

-Wiggs

TASmith

May 8th, 2009, 06:32 AM

physiology:

A branch of biology that deals with the functions and activities of life or of living matter (as organs, tissues, or cells) and of the physical and chemical phenomena involved.

psychology

The study of the human mind.
The study of the human behavior.
The study of animal behavior.
The mental characteristics of a particular individual.

I'm done here.

squidmonk3j

May 8th, 2009, 06:59 AM

Wiggles

May 8th, 2009, 07:04 AM

"I was giving an example of parents disciplining through paddling with it being the equivalent of the government waterboarding."

But that's the thing. If it really is the equivalent, which it's not, then ergo, parents should be able to waterboard their children. That's what your argument is.

Look, I may very well be a smartass, but I won't pretend to be an expert on interrogations. There was a US military officer in charge of interrogations in Iraq who used a very successful tactic of building a rapport with prisoners to gain information faster, and more reliably. He's written a book about it, and you can learn about it here: http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151

Arguing national defense policy on what my particular parents did is ludicrous. My parents never required any reprimand from anyone. But, had they been abusive, I'd have expected my neighbors, friends, school, and police to intervene, and I would certainly do now if I saw anyone abusing their children. In this respect, your analogy has a parallel.

But you see waterboarding cannot be done by parents! That would be nuts! Would you place a child under that treatment? Of course not!

Becoming "friends", if you will, is a grand idea. Unless if people are trying to kill you. You see, there is one slight problem with people who like to kill and that is they will continue to kill people, even if those people are their friends and their own blood. So becoming friends with someone with that mentality is not what I would consider to be fruitful.

From what I gather, the book uses psychological torture. He uses methods of "respect, rapport, hope, cunning and deception" to fool his enemy's, also known as mental abuse. I see this book fitting perfectly under your definition of "torture" since the methods used in the book are no different than our methods, both being psychological torture/mental abuse.

I think you're over thinking about my example with parents and the government. It was a fabricated event, fictional, not real. What I was trying to get at is there is a similarity between the two techniques, not that they could be replaced with another, oh heavens no! Of course others would intervene if things got abusive which is what you must think our country is: abusive. You imply that you and you and others are intervening because you all see our methods of interrogation as being abusive, yet when you cite an alternative I see our dreaded "torture" methods being played out differently through more psychological abuse that you so firmly oppose being used.

If you would be so kind as to direct me to what it is he does to our enemies to extract information, to prove me wrong, I would be thankful.

-Wiggs

petitemistress

May 8th, 2009, 07:08 AM

how exactly does an inmate "try to kill you"?
Wiggles. you make me sad to be a human being.

burning_chrome

May 8th, 2009, 07:15 AM

Oh you silly, I haven't forgotten physiological torture!...I have sympathy for your neighbor and I'm not saying he wasn't tortured if he is not coming back with missing limbs or terrible scars. I'm sure he was tortured, but how and why was he tortured? He could of been beaten, whipped, starved, raped, etc. albeit, those are not nearly as bad as loosing massive amount of blood and seeing your own bones snap out from underneath your skin.

[Emphasis Mine]

WTF?! For a college class we visited a women's shelter for a first hand look at the issues/consequences of domestic abuse and violence against women, and to state that 'rape' and non-permanent physical abuse somehow falls below outright visible and lasting bodily damage is as fucking ridiculous as it is abhorrent.

And oh, on the discussion on whether waterboarding contsitutes torture, here's a response I've always though as extremely relevant given the first-hand war time experiences of the inividual in question:

"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that [waterboarding] as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans. I would also hope that he would not want to be associated with a technique which was invented in the Spanish Inquisition, was used by Pol Pot in one of the great eras of genocide in history and is being used on Burmese monks as we speak. If the United States was in another conflict, which could easily happen, with another country, and we have allowed that kind of torture to be inflicted on people we hold captive, then there's nothing to prevent that enemy from also torturing American prisoners."

- John McCain
(Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml)

Wiggles

May 8th, 2009, 10:10 AM

[T]o state that 'rape' and non-permanent physical abuse somehow falls below outright visible and lasting bodily damage is as fucking ridiculous as it is abhorrent.:

Easy there Burning. I was making a point here and I think you might of been offended. I was simply saying that as far as torture goes it could be far worse. That's it. To imply that thinking as "ridiculous as it is abhorrent" is a bit gutsy, don't you think? But then again, maybe you'd rather be missing both your arms.

And oh, on the discussion on whether waterboarding contsitutes torture, here's a response I've always though as extremely relevant given the first-hand war time experiences of the inividual in question:

Are you saying just because the really bad guys used a form of "torture" we used we are automatically made bad guys too? In that case, the credibility of your argument lies in that they were bad human beings. All we did was do something that others have done. What you're saying is like saying just because Muslims worship their God doesn't mean Christans worship the same God. We a diverse people who worship in faith, but just because many of us worship does not mean we all worship the same thing. Same thing applies to waterboarding: just because the bad guys used it does not make inherently bad. To focus on such a small and simple act, an act that causes vertually no casualties at that, and to ignor the real problem caused by these bad human beings, bemuses me. Explain to me what else do these bad human beings do? I'm sure if we looked we would find a whole slew of things that are forms of true torture.

-Wiggs
(If this gramtically hard to follow my appologies, I wrote this response in school and rather quickly)

bluefooted

May 8th, 2009, 12:01 PM

Are you saying just because the really bad guys used a form of "torture" we used we are automatically made bad guys too? In that case, the credibility of your argument lies in that they were bad human beings. All we did was do something that others have done.

Do you think they thought of themselves as 'the bad guys' when they were doing it? No. They thought they were the 'good guys', right?

burning_chrome

May 8th, 2009, 12:31 PM

I was simply saying that as far as torture goes it could be far worse. That's it. To imply that thinking as "ridiculous as it is abhorrent" is a bit gutsy, don't you think? But then again, maybe you'd rather be missing both your arms.

<Insert puzzled expression of incredulousness>So, your response and defense is still one of "torture utilitarianism"? As long as the ends towards achieving the desired goals somehow falls below other far worse methods, justification for any and all actions of coercion is deemed acceptable?</Insert puzzled expression of incredulousness>

Your argument was ill-conceived at its inception and repeating it in a "stream of consciousness" fashion does not lend itself any further credibility.

And to address something stated previously...

Look, I may very well be a smartass, but I won't pretend to be an expert on interrogations. There was a US military officer in charge of interrogations in Iraq who used a very successful tactic of building a rapport with prisoners to gain information faster, and more reliably. He's written a book about it, and you can learn about it here: http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151

From what I gather, the book uses psychological torture. He uses methods of "respect, rapport, hope, cunning and deception" to fool his enemy's, also known as mental abuse. I see this book fitting perfectly under your definition of "torture" since the methods used in the book are no different than our methods, both being psychological torture/mental abuse.

No, quite the opposite, the methods that TASmith refers to in referencing Matthew Alexander's Book, "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq" most certainly DO NOT include or advocate the use of "psychological torture" as legitimate or even effective methods of attaining credible field intelligence.

In this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html?hpid=opinionsbox1), Alexander specifically recounts how U.S. servicemen often bent and broke the rules of interrogation outlined in the United States Army Field Manual (FM 2-22.3 (FM 34-52) Human Intelligence Collector Operations) (http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf) and his steadfast refusal to trade guile for savagery in the pursuit of insurgency headmasters; to be specific, here's an excerpt from the military document in question on the issue of psychological torture,/mental abuse:

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.
[EMPHASIS MINE]

Bronke

May 8th, 2009, 01:54 PM

Waterboard not torture eh? Even Sean Hannity who keeps spouting about how it's not that bad won't waterboard himself for charity even though he bragged how he'd do it in an interview.

l2I6qRYJfYg

And still refuses to do it despite repeated taunts by Olbermann.

Me2GD8Kq_4M

Here's Christopher Hitchens subjecting himself to waterboarding even knowing that it's torture while the pussies who say it's not won't step up.

Efh_6_-tHgY

I'd like to see how many of you fools in this thread who say it's not torture would last more than a couple of seconds. Wiggles, I'd like to waterboard you, it's not torture right?

Bill

May 8th, 2009, 06:19 PM

So they simulate the sensation of drowning a person... by drowning a person... genius.

Wiggles

May 8th, 2009, 06:21 PM

<Insert puzzled expression of incredulousness>So, your response and defense is still one of "torture utilitarianism"? As long as the ends towards achieving the desired goals somehow falls below other far worse methods, justification for any and all actions of coercion is deemed acceptable?</Insert puzzled expression of incredulousness>:

You have a good point. But maybe I could convince you otherwise.

Now, let's suppose we find a terrorist who was orchestrating diabolical assaults against Americans and imprison him. Do you think that using "friendliness" will convince a murderous-freak to talk? Buttering him up will leave you empty handed, because, you have got to remember, these individuals are insane! They kill to kill! We extract evidence to prevent as many casualties as possible, meaning you or I might be saved through our interrogation techniques! But hey, that wouldn't be nice. We would be "hurting" him, and we can't have that guilt hanging overhead, oh mercy no! It's his discomfort or massive American casualties. What weighs more?

Your argument was ill-conceived at its inception and repeating it in a "stream of consciousness" fashion does not lend itself any further credibility.
:

Uh, not too sure what you're going for here. I wasn't trying to "redeem" myself with my little PS note. Of course you might be saying my reply as a whole was a bad idea because it was during the end of class. Either way; a "'stream of conciousness?'" Ouch!

And to address something stated previously...

No, quite the opposite, the methods that TASmith refers to in referencing Matthew Alexander's Book, "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq" most certainly DO NOT include or advocate the use of "psychological torture" as legitimate or even effective methods of attaining credible field intelligence.

In this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html?hpid=opinionsbox1), Alexander specifically recounts how U.S. servicemen often bent and broke the rules of interrogation outlined in the United States Army Field Manual (FM 2-22.3 (FM 34-52) Human Intelligence Collector Operations) (http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf) and his steadfast refusal to trade guile for savagery in the pursuit of insurgency headmasters; to be specific, here's an excerpt from the military document in question on the issue of psychological torture,/mental abuse:

Ahh! Thank you! This is most helpful. Still, I hold fast to my original position (waterboarding and other techniques we can no longer use are not forms of torture) and a new position: We can sweet talk, try to be friendly, and cooperative with terrorists and what not but what happens when we find someone that won't break? What will we do? Not worry about it until we stumble someone who we cannot swoon?

Maybe if we leave them alone they won't bother us any more and we won't have a need to sweet-talk 'em!

-Wiggs

Wiggles

May 8th, 2009, 06:51 PM

Do you think they thought of themselves as 'the bad guys' when they were doing it? No. They thought they were the 'good guys', right?

Ahh, but then we start to talk about people who invest their time killing people for fun! For sport! For the adrenaline rush! If our military was run by a blood sucking thug I would say we would screwed over, thankfully we're not.

"Bad Guys" are bad because they kill and torment and damage what ever the hell they wish without remorse. Sure they think they're doing good; The Nazi's sure as hell did when they did their "ethnic cleanse" to make way for the Arian race; Invisible Children are taught the art of war because they are told it is good to kill; American's are told waterboarding is torture and have the documents holding our methods within them released - and for Anti-Americans to prep and to use but overall to have to their advantage - because it debunks the previous president. So then who are the "Good Guys"? I will not be so bold to say the right-wingers, nor is it the left-wingers.
The "Bad Guys" are, for the most part, pretty damn malicious.

The "Good Guys", on the other hand, do not kill for the excitement but use ways of retrieving information without torturing the captives. The "Good Guys" do not use torture, which is simply something we are not capable of doing, fore sure not anymore. The "Good Guys" always fought for the protection of the people they love, honor, and serve. The "Good Guys" always attempted to oppress the "Bad Guys" plans because, well, they were bad; We invaded Europe and liberated Jews from the Nazis; we send support to the Invisible Children to help stop the killing.

-Wiggs

Wiggles

May 8th, 2009, 06:57 PM

how exactly does an inmate "try to kill you"?
Wiggles. you make me sad to be a human being.

How "'does an inmate try to kill you?'" I'm not too sure. Where exactly is that said? As far as I can tell, if one's an inmate they're normally "in" holding with some other "mate" until they have served their term, or die. If one dies they could end up "in-their-mate," and in that case I think the inmates are trying to kill one another, not you or I.

All silliness aside:

I make you sad to be a human being?

Is it because I believe in protecting thousands over the "cruelty" of another human being? Is it because I believe that those who harm us must be stopped?
Is this why I scare you? Is it because I love my country and everyone in it and I want every last hair on their heads accounted for?

I'm sad to see you saddened by my affection towards my country. :(

I am sorry if my love for country has scared you.

-Wiggs

Wiggles

May 8th, 2009, 07:14 PM

wiggles - so waterboarding would be a perfectly acceptable interrogation technique in a civil police investigation? and information given under such circumstance should be allowed as evidence in a civil court of law?

I would never see a reason to use waterboarding on simple criminals. They have no point in life but to steal, to beat, to eat, to sleep, and give back to the community through some community service they end up being sentenced with when they're caught.

Besides, not too many people can get past the police intimidation techniques. So to even have authorities begin thinking about using waterboarding seems to me to be preposterous.

-Wiggs

bluefooted

May 8th, 2009, 07:23 PM

My point is that it is our actions that make us either 'bad' or 'good'. If we do what they do, how are we any different? Of course they justified what they were doing. Just like you're doing now.

ChristianWeeks

May 8th, 2009, 07:24 PM

Did somebody delete their post or did wiggles really just post 4 back to back posts

Wiggles

May 8th, 2009, 07:28 PM

Did somebody delete their post or did wiggles really just post 4 back to back posts

No I did four back-to-back posts.

Wiggles

May 8th, 2009, 07:30 PM

My point is that it is our actions that make us either 'bad' or 'good'. If we do what they do, how are we any different? Of course they justified what they were doing. Just like you're doing now.

Right. Only difference is they focused on the death and destruction as being their way of gaining glory. We focus on the correction of others as a policing country.

Is what the "bad" guys do wrong? Is what the "good" guys - us - do wrong?

-Wiggs

Bronke

May 8th, 2009, 08:09 PM

I'm sad to see you saddened by my affection towards my country. :(

I am sorry if my love for country has scared you.

-Wiggs

If I were the type to roll my eyes, my eyes would have spun right out of their sockets reading this.

Why is it that you "patriotic" types resort to this "I love my country" cheesy B.S. when trying to justify your views? What makes YOUR view the sole definition of patriotism? Does love for anything always justify bad actions? Judging from the atrocities committed throughout history in the name of God, Country and Love, I'd say no.

I could turn it around and say that I love my country too much to soil it's already tarnished image with inhumane torture. Why are YOU scared of my love of country? But yeah, feel free to spout out more brainwashy cheesy rhetoric.

mimer

May 8th, 2009, 08:27 PM

"I could never classify any of the techniques we use as torture. Individuals experiencing our methods may not be feeling the most pleasant sensation, but hey neither is being punished by one's parents with a paddle. Only difference between our country's methods and your parents (besides the difference in authority) is that both teach the irresponsible individuals respect (revere parents/the government by honoring ie telling them information that they need to know). If you look at it, our parents function just like the government, in that both teach discipline. So unless if you consider your parents, the government as well, as facilitators of torture then you might have bigger issues (unless if you were honestly beaten and cut and burned, I apologize now)."

Congratulations, this is probably one of the most idiotic similies ive ever had the misfortune to hear.

how anyone can be proud that their country have adopted the torture methods of such illustrious groups as the inquisition and the khmer rogue frankly baffles me.

Thinking that it actually produces good results as far as confessions go is something which has been throughoutly refuted by expertise in interrogation again and again. torture is counterproductive to getting good intel.

Assuming that everyone captured by the us and their allies and put in places like guantanamo are actually dangerous terrorists is also a notion that is quickly falling apart. People were paid to give up "terrorists" a brilliant plan which led to a lot of people beeing imprisoned under false charges because their accusers wanted to profit or settle scores. How big a number of innocent prisoners beeing waterboarded is an ok number for you?

I think the cretinous level of understanding of this subject actually made my brain shrink as i read the quote above.

burning_chrome

May 8th, 2009, 11:45 PM

Uh, not too sure what you're going for here. I wasn't trying to "redeem" myself with my little PS note. Of course you might be saying my reply as a whole was a bad idea because it was during the end of class. Either way; a "'stream of conciousness?'" Ouch!

Allow me to clarify then - your arguments are shit. Let me be more in-depth: the crux of your arguments advocating the use of torture as the means towards attaining some greater tangible moral or positive real-world outcome based on the premise of unchallengeable U.S. moral authority bears no difference in comparison to the very same fundamental dogmatism that motivates those you deem as 'evil' or 'Bad Guys' by default.

Now, let's suppose we find a terrorist who was orchestrating diabolical assaults against Americans and imprison him. Do you think that using "friendliness" will convince a murderous-freak to talk? Buttering him up will leave you empty handed, because, you have got to remember, these individuals are insane! They kill to kill! We extract evidence to prevent as many casualties as possible, meaning you or I might be saved through our interrogation techniques! But hey, that wouldn't be nice. We would be "hurting" him, and we can't have that guilt hanging overhead, oh mercy no! It's his discomfort or massive American casualties. What weighs more?

And your pertinent credentials or knowledge of corroborating evidence and real cases as a subject-matter expert on the topic of intelligence gathering via 'harsh' interrogation techniques is what exactly? Dick Cheney's word that such methods did indeed work? Fox News pundits fear-mongering and doom-saying that somehow hypothetical scenarios automatically validate unfounded conclusions of "It's us or them folks! Don't you be weak or un-American!"

If the "Red Scare" taught us nothing else, the events of the 1950s should have at the very least imparted this lesson for future generations of Americans: if fear and proclamations of 'done all for the greater good' comprise the guiding tenets of any free republic, then the greatest triumph against the founding principles of this nation will not have arisen from foreign enemies, but from the very citizens unwilling to challenge the despotism of the angry and self-righteous mob.

Costau D

May 8th, 2009, 11:50 PM

This thread is torture!

It makes me want to hurt myself...

Sundance

May 9th, 2009, 12:20 AM

I make you sad to be a human being?

Is it because I believe in protecting thousands over the "cruelty" of another human being? Is it because I believe that those who harm us must be stopped?
Is this why I scare you? Is it because I love my country and everyone in it and I want every last hair on their heads accounted for?

I'm sad to see you saddened by my affection towards my country. :(

I am sorry if my love for country has scared you.

-Wiggs

I will explain why your "love for country" scares me, and why it makes me sad.

When looking to history for examples of great leaders who drew a line in the sand of what is right and wrong I always fall to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Both took a path of non-violence, both died for their beliefs, and both created a positive impact for humanity (not just themselves) that will live on long after they left us.

There are millions of examples of leaders who have taken steps that are out of line with their publicized beliefs. This is my assumption of the root cause of "the worlds" issues with the United States. We claim to be on the "right side" of incidents, conflicts, and nation building projects. We insert our own belief system on other countries as if it is the only possible choice for a successful society. We claim the moral high ground.

Then we leak false intelligence to our leaders, allies, and general populace. Whilst in the hunt, we compromise our values further by resorting to tactics we have agreed with the World not to utilize. When caught in our actions, we resort to "well...it worked".

I don't think Martin Luther King Jr. would have water boarded a known Klansmen so he could find out if there were credible threats on his marches or demonstrations.

I believe that we as people... not just as Americans... have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies. If you are a Christian you are told to love your enemies, to pray for them, and to turn the other cheek. Where in this "Christian Nation" (a popular rightwing catch phrase these days) is there room for physical and mental abuse?

There should be none... apparently, based on our actions... there is plenty.

This is why your love of country scares me. You approve of, and applaude that we dipped to their level. You see it as both necessary and agreeable.

I do not want us to be like them.

The white elephant in the room... we already are.

ArtZealot

May 9th, 2009, 01:02 AM

Is this why I scare you? Is it because I love my country and everyone in it and I want every last hair on their heads accounted for?

I'm sad to see you saddened by my affection towards my country. :(

I am sorry if my love for country has scared you.

-Wiggs

Glenn Beck!!!???!? is that you!?

R3Ebo4UhloU

Wiggles

May 9th, 2009, 01:16 AM

Burning Chrome, you have said exactly what I was hoping to never see.

You know what, fine, I will back down from this thread. It seems that all of my posts have the equivalent of "shit", according to you Burning Chrome.

I not once insulted anyone of you or your intelligence. I might of made a sarcastic notion or two, but deliberately demoralizing and disgracing one's beliefs as "shit" is not what I'm about. Burning Chrome, I do not know if you meant what you said, but to call my words "shit" gives me the impression you honestly do not care about opposing points of view. I at least attempted to understand everyone that opposed me (and I could of done a better job sympathizing), yet all I received in return was feelings of hate.

I try to have a decent debate with you all but in the end I'm assaulted on a personal level? Am I really that pathetic in your eyes? To label my words as "shit"? I'll tell all you right now I have the highest regard for you, your inputs and your character. Now I don't know about that... I have a growing feeling I was wrong to accept each of you of good character if you insist on declaring, or backing up, insults against me or anyone else who dares think differently.

If it satisfies you, I take every word back and every thing I ever thought about you all. If what I say really is "shit" then I guess there is no point in me writing this because, well, this would be "shit" too now wouldn't it?

Please, if anyone dares to be so bold to tell me I'm wrong then do so. I want to think better of you all so show me that you deserve it! I really don't like to think negatively of others, even when my thoughts are treated like crap.

I beg you all good day.

-Wiggs

petitemistress

May 9th, 2009, 01:26 AM

Bronke

May 9th, 2009, 01:39 AM

I try to have a decent debate with you all but in the end I'm assaulted on a personal level? Am I really that pathetic in your eyes? To label my words as "shit"? I'll tell all you right now I have the highest regard for you, your inputs and your character. Now I don't know about that... I have a growing feeling I was wrong to accept each of you of good character if you insist on declaring, or backing up, insults against me or anyone else who dares think differently.

If it satisfies you, I take every word back and every thing I ever thought about you all. If what I say really is "shit" then I guess there is no point in me writing this because, well, this would be "shit" too now wouldn't it?

Please, if anyone dares to be so bold to tell me I'm wrong then do so. I want to think better of you all so show me that you deserve it! I really don't like to think negatively of others, even when my thoughts are treated like crap.

I beg you all good day.

-Wiggs

In all seriousness, I would like you to stay and do your best to reply with your opinions rather than to run away claiming that everyone made personal attacks.

Meloncov

May 9th, 2009, 01:42 AM

Really? Like Nuking Japan? Firebombing Germany? Razing Atlanta? Settling the West?

Nuking Japan was unavoidable to a degree that torture decidedly isn't. What alternatives existed would have resulted in a dramatically higher loss of life. The same is true of Atlanta and Germany, though it's perhaps a little less clear cut in those cases. As for the West, we undeniably benefit from the sins of our fathers their, but it is excessively cynical to discount any possibility for moral progress (read accounts of ancient wars if you disagree).

In fact, when we have taken the moral high ground( Rebuilding and protecting Europe, Korea, bombing Serbia, massive aid infusions to just about every country that TASmith listed) we haven't gotten a whole lot in return.

The Marshall Plan did more to stop the spread of Communism than any of our hot wars or covert actions ever did. With Korea, the benefits of only having half of it be totally crazy ought to be reasonably clear. With Serbia, we boosted national prestiege and image at a relatively minor cost, and food aide has won us numerous allies in exchange for grain we have no use for.

But more importantly, nations should do the moral thing because it's the right bloody thing to do. That's sort of the definition of morality. I'm not so naive as to believe that nations typically behave in such a manner, but that's no excuse for not casting what influence you have on the side of good.

The world is not a crummy place. Some places it is, others its alright, some it's great. Once your done with that great life experience called college, get out in the real world and see it. Draw an experienced conclusion to form your opinions instead of throwing emotional temper tantrums.

Given that we have absolutely no basis for comparison, isn't this a rather ridiculous thing to argue about?

Prometheus|ANJ

May 9th, 2009, 01:51 AM

If I had to choose... I actually don't know which would be worse.

To be beaten to a pulp, or to be tortured in a more controlled, less physical way for a long period of time. I think the latter case, my mind wouldn't come out intact, even if my body did.

I am reminded of this video where you can see a contrast between physical and psychological damage.

SS1dO0JC2EE

D.Labruyere

May 9th, 2009, 06:36 AM

I think where this question all boils down to is: Can we take action based on a moral highground?

With that question you soon come to the question: Can you say that you are any better person than the person next to you? Because that is what you are basicaly saying when you say you have a moral highground.

I strongly believe that the answer on the last question is no. We've had to many experiences in history that show us that answering yes to this question is a very dangerous thing to do. ( I don't think I have to show examples, because I hope by now, we all know them)

Since I believe that there isn't something like a moral highground, it makes no sence to take actions based on that moral highground, so torture is for me a simple no.

Wiggles

May 9th, 2009, 07:07 AM

In all seriousness, I would like you to stay and do your best to reply with your opinions rather than to run away claiming that everyone made personal attacks.

Am I running away? Possibly. If I am running away then so be it. I know it is not the most honorable thing to do but I refuse to sit back and see people insult other people's intelligence with out proper rebuttal.

I said Burning Chrome had made an attack on me and implied that others sit back and watched. Maybe it was unintentional on their part to miss what had been said. Maybe not. I do not know. I cannot speak for another human being but I can fill in the gaps with what I see until I'm otherwise told.

I appreciate your response Bronke. :)

-Wiggs

Wiggles

May 9th, 2009, 07:34 AM

don't hide behind what Burning Chrome said to run out of this thread please... putting emphasis on that one word "shit" when so many other people offered great rebuttals with no said insults. no need to play victim here.

Thank you petitemistress. :)

I can count on you in the future to stand up and voice your opinion.

Once again, if I am running away - okay - I'm running away. But I don't go off without being heard - you and Bronke are evidence of hearing me out.

I simply will not debate with anyone who throws the trump card by belittling his opponent to the point where his thoughts don't even matter. I cannot argue with someone who thinks that to win they must debacle the opposition through disgracing their very purpose for arguing.

Telling someone their ideas are "shit" shows me the aggressor has nothing better to do than to ignore the debate going on to make a personal attack on the opposition.

For me to debate with such an individual is not worth my time.

-Wiggs

burning_chrome

May 9th, 2009, 08:05 AM

I try to have a decent debate with you all but in the end I'm assaulted on a personal level?

If by debate you mean reciting the talking points of Fox News pundits, then yes, you have accomplished that feat. You have not contributed one iota of substantive materials or responses towards understanding why the U.S. government might choose to engage in harsh interrogation tactics beyond the sophomoric replies of "we're the good guys" and "they are the evil-doers."

I said Burning Chrome had made an attack on me and implied that others sit back and watched. Maybe it was unintentional on their part to miss what had been said. Maybe not. I do not know. I cannot speak for another human being but I can fill in the gaps with what I see until I'm otherwise told.

I criticized the validity and strength of your arguments yes, but if you believe that somehow those are attacks on you as a person, let me be clear: they are not. I'm only responding to the words you've chosen to post here, and that analysis stands until you can provide something more concrete to support the validity of your acceptance of torture as a means for gathering credible intel.

And while we're on the topic, I DID provide elaboration in my previous post on what specifically I deemed as seriously wrong with your arguments:

Allow me to clarify then - your arguments are shit. Let me be more in-depth: the crux of your arguments advocating the use of torture as the means towards attaining some greater tangible moral or positive real-world outcome based on the premise of unchallengeable U.S. moral authority bears no difference in comparison to the very same fundamental dogmatism that motivates those you deem as 'evil' or 'Bad Guys' by default.

Wiggles

May 9th, 2009, 09:38 AM

If by debate you mean reciting the talking points of Fox News pundits, then yes, you have accomplished that feat. You have not contributed one iota of substantive materials or responses towards understanding why the U.S. government might choose to engage in harsh interrogation tactics beyond the sophomoric replies of "we're the good guys" and "they are the evil-doers."

And here we go.

I have no ties with the FOX news class. I may prefer them, but I do not view them. I've lost my interest in watching the news. Period.

Is your second sentence aimed towards calling us the "bad guys"? I consider us to be the "good guys" because we don't slaughter our captives or experiment on them. We are "good" because we capture and investigate by methods (that maybe potentially harmful to one's health if done incorrectly, granted) to save lives.

I cannot even begin to convince you that we were doing before was not torture and you can't prove the opposite to me. I stand on the grounds that we were right to do what we did to save lives. You tell me, how many people have been saved from buttering up hostile bastards? Do people work cooperatively under fear or under comfort? If I were to think I was going to die then I would tell them everything or worn out. If I had my captives kissing up to me I have no reason to tell them anything because I have no reason to fear them, wouldn't you? Of course, neither of us are killers and neither of us are insane so it's hard to say what exactly goes on in a delusional brain. Buy hey, if you are content of thinking we're soulless monsters for scaring captives then by golly you might be onto something!

I criticized the validity and strength of your arguments yes, but if you believe that somehow those are attacks on you as a person, let me be clear: they are not. I'm only responding to the words you've chosen to post here, and that analysis stands until you can provide something more concrete to support the validity of your acceptance of torture as a means for gathering credible intel

Hah! You just acknowledge that "the words chosen," is shit. So then you must understand that the words I chose were for a reason. What reason? What we did to captives was not torture. Should I cite [I]Gomorrah for you to read? It seems absolutely bizarre to even consider what we did as torture! I'll say it again, despite I'd only be repeating myself: What we did was not torture. Period. Therefore what we did is not torture anybody. That being said, I see a crack in your analysis.

I have given you the evidence you need to see what torture is, and what we did was far from it. If you think what we did was torture would you stop a parent disciplining their child as torture? Do you think we are inherently bad, we for sure aren't being very nice, for using the methods that we did to investigate? What is your purpose for calling what we did torture? What IS torture in your book?

And while we're on the topic, I DID provide elaboration in my previous post on what specifically I deemed as seriously wrong with your arguments.

"Allow me to clarify then - your arguments are shit. Let me be more in-depth: the crux of your arguments advocating the use of torture as the means towards attaining some greater tangible moral or positive real-world outcome based on the premise of unchallengeable U.S. moral authority bears no difference in comparison to the very same fundamental dogmatism that motivates those you deem as 'evil' or 'Bad Guys' by default."

You have rather relative terms used as your justification's cornerstone: torture and morals. Tell me again, what is torture? And whose to say what morals are good? They are totally relative. This whole argument is relative! It's hard to make a point in an argument that is driven primarily through pathos and hardly by any strict definitions; it's like convincing someone to think differently about a controversial subject (kind of like what's going on now)!

Look, Burning Chrome, I enjoy your input and think it's great you are dedicated to your position just as much as I am to mine. I see your approach more abrasive than mine which is why I reacted the way I did.

Good talkin' to ya.

-Wiggs

mimer

May 9th, 2009, 01:02 PM

I have given you the evidence you need to see what torture is, and what we did was far from it. If you think what we did was torture would you stop a parent disciplining their child as torture?
-Wiggs

Again you equate waterboarding and other methods of torture with disciplining your child. You are either delusional as to what waterboarding actually is, or you had a really messed up childhood.

You holding a certain position in a debate is not a bad thing, you are however holding onto an idea which when scrutinised is completely devoid of any semblance to reality. Good luck with that.

Bronke

May 9th, 2009, 01:15 PM

Good grief. Still going on about that eh? Would it make you feel better if people called your arguments "doodie" or "crumalamadingdong"?

Sorry Wiggles, but your arguments come from a position of supposed righteousness (i.e. I love my country therefore it's right! We're the good guys they're the bad guys!) without much reasoning behind them. Your arguments really do sound like the rhetoric and propaganda that FOX news churns out everyday to feed to people who don't think on their own.

So you keep claiming that waterboarding is not torture, did you actually see the videos I posted up? Did you see what it entails? I think you think waterboarding is merely splashing water on the victim's face while he holds his breath. It seems that you have a very very narrow definition of what torture is.

I think you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you said it's an acceptable torture rather insisting that it's not torture at all. Because that just shows us that you're not being honest at all or just out of touch with reality.

TASmith

May 9th, 2009, 04:13 PM

Close thread please.

burning_chrome

May 9th, 2009, 06:18 PM

I cannot even begin to convince you that we were doing before was not torture and you can't prove the opposite to me.

In case you neglected to read it the first time, I'll post this again:

"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that [waterboarding] as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans. I would also hope that he would not want to be associated with a technique which was invented in the Spanish Inquisition, was used by Pol Pot in one of the great eras of genocide in history and is being used on Burmese monks as we speak. If the United States was in another conflict, which could easily happen, with another country, and we have allowed that kind of torture to be inflicted on people we hold captive, then there's nothing to prevent that enemy from also torturing American prisoners."

- John McCain
(Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml

I stand on the grounds that we were right to do what we did to save lives.

And your evidence in support of such claims is what exactly?

I see your approach more abrasive than mine which is why I reacted the way I did.

Really? More abrasive than your stance of supporting "torture utilitarianism"?:

Oh you silly, I haven't forgotten physiological torture!...I have sympathy for your neighbor and I'm not saying he wasn't tortured if he is not coming back with missing limbs or terrible scars. I'm sure he was tortured, but how and why was he tortured? He could of been beaten, whipped, starved, raped, etc. albeit, those are not nearly as bad as loosing massive amount of blood and seeing your own bones snap out from underneath your skin.

[Emphasis Mine]

Wiggles, I'm not going to continue further - if presenting the counter argument against your stance on the issue of torture by using factual evidence somehow seems harsh, I'll stop and leave it to the voice of others who might fare better at the task.

TASmith, I second the thread closure