At the this stage it's alleged. I hope that this story is without foundation
Printable View
At the this stage it's alleged. I hope that this story is without foundation
Lets start a sweepstake about how long it takes for this to A) descent into religious debate or B) get moved to World Events.
C) Be blamed on George Bush
It's all George Bush' fault!
Pirngles are best served chilled y'know :thumb:
I think the CIA is to blame for all evil in this world.
*yawn*
Demotivater is in league with the evil Bush and his Illuminati agenda.
All your base are belong to Illuminati
Somebody set up us the bomb!
So, how long DID it take to get moved?
The simple fact that it has not been denied or accepted by the White House or the CIA indicates they do exist. If they didn't exist, the US government or the CIA could clearly reject the allegations, because then they have nothing to lose. Obviously they can't accept the allegations. So the only possibility why they haven't refused the allegations is the prisons do exist. It's not as if the CIA needs to launch an investigation to find out the truth behind it, if it did set the prisons up, it certainly knows about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Germany has already acknowledged the secret CIA flights passed through its territory. Spain is investigating them and has asked the US for more details. I have seen at least two people alleging they were transferred from one country to another by the CIA, kept in these secret jails and tortured. Their specific allegations have not been refuted, the US government has only made vague and ambiguous replies about their stated policy.
You can't have smoke without fire.
Sorry, it does seem to be the fault of George Bush ;)
.
That is simply anti-American sentiment. The reasoning is flawed and your evidence is non-existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
And BTW, as any chemist will know, it is often the case that you can have smoke without fire.
Ahhh I see you know Honeybee really well. Never have a heard a more accurate description about all of his posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
X
What can I say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
I've been accused of the same anti-American sentiment that I accuse HB of now.
I think the difference is that I might actually have a point: I think that HB is full of drivel.
Ah, so now you call me anti-American? How about explaining why there has been no direct rejection of the allegations? Why does it take so much time? That's a nice way for some of the members like you to avoid answering some awkward questions: brand the questioner as anti-American. How about trying to answer that question instead of handing out pro-American and anti-American labels around?Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
The latest news is Redcross doesn't have access to "all" the prisoners taken by the US. They only have access to those who are held by the US on the US soil. Still no statement like "We don't have any secret CIA prisons set up in foreign countries". Ever wondered why it would be so difficult to make that simple statement to deny the allegations?
Or maybe you have some evidence to suggest no secret flights ever passed through the European territory carrying prisoners back and forth? Or that you have evidence there are no secret CIA prisons anywhere in the world? I am sure if you have the proof, your president has it too. I am just wondering what on earth could make him hide that proof, which would clear him and his government of these charges immediately, and instead keep mum and avoid any direct answers. Or maybe nowadays speaking the truth has become anti-American? One never knows in these times ;)
.
I am still waiting for a sensible explanation from you about why the US government has not been able to directly answer the allegations of the secret prisons and the secret CIA flights.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Name calling starts when you run out of points for arguments :) I knew it would happen, which indirectly proves you don't really have any arguments.
.
Says it all really. We don't know, and idle speculation, although an interesting excerise in intellectualism solves nothing, proves nothing, and ultimately gets us nowhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
There are no arguments for or against.
If I make a public allegation against you then you may choose to deny, agree, or ignore it. The choice is yours, and I wouldn't necessarily ask you to justify such a decision.
What I wouldn't do is apply inference, and speculation against your decision and derive further accusations of what may indeed be a load of complete tosh.
oooh. Hands up! You win the game of speculation - Proves that you have a greater imagination than I. Fancy a game of monopoly? Or perhaps Scrabble?Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
Shame that even the big European leaders have already publicly stated that they were not going to enter into an argument with the only evidence available being newspaper speculation.
But I guess you didn't know that, didn't care about that. Or . . . you know something the rest of the world doesn't.
I wonder if you'd share it?
I am still waiting for corroborating evidence showing that these allegations have an ounce of truth in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
I'm sure if there was anything amiss, the governments that are "investigating" will let us all know what they've found. I believe Italy has already stated it was no big deal, and that's pretty telling coming from the current Italian goverment.
I'm curious to see what happens with this case.
Summary:
German kidnapped, flown to Afghanistan, abused then dumped in another country. All because he has a name similiar to someone elses.
Edit:
If they don't use torture why were they looking to have the CIA exempt from a recent bill preventing its use.
From the BBC article above:Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week the US does not practice or condone torture."
So I guess since the US has said they don't practice torture you feel better?
Considering how Alberto Gonzalez defined torture, Rice is correct regardless of what has been done. Torture is effectively whatever anybody chooses to define as torture. The government has one definition, Amnesty International has a different one, you probably have a third, and I probably have a fourth, but I believe, Moeur, that the definition you have is probably closer to the definition that I have than either of those two are to the other two.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I don't define torture as putting panties on a prisoner's head or making him parade around naked in front of females, but many US bashers do since the Abu Ghraib scandal.
I just watched a pretty good German movie last night called "The Ninth Day" (Der Neunte Tag ). Watching this movie brought me back to the reality of what true torture is.
Maybe some New Orleans Residents can watch this movie to remind them that the term "Concentration Camp" has a different meaning than how it is being used by them.
How do you feel about water boarding?
As for the panties and nudity bit, I think that is highly culturally subjective. Considering that I have voluntarily done both, I doubt I would find that particularly offensive. On the other hand, I have no doubt that a person who understood my cultural issues would be able to find similar things that are as offensive to me as the acts you stated would be to a person with different beliefs.
If I remember right, you are christian, but I forget whether you consider yourself devout, or casual. Either way, you certainly know some staunchly devout christians who would have serious problems with being asked to do things that desecrate their religious feelings. Is it torture? Beats me, it only causes psychological harm. I guess it depends on how you define torture.
Brainwashing could be defined as torture by that standard, but I don't know if it is typically considered torture or not. However, one proven brainwashing technique is repeated, frequent rape. That would almost certainly be considered torture. It's a fuzzy line.
I thought you would be able to differentiate between one person making an allegation against another person, and a few countries making an allegation which is possibly a contravention of international law against another country. Alas!Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
.
How about you reading up the news with people alleging they were illegally transferred from one country to another and tortured by people from CIA, Egypt, Pakistan and whatnot.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
By the way one glaring example of such high-handedness by the US is Guantanamo Bay.
.
What you've completely failed to do is to provide evidenceQuote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
So A movie can tell you better what torture is, compared to international laws and treatys (very original point of view)
Things like sleep deprivation are torture and in fact you (and I) can die from sleep deprivation sooner then hunger. (and that is a biological fact)
To all the persons denying the american violation of human rights, can you explain why Guantonamo bay prisoners are held outside the U.S. other then to prevent them to be treated within laws and treaty,s signed by the U.S.?
My point of view:
- A Terrorist suspect can be innocent too.
- If torture is done subtle and far away in secret prisons, its still torture.
- Physical persuasion is Torture.
- Transporting Prisoners to country's that have nothing to do with their elaged crime and holding prisoners under the local laws (hence inhumane laws) makes someone quilty of torture as well.
- If you are not willing to imply the same rights to a foreign terrorists suspects as a native terrorist suspects. You shouldn't blame others to be U.S. bashing but yourself to be NonU.S.,-bashing, -paranoid, -fobic, the distinction (and deprivation of human rights) between a U.S. citizens rights and Non U.S. citizens is made by the U.S. government and no-one else.
- Torture was commited in Abu Grahib.
- Torture is commited in Afganistan, people have 'dissappeard' while being controlled by U.S. institutions (interrogated by the U.S. but held by afghani police for example)
- I'm not Against the U.S, nor Americans. I'm against the current policy about non American prisoners of the U.S. I do not want to destroy the U.S. I do not hate Americans. I do think this policy is wrong.
Give me a break... did you really miss my point?Quote:
So A movie can tell you better what torture is, compared to international laws and treatys (very original point of view)
Not by the U.S. it wasn't. Unless you consider panties on the head a form of tourture and then you need to be reminded of what torture really is.Quote:
Torture was commited in Abu Grahib.
You can call anything you want torture such as sleep deprivation, then yes the U. S. is comitting torture. But the word is ususally reserved for more grevious tactics and the U.S. military is not doing these acts.
The CIA on the otherhand may use some techniques that border on torture in extreme cases. And they should.
Here is a good opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007673
So where do you stand on attaching electrodes to them and threatening them with dogs? Both of which are documented in the photo's from Abu Graid. Arguably, because the electrodes weren't charged and the dogs weren't released then tactic is moral and any information gained reliable? Sorry, I disagree.Quote:
Unless you consider panties on the head a form of tourture and then you need to be reminded of what torture really is.
and with this too.Quote:
The CIA on the otherhand may use some techniques that border on torture in extreme cases. And they should.
Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not the activities at Abu Graid were morally abhorrent. Even the American government ackonwledged this and put the culprits on trial (the low level culprits at least :mad: ). I think most folks, American and otherwise, would stop a loooong way short of trying to justify Abu Graid.
Here is where I stand:Quote:
So where do you stand on attaching electrodes to them and threatening them with dogs?
attaching electrodes: not torture, causing severe pain by applying current is torture
threatening with dogs: not torture, allowing dogs to repeatedly bite is torture.
I do agree with this opinion because these acts were done for the simple perverted gratification of a few individuals. If, however they were performed as a necessary part of interrogation then I would have to say that war is not pretty and these acts (at the least) are going to be performed by any country who is at war.Quote:
Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not the activities at Abu Graid were morally abhorrent.
So you set a lower moral threshold for acts your government carries out (or accepts are carried out in it's name) than for acts carried out by it's citizens. Isn't your government meant to be 'of the people' and shouldn't the same rules of moral behaviour therefore apply?
As for the argument of necessity, certainly there is a necessity to combat global terrorism, but do you think that the information gained from such techniques will be reliable enough to be useful in that cause. Personally, I'll tell you I was the uni bomber if I think it's save my manhood from a zapping.
The evidence is yet to published but the assumption at this point must be he has at least a piece of significant evidence or that he wants to look like a fool in full media glare.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4524864.stm
The difference between what the "government" can do and what an individual acting alone can do have nothing to do with different "moral thresholds".Quote:
So you set a lower moral threshold for acts your government carries out (or accepts are carried out in it's name) than for acts carried out by it's citizens. Isn't your government meant to be 'of the people' and shouldn't the same rules of moral behaviour therefore apply?
For instance, a government can capture and imprison individuals suspected of doing wrong, an individual cannot.
A government can print more money when it runs out, individuals go to jail for the same act.
Any information given by a suspect, whether as the result of torture or not, must be corroborated by another source or it cannot be trusted. Proper interrogation techniques can often successfully work through the layers of cover stories and falsehoods.Quote:
As for the argument of necessity, certainly there is a necessity to combat global terrorism, but do you think that the information gained from such techniques will be reliable enough to be useful in that cause
That is really a sick standerd of torture So Having dogs just bite you once (in the throat) is fine!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I doubt it were only those individuals, I even think it's naive to believe that.
And you seem to think mental torture is no torture.
Ask yourself this....If someone stranger points a gun to your head and you do smell gunpowder as well. While he's telling He will shoot you if you don't.....
Is the threat less real because it wasn't loaded? Wouldn't you be afraid?
Don't you know people can be traumatized for life from this kind of experience?
Other Example You are being interogated.....
If you don't tell some secret they will kill your Wife and kids.
Were you tortured? They didn't cause you physical pain. They only killed your family.
Not sure about the states but over here we call it a citizens arrest. Of course, you can only detain someone with just cause or risk criminal charges yourself but that (in theory at least) aplies to the police too. Or at least, it has until now though Tony seems to want it changed.Quote:
For instance, a government can capture and imprison individuals suspected of doing wrong, an individual cannot.
Only because the citizens of the nation give them that right. And if the government started doing it 'because I'm a little short this month' I suspect the citizenry might want to withdraw that right.Quote:
A government can print more money when it runs out, individuals go to jail for the same act.
Agreed, though I suspect we differ on our definition of the term: Proper interrogation techniques.Quote:
Proper interrogation techniques can often successfully work through the layers of cover stories and falsehoods.
No, any serious physical or mental damage purposely done is not acceptable except in the most extreme of circustances. The recorded cases of dog bites, however, were one time and were accidental.Quote:
That is really a sick standerd of torture So Having dogs just bite you once (in the throat) is fine!!!
You have no evidence to suggest otherwise so to assume otherwise would be out of pure politcal bigotry.Quote:
I doubt it were only those individuals, I even think it's naive to believe that.
I think everyone involved in war is tramatized to one extent or another, but we are talking about adults who are performing some tramatizing acts themselves.Quote:
Don't you know people can be traumatized for life from this kind of experience?
So no, tramatizing a prisoner is not torture.
I think tramatizing on purpose is something diffrent from just getting tramatized by a situationQuote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Biting prisoners by accident..... How can that happen? In the old days people prisoner fell a lot to explain their wounds and bruces.
And we are not talking about people who performing tramatizing acts themselfs...We are talking about people suspected of performing tranmatizing acts. And in the abu grahib prison some of the prisoners were just jailed for breaching the curfue.
You accuse me of speculation because I have no evidence, but human rights reports give serious hints in the other direction... Do you have prove torture didn't and doesn't happen in U.S. controlled situations from independent sources?
P.S. I do not think you are sick. I do think the standard of torture you posted is wrong and I hope you will think it through again.
McCain said torture is ineffective at getting information. He knows from first hand experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
If you torture someone for information, if they actually know the information, they'll give you false information. If they don't know the information, if they're innocent, they'll give you false information (to stop the torture).
It is the most retarded way of getting intelligence.
Why don't people use Sodium Pentathol (truth serum) and lie detectors?
Because human beings can be trained to 'beat' them, and information, just like torture, is unreliable, because the tester has no way of determining whether his current subject has been trained to withstand such interrogations.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
He says that now that he is trying to make political points, but soon after he was released he admitted that it did work on him.Quote:
McCain said torture is ineffective at getting information. He knows from first hand experience.
I have thought it through; a lot. During times of war I give more leeway to the interrogators. I'd rather see one enemy tortured than one of ours killed.Quote:
I do think the standard of torture you posted is wrong and I hope you will think it through again.
If you want to bring freedom and democratie and condemn Saddam for his inhuman actions so much you invade his country.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
This could be a tat hypocritic don't you think so?
Speaking as the 'devils lawyer':
"Mr S. Hussein was merely fighting terrorism and preventing killings with his regime, maybehe was a 'shade' less subtle but can you blame someone for doing in principal the same things you allow your government to do to others?"
Leaves a serious issue unanswered:
Why is this okay for Non-U.S. citizens but is it not allowed on U.S. citizens,
or within U.S. borders?
In fact the reality is... if several people would tip me as a dangerous terrorist
I would end up having the same treatment. (this scenario is based on a documented case in Afganistan were someone was tipped as a terrorist and tortured so the tipper could steal his belongings)
And another thing your statments suggest you subscribe the statement:
"the goal(saving american lives) legalizes the means(torture)."
As you might be aware that is the same logic terrorists use for their actions.
I understand that the terrorists are using what they see as the most effective means by which they can fight the U.S. I don't fault them for this, but they have declared war on the U.S. so we should use what we determine to be the most effective means to combat them.Quote:
As you might be aware that is the same logic terrorists use for their actions.
Unfortunately, one of the methods the terrorists have available to them, that we don't have, is the weapon of public opinion. It seems to always be on the side of the little guy no matter how repugnant the little guy is. If they can just persuade enough people like you that what we are doing is wrong, then they can win. They know this and use their accomplices in the media to exploit every opportunity they get.
How about another option: the terrorists are deffinitly wrong and the US are not infallible.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I'm sure the U.S. is using the media to their advantage as well and far better.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
The media use off the terrorist I've seen were video tape broadcasted by al Jazeera. And frankly they horrified me. So I even fail to see how the terrorists manipulate the media to send messages in their advantage in europe at least. I share the view of grillkip in this matter. but I will even go further.
I'm against it because it is an deniel off my human rights as well (being dutch and not a U.S. citizen). If I was marked a terrorist,( just like a U.S. senator was on the list of dangerous people for a while) I would be kidnapped, and interogatted 'with force' with no extradition procedure or anything to protect my rights. This is the primal reason I'm against it nothing to do with the ideals or goals any terrorist has, pure egoism.
You've got to be kidding.Quote:
I'm sure the U.S. is using the media to their advantage as well and far better... So I even fail to see how the terrorists manipulate the media to send messages.
It is my understanding that the opposite of this statement is more consistent on what few studies have been done concerning coersion. If you think about your own experience, you will probably agree.Quote:
attaching electrodes: not torture, causing severe pain by applying current is torture
Some of us have a fairly strong ability to resist pain, but almost all of us have a VERY strong aversion to pain. We don't seek pain for pain's sake alone. For instance:
If you have ever broken a bone, you probably know that it doesn't hurt all that much (I hiked about 1,000 miles on a broken bone, it hurt, but I could ignore it). We have physiological means to deal with pain, which makes sense, since pain is not a 'thing', but a firing of certain neurons. Block those neurons, and you will feel NO pain.
On the other hand, everybody can anticipate pretty well. Most of the techniques that have been described as torture deal with anticipation of pain rather than actual pain.
As for it being justified: The death rate is still one per person. We don't get to choose whether we die, we only get to choose how we live. If we are not willing to risk our own lives; if we are not willing to risk the potential that we may be killed; for the priciples on which this country was founded, then the US as a concept has already been destroyed.
Abusing people is not justified to protect the principles of equality and justice upon which this country was founded. If we continue to feel that there are exceptions that can be made, corners that can be cut, to protect the principle, then the principle is a dream that has ended.
I wasn't kidding about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dnereb
I've never seen a radio/tv broadcast or newspaper article that justified the actions of terrorists in any way shape or form. No justification by terrorists for kidnapping as well. I did see TV broadcasts and newspaper articles justifing these actions done by the U.S. government
Can you name any serious radio/Tv program or newspaper in the west that did?
(please keep your examples in English German or French so I can understand/read them.)
If the U.S. is so good at manipulating the media, why is a large portion of the world's population anti-U.S.?
A good example of how well the enemy manipulates the world media:
Remember the big battle for Fallujah in 2004? Do you remember the press that the U.S. military was getting. News reports gathered by Al-Jazera were disseminated around the world that claimed the military had killed thousands of civilians and were running around raping women. This was totally false and was verified to be so by the reporters that were imbedded with the U.S. military.
For some reason (bias) we only received the false stories on our nightly news broadcasts. This very fact forced the Marines to have to cease their taking of Fallujah and allowed the enemy to rebuild its strength. In the end the Marines went back in and cleaned up the city with very little innocent civilian loss of life since the civilians were allowed to leave the city beforehand.
Here is an excellent book on the battle for Fallujah and Ramadi: No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah written by former marine and assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs Bing West.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/055...lance&n=283155
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in what went on over there back then. It’s not a rosy picture, but shows both the good things as well as the many mistakes the U.S. military and government made back then.
Bing West is a pretty good writer, I would recommend his stories just for that reason.
Frankly, I never heard any negative press about the US actions in Fallujah (I had to use Moeur's spelling, as I could never get it on my own, so if I'm wrong, I blame....BUSH....no...wait, I blame Moeur)....damn, took so long writing that aside, I forgot what I was saying....anyways, the only negative press I heard about those actions were properly attributed to their source, which allowed me to accurately discount their credibility. If you were getting your news from a source that did not properly attibute their references, perhaps you should switch news sources.
Edit: Oh yeah, I had no idea that we changed any policy due to bad press I never heard. However, since I hadn't heard the bad press, any policy shift based on it would have baffled me anyways.
What about the press going on about the US's illegal use of the "chemical" weapon white phospherous in Fallujah? Oh wait, it's not a chemical weapon nor is it illegal unless used directly against civilians. There are countless examples like this, just because the headline doesn't say "Terrorists good, US Bad" doesn't mean that's not the intended message.
A more recent example was yesterday. The New York Times (ugh) story of counterfeit ballots streaming into Iraq citing a single, unnamed source. Reuters (ugh again) then runs the story that it's not true at all! LOL
CNN's Miles O'Brien interviewed a US Army Colonel:
COL. STEPHENSON: We received that report very early this morning, and as with any report like that, we'll get to the source and try and confirm whether or not it's true, which we have not been able to do yet.
O'Brien: "Well, how good were these counterfeits? I mean, is there some concern they could easily be mistaken for real ballots?"
COL. STEPHENSON: Well, we haven't even confirmed that the story is even true, so we can't assess how valid the ballots might be.
O'BRIEN: So you're personally unaware of the story? We've been reporting it, other news media have been reporting it, you're not aware of it?
COL. STEPHENSON: Oh, I'm very aware of it. We just have no corroboration that it's true, and we're trying to confirm and do just what you mentioned is find out are there in fact ballots there and could they be used as counterfeits. Again, we have a lot of steps in place to prevent that even if it were to come through the country.
Rediculous! If CNN is reporting it, it must be true! Even their own reporter just doesn't get it.
That's the media trying to get a scoop, not picking sides..
(funny quote btw :))
Not scooping, the sides were picked long ago and it's painfully obvious.Quote:
We've been reporting it, other news media have been reporting it
Well.... maybe hyping rather :blush:
I guess we are seeing this more and more since the advent of 24hr news broadcasting, the driving up of rumours or unnewsworthy events. I still say that the channel(s) in question are not taking position against the US.
Well, you're half right. :D
And in related news...
Bush and McCain reach agreement
Moeur
the U.S. Army openly manipulates the media
it's called: embedded reporting.
About fallujha:
An estimate 50,000 civilians remained in fellujah during the November fight (the second one)when the entire city was declared a free fire zone by the U.S. Army. An estimate 5,000 civilians have died in this 'incedent'.
These estimate where made by amnesty international based on testemoney's of iraqi medical personel.
You can argue it was falsified or doubt the numbers.... whatever.
But I trust Amnesty International to be a reliable source, that tries to represent the estimated fact as thruthfull as possible.
Give or take e percent it points to a 'collateral damage' of something around 10% of the civilians present at the time.
As I write Bush finnaly retracts his policy on torture, cruel and degrading treating of foreign prisoners. (Still find it weird U.S. terrorists were excluded)
So I hereby end my 'contributions' to this thread.
Merry and peacfull Christmas ..... or.. ehrm glp...Must... Be... politcly correct... Have a nice Holidays http://community.the-underdogs.org/s...bottleplus.gif http://community.the-underdogs.org/s.../breadplus.gif
well I'm glad this agreement satisfies you and perhaps others like you. It really doesn't mean too much since what constitutes "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is not spelled out in the agreement. The whole purpose of the agreement (besides gaining political points for McCain in his bid for the 2008 presidental nomination) is to appease the hand wringers. How quickly they forgot 9/11.