Obama Releases Bush Torture Memos

Canada doesn't.

Indeed, as far as I know the US is the only "western" nation to do so, what with it being against the Geneva convention and all.

Unless you consider "oppressive questioning" torture, which is prohibited anyway.

Originally Posted by John

Canada doesn't.

Indeed, as far as I know the US is the only "western" nation to do so, what with it being against the Geneva convention and all.

yeah but thats because there Canadian....


Im sorry I couldn't resist. I have nothing against Canada.


You know it wouldn't surprise me if most countries use torture. Its seems the US is just terrible at keeping it a secret. That and the majority of the worlds dislike for the US, makes it all the more public. I am sure if another country out right admitted to to Torture. it would recieve maybe a couple days, or a weeks worth of plublicity and then it would just kinda drop off the radar.

Originally Posted by Mazrath

yeah but thats because there Canadian....


Im sorry I couldn't resist. I have nothing against Canada.


You know it wouldn't surprise me if most countries use torture. Its seems the US is just terrible at keeping it a secret. That and the majority of the worlds dislike for the US, makes it all the more public. I am sure if another country out right admitted to to Torture. it would recieve maybe a couple days, or a weeks worth of plublicity and then it would just kinda drop off the radar.

If any civilized country did that would most certainly not happen. If there was news of anything like that in Britain, the Daily Mail would be reporting about it for at least a year.

Originally Posted by Exoma

USA isn't the only country to use torture as a method of interrogation.

Actually, I'd probably say 100% of the world uses this.

Yeah of course.

Just US is awful at keeping secretes...which is a good thing

Actually, I think it was a very smart idea for Obama to not go after the higher ups yet, it lets them know that he knows who they are so they better play nice. If they thought he might go on a crusade after him, they would be pressed to try and move against him. If the right man pulls the right strings they could arrange for a critical piece of information to miss the right ears. A critical piece of information like an attempt on the president's life...

I don't subscribe to the seriously deluded conspiracy theories, but I do understand that every man has his own social network with friends in certain places. One of them may know a guy who knows a guy and so forth. And someone who is already proven to have no scruples with ethically questionable means of interrogation is best dealt with subtly, because he may not draw the line at murder. You don't see how far a lion can pounce by standing in front of it.

To The Arbitrator

Ah...I see. My post is just an extrapolation on opposing "Justice"; the implications of saying that one "opposes Justice" in this case are what I've stated in my earlier post. The rest of the ramblings are just hypothetical questions, that's all.

I would then pose the point - can Justice and Vengeance be intrinsically linked in an issue such as this? Isn't there a sense of emotional closure and satisfaction for the majority of people to see these people who tortured others indiscriminately being punished for their actions?

And simultaneously, isn't "Justice" being served? I mean, sure: you might argue that "this isn't Vengeance, it's just appeasing the emotions of the mob" but the notions of "just desserts" that we feel afterward; it's a bit like what we'd feel with upon carrying out such a "Vengeance", hmm?

I agree with what you're saying though. It's just that I like discussion.

USA isn't the only country to use torture as a method of interrogation.

Actually, I'd probably say 100% of the world uses this.

Excuse me if I find this [I]a little[/a] hard to believe...

It's just that I'm still waiting down in my, uh, little pothole of ignorance, and blissfully unaware of this torture my government is using.

Enlighten me as to how you've gotten this view...

Cheers
~read~

Originally Posted by The Readeemer

To The Arbitrator

Ah...I see. My post is just an extrapolation on opposing "Justice"; the implications of saying that one "opposes Justice" in this case are what I've stated in my earlier post. The rest of the ramblings are just hypothetical questions, that's all.

I would then pose the point - can Justice and Vengeance be intrinsically linked in an issue such as this? Isn't there a sense of emotional closure and satisfaction for the majority of people to see these people who tortured others indiscriminately being punished for their actions?

And simultaneously, isn't "Justice" being served? I mean, sure: you might argue that "this isn't Vengeance, it's just appeasing the emotions of the mob" but the notions of "just desserts" that we feel afterward; it's a bit like what we'd feel with upon carrying out such a "Vengeance", hmm?

I agree with what you're saying though. It's just that I like discussion.

Vengeance is an individual's conception of Justice, which is obviously a distorted view. He believes that he deserves to have that emotional closure, and that the person who wronged him deserves whatever he wants to give them, which ignores the broader picture of what Justice requires.

Vengeance and Justice can be linked to a degree, but Vengeance in and of itself is not Justice. One of the five facets of Justice is that the victim deserves to have their wrong righted, but to an adequate and rational degree, which is why we need an independent impartial arbitrator to decide on an appropriate sanction rather than to allow the victim to carry out their own Justice - what they believe is deserved will likely be distorted and enhanced due to their moral outrage.

Originally Posted by The Readeemer

Excuse me if I find this a little hard to believe...

It's just that I'm still waiting down in my, uh, little pothole of ignorance, and blissfully unaware of this torture my government is using.

Enlighten me as to how you've gotten this view...

Cheers
~read~

Why would you know if they were? Also, if there is a better way to get information, why not use it? Or is torture the best way?

Is America a stronger and more secure nation without waterboarding? Should we protect American ideals even when we deal with people/enemies who are not bound by any constitution and kill inocent people?

Obviously, the CIA will have to be smarter and find more effective ways to obtain information.

Originally Posted by linksmolecules

Is America a stronger and more secure nation without waterboarding? Should we protect American ideals even when we deal with people/enemies who are not bound by any constitution and kill inocent people?

Obviously, the CIA will have to be smarter and find more effective ways to obtain information.

Firstly information that cannot be verified which is obtained under torture is often fabricated to make the pain stop. You can make people confess to anything under enough pain.

Secondly, America isn't a stronger and more secure nation with waterboarding. Those people who attack American ideals will be all too happy to attack the decadent Western scum, especially if they are hypocrites.

Originally Posted by linksmolecules

Is America a stronger and more secure nation without waterboarding? Should we protect American ideals even when we deal with people/enemies who are not bound by any constitution and kill inocent people?

Obviously, the CIA will have to be smarter and find more effective ways to obtain information.

Is torture the most effective method, if not why use it? Although I agree that other more humane interrogation methods should be found. Although, you must do what it take to win.

Originally Posted by linksmolecules

Is America a stronger and more secure nation without waterboarding?

Is it more secure with waterboarding?

Should we protect American ideals even when we deal with people/enemies who are not bound by any constitution and kill inocent people?

Yes, why not? People are people are people.

Obviously, the CIA will have to be smarter and find more effective ways to obtain information.

Since waterboarding doesn't work, I'd hope they'd have something more effective.

Since waterboarding doesn't work, I'd hope they'd have something more effective.

Then why use it?

Who knows? Probably thinking it works, even though it doesn't. A common enough thing.

Is it more secure with waterboarding?


No, I don't think so. However, according to former Vice President Chenney it saved quite a few lives.

Yes, but he'd have rather a vested interest, wouldn't he?

Originally Posted by John

Who knows? Probably thinking it works, even though it doesn't. A common enough thing.

So if you knew how many lives it saved, or if it worked, would you support it?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

So if you knew how many lives it saved, or if it worked, would you support it?

If it saved lives and if no other method could do so and if very strict measures were taken to ensure that only guilty people with relevant information had it used on them then I might consider allowing it.

However, torture is well known to not work at all, to be inferior to every other method of intelligence gathering, and very clearly no checks were in place to make sure the people being tortured actually knew anything.

Originally Posted by John

If it saved lives and if no other method could do so and if very strict measures were taken to ensure that only guilty people with relevant information had it used on them then I might consider allowing it.

Ok, just wondering.

However, torture is well known to not work at all, to be inferior to every other method of intelligence gathering, and very clearly no checks were in place to make sure the people being tortured actually knew anything.

How do we know this? If so, why use it? Why would they use this if it didn't work? Do you think the US military would use ineffective means to accomplish their goals? If so, why?