[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Technically the "pleasure women" the Imperial Japanese kept enslaved for years and years were raped, repeatedly and over a very long period of time, both technically and in the more common sense according to much of what I've read. Many went on to be successful mothers because, though they were abused, their genitals were not significantly damaged. If being enslaved and forced into sex with the soldiers that potentially had killed your family is not torture, then I do not know what is.

If we're discussing atrocities committed against women or people in general for whatever "pleasure" the oppressor's might be seeking, there's certainly no shortage of that among human kind. We're talking about defining "torture" as it relates to "extracting information".

I find that we're really getting further and further away from any discernible topic here. I merely challenged the supposition that repeated rapes for weeks on end would not leave a mark. I'm not talking about atrocities against women throughout history or whether or not their genitalia remain intact for future childbirth. We're talking about "leaving a mark" and there's little doubt in my mind that forcible, repeat rapes for weeks on end is both horrible and will most assuredly leave a mark. You can give birth with one arm and a leg tied behind your back, but you'll still show signs of abuse.

Really, the crux of my position is that too many do not address this issue with relevance or sobriety. My point is not the question of ethics behind "torture" or "harsh interrogation techniques", my point is the feigned outrage at it knowing that any such notions would be wholesale abandoned if placed in the position of losing just one of their own loved ones. Worse, there's nothing to suggest we simply wouldn't send them elsewhere to be tortured by those with absolutely no standards nor anyone to blow the whistle.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You'd lose that bet.

Maybe so, but then we might also be having this discussion from the peace and prosperity of our own homes because someone did something at some point that you and I weren't willing to do.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If we're discussing atrocities committed against women or people in general for whatever "pleasure" the oppressor's might be seeking, there's certainly no shortage of that among human kind. We're talking about defining "torture" as it relates to "extracting information".

I thought we were talking about torture, not "questioning." The question was about whether someone could be raped for months on end without leaving "marks," and my answer continues to be "yes."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I find that we're really getting further and further away from any discernible topic here. I merely challenged the supposition that repeated rapes for weeks on end would not leave a mark. I'm not talking about atrocities against women throughout history or whether or not their genitalia remain intact for future childbirth. We're talking about "leaving a mark" and there's little doubt in my mind that forcible, repeat rapes for weeks on end is both horrible and will most assuredly leave a mark. You can give birth with one arm and a leg tied behind your back, but you'll still show signs of abuse.

This paragraph is self-contradictory. Atrocities against women that primarily feature rape are indeed what you were asking about-whether or not repeated rape would "leave a mark," and I answered in particular that such torture was indeed possible. My example was intended to be extreme-these women were so tortured for years. But it appears that your "knowledge" of how rape works-both the random acts of individuals in our society and in the systematic acts of various aggressors in wartime-lets you "believe" what you want to.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Really, the crux of my position is that too many do not address this issue with relevance or sobriety. My point is not the question of ethics behind "torture" or "harsh interrogation techniques", my point is the feigned outrage at it knowing that any such notions would be wholesale abandoned if placed in the position of losing just one of their own loved ones. Worse, there's nothing to suggest we simply wouldn't send them elsewhere to be tortured by those with absolutely no standards nor anyone to blow the whistle.

I have no trouble with applying "harsh interrogation techniques." But I personally believe that we in the West, and particularly in the U.S., MUST draw a very distinct line between "making things very unpleasant" and "torture." The trouble is that defining this line is difficult. People have complained about (intentional or imagined) "desecration of the Koran" and called that torture. People have called fairly harsh acts to prevent them from hunger-striking "torture," though those actions have kept the subject individuals alive.

We civilians tend to feel that the Constitution was meant to control every act by the government - in detail - and I do not agree with this. The Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment was intended to keep our government from using techniques used by the British to demoralize and control the populace, NOT to control how much pressure was put on combatants captured while making war on the U.S. or on U.S. service members. While I don't think branding, flogging or amputation should be used against these combatants, I certainly don't think that we need to give them 3 squares and 8 hours of rack time every day, especially when our own troops often do not get either of these for months on end. Unpleasant conditions are part of being a combatant, not "I think I'll take a break and let someone else to the hard part," and certainly not "now that I've been captured I can kick back and act like I'm on vacation."

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Maybe so, but then we might also be having this discussion from the peace and prosperity of our own homes because someone did something at some point that you and I weren't willing to do.

That's not really an argument, we don't know what would have happened. As a matter of fact, one could just as well argue the opposite: if we hadn't done xyz, this would not have happened.

The fact of the matter is, you can't get away with torture without breaking the US Constitution (at least in spirit) -- or any other constitution of a modern democratic state, it's as simple as that. And I find it quite surprising that `the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'-type of arguments -- which are communist ideas, rights of the populous are more important than individual liberties -- often spew from the mouthes of those who claim they're anything but.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I thought we were talking about torture, not "questioning."

We were talking about torture in the context of "information extraction" as it relates to the overall theme of the thread entitled; 'President Wrong About British Interrogations During WWII?'

The question was about whether someone could be raped for months on end without leaving "marks," and my answer continues to be "yes."

... and I maintain that "no" means "no".

This paragraph is self-contradictory. Atrocities against women that primarily feature rape are indeed what you were asking about-whether or not repeated rape would "leave a mark," and I answered in particular that such torture was indeed possible.

You argued that they weren't "left with a mark" because they maintained their ability to reproduce. I didn't think the premise of your counter was very strong. I still don't.

My example was intended to be extreme-these women were so tortured for years. But it appears that your "knowledge" of how rape works-both the random acts of individuals in our society and in the systematic acts of various aggressors in wartime-lets you "believe" what you want to.

It's not just your examples, it seems most of the arguments presented thus far have taken to some pretty extreme examples. This is of course to illustrate how harsh some forms of interrogation can be by comparing it to horrible things it is generally not.

I have no trouble with applying "harsh interrogation techniques." But I personally believe that we in the West, and particularly in the U.S., MUST draw a very distinct line between "making things very unpleasant" and "torture." The trouble is that defining this line is difficult. People have complained about (intentional or imagined) "desecration of the Koran" and called that torture. People have called fairly harsh acts to prevent them from hunger-striking "torture," though those actions have kept the subject individuals alive.

I agree with much of your statement, but I'm not sure it's advantageous to advertise exactly how far we'll go. We train our own to withstand interrogation, this is no doubt being conducted abroad. While I generally side with flexibility in this context, I admit I don't have an easy or pleasant answer here.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We were talking about torture in the context of "information extraction" as it relates to the overall theme of the thread entitled; 'President Wrong About British Interrogations During WWII?'

Again, I was responding SOLELY to your suggestion that repeated rape in any context MUST "leave a mark."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Again, I was responding SOLELY to your suggestion that repeated rape in any context MUST "leave a mark."

Right ghporter and I had already addressed THIS by saying; there's little doubt in my mind that forcible, repeat rapes for weeks on end is both horrible and will most assuredly leave a mark. You can give birth with one arm and a leg tied behind your back, but you'll still show signs of abuse.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's not really an argument, we don't know what would have happened. As a matter of fact, one could just as well argue the opposite: if we hadn't done xyz, this would not have happened.

Okay, I'll bite. If we hadn't tortured people, what wouldn't have happened?

The fact of the matter is, you can't get away with torture without breaking the US Constitution (at least in spirit) -- or any other constitution of a modern democratic state, it's as simple as that. And I find it quite surprising that `the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'-type of arguments -- which are communist ideas, rights of the populous are more important than individual liberties -- often spew from the mouthes of those who claim they're anything but.

This is quite a stretch.
- Are we talking about the rights to plot attacks against the US?
- Have you defined "torture" yet?
- Do you agree that there are generally actions for which your civil liberties will be revoked?
- Are you saying that someone who has a felony charge on their record, is incarcerated, and cannot vote is being subjected to a communist principle?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right ghporter and I had already addressed THIS by saying; there's little doubt in my mind that forcible, repeat rapes for weeks on end is both horrible and will most assuredly leave a mark. You can give birth with one arm and a leg tied behind your back, but you'll still show signs of abuse.

And as a trained therapist and rape crisis counselor, I state flatly and assuredly that this is not necessarily the case. If the aim of the rapist is to emotionally abuse the victim, he can do a number of things that will prevent "leaving a mark" physically.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay, I'll bite. If we hadn't tortured people, what wouldn't have happened?

I'm saying that we don't know either way. We don't know that torturing people had a beneficial effect on the course of history -- and vice versa.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Are we talking about the rights to plot attacks against the US?

I assume you meant to say `Are we talking about the rights of people who plot attacks against the US?' (Correct me if I'm wrong, though.)
Then the answer is that terrorists are not another species of human, but criminals and the criminal justice system is well-equipped to handle them. And this of course implies that suspected terrorists have to be awarded all the rights of `normal criminals.' This includes the presumption of innocence, the right to an attorney and due process.

Somehow many people have gotten the wrong impression what the justice system is about: it's not about crime prevention, but about dealing with crimes.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Have you defined "torture" yet?

I don't need to define it. The US legal system has a good idea what does and does not constitute torture.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Do you agree that there are generally actions for which your civil liberties will be revoked?

Liberties of individuals can be curbed by due process with all that this entails (e. g. somebody could be sentenced to serve jail time).
There are no actions for which civil liberties of the populous should be revoked or infringed upon. My calls shouldn't be screened because I may call people abroad simply based on the fact that I call someone abroad.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Are you saying that someone who has a felony charge on their record, is incarcerated, and cannot vote is being subjected to a communist principle?

Are you intentionally misunderstanding this? You're talking about the rights of an individual who serves a prison sentenced after being sentenced by a court (due process).
I'm talking about the tendency that `the rights of many are more important that the rights of the individual.' This is the exact idea of communism and runs contrary to the ideas of modern democratic states, including the US. Safety is not more important than individual liberty.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm talking about the tendency that `the rights of many are more important that the rights of the individual.' This is the exact idea of communism and runs contrary to the ideas of modern democratic states, including the US. Safety is not more important than individual liberty.

I want to second this idea that safety is not/should not be more important than personal liberty by quoting something I said in another thread.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I don't believe the US government, or any government, is capable of protecting me, or any citizen, from ALL potential harm. I believe that such a notion is willfully naive. There is an inverse relationship between the amount of personal freedoms a citizen has and the ability of that citizen's government to protect the citizen from harm. The more a government tries to protect a citizen from harm the more the citizen loses its personal freedoms.

For me, I will risk increased likelihood of personal harm (from less effort by the government to protect me from harm) to gain more personal freedom.

[OreoCookie]

Nor should it protect you against all potential harm. Being obese is not something the government can protect you from, for instance.

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I want to second this idea that safety is not/should not be more important than personal liberty by quoting something I said in another thread.

As you probably know, I agree with this 100%.

I do disagree somewhat that this is the absolute case. People have other opinions on this, and I completely understand that.

What I cannot brook however, and I find this true of almost everyone who places a higher priority on safety over liberty than myself, is an absolute insistence that curtailing our civil liberties for safety isn't actually curtailing our civil liberties, it's only making us safer.

It truly takes all my effort to not get personal with these people, and the irony is that I'll go through all that effort and still get called a "terrorist dupe" or some other crap.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And as a trained therapist and rape crisis counselor, I state flatly and assuredly that this is not necessarily the case. If the aim of the rapist is to emotionally abuse the victim, he can do a number of things that will prevent "leaving a mark" physically.

You've espoused particular expertise on any number of topics discussed in this forum and while I generally accept the information you provide as meaningful, there's absolutely no reason I should regard it as authoritative.

As a self-proclaimed authority on rape and therapy, you're no doubt familiar with the statistics on rape;
According to the U.S. Department of Justice: (All statistics are taken from: Violenceagainst Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.)
- In 29% of rapes, the offender used a weapon.
- In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries.
- 75% of female rape victims require medical care after the attack.

These are generally singular cases of rape. I can tell you as one well versed in the ways of common sense that a woman who is locked in a room and repeatedly raped for weeks on end will most assuredly "have a mark". Of course you already know that rape and sexual assault is always more about the use of force or power to humiliate, control, hurt or violate a woman than sexual desire or sex. We're just splitting hairs at this point.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm saying that we don't know either way. We don't know that torturing people had a beneficial effect on the course of history -- and vice versa.

We already know from recent history that it has thwarted some very specific attacks against US infrastructure. If our President is as pragmatic as he claims and is as interested in "transparency" as he seems, let's see both sides of the issue with all the data.

I assume you meant to say `Are we talking about the rights of people who plot attacks against the US?' (Correct me if I'm wrong, though.)

No. I'm saying you do not have the right to plot an attack against the US. Just as an officer can stop you and violate your right to privacy without "due process" of any sort, only probable cause which is about as well-defined as torture quite frankly.

Then the answer is that terrorists are not another species of human, but criminals and the criminal justice system is well-equipped to handle them.

I'd say the New York police dept did a knock-down job of stopping 9/11. No, they are most certainly not resourced to deal with the broad scope of terrorists and terrorist plots. That's why we have a government at all.

And this of course implies that suspected terrorists have to be awarded all the rights of `normal criminals.' This includes the presumption of innocence, the right to an attorney and due process.

Typically, they'd be dead. There is no "due process" in war. Fighting dirty against the brits was instrumental in building and maintaining our freedom. There was a peculiar decorum in the methods of war and we violated a great many of them. I for one am glad we did.

Somehow many people have gotten the wrong impression what the justice system is about: it's not about crime prevention, but about dealing with crimes.

People forget what common sense is and they quickly lose resolve. I believe our military is resourced to discern "probable cause" and extract the information they need without some corrupted cigar-chomping suit telling military officials what they can and cannot do as is politically expedient when their unit and potentially a US city are on the line. If we can not discern between the treatment of enemy combatants and terrorist plots from US citizens, we have no business maintaining a country. We keep up this BS and we won't. Mark my words.

I don't need to define it. The US legal system has a good idea what does and does not constitute torture.

It has no friggin' clue.

Liberties of individuals can be curbed by due process with all that this entails (e. g. somebody could be sentenced to serve jail time).
There are no actions for which civil liberties of the populous should be revoked or infringed upon. My calls shouldn't be screened because I may call people abroad simply based on the fact that I call someone abroad.

A terrorist's attempted plot against the populace excludes him from the populace.

I'm talking about the tendency that `the rights of many are more important that the rights of the individual.' This is the exact idea of communism and runs contrary to the ideas of modern democratic states, including the US. Safety is not more important than individual liberty.

No. Communism is actually more akin to the rights of the few are more important than the livelihoods of the rest. I don't buy it. You can call it communism if you want. I call it common sense.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Somehow many people have gotten the wrong impression what the justice system is about: it's not about crime prevention, but about dealing with crimes.

In a nutshell, you just spelled out exactly why dealing with terrorism, and especially large scale terrorist groups, isn't just another common law enforcement task for the local cop on the beat to deal with between visits to the donut shop. No nation- not ours or any other- just sits back and says "We'll just wait for our subways to be attacked, planes to be hijacked and slammed into buildings, bombs to go off in crowded public places, bridges and buildings to blow up, etc. and then we'll set about 'dealing with the crimes' after the fact.

Terrorism is actually something that has to be actively prevented, using intelligence gathering and agencies that keep a watchful eye on known suspects and any plots they uncover, with the goal of preventing attacks, not waiting until they happen and and then investigating them like common crimes.

That's just a fact- and there's no nation on earth that operates any other way. Sooner or later, more people (yes, even spoiled westerners) are going to have to come to grips with the facts of that, and that it's not always going to be pretty, and wrapped up with a pink P.C. bow on it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

A nation defending itself is communism. *snicker*

That's up there with "having a military is communist!"

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've espoused particular expertise on any number of topics discussed in this forum and while I generally accept the information you provide as meaningful, there's absolutely no reason I should regard it as authoritative.

As a self-proclaimed authority on rape and therapy, you're no doubt familiar with the statistics on rape;
According to the U.S. Department of Justice: (All statistics are taken from: Violenceagainst Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.)
- In 29% of rapes, the offender used a weapon.
- In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries.
- 75% of female rape victims require medical care after the attack.

These are generally singular cases of rape. I can tell you as one well versed in the ways of common sense that a woman who is locked in a room and repeatedly raped for weeks on end will most assuredly "have a mark". Of course you already know that rape and sexual assault is always more about the use of force or power to humiliate, control, hurt or violate a woman than sexual desire or sex. We're just splitting hairs at this point.

It was my impression that the 'leave a mark" issue was about a permanent, lasting scar. Yes, typical rapes in our society are committed by use of active violence and often are accompanied by beatings before and/or after. However these typically do NOT result in permanent, physical scars. Yes, they leave a "mark" for a while, but the physical evidence usually fades rather quickly.

ANY harsh treatment that involves restraints has the potential to "leave a mark" at least temporarily. Even fairly well applied hand cuffs will leave a mark depending on how the person in cuffs is seated. Temporary marks are part of the normal response of the body to contact with external objects, and they often fade within moments of the removal of the object. Just like the lines on your body that your bedclothes make overnight, these temporary marks are benign and very transient.

So, is ANY activity that leaves even a temporary mark "torture?" That would mean that my very nice pillow is torturing me. Is an activity that leaves a longer term mark, such as a bruise, torture? If so, then one's seatbelt is torturing them when it does its job in an accident (it's not uncommon for seatbelts to inflict both deep bruising and pretty nasty abrasions while they keep the occupant of the car from being ejected through the windshield. In fact, even some permanent deformities can come from either relatively benign or even unknown sources; bunions are a nasty deformity, but is a woman buying overly pointy shoes participating in self-inflicted torture?

The nature and EFFECT of any lasting evidence must be taken into account when declaring that "leaving a mark" is a qualification for an activity being or not being torture.

My discourse on rape was intended to point out that, even though rape is used in armed conflict by any number of ill-begotten and barbaric gangs of thugs loosely organized "militias," the PHYSICAL impact is entirely secondary to the PSYCHOLOGICAL impact on both the victims and their families and neighbors. The point of this torture is the psychological effect. Frequently gangs will attack women and serially rape her, then parade her (often naked) through the streets to demonstrate that these inhuman slugs "militiamen" can do anything they damn well please to anyone, and they don't care who knows it. This often has the effect of enforcing control over the whole village. Is this practice NOT torture? And is it not torture of the whole community? So not having left a mark on 99.9% of the entire community, they have ALL been tortured psychologically.

[hyteckit]

From a pro-waterboarding conservatives prospective:

Slamming a girl onto the ground, restraining her with force, and raping her - akin to torture

Slamming a prisoner onto the wall (Walling), restraining him with force, and waterboarding him - harsh interrogation, not torture


I guess the "harsh interrogation" lead to a prisoner's death in Abu Ghraib.

[Wiskedjak]

If you employ the tactics of those you consider 'evil', what's the point?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. I'm saying you do not have the right to plot an attack against the US. Just as an officer can stop you and violate your right to privacy without "due process" of any sort, only probable cause which is about as well-defined as torture quite frankly.

Police officers do follow due process.

And yes, you do not have a right to plot terrorist attacks just as you don't have the right to commit robbery or murder. These are criminal offenses and the most successful tool against them is plain-old boring police work. Not miracle potions such as `enhanced interrogations' or so, but observation, checks, etc. The `Sauerland group,' a group of muslims and German converts who were planning terrorist attacks in Germany, for instance, were caught precisely because of ordinary police work.

This is one of the alarming things: instead of emphasizing the importance of ordinary police work (meaning that additional funds are allocated and efficiently spent), all we read in the media is the importance of warrantless phone taps and such.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd say the New York police dept did a knock-down job of stopping 9/11. No, they are most certainly not resourced to deal with the broad scope of terrorists and terrorist plots. That's why we have a government at all.

Remember what I wrote before? The police's role is not crime prevention. The NYPD does not have jurisdiction here, investigating leads on terrorist groups is a federal issue and not different from dealing with various mafias or drug cartels.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Typically, they'd be dead. There is no "due process" in war. Fighting dirty against the brits was instrumental in building and maintaining our freedom. There was a peculiar decorum in the methods of war and we violated a great many of them. I for one am glad we did.

Many issues are being mixed here.
Insurgents in, say, Iraq who are planting roadside bombs against American soldiers are not in the same category as people who in America that are planning an attack on the American homeland. These are separate issues and should not be mixed.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

People forget what common sense is and they quickly lose resolve. I believe our military is resourced to discern "probable cause" and extract the information they need without some corrupted cigar-chomping suit telling military officials what they can and cannot do as is politically expedient when their unit and potentially a US city are on the line. If we can not discern between the treatment of enemy combatants and terrorist plots from US citizens, we have no business maintaining a country. We keep up this BS and we won't. Mark my words.

Who is the guy in the suit? A lawyer who inconveniently insists that the US forces stick to US laws and military regulations?
It's not the military's business to get involved in police work and in fact, there should be a strict separation between the two. I still don't get how insurgents in Basra or wherever endanger an American city and even if they did, how a few grunts from the US military are supposed to deal with it. They're hardly experts on the intricacies of transnational terrorist network -- nor should they be, they're soldiers.

What is forgotten is not just common sense, but the rule of law.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A terrorist's attempted plot against the populace excludes him from the populace.

No. If somebody kills his/her father, then (s)he is still family. You're just trying to rationalize things here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. Communism is actually more akin to the rights of the few are more important than the livelihoods of the rest. I don't buy it. You can call it communism if you want. I call it common sense.

I've seen communism first-hand when I was a child (fortunately, I wasn't raised in a communist country). The interests of the state always trumped the rights of the individual -- and it's no different here. This is simply incompatible with the basic principles on which modern democracies are based -- and I'm always amazed to find quite a few people who are otherwise staunchly opposed to communist ideas and leanings so much in line with them.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

In a nutshell, you just spelled out exactly why dealing with terrorism, and especially large scale terrorist groups, isn't just another common law enforcement task for the local cop on the beat to deal with between visits to the donut shop.

Who said anything about local police?
Terrorist organizations are not different from other forms of organized crime (drug or human trafficking, for instance). And the law enforcement agencies (e. g. the FBI or, if counterfeit currency is involved, the Secret Service) have lots of experience dealing with these cases. Just forming a terrorist group and planning a terrorist attack is already a crime people can be punished for and there is no need to wait until after the attack has happened.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No nation- not ours or any other- just sits back and says "We'll just wait for our subways to be attacked, planes to be hijacked and slammed into buildings, bombs to go off in crowded public places, bridges and buildings to blow up, etc. and then we'll set about 'dealing with the crimes' after the fact.

You're twisting my words here.
Regular law enforcement can and has dealt with this (potentially with the help of, say, the CIA) and prevent attacks. The most effective weapon against terrorism is handling them via law enforcement. Just planning a terrorist attack is a crime and so law enforcement can be and is used effectively here while protecting citizens.

[hyteckit]

98 detainees have died due to "harsh interrogations". That's gotta leave a permanent mark. Now I know why the CIA destroy the tapes.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/...hts-group-say/

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If you employ the tactics of those you consider 'evil', what's the point?

Survival. If somebody is trying to kill me and I have a clear shot at him, I'm not going to stop and think, "Gosh, I really don't want to sink to his level."

Also, do we consider them evil because of these tactics, or are we judging the tactics based on the people who have employed them (in which case we might just as well condemn drinking water)?

[Hugi]

Torture is wrong.

Not so long ago, this was a universally recognized truth in western culture.
In my opinion it's sad to see advanced civilizations revert to barbarism.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Also, do we consider them evil because of these tactics, or are we judging the tactics based on the people who have employed them (in which case we might just as well condemn drinking water)?

Excellent question. Why are terrorists considered "evil"?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Hugi 

Torture is wrong.

Not so long ago, this was a universally recognized truth in western culture.
In my opinion it's sad to see advanced civilizations revert to barbarism.

It still is pretty basically regarded as wrong. But since our beloved leader #42 managed to bring up a variety of "how do you define..." questions (trying to avoid admitting that he likes oral sex), we have run into something very interesting: what is the absolute definition of "torture." Waiting for weeks for a test result? Standing in the sun holding heavy weights for no real reason? Picking up and putting down one's luggage time after time after time because someone didn't like how loud it might have been the first time? Or is it something that physically damages the individual, leaving scars that last? Or is it something that cripples the psyche? We do not have a real definition because the concept is so slippery.

"Torture" is as implementation- and situation-specific as anything can be. The Japanese in WWII tortured all sorts of prisoners, including civilians who should have merely been segregated from the rest of Imperial Japan's society-including women and children. The North Vietnamese tortured prisoners for information, but more often to elicit "admissions of guilt" for publicity purposes. They tortured civilians in the countryside even more horribly, sometimes mutilating individuals, even babies, to control the populace. But these are extreme descriptions of extreme situations.

The question we've been batting around in this thread is "were the techniques used by Army and CIA interrogators against the unlawful combatants detained on the battlefields in Iraq actually 'torture?'" And we haven't come to a consensus. If we can't in this limited population, how could the whole of Western Civilization?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Who said anything about local police?
Terrorist organizations are not different from other forms of organized crime (drug or human trafficking, for instance).

Of course they are different. It's pointless to pretend they are the same thing. While organized crime and drug/human trafficking are serious concerns of law enforcement, the intent, and level of immediate danger they present could hardly be more different. Organized criminals hide what they're up to and don't want to be discovered by the law abiding populace. They certainly aren't out to destroy the very host market system they prey on -that would kill their illicit businesses.

The whole point of terrorism is almost exactly the opposite-to directly attack a targeted populace in very flashy ways in order to push an agenda, damage even collapse market economies (why the hell does anyone think they went after the World TRADE Center and Wall Street not once but twice?) and spread a 'cause' using violence and destruction. It's very much an act of war, and you don't prevent acts of war by sending out Car 54.

Just forming a terrorist group and planning a terrorist attack is already a crime people can be punished for and there is no need to wait until after the attack has happened.

Of course- but you're waxing over the details of how any agency can punish a terrorist group for planning an attack: how they find out about it in the first place (IE:a LOT of intelligence gathering work using methods like *AHEM* wiretaps) and everything from gathering evidence across international boundaries and jurisdictions ,to taking out/arresting terrorists in places that are probable war zones. You can't just say "Law enforcement will handle it!" then actively work to take all the effective tools away from law enforcement or military- even when some of those tools aren't P.C. enough for everyone.

You said:
"And yes, you do not have a right to plot terrorist attacks just as you don't have the right to commit robbery or murder."

Do you really begin to fathom the immense difference in stopping a future event from being PLOTTED, vs. investigating something already COMMITTED? We haven't quite reached the 'Minority Report' phase yet.

That's the crux of this whole issue. It's extremely difficult to stop a 'plot'. Police don't routinely stop robberies and murders being plotted- they (as you correctly said) deal with finding who committed them, IE: after the fact.

In foiling terrorists, you have to stop them at the plotting stage, not wait around to pick up the pieces after the 'committed' stage. Doing that IN REALITY requires lots of intelligence gathering, and the real world mechanics of that involves methods that you and many others may not be comfortable with, because everything isn't always wrapped up with a nice P.C. pink bow on it.

The most effective weapon against terrorism is handling them via law enforcement. Just planning a terrorist attack is a crime and so law enforcement can be and is used effectively here while protecting citizens.

Again, this is a muddled statement that waxes over so many things that it's completely meaningless. No, law enforcement is not automatically the best thing at stopping something from being PLANNED (hell, it's hard enough to score a conviction for many crimes that DID happen!) and if it IS to be the most effective weapon, then you need to back off and give it a WIDE range of tools that GUARANTEED include some that you are going to scream bloody murder over the use of.

That's a sad paradox that eventually you, others, and all of us will have to come to grips with.