Torture

[Guest MrRant]

Y'all are taking this way too seriously.

Yes they are because after all, I beat her regulary.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Kibagami]

Indeed we did, Guy.

 

[shill mode] The SWF: Raising Workrate By Writing Faster. [/shill mode]

 

And Marney...he seems harmless now, but after he goes on about the SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR MONTHS AT A TIME...you will begin to tire of 'Taft. Stubborn, he is.

 

S.

[Guest danielisthor]

Supataft, that is the most pathetic signature I've ever seen.

What?! The guy spins round! It's signature GOLD~!

i find the spinning both cool and annoying at the same time.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Marney...he seems harmless now, but after he goes on about the SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR MONTHS AT A TIME...you will begin to tire of 'Taft. Stubborn, he is.

I'm starting to see what you mean. The "frigid sexless bitch" thanks you for the heads-up.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Call it a stalemate if you will, you stopped fighting, allowing me to step up and win the arguement. But don't feel bad, no one likes to admit defeat.

Stopped fighting? Defeat? We weren't ever even on the same planet.

Put whatever you want in your signature; I'm done with you now.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Well shit, I shoulda brought that argument out the first time I argued with Marney over the war on terrorism.

 

I just figured I'd be flamed over it and it wasn't worth it.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Don't flatter yourself. It doesn't work if you don't believe in it, or when the question is one of facts, self-preservation, and the national interest.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

True.

 

I've actually argued that point with other people, though... I believe it in more as relatively than the complete absence of good and evil, though.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Right, I can see you subscribing to that, but not this one.

[Guest DrTom]

Torture is never acceptable under any circumstances.

On September 10th of last year, I would have agreed with you without the slightest reservation. Now, I think it's acceptable, in the one instance specifically mentioned, and in no others.

 

While torture by definition causes pain, it is possible to torture someone without maiming them. Medieval devices like the rack, and similar things constructed to inflict as much pain as possible, wouldn't even be a part of it. We don't need to go THAT far, and I would draw the line at permanently maiming someone in the name of information, regardless of that information's purpose or the benefits of obtaining it.

 

Our highest duty to act nobly...

As a people, yes.

 

The highest duty of the government, however, is to protect its citizens. And if the government can save thousands of lives by slapping some scummy terrorist around, I say put on the slap gloves and get to work. As mentioned above, I would draw the line at maiming someone, no matter the reason, but short of that, I think the ends justify the means.

 

Do you really think the people you might save by such an immitigably evil act would thank you for it?

No. And neither do you.

 

Since people's opinions about things like torture obviousky run the gamut, I think you'd see a mixed reaction. Some would certainly condemn the gathering of the information, even though their lives were spared as a result. More power to them if they really feel that way. Others will look at the number of lives saved, and decide that torture, while wholly unacceptable in 99.9% of all situations, was justified by the lives that were saved.

 

I'd fall into the latter group.

 

I think you'd be damned by ... Providence.

I've taken my chances dodging the lightning bolts so far, and made out OK.

 

(Edit: stupid quote tags...)

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Who's to say they'd even tell the truth under torture?

 

You could lie and if your story doesn't check out, just claim you were misinformed.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

On September 10th of last year, I would have agreed with you without the slightest reservation.

Put away the emotional gimmick for half a second and stop letting intellectual featherweights like Dershowitz lead you by the nose.

 

Now, I think it's acceptable, in the one instance specifically mentioned, and in no others.

The one instance specifically mentioned is a crock of shit. It doesn't happen. It won't happen. We either find terrorists long before they can do anything, or we find them after they've done it. Your specifically mentioned instance occurs only in Hollywood movies. Oh, here's another bit of news for you: most bombs don't have big red LED timers attached to the side, and disarming a bomb takes more than cutting the right wire. If you don't have enough time to evacuate the area, you probably don't have enough time to disarm the bomb either. And that's assuming you get your information as soon as you break out your pincers. And it's correct. And you can get there in time. And the terrorist himself knows the truth.

 

Gee, there sure seem to be a lot of assumptions there. And what if the terrorist's lying? You yourself call him a "terrorist suspect." What, he's guilty until proven innocent? What if it's a hoax? You start torturing him and then he says it's a publicity stunt or he did on a dare. What do you do? Believe him and stop? Well that's a pretty easy out for a real terrorist too, isn't it? What if he gives you false information? You stop torturing him and test it. It proves to be false or it sets off the bomb. You've just wasted the lives of the bomb squad as well as all those thousands of innocents you're so concerned about. What kind of fuckheaded reasoning is this? Terrorists are not only willing but eager to perish in order to kill thousands of our citizens; you think they can't fucking lie?

 

You can't trust anything a terrorist says under any condition. We know this. But the reason we banned torture wasn't because it was useless; we banned it because it was evil: because it inevitably denigrates, demeans and brutalises not only its victim and its practitioners but its purpose.

 

I would draw the line at permanently maiming someone in the name of information, regardless of that information's purpose or the benefits of obtaining it.

How generous of you, you sick fucking creep. It is the deliberate infliction of pain that matters, not whether there's evidence of it afterwards. Christ, your argument is getting more disgusting and more cowardly with every dumbfuck word. Not only are you willing to torture people, but you want to be able to deny it afterwards - or why else would you care about maiming a terrorist? You're willing to inflict excruciating pain on them and put them to death; why are you drawing the line at maiming? What grotesque hypocrisy.

 

The highest duty of the government, however, is to protect its citizens.

Don't you ever fucking lecture me about my duty, asshole.

if the government can save thousands of lives by slapping some scummy terrorist around... the ends justify the means.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Some acts are evil, pure and simple. The deliberate infliction of unbearable pain on another human being in order to coerce behaviour is evil. It cannot serve a noble purpose. Ever. The Framers understood this: the Eighth Amendment specifically and absolutely bans torture. There is no middle ground. You either allow torture or you ban it. Specific circumstances? Don't make me laugh.

 

And just who the bloody hell do you think you are, anyway, to advocate bringing shame and dishonour on our country by committing such appallingly evil acts in her name? Jesus wept, if I ever hear of the shit you're advocating happening anywhere in the world "on behalf" of so much as one American citizen, let alone thousands, I swear by all the saints in heaven I will personally see to it that the animal responsible is brought to justice.

 

This is the United States of America. We have a Bill of Rights. We are supposed to be a beacon of liberty and justice to the world, an example of the heights human endeavour can reach, a shining city on a hill. We are BETTER than everyone else, and I will not allow you and your ilk to denigrate my land and my people by dragging us into filthy savagery and stupid, vicious barbarism for any reason at all, now or ever.

[Guest DrTom]

Put away the emotional gimmick for half a second and stop letting intellectual featherweights like Dershowitz lead you by the nose.

Put away the Queen Bitch gimmick for the same amount of time. You should know by now that the shit that gets everyone else licking at your drippings and cowering in terror doesn't do a goddamn thing to me. I'm not letting anyone lead me by the nose, especially someone like Dershowitz. Hell, this is the first time I can remember that I actually agreed with something he said, and I've heard him say a lot.

 

The one instance specifically mentioned is a crock of shit. It doesn't happen. It won't happen.

Then I guess you'll never see my evil barbarism come to light, will you? You could have saved us both a lot of trouble by simply shutting the fuck up after that, but I know you far too well to think you'd ever pass up a chance to misinterpret what I've said and try to score points based on that.

 

What if it's a hoax?

I think it's pretty obvious the situation deals with real terrorists and real terrorist threats, not a bunch of yahoos looking for kicks.

 

How generous of you, you sick fucking creep. It is the deliberate infliction of pain that matters, not whether there's evidence of it afterwards.

This is why I hate doing this with you: you always ascribe to me words I never said, then get pretentiously offended about them, and go off on a position I never held. "Evidence of it afterwards" never even entered into my thoughts. I just don't think we should permanently harm someone in the name of getting information. Hard interrogations, yes. Slapping them around some, yes. Torture techniques like the wet towel over the face, yes. But chopping them up, slicing off fingers, splitting them open... hell no. Things like that were best left behind in the middle ages. I know this is a dotted line in the sand I'm drawing here, but the consideration of evidence never occurred to me. It's just that I think there are some things we should not do in the name of trying to save lives, and willfully maiming another person is one of them.

 

Christ, your argument is getting more disgusting and more cowardly with every dumbfuck word. Not only are you willing to torture people, but you want to be able to deny it afterwards - or why else would you care about maiming a terrorist? You're willing to inflict excruciating pain on them and put them to death; why are you drawing the line at maiming? What grotesque hypocrisy.

I already said why I care about it, but it's good to know the Marney Faux Moralizing Bullshit Production Plant is functioning at top capacity. You've talked about obliterating the Middle East a lot more often and a lot more rabidly than I have, then you get your panties in a twist over the possible infliction of pain. THAT sounds a lot more like grotesque hypocrisy to me. "Sure, I'd love to incincerate you all in a blast of atomic fire... but no, don't slap that terrorist around!" Pick a fucking lane and stay in it.

 

Don't you ever fucking lecture me about my duty, asshole.

Exactly whom do you think you're impressing? You're the one who constantly mentions how you never invest your ego in a bulletin board, then you react like a bitch of the first division when I make a common point about the duty of government. Get over yourself.

 

Jesus wept, if I ever hear of the shit you're advocating happening anywhere in the world "on behalf" of so much as one American citizen, let alone thousands, I swear by all the saints in heaven I will personally see to it that the animal responsible is brought to justice.

It's already happened, numerous times. The American government has accepted confessions from criminals interrogated in foreign lands, where torture was clearly used to get the information. I'm sure you can find a few records of that somewhere in that building of yours. It's been on the news enough times, and alluded to by attorneys and activists on both sides of the political spectrum, that you shouldn't have a problem finding it. I eagerly await your reports of swift justice upon the guilty, O Great Crusader.

 

We are BETTER than everyone else, and I will not allow you and your ilk to denigrate my land and my people by dragging us into filthy savagery and stupid, vicious barbarism for any reason at all, now or ever.

"Your ilk" indeed. That whole sentence is really amusing to read.

[Guest godthedog]

actually, torture without physical pain is possible. in the 60s or 70s they developed sensory deprivation chambers, where you would float around in a warm pool & essentially couldn't see, hear, smell, feel, or taste anything; the original idea was to make you relax, but they found that sensory deprivation results in horrible hallucinations, so it was used as a form of torture for the cold war. don't know if the u.s. used it, as my psychology teacher just mentioned it as a footnote.

 

i don't know if there would be any psychological scarring from long-term sensory deprivation, but it is something to think about.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

"When Crazy Right-Wing Maniacs Collide!", starts this fall at 21:00 pst

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'm not letting anyone lead me by the nose, especially someone like Dershowitz.

You absolutely are. I expect this from crackheads like him. I would expect you to have a smidgen more sense. But evidently your time spent listening to him has corrupted what little brain you ever had, and this is the result.

 

Then I guess you'll never see my evil barbarism come to light, will you?

No, I won't. Because Americans are decent people as a whole, and pissants like you will always be ignored.

 

it's pretty obvious the situation deals with real terrorists and real terrorist threats, not a bunch of yahoos looking for kicks.

How do you intend to tell the difference? A yahoo comes up to you and says, "I'm a terrorist. I've planted a nuclear bomb somewhere under Manhattan and it's going to go off in two hours. I know how to disarm it but I won't tell you." What do you do? Please, explain. I'm dying to hear your excuse for

a) not taking him seriously, or

b) torturing him, especially after it turns out to be a hoax two hours later.

Go on. I'm waiting.

 

I just don't think we should permanently harm someone in the name of getting information... Torture techniques... yes.  But chopping them up, slicing off fingers, splitting them open... hell no.  Things like that were best left behind in the middle ages.

Which is precisely where you're trying to take us again. Your entire argument is bullshit. Again, where is that line? Rape doesn't inflict permanent physical damage. Would you be willing to sodomise a male terrorist in order to make him feel humiliated and abused? Easier to break? What about female terrorists? There are a few. Are you going to rape them to get information? No? Why not? The ends justify the means, don't they?

A dotted line in the sand? Don't flatter yourself. You're a two year-old drawing squiggles in a puddle of your own urine.

 

I think there are some things we should not do in the name of trying to save lives, and willfully maiming another person is one of them.

Willfully inflicting unendurable suffering on a human being is another.

 

You've talked about obliterating the Middle East... then you get your panties in a twist over the possible infliction of pain

Those were obviously words said in anger, much like this. I could say them because no one ever seriously proposes that we do such things. This is a serious debate about things which moral degenerates like you propose we actually do. Learn the difference.

 

you react like a bitch of the first division when I make a common point about the duty of government.

Your post was specifically addressed to me. You know damned well I'm part of the government. And you corrupted a point I've made countless times in the past in order to advocate your own evil agenda. I took offense.

Cry me a fucking river, whiner. And once again: don't presume to tell me my duty. I know my duty. And it does not involve demeaning my country by committing evil in her name.

 

The American government has accepted confessions from criminals interrogated in foreign lands, where torture was clearly used to get the information.

Foreign countries use torture all the time anyway, jackass. They aren't bound by our Constitution. We try to stop it when we can and we punish it when we can't. Accepting confessions extracted through evil means isn't the best idea, no, but it's nowhere near the same as committing such crimes ourselves.

 

That whole sentence is really amusing to read.

Oh? What was amusing about it, shithead? The fact that America is better than other countries, or the fact that you want to destroy our principles to preserve our lives? Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Remember? You've said those words yourself in the past. Principles can't be sacrificed for life either.

Your cowardice in the face of danger is pathetic. But it is not shared by the government, and it is not shared by the American people. Your vile ideas will never come into practice; voicing them serves only to demonstrate your degeneracy, your craven nature, and your wickedness.

 

We will not become what we hate.

 

Fuck you and fuck Alan Dershowitz. Go back to sucking his cock; that's all you're suited for anymore. Seriously, you're advocating the destruction of a fundamental moral tenet of the Constitution? And you call yourself a conservative... what a fucking joke. If you're going to play this fast and loose with the ideals of the Founding Fathers, kindly go register as a Democrat. You'll fit right in.

[Guest godthedog]

okay, i didn't want to jump in directly, but implying that liberals in general advocate torture is a) insulting, and b) laughably fallacious. the liberals are the ones against the death penalty, how would torture fit into their ideals? and don't use dershowitz as an example.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

implying that liberals in general advocate torture is... insulting

If you want to be insulted on behalf of all liberals, I suggest you read my last post on this page. I don't think liberals as a political group advocate torture, and that is not what I said; please learn to read before you "jump in directly." I do think liberals are not only willing but eager to twist the Constitution to serve their own ends. Which is precisely what Tom and that Dershowitz moron are doing.

[Guest EricMM]

I certainly don't think we should entertain the thoughts of torture.

 

As so many people have said in one way or another, America is the shining beacon of light on the hill. We are better than the third world bullshit that every little dictator pulls to remain in power. It's not because we're rich, it's because we're RIGHT.

 

If we did what you called "necessary" we'd have to stop calling Pinochet a monster. Because what's wrong with attaching a car battery to someone's nuts if it's for the greater good? Define greater good.

 

Torture to me means inflicting terrifying agony on a person, such that reason and sanity are seared.

It's just that I think there are some things we should not do in the name of trying to save lives, and willfully maiming another person is one of them.

Ok so their fingers and toes are intact. What about their mind??

 

Torturing people is bad/wrong/evil. It's unethical, immoral, and damaging to all involved.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I do think liberals are not only willing but eager to twist the Constitution to serve their own ends. Which is precisely what Tom and that Dershowitz moron are doing.

Both sides do this, Marney, and you can't deny that.

 

It's called politics.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Both sides do this

True, but Republicans are nowhere near as bad as the Democrats, who do so consistently and systematically, not even for mere political gain. I disagree with the GOP line on many issues, as I've said before, but I will vote for the Republicans and I will never vote for the Democrats.

[Guest MrRant]

Both sides do this

True, but Republicans are nowhere near as bad as the Democrats, who do so consistently and systematically, not even for mere political gain. I disagree with the GOP line on many issues, as I've said before, but I will vote for the Republicans and I will never vote for the Democrats.

Quick question. IF hypothetically you came across a ticket with a moderate Democrate and a extremist Republican which way would you vote assuming you agreed more with the Democrats side of the issues then the Repubilican?

 

I in general agree more with the Republican side of issues but if a Democrate was running in WA state that I agreed with more on issues I would swing my vote that way because I would care more about having the issues I care about taken care of the way I want instead of just voting Republican because that in general is what I vote and want to keep my batting average.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Torture to me means inflicting terrifying agony on a person, such that reason and sanity are seared.

Exactly. Torture doesn't convince; torture destroys. Torture is intended to batter at a person's mind until he or she will do or say anything, anything, in order to stop the pain. No, terrorists don't have the right to conspire against the American people and plot to kill thousands or millions or hundreds of millions; but we don't have the right to stop them from thinking the way they do. You agitate against the concept of hate crimes, Tom (and I agree with you); so why are you willing to brutalise terrorists for thinking in an evil way? We can fight against them, yes; we can punish them, yes; we can kill them, yes. But we can't destroy their minds to get our own way. Christ, this is so fucking obvious. What you're advocating is evil, Tom, and no amount of rationalisation or submoronic hypotheticals will ever change that.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

IF hypothetically you came across a ticket with a moderate Democrate and a extremist Republican which way would you vote assuming you agreed more with the Democrats side of the issues then the Repubilican?

A simplistic question. Candidates for elective office don't just advance their own agendas; they advance their party's. I will not advance the agenda of the Democrats in any way, but I won't vote for a fruitcake either. If an extremist Republican who wants to criminalise all abortion (for example) opposes a decent Democrat, I would vote for neither.

[Guest MrRant]

So just to clarify to me in simplistic terms that my feeble mind can understand. ANY candidate with the word Democrat attached no matter how much you would agree with his stance you would not vote for correct?

 

I am a simple man and don't have a political science degree. Forgive me for taking up so much of your time and please continue with the WONDERFUL torture lecture.

 

Lets see if we can all catch the reference of the second paragraph.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

ANY candidate with the word Democrat attached no matter how much you would agree with his stance you would not vote for correct?

Correct.

[Guest MrRant]

But you didn't catch the reference on the 2nd paragraph! No cookie!

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Regarding "Truth Serums." There's cases where it's been useful and cases where it wasn't.

 

In a case where it wasn't, a pyromaniac undergoing psychotherapy had a Sodium Amytol interview which yielded little results. Here's a link if you care about that sort of thing. Pyrophile/Sodium Amytol

 

No details of the interview, obviously, but it did say the results gained had no effect on his behavior, or even whether or not they were valid.

 

Here's a case of a serial killer who confessed to four murders while under the influence of the same drug. That testimony added no time to his sentence, but was still admitted in the trial. Make of that what you will.

Serial Killer

 

Sodium Amytol interviews have been done for a while now, and have been admitted in court cases for almost as long as we've understood the drug. It's accurate in the respect that it makes the subject more prone to answer questions truthfully according to their perceptions. Take also into account that the drug is a hallucinogenic barbiturate.

 

Personally, I don't think the authorities should be pumping people's carotid arteries full of dissociative anaesthetics, no matter what kind of crime is involved. Considering the results are completely hit or miss, and that there is no real "Truth Serum" per se.

 

I don't agree with people getting put on the rack or in the iron maiden either.

 

-Agent of Oblivion: Amateur chemist.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Personally, I don't think the authorities should be pumping people's carotid arteries full of dissociative anaesthetics, no matter what kind of crime is involved.

I agree. That's not our job.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Definitely. Leave that to the docs in the psych ward after someone's been comitted, or else agrees to undego that within the confines of psychotherapy. The cops/feds/whatever don't even fit in that equation aside from "Catch the criminal and prosecute."