Top Bush aides pushed for Guantánamo torture

[Simonius]

Quote by: Anmon Torture is a necessity to get info quickly, how 'civilised' and high minded we think we are now doesn't change this one bit. The left as usual squeal about Guantanamo, focusing all their hate and rage on the wrong target because its more sensational. Meanwhile the real info is gotten much quicker out of the media spotlight, by much more traditional, brutal, bloody and efficient methods, by the well paid CIA lackeys in Egypt. These guys will have the most adamant atheist praying to God for help, within half an hour. United States: trade in torture, by Stephen Grey

Torture may be a quick way of obtaining information, but any intelligence gained through it is highly suspect.

If you ask me the location of the rebel dalek base I would not tell you, because I don't know. Start electrocuting my genitals and I will happily give you the street number and post code and anything else you ask for.

My problem with Guantanamo is that law and morality demands that the people a government detains are,
a) Prisoners of War.
b) Criminal suspects.
c people who must be freed.


They are not a's because they have not been termed as such, we know they are not b's because they have not been lawfully arrested so that only leaves c!

[Anmon]

=Simonius;503428]Torture may be a quick way of obtaining information, but any intelligence gained through it is highly suspect. If you ask me the location of the rebel dalek base I would not tell you, because I don't know. Start electrocuting my genitals and I will happily give you the street number and post code and anything else you ask for.

lol so would I, but don't you think these guys would know if your making stuff up or not Simonius?
Don't you think they would trick you up through methods of cross questioning to see if you are or not?
They will probably torture you until you are just screaming that you don't know anything after they tear a few fingernails off to see that you are genuine.
These guys that do this job, enjoy their work, they are sadists, you could not do this unless you enjoyed it.

My problem with Guantanamo is that law and morality demands that the people a government detains are, a) Prisoners of War. b) Criminal suspects. c people who must be freed. They are not a's because they have not been termed as such, we know they are not b's because they have not been lawfully arrested so that only leaves c

Guantanamo is a holiday camp compared to Egypt, its a smoke screen to put through the NWO owned media, that the US are using acceptable methods to get info that doesn't break any laws of the Geneva convention.
Meanwhile the real work goes on in Egypt, most of the guys in Guantanamo are probably just mugs picked up fighting for the taliban and flown to Cuba and presented as terrorists suspects who have serious inside information on Al Queda, when they probably know about as much as you and me.
The real suspects, usually caught in Europe are flown straight to Egypt not Cuba.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Anmon lol so would I, but don't you think these guys would know if your making stuff up or not Simonius? Don't you think they would trick you up through methods of cross questioning to see if you are or not?

But if I was as intelligent as them I could potentially fool them or confuse them. I could actually set back their intelligence by years, or create enough confusion to allow for a major strike, or manipulate them into attacking a rival terrorist organisation, in turn making the one I am from stronger and more of the threat then the two combined.

Torture is just not reliable, Geneva conventions aside I have no real moral objections to its use as long as it done on the right person and without emotion.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Simonius Torture is just not reliable, Geneva conventions aside I have no real moral objections to its use as long as it done on the right person and without emotion.

In other words, torture is less objectionable if it's done in a machinelike manner.

That's fascinating.

Grandpa h.

[Simonius]

Quote by: grandpa In other words, torture is less objectionable if it's done in a machinelike manner. That's fascinating. Grandpa h.

Yes.

I would not be happy employing torturers that took a sadistic pleasure in the act, or who performed the act with rage. I would want them to calmly rationalise that in some way their victim was not human and was merely a piece of meat to be carefully mutialated and its responses recorded.

What?
Stop looking at me like that!

[Anmon]

Quote by: Simonius But if I was as intelligent as them I could potentially fool them or confuse them. I could actually set back their intelligence by years, or create enough confusion to allow for a major strike, or manipulate them into attacking a rival terrorist organisation, in turn making the one I am from stronger and more of the threat then the two combined. Torture is just not reliable, Geneva conventions aside I have no real moral objections to its use as long as it done on the right person and without emotion.

lol good luck with that 007.
You will be hard enough pressed just to not piss or shit yourself out of fear, the second time they come into your cell to collect you.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Simonius Yes. I would not be happy employing torturers that took a sadistic pleasure in the act, or who performed the act with rage. I would want them to calmly rationalise that in some way their victim was not human and was merely a piece of meat to be carefully mutialated and its responses recorded.

lol the only guys around that do this work are sadists, a normal person would never do it.
Just goes to show theres a job for everyone I guess.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Anmon lol good luck with that 007. You will be hard enough pressed just to not piss or shit yourself out of fear, the second time they come into your cell to collect you.

I am not arrogantly claiming that I have the intelligence, knowledge and courage to endure toture and mislead my tormentor with carefully constructed fake information.

I am claiming that it is possible for someone to do it, and that the accuracy of infomation obtained from it is subject pretty much to luck.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Anmon lol the only guys around that do this work are sadists, a normal person would never do it. Just goes to show theres a job for everyone I guess.

Given the right circumstances I think pretty much anyone would be capable of torture, dispassionate torture I am not sure, but torture none the less. Sadism is quite a natural human element, we just suppress it these days but its still there, but I dont consider sadism a neccessary pre-requisite for it, it just helps I guess.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Simonius I would not be happy employing torturers that took a sadistic pleasure in the act, or who performed the act with rage.

That's not the issue. I never said people should take pleasure in torture.

It comes down to this:
You argued that a machinelike method makes torture less objectionable. I say that's nothing but fascist idealism.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Simonius Given the right circumstances I think pretty much anyone would be capable of torture, dispassionate torture I am not sure, but torture none the less. Sadism is quite a natural human element, we just suppress it these days but its still there, but I dont consider sadism a neccessary pre-requisite for it, it just helps I guess.

"...torture none the less." That was just my point. Acting like a robot might be good for
you, but either way you'd still be torturing someone.

Let me just ask: If someone is acting like an unthinking, emotionless machine, should I
consider him superior in some way? If so, explain.

Grandpa h.

[Simonius]

Quote by: grandpa That's not the issue. I never said people should take pleasure in torture. It comes down to this: You argued that a machinelike method makes torture less objectionable. I say that's nothing but fascist idealism. Grandpa h.

Assuming that torture is sometimes permissable then yes I do argue that a machinelike unemotional approach to it is less objectionable then an emotional one. To me that's just basic level headed morality. If it is accepted that sometimes you must do things that are 'bad' then surely it is better that they are simply done, with the shock and guilt dealt with afterwards.

What is less objectionable, an army of soldiers who take sexual pleasure from the act of killing, or an army of soldiers who kill dispassionately?

Hmm... am I a fascist idealist?

[Simonius]

Quote by: grandpa "...torture none the less." That was just my point. Acting like a robot might be good for you, but either way you'd still be torturing someone. Let me just ask: If someone is acting like an unthinking, emotionless machine, should I consider him superior in some way? If so, explain. Grandpa h.

If I have decided that it is morally acceptable for me to torture someone, isn't it better that I do the job grimly without pleasure or rage?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Simonius Assuming that torture is sometimes permissable then yes I do argue that a machinelike unemotional approach to it is less objectionable then an emotional one. To me that's just basic level headed morality.

So people should do it clinically, vocationally? Again, it's fascinating. How does a lack of emotion improve morality, except in fascist circles? If you look at fascist leaders, they overwhelmingly believe morality can be determined merely by a clinical, "scientific" social setting. There's a reason it's called a "Nazi death machine."

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
- Benito Mussolini.

What you say fits that quote like a glove. Under fascism, how society functions (that includes morality) is determined largely by arbitrary conditions (a ruling elite), that are no doubt bureaucratic and, if they are to succeed, put checks on human emotion and regard society as nothing but a machine. If acts fall outside these parameters (for example, say we express emotion while we're torturing people), then people fail to represent the objective, grand ideals they're serving and, to the leaders, become less legitimate. It happens in many workplaces, too. If people start exhibiting the strain of being used like a machine, it might show up in the employee review that their human nature is too distracting.

You're arguing that it's not the act, but the ends of it we should consider. In this case, the end is to seem "objective" when torturing somebody. Now, certain dictators would love citizens who meet this standard; people who can carry out orders without question and not become emotional wrecks in the process. It'd solidify authoritarian rule, perhaps even making political propaganda less necessary (though it's debatable how much of these spectacles are done to appease the people, seeing as to how self-aggrandizement has its basic emotional appeals).

Remember, even Hitler put a halt to public hangings, realizing that witnesses' cumbersome emotions might actually come into play and affect German pride. The general principle also applies to America's restrictions on covering war dead. Why do those exist? It's so those cumbersome emotions don't take hold. If they do, people might begin questioning what they're contributing to. In other words, people would act more like people.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Simonius If I have decided that it is morally acceptable for me to torture someone, isn't it better that I do the job grimly without pleasure or rage?

Let me put it this way, just to drive the point home: If I decide to torture you, would it make any difference whatsoever how happy I was while doing it? Maybe it would make an extremely marginal difference, but it probably shouldn't even do that. It wouldn't change the fact that I'd be torturing you, a human organism that is living and breathing.

Not being tortured sounds like a good deal to me. I wouldn't accept it if it came coldly. Nor would I want it delivered with a WalMart smiley face. In fact, if I absolutely had to choose an option, I would want someone to torture me while enraged, because at least it would be more explicable. If done clinically, it would take on truly sadistic proportions, as it would make me nothing but a test subject. It would be just as sadistic, but with a false mask of decency. But again, I'd prefer none of these modes.

Grandpa h.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Simonius I am claiming that it is possible for someone to do it, and that the accuracy of infomation obtained from it is subject pretty much to luck.

Theres not many people like that around.
I read a true story once about an English girl who survived three torture sessions from the gestapos hired local monsters in Paris, without giving the info.
She had all her finger nails and toenails lifted off, was beaten numerous times ribs broken, face smashed in coughing up blood etc
On hearing she would be tortured for the fourth time she finally cracked, and got out the cyanide pill she had been given, only to find out it was just a harmless pill of powder. She then gave the info over.
After the war was over she said the betrayal from her own government was worse than what the Nazis had done to her.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Simonius Given the right circumstances I think pretty much anyone would be capable of torture, dispassionate torture I am not sure, but torture none the less. Sadism is quite a natural human element, we just suppress it these days but its still there, but I dont consider sadism a neccessary pre-requisite for it, it just helps I guess.

lol the average person is not anywhere near capable of true torture, it takes an absolute psycho devoid of any empathy and compassion for his fellow human beings suffering and to delight in hearing someone scream in pain, to carry it all out, not to mention a strong stomach.
It doesn't matter if they are laughing while they do it, or wearing a cold lifeless expression, its what they are doing to someone, and their complete indifference to their pain, fear and suffering that makes them what they are.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Anmon lol the average person is not anywhere near capable of true torture, it takes an absolute psycho devoid of any empathy and compassion for his fellow human beings suffering and to delight in hearing someone scream in pain, to carry it all out, not to mention a strong stomach. It doesn't matter if they are laughing while they do it, or wearing a cold lifeless expression, its what they are doing to someone, and their complete indifference to their pain, fear and suffering that makes them what they are.

It doesn't require that special of a person. Some studies indicate that many, if not most, would be willing to torture others, even for totally arbitrary reasons. Whether one "has a strong stomach" isn't always relevant, either. Nowadays, many torturous events occur with the mere pushing of buttons. If you think of it, modern warfare -- which is certainly tantamount to largescale torture -- is an extension of the good ol' pull-of-the-trigger. It's certainly something to talk about.

Grandpa h.

[Simonius]

Quote by: grandpa So people should do it clinically, vocationally?

Well... yes.

Quote by: grandpa Again, it's fascinating. How does a lack of emotion improve morality, except in fascist circles?

I dont actually understand how you can't see what it is I am trying to say, surely if we have rationalised the committing of some harsh acts such as torture or execution or killing in warfare it is best to perform such acts devoid of pleasure or rage? To me a soldier who kills because he enjoys it is a dysfunctional person who should be returned to society, a soldier who kills because he understands it needs to be done and has rationalised the act and does it without emotion is more likely to be someone who can return to society.

Quote by: grandpa If you look at fascist leaders, they overwhelmingly believe morality can be determined merely by a clinical, "scientific" social setting. There's a reason it's called a "Nazi death machine."

Well if I understand where you are coming from, and I am honest then I believe the same thing.

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
- Benito Mussolini.

Quote by: grandpa What you say fits that quote like a glove. Under fascism, how society functions (that includes morality) is determined largely by arbitrary conditions (a ruling elite), that are no doubt bureaucratic and, if they are to succeed, put checks on human emotion and regard society as nothing but a machine.

Which is partly true of all Governmental systems. The elite will naturally encourage what it deems moral. Morality is nothing but an arbritary or at least subjective system of training and conditioning that allows and regulates society.

Quote by: grandpa If acts fall outside these parameters (for example, say we express emotion while we're torturing people), then people fail to represent the objective, grand ideals they're serving and, to the leaders, become less legitimate. It happens in many workplaces, too. If people start exhibiting the strain of being used like a machine, it might show up in the employee review that their human nature is too distracting.

But it is not the role of the state or your employer to worry and fret about the frailities of an individuals mind.

Quote by: grandpa You're arguing that it's not the act, but the ends of it we should consider.

No I am not.
I am arguing the character of the person performing the act is important to my moral assessment of whether or not the act was performed in a way I regard as moral. The ends I have mentioned seperately and does not appear to have any bearing on what we are arguing now.

Quote by: grandpa In this case, the end is to seem "objective" when torturing somebody. Now, certain dictators would love citizens who meet this standard; people who can carry out orders without question and not become emotional wrecks in the process. It'd solidify authoritarian rule, perhaps even making political propaganda less necessary (though it's debatable how much of these spectacles are done to appease the people, seeing as to how self-aggrandizement has its basic emotional appeals).

I am not arguing that people should not question orders, I am arguing that if a rational sane moral person deems that torture is a neccessary evil and they had the courage of their conviction then they would carry out the act without pleasure or rage and other emotions or at least try to suppress them.

Quote by: grandpa Remember, even Hitler put a halt to public hangings, realizing that witnesses' cumbersome emotions might actually come into play and affect German pride. The general principle also applies to America's restrictions on covering war dead. Why do those exist? It's so those cumbersome emotions don't take hold. If they do, people might begin questioning what they're contributing to. In other words, people would act more like people. Grandpa h.

Thats somewhat of a tangent isn't it?

[Anmon]

Quote by: grandpa It doesn't require that special of a person. Some studies indicate that many, if not most, would be willing to torture others, even for totally arbitrary reasons. Whether one "has a strong stomach" isn't always relevant, either. Nowadays, many torturous events occur with the mere pushing of buttons. If you think of it, modern warfare -- which is certainly tantamount to largescale torture -- is an extension of the good ol' pull-of-the-trigger. It's certainly something to talk about. Grandpa h.

your speaking of the electric shock experiments, yeah really heavy.
Try seeing if the average person could rip someones fingernail clean off, and feel no remorse as the person screams in agony, then grabbing the person and ripping off another fingernail, how many do you think would be capable of that? bit of a difference don't you think?
I don't know if you have ever heard a person scream in agony, I have and its still the most horrible sound I have ever heard.