The Price of False Chivalry

[TemplarKormac]

Chivalry: it was expected of all the medieval knights of old. Courage, honor, courtesy, justice and ready charity to the weak. But as we disseminate the 'torture' report released last week, the message was given "we need not sacrifice our values in the act of interrogating suspected terrorists." Well, that's all well and good, but why be chivalrous to our enemies?

Why should we sacrifice for our enemies courage for courtesy? Why should we grant ready charity to murderers who granted no charity to their victims? Where is the justice and honor for those who have died at their hands? If there is to be justice, let it be dealt equally. Yes, there was torture, yes, some of it went too far. But in my mind, those who played part in murdering innocents deserved every bit of what they got. For they showed us no mercy, and in turn they should be spared none. Their human rights were forfeit from the moment they ended life for the sake of a twisted belief.

Mind you, some of those detainees who were interrogated might have been innocent of wrongdoing. If they were tortured, a line was crossed. But for those who are guilty of crimes against humanity, there should be no line. No, not one. America, in World War II, killed German soldiers under flag of surrender. However, America wasn't a sole party to this kind of barbarity, Germany issued the Commando Order, which accepted no surrender and ordered American soldiers attempting to surrender to be killed on sight. We are not blameless.

What is the expense of chivalry? For those Democrats on the SSIC, it meant endangering the men and women working for the CIA, military men and women fighting overseas; a price which they were not hesitant to pay. Whatever blood is shed for this supposed act of chivalry, will be on their hands. Whatever reconciliation was to be had should have been dealt with out of the public eye, not before the very eyes of our adversaries. Democrats are working to erase their involvement in these events.

Let's not get started about those who had underlying political motives to release this report. They expended their efforts (and $40 million of your taxpayer dollars) to publish a partisan, one sided report of suspected torture of detainees by the CIA without even so much as attempting to get their side of the of the story. They never interviewed anyone, claimed no intelligence was gleaned by these tactics, and feigned ignorance by saying they were never briefed about them, when all along they knew and said nothing, maintaining their tacitness. Democrats as far back as 2002 never objected to them. In fact it has been alleged some of them pushed the CIA to go even further.

Chivalry isn't something you dole out on a whim. To do so under a false banner means sacrificing the very values we wish to preserve. And it doesn't mean publishing a report to slander political opponents and destroy the reputations of those involved.

Torture is despicable, I realize that. But what I find despicable is this: claiming a group of men and women willingly tortured detainees without ever getting their sides of the story. Saying their work yielded no results whatsoever. This report would fall apart in the courts, on the grounds it refused to let the accused exercise their Sixth Amendment rights to testify. They were not even allowed a chance to defend themselves.

This wasn't an attempt at chivalry, it was a travesty. This wasn't an attempt to project accountability. It was legal and political chicanery, a sophistry let loose on the masses in the name of justice. I know there may be some truth in parts of this report, but overall, it was twisted to suit a narrative, overshadowed by a deception. Now, a country already divided has become even more so, because of this. This is the price we pay for false chivalry.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Phillipine police used torture in discovering and disarming much of Ramsi Jusef's 1995 Bojinca Plot...which would have included the in-air bombing of 10 American airliners over the Pacific in a single day, causing the death of 4000 passengers and crew, the assassination of Pope John Paul II, visiting Manila that week, and also an airliner hijacking & crash into CIA headquarters in Langley, Va.

Liberal sissies currently wringing faux alligator tears from their crying towels, had they been on one of those airliners, would far rather be blown to bits than have torture play any part in their own salvation, right...right?

Bojinka plot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Tldr

 

[TheOldSchool]

Tldr

 

[FA_Q2]

Chivalry: it was expected of all the medieval knights of old. Courage, honor, courtesy, justice and ready charity to the weak. But as we disseminate the 'torture' report released last week, the message was given "we need not sacrifice our values in the act of interrogating suspected terrorists." Well, that's all well and good, but why be chivalrous to our enemies?

Why should we sacrifice for our enemies courage for courtesy? Why should we grant ready charity to murderers who granted no charity to their victims? Where is the justice and honor for those who have died at their hands? If there is to be justice, let it be dealt equally. Yes, there was torture, yes, some of it went too far. But in my mind, those who played part in murdering innocents deserved every bit of what they got. For they showed us no mercy, and in turn they should be spared none. Their human rights were forfeit from the moment they ended life for the sake of a twisted belief.

Mind you, some of those detainees who were interrogated might have been innocent of wrongdoing. If they were tortured, a line was crossed. But for those who are guilty of crimes against humanity, there should be no line. No, not one. America, in World War II, killed German soldiers under flag of surrender. However, America wasn't a sole party to this kind of barbarity, Germany issued the Commando Order, which accepted no surrender and ordered American soldiers attempting to surrender to be killed on sight. We are not blameless.

What is the expense of chivalry? For those Democrats on the SSIC, it meant endangering the men and women working for the CIA, military men and women fighting overseas; a price which they were not hesitant to pay. Whatever blood is shed for this supposed act of chivalry, will be on their hands. Whatever reconciliation was to be had should have been dealt with out of the public eye, not before the very eyes of our adversaries. Democrats are working to erase their involvement in these events.

Let's not get started about those who had underlying political motives to release this report. They expended their efforts (and $40 million of your taxpayer dollars) to publish a partisan, one sided report of suspected torture of detainees by the CIA without even so much as attempting to get their side of the of the story. They never interviewed anyone, claimed no intelligence was gleaned by these tactics, and feigned ignorance by saying they were never briefed about them, when all along they knew and said nothing, maintaining their tacitness. Democrats as far back as 2002 never objected to them. In fact it has been alleged some of them pushed the CIA to go even further.

Chivalry isn't something you dole out on a whim. To do so under a false banner means sacrificing the very values we wish to preserve. And it doesn't mean publishing a report to slander political opponents and destroy the reputations of those involved.

Torture is despicable, I realize that. But what I find despicable is this: claiming a group of men and women willingly tortured detainees without ever getting their sides of the story. Saying their work yielded no results whatsoever. This report would fall apart in the courts, on the grounds it refused to let the accused exercise their Sixth Amendment rights to testify. They were not even allowed a chance to defend themselves.

This wasn't an attempt at chivalry, it was a travesty. This wasn't an attempt to project accountability. It was legal and political chicanery, a sophistry let loose on the masses in the name of justice. I know there may be some truth in parts of this report, but overall, it was twisted to suit a narrative, overshadowed by a deception. Now, a country already divided has become even more so, because of this. This is the price we pay for false chivalry.

So the report is one sided garbage.

Then release a proper report. Why do you think that they have not done so and do not plan to do so? Because the underlying problem is still there - we used torture when we have condemned others for doing so. We used torture and no one has really bothered to release anything showing that it was effective (IOW, it wasn't). At this point we need to simply deal with that. The LAST thing we need to do is defend government secrecy simply because it does not agree with our sensibilities at this juncture.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why do you think that they have not done so and do not plan to do so?

Fear. More succinctly, fear for their political careers.

That is a plausible scenario. I think that there is also the very real possibility that they really do not have a story that is all that different from the one presented.

There will certainly be some differing language and conclusions BUT the meat - what was done, how often and to whom - is going to remain the same. It is that information that people care about anyway. Releasing a report that does not show the current one as a lie will be perceived (rightly so) as petty and trying to downplay it. IOW, wrong. If they feel fear for their carriers it is likely warranted.

Because the underlying problem is still there - we used torture when we have condemned others for doing so.

Of course we have. Nobody in industrialized society is blameless. Some people are in fact afraid to admit it.

As we have seen by the resistance to the report in the first place IMHO. We should not fear admitting when we were wrong or standing up to practices that we feel are correct.

We used torture and no one has really bothered to release anything showing that it was effective

The term "torture" is being bandied about and misapplied to certain methods of coercion. Torture by definition is "inflicting great pain on a person or individual to acquire a desired response." Sleep deprivation for example is not torture going by such a definition. There are two sides here: one says its effective, the other useless.

When Justice Department interrogation memorandums were released in 2009, Admiral Dennis C. Blair, Obama's then Director of National Intelligence, was quoted as saying of torture techniques banned by the White House “...high value information came from interrogations in which these methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country...”

One has to wonder... how else did we obtain the information needed to locate bin Laden? Did we ask politely? Or did the EIT's play a role?

Your example is meaningless. There are acts that we committed that were EXACTLY the same as acts that we have headed prosecutions for. There is no colorful jargon to make that simply reality sound any better. Part of the problem is trying to act as though we were not complicit in torture.

Further, I don't give a hoot as to the quotations of anyone that is involved in the government. Anyone can SAY that it was or was not effective. I want actual proof. So and so was tortured, THIA data was revealed and it stopped X terrorist plot or lead to capture this other terrorist. We don't have anything like that. I am positive that if such proof existed we would have been shown it as it would have made MASSIVE implications for those that are all over the government defending the practice. The very fact that such information is not present and brought our every time someone attacks the interrogations make me believe that there is no such information in existence.

How did we catch Bil Laden? It likely WAS asking nicely. Believe it or not, the best way to get intelligence is simply to get people talking, glean information and build a rapport. That method has worked forever. Torture produced TONS of inaccurate and completely useless wast as the tortured will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear. There is little way to glean what is simply trying to get the practice to stop and what is stated just to make the torture cease. Even the barborus knows this:

"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know" Napoleon

I am for methods that are effective. The problem is that torture simply is NOT effective. The moral argument cannot even be had because we cannot even furnish a plausible reason to torture in the first place.

At this point we need to simply deal with that.

I agree. But people intentionally misrepresenting the things that happend is not a great way to deal with it.

It is better than trying to cover it up as some have called for.

Again, if anyone really was interested in presenting this properly they would. As you cited it would be politically suicidal. That is likely because there is no way to spin this.

The LAST thing we need to do is defend government secrecy simply because it does not agree with our sensibilities at this juncture.

I'm not. But I simply believe some people (e.g. murderers) deserve the torture they receive. I have no sympathy for those who take lives out of malice. I'm not trying to condone torture, but the worst fate should befall those who take lives needlessly. It is never okay to hide wrongdoing.

What they do and do not deserve is not the point and if we are simply going through this practice for a vaunted sense of revenge then we are already lost. Virtually no one argues that revenge and punishment are proper reasons for executing torture because they are not. Then you have to face the fact that not everyone held in overseas 'black holes' actually is guilty. This is ALSO a fact. We cannot go around torturing people and then go "oops, sorry we got that one wrong." Not a whole lot different than the terrorists there.

The ones that we know are guilty get no sympathy from me HOWEVER I am not going to break my morals and destroy Americans (unless you think you can torture people without harming yourself) simply because they are monstrous. Interrogate them PROPERLY, gain their rapport give them a perk or two when it is effective and then take them out back and put a bullet in their head when they are no longer of value. Simple, clean and no torture required. Above all - its more effective than brutality.

 

[The Rabbi]

Chivalry: it was expected of all the medieval knights of old. Courage, honor, courtesy, justice and ready charity to the weak. But as we disseminate the 'torture' report released last week, the message was given "we need not sacrifice our values in the act of interrogating suspected terrorists." Well, that's all well and good, but why be chivalrous to our enemies?

Why should we sacrifice for our enemies courage for courtesy? Why should we grant ready charity to murderers who granted no charity to their victims? Where is the justice and honor for those who have died at their hands? If there is to be justice, let it be dealt equally. Yes, there was torture, yes, some of it went too far. But in my mind, those who played part in murdering innocents deserved every bit of what they got. For they showed us no mercy, and in turn they should be spared none. Their human rights were forfeit from the moment they ended life for the sake of a twisted belief.

Mind you, some of those detainees who were interrogated might have been innocent of wrongdoing. If they were tortured, a line was crossed. But for those who are guilty of crimes against humanity, there should be no line. No, not one. America, in World War II, killed German soldiers under flag of surrender. However, America wasn't a sole party to this kind of barbarity, Germany issued the Commando Order, which accepted no surrender and ordered American soldiers attempting to surrender to be killed on sight. We are not blameless.

What is the expense of chivalry? For those Democrats on the SSIC, it meant endangering the men and women working for the CIA, military men and women fighting overseas; a price which they were not hesitant to pay. Whatever blood is shed for this supposed act of chivalry, will be on their hands. Whatever reconciliation was to be had should have been dealt with out of the public eye, not before the very eyes of our adversaries. Democrats are working to erase their involvement in these events.

Let's not get started about those who had underlying political motives to release this report. They expended their efforts (and $40 million of your taxpayer dollars) to publish a partisan, one sided report of suspected torture of detainees by the CIA without even so much as attempting to get their side of the of the story. They never interviewed anyone, claimed no intelligence was gleaned by these tactics, and feigned ignorance by saying they were never briefed about them, when all along they knew and said nothing, maintaining their tacitness. Democrats as far back as 2002 never objected to them. In fact it has been alleged some of them pushed the CIA to go even further.

Chivalry isn't something you dole out on a whim. To do so under a false banner means sacrificing the very values we wish to preserve. And it doesn't mean publishing a report to slander political opponents and destroy the reputations of those involved.

Torture is despicable, I realize that. But what I find despicable is this: claiming a group of men and women willingly tortured detainees without ever getting their sides of the story. Saying their work yielded no results whatsoever. This report would fall apart in the courts, on the grounds it refused to let the accused exercise their Sixth Amendment rights to testify. They were not even allowed a chance to defend themselves.

This wasn't an attempt at chivalry, it was a travesty. This wasn't an attempt to project accountability. It was legal and political chicanery, a sophistry let loose on the masses in the name of justice. I know there may be some truth in parts of this report, but overall, it was twisted to suit a narrative, overshadowed by a deception. Now, a country already divided has become even more so, because of this. This is the price we pay for false chivalry.

So the report is one sided garbage.

Then release a proper report. Why do you think that they have not done so and do not plan to do so? Because the underlying problem is still there - we used torture when we have condemned others for doing so. We used torture and no one has really bothered to release anything showing that it was effective (IOW, it wasn't). At this point we need to simply deal with that. The LAST thing we need to do is defend government secrecy simply because it does not agree with our sensibilities at this juncture.

No one was tortured. The one case of genuine torture was prosecuted by Justice.

Im with Vigilante: I couldn't care less what happens to those murdering scumbags. They'd cut my mother's head off given half the chance. Fuck them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your example is meaningless. There are acts that we committed that were EXACTLY the same as acts that we have headed prosecutions for. There is no colorful jargon to make that simply reality sound any better. Part of the problem is trying to act as though we were not complicit in torture.

I cite the example because there are people closer to these things than we are. I simply defer to their experiences in the matter. They did it, they should explain it. There are reasons for why that you nor I can assume motivated the torture. I don't know what to believe anymore though. One side says it is, or the other saying it isn't. We mull the morality of our own actions, saying "we should clean up around our front door first," which is true. But it is as if we are the only ones being held accountable while other countries commit these acts on their own on their very own denizens (eg North Korea). There are countries condemning us that have committed some of the greatest atrocities of our time (Russia, China, and Germany come to mind).

Anyone can SAY that it was or was not effective. I want actual proof.

The reason I say what I said was because events which took place in the Battle of Algiers of 1956-1957. Through systematic detainment and torture, the French military found, captured and killed every leader of the Algerian group the Freedom Liberation Front or FLN. The FLN attacked (or rather bombed) French forces and civilians, with reprisals taking place on both sides. The civilians caught in the fighting left all responsibility of eliminating the FLN to General Jaques Massu.

I believe it goes that from January to September of 1957, Massu, under the power given him by civilian authorities, he worked outside of the legal system to eliminate the FLN from Algiers. He did. And it worked, though at a price. There were illegal executions carried out in the process, and it did ignite a debate in France similar to the one we are having now. Massu and his fellow commanders' reputations were tainted for the rest of their natural lives what they did.

Massu, in 1971 lashed out at the Italian film "Battle of Algiers" for what he saw was a condemnation of what he and General Ausseresses did during the battle. "I am not afraid of the word torture, but I think in the majority of cases, the French military men obliged to use it to vanquish terrorism were, fortunately, choir boys compared with the use to which it was put by the rebels. The latter's extreme savagery led us to some ferocity, it is certain, but we remained within the law of eye for eye, tooth for tooth.''

A time later, he was prompted to condemn the tactics used to secure the French victory when he was in command, when a French newspaper, Le Monde, published the account of Louisette Ighilahriz, who was a 60 year old woman that recalled the conditions she suffered while fighting for the FLN. He condemned them, but also dodged where the policy for institutionalized torture came from.

Later he went on to say, ''Torture is not indispensable in time of war, we could have gotten along without it very well. ... Morally, torture is a very ugly thing" he said. He acknowledged that torture had become institutionalized as well, though insisting he never personally took part in them (that matter is best left to speculation).

You can read a more detailed account here. Some of the quotes I used were pulled from this article:

Jacques Massu 94 General Who Led Battle of Algiers - New York Times

The example here is that torture can be effective. I don't defend it. I condemn it. But I simply insist it is an effective tactic, which as I see should only be used when all other methods of gathering intelligence have been exhausted. And I mean all of them. You wanted proof, this is what I offer. I contend that in this case, torture, and other methods, successfully ended the battle of Algiers, though at a great moral and emotional price for the perpetrators.

Again, if anyone really was interested in presenting this properly they would. As you cited it would be politically suicidal. That is likely because there is no way to spin this.

Of course. But the SCIC attempted to assert this as fact. However, through their attempts to spin it, they revealed their own treachery in the process. Everyone in our government knew about it, yet they chose to keep it under wraps for a long, long time. What is ironic, was that it was a matter of political expedience which prompted such a report to begin with. Someone told me "if you have to hide what you did, you most likely did something you shouldn't have."

Simple, clean and no torture required. Above all - its more effective than brutality.

What is more brutal, the torture, or the methods employed by a proven guilty murderer to slay his victim? I often struggle with that, something I fail to resolve in cases like this.

We should not fear admitting when we were wrong or standing up to practices that we feel are correct.

The actual truth should prevail whatever the case may be. That's all I ask for.

 

[Discombobulated]

Chivalry: it was expected of all the medieval knights of old. Courage, honor, courtesy, justice and ready charity to the weak. But as we disseminate the 'torture' report released last week, the message was given "we need not sacrifice our values in the act of interrogating suspected terrorists." Well, that's all well and good, but why be chivalrous to our enemies?

Why should we sacrifice for our enemies courage for courtesy? Why should we grant ready charity to murderers who granted no charity to their victims? Where is the justice and honor for those who have died at their hands? If there is to be justice, let it be dealt equally. Yes, there was torture, yes, some of it went too far. But in my mind, those who played part in murdering innocents deserved every bit of what they got. For they showed us no mercy, and in turn they should be spared none. Their human rights were forfeit from the moment they ended life for the sake of a twisted belief.

Mind you, some of those detainees who were interrogated might have been innocent of wrongdoing. If they were tortured, a line was crossed. But for those who are guilty of crimes against humanity, there should be no line. No, not one. America, in World War II, killed German soldiers under flag of surrender. However, America wasn't a sole party to this kind of barbarity, Germany issued the Commando Order, which accepted no surrender and ordered American soldiers attempting to surrender to be killed on sight. We are not blameless.

What is the expense of chivalry? For those Democrats on the SSIC, it meant endangering the men and women working for the CIA, military men and women fighting overseas; a price which they were not hesitant to pay. Whatever blood is shed for this supposed act of chivalry, will be on their hands. Whatever reconciliation was to be had should have been dealt with out of the public eye, not before the very eyes of our adversaries. Democrats are working to erase their involvement in these events.

Let's not get started about those who had underlying political motives to release this report. They expended their efforts (and $40 million of your taxpayer dollars) to publish a partisan, one sided report of suspected torture of detainees by the CIA without even so much as attempting to get their side of the of the story. They never interviewed anyone, claimed no intelligence was gleaned by these tactics, and feigned ignorance by saying they were never briefed about them, when all along they knew and said nothing, maintaining their tacitness. Democrats as far back as 2002 never objected to them. In fact it has been alleged some of them pushed the CIA to go even further.

Chivalry isn't something you dole out on a whim. To do so under a false banner means sacrificing the very values we wish to preserve. And it doesn't mean publishing a report to slander political opponents and destroy the reputations of those involved.

Torture is despicable, I realize that. But what I find despicable is this: claiming a group of men and women willingly tortured detainees without ever getting their sides of the story. Saying their work yielded no results whatsoever. This report would fall apart in the courts, on the grounds it refused to let the accused exercise their Sixth Amendment rights to testify. They were not even allowed a chance to defend themselves.

This wasn't an attempt at chivalry, it was a travesty. This wasn't an attempt to project accountability. It was legal and political chicanery, a sophistry let loose on the masses in the name of justice. I know there may be some truth in parts of this report, but overall, it was twisted to suit a narrative, overshadowed by a deception. Now, a country already divided has become even more so, because of this. This is the price we pay for false chivalry.

No one anywhere believes chivalry has anything to do with anything. There's a basic equation at work here that many inexperienced and ignorant people just don't seem to understand. When you represent the law of civilized nations you have a greater responsibility than the terrorists, a higher standard to uphold. Leaving it up to the terrorists to determine the moral high ground means they've already won, they've achieved their goals by terrorizing us into being a scared, repressive, less civilized society, one that can allow torture. Terrorists recruiters are well aware that at least 25% of the victims of enhanced interrogation turned out to be completely innocent of anything, they exploit that knowledge to the fullest. Maybe you think we should provide these people with more incentive, a greater sense of injustice, another cause to fight for. Torturing innocent people provides a steady stream of new recruits and undermines all our efforts to defeat them........counter insurgency 101.

 

[Discombobulated]

Chivalry: it was expected of all the medieval knights of old. Courage, honor, courtesy, justice and ready charity to the weak. But as we disseminate the 'torture' report released last week, the message was given "we need not sacrifice our values in the act of interrogating suspected terrorists." Well, that's all well and good, but why be chivalrous to our enemies?

Why should we sacrifice for our enemies courage for courtesy? Why should we grant ready charity to murderers who granted no charity to their victims? Where is the justice and honor for those who have died at their hands? If there is to be justice, let it be dealt equally. Yes, there was torture, yes, some of it went too far. But in my mind, those who played part in murdering innocents deserved every bit of what they got. For they showed us no mercy, and in turn they should be spared none. Their human rights were forfeit from the moment they ended life for the sake of a twisted belief.

Mind you, some of those detainees who were interrogated might have been innocent of wrongdoing. If they were tortured, a line was crossed. But for those who are guilty of crimes against humanity, there should be no line. No, not one. America, in World War II, killed German soldiers under flag of surrender. However, America wasn't a sole party to this kind of barbarity, Germany issued the Commando Order, which accepted no surrender and ordered American soldiers attempting to surrender to be killed on sight. We are not blameless.

What is the expense of chivalry? For those Democrats on the SSIC, it meant endangering the men and women working for the CIA, military men and women fighting overseas; a price which they were not hesitant to pay. Whatever blood is shed for this supposed act of chivalry, will be on their hands. Whatever reconciliation was to be had should have been dealt with out of the public eye, not before the very eyes of our adversaries. Democrats are working to erase their involvement in these events.

Let's not get started about those who had underlying political motives to release this report. They expended their efforts (and $40 million of your taxpayer dollars) to publish a partisan, one sided report of suspected torture of detainees by the CIA without even so much as attempting to get their side of the of the story. They never interviewed anyone, claimed no intelligence was gleaned by these tactics, and feigned ignorance by saying they were never briefed about them, when all along they knew and said nothing, maintaining their tacitness. Democrats as far back as 2002 never objected to them. In fact it has been alleged some of them pushed the CIA to go even further.

Chivalry isn't something you dole out on a whim. To do so under a false banner means sacrificing the very values we wish to preserve. And it doesn't mean publishing a report to slander political opponents and destroy the reputations of those involved.

Torture is despicable, I realize that. But what I find despicable is this: claiming a group of men and women willingly tortured detainees without ever getting their sides of the story. Saying their work yielded no results whatsoever. This report would fall apart in the courts, on the grounds it refused to let the accused exercise their Sixth Amendment rights to testify. They were not even allowed a chance to defend themselves.

This wasn't an attempt at chivalry, it was a travesty. This wasn't an attempt to project accountability. It was legal and political chicanery, a sophistry let loose on the masses in the name of justice. I know there may be some truth in parts of this report, but overall, it was twisted to suit a narrative, overshadowed by a deception. Now, a country already divided has become even more so, because of this. This is the price we pay for false chivalry.

So the report is one sided garbage.

Then release a proper report. Why do you think that they have not done so and do not plan to do so? Because the underlying problem is still there - we used torture when we have condemned others for doing so. We used torture and no one has really bothered to release anything showing that it was effective (IOW, it wasn't). At this point we need to simply deal with that. The LAST thing we need to do is defend government secrecy simply because it does not agree with our sensibilities at this juncture.

No one was tortured. The one case of genuine torture was prosecuted by Justice.

Im with Vigilante: I couldn't care less what happens to those murdering scumbags. They'd cut my mother's head off given half the chance. Fuck them.

That's because you're an uncivilized animal who supports terrorism.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Leaving it up to the terrorists to determine the moral high ground means they've already won, they've achieved their goals by terrorizing us into being a scared, repressive, less civilized society, one that can allow torture.

For me, there is no moral high ground in regards to this case.

My take is this: should we treat a murderer with more dignity than his victim? Is it fair to treat him with the humanity that he denied his victim(s)? There might be complexities that I may not understand, I freely admit.

Maybe you think we should provide these people with more incentive, a greater sense of injustice, another cause to fight for.

Though I believe they gave us all the incentive on one September morning in 2001. You know the rest. However, accusing me or others of being 'uncivilized animals' who somehow are supporting terrorism undermines your very premise.

 

[Discombobulated]

Leaving it up to the terrorists to determine the moral high ground means they've already won, they've achieved their goals by terrorizing us into being a scared, repressive, less civilized society, one that can allow torture.

For me, there is no moral high ground in regards to this case.

My take is this: should we treat a murderer with more dignity than his victim? Is it fair to treat him with the humanity that he denied his victim(s)? There might be complexities that I may not understand, I freely admit.

Maybe you think we should provide these people with more incentive, a greater sense of injustice, another cause to fight for.

Though I believe they gave us all the incentive on one September morning in 2001. You know the rest. However, accusing me or others of being 'uncivilized animals' who somehow are supporting terrorism undermines your very premise.

No moral high ground for you? I don't think your sense of morality matters when we're talking about practical military considerations.

 

[Discombobulated]

Here's my take from the standpoint of military necessity: No one should ever have know that we were torturing people, it should have been a closely guarded secret rather than a subject for public debate.

 

[FA_Q2]

Your example is meaningless. There are acts that we committed that were EXACTLY the same as acts that we have headed prosecutions for. There is no colorful jargon to make that simply reality sound any better. Part of the problem is trying to act as though we were not complicit in torture.

I cite the example because there are people closer to these things than we are. I simply defer to their experiences in the matter. They did it, they should explain it. There are reasons for why that you nor I can assume motivated the torture. I don't know what to believe anymore though. One side says it is, or the other saying it isn't. We mull the morality of our own actions, saying "we should clean up around our front door first," which is true. But it is as if we are the only ones being held accountable while other countries commit these acts on their own on their very own denizens (eg North Korea). There are countries condemning us that have committed some of the greatest atrocities of our time (Russia, China, and Germany come to mind).

2 points on this (and I don't think we are really all that far apart on this): I cannot defer to their 'experience' on the matter because I am naturally inclined to be quite suspicious of government demanding that government was correct. Those that are stating our torture to be correct are directly related or stand to gain from such a determination. They are, be default, presenting opinions that should not be considered in this case. It is why I want substance before even making the moral judgement - substance that is lacking.


Second, I would agree with your comments on other nations condemning the acts. To be clear, I don't care at all what any other nation states on the matter no matter how spotless their reputations are. What other nations think of our military strategy ONLY matters in terms of garnering cooperation when required. Other than that, they are completely and utterly irrelevant - as we are (and should be) in their decisions for their own nations. The idea that this challenges our relationships internationally is naive in the extreme anyway. Nations work together for common goals and that is it. That is the reason that we work with China - the POLAR OPPOSITE of this nation and other outright terrorist nations such as Pakistan. It is not a 'moral' stance or countries that we agree with but rather simple common gain.

Anyone can SAY that it was or was not effective. I want actual proof.

The reason I say what I said was because events which took place in the Battle of Algiers of 1956-1957. Through systematic detainment and torture, the French military found, captured and killed every leader of the Algerian group the Freedom Liberation Front or FLN. The FLN attacked (or rather bombed) French forces and civilians, with reprisals taking place on both sides. The civilians caught in the fighting left all responsibility of eliminating the FLN to General Jaques Massu.

I believe it goes that from January to September of 1957, Massu, under the power given him by civilian authorities, he worked outside of the legal system to eliminate the FLN from Algiers. He did. And it worked, though at a price. There were illegal executions carried out in the process, and it did ignite a debate in France similar to the one we are having now. Massu and his fellow commanders' reputations were tainted for the rest of their natural lives what they did.

Massu, in 1971 lashed out at the Italian film "Battle of Algiers" for what he saw was a condemnation of what he and General Ausseresses did during the battle. "I am not afraid of the word torture, but I think in the majority of cases, the French military men obliged to use it to vanquish terrorism were, fortunately, choir boys compared with the use to which it was put by the rebels. The latter's extreme savagery led us to some ferocity, it is certain, but we remained within the law of eye for eye, tooth for tooth.''

A time later, he was prompted to condemn the tactics used to secure the French victory when he was in command, when a French newspaper, Le Monde, published the account of Louisette Ighilahriz, who was a 60 year old woman that recalled the conditions she suffered while fighting for the FLN. He condemned them, but also dodged where the policy for institutionalized torture came from.

Later he went on to say, ''Torture is not indispensable in time of war, we could have gotten along without it very well. ... Morally, torture is a very ugly thing" he said. He acknowledged that torture had become institutionalized as well, though insisting he never personally took part in them (that matter is best left to speculation).

You can read a more detailed account here. Some of the quotes I used were pulled from this article:

Jacques Massu 94 General Who Led Battle of Algiers - New York Times

The example here is that torture can be effective. I don't defend it. I condemn it. But I simply insist it is an effective tactic, which as I see should only be used when all other methods of gathering intelligence have been exhausted. And I mean all of them. You wanted proof, this is what I offer. I contend that in this case, torture, and other methods, successfully ended the battle of Algiers, though at a great moral and emotional price for the perpetrators.

That is all well and good but I honestly do not care how effective it was in that single instance. I only really care if it was effective when WE used it. All in all, torture has been used for centuries and I think the preponderance of both evidence AND examples point to it being ineffective. Even in this instance, do you really think that the torture employed would stand better than the methods we have perfected in modern times? I doubt it in the extreme and think that almost every single scrap of real, peer reviewed research would vindicate that belief. I really cant find anything that points to torture as more effective than modern interrogation.

Again, if anyone really was interested in presenting this properly they would. As you cited it would be politically suicidal. That is likely because there is no way to spin this.

Of course. But the SCIC attempted to assert this as fact. However, through their attempts to spin it, they revealed their own treachery in the process. Everyone in our government knew about it, yet they chose to keep it under wraps for a long, long time. What is ironic, was that it was a matter of political expedience which prompted such a report to begin with. Someone told me "if you have to hide what you did, you most likely did something you shouldn't have."

SCIC? I don't recognize the acronym. I assume you are speaking of the report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee and I would agree that the blatant political play here is absolutely disgusting. This is even outlined by the fact that Pelosi was more aware of this program than virtually anyone and yet she is the one trying to use it as a hammer against the republicans. The entire act stinks to high heaven and I think that the dems are essentially sacrificing her to try and win over one on the right. I fond the idea rather silly though as the timing sucks - this would have been FAR more helpful to them before they were slaughtered in the elections - now people will have forgotten before 2016 and they don't stand to gain anymore.

However, the other side of that is the fact that the Republicans have a golden opportunity to highlight that and beat the Democrats with their own political bullshit. You are not seeing that though, are we? Instead, they are desperately trying to justify those actions. That is, to me, inherently disgusting. Rather than come out, admit that this entire thing is wrong and ugly and highlight the political BS in the report they want to run and hide. Pathetic.

Simple, clean and no torture required. Above all - its more effective than brutality.

What is more brutal, the torture, or the methods employed by a proven guilty murderer to slay his victim? I often struggle with that, something I fail to resolve in cases like this.

We should not fear admitting when we were wrong or standing up to practices that we feel are correct.

The actual truth should prevail whatever the case may be. That's all I ask for.

That is what many of us ask for. It is the one thing that Washington does not care about.

 

[FA_Q2]

Here's my take from the standpoint of military necessity: No one should ever have know that we were torturing people, it should have been a closely guarded secret rather than a subject for public debate.

Why? Why is it better that we torture and keep it secrete than we torture and have to face our own actions.

I find your 'preference' the WORST possibility there is. A government that is not only capable of taking those actions but also not having to face the fact they did. IOW, that is an open license to do as they please.

No, nothing is worse than a government that has that kind of license.

 

[JakeStarkey]

69% of America knows it was torture. The 31% who disagree are fucks, and we all know it.

National Polls and Studies | Death Penalty Information Center
National Polls and Studies Death Penalty Information Center
NBC News, 5/14, Americans Weigh in on Lethal Injections .... The percentage of Americanswho say they oppose the death penalty has risen to 37%. ... in the pro- life conversation among Christians to include torture and the death penalty as .... The Oct. 4-7 poll indicates that 69% ofAmericans respond "yes" when asked this ...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Leaving it up to the terrorists to determine the moral high ground means they've already won, they've achieved their goals by terrorizing us into being a scared, repressive, less civilized society, one that can allow torture.

For me, there is no moral high ground in regards to this case.

My take is this: should we treat a murderer with more dignity than his victim? Is it fair to treat him with the humanity that he denied his victim(s)? There might be complexities that I may not understand, I freely admit.

Maybe you think we should provide these people with more incentive, a greater sense of injustice, another cause to fight for.

Though I believe they gave us all the incentive on one September morning in 2001. You know the rest. However, accusing me or others of being 'uncivilized animals' who somehow are supporting terrorism undermines your very premise.

No moral high ground for you? I don't think your sense of morality matters when we're talking about practical military considerations.

No. No moral high ground for the interrogators, and in most instances not for the detainees. They are both guilty of deplorable behavior. By the way, how would you know what is 'practical' in the military? Your version of morality is useless also.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You and I don't necessarily agree very often, FA_Q2 - but in this thread you're echoing my thoughts in a much more coherent and logical way than I probably could.

We are almost entirely on the same page on this.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one should ever have know that we were torturing people

I disagree. Why should we be hiding such things from the world? Would that not only damage our credibility (or what's left of it)? Regardless of my attitudes concerning the effectiveness of torture or lack thereof, secrecy is never taken well. This government is secretive enough on its own. The more secrets it keeps, the less I trust it. Heh, I don't even think I trust it anymore as it stands.