Doubleplusgood

The case of someone who's not guilty isn't really the issue here... We're not talking about torturing people to get them to confess.

We're talking about interrogating KNOWN terrorists. (I realize you could bring up the "but how do you KNOW?" argument... let's assume that we're dealing with people who we have amassed a very large ammount of evidence regarding their connections to terrorist dealings, and not just some random guy off the street.)



I believe this is a flawed analysis. You are regarding interrogation techniques as simply being lesser degrees of death.... If this were true, then your statements here would be valid.

However, prolonged psychological interrogation is far more tangible than the abstract thought of death. It's not that hard to imagine dying and going to some happy place. Accepting that is a completely abstract process. It takes no real will to do so.

In contrast, actually being tortured or interrogated DOES take will to withstand. It's not over quickly, and it's not an abstract event. It's REAL.

Can someone being interrogated lie? Sure... but part of effective interrogation involves making sure that they know that if they lie, the interrogation will just continue. If they lie, and you check up on the info and it turns out false, back into the room they go.

This is the thing... The ONLY way to effectively interrogate someone, is to make it so that they believe the only way they will end the interrogation, is by telling you the truth.




So, we're not talking about some kind of inquisition, where you're picking up random people on the street and making them tell you crap.

We're talking about captured known terrorists, and making them tell us the location and plans of other known terrorists.

Reagan's massive strike against terrorist camps resulted in a fairly abrupt end to their operations.


But, seriously.. if you honestly believe that you can't ever win against terrorism, where exactly does that leave us?

Should we just give up and die? Should we just become the Islamic state that the terrorists want us to be?

Is that honestly what you want?

Woah Nelly!

With no oversite, no trial, no need to prove anything, you are making a fundamental part of the arguement seem meaningless.

You can say whatever you want in your hypothetical, but until I know that there is some protection in place for innocents, I do not, can not, and will not accept your caveat that all picked up are guilty.

There is not one tiny shred of evidence that says everyone who was picked up was guilty.

That is by design, btw, otherwise we would be trying them in a court of law, somewhere, not just locking them up and throwing away the key (or worse).

That was April 15th, 1986. On December 21st, 1988, Lybian terrorists blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.



Fucked, in a contextually relevent sense.



Of course not. First off - as I've posted in other (and more appropriate threads), I regard all religions as manifestations of mental illness. I'm not trying to indicate what, if anything should be done, I'm just trying to express my opinion that terrorist activities are not generally quelled with force.

sorry Taco, if you view my manifesto as off topic

i prefer to deal with the disease it self, a "nation of laws" reduced to using illegal torture because we are collectively shitting our Calvin Kliens with fear is just a symptom of the US reaping what we have sown

Oh not at all Mulch, I meant only that i wasn't going to get into my views on religion in detail in this particular thread.

btw, gentlemen, I'd like to commend you for keeping civil tongues while you debate things from radically different perspectives. It's refreshing and has no place here

Ok, this is getting kind of longwinded, so I'm just going to cut some parts out and deal with them.



Most of the insurgents are not Iraqis... Most of the Iraqis are participating in the political process, and trying to form a democratic government.



Terrorists and insurgents are different.

Small non-uniformed combatants that attack US military assets are insurgents, but not terrorists.

Combatants that intentionally target civilians, are terrorists.


I'm not really going to bother dealing with nut-ball Chomsky's flawed analysis of events that happened 40 years ago... I don't really think it's that relevant to today's events... Unless you'd like to suggest that since the US did bad things in the past, that those bad things are actually good, and it's ok for other guys to do them.




You realize that this argument is silly, right?

It's possible to interrogate people, without resorting to widespread torture of everyone in the world. Believe it or not, there are actually ways to selectively target terrogation.



The obvious answer to this is that publicising the capture of terrorists would alert other terrorists. This would undoubtedly cause them to change their plans, to account for the fact that their captured buddy was probably going to spill the beans.

Did this really not occur to you?



No, not at all.. but, I believe that our definitions of torture are different.

I do not, under any circumstances, advocate causing physical harm to prisoners. However, I certainly do advocate using psychological techniques to break their will.




That decision applied only to American citizens being held there.



That's quite a convincing argument there. Did you get that one from Chomsky?


I'm sure you're right.. It's naive of us to think that people everywhere like having enough food to eat, and clothes to wear, and rights.

That stuff isn't REALLY attractive to other people.. we totally force it upon them!

I think it would be amusing to see you in a part of the world where you no longer have all of the things you are accustomed to. I wonder if you went to a third world country, if you'd think the people there were happy and content, and were better off living in such a state.



Did you know that the particular word that you use to describe Al Qaeda doesn't really matter? That they are terrorists based on their actions, and not their name?



Bin Laden is not the same as Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is a threat. Bin Laden is not.




LOL.. have you ACTUALLY ever read Orwell? Do you know anything about the political climate within which he wrote it?

Orwell was not prophecising.. he was writing about the Soviet Union. Not some crazy fictional future version of it either.... Books like animal farm were dealing with the ACTUAL Soviet Union.




This is surely a nobel thought.. But how do you deal with the fact that your opponents have no intention of playing fair?




*chuckles*
So, Al Qaeda was no threat until we invaded Iraq.
Gotcha.



The major difference is that the crazy christian groups are at least operating within the rule of law. You do understand how that's different, right?

Now, if you want to talk about the nutballs who blow up abortion clinics.. Then there is no difference. Those people are terrorists.




But they want to redecorate YOUR kitchen... and they don't really care whether or not you think they have the right to.

So how exactly do you deal with that? Do you simply accept it? Do you try and "talk it out"?




You suggested that it was stemming from deeper problems, but you didn't actually offer any real solution to it... Your solution consisted of "stop doing all that bad stuff!"

But the terrorists want to kill you. You understand that, right? If you do absolutely nothing at all, they're STILL going to want to kill you. They don't really need a reason.

So, if you captured Zarquai, you don't think he should be interrogated until he's given a trial?

What if you KNOW that they're planning something, and something's going to get blown up tomorrow?

Do you let innocents die, to protect the due process of their murderer?

I realize that this is not an easy question.

I would suggest that immediate and massive retalliation is the only activity that has any hope of working.

I mean, there's obviously no way to rationally discuss the situation with them..

This is what makes this so difficult to deal with. It's not like we're fighting other rational human beings who value human life at all.

I think the solution is simple.

All nations should just use the 'honey trap'.

In that case, everyone would simply be too distracted to do any real harm.



make Love not War,

secret agent Desmond Shang

Right, that's so obvious. Like when they bombed our country, we had no choice but to attack them* and with all the means at our disposal, as they don't consider human life to be important.

* said the Iraqi to his friend as they planted an IED.

Sure, they love us, they Love Dying . We have been greated as liberators!!!



Not when Bush and Co. describe them. They are interchangable in their linguistics.



So if China rolled into your neighborhood with tanks, you would put on a uniform to fight them?



Agreed, reread my Chomsky quotes and then stop by here, and in case you missed it, there is always this



I beg to differ. I say events 40 years ago are quite relevant as they have created the society that these terrorists have grown up in.

And as far as Chomsky, and Orwell for that matter, I am 100% stating that most of the wool pulled over our collective eyes is based on carefully crafted language to produce a desired response. 1984 had an actually dictionary in its pages to illustrate how language can be used. Hence, a linguistics professor is precicely the type who is most suited to seeing through the utter bullshit of our policy and propoganda and jingoism. Language can form deep meaning inside your brain.

There is no simpler illustration than me challenging you to tell me the difference in the words "nationalism" and "patriotism"

(it is worth noting I am a certified Ericksonian Hypnotherapist, and linguistics are how I alter peoples state and produce the results. I don't count from 10 to 1 or use swinging pocketwatches. There is something called artful ambiguity, or being artfully vague, where I can speak to 2 people and they will imagine totally different scenerios based on my very specific instructions. I can also "frame" things in a way to produce the desired result. That is what GWB does with his speeches EVERY DAY. His message, be afraid, be very afraid. It works)

And no, the bad things we did are bad, and it is time to make ammends, or pay the price for our crimes.



And no one has ever been unjustly accused or imprisoned even with the benefit of a justice system, right?



So fighting fire with fire works? Terrorizing people is the solution to terror?



Physical wounds heal, mental wounds take far longer, and are sometimes never healed.




You are mistaken



Who are they and why do they want us dead? And, erm, please cite your sources.



I beg to differ in regards to 1984



Two wrongs make a right arguement, or might makes right arguement? Elaborate.



it only took 19 people to make 9/11 happen. (maybe 30 if you add the support system in)

The Branch Davidians had 80 killed in Waco.

I stand by my statement, Bin Laden was a fringe extremist.



Now where would I get that idea?



And come to think of it, why did Bush actually call this "war on terror" a "crusade"?



I see no evidence of that. When Bush repeats that line about them "hating our freedom or way of life" over and over again, it does not make it true.

How does that Kool Aid taste?



Getting the fuck out of their business would be a great start. But our economy is entwined in other peoples suffering, it is beyond the scope of my ability to suggest a resolution(hence why I think capitalism failed, and I own a business).

We have dug a very deep hole and it will take more then one gun totin John Wayne wanna be with ballistic missles to get us out.



Terrorism is a tactic, not a state of mind. Look at thier objectives. Killing me is not an objective, it is a means to an end. I don't have solutions, but a movie critic doesn't have to make movies to tell you when a movie sucks.

This movie sucks.

This is just more Kool Aid

You are intelligent, so I wonder why you would simply parrot the "company line"

Brilliant!!!!!

I'm glad you weren't in charge of the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Cold War. I like having a planet.

On topic, when you respond to terrorism, terrorism has won. So we lost. Can we stop losing now?

OK, this makes me sick. I don't know where you get your extraordinary faith that US government officials somehow know beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is a terrorist, but I would really like to know what sort of standard of evidence you feel comfortable with before someone is whisked off to be tortured for months or even years. I would also question why it is that if they know so very much about these people and their plans and intentions before their capture that it is necessary to interrogate them for so very long and why they simply don't lay charges in a legally acceptable manner instead.

You seem to think that those who are tortured are guilty by definition and I can see how it might shake your world view to consider the alternative but let me just point out to you a couple of the American government's 'little mistakes' in this department.

Firstly the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen whose only crime was a casual association with someone who was suspected (note the use of the word suspected) of having connections to Al-Quaeda, but whose biggest mistake was to book a flight that required him to change planes on American soil. Due to the practice of 'extraordinary rendition' this man, (after questioning by the FBI which I guess was not up to snuff as they merely made him uncomfortable, bullied him and denied him access to a lawyer and any semblance of legal process rather than outright torturing him) was deported to his native Syria even though he was traveling on a Canadian passport and specifically requested not to be sent to Syria as he feared torture there. BTW, I am deeply ashamed of the complicity of the RCMP in this and the failure of the Canadian government to protect this citizen. Read more about it here.

http://maher-arar.iqnaut.net/

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

It is noteworthy that: "On October 29, 2002, the Canadian foreign affairs department issued a travel advisory strongly cautioning Canadians born in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and Sudan against travel to the United States for any reason." Which demonstrates exactly how much faith the government of your northern neighbor has that only 'known terrorists' face the prospect of rendition, illegal detention and torture. As you will see if you read the links, the 'evidence' in this case was at best sketchy and circumstantial and it was imo pretty much the equivalent of 'taking some guy off the street' because he might possibly know something about someone who might possibly have terrorist connections.

Secondly we come to those British citizens who were released from Guantanamo Bay after two years of detention. One might question again why it is that if they were definitely terrorists they were eventually released without charges even though it seems that they did in fact confess while they were there ( gee, I guess severe interrogation methods NEVER end up extracting false confessions from the innocent). One might also question why it took the American authorities over two years to decide to release them if they were innocent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3533804.stm

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0312-07.htm

So yes Roland, how do you know? You assume that there is some very high standard of evidence met before these sorts of methods are employed but these cases quite plainly point out that there is not. Furthermore the whole point is that these things are being done without any sort of oversight by the judiciary, human rights groups or American citizens themselves, the latter supposedly still being in charge if you believe all that 'of the people' stuff.Now the American government has set up secret detention centres in Europe where they can more comfortably use whatever methods they please. Detention without legal process and torture are practices that are associated with tyrannies and are unjustifiable in any circumstances, or perhaps you don't remember all the arguments over Iraq that went: 'Well gee, no WMD but Saddam was torturing and killing people so we just had to take him out, right?'

I think you are making the mistake of thinking that I am saying that anything the US government has done is automatically good, and that I'm justifying it... I suspect that this may be due to a bias on your own part that is assuming that everything they do is bad.

We are trying to define a situation where harsher interrogation techniques WOULD be justified.

For instance, Al Zarquai is a known terrorist. You accept this, right? People who associate with him, are most likely also terrorists, since pretty much everyone KNOWS that he's one.

Do you risk the lives of innocent people, to protect his rights to due process? Even though he does not make any attempt to satisfy the responsibilities that go along with those rights, and routinely ignores the rights of others?

This is an interesting position.

(I'll ignore the cuban missile crisis, since you obviously don't actually understand the situation if you believe that dealing with a super power is the same as dealing with a terrorist organization.)

So, response to terrorism means you lost...And we should "stop losing" now.

So, you are advocating inaction?

How exactly does that help? Do you honestly suggest that we should simply let the terrorists blow up our people?

Please lay out something approaching a detailed plan of how to "stop losing", and exactly why it would be preferable.

Absolute Power corrupts absolutely

point being, we (the people) can't make sure they are not abusing their powers

again, shipping people off to nowhere to, impose your will on them, in secret, with no one watching, has no basis nor precedent in the law of this land

hence, we have a problem

I have no interest in defending Bush.

Believe it or not, it's possible to have opinions regarding international policy that deal with tough decisions, without being some crazy right wing conservative.




Most likely, if China rolled into my neighborhood, I'd already be dead, since a deep penetration land assault would have been preceeded by a massive aerial bombardment.

But, no.. I would probably fight as a non-uniformed combatant, because I wouldn't expect the Chinese to really respect my rights as a soldier anyway.

But I wouldn't attack chinese civilians.





Out of curiosity, do you understand that the numbers on Iraqibodycount.org are not a compilation of civilians killed by US forces? And certainly not INTENTIONAL targeting of civilians.

They are simply a count of total (possible) deaths. Most of them are actually deaths caused by terrorists in the region.



You can say that it's relevant, but it does not offer anything in terms of a course of action for the future.



Seriously, if you're talking about language being used in such a way, Chomsky is not a good source for that... Modern cognitive science and linguistics have come a long way since Chomsky contributed anything of value to the field.

For what you're looking for, someone like Debord would be better. You seem to be going for a situationalist view of things.




How exactly do we do that?




Of course they have, and we should do our best to avoid such things. But we must realize the reality of the situation.... The people we are fighting have absolutely no problem violating your rights.

They capture civilians, and televise their decapitation.

If we were to lose to such people, then that is the kind of system you would live under. You would enjoy none of the rights you have now. You would not be able to criticize such leaders at all, as you do now.




Hmmm.. I'm guessing that you just had no idea what I was talking about?

You see, keeping the capture of a high value target secret is not done for terrorization purposes. It's done so that the enemy does not KNOW that you captured them.

Do you understand how depriving the enemy of such key information gives you an advantage?



LOL.. are you requesting a complete listing of all Al Qaeda operatives? Sorry, don't got it.. you totally got me on that one.



*chuckles* Well, the man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

1984 was a view of the totalitarian state that was the Soviet Union... This is painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about the soviet union.





I'm not necessarilly advocating such things... But if you're willing to play by the rules, you MUST deal with the fact that your oponent is going to have a large advantage over you since they are not bound by such rules.

You must deal with that problem. You cannot pretend that it does not exist.




I think the lesson to learn from this is that you can't simply discount the "fringe extremists".

Although your analysis here is also wrong. Bin Laden had built up quite the team over decades of fighting the soviets in Afghanistan... he also had access to a large monetary support network. You're certainly fooling yourself if you think the organization consisted of only 30 people.





So.. you quote Ann Coulter, and then talk about stuff Bush said.

Perhaps you're confused here. I'm not actually either of those people. I'm a real living person. I'm not a gigantic amophous blob that can simply be characterized as "THE RIGHT".

I honestly have no interest in defending the statements of any random lunatic that you personally don't agree with.

For instance, Ann Coulter is an intentionally inflamatory television personality. She's not a serious political analyst. She says things to get ratings on TV. Why would you expect me to defend such things?

Do you simply mindlessly follow a political party, and defend the statements of anyone even remotely associated with it, because they're on "your side"?




Heh.. you'll have to tell me.

You think that Al-Zarquai likes you? You think that if he saw you on the street, you'd tell him how evil Bush is, and he'd slap you on the back, give you the big thumbs-up, and go on his way?

Do you think he's totally down with democracy, and rights? Do you think that he wouldn't mind that you're not a muslim?

Nah.. they don't really hate us. They're all cool guys. I'm sure.




So, what exactly constitutes "getting the fuck out of their business?"

Should we just cut off all contact with those regions of the world? Just say, "See ya! This tiny minority of your people say they don't want us here, so we're just gonna abandon you. Sorry!"

Should we cut off all trade with them? Revoke all international aid? Sit back while their people starve? Just let them do "their own thing", because some terrorists asked us to?

Why exactly should we allow a small number of terrorists speak for the masses, when they were not elected, and the majority of people there have nothing to do with them?

(The comment about capitalism failing is truly hillarious.)





It's good that you recognize that terrorism is a tactic. Let's take that a bit further.

Suppose that you are a terrorist, and you blow up a building to get what you want. (say, "get the fuck out of your business," as you so eloquently put it)

So, now the target (the great Satan, do doubt!) decides to do what you want... they realize the err of their ways, and back off.

What does that mean, in regards to your probable actions in the future?

Are you going to then be more or less likely to commit terrorist acts?

Seems to me, that if it worked and got you what you wanted, you'd just stick with what works and keep killing civilians.

That seems like an awfully bad precedent to set. Wouldn't you agree?

Then I must apologize. It is hard for me to fathom advocating torture unless one was leaning far right. I did assume, and for that I appear an ass. I would never insult anyone that way. Sincere regret.



Do you understand an overwhelming majority would still be alive if we we didn't go there?



You got me there. But I do know natural human tendency, when something fails, we try again the same way, only harder.

I am mearly suggesting by looking at this unfortunate situation from a different perspective instead of repeating the same old mistakes we may actually produce a different (and better result).



Chomsky is quite articulate, and beyond that his footnotes transform his pages into looking like an impossible algebra problem.

My point is, he is meticulously anal about citing sources. I happen to agree with a lot of his conclusions, regardless of whether he is contributing to linguistics or has moved on to a social realm he would not have understood without understanding language at the level he does.



I am not sure, but as they say, what goes around comes around. I suggest we figure out how to make amends and fast, thats all.



They haven't violated my rights. The US govt, on the other hand...



Horrible stuff. I remember watching the story of Nick Berg break on the News, interupting Rummy while he was being questioned over the torture (there is that word again) at Abu Gharib (gee, did you know Nick Berg was actually working AT Abu Gharib?). Suddenly, Rummy's testimony was off the air, and stills of the beheading video were on. Every channel.



the "terrorists" must have picked that chair and orange jumpsuit up at walmart, huh?



nice chair babe



btw, did you know we funded, armed and trained Bin Laden and the mudjahadin to fight the Soviets? Are you aware we gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein?





OK, I'll bite, after you explain exactly how we will lose to "those people", what kind of system would we live under?

Would the govt be able to sneak into my house and search it without telling me?

Would they be able to check which library books I read and what I shopped for?

Would they pluck me off the street, not tell anyone where I was, deny access to legal help, hide me in some other country and torture me?

Would they monitor my participation in legal free speech activities?

Of course, since I am a US citizen they would have to adhere to due process when dealing with me

Would they shoot and kill a 14 year old in the back or shoot and kill an unarmed woman holding an infant

Maybe I was wrong, maybe I should trust my government. They are like a, I dunno, Big Brother, always watching (out for) me.



You yourself stated: "The obvious answer to this is that publicising the capture of terrorists would alert other terrorists. This would undoubtedly cause them to change their plans, to account for the fact that their captured buddy was probably going to spill the beans."

It seems to me gettin the "terrorists" to change their plans would be a good thing. Did you want them to blow something up now?



Time it was and what a time it was it was,
A time of innocence a time of confidences.

While I admit the Soviet Union influenced Orwell tremendously, the book is considered science fiction, and is written in the future. Perhaps you didn't notice what this thread is called...

Trust me (or read others analysis), 1984 was not the retelling of the Soviets. It was a stern warning. Don't be so literal when it comes to fiction.



I would rather die with honor than live in shame



Nor can you make everyone prove themselves innocent before they are cleared.



Numbers shumbers, is 300 more scary to you than 30? 3000?

Bad news dood, what we have done is create a breeding ground for terrorists. In a few years, it is quite possible we will long for the days when all we had to worry about was Bin Laden and his little pals.



I apologized for accusing you of being a far right war monger. What more can I say?



You see, you are supporting changing our way of life, such as curtailing freedoms and ignoring those "quaint" Geneva Conventions.

When you change your way of life, the "terrorists" win...

And much like I feel about you and most people on this earth, I could give a flying fuck what Zarquai thinks of me. Problem is, we gave him a stage to preach on. We shown the spotlight on him. We gave his words meaning. We have provided him the forum to recruit, and changed our own lives drastically. How is this good?



Maybe I am wrong, but I would imagine most people would not desire a foriegn power conquering their nations, be it militarily or economically.



Glad you like it? So which of your summer houses will you be vacationing at Christmas?



Well, if you tease a dog long enough it will bite you. Should you put the dog to sleep because it bit you, or perhaps examine your own actions to figure out what provoked it?

My guess is you would shoot the dog, because the dog should have recognized your might and did what it was told, because he is either "with us or against us."

Arrest the people who were involved, and try them in a court of law.

otherwise:

But they have a problem with your very existence. The fact that you live in a society that is not based on treating Islam as both religious and civil law, means that you are an infidel.

So, the only way you can make amends, is to either embrace fundamentalist islam, or die.

I don't really like either of those choices... So I don't think I'm ever going to make the terrorists happy. I'm pretty sure that no matter what I do, they would want to kill me. I strongly suspect the same is the case for everyone who posts on this forum.




But they most certainly would, if you lived in a society of their design.



No way! I had no idea!

Seriously.. does anyone NOT know that?

Do you believe this somehow affects what we should do now?

Should we not fight those guys, because they used to be our allies? Once someone's your ally, you gotta just keep backing them, no matter what they do?



You would lose to those people by either dying, or eventually living under a theocracy.

Frankly, I don't believe the theocracy would ever take... What I believe is that eventually, they will kill so many people, that even people like yourself will decide that they need to be exterminated. At some point, even the most blind pacifist will decide that the terrorists have killed enough people for their taste, and they will seek an end to it.

And I fear that will be VERY messy. It will make Iraq look like a walk in the park.



I'm kind of worried that you could be this naive.

You see, the terrorists will simply blow something ELSE up... And maybe that time, you won't capture one of them first.

However, if they think their plan is still unknown, then you could catch them when they try to execute it, and then they WON'T be able to blow something else up.





It's a fictional story that is describing a life under a totalitarian regime. The reason he was telling the story, was because of the soviets.

Certainly, he was not suggesting that the soviet union had futuristic crap, and watching screens in every room... But the purpose of the book is to describe the horrors of a totalitarian system, like that of the soviet union under Stalin.

I mean.. come on... this was Orwell's "thing".

And, quite honestly, if you believe that the US is anything approaching a totalitarian regime, then you do not know what such a system is like. I would suggest that you talk to non-party members who lived behind the Iron Curtain. Then tell them about how your rights are being infringed upon. Then watch them laugh very hard.




This is easy to say when you are safe at home, in a free democratic society, where you have food, and TV, and a computer.






Hmm.. Let's see.

It seems to me, that the days of Bin Laden and his little pals were doing pretty good breeding terrorists. Is a few thousand innocent civilians, intentionally murdered, trivial to you?

Were they not effective enough?




If you die, the terrorists win. Because they just want you to die.

If you're dead, because someone didn't want to infringe on your rights, it kind of sucks.

I'm not advocating the violation of the rights of American Citzens... I don't actually agree with the patriot act.

But, at the same time, I realize that sometimes those who are trying to protect us may need to bend the rules... because the alternative is many people dying.



This doesn't really answer the question.. I asked you what it meant to "get the fuck out of their business".

Should we close all trade with those regions, and simply allow the terrorists to rule over those people through force? They certainly weren't chosen by the people of the region to speak for them... But they have the guns, and they're intentionally killing a lot of civilians.

Do you believe we should just back off, and pretend that part of the world doesn't exist?



*chuckles* are you suggesting that the only people who believe in capitalism are rich?

Again, I feel that you would benefit from exposure to people who lived in the soviet union behind the iron curtain. It's quite an enlightening experience.





When the dog intends to continue biting you until you die, then you put the dog to sleep.

It's good to look at your actions and evaluate them so that you can avoid making the same mistakes in the future, but you can't just let the dog kill you because you made mistakes.

Mulch...
Have you lost your grip?

I am certain you have a more effective retort available to you...



Oh... and Uncle Milton rocks!
Me too.
Nice to meet you.
Too bad tonal inflection does not carry on teh intarweb.
Otherwise, this conversation would be much more eeeffective.

There were things done in Iraq that go beyond what should be acceptable, but the public has to realize that many of the pictures we saw were of what America has considered legitimate torture methods for a long time. Many American soldiers go through the same type of torture in SEARS training. The idea is that we need information out of people that can save soldier's lives, but we don't believe it to be effective or proper to cause physical mutilation or death. We therefore torture the person psychologically. Two of the main things done are putting the person in an uncomfortable situation and depriving them of their senses for long periods of time. This is why you see people with hoods over their heads tied to their beds in odd positions. You have to admit these two tactics are not as bad as torture used to be in the past where a person would be mutilated till they die. Many of the dog attack pictures are misleading too. We don't have the information about why the person was attacked by a dog and now needs stitches. If the dog attack was for no reason, then it is an outrage. This is a prison however, so if the person was escaping or engaged in another activity that can not be tolerated in a prison, the dog attack makes sense.

The biggest problem is not our methods of torture. Comparatively, America is very humane when it comes to torture. Our problem is the way these people end up in the prison. Every person that ends up in a prison that is tortured physically or mentally will be a terrorist when they leave that prison if they aren't already. We must be careful who we go throwing in these prisons without trial, because we are creating enemies in the process. Not to mention the fact that people in Iraq will have a stigma against people being dragged off to prison. They were told this is one of the reasons their leader had to be overthrown, and now they see the overthrowers doing the same thing. It is a war. We are going to take prisoners, but there needs to be better processing, and more control over who can be kept in what type of prison for how long and why.