EU should put sanctions on top US leadership and many of the large US based corporations, especially in businesses like banking, media and technology.
oh, you think that EU is independent :) how old are you?
CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach torture techniques
401–410 of 434 posts
Re: CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach torture techniques
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there something like a "definitive truth"? Being an atheist, I would say, that this is an overly simplistic view. But that would be my personal take on that. Utilitarianism isn't a rational choice. What if - in my extreme example, one of the two surviving people would have been Hitler? Or even less dramatic, still contrived: What if the person being killed would go on and invent a cure against cancer? You can't pr…
> Is there something like a "definitive truth"? There is math, right? 2 > 1? > What if the person being killed would go on . . . Don't worry about it. If they would cure cancer, redux hitler, etc, they will even if not seen here. Flip your coin; accept the result; one's feelings afterward don't offend the multiverse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
> There is math, right? 2 > 1?
Ahhhhh I see. No need for many wise people discussing implications of actions and values for hundreds of years. Just throw in 4 words, 2 numbers and 1 logical operator. Eureka: Philosophy is solved.
> one's feelings afterward don't offend the multiverse.
Your solution seems to be "religion" providing consolidation.
I could absolve myself with the "Many worlds interpretation" into thinking that I don't need to care for the consequences of my actions and "accept the result".
The same way I can be absolved by a priest and still imagine myself joining the nice people in "heaven". For me personally it sadly just doesn't work that way.
In my worldview actions (or inactions) have consequences. Being an adult made me realize that I have responsibilities. And that I need to accept that I need to take these serious. One example:
If I step out of my door tomorrow and find a little crying baby on my doorstep with no one else in sight - while not at fault for the situation - I would still be responsible for this little human being. At least until there is a solution that relieves me from said responsibility. Until such a moment I need to step up and act.
The same for if I refrain from killing one person to rescue hundreds/thousands (or even just two), the consequences of my actions are my responsibility. They weigh on my consciousness. The same if I decide to rescue others by acting and torturing/killing someone.
If I act in self-defense or the defense of others ("Notwehr" and "Nothilfe" in German) I am still responsible. I might be acquitted in court. But I still need to step up and defend myself in court. I am responsible for my actions as well as for my inactions. The latter just is more easy on our consciousness (at least that is what psychology tells us).
Re: CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach torture techniques
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Sorry" how? Don't feel sorry for me, I'm happy to remain American and will also always be considered so by my fellow countrymen. But the point is that using these words, "American" and "anti-American", to refer to how people across the world choose to bow down -- or refuse to -- to the way things are handled by the US, is absurd. If you don't look up to the US you're not anti-American. Nobody is "anti-American" just…
I’m sorry in the sense you’re using the word “American” incorrectly. American = Citizen of the USA I mean, you do you, but don’t get mad when people don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
That is how American should be used, its like saying "I am European". Only thing is popular usage of "American" refers to US citizens.
Re: CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach torture techniques
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which is pretty much all you need to know about torture. When torture or "EIT" is used for a source of intelligence, using that sole point of data as proof is fraught with peril. Dropping JDAMs on a building fingered solely by a detainee is sure to get random bystanders killed. Running a raid, similarly, might well be a trap. However, when one corroborates this with other sources of data, it is a "valid" technique.…
To my knowledge, the American torture program has produced literally no novel information. Every piece of intelligence the CIA claimed was discovered with torture was, in fact, already known from other sources. We have done the experiment and found a success rate of 0%. Whatever you think you understand is wrong. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-torture-report-20141210...
Indeed. The inefficiency of torture has been demonstrated many, many times.
It has also been recognized as such by many, many torturers.
People think torture works because they think that the guilty deserve it. In other words, they want to avenge.
Hence the never-ending rationalization of torture. People want the bad guys to suffer for what they have done.
A long torture represents the worse punishment possible. If the act is bad enough (like 9/11 or rape of a child), many people find it appropriate, and more so if they don't have to do it themselves.
The perpetrators of torture like it. They just need a narrative that justifies it, a narrative they believe in. In that case, quite a large part of us can become torturers if the circumstances put them in the situation.
Many people think that the average Joe would never torture, in any circumstances. It is just untrue. A human just need to be embedded in a group of people which values legitimate violence or torture.
If we have a social support to make it legitimate, most people can do terrible things.
Hence the mobs lynching a suspect - like that guy who was killed in Boston because an online mob pointed him as the perpetrator of the marathon bombs.
Hence the common soldiers of the German Wehrmacht on the eastern front, who participated in the killing of many Jews. The idea that only fanatic Nazis like the Waffen SS or the Einsatzgruppen were involved are just untrue. Many German - who have no issues recognizing their country's responsibilities and atrocities - still can't believe that the average soldier directly participated in the genocide. They did - as historians have demonstrated.
The genocide in Rwanda has also shown that. Most of Hutus' men participated in the genocide of the Tutsis, and most of women either supported it or acted in it.
In a given society in normal circumstances, there will always be people who want violence for itself. Efficiency to solve what the society consider punishable offers the perfect rationalization for their own need to be violent.
If you have an urge to be violent, one can become a cop or join a drug gang. Not that all cops are violent but many are. Many wives of cops or soldiers are beaten by their husband. Sorry to tell harsh truths.
But that can be different. The German police is nowadays known for its specific values. In France, were I live, cops are getting always more violent without any reason for it, just a slow radicalization to far-right ideas and values. More than 60% in the police force now vote for the far-right. This is known through their actual vote when they elect their unions' representatives.
Violence is the norm in most "force institutions" (police, army, intelligence services) in most countries, including democracies. Torture is merely the exacerbation of it in special circumstances where the crime is considered so bad that the uttermost violence is legitimized.
In average, during the XXth century, 90% of casualties during the war were civilians.
When fighting the Germans and the Japanese during WWII, the "good" countries like the USA and the UK went at length to use terror against the civilians - sharing with Hitler the idea that if the people is demoralized by intense bombings, it will force their military to stop the war. Dresden and Tokyo were both bombed with incendiary devices. In Dresden, 130 000 casualties during a sole night, 95% being civilians.
Humans are nor violent nor peaceful by nature. They are social animals who behave according to the current social norms of their social group.
Obama was a splendid President, very respectful of the Constitution - and I gladly voted for him. But he went along with the drone war in Afghanistan, with a large number of collateral casualties. Basically, 5 year-old children of djihadists can legitimately be killed if they happen to be nearby their father when a drone located him. Collateral damages, necessary for the greater good.
The Obamas have become very close to George Bush Jr. They can't stop saying how much a nice guy he is. Except that this guy should be trialed by the International Court of Justice if not by the American legal system for invading and occupying Iraq on fabricated grounds.
How can these super cultivated people and so decent people like the Obamas befriend GWBb Jr? Well, they have been in power as well and that experience has immerged them into the social norms of Washington. Very few are the one capable of keeping a true moral compass while embedded in a specific social class.
I'm no exception to this. I try to be a good guy but I identify myself as the guy in the Star Wars movie who wonders: Are we the baddies?
Re: CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach torture techniques
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes the police are in the wrong for torturing him. If the thief says nothing and the police find the car with a dead child inside he gets murder charges added to his grand theft auto charges. This is already the established law when a death occurs during the commission of a felony. It's why get away drivers for a bank robbery can be charged as well with the murders that happened at others' hands inside the bank. You…
...says somebody without children?
Idiotic point
Re: CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach torture techniques
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So how can we look at Russia and say they are committing war crimes if the US blatantly does things like this. I don't understand what you are saying here. More than one group can commit war crimes.
I believe what the grandparent post actually meant was, "This undermines our moral posture in accusing Russia of war crimes." Which is true.
That assumes that everyone is American. I’m not. Even if I were I did not commit war crimes, nor did most of the people who post on this forum.
So it is not true that it undermines “our” moral posture. That is just rethorical gymnastic.
I think the US militaries have insufficient controls to uncover and punish war crimes, and the “American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002” is particularly disgracefull. I believe the US should do better.
That being said when Russian troops intentionally shell civilians that is a war crime.
Re: CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach torture techniques
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has killed a whole lot more people and committed a whole lot more war crimes and crimes against humanity than the USSR did in the past 70 years. Possibly more than any other country in the world.
Why 70, so you can ignore the millions killed by Stalin and communism?
No. 70 as I'm looking at post-WW2. The US were still the good guys in WW2. Same reason why I'm not mentioning Nazi Germany.
Although one can say that the US stopped being the good guys when they nuked Japan.
Re: CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach torture techniques
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sorry in the sense you’re using the word “American” incorrectly. American = Citizen of the USA I mean, you do you, but don’t get mad when people don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
That is how American should be used, its like saying "I am European". Only thing is popular usage of "American" refers to US citizens.
Perhaps using "American" (also) for South Americans is popular usage in (certain regions of) South America. You can't just declare that it's wrong just because it's not popular usage in Western culture (which is heavily influenced by the USA).
Re: CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach torture techniques
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is how American should be used, its like saying "I am European". Only thing is popular usage of "American" refers to US citizens.
Perhaps using "American" (also) for South Americans is popular usage in (certain regions of) South America. You can't just declare that it's wrong just because it's not popular usage in Western culture (which is heavily influenced by the USA).
Indeed, in Latin America we call ourselves "americanos". It's even mentioned in the English language version of Wikipedia for the "American (word)" entry, under "Cultural reception" or something like that. It states "Hispanic Americans" challenge the notion that "American" should be exclusively used for people from the US. It also states the RAE (linguistics body from Spain) also challenges the English language common usage as "abusive" and recommends against adopting this usage in Spanish.
But this is neither here nor there. I didn't intend to lead this in a linguistics direction, but rather towards this notion of Manifest Destiny and exceptionalism, that leads some people (like the ones who replied to me) to believe that rejecting the notion of the US as World Police is somehow the same as being "anti-American".
Since not everyone is from the US, I argue, this idea that we are "all in the same boat" and pushing against US supremacy and above-the-rules'ness is somehow "being anti-American" and "right-wing" is both ridiculous and parochial.
Re: CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach torture techniques
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm answering your question by suggesting that Obama could have gotten much more done if he had not been so extremely partisan from day 1. When it became clear he was not going to negotiate any changes to the monumental Obamacare law and pass it through on a partisan vote, the only natural response for Republicans seeking to effect their own policy agenda was to block as much as possible. In effect Obama, rather than…
I'm sorry, but you're ignoring the actual things that happened. There were good faith negotiations with the Republicans about Obamacare and post-crash stimulus and the Republicans chose to unanimously vote against them because they saw a partisan advantage to doing so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc
I'm not ignoring anything. Obama was successful in his first year, in part because of how much effort he put into being bipartisan. He did not have much success in getting Republicans to vote for his massive landmark policies, but his Supreme Court nominee sailed through confirmation.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/73971-obamas-fir...
Generally, Republicans were very engaged in solving problems in the first year, but faced the reality of a democrat supermajority. Obama made many concessions in the bills he passed despite not getting many Republicans to vote.
There's nothing inconsistent there with a contentious but effective government. Sure it would be nice to have gotten more Republicans to vote yes, but the process was working.
After he passed Obamacare, in which he abandoned all negotiations with Republicans and flexed his supermajority power, the only appropriate response was stonewalling.
It's happening again too. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/are-democrats-just-r...