FReeper logic.

[SammyBlue]

So one of my classmates is a big RFA. I mean, a huge RFA Bushbot (which is weird because he is a strapping young man who could enlist) and stupid me mentions the Abu Garib torture.

RFA's response. "Torture, within reason, is acceptable to me, since these people are trying to kill us." I asked him if he was serious, he said "absolutely!"

Dumbfounded, I walked away. . .but now, I ask. . .DUers, explain "within reason?"

I mean the pain of jumper cables on testicles is okay, so long as you don't hook them up to a car battery?

I usually rip RFAs apart, but maybe you can explain acceptable levels of torture.

[MsTryska]

1. ask him to clarify

by explaining what level of torture is reasonable for use on American GIs.

[ThoughtCriminal]

2. Here's a reasonable standard for "Acceptable level"

Let's try it on the torture advocate. He can tell us when it's too much.

[Iris]

3. I should probably ask what an RFA is before I respond, but here it goes

Why didn't you ask him what sort of torture is within reason for our ENEMIES to inflict upon our troops. After all, they believe we are out to destroy them as well.

[SammyBlue]

9. RFA = Retarded FReeper Asshole

My acronym.

[Iris]

12. and a damn good one! thnx! n/t

[silverweb]

4. Oxymoron.

Freeper + logic --- does not compute!

:crazy:

[dchill]

5. Tell him that Abu Ghraib is in Iraq.

We were trying to kill them first. Illegal invasion. Illegal occupation. Illegal torture. Either we are a nation of Law or a nation of Republicans. Can't do both.

[unpossibles]

7. that's what I was going to say

they were not trying to kill us until we invaded their country.

[rmgustaf]

6. Slideshows

Sort of like what the Daily Show asked:

What's too much torture?

A) Jumper cables on nipples
B) Lynndie England with a whip
C) A McClellan press conference

[NanceGreggs]

8. "... since these people are trying to kill us."

On whose say-so?

The next time the topic comes up, ask him how he KNOWS the people being tortured are trying to kill us.

Ask him why, every few months, the US military releases these same people into the general population if they're trying to kill us?

Ask him how we know 'these people' are trying to kill us, when they're routinely picked up and held without charges being laid, witnesses being called, or a trial convicting them or exonerating them?

Ask him how he's going to feel when someone he knows, currently serving in Iraq or Afganistan, is held and tortured because our enemies are now free to play by the rules this administration is itself adhering to?

I'd be interested to hear his answers -- I'm sure you would be, too.

[LSK]

11. exactly what I was going to say n/t

[tsuki]

10. It is the loss of moral values among the Republican Base. They

have substituted "cult of personality" for Christianity. And you know what the Good Book says about idolatry.

I am tired of the Loud Mouths that have high-jacked the Christian Faith.

[stopbush]

13. Would you be OK if they tortured your children?

Ask him that, because that's what we've been doing at Gitmo. The fact is that most of those people were picked up on information so slight that it makes arrests under the Patriot Act look almost reasoned. The fact is that bush could have him or any member of his family arrested and shipped out country to be tortured. Think it can't happen? It already has.

[tanyev]

14. Is he also a good Christian freeper?

Ask him under what circumstances Jesus would have tortured someone.

[0rganism]

15. The premise of torture in information extraction is flawed

Of course, if you're just doing it for sadistic pleasure or to encourage the world at large hate your guts, then I suppose you could make a case for it.

But as far as interrogation goes, when you have a situation where the tortured will say anything to stop the abuse, the technique has failed utterly. In other words, the more effective the torture is as an information extractor, the less effective the torture is as a means of gathering reliable information.

This is why the popular "ticking time bomb" hypotheticals are bullshit. There are three possibilities to begin with:
1) the suspect knows complete specifics of the "ticking time bomb" (what kind, where, how to disarm, etc.)
2) the suspect has partial knowledge of the specifics (for whatever reason)
3) the suspect does not know any specifics

So how do you ensure that you are not mistaking #3 for #2, or #2 for #1? Excruciation, in itself, doesn't do anything to clarify that situation. Even if you do have #1, you cannot be certain that whatever information the suspect provided is not entirely fabricated with the goal of causing law enforcement or whomever else to chase a red herring until the bomb goes off.

Worse than useless, really.

[seemunkee]

16. We signed and ratified a treaty against it. The Constitution says...

that a ratified treaty is the law of the land. By what reasoning is it legal?

Article. VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
United States of America signed 18 Apr 1988 Ratified 21 Oct 1994

Torture Libby first, we know he is lying.

[Ilsa]

17. So, he is saying some guy the soldiers picked up from his

dinner table in his own home was trying to kill GIs so it's okay to torture him when they have no real indication if the people they are torturing are truly guilty of something. I guess they are guilty of being brown.