Turn on thread page Beta

Rendition - US torture watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    Why not also ask yourself why you believe an article can be dismissed simply because it was written by someone of Middle Eastern descent? And why do you assume that the article was written by someone of Middle Eastern descent? Naomi Klein is a Canadian, Canada-born woman of Jewish-American descent. But you insist on both assuming her race because she is talking about US torture and dismissing her on those grounds. Then you go on to dismiss the Guardian as an unreliable source of information - what more do you want? What other sources report on the despicable actions of governments but newspapers and the press? Which press institutions would you accept stories from? Please ask yourself these questions.
    I dismiss it because it comes from the Guardian, not because it was written by an Arab. The fact that it was written by an Arab should tell you something about the reliability of the Guardian. The Guardian assigns an arab to write an inflamatory story involving an arab that reflects badly upon the US. The Guardian has always been interested more in making the US look bad than it has in presenting unbiased facts. Why do you think so many people quote it in their anti-us remarks?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Critics contend that the unstated purpose of such renditions is to subject the suspects to aggressive methods of persuasion that are illegal in America—including torture.
    I once again assert that the US government has no control over people once they are extradited to another country. And we have nothing but the objections by the critics to suggest that the US government sends these people to their own countries to "outsource torture".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moncal)
    I dismiss it because it comes from the Guardian, not because it was written by an Arab. The fact that it was written by an Arab should tell you something about the reliability of the Guardian. The Guardian assigns an arab to write an inflamatory story involving an arab that reflects badly upon the US. The Guardian has always been interested more in making the US look bad than it has in presenting unbiased facts. Why do you think so many people quote it in their anti-us remarks?
    What crap. Why not even read what I've said?
    The author of that first article wasn't an Arab, she was a Canadian, whose parents and grandparents were Americans. The Guardian didn't assign anyone to write the story and the story was not inflammatory.

    The practice of extraordinary rendition has been debated in the Senate fairly recently. It has been receiving quite a bit of media attention in the last week or two. It is fact, so while I agree that you are not ignorant, you are continually feigning ignorance and not acknowledging that this is happening. In your responses you continually demonstrate an inability to accept fact and continually make ludicrous assumptions that you believe allow you to disregard these facts.

    This is not extradition - people are often sent to countries to which they have no connection. Dozens of people have been sent to Ufbekistan for example. These people have generally not stood trial in the US. Some, such as Arar, have been tortured despite not even being found guilty of any crime in the courts of the client state they were sent to for that precise purpose.

    Why is it that every media outlet that "makes the US looks bad" is necessarily concerned with doing so? Why not just accept that news outlets and journalists have a duty to report on what is happening in the world and doing so involves the US looking bad because a lot of what the US does, like extraordinary rendition, is bad.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I would suggest that you shouldn't always believe the 'torture doesn't work ' mantra either, it has worked and there is evidence that it worked. Lives have been saved through non lethal torture both in the war on terror and in conventional crime fighting.

    Btw Naomi Klein is and always has been an anti-us/globalization journalist, so her work is hardly unbiased.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    I would suggest that you shouldn't always believe the 'torture doesn't work ' mantra either, it has worked and there is evidence that it worked. Lives have been saved through non lethal torture both in the war on terror and in conventional crime fighting.
    *talking broadly on torture here rather than aiming it at a specific country*

    That does not mean it is right and should be allowed. It is barbaric and absolutely disgraceful. Oh and by the way, 'non-lethal' torture still means you could cut and arms and legs off someone and just stem the blood loss to make sure they don't die. Non-lethal torture is no less cruel than normal torture.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree NikNak, non lethal torture involves leaving no permanent injuries on the person.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    I disagree NikNak, non lethal torture involves leaving no permanent injuries on the person.
    Ah sorry, I assumed from the name it meant torture without killing someone. Well in anycase, I still profoundly disagree with torture of any form. Perhaps I am just an idealist that hopes that civilised humanity could rise above that sort of thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Let me give you an example that Dershowitz uses:

    This he calls the 'ticking bomb terrorist'

    "Several weeks before September 11th 2001 the INS detained Zacarias Moussauoi after flight instructors reported suspicious statements he had made while taking flying lessons and paying for them with a lot of cash.

    The Government decided not to seek a warrant to search his computer.

    Now imagine that they had, and that they had discovered he was part of a plan to destroy a large occupied buildings, but without any further details. They interrogated him, gave him immunity from prosecution, and offered him large cash rewards and a new identity.

    He refused to talk

    They then threatened him, tried to trick him, and employed every lawful technique available. He still refused. They even injected him with sodium pentothal and other truth serums but to no avail.

    The attack now appeared to be imminent, but the FBI still had no ideawhat the target was or the means that would be used in the attack." (Dershowitz 143-144:2002)

    So, in a situation like that what would you do ?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Keep trying.
    It's also a pretty shoddy argument in support of rendition. Take a real situation, such as that of Maher Arar, of whose "terrorist associations" there was no more evidence than his relationship to a cousin of his mothers. He was immediately shipped abroad to a country where he was tortured without standing trial and being found guilty of anything.

    Naomi Klein is also distinctly not anti-US. In the words of Howard Zinn:
    The Declaration of Independence says that governments are artificial creations set up by the people to accomplish certain ends. When governments become destructive towards these ends, it's the right of the people to alter or abolish the government. If we have the right to abolish the government, then we have the right to criticize it. In that case, it's the government being unpatriotic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    This is not extradition - people are often sent to countries to which they have no connection. Dozens of people have been sent to Ufbekistan for example. These people have generally not stood trial in the US. Some, such as Arar, have been tortured despite not even being found guilty of any crime in the courts of the client state they were sent to for that precise purpose.
    So it is just coincidental that he was extradited to a country that he had citizenship in?

    Why is it that every media outlet that "makes the US looks bad" is necessarily concerned with doing so? Why not just accept that news outlets and journalists have a duty to report on what is happening in the world and doing so involves the US looking bad because a lot of what the US does, like extraordinary rendition, is bad.
    I didn't say that every media outlet was concerned with making the US look bad. I said that the Guardian is, and anyone with half an objective mind could see that. Of course, there is always the possibility that the Guardian absolutely loves the US and I just keep catching their stories on a bad day.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thats right...you just dodge the question.

    Oh and by the way, that was a real situation. It just didn't get that far because the authorities didn't pursue it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I don't buy this man's story. I'm sure thousands of Canadian Moslems travel through the United States, but he was the only one sent to the middle east because of alleged links to terrorist groups. If the USA went through that much trouble to capture him, they must have had good reason to do so.

    All the information we had on Maher Arar was from Canada. His ties to terrorist Abdullah Almalki, trips to terrorist hotspots like Tunisia and Afghanistan, etc. If any of that information was bogus, it's the fault of the Canadian government.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    Thats right...you just dodge the question.

    Oh and by the way, that was a real situation. It just didn't get that far because the authorities didn't pursue it.
    I answered the question. I'd keep trying. And a real situation that didn't happen actually isn't a real situation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I answered the question. I'd keep trying. And a real situation that didn't happen actually isn't a real situation.
    I guess that means that because there have been no actual terrorist attacks in the US and UK then terrroists don't exist. Yey.

    You dodged the question...face it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by me, two posts back)
    Keep trying.
    That's pretty much as explicit as I can be bothered to be on the matter. And I repeated it when you first accused me of dodging the question. Why, what would you have done in this real situation that didn't happen?

    Entertaining though the allegation that I've in some way dodged the question is, it is hardly a very interesting subject of debate. If you are condoning extraordinary rendition, why not condone the torture of suspected terrorists in the United States? If you do, how and why, seeing as it is both ineffective and utterly inhumane?

    I'm not going to continue to provide sources for those of you who "don't buy it" - it is debated in the Senate, it is reported by many of the world's most respected media outlets, it has been commented on by the President himself. It is not up for discussion whether it happens.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    seeing as it is both ineffective
    Yet it has been effective and will continue to be effective.....

    Do you think toture keeps rearing its head because people want to do it ? No, get real. People do it because it works.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    Yet it has been effective and will continue to be effective.....

    Do you think toture keeps rearing its head because people want to do it ? No, get real. People do it because it works.
    How can it possibly work? If I'm tearing out your fingernails and I want you to tell me you met *insert name here*, do you think you'd care whether you actually did or not? Or would you say anything just to get it to stop?

    Torture does not extract reliable confessions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In your opinion it doesnt...yet there are plenty of accounts of it working.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    In your opinion it doesnt...yet there are plenty of accounts of it working.
    Like what? How do you define working?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skevvybritt)
    Like what? How do you define working?
    Perhaps in the same way he defines a real situation.

    (Original post by me, earlier, again)
    In the words of CIA Director Porter Goss, "Having enough professional interrogators operating the proper way -- that would be within the rule of law -- and professional interrogators will tell you that torture is not something they would wish to have, because it doesn't work. There are better ways to deal with captives."
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.