# I am a better human being than Pres. Bush and Dick Cheney because I oppose torture **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917 "2005-12-16T15:20:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/81 "2005-12-17T04:29:58Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I asked what your alternative to interrigation methods I said I was ok with if you need to extract vital information. This is why we need a decent definition of torture. I have never seen any evidence that the sort of abuse that I would consider torture would ever produce “vital information” that was worth spit. People who are being genuinely tortured will say whatever they believe the torturer wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Despite Bush and Cheney pleading for the right to torture people, there does not seem to be any good reason to actually engage in a self-defeating practice that psychologically destroys the victim, psychologically harms the perpetrator, and does absolutely nothing to further the cause of "national security.’ ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/82 "2005-12-17T04:49:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I asked what your alternative to interrigation methods I said I was ok with if you need to extract vital information. Do you have an alternative or simply ‘all torture bad’? All torture bad :). Count my in with the tree-hugging peaceniks on this one. I discussed this very briefly in the wake of 9/11 and in the context of _The Battle of Algiers_\*. I believe my argument was fairly stark - better to lose the war on terror than resort as a matter of course to the sort of inhumane tactics that would invalidate our superior moral standing. So, yeah, if you took one of those extreme hypotheticals - “Do you mean that if you _knew_ for a _fact_ that by torturing some psychotic terrorist that the government could gain the information needed to prevent a nuclear device from exploding in downtown New York, you shouldn’t do it?” - I would say the government shouldn’t be allowed to do it. This is in terms of policy, mind you. If such an absurd situation arose in real life, I dunno - _I_ might actually do it, because there is no accounting how the human animal will react under stress and I selfishly trust my own judgement better than that of any other. If I did so I’d be prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. But with government sanction? No, absolutely not. Under NO circumstances. Entirely black and white. Sooo… > [@](#): > > Ask them nicely and if they refuse simply shrug and move on? Pretty much, yep. Bribe them, wheedle them, try to verbally convert them or turn them. That’s about it. > [@](#): > > Some of these folks, especially the high ranking ones have information that could be the key to taking down whole cells of terrorists…or in learning their plans and other vital operations information. Yes, highly unfortunate. One of the prices of living in a more evolved society, I’m afraid. That said, I don’t think I’m even remotely better than anyone else here because of my thoughts on this matter. That’s all pretty subjective, anyway. I’m sure some might think I’m “worse” for not being willing to lay everything on the line for my country. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/83 "2005-12-17T04:53:50Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > All torture bad :). Count my in with the tree-hugging peaceniks on this one. > > I discussed this very briefly in the wake of 9/11 and in the context of _The Battle of Algiers_\*. I believe my argument was fairly stark - better to lose the war on terror than resort as a matter of course to the sort of inhumane tactics that would invalidate our superior moral standing. > > So, yeah, if you took one of those extreme hypotheticals - “Do you mean that if you _knew_ for a _fact_ that by torturing some psychotic terrorist that the government could gain the information needed to prevent a nuclear device from exploding in downtown New York, you shouldn’t do it?” - I would say the government shouldn’t be allowed to do it. > > This is in terms of policy, mind you. If such an absurd situation arose in real life, I dunno - _I_ might actually do it, because there is no accounting how the human animal will react under stress and I selfishly trust my own judgement better than that of any other. If I did so I’d be prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. > > But with government sanction? No, absolutely not. Under NO circumstances. Entirely black and white. Sooo… > > - Tamerlane I see you also subscribe to the Anti Salami Slicer’s League, as I do. Our numbers are growing 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/84 "2005-12-17T04:56:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This is why we need a decent definition of torture. I have never seen any evidence that the sort of abuse that I would consider torture would ever produce “vital information” that was worth spit. People who are being genuinely tortured will say whatever they believe the torturer wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Despite Bush and Cheney pleading for the right to torture people, there does not seem to be any good reason to actually engage in a self-defeating practice that psychologically destroys the victim, psychologically harms the perpetrator, and does absolutely nothing to further the cause of "national security.’ I agree on both points…we really do need to refine what ‘torture’ constitutes, and from what I’ve read the more extreme techniques used have piss poor results…basically people in pain or under life threatening duress are going to tell you what they think you want to hear. > [@Tamerlane](#): > > All torture bad . Count my in with the tree-hugging peaceniks on this one. Fair enough Tamerlane…I deeply respect you coming right out and saying so without doubletalk or hemming and hawing. 🙂 > [@Tamerlane](#): > > That said, I don’t think I’m even remotely better than anyone else here because of my thoughts on this matter. That’s all pretty subjective, anyway. I’m sure some might think I’m “worse” for not being willing to lay everything on the line for my country. They’d be as foolish as the OP then…and pretty much for the same reasons. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/85 "2005-12-17T04:59:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Despite Bush and Cheney pleading for the right to torture people, there does not seem to be any good reason to actually engage in a self-defeating practice that psychologically destroys the victim, psychologically harms the perpetrator, and does absolutely nothing to further the cause of "national security.’ I honestly don’t understand why it’s so difficult to be accurate. I don’t understand the necessity to grossly mischaracterize an opposing viewpoint. Neither Bush nor Cheney have pleaded for the torture. It’s simply neither an honest nor an accurate statement of the position. In fact, they have said the opposite. Bush “We do not torture.” The actual point of disagreement is if the same protocol which the armed services must follow should be applied to our covert services. Frankly, I think it’s stupid. Doing so gives a blueprint of our interrogation techniques to our enemies. If they know exactly what we will do, it is that much easier to defeat. Secondly, what is good for the armed services is not necessarily applicable in all situations. Thirdly, such a doctrine may outlaw some valid and reasonable techniques. But, I suppose it is a much easier, though less honest to argument to simply say “Bush wants to torture.” Reading the OP: > [@](#): > > I am also a better human being than those who support Bush, Cheney and their minions in the use of torture. If you support torture, you’re a blight on the species, it’s virtually your civic duty to off yourself. To claim moral superiority while simultaneously engaging in a deliberate simpleminded mischaracterization of an opposing viewpoint **and** suggesting that anyone who disagrees should kill themselves… is somewhat dubious if not self-refuting. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/86 "2005-12-17T05:47:24Z")
> [@](#): > > In fact, they have said the opposite. Bush “We do not torture.” And Bush said that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that we knew he had them, and that we knew where they were. And Cheney continued to link Hussein to the WTC/Pentagon attacks for months after even Bush gave up on that deliberate lie. Beyond that, we have lots of testimony that Rumsfeld routinely approved “techniques” that were clearly violations of existing law. When Bush said “we do not torture” he simply lied. We do torture. U.S. personnel have inflicted torture on so many people that they have resulted in at least 25 deaths and numerous serious and permanent injuries. What is the point of quoting a deliberate lie as a defense of our policies? (Unless you are suggesting that Bush simply has no understanding of what is really going on under his command?.) > [@Scylla](#): > > I honestly don’t understand why it’s so difficult to be accurate. I don’t understand the necessity to grossly mischaracterize an opposing viewpoint. > > Neither Bush nor Cheney have pleaded for the torture. It’s simply neither an honest nor an accurate statement of the position. It is hardly a gross mischaracterization. Claiming that we need to keep torture legal even when we will never use it (when we have already used it) is, at the very best, disingenuous. Read the text of Cheney’s testimony on the topic; he was pleading. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/87 "2005-12-17T14:51:52Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Odd how the premise for this debate has been virtually ignored. > I am willing to give **EC** the benefit of the doubt here on part A, largely because most posters on this board are liable to be better human beings than most politicians. “Better than your average politician.” A rousing endorsement, indeed. I’m still on the fence as to whether an isolated stance on the use of torture by the government makes **EC** a better human being than those who support Bush et al in this matter. We would have to know more about **EC’s** positions on other issues (for instance, his stock would go down if he happened to support clubbing baby seals and using the walkie-talkie function on his cell phone in the public library). [/QUOTE] All right, the gist of the matter. I would argue that if you are a person who is actively working to see that there’s more torture going on in the world, as President Bush and Dick Cheney most definitely have, you’re a piece of filth. Right down there with child molesters and serial killers. So I’m not setting myself up as a paragon of virtue here. Now, as has been pointed out already, there are some rare scenarios where torture might contribute to the public good. But when you compare the amount of torture going on in the world with the actual number of “worst case scenarios” – zero, that I know of – you realize that torture in fact is being done for other, less worthy reason. In many cases, totally unworthy reasons. When you add to that the protestations of many in the intelligence community that torture is in fact a poor method of gathering intelligence that yields little in the way of useful information and much that is useless, the rationale for torture becomes even more suspect. I call Cheney and Bush piles of disgusting filth whose moral values would in a better world lead them straight to a prison/mental health facility, because I believe torture has an inevitable moral component. It’s not just a logical argument, it’s a matter of values, too. Torture isn’t just another tool of statecraft, it’s a disgusting and revolting practice, much worse than any other practice that governments routinely indulge in. Imprisoning someone, rendering them helpless and then assaulting them so severely that they’ll say anything to end their suffering is a horribly vicious thing to dom something that degrades the torturer and the torturee. In fact, the only things that governments do that’s worse is wage unjust wars (another strike agaisnt Bush and Cheney) and commit genocide (the lowest practice they do, which Bush and Cheney haven’t gotten around to yet). If you want to support torture, I believe you have defend it as a moral practice, as well as a tool of statecraft. And with something a LOT less flimsy than the old “worst case scenario.” I mean, we’re heading into Swift Boat Veterans territory on that one. As it stands now, I remain pefectly comfortable in my assertion that I am a better human being morally than Bush and Cheney, and than all of those who support torture. TomnDebb may be uncomfortable with moral assertions here, but I ask you, TomnDebb, does morality have no place in Great Debates? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/88 "2005-12-17T15:07:44Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I honestly don’t understand why it’s so difficult to be accurate. I don’t understand the necessity to grossly mischaracterize an opposing viewpoint. > > Neither Bush nor Cheney have pleaded for the torture. It’s simply neither an honest nor an accurate statement of the position. > > In fact, they have said the opposite. Bush “We do not torture.” They had to use a VERY distorted definition of “torture” to come up with that one. For the record, I consider that a baldfaced lie. Your notion that I have made a dishonest and inaccurate statement of the position is laughably inaccurate. The honesty and accuracy is on my side of the court. Believing whatever drivel Bush and Cheney spew in the face of a huge amount of evidence that the US engages in “lesser” tortures AND hands captives over to other countries for ‘major’ torture, is what I call dishonest and inaccurate. > [@](#): > > Frankly, I think it’s stupid. Doing so gives a blueprint of our interrogation techniques to our enemies. If they know exactly what we will do, it is that much easier to defeat. From what lofty heights of the intellect are you working? The fact that you are ignoring the assertion from intelligence professionals that “torture is a crappy method of intelligence gathering” demonstrates to me that you are in no position to characterize others’ positions as “stupid.” > [@](#): > > Secondly, what is good for the armed services is not necessarily applicable in all situations. What are you advocating here? A belief that torture becomes effective when people not in the armed services use it? That it’s somehow less EVIL when the CIA does it? > [@](#): > > Thirdly, such a doctrine may outlaw some valid and reasonable techniques. Such as …? > [@](#): > > But, I suppose it is a much easier, though less honest to argument to simply say “Bush wants to torture.” You keep accusing me of dishonesty. Got anything to back that up, Hargus? > [@](#): > > Reading the OP: > > To claim moral superiority while simultaneously engaging in a deliberate simpleminded mischaracterization of an opposing viewpoint **and** suggesting that anyone who disagrees should kill themselves… is somewhat dubious if not self-refuting. Just calling a spade a spade. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/89 "2005-12-17T15:26:57Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The mere fact that we all have some vague idea at all of whats going on kind of speaks as a plus in my book… You shouldn’t have a “vague idea”. You should have an extremely precise idea. And you should have known from the beginning, and not by reading some allegations on pag 17 of some newspaper, but because it was public knowledge. The government shouldn’t act in secrecy insuch fundamental matters. > [@](#): > > Well, my answer to this is…I DON’T know. I have to hope that the part of the government that is supposed to represent we, the people, is doing its frigging job Hope is fine. Now, having no reason to wonder about it at the first place because there are no secret arrests, no arbitrary detention and no torture would be even better. > [@](#): > > You totally dodged my question. I didn’t mention secret arrests without charge. I didn’t. I mentionned torture too in the same sentence. I emphatize secrecy because as much as I dislike torture, this is even worst for not even knowing who’s arrested and by whom, you have no hope of knowing what’s happening to them. > [@](#): > > I asked what your alternative to interrigation methods I said I was ok with if you need to extract vital information. Do you have an alternative or simply ‘all torture bad’? Why should I propose an alternative? Yes, I say “torture bad”. Is it that a novel concept? > [@](#): > > But you know they aren’t Indeed, they aren’t. But I wasn’t pointing at a sloppery slope. I was asking you : why don’t you propose to use torture in criminal cases and on prisonners of war too? The reasons you give woul equally apply to them. So why aren’t you asking what alternative to the use of torture I’m proposing in criminal cases and for POW? > [@](#): > > (at least not in THIS country…how 'bout France?) Listen…That’s your third mention of France. I’m not sure what point you believe you’re making exactly by doing so. None as far as I can tell. Now, if you’re that concerned about the situation in France, go read the last Amnesty International report and open a new thread about whatever human right violations happening in France is worrying you. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/90 "2005-12-17T15:33:39Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I agree on both points…we really do need to refine what ‘torture’ constitutes, and from what I’ve read the more extreme techniques used have piss poor results…basically people in pain or under life threatening duress are going to tell you what they think you want to hear. I don’t agree with that. I do believe torture works to extract informations providing you use it with a modicum of intelligence. I’m not opposed to the use of torture because I think it’s inefficient, but for the same reason I’m opposed to a police state, even though it might be better at catching criminals. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/91 "2005-12-17T16:44:07Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Once again, this category is completely unexisting except in the mind of Bush. You don’t have to let them go at the end of the war simply because you’ve no ground to keep them at the first place. They’re arbitrarily detained and as such have no rights (though they _should_ have the right to just walk away and receive a big amount of money for kidnapping and illegal detention). “[Enemy Combatant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant)” in that context is just another term for “POW”. \*\*Lemur \*\*is saying that there are captured members of the regular army (Enemy Combatants or POWs) who need to be repatriated once the war is over. I don’t understand what your objection is. Are you mistakenly thinking of Illegal Combatants? These are people not covered by the Geneva Convention. I quoted the section of the GC that defines what POWs or Enemy Combatants are. If you don’t fall into that category, you are not covered by the **GC**. It’s that simple. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/92 "2005-12-17T16:51:31Z")
BTW, in looking over the [McCain amendment](http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/mccain_text.html) (anti-torture legislation), it looks like a meaningless gesture. There is no punishment established for violating this legislation. If someone is to be prosecuted, I assume that would have to be done under pre-existing law, not this piece of legislation. No wonder Bush was OK with signing it. I can’t see that it changes anything, but if someone else can explain that it does, I’m all ears. ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/93 "2005-12-17T21:25:11Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Depends on how much sleep and food deprivation you’re talking about. I believe that both can kill or severely injure if carried to extremes. (I’m not sure about sleep deprivation’s effects in extremis.) Extreme sleep deprivation is lethal. It kills by somehow shutting down the body’s ability to regulate its temperature. I read one account by a sleep-deprivation-torture survivor in the book _Sleep Thieves_ where he and some fellow soldiers were forced to stand in a line and kept from sleeping, and after a bit over a week, one of his friends started shivering uncontrollably and collapsed. He was taken away and one of the guards told him that when they started shivering like that they always died. He was correct; the guy just kept getting colder until he went into a seizure and died. Animal experiments, at least with mammals, seem to indicate that it works the same way with other animals as well: don’t let them sleep, and they die of thermoregulatory failure. Apparently, once they reach the point where it starts happening (usually indicated by the onset of vigorous shivering), it’s irreversible; after that, even if they are allowed to sleep, they still die. ---
**Author:** ![Henry-Finland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e99b99/32.png) [@Henry-Finland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henry-Finland)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/94 "2005-12-17T22:42:59Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > What does the Geneva convention say that we can do to spies? > > Note that I said the Geneva Convention as it pertains to POWs. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, for example, is not a POW. That’s the issue. Many on this board have argued that POW status applies to members of al Qaeda. That is demonstrably false: Yes, you are right about the Geneva Convention. I have not had the time to read too much about these questions, the international law etc., but as I see we speak about POWs. On the other hand, neither side did ever declare war, (but the attack in itself is declared illegal.) Can all those that are not POWs according to the GC, be treated as spies? Does not then all resistance in Norway, France, be seen as spies = can be shot on the spot? I liked the original Bush declaration: > [@](#): > > **’Values’ guided Bush torture ban** > > By James G. Lakely > THE WASHINGTON TIMES > > President Bush decided shortly after the September 11 attacks that terrorism detainees would be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions, despite legal advice that this was not required, to adhere to “our values as a nation,” according to a memo he wrote himself. > The White House yesterday released a 2-inch-high stack of memos that outline the administration’s thoughts on dealing with an enemy that declares no country its home, wears no uniforms, and concentrates its attacks on civilians. > > ``` > After months of deliberations, the administration decided to adhere strictly to the Geneva Conventions, despite their being optional in this case. > In a memo titled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban Detainees," Mr. Bush says he accepts "the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time." > **"Of course our values as a nation ... call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment,"** he concluded in the Feb. 7, 2002, memo. > > ``` (bolding mine) > **[‘Values’ guided Bush torture ban](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/23/20040623-124644-1098r/)** > > President Bush decided shortly after the September 11 attacks that terrorism detainees would be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions, despite legal advice that this was not required, to adhere to “our values as a nation,” according to a memo... Another story is what happened later, but I think USA would have gained much if it would have kept itself as Bush declared it would be. Or, what did I miss? Henry ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/95 "2005-12-17T23:47:54Z")
> [@Henry-Finland](#): > > Yes, you are right about the Geneva Convention. > > I have not had the time to read too much about these questions, the international law etc., but as I see we speak about POWs. > On the other hand, neither side did ever declare war, (but the attack in itself is declared illegal.) > Can all those that are not POWs according to the GC, be treated as spies? > Does not then all resistance in Norway, France, be seen as spies = can be shot on the spot? > > I liked the original Bush declaration: > (bolding mine) > ['Values' guided Bush torture ban - Washington Times](http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040623-124644-1098r.htm) > > Another story is what happened later, but I think USA would have gained much if it would have kept itself as Bush declared it would be. > Or, what did I miss? > > Henry Not much, only that everything turned out exactly opposite of what Bush ever told us. And people still believe him. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/96 "2005-12-17T23:50:56Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Neither Bush nor Cheney have pleaded for the torture. It’s simply neither an honest nor an accurate statement of the position. > > In fact, they have said the opposite. Bush “We do not torture.” We do torture, and both Bush and Cheney are liars. We’ve all been through this in plenty of other threads. Why keep dredging up the same mistruth over and over? At this point, anyone who believes anything that comes out of bush’s mouth is beyond help. I refer you to the PIPA Report. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/97 "2005-12-18T00:02:48Z")
> [@Henry-Finland](#): > > Yes, you are right about the Geneva Convention. > > I have not had the time to read too much about these questions, the international law etc., but as I see we speak about POWs. > On the other hand, neither side did ever declare war, (but the attack in itself is declared illegal.) > Can all those that are not POWs according to the GC, be treated as spies? > Does not then all resistance in Norway, France, be seen as spies = can be shot on the spot? I didn’t mean to imply that POW or spy were the only two choices. I just used those an example of two classes of people that are treated differently under the GC. ---
**Author:** ![frostyhawaiian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a5b964/32.png) [@frostyhawaiian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frostyhawaiian)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/98 "2005-12-18T00:03:01Z")
> [@inkhead](#): > > I’d like to make a comment as all over the news there has been discussion at great lengths about “torture” > > **The intelligence gathering agencies are light years ahead of “torture” as a method of gathering information**. \*\*The idea that the CIA or any agency ties somebody up and threatens physical harm unless the person gives information, is nothing more than a movie fantasy. > \*\* > > One method (very, very outdated) was to give people with potential valuable information a cocktail of drugs that made them speak (akin to being very very drunk) freely about anything and everything. There are many other ways. IBM sold a huge amount of “brain wave readers” (if you can believe that) back in the 90s to the CIA and FBI, which essentially when placed around the head of an individual can identify brain signals. and certian patterns. > > **If I were to walk up to you off the street, put a knife to your back and start cutting unless you told me where your “alien spaceship” was I’m pretty sure I could get you to tell me all about it immediately.** EVEN though you DON’T have a spaceship! > > All torture does is get people to talk, to say anything, but usually they do say things to make the pain stop… > > \*\*Does torture happen? Yes. \*\*But rarely does it happen by the CIA or other agencies looking to gather credible information. If you do research you’ll see that most of the torture allegations are against grunts (regular soliders) who are often angry because their friend or somebody they know was killed by the enemy and it feels good to rough up the guy, it feels good to exact revenge. > > Torture is not a crediable way to gather any evidence, (unless of course it’s on a tv series) so torture by the cia never happens huh! then why is it that the only bill bush has ever threated to veto is the buget bill that has sen.Macains torture ban in it. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/99 "2005-12-18T00:05:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > “[Enemy Combatant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant)” in that context is just another term for “POW”. \*\*Lemur \*\*is saying that there are captured members of the regular army (Enemy Combatants or POWs) who need to be repatriated once the war is over. . No. \*\* Lemur \*\* was refering to the prisonners in Guantanamo. Nobody in Guantanamo has been granted the status of POW. Maybe he actually meant people who _should_ be granted this status, but given the current use of “ennemy combattants” then it was unclear. Nowadays, when I read “ennemy combattants”, I assume the poster is refering to the category so called by the US administration, and that could include pretty much anybody, not to actual POWs or people that should be POWs. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917/100 "2005-12-18T00:20:46Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > No. \*\* Lemur \*\* was refering to the prisonners in Guantanamo. Nobody in Guantanamo has been granted the status of POW. > > Maybe he actually meant people who _should_ be granted this status, but given the current use of “ennemy combattants” then it was unclear. Nowadays, when I read “ennemy combattants”, I assume the poster is refering to the category so called by the US administration, and that could include pretty much anybody, not to actual POWs or people that should be POWs. No maybes about it. That’s exactly what he said-- note that he explicitly differentiated between enemy combatants and illegal combatants. Yeah, it can be confusing sometimes, but if you read his post, there is no question he is using the term to mean people who should be treated as POWs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-better-human-being-than-pres-bush-and-dick-cheney-because-i-oppose-torture/335917.md?page=6)