What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
This Game Sucks view!
threadless.com - Grab this epic gaming tee for only $12 during the Threadless Holiday Sale!
71 Comments
- SillyRabbits, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21CIA to Psychologists: Give us 2 days, we can change your minds. :)
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20Not only is it cruel and barbaric, it is ineffectual and places our own foreign workers in more danger. That prospect is even entertained is an indictment. That there should be an Administration in power that is not repulsed is abhorrent, but that there should be an Administration that condones it - that is the death of a nation.
The ideals will survive but everything else that the US has achieved to date should be stricken from the records. America has to start again from square one and rebuild its standing. - mblanken, on 10/10/2007, -11/+22Where is the outrage over the betrayal of American ideals, our legacy as advocates of human rights, the wanton infliction of pain and suffering, and the disdain that the Bush administration has for the general welfare of the U.S. and other citizens of the world?
- siszam, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Time outs work. You should stop beating your children and try it.
- Lyk4n, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13***** torture
- spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9CIA to Psychologists:
We cannot deny nor confirm such reports of torture if they did infact exist. - Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'll sign. Of course the government has an obligation to try to protect its citizens, but torture is one of those lines that can never be crossed. We claim to hold the moral high ground in this so-called "war on terror" but each time we torture a prisoner, we slip a little bit lower towards the level of those we are fighting against. The more we torture, the more that people around the world will simply see this conflict as two groups of terrible people fighting it out, and if another big terrorist attack is carried out in America, you will hear millions--if not billions of people around the world say, "Well, they deserved it." It's hard to imagine a repeat of the outpouring of support that people around the world offered America in 2001.
- StanleyKoolPrik, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Are these the same guys that invented the "time out"?
- grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6So much for innocent until proven guilty by an independent and impartial judicial system with appropriate appeals process, laws regarding evidence etc.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11CIA == Terrorists
- webcure, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10I wanted to digg this. We have the same taste.
I digg it! - fr0ng, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10CIA: Oh well then...now that you've formally made a complaint, we will stop torturing prisoners around the world!!!!11one
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yep, I'll sign. Torture doesn't accomplish *****. It provides a legitimate grievance that our enemies can use against us to recruit terrorists and justify attacking us. 99 percent of the information you get from torture is worthless. Once we use torture on a suspect we can't try them and the way the Supreme Court has been ruling against most of Bush's detainee policies lately we'll probably have to let some of the real bad guys go. Torture burns political karma with our allies. The ticking bomb scenario is for all intents and purposes a myth. In all the news articles I have seen which have interviewed real interrogators there has never been one confirmed case of a ticking bomb situation.
And even when 9/11 did happen I never advocated that we do "whatever it takes." That slogan is nothing more than a reactionary bleating from people that do not wish to apply critical thought to the actual problem at hand. - malkir, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8God people are dumb.
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Please go reread http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
Note in the introduction:
"Membership in the APA commits members and student affiliates to comply with the standards of the APA Ethics Code and to the rules and procedures used to enforce them. Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an Ethical Standard is not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct."
If you disagree with this so strongly then please take the time to rescind your membership. - grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4*****.
Tortured people will tell you what they think you want them to say, anything to make you stop. Removing the whole moral question about whether torture should be allowed, it has been repeatably demonstrated to be a reliable way of getting hopelessly inaccurate information. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Don't knock 'em Spaz, you sound like you could use one.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6"Whoever battles monsters should take care not to become a monster too, for if you stare long enough into the Abyss, the Abyss stares also into you." - Nietzsche
"We have met the enemy, and it is us" - Pogo - rogelio55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4the laws of man will never trump those of nature; read: I'd rather get my hands dirty and control my fate than to be a righteous corpse.
- encrypter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3These are the same guys who invented APA citations...they`ve made my life as a student miserable.
- akexakex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3US... advocates of human rights?! haha.. honestly? ehh.. haha
- otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Aside from the fact that MOST of the tortured detainees at Guantanamo have not been charged with a single crime (and are unlikely to), and that countless intelligence and military officials have denounced the effectiveness of torture-based interrogations, and that the U.S. claims to adhere to the Geneva conventions, and that Bush denies torture, torture is STILL not a viable argument.
Why?
Torture is horrific, inhumane, savage, barbaric, and a symbol of extreme cruelty. The United States, as the world's foremost democracy, CANNOT support it.
If the police suddenly started torturing gang-members, I can guarantee you that lives would be saved. But the even so, it would never be implemented, because it is AGAINST our most basic values. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Of course if they had supported the use of torture, you'd have no problem with that.
- HolisticIsland, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Yes, because spanking is exactly the same as beating.
- nazadus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5@LadyKofNYC:
It's all about perception.
The kid doesn't know what getting beaten is really like, however I'm certain they would know the difference between getting hit by a belt and punched in the face (with real force) repeatedly until blood comes out their eyes.
The difference is significant, however as a parent you don't want your child to know what getting beaten is like, but some parents learn that giving their kids a little bit of pain gets the idea across of "oh *****, I shouldn't do that anymore" -- hopefully. If it doesn't, then parents sometimes gives up. The ***** beat harder until it leaves serious marks and damage. - 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'll sign it. You get what you give in life. Give a smile, get a smile back. Give a punch, get a punch. And so on...
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And this relates to the ethics of aiding and abetting a government agency committing a crime against humanity in what way?
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, the experiments that happened decades ago and resulted in the code of ethics I have already linked to in a previous posts. Your other two points, while nicely inflammatory, are not pertinent to the discussion at hand. A theory proved incorrect and a controversial study does not invalidate a stance that coincides with the APA's ethics guidelines.
By your standards the Catholic church can't take a stance against genocide because of the sex scandals they has been going through. Hell, with the way the Israelis have treated the Palestinians they couldn't either by your argument. - Jambi, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7But...but...9-11! Stay the course! Don't cut and run! Why do you hate our freedom?! And if that's not enough for you, just remember: technically, it's not torture (thank you John Yoo!), so our consciences are clean!
- otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2***** liars.
"And there is another worry. Psychologists interviewed by Salon noted a series of potential loopholes embedded in the resolution condemning CIA tactics. A simple example is the ban on isolation and sleep deprivation, favorite tactics of the CIA. But the resolution from Brehm and the APA leadership only forbids the methods when "used in a manner that adversely affects an individual's physical or mental health." There will be efforts in San Francisco to plug those loopholes, and to force a vote on a moratorium." - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just because you didn't invent barbarism doesn't mean you should feel obliged to continue it. If it is barbaric the humane thing to do is to stop it. On an aside, if you retain your civility and composure people will be more inclined to listen to you and you wouldn't feel the need to come across so abrasive. Like with the barbarous practices, you seem to be in a vicious circle.
- Infantrydude, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Oh please has any here taken an Intro to Psych class and read about the experiments Psychologists have done? Or that until the early 1980's Psychologists believed that pedophiles could be cured by counseling and reccomended that treatment even in criminal trials?How about "Repressed Memories" or Rind et al. (1998) where the APA published in Psychological Bulletin an article that child sexual abuse "does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender."? Yep the Bulletin is peer reviewed. The APA has a lot to correct before they criticize others.
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So you are denying that we send people to dark sites and other countries which do torture to interrogate suspects? You are denying the fact that the US sent a falsely accused Canadian citizen to Syria when it was documented that he was tortured? These facts have been corroborated by governments we consider allies and in investigative journalism pieces.
You're buried, reported and blocked. You didn't report for a post being offensive. You reported to censor a dissenting opinion. That's gaming the system in the lowest way possible. - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'd sign it in a heartbeat. Torture is wrong whatever the circumstance. It is called principle.
- ultrawhat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2^- The best kind.
- malkir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Did I say "Xenu people are dumb"? Have you ever heard of sarcasm? I can't believe people automatically assume someone was being serious when they said something so blatantly ridiculous.
- diespectra, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2...but we don't torture. We use enhanced interrogation techniques. (sarcasm)
Seriously though I don't trust the APA .. Just look at Ewen Cameron the president of the APA, running mind control experiments sanctioned by the CIA in the 50's and 60's using psychedelics and out of control electroshock therapy. - Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If they are POWs then they fall under the Geneva Convention. If they are under the Convention then torturing them is a war crime and some people need to be tried by the World court.
This is why Bush is trying so hard to put them into legal limbo. If they get tried by the criminal justice system then torturing them invalidates their confessions and more than likely gets them a 'Get out of Jail free' card. If they are POWs my previous statement holds true and the US is in deep *****. Oh and they get a 'Get out of Jail free' card. This is also another good argument as to why the 'War on Terror' is a farce and why there was a sudden push to amend the federal War Crimes act.
Look, it is this simple. The Bush administration completely ***** up when they started playing semantic games with what constitutes torture. It is no longer a matter of if but of when and how this will bite us in the ass down the road. It is a matter of record that we have already tortured an innocent man. How high of a price do we want to pay just so we can perpetuate an act that provides us with no security and makes us just as bad as the terrorists we are trying to fight? - CeeJayDK, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What are you ? A Scientologist ?
- nick111, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Since when is being anti-torture radical leftist polictical activism? I mean seriously, try to think about what those words actually mean.
God you people are screwed up. How did the US get to be filled with so many idiots? - Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, we try.
Not like there are a ton of countries out there that have no blood on their hands. - littlebylittle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2OK so I'd call this the biggest no-brainer in the history of the Universe.
BUT, why aren't they (we) issuing the same condemnation of the torture we allow in US prisons, i.e., looking the other way while prisoners rape and brutalize other prisoners? Why the double-standard? - richard2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1“Showing statistics on [all] the comments for digg user JamesSpaza
[…]
Rating
Average: −4.48
Total: −3323
[…]” - ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4What is the APA's stance on current MK-ULTRA style abductions?
- hockeyisgd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm just waiting to hear how John Travolta condemns this months down the road...because anytime he opens his mouth about Scientology it seems to be out of place.
- Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yeah because we know that there are no valid interrogation techniques that do not involve torture and anybody that doesn't want to curbstomp a suspect or two in the pursuit of truth is nothing more than a liberal pussy. Hey, Islamofacist terrorists are *expecting* to be tortured. So who are we to deny them the justification that their cause is holy and that God will really be tossing them virgins left and right when they die. Why that just wouldn't be neighborly of us now would it?
Sweet zombie Jesus, I love how when someone doesn't advocate committing atrocities against another human being the self-proclaimed "conservatives" come popping out of the woodwork like pod people to scream some trite accusation that the "liberal" wouldn't do anything. Heaven forfend that somebody put some thought behind the consequences of their actions before they bust out the waterboard. - Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have no problems sleeping in the bed I made. Unlike the Chicken Little neocons out there I've applied some rational thought to this issue and realized that there is no benefit to torturing a suspect that outweighs the costs for using the tactic. The problem is I've got a bunch of idiots who can't tell the difference between a TV show and reality eating potato chips in my proverbial bed while they watch "24."
"Well, gosh darn it works for Jack so it must be good!" Which is a riot because if 24 was even close to real life season 2 would have been one episode depicting Jack eating oatmeal in solitary at the local SuperMax prison. Look folks, I'm all for having a cathartic moment of violence or two now and then but only if you can walk away from it knowing why it would never work after you've taken the two seconds to stop suspending disbelief. - EllimistX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well, psychologists are supposed to be open-minded and nonjudgemental...goes with the territory.... (And yes, I know that not all of them are, emphasis on supposed to)
- digbird, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6I wonder how many people mouthing off about this on Digg would be willing to sign a document saying, "If as I demand, coercive interrogation techniques are no longer used, and a horrific terrorist attack happens because a terrorist in custody refused to talk voluntarily about it, I promise on my honor not to scream bloody murder about how the authorities should have done 'whatever it takes' to get the necessary information."
- nick111, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wasn't that like 40 or 50 years ago?
-
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is