Comments

Anthony
May 15, 2008 at 4:55 pm

one of the best ive seen lately but ill miss B.O will he ever come back?

Acid Rain
May 15, 2008 at 5:03 pm

The irony of Iron Maiden being mentioned is the timing of Iron Man being in the box office right now. … edit: wait of minute, that was Black Sabbath.

Mosh
May 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm

I’m off to see Maiden in June. Again. Will be about the 10th time, and the second in Belgium :)

Prague has a pretty decent torture museum as well, just off the east side of the Charles Bridge. I can also recommend the Encyclopaedia of Cruel and Unusual Punishment by Brian Lane. Great read.

Army of Darkness
May 15, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Dude, seriously, some of those torture devices are really nasty; nothing like having a giant pyramid stuck up your ass, or an expanding butt plug. I read about the water boarding thing recently too, seems very much like the fear of drowning is the quickest way to get info out of a person without hurting them too much, although I can think of a much worse form of torture:

sit them down in front of a TV, with an episode of ‘loose women’ playing… (one for the brits that, or any daytime tv talk show hosted by women will surfice…).

Random Dude
May 15, 2008 at 8:51 pm

The Iron Maiden wasn’t actually a medieval torture device. All the supposed depictions of "iron maidens" before 1800 or so were actually of Schandmaentel, a device like the IM but without spikes; similar to stocks in that they were used to confine and embarass people rather than torture or kill them. The IM itself was either made with spikes at 1800 or a Schandmantel was retrofitted with them for purposes of sensationalism… or as a misinterpretation in recreating an older Schandmantel.

Ironically, since then, the IM has actually been used on people during the 20th century (and possibly the 21st.) So in all actuality, the Iron Maiden is not a medieval torture device, but a modern torture device. Aside from this particular example, though, yes, there were some rather nasty torture methods back in the "good old days."

[size=9:635f786f44]She turned me into a Newt! …burn her! (I got better.)[/size:635f786f44]

azrael63
May 15, 2008 at 9:06 pm

"Put them in the iron maiden."

"Excellent!"

"Execute them."

"Bogus!"

I couldn’t resist… and besides, I’m going to see Maiden in Albuquerque next weekend. :twisted:

Purebreedalien
May 16, 2008 at 1:38 am

Lol great job Bernieh! I like the way Pres and Abe were hiding behind the sofa at the beginning. Keep it up :D

Aurelyn
May 16, 2008 at 6:01 am

Nice. Iron Maiden fan with a rack…

Private Whore
May 16, 2008 at 10:46 am

Mosh wrote:
Prague has a pretty decent torture museum as well, just off the east side of the Charles Bridge.

I know, I’ve been there. It was pretty cool.

And about the Iron Maiden, I actually knew that was a torture device before I knew it was a band… maybe I’ve got a fucked up childhood…

CottonFluff
May 16, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Did anyone find the links at the bottom of the Torture Museum link a little incongruous?

Oh, great page, by the way.

spindle
May 17, 2008 at 1:34 pm

I guess Hussein taught those poor athletes a lesson! Torture is the price of losing, so don’t lose!!! :P

Jackson Marten
May 17, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Actually, I miss Corinna! BO — not so much.
:)

Great to see the more frequent updates, Bernie! It’s more than I can say for my site. The waterboarding frame at the end is hilarious.
;)

Marquis
May 19, 2008 at 10:38 am

Waterbording not torture? Seriously, dude? :shock:

You don’t think it would be painful? Even if it isn’t, you don’t think it would be fucking terrifying, and therefore psychologically damaging?

Simulated drowning, not torture….hmmmm. How about putting a plastic back over someones head? Would that be torture?

Bernie, your position is a tad scary, dude. Not as scary as being held upside down and having a gallon of water poured down your throat of course, but scary non the less. :?

Blaster
May 19, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Marquis wrote:
Waterbording not torture? Seriously, dude? :shock:

I must have read a different post than you did. Where exactly did he make this claim?

Marquis
May 20, 2008 at 10:34 am

Blaster wrote:

Marquis wrote:
Waterbording not torture? Seriously, dude? :shock:

I must have read a different post than you did. Where exactly did he make this claim?

This would be the part I find rather disturbing:

it seems to me that, at least with the way our government’s reportedly practiced it, it’s specifically designed to be as effective and efficient as possible while causing the MINIMUM amount of pain. No matter how you feel about it, it’s not like the CIA are sadists.

Following up with the statement that you are not condoning the use of waterboarding is rather disingenuous – at least, in my opinion. :?

Blaster
May 20, 2008 at 4:29 pm

It is possible to recognize a particular thing as bad while maintaining that other things are worse.

Army of Darkness
May 20, 2008 at 5:45 pm

I would tend to agree. Seems like Bernie is trying to say that yes, its not very pleasant but thats the whole idea; if the CIA were truelly evil they would just stick pins and hot irons in peoples genitals to get them to talk.

Or do they do that already….

spindle
May 21, 2008 at 12:11 am

nope, the CIA doesn’t do that…..anymore……they gave that practice up to MI6

lol
May 21, 2008 at 12:34 am

I don’t know about you, but I feel using a terrifying but not “really” harmful interrogation technique is ok, especially on an enemy that straps explosives to retarded children and blows them up by remote control

Aurelyn
May 21, 2008 at 10:04 am

Amen to that…

Marquis
May 21, 2008 at 11:16 am

Oi Vey!

Army of Darkness
May 21, 2008 at 3:39 pm

When you put it like that, I say torture the bastards to death..

Better off strapping explosives to retarded politicians and blowing them up by remote is my feeling.

Blaster
May 21, 2008 at 10:12 pm

lol wrote:
I don’t know about you, but I feel using a terrifying but not “really” harmful interrogation technique is ok, especially on an enemy that straps explosives to retarded children and blows them up by remote control

Yes, but bear in mind that many others who don’t engage in such practices may be subjected to such methods.

spindle
May 21, 2008 at 10:23 pm

which is where the problem lies, it simply means that we have to make them strap explosives to retards before we can torture them! (its easy enough to make them do, just tell them they’re gonna get 72 virgins……and if they don’t strap the explosives on the retard, they’ll all be fat, WoW playing nerds!)

P.S. They’ll still be fat, WoW playing nerds, but they should think that they get the hawt chicks…..as a final torture for them :)

lol
May 21, 2008 at 11:47 pm

Yes, but bear in mind that many others who don’t engage in such practices may be subjected to such methods.
============================================

True, but sometime you have to do it to get at the ones that do.

Camper
May 22, 2008 at 3:52 am

Quote:
Yes, but bear in mind that many others who don’t engage in such practices may be subjected to such methods.
============================================
True, but sometime you have to do it to get at the ones that do.

This is so frickin’ retarded I don’t know where to start… For one thing, torture is not even considered an efficient method, since by torturing someone you will eventually get them to say anything they think you want to hear. Any information that is aquired by torturing someone is thus to be considered highly unreliable. Second, I don’t see much logic in torturing people on the off chance they might actually be terrorists. If this truly is the way things should be done, then why not start shooting suspiscious looking people on the street since some of them might be pedophiles – and those bastards have it coming, am I rite?

What happened to innocent before proven guilty? What happened to due process?

Some of you are frightfully eager to disregard human rights in order to exact vengeance on people you perceive as evil. Ironically, this also means you’re no better than the terrorists.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. " -Benjamin Franklin

Gilmour
May 22, 2008 at 4:34 am

I’d say in this case Torturing would be more relished by the torturer than by any other party. Evidence or not.

lol
May 22, 2008 at 5:22 am

What happened to innocent before proven guilty? What happened to due process?

True that, lets wait until they cut the head off an innocent man live on TV before we do anything. React is better than proact!

Some of you are frightfully eager to disregard human rights in order to exact vengeance on people you perceive as evil. Ironically, this also means you’re no better than the terrorists.

Really? going by this theory we should never have dropped any bombs on nazi germany, i mean some of them were innocent.

The simple fact of the matter is, you are trying to play their game by your rules. They don’t care about proof; they don’t care about hurting anyone’s feelings. You’re trying to act civilized with people who will do anything to destroy you.

It does not matter its not right, they will kill you.
It does not matter it makes your uncomfortable, they will kill you.
It does not matter you’re clinging to noble ideas, they will kill you.
It does not matter you think it make you as bad as them, they just want you dead.

Blaster
May 22, 2008 at 9:46 am

lol, you keep referring to some nebulous "they" as the enemy. I think that perhaps you paint with too broad a brush. This is not conventional warfare with a particular nation. I am not sure that your comparison of deliberate torture of suspected individuals can be equated with the "collateral damage" wrought by bombing during WWII, though I guess you might make the case of why they are both unfortunate or wrong.

Marquis
May 22, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Quote:
In my previous post I broached the subject of torture, allowing for the fact that it’d stir up debate and that I’d be accused of saying things I didn’t say. All I really said was that in any past, current or future use of "torture" by our government, our interrogators most certainly don’t enjoy the causing of pain (whatever the amount) – it’s simply a means to an end, right or wrong. If there were a way to do the same job without it, they’d do it. I don’t think the government’s biggest distractors even disagree with that. It’s just an observation I made.

You see, this is the bit I find rather hard to understand….

Whether the torturer enjoys the practice is kind of beside the point, no? The person being subjected to the torture (presumably) is not enjoying it at all – hence the term "torture".

You have to ask yourself what kind of society you want – one in which the rights and person of the individual are sacrosanct, or one in which you are willing to allow coercive interrogation.

And yes, the argument is always about how this is only used on people accused of the worst of crimes…. the problem being that the worst of crimes is a fairly fluid category, alas. :(

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, my friend; it tolls for thee……..

Marquis
May 22, 2008 at 1:15 pm

lol wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is, you are trying to play their game by your rules. They don’t care about proof; they don’t care about hurting anyone’s feelings. You’re trying to act civilized with people who will do anything to destroy you.

Simple is the right word, Lol, but not in the right context…..

Why would we want to play "their" game by "their" rules?

We should be playing our game, by our rules. That is the point. :roll:

Army of Darkness
May 22, 2008 at 3:03 pm

What exactly is ‘our game’, and what are ‘our rules’ though?

Go over to their country, screw around in their politics, then wonder why it all comes back around in our faces a few years/decades later? Then the only fix is to go back over there, and kill practically half the population in order to fix the problems we created in the first place? I say we, but I mean america naturally, since the UK just gets dragged into this stuff by following everywhere the USA goes, doing whatever that feck-wit bush wants (see: Petshop boys- Im with stupid).

Im quite fond of this little number myself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5WlQ54Sg0

Marquis
May 22, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Well in this context "our " game would be due process of law, civil and political rights, and the idea that the only way to ensure a stable and democratic society is to ensure that everyone is held accountable to the same constraints in law.

hiraethin
May 22, 2008 at 9:03 pm

Marquis, there is a problem with your – quite reasonable – preference for "our" game as described by you. That is that due process of law, with respect for civil and political rights, is not assured throughout the world. It is assured to a lesser or greater extent in various countries including (I am presuming) yours and mine, although the civil and political rights provided by law to non-citizens, located outside our borders, and engaged in armed antagonism against our countries, are rather less than those provided to citizens and residents of our countries.

In other words, detained terrorism suspects don’t necessary have the same legal rights possessed by, for example, some person arrested for ripping off your local gas station. What rights they have depend on where they are detained, by whom they are detained, and whether the circumstances of their detention categorise them as combatants under the Geneva Conventions.

Terror organisations do not recognise anyone’s legal or civil rights, are not signatories to any international treaties protecting the rights of individuals, do not act in accordance with the requests of the International Red Cross on the treatment of prisoners. Prisoners for terror organisations are a resource, nothing more, to be exchanged for money or other advantage or turned into a propaganda coup – like as not by viciously murdering them on videotape – and are most often killed when they become a liability.

While the commitment of western nations to respect for the rights of terror suspects is arguably deficient, there is a clear distinction between the enemy’s treatment of western prisoners both military and civilian, and western nations’ treatment of detained terror suspects.

Which does not, in my view, justify our behaviour in any way. It is an error to use their behaviour to determine our own. We must act from principle, not in retaliation. On the other hand, when it comes to coercive interrogation of prisoners, including techniques we may call torture, I do not necessarily rule it out. One must ask two questions: does it work, and is it worth it?

It is often said that a tortured person will say anything and thus torture is useless. But interrogation is about producing useful information and some detainees will say anything without coercion; what they do say must be cross-checked for accuracy. This is a basic rule of interrogation and any small-town detective knows it. Information produced under coercion is no different. In WW2, the Gestapo was well-known for its use of torture to obtain information from captured Allied agents and Resistance members – and was so successful that the rule observed by Allied agents was to attempt to hold out for just 24 hours, in the hope that all contacts could be warned in that time. Clearly torture can work.

But is it worth it? Do we want to be the guys who do this? To answer that question (which is, after all, a cost/benefit analysis) one must know what is at stake. One could argue that in sufficiently critical cases, it is worth it; I submit that in the vast majority of cases it is certainly not.

Blaster
May 22, 2008 at 9:43 pm

Marquis wrote:
You have to ask yourself what kind of society you want – one in which the rights and person of the individual are sacrosanct, or one in which you are willing to allow coercive interrogation.

That seems a bit naive. The existence of a society necessitates some abrogation of personal freedoms.

marquis wrote:
And yes, the argument is always about how this is only used on people accused of the worst of crimes…. the problem being that the worst of crimes is a fairly fluid category, alas.

Agreed. But I worry more about the the application of such methods to those who may not be responsible for or complicit in a given crime.

@hiraethin: Nice post.

Random Dude
May 23, 2008 at 1:17 am

lol wrote:
What happened to innocent before proven guilty? What happened to due process?

True that, lets wait until they cut the head off an innocent man live on TV before we do anything. React is better than proact!

Here there be Thought Police.

lol
May 23, 2008 at 3:25 am

Wow very fancy and clever.

They want you to die.

Aurelyn
May 23, 2008 at 7:22 am

@hiraethin. Savage post.

lol wrote:
Wow very fancy and clever.

They want you to die.

I’m getting embarrased on your behalf now. :oops:

Marquis
May 23, 2008 at 10:52 am

Well, this has come to the point it always does….where the ideals of a modern democratic society are held to be "rather naive", and the idea that because the bad guys don’t play nice, then neither should we.

I repeat – Oi Vey!

Blaster
May 23, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Marquis wrote:
where the ideals of a modern democratic society are held to be "rather naive"

Please don’t misrepresent my position by being glib. Do you honestly think that any kind of society can exist without the curtailing of some individual freedoms, namely those freedoms which are thought to impinge upon the freedoms of others? Do you not think that a society will inevitably develop some governing body that will determine which freedoms take precedence over others? If not, then I call you naive.

Now, if you want to argue whether a specific right should be sacrosanct, such at the one originally proposed by this thread, then that is another issue entirely.

Camper
May 24, 2008 at 5:54 am

hiraethin wrote:
It is often said that a tortured person will say anything and thus torture is useless. But interrogation is about producing useful information and some detainees will say anything without coercion; what they do say must be cross-checked for accuracy. This is a basic rule of interrogation and any small-town detective knows it. Information produced under coercion is no different. In WW2, the Gestapo was well-known for its use of torture to obtain information from captured Allied agents and Resistance members – and was so successful that the rule observed by Allied agents was to attempt to hold out for just 24 hours, in the hope that all contacts could be warned in that time. Clearly torture can work.

I found an article that indicates we’re both wrong. Since I lost the original reply by trying to post a link, I’ll just copy-paste some key phrases:

"1 Torture worked for the Gestapo.

Actually, no. Even Hitler’s notorious secret police got most of their information from public tips, informers and interagency cooperation."

"3 People will say anything under torture.

Well, no, although this is a favorite chestnut of torture’s foes. Think about it: Sure, someone would lie under torture, but wouldn’t they also lie if they were being interrogated without coercion?"

You can find the whole article, written by Darius Rejali, by googling for 5 myths about torture.

Quote:
But is it worth it? Do we want to be the guys who do this? To answer that question (which is, after all, a cost/benefit analysis) one must know what is at stake. One could argue that in sufficiently critical cases, it is worth it; I submit that in the vast majority of cases it is certainly not.

A very good post all in all with several valid points. I wrote a more extensive reply but lost it, as I mentioned before. Since it’s Saturday and I’m feeling lazy, I hope you’ll forgive me for just listing my main points:

1. It’s one thing to have different rules and regulations concerning terrorists, and another to circumvent the whole legal system and create a "limbo", where suspects can be held indefinitely without rights or hard evidence.

2. Bending national and international laws when fighting terrorism endangers everyone’s rights, foreign and abroad.

Edit: Foreign and abroad? Scratch that and leave it at "everyone’s rights".

3. In addition to a case by case consideration of the pros and cons, one needs to consider the bigger picture. Terrorism has many reasons, but hate is probably a common nominator. By waging its "war on terror", the US might actually have been more efficient in spreading anti-American feelings than ever before. The question is: Even if torturing people and denying suspects their rights might lead to some results, do these methods only escalate the problem in the long run?

Camper
May 24, 2008 at 6:05 am

lol wrote:
Really? going by this theory we should never have dropped any bombs on nazi germany, i mean some of them were innocent.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the bombing of, say, Dresden (not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki) are not beyond criticism. Even so, I’m not all that sure that the analogy is valid. Wars between nations are not the same thing as hunting for individuals that might be terrorists.

Quote:
The simple fact of the matter is, you are trying to play their game by your rules. They don’t care about proof; they don’t care about hurting anyone’s feelings. You’re trying to act civilized with people who will do anything to destroy you.

From their point of view that description now applies to you as well. Now that you are the monster, is it okay to do anything to get you?

Wildbluesun
May 24, 2008 at 10:49 am

I knew both; the iron maiden AND it being used on Iraqi athletes.

And I don’t agree with waterboarding, but I’m not going to debate about it, so.

*disappears*

Army of Darkness
May 24, 2008 at 11:00 am

Wow, its like a debating society meeting, and Im the fat guy sat at the back who occasionaly shouts something out that then triggers another debate, but one which goes over my head, linguistically speaking.

Evil be-gets evil, does it not?….

spindle
May 25, 2008 at 5:38 am

and I’m just the stoned guy who wanders in and randomly posts!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.