Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Bush Administration Conducted "Experiments" On Detainees

1235»

Posts

  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Depending how you ask it, torturing people has majority support. Tasers have more support than that.

    We're not very nice people.
    The world's not a nice place. Sometimes, unpleasant interrogation techniques are needed to get information.

    A lot of people in this country have gotten too squeamish and soft, IMO.

    No, you're a terrible human being and, additionally, shut the motherfuck up

    Every time the US tortures, US servicemen suffer

  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Depending how you ask it, torturing people has majority support. Tasers have more support than that.

    We're not very nice people.
    The world's not a nice place. Sometimes, unpleasant interrogation techniques are needed to get information.

    A lot of people in this country have gotten too squeamish and soft, IMO.

    No, you're a terrible human being and, additionally, shut the motherfuck up

    Every time the US tortures, US servicemen suffer

    Rent. :^:

    Corporeal manifestation of Joe Biden's anger since 2008.

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Hey thanks VVR

    Oh also I've mentioned this like, a million times before but people in the military are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic

    There's an amendment in the consitution that states you're not supposed to torture. I'm not sure if you're aware of this MM, you sound like a pretty terrible lawyer so it wouldn't surprise me (protip: it's the eighth one)

    So technically, soldiers die because...we're breaking constitutional law, which servicemembers defend. That's kind of ironic no?

    Secondly wouldn't supporting torture make you an enemy of the constitution? Hmm, perhaps the army should be defending against people like you?

    I mean we know you're okay with torture so I think the government should round you up and conduct enhanced interrogations on you and your friends to find out who's trying to attack the constitution

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Just... Just, the worstRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I remember hearing somewhere that traditionally, when a new President is sworn in, he issues a blanket pardon for any crimes the prior President committed

    Is there even a grain of truth to that

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I remember hearing somewhere that traditionally, when a new President is sworn in, he issues a blanket pardon for any crimes the prior President committed

    Is there even a grain of truth to that

    I think only Ford did that for Nixon

    I know Obama didn't do it because his AG said how he was going to look into the crimes the previous administration committed to make sure it was on the up-and-up

  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I wish I could "LIKE" things like on facebook, because I would do it a million times for your post, Rent.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Just... Just, the worstRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    I remember hearing somewhere that traditionally, when a new President is sworn in, he issues a blanket pardon for any crimes the prior President committed

    Is there even a grain of truth to that

    I think only Ford did that for Nixon

    I know Obama didn't do it because his AG said how he was going to look into the crimes the previous administration committed to make sure it was on the up-and-up

    Cool, thanks, I knew it sounded kind of fishy

    Still, if he wasn't going to do anything except show everybody how insane the Bush administration was, he might as well have pardoned him

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    If every president commits war crimes, I have no problem with every president arresting the previous president.

  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    If every president commits war crimes, I have no problem with every president arresting the previous president.

    With all the stuff that goes on there is something you could jail or hang every president for. If you'd like to start doing this, that's fine. But it will lead to bad places.

    But that's why it will also never happen.

  • MrVyngaardMrVyngaard Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Hey thanks VVR

    Oh also I've mentioned this like, a million times before but people in the military are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic

    There's an amendment in the consitution that states you're not supposed to torture. I'm not sure if you're aware of this MM, you sound like a pretty terrible lawyer so it wouldn't surprise me (protip: it's the eighth one)

    So technically, soldiers die because...we're breaking constitutional law, which servicemembers defend. That's kind of ironic no?

    Secondly wouldn't supporting torture make you an enemy of the constitution? Hmm, perhaps the army should be defending against people like you?

    I mean we know you're okay with torture so I think the government should round you up and conduct enhanced interrogations on you and your friends to find out who's trying to attack the constitution

    Almost sounds like we've been fighting the wrong enemies on the wrong shores. Perhaps we should bring the troops home so they can handle the people who've been acting against their sworn protectorate in a more direct fashion.

    I'm sure they could be quite creative themselves, within the boundries of said document.

    "now I've got this mental image of caucuses as cafeteria tables in prison, and new congressmen having to beat someone up on inauguration day." - Raiden333
    camo_sig2.png
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    MrVyngaard wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    Hey thanks VVR

    Oh also I've mentioned this like, a million times before but people in the military are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic

    There's an amendment in the consitution that states you're not supposed to torture. I'm not sure if you're aware of this MM, you sound like a pretty terrible lawyer so it wouldn't surprise me (protip: it's the eighth one)

    So technically, soldiers die because...we're breaking constitutional law, which servicemembers defend. That's kind of ironic no?

    Secondly wouldn't supporting torture make you an enemy of the constitution? Hmm, perhaps the army should be defending against people like you?

    I mean we know you're okay with torture so I think the government should round you up and conduct enhanced interrogations on you and your friends to find out who's trying to attack the constitution

    Almost sounds like we've been fighting the wrong enemies on the wrong shores. Perhaps we should bring the troops home so they can handle the people who've been acting against their sworn protectorate in a more direct fashion.

    I'm sure they could be quite creative themselves, within the boundries of said document.

    Nah. If some people want an amendment to redact the 8th then let them try. It's well within their right to propose action against it.

    Of course, it's illegal until that amendment is passed.

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    If every president commits war crimes, I have no problem with every president arresting the previous president.

    With all the stuff that goes on there is something you could jail or hang every president for. If you'd like to start doing this, that's fine. But it will lead to bad places.

    But that's why it will also never happen.

    If we had a system in place that could actually effectively deter people with power from being monsters we'd live in a completely different world.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    If every president commits war crimes, I have no problem with every president arresting the previous president.

    With all the stuff that goes on there is something you could jail or hang every president for. If you'd like to start doing this, that's fine. But it will lead to bad places.

    But that's why it will also never happen.

    If we had a system in place that could actually effectively deter people with power from being monsters we'd live in a completely different world.

    Sadly, arresting your predecessor is not necessarily it.

    It might be, but speaking as someone who came from a country where almost exactly this happened--insomuch as a former-President was arrested and jailed when his term expired for crimes he had committed as President--it's not as awesome as it sounds.

    Granted, that was for embezzling, not torture. I think we could all generally agree which one is worse (hint, the one that involves having people standing on chairs, dogs, and occasionally killing them in captivity). But it can promise a rather dangerous precedent that overwhelms the actual principle behind it.

    That being said, I don't think political hatred in America runs quite that high yet, and I do agree, someone should answer for something eventually.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    If every president commits war crimes, I have no problem with every president arresting the previous president.

    With all the stuff that goes on there is something you could jail or hang every president for. If you'd like to start doing this, that's fine. But it will lead to bad places.

    But that's why it will also never happen.

    If we had a system in place that could actually effectively deter people with power from being monsters we'd live in a completely different world.

    Sadly, arresting your predecessor is not necessarily it.

    It might be, but speaking as someone who came from a country where almost exactly this happened--insomuch as a former-President was arrested his term expired for crimes he had committed as President--it's not as awesome as it sounds.

    Granted, that was for embezzling, not torture. I think we could all generally agree which one is worse (hint, the one that involves having people standing on chairs, dogs, and occasionally killing them in captivity). But it can promise a rather dangerous precedent that overwhelms the actual principle behind it.

    That being said, I don't think political hatred in America runs quite that high yet, and I do agree, someone should answer for something eventually.

    It's not even political hatred to worry about, yet. The sad truth is that every president we've had has done something illegal, at least worthy of life in prison if not the death penalty outright. That's just part of the job. Currently we haven't opened the Pandora's box of trying people for their crimes when the leave office because that will lead to political hatred. Go ahead, string up Bush for his crimes and make him pay the price. Check back with me when they execute our current president for his and see how much you like it.

    This is one of those cans of worms I don't feel we want to open. Because it will very rapidly turn into "get elected president and you're sure to land up in jail 4-8 years later".

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    If every president commits war crimes, I have no problem with every president arresting the previous president.

    With all the stuff that goes on there is something you could jail or hang every president for. If you'd like to start doing this, that's fine. But it will lead to bad places.

    But that's why it will also never happen.

    If we had a system in place that could actually effectively deter people with power from being monsters we'd live in a completely different world.

    Sadly, arresting your predecessor is not necessarily it.

    It might be, but speaking as someone who came from a country where almost exactly this happened--insomuch as a former-President was arrested his term expired for crimes he had committed as President--it's not as awesome as it sounds.

    Granted, that was for embezzling, not torture. I think we could all generally agree which one is worse (hint, the one that involves having people standing on chairs, dogs, and occasionally killing them in captivity). But it can promise a rather dangerous precedent that overwhelms the actual principle behind it.

    That being said, I don't think political hatred in America runs quite that high yet, and I do agree, someone should answer for something eventually.

    It's not even political hatred to worry about, yet. The sad truth is that every president we've had has done something illegal, at least worthy of life in prison if not the death penalty outright. That's just part of the job. Currently we haven't opened the Pandora's box of trying people for their crimes when the leave office because that will lead to political hatred. Go ahead, string up Bush for his crimes and make him pay the price. Check back with me when they execute our current president for his and see how much you like it.

    This is one of those cans of worms I don't feel we want to open. Because it will very rapidly turn into "get elected president and you're sure to land up in jail 4-8 years later".

    Fear is good too, I guess. As much cruel, twisted satisfaction I personally derive from knowing that Chen got a life sentence for criminal behavior (though giving the ruling of other courts, whether or not he remains in jail is a completely different matter), it is pretty embarrassing too and really does open the potential for a lot of political hatred.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • CriusCrius Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Dibs wrote: »
    After skimming through the white paper it doesn't seem like the doctors were driving any of the events, but rather observing and commenting on the torture that was already going on. The use of the word 'experiment' here is unjustified, but the term research certainly fits.

    It being torture is enough of a reason to be disgusted, but I think it's important not to skew the reality of the situation.

    I agree with this statement.

    It's not so much 'the doctors weren't ok, therefore it's not experimentation!', but moreso the fact that from reading the article it seems to be more about doing the torture and then observing/taking notes/comparing. I am not questioning the morality of torture, only to say that I think this is a case of sensationalist journalism. These people were being tortured and apparently sometimes tortured with new techniques, all while under the watchful eye of doctors/psychologists that could assess the results in a scientific manner. I don't know.. it's a big deal, but this screamed 'sensationalist' at me - throw out the word 'experimentation' and people start making Nazi comparisons.

    Except the part in the OP which sites specific experiments the scientists did on the detainees, particularly the salin solution, and that's what we know about.

    Standing by with clipboards was a part of it, they were active in it as well
    After medical monitoring and advice, the CIA experimentally added saline, in an attempt to prevent putting detainees in a coma or killing them through over-ingestion of large amounts of plain water.

    The word "experimentally" in this description is entirely unnecessary and was added to make the article more seem more sensational.

    Basically it looks like the doctors noticed some prisoners were suffering from symptoms of water poisoning after, you know, being tortured with vast amounts of water, and suggested something that would help prevent that. It's following basic medical knowledge and in no way should be called "medical experimentation" by the commonly accepted meaning of the word.

    The fact that the CIA had doctors present to try and prevent prisoners from dying makes it slightly better than otherwise. Well, slightly better in the sense that a pile of shit with slightly fewer flys swarming around it is better than a pile of shit with slightly more flys swarming around it.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Crius wrote: »
    Dibs wrote: »
    After skimming through the white paper it doesn't seem like the doctors were driving any of the events, but rather observing and commenting on the torture that was already going on. The use of the word 'experiment' here is unjustified, but the term research certainly fits.

    It being torture is enough of a reason to be disgusted, but I think it's important not to skew the reality of the situation.

    I agree with this statement.

    It's not so much 'the doctors weren't ok, therefore it's not experimentation!', but moreso the fact that from reading the article it seems to be more about doing the torture and then observing/taking notes/comparing. I am not questioning the morality of torture, only to say that I think this is a case of sensationalist journalism. These people were being tortured and apparently sometimes tortured with new techniques, all while under the watchful eye of doctors/psychologists that could assess the results in a scientific manner. I don't know.. it's a big deal, but this screamed 'sensationalist' at me - throw out the word 'experimentation' and people start making Nazi comparisons.

    Except the part in the OP which sites specific experiments the scientists did on the detainees, particularly the salin solution, and that's what we know about.

    Standing by with clipboards was a part of it, they were active in it as well
    After medical monitoring and advice, the CIA experimentally added saline, in an attempt to prevent putting detainees in a coma or killing them through over-ingestion of large amounts of plain water.

    The word "experimentally" in this description is entirely unnecessary and was added to make the article more seem more sensational.

    Basically it looks like the doctors noticed some prisoners were suffering from symptoms of water poisoning after, you know, being tortured with vast amounts of water, and suggested something that would help prevent that. It's following basic medical knowledge and in no way should be called "medical experimentation" by the commonly accepted meaning of the word.

    The fact that the CIA had doctors present to try and prevent prisoners from dying makes it slightly better than otherwise. Well, slightly better in the sense that a pile of shit with slightly fewer flys swarming around it is better than a pile of shit with slightly more flys swarming around it.

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that the interrogates brought the doctors in solely for the safety of the detained. I believe that they used the information from the physicians' observations to determine just how far they could go before permanent physical damage.

    Considering that they're already torturing people, this doesn't make it much worse for me. However, they shouldn't be able to use the doctor's presence as some type of cloak to protect them from punishment for what they have done.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User
    edited June 2010
    No. The purpose of the saline was not "we're doing something necessary here, and we'd like to not hurt the detainees". It was "we'd like to waterboard the fuck out of these people. What can we do to let us waterboard them as much as possible without killing them?".

    Edit: Pretty much what lazegamer said except with more rage

  • CriusCrius Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Oh, I don't think the doctors were there out of care for the well-being of the prisoners. I think it was more of a "hey we want to torture this guy a fuck-load, can you keep him from dying, since a dead person can't talk." It was not "experimentation", though - the goal wasn't to gain any medical knowledge, but to apply existing medical knowledge to keep the prisoner alive.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Not sure why we're arguing over whether torturing non Americans is cool or not. Did the Geneva Conventions get dissolved when I wasn't paying attention? Or are we ignoring them in order to see how morally reprehensible MM is? Because I think we already know that he is a douche, hypothetically.
    Actually, it's a test for consistency, not douchiness.

    If you're going to torture, fine... torture. Torture everyone. Making a differentiation between countrymen and non-countrymen is stupid if you really think that the situation warrants that extreme. Stepping back and saying "but not our own people, because they're our people" betrays that you're not doing it for the common good and that you're just being a nasty bully bastard to people you think can't fight back in court.
    Zython wrote: »
    No can do. Bush sold his ranch the day he left office. Now he lives in a lily white gated community in Dallas.
    They still have the ranch, but Laura wasn't willing to live in BFE full time.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • psychoticdreampsychoticdream Registered User
    edited June 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    They still have the ranch, but Laura wasn't willing to live in BFE full time.

    BFE ??

  • Big ClassyBig Classy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    They still have the ranch, but Laura wasn't willing to live in BFE full time.

    BFE ??

    "Bushs' Fantasy Emporium"

    camo_sig2.png
    My Backloggery PSN: Bigisy24
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    They still have the ranch, but Laura wasn't willing to live in BFE full time.

    BFE ??

    Bum Fuck, Egypt.

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    They still have the ranch, but Laura wasn't willing to live in BFE full time.

    BFE ??

    Bum Fuck, Egypt.

    Yeah, sorry.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • psychoticdreampsychoticdream Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    They still have the ranch, but Laura wasn't willing to live in BFE full time.

    BFE ??

    Bum Fuck, Egypt.

    haha love it.

1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.