Bolas 5 #26 May 14, 2009 It's not color, it's religion or more specifically religious intolerance. In the cases of US prisoner stats, that's more socioeconomic than anything else. If a rich white Christian group started crashing planes into buildings and using people as bombs, I'd be less inclined to care about their well being too.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #27 May 14, 2009 Quote In the cases of US prisoner stats, that's more socioeconomic than anything else. no, it's more racism than anything else. do you honestly believe that blacks are nearly six times more likely to be criminals than whites stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #28 May 14, 2009 Thanks for taking the time to let us know that this thread isn't worth your time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #29 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote In the cases of US prisoner stats, that's more socioeconomic than anything else. no, it's more racism than anything else. do you honestly believe that blacks are nearly six times more likely to be criminals than whites You can compare the two. Socioeconomic lines and race lines. If there are more of one race than another in a socioeconomic class and the class in question is prone to crime...Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #30 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote Quote In the cases of US prisoner stats, that's more socioeconomic than anything else. no, it's more racism than anything else. do you honestly believe that blacks are nearly six times more likely to be criminals than whites You can compare the two. Socioeconomic lines and race lines. If there are more of one race than another in a socioeconomic class and the class in question is prone to crime... you could put it that way if you really, really, really wanted to obscure the fact that blatant racism is at playstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #31 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote In the cases of US prisoner stats, that's more socioeconomic than anything else. no, it's more racism than anything else. do you honestly believe that blacks are nearly six times more likely to be criminals than whites You can compare the two. Socioeconomic lines and race lines. If there are more of one race than another in a socioeconomic class and the class in question is prone to crime... you could put it that way if you really, really, really wanted to obscure the fact that blatant racism is at play Exactly how do you think it's racist? Where does the racism lie?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #32 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote In the cases of US prisoner stats, that's more socioeconomic than anything else. no, it's more racism than anything else. do you honestly believe that blacks are nearly six times more likely to be criminals than whites You can compare the two. Socioeconomic lines and race lines. If there are more of one race than another in a socioeconomic class and the class in question is prone to crime... you could put it that way if you really, really, really wanted to obscure the fact that blatant racism is at play Exactly how do you think it's racist? Where does the racism lie? it's blatantly obvious that blacks are not six times more criminal than whites no matter what their class (are you a marxist)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #33 May 14, 2009 QuoteYet again someone is trying to inject racial elements into a non-racial issue I am sure most people who are racists believe they have a legitimate reason to be racist and may not even consider themselves as such. However if the action is the same, and the only variable are the people who are doing said action and you have two different reactions to it. Guess what you’re a racists. I see that on here all the time. I agree with the OP he is right if I just switched the news stories to Iraqis torturing American solders all of you who are supporting this action and thinking of every excuse to make it ok would switch sides in an instance. What do you call that? If we were invaded on some false BS reason and we had Americans hiding in the bushes to kill the invading army we would not call them insurgents, but freedom fighters. Yet we have a bunch of people who seem to be unaware of there bias and lack of rationale.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #34 May 14, 2009 It still seems to me that's situational ethics (and PR spin), not racism.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #35 May 14, 2009 Quoteit's blatantly obvious... As a professor of mine used to say, "It may be obvious, but it's not obvious why it's obvious." Which is a playful way of saying, "Why don't you stop stating things axiomatically and put a fucking argument together." I'll ask you this: do you think it's possible for someone to simultaneously believe that what was done in gitmo was torture and that it was wrong -AND- that the people that ended up in gitmo were there not because of their race? how about this: can someone believe that the war on drugs needs reform because it's not accomplishing what it intended -AND- that said war was NOT a devious plan to lock up black people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #36 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote In the cases of US prisoner stats, that's more socioeconomic than anything else. no, it's more racism than anything else. do you honestly believe that blacks are nearly six times more likely to be criminals than whites You can compare the two. Socioeconomic lines and race lines. If there are more of one race than another in a socioeconomic class and the class in question is prone to crime... you could put it that way if you really, really, really wanted to obscure the fact that blatant racism is at play Exactly how do you think it's racist? Where does the racism lie? it's blatantly obvious that blacks are not six times more criminal than whites no matter what their class (are you a marxist) So what is the cause or causes? Police? The judicial system? Lack of legitimate opportunities? Cultural? In wealthier neighborhoods the police are generally seen as protectors, not the enemy. It's no secret that if you get a good lawyer, you can get out of most anything. When you don't have much or anything, you haven't much to lose if incarcerated. For some cultures, saving, planning, and living with your means to allow for a "rainy day" are new concepts. Other cultures used to know it but are now being reminded.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #37 May 14, 2009 Quote Where has torture been proven to be the "Least effective means of obtaining intelligence"? Where do you get your information, because last time I checked, there is little to no information from any country on their torturing of prisoners. How can you conduct a study on something whose information is privileged? To some extent you are correct, we don’t do formal scientific studies on torturing people. We also don’t infect people with smallpox or intentionally expose them to nerve agents (beyond those folks who are trained at the CDTF at Ft Leonard Wood). We do, nonetheless have a lot of information on what works and doesn’t regarding interrogation, development of new vaccines against smallpox, and treatments against nerve agents. And it is a reasonable question, which I’ve answered before, i.e., fairly easy to cut-n-paste. What we do have is 60+ years of collected information on what works on what doesn’t work, which is reflected in: The US Army Field Manual 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations (warning large pdf file). The US Army FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation (another large pdf file), which states in Chapter 1, under the heading “Prohibition Against Use of Force” “Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.” “The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.” Unilateral, non-ambiguous statement with further detailing what not to do, i.e., don't use torture because it's not effective. FM 35-42 also warns: “Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort.” The experience of the active duty and retired Marines who are members of the United States Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association, whose journal masthead reflects their experience and opinion: “…despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them.” Maj Sherwood Moran, USMCR - Guadalcanal 1942” Maj Moran’s direct experience and advice, which include recommendations like know their language, know their culture, and treat the captured enemy as a human being, was written up in this June 2005 article largely inspired by Marines discussing it on their version of Speakers Corner. Over & over again the psychology behind coercion and cooperation has been shown to be the critical element in effective interrogation techniques. Whether it was Maj Moran in Guadalcanal or USAF officer who obtained the information using traditional interrogation methods that led to the location and killing of al-Zarqawi in Iraq in 2006, effective interrogators have excelled at extracting information from the enemy by appealing to their humanity, rather than by shocking, oppressing, or torturing. Folks like LTC James Corum, USA (ret), formerly Army Command and General Staff College, who has stated “The torture of suspects [at Abu Ghraib] did not lead to any useful intelligence information being extracted." GEN Colin Powell, USA (ret), and the 42 other retired generals and admirals and 18 national security experts, including former secretaries of state and national security advisers, who supported “HR 2082, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008” (the bill that would have required the CIA to essentially use the Army FM 2-22.3 as guidance – & that’s ‘guidance’ in military speak not popular vernacular – w/r/t interrogation operations, which President Bush vetoed. His veto is actually more complicated and reflects large executive branch privilege disagreements, imo). Folks like: Ray McGovern 27-year veteran of the CIA and was responsible for preparing & delivering PDB’s to President Reagan and President HW Bush. David Becker, DIA John Berglund, DHS Brian Boetig, FBI Michael Gelles, NCIS Michael Kremlacek U.S. Army Intelligence Robert McFadden, CounterIntelligence Field Activity (CIFA) [it’s a now-defunct OSD agency] C.A. Morgan III, Intelligence Technology Innovation Center (aka ITIC, part of CIA, unless they’re ‘officially’ ODNI now) Kenneth Rollins, Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (another DoD agency) Scott Shumate, CIFA Andre Simons, FBI John Wahlquist, National Defense Intelligence College (part of DIA) have all made statements to the ineffectiveness of torture for interogation. And the Intelligence Studies Board (ISB) review “Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art: Foundations for the Future” from 2006, which was co-chaired by Dr. Paulette Otis, USMC Center for Irregular Warfare and Operational Culture, concluded: “(1) pain does not elicit intelligence known to prevent greater harm; (2) the use of pain is counterproductive both in a tactical and strategic sense; (3) chemical and biological methods are unreliable; (4) research tends to indicate that ‘educing’ information without the use of harsh interrogation is more valuable.” Beyond the arguments & evidence, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of torture, the fallacy of the Hollywood ”24” scenarios, the increased risk to US uniformed service members and other US civilians abroad, torture has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers the unequivocal repudiation of use of torture by the US Army and by the USMC, and the moral and ethical arguments against torture… there’s another reason: Use of torture and Orwellian-"enhanced interrogation" has been the “greatest recruiting tool” for al Qa’eda, al Qa’eda in Iraq, and other insurgents targeting US soldiers, airmen, sailors, Marines, deployed civilians, and US nationals abroad. “… a year and a half ago, Senator Lindsey Graham and I were in Iraq. We were in the prison. The general, our U.S. general in charge of prison had us in a secluded area and met a former high-ranking member of Al Qaida, one of the toughest guys I've ever seen. I said, how did you succeed so well after the initial American victory? He said, ‘Two things’ -- he said, ‘One’ -- he said, ‘there was no control by your troops. It was total lawlessness. There was rape, looting, pillage, murder, settling of old scores. So there was lawlessness.’ ‘Second, the greatest recruiting tool we [al Qa'eda in Iraq] had -- we were able to recruit thousands of young men,’ he said, ‘was Abu Ghraib.’ “So you can't underestimate the damage that our treatment of prisoners, both at Abu Ghraib and other [facilities, has] ... harmed our national security interests.” “What I am interested in and committed to is making sure we don't do it again. We're in this long twilight struggle here, and so America's prestige and image, as we all know, was damaged by these stories of mistreatment. And we've got to make sure the world knows that that's not the United States of America that they knew and appreciated for centuries.” Supporting the troops means opposing all use of torture. All. By all. Against all. We -- America -- are better … or we claim to be. Don’t lower the standards to radical Islamists. If it’s wrong for them to do, it’s wrong for us – anything less is the perhaps the ultimate moral relativism. The information is out there. Heck, it’s been delivered directly to you .... no need for personal responsibility to find it yourself. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #38 May 14, 2009 Underlying your argument, I reading that you assert some experiential expertise that has given you greater insight than “the average American.” I.e., you know something that the makes the “rest of us” less knowledgeable, therefore we should listen to your expertise. Is that correct? One thing I’ve learned both here on SC & in real life is to be careful with assuming what people do and don’t know; sometimes they surprise you. In light of the 60+ years of operator expertise cited above – from the Marine interrogators of WWII to the FBI Agent who first interrogated Abu Zubaydah (who also testified under oath yesterday) – that torture, including waterboarding and “enhanced interrogation” methods, are not effective, how do you reconcile that with your own assertion that “the average American” should listen to those with experiential expertise? Your underlying argument, if I understand it correctly, is that we should listen to those who’ve ‘been there – done that,’ yes? They’re the ones who say torture doesn’t work. Should we not listen to them? They’re the ones saying it doesn’t work. (Teasingly: or are you calling the Marines “soft”? ) --- -- - -- --- (Aside: Imagine what would be the response if someone like [kallend] – even if he might legitimately have expertise – invoked that kind of argument? ) Truthfully, I do place greater value on those with expertise. I value those who have invested time, sweat, tears … & in some cases blood to learn and to gain expertise. Not big on the “trust me” explanation. Show me the data. That’s one reason (among others) that I try to reference primary documents, when possible, in making my arguments. And why I ask “why?” and “How did you come to that conclusion?” a lot … which gets me in trouble here & irl. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #39 May 14, 2009 Quote I'll ask you this: do you think it's possible for someone to simultaneously believe that what was done in gitmo was torture and that it was wrong -AND- that the people that ended up in gitmo were there not because of their race? how about this: can someone believe that the war on drugs needs reform because it's not accomplishing what it intended -AND- that said war was NOT a devious plan to lock up black people? Of course not. It's obvious that only a racist would ask such questions. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #40 May 14, 2009 Quote how about this: can someone believe that the war on drugs needs reform because it's not accomplishing what it intended -AND- that said war was NOT a devious plan to lock up black people? are you saying that american history is not replete with devious plans to lock up black people (but not this one you say)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #41 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote I'll ask you this: do you think it's possible for someone to simultaneously believe that what was done in gitmo was torture and that it was wrong -AND- that the people that ended up in gitmo were there not because of their race? how about this: can someone believe that the war on drugs needs reform because it's not accomplishing what it intended -AND- that said war was NOT a devious plan to lock up black people? Of course not. It's obvious that only a racist would ask such questions. Quote The NAACP is accusing Wells Fargo and HSBC of forcing blacks into subprime mortgages while whites with identical qualifications got lower rates. Class-action lawsuits were to be filed against the banks Friday in federal court in Los Angeles, Austin Tighe, co-lead counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, told The Associated Press. Black homebuyers have been 3 1/2 times more likely to receive a subprime loan than white borrowers, and six times more likely to get a subprime rate when refinancing, Tighe said. Blacks still were disproportionately steered into subprime loans when their credit scores, income and down payment were equal to those of white homebuyers, he said. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/13/naacp-wells-fargo-hsbc-fo_n_174564.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #42 May 14, 2009 QuoteIt still seems to me that's situational ethics (and PR spin), not racism. Situational ethics? That’s deciding what’s right or wrong depending on the situation, But when the only variable is race, color, or religion what do we call that? Sorry I just think your trying to find a more nice and expectable to say racists. Situational ethics is not ethics at all but hypocrisy. What am i missing?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #43 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote how about this: can someone believe that the war on drugs needs reform because it's not accomplishing what it intended -AND- that said war was NOT a devious plan to lock up black people? are you saying that american history is not replete with devious plans to lock up black people (but not this one you say) Are you saying drug crimes were specifically chosen for increased penalites and enforcement because of the race of people committing those type of crimes?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #44 May 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt still seems to me that's situational ethics (and PR spin), not racism. Situational ethics? That’s deciding what’s right or wrong depending on the situation, But when the only variable is race, color, or religion what do we call that? Sorry I just think your trying to find a more nice and expectable to say racists. Situational ethics is not ethics at all but hypocrisy. What am i missing? Race is definitely not the only variable. I'm suggesting that the American public views those whom they perceive as acting in their interests in a better light than those they perceive as opposing their interests--regardless of the skin color, religion or ethnic extraction of the specific actors. An American who supports the US killing it's enemies, but opposes US soldiers being killed by those same adversaries is _not_ a racist--he's simply behaving in line with his own (perceived) self interest.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #45 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote Quote how about this: can someone believe that the war on drugs needs reform because it's not accomplishing what it intended -AND- that said war was NOT a devious plan to lock up black people? are you saying that american history is not replete with devious plans to lock up black people (but not this one you say) Are you saying drug crimes were specifically chosen for increased penalites and enforcement because of the race of people committing those type of crimes? i'm saying that, whatever the reason you believe for these laws, they are obviously, blindingly racist in outcome. surely you can agree with that stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #46 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote how about this: can someone believe that the war on drugs needs reform because it's not accomplishing what it intended -AND- that said war was NOT a devious plan to lock up black people? are you saying that american history is not replete with devious plans to lock up black people (but not this one you say) I said nothing of the sort. I didn't even make an assertion. I asked if it was possible for someone to agree there was a problem with either situation but not attribute it to race. Is a person who believes this, in your opinion, necessarily either fictional or deluded? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #47 May 14, 2009 And have you looked at the difference in criminal activity between asians and other ethnic groups? It's scandalous, all those law abiding productive citizens! Clearly, we need affirmative action programs to recruit asians into the criminal lifestyle!-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #48 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote Quote how about this: can someone believe that the war on drugs needs reform because it's not accomplishing what it intended -AND- that said war was NOT a devious plan to lock up black people? are you saying that american history is not replete with devious plans to lock up black people (but not this one you say) I said nothing of the sort. I didn't even make an assertion. I asked if it was possible for someone to agree there was a problem with either situation but not attribute it to race. Is a person who believes this, in your opinion, necessarily either fictional or deluded? you can believe that. now, i'm asking whether you believe that these laws have a racist outcome?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #49 May 14, 2009 QuoteAnd have you looked at the difference in criminal activity between asians and other ethnic groups? It's scandalous, all those law abiding productive citizens! Clearly, we need affirmative action programs to recruit asians into the criminal lifestyle! would you say that asians are black or white? (clearly you know little of your countries racist history)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #50 May 14, 2009 Quotewould you say that asians are black or white? Would you say that Filipinos are Asian?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
