Musicians Demand Answers Over Guantanamo Torture

[The_Prophet]

@ The Team Fortress Group: You know that Spice Girls singalong last night? We might be in trouble.

Yeah, that traumatised me. (I'm that guy who trolls about the Force-a-Nature)

 

[Dogstile]

So their music was used to torture people? I'm sorry, but that is kinda funny. Not the torture part of course.

Why not the torture part? without it, they just played their music to prisoners, that's not nearly as funny

 

[cobra_ky]

the entire point of this is shed light on and call attention to what's going in Gitmo. this is an interesting enough angle that certain news organizations will probably pick up on it if it goes through.

As I explained in my previous message (which I expect a lot of flak for, not sure how long I'll respond here having started my opinion), I don't think Gitmo wants for attention. Nobody has forgotten about it. It's simply a reality check to our system of morality and how we wish the world was, compared to reality and how it actually is.

In the end I feel that for all the people who complain about it, the end result is the people in power, including those who cry out against Gitmo, wind up realizing that it's distasteful but nessicary. As a result nobody has closed it down, despite all the claims that "we're going to" which have been going on for years.

It's certainly dropped out of the news cycle, what with health care, afghanistan, the nobel prize and all the other crap that's come up.

I tend to see it like this (hypothetically). In Gitmo you have this guy who is to the general public "innocent" and being "held without cause". To a lot of civilian authorities including Senators and Congressmen with limited security access, it seems like this is correct. They do tours of Gitmo and such but only get to see certain things.

Then eventually when someone gets into a position to make a desician, they also get access to ALL of the information about what is going on. Probably showing stuff like "Mr. Innocent" training with Al Queda, torturing kidnapped American tourists (years ago), killing kids, and then coming into the US and planning to committ acts of terrorism. The reason why this is not public because all of the footage has been put together over years by some agent (American or otherwise) who is in Deep Cover as a fairly high ranking terrorist and "leaks" stuff to the goverment to stop guys when they can do so without blowing it. Needless to say the guy can never be outed, brought in to witness during a trial, or even have the results of his work seen anywhere that could lead someone to put the pieces together and figure out who could have recorded all those specific things.

There's been plenty of cases where terrorists were convicted using evidence that for security reasons wasn't released to the public. I think what's more likely is that there isn't any hard evidence that could convict them at a trial. are they guilty? probably, but there's no way we could reasonably charge them with a crime and they're probably too dangerous to release. that's why Obama won't move them to the states, even though prisons have been volunteering to take them. that's why it's unfortunate the Bush administration had these people held under such legally vague circumstances to begin with.

Suddenly, when your looking at stuff like that, and realize that your desician can affect the lives of millions, holding to some code of general morality is going to be secondary compared to your duty. No matter how corrupt you might be in certain areas, people DO tend to have standards, and the right thing to do is not always the GOOD thing to do.

This is something every president should understand, and unfortunately the past few don't seem to get it.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

First I read "Gran Turismo Torture" instead of "Guantanamo Torture"
because it was so unexpected.

Funny aside

I suppose the group could ask for receipts to prove that former Vice President Cheney did in fact pay for that copy of The Downward Spiral, but assuming there's no copyright violation involved, what's left? Debates over the definition of torture notwithstanding, do musicians have the right to determine what people do with their music?'

Well on you exact pick: Reznor would be the last to ask for a receipe.

I don´t care what music people torture themselves with Rap, Yodelling or Classical. And it is commonly percieved by Artists that once their work is published they have no means of controlling its use and this is a good thing.

BUT HEY : THIS IS !!!TORTURE!!! we are talking about!!!

The Nazies used that metheod to make Jewish Musicians play their Music until total exhaustion. And the Musicians played in threat of a much worser TORTURE or death for themselves or some one else in case they stopped playing. And they used records, too.

The point is, they turned a work of creation that was ONLY released to make some people happy (even in case of U2 or REM) and made weapon out of it.
That´s the point.

 

[Irridium]

It could be worse, they could have used a jonas brother's song.

 

[A Weary Exile]

Why Pearl Jam? Play brokenCYDE for ten seconds and I'll confess to killing Kennedy.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Mr Self Destruct can be pretty hard on the ears at high volumes...

 

[traceur_]

Silly people, everyone knows they only use Queen to torture people. Play We are the champions for 30 seconds and I'll invent an elaborate plan to kill Obama to make it stop.

 

[Monkeytacoz]

If they used Pearl Jam on me, i would bash my head against the wall until my head cracked open

 

[clericwithnolife31]

just makes you wonder if Slayer and Cannibal Corpse or the like get royalties every time some "enhanced intergation expert" plays one of their songs. I'd want some monies out of that deal

 

[300lb. Samoan]

If I heard Tom Morello while I was being tortured, I'd probably start singing along

FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YA TELL ME!

Then I'd probably be whipped to agony with Cat-o-nines and left to bleed in the desert.
Now that I think about it, I hope that I wouldn't sing...

OT I imagine Tom Morello was absolutely disgusted and depressed to hear how his music was used in human abuse and I wish there was something he could do about it, but I don't think there is anything.

 

[wikicated]

"Science does not have a moral dimension. It is like a knife. If you give it to a surgeon or a murderer, each will use it differently." -Wernher Von Braun

I feel like we're listening to an answer to a stupid question. "Do you approve of your music being used for torture?" A yes or a no imply that they would have approved of the torture if only copyright law was followed, or that there are circumstances where they would approve of their music being used as a weapon.

Also I don't see how the content of the music, the only part that musicians are really responsible for, has anything to do with this.

That said, I can see a pragmatic angle on this. If the government really does owe someone in the recording business for the music (Does torture qualify as a kind of performance?) then that could be leveraged to, say, get some money donated to humanitarian organization that fights this kind of thing. That seems like a worthy goal, even if it is a kind of ethical hack.

cool quote mind if i steal it

OT:umm well torture is bad i guess
i hear they use barnie and the pokemon theme

GOTTA CATCH EM ALLL!

 

[Biosophilogical]

I agree that sometimes you have to do certain things that may be distasteful, (or morally wrong, by certain people's perspectives), as a purely practical matter, but the problem is, torture is useless.

Scientific studies have repeatedly shown torture to be pretty much useless as a means of gathering information, which means you're only doing it for the sake of being a dick.
Which doesn't sit well with me, I have to say.

Why is torture useless? Because the goal of information gathering is to get 'true' information, you need to know that what you're being told is true.
So what do tortured people end up telling you? Precisely what you want to hear.
Not the truth.
Not some random lie...
No, they'll tell you what will stop you torturing them. And usually, that's whatever confirms your preconceptions about the person, wether it's true or not.

Lie detectors are equally dubious, yet continue to be used as 'evidence'...

I don't like using unethical methods to get a job done, but I can tolerate it.
What I object against is using unethical methods that don't even work...

Well actually, assuming that places like the CIA have decent surveillance and spying technology, they can have a firm background of information to use as a sort of 'base-line' for torture. You can basically trick someone into thinking that you know the answer to almost every question you ask and they won't be able to pick out the real questions, so if you cause them massive pain whenever they lie, they will start telling the truth, and you can use that to get proper information out of them as they won't realise which questions you don't know the answer to.

Also, ethics is purely subjective (as are morals) and to call torture unethical is wrong, for as Aristotle once said (indirect quote) it is not the action which is unethical but the intention behind it. These people obviously have the best interests of MILLIONS at heart and therefore the torture is completely ethical. They do not do it to be sadistic (though the people who perform it (as opposed to those who authorise it) may get some buzz from it) and therefore there is absolutely nothing unethical about torture for those who order it performed. The only ethical issue comes when someone (a commoner, a pleb, a regular citizen) observes it with the innocence bred from a peaceful (generally) upbringing.

OT: I am all for the torture of anyone is plotting harm against others (ie. terrorists, serial killers, etc) IF the knowledge that can be gained from torture can save lives. I see absolutely no ethical issue whatsoever in the issue.

 

[Therumancer]

the entire point of this is shed light on and call attention to what's going in Gitmo. this is an interesting enough angle that certain news organizations will probably pick up on it if it goes through.

As I explained in my previous message (which I expect a lot of flak for, not sure how long I'll respond here having started my opinion), I don't think Gitmo wants for attention. Nobody has forgotten about it. It's simply a reality check to our system of morality and how we wish the world was, compared to reality and how it actually is.

In the end I feel that for all the people who complain about it, the end result is the people in power, including those who cry out against Gitmo, wind up realizing that it's distasteful but nessicary. As a result nobody has closed it down, despite all the claims that "we're going to" which have been going on for years.

It's a public relations walk to make the people feel like they aren't being ignored, while at the same time doing what's nessicary for their own good.

That is how I see it for the most part. If Obama was to actually DO something about this for example, it would earn him some positive PR, but would also mark him as one of the stupidist presidents we've ever had, and we're likely to pay some hefty prices for him doing more than talking Cr@p about policy.

I tend to see it like this (hypothetically). In Gitmo you have this guy who is to the general public "innocent" and being "held without cause". To a lot of civilian authorities including Senators and Congressmen with limited security access, it seems like this is correct. They do tours of Gitmo and such but only get to see certain things.

Then eventually when someone gets into a position to make a desician, they also get access to ALL of the information about what is going on. Probably showing stuff like "Mr. Innocent" training with Al Queda, torturing kidnapped American tourists (years ago), killing kids, and then coming into the US and planning to committ acts of terrorism. The reason why this is not public because all of the footage has been put together over years by some agent (American or otherwise) who is in Deep Cover as a fairly high ranking terrorist and "leaks" stuff to the goverment to stop guys when they can do so without blowing it. Needless to say the guy can never be outed, brought in to witness during a trial, or even have the results of his work seen anywhere that could lead someone to put the pieces together and figure out who could have recorded all those specific things.

Suddenly, when your looking at stuff like that, and realize that your desician can affect the lives of millions, holding to some code of general morality is going to be secondary compared to your duty. No matter how corrupt you might be in certain areas, people DO tend to have standards, and the right thing to do is not always the GOOD thing to do.

I agree that sometimes you have to do certain things that may be distasteful, (or morally wrong, by certain people's perspectives), as a purely practical matter, but the problem is, torture is useless.

Scientific studies have repeatedly shown torture to be pretty much useless as a means of gathering information, which means you're only doing it for the sake of being a dick.
Which doesn't sit well with me, I have to say.

Why is torture useless? Because the goal of information gathering is to get 'true' information, you need to know that what you're being told is true.
So what do tortured people end up telling you? Precisely what you want to hear.
Not the truth.
Not some random lie...
No, they'll tell you what will stop you torturing them. And usually, that's whatever confirms your preconceptions about the person, wether it's true or not.

Lie detectors are equally dubious, yet continue to be used as 'evidence'...

I don't like using unethical methods to get a job done, but I can tolerate it.
What I object against is using unethical methods that don't even work...

I disagree whole heartedly, however this is not the time or place to go through this arguement yet again.

Simply put I believe a lot of the "evidence" that torture is ineffective is simply junk spouted by the same people who "debunk" anything they don't like. You never see any evidence to the contrary, the stuff they are allegedly debunking.

Now granted, in my case I believe a lot depends on how it's done. Your correct, people are going to say anything to stop the pain. BUT by the same token you need to have interrogators that already know something about what they are asking about to fit what the person is saying in with previously obtained information.

We could argue about it back and forth, but the basic point is that I doubt anyone who is on these forums with a strong anti-torture perspective is going to agree with me about torture being perfectly fine and effective in wartime/times of crisis. Thus isn't not worth argueing about.

 

[VanityGirl]

*snicker*
Although, for some reason, this story makes me think of the "Film Actors Guild" in Team America. Not sure why.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I agree that sometimes you have to do certain things that may be distasteful, (or morally wrong, by certain people's perspectives), as a purely practical matter, but the problem is, torture is useless.

Scientific studies have repeatedly shown torture to be pretty much useless as a means of gathering information, which means you're only doing it for the sake of being a dick.
Which doesn't sit well with me, I have to say.

Why is torture useless? Because the goal of information gathering is to get 'true' information, you need to know that what you're being told is true.
So what do tortured people end up telling you? Precisely what you want to hear.
Not the truth.
Not some random lie...
No, they'll tell you what will stop you torturing them. And usually, that's whatever confirms your preconceptions about the person, wether it's true or not.

Lie detectors are equally dubious, yet continue to be used as 'evidence'...

I don't like using unethical methods to get a job done, but I can tolerate it.
What I object against is using unethical methods that don't even work...

Well actually, assuming that places like the CIA have decent surveillance and spying technology, they can have a firm background of information to use as a sort of 'base-line' for torture. You can basically trick someone into thinking that you know the answer to almost every question you ask and they won't be able to pick out the real questions, so if you cause them massive pain whenever they lie, they will start telling the truth, and you can use that to get proper information out of them as they won't realise which questions you don't know the answer to.

Also, ethics is purely subjective (as are morals) and to call torture unethical is wrong, for as Aristotle once said (indirect quote) it is not the action which is unethical but the intention behind it. These people obviously have the best interests of MILLIONS at heart and therefore the torture is completely ethical. They do not do it to be sadistic (though the people who perform it (as opposed to those who authorise it) may get some buzz from it) and therefore there is absolutely nothing unethical about torture for those who order it performed. The only ethical issue comes when someone (a commoner, a pleb, a regular citizen) observes it with the innocence bred from a peaceful (generally) upbringing.

OT: I am all for the torture of anyone is plotting harm against others (ie. terrorists, serial killers, etc) IF the knowledge that can be gained from torture can save lives. I see absolutely no ethical issue whatsoever in the issue.

Well, you are correct about morality and ethics and such. I suppose I tend to generalise from the principle of 'do unto others' and such.

The CIA funded much of the research about torture anyway, but seems to refuse to accept the results.
However, as Therumancer points out, this isn't the time or place for this discussion.

 

[Goodfella]

Has it just become apparent to the government that listening to Neil Diamond is total torture?
I was surprised when I didn't initially see his name on the 'list'....I can only imagine the censoring the Neil Diamond Fan Clubs, etc.,will grasp at to keep NEIL, sheltered from the shame of it....I find the entire thing laughable...is o.k. to waterboard, hit someone in the stomach, but OH NO....to commit such an unsacred act as using Neil Diamond's songs (?) in vain? If I were the one being tortured, listening over and over to Sweet Caroline or the yelling of 'America' by this aging recording star would be enough to get me to confess....

 

[Cryo84R]

We were just trying to give these enlightened souls some multi-culturism.
Spent 3 months as an individual augmentee in cuba. They have a higher standard of living than Obamas half brother in Kenya.

 

[chronobreak]

Eh, so the guards working happened to have their radios on loudly, and the prisoners didn't like it. I don't see much of a problem here, they are prisoners. When you're in a place like this, what isn't going to be considered torture? If they have to stand, be in darkness, be in light, do laps, or watch a television channel they don't like that could all be things they don't like, right? Who's going to sue on Oprah or the Moon or Sun's behalf? Are we going to question the people who made the floors they have to live on for being too uncomfortable?