Thread: torture

Originally Posted by surasak

Would it be OK for al-Quida to capture a GI and torture him or her under the guise that obtaining information might save 20 or 30 al-Quida members? The hypothetical works both ways.

You cannot codify or otherwise allow such behavior because if one person is allowed to do something legally then someone is going to come along and think it's OK to break the rules just slightly.

We are supposed to be above that.

When you can tell me how we can enforce others not to torture then I'll really worry about it. In the mean time ... I don't believe the enemy is above torture and I don't believe we should self impose handicaps.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

And speaking of McCain he seems to flip flop back and forth over whether he approves or disapproves of torture or not from what I've read.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Don't have to post a link. it's my opinion.

your 'opinion' is based on fantasy.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

By the way ray ... John McCain said that Iraq is no Vietnam ... is he right about that ? Or do you just pick and choose people's quoes to suit your fancy ?

you do know that mccain was tortured as a POW, right?

Well, good, I hope every American soldier captured in war for now on comes back so fucked up from torture that they have to shit through their mouth because that is the kind of world you create when a nation supposedly built on the notion of justice throws it out the window.

John McCain quote from the Republican National Convention in August 2004:

"We are Americans first, Americans last, Americans always.
Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity.
We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong.
Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight.
We’re Americans.
We’re Americans, and we’ll never surrender.
They will."

Originally Posted by raycarey

you do know that mccain was tortured as a POW, right?

Maybe the Viet Cong thought they could get some useful information from him.

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by raycarey

you do know that mccain was tortured as a POW, right?

Maybe the Viet Cong thought they could get some useful information from him.

I'm sure they did. I accept reality. Torture is a reality.

I also know that John McCain was at the center of the largest fire in history aboard a Navy aircraft carrier ... the USS FORRESTAL. I've always wondered why he didn't help fight that fire.

Originally Posted by RDN

Snow: Cheney doesn't support 'water boarding' - Politics - MSNBC.com


cheney belongs in jail.

So do I then. If a terrorist - in fact, if anybody - knew where a bomb was located that was going to kill lots of people, I would do whatever was necessary - including torture - to get that information out of him/her.

Better call 911 (999 in UK, 191 in Thailand).

but this is the whole problem then isn't it. who decides who should be tortured or not to get information that they may or may not have ?

its not a court of law - it becomes the police & army - many innocents get tortured and we loose all humanity, look at any example in history that you like...

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

but this is the whole problem then isn't it. who decides who should be tortured or not to get information that they may or may not have ? its not a court of law - it becomes the police & army - many innocents get tortured and we loose all humanity

what myopic posters like RDN fail to understand is that life is more complicated than an episode of '24'.

something else to keep in mind TV fans.....the US govt. doesn't stop torturing the innocent until proven guilty for commercial breaks and end-of-season cliffhangers.

don't forget to tune in next week...same torture time....same torture channel.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I also know that John McCain was at the center of the largest fire in history aboard a Navy aircraft carrier ... the USS FORRESTAL. I've always wondered why he didn't help fight that fire.

this is a prime example of swiftboating.

Absolutely. And someone with a knowledge of military specialties should know that one does what one is trained to do. McCain was a pilot. All branches of the military have highly trained firefighters -- especially critical on aircraft carriers. If you're not trained, you can place others in danger by interfering.

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

its not a court of law - it becomes the police & army - many innocents get tortured and we loose all humanity, look at any example in history that you like...

That's what I've been getting at all along: some idiot decides that a suspect is guilty without a trial and begins punishment without any shred of evidence to put the person through uncivilized behavior. No trial, no jury, no public hearing. Just assume the person is guilty and start torturing.

This is totally against what civilized nations are supposed to represent.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

but this is the whole problem then isn't it. who decides who should be tortured or not to get information that they may or may not have ? its not a court of law - it becomes the police & army - many innocents get tortured and we loose all humanity

what myopic posters like RDN fail to understand is that life is more complicated than an episode of '24'.

something else to keep in mind TV fans.....the US govt. doesn't stop torturing the innocent until proven guilty for commercial breaks and end-of-season cliffhangers.

don't forget to tune in next week...same torture time....same torture channel.

I've told you before, I don't watch '24'.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

When you can tell me how we can enforce others not to torture then I'll really worry about it. In the mean time ... I don't believe the enemy is above torture and I don't believe we should self impose handicaps.

Oh, I see, courts of law and human rights are considered "handicaps"...

I hope this opinion is not a very common attitude amongst US army officers?

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

its not a court of law - it becomes the police & army - many innocents get tortured and we loose all humanity, look at any example in history that you like...

That's what I've been getting at all along: some idiot decides that a suspect is guilty without a trial and begins punishment without any shred of evidence to put the person through uncivilized behavior. No trial, no jury, no public hearing. Just assume the person is guilty and start torturing.

This is totally against what civilized nations are supposed to represent.

Why an "idiot"?

Why "without any shred of evidence"?

OK, let's play pretend. You've pissed off some Islamic Fundies on a web site. Maybe this one. Unusual for sure, but let's say they've really got it in for you.

They find out where you live, abduct your wife and kid and take them to a house somewhere with a bomb in it. This bomb will go off in 24 hours - they even leave you a note to tell you that your family will be blown to kingdom come in 24 hours and there's nothing you can do about it.

What are you going to do?

You call the police, who track down the terrorist and they find unrefutable evidence that this terrorist knows where the house is. The man won't talk. After hours of questioning, reasoning and pleading, he still won't talk. The chief interrogator says to you: "OK, we'll try some tactics not in the book. Just a bit bit water boarding. He won't die but he'll think he'll die".

What are you going to do? Say: "Oh no, please don't do that. I love my wife and kid but I won't let you torture a terrorist to save their lives..."

I know it's only pretend but, what would you do?

Originally Posted by RDN

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

its not a court of law - it becomes the police & army - many innocents get tortured and we loose all humanity, look at any example in history that you like...

That's what I've been getting at all along: some idiot decides that a suspect is guilty without a trial and begins punishment without any shred of evidence to put the person through uncivilized behavior. No trial, no jury, no public hearing. Just assume the person is guilty and start torturing.

This is totally against what civilized nations are supposed to represent.

Why an "idiot"?

Why "without any shred of evidence"?

OK, let's play pretend. You've pissed off some Islamic Fundies on a web site. Maybe this one. Unusual for sure, but let's say they've really got it in for you.

They find out where you live, abduct your wife and kid and take them to a house somewhere with a bomb in it. This bomb will go off in 24 hours - they even leave you a note to tell you that your family will be blown to kingdom come in 24 hours and there's nothing you can do about it.

What are you going to do?

You call the police, who track down the terrorist and they find unrefutable evidence that this terrorist knows where the house is. The man won't talk. After hours of questioning, reasoning and pleading, he still won't talk. The chief interrogator says to you: "OK, we'll try some tactics not in the book. Just a bit bit water boarding. He won't die but he'll think he'll die".

What are you going to do? Say: "Oh no, please don't do that. I love my wife and kid but I won't let you torture a terrorist to save their lives..."

I know it's only pretend but, what would you do?

I have been referring to people who have been systematically rounded up and detained with no evidence, no charges, no indication that they did anything wrong. After years of languishing in U.S. custody they trickle out of detention once it's determined that they don't know anything. Should we use torture as a weapon to put these people through pain and suffering just to find out they know nothing? That has been my stance since the beginning and continues to be the focus of my argument. That is the main reason why the death penalty continues to be a focus of attention when it comes to punishment. Do we continue to allow it knowing that innocent peolpe will die?

Should I let the police torture the terrorist if the risk of them torturing someone innocent in the future is bound to happen? Do I have the right to make that decision? Does anyone? At what point does it become acceptable to torture innocent people so that once in awhile we might actually torture someone 'guilty?' What if someone claimed I knew something about a bomb, the police rounded me up, and started torturing me?

Do we use torture as a weapon in the 'war on terror' when we don't know if the people captured did anything wrong or have any shred of knowledge about anything?

A fair justice system would not torture 10 innocent people just to get information from one that might save 5. I cannot support that.

Originally Posted by gulfcoast

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I also know that John McCain was at the center of the largest fire in history aboard a Navy aircraft carrier ... the USS FORRESTAL. I've always wondered why he didn't help fight that fire.

this is a prime example of swiftboating.

Absolutely. And someone with a knowledge of military specialties should know that one does what one is trained to do. McCain was a pilot. All branches of the military have highly trained firefighters -- especially critical on aircraft carriers. If you're not trained, you can place others in danger by interfering.

All the trained firefighters were wiped out with the first explosion.

I wonder why the Navy was using 1000 pound bombs from WW1 during the Vietnam War ?

McCain was the only pilot to escape the cluster of planes hit... he saved his life but he violated procedure.

McCain was roaming around the ship while other people sacrificed their lives to fight and save the ship.

Even pilots from the CVW (airwing) are required to be trained in basic firefighting ... I'm sure he could have at least handled a hose or performed first aid.

While I'm swiftboating ... screw Jim Webb too ... he's a quitter and shouldn't be a Senator.

let's get back to your contention that mccain changed his position on torture....

link please.

How about Powell ? is he also a traitor ?

I am starting to see a pattern here

Originally Posted by RDN

OK, let's play pretend. You've pissed off some Islamic Fundies on a web site. Maybe this one. Unusual for sure, but let's say they've really got it in for you.

They find out where you live, abduct your wife and kid and take them to a house somewhere with a bomb in it. This bomb will go off in 24 hours - they even leave you a note to tell you that your family will be blown to kingdom come in 24 hours and there's nothing you can do about it.

What are you going to do?

You call the police, who track down the terrorist and they find unrefutable evidence that this terrorist knows where the house is. The man won't talk. After hours of questioning, reasoning and pleading, he still won't talk. The chief interrogator says to you: "OK, we'll try some tactics not in the book. Just a bit bit water boarding. He won't die but he'll think he'll die".

Perhaps you don't watch '24', but you must be spending a fair amount of time in front of the tube to come up with this scenario......

Originally Posted by raycarey

let's get back to your contention that mccain changed his position on torture....

link please.

I don't feel like researching it.

It's not important to me.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

How about Powell ? is he also a traitor ?

Powell has done nothing to be considered a traitor as far as I know.

Originally Posted by surasak

people who have been systematically rounded up and detained with no evidence, no charges, no indication that they did anything wrong.

If they didn't do anything wrong then they haven't anything to worry abut, eh?

"Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your heart it will creep.
...like looking in your mirror
& seeing a Police car"

^
That's a pretty naive and dangerous thing to say....

Have you ever wondered what the reasons for the existence of courts of law may be?
The present trend in the US seems to be a back-to-the-stoneage attitude, where suspects are assumed guilty until the opposite is evident, human rights only apply to the good guys and international law is in the way of supposed national interest.

It's a curious turn for a nation which considers itself as freedom-loving and the most advanced in many aspects of civilisation....

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Powell has done nothing to be considered a traitor as far as I know.

Well a recent WH letter was leaked where he questionned the war and the torture saying that "we lost our moral ground"

Surely, you didn't miss that one too ?