Thread: torture

Originally Posted by stroller

Interrogation techniques verging on torture have been used for ages, there are specially trained people who have discretion to judge when these techniques are approriate or not, i.e. may the subject know something of value, and at which point to decide whether there is any sense in continueing the procedure, i.e. the procedure would lead into illegal practises, or the subject either doesn't know anything or won't tell.
The issue under the Bush admin has been that definitions and procedures were changed, blurring edges and allowing not specifically trained army personel to 'interrogate' - apparently there has been a shortage of specifically trained interrogators.

Sorry I can't be more specific, just from memory of a similar discussion, but I will dig up sources if challenged.

I think a chief difference between 'then' and 'now' is 'then' the people being tortured generally were 'enemies' of the state...dissidents, opposition leaders, etc within the confines of a sovereign state. Not necessarily used to pry information out of someone but used mainly as punishment for doing something 'wrong.'

What's different now is the U.S. is rounding up people in other countries, taking them to secret prisons elsewhere, and using techniques which are deemed illegal in the jurisdiction of the United States as has been determined by countless cases before the Supreme Court. In essense, the administration is acting extra-Constitutionally by keeping detainees out of the United States so they don't have access to basic civil rights. Sleazy and corrupt.

The Catholic Church putting someone on the rack isn't quite the same as what we could be doing now.

Surasak:
I am not saying "interrogating techniques" haven't been misused before to torture people.
What I am saying is that there have been military guidelines and procedures in place to extract information from suspects within the internationally set framework, before the recent "Gonzales torture bills".

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism"

- Colin Powell in a letter to Senator John McCain, opposing a White House proposal that would allow for harsher treatment of terrorist suspects

ws....haven't you heard?

mccain is a coward and powell is a traitor.

yeah, get with the program Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by stroller

Surasak:
I am not saying "interrogating techniques" haven't been misused before to torture people.
What I am saying is that there have been military guidelines and procedures in place to extract information from suspects within the internationally set framework, before the recent "Gonzales torture bills".

That was the purpose of the Geneva Conventions: to stop that practice.

Now the administration is saying "we'll come up with a new word that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Geneva Conventions so we can argue that the GC don't apply." By coming up with 'unlawful enemy combatants' and by denying GC rights to those people the administration is essentially giving the world the middle finger. The problem here, of course, is the risk of other nations following the same precedent therefore making the GC a worthless set of papers.

Sleaze.

It's always interesting to see the opponents of "torture" never mention the fact that if the prisoners just told us what we wanted to know there would be no need for any extreme measures. No torture, no innocents killed by terrorists killed by terrorists, everybody happy.

Or, is it possible that for the left-wing bleeding-hearts, these prisoners' "rights" are more important than the lives of their potential victims? Just once it would be nice to see Rumsfeld or Dubya say "You know, if they told us what we wanted to know, there'd be no need for and harsh techniques, everybody wins".

Those pesky Bill of Rights: getting in the way of government abusing everyone. The shame of it!

It's embarassing that anyone calling themselves a conservative would so willingly follow a President who usurps the Constitution at every possible opportunity.

You do know that the definition of 'liberal' means a person who liberally interprets the Constitution? Ironically you and SK fit that to a perfect T. You're willing to destroy the Constitution to stop some potential terror attack which might kill less than 40 people.

I don't know what's worse: the 1 in 200,000,00 chance that some nutsack with a bomb might want to kill me or the 1 in 50 chance that some moron calling him or herself a 'conservative' is so willing to take it up the ass for anything the goverment proposes to do in a fake war.

What happened to my post...baby girl Ray cry about it...

Originally Posted by surasak

fake war.

Fake war, eh?

The bombing of the USS Cole.
Planes flying into the Pentagon & World Trade Center.
Kohbar Towers bombing.
Marine Barracks in Lebanon
747 over Lockerbie, Scotland
Achilles Lauro hijacking.
Madrid train bombings
London Underground bombings
First World Trade Center bombing & the list goes on...

Fake war.

Originally Posted by surasak

Fake war.

Only a secular-progressive lost in the far-left fever swamps could not interpret this Jihad we're in as anything but...

Originally Posted by raycarey

ws....haven't you heard?

mccain is a coward and powell is a traitor.

Well, it does seem that Senator McCain thnks much more highly of our brave fighting men and women than you do ray. I'd go so far at to say McCain probably thinks are brave men and women are SUPPORTING the CONSTITUTION through their duty to their country.

I liked Senator McCain's reply:

"Senator Kerry owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country's call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education. Americans from all backgrounds, well off and less fortunate, with high school diplomas and graduate degrees, take seriously their duty to our country, and risk their lives today to defend the rest of us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They all deserve our respect and deepest gratitude for their service. The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq, is an insult to every soldier serving in combat, and should deeply offend any American with an ounce of appreciation for what they suffer and risk so that the rest of us can sleep more comfortably at night. Without them, we wouldn't live in a country where people securely possess all their God-given rights, including the right to express insensitive, ill-considered and uninformed remarks."

McCain also tells us that torture does work ... there goes that argument ...:

John McCain: Torture Worked on Me

This isn't the same source I mentioned but I knew I read or heard somewhere that McCain either changed or softened his stance on torture somewhere:

"Stephen Colbert put McCain and friends to shame on Monday by exposing the Republican senator’s torture protest as pseudo-opposition and their compromise with the Bush administration as an abject cave-in."

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item...shames_mccain/

A little youttube video for you to watch once you pass the link.

A compromise is the same thing to me.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

McCain also tells us that torture does work ... there goes that argument ...:

John McCain: Torture Worked on Me

Pardon me, but, it sounds like you are suggesting that we become more like them rather than trying to get them to become more like us?

Is this the response I am reading? That because 'they' do something therefore 'we' should do it also?

Does it work in reverse? If we bomb them are they given legitimacy to bomb us?

Not that I think you're a Cretin or anything surasak but I believe that our servicemember men and women who are convicted of torture should receive punishment not only equal to but just as harsh as we would treat the terrorists who commit the same acts against our troops.

Our military aren’t a gaggle of mouth breathing, knuckle-draggers intent on reigning violence and destruction on innocents. We have servicemen currently being held in solitary confinement at Camp Pendleton in conditions that would be unacceptable to any civilized person; as I understand it, they are alone, being held in shackles 24 hours a day, waiting trial for violation of the code of conduct in Iraq and possibly murder.

I'll apologize up front surasak for saying to you, for the most part, that I think you sound like nothing more than a faggoty assed little girl.

Putting someone in solitary and in shackles isn't what we're talking about.

And, is the irony lost on you in what you posted?

Originally Posted by surasak

And, is the irony lost on you in what you posted?

Why don't you explain it to me ? Don't forget I'm a dumb ass, redneck, trailer trash carreer military man.

I need you to draw pictures for me.

Originally Posted by lom

POW's are only required to state their name, birth date, and rank.

Ahh...Grasshopper - but these are not POW's but captured enemy combatents. Big difference. These assholes are terrorists.

Dubya's speech last week detailing how terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed were made to talk using 'special' interrogation techniques in secret CIA prisons overseas was long overdue.

You see, Grasshopper, we do get good information by playing "Nine Inch Nails" and some Barry Manelow to scumbags...

Putting a U.S. military person in a U.S. military prison for violation of the U.S. military code of conduct has abolutely nothing to do with torture, and, even if it did, it's not the same thing as rounding up other nationals and putting them in prison awaiting torture, is it?

What does what you posted have to do with McCain cracking under pressure, or, whether or not we, as a civilized nation, should undertake uncivilized means?