I suppose the reverse logic of using torture incited more support for Al-Qaeda, which is Bush's fault....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103215.html
"enhanced interrogation techniques"
- Thread starter sanjuro
- Start date
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103215.html
wondering how long every thing's going to remain, "Bush's fault...."
some of ya'll are like a broken record.
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
but hey, i guess it beats trying to actually use your supposed higher education skills and self proclaimed expertise on how this country should be defended, to actually try to figure out a better way to protect the legal citizens of this country.
some of ya'll are like a broken record.
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
Bush's fault....
but hey, i guess it beats trying to actually use your supposed higher education skills and self proclaimed expertise on how this country should be defended, to actually try to figure out a better way to protect the legal citizens of this country.
in other words: americans have become to weak-stomached to do what it takes to win at war. the same people who cry foul at torture techniques are the same people who scream brutality at every police use of force. these weak people will moan and cry when their protectors can't save them because they've tied the hands of those who could.
the same people who are against torture are also against police brutality, it would seem that they are able to care about the welfare of other people!
Those same people are against the war in Iraq, they don't think it is a war that should be fought in the first place. That mindset is the same mindset of all the neoconservatives and the assholes that should be tried in war crimes court, that you are the only thing keeping society from falling apart, and if you don't beat the **** out of people for no reason then all hell will break loose. Except that you're wrong, because the police in other countries aren't as abusive as they are in the US.
We have to ask ourselves if the war is worth winning and if it can be even won. By accepting torture as a means to winning a war, you are no better than the people that say that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were worth it.
Last edited:
Like the Nazis?
Or Vietnam?
I complain about torture and police brutality. I'm not talking about tuning up a perp, but incidents like Abner Louimer and Amalou Diallo.
Is necessary to beat down every suspect to get a confession?
And when our soldiers are captured, I guess it is ok for their captors to torture them because we do the same?
then you're not allowed to be outraged when Americans get tortured
the Hanoi Hilton and everything that went on inside was justified because North Vietnam thought it necessary to win the war.
look at these names & tell me they aren't criminals. it's not about profiling. it's about common american sense.
So, basically, the only difference between you and a Gestapo (or KGB, or whatever odious police/military organization you wish) member is an accident of birth?
Not everyone admits that with such enthusiasm. Luckily, you worship a God that was tortured to death, so I guess it's ok.
As some say, "Love it or leave it". If Manimal hates fundamental American principles he should leave the country. I'm sure there are still plenty of corrupt despots that would love the way he thinks...
Am I correct to interpret this as you saying that the ends justify the means?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for preventing more attacks, but at what cost?
Bull****. Strong needs not equate with cruel.
Especially when that cost icludes pissing off people to the point where they want to attack or support attacks on us.
while i'm not an advocate for torture, i believe it has its place in very extreme circumstances, like the child believed to be buried alive. "hypothetical" you say?
"anecdotal" i say
and in the linked article, you'll find torture wasn't used, but the threat of torture. on some it works, on some it doesn't. on all it should be an absolute last resort, and only to save innocent human life. i think we can agree an 11 y.o. boy can be presumed to be innocent, especially given the case he was used for ransom
absolutely this must be considered. that's why you don't do anything stupid like let the suspect retain alan dershowitz's services after the interrogation.
but i do find it odd there are people who would manufacture outrage to the point of taking up jihad when they're from the very parts of the world where it knowingly goes on within their own borders.
I guess I am weak. But you knew that already. It's a revelation to me.
There is always more outrage when someone outside of your group wrongs someone in your group. An abusive father is probably the one most likely to go ape**** at little league game when his kid gets hit with a bean ball.
This group, that group, blah blah blah.
Can't we all be people and just get along?
Then by that line of reasoning the acts of terrorists is justified as they are doing what they have to do to win their war. Same could be said about the criminals you deal with daily
If a line is not drawn, all hell breaks loose and he who has the biggest guns wins.
if someone buries my daughter alive, i'd gladly hold the jumper cables, cordless drill & get to tuning up.
i'd even stop by wal-mart with a printout of the 5-things thread
And what if you got the wrong guy?
i'm making the parallel to the german dude, who was clearly not the wrong guy.
don't ruin my fantasy about torturing some random dude. have some compassion.
What you might do as an individual under those circumstances might be understandable.
What you do as an agent of the state should be constrained.
Thanks JBP for making this point for me
the very reason i spent a week in the hell of SERE school was so that i'd understand what would happen to me if i was ever caught as a POW. i also understand that we are the only country that actually attempts to play by the rules but, in war, bad things happen. i'm not advocating "torture" as a standard procedure but there are times when it is warranted. hmmm..lets see. Let's say that samirol has some adorable little kids and some prick extremist decides to set up some bombs inside several schools including the one where said adorable kids attend classes. so the powers that be at (insert national security agency of the week ) learn of the attack just moments before it is set to occur and apprehend aforementioned extremist prick but no one knows which schools will have been targeted....except the detained extremist prick.
so now..as the parent of said adorable kids; should we "do the right thing" and offer this prick the same legal due process afforded to our citizens or should we do whatever we can to get information out of this murderer before he can kill our kids?
don't worry, you don't have to answer that question because you'll never be in the position to make a decision like that. you'll just blame people like us for not doing enough when it does happen. that's ok, i can live with that.
and what if he didn't?
Thank you Mr. King...I mean Rodney...
People make decisions. Things go bad. Deal.
Can you support that?
Without due process it is impossible to know.
Yes. Unequivocally. That is the law, and I have a major problem with law enforcement that feels that they know better how to handle things than the law states.
Besides, what guarantee would you have that they would be truthful with you even if they were being tortured? Didn't you see the Dark Knight?
Last edited:
Exactly. The consensus of studies on torture have show the efficacy to be of limited value so why would someone continue to support its use if you are just going to get a whole lot of erroneous information and negative attention to your cause/department/nation/etc.
Many in US Department of the Defense knew this and staff protested from the beginning but had to go along with the Administration misguided policies. It was the people with zero military experience, not the other way around, who pushed for torture.
Last edited:
Hmm.
I work with a Naval Academy graduate, and to be frank, I am getting sick and tired of how my opinion has less validity because "you'll never be in the position to make a decision like that."
Bush and Cheney have seen about as much combat as I have. Obama, too for that matter.
But I think that with due process of the law, then all of us suffer greatly. First it is the Arab terrorists, including those who were innocent. Then it is the rabble rousers who incite protests, then reporters, then who knows next.
What if we beat the crap out of Johannes Meserle until he confesses to 1st degree murder?
Honestly, I understand that there will be torture, whether it is in the back of a squad car or on the battlefield. But I don't my government sanctioning it, because who knows whats next.
If it perpetuates violence, then no, I don't feel its worth the cost. If it can prevent violence, I would say it is worth the cost. But what happens then the benefits don't substantially outweigh the drawbacks?
Manimal, as much as I agree with you the preventative measures need to be taken, and sometimes the rules need to be ignored to effectively get things done, I feel this is only applicable to a point. Eventually people start to question whether or not some people are just trigger (happy so to speak), and will read far to into something just to futher their cause. Try to avoid turning this into an "us vs them" situation (you're either for us or against, as #43 put it). That's one of the reasons we got into this whole boondoggle in the first place.
you are correct and i thank you for calling me on that. i would also like to clear up the assumption that i would ever step out of the bounds of due process in my profession. i will never deal with a mass casuality situation where the means would justify the end...and i'm not going to ruin my reputation in court or on the street by crossing the line just to make a bigger bust. i am simply arguing for the sake of keeping torture as an option in specific situations. and yes, there must be some serious check/balance measures to ensure that, if and when a situation calls for it, it is done properly and not arbitrarily.
again, this is not a topic for the weak of stomach but it is something that must be considered as an option when the need arises. the problem has been the lack of oversight of the current program.
Let's leave you out of it.
Say someone won't talk. Do you torture their families instead? Just where is the line?
So how exactly would one torture someone properly?
Say someone won't talk. Do you torture their families instead? Just where is the line?
Again, I say what is that need, and how could you trust the information you might get?
For there to be oversight it would have to be legitimized. If we are willing to torture to meet our objectives, how would this make America any better than those poor souls who hate us for our freedoms?
Glad we're on the same page
R-Rick, there are some monsters out there I wouldn't think twice about torturing. Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Mugabe... you get the idea.
this is where you and I differ, my political beliefs aren't based in fear. A constitutional government which practices torture is "fvck you" to the moral obligation that exists when you claim world power status.
but do you mean for unreliable information, or as punishment after their trial?