When torturing is OK for feds shouldn't it be allowed for others too?

[Fishu]

Boy you'd be surprised what kind of pain I could give you if that's how you define if it's torturing or not... anyways also cigaret burn marks will heal in few weeks, why should the limit be 15 minutes?

It's a misconception that torture only applies to physical injury or pain. I'd like to see him on the receiving end of waterboarding and still insist it's not torture. I don't think that's going to happen, he won't have the guts to have it tried on him.

[Arlo]

Every enemy of the state was asked "verifiable" questions prior to execution in Nazi Germany. Every Jew asked verifiable questions during internment before gassing in Auschwitz. And civilians in Japanese territory were asked "verifiable questions" over suspicians about their roles as spies and saboteurs.

Rationalization was the main defense at Neuremburg. And if it was horrible ... it was necessary. It was orders. Jews weren't human ... much less German. Nor were Chinese worthy to be treated like anything other than sheep to be slaughtered, on regular occasion, to amuse and test swords by the Japanese. Nor American servicemen who surrendered rather than die.

We brag our culture has certainly progressed more than the combined cultures of all Muslim nations and communities worldwide, right? If someone, helpless in our custody though suspected of ties to terrorism, has a stroke or heart attack under the strain of "questioning" at least we didn't cut their head off slowly with a blunt machete. They're all savages, every single one. And the best excuse to torture them is that they aren't human, much less American, and they deserve it. That's how we protect ourselves from becoming what we despise most. That's how we shine the light of liberty. How we promote the virtue of Democracy. How we set the standard and inspire through example. That's how we keep our deserving culture and society alive. That's what your fathers, grandfathers and their fathers before them fought for.

Not.

I don't see the rationalization of the most unAmerican traits I can imagine, wrapped in the flag under the pretense that we're worthy of the respect and humanity we readily deny others in the name of "patriotism," anything more than shamefully throwing away the inheritance our forefathers granted us with their very lives. What good is protecting my nation while transforming it into something that's no longer the nation I (or my grandfathers) knew? My children deserve better. So do yours, whether you want to rationalize denial over that or not.

[bj229r]

It's a misconception that torture only applies to physical injury or pain. I'd like to see him on the receiving end of waterboarding and still insist it's not torture. I don't think that's going to happen, he won't have the guts to have it tried on him.

How do you put simulated drowning in with this:

MAY 24--In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Along with the images, which you'll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture2.html

[Fishu]

How do you put simulated drowning in with this

And how again two wrongs makes right? Wasn't our culture supposed to be more civilized than their medieval culture?
I see nothing wrong with killing those who torture others, but torturing is the wrong way to deal with the issue.

[bj229r]

I simply don't believe it to be 'torture'---making them uncomfortable (plunking them on concrete floor naked in 50 degree room, etc)---I simply cannot see such things defined as 'torture'---and to repeat my earlier statement--for all we've heard about our cavalier use of 'waterboarding'---it's only ever been used on 3 prisoners, and not within the last 4-odd years

[lazs2]

torture by governments is not acceptable.

On a personal level... It would be rarely acceptable.   It would have to be life or death.   that is not an acceptable reason for governments.

If I had to torture someone to say, save a loved one.  I would do it realizing that I would have to face a jury of my peers.  I would accept that going in.

For governments it is never acceptable as policy.  there can be no justification for a policy of torture.

lazs

[Thruster]

This is when it helps to be an arrogant, elitist, misogynistic, judgmental bigot. I have always felt it best to lead by example and these days it's even more important what with the CNN's of the world, the WWW , phone cams and such. It's my measured opinion that the U.S. is home to the most evolved society on the planet. We're smarter, kinder, better looking and more evolved than any other in the history of mankind and it undermines that reality when we behave like the animals Manifest Destiny has made our obligation to manage.

To define something one must understand what that thing is and consequently, is not. If we are to legitimately claim our primacy as the world's leaders we must behave accordingly. It's not enough that we commit acts of inhumanity for the right reasons. We must not commit acts of inhumanity for any reason and instead employ our considerable resources and intellect to accomplish what we set out to do.

It's all armchair quarterbacking once it's all said and done. No matter who the perpetrator is, they almost always have some justification that mitigates their guilt. Sometimes they even have a point. But it's far more effective to be able to truly hold the moral high ground when ones actions speak as loudly as their words.

[RTHolmes]

It's my measured opinion that the U.S. is home to the most evolved society on the planet. We're smarter, kinder, better looking and more evolved than any other in the history of mankind

just ... wow

[Gunthr]

 I agree that "waterboarding" can truley be considered torture, but I think there are degrees ... which depends on how it is done.  the issue isn't black and white.  I also think its pretty dumb to make legislation about an act of war which would be binding on us but not the enemy.


there is a huge difference in waterboarding a person without regard to oxygen deprivation, water aspiration or other injury, for a continuous period of time without respite to total failure of the individual's will to endure...  (counter-productive with unreliable info)

...as opposed to a momentary psychological experience that is over in 5 seconds, with careful safeguards against injury - as a demonstration before questioning.   I believe this would still be considered "torture", but way more humane than the first way.

I'm against torture that damages a person phycically or mentaly, but I think it is acceptable to use some levels of coercion or trickery to convince an enemy that it might be in their best interest to share military information.  I think our highest military commanders should have that tool in their toolbox in certain conditions.  Its too bad this has become a political issue.

just a credible threat of waterboarding could pursuade a knowledgable individual that it might be better to open up and be forthcoming.  It sure as heck would work on me... but could that be called torture?

if we are going to moralize about this, what the heck are we doing fighting wars in the first place?

[Gunthr]

bear with me for a minute...

Consider a major thoroughfare with a speed limit of 45 mph.

There are, for the sake of argument, (6) fatalities on this roadway each year.

Traffic control reports that reducing the speed limit to 3 mph, and enforcing it, will save 6 lives each year.

What do you think the chances are that the speed limit will be reduced to 3 mph?

Slim to none. 

Why? 

We have made a moral judgment that commuting convenience and promoting commerce is worth more than 6 human lives each year.  This is the cost-versus-benefit judgment on the value of human life that we all take part in. 

In the same way, there is a cost versus benefit judgment on the torture issue as well, its just a bit more uncomfortable to dwell on "torture" because the truth is more easily seen. 

[Fishu]

I simply don't believe it to be 'torture'---making them uncomfortable (plunking them on concrete floor naked in 50 degree room, etc)---I simply cannot see such things defined as 'torture'---and to repeat my earlier statement--for all we've heard about our cavalier use of 'waterboarding'---it's only ever been used on 3 prisoners, and not within the last 4-odd years

It might not seem that bad when it happens just once, but try several times during a month. Keeping someone in uncomfortable position over extended period of time is torture.

Why is it that people only seem to think that inflicting severe pain is torture, but the other forms of torture are something else because no pain or only a little pain is inflicted?

A few hundred years ago japanese and chinese used somewhat different form of torture compared to europeans. Europeans preferred to inflict pain while japanese and chinese tortured people by putting them into extremely uncomfortable situation over an extended period of time. They didn't have a hurry with it.

[bj229r]

When we start using tools like this on human beings I'll join your camp in this debate

[RTR]

Ahh I see now.  So pain and discomfort applied to an individual in order to get them to confess, or say what you want to hear, is only torture if it is applied with those particular impliments?

That is good to know.

RTR

[john9001]

do not torture terrorists, just chop off their heads and send the tape to al jazeera.

i prefer the Genghis Khan method of diplomacy, swear allegiance to me or die.

[Brownshirt]

Yep and see how well that worked. lol