Author Topic: America Admits Torture Deaths (Read 3338 times)

Hortlund · « **Reply #90 on:** March 11, 2003, 02:33:35 PM »

Quote

Picture if you will a situation where an Al Queida terrorist has hidden a nuke somewhere in Washington DC, the police manage to grab the terrorist, but he refuses to say anything before he has his lawyer present. Do you want to go with option a) wait for his lawyer to show up, and play by the book, or option b) torture him to get the location of the bomb in time to defuse it.
(and please stay focused on the issue and not sidetrack into some obscure "even if we did use torture we cant know for sure he would be telling the truth")

The question is very simple. Can torture be acceptable in the hidden nuke scenario described above?

I'm asking for your personal opinion. Would it be ok to torture mr terrorist in this example?

batdog · « **Reply #91 on:** March 11, 2003, 02:33:57 PM »

You people claiming the US tortures cracks me up. We "break" you but in a manner that will not destroy you. We dont beat you w/bamboo. We dont stick you a hole full of pig toejam. We dont electrocute you... we dont hack off limbs, we dont kill your family members infront of you..etc.

Sometimes the crap I see spewed here makes me want to gag.

straffo · « **Reply #92 on:** March 11, 2003, 02:40:59 PM »

in this case : yes

I'm not a good christian ... but you already knew that.

Dowding · « **Reply #93 on:** March 11, 2003, 03:14:46 PM »

Nice dodge, Beetle.

Neither Hortlund or Toad answered the point I put to you or addressed the issue we were discussing.

For the record, I'm not arguing that the US commits acts of torture. I'm just saying that true medieval-type torture, including beating, is completely wrong.

By the same token 'farming' out suspects into the custody of states that we know will use hot pokers, electrocution and beating is guilt by proxy and unacceptable.

Sleep deprivation and psychology is necessary interrogation - I think it just manages to tread the boundary, for me.

BTW, being forced to watch cable TV could rightly be described as torture. Forget the rubber hoses, endless re-runs of Dallas would make me crack.

blitz · « **Reply #94 on:** March 11, 2003, 04:12:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
straffo - if you read that Telegraph report, you will see that the prisoner gets roughed up. Not a job I would want to do. The prisoner is subject to sleep deprivation, lights and white noise. Hell, even our SAS have to go through that in training. Always remember - whatever the CIA metes out to KSM, it's only 0.00001% of the cruelty meted out by AQ on 9/11 and in the time since.

When the prisoner gives the information being demanded, the treatment should be eased.

Of course I don't like the idea of torture, but this is war - needs must etc....

If we use the same methods as them, we aren't any better

Regards Blitz

blitz · « **Reply #95 on:** March 11, 2003, 04:14:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
I'm asking for your personal opinion. Would it be ok to torture mr terrorist in this example?

blitz · « **Reply #96 on:** March 11, 2003, 04:28:40 PM »

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Picture if you will a situation where an Al Queida terrorist has hidden a nuke somewhere in Washington DC, the police manage to grab the terrorist, but he refuses to say anything before he has his lawyer present. Do you want to go with option a) wait for his lawyer to show up, and play by the book, or option b) torture him to get the location of the bomb in time to defuse it.
(and please stay focused on the issue and not sidetrack into some obscure "even if we did use torture we cant know for sure he would be telling the truth")

The question is very simple. Can torture be acceptable in the hidden nuke scenario described above?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
I'm asking for your personal opinion. Would it be ok to torture mr terrorist in this example?

Typical dump question.

Torture was never banned after WW2. Was used every day since then.

If ya asked that question 30 years ago it would be like this:

If ya sittin at an outpost in Vietnam with 2 platoons with heavy enemy activity outside (Vietcong terrorists) and ya capture 1 of them: 'Would you think it would be ok to torture him to know which direction these terrorists might attack from to make it more safe for your men?'

Or if some criminal kidnaps a child. 'Would it be ok to torture him to save the live of this child?'

Relatives who miss a child are aloud to ask for torture but a democratic government has to deny it, simple as that.

Regards Blitz

Brutality will nothing grow but brutality.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #97 on:** March 11, 2003, 04:36:57 PM »

The French are nazis straffo, you have killed POW in every war since after the end of WW2 - you killed none during WW2 of course because you cowards didnt fight even to save your own country.... But after the AMERICANS, as in USA, as in AMREEKA also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or US as in GREAT SATAN, THE as in in no way france or having to do with the french cowards won WW2 for you and liberated france you had no disagreemint with murdering POWs to extract revennge for your own pity of having small noodlees and not fighting in the actuall war. So the french are like nazis because they killed POW after WW2, and in indochina, and in algeria, and in africa and everywhere else. Yes the french are excellent at killing unarmed men in handcuffs.
So you are nazis, and you straffo are a nazi too. So is jacques chirac because he sold weapons to Hussein like the nazis sold weapons to murdering puppet regimes and they used them to slaughter innocent civilans just like the nazis. So the french leader is a nazi, yes chirac is hitler and by your support of chirac and saying she represents france and your and french peoples beliefs you are bunch of nazis.

slimm50 · « **Reply #98 on:** March 11, 2003, 04:37:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
slimm50: Why they are so upset about Bush's practices, and seemingly not about Hussein's, et. al.....I don't understand.

It's purely pragmatic. People are much less concerned that some remote backward country is ruled by an abusive government than the fact that their own country is moving towards abusive government.

miko

Oh puh-leeze....sheesh! I'm at a loss for words here:mad:

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #99 on:** March 11, 2003, 04:40:37 PM »

Bilitz:

No bulshit, no evading, no moralizing - just YES or NO.

Would it be ok to have tortured Mohammed Atta on sptember 10 2001 knowing he knew something about a massive attack very soon like tomorow?

blitz · « **Reply #100 on:** March 11, 2003, 05:18:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Bilitz:

No bulshit, no evading, no moralizing - just YES or NO.

Would it be ok to have tortured Mohammed Atta on sptember 10 2001 knowing he knew something about a massive attack very soon like tomorow?

'No moralizing' tells all of the story.

Who's moralising most? Mr. Bush ? Yes.

'Axis of Evil', 'Saddam and his tortering regime'.

Regards Blitz

America is threatened in no way by Iraq, it's just plain ridiculous

beet1e · « **Reply #101 on:** March 11, 2003, 07:01:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
BTW, being forced to watch cable TV could rightly be described as torture. Forget the rubber hoses, endless re-runs of Dallas would make me crack.

ROFL Dowding!

I don't think we're so far apart. Of course, the prisoner should not be tortured, where that means the sort of wanton mediaeval treatment often used in bygone centuries in the name of religion.

All the CIA wants is information. To get that, they may need to subject the prisoner to a measure of "discomfort", in a variety of forms. Of course I do not support the use of red hot pokers or any of that mediaeval crap. Besides, it won't be necessary. KSM lasted only two days before he was singing like a canary. So what if he got slammed against his cell wall, kept awake all night, and made to sit in an uncomfortable position? After what he did, what do you want from me - sympathy?

I can't believe it. Only 18 months have passed since 9/11, and already the villains of the piece have gained a measure of public sympathy for their plight. Whatever next? Maybe another "peace" rally in London, in which the protesters clamour for "no more interrogation of AQ suspects"? Do me a freakin' favour.

I should add a line to my sig: "The CIA is in no way threatened by KSM - it's just redikulous".

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #102 on:** March 11, 2003, 07:33:09 PM »

You are evading the question.

Thorns · « **Reply #103 on:** March 11, 2003, 07:59:43 PM »

I think I will call my friend who worked in the World Trade Center.
Oh! I can't because he's dead. Hmm, did he die, or was he FUKIN' KILLED. (Sam Kinison voice) HE WAS FUKIN' KILLED, DO YOU HEAR ME, HE WAS AT WORK, AND A TERRORIST FUKIN' KILLED HIM. WHO THE FUK DID THIS?

Thorns:rolleyes:

Toad · « **Reply #104 on:** March 11, 2003, 08:23:43 PM »

Uh, Grun.. he's a drive by. He isn't here to do anything but throw stones and run away.

I'm not bothering any more.