America Admits Torture Deaths

[lord dolf vader]

torture is wrong and counterproductive on many levels.
 

only sadistic stupid people can pretend it is useful.

this is the non moralistic approach.



if you condone torture and think you are a christian you missed the whole point. really

[Dowding]

Now, all you guys need to do is define "torture". We all think we know it "when we see it" but if you delve into the subject, consulting Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, some people think sleep deprivation is "torture".

Oh please don't side-step into the realm of semantics, Toad. You know exactly the kind of torture we're talking about and it's been described to you by the proponents of that approach in this very thread.

We're talking about the 'getting medieval on your ass', Marsellus Wallace type of torture.

I'm not entirely sure of which point your arguing against, BTW.

[midnight Target]

You may be surprised at who condones torture...

people like Alan Dershowitz

[Hortlund]

A question for the "oh its so wrong"-crowd.

The Israelis have a special law they call "the ticking bomb clause" or something like that (in Hebrew presumably). Basically, it is a law that says that "physical persuation" is allowed in certain circumstances (for example, if a terrorist has hidden a "ticking" bomb in a city, security forces are allowed to use extraordinary means to get him to give the location of the bomb). Personally I think that is a good and reasonable law. It is a shame there is a need for such a law though.

But anyway. The basic idea is sound and reasonable. 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?

Take this terrorist leader they captured a couple of days ago...noticed that he has started talking already? OF COURCE they are torturing him, and when you consider that this terrorist is the guy who actually planned 9-11, it is pretty damn understandable why they are doing it too. Simply because we have strong reasons to suspect that there are terrorist attacks being in progress right now, and this guy probably planned them all.

Now, torture is far from the most effective way of extracting information from someone. But it is the fastest way. If you have weeks or months to extract the info, torture would be plain stupid. It would be much better to use the sleep deprivation/drugs/break down -combination. But when you need the information fast...like really fast, it is the only option really...no matter how bad that sounds it is true under some circumstances.

As for losing the moral high ground...

The opposition here are using suicide bombers who walk up to mothers with baby carriages before they detonate their explosive belts. They are hijacking passenger airliners and diving them into tall buildings...remember. Its pretty f*cking hard to lose the moral high ground against these guys. And standing idly by when some pakistani intel officer is roughing up a known al Queida terrorist for information is not even in the same ballpark as that.

Get real. If the US would start hijacking Iraqi airliners and diving them into mosques, then you could start yapping about losing the moral high ground.

[Goth]

While I was personally against torture, there is a time and place. Just remember Daniel Pearl was a non-combatant, and his grisly death did nothing to favor any terrorist in my eyes.

These people are animals, and should be put down just like the rabid animals they are.

They should all be buried in pork sausage casings.

[Toad]

Dowding, look....... it isn't semantics.

The number one point is that this isn't "state sponsored torture". If these guys were in fact "tortured" to death outside of what the US considers .... what....... "fair interogation techniques" then the people responsible will be prosecuted and punished.

That right there makes it different than the Nazis or the North Vietnamese, where the perpetrators would probably be given a medal and promoted.

So that whole argument is just dross.

As to the comment about "define torture" there's attorneys in the US that make the case that their imprisoned clients are being tortured if they don't have cable TV in their cell.

Now, I don't know about you but I don't call that torture.

Sleep deprivation? It's OK by me.

Branding with hot irons? Nope, not OK.

Branding a prisoner's child with hot irons while the prisoner is made to watch? Nope not OK.

And once again, those posters that are having a hissy fit about these two prisoners dying... knowing that the US government will investigate and prosecute...... stands in stark contrast to  these very same posters' ability to turn a totally blind eye to what's going on in Hussein's prisons where there is indeed government sponsored torture.

What's that word again?

[Dead Man Flying]

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

[/B]

Of course it would be acceptable in the above scenario.  What I find repugnant is the rather flippant attitude I've seen toward torture here -- a "good, I'm glad" kind of attitude that doesn't speak at all to the scenario you're describing.  Torture should be the last resort under the extremely dire circumstances you've described, where no other possible options exist given the time.  It should not be a first resort; it should be a means to an end and not the end itself.  Torture, if anything, is a means to extract information and not to punish for past deeds or misdeeds.

In any event, dead men don't talk.  If the goal of the dead Taliban prisoners' interrogators was to unleash the secrets in their heads, I'm guessing they didn't do a very good job of it.

Get real. If the US would start hijacking Iraqi airliners and diving them into mosques, then you could start yapping about losing the moral high ground.

Appearances matter.  People expect wacko fundamentalist terrorists to do crazy, immoral things.  They don't expect America to go wantonly torturing prisoners left and right without just cause to do so.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[beet1e]

Dowding!  I was getting ready for a long typing session, but Hortlund and Mr. Toad have saved me a job.

I don't really have any sympathy with AQ terrorists. That could have been me up that WTC, or in one of those planes. And to rub salt into the wounds, these murderers are deemed to be martyrs. I would give the CIA a free rein to get the information they want as they see fit. Although I do concede that killing the guy would not be cricket.

We need a brain dump of KSM, and I think that's best left to his captors, the CIA. As to exactly what treatment KSM will get, an earlier report said he might get "a bit of smacky-face". A full report of the treatment KSM can expect was published in the Daily Telegraph a couple of days ago.

[straffo]

Completly wrong Hortlung.

It's clearly forbidden by Israel laws.

Beetle should I understand you agree with torture ?

I mean real torture not a lack of TV channel like said Toad .

[blitz]

Originally posted by Toad
LOL.

You guys.

You already KNOW the answer to this.

If it happened as/during torture, the people who did it will be punished by the US military/government.

THERE'S the difference.

But go on pretending; you seem to enjoy it so.

Roflmao,

that's exactly 1 point why your gouvernment might not support the Internatinal Court in Den Haag .

This morality bla, bla of Bush is rediculous.

USA is a nation just like a hundred others, just bigger.It has good things and bad things but no rights to jugde the world all alone.


Regards Blitz

[blitz]

Originally posted by davidpt40
I've read a book about interrogation during the Vietnam War.  It said torture isn't very reliable because the prisoners will tell you what you want to hear.
 

Heh, that's great news and i bet Mr. Saddam read all that CIA vietnam torture books.

So he sure would use your Nr. 2 method as we all know what smartprettythang he is


Regards Blitz

[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....

[straffo]

I understand you beetle but I disagree partially I cannot support any form of interrogation leaving permanent physical/psychological scar(*) .

(*) I didn't search the proper english term for "sequelle"

I don't mean I'm against some form of brutality to have a vital information if needed.
It's just that it's pretty hard to say where it start and where it end

So I prefer banning completly the usage of torture.

[Hortlund]

Blitz, Straffo...you think it is better to let the nuke detonate and kill millions?

It is a really simple question...why are you avoiding it?

[straffo]

Again you are changing the perimeter of the discution...

Now make a final choice : restrict or expand the context.

look at the link posted above

The FBI has anonymously leaked to the press the belief inside the bureau that torture may be an option. But Lewis Schiliro, former New York bureau director, warns of problems with torture.
“If anybody had the ability to prevent the events of Sept. 11… they would have gone to whatever length…The problem becomes, where do we draw that line?” he tells Wallace.