[Manedwolf]

>> AP Poll: Most Say Torture OK in Rare Cases

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 24 minutes ago

"Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling."...

"In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions."
--------------------------------

The old warning...when you fight monsters, take care, lest you become a monster yourself.

If we do what THEY do, even just at times...how, in the end, can we claim to be better than them? And how can we tell other nations not to torture captured US troops, if WE do it?

Good lord. What have we become...

[1 old 0311]

Counting me? Make that 62%:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Kevin

[GunnySkox]

Of the opinion that the barbaric butchers who blow up busloads of kids and crash planes into towers full of innocent businessmen and women aren't human beings, but rather just clever animals who've figured out how to work AKs, RPGs, and explosive devices pretty effectively.

Which is satisfying in a visceral, Old Testament sort of way, but still wrong.

~GnSx

[ArmedBear]

>> AP Poll: Most Say Torture OK in Rare Cases

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 24 minutes ago

"Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling."...

"In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions."


Good lord. What have we become...

A tad more realistic, perhaps?:confused:

BTW the word "suspects" is a bit misleading. It's a standard newspaper term but it's misused in the above sentence. I doubt a majority of people advocates torturing "suspects", as opposed to actual terrorists caught red-handed with information that could save the innocent.

[Tequila_Sauer]

For fiction, I usually prefer a good Tom Clancy novel over skewed polls.

The Times did polls in San Francisco and Manhattan that revealed that 97 percent of Americans want state sponsored healthcare and more funding for social programs.

.........meh, I still prefer Tom Clancy.

[Carl N. Brown]

Polls. I would like to see the lead-in material to the question,
and the question actually asked, rather than the question
reported as something like Do you justify torture of terrorism
suspects under rare circumstances?

Polls are often geared more toward affecting public opinion
than reflecting public opinion.

[Manedwolf]

A tad more realistic, perhaps?:confused:

BTW the word "suspects" is a bit misleading. It's a standard newspaper term but it's misused in the above sentence. I doubt a majority of people advocates torturing "suspects", as opposed to actual terrorists caught red-handed with information that could save the innocent.


Some would say that it's better to die honorably than to save your own life dishonorably. You don't take a seat in a lifeboat before all the children have been saved, and you pass the injured people out the window of a burning building before climbing out, yourself.

And even if you're at risk from a plot, you don't lower yourself to the level of torturing.

I consider torture dishonorable. And I think that that sentiment can apply to an entire society, as well.

And for the Christian sorts, well, "what would Jesus say about torture?" And also, "If you said torture was okay, and even ONE innocent person who had the wrong name or was in the wrong place was tortured...can you say that's not on your soul?" Seriously.

[Justin]

Hey, if Jack Bauer would do it, it must be right!

[ArmedBear]

Some would say that it's better to die honorably than to save your own life dishonorably.

I consider torture dishonorable. And I think that that sentiment can apply to an entire society, as well.

So the passengers on a plane on 9/11 manage to overpower the terrorists. The pilots land the plane at the next runway. The FBI runs aboard the plane.

They want to know what the terrorists' targets are. They beat the living crap out of the terrorists to get the information. One talks; the other two die of trauma.

The World Trade Center is evacuated. Fighter escorts force the other planes to land. They have to shoot one down. A few hundred people are killed, rather than a few thousand.

Do you really think that it would have been more "honorable" to read the terrorists their Miranda rights and let thousands of innocent people die?

Do you think you have any right to tell the people in the WTC that they have to give their lives so that YOU can sit on your ass in rural New England and feel "honorable"?

Sorry, but I don't believe that you have that right.

[Baba Louie]

It depends on HOW the question was asked/worded and then HOW the news people decide to slant their take on the poll.
Define torture. Is it sleep deprivation? Not letting someone go to the toilet? Not letting them pray 5 times a day? Bamboo splinters under the fingernails?

Give us a link to the article with the poll questions if available.

What have we become? To quote Pogo (old comic strip for the youngsters) "We have met the enemy, and he is us"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_re_us/torture_ap_poll_6

(edited to add link to AP article)

[The Real Hawkeye]

Of the opinion that the barbaric butchers who blow up busloads of kids and crash planes into towers full of innocent businessmen and women aren't human beings, but rather just clever animals who've figured out how to work AKs, RPGs, and explosive devices pretty effectively.

Which is satisfying in a visceral, Old Testament sort of way, but still wrong.

~GnSxOk, Gunnyskox, I suspect that you are a terrorist. Off you go to Egypt for a series of near drowning sessions under interrogation. When not being near drowned, you will spend your time in a small upright coffin which is just a little too short to fully stand up in, and just a little too narrow to fully sit down in. Even if you give us a list of names of other terrorists, the torture won't stop, because you are suspected of terrorism, and terrorists are low down scum, and you might just be holding out on us. Forget about a chance to disprove our evidence against you. Terrorists don't deserve a chance at that. And forget about a lawyer, or the presumption of innocence, or the right to face your accuser. Terrorists don't deserve that. Oh, you protest that you are not a terrorist? Well tell it to your interrogators. No judge will ever hear your protests. Is that the America that you were taught to love?

[Manedwolf]

They want to know what the terrorists' targets are. They beat the living crap out of the terrorists to get the information. One talks; the other two die of trauma.


I don't know if you've seen the reports or not. Beating up on an actual terrorist caught in the middle of an act of terrorism isn't quite the "torture" as is being used.

Waterboarding, electric shock, humiliation, sexual, homosexual humiliation of sorts I won't go into here, leaving people lying in their own filth...

I'm talking about methods you'd expect more out of the Viet Cong, but they're in OUR book. They're methods WE are using. And how is that okay?

And how can we tell other nations not to do it to our troops, if captured? Doesn't that put THEM in more danger?

[Kramer Krazy]

<Applauding to ArmedBear's post>

[GoRon]

Good lord. What have we become...

If you think that we as a people and nation have treated our enemies better in the past than we do now, I think you have a unrealistic view of the past.

We just didn't air our dirty laundry in public in the past.

That was before the feminization and emasculation of a good percentage of the men in this country.

[ArmedBear]

I don't know if you've seen the reports or not. Beating up on an actual terrorist isn't quite the "torture" as is being used.

Waterboarding, electric shock, humiliation, sexual humiliation of sorts I won't go into here, leaving people lying in their own filth...

I'm talking about methods you'd expect more out of the Viet Cong, but they're in OUR book. They're methods WE are using. And how is that okay?

That's not the question at hand, and never was, wolf.

I quote from your original post: "justified at least in rare instances."

Standard operating procedure and "justified at least in rare instances" are completely different. The poll did not ask whether torture should be the SOP for handling suspects, at least as you posted it.

I named a rare instance that is entirely plausible; a similar situation may yet happen. Do you, or do you not believe that, in such a rare instance, our society should be "honorable" so you can feel good up there in New Hampshire?

[Manedwolf]

Oh, you protest that you are not a terrorist? Well tell it to your interrogators. No judge will ever hear your protests. Is that the America that you were taught to love?

That, too. No matter how heinous the crime, it's still the America I grew up in that gives due process and a fair trial, not secret prisons and torture.

It says...or said, now, "Look at us, we are the shining example, we are BETTER than you scum, because we give a fair trial to the accused, we stand for freedom and justice."

Now we say "well, we need to be 'realistic', and it's a 'different kind of war', so we're going to use the same methods you scum do."

That just lowers us.

[Joejojoba111]

So the passengers on a plane on 9/11 manage to overpower the terrorists. The pilots land the plane at the next runway. The FBI runs aboard the plane.

They want to know what the terrorists' targets are. They beat the living crap out of the terrorists to get the information. One talks; the other two die of trauma.

The World Trade Center is evacuated. Fighter escorts force the other planes to land. They have to shoot one down. A few hundred people are killed, rather than a few thousand.

Do you really think that it would have been more "honorable" to read the terrorists their Miranda rights and let thousands of innocent people die?

Do you think you have any right to tell the people in the WTC that they have to give their lives so that YOU can sit on your ass in rural New England and feel "honorable"?

Sorry, but I don't believe that you have that right.


LOL. Or how about this: The FBI is tipped off by several credible leads, and picks the terrorists up with plenty of time to spare before they can launch their attack. But they don't really give a darn about what happens, they don't even bother to investigate the guys, and they let them go and do their deed after denying agent's requests to monitor these highly suspicious individuals who are obviously up to something.

Then after 9/11 the FBI and other agencies start pretending that they couldn't stop the terrorists because they need police-state powers to protect us. And 62% of people agree.

[ArmedBear]

If you think that we as a people and nation have treated our enemies better in the past than we do now, I think you have a unrealistic view of the past.

We just didn't air our dirty laundry in public in the past.


Or maybe we did. But we were a lot happier about the fact that we WON the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (both brutal torturers) than we were sad about some of what we had to do to their spies. If we'd have lost, our "honor" wouldn't have been worth diddly.

Life isn't always conveniently simple.

[Alex45ACP]

Torture is great, as long as it's only happening to "terrorists".

But when your neighbors start disappearing in the middle of the night, you'll be singing a different tune.

[The Real Hawkeye]

LOL. Or how about this: The FBI is tipped off by several credible leads, and picks the terrorists up with plenty of time to spare before they can launch their attack. But they don't really give a darn about what happens, they don't even bother to investigate the guys, and they let them go and do their deed after denying agent's requests to monitor these highly suspicious individuals who are obviously up to something.

Then after 9/11 the FBI and other agencies start pretending that they couldn't stop the terrorists because they need police-state powers to protect us. And 62% of people agree.+1

[Manedwolf]

I named a rare instance that is entirely plausible; a similar situation may yet happen. Do you, or do you not believe that, in such a rare instance, our society should be "honorable" so you can feel good up there in New Hampshire?

What does the fact that I've actually given my location and you've kept your hidden have to do with anything?

Last I checked, it was the United States of America, and I travel all over it.

[ArmedBear]

LOL. Or how about this: The FBI is tipped off by several credible leads, and picks the terrorists up with plenty of time to spare before they can launch their attack. But they don't really give a darn about what happens, they don't even bother to investigate the guys, and they let them go and do their deed after denying agent's requests to monitor these highly suspicious individuals who are obviously up to something.

Then after 9/11 the FBI and other agencies start pretending that they couldn't stop the terrorists because they need police-state powers to protect us. And 62% of people agree.

What you posted (a great and concise point) bothers me a LOT more than whether we might use torture in "some extreme, rare instance".

[ArmedBear]

What does the fact that I've actually given my location and you've kept your hidden have to do with anything?

Last I checked, it was the United States of America, and I travel all over it.

Still not answering a simple question.

San Diego, CA; never intended to "hide" it.

[Baba Louie]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002668089_webpollabout06.html?syndication=rss

About the U.S. results

By The Associated Press

The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on attitudes about torture is based on telephone interviews with 1,001 randomly selected adults in the United States. The interviews were conducted Nov. 15-17 by Ipsos, an international polling firm.

The results were weighted to represent the population by demographic factors such as age, sex, region and education.

No more than one time in 20 should chance variations in the sample cause the results to vary by more than 3 percentage points from the answers that would be obtained if everyone in the United States was questioned.

This margin of sampling error is larger for responses of subgroups. There are other sources of potential error in polls, including the wording and order of questions. Response totals that are less than 1 percent are marked by X. Totals may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding.

The questions and results:

1. Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain information about terrorist activities can...

—Often be justified, 11 percent

—Sometimes be justified, 27 percent

—Rarely be justified, 23 percent

—Never be justified, 36 percent

—Not sure, 3 percent

strong> 2. Would you support or oppose allowing the United States to secretly interrogate known terrorists in the U.S. in order to gain information about terrorist activities?.

—Support, 63 percent

—Oppose, 32 percent

—Not sure, 5 percent

Note that only 38% said torture can either be "Often" or "Sometimes" justified in question #1
Note the 63% response does not use the word torture in question #2

Yet no one defines exactly what torture is. Doesn't it all hinge and depend on what your definition of "Is" is? Or "Torture" in this case?

[Tequila_Sauer]

It's quite typical in charged issues like this to examine both ends from the most extreme of angles. All of the anti's are screaming how we're violating rights by yanking innocent people from their homes and sticking knives through their hands, and the pro's are screaming that we're saving thousands of lives. Are both true? Yes, are both extreme? Of course.

The answer, to me, is somewhere in the middle. Should we make absolutely sure that, before we school some scum bag, the person we're doing this to is, on some level, guilty of something? Sure.

But I definitely think we need to be tougher on some of these people when we want answers. It's no incentive to prisoners to talk when the worst we have for them is "You're just going to have to sit in your cell even MORE than you were before."

[The Real Hawkeye]

That, too. No matter how heinous the crime, it's still the America I grew up in that gives due process and a fair trial, not secret prisons and torture.

It says...or said, now, "Look at us, we are the shining example, we are BETTER than you scum, because we give a fair trial to the accused, we stand for freedom and justice."

Now we say "well, we need to be 'realistic', and it's a 'different kind of war', so we're going to use the same methods you scum do."

That just lowers us.I'm not sure, but it seems like you are disagreeing with my point, but then agreeing with it. Are you sure you understand that I am one of those opposed to torture? I thought I was pretty clear.

[Tequila_Sauer]

I must also add that I disagree with the notion that we've become the enemy if we torture a suspect.

Some psychological and physical beatings don't make us Bosnian warlords, I don't care how you feel about it.

[ArmedBear]

It's quite typical in charged issues like this to examine both ends from the most extreme of angles. All of the anti's are screaming how we're violating rights by yanking innocent people from their homes and sticking knives through their hands, and the pro's are screaming that we're saving thousands of lives. Are both true? Yes, are both extreme? Of course.

The answer, to me, is somewhere in the middle. Should we make absolutely sure that, before we school some scum bag, the person we're doing this to is, on some level, guilty of something? Sure.

But I definitely think we need to be tougher on some of these people when we want answers. It's no incentive to prisoners to talk when the worst we have for them is "You're just going to have to sit in your cell even MORE than you were before."

Exactly.

The original post was deceptively extreme, too.

38% of respondents said "Often or sometimes."

36% said "Never."

26% said "Rarely or not sure."

Those results are not "what have we become?" numbers. Only 11% of respondents said "often."

Furthermore, even "waterboarding" is not the same method that Al Qaeda uses.

[Manedwolf]

I'm not sure, but it seems like you are disagreeing with my point, but then agreeing with it. Are you sure you understand that I am one of those opposed to torture? I thought I was pretty clear.

I was agreeing with you.

[ArmedBear]

One more thing...

Freedom and justice don't mean a hill of horsecrap if we're a smoldering heap of radioactive rubble. Survival DOES matter, in the real world. This ain't some mythological novel, and dead people are really dead.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Torturing bona fide terrorists doesn't bother me at all. The moment you choose to kill countles innocents is the moment you give up any expectation of good will from society.

There's a bit of a challenge in distinguishing between bona fide terrorists and mere suspects. But supposing the distinction is made correctly, I'd torture away and sleep well that night.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Torturing bona fide terrorists doesn't bother me at all. The moment you choose to kill countles innocents is the moment you give up any expectation of good will from society.

There's a bit of a challenge in distinguishing between bona fide terrorists and mere suspects. But supposing the distinction is made correctly, I'd torture away and sleep well that night.Naturally, anyone known and proven to be a terrorist deserves an eternity of torture. My concern is with the torturing of suspects before they ever reach a trial, let alone a hearing before a judge or even a consult with a lawyer. Remember, as far as the government is concerned, the label for someone believed to be a terrorist, but who has yet to be tried and convicted, is a suspect. Anyone can be a suspect. That's why we have the right to a lawyer, facing your accuser, trial by jury of you peers. Because virtually anyone can be thought to be a terrorist by the government. That includes you and your mother. How we treat those suspected by our government of crimes is one of the fundamental distinctions between us and the bad guys. Or, at least it was until recently.

[Finch]

In regards to whether or not torturing makes us like the enemy, doesn't the motive have something to do with it. If they torture to ends lives and we torture to save them, I hardly see how that makes us comparable to our enemies.

[ArmedBear]

Naturally, anyone known and proven to be a terrorist deserves an eternity of torture. My concern is with the torturing of suspects before their crimes ever reach a trial, let alone a hearing before a judge or even a consult with a lawyer. Remember, as far as the government is concerned, the label for someone believed to be a terrorist, but who has yet to be tried and convicted, is a suspect. Anyone can be a suspect. That's why we have the right to a lawyer, facing your accuser, trial by jury of you peers. Because virtually anyone can be thought to be a terrorist by the government. That includes you and your mother. How we treat those suspected by our governmetn of crimes is one of the fundamental distinctions between us and the bad guys. Or, at least it was until recently.

Agreed, totally.

The only thing I disagreed with here was the notion that we are morally obligated to forbid torture as an option in every single situation.

Note that Manedwolf has never responded to my questions; he has merely tried to change the subject.

The subject was NOT secret prisons, routine torture, etc., which I oppose.

It was whether torture in some rare instance will make us no better than the enemy.

[The Real Hawkeye]

In regards to whether or not torturing makes us like the enemy, doesn't the motive have something to do with it. If they torture to ends lives and we torture to save them, I hardly see how that makes us comparable to our enemies.Finch, you make me very sad my friend.

[Tequila_Sauer]

The problem I have with our policies on foreign enemies is that they rely on our soft handedness when they do things. They know how burdened we are by lawyers and paperwork. It bothers me, because, and I'm sorry to say this, there people in this world that do NOT respond to the things you say to them. Sitting down and reasoning gives them nothing more than a target that won't fire back.

Look at Srebrenica. The UN sent people in to speak with them, they sent them back in parts. I don't want the US to, necessarily, flop right over to the other side and start imprisoning a suspect's family to get him to talk. However, I would prefer more toughness in our handling of prisoners.

[rick_reno]

I support it - but only if they put it on Pay for View TV.

[Waitone]

Idiotic discussion.

Defining torture is the first step in debating its advisability.

[ArmedBear]

Idiotic discussion.

Defining torture is the first step in debating its advisability.

Playing Christina Aguilera when someone can't leave the area is definitely torture.:D

[The Real Hawkeye]

Agreed, totally.

The only thing I disagreed with here was the notion that we are morally obligated to forbid torture as an option in every single situation.

Note that Manedwolf has never responded to my questions; he has merely tried to change the subject.

The subject was NOT secret prisons, routine torture, etc., which I oppose.

It was whether torture in some rare instance will make us no better than the enemy.ArmedBear, I think I know what situations you are thinking of. Remember the first Dirty Harry movie? Remember the college football stadium scene, when Inspector Callahan was "interrogating" the suspect? That's what you are talking about, right? This guy was clearly a guilty party, and Harry gave him all the consideration he deserved in questioning him on the whereabouts of the little girl. But we know the guys is guilty only because the makers of the movie allowed us to follow him around and see him do it on film. In the real world, governments tend to be sure someone is guilty, even when they don't really know for sure. That's why we have all the protections we have.

[ArmedBear]

ArmedBear, I think I know what situations you are thinking of. Remember the first Dirty Harry movie? Remember the college football stadium scene, when Inspector Callahan was "interrogating" the suspect? That's what you are talking about, right? This guy was clearly a guilty party, and Harry gave him all the consideration he deserved in questioning him on the whereabouts of the little girl. But we know the guys is guilty only because the makers of the movie allowed us to follow him around and see him do it on film. In the real world, governments tend to be sure someone is guilty, even when they don't really know for sure. That's why we have all the protections we have.

Agreed, also. In the scenario I described, there was also no question of guilt.

Such incidents do happen in the real world, though rarely. While a terrorist attack is or is very likely to be in progress, the rules are different, just like it's justifiable to shoot someone who has broken into my living room, but only while he is there and poses a threat. Once he's gone, and I see him at the liquor store, it's murder if I shoot him.

The poll did not ask all the stuff that has been read into it, though. It's a lousy poll.

I just don't think that the question "What have we become?" is justified by people having mixed feelings about whether and when torture might be necessary to save lives -- which is all the results showed.

Addendum-- There is also a difference, in my mind, between "tying the hands" of law enforcement officers, which I fully support, and "tying the hands" of our military, which I generally don't. War and law enforcement are different. And yes, the corollary question of what exactly the "war on terror" really is, is appropriate, but beyond the scope of this text.:)

[Lupinus]

to me it depends on the situation and just what we are calling "torture"

If you beat a confession out of a guy to get him to confess to a crime, absoloutly not. But if say you catch some scumbag who you know for a fact knows where some little girl he kidnapped is hidden and if he doesn't talk she will die from dehydration? My friend give me a knife some thin strips of metal and some pliars and I will have her location in under ten minutes, same goes if a terrorist has information that will keep oh say a nuclear bomb from going off at a football game....but then agian I have been called a sick sadistic nut in the past.

Basicly if it means peoples lives will be saved at the cost of some pain to some scumbag or terrorist I am not agiasnt torture at all. I am however agianst it for purposes of confessions for prosecution and things of that nature.

Then there is understanding just what torture is. I don't consider "truth juice" sodium penthonal or however it is spelled torture and would cover most situations just fine. Neither do I consider blairing of music they hate, making them sleep on the floor, etc torture. Maybe I just am willing to allow a lot of things if it means innocent peoples lives are spared for the discomfort of a scumbag or a terrorist.

Now the problem is just what defining the right time on a large scale to use it effectivly is hard to do and regulate. It does leave the door open for abuse if you allow just any common cop or private to beat some guy half to death for information. Just how to prevent abuses from happening is tricky and I will admit I don't quite have an answer on how to keep it from being abused once that door is open.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Agreed, also. In the scenario I described, there was also no question of guilt.According to whom?Such incidents do happen in the real world, though rarely. While a terrorist attack is or is very likely to be in progress, the rules are different, just like it's justifiable to shoot someone who has broken into my living room, but only while he is there and poses a threat. Once he's gone, and I see him at the liquor store, it's murder if I shoot him.Yes, you may shoot someone to stop them from committing murder. That is not the same as the government torturing suspects, and if the government is absolutely sure that you are a terrorist, but you have yet to have a trial, the word for that is suspect.

[Camp David]

I have no right to tell those fighting the War on Terror how to win it. If these soldiers need to torture the enemy, fine... just let me know when the war is won.

Those objecting to torture of terrorists, please remind yourself how it feels to be an innocent civilian sitting in an airplane seat while it crashes into World Trade Center and you know it.

[Gordon Fink]

I’m surprised the pro-torture numbers aren’t higher—but be careful what you wish for. Someday, the NRA will probably be declared a “terrorist organization.” What will that make people like us?

~G. Fink

[The Real Hawkeye]

I’m surprised the pro-torture numbers aren’t higher—but be careful what you wish for. Someday, the NRA will probably be declared a “terrorist organization.” What will that make people like us?

~G. Fink+1

[Lupinus]

Someday, the NRA will probably be declared a “terrorist organization.” What will that make people like us?
A bunch of pissed off terrorists with a lot of guns brains ammo and the ability to hit a quarter at over a hundred yards :neener:

....ok I'm not sure I can but I'm sure at least a few of us could lol

[The Real Hawkeye]

I have no right to tell those fighting the War on Terror how to win it. If these soldiers need to torture the enemy, fine... just let me know when the war is won.

Those objecting to torture of terrorists, please remind yourself how it feels to be an innocent civilian sitting in an airplane seat while it crashes into World Trade Center and you know it.You'd have to be a committed pacifist to oppose torturing terrorists. I'd personally torture a terrorist just for the fun of it. The issue is whether we should be allowing our government to torture us when they are highly confident that we are terrorists. Before you decide on any new power to give to the government, first apply it to yourself in a mental experiment, and only then decide.

[Iain]

Those objecting to torture of terrorists, please remind yourself how it feels to be an innocent civilian sitting in an airplane seat while it crashes into World Trade Center and you know it.

I like how you use the word terrorist in there. I thought the great question here was about whether or not we are certain, and how we can be certain, that those that get tortured are terrorists. Of course they confess under torture, I'd probably confess to shooting Abraham Lincoln if subjected to hours of Britney (who is, by the way, far worse than Christina).

Imagine yourself the innocent guy having his fingernails being pulled out. That's no more emotive a request than yours.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Let's set aside, for the moment, the question of how to know whether or not somebody really is a terrorist.

Hypothetically, let's say that we have a guy who really, truly is a terrorist. Would it be wrong to torture him to save innocent lives? Would it be wrong to torture him even if there aren't any lives to save?

[ArmedBear]

According to whom?Yes, you may shoot someone to stop them from committing murder. That is not the same as the government torturing suspects, and if the government is absolutely sure that you are a terrorist, but you have yet to have a trial, the word for that is suspect.

Why is someone caught in a terrorist act any different from someone caught while robbing a bank, with information about hostages inside?

[nfl1990]

Ok, Gunnyskox, I suspect that you are a terrorist. Off you go to Egypt for a series of near drowning sessions under interrogation. When not being near drowned, you will spend your time in a small upright coffin which is just a little too short to fully stand up in, and just a little too narrow to fully sit down in. Even if you give us a list of names of other terrorists, the torture won't stop, because you are suspected of terrorism, and terrorists are low down scum, and you might just be holding out on us. Forget about a chance to disprove our evidence against you. Terrorists don't deserve a chance at that. And forget about a lawyer, or the presumption of innocence, or the right to face your accuser. Terrorists don't deserve that. Oh, you protest that you are not a terrorist? Well tell it to your interrogators. No judge will ever hear your protests. Is that the America that you were taught to love?

I highly doubt that the guy shooting his Ak, or RPG at you, or attempting to detonate a vest filled with C4 that is strapped to his chest is innocent, but I guess ya never know huh.

[nfl1990]

Why is someone caught in a terrorist act any different from someone caught while robbing a bank, with information about hostages inside?

Well woundn't both technically be terrorists, just that that wasn't the primary goal of the bank robber, just a side-effect.

[ArmedBear]

I highly doubt that the guy shooting his Ak, or RPG at you, or attempting to detonate a vest filled with C4 that is strapped to his chest is innocent, but I guess ya never know huh.

Exactly. Due Process does not apply to people who are actively trying to kill you in war or in civilian law enforcement.

There is a HUGE difference between torture as a procedure used on criminal suspects and "torture" used as a heat-of-battle tactic.

Iain is correct, otherwise. I oppose using the word "terrorist" to describe just anyone. And I'm not sure whether Britney or Christina is worse, as I try to avoid both.

[Camp David]

Imagine yourself the innocent guy having his fingernails being pulled out...No... you imagine yourself sitting in an aircraft slamming into the World Trade Center! My example is real; yours is ficticious! Remember that!

[The Real Hawkeye]

Why is someone caught in a terrorist act any different from someone caught while robbing a bank, with information about hostages inside?It's who's saying they caught you red handed that's the issue. If you, Joe citizen, catch someone red handed and torture them into telling you the combo a the safe they've locked the bank clerk in with the time bomb, then you will have to prove to our criminal justice system that you acted reasonably under the circumstances. The situation of the government catching someone red handed is different. They are not subject to the criminal justice system. They are the system. The system must presume innocence until a jury determines guilt. This is a necessary safeguard against tyranny, even if it means some innocent people might die. Better that than live in the Soviet Union of the United States of America. Those are the options we face.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I highly doubt that the guy shooting his Ak, or RPG at you, or attempting to detonate a vest filled with C4 that is strapped to his chest is innocent, but I guess ya never know huh.What you describe, first of all, are NOT terrorist acts. They are acts of war or acts of attempted murder, depending on the circumstance. You have every right to shoot to kill. Governments should not be allowed to torture anyone, no matter how much I'd personally like to torture some people. I fear what our government would become, released from the chains of the Constitution, more than ANY terrorist. You should too.

[ArmedBear]

It's who's saying they caught you red handed that's the issue. If you, Joe citizen, catch someone red handed and torture them into telling you the combo a the safe they've locked the bank clerk in with the time bomb, then you will have to prove to our criminal justice system that you acted reasonably under the circumstances. The situation of the government catching someone red handed is different. They are not subject to the criminal justice system. They are the system. The system must presume innocence until a jury determines guilt. This is a necessary safeguard against tyranny, even if it means some innocent people might die. Better that than live in the Soviet Union of the United States of America. Those are the options we face.

Actually, the government oversteps its legal boundaries all the time, and judges and juries decide that after the fact. I wish it were not so, but again, that's reality, not a dream world.

Due process is not guaranteed to anyone "caught in the act." People are shot by the police when they pose a threat every day. And the police are subject to punishment if they misuse their power.

I would like a better system. But I still fail to understand why a terrorist, during an attack, deserves to be treated differently from a bank robber, during a robbery.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Actually, the government oversteps its legal boundaries all the time, and judges and juries decide that after the fact. I wish it were not so, but again, that's reality, not a dream world.

Due process is not guaranteed to anyone "caught in the act." People are shot by the police when they pose a threat every day. And the police are subject to punishment if they misuse their power.

I would like a better system. But I still fail to understand why a terrorist, during an attack, deserves to be treated differently from a bank robber, during a robbery.You are confusing policemen acting as citizens with government policy. Very different things. Cops, when they act outside of policy, are judged by the criminal justice system based on the reasonableness of their actions, just like you and I. If, on the other hand, the policy of the Police Department was to torture suspects in certain situations, then they'd be acting as an agency of government, i.e., as the system itself. These things must be kept very distinct.

[Gunpacker]

Uh, we can expect them to torture American troops or civilians regardless. Also kill them on camera. They are not from a warring nation that they can be identified with. They aspire to kill millions of our citizens. Torture them, extract all the info we can get and then do what should be done with murderers that do not wear a uniform- Kill them-unless they give us useful info. Don't have any? Soorryyyyy. The muslim world can't hate us any more than they do, and we are not breaking any international agreement that we are signatory to. We need to use every means to protect ourselves. Let the country that they represent step forward and demand that we treat their soldiers properly. Then we can treat prisoners properly and bomb the hell out of their country.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Uh, we can expect them to torture American troops or civilians regardless. Also kill them on camera. They are not from a warring nation that they can be identified with. They aspire to kill millions of our citizens. Torture them, extract all the info we can get and then do what should be done with murderers that do not wear a uniform- Kill them. The muslim world can't hate us any more than they do, and we are not breaking any international agreement that we are signatory to.Yes, but the problem is, who are they?

[444]

Just a couple comments, sort of related to the topic:
It seems to me that in the years since the Korean conflict, we have had great difficulty in fighting wars or what have been called wars. Whether it be the so called war on drugs, the war on terrorism, or police actions like the one in Vietnam. In all these cases, we were not fighting a conventional military with uniformed soldiers who were playing by the same rules as we are. We have a set of rules and they don't. Because we have not been willing to do what it takes to win in these situations, we have not been able to accomplish our mission completely.
To me, we may have played by a set of rules, and if this is honorable to you, great. That in itself would be a victory to you, I suppose. However, the mission wasn't accomplished completely and to me, this isn't victory.

Along the same line, we look at these issues through our own eyes and presume that the eyes of our enemies see the same thing as we do. This is a problem. An example of this that is totally unrelated to this discussion: I have a good friend who escaped across the iron curtin. He served in the US Army back in the 1950s. He mentioned that during his time in the US Army, he got the lecture about shooting to wound rather than to kill so that it would tie up a number of enemy soldiers who would be helping their wounded comrade. He said that he got a good laugh out of this. He couldn't make the Americans understand that the Russians wouldn't tie up anyone by helping the wounded. They don't value life like we do. If you were wounded, that was tough crap and they just left you there. BUT, the Americans were unable to look at the situation through the eyes of their enemy. They blindly insisted on basing their decisions on American values and American SOPs. They don't care about your honor, or your values. They run the game by their rules, they look at our actions through their eyes and base their opinions on their values.

[NineseveN]

One more thing...

Freedom and justice don't mean a hill of horsecrap if we're a smoldering heap of radioactive rubble. Survival DOES matter, in the real world. This ain't some mythological novel, and dead people are really dead.

+1

[Iain]

No... you imagine yourself sitting in an aircraft slamming into the World Trade Center! My example is real; yours is ficticious! Remember that!

You genuinely think that mine is fictitious? I don't think so.

[Baba Louie]

Is it torture of a terrorist who wants to die for his cause/religion whatever, if you only take him there halfway, albeit somewhat painfully, in your attempt to gather useful information from him to help your side of the conflict, knowing full well that he'd have zero qualms about taking over a high school full of kids and blowing them and their ilk to smithereens, ala Russian scenario of a while back?

What have we become? Perhaps it's time to go back to the good old, yet horrible, days of promising the native americans peace on one hand while we lie, cheat them out of their lands (show me your property deed please), and commit genocide on our way to become the superpower we are today... or maybe like we interred 120,000 Japanese/American citizens, taking their homes and business' for the duration of the war...

I mean, it worked then... :rolleyes:

Or maybe we can just sit around and wait until Iran does develop their own nuclear powered device or two and see what our next Democratic (and probably female) President decides to do about it...

Could be interesting

[Lupinus]

Is it torture of a terrorist who wants to die for his cause/religion whatever, if you only take him there halfway, albeit somewhat painfully, in your attempt to gather useful information from him to help your side of the conflict, knowing full well that he'd have zero qualms about taking over a high school full of kids and blowing them and their ilk to smithereens, ala Russian scenario of a while back?
He may not be afriad to die, but tie him up on a table and let me go to the hardware store with 20 bucks and I assure you when I'm done with him he will be petrafied of me.

[doger5]

I forgot I quit caring. I'm just one of the powerless lemming.

[Baba Louie]

I believe in the ideals of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but no one is carrying them on.It's not in our .gov's best interest as they give too much power to the people and we can't have that, now can we? You've got to practice those ideals on an individual basis and always stand ready to protect you and yours from Terrorists AND Tyrants, be they of a religious nature, home made or foreign or elected to office.
Regarding the overall thread topic, if I and my gang of buddies, were to terrorize your family (or any other family) and you caught me in the act of doing some unspeakable deed to your daughter, mother or wife and you knew that my buddies who were not caught are planning to continue that practice...
What WOULD you do to me? Bill of Rights be damned at that moment. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Do the means justify the ends?
Should our .gov have that power?
When will they use it against me... or you?

Sticky Wicket, eh what?

[chas_martel]

For the second time in 24 hours I have clicked into a thread
where some seem to be lacking COMMON SENSE.

I think some people are confused because they don't realize we are
at war, this is not a police action. And the next step is that it
will be fought on our street corners.

Comparing the torture of vermin that are hell bent on destroying our collective
way of life to a Dirty Harry movie is STUPID!

Use common sense. Police beating street thugs is wrong, storm troopers
beating Muslim vermin is OK.

Flame me! But most people, even if afraid to admit it, will agree with me.

[Berek]

Ok, for many years now, I've wondered why we (UN nations) are bound by the rules of war (Geneva Convention, Hague Accord, etc.) when these terrorists and their sponsers run free through the wild weapons patch without hesitation.

Lets look at some of this:
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971) (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/civilav.htm) means that no one can put the safety of civilian aircraft in danger. What does that sound like?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Written at the U.N. in 1948 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unrights.htm) which states in Article 5: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Now, Iran & Iraq became members of the UN in 1945, Afghanistan in 1946 and Kuwait in 1963. As such, we were all bound to follow these rules. Iraq decided they were above these rules and began to torture POWs regardless of their nationality. Somalia joined the UN in 1960. Should I even mention the Black Hawk incident?

I don't understand why these nations can do what they do and we are the ones persecuted if one of our troopers take a situation a little too personal and spits on a prisoner.

If everyone wants to preach equal rights and equal treatment, all aspects should go both ways. If we follow these accords regarding the treatment of prisoners and what weapons to use, they should do the same. If they fail to follow the accord, we should be able to use the same tactics.

Eye for an eye or I'm taking my ball and going home! :neener:

[nfl1990]

For the second time in 24 hours I have clicked into a thread
where some seem to be lacking COMMON SENSE.

I think some people are confused because they don't realize we are
at war, this is not a police action. And the next step is that it
will be fought on our street corners.

Comparing the torture of vermin that are hell bent on destroying our collective
way of life to a Dirty Harry movie is STUPID!

Use common sense. Police beating street thugs is wrong, storm troopers
beating Muslim vermin is OK.

Flame me! But most people, even if afraid to admit it, will agree with me.

You bring out an interesting point that this is a milatary rather than a police action.

[GunnySkox]

Ok, Gunnyskox, I suspect that you are a terrorist...

*Strong Bad* Oh-ho-ho, look who thinks he's Clever Dan. */Strong Bad*

I think you missed the boat when I pushed it out to sea in my post, Hawkeye. Let me point you in the direction of its last line:

"Which is satisfying in a visceral, Old Testament sort of way, but still wrong."

BUT STILL WRONG. By which I imply that TORTURING PEOPLE IS WRONG even though the thought of putting ones barbaric enemies through horrendous torture is satisfying in a low, base, animalistic sort of way.

Try living up to your name next time you decide to chew someone out for no reason, eh?

~GnSx

[The Real Hawkeye]

Because we have not been willing to do what it takes to win in these situations, we have not been able to accomplish our mission completely.Well, the problem with many of our uses of our military since WWII is that they have been fought to secure the ends of the UN, and not actually to win. In Korea, we fought to secure a certain line between north and south. Had we actually been at war with North Korea, we'd have annihilated them in a few days. Same for Vietnam. Again, there, we were not fighting for victory. Any soldier who actually pursued victory there would have been court martialed. We were pursuing internationalist goals, rather than the goal of victory against our enemy. Remember, victory in war means the utter destruction of the enemy, at least to the point where they surrender, but more traditionally to the point of utter destruction, and then you either take the territory, or you leave them to deal with the smoldering mess as best they can. That's real war. Korea and Vietnam were not real wars, even if there was lots of heroism and excellent soldiering in them by American troops.

[RomanKnight]

Today, it's the Muslim vermin overseas. Tomorrow, we'll torture the Muslim Arabs in our country. Then, we'll torture all terrorists. Especially the fanatical, right-wing gun-toting extremists. Guns equal terror! You have guns? Off you go!

[TheLastBoyScout]

Count me with the 61%. Hell count me with the 11% who say its often acceptable.

Reciprocity is a bitch. If the hajji's captured me, I know I'd be wishing I was only subject to what the CIA considers "torture"; so I've got no sympathy at all for them.

Cold water is not torture. Sleep deprivation is not torture. Crappy music is not torture. Humiliation is not torture. Decapitation with a dull knife on the other hand...

[The Real Hawkeye]

*Strong Bad* Oh-ho-ho, look who thinks he's Clever Dan. */Strong Bad*

I think you missed the boat when I pushed it out to sea in my post, Hawkeye. Let me point you in the direction of its last line:

"Which is satisfying in a visceral, Old Testament sort of way, but still wrong."

BUT STILL WRONG. By which I imply that TORTURING PEOPLE IS WRONG even though the thought of putting ones barbaric enemies through horrendous torture is satisfying in a low, base, animalistic sort of way.

Try living up to your name next time you decide to chew someone out for no reason, eh?

~GnSxRather than go back and look, I'll just take your word for it. As they say in the ghetto, my bad.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Today, it's the Muslim vermin overseas. Tomorrow, we'll torture the Muslim Arabs in our country. Then, we'll torture all terrorists. Especially the fanatical, right-wing gun-toting extremists. Guns equal terror! You have guns? Off you go!+1

[Berek]

Crappy music is not torture.

I don't know, man... have you ever heard Yoko Ono sing??? :D

[GunnySkox]

Rather than go back and look, I'll just take your word for it. As they say in the ghetto, my bad.

No worries, it's all.. um.. good. Home... fries.

:D

~GnSx
Ray: "That was a nice entrance."
Me: "Yeah, well, I am the coolest person I know."

[CAnnoneer]

Frankly, I see little practicality in all this.

If you torture somebody, only three things can happen:
1) He does not give a crap, so you get nothing
2) He breaks and tells you anything and everything he can make up, true and false, but you never know which is which, so you get nothing again.
3) He genuinely knows nothing, so you keep torturing him for no benefit, and yes, you still get nothing.

So, what's the point?

+1 444

But, the real problem we are having in policy is not about torture or civil rights limiting options. It is the inability of politicians to take hard steps against legitimate targets, especially when there is even a hint of possible collateral damage. That is what makes the playing field uneven.

And no, invading Iraq is not a hard step (I was against it, btw).

A hard step is to obliterate the entire societies that breed our mortal enemies with no end in sight (I am for it).

But, what we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a bunch of tender flowers in pants, that are more worried about polls and reelection than about what the situation requires.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If you torture somebody, only three things can happen:
1) He does not give a crap, so you get nothing
2) He breaks and tells you anything and everything he can make up, true and false, but you never know which is which, so you get nothing again.
3) He genuinely knows nothing, so you keep torturing him for no benefit, and yes, you still get nothing.
Interesting how you ignore the obvious 4th possibility, namely that he gives up the information he knows and innocent lives are saved.

As long as you know he's a terrorist, I have no qualms about torturing him. The real problem is how to know who is and who isn't a terrorist. 'Cause you better not torture someone who isn't really a terrorist.

[mindpilot]

Well at least we can sell this thread to Islamist gone Wild!!! :D

[CAnnoneer]

Interesting how you ignore the obvious 4th possibility, namely that he gives up the information he knows and innocent lives are saved.


That is covered under Option 2. Therein the practicality problem.

[Lupinus]

No it isn't can.

You are neglecting the fact that there is a difference between someone skileld in torture methods and group of guys beating away at someone. A skilled torture WILL get whatever they want out of you. A skilled torturer WILL keep you alive and not kill you but they will inflict the worst pain imaginable on you both mentally and physically. Oh yeah and they know pretty well when you are are lying. When you know torture you also know what you have felt is nothing compared to what you will feal if you just laid out a bunch of BS. Suicide bombers are nto afraid of dieing, but the things a torturer can do will make them cry for mommy. And if you still don't get something? You have one man involved who was punished enough to almost cover the others involved who are now dead. I shed no tear if a terrorist dies a slow painful death because doing it increased your chances of getting the needed information.

I am not for torturing Americans to get confesions to crimes. I am not for a rabid goverment declaring anyone it doesn't like a terrorist organization. I could care less if you put a terrorist who means to kill as many Americans as possible in a room with one or two trained torturers to extract information which stops a terrorist attack.

[MrTuffPaws]

No it isn't can.
I am not for torturing Americans to get confesions to crimes. I am not for a rabid goverment declaring anyone it doesn't like a terrorist organization. I could care less if you put a terrorist who means to kill as many Americans as possible in a room with one or two trained torturers to extract information which stops a terrorist attack.

Uh, but we are shipping Americans overseas for torture. Do you really think being an American is going to save your butt if the government deems you a terrorist?

[Old Dog]

Once again arriving late to an interesting thread ... So, let me get this straight -- RomanKnight is equating our methods of getting information from our enemies with ... eventual use of the same methods in the antis struggle against the pro-RKBA folks in this country?
Originally Posted by RomanKnight
Today, it's the Muslim vermin overseas. Tomorrow, we'll torture the Muslim Arabs in our country. Then, we'll torture all terrorists. Especially the fanatical, right-wing gun-toting extremists. Guns equal terror! You have guns? Off you go!Hoo, boy ...

I'm quite certain there's no one who's posted on this thread that has actually had to deal with some of the Islamic extremists who have sworn to eradicate as many Americans as possible and our way of life -- who have no compunction about killing as many innocent men, women and children as it takes ... That's the difference between them and us.

Get back to me with your touchy-feeling thoughts re torture after you've had a bit of experience with these folks.

[Lupinus]

As I said in an earlier post there is a problem of goverment abuse, but is that any different then anything? Any different then now even?

[Old Dog]

Government will always act like a government, in that there will always be people in the government abusing their authority -- it's the nature of governments. Government is still a better alternative than anarchy. There will always be, however, honorable men in government, and it is up to them to to stop, or at least minimize, the abuses of power.

Torture is a useful tool in war, which means as long as there's war, there will be torture. As you and others have stated, torture should never be used to obtain confessions or information from those suspected of committing crimes. Pragmatically speaking, though, there are often no alternatives for gathering intelligence from a known enemy in the effort to save lives on our side.

(BTW, Lupinus -- "than," rather than "then.")

[Justin]

I can't help but note that Camp David, who so adamantly and vociferously called for the banning of videogames because they cause players to become thugs in search of a bit of the ultra-violence is now, just as adamantly, vociferously calling for the United States of America to torture people.


Talk about your industrial-strength irony.

[RomanKnight]

There are no touchy feelings. I don't worry about <enemies>. I worry about a .gov, especially a fed.gov, having the power to declare anybody, including American citizens, a "terrorist", for whom customary rights and protections do not apply. This is the slippery slope: once spiralling downwards, there's no turning back. Today, we -or the fed.gov- want to torture Muslim terrorists. Tomorrow, they'll call some other people/race/religion terrorists. Next week, they'll start talking -wait, they've been doing that since OKC in 95- about domestic terrorists, and how to protect us from them. Think of Hillary &the Brady bunch jumping on the bandwagon, and calling all civilian gun owners terrorists. Guns are terror. You own guns, you become a terrorist in the eyes of a .gov with the power to torture you. It's not that big of a stretch, and it's been done in other totalitarian dictatorships. It's much more difficult to keep a .gov from abusing its powers, than to preven it from aquiring those powers in the first place. US history is a perfect example of how a .gov intended to be very limited and restraint has grown into a monster who regulates everyone and everything. BTW, ragheads don't have an absolute monopoly on "having no compunction about killing as many innocent men, women and children as it takes".

[Standing Wolf]

Land wars in Asia rarely bring out the best in us.

[Lupinus]

Land wars in Asia rarely bring out the best in us.
War brings out the best in some, and the worst in many

[ArmedBear]

There are a few issues here...

1. It's important to define what "torture" means. Everyone has a different notion, especially since some self-serving people made political hay over it last year, and defined "torture" as being somewhat the wrong temperature and listening to bad music. (Sounds like the weight room where I work out.)

2. We must remember that military tactics are not the same as civilian law enforcement procedures. If the Marines storm a street with grenade launchers and assault rifles, after mortar fire has "softened it up", and with snipers ready to pick off anyone who sticks his head out, that's war, and most of us support the Marines' need to employ these tactics. If the cops do that, however, it's time for all of us to take up arms and be ready to die trying to resist. There IS a difference. Same goes for "torture", depending on how it's defined.

3. Islamofascist terrorists ARE a special case. They're not the same as your everyday dirtbags who rob liquor stores in St. Louis.

4. I agree 95% with the anti-torture people. But I don't want our nation to be hamstrung by the word "never." The law of unintended consequences is a brutal master!

For a far more complete and interesting discussion than anything I can offer, see http://instapundit.com/archives/020262.php

It's from the anti-torture perspective, BTW, and doesn't necessarily support my opinions.

[chas_martel]

One message I am hearing on this thread is the fear that some of us
normal American folk could end up being tortured because of an
outgrowth of the gov torturing terroist in our current campaign
against terror.

Let me pose a thought for you. Might it be acceptable to utilize
torture today and yet it still be wrong for the gov to torture normal
gun owning Americans in the future?

[Art Eatman]

"Might it be acceptable to utilize torture today and yet it still be wrong for the gov to torture normal gun owning Americans in the future?"

That doesn't strike me as much of a thought.

"normal gun owning Americans" are not avowed enemies of all non-gun-owning Americans, normal or abnormal. We're not at all discussing normal people in this issue of torture. Normal as defined in western nations, anyway.

The people of concern are those who are willing to persuade others to strap on bombs or themselves strap on bombs and kill US. You , me, whomever--and they're quite vocal about it. There's no doubt about who they are nor what are their intentions.

Art

[Hkmp5sd]

...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/Hkmp5sd/1_sure_thing.jpg

[Camp David]

I can't help but note that Camp David, who so adamantly and vociferously called for the banning of videogames because they cause players to become thugs in search of a bit of the ultra-violence is now, just as adamantly, vociferously calling for the United States of America to torture people.


Talk about your industrial-strength irony.

No irony... none at all... wars are to be avoided at all costs; yet when they can't be avoided and full justification exists, they should be fought to be won with all due diligence. This is not at all related to unncecessary violence, such as video games, which have no justification whatsoever... I don't expect you to understand until you grow up....

[roo_ster]

I am not some sort of teary-eyed populist, who thinks that "the people" are all wise and infallible, but the majority of Americans can ID bullhockey when they see it.

And they see the whiny types defining "torture" as anything more aggressive than a sweet talkin' by an interrogator and know that the whiny types are full of bullhockey.

But they also see that, in the public debate, that most the MSM is using the whiners' definition. Torture's new definition is becoming equivalent to interrogation with a purpose. So, when asked if "torture" is OK, folks respond, "You betcha."

[Firethorn]

But they also see that, in the public debate, that most the MSM is using the whiners' definition. Torture's new definition is becoming equivalent to interrogation with a purpose. So, when asked if "torture" is OK, folks respond, "You betcha."

Chalk me up as a vote between "rarely" and "occasionally", depending on my mood and what news I've heard recently. Both because of the watering down of the definition of torture/mistreatment(YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO HOUSE THE SUSPECTS IN A FOUR STAR HOTEL EQUIVALENT). When the suspected terrorists have better shelter, food, and medical care when a prisoner, what incentive do they have to talk? Some might because we're being nice, but most won't. Also, I can think of several scenarios where I'd support torture. Most involve WMD or hostages. You're not after a confession, you're after immediate intelligence. If it doesn't hold up after checking it out, you go and work on him some more.

Of course, I'm reminded of a discussion we had on this a while back. I believe that my position was that, to keep it rare and to be used only during the toughest scenarios, it would have to be decided upon by a commanding officer, who, if he authorizes it, looks at a BEST CASE of being forced to resign, after saving multiple lives, etc. Worst case: Prison for life. He has to make the call.

[Cousin Mike]

Just my $0.02:

As for polling, I personally almost never pay attention to polls, whoever or wherever they may come from. I think polls are pretty unreliable. Just my opinion, a poll or survey of any kind will pretty much give whatever results the poller is looking for if they ask the right people. If I want a pro-torture result, I can safely bet I'd get one in middle or "red-state" America. If I want an anti-torture result, I'll go ask a bunch of hippies and liberals what they think on the subject. It's also my humble opinion that very few of these writers are actually looking for accurate results that reflect American opinions on the subject as a whole.

My opinion on weather torture is okay? It's been expressed by quite a few who've posted already on both sides, so there ain't much for me to say unless I wanna write a book on the subject. If we get someone like Al-Zarqawi in custody, someone we know for a fact has a ton of information that could save American lives - then let the inquisition begin :D

Then again, can we really trust the government to know when enough is enough? I think there is some validity to the theory that if we give them the power to do this, it could turn around and bite us in the arse. There would have to be a very clear, precise legal scope for who could be tortured and under what circumstances. But once again, can we trust government to know when enough is enough? I don't know if I have that much faith in the people who would be making those decisions.

[jsalcedo]

Saddam used meat grinders, male/ female/child rape, electro shock, mutilation, acid drip chambers etc... to get information from supposed enemies.

Do we really want to go down the same road?

Sleep deprivation, drugs, psychological methods don't equate to torture in my book however, who is going to write the interrogation rules?


Americans need to keep to the high road no matter what the cost.

[jbear6]

>> AP Poll: Most Say Torture OK in Rare Cases

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 24 minutes ago

"Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling."...

"In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions."
--------------------------------

The old warning...when you fight monsters, take care, lest you become a monster yourself.

If we do what THEY do, even just at times...how, in the end, can we claim to be better than them? And how can we tell other nations not to torture captured US troops, if WE do it?

Good lord. What have we become...

Since of government has been caught paying reporters to express their point of view both here and abroad, how can you believe anything the news media spits out. If it's okay for us to torture, it's okay for them to do it to us. You shoot at me, I shoot back, you torture me, I torture back. I'm not saying I don't condone torture, but how can you fault your enemy for doing the same as you? War is hell.

Jbear6

[Mongo the Mutterer]

I'll tell you what I DON'T want to do. I don't want to leave any tactics on the table. Whether we use them or not is irrelevant to me.

The bad guys should know that if provoked we will use anything in our power including NUKES to not only pay them back ... but pay them back with interest.

I don't want us to be liked, I want us to be FEARED! Fear and Greed rules the world. Fear is good.

All appeasement does is buy more pain. And appeasing our internal enemies is as bad as appeasing are external ones. Probably worse.

[Preacherman]

I think that the Golden Rule (which, by the way, is universal to all major religions in the world, and is not the exclusive property of Christianity) is a sure guide in situations like this.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This clarifies the situation wonderfully. Would I accept this particular action if it were used against Americans by our opponents? If so - I can use it against them. If I think it's immoral, or illegal, or criminal, for others to use it against Americans, then I have no moral right whatsoever to use it against them.

It really is a case of living up to our own standards. If we claim to have a better system of government, or a more moral/ethical rule of law, than our enemies, then we must live up to what we proudly proclaim to be "better". If we don't, we make a mockery of that which we proudly seek to propagate elsewhere.

Interrogation techniques have often been "hard" or "tough" without resorting to torture. These can be used without moral consequences, IMHO. However, the moment we use techniques (torture, drug-induced interrogation, etc.) that we would not be willing to see our own police and/or security forces use against Americans (much less others use against us), then we've crossed a moral and ethical line that I don't believe is justifiable.

That's my take on the situation.

[RaggedClaws]

Hear, hear, Preacherman!

[Camp David]

I think that the Golden Rule (which, by the way, is universal to all major religions in the world, and is not the exclusive property of Christianity) is a sure guide in situations like this. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."...

Preacherman: Thank you for your post; your citation of the "Golden Rule" philosophy is a guiding principle for all good men to follow and it is one in which I try to live my life...Unfortunately, we are not at war now with good men. Instead, we are at war with terrorists who have no scruples and no ethical or moral guideposts. These terrorists use every weapon at their disposal to kill, the latest being using their women as human bombs to kill our people.

In the course of fighting these terrorists, it may be necessary to use torture on them to obtain information to save the lives of our people. To save lives.

While I believe the use of such torture should be reserved for dire situations, its use should not be ruled out or denied... I posted earlier that I had no right to tell our soldiers how to win the war... I firmly believe that... I only ask that they do win the war. Whatever they need to do to win is their business, not mine and not ours. Theirs.

[Preacherman]

Camp David, sorry, but - with the greatest respect - that's a cop-out. Our soldiers are trained, paid, equipped and deployed with the taxes we pay. They represent our country, and what we stand for, in their actions while deployed. They act in our name to execute the policy of our nation. Therefore, we can't stand back and say:

Whatever they need to do to win is their business, not mine and not ours. Theirs.

Their business IS our business, and vice versa.

I maintain that the Golden Rule is the only universally valid moral and ethical code that we can follow here. If I would accept it being done to me, or another US citizen, by our own police and security forces, then it's OK for our forces to use it against others. If I would regard it as illegal and/or immoral to use a particular tactic or technique against me, then that makes it unacceptable for use against others.

Ethics and morals are either universally applicable, or selectively applicable. If they're universal, they bind everyone, all the time. If they're selective, who gets to choose when, where and to whom they are applied? We're all at risk from selective morality, and therefore I reject it.

[Camp David]

Their business IS our business, and vice versa.. No... you misunderstand the role of a soldier... soldiers are trained to win wars, not accept Monday Morning quarterbacking from back on the home front. Personally I wish we would leave them alone and let them fight the wars they are trained to win and stop critiquing their methods. "Their business" is to win; how they do that is their business, not mine...

Ethics and morals are either universally applicable, or selectively applicable. If they're universal, they bind everyone, all the time... If this were true, the terrorists would play by the rules. They don't. Nor should we, if we plan to win.

When the War on Terror was initiated, President Bush was right to point out that this would be a new type of war... with an enemy not previously encountered. An enemy that would use any tactic to win. In order to fight a terrorist, we need to become terrorists in our methods. This is not pleasant stuff. We have no business telling our soldiers how to win.

Those that presume to speak for the soldiers fighting this war are just fooling themselves; taking the pompous high road and saying that we'll fight with our morals and our principles may, in fact, doom our effort. War has one universal truth: There are no rules. Winners find that out. That is why war is to be avoided at all costs. But if it can't be avoided, fight the war to win. And ignore the naysayers on the home front who like to Monday Morning Quarterback the soldiers!

[Preacherman]

Again, Camp David, I'm sorry to disagree, but I believe you're completely wrong on this.

Think about this. You're brought up as an American, believing in our system of laws, rights, values, etc. You enter our armed forces, voluntarily, to defend your country and what you believe in. You're then told to act in a way that completely ignores all those laws, rights and values in which you believe, and are furthermore told that this is justified because those upon whom you're inflicting torture are "not us" - that makes it OK.

Sorry, but this is a moral disconnect that's simply impossible. What's to stop that serviceman coming back and doing the same things to other Americans? After all, we've taught him that it's OK under certain circumstances - so what's to prevent him redefining the circumstances, to decide for himself when it's OK and when it's not?

If something is wrong, it's universally wrong - otherwise it's not "wrong" as such, but dependent upon circumstances. The same goes for something that's "right". If it's not a universal condition, it can't form part of a moral or ethical code of conduct, as no law or rule of behavior can be made conditional upon it. To say that torture is OK under certain circumstances, or against certain individuals, begs the question of precisely who defines the circumstances or selects the individuals, and what criteria are used in the definition and/or selection. If someone can designate a given circumstance or individual today, someone else can designate a different circumstance or individual tomorrow, and all pretence at a rule of law or a Constitutional mandate is lost - there is no longer an absolute authority. (And note that this completely ignores questions of religious morality - that's a whole other field, which is too explosive for this thread and this forum.)

We cannot claim to be a moral and/or ethical society if we make morality and/or ethics subject to circumstances. They either apply universally, or they're not moral or ethical standards at all - just opinions.

Oh, by the way -

you misunderstand the role of a soldier... soldiers are trained to win wars, not accept Monday Morning quarterbacking from back on the home front.

I served for four years in another country's armed forces, and saw combat on a number of occasions. I also underwent officer's training, and understand from both the "grunt" and leadership perspectives exactly what is "the role of a soldier". Soldiers are not only trained to win wars, but to do so under a system of military discipline that embodies the Constitutional approach of their country. Once they depart from this framework, they become "loose cannons", and end up doing far more damage to their own country and society than they do to the enemy.

[NineseveN]

I think that the Golden Rule (which, by the way, is universal to all major religions in the world, and is not the exclusive property of Christianity) is a sure guide in situations like this.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This clarifies the situation wonderfully. Would I accept this particular action if it were used against Americans by our opponents? If so - I can use it against them. If I think it's immoral, or illegal, or criminal, for others to use it against Americans, then I have no moral right whatsoever to use it against them.

It really is a case of living up to our own standards. If we claim to have a better system of government, or a more moral/ethical rule of law, than our enemies, then we must live up to what we proudly proclaim to be "better". If we don't, we make a mockery of that which we proudly seek to propagate elsewhere.

Interrogation techniques have often been "hard" or "tough" without resorting to torture. These can be used without moral consequences, IMHO. However, the moment we use techniques (torture, drug-induced interrogation, etc.) that we would not be willing to see our own police and/or security forces use against Americans (much less others use against us), then we've crossed a moral and ethical line that I don't believe is justifiable.

That's my take on the situation.

I would not want to be a passenger on a civilian commercial airplane and have it used as a guided missile to be slammed into a building, killing thousands. I will not advocate this being done to our enemies...hey, what's that on CNN? Oh my god, they just flew a plane into...

...uh, well okay, I wouldn't want my head cut off, so I won't advocate doing it to fanatics. Oh wait, they just cut some guy's head off!...um, was that how it was supposed to work?

Okay, I wouldn't use chemical or biological weapons on anyone, that must be a horrid thing to experience, so I will not advocate using them on our enemy...oh wait, a Marine post just got slammed with Sarin gas...um, gee, I guess this is how it's supposed to work.

I wouldn't want children used in the war to fire on enemy soldiers, or use children as mules for bombs to kill men guarding check points and bases...hey, wait a minute, the enemy is doing just that...what is this "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" supposed to be getting me anyway?



Preacherman, I love ya, you're someone I can respect, but this is way off. I wouldn't have Muslim extremists kill me, so we shouldn't kill them...wait a minute...

You get the point. This is where the gloves come off. You kill, you drive them and crush their spirit, you give them pain, you bring them hell, you don't win a war with a clean uniform on...it's time to get dirty. When your enemy doesn't play by the rules, he's obviously the only one that really wants to win. The only fair fight is the one you lose.

[Preacherman]

Again, NineseveN, you miss my point. The point is not that we do unto others what they're doing to us - rather, we do to them what we would accept as lawful, ethical and moral on the part of others. If someone tries to hijack a plane I'm on, I'll do my best to stop him, even by killing him if necessary, but I won't turn around and hijack a plane from his home country, on the basis of revenge. If someone uses poison gas against my comrades, I'll do my best to stop him, and kill him if necessary: but I won't use poison gas against him.

I've seen at first hand what happens when a police force and an army abandon the rule of law, and take up terrorist tactics against terrorists. This was in South Africa during the 1980's and 1990's. We had police kidnapping civilians off the street, interrogating them (including the use of torture) for any information they might have, then killing them so that they couldn't report the torture. We had military patrols firing indiscriminately at gathered crowds because someone in the crowd had shot at them. They very seldom shot the gunman, but all too often killed many people who had nothing to do with the shooter, and who weren't even aware that he was going to shoot.

To quote another ancient maxim: "Two wrongs don't make one right". If our enemies do what is wrong, or evil, or immoral, or unethical, this does not serve as an excuse for us to do the same things to them. We're either moral beings, or we're not. If we are (and our Constitution and laws certainly assert such values), we're bound to observe them, and there is no excuse for abandoning these standards. If we're not, then we can't expect the protection of the Constitution and laws in our own country. It really is that simple.

Yes, this puts us at a disadvantage when dealing with an unscrupulous and determined enemy - but that's been true in other wars, too, and will always be true for so long as we maintain our Republic and all the things for which it stands. Furthermore, whenever we've found our soldiers committing such acts, historically, we've brought them to trial and punished the guilty. Sure, many guilty parties have escaped punishment through lack of evidence, or cover-ups by their superiors: but whenever evidence has been available, action has resulted. Long may this continue! It proves, at least, that we take our Constitution and laws seriously.

[Camp David]

Think about this. You're brought up as an American, believing in our system of laws, rights, values, etc. You enter our armed forces, voluntarily, to defend your country and what you believe in. You're then told to act in a way that completely ignores all those laws, rights and values in which you believe, and are furthermore told that this is justified because those upon whom you're inflicting torture are "not us" - that makes it OK...

I did think about it... I also thought about it on 09/11/01... What kind of animals would crash planes into civilian targets I thought? What kind of animals would strap explosives onto women and target weddings in Jordan? The answer is terrorists, who are devoid of the morals, ethics, and rules which you are telling me that our soldiers need to abide.

You are handicapping the soldiers to play by rules the enemy is free to abandon. You are saying that the men we train to fight our war need to do so with strict rules which the enemy does not recognize.

Under normal circumstanstances, Preacherman, you and I would be in complete agreement on this point. Past wars mandated complete belief in our system of laws, rights, values, etc. that you mention by all combatants. Not this time, however, as I am cognizant of the threat terrorism is to this nation. We are involved in a fight with an enemy which recognizes no such values; which offers no quarter.

As a Christian I try to embody my belief and look to others to do the same. However, I look to soldiers to fight and win wars.

As far as what soldiers might do when they return to our society, I am confident that most if not all will exhibit the professionalism that they are trained with. We can expect nothing less, nor should we.

[NineseveN]

Again, NineseveN, you miss my point. The point is not that we do unto others what they're doing to us - rather, we do to them what we would accept as lawful, ethical and moral on the part of others.

And where do you find the moral ground to justify Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Where do you find the Moral ground for “shock and awe”?

Where do you find the moral ground in say, killing anyone in a preemptive strike on the assumption that they may come after you?


War is not moral, it never was and it never will be. It may have honor, but it is not moral, and religious figures have been struggling with that since the day they put their noses into things that they shouldn’t have such as wear and politics.

War and morality have nothing to do with each other. We refrain from using certain weapons and tactics because we agreed to with other civilized nations, because they agreed also to not use them. The civilized world did not just all one day decide on its own that the moral thing to do was to use FMJ instead of JHP. It’s an agreement, to mitigate damage, loss and suffering should a war occur between two civilized nations. Tow gentleman shake hands and have a fair fight. Well, we missed the handshake this time around, and we got sucker punched…and now the enemy is kicking at our genitals and his gloves are filled with lead.

If we were fighting England right now, I would be totally with you…provided they kept their end of the agreement.

Maybe it’s because I’m an agnostic and my conscience doesn’t have to wrestle with much more than what I think is acceptable given a certain circumstance. In better circumstances, with a more honorable enemy, I’d agree. With these vermin, whatever it takes.

[Ian]

Anyone want to talk pragmatism? You know, how torture is ok if it saves some civilian lives? Well, let's see. How many people have terrorists killed worldwide in the history of the planet? A few thousand, perhaps? Let's be generous, and say a million people.

Now how about governments willing to use "terrorist tactics"? They've murdered at least 170 million innocent civilians in the last 105 years alone.

Terrorists are small potatoes. Peanuts. Negligible. Not worth worrying about - especially compared to the historic consequences of letting a government loose with the authority to abduct, torture, and murder.

[robertbank]

I don't recall anyone suggsting you limit your troops when it comes to fighting.

What is clear is that once your enemy is captured the fight is over. You are now into something else. If you condone torture of another human being you are now better than those you profess to distain.

What was your reaction when the Canadian officer was hand-cuffed to a poll outside a NATO targeted area in Bosnia. Did it strengthen your resolve to end the fighting their or did you weaken? I suggest that for most of us our will was strengthened. When the British airmen were tortured in Iraq 1 or when Saddam used children as hostages did you feel we should stop the war or was your will strengthened to carry on and get it over with.

If we react that way what do you suppose our enemies reaction is to pictures of their people being tortured? Or do you care? I am not sure what value physical torture brings to the table. I'll let people who are experts in the field of interogation respond to that question but I suspect what you get from physical torture is less than applying other techniques.

Torture of captured warriors is wrong, period. The fact that this issue is being openly debated is a sad reflection of where we are today IMHO.

Stay Safe

[NineseveN]

If you condone torture of another human being you are no better than those you profess to distain.

I don't think in terms of being better than someone else or not, so I am fine with the accusation of my character for professing such beliefs. I did not advocate torture for fun, I do advocate using ANY means necessary to win this conflict, period.

[antarti]

In regards to whether or not torturing makes us like the enemy, doesn't the motive have something to do with it. If they torture to ends lives and we torture to save them, I hardly see how that makes us comparable to our enemies.

DOH! You do realize Stalin and Hitler (and even Pol Pot) never had the thought enter their mind that they were "killing" anybody... They were "creating" or "building" a great civilization, an uber-Utopia, out of "New Soviet Men", "Aryans", or "Simple Pure Agrarians". You can add Che and Castro to that list, and Chairman Mao as well. All good guys, you see, who cared deeply about making life better and "more fair and equal" for "their" people.

Fear those people most who want to improve your condition, despite what you might want for yourself and family! Fear them doubly when they are the law and the government.

we need to define torture

I completely and vehemently disagree. For the purpose of discussion, it's one thing, for the purpose of law it's going to be quite another. Whether it will be called "light discomfort", "torture", "open-faced knuckle sandwiches" or even "theraputic back massage" in law, it will mean as much as "sporting purpose" or, better yet "shall not be infringed" (which is pretty damned clear to 99% of the population, except within the confines of the 2A).

To say this is a slippery slope is like comparing a spring-powered BB Pistol to the Paris Gun.

The people we're talking about under the broad umbrella "terrorists" can largely be encompassed under the heading "saboteurs", "spies", and "enemy combatants", all of which have legal definitions and exceeding strict guidelines for punishment befitting them. Catching one of these folks red-handed gives anybody all the force they need to deal with the situation, within the current structure of law.

What possible good can come of creating even 1 more piece of federal legislation, regardless of subject? None. Applied to THIS subject, the prospects of a good result aren't just dismal, they are completely unexpected even as a side effect.

When the cold war was on, I didn't consider myself as "having grown up in the Soviet Union", these days I'm not so sure that the Commies didn't win it outright.

[ArmedBear]

I don't think in terms of being better than someone else or not, so I am fine with the accusation of my character for professing such beliefs. I did not advocate torture for fun, I do advocate using ANY means necessary to win this conflict, period.

Really? You wouldn't prefer death to the vapid moral condemnation of people on an Internet bulletin board? What have you become?:p

[ArmedBear]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This clarifies the situation wonderfully.


I wish I could see how.

If I were an Islamofascist terrorist, I'd just as soon have American troops not spray me with bullets, even if I AM aiming an RPG at a school full of Iraqi children.

Of course, I wouldn't be a terrorist, because I try to follow the Golden Rule.

Obviously, those who actually ARE terrorists don't. And we have to do things to them that completely violate this rule. Okay, we don't have to, but as the son of people who grew up under Hitler's rule, I have this to say to absolute pacifists: thanks for nothing!

So, as far as I can tell, this puts us back at square one. The Golden Rule, while it can act a guide, doesn't make everything that much easier, or particularly clear, in military matters. You have to split hairs and force it to fit.

Would I want to be bayonetted under any circumstances? NO! Do we think that it is wrong for a soldier to bayonet an enemy actively trying to kill him? Not as far as I can tell.

C.S. Lewis deals with this pretty well. And Lewis is anything but simple.

[Tequila_Sauer]

I must say I also object to the title of this thread.

"Torture is okay"? I'm not sure that's what is implied in the poll. It reminds me of the way the news reports things with misleading titles like that.

It's like when somebody asks me if I'm "Pro-war." NOBODY is "pro-war", regardless of whether or not they think we should be engaged in this current war.

[ArmedBear]

I must say I also object to the title of this thread.

"Torture is okay"? I'm not sure that's what is implied in the poll. It reminds me of the way the news reports things with misleading titles like that.

It's like when somebody asks me if I'm "Pro-war." NOBODY is "pro-war", regardless of whether or not they think we should be engaged in this current war.

See my post farther above, where my first point is: define "torture."

I have a friend who used to be in MI. He won't tell me much, but he tells me this: people like Manedwolf are REALLY naive. He says they didn't actually torture anyone, but they have ways of making them talk. Rough ways, mind-bending ways, etc.

The moonbats have robbed the word "torture" of its real meaning by tossing it around too loosely in their mindless attacks on the Bush administration. It turns out they've created a backlash and simply confused the issue further. People predicted this outcome well over a year ago.

BTW note that everyone from Congress who went to visit Guantanamo came back with a different attitude about it. After they went, we stopped hearing about Guantanamo in their speeches. Either that meant that they found that we WEREN'T actually torturing people, or they found themselves scared spitless of the inmates they saw down there. One way or another, I don't think any of US has any really good information to share.

[jefnvk]

I didn't bother to read all of the responses.

IMHO, torture is not necessairialy right, but it is somewhat acceptable.

Going off CNN's definition of torture, which seems to be something like keeping the temperature a degree off what the prisoner wants, or not providing all the reading material that the prisoner wants, I say go ahead, torture away.

[robertbank]

"I don't think in terms of being better than someone else or not, so I am fine with the accusation of my character for professing such beliefs. I did not advocate torture for fun, I do advocate using ANY means necessary to win this conflict," period."

Which speaks exactly to my point. I am not at all sure torturing your combatants on either side brings matters to an end quicker, in fact I would suggest all it does is strengthen the resolve of your enemies and in the case we speak of, provides a poster issue for the recruitment of more foes. Works in our society so why do you suppose it does not work for the muslim extremists. A picture of a US marine or a Canadian Infantryman obviously a victim of torture would bring an end to any talk of ending the war on terror quicker than anything else I can think of.

Stay Safe

[NineseveN]

"I don't think in terms of being better than someone else or not, so I am fine with the accusation of my character for professing such beliefs. I did not advocate torture for fun, I do advocate using ANY means necessary to win this conflict," period."

Which speaks exactly to my point. I am not at all sure torturing your combatants on either side brings matters to an end quicker, in fact I would suggest all it does is strengthen the resolve of your enemies and in the case we speak of, provides a poster issue for the recruitment of more foes. Works in our society so why do you suppose it does not work for the muslim extremists. A picture of a US marine or a Canadian Infantryman obviously a victim of torture would bring an end to any talk of ending the war on terror quicker than anything else I can think of.

Stay Safe

We don't publicize ours, and torture, or what the liberals would call it anyway, is a useful tool in gathering intelligence. The WoT won't end with talks, we aren't fighting a country here, there will be no negotiations. You comments hold true in the sense of a tradtitional war, but I wish some folks would come to realize this is not a traditional war and a new set of tactics, objectives and rules need to be enacted.

[NineseveN]

Really? You wouldn't prefer death to the vapid moral condemnation of people on an Internet bulletin board? What have you become?:p

Well, some say I'm not all that friendly, wonder if that has anything to do with it? :scrutiny:

[AZ Jeff]

Today, it's the Muslim vermin overseas. Tomorrow, we'll torture the Muslim Arabs in our country. Then, we'll torture all terrorists. Especially the fanatical, right-wing gun-toting extremists. Guns equal terror! You have guns? Off you go!
Why do so many of you seem to have trouble distinguishing between actions carried out by US Gov. personnel OVERSEAS and in ARMED CONFLICT against ENEMY COMBATANTS and actions carried out by law enforcement INSIDE THE US against LEGAL OCCUPANTS (citizens & legal foreign visitors)?

There is a HUGE difference. The B.O.R. NEVER was meant to apply to enemy combatants. Quit trying to apply it.

[NineseveN]

Why do so many of you seem to have trouble distinguishing between actions carried out by US Gov. personnel OVERSEAS and in ARMED CONFLICT against ENEMY COMBATANTS and actions carried out by law enforcement INSIDE THE US against LEGAL OCCUPANTS (citizens & legal foreign visitors)?

There is a HUGE difference. The B.O.R. NEVER was meant to apply to enemy combatants. Quit trying to apply it.

:D

[ArmedBear]

Why do so many of you seem to have trouble distinguishing between actions carried out by US Gov. personnel OVERSEAS and in ARMED CONFLICT against ENEMY COMBATANTS and actions carried out by law enforcement INSIDE THE US against LEGAL OCCUPANTS (citizens & legal foreign visitors)?

There is a HUGE difference. The B.O.R. NEVER was meant to apply to enemy combatants. Quit trying to apply it.

Really? We don't guarantee freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, protection from search and seizure, or the right to keep and bear arms, to our enemies in wartime?

What have we become?!?:p

[Werewolf]

I just waded through this entire thread and beside taking a deep breath when it ended two thoughts popped into my head:

The first was: Well there's an hour and a half of my life that I'll never get back.

The other derived from the frustration concerning the issue this thread is all about: I thought :cuss: it... just kill 'em all and let GOD sort it out!

But then I remembered that it's been reported of late that GOD has become quite annoyed with the sorting process (see link) (http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/06/let_god_sort_them_out.html) and that one really shouldn't think like that. Don't know about you but GOD is one being I'd rather not have ANNOYED at me! :D

[goosegunner]

Historicaly things have gone wrong everythime someones enemy are untermench.

[RomanKnight]

Why do so many of you seem to have trouble distinguishing between actions carried out by US Gov. personnel OVERSEAS and in ARMED CONFLICT against ENEMY COMBATANTS and actions carried out by law enforcement INSIDE THE US against LEGAL OCCUPANTS (citizens & legal foreign visitors)?
There is a HUGE difference. The B.O.R. NEVER was meant to apply to enemy combatants. Quit trying to apply it.

'cause the same US gov, which controls both military and law enforement, domestic and foreign, has the power to declare anybody "enemy combatant". That's why. Any legal occupant/US citizen can be called such by .gov, then the God-given, US constitution-guaranteed rights no longer apply. Remember Pastor Niermoller's quote about Nazis? First, they went for the Jews, then for the Communists, then the Lutherans, and he never spoke up, since he was not one of them. Eventually, they came for him, and there was no one left to defend him. Those who do not learn from history, are condemned to repeat it -Santayana.

Preacherman, you hit the nail on the head.
There is strong pressure, from the White House and in Congress, to get rid of the Posse Comitatus Act. Wonder why?

[AZ Jeff]

'cause the same US gov, which controls both military and law enforement, domestic and foreign, has the power to declare anybody "enemy combatant". That's why. Any legal occupant/US citizen can be called such by .gov, then the God-given, US constitution-guaranteed rights no longer apply.

I don't buy that as very plausible, at least at this time. The Posse Comitatus act currently prevents that.

Now as far as the Justice Dept. holding persons for indefinite periods, and other similar WOT missteps, yes that's unacceptable.

But as far as US military personnel engaging US citizens (or legal visitors) on US soil, and treating them as enemy combatants, I don't see that happening until Posse Comitatus is suspended or overturned.

[NineseveN]

Remember Pastor Niermoller's quote about Nazis? First, they went for the Jews, then for the Communists, then the Lutherans, and he never spoke up, since he was not one of them. Eventually, they came for him, and there was no one left to defend him. Those who do not learn from history, are condemned to repeat it -Santayana.

Are you seriously equating the Muslim extremist terrorists with the Jews, Communists and Lutherans during Nazi Germany? Are you friggen kidding me? So we have to save the terrorists so that the government cannot come after us?

I understand your point, "don't give the government too much power as it can be used against us and not the enemy", but this quote is completely absurd in this context and does not apply.

I agree, I don't like the FedGov having too much power either, however; there are plenty of things that the military is legally authorized to do against enemy combatants that they could not do on US soil to US citizens. The FedGov can do a lot of those things, but the US Mil and the Federal agencies are not one in the same. I think you're confusing the Patriot Act with using torture in order to extract information.

[Hawkmoon]

Are you seriously equating the Muslim extremist terrorists with the Jews, Communists and Lutherans during Nazi Germany? Are you friggen kidding me? So we have to save the terrorists so that the government cannot come after us?
The problem is that, with the present administration, a "terrorist" is anyone they say is a terrorist. I guess I'm hoplessly mired in semantics, but I seem hamstrung by the ridiculous notion that in order to be a "combatant" (enemy or otherwise), one must be engaged in, you know ... combat. But our Government seems to take the attitude that they can just wave a magic wand, point to whomever they choose, and say "You're a terrorist."

That's wrong.

[Manedwolf]

Are you seriously equating the Muslim extremist terrorists with the Jews, Communists and Lutherans during Nazi Germany? Are you friggen kidding me? So we have to save the terrorists so that the government cannot come after us?

I understand your point, "don't give the government too much power as it can be used against us and not the enemy", but this quote is completely absurd in this context and does not apply.

I agree, I don't like the FedGov having too much power either, however; there are plenty of things that the military is legally authorized to do against enemy combatants that they could not do on US soil to US citizens. The FedGov can do a lot of those things, but the US Mil and the Federal agencies are not one in the same. I think you're confusing the Patriot Act with using torture in order to extract information.

One word. Waco.

[AZ Jeff]

One word. Waco.
And this example of yours has exactly WHAT to do with the US Military?

[Don Gwinn]

Just offhand, they provided armored vehicles and helicopters which were used to lay siege and attack the Davidians. Maybe that's the connection he's talking about.
Are you seriously equating the Muslim extremist terrorists with the Jews, Communists and Lutherans during Nazi Germany?
I understand your point, "don't give the government too much power as it can be used against us and not the enemy", but this quote is completely absurd in this context and does not apply.
Answered that one yourself, didn't you? He was not equating "the terrorists" with anyone at all. He's not talking about whether terrorists should be tortured; he's talking about whether anybody the U.S. government labels a terrorist should be tortured.

[ArmedBear]

Answered that one yourself, didn't you? He was not equating "the terrorists" with anyone at all. He's not talking about whether terrorists should be tortured; he's talking about whether anybody the U.S. government labels a terrorist should be tortured.

...which is a diversion from his original post, which cited a poll that showed that a majority of Americans could imagine a time when it would be okay to torture a terrorist, and condemned the nation for it.

The poll did not define "torture."

The poll did not define "terrorist."

The poll did not define the instances where it would be okay to "torture a terrorist."

All of these questions are interesting, and imporant, and I, personally, agree almost entirely with the anti-torture, libertarian posts here. But none of this addresses the issue actually raised by the poll or by this thread.

And I, too, can imagine a time when it would be justified. That's all. Nothing more. That's all the poll asked.

And we know damn well that a third or more of our country is pretty hard-core statist, so that shouldn't shock anyone.

[AZ Jeff]

The problem is that, with the present administration, a "terrorist" is anyone they say is a terrorist. I guess I'm hoplessly mired in semantics, but I seem hamstrung by the ridiculous notion that in order to be a "combatant" (enemy or otherwise), one must be engaged in, you know ... combat. But our Government seems to take the attitude that they can just wave a magic wand, point to whomever they choose, and say "You're a terrorist."

That's wrong.
I agree with you to a point. Persons inside the US (citizens and foreigners here legally) should be entitled to all the protections of the BOR. That means that the .gov should not be able to declare a person in those geographic domains a "terrorist", suspend the BOR, and torture him.

On the other hand, persons OUTSIDE the US, especially those in a COMBAT ZONE, should NOT be allowed these priveledges.

[The Real Hawkeye]

There are no touchy feelings. I don't worry about <enemies>. I worry about a .gov, especially a fed.gov, having the power to declare anybody, including American citizens, a "terrorist", for whom customary rights and protections do not apply. This is the slippery slope: once spiralling downwards, there's no turning back. Today, we -or the fed.gov- want to torture Muslim terrorists. Tomorrow, they'll call some other people/race/religion terrorists. Next week, they'll start talking -wait, they've been doing that since OKC in 95- about domestic terrorists, and how to protect us from them. Think of Hillary &the Brady bunch jumping on the bandwagon, and calling all civilian gun owners terrorists. Guns are terror. You own guns, you become a terrorist in the eyes of a .gov with the power to torture you. It's not that big of a stretch, and it's been done in other totalitarian dictatorships. It's much more difficult to keep a .gov from abusing its powers, than to preven it from aquiring those powers in the first place. US history is a perfect example of how a .gov intended to be very limited and restraint has grown into a monster who regulates everyone and everything. BTW, ragheads don't have an absolute monopoly on "having no compunction about killing as many innocent men, women and children as it takes".Roman, isn't it amazing how few people seem to share the values that Americans used to acquire in school and from their families? It's really frightening. You can see how something similar must have happened in Germany in the 1920s and '30s. I never thought it would happen here, though. Patriotism is now measured, in the view of many Americans, based on your level of support for the government having the power to declare certain individuals (i.e., those the government has labelled as terror suspects or enemy combatants) less than human, and therefore deserving less than human rights. Blows me away.

[NineseveN]

The problem is that, with the present administration, a "terrorist" is anyone they say is a terrorist. I guess I'm hoplessly mired in semantics, but I seem hamstrung by the ridiculous notion that in order to be a "combatant" (enemy or otherwise), one must be engaged in, you know ... combat. But our Government seems to take the attitude that they can just wave a magic wand, point to whomever they choose, and say "You're a terrorist."

That's wrong.

One has nothing to do with the other. Whether or not the US military should be able to torture foreign enemy combatants in order to extract intelligence and the fact that our government has the power and may abuse it into doing the same to United States Citizens are not related. You cannot force a rule or restrict something based on whether or not you fear that someone may abuse it. That is the exact same logic the anti’s use against us. They’re afraid of the criminals getting guns and misusing them to commit crime and hurt innocents so they feel justified in trying to take our guns away so that we don’t become criminals or so that criminals cannot get their guns from use and commit such crimes.

It is not impossible to hold the following opinions:

1. The US military should be able to engage in some techniques that others would label as torture against foreign enemy combatants in order to extract very important intelligence.

2. The US government should never, under any circumstance, engage in or be complacent with torture or any mechanism that may be construed as torture (read, cruel and unusual) against a United States citizen. All rights guaranteed in the US Constitution apply, even to citizens of this country that are accused of terrorism.

Though, I can honestly see a real legitimate reason for the current administration to want to keep suspected terrorists out of the courts. There are enough anti-American lawyers and even judges that might just want to give this country a slap in the mouth by allowing a suspected terrorists to go free, or establish some sort of case law that severely hinders the prosecution of all terrorists. And upon seeing that, the fence-sitting Johnny-Jihad’s already in this country may be emboldened and well, this time it might not only be a couple of thousand dead. This may or may not be one of the reasons the current administration is doing what they are doing, I don’t know and cannot claim to, but it’s why I feel better knowing these roaches will never see themselves on Court TV and the cover of Time magazine.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Again, Camp David, I'm sorry to disagree, but I believe you're completely wrong on this.

Think about this. You're brought up as an American, believing in our system of laws, rights, values, etc. You enter our armed forces, voluntarily, to defend your country and what you believe in. You're then told to act in a way that completely ignores all those laws, rights and values in which you believe, and are furthermore told that this is justified because those upon whom you're inflicting torture are "not us" - that makes it OK.

Sorry, but this is a moral disconnect that's simply impossible. What's to stop that serviceman coming back and doing the same things to other Americans? After all, we've taught him that it's OK under certain circumstances - so what's to prevent him redefining the circumstances, to decide for himself when it's OK and when it's not?

If something is wrong, it's universally wrong - otherwise it's not "wrong" as such, but dependent upon circumstances. The same goes for something that's "right". If it's not a universal condition, it can't form part of a moral or ethical code of conduct, as no law or rule of behavior can be made conditional upon it. To say that torture is OK under certain circumstances, or against certain individuals, begs the question of precisely who defines the circumstances or selects the individuals, and what criteria are used in the definition and/or selection. If someone can designate a given circumstance or individual today, someone else can designate a different circumstance or individual tomorrow, and all pretence at a rule of law or a Constitutional mandate is lost - there is no longer an absolute authority. (And note that this completely ignores questions of religious morality - that's a whole other field, which is too explosive for this thread and this forum.)

We cannot claim to be a moral and/or ethical society if we make morality and/or ethics subject to circumstances. They either apply universally, or they're not moral or ethical standards at all - just opinions.Preacherman, you said it better than I could have.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Anyone want to talk pragmatism? You know, how torture is ok if it saves some civilian lives? Well, let's see. How many people have terrorists killed worldwide in the history of the planet? A few thousand, perhaps? Let's be generous, and say a million people.

Now how about governments willing to use "terrorist tactics"? They've murdered at least 170 million innocent civilians in the last 105 years alone.

Terrorists are small potatoes. Peanuts. Negligible. Not worth worrying about - especially compared to the historic consequences of letting a government loose with the authority to abduct, torture, and murder.+1

[NineseveN]

Answered that one yourself, didn't you? He was not equating "the terrorists" with anyone at all. He's not talking about whether terrorists should be tortured; he's talking about whether anybody the U.S. government labels a terrorist should be tortured.

He used a very specific example, and if he's not talking about terrorists abroad, but in actuality, talking about US citizens, then who are the Jews, Communists and Lutherans? Is there currently any religious group or race that is being prosecuted in this country? Muslims? Really, the US government is partaking in genocide against Muslims? Well, that's great to know.

In order for an example like his to apply, you have to have a coincidence.

I.e.
My friend Joe in China had his duck got taken away because the cops said ducks are dangerous. They're taking ducks away and killing them. Remember that the next time you walk your dog down Holywood and Vine.

This is just as bad of an example as his was, it proved nothing because one situation had nothing to do with the other.

In all seriousness, it was just a bad example, that's all. He could have made his point without it.

[FeebMaster]

Roman, isn't it amazing at how few people seem to share the values that Americans used to acquire in school and from their families? It's really frightening. You can see how something similar happened in Germany in the 1920s and '30s. I never thought it would happen here, though. Patriotism is now dependent on whether you support the government's power to declare individuals less than human, and therefore deserving less than human rights. Blows me away.

Americans never acquired those values in school. At least not government run schools.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Americans never acquired those values in school. At least not government run schools.I think that, at one time, what you call government schools did in fact impart American values. I certainly learned from a lot of good teachers back in the 60s and 70s that our nation was founded on a belief in inalienable human rights that governments must be made to respect in their acts and laws, and that the alternative was to be like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. I'm sorry that wasn't your experience, but at least most of us learned this in the good old days, if not from school, then certainly from our parents.

My father, who is in his middle seventies now, was in a conversation with a Bush supporter a couple of months ago, and when the other guy was dismissing as unimportant the problems associated with torturing terror suspects for information, my father paused, then thoughtfully observed that it seemed to him that the kind of thing that had always made him particularly proud to be an American was that only the bad guys, not Americans, did things like that. We were the good guys, and were damned proud of it. He seemed perplexed that someone who he had always thought was pro-American held a view to the contrary. I was glad to see that my father's old timy American values have not faded in the current mad rush to get all the inconvenient laws out of the way of our government.

[jsalcedo]

Whatever happened to Americans being morally superior to their enemies.

We need to not lose ourselves in a delusional nationalism that excuses physical torture, political prisons, and using the term "terrorist" to excuse
denial of human rights.

America needs to wake up and regain the strong moral ground on these issues
because I fear we can easily become as evil as the terrorists we are fighting against.

As a side note:

All of the supposed Christians here need to carefully think about their postion
regarding the torture of our enemies.

[NineseveN]

Whatever happened to Americans being morally superior to their enemies.

We never really were, we just like the feeling we get when we delude ourselves into thinking that. While we were, "better" in a lot of ways, this moral superiority was self-proclaimed and really not a result of anything that actualy happened. We tried to do the right thing, and that was honorable; that did not mean that everything we did was righteous or that we held the moral high ground. All those things we'd like to think only the enemy does are things that we have done when we were sure no one was looking. That's just life, not impeaching the greatness of this nation, that's just the cold, hard reality of warfare. Nobody wins a war with a clean uniform.

[ArmedBear]

We never really were, we just like the feeling we get when we delude ourselves into thinking that. While we were, "better" in a lot of ways, this moral superiority was self-proclaimed and really not a result of anything that actualy happened. We tried to do the right thing, and that was honorable; that did not mean that everything we did was righteous or that we held the moral high ground. All those things we'd like to think only the enemy does are things that we have done when we were sure no one was looking. That's just life, not impeaching the greatness of this nation, that's just the cold, hard reality of warfare. Nobody wins a war with a clean uniform.

Right.

It's important not to call on a mythical past, but rather to call for what is right. If you think it's the best thing to claim the moral high ground, who cares if we're reclaiming it?

In WW II, we had the moral high ground, because we weren't killing Jews or raping Koreans, not because we were perfect.

In the Civil War, both sides had POW camps that would have made Ho Chi Minh proud. The Reconstruction was ugly, but before that, of course slavery was even uglier.

Let's CLAIM the moral high ground. The dead past can bury its dead.

[The Real Hawkeye]

We never really were, we just like the feeling we get when we delude ourselves into thinking that. While we were, "better" in a lot of ways, this moral superiority was self-proclaimed and really not a result of anything that actualy happened. We tried to do the right thing, and that was honorable; that did not mean that everything we did was righteous or that we held the moral high ground. All those things we'd like to think only the enemy does are things that we have done when we were sure no one was looking. That's just life, not impeaching the greatness of this nation, that's just the cold, hard reality of warfare. Nobody wins a war with a clean uniform.Sure. What Lincoln did to the South was unforgivable. He even imprisoned Northerners, without due process, just for disagreeing with him. But at least history has judged him as someone who illegitimately assumed dictatorial powers, i.e., he was not acting properly under our system of government. But I don't think that even a monster like Lincoln stooped to torturing captured Confederates for information. He starved them to death, but that's an atrocity somewhat inferior to torture, and more importantly it was done despite our safeguards, not because we decided as a nation to abandon those safeguards.

[Berek]

Sleep deprivation, drugs, psychological methods don't equate to torture in my book however, who is going to write the interrogation rules?

You're right. It actually sounds more like my college years... :D

[NineseveN]

Sure. What Lincoln did to the South was unforgivable. He even imprisoned Northerners, without due process, just for disagreeing with him. But at least history has judged him as someone who illegitimately assumed dictatorial powers, i.e., he was not acting properly under our system of government. But I don't think that even a monster like Lincoln stooped to torturing captured Confederates for information. He starved them to death, but that's an atrocity somewhat inferior to torture, and more importantly it was done despite our safeguards, not because we decided as a nation to abandon those safeguards.

That's an interesting point, but I fail to see how starving someone to death is better than torturing them for information. I don't see the moral high ground there really, and it may simply be a matter of personal opinion. I do recall however that Confederates were indeed tortured, maybe not exactly for information, but does that make it better? I think not. It goes to show that my point that you are responding to is very valid though, and I think if we all take an objective look at the actions we as a nation have taken, we can see that we were not on the high ground because we were perfect or failed to commit nefarious acts, but simply because we fought for what was right, even if our tactics were deplorable. The ends sometimes justifies the means. It's a slippery slope, I agree, but it's one we're subject to anyway from our aggressors, might as well make some decisions and try to control the descent.

Your closing point sums your argument up, and I hinestly do see where you are coming from, I still maintain that this is no civil war or conventional wr, and that some latitude needs to apply, despite our personal feelings either way.

[FeebMaster]

I think that, at one time, what you call government schools did in fact impart American values. I certainly learned from a lot of good teachers back in the 60s and 70s that our nation was founded on a belief in inalienable human rights that governments must be made to respect in their acts and laws, and that the alternative was to be like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. I'm sorry that wasn't your experience, but at least most of us learned this in the good old days, if not from school, then certainly from our parents.

My father, who is in his middle seventies now, was in a conversation with a Bush supporter a couple of months ago, and when the other guy was dismissing as unimportant the problems associated with torturing terror suspects for information, my father paused, then thoughtfully observed that it seemed to him that the kind of thing that had always made him particularly proud to be an American was that only the bad guys, not Americans, did things like that. We were the good guys, and were damned proud of it. He seemed perplexed that someone who he had always thought was pro-American held a view to the contrary. I was glad to see that my father's old timy American values have not faded in the current mad rush to get all the inconvenient laws out of the way of our government.


Schools do impart American values. The values of the people running for office today and of the people voting for them. The values of people who think torture is okay. People who grew up in the last century valuing liberty did so despite the public schools, not because of them.



Sure. What Lincoln did to the South was unforgivable. He even imprisoned Northerners, without due process, just for disagreeing with him. But at least history has judged him as someone who illegitimately assumed dictatorial powers, i.e., he was not acting properly under our system of government.

Are you kidding? Lincoln is remembered as the greatest president the United States ever had. He's practically a God to Republicans. He saved the Union! People that see Lincoln for what he was are as few and far between as people who really value liberty.

[The Real Hawkeye]

That's an interesting point, but I fail to see how starving someone to death is better than torturing them for information. I don't see the moral high ground there really, and it may simply be a matter of personal opinion. I do recall however that Confederates were indeed tortured, maybe not exactly for information, but does that make it better? I think not. It goes to show that my point that you are responding to is very valid though, and I think if we all take an objective look at the actions we as a nation have taken, we can see that we were not on the high ground because we were perfect or failed to commit nefarious acts, but simply because we fought for what was right, even if our tactics were deplorable. The ends sometimes justifies the means. It's a slippery slope, I agree, but it's one we're subject to anyway from our aggressors, might as well make some decisions and try to control the descent.

Your closing point sums your argument up, and I hinestly do see where you are coming from, I still maintain that this is no civil war or conventional wr, and that some latitude needs to apply, despite our personal feelings either way.Yes, well the closing point was the main point of my post, i.e., that you can point to all kinds of black marks on our history, but they were done despite, not because, of our system of safeguards. What many are proposing today is the abandonment of those safeguards, arguing that the principles themselves are faulty. That is a huge and regrettable departure for Americans. At least Lincoln had the "decency" to usurp the power of suspending habeas corpus, thus not besmirching our Constitution with his actions.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Are you kidding? Lincoln is remembered as the greatest president the United States ever had. He's practically a God to Republicans. He saved the Union! People that see Lincoln for what he was are as few and far between as people who really value liberty.Most well educated people, even those who admire him, know that Lincoln was acting extra-Constitutionally.

[jcoiii]

I skipped the last 30 or so posts so if this has already been stated then +1 to whoever said it.

If you define torture as sleep deprivation, loud music, etc. then I was tortured during my four years of college. You want to talk about torture? Let's talk about the witnesses in the Sadaam trial. Let's talk about people getting their HEADS CUT OFF WHILE THEY ARE ALIVE!

If it means saving even one american soldier or civilian, then I say let these scum go without sleep for a week. Are there limits? Of course, but what the blissninny left (note that all lefters do not fall into this category of blissninny) want me to believe is that sleep deprivation and loud music and wearing panties on their heads is EQUIVALENT to sawing off a live person's head! That is unforgiveable in my mind.

[FeebMaster]

Most well educated people, even those who admire him, know that Lincoln was acting extra-Constitutionally.

And most of them just don't care. They still think he was the greatest despite a few minor imperfections.

[The Real Hawkeye]

And most of them just don't care. They still think he was the greatest despite a few minor imperfections.They are deceived. He was one of the world's worst despots at the time.

[Lupinus]

They are deceived. He was one of the world's worst despot at the time.
They also think the civil war was simply about the south wanting to persecute people and keep them as slaves.

[The Real Hawkeye]

They also think the civil war was simply about the south wanting to persecute people and keep them as slaves.True, your average uneducated person might think that. Anyone who has actually taken any kind of a look knows that it was about the right to government by the consent of the governed. North and South had become too different to remain in the same union. The South no longer consented to that arrangement. The only way to stop secession was to destroy the South, and Lincoln was determined to stop secession, because it would have been the ruin of the North, although the South would have been just fine.

[Lupinus]

Agreed.

Also if I'm not mistken Lincoln didn't issue the order freeing the slaves (was that even with congress?) untill after the war had started. If I'm not mistaken that is.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Agreed.

Also if I'm not mistken Lincoln didn't issue the order freeing the slaves (was that even with congress?) untill after the war had started. If I'm not mistaken that is.Yes, the emancipation proclamation had no force in law, as the legality of slavery was assumed under the Constitution at the time he proclaimed its eradication, and congress never voted on it. Even if they had voted it into law, it would not have been Constitutional because the US Constitution did not delegate the power to free the slaves to the Federal Government. That required the Thirteenth Amendment.

[BuddyOne]

Liberals are soooooo delicate. Their intellectual arguments are filled with feathery, lightly nuanced conclusions that instruct us on the error of our ways. I am told that my views of Honest Abe's qualities are "relative" to the fact that he was a politician's politician. This relativism is pushed on us by those who (for fifty years) have affirmatively told our country's black population that they are the "party of the people." Relatively speaking, the blacks are still waiting for something to happen other than liberal hot air.

Since relativism is your poorly camouflaged game, try this-

If the United States of America applied torture often enough and well enough, our armed services would be home by now.

It would be a real delight to see service veterans sitting in college classrooms laughing out loud at their profs.....

Buddy

[Art Eatman]

Lincoln-hijack of this thread = locked thread. :)

Probably oughta start over and try to give a consensus definition of torture. Or, maybe, a consensus notion of what torture ISN'T!

That is, if the same people who will include yelling at a kid as "child abuse" are also given the power to define torture, well, God bless us and save us...

Art

[NineseveN]

That is, if the same people who will include yelling at a kid as "child abuse" are also given the power to define torture, well, God bless us and save us...

Art

Lol, Art, good point.

[1911 guy]

My position is that if we're talking about the average grunt terrorist that is just doing what he's told, torture is out of the question. If, however, we have a for-sure-no-doubt somebody who knows something, all bets are off. Is it the "American" thing to do? No, but then neither is ambushing because after all, John Wayne never ambushed anybody. I'd much rather employ somewhat questionable tactics and save american lives than be so cotton pickin' (for lack of THR friendly words) politically correct that we literally kill ourselves trying to nor offend the same :cuss: that flew planes into our world trade center.

[RomanKnight]

Well, if you still believe that 19 Muslim Arabs with box cutters did 911, directed by a guy on a dialysys machine in a cave in Freakin'stan, that makes it ok to torture anybody who fits that description. The example from Nazi Germany is all about incrementalism. First, you start with the really unpopular segment (Jews then, Muslim Arabs now). Gradually, you expand that segment, and/or add new ones (communists and other religions then, enemy combatants, domestic terrorists, political disidents, gun owners, [fill in the blanks]). What does "enemy combatant" mean? If it's enemy, who declared him an enemy? If so, is he a soldier, openly wearing a uniform, or a distinguishing feature (armband), and part of an organized unit? If yes, shoot him, blow him to pieces, and if he surrenders, treat him like POW. If not, a civilian caught with weapons, put him to the wall, and spend 12 rounds on him. Don't do anything that you would not have done to your own soldiers, that is. Obey Hague and Geneva and whatever other conventions exist -we, the US, can do that, maintain a high moral ground AND win the fight. Every time we torture, abuse, kill by mistake anybody in that part of the world, we become, in their eyes, an even bigger Satan, increasing their drive to kill one of us. Not saying to kill'em with kindness. Just think what would you like done to yourself, what rights and priviledges you would want, both in this country and abroad, civilian or military (food, lawyers, medical treatment,torture, abuse), draw the line there, and behave accordingly. Call anything and everything you don't want to suffer yourself, "torture".

[bjbarron]

We just didn't air our dirty laundry in public in the past.

That was before the feminization and emasculation of a good percentage of the men in this country.

Just talk to a few WWII combat vets about what they saw...my Dad had interesting stories about the SS they caught and our Marine neighbor had the same about the Japanese. Is playing 'hunt the naked SS in the woods' considered torture?

Different times, a different people.

Personally I'm in the 'ticking bomb' camp. Anything goes if there's a ticking bomb somewhere, a lot* goes if you catch the leaders and need strategic info, and just lock up the grunts somewhere.

*You need do nothing more than is experienced in our E & E training by our own soldiers.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Just talk to a few WWII combat vets about what they saw...my Dad had interesting stories about the SS they caught and our Marine neighbor had the same about the Japanese. Is playing 'hunt the naked SS in the woods' considered torture?

Different times, a different people.

Personally I'm in the 'ticking bomb' camp. Anything goes if there's a ticking bomb somewhere, a lot* goes if you catch the leaders and need strategic info, and just lock up the grunts somewhere.

*You need do nothing more than is experienced in our E & E training by our own soldiers.What soldiers do outside of national policy is quite a different thing from making it national policy.

[Waitone]

What soldiers do outside of national policy is quite a different thing from making it national policy.Wrong. In an era of instant communications and a 724 news cycle, what soldiers do on the battlefield is by definition national policy in the eyes of the watching world. Reality be damned. I draw your attention to Abu Graib. To this day the US is tarred with that brush in spite of taking legal action against the perps.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Wrong. In an era of instant communications and a 724 news cycle, what soldiers do on the battlefield is by definition national policy in the eyes of the watching world. Reality be damned. I draw your attention to Abu Graib. To this day the US is tarred with that brush in spite of taking legal action against the perps.Those soldiers were following someone's orders. Somehow the people who gave those orders got off the hook. My personal opinion is that they came from the top in the form of the president saying something like, "I want to know everything they know, and I don't want to know, nor do I care, how you accomplish that." Perhaps when I said national policy, I should have said consistent with the laws of our nation. National policy, or the policy of a field commander, or a corporal on the ground, can be inconstant with the laws of our nation, and when they are, they are wrong, and the people responsible need to be brought to justice.

In no way did I intend to advocate that policy makers, at whatever level, act contrary to our nation's laws. I do realize, however, that it does happen. When it does, we should not make patsies out of those who were just following orders, although they too need to be brought to justice.

[Art Eatman]

I've always been just really hostile to the idea of gratuitious harm to anybody. The operative word is "gratuitous".

I'm generally against torture--in the sense of physical damage and extreme mental damage--against any enemy. That doesn't mean I'm gonna bust some agent's chops because of a time-pressure field expedient. "Agent" as in a military guy or somebody given charge of a definitely-known terrorist when time is a notably important factor.

I figure that run-of-the-mill hostiles oughta be treated pretty much as we did the WW II POWs. But leadership guys when it's known that a deal is going down that would kill a bunch of us? My priority is saving our folks.

Sure, any system can be abused. But, no matter how many laws you pass, somebody, somewhere, some time, is gonna abuse any system. Mexico has anti-pollution laws. Chad (IIRC) is on the UN Commission on Human Rights. The point is that any system of whatever sort will always be vulnerable to the people responsible for implementing it.

Better not to be hypocritical about what our needs are. That doesn't mean we gotta be happy about dealing with problems. If I gotta work some guy over to get info that saves the lives of my (hypothetical) platoon, I'm not gonna go leaping and dancing about, saying, "Hey, looky what I did! Ain't I neat?"

Art

[The Real Hawkeye]

I've always been just really hostile to the idea of gratuitious harm to anybody. The operative word is "gratuitous".

I'm generally against torture--in the sense of physical damage and extreme mental damage--against any enemy. That doesn't mean I'm gonna bust some agent's chops because of a time-pressure field expedient. "Agent" as in a military guy or somebody given charge of a definitely-known terrorist when time is a notably important factor.

I figure that run-of-the-mill hostiles oughta be treated pretty much as we did the WW II POWs. But leadership guys when it's known that a deal is going down that would kill a bunch of us? My priority is saving our folks.

Sure, any system can be abused. But, no matter how many laws you pass, somebody, somewhere, some time, is gonna abuse any system. Mexico has anti-pollution laws. Chad (IIRC) is on the UN Commission on Human Rights. The point is that any system of whatever sort will always be vulnerable to the people responsible for implementing it.

Better not to be hypocritical about what our needs are. That doesn't mean we gotta be happy about dealing with problems. If I gotta work some guy over to get info that saves the lives of my (hypothetical) platoon, I'm not gonna go leaping and dancing about, saying, "Hey, looky what I did! Ain't I neat?"

ArtAll kinds of things are done in the heat of battle. I would apply to these the same standard I would apply to a similar situation in civilian life, i.e., hold the party to a reasonableness standard, taking the prevailing circumstances into account. Earlier I gave the example of the good citizen who thwarts a bank robbery. After gaining control of the situation, he finds out that the bank staff is in the safe with a time bomb set to go off in two minutes. The good citizen starts shooting off toes until the combo is given, and then rescues the captives from the bomb.

Some third party must evaluate the reasonableness of the good citizen's actions under the circumstances. In civilian life, that would be a jury of his peers. In the military, that would be some other kind of tribunal. But this is entirely different from making torture a policy of our military or intelligence agencies, which policy should never be tolerated in a Republic. We don't allow individuals to be the judges of their own conduct, and we cannot allow agencies to be the judges of their own conduct in a free Republic which values human rights and limited government.

That said, I will reiterate: Emergencies have traditionally been dealt with as something unique from normal policy, but must still be held to a reasonableness standard under the circumstances, not to be determined only by an internal self-assessment, but by some disinterested body along the lines of a grand jury and, if deemed necessary, a court trial.