US allegedly using torture to interrogate terrorism suspects

[CMichael]

So blowing up a pizza store is now a legitimate military target because it's a business? That is rediculous.

So what if business was conducted in the WTC. The people inside the building were all civilians.

Just because finances are conducted in a building doesn't make it a military target

 

[CMichael]

I wanted to add that I guess according to you blowing up a bus station would be a chief transportation target and therefore a legitimate military target, right?

 

[Zander]

Do you think that any of us are going to forget and ignore those victims? No! -- Ian

Yes! For some, it is a dim memory. For others who still remember, it is not associated with our current war.

 

[SkunkApe]

Cmichael, of course the World trade center was a military target. In times of war, The United States and almost every other country of modern times has attacked targets to damage the economy of the enemy. What better place to damage the economy than the stock exchange? Factories, power generating facilities, transportation lines, and food production areas have long been wartime targets, and they are not typically manned by military personel.

As far as the deliberate widespread slaughter of civilians for the purpose of demoralizing the general populace, I think you'll find the first large-scale use of this strategy was the United States' fire-bombing of Dresden, Germany during World War II. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki also resulted in horrific civilian losses.

Mind you, I'm not saying I disagree with these strategies, I simply pointing out that attacks on non-military targets or personnel are very common during war. If you think the United States only bombs soldiers or military bases, you are historically naive and woefully ignorant of recent events.

 

[Ian]

It doesn't matter if the WTC was a military target (though I'm inclined to say that it couldn't possibly be one). The captured individual Afghanis in question are not the same individuals who performed those terrorist attacks. Whether we had a war on our hands before we landed troops in Afghanistan is irrelevant, because we most assurredly made it a war with those landings. Thanks to that, captured fighters over there are absolutely legitimate prisoners of war.

TexasVet - I accept the possibility that this news report has exaggerated the facts, and that prisoners might not be tortured. However, there seem to be plenty of people here who condone and encourage torture of these prisoners. The major point (IMO) is not whether torture is happening, but whether torture is justifiable.

 

[4v50 Gary]

To Al Qaeda a military target is anywhere where there's an American. It can be an office tower, pizza parlor, gas station, stadium, church, shopping mall, zoos, museums, school yard or anywhere else where an American is. If they can cause enough panic to disrupt our society, they win a minor victory. Terrorists look for easy targets. Don't count on them taking out Fort Knox. Too tough. Expect it where they can get easily get high casualties & plenty of publicity (good for their morale). In a terrorist war, it isn't about killing soldiers, destroying the other guy's army and seizing their capital. It's about killing civilians and destroying the home front. When the "shield" fails, so doth the sword.

 

[TexasVet]

In Viet Nam, prisoners were beaten with rifle butts if they wavered from the proscribed position
--------------------------------------------------------

And where did you see anything about Al Quieda prisoners being beaten with rifle butts?? Oh, you were just adding some sideways references apropo of nothing to make the unmakeable torture connection.
Posts like this DO make me think of you as a liberal. So does quoting McCain as a source for anything.

------------------------------------------
the Geneva Convention is not new, dating from 1949.
-------------------------------------------

"When" doesn't change the facts either.

 

[SkunkApe]

TexasVet, you seem well-intentioned but logically-challenged. The article Preacherman posted stated that prisoners were being "kept standing or kneeling for hours". I doubt the prisoners volunatarily submitted to this. To make a man do something uncomfortable, you must threaten him with something more uncomfortable if he doesn't comply. The article doesn't tell what this something was. I pointed out that the method used in Vietnam, to force compliance with standing, was beatings with rifle butts.

Assuming the article is true, how do you think the prisoners were kept standing or kneeling for hours? Perhaps the gaurds bribed them with candy bars.

And I fail to see the connection between Senator McCain's political beliefs and his reports of torture in Viet Nam. Are you saying liberals don't get tortured? Or when I'm arguing a point, I should ignore the experiences of people with political beliefs different than mine?

 

[Scott Evans]

Ian,

The major point (IMO) is not whether torture is happening, but whether torture is justifiable.

Whether torture is IS happening or not IS the topic of the thread! See title above:†US allegedly using torture to interrogate terrorism suspects “. Whether the article posted in the beginning of this thread is credible or not IS the point!


From the article:

While the US Government publicly denounces the use of torture, all of the national security officials interviewed defended the use of violence against captives as "just and necessary", and they were confident the American public would back their view. The CIA, which has responsibility for interrogations, declined to comment.

What national security officials? Who are they, what is there positions; and of course, how about their names?

Further from the article:

"If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job," said one official who has supervised the capture and transfer of accused terrorists. "I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this."

Again WHO???

The article is not credible, no source is given. It is simply a means to facilitate the anti-American agenda of the author … and you’re buying it.

AGAIN … nothing in the article is credible !

As I put forth in my first post … torture is NOT what is happening to those prisoners. Keeping people awake for long periods and isolated in a small room with little or no furniture is not torture.

Torture is violence against captives; such is not condoned or practiced by our military.

Now show that its is or end this discussion.

 

[Scott Evans]

This thread is not firearms related; the article that the discussion is based on in not credible (i.e. gives no sources). Further the topic has wandered from “is or is not torture happening to US captives?†to “is torture justified?†All this is bad for THR. Thread closed.