US allegedly using torture to interrogate terrorism suspects

Status
Not open for further replies.
JPM70535,

There are principles that are worth more than individual human lives. The ability to remain true to those principles in times of personal distress is what separates civilized humans from barbarians.

How about this one: You have a device that allows you to see into the future. You know that several years from now, a previously law-abiding citizen is going to flip out and murder your loved ones. You are the deciding vote on your state legislature that would ratify a constitutional amendment to ban all privatey held firearms. How do you vote?
 
1. I don't believe the article about such things as US troops tying the prisoners in painful positions and such.
2. I DO believe we turn terrorists over to other nations and turn a blind eye to how they get information from them.
3. I have no problem with #2.
 
Skunk Ape

The two scenarios are not the same. As to your posed question, I think the solution from my perspective would be to track down this potential murderer and render him incapable of carrying out his future crimes.

You still did not respond to my scenario regarding your kin. Would you just let them die?????
 
A BG has kidnapped your (choose one) husband, wife, child, or parent. The BG has buried themalive with life support sufficient for 12 hours. His demands are impossible to meet ( and if met there is no guarantee of the safe return of the hostage) The BGs accomplice is captured and knows the location of the buried hostage. There are 4 hours of life support left.
You know, you can always come up with a scenario that's so far out as to be less likely than being struck with a meteor. It's a really poor way to discuss policy issues, though. What we're discussing here is whether it's acceptable for the United States to maintain a policy that involves torture of prisonors of war, "enemy combatants" (including those who are US citizens), collaborators, etc.

Your comment doesn't shed much light on the issue.
 
Would I let them die? No. I would use any and all means necessary to get the information. If torture was a viable means to that end (which it may or may not be), then I would inflict it myself without mercy.

But I will never give the police, military or gov't my leave to do the same. What is moral for the individual, and what is moral for the gov't are not the same thing. The answer to your scenario does not bear on the question here.

- Gabe
 
As for the article, is it true? I don't know, until I do it's just hypothetical. But the issue it raises is still worth exploring.

1. Torture is an ineffective means of extracting information so, from a technical aspect, this whole issue should be put to rest on that basis alone,

2. An American gov't that grows to look upon torture as a viable method (to demoralize, or what have you) in it's toolbox is a far greater potential danger to civilization than islamic militants.

We are not the Taliban or the Viet Cong. What difference does it make how they treated their people, or what they did to our prisoners? I am not interested in tit-for-tat BS. I am interested in total crushing victory. Torture does nothing to help secure that victory, its intelligence gathering potential is zero and its dangers are great and real.

While I would not lose sleep over the thought that Al Qaida slime were living the rest of their extremely short lives in agonizing pain, I would lose sleep knowing that it was our gov't doing the inflicting. I would also be buying some battle rifles and stocking up on ammo. We need to be focused on removing the threat, not inflicting pain. Remember, to defensively remove the threat is the only moral use of force.

- Gabe
 
Derek Zeanah,

I posted my theoretical scenario in response to JPM70535's scenario. I was trying to show two things:

1) You can always make up some far-fetched situation to challenge a man's principles.

2) There are some situations in which one must make a personal sacrifice to uphold the principles of a civilized society.

JPM70535,

To make my answer to your question more clear:

My principles forbid the torture of helpless prisoners. This is an absolute for me. I consider it to be completely wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

Edit - Oops, sorry Derek. I thought you were attacking MY ridiculous scenario, not JPM70535's.
 
2. An American gov't that grows to look upon torture as a viable method (to demoralize, or what have you) in it's toolbox is a far greater potential danger to civilization than islamic militants.
-GRD

GRD, I couldn't agree more.
 
US using torture...

Skunkape posted "How about this one: You have a device that allows you to see into the future. You know that several years from now, a previously law-abiding citizen is going to flip out and murder your loved ones. You are the deciding vote on your state legislature that would ratify a constitutional amendment to ban all privatey held firearms. How do you vote?"

Vote? I wouldn't waste my time voting - I'd be out looking for a 2nd job so I could purchase more life insurance policies.
 
Principal and theory are important, but...

let's make this personal (as in reality all situations are). I have a teenage daughter. Although my cosmology is secular, the best words I know to describe my joy in her existence and in my unbelievable priviledge in being her father, is to tell people that she is my gift from G-d. You THRers with children will probably understand what I mean

Now let us imagine that she was kidnapped, G-d forbid. (yes I know it sounds confused --- and who knows, maybe I am confused, but that is another, even longer story) and her captors were threatening to hurt her or worse. And I managed to get my hands on one of the kidnappers and he knows where they're keeping her but refuses to say where.

To save my child, would I torture him? You BET I WOULD!

If he ignored my warnings, I would, ...hmm, ...how about chopping off a finger to get his attention. Good chance he'd tell me then, wouldn't he? But if not, I'd have NO compunction in doing to him WHATEVER IT TOOK, barring -- actualy, ... I can't thnk of anything I wouldn't do! He chose to commit the crime and he has the power to save my daughter. The KIDNAPPER chooses what I'll do to him. And you guys who believe in G-d... well I trust that HE made me this way -- capable of such hatred, so that I can do what is necessary to rescue my child.

Does that make me a barbarian? No. What it makes me is someone who contains, among many others, a barbarian and even worse, if necessary! What do you thinkwe are, anyway??? And why do the Torah and the other scriptures contain so many proscriptions? Isn't it because we NEED them? We need the commandments so that we can learn to master ourselves, so that we can at least approach some semblance of a civiled condition. And as a secular man who misspent his youth as a "compassionate" liberal, I must say that once I began looking, I have never found greater wisdom than in Torah. Western civilization rests upon it and upon it's offspring daughter, Christianity. And as it says in Ecclesiastes (sp?), "...there... is a time to every purpose under heaven." So I believe that there is even a time for doing whatever it takes to save one's child. Isn't that why we say Molon Labe?

One reason that liberals make me sick, is that they always grab the high ground and preach to the rest of us, all the while grossly unaware of who and what we all are. Or maybe they have an inkling, and it terrifes them, so they want a tyrannical government to force us to be good. Have you spotted the error in their logic? And completely overlooking, of course, that morality and compassion cannot be enforced, but can only be the product of our will, of our FREE choice.

I consider myself decent and civilized, more or less. But I didn't get there by myself, or by subscribing to the philosophy ",,, if it feels good, do it." or, "...just go with the flow....eh, can I have another hit, man?"

I've done all that. And it is good, indeed you must trust yourself. But only after you've actually met and made peace with who your self is.

Remember, guys 'n gals, principals (principles?) ARE important. But every civilian on 9/11 and every one of our soldiers, is somebody's daughter, son, father, mother, sister or brother.

We must be very careful what powers we entrust to our (swollen and run-away) government. And especially so with a power as dangerous as torture. Nevertheless, I say, "... do whatever it takes!" Those who haven't come to terms with the barbarian in themselves are themselves the most dangerous. And as it says in Talmud, "Those who are kind to the cruel will end by being cruel to the kind."


Boy Preacherman! You chose a hot one this time. And you sure got me going, didn't you?

Do you suppose an atheist could get hired as a preacher if I brought my own soapbox??!

Matis

;)
 
Last edited:
I look at it pragmatically. If they won't sing the first time, drug 'em. If they still won't sing, use the Russian Conveyor Belt (I've only heard of it failing once). If that doesn't work and torture is the only way to extract information that will save American lives, so be it. Not my first choice, but I won't hold it against the CIA or any other American who uses it as a last resort. I don't think the dignity of any of our enemies is worth losing any American lives over. Willing cooperation is best, but unwilling cooperation is acceptable. It's war guys and ugly things happen during war and the sooner we finish it, the better for everyone.
 
Tyrannical government is always more deadly, and more to be feared, than terrorists or terrorism.

Keep pushing our government toward tyranny, people. I don't think you'll like what you get ...

pax

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. – H.L. Mencken
 
To those who WOULD BE buying assault rifle and ammo: you mean you haven't yet? The ex Intell officer told ALL on this thread allready : torture doesn't work .They knew this in Nam and I am sure they KNOW it now. I think a little torture would work on criminals though. I think all the baby murderers would tell all the first shock. So would the burglars. I dont think gun owners would though as they have a cause and can tell disinformation that cant be substantiated just like soldiers. Amen to the Torah my brother.:cool:
 
Bottom Line...

after all the hand wringing and sheep bleating, is the fact that this stuff does not meet the definition of torture in anybody's book except the liberals. I refuse to accept new Orwellian definitions of common English language words. Propaganda is still defined as lies, no matter who puts it out, even the (gag) U.N. or the Geneva Conference.
Ask any former POW if they would consider this type of treatment as torture and you will be either laughed at or spit upon. (Except maybe McCain, he seems to buy any new age liberal crock set in front of him.)
 
TexasVet,

My sig du jour uses the same logic as your post.

pax

This was perfectly true, and a very respectable view widely held by right-thinking people, who are largely recognizable as being right-thinking people by the mere fact that they hold this view. -- Douglas Adams
 
TexasVet,

"the fact that this stuff does not meet the definition of torture in anybody's book except the liberals" -TexasVet

Being "held in awkward, painful positions and deprived of sleep" sounds very much to me like the infamous Vietnamese "rope trick". I'd definately call that torture. The technique where prisoners are "kept standing or kneeling for hours" was also used to to torture Americans in Viet Nam. Do you suspect the prisoners voluntarily agree to stand for hours? In Viet Nam, prisoners were beaten with rifle butts if they wavered from the proscribed position. Both of these techiniques (as well as the others listed) are known established methods of torture, and have been reported by servicemen such as James Stockdale and John McCain, Robbie Risner, and others.

Also, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to describe me a "liberal".

Regarding "new Orwellian definitions of common English language words"; the Geneva Convention is not new, dating from 1949. As I posted earlier, those rules require POW's to provide only name, rank, ands serial number. It is completely wrong and illegal to use ANY forceful means in an attempt to extract information beyond those things, whether it meets your personal definition of "torture" or not.

You might try to find other ways of arguing your positions than using "liberal" as an insult, and threating people with spittle.
 
I have no problem with the ethics of torture by an individual, though I question its utility. Person inflicting the pain is entirely responsible, just as a person committing homicide is responsible and must prove that the use of force was lawful. Delegating that responsibility to the government is, in theory, possible...in practice, you will find that dissidents will get tortured more readily than enemy combatants, and that opposing forces would fight to the death rather than surrender. It is counter-productive to use torture as a state policy, in my opinion.
 
I shed no tears for Al Qaida operatives that are caught.

What they try and do is attack civilians. By international law they are unlawful combatants. As such they are not subject to the safeguards given to prisoners of war.

If they get information that will help the US evade a terrorist attack it was worth it.

If they were a force that targeted military targets I would feel differently. However, since their aim is to kill the weakest and fight with no morals they should be treated the same way.

Michael
 
The Penatagon and the financial center of the United States aren't military targets?

What are military targets, then? A baby food factory, perhaps? Or maybe the cities of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?
 
The chief financial center and the center of military operations are indeed legitimate military targets ... in a war.

And of course there is a long human history of declaring war via sudden attack. (Remember Pearl Harbor?)

That said, SkunkApe -- "they did it, too!" doesn't prove your point. It only illustrates hypocrisy at work (which has a usefulness of its own).

pax

This government holds the view that any general bombing of an extensive area wherein there resides a large population engaged in peaceful pursuits is unwarranted and contrary to the principles of law and humanity. -- U. S. government, 1937, responding to the Japanese bombing of Nanking
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top