It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Torture?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Let's look at a hypothetical situation...

Upon the arrest of a Jordanian national on a visa violation it's discovered that he's been in correspondence with several known terrorist operatives. In said correspondence (located on his computer's hard-drive) is fairly detailed plans for a dirty bomb attack in the coming weeks. What's not known is exactly where and exactly when.

This man has the knowledge to stop the deaths of thousands of people - the only problem is he won't talk.

I think you know where I'm going with this. There's concrete evidence an attack is imminent and this man knows the particulars. Wouldn't you permit the use of all means necessary to get the information out of him? Not to the point of permanent injury or death, just enough to make him sing.

If a person has the foreknowledge to stop a massive terrorist attack and won't give it up you better believe I want someone electrifying his nether-regions.




posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:56 AM
link   
And if, despite the evidence, he doesn't actually know?



But to give an answer - I would expect the government to do what it needs to do, yes.

But I would also expect it to be on TV, so we could see exactly what our fear of death will push us to do to one another.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Hey im all for torture if the scenario is how you are painting it. The only tortue im against is for those in places like Abu Ghraib and Gittmo who could be and more likley are innocent folks. But if whats your saying is the situation I say its time to rip out the car battery, some wires and tell the person thats being interrogated to take of his pants or talk
.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewTB
Hey im all for torture if the scenario is how you are painting it. The only tortue im against is for those in places like Abu Ghraib and Gittmo who could be and more likley are innocent folks. But if whats your saying is the situation I say its time to rip out the car battery, some wires and tell the person thats being interrogated to take of his pants or talk
.


The "persons" being "detained" in Gittmo are not "innocent" folks. These are the worst of the worst. Each time an "innocent terrorist" has been let go, he has returned to terror. FACTS.............

Torture is WRONG no matter what. It is a useless media "hot button" word. The stupidity of the american "media" and those whom worship them is astounding. All that has happened is a very long way from real "torture". This isn't some movie or TV show. Ask any of the 30 plus people that have had their heads "sawed" off. Oh, you can't can you. Their DEAD.

America, especially the LIBERAL's will soon get what they deserve. A terrorist attack that will shake the world far beyond 911. The blood of that attack will be on the hands on each LIBERAL in congress, the news media, and the ACLU. I would include the UN, but 700,000 "hacked to death" in Rawanda speaks for itself.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Gotta ask if youve got any proof that everyone released from Guantanamo has returned to terror, cos the four who came back to the UK would have been arrested by now if they had!

Also arn't their certain truth serums or something similar to make people talk? or have i read to much crappy sci fi?



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by AndrewTB
Hey im all for torture if the scenario is how you are painting it. The only tortue im against is for those in places like Abu Ghraib and Gittmo who could be and more likley are innocent folks. But if whats your saying is the situation I say its time to rip out the car battery, some wires and tell the person thats being interrogated to take of his pants or talk
.


The "persons" being "detained" in Gittmo are not "innocent" folks. These are the worst of the worst. Each time an "innocent terrorist" has been let go, he has returned to terror. FACTS.............

Torture is WRONG no matter what. It is a useless media "hot button" word. The stupidity of the american "media" and those whom worship them is astounding. All that has happened is a very long way from real "torture". This isn't some movie or TV show. Ask any of the 30 plus people that have had their heads "sawed" off. Oh, you can't can you. Their DEAD.

America, especially the LIBERAL's will soon get what they deserve. A terrorist attack that will shake the world far beyond 911. The blood of that attack will be on the hands on each LIBERAL in congress, the news media, and the ACLU. I would include the UN, but 700,000 "hacked to death" in Rawanda speaks for itself.



What we deserve huh? I suppose if I posted "what YOU deserve Dr, I would get another warning. The reason people are being held at Gitmo, is because they don't have enough evidence to convict ANY of them for ANYthing, otherwise they would have by now. Every one of your posts have been lies and hate being spewed forth with nothing to back it up except more of your idiotic ramblings.
Keep spewing your hate, and us LIBERAL'S will be fighting for what is right. I suspect you have a very lonely existence.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
And if, despite the evidence, he doesn't actually know?


Well, in my hypothetical case the person in question was corresponding with people about a dirty bomb that will be detonated. And if he didn't know, as wasn't my hypothetical case, he shouldn't have been discussing plans of such nature with someone that does. My honest opinion, and I'm a civil libertarian, is we shouldn't pussy-foot around with people that want to kill en masse. If he doesn't know, well he got taught a pretty good lesson about picking your friends wisely didn't he?

My question was in the case of a clear cut definitive this guy is a "big one" operative. Not the vague "he's a radical Muslim, perhaps he's involved in terrorism or knows someone who is, so we'll arrest him". This is the guy you don't see in the news.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
In your scenario, especially if I were sure that he had the information to stop the attack (even if I could be ultimately wrong), hey, I would not stop at non-premanent damage. Whatever it takes.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Torture is wrong.Period.
If you allow it in cases like this, then surely false evidence is going to be made up. Some people like to torture people or beings just for the fun of it, if all they have to do is inventing some "proof" to make it legal ....

Horacid. You know all of them in person to say they are not innocent or what?


[edit on 8-1-2005 by Calibre]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
dear mister doctor horacid,

i found some REVISED ARAB INTERROGATION GUIDELINES that i think you probably a big fan and supporter of.

torture is wrong, no matter how you turn it around.
especially if you are performing a "massive torture", which is not anymore an interrogation, for any useful information, but an exploatation of basic human rights and pure torture "for fun", just like "the spanish inqisition".



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Calibre
Torture is wrong.Period.
If you allow it in cases like this, then surely false evidence is going to be made up. Some people like to torture people or beings just for the fun of it, if all they have to do is inventing some "proof" to make it legal ....


So you don't torture someone that has the information to save thousands of lives? He'll recover, they won't.

I assure you that the people being tortured (in the case of my question) would see no problem torturing you.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
If in the field we captured a man that had information that would save some of my mens lives OR civilians lives I would get it if I personally had to skin him with a Pocket Knife to do so.

BUT

The problem with torture is that it is not very effective and much better results are had by other methods, drugs, sleep deprovation, etc are MUCH better. A person being tortured will say whatever he thinks you want to hear to get you to stop so the info is not reliable. Most of what was shown as "torture" was a freaking joke compared to REAL torture.

I know I will get flamed for this but whatever, I am not a cruel person myself but a pratical one and in the field you do your job as quickly and as safely with the least amout of your guys and innocents as possible getting hurt. Its hard to get choked up over the comfort of the man that was trying to kill you a few minutes ago and would be sawing your head off on film if the roles were reversed.

I am not an adviocate of torture but the lives of my men come first.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete

Originally posted by Calibre
Torture is wrong.Period.
If you allow it in cases like this, then surely false evidence is going to be made up. Some people like to torture people or beings just for the fun of it, if all they have to do is inventing some "proof" to make it legal ....


So you don't torture someone that has the information to save thousands of lives? He'll recover, they won't.

I assure you that the people being tortured (in the case of my question) would see no problem torturing you.


Okay PistolPete. Let me quote you out of context:



So you don't torture someone.


Any questions, please contact the International Court of Criminal Justice at the Hague. Calibre, you can stand watch with me anytime. Amuk too.

So the suspect would torture you? So what? If a guy would rape you, do you rape him first? I don't swing that way, Pete.

Finally, let me say that as an Amerindian (Native American), my ancestors made a decision on this generations ago. Our women used to prosecute criminals in my Nation, and they would tie a convicted azzhole up, cover him in clay up to his neck in the form of a beautiful water jug, then bake him slowly in front of everyone. Our War Woman, Nancy Ward, passed a Law in 1776 that forbids the practice of torture by members of the Cherokee Nation:



In July, 1776, Cherokee warriors were divided into three groups led by Dragging Canoe, The Raven of Chota, and Old Abram; they attacked white settlements. The group led by Old Abram captured two whites, Samuel Moore and Mrs. William (Lydia Russell) Bean. Moore was later burned at the stake, and Mrs. Bean was taken to a town called Toque, near Chota, where she was to have suffered the same fate. However, Nancy appeared after she had been bound and demanded that Mrs. Bean be freed. She told the warriors, "it revolts my soul that Cherokee warriors would stoop so low as to torture a squaw. No woman shall be tortured or burned at the stake while I am 'Ghi-ga-u'." Mrs. Bean was taken to Nancy's home in Chota where she taught Nancy and members of her family how to make butter and cheese. Later Nancy sent Lydia Bean back to her family accompanied by Nancy's brother, Longfellow, and her son, Fivekiller. It has been indicated that John Bean, who married Nancy's great granddaughter, Ruth Starr, was a grandson of Lydia and William Bean, but no proof has been found.


While her ban was specifically directed against the torture of women, we as a People have extended the ban to include all humans, animals and other living beings.

Americans, of course, continued to use our children as skeet targets until the Twentieth Century. But that is another story.

Here is the point, PistolPete. This is 2005. There are far more effective, far more rapid means to extract information of vital national importance available in every emergency room nationwide. Real interrogation, using technical means (pharmaceutical interrogation) does not involve childish cruelties and indignities.

Take it from a wild Indian: torture degrades the torturer.

And if the guy is a suicide bomber, he ain't gonna talk even if you cut him up slow.

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Real interrogation, using technical means (pharmaceutical interrogation) does not involve childish cruelties and indignities.


I agree. Most of what was shown (that I seen) at Abu was more stupid bullying than anything else and those people should ber punished. As I (and you) pointed out torture is really not that effective. I don't see the point of torture after the person has been jailed, there you have much better methods of getting information.

But if you think beating information out of captured enemy in the field has not been used by EVERY army on earth since the dawn of time and will continue to be used till the end of the world then you are wrong.

I dont believe in torture. I dont believe in war. I dont believe in hurting others. I would love to see us all hold hands and sing songs.

But till the rest of the world feels the same I guess I am out of luck and so is the bastard trying to kill me.

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Here is the point, PistolPete. This is 2005. There are far more effective, far more rapid means to extract information of vital national importance available in every emergency room nationwide. Real interrogation, using technical means (pharmaceutical interrogation) does not involve childish cruelties and indignities.


I agree with this...and you inferred much more from my initial posts than you should have. The problem is that many people consider "pharmaceutical interrogation" and such things that go along with it like sleep deprivation to be torture. Perhaps I came across that I want everyone arrested on terrorism charges to be "baked in a pot", that's far from the truth. I used emotive statements and came across that I want people "cut up". My bad.

However, any tactic other than sitting in a room with a bright light in your face interrogation comes under fire as "torture" by many who think that all terrorists are make believe and were created to scare the general public. Most probably aren't anything to worry about - it's the two or three that are that are the problem, and the fact that people have convinced themselves that all "detainees" are innocent pawns is dangerous. Which by this statement:


I assure you that the people being tortured (in the case of my question) would see no problem torturing you.


I meant that the people being shown the utmost concern for by many wouldn't think twice about doing much worse than baking you in a pot.


If a guy would rape you, do you rape him first? I don't swing that way, Pete.


Kudo's for the unessecessary veiled homosexaul insult.


Odd

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
how about this:

if we capture an enemy intelligence agent, we ask very nicely that he tell us everything he knows. If he complies, he gets a nice comfy cell at Gitmo until the war is over and the enemy commanders have been hanged. If he refuses, he gets a quick, painless .45 to the cerebellum. No torture necessary.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I dont really approve of any kind of abuse for the gathering of information. The use of abuse is predicated on the weakness of the subject. We have to assume the subject is weak enough to be broken by the means applied to them. If they arent then you have to up the ante till they crack. Things quickly degenerate to barbarism at that point.

Some people say that torture is ineffective because the subject will say anything to get the torment to stop I say what makes the "soft" techniques currently favored by America any different torture in this respect. If the process is unpleasant enough to break a subject then it is unpleasant enough to cause a subject to lie to save his skin once again resulting in faulty intel.

Some people talk about the torture we have seen of prisoners in recent history as if it is just childs games that is harmless and not torture. If these practices are not torturous then why are they judged to be as effective as torture at extracting information under duress? Surely any method of extracting information through trauma can be classified as torture. If not then what word would you use to define it?

Regarding the scenario provided Im sad to say if things have got to that point then we are already to late to save the day. We only have the word of the subject that the intel he provides is accurate. Whats to stop him from sending us on a wild goose chase in LA while the bomb ticks down in NY? What are we going to do say "stop lying" and hope he cooperates?



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
good question....

To turtore someone is wrong....and like many have stated (here), they will give you information you want to hear.

So let's look at the people they released from Cuba....yes "some" have returned to this way of life...ex. in Afghan this has happened a couple times....so it shows that if you turtore a prisoner and then let them free....well what would you do? (not t'a mention that they "tag" these people they let free, prob. some GPS stuck up th'r butt). But the 4 guys in England now free.....wonder how pissed off they are, esp. if they w'r inocent to begin with...and yes many people w'r imprisoned for simple being in the wrong place at the wrong time (with people accusing others as being AlQuada/Taliban when they w'r not).

So to answer the question again....no real benifit to turtore, like in the past the terrorists always plant "fake" info, so if they know w'r gon'a torture, then they can plan for that....if we don't torture, then we have half-won the battle....because someone will always speak if they have an easy way out, but to threaten with pain is something they will hate.

Your Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
In that case, rip off his fingernails, make him drink battery acid, whatever if it it'll help stop a radiological attack.




top topics



 
0

log in

join