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.

 

ABUSE CRISIS: Tom Ridge: US "should not rule out torture"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Speaking to the BBC, outgoing U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, stated that torture may be used in certain circumstances. However, he also said that the US does not condone the use of torture. Ridge was further quoted as saying "You would try to exhaust every means you could to extract the information to save hundreds and thousands of people".
 



news.bbc.co.uk
The outgoing head of the US Department of Homeland Security has said torture may be used in certain cases in order to prevent a major loss of life.
Speaking to the BBC, Tom Ridge said the US did not condone the use of torture to extract information from terrorists.

But he said that under an "extreme set" of hypothetical circumstances, such as a nuclear threat, "it could happen".

A spokesman for Mr Ridge said his comments were taken out of context and did not amount to approval of torture.`


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


While I could see the extracting information in the time of extreme need, who gets to define when that is? This is the critical question and opens the door to a whole new level of potential abuse of the system. As we learned from Abu Ghraib, vague guidelines lead to abuse. lets hoe we have learned from this mistake, but I doubt it.




posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   

as posted by FredT
While I could see the extracting information in the time of extreme need, who gets to define when that is?


It seemingly appears to me that the "when" was given within the article:


....under an "extreme set" of hypothetical circumstances, such as a nuclear threat...




seekerof



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I see no problem when information that will save thousand of lives is needed from a prisoner and any means sounds good to me.

But when the information been taken is just irrelevant to imminent threat then abuse should be avoid.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I can see your point Fred, however I honestly feel that who ever captures the individual should have a right to turn them over to their own country if their laws allow for unusual methods. I have no problem with that at all.

Keep in mind that Sadam wants to be put on trial in the US not Iraq. Why is that? I think the answer is very obvious because he knows their trials are fast and end quick with no appeals allowed. That is not the case in the US. If we tried him, the appeal process would take so long he would die a natural death which we all know he does not deserve.



[edit on 1/16/2005 by shots]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
It seemingly appears to me that the "when" was given within the article:


Seekerof,

That is so vague and could any scenaio be presented that way? I am already iffy on the whole detainee issue esp holding those without charges for life. I simply don't like having the ability for politicians on either side of the isle having the freedom to manipulate act that may or may not be constitutional to suit thier needs. May be naive, but .....



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

as posted by FredT
That is so vague and could any scenaio be presented that way?


It's almost relative, FredT, in that almost anything and everything can be susceptible to being manipulated and abused. This issue of torture and abuse and when and when not to apply such acts of torture and abuse is almost amounting to one taking a Ethics101 class. That being said, I think anything that can be concieved and determined as having and being an/of utmost relation to or necessitate utmost 'national security' concerns will/would be viewed as open to such possible needed applications of those methods.

I would be interested to find anything credible that would further expand or explain:


...an "extreme set" of hypothetical circumstances....


I'm almost positive that the "nuclear threat" example is but one of a number of other "extreme...circumstances".




seekerof

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Any experianced military interregators will tell you torture hardly ever yields any useful results, and will often just yeild false and misleading results. It isn't like the movies where you but enough fear into a person and they start telling you everything



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
True, to a large extent.
As such, thats why the applied techniques of 'monstering' are proving quite useful, as well as, yielding the desired positive results.




seekerof



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Well if the Bush Administration feels that torture is expectable, then they should have no problems excepting torture being applied to captured American soldiers. After all this could yield information that would save countless Iraqi lives, no? This is going to lead to a messy assortment of problems, sadly, it will be the common people of the world who will suffer for the ill-advised decisions made by the U.S. Administration. In addition, they will have no one to blame but them selves.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Sauron,
Your presenting and saying nothing that isn't and hasn't taken place, in regards to those American troops, pilots, etc. being captured and then beaten, tortured, and abused to gain information.



seekerof



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
why are we still using world war two tactics.why cant they get info other more not life threating ways.we have good techno stuff that can get the info we need.we can drug the person to talk we dont have to beat them up.all of this stuff is more humane that beating the prisoners up.besides if we do it they do it also.we set the standards and we can get info alot easy by talking then beating.whos to say if the info is truthful when the person is under fear.there most likely to say anything made up in the subconsciousness mind .



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join