More Torture Made Public!!!!

Originally posted by negativenihilIt's called setting the example Ed. If we are the better nation, then we should set the example by NOT sinking to the level of a common terrorist.

I would agree with that for the most part, but.........


Do we drag the bodies through the streets? Do we celebrate when massive civilian casualties occur ? Do we apologize when we kill civilians?


If you are so smart, then answer this question,

You capture and insurgent that you are sure holds the information of the location of 3 of your fellow soldiers and that they will be killed in the very short term, and all 'nice and humane' methods have been exhausted, do you not do your best to get the information you need to SAVE lives?


And another thing, yes this torture # sickens me and we should lead by example but would it make a difference to the insurgents?

You make it sound that this is standard operating procedure and you know damn good and well it is not, there must be some extenuating circumstances for it to have gone this far, or at least I hope there was.



You liberals have all the answers but when the gloves are off you can not pussyfoot around, these SOB's deal in death and they could give a # less if you are setting an example...

You bitch when a Marine holds a gun to a mans head when it is to save his fellow soldier, there is no pleasing your type, you want the Americans to fight with a hand tied behind their back, deep down you want to see them fail.

If that is so ed then why are liberals prepared to fight in americas name?
If they want to see marines fail then surely joining the military isnt the best option now is it?

It was Ghandi who said 'An eye for an eye will leave the world blind'
Go ahead and save a few mens lives by exchangeing it with another, I will not hold you to it....its between you and your god....

Originally posted by edsinger
You capture and insurgent that you are sure holds the information of the location of 3 of your fellow soldiers and that they will be killed in the very short term, and all 'nice and humane' methods have been exhausted, do you not do your best to get the information you need to SAVE lives?

I doubt i can answer this question to your liking, but i can tell you i would not resort to torture.

You liberals have all the answers but when the gloves are off you can not pussyfoot around, these SOB's deal in death and they could give a # less if you are setting an example...

So lame. you're resorting to name calling.

Don't you dare assume i'm "Liberal" and don't use that word as if it's dirty or insulting. I doubt you could even begin to grasp how i truely feel when it comes to politics, so i wont waste the time to spell it out.

I am not "Liberal" or "Conservative" or "Left" or "Right". I am an American, and i know the difference between right and wrong, and torture is NOT RIGHT.

Ed let me ask you this-

Do you feel 9/11 gave us a blank check to do as we see fit? to break rules as we see fit?
What makes it ok for the US to torture, but no one else?

Torture is not right - I agree

911 - Did not give us a blank check




But we need to do what is right to defend our nation, even if some of it is not ideal.



So you aviod the question then, just how would you get the information?


So you would let your fellow soldier die just so you set an example? Well that is an example that I hope I never have to set.

please remember that it torture of a person that would do anything to end your life and was trying like hell when they caught him.

also remember that it was a person that could have information that could save millions of lives and is not willing to give up that information.

honestly, im not kissing buttox here, but the reason a lot of you feel so strongly about it is that you are in general good people. You would never train in a terrorist camp. you would never use biological weapons.
YOU WOULD NEVER FLY A PLANE INTO A SKYSCRAPER no matter who paid you to do it (as that seems to still be a hot debate).

therfore you cannot fathom being tortured becasue you cant fathom doing something evil enough to be tortured for.
as i mentioned a zillion times here and aborad, i am all for civil liberties and human rights. when its torutring terrorists, im pretty much all for it. (americans included)

Originally posted by jprophet420
as i mentioned a zillion times here and aborad, i am all for civil liberties and human rights. when its torutring terrorists, im pretty much all for it. (americans included)

Then you must be sure he is a terrorist and that he has done something that is labeled as terrorism. And I can't understand how people accept that there goverment is using torture. US invaded Iraq not the other way around, US didn't need to be there. You think it horrible when American soldiers are tortured (and it is) but its OK that Iraqis are being tortured (and its not).

Originally posted by edsinger
So you aviod the question then, just how would you get the information?

no i didn't avoid the question. like i said, i doubt i could answer it to your liking (due to a lack of military training on my part). i think it's unfair for me to assume my actions from this position.

HOWEVER! I know that i would not resort to torture. There is no situation where torture could or should be justified.

Yes i realize the "insurgents" probably wouldn't care one way or the other if we torture, but do keep in mind WE INVADED IRAQ. WE INVADED THEIR HOMELAND. No matter how anyone feels about the war, the simple fact is that we invaded their homeland.

And now look at us, torturing the Iraqis just as Saddam did. The torture chambers and rape rooms never went away Ed, they just got new management.

Originally posted by jprophet420
when its torutring terrorists, im pretty much all for it. (americans included)

Why stop at terrorists?

What about people who break traffic laws? I mean really, who needs to speed on the highway unless they are up to no good? How about shoplifters, jay walkers, or adults who buy alcohol for minors?

i swear, in 50 years our childeren will look back on us in disgust.

did you even read my post?

if you cant understand the fundamental differnce between breaking a common law and partaking in attempted genocide please put me on ignore or dont reply to my posts.

i hope my kid looks down on this in 50 years and says "man he was right - violence is wrong but there is a point at which you must make a stand"

@ thetodd, yes, you must be 100% sure first. torture is wrong no doubt.

imagine this:

a nuke goes of in your hometown while you are on vacation. every person and thing you loved is gone forever, along with millions of other lives.

there were 3 detainees who had this information in prison that were set to be 'interrogated' but were not because of 'civil liberties'.

do you still think torture is always wrong?


[edit on 18-2-2005 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by jprophet420
did you even read my post?

Yup, hence my question of "why should we stop there?"

If you can justify torture on americans, why cant you justify the torture of common american criminals in the name of public safety? Are they not a danger to other american? Sure they may not be blowing themselves up or flying jets into buildings, but you sure can kill a mess of people in a speeding car.

I thought the torture of terrorists was to keep us safe?

torture is a very slipperly slope, and its a lot harder to stop once you've already started.

Originally posted by edsinger
But we need to do what is right to defend our nation, even if some of it is not ideal.

...I dont call a second war with iraq "not ideal"

So you avoid the question then, just how would you get the information?

There are many methods, the most impressive would have to be water torture, you can break them in a short amount of time.

So you would let your fellow soldier die just so you set an example? Well that is an example that I hope I never have to set.

...Is this not the same question police forces have to deal with on a daily basis?
Is this not what the FBI has to deal with everyday in kidnappings?
Go ask a hostage negotiator what its like to lose a hostage.....

Originally posted by jprophet420
imagine this:

a nuke goes of in your hometown while you are on vacation. every person and thing you loved is gone forever, along with millions of other lives.

there were 3 detainees who had this information in prison that were set to be 'interrogated' but were not because of 'civil liberties'.

do you still think torture is always wrong?
[edit on 18-2-2005 by jprophet420]

Yes, it is still wrong.

There is nothing you or Ed can say that will get me to say "Torture is ok under XYZ conditions". It's a primitive mothod that causes more harm than it prevents.


[edit on 18-2-2005 by negativenihil]

Imagine this: someone thinks your mother/father have information that could save lives and they torture him/her to get this information.

Still right to use torture?

People should keep in mind that torture is not an effective way of getting information out of someone. For the most part people will say whatever you want to get out of torture. Eventually anyone will break and tell the truth but how could you be sure that this is the truth. This kind of reminds me of the movie Marathon Man where Dustin Hoffman is being tortured by Laurence Olivier, and Laurence Olivier only asks, "Is it safe?", and no matter what Dustin Hoffman says he just keeps getting tortured.

Originally posted by lost1You can't say what you would or wouldn't do if you have never been in those types of situations

I would not savagely beat a prisoner to death and I would not hang him, certainly not in that inhuman manner. The rest of us not being in those prison cells hardly excuses their behaviour.

It's easy to say how disgusting and repulsive these methods are when you have never been in a situation where you need to extract as much information as possible to save others

Irrelevant. Torture is illegal, even tho some borderline stuff is explicitly allowed now. Killing prisoners is illegal. Circumstance is not an acceptable excuse.

If someone kidnapped your mother

A pointless hypothetical and there is nothing in the case that suggests that there was anything even close to immedeacy in this situation. All we are told is that he was being interogated.

Now take that scenario, and add suicide bombers, beheading, rounds coming down range and multiply it by 10[/qote]
If that kind of thing is too much for you then do not become a solider.
Besides, these clowns are prison guards, not combat troops.

I would.

And you think that that would somehow make it legal or permissable?

edsinger
So you are left with 3 choices

How about instead of that he be interogated to the legal limit and then held? How is torture going to get info out of these people anyway?

negativenihil
Then you should NOT be shocked or angered when these tactics are inturn used against any captured US Troops.

Indeed, this is why the people that the US is fighting can be said ot be animals. What choice do they have but to fight with dirty low down tacitcs to get an 'invader' out of their country? They feel just as justified in blowing up children as these goons did killing this guy and who knows who else. Is the US going to start flaying the skin off babies in order to coerce captives to talk? Well, why not?

Age old torture. Been with man longer than probably recorded history, but because we are so-called "civilized" today, it is voodoo. As such, then again, it seems blazingly apparent that those vehemently against torture and/or the use of torture are only specifically calling out only those deemed necessary to their perspective arguments and agendas.

As torture is applied in this world today, will someone please explain what makes one nation who uses it in whatever form more "civilized" than the next nation that uses torture in whatever form? Is the U.S. more "civilized" that say Iran? How about Russia? Maybe China? More "civilized" that Jordan or Egypt? How about India or Pakistan?

The nations of this world may be separated by economic, industrial, and cultural/societal differences which then brings in the descriptive cliche' of "third world nations", etc., but because a nation is considered, deemed, and/or pronounced as "third world" in no way implies that they are not comparatively "civilized." Does having a TV, internet access, super-highways make the Western nations more "civilized" than those nations that do not? As such, to me, the "we are more 'civilized' and should be setting the example" is a loud of hogwash. Torture, in its varied uses and methods of, has been utilized longer than the term "civilized" has been around. It is wrong in todays society but in past societies, it may have been viewed as otherwise, correct? Its like ethics and morality issues. Its relative to the individual and the society and culture that individual is within. Example: One culture may view stealing as wrong, whereas, another may view it as a duty and honor to do such. One culture may view canabalism as horrific and wrong, whereas, another may view it as spiritual and an act of honor. In these examples, because of what we may view to be wrong or right, does it make them less "civilized"?

To cut to the chase, as it were, the world today, in general, views torture as immoral and inhumane behavior, correct? If so, then why is only one "civilized" nation being scrutinized for its relative and perceived uses of restrained torture? Why are countless other likewise "civilized" nations not being mentioned and likewise being condemned as the one or two? IMHO, torture is wrong, but in some limited defined situations and circumstances, may have its applied uses. This whole argument of "civilized" and "ought to be setting an example" to torture is wrong no matter the situation or circumstance to the unspoken "it doesn't matter because it is only this one country I am concerned with that is doing and using such and to be perfectly honest, I really don't care about what other nations use it, etc." is numbing and near hypocritical. You think the US and its limited uses of torture are terrible and angering, welcome to the "real" world and smell what "real" torture is, courtesy of Syria:

Torture "made in Syria".
All the world organizations that struggle to defend the Rights of Man have published documents about torture in Syria. The following is a document published in Geneva in May 1984 by the "Swiss Association for the Defense of the Liberties of Political Prisoners in Syria." This document, entitled "The Rights of Man in Syria" refers to the treatments reserved for political prisoners held by the Damascus secret services.

The prisoner is stripped naked. His whole body is shaved. Cigarette butts are extinguished over the more sensitive places of his body. They burn his scalp. They pull out his nails. They tie his genitals with a nylon thread that they secure to a nail on the wall after transfixing the prisoner to a ring fixed on the opposite wall. Then, one of the tormentors strikes the taut nylon thread repeatedly with a stick. They flog the soles of a prisoner's feet with lashes of a whip, a cane, or a plastic pipe, a minimum of two hundred lashes a time. Then, stretch out the prisoner inside a container of cold water. They invert the prisoner into a car's tire’s rim and then strike him all over (the process: they insert a leg into the middle of the tire, followed by the head and the arms in such a manner that the prisoner is bent over and immobilized in the form of a U inside the tire's circle). They hang the prisoner by his feet with his head down. They force the prisoner to remain standing during several days while preventing him from sitting down or falling asleep by ordering him to raise his arms fully stretched and very straight. They force the prisoner to stand for long periods of time on one foot, administering blows each time he lowers his raised foot. They force the prisoners to run while carrying heavy loads and sustaining blows until utterly exhausted or in a faint. Pour all of a sudden boiling water over the prisoners. They force the prisoner to sit on a stake. They force the prisoner to sit on the neck of a bottle. They subject the prisoner to electric shock by using an alternative electric current and tying the wires to the more sensitive parts of the body, especially to the genitals. They force pump water or air into the prisoner. They force sexual intercourse with the prisoner. They tear out chunks of the prisoner's flesh from various parts of his body with the help of pliers. They rope the prisoner to a car and drive it full speed until death occurs or till the victims' bodies are torn apart and then the victim’s bodies are desecrated by gouging an eye or cutting an ear, the tongue, the fingers and in some cases the genitals, and by sticking them into the victim's mouth. They force the prisoner to run around a large room surrounded by torturers who strike him with diverse instruments of torture. Force the prisoner to drink his own urine. They throw the prisoner into a basin of electrified water. They tie the prisoner's genitals to prevent him from urinating after forcing him to drink diuretic liquids.

SYRIA, THE PALESTINIANS, AND THEIR LEBANESE ALLIES: TERRORISM AND WAR CRIMES
Syria War Crimes In Lebanon (January 1976 Till October 13, 1990)

Despite the dating on these sources, Syria still utilizes such methods today. Isn't Syria a "civilized" nation? Shuldn't they know better and likewise be setting an example to those nations around them and the world? Are they not a member of the United Nations? On the Human Rights Council? What makes "civilized" Syria and their uses of torture, which is undoubtedly viewed as wrong in their culture and society, different from the U.S. and its limited uses of torture and methods? What, because we are a republic based on democracy and equality for all men, and Syria is not? I thought equality for all men was a world agreed upon concept? Again, are they not apart of the United "civilized" Nations? Agreed to observe the rights of all men, as decreed by the United Nations?

Ah well, my rambling is finished. Enjoy.




seekerof

People should keep in mind that torture is not an effective way of getting information out of someone.

yes, it is. it is true that they will tell you anything to stop from being tortured but that includes what you want to know. if what you want to know can save lives its worth it, period.

Irrelevant. Torture is illegal, even tho some borderline stuff is explicitly allowed now. Killing prisoners is illegal. Circumstance is not an acceptable excuse.

ok, by your logic, america would not exist, we would all be dead. its not right to kill people at all. so america doesent kill ever again. we just sit back and all die becasue killing is wrong, and wrong people are killing us but we cant do it back.

Imagine this: someone thinks your mother/father have information that could save lives and they torture him/her to get this information.

hmm, my mother and father arent terrorists that got caught shooting at people with the intent to kill, or attend terrorist camps that promote such things. my mother is handicapped and incapable of being a terrorist, if my dad ever does get picked up in an afghani terror camp, i would not be happy about it but wtf? my parents arent terrorists as none of us are which is a point i already made.

what about when it happens to us troops? rofl! weather we do it or not they are still gonna do it anyway. Just becasue i believe its ok to torture terrorists i believe that the united states is right to invade iraq? im not a soldier for a reason, becasue nobody attacked me. if i signed up to be a soldier i would EXPECT to be tortured even though I am not a terrorist.

There is nothing you or Ed can say that will get me to say "Torture is ok under XYZ conditions". It's a primitive mothod that causes more harm than it prevents.

i admit my scenario was extreme, but come on now. if you can save even one human life by illegally extracting information it certainly DOES NOT cause more harm than it prevents by mere definition.

Originally posted by negativenihil
no i didn't avoid the question. like i said, i doubt i could answer it to your liking (due to a lack of military training on my part). i think it's unfair for me to assume my actions from this position.

HOWEVER! I know that i would not resort to torture. There is no situation where torture could or should be justified.


And now look at us, torturing the Iraqis just as Saddam did. The torture chambers and rape rooms never went away Ed, they just got new management.

(1) Well at least your honest about having no concept of kill or be killed.

(2) Oh yes there is, this particular case might not have been one but some of the examples listed below would change your mind. You can talk the talk but when it hits home you would have a change of heart.

(3) How DARE you? That is F^&&*ing BULL#. How many of them lost fingers? How many have we thrown off buildings? You obviously haven't a single clue as to what went on before and I am going to stop before I get a flag that I have been 2 months without.....wait a second I was gone 2 months, screw it.

Sit behind your computer and talk bull# but let me explain something to you, when the chips are down you will look to people who actually have testicles to do your fighting for you......you make me sick with that childish and ignorant comment.

Spit on you nation, why in the F&(*)&*^ don't you move to Canada?

And I noted that above you have never been in the military, that is an obvious conclusion to even the most casual of observers!


[edit on 18-2-2005 by edsinger]

Ed, firstly he is peace promoter atleast i hope he is if not then heh your statement stands strong..
seconldy, is it right for us to give into terrorism?
Thats what happens when we allow this very thing to happen, we try and fight back in a more darker way to combat them but all it does is add fuel not reduce it..
"an eye for an eye will make the world blind" , ghandi's famous words...

yup, an eye for an eye will make the world blind.

how f'in ever

not fighting back will make YOU blind if you are fighting against an enemy that empoloys that tactic.

torture to stop genocide is fair play at the least, and doesent even to begin to qualify for "an eye for an eye" as genocide >>>>>>>>>>>>torture.