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.

 

Senator McCain, your comment please?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
To further indicate how out-of-tune some humanitarian types are, a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that nearly 55 percent of those surveyed support the current policy that allows tough interrogation tactics, while just 30 percent say that techniques now being employed by U.S. intelligence go too far.


By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans support U.S. interrogators doing "whatever it takes" to get information from terrorist suspects who might be planning attacks against U.S. interests.


Furthermore, this was mentioned:


"They don't want to know what the specifics are," NBC's Andrea Mitchell said Sunday while discussing the previously unreported survey. "They agree with whatever it takes."

Poll: Americans Back Tough Interrogations

What say ye advocates who maintain the high ground theory"?





seekerof

[edit on 13-11-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
So, being "out of tune" instantly makes humanitarians wrong?

I fear for you, seeker.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I think I’m going to have to agree with seekerof here, the united states, in speach maintains its higher moral ground, however in actions it appears to do the opposite. "we invade Iraq to free the people from oppression, and dismantle a nuclear weapons program" (that I might add they didn’t find, let alone the other infamous reasons many on this board speculate they went to iraq for OIL lol) "we invade Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and capture bin laden" (need i remind you they didn’t find him either, and may I add that Afghanistan is one of the largest producers of WHAT in the world… OPIUM) and now the Americans seem to be moving once again in there righteous struggle for world peace, freedom, and equality with the gold ol’ "we will abolish terrorism, fear, ect" but once again with worlds preaching moral high ground, the reality seems a bit different. If we look behind the Veil of, what some might term as misguiding lies… we see once again the reality is quite different. The government Crys out its moral high ground with its pleas for goodness and freedom and to abolish the fear and terrorism in the world yet
now it seems that the government is turning to terrorizing means its self to exploit this new found “loop hole” if you will.

So to sum this all up I see a pattern, cry through blood sweat and tears, pull on the heartstrings of every man woman and child, preach your moral high ground, and then in reality implementing some plan of your own devise behind the backs of the masses…. Who of course look no further than the pleas of moral high ground spewed by the government... ignorance



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Yes maybe the should resort to giving terrorists a cup of tea and cookie and asking "can you please tell me who your planning to hurt next please sir".



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Seekerof, when I voted for you, I didn't know you were running on the Pro-Torture platform. I understand your point, get the bad guys and all, but torture is pretty much "anti-human being".

Also, you wanna talk torture? Thanksgiving's in a couple weeks.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
...I didn't know you were running on the Pro-Torture platform. I understand your point, get the bad guys and all, but torture is pretty much "anti-human being".

Also, you wanna talk torture? Thanksgiving's in a couple weeks.


Pro-torture is defined as what, brimstone735.
Are you categorizing 55%+ of the people who took this poll as being pro-torture?

I am hardly advocating a pro-torture position, and my position on the use of torture have been well-expressed in the past by me. Should it be everyday practice? No. Should it be applied across-the-board? No. Should it be used in matters of national security to save numbers of lives? You bet.

The poll speaks for itself.
If you wish to view it as a pro-torture outcome, then so be it, but I would argue that it does not conclusively suggest or merit one to be labeled pro-torture. With the over abundance of topics relating to terrorists and insurgents and their using suicide bombings to harm civilains, and some members here seemingly agreeing with, advocating, and/or rationalizing such uses, would it be fair to call them pro-terrorists? Hardly. So please, for the sake of civility, lets refrain from calling me or others who may find favor with this polling outcome: pro-torture.







seekerof

[edit on 13-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
To further indicate how out-of-tune some humanitarian types are, a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that nearly 55 percent of those surveyed support the current policy that allows tough interrogation tactics, while just 30 percent say that techniques now being employed by U.S. intelligence go too far.



Dunno about being 'out of tune', it just looks like most Americans lack any humanitarian vision or to put it nicely, 30 percent understand more than what they are told.

What else is new? America is out of beat but thinks it's leader of the band.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Hardly. So please, for the sake of civility, lets refrain from calling me or others who may find favor with this polling outcome: pro-torture.


seekerof

[edit on 13-11-2005 by Seekerof]


Ahhh, I see. Limited, kinda, sorta, maybe luke warm, semi-pro torture.

You know, we're better than the CONGO, right?
How about Pol Pot?
How about Stallin, I mean we have to morally more righteous than STALLIN, don't we?
How about the KGB, I mean they used to torture their enemies for information, right? They used to have these big prisons in Eastern Europe.

Oh yeah, that's right. We picked them up at a fire sale. Well, that and a little bit more. Ideally, if we have to violate the spirit of the Constitution to protect it, aren't we really saying that the whole samn thing is worthless?

While my first point was somewhat in jest, let me be more pointed. I could respect the position more, if people came right out and said what how they really felt... "Hey, I support torture, because damn it, I just like seeing people suffer a whole bunch".

Now, I know you actually do have the purest of goals and the best of intentions, but if you want to be purely technical - if you support torture, even if just a little bit - just a tad - then you're pro-torture. Trying to pretty it up, is just that. An attempt to portray it as something better than what it is.

Evil, however correct it might be.

I'm pro-torture, if there's a nuclear bomb a foot. And, I freely exchange my own morality for that exclusion. But, torturing people for intel? Where do we draw the line?

How about a child molester accused of kidnapping a child?

Time is wasting away. The clock is ticking. How about we take some rubber hoses to him in the back room. He's sure to tell us everything.

Especially, the things we want to hear.

I guess the problem with these out of tune humanitarian types, is that like to sleep well at night, and not be haunted by the screams of some poor bastard getting his fingernails ripped out.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   

By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans support U.S. interrogators doing "whatever it takes" to get information from terrorist suspects who might be planning attacks against U.S. interests.


The question is kind of misleading. Who wouldn't support torturing those guys? But when will we know if we have those guys? People getting caught-up in a round-up; people getting turned-in for reward money (extortion); it's all fun and games torturing Osama, but until we have a way to distinguish between a bomber and a pick-pocket (like, oh I don't know, a trial), torturing doesn't sound like the party hit everyone is making it out to be.

I'm sure if you had a poll, "Is it ok to torture murders to force them to confess," Americans would love it. But change it to , "Is it ok to torture this guy we picked-up yesterday. Not sure exactly who he is, but he smells funny." Americans would probably be less inclined.


What good does torture do anyway? Stick a chem-light up my butt and I'll confess to anything you like. Two of them? I'll confess to shotting JFK!



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme

Stick a chem-light up my butt and I'll confess to anything you like. Two of them? I'll confess to shotting JFK!


Though I dont know if I would have worded it that way its more or less correct. With enough pain and time every person will crack. Every person has a breaking point where they will spill the beans in a effort to stop the pain.

Now if you really are hiding info they are looking for Torture can be very effective, Sooner or later you will crack and give it up.

But if you really dont have the info they think you have you will just tell them whatever you think they want to hear. If they want you to confess to shooting JFK even though you were born in say 1978 they will with enough pain.



[edit on 14-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Yes maybe the should resort to giving terrorists a cup of tea and cookie and asking "can you please tell me who your planning to hurt next please sir".



That's a rediculous conclusion and you know it.

There are many ways to interrigate that don't involve rape and the torture that has been documented as being used.

If you torture someone long enough they'll tell you that they painted the mona lisa but that doesn't make their statements credible.

If you like torture as an "eye for an eye" policy at least be honest about it, but do not believe, or pretend, that it will lead to valuable intelligence.

So the idea that it's nescessary is a false assumption.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   
There are many methods of social engineering and psychological "mind games" to get valuable information out of someone, you just need to be smart enough to exploit one's weaknesses and comfort zones.

Torture is just an admission that "gooooolly dem darn "terrorists" is jus to smarter then us, so I reckon we'll hav tuh beat it out uv em".



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Well, if you support your troops using torture as a intelligence gathering tool, thats fine ...... but then you can't complain if the bad guys torture the 'good guys' can you.

Stick to the rules, and maintain the Moral high ground.

You can't make the rules of war up, to fit todays policies with out expecting your enemy to do the same to counter your new rules



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
There are many methods of social engineering and psychological "mind games" to get valuable information out of someone, you just need to be smart enough to exploit one's weaknesses and comfort zones.


Hmmm, they are no more effective than torture, what's stops someone lying under other conditions nothing.
I'm sure when they torture someone as well, they use a lie detector ( or some similar device ) to attempt to verify the information.

As an aside, the reason I think people responded in the affirmative to this is due to the TV shows being shown in the US such as " 24 " with Keifer Sutherland. He kills and tortures terrorists in that show to save the country. The thing is he is always right when he tortures someone, real life unfortunately isn't that simple.

Can torture work - yes. Unfortunately, the law of averages says that it will be applied to the innocent as well as the guilty.

BTW - I can completely understand McCains view on this as he was horribly tortured for 5 years by the North Vietnamese. I have read his accounts and others of their time in captivity. It would be impossible for him to have any impartiality.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmmm, they are no more effective than torture

I disagree, with torture one will say anything to make the pain stop.
painted the mona lisa- yup
killed JFK- sure
I'm santa claus - you bet
Anything, so you're not nescessarily getting any "better" intelligence or info.

Originally posted by rogue1
what's stops someone lying under other conditions.

That's just it, if you use the right tactics, you give them no reason to lie.

Trick them into thinking you're someone you're not, gain their trust, or other various methods.

"Is the guy in the next cell that talks to me at night from another Al Quida cell or an interrigator?"

Originally posted by rogue1
I'm sure when they torture someone as well, they use a lie detector ( or some similar device ) to attempt to verify the information.

Lie dectors are not infallable and should be more acurately termed "stress detectors", as they measure the bodys reaction, or stress, in regards to a question.

Anyone being tortured is obviously under stress and any question asked would register off the charts regardless of the truth of the answer.

One fairly recent "lie detector" I've heard about measures pupil dialation.

With cameras today, this can be done at a distance without the subject ever knowing.




[edit on 11/14/05 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
The traitor McCain can not be trusted. He almost sank the air craft carrier he was stationed on then it is no surprise his buddies let him get shot down. Hanoi Jane and McCain were made for each other. I have no respect for that nutjob............



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmmm, they are no more effective than torture

I disagree, with torture one will say anything to make the pain stop.
painted the mona lisa- yup
killed JFK- sure
I'm santa claus - you bet
Anything, so you're not nescessarily getting any "better" intelligence or info.


Well anyone can lie using any technique. Many of thses terrorists would have had training to thwart most techniques used by the intelligence services.



Originally posted by rogue1
what's stops someone lying under other conditions.

That's just it, if you use the right tactics, you give them no reason to lie.

Trick them into thinking you're someone you're not, gain their trust, or other various methods.

"Is the guy in the next cell that talks to me at night from another Al Quida cell or an interrigator?"


Sure it would work on some, but trained terrorists probably not. I'm sure they use all those techniques at Gitmo, so they would know what works and what doesn't.



Originally posted by rogue1
I'm sure when they torture someone as well, they use a lie detector ( or some similar device ) to attempt to verify the information.

Lie dectors are not infallable and should be more acurately termed "stress detectors", as they measure the bodys reaction, or stress, in regards to a question.

Anyone being tortured is obviously under stress and any question asked would register off the charts regardless of the truth of the answer.


You don't test them whilst your doing it, you let them calm down. The next day you take a baseline and interrogate them.


One fairly recent "lie detector" I've heard about measures pupil dialation.
With cameras today, this can be done at a distance without the subject ever knowing.


There are all sorts such as using infrared cameras to measure capillary dilation in the face and head.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
To further indicate how out-of-tune some humanitarian types are, a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that nearly 55 percent of those surveyed support the current policy that allows tough interrogation tactics, while just 30 percent say that techniques now being employed by U.S. intelligence go too far.


What are "tough interrogation tactics" and "techniques now being employed"? Do these people know what they voted for? "Whatever it takes? But they don't want to hear about it...



By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans support U.S. interrogators doing "whatever it takes" to get information from terrorist suspects who might be planning attacks against U.S. interests.


I could fit into that category! Someone might suspect me and it's a possibility that I'm planning something.

My answer to this is that people are stupid. To support something ("whatever it takes") then say you don't want to know the specifics, is a cop out. A classic ostrich maneuver.



What say ye advocates who maintain the high ground theory"?


Well, pitting my morals against that of this majority who would approve torture - I don't think it makes me look bad...


A majority can be idiots, you know?

I say look who these same people voted as the president of our country. I say look at television programming. Look at the proiorities of so many average Americans. Look at sports, how big a role they play. Look at Walmart.

I'm proud and honored to be in this minority. I don't give up my standards just because a majority of ostriches does. Anyone who votes for something, then sticks their head in the sand, has NO respect from me...


[edit on 14-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Many of thses terrorists would have had training to thwart most techniques used by the intelligence services.

I feel you may be giving them a little to much credit there.

Many, if not most, of the "terrorists" are just unsatisfied angry youths trained to either assemble, strap on, and push the button of a bomb/vest, or the basics of how to work an AK.

Most have not had Special Ops training, and as you mentioned, some tests monitor things like capillary dilation which is involuntary and not "easily" circumvented.


Originally posted by rogue1
You don't test them whilst your doing it, you let them calm down. The next day you take a baseline and interrogate them.


With enough sleep depravation, electric shock, and other methods to truly break someone mentally, you or I could be convinced that we brought down the trade center towers single-handedly, and that kind of "programming" would probably still be "active" the next day after a "calm down" even though a bystander would know that a single person, logically, couldn't have done it.

Torture can, and does, drive people insane and breaks down their hold on reality.

There's a reason that mentally deficient testimony doesn't hold up in court, it's not reliable.


There are all sorts such as using infrared cameras to measure capillary dilation in the face and head.


Yup, that's another method that can be used at a distance without the subject knowing they're being "interrogated".

[edit on 11/14/05 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Methods of torture need to be more defined. For all the individuals against torture, are you against all methods?

Since methods and degrees of torture can vary what are/would be the acceptable ways?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join