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? I went through worse in basic training

page: 17
14
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I'm coming in here late not having read all the posts on this thread. And maybe I risk repeating points already made.

I think there is a top priority in human affairs of stopping and preventing the unnecessary death of innocents.

I'm not a fan of the recent US administrations or their military. But I do understand that in the wake of something the country was psychologically unprepared for, n major attack, the immediate concern was to do whatever possible to see there was no repeat performance, maybe even more calamitous.

The US military and the government's first concern is the well-being of it's citizens.
To stop further the assault on it's citizens the US has conventional means, and they involve warfare and weapons. Direct line ups of official armed forces against enemy official forces are not one of the options readily available in this new arena.

From what I have seen, the rationale behind waterboarding was - wait for this – finding the least destructive and most humane manner in which to get immediate intelligence that might actually save lives and prevent unneeded suffering.

When a alternative to prevention is indiscriminate bombing of potential target sources, for certain innocent men, women, and children lose their lives in the collateral damage. For certain innocent men, women, and children end up alive but suffering loss of limbs, internal damage, and other physical trauma that mean extended suffering and pain for life.

Right or wrong, by employing something like waterboarding, an intensely horrible experience, but endurable, maybe the loss of a dozen or a hundred lives, and as many suffering serious injuries for life, was prevented.

A trade off of temporary misery for one or a dozen men, in exchange for considerably less death and human suffering when all the sums are added up.

Yes, the option always existed to play by the rules.

I don't know the thinking and priorities of people reading this. But ask yourself, if that unique set of circumstances were present, and you were part of the decision making process, would you approve of causing suffering but not impairment of a prisoner with the knowledge it might prevent many deaths and much suffering?


Mike




posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
You are all missing the point!

If these terrorists were all caught in the act and there was no doubt over their guilt, then MAYBE there would be an argument that torture could be justified.

BUT these men in GITMO are not necessarily guilty. Some were just picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How can anyone justify this kind of treatment of people who may actually be innocent?

By the same vein should out police be using torture on SUSPECTS to extract a confession?

Come on guys - THINK



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nammu
Anyone in the local area willing to take Chuktah up on this?


Hell no!
I have read quite a bit about it over the years -- really more about stress and survival insticts and how the body reacts to it.

I think what some of these people, who compare it to some type of army training, are intentionally ignoring the facts that what they did, they CHOSE whereas those being tortured are not, and the entire concept of waterboarding isn't about drowning or killing someone - it's about making their bodies and minds believe they are drowning and that death is imminent. And that's very different.

When the SEALS and other such spec forces are training, they may be restricted (limbs bound, etc) to some degree to increase the difficulty and stress, but they aren't blindfolded and they know they're lives aren't really in immediate danger. And when you cannot see and are placed in a stressful situations, your anxiety levels skyrocket and your ability to focus and concentrate dissipatates and your brain automatically goes into survival mode.

And waterboarding is a good (awful word to use in this context) way to bring about that mind altering condition. Because it triggers the gag reflex and you lose control of your ability to stay focused and resolute, your mind perceives you to be drowning and the stresses placed upon you increase your adrenaline levels, which in turn increase your heart rate and breathing which makes you want to breath huge lungs fulls of air -- when your face is covered with a wet cloth, impeding your air, making it even worse.

So - to those who say 'waterboarding' isn't torture -- I really don't think they have an understanding of what it actually is. It's pretty awful stuff



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by noonebutme
 


That's why I thought Chuktah would be a good subject, seeing as he/she does not think waterboarding is torture and has stated he/she would be a willing subject.

May proove to be an interesting experiment. But due to the risks a doctor would definitely have to be present.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
This has been an interesting debate so far....

I would simply like to ask - at this point - two questions to those people who are actively supporting the idea of the use of torture techniques, and they are;

When you stoop to the lowest levels of torture, don't you become as bad as those who you seek to condem?

If so - what right have you to judge them in the first place, when you are no better?



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chucktah
reply to post by Pilot303
 


I would like to know how you think that these actions alone would put our soldiers into any more danger than they're already in? What is different now then 50 years ago? Why is it that just because the news is talking about waterboarding now, that our soldiers are at any greater risk then before? Is it because before, our enemies had morals? Or is it because that it is an easy argument for your cause?

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Chucktah]



Because things once considered war crimes no longer are. Do we really want to tell the world it is ok to torture prisoners in current and future conflicts?

If our soldiers are tortured in a similar manner, we sure can not prosecute those that did it. We just have to chalk it up to being how it is in war. Previous efforts by the international community have worked to protect POW rights with some success. We are throwing that out the window.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
This has been an interesting debate so far....

I would simply like to ask - at this point - two questions to those people who are actively supporting the idea of the use of torture techniques, and they are;

When you stoop to the lowest levels of torture, don't you become as bad as those who you seek to condem?

If so - what right have you to judge them in the first place, when you are no better?



Sir,

If you dont see stress tactics(waterboarding) as torture. And yes we are better then the people who seek to our nations harm. Last time I checked no Americans flew in planes into there buildings.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


Really wheres the link?

Kinda also funny that again congress (both sides of theaisle) courts lawers and the pres said it was okay.





After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."


Source


Yes, we did consider waterboarding a war crime in the 1940's. We are possibly the most hypocritical nation in the world when it comes to matters of obeying international law. We invade countries on the premise that they don't obey it, yet we shirk it ourselves.

And just because the President, and members of Congress OK'd it, doesn't make it OK. It was a war crime then and it's a war crime now.


Um last time I checked congress and the president and judges ran this nation, So if they say waterboarding is okay and you (CIA,NSA) can do it then do it.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by dooper
Weenies and anti-Americans can now rejoice. As of this moment, dedicated CIA field agents will be abandoning their tasks, with many headed for retirement.


With any luck, the ones guilty of torturing will be "retiring" to jail cells.



Originally posted by dooper


Well, everyone rejoice, as we've got another big attack coming now.

The damage is done, it's irreversable, and hopefully, the attacks that are certain to come, will be in a neighborhood near you.

Congratulations.


Are you quite finished yet? I think I can speak for most Americans when I say we've had it with all of this moronic fear mongering. 9/11 would never have happened if the government did not play a complicit role in allowing it to happen, and the only thing torture has done for our nation is destroying our namesake.

Why don't you go bury your head in sand, and the rest of us can live out our lives with the liberty and freedom our forefathers intended. I don't know what it must feel like to constantly live in fear of the "terrorist menace", but the Bush administration's version of McCarthyism has obviously worked on you.


Fear mongering? We are not fear mongering. And do you not understand that these people do wish to do this nation harm? I guarantee, god forbid, if there is another attack on our soil, your going to be the first person screaming why did we let this happen. Pretty much it boils down to this, in Vietnam the government bound the militaries hands to efficiently conduct a war. Present to the government is going to bind the hands of our intelligent assets so they cannot effectively make sure no harm comes to this nation again.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
If you dont see stress tactics(waterboarding) as torture.


Why then, do you complain about the actions of others? They don't see what they do as torture. They obviously think its perfectly acceptable - in the same way that you think this is?

On what grounds are you condeming them then? You treat them like animals, they treat you like animals. You are no better.



And yes we are better then the people who seek to our nations harm. Last time I checked no Americans flew in planes into there buildings.


Nope. But then the US did subsequently go into Iraq, on the pretext of a direct lie at worst, and a terrible awful distortion of the truth at best, and made a very very large mess of the place, and opened up pandora's box in the process.

How then does that make you better than anyone?



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot303

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
They know that, they also know that if they are taking captive by the enemy they wont come home alive. let see waterboarding or death? I choose waterboarding. Kinda of a no brainer. Dont you think?

And who did we hang after WWII for waterboarding? I was under the impression from what I study NAZIs were put to death for the brutal rape,murder and torture(no waterboarding) of jews,poles,gyosy and whoever else they diddnt like. I dont know about you but my country has never started a war that can has clamied up to 80 Million lives( Not sure if that is the correct number.)

[edit on 23-4-2009 by poedxsoldiervet]



lol...this post proves it. You are most certainly not a member of any armed forces.

Once again, check this link if you would like to know about the US hanging people for waterboarding and considering it a war crime: It actually contains the words of John McCain. A man who knows a bit more than you about torture.Japanese Hanged for Waterboarding

Not all members of our forces imprisoned are put to death despite your suggestion that is so. When it happens, people can and will pay whenever possible (search google for a man named Saddam Hussein...he and others were hanged for various crimes against humanity). Not all of our troops are tortured. We (you) however are setting the precedent that it would be ok for that to happen.

It is very simple...if we say it is ok, it will be done to us.

Cliffs notes: Your premise is flawed and you do not understand the definition of "torture" (although many have tried to explain it to you). We have executed others for waterboarding as a war crime. Our authorities may see legal action themselves. It all makes perfect sense.

Your fiction basic training story is flawed logic. Try again!


Get your facts straight. I said ALL of our POWS from this WAR HAVE BEEN KILLED. . your premises are flawed sir, stop reading what you want to read and think you understand what I am talking about.

Mod Edit: PLEASE READ THIS POST!

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
I am seeing a lot of responses from people in the armed forces or similar saying that it is not torture because they themselves have to endure similar in their basic training.

Bollocks.

YOU have a CHOICE and you get PAID to do it, these people don't. That is the difference.

Also, it does not surprise me to see that the armed forces indoctrinate their sheep to believe anything they are told, which is why we are seeing such blind faith being presented towards torture in this thread. You can present these guys with all the provable facts that you wish but it will not affect them - they will continue to believe that it is not torture because they do not know how to think for themselves.



These people who have been waterboarded had a choice to attack america or not to attack, they choose to attack and they knew we would hunt them down and get them. Even the memos "the chosen one" released have shown that only a handful of people were waterboarded and these were some bad dues.

Like I mentioned eariler if you feel so bad about go to gitmo, adopt a terriost, bring him to your house, feed him girl scout cookies. Just watch your throat..



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


Get your facts straight. I said ALL of our POWS from this WAR HAVE BEEN KILLED. . your premises are flawed sir, stop reading what you want to read and think you understand what I am talking about.

Source?

Afghanistan or Iraq? What about the POW's we have rescued? Are you sure I am the one who does not have my facts straight?

And...this is not about this conflict only. This is about current and future conflicts. We are rewriting the laws of war. Geneva convention? Whats the point because we are quickly making that null and void with our current approach to war and torture.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot303

Originally posted by Chucktah
reply to post by Pilot303
 


I would like to know how you think that these actions alone would put our soldiers into any more danger than they're already in? What is different now then 50 years ago? Why is it that just because the news is talking about waterboarding now, that our soldiers are at any greater risk then before? Is it because before, our enemies had morals? Or is it because that it is an easy argument for your cause?

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Chucktah]



Because things once considered war crimes no longer are. Do we really want to tell the world it is ok to torture prisoners in current and future conflicts?

If our soldiers are tortured in a similar manner, we sure can not prosecute those that did it. We just have to chalk it up to being how it is in war. Previous efforts by the international community have worked to protect POW rights with some success. We are throwing that out the window.


It would be a better change of pace if Americas POWs our tortured this way, Instead of having there head removeved from there body. I dont think theres one trooper here whho, if they were taking POW and giving the choice waterboarding or losing your head. I wonder which one theyd take?



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   




Once again, not every POW has his head removed or ends up dead. That is where your logic breaks down.

John McCain was a POW and he is alive but surely haunted by the torture he recieved. You seem to be saying it is ok since he escaped with his life.

Different war, yes. Same situation, yes. You are advocating this as the new standard as acceptable for POW's in this and future conflicts.

Should the rules put forth by the Geneva Convention be thrown out?



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Like it or not, to the people who approved waterboarding, the alternative was a real possibility of mass deaths if the information derived quickly could not be acted on.

Just in the new headlines the CIA is claiming a waterboarding derived information that prevented another plane attack in Los Angeles




latimesblogs.latimes.com...

Exhibit A in the case for torture: Defenders of the practice say the waterboarding of Al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced information that allowed the U.S government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles in 2002.

According to a previously classified May 30, 2005, Justice Department memo that the Obama administration released last week, before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

After the "enhanced techniques," which the agency used on him 183 times, KSM -- the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks -- told investigators about a "second wave" of terrorists from East Asia who planned to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles.

After he was subjected to the waterboarding technique, wrote Conservative News Service's Terence P. Jeffrey,"KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key Al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles."




Most here will scoff at this. Maybe less those who live in the Los Angeles area or have family and friends.

War is dirty. People lose lives and suffer horrible injuries.

Anything to prevent it can be justified in some contexts.

Also to be scoffed at, atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Two military targets it earmarked for conventional bombing, it should be noted. Arguments are made this horror was not necessary. We have seen the lasting effect with Japan surrendering and it no longer being a militarized nation.

Tough decisions have to be made sometimes. It's easy to sit at home years later and pick away at the morality of them.

Preventing deaths and saving innocent lives should always be the top priority.


Mike



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I Guess the OP never heard of "FREE WILL" , "Voluntarism" and "Human Rights"

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Next_Heap_With]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot303

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


Get your facts straight. I said ALL of our POWS from this WAR HAVE BEEN KILLED. . your premises are flawed sir, stop reading what you want to read and think you understand what I am talking about.


Source?

Afghanistan or Iraq? What about the POW's we have rescued? Are you sure I am the one who does not have my facts straight?

And...this is not about this conflict only. This is about current and future conflicts. We are rewriting the laws of war. Geneva convention? Whats the point because we are quickly making that null and void with our current approach to war and torture.

I stand corrected I forgot about the initial invasion whenthe 509th support company were captured in Naiaruhyh(sp). I apologize. But memebers from that unit were killed in Iraqi custody.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   





Again, Geneva convention does not apply to non uniformed combatants, so this has nothing to do with the terriost captured and being held at gitmo. In the initail Invasion of Iraq, Iraqi POW were treated with the utmost respect and after they were documented and determined they were not a threat they were sent back to there homes. As far as I know and can remeber no Iraqi POWs made it to gitmo from the initail war. Gitmo houses terriost not Uniformed Iraqi Soldiers. Hell even the Generals we captured were released, to include Feyadheen Commanders.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


Again, Geneva convention does not apply to non uniformed combatants, so this has nothing to do with the terriost captured and being held at gitmo. In the initail Invasion of Iraq, Iraqi POW were treated with the utmost respect and after they were documented and determined they were not a threat they were sent back to there homes. As far as I know and can remeber no Iraqi POWs made it to gitmo from the initail war. Gitmo houses terriost not Uniformed Iraqi Soldiers. Hell even the Generals we captured were released, to include Feyadheen Commanders.


How about Abu Ghraib?

The truth has now come out that torturing prisoners was common place and not just a rare occurance.

You are correct that Geneva Convention does not apply. If that is the standard for POW's however, shouldn't it. Should the US not apply those standards to all prisoners we hold?

I have stated my point and could go back and forth forever...this is somthing we will not agree on.

Back to original topic however: One thing is clear, basic training is not equivalant to what we have subjected these men to any more than consensual sex is the same thing as rape. When things are done against your will the rules change.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join