It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Unfortunately, the war on terror will not be won by being more ethical or moral.
Originally posted by Death_Kron
Firstly, it is a well known fact that if you torture someone, either physically or mentally, long enough and put them under enough stress they will do whatever it takes to make that stop. This is obviously problematic as this can/will/does result in false confessions.
That leads rise to a situation where we have a genuinely innocent individual giving false confessions - this individual is then going to be punished accordingly, I'll admit this is unacceptable.
What can we do to stop the above situation happening?
Well obviously we need to be sure that the individual is actually guilty of some crime in the first place, how we can achieve that I'm not particulary sure.
Then I'd suggest that the punishment fits the crime, again this is problematic though i.e. The individual is guilty and suspected of two seperate incidents however only admits to the lesser charge.
The above situation is the reason why torture is used in the first place, to try and gain information from a subject that is unwilling to come forward with themselves. This information usually could affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people or is important in putting the relevant people to justice.
Now my main argument is this; I have a massive, massive problem with those individuals who say Torture should be made illegal. Let's make the situation a little subjective for those who oppose, would you still be saying torture was illegal if your son or daughter was a victim of a terrorist attack?
Please tell me what you would do if you was in the room with the arrested kidnapper and he wasn't telling you the location of your child?
At the end of the day I do not approve or condone innocent people being tortured,
I don't particulary believe its right to "torture" individuals by stripping them naked and making them sit on each other.
An applicable level of torture techniques used on an individual that produces results and information is perfectly acceptable to me. People need to get off their high horses.
Oh and by the way, didnt the CIA come forward the other day and said these techniques worked? That they got the information they needed and it was correct?
Secret Justice Department memos, released last week ...
...They also note that nonviolent tactics more often were successful than violence.
"The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information," former military interrogation instructor and retired Air Force Col. Steven M. Kleinman wrote in the Intelligence Science Board report. "In essence, there seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption that 'compliance' carries the same connotation as 'meaningful cooperation.'"
In short: Slam someone up against the wall, keep him awake for days, lock him naked in a cell and slap his face enough, and he will probably say something. That doesn't necessarily make it true.
Elsewhere in the Justice Department documents, there are suggestions that the toughest tactics weren't always the most successful. Of the 94 terrorist suspects in the CIA program, only 28 were subjected to "enhanced" methods, the documents said. That means two out of three detainees gave up valuable intelligence in simple interviews.
When the CIA decided to use waterboarding — a tactic that simulates drowning — officials ended up using it far more than intended. Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 82 times in August 2002, the documents said. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003.
"You keep thinking, 'Maybe one more time, and one more time," Rejali said, explaining how interrogators ramp up their methods even as their effectiveness wanes.
The lawyers sidestepped some thorny questions, such as the consequences of using tactics the U.S. has condemned in Egypt, Iran and Syria. They repeatedly approved the interrogation policies.
and remember if the terrorist/criminal hadn't been doing what they did in the first place then they wouldn't of been tortured would they?
Arar was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis. He was held in solitary confinement in the United States for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The US government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home, but to his native Syria, even though its government is known to use torture. He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was tortured, according to the findings of the Arar Commission, until his release to Canada.
The government of Canada ordered a commission of inquiry which concluded that he was tortured. The commission of inquiry publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism, and gave him a C$10.5 million settlement. The Syrian government reports it knows of no links of Arar to terrorism.
Despite the Canadian court ruling, the United States government has not exonerated Arar and, on the contrary, has made public statements to state their belief that Arar is affiliated with members of organizations they describe as terrorist. As of February 2009, Arar and his family remain on a watchlist. His US lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights are currently pursuing his case, Arar v. Ashcroft, which seeks compensatory damages on Arar’s behalf and also a declaration that the actions of the US government were illegal and violated his constitutional, civil, and international human rights.
McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents.
Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by jfj123
So, what's one of these "interviews" supposed to sound like?
"Mr. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, thank you for joining us this morning. Some coffee or maybe a Coke before we begin? Oh, and I'm sorry. Yeah...you'll have to remove the headphones from your iPod. Yeah, it's a rule. I agree, and on behalf of the entire United States government and the President himself, let me apologize that someone didn't explain that in advance.
Oh, I agree...that Lady Gaga really has it going on. Nonetheless, please, you'll have to take off the headphones. But remember, you're signed up for our "Spa Sensation" right after luncheon. Hey - what would a massage be without a little music? You can listen then. OK? Good.
Hey, I've enjoyed this. And we hope our time together hasn't been an imposition in your day. And we certainly do appreciate that you pulled yourself away from your prep work for your appearance on Oprah. Well, look. Why don't we meet up tomorrow and talk a bit more then. Maybe, just maybe, you might remember something about September 11 and we can spend a few minutes talking about it.
What's a good time for you? Oh, heck yes. Check your activity schedule and get back to me. ...OK. Your "people" will get back to me. Whatever works for you."
Sure. I'd be glad to validate your parking...What do you think we are? Infidels?"
I wish we could live in a fairy tale world where things like torture where unnecessary but we dont!
And if it means i have to lock someone in a dark cell or place bugs in a cell or make them think there drowning to get someone to talk im ok with that.
Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I don't care who ends being implicated and prosecuted. Everybody that broke the law (domestic and international, btw) needs to be prosecuted and punished. I don't care who they are. All of them.
Originally posted by MrVertigo
reply to post by Death_Kron
Unfortunately, the war on terror will not be won by being more ethical or moral.
I think this is where you are dead wrong. The war on terror is an ideological conflict.
The only way that you will ever remove the threat of terrorism is by "winning hearts and minds". By not making them hate you anymore.
As long as America is viewed as an evil aggressor in the Middle East there will be people willing to blow themselves up for a cause, out of hatred desperation or what have you.
Torturing people will only continue the cycle of hatred and prove to any potential terrorists that America is indeed evil and should be destroyed.