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.

 

The real debate being ignored: Do you support the Torture of INNOCENT people?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
It’s interesting how the torture debate has been framed into either ‘Should we have tortured the bad guys who wanted to hurt America, or should we have used more civilized methods of extracting information from the bad guys who wanted to hurt America.’

The issue that needs much more clarity: did the Bush administration who used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, (even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11), then torture innocent people to make them confess to the nonexistent link? The interrogation tactics in some cases according to the senate armed service committee report were being used to specifically find the Iraq link. This is what needs to be talked about / investigated on the MSM every day. Did we knowingly torture INNOCENT people to validate this unjustifiable war? If this is proven, I will most definitely believe 911 was an inside job.




posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Presumably, those who were known to be innocent didn't get tortured or detained. Though I'm sure the possibility exists that some people who were detained truly were innocent, I find it difficult to believe that someone who was known to be innocent would be tortured. Proof of this having happened would not be proof of 9/11 being an inside job, it would be proof of innocent people being tortured and of excuses being made to go to Iraq.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Agreed, it wouldn’t be proof of a 911 connection, but it would be easier for me to imagine that this same crowd could be capable of masterminding it, warranting further investigations into at least the possibility. If it is proven that many innocent people were knowingly tortured just to bridge the road to an Iraq war - what would your reaction be?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 



But who gets to decide who is guilty and who is innocent? Presumably as stated above, innocent people should never have been detained, questioned or tortured in the first place.

These practices were resolved with the idea that all of them were criminals who were hiding something. Which obviously was not the case.

I don't really think it matters, It's not a matter of Guilty or Innocent. It's matter of humanitarian and civilized conduct. A certain respect for the rules of engagement. There is a very fine line, warfare is harsh, there is no need to make it all the more horrible by practicing barbaric behaviour in a country that "supposedly" gives the proper example to the rest of the world.

Do you wonder why terrorists have become increasingly violent and cunning in their activities? Because their enemy has done the same thing. We pride ourselves on talking the road less traveled, on being the "Moral" fabric of our many societies, yet every day we hear about more torture, more in humane treating of our fellow bretheren, enemy or not.

Nobody deserves to be treated that way, regardless of affilitation or offense.

~Keeper



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I do not intend to belittle the torture debate as I believe it is clearly illegal. I do think shining the light in some dark areas might reveal an even greater tragedy - that we may have done this to innocent people simply to coerce a confession, or make a connection that never existed. Then what?



[edit on 13-5-2009 by sexysadie]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 





The real debate being ignored: Do you support the Torture of INNOCENT people?

Why is there a need to debate that question? If a person is truly known to be innocent, who in their right mind would advocate torturing them, regardless of the reason.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 

I'm guessing the Slave nazi loyalist of the rightwing party, who will still try to defend their position untill the bitter end, even if they are confronted with the ugly facts.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I don't support the torture of anyone. At all. If they really did something wrong, let them be tried in a just court and be dealt their fair hand. If that means execution for terrorists, whatever. But at least try them first, at least make the information public, and don't go waterboarding people in back rooms. If they did something wrong enough to deserve something like that, give them a public execution or lock them up forever. Taking out our emotional revenge on them just makes us look bad.

And of course, especially innocent people should not be tortured. Which is why all suspects should be put on trial. To prevent things like that from happening.

We can't just torture or keep captive every Arab that makes Americans feel uncomfortable.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
These guys must have never watched a war movie in their entire lives.

Missing in Action, Rambo etc.

They TORTURE the main hero and make the bad guys LOOK REALLY EVIL!

We are now THE BAD GUYS! We are the EVIL MOFOS!

How hard is that to get?

Torture enemy combatants=look like EVIL MOFOS!

Why can't they keep it hidden with some secret prison in Egypt? Why would they be so STUPID to do it in public in Guantanamo so close to home?

Do they just not care anymore? Are they that confident that they could give a rats who sees? Maybe it is an intentional attempt to show the bad guys we are not gonna be Mr. Nice guy anymore? Whatever the reason...ignorance or intentional... it has failed MISERABLY!



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 





I don't support the torture of anyone. At all. If they really did something wrong, let them be tried in a just court and be dealt their fair hand. If that means execution for terrorists, whatever.

So let me get this straight. You don't support torture of anyone, but it is ok to execute them? Somehow, I fail to see the logic in that. You are telling me that hanging, or electrocution, or other means of execution are not torture?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 


If it were proven that known innocent people were tortured, I would obviously be extremely angry. Those that are known to have terrorist ties and who are known to have engaged in those activities, not so much. People who are known to be innocent should not be tortured for things they haven't done, and I would likely be calling for the resignation or impeachment of anyone who authorized torturing a known innocent person.

I dislike even the idea of torture, but I do feel in some cases it is the only way to get the information you need before it's too late. Placed in the right situation, meaning my children were at risk of imminent death, I'd likely have no qualms about torturing the person who knew where they were myself if I thought it would get me the information and them back to safety quicker than not doing so.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Most executions doene today are not felt by the person they are happening to. Lethal injection is done quickly, person dies in under a minute, same with the chair.

Hanging is a bit barbaric, we don't do that anymore do we? Maybe in Texas.

I am a firm believer in the Death Penalt however. Nobody deserves to be tortured, and by that I mean suffer for long periods of time under huge stress and bodily injury.

An execution is none of those things and is required for certain members of our society whome we deem "Un treatable". Why waste the space in prisons at the expense of the tax payers?

But I only believe in the execution of child rappists and murderers, you know the grime of grime crimes.

~Keeper



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Resignation or impeachment if they are still in office, but if they are now out of office what should be done iyo? Again if proven?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 


Honestly, I'm not sure what really could be done.. If they are already out of office, then they are no longer in a position to make decisions for the country and can't cause any more harm. I'm sure there are charges they could be brought up on though. Gross negligence perhaps? I'd have to think about it and do some research to be able to give you a definite opinion since I'm not really sure what would be possible if anything.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Well, not everyone agrees with you:
www.nytimes.com...


FLORIDA EXECUTION IS CALLED TORTURE

''An inmate about to be executed in Florida will likely be burned and tortured during that execution, will be conscious during the event, and will suffer pain,''



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


I believe a lot could be done, if WE the people demanded that something be done. All of us need to be on the same page, and uniformly agree that if proven that torture was committed to INNOCENT people simply to bridge the way to un unjustified war we will punish those responsible. That’s why I created this thread, to separate those who will still defend the indefensible, from those who will defend it to a point.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 


I agree that if it were proven that known innocent people were tortured that charges and punishment of some sort is necessary, the question is what charges and what punishment? That is the part that I cannot presently answer. As I said, I don't know what charges would even be applicable.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Well I’m happy we agree on that.

I encourage all media heads interviewing those who support waterboarding now to get them to draw a large dark line in the sand by asking “Will you ‘YES or NO’ support the prosecution of those who ordered the torture of innocent prisoners if it is proven they tortured them simply to link 911 to Iraq? That way we will all be on the same page if that day comes.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
it's still hard to answer.
I don't know who was subject to these techniques.
and I'm still not completely sure that enhanced interrogation techniques should be considered torture.

I've tried to define it in my own head:
Torture= you hope you die soon
Enhanced Interrogation= you hope they don't kill you.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


Will you ‘YES or NO’ support the prosecution of those who ordered advanced interrogation techniques of innocent prisoners if it is proven they did so simply to link 911 to Iraq?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join