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: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


How are those two thoughts different from each other?

I mean simply fearing for your life, isn't that considered mental torture? Sleep deprevation, water boarding, they are all created in order to make the subject as uncomfortable as possible, to destory their spirit.

Any planned and executed activity that revolves around breaking an individual by denying them their basic needs, along with actual physical harm is torture.

Just because they aren't removing fingernails and pulling teeth doesn't make it anymore ethical or anymore pleasent from the point of view of those being placed in these situations.

And I dont only mean the detainees, but the people who are handed down the order to partake in these activites, imagine the psychological damage inflicted upon them?

All of that needs to be taken into account, and when you look at it from that perspective, how can you justify any of it? It's a loose-loose.

~Keeper




posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I just find it hard to believe that you couldn't drug these guys into getting the information you wanted.

Making someone feel like they are drowning...which is making them feeling like they are DYING...is torture.

I don't care what anyone says...it's freaking torture.

There are TONS of different ways to extract information....i find it hard to believe that torture is the only thing that could get out information that could protect this country.

But then again...if we didn't meddle in the middle east and other foreign countries around the world...then we WOULDN"T BE IN THIS FREAKING POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

People complain about a RESULT of a problem and IGNORE the SOURCE.

I also find it hard to believe there has been no terrorist attacks on this country with our borders WIDE OPEN as well...yet all of our Constitutional rights are stepped on by the Patriot act.



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


Ok, since you put it that way.
I do not support Advanced interrogation on innocent people, in order to link 911 to Iraq. If that is proved to have happened, then move forward with prosecuting those who initiated it. And those who supported it, even if it was by remaining silent on that knowledge.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I dont think its a question of wether they were guilty or innocent

it doesnt make it any more "right" to torture a guilty man then it does an innocent one you think just because they were a bad guy its ok to inflict torture apon them???
No it's not ok they still have there human rights and its not for any man/women to violate them rights no matter what there belifes
The whole guilty/innocent thing is just a matter of perspective after all we went into iraq on a false pretext that they were harboring terrorists and stock pileing wepons of mass destruction now as the years have rolled on it becomes clears that what we were told had nothing to do with invading there country so in that sence that makes our troops in there country the bad guys...now do you think it would be ok for them to torture one of our troops???? after all if were going on the whole good guy bad guy thing then that puts us in the firing line just as much as any one else it just depends from which side of the line your looking at it...



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I still stand by my personal definition. However the reasons the techniques were applied is where my problems lie. If it were a known enemy captive, with a wealth of current knowledge, I might begrudgingly support that type of interrogation. But if these techniques are applied to someone who is of unknown status, and has been in captivity for many months, or years, any interrogation would be fruitless. the information would be stale.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by The real world order
 


You may be absolutely right, but I’m trying to draw a line in the sand and at least form a consensus from both sides of the argument that if certain ugly facts are ever proven true, prosecutions will ensue.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 


Hmmmmmm, the people tortured were guilty of something, they were the bad guys, but in the end we tried to extract information that didn't exist. Thus, while guilty of other things, they were innocent of what they were tortured for.

I torture my neighbor because I believe, or want to believe, that she has been sleeping with my husband. She might have been guilty of deliberately killing my rose garden, but that is not why I'm torturing her, for information about the rose garden. Hmmmmm, innocent of what I'm torturing her for. I can see this idea.

Personally, I think some people who are into this torture stuff are in it for other reasons. Like sadism.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 


But will they or will it all be brushed under the carpet on the pretext that the people who were doing the torturing will insist that they were just carrying out orders and they people who gave them orders will insist it had to be done for national security reasons i think this just like every other crime that the government should answer for will be brushed aside as the years roll on and your find that no one will be held accountable for the crimes that took place making it ok for them to happen all over again next time something else happens



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Seekerof
 


Thank you sir. I've seen it before. and yes while I have changed my attitude somewhat. I've still left myself open to the use of these techniques.
I mean if you get a high ranking guy right off the battelfield. There could be room for these tactics. I just don't think they should be used haphazardly.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 



Spacedoubt, you know me and you have long known my stance on the use of torture. I do not disagree with you one bit.

I posted the link because it goes to the heart of the torture issue: We all know that if push came to shove and given the need to know information that was vital to saving lives, the vast majority of both political parties and pundits, whether vocally or quietly, would agree to the use of torture.

The irony here is that Dems and liberals continue to screech for frog marches and trials of former legal, etc. peeps from the Bush Administration, and if the truth was really revealed, they would want Bush and Cheney to be prosecuted and hung. Meh, to me, the Dems and liberals calling for these witch hunts and hangings are nothing more than hypocrites of the highest order, as are many within this board. Democrat and liberal credibility on the issue of torture is gone. Democrats and liberals lied and continue to lie while suspected and known terrorists only got water in their nose....



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by The real world order
 


That’s precisely why having media heads ask my question to everyone who currently supports waterboarding now is such a good idea. Because if proven true, there will be no turning back, prosecutions must ensue and happily we will all be on the same page.

The question: 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?


[edit on 13-5-2009 by sexysadie]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
No. I'm quite frankly beginning to think that torture has outlived it's usefulness as a war time tool.
With the availability of truth drugs and lie detectors, it seems unneccessary.
And it's already been said, if it's proven that they are guilty through the court process, then they should either spend time in jail or the death penalty.
Whatever is appropriate.

We seem to be able to establish guilt with murderers, so why not use the same crime techniques for terrorists?
We don't torture people who may have committed a murder to find the truth, so why do we need to do it to terrorists???



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 


I would support any prosecution for anyone found to have tortured someone given the order to torture someone or stood by and let someone torture someone else weather the victim was guity or not the fact is violence and torture only lead to more violence and torture they do it because your doing it. every man should be responcible for his own actions its to easy to hide under the notion that they were only doing it because that was what there orders were thats the whole reason the human race is in the horrible mess its in and the only reason anyone does anything is because someone else told them to do it



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Seekerof
 


You bet. I see this debate as a(nother) diversionary tactic.
sort of a "you think WE'RE bad?, check out what the previous guys did".
but I think that's what you just said!

In the meantime, America keeps forgetting to check their shrinking wallets.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Seekerof
 


Thanks for the info.
I think over the years citizens forgot that most politicians vote their own self-interest. Gonna be up for an election?...Better go with the crowd and vote so I can be reelected...I can fix it, make it better later, once I'm back in office...or I'll just lie my way out.

I cite the way Democrats voted on the Iraq Resolution. Those who voted Aye were either naive or voting solely out of self-interest. The Dems used to be the party of war. Over the years, use of force as a way of demonstrating "strength" became a Republican Party idea.

Spineless Dems caved in on the resolution. They were boxed into a corner. Vote no, you're seen as a wimp. Now that the masses were whipped up, if you vote no, then your ass will be voted out of office. They had to contend with Rep control in the House and one vote Senate control.

Torture? Same thing. Dems did not want to be seen as wimps.

As for Rep's voting no...the seven who did have my respect. Chafee, the lone R Senator casting Nay, is one of the good men who continued to speak up. Edmund Burke surely must have rolled over in his grave that day over the others.

Before video and audio taping, it was much easier to get away with denial. Of course, sometimes there are nuances, and smart politicians are good at this.

Americans of late have demanded gods for politicians, forgetting that even the gods had their peccadilloes. What used to be kept private, not having any influence on voting record, has been forced to the front.

The business of politics is truer to sausage making than any other. Americans have been willing to be sadly deceived and naive, preferring to eat the meal while remaining blissfully ignorant about the nature of sausage.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 


How would you prove it?

Your Yes or No question isn't a very good one. It sounds good, but you can't prove it.

The smart answer would be yes if you can prove it then they should be prosecuted.

Its the smart answer because you couldn't find any evidence proving your point.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 



It is a very good question, because it seperates those who might mistakenly believe we have only tortured bad guys, from those who will roll over and support any kind of torture even of the innocent. Those people exist. If we can get people to answer this simple question it can pay off big in the long run if proven true. This stance will have us all on the same page ready for prosecutions.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Wow good catch. I think that they were obviously innocent of knowing any links between the two...but does that explain why they were there in the first place? In a position to undergo torture i mean?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 



I'm not sure that not knowing a link between 9/11 and Iraq excuses whatever things they've done to put them in that position.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join