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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sexysadie
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.


I understand what you are trying to do. I'm just saying that since there isn't anyway to prove it, then the safe answer would be yes.

Everyone says yes and then say that they can't prove it. Which you really can't.




posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 



I don't understand this attitude. We thought THEY only tortured, but then when we find out that WE did, suddenly WE"RE the only ones that're evil. It's like somehow our wrong makes their wrong right. sounds like the chubakkah defense.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I would never support the torture of innocent people. Problem is, no one is innocent. Everyone's done something.

So, I suppose, hypothetically, we might have to resort to torture to determine the really guilty from the more or less innocent.

Yeah.

That is one of those . . . what'cha call it?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


Well there seems to be a lot of 'dark matter' we don't know, and it seems some at the top are doing everything in their power to keep us from ever knowing. But many truths have already come to light. You just never know what factual, undeniable information might come to light in the future.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 



I don't understand this attitude. We thought THEY only tortured, but then when we find out that WE did, suddenly WE"RE the only ones that're evil. It's like somehow our wrong makes their wrong right. sounds like the chubakkah defense.


I know, right? That's an interesting way of thinking about it. The Hypocrisy really is embarrassing.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 



Yeah i think it's connected to white guilt, myself. Or, the more evil, sense of responsibility due to arrogance of nation/race.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 


Lets say that we found out that the interrogators did torture innocents to make a link to Iraq and 9/11.

How are you going to prove that they didn't do it on their own accord? How would you prove that they were directed by DC to do this?


It would be to easy just to say that the interrogators acted on their own and DC had nothing to do with it.

So we are left with only the interrogators getting punished.

Like I said, while I see what you are trying to do. In the end your question isn't a very good one.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


So what about those who might have been caught up in a blanket roundup who were not in any way aware of, or connected to 911, then tortured, by those who were simply trying to get them to admit to it, so they could make the case for war - hopefully you would not be calling these unlucky people guilty and in need of torture?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 



I’m saying there might be information that proves undeniably that those at the very top ordered this, and if this is the case we will all be on board in advance. Sure it's a simple no brainer, but that is the beauty of it imo. It is the line in the sand we can all agree on.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by sexysadie]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 


My apologies as I'm a bit tired and was trying to be clever as in a joke.

Never would I say that there are folks who are innocent, but determined sometimes based on evidence to be guilty.

We've all seen men on death row only later to be proven innocent.

However, I'm pretty sure that those who were picked up were not selected out of a phone book at random.

On occasion, a truly innocent will be put to the torch, but I think very, very rarely.

There was a newspaper reporter from back East visiting the nineteenth century West, and was shocked to find that a man was to be hung for stealing a horse.

"You would HANG a man for stealing a HORSE?"

"Nope. We're hanging this man so that horses are not stolen."

You try your best to be sure you have the right men, and in spite of your very best efforts, on occasion, an innocent may be rounded up. But since this is not exactly a terminal process, no blood, no foul.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Fair enough! In the event it is ever proven that there was a blanket, systematic roundup of innocent people who were tortured to justify the war - sounds like you’ll be on board for prosecuting.
Well I gotta go do some other things ttyl



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Man am I glad I found this forum. I was tortured by the CIA.
I am an American citizen who was born in USA in the early 1980s. I am an Iranian‑American. In the late summer of 2006, I made a phone call to C‑SPAN and discussed comments that I heard from Iraqis I met in Iran while performing medical research at a hospital and university in Iran.
Since thenI was tortured by the CIA. Please read my blog.
ciatorturedme.blogspot.com...



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by QuestForFreedom
 


I think you are very paranoid.

How does one shake their head in a threatening way? Is it fast or slow?

Even if that did happen, which I doubt, how is that considered torture?

If I shake my head in a "threatening" way at someone, did I just torture them?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
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.


Not so.

Thirty years back I was tortured for hours. I can't describe what was done in a public forum, but it is said to be the greatest pain that can be inflicted on a woman. I never wanted to die, I just wanted the man doing this to die.

By the way, this was nothing to do with any government or agency, just a lone pervert with a few helpers.

This experience taught me how ineffective torture is, because he told me once I'd screamed enough he'd stop, and I was so angry I never screamed once. I spent the whole time swearing at him very softly. He only stopped because he got too worn out and needed a rest.

If I'd been a spy and him CIA I would have pretended to break down, and then told him whatever I wanted him to believe.

Inflicting pain is a waste of time. It brutalises the torturer, who may get addicted to it, and it causes anger that can breed terrorism.

There are far better ways of getting information.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
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


I see. So you believe in killing such people, but not torturing them?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
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.


In medieval Europe people were innocent until they confessed - trough torture.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by pai mei
 


True, but this isn't medieval Europe and people who are known to be innocent presumably would not have been detained to begin with.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
How do you know someone is innocent until you question them? What does innocence look like? With this past administration innocence apparently meant Non-Muslim! Anyway, how do you separate the innocent from the guilty without a trial? If your interrogation technique involves torture to determine innocence, then you must expect many innocent people to be tortured, simple as that. So it's not a matter of whether the innocent were spared torture. Torture was integral to the protocol.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Ameneter
 


Good to see someone else gets it.

People are tortured before trial, in case they have information.
- Or for the fun of it. Family members are tortured, in case they know what a suspect has been doing.

People can accept these things being done to people whose country sits on far distant oil fields, but it would be a different tune if it was their own innocent sons and daughters being brutalised in this way.

And torture doesn't even work, unless the aim is to create more enemies.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sexysadie
 


I think the term "torture" is being tossed around too freely.

Have you ever had a doctor tell you to lay on your back with your head hanging off the bed and to spray saline solution through your nose into your sinuses and to hold it there as long as you can before blowing it out?

That is not "water boarding" because:
1. It is done on a bed and not a board.
2. It is saline solution and not plain water.
3. You are doing it to yourself on doctor's orders, rather than having the CIA do it to you with a doctor monitoring it.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join