Torture

[rolmops]

Re: Torture

I think the question in this case is a bit different.What will this do for our youth?
The same question was asked when Clinton could not keep his fingers off a certain healthy girl.
At the time the general opinion was that Clinton had set a very bad example for our youth and the argument was often heard that if the president can do it (lie under oath and have extramarital sex)than it is really not so bad and we (the kids)can do it too.
Now we are saying that torture is really not such a bad thing and we can use it selectively.
Well, If the president says that some torture is ok to do ,than we(the kids) will do some of it as well,selectively of course and not to Americans,but you know,maybe to mexicans or arab americans or ghetto parasites.
Some research has been done in Israel on the long term effects of occupation and the use of force by soldiers against the occupied population.It was found that most young Israeli soldiers have become prejudiced and racist towards arabs to the point ,where unneccesary force and brutal behavior in most encounters have become the norm,not the exception.
This Iraq war, its increased violence and on top of that legalizing torture is going to leave a very serious scar on all the soldiers involved and on our sense of self respect as Americans!

 

[woodrat]

Re: Torture

"Silence speaks volumes! Still waiting for an answer, anyone? "

Well, some of us have Jobs to go to. I am home for a few minutes in between two jobs right now. But if you will go all the way back to the first post here, the question was about "possible" terrorists. Whose to say we always get the right guy, or that the guy we get actually knows something that would be of any value? Whose to say that in the process of being tortured, the guy won't just make something up or spit out a name or two just to get the torture to stop?

I would guess that it would be a VERY rare case when we actually know we have the person in custody who actually HAS the critical info about the ticking time bomb etc etc. That is just an extreme scenario that proponents of torture put forth to get people to go along with it in principle. The powers that be will do whatever they like in real life, and that would likely be to use it in a widespread and indiscriminate fashion.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Torture

I think I would do that by supporting our troops instead of calling them failures, murderers, nazi's, torturers. I wouldn't show videos of them being stalked and shot by enemy snipers. I would celebrate their success's instead of using their challenges as a bat to beat the CIC with for political purposes. They are soldiers, not political props.

Not one person here is suggesting bamboo shoots under the finger nails or electrodes to the berries, or cutting body parts off. We just don't think talking mean, abusing underwear, demeaning, or not serving meals prepared by French Chef's, forcing them to listen to the dixie chicks, or forcing them to sleep on a posturpedic is torture. And if forceful interrogation saves even one soldiers life, then have at it. War is hell, people get killed, heck we might even hurt someones feelings. That is why they call it war, not a scrimmage.

Wait all you want Eric, nobody will answer you.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Torture

"Silence speaks volumes! Still waiting for an answer, anyone? "

Well, some of us have Jobs to go to. I am home for a few minutes in between two jobs right now. But if you will go all the way back to the first post here, the question was about "possible" terrorists. Whose to say we always get the right guy, or that the guy we get actually knows something that would be of any value? Whose to say that in the process of being tortured, the guy won't just make something up or spit out a name or two just to get the torture to stop?

I would guess that it would be a VERY rare case when we actually know we have the person in custody who actually HAS the critical info about the ticking time bomb etc etc. That is just an extreme scenario that proponents of torture put forth to get people to go along with it in principle. The powers that be will do whatever they like in real life, and that would likely be to use it in a widespread and indiscriminate fashion.

Still didn't answer my question. Guess you can't. Go figure. And that dang job thing you have, blame it on President Bush.

 

[woodrat]

Re: Torture

Because your question isn't based in reality. We don't even know if any of these people HAVE information. The original question was about "POSSIBLE" terrorists, should we torture them? And you say, well, how else can we get information out of them?

To what end? To find out if they are terrorists or cabbage farmers?

You want to support torture, fine. Just stop pretending it's for a greater good. It's not, and history, as quoted above, doesn't have much good to say about those who depended on it.

 

[woodrat]

Re: Torture

Oh and the jobs? Pure self employment. Bush has nothing to do with it.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Torture

Because your question isn't based in reality. We don't even know if any of these people HAVE information. The original question was about "POSSIBLE" terrorists, should we torture them? And you say, well, how else can we get information out of them?

To what end? To find out if they are terrorists or cabbage farmers?

You want to support torture, fine. Just stop pretending it's for a greater good. It's not, and history, as quoted above, doesn't have much good to say about those who depended on it.

Pretending? I don't think so. If it saves lives, then it's working. I asked a question that has to do with the topic of this thread. All I want is a alternative to the tactics being used now to gather information. If you can't answer it, fine and dandy, say so, but stop spinning.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Torture

Now we are saying that torture is really not such a bad thing and we can use it selectively.

I'm pulling my hair out listening to this drivel. WHAT WE DO IS NOT TORTURE, BY ANY CLASSICAL DEFINITION. It is no more than just plain mean. I guess that's why the Libs are so up in arms about it. After all, didn't they coin the phrase 'mean people suck"?

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Torture

Oh and the jobs? Pure self employment. Bush has nothing to do with it.

That's great! Good thing your customers have the money to spend, and that does.

 

[woodrat]

Re: Torture

Sorry, but my customers had money to spend under Clinton too; in fact, things were more lucrative then.. No, W has really nothing to do with it. No sitting president does.

"WHAT WE DO IS NOT TORTURE, BY ANY CLASSICAL DEFINITION."

This is just pure spin here. There are things that our soldiers did at Abu Ghraib that went all the way up to rape and murder. There are photos and videos that even republican congressmen acknowledged as awful. We just saw the light stuff in the newspapers, like what Lynndie England did, which I still think even Boomyal would not want being done to our soldiers. ( Jeez, we saw video of our soldiers being served tea and cookies by their captors in the earliest days of the war and conservatives everywhere were just livid about that. ) And this is not even to say what the CIA has been up to in secret locations around the world. Pretending that panties on the head, def leppard tapes and a little light B&D is as bad as it gets is nonsense.

I just want you torture promoters to stop dancing around your qualifications and conditions and definitions (depends on what you mean by 'is' ... ) and excuses already. The fact is that the government has been torturing prisoners whenever they see fit, whether we or John McCain or anyone else likes it or not. W already has said time and again that his administration will obey laws only when they feel like it, so the debate is really just an exercise in futility anyway.

I think torture is wrong, no matter what the end. Demanding that I provide an alternative means of interrogation is just a side show. Torture demeans the practitioners as well as the victims. A bunch of you easily jump on the "ends justify the means" bandwagon. Go for it! Just don't come back later and preach morals at me like you have something useful to say on the subject. Because you've already told me that the ends justify the means. Isn't that called "moral relativism" by the religious folk?

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Torture

I respect that you don't beleive in your preseption of torture, but you still haven't answered the question. I am not "demanding" anything. I'd just like to know how you'd have the government get information from these people?

 

[Firestar]

Re: Torture

I have a torture for them. Make them listen to the Barney song over and over and over again.
I love you...you love me.....we're a happy family....What do you think that would do?:devil:

 

[ob]

Re: Torture

As long as morals mean so much to you woodrat ,I'm wondering why you haven't sited your buddy txwinner for the racial epithet in his opening comments.Not that they personally offend me ,but if one is going to impose ones sincere concerns as to the treatment of prisoners and then refer to a particular Asian race as "gooks" then one puts his credibility and motives into question.Frankly ,I personally don't buy a word of your concern for the treatment of prisoners.You've showed time and time again that it simply serves as a convenient topic to launch your disdain for Bush and the GOP.

I notice that to date that txwinner has abandoned his trolling thread and so far hasn't showed the gumption to edit his derogatory remark which he defended by passing the buck to his own father.And then to further support his crusade he openly admits that he is prejudice and claims he has prayed for redemption.Well that is just plain laughable.8)

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Torture

ob,

By their definition, even calling them those names is torture. Demeaning and humiliating treatment is torture by their definition. Heck not holding their books without latex gloves is torture. Not letting them wear their turbins (great place to hide weapons) is torture. Not giving them the exact food the want is torture. :}

 

[ob]

Re: Torture

ob,

By their definition, even calling them those names is torture. Demeaning and humiliating treatment is torture by their definition. Heck not holding their books without latex gloves is torture. Not letting them wear their turbins (great place to hide weapons) is torture. :}

I noticed that and totally agree.

 

[Pony]

Re: Torture

Terrorists have no problem killing themselves and their own people IF it has any chance at killng some Americans. I don't think you can deal with that type of enemy without doing some things that are cruel and bordering on torture......

otherwise I agree completely with what Pointer says here:

I think I would do that by supporting our troops instead of calling them failures, murderers, nazi's, torturers. I wouldn't show videos of them being stalked and shot by enemy snipers. I would celebrate their success's instead of using their challenges as a bat to beat the CIC with for political purposes. They are soldiers, not political props.

Not one person here is suggesting bamboo shoots under the finger nails or electrodes to the berries, or cutting body parts off. We just don't think talking mean, abusing underwear, demeaning, or not serving meals prepared by French Chef's, forcing them to listen to the dixie chicks, or forcing them to sleep on a posturpedic is torture. And if forceful interrogation saves even one soldiers life, then have at it. War is hell, people get killed, heck we might even hurt someones feelings. That is why they call it war, not a scrimmage.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Torture

Both sides either give up torture, or both sides use the hell out of it. Does anyone think they can convince abdul to put his rusty meat hook down?

 

[bassman284]

Re: Torture

Hey rodbolt try reading up on the Kennedy legacy since his to re is the rule of the day.

We won the wars because we were willing to sacrifice as much or more than our enemies. Our committment to victory and our ability to use our industry to overwhelm them, while using our technology to surpass the enemy in most areas were also key. The Japaneese would still be death marching our soldiers if we hadn't dropped the bomb. Check your his to re and see that the Japaneese civilian population were armed and ready to fight to the last to maintain their homeland.

But if you check your his to re you will see that Ghengis Kahn, the Romans, the Trojans, the Moors, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, even our buddy Saddam used torture to maintain their power. It has worked consistantly over history.

Can someone point to an enemy that didn't torture Americans? There is no moral superiority in war. Just superiority. Moral superiority lies in peace.

Ah, yes. The old "Kennedy's were just as bad" defense. No question, Joe Kennedy was a pirate. He made large portions of his fortune by means that were later made illegal and some that may have been illegal at the time, just like Prescott Bush. Nazi sympathizer, just like Prescott Bush.

But this thread is about the value of torture.

The only purpose for torture is for the gratification of the torturer. The "information" received is useless. The only purpose served is that the people doing the torturing enjoy torturng people. Better yet if it's people they hate, but they will happily torture anybody.

You right wing chest thumpers like to say, "hey, waterboarding isn't so bad. It's not really torture."

Tell ya what. Let me waterboard you for a minute or two and I'll have you confess to raping your grandmother if you think that will get me to stop. Doesn't matter if I think you're really a grandmother raper or not, just having a little fun.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Torture

There are things that our soldiers did at Abu Ghraib that went all the way up to rape and murder.

Have you heard anyone in this post condoning these things? Do you really believe these things are officially condoned? No one is denying that these things have been perpatrated by sickos but unless you can show me where these things are condoned and tolerated when discovered, this post is a waste of breath.

IMHO, other forms of psycological persuasion should be used and you guys are whining as much about those as the more severe forms of physical torture.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Torture

Hey bassman, read the tread again. The only reason Kennedy was brought up was because, if you can believe this, someone tried to again blame Bush, guilt of the father, or grandfather.

I guess by your logic all surgeons are just blood thirsty sadists who get their jollies off cutting people with sharp objects. You don't know what motivates anyone who is trying to obtain information. But painting them a sicko's is just irresponsible. Support our troops! They are protecting you and sacrificing for you and your family. d