Torture question

heckofajobbrownie

Here's a question for you guys:

People have justified the torture of terrorists and terrorist suspects because they say it has worked, meaning it's gotten us information that has saved lives. Let's leave aside the validity of those claims for now.

If it turns out that the White House tortured prisoners in order to get them to admit there was an operational link between Saddam and Al Qaeda - a link that, as it turns out, never existed - do you think that is justifiable?

Because it's becoming more and more clear that this is what happened.

? mz.

@heckofajobbrownie said:
a link that, as it turns out, never existed

Forget about the human rights issue for just a moment.

The relinquishing of false information under duress is just as harmful as receiving no information at all. For instance, if you start prying my fingernails off one by one, I'll tell you exactly what you want to hear and, if I don't have the info you think I have, I'll say anything to get you to stop.

Mr. T

What would you like to do? Give terrorists a beach front condo with all the amenities of a 5 start hotel.

I dont agree with torture, but in some cases it is the only thing that will work. It is a catch 22, damned if you do and damned if you dont.

Not to many prisoners are going to squeel if you send in someone like a Bwarney Fwranks to ask questions. Sometimes you have to apply pressure.

heckofajobbrownie

"I know right after 9/11 I would of said give their nuts paper cuts and pour salt on em'. My anger was that high, and I wasn't alone. Apparently so was the US government."

Which is why we have laws, right?

My point is that the justifications for this have shifted and shifted and shifted again. First it was "we don't torture." We flat out denied it. Then we blamed it on a few bad apples on the night shift, but denied that it was official policy. But we think it'd be okay in the "ticking time bomb" scenario. (A scenario that has never happened, except on TV.) Then we denied torturing at Guantanamo. Then we admitted that we did it, but only to three people, and briefly, and we don't call it "torture". Then we found out we did it over and over again, and to more than just those three people, and it clearly was "torture". So then the justification became that we did it because it worked, and it saved lives. And it's now clear this was official US policy under the Bush administration.

And now we're learning that we did it before this was official policy with legal cover, and not in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, and not in order to get information to stop an impending attack, but to get someone to admit that Al Qaeda and Saddam were working together.

And it worked, at least in the sense that we got some nutjob to say it was true, even though it wasn't true and he was lying.

So do you guys agree with this? Can we torture people to get intelligence information out of them?

ballpeen

mz. said:
Forget about the human rights issue for just a moment.
The relinquishing of false information under duress is just as harmful as receiving no information at all. For instance, if you start prying my fingernails off one by one, I'll tell you exactly what you want to hear and, if I don't have the info you think I have, I'll say anything to get you to stop.

Giving false information is a dumb idea.

It doesn't take long for it to be found out the information was faulty, so you are just going to get it again, only worse.

Either give it up early or bear it out...sooner or later they will believe you don't know anything.

? mz.

@ballpeen said:
Giving false information is a dumb idea.
It doesn't take long for it to be found out the information was faulty, so you are just going to get it again, only worse.

Either give it up early or bear it out...sooner or later they will believe you don't know anything.

Do you really think the giving of false information is a totally conscious decision?

There are entire books devoted to the psychology of trauma.

Mr. T

mz. said:
Forget about the human rights issue for just a moment.
The relinquishing of false information under duress is just as harmful as receiving no information at all. For instance, if you start prying my fingernails off one by one, I'll tell you exactly what you want to hear and, if I don't have the info you think I have, I'll say anything to get you to stop.

Anything they say under duress should be held suspect.

scenario

It has been a few years back but while reading a paper in Norfolk VA, there was an article where the police interrogated 5 different suspects over a womans murder, all 5 said they did it even the womans husband who was in the Navy and was out to sea while the murder occured. He must of had super powers.

? mz.

@mr.-t said:
Anything they say under duress should be held suspect.

What do you think torture is?

heckofajobbrownie

@inspecta said:
I think we can all agree that the systematic torture practices that happened under Bush were wrong, plain and simple.

If only this were true.

calfoxwc

"Torture" hasn't been defined yet.

Panties on the head?

Or waterboarding?

Read about what happened to the young lady American soldier who was captured in Iraq.

Did that upset any libs here?

Why wasn't that a great big issue?

Physically causing a prisoner of war pain, physical suffering. etc it what I imagine it would be.

Horrifying threats, in cages half under water with rabid rats, etc.

But with waterboarding? Even Nancy Pelosi knew about it and said nothing.

Because in a very few instances, where you KNOW a certain higher up has specific information that

would save lives... once in a rare occasion, get the information any way you can.

Is there a "legit" reason for forcing someone through intimidation to give info you -know-

they have?

Not a justification, but just a desperation to save Americans' lives by those who

are corroborated to be in the know of emminent deaths of Americans.

But to make it a political media football all this time, making a game of it... is far, far more dangerous

to Americans than several tortures of very specified terrorists.

? mz.

Cal, way to fcuk up yet another positive discussion.

calfoxwc

mz the pussy translation:

"don't say what I don't want you to day"...

Speaking of torture,

Saw Nancy Pelosi being grilled at a newsconference on what she knew and when she knew it.

I'm sure she was humiliated and felt "tortured" - she stumbled, fumbled, referred and reread parts of

her opening statement to avoid really answering questions.

Then, she blamed the CIA and the Bush admin for lying about WMD's in Iraq.

Then, she claimed they were diverting attention toward her because she only was briefed the

second time by somebody who said what the others? were briefed about, so she knew waterboarding

existed, but the CIA didn't tell her when they started doing it, so ...

Oh yeah. The big lying truth is coming out. Corrupt Dems are flying into the flypaper.

So, mz the pussy, do you have anything to add to any discussion on the board? I think you almost did once,

but still you didn't.

Or, is hiding behind Al and Heck's coattails and crying "nyah, nyah, nyah" all you have?

Hint: that is not brilliant, mr. coweredly lyin.

? mz.

@calfoxwc said:
Or, is hiding behind Al and Heck's coattails and crying "nyah, nyah, nyah" all you have?

Sorry you feel that way. Just because you agree with someone doesn't mean you hide behind their coattails (sweet mixed metaphor BTW).

You couldn't be further off base, as usual. We have a serious discussion then you come in with "what is torture anyway...panties on the head?" I want you to notice from here on out how I'm the only one who engages in conversation with you, and how that discussion is just me telling you you're killing real conversation.

ballpeen

mz. said:
Do you really think the giving of false information is a totally conscious decision?
There are entire books devoted to the psychology of trauma.

I understand that.

My point is put yourself in the other shoes. It would only tick you off and motivate you to do a better job the second time.

It would me.

heckofajobbrownie

So does anyone support torturing terrorists or terrorist suspects to get intelligence information?

Seems Cal does. Anyone else?

PBJ

@inspecta said:
To be fair though, I think there wasn't that sense of outrage over that issue because....well....we expect that type of behavior out of these assholes, it's not out of character for them to do this. We knew going in we were dealing with some savage motherf*ckers who would stop at nothing in destroying America.
When it came to light that we were torturing people it was like finding out Superman has been snapping bank robbers necks. It was shocking.

I don't think the Iraqi army cared so much about destroying America than, I don't know, defending their homes from a foreign invader. I agree that they were savage, but I really don't believe Iraq was the threat at that time.

We need Tom Tupa

@heckofajobbrownie said:
So does anyone support torturing terrorists or terrorist suspects to get intelligence information?
Seems Cal does. Anyone else?

Nancy Pelosi?

We need Tom Tupa

Rockefeller?

heckofajobbrownie

I'm all for finding out.

DieHardBrownsFan

I don't believe in torture. I can assure you, however, that this is not the first time that the US has "stressed out" captives. And it won't be the last, no matter who is president. There are things that happen in war that are flat out barbaric. What is war, but killing each other. There is no "humane" way to kill your enemy. You have people who see the killing everyday. Pouring water over the POW's face to someone who lives that life day after day, does not seem like a big deal. To someone kicking back in their den, and reading news articles it sounds like a horrific crime. But to the people who live their lives in a combat environment, and deal with the enemy on a daily basis it does not. Thats about all I can say on this. Hope it makes some kind of sense.