Torture question
-
"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?
Can we torture people to get intelligence information out of them?
Of course we can.
Is it possible someone will lie?
Sure.
Is it possible someone was given false info at HQ so even he doesn't know he's lying?
Sure.
It's also quite possible he'll spill the beans.
It's ridiculous to assume all information is real or all bogus.
If that's what you're asking.
WSS
-
Perhaps I should have asked "Should we" not "can we". Quite obviously we can, because we just did.
Should we be torturing people in order to acquire intelligence that isn't necessarily of the sort that saves lives?
-
Should we be torturing people in order to acquire intelligence that isn't necessarily of the sort that saves lives? Heck
********************************************
NO. Only in the extreme, very, very well verified cases of a national emergency, I can see getting a top terrorist with
critical info you KNOW he has... out of him to save thousands of American lives.
Never any other time.
-
But don't you think if we are in a situation where we know an attack is imminent, we are in a state of emergency and we have a top terrorist in our custody that we would have already figured out the plot and foiled it? It isn't as if top level guys are easy to come by, or are operating out of the United States.
And who is to decide when it is necessary? The president? Chiefs of staff? CIA director?
-
Of course not, if the deadly secrets he has only he knows, and will not tell til it's too late.
Who decides? The pres? and Chief of Staff?
Just because there are questions about how to proceed doesn't negate the reality of
once, sometime in a very serious situation, that time, you must have the information you
need to avoid another 9/11.
But, serious oversight must be included to avoid abuse of the policy.
And, using it as a political "gotcha" is very serious business against our country's
national security.
-
In that scenario especially, with the ticking clock, wouldn't the suspect have even more reason to withhold information or give false information? He knows that within hours it will be done and he will be a "hero".
Terrorists in Iraq? Hell no, they are in allied countries, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia!
And seriously, the Chevy Chase show? You are one sick, sick bastard Inspecta.
-
"Would beating the shit out of a guy be considered torture?"
Clearly.
And you weren't tortured. You just got the shit beat out of you.
-
The head of Al Quaeda in Iraq operates from Syria.
And, a terrorist might have two months to wait for the
diasaster to take place.
It isn't much of a rationalization to paint it as seconds ticking,
and saying the terrorist would be more likely to clam up for those final seconds.
-
So does anyone support torturing terrorists or terrorist suspects to get intelligence information?
Seems Cal does. Anyone else?
So does anyone support torturing terrorists or terrorist suspects to get intelligence information?
Seems Cal does. Anyone else?
Depends on what you consider torture.
I would put someone in a room outfitted with a train horn. Just blast the thing at intermittent intervals and every time they try to sleep.
-
Perhaps I should have asked "Should we" not "can we". Quite obviously we can, because we just did.
Should we be torturing people in order to acquire intelligence that isn't necessarily of the sort that saves lives?
Perhaps I should have asked "Should we" not "can we". Quite obviously we can, because we just did.
Should we be torturing people in order to acquire intelligence that isn't necessarily of the sort that saves lives?
Are you drawing a dstinction here?
I would think any information we'd try to get from Al Queda was for that purpose.
WSS
-
That's the first definition.
The alternate definition is reading mz the pussy's
immature, ignorant little retorts that ruin
most any thread on the board.
But, it won't work.
Name, rank and serial number is all I'll give.
Cal, Sgt. Farmer, Cheerios.
-
That's the first definition.
The alternate definition is reading mz the pussy's
immature, ignorant little retorts that ruin
most any thread on the board.
But, it won't work.
Name, rank and serial number is all I'll give.
Cal, Sgt. Farmer, Cheerios.
-
Well, it looks like we tortured people, or ordered them to be tortured, in order to prove there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So we tortured people to get information that wasn't there.
It's clearly illegal to do this. Obviously you guys don't seem to have a problem with the illegality of it, so forget about that. Do you think we should be doing this?
Also, if someone might have information about an ongoing murder spree here in this country, should we torture that person to try and save those lives?
-
Well, it looks like we tortured people, or ordered them to be tortured, in order to prove there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So we tortured people to get information that wasn't there.
It's clearly illegal to do this. Obviously you guys don't seem to have a problem with the illegality of it, so forget about that. Do you think we should be doing this?
Also, if someone might have information about an ongoing murder spree here in this country, should we torture that person to try and save those lives?
Well, it looks like we tortured people, or ordered them to be tortured, in order to prove there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So we tortured people to get information that wasn't there.
It's clearly illegal to do this. Obviously you guys don't seem to have a problem with the illegality of it, so forget about that. Do you think we should be doing this?
Also, if someone might have information about an ongoing murder spree here in this country, should we torture that person to try and save those lives?
Different rules Heck.
That aside....I will ask a question....do you think the majority of these detainees are good, innocent people?
-
Well, it looks like we tortured people, or ordered them to be tortured, in order to prove there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So we tortured people to get information that wasn't there.
It's clearly illegal to do this. Obviously you guys don't seem to have a problem with the illegality of it, so forget about that. Do you think we should be doing this?
Also, if someone might have information about an ongoing murder spree here in this country, should we torture that person to try and save those lives?
Different rules Heck.
That aside....I will ask a question....do you think the majority of these detainees are good, innocent people?
-
So what....what?
As stated, the same rules don't apply as they would to you and I, or even to a uniformed enemy.
I suppose we could apply the spy tag to them and just shoot them.
-
I thought this was about saving American lives.
Say someone had information about that VaTech murder spree, or Columbine, before it happened. Should we be able to torture it out of them?
-
Well, aren't these detainees covered under the law as well?
-
Yes, you're right. The Geneva Convention is law in the US. We signed it, and it was ratified by the Congress. Same with the UN Convention Against Torture, signed by President Reagan and ratified by the Congress. Detainees are protected by those laws.
I'm not suggesting you're for this. Don't worry. I just think it's funny that people realize that you can't do this to Americans because it's against the law, but don't seem to realize that doing it to some Iraqi is also against US and international law.
As for your question, I'm less concerned with what went on in Dick Cheney's brain, and what his motives were, than I am with what he did.
If I had to guess, I'd say he wanted to get information to help protect American lives. But it's also starting to become clear he wanted to get information to justify the Iraq War, and later to support the reasons for the Iraq War they'd already launched. Sure, he thought that war would save American lives because Saddam was a grave danger to the US and in league with Al Qaeda. And we all know how that turned out.
Oddly enough, the guy they got to admit that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda? He gave that up after being tortured.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login