patriotic torturers
Is our country safer after keeping Guantanamo open opposite of what Obama promised in his original campaign?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-09/president-obama-praises-patriotic-torturers-says-usa-greatest-force-human-dignity-wo
Quote: petroglyphShould evidence of torture have been made public?
Is our country safer after keeping Guantanamo open opposite of what Obama promised in his original campaign?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-09/president-obama-praises-patriotic-torturers-says-usa-greatest-force-human-dignity-wo
Torture runs both ways.
If we torture our prisoners, we lose our high moral ground.
Therefore American prisoners and American Citizens will be tortured with no repercusions.
We torture them, they will torture us.
I am against torture because I dont want to see our captured American soldiers tortured.
All details about the torture should be made public and those responsible ( not just the "muscle" but those that ordered it ) should be tried for their crimes.
Quote: petroglyphShould evidence of torture have been made public?
Is our country safer after keeping Guantanamo open opposite of what Obama promised in his original campaign?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-09/president-obama-praises-patriotic-torturers-says-usa-greatest-force-human-dignity-wo
Obama kept the holding facilities there for a reason, once he got in he knows things that we can only speculate on, its easy to hate things before you get elected and are in a position to need them.
As for being made public? After the safe determined number of years, as is common with most classified incidents, but there is no reason to be treated differently.
Quote: ZugaTorture is a war crime, and crime against humanity and is strictly forbidden by Geneva and UN conventions.
All details about the torture should be made public and those responsible ( not just the "muscle" but those that ordered it ) should be tried for their crimes.
Making people uncomfortable saves a lot of lives, most of what America does is waterboading, Sleep deprivation, pig blood exposure (for Muslim fanatic obviously, nobody else would be offended), female exposure (again to make religious people uncomfortable). None of these things cause permanent damage, but not doing them can.
If either of you will tell me neither of you would ever be willing to make somebody uncomfortable, you are lying through your teeth. If somebody kidnapped your wife and buried her and it was a matter of time until she died, I would bet you would be willing to do anything to retrieve that information, if you knew who had her.
My general view is, as an information source, Enhanced interrogation is morally acceptable and works. However, it should NEVER be allowed as a punishment, only as a source of information and only in Emergant circumstances. Obviously whoever orders it should take full responsibility for the outcome.
By this logic the U.N. forces should be storming into ISIS, but I don't see any calls from anyone here for the U.N. to take aggressive action against their far more frequent and hideous crimes?
Quote: Gandler
Making people uncomfortable saves a lot of lives, most of what America does is waterboading, Sleep deprivation, pig blood exposure (for Muslim fanatic obviously, nobody else would be offended), female exposure (again to make religious people uncomfortable). None of these things cause permanent damage, but not doing them can.
you are kidding right?
Quote: Zugayou are kidding right?
No. Without a doubt it can (and has) save lives. And none of the above techniques if done properly, causes permanent damage.
Quote: GandlerNo. Without a doubt it can (and has) save lives. And none of the above techniques if done properly, causes permanent damage.
Nazis and Japanesse torturers during World War 2 totally agree with you.
Why did we jail these people for War Crimes?
Time for blanket pardons?
Is it alright to torture American soldiers?
If we capture somebody that has tortured an American Soldier , do we let him go? Hey, according to you the that person that tortured an American saved lives.
Torture is a 2 way street.
It needs to be a one way street.
I want to have the high moral ground so we can go after anybody that tortures an American.
Quote: GandlerNo. Without a doubt it can (and has) save lives. And none of the above techniques if done properly, causes permanent damage.
Neglecting for a moment the serious physical damage that can occur you are basically arguing that psychological harm isn't a form of harm and that is both calloused and foolish. Lets go to the extreme say I want information out of you and know you deeply love your family I could threaten to kill your family and then slowly do it if you didn't' comply and I caused no permanent harm against you since there is nothing physical about what I did. All of the things done can and sometimes do have lasting psychological effects. Also their efficacy is highly questionable you are dealing with religious fanatics who would die for their cause and think they are on a mission from God and in effect success means eternal paradise and failure could mean damnation but obviously they don't care enough to undergo torture and lets be real here it is torture waterboarding has been defined as torture for decades and the US court martialled two soldiers who did it in Vietnam.
Oh and here are your descriptions of no permanent harm
. 'Some victims were still traumatized years later', he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. 'The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience'
Quote: terapinedNazis and Japanesse torturers during World War 2 totally agree with you.
Why did we jail these people for War Crimes?
Time for blanket pardons?
We didn't, we (well not America, but the international community) arrested people for murder and genocide on the basis of race, religion, and handicaps. That is not even equitable to forcing somebody to stay awake for 15 hours to learn where an arms bunker is....
Quote:Is it alright to torture American soldiers?
If we capture somebody that has tortured an American Soldier , do we let him go? Hey, according to you the that person that tortured an American saved lives.
No, but it happens all of the time. Also, torturing Americans would not save lives.
Quote: GandlerWe didn't, we (well not America, but the international community) arrested people for murder and genocide on the basis of race, religion, and handicaps. That is not even equitable to forcing somebody to stay awake for 15 hours to learn where an arms bunker is....
No, but it happens all of the time. Also, torturing Americans would not save lives.
OK but what about the people the US has arrested for waterboarding including US soldiers in Vietnam. Did waterboarding suddenly magically become OK during the last 40 years?
Quote: petroglyphTorturing innocent muslims was the greatest recruiting tool Al Queda had.
That must be why ISIS is doing it so much, and their recruitment is through the roof. They are killing and torturing far more Muslims than all of the Western countries combined (and usually for no reason, other than they are not the right kind of Muslim or have conflicted political interests), but for some reasons people love to bring up 3 (justified in my view) incidents America performed years ago, and yet is totally non-concerned about the largest toruterer of Muslims. But Americans performing self-hatred seems to be the cool thing to do now.
Quote: TwirdmanOK but what about the people the US has arrested for waterboarding including US soldiers in Vietnam. Did waterboarding suddenly magically become OK during the last 40 years?
I honestly don't know details of the Vietnam situation. But my view is this : waterboarding as punishment is bad and should be legally punished. But as an information gathering tool, it is acceptable at the discretion of the Presidents command if he deems it right and urgent. This is not a common thing. Under Bush, he only ordered the intense interrogation of 3 people, all of them were high ranking well established terrorists, America does not go around torturing every Muslim who may be a terrorists like others here have alluded to. Only if they are high ranking officials who claim (which they often do) to know about a big attack coming to America or an ally.
Obviously anyone (and this should go without saying, but I'll clarify before somebody uses it as a criticism of me), who tortures without proper approval and orders should be harshly legally punished and certainly removed from the CIA or whatever Black Ops thing he is in. In America, anyone who mistreats a prisoner, even unauthorized photographs (as had happened at Abu Graihb) is harshly punished. I bring that up (since somebody inevitably will), yes you can point to rogue people who acted sadistically, but they were discovered and harshly punished.
Quote: GandlerThat is not even equitable to forcing somebody to stay awake for 15 hours to learn where an arms bunker is....
.
15 hours??????
Did you read the report, I did. Cant believe how much was redacted.
How about 102 hours. Its in the report. Its inhumane. Victims name is Abu Ja' al-Iraqi. Page 4 of the Summary section.
I didn't see just 15 hours. Which page was this on? Name of Victim?
Quote: terapined15 hours??????
Did you read the report, I did. Cant believe how much was redacted.
How about 102 hours. Its in the report. Its inhumane. Victims name is Abu Ja' al-Iraqi. Page 4 of the Summary section.
I didn't see just 15 hours. Which page was this on? Name of Victim?
I was speaking to make a philosophical point not to address that specific case.
Heck lets even round up, lets say 200 hours. Is keeping somebody awake for 200 hours because he refuses to give the location of enemy locations, equiviliant to the genocide of 10 million (round down) people on the basis of religion, political affiliation, ethnic group, handicaps, etc.?
The inmate is there by choice (actions he took again allies of America), and can sleep as soon as he gives the specified location. In death camps and firing squad parties, there is no choice you get killed based on the orders of Hitler purely for who you are, nothing to do with action.
That seems like it will be a hard equivallancy to make...
How much kool-aid did you drink anyway?Quote: GandlerQuote:That must be why ISIS is doing it so much, and their recruitment is through the roof. They are killing and torturing far more Muslims than all of the Western countries combined (and usually for no reason, other than they are not the right kind of Muslim or have conflicted political interests), but for some reasons people love to bring up 3 (justified in my view) incidents America performed years ago, and yet is totally non-concerned about the largest toruterer of Muslims. But Americans performing self-hatred seems to be the cool thing to do now.
"They are killing far more", that's hysterical. If you think hating Americans "is cool" it's time to see your co and get some help.
Don't you know who is funding isis?
Is torturing these prisoners that were turned in for the bounty and sent to gitmo although guilty of nothing what you consider following standards that you would like to have enacted by the national police that you keep lauding about?
You keep moving the goalposts.
Quote: petroglyphHow much kool-aid did you drink anyway?
"They are killing far more", that's hysterical. If you think hating Americans "is cool" it's time to see your co and get some help.
Don't you know who is funding isis?
Is torturing these prisoners that were turned in for the bounty and sent to gitmo although guilty of nothing what you consider following standards that you would like to have enacted by the national police that you keep lauding about?
You keep moving the goalposts.
Its not hysterical its a matter of sheer fact. I know for a fact ISIS killed far more than 3 people... And yea, critzing America seems to be the popular thing for all media figures around the world. And even on local levels, look at all the crazy protesters currently trying to start a race war based on lies...
A lot of people are funding ISIS directly or indirectly due to unfortunate geopolitical realities. But I'm not sure how that is relevant. They control a lot of land and oil (perhaps that's a great reason for removing them from power).
If I have stock in Phillip Morris, am I responsible if somebody gets lung cancer?
Quote: GandlerI was speaking to make a philosophical point not to address that specific case.
...
Here are the inhumane details on Abu Ja' al-Iraqi
Shackled in the standing position for 54 hours.
Swelling in the lower legs, they give him blood thinner, bandaged his legs, let him sit till the 72 hour mark.
Swelling went down, shackled standing up to the 102 hour mark.
How do they keep him awake, nudity and abdominal slaps.
Pretty disgusting.
A lot were subject to rectal feeding. I didn't even know this disgusting act was possible.
But hey, if its good enough for our prisoners, its good enough for our boys overseas.
What comes around goes around.
All torturers need to be in prison, especially if they torture American soldiers. Lets keep the high moral ground so we can go after those basterds.
Quote: GandlerWe didn't, we (well not America, but the international community) arrested people for murder and genocide on the basis of race, religion, and handicaps. That is not even equitable to forcing somebody to stay awake for 15 hours to learn where an arms bunker is....
No, but it happens all of the time. Also, torturing Americans would not save lives.
If you believe america torturing "terrorists" will save lives, is it really hard to fathom that these "terrorists" believe that torturing america soldiers will help save lives? Afterall were the terrorists in their eyes.
Quote: terapinedHere are the inhumane details on Abu Ja' al-Iraqi
Shackled in the standing position for 54 hours.
Swelling in the lower legs, they give him blood thinner, bandaged his legs, let him sit till the 72 hour mark.
Swelling went down, shackled standing up to the 102 hour mark.
How do they keep him awake, nudity and abdominal slaps.
Pretty disgusting.
A lot were subject to rectal feeding. I didn't even know this disgusting act was possible.
But hey, if its good enough for our prisoners, its good enough for our boys overseas.
What comes around goes around.
All torturers need to be in prison, especially if they torture American soldiers. Lets keep the high moral ground so we can go after those basterds.
If I was holding information that would save civilian lives, I would be perfectly fine with that happening to me.
Not to mention Al Queda is already doing far worse thing to soldiers and reporters oversees, so that is not a relevant point, I have no doubt they will continue even if all of our prisoners lived in a castle and lived in luxury... So I the threat of Al Queda possibly engaging in sleep deprivation is a mute point, I wish they would, it would be a break from what they currently do.
And yes rectal feeding is possible. It is used when a prisoner does a hunger strike and oral access is not possible (its not a military thing, it happens in civilian prisons too... its a method of forced feeding to prevent self starvation).
Again if a order was wrongly issued, I trust that it will be investigated and properly enforced if there was wrong doing.
Quote: rudeboyoiIf you believe america torturing "terrorists" will save lives, is it really hard to fathom that these "terrorists" believe that torturing america soldiers will help save lives? Afterall were the terrorists in their eyes.
Again they do believe it, and they already are, so its a mute point.
Sam Harris TYT Interview, location of torture discussion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU#t=9930
Sam Harris is extremely liberal and a secularist (he came to fame by controversially criticizing most mainstream religions, very popular amongst the "New Atheists" ). One of the last people who could be labelled a "NeoCon" or a "Christian Crusader", but he has a logical way of looking at the world and understands the morality of things most people are afraid to admit do to political correctness.
in this thread. None of what's happening
matters. Govt's under stress have always
tortured and always will, when needed.
They do it because it works. Always has,
always will.
Let Cheney or Bush administer the same treatment to their wives or a loved one. When they are ready to call it quits, anything beyond that point will be torture.
Anything before it is not torture and can be allowed.
Quote: GandlerHere is a video from TYT (not a group I usually like) but its an excellent interview with Sam Harris.
Sam Harris TYT Interview, location of torture discussion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU#t=9930
Sam Harris is extremely liberal and a secularist (he came to fame by controversially criticizing most mainstream religions, very popular amongst the "New Atheists" ). One of the last people who could be labelled a "NeoCon" or a "Christian Crusader", but he has a logical way of looking at the world and understands the morality of things most people are afraid to admit do to political correctness.
How about listening to Republican John McCain.
He speaks from experience. John McCain knows torture
John McCain is the real deal. Combat pilot. American Hero. American Senator. Won the 2008 Republican nomination to run for President.
Against torture.
Terrorists should know there will be severe penalties for their actions.
ZCore13
This is from 6months ago. Dick Cheney just sits there in silence. The girl that asked the question is a journalist for thefreethoughtproject now.
Quote: EvenBobI'm not even going to read the posts
in this thread. None of what's happening
matters. Govt's under stress have always
tortured and always will, when needed.
They do it because it works. Always has,
always will.
One of the most sane posts here. Everybody here would be willing to torture when necessary even if they don't admit. The government's job is to take action for individuals.
Quote: rxwineMy definition of torture:
Let Cheney or Bush administer the same treatment to their wives or a loved one. When they are ready to call it quits, anything beyond that point will be torture.
Anything before it is not torture and can be allowed.
You have to understand, a lot of what people consider "torture", is wrong. The physically worst things we (Americans, allies) do is Sleep Deprivation and Waterboarding. Everything else is simply ways to make people uncomfortable. For example if I dip a Koran pig blood it would make a fundamentalist go insane. But there is no rational reason to feel that way, so that is just using a fundamentalists fundamentals against him to gain information from him. No sane person would call desecrating a Koran in front of somebody as torture.
By that logic we should not put people with fears of closed spaces in prison as that would be horrendous torture for them... Its just a crazy path to go down.
And the only people who get waterboarding and sleep deprivation are known terrorist. America does not just kidnap hundreds of Muslims in case they are guilty. This has been done to a handful of known high level terrorists, and for the most part I have no problem with this.
Quote: Zcore13I'm all for everything that was done. It helped get info on Bin Laden and I'm sure much more. Pretending this will cause others to do the same thing is ridiculous. They be ahead our citizens. They would prefer every American dead.
Terrorists should know there will be severe penalties for their actions.
ZCore13
Here is a report on the effect of torture in getting Bin Laden http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/09/369646177/torture-report-did-harsh-interrogations-help-catch-osama-bin-laden . Most of the information came before torture was used and of what was obtained after torture large portions of it were found to be fabricated leading us to waste time on wild goose chases.
Also where do we draw the line with what is acceptable? Torture including threatening of the family is acceptable so what about killing the family after all it could save American lives and that's all people seem to care about. So if we can kill them what about other people in the area who are unrelated I mean we could save many lives by saying screw a ground campaign and just carpet bombing the country after all.
Quote: TwirdmanHere is a report on the effect of torture in getting Bin Laden http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/09/369646177/torture-report-did-harsh-interrogations-help-catch-osama-bin-laden . Most of the information came before torture was used and of what was obtained after torture large portions of it were found to be fabricated leading us to waste time on wild goose chases.
Also where do we draw the line with what is acceptable? Torture including threatening of the family is acceptable so what about killing the family after all it could save American lives and that's all people seem to care about. So if we can kill them what about other people in the area who are unrelated I mean we could save many lives by saying screw a ground campaign and just carpet bombing the country after all.
You site one opinion. I've seen others. I'll stay with my opinion that it was needed with the situation at hand.
If family members of the terrorist in question are not part of it, do don't involve them, but you definitely threaten the terrorist to.
ZCore13
Quote: Gandler
You have to understand, a lot of what people consider "torture", is wrong. The physically worst things we (Americans, allies) do is Sleep Deprivation and Waterboarding. Everything else is simply ways to make people uncomfortable.
One detainee faced particularly rough treatment in late 2005. Per the report: "According to CIA records, Abu Ja'far al-Iraqi was subjected to nudity, dietary manipulation, insult slaps, abdominal slaps, attention grasps, facial holds, walling, stress positions and water dousing with 44 degree Fahrenheit water for 18 minutes. He was shackled in the standing position for 54 hours as part of sleep deprivation, and experienced swelling in his lower legs requiring blood thinner and spiral ace bandages.
"He was moved to a sitting position, and his sleep deprivation was extended to 78 hours. After the swelling subsided, he was provided with more blood thinner and was returned to the standing position. The sleep deprivation was extended to 102 hours. After four hours of sleep, Abu Ja'far al-Iraqi was subjected to an additional 52 hours of sleep deprivation, after which CIA Headquarters informed interrogators that eight hours was the minimum rest period between sleep deprivation sessions exceeding 48 hours. In addition to the swelling, Abu Ja'far al-Iraqi also experienced an edema on his head due to walling, abrasions on his neck and blisters on his ankles from shackles."
Seems a bit more then just a little sleep deprivation and waterboarding I would say. Also about that just waterboarding this man almost died due to it because he was denied medical treatment during interrogation
The CIA decided that interrogating Abu Zubaydah would take precedence over his medical care. He almost died as a result of waterboarding. In at least one waterboarding session, Abu Zubaydah "became completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth." He remained unresponsive until medical intervention, when he regained consciousness and expelled "copious amounts of liquid."
But your right none of this was torture right.
Quote: Gandler
One of the most sane posts here.
There will always be torture to get
info. Norway can say they've never
tortured anybody. They've also never
needed to.
I loved the first season of 24, I hope
that's how it really goes when you need
to get things done.
Quote: Zcore13You site one opinion. I've seen others. I'll stay with my opinion that it was needed with the situation at hand.
If family members of the terrorist in question are not part of it, do don't involve them, but you definitely threaten the terrorist to.
ZCore13
Its a bit more then one opinion it is the official Senate report on the matter. Also citing reasons for that conclusion like the fact that most of the people who gave information leading to the courier specifically gave the information before torture started.
Quote: TwirdmanAlso where do we draw the line with what is acceptable? Torture including threatening of the family is acceptable so what about killing the family after all it could save American lives and that's all people seem to care about. So if we can kill them what about other people in the area who are unrelated I mean we could save many lives by saying screw a ground campaign and just carpet bombing the country after all.
A family would never be killed. Though we could claim to the inmate they are in the process of being killed to scare him. This is a psychological tactic. They are already in total isolation if they get to the stage where it is used so they have no way of knowing otherwise. Obviously nobody would actually be harmed, its purely mentalism.
Carpet bombing a country would not save lives, it would cause a lot of collateral damage and a lot of political enemies.
That is Sam Harris's main defense of torture. Is making a known terrorist uncomfortable acceptable if it saves a lot of civilian lives by allowing a precise strike on the individual? Many say yes (many liberals its not just a NeoCon thing).
Torture is many ways is more humane as it allows us to precisely arrest or eliminate terrorists without putting civilians on either side at risk. I know it sounds ironic to word it like that, but actually think about it without using emotions, it is the logical conclusion.
Quote: GandlerA family would never be killed. Though we could claim to the inmate they are in the process of being killed to scare him. This is a psychological tactic. They are already in total isolation if they get to the stage where it is used so they have no way of knowing otherwise. Obviously nobody would actually be harmed, its purely mentalism.
Carpet bombing a country would not save lives, it would cause a lot of collateral damage and a lot of political enemies.
That is Sam Harris's main defense of torture. Is making a known terrorist uncomfortable acceptable if it saves a lot of civilian lives by allowing a precise strike on the individual? Many say yes (many liberals its not just a NeoCon thing).
Torture is many ways is more humane as it allows us to precisely arrest or eliminate terrorists without putting civilians on either side at risk. I know it sounds ironic to word it like that, but actually think about it without using emotions, it is the logical conclusion.
Except for the fact numerous studies into have found the information it gets to be not valuable. Again senate report showed it was ineffective. Torture is an ineffective shortcut for people do lazy or stupid to do proper intelligence gathering.
People like to site the stupid argument would you torture a person if he knew the location of a bomb about to go off in 24 hours and I can logically say the answer to that is no because it is clear that a captured person who is intent on doing evil with an ideology can easily last 24+ hours giving false information or just withstanding torture and if you go significant enough a time to where you can guarantee he will break counting all the time it takes to track down false leads if such a time even exist there are far more effective methods of getting that info.
Also you act like torture doesn't create political enemies. It galvanizes both populaces and many countries against us I mean Abu Gharab was used as part of recruitment for terrorist organizations.
Quote: TwirdmanExcept for the fact numerous studies into have found the information it gets to be not valuable. Again senate report showed it was ineffective. Torture is an ineffective shortcut for people do lazy or stupid to do proper intelligence gathering.
People like to site the stupid argument would you torture a person if he knew the location of a bomb about to go off in 24 hours and I can logically say the answer to that is no because it is clear that a captured person who is intent on doing evil with an ideology can easily last 24+ hours giving false information or just withstanding torture and if you go significant enough a time to where you can guarantee he will break counting all the time it takes to track down false leads if such a time even exist there are far more effective methods of getting that info.
Also you act like torture doesn't create political enemies. It galvanizes both populaces and many countries against us I mean Abu Gharab was used as part of recruitment for terrorist organizations.
As I said nobody is defending the American incident at Abu Gharab, and everybody involved was publically outed and harshly punished.
But if you want to see real torture look at what Abu Gharab was used for before we seized it...
Quote: EvenBobNorway can say they've never
tortured anybody. They've also never
needed to.
.
World War 2, The Nazis were pretty brutal to Norway. The Occupation was horrible for the country.
Thousands of exiled Norwegians formed their own units to fight with the Allies against the Germans.
Quote: TwirdmanExcept for the fact numerous studies into have found the information it gets to be not valuable.
Certainly everyone signing on to the Geneva Conventions (196 countries) were aware that even in more conventional warfare where everyone wears uniforms, there were always conditions presented where torturing a new prisoner 'may' save some of your troops.
It's not a recent idea that torture could save lives. They knew that, and they didn't make exceptions. They could've, but they didn't.
Now some people think they know better.
Quote: GandlerI was speaking to make a philosophical point not to address that specific case.
Heck lets even round up, lets say 200 hours. Is keeping somebody awake for 200 hours because he refuses to give the location of enemy locations, equiviliant to the genocide of 10 million (round down) people on the basis of religion, political affiliation, ethnic group, handicaps, etc.?
The inmate is there by choice (actions he took again allies of America), and can sleep as soon as he gives the specified location. In death camps and firing squad parties, there is no choice you get killed based on the orders of Hitler purely for who you are, nothing to do with action.
That seems like it will be a hard equivalency to make...
Would I be taking you out of context [you say] if I mentioned you invoked Godwin's Law, again?
You seem hell bent on some kind of "Islamaphobia". Not all Muslims are deranged psychotic terrorists.
I don't really understand [if you don't have some agenda] how you cannot see how killing over a million and a half people in the MENA can result in blowback. And no matter how many innocents get killed you will always find some reason it is their fault.
Quote: petroglyphWould I be taking you out of context [you say] if I mentioned you invoked Godwin's Law, again?
You seem hell bent on some kind of "Islamaphobia". Not all Muslims are deranged psychotic terrorists.
I don't really understand [if you don't have some agenda] how you cannot see how killing over a million and a half people in the MENA can result in blowback. And no matter how many innocents get killed you will always find some reason it is their fault.
Where did I invoke Godwin's law? Not once in that post did I say islam or Muslim.
But my personal opinion is this: there is much to fear in the Islamic world from basic human rights (particularly gay rights). And the Islamic World produces a lot of nasty terrorists. Not all Muslims are terrorists. But look at the percentage of Muslims in certain countries who feel that people who insult the prophet should be punished (it's above 50% in almost every country with a significant Muslim population, even Britian). Is that somehow America's fault?
Most Muslims are not terrorists, however a large number think the terrorists are justified, especially terrorists who act against Isreal. You can call me Islamphpbic, but these are all statsitical facts. I care about gay rights, and freedom of speech. I don't think somebody who is gay should be stoned to death in public.
-Edit: let me further say Islam scares me far more than any other religion and I'm an atheist so I have no scriptural bias. It's not a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear. Being afraid of the spread of Islam is rational, not only rational critical for our species survival if we want to prosper.
But back to the issue to tortue. Even though I disagree vehemently with Islamic culture, I don't want any innocent people of any background to die. Which is why the collateral damage argument is worth considering.
We can tortue a well established terrorist to save thousands of civilians (often Muslim civilians), they will tortue civilians to find ways to kill thousands of civilians, that is what separates us for them, I have no problem saying we clearly have the moral high ground.
Quote: GandlerA family would never be killed. Though we could claim to the inmate they are in the process of being killed to scare him. This is a psychological tactic. They are already in total isolation if they get to the stage where it is used so they have no way of knowing otherwise. Obviously nobody would actually be harmed, its purely mentalism.
Carpet bombing a country would not save lives, it would cause a lot of collateral damage and a lot of political enemies.
That is Sam Harris's main defense of torture. Is making a known terrorist uncomfortable acceptable if it saves a lot of civilian lives by allowing a precise strike on the individual? Many say yes (many liberals its not just a NeoCon thing).
Torture is many ways is more humane as it allows us to precisely arrest or eliminate terrorists without putting civilians on either side at risk. I know it sounds ironic to word it like that, but actually think about it without using emotions, it is the logical conclusion.
How do you feel about these drone attacks? Theres been more collateral damage. More innocents have been killed than combatants.
Quote: ZugaTorture is a war crime, and ... is strictly forbidden by Geneva and UN conventions.
The Geneva Conventions apply at times of war and armed conflict to governments who have ratified its terms.
Have the terrorists ratified its terms?
*rhetorical question*
Hell no, they haven't.
It isn't a "war" as is required for application of the Geneva Conventions.
They're fair game, so long as we do it in a foreign country.
Quote: rudeboyoiHow do you feel about these drone attacks? Theres been more collateral damage. More innocents have been killed than combatants.
I don't know. That may be true. But what is the alternative? If not drones, we would either have to send groups of soldiers (or the local government would, which would likely be even less precise) running through the villages searching for people, a firefight would likely ensue, which would cause more causalities?
Its also not as cut and dry as people think, even some local governments like drone strikes, as it prevents them from sending their police and militaries into the village. We don't just drone strike people in random countries without permission of their government (well unless we are at war obviously...).
Quote: TwirdmanOK but what about the people the US has arrested for waterboarding including US soldiers in Vietnam. Did waterboarding suddenly magically become OK during the last 40 years?
No, it became magically OK when Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were running the White House. Hopefully this will burst the magic bubble, though more hopefully it got burst a while back and we're just now learning about the abuses.
Quote: GandlerNo. Without a doubt it can (and has) save lives. And none of the above techniques if done properly, causes permanent damage.
those "techniques" are not just those "techniques" as there is zillion ways to torture someone. And even if it is not causing any permanent damage, what about the temporary damage and what about the psychological damage.?
there is no justification for torture. period. It is a crime and criminals should be tried.
Quote: Zugathose "techniques" are not just those "techniques" as there is zillion ways to torture someone. And even if it is not causing any permanent damage, what about the temporary damage and what about the psychological damage.?
there is no justification for torture. period. It is a crime and criminals should be tried.
I can't help but wonder if you opinion is shaded by the ways it was abused in your country in the past. It was used on regular citizens and others that were not bad people. But when people fly planes into buildings, all bets are off in my opinion.
Quote: rudeboyoihttp://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/12/09/3601312/17-disgraceful-facts-contained-in-the-torture-report/
Shouldn't any post that links "Think Progress" immediately be discredited?
Quote: BozShouldn't any post that links "Think Progress" immediately be discredited?
Pretty much.
ZCore13
