heckofajobbrownie Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 "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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Anything they say under duress should be held suspect. What do you think torture is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Cal, way to fcuk up yet another positive discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 So does anyone support torturing terrorists or terrorist suspects to get intelligence information? Seems Cal does. Anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 So does anyone support torturing terrorists or terrorist suspects to get intelligence information? Seems Cal does. Anyone else? Nancy Pelosi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Rockefeller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I'm all for finding out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Nobody has defined "torture". As in, is mz the pussy's childish little blurbs - is that torture? I don't favor torture. But, in the case of preventing a 9/11 that is definately being planned, and one terrorist in your custody definately knows stuff you need to know to stop it... I'd make that terrorist, very, very uncomfortable. Which, is all waterboarding is. It doesn't injure, doesn't cause physical pain. DEFINE "TORTURE". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel @ Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) Part I Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. 2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. Cal, you may not call water boarding torture, but remember that the United States executed Japanese officers after the war for torturing POWs, including water boarding. I know you like double standards though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Yeah, Cal. People have been defining torture for a long, long time. And we agreed to that definition when we signed the treaty. Which makes it law. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Well, I didn't know about the Japanese waterboarding. I'd have to research that one. I thought it was Chinese water torture, drops of water on the forehead for hours. But still, PB&J, you doofusly miss the point. It is not a double standard. The Japanese, if they did use it, did not use it in dire emergencies on definately in the know higher ups in a terrorist org to get information that would prevent another 9/11 and save many American civilians' lives. vs the Japanese, that was a conventional war. Torturing for no good reason was the Nazis, Japanese, etc.'s motus operandi. This is the war on terror. Completely different situation. In very, very specific emergency situations, very specific reasons vs a new terrorist attack, vs very, very specific terrorists that definately know the information needed to stop the terrorist attack... Very different situations. Which, is above your head perhaps, but still true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Well, I didn't know about the Japanese waterboarding. I'd have to research that one. I thought it was Chinese water torture, drops of water on the forehead for hours. But still, PB&J, you doofusly miss the point. It is not a double standard. The Japanese, if they did use it, did not use it in dire emergencies on definately in the know higher ups in a terrorist org to get information that would prevent another 9/11 and save many American civilians' lives. vs the Japanese, that was a conventional war. Torturing for no good reason was the Nazis, Japanese, etc.'s motus operandi. This is the war on terror. Completely different situation. In very, very specific emergency situations, very specific reasons vs a new terrorist attack, vs very, very specific terrorists that definately know the information needed to stop the terrorist attack... Very different situations. Which, is above your head perhaps, but still true. This is my favorite defense of torture ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Nancy Piglosi, has outdone herself today during a press conference. She states that she was not "briefed" but she was told about it by someone else in Congress. Well then Nancy, that means you were in the know about waterboarding. So if she is so against the use of this technic then she should of opened her trap about it back then. Another Idiot looking out for the best intrests for America, Piglosi Not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.