Is Torture Justified?

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
It appears you just don't get it. Being a fiscal conservative yet salivating over some good homegrown torture techniques are not mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far from it. In fact, I think they frequently go hand-in-glove. It's just good to see the American "conservative" movement finally coming clean about what it really stands for.


q/q

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of this stuff is disgusting, but to have an effective interrogation tactics, you need to put the prisoners under duress.

How likely is it torture someone who had not done anything at all?

How far should they be allowed to go in this world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok then. What would you think if next time you or someone you know were arrested for ANY reason, you were subjected to torture because you must know SOMETHING about SOMEONE.

Stupidity. Barely worse than the Germans in WWII.

Again, clear this up for me; this is the country we are SAVING?

[CORed]

I wonder how many of our "Orange Alert" false alarms have been the result of somebody in Guantanamo making up a story about a terrorist plot to satisfy the interrogators.

[CORed]

If we were 99% sure that somebody knew where a bomb was located (nuclear or otherwise) that was due to go off in a few hours, I would say that torture might justified. But my guess about the people at Guantanamo is that a lot of the people there don't know anything useful. Some of the prisoners at Guantanamo may be high level Al Queda or Taliban people, but the majority of them are poor ignorant chumps who got just thought they were doing what Allah wants them to do, and got taken prisoner when the Taliban was defeated. I don't feel too bad for the folks that really were involved in plotting terrorism against us, but I do feel bad for the poor Afghani farmers or nomads who probably had very little idea what all of this was really about.

[jimdmcevoy]

Okay, maybe the word 'torture' wasn't the correct word.

Let's call it 'interogation tactics' if you'd prefer.

But let me get this straight, you reckon because you have experienced extreme mental pain, this gives liscense to interogaters to inflict extreme mental pain on prisinors?

[zaxx19]

Far from it. In fact, I think they frequently go hand-in-glove. It's just good to see the American "conservative" movement finally coming clean about what it really stands for.



What do you think their ultimate goals are???

How sinister do you think GWB is???

What evidence do you have to support and suppositions on this??

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, maybe the word 'torture' wasn't the correct word.

Let's call it 'interogation tactics' if you'd prefer.

But let me get this straight, you reckon because you have experienced extreme mental pain, this gives liscense to interogaters to inflict extreme mental pain on prisinors?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and I did not intend to suggest that. I was just pointing out that "trampling the things one holds most dear" (or whatever the exact words might have been) is not torture either--and it also happens to be a fairly commonplace occurrence dished out by life itself. In other words, humans can do a lot of far worse things to others than merely "trampling that which is held most dear (ideologically".

[jimdmcevoy]

I dunno man, I'll never know for sure unless I talk to this Muslim prisoner, but I can't think of many things that I could put him through that are worse than convincing him his connection with god is severed.

[chabibi]

I cant believe some of you are comparing a woman in a mini skirt to what thousands of American POWs experienced in Vietnam. Criminal interrogators deprive detainees of sleep all the time in order to break them and they are working within the law, that could be considered torture by some. The tactics that I read in this article seem like a great way to cause serious discomfort to the detainees without causing them any real harm. When the US starts throwing these detainees in a sack with a bunch of angry rats and starts beating the sack, then there will be a serious issue to debate

[jimdmcevoy]

I have no idea what GWB's intentions are, all I can comment on are his results, which I think suck.

I'd give some one 10-1 odds that the vast majority of Iraqi citizens would rather America never entered. As in being able to vote for a new leader does not compensate for all the hardships they have been put through (and that assumes they want to vote for leaders, which I see no reason to assume). And I haven't seen much evidence that Sudaam was any threat, hence I don't see any pros, and I see a lot of cons.

Sudaam was no where near getting anything nuclear, and I believe this was clear to all, and my reasoning is that if American thought that him having chemical weapons endagered America, then they probably wouldn't have given Sudaam some in the first place.

If I wasn't lazy I could find many other leaders that have been and still are much more harsh on his citizens. I've heard of some terrible things happening in Africa for instance.

As for Al Quaida, even if they were responsible for 9/11 (is Al Quaida big in Saudia Arabia? I heard most of these 9/11 dudes were from Saudia Arabia) any hinderance America has done to them I think is outweighed by the negative effect of increased hatred for America by millions of other Muslims (thinking a little more long term here).

So, my opinion is:

Bush's results suck.

I also think Bush lies a fair bit. But he may well think he is doing what's best for everyone, there is no way to tell.