A question about Torture

[Kent.Neidhold]

So I've been struggling with this torture situation for a while and I feel that I have conflicting beliefs. 1. I probably identify with the left more then I do the right and I have a lot of very liberal ideas...mainly legalization of pot ( thats a situation all on its own.) 2. I feel that we should torture the shit out of those terrorist mother F's.
I talk to my liberal friends about it and I get chastized for how I feel and they say I can't be liberal if I feel that way. Why not? Why wouldn't we torture and waterboard and put electrodes on their nut sacks if we could thwart another terrorist attack? I don't see why us lefties feel like giving those fuckers rights is gonig to save our country? Who cares, these dudes have C4 and ballbarings strapped to themselves and Bobby the hippy wants to make sure he has enogh water and light in his cell...give the fucker Alpo and never let him see the light of day!
In short, can someone explain this passive line of thinknig to me?

 

[Nik]

So I've been struggling with this torture situation for a while and I feel that I have conflicting beliefs. 1. I probably identify with the left more then I do the right and I have a lot of very liberal ideas...mainly legalization of pot ( thats a situation all on its own.) 2. I feel that we should torture the shit out of those terrorist mother F's.
I talk to my liberal friends about it and I get chastized for how I feel and they say I can't be liberal if I feel that way. Why not? Why wouldn't we torture and waterboard and put electrodes on their nut sacks if we could thwart another terrorist attack? I don't see why us lefties feel like giving those fuckers rights is gonig to save our country? Who cares, these dudes have C4 and ballbarings strapped to themselves and Bobby the hippy wants to make sure he has enogh water and light in his cell...give the fucker Alpo and never let him see the light of day!
In short, can someone explain this passive line of thinknig to me?

Well first of all, wheres the proof any of these people are terrorists to begin with? When you start saying we should torture people because we think they are terrorists, well then the government can basically torture people on a whim. Surely you don't believe that?

 

[dilloduck]

So I've been struggling with this torture situation for a while and I feel that I have conflicting beliefs. 1. I probably identify with the left more then I do the right and I have a lot of very liberal ideas...mainly legalization of pot ( thats a situation all on its own.) 2. I feel that we should torture the shit out of those terrorist mother F's.
I talk to my liberal friends about it and I get chastized for how I feel and they say I can't be liberal if I feel that way. Why not? Why wouldn't we torture and waterboard and put electrodes on their nut sacks if we could thwart another terrorist attack? I don't see why us lefties feel like giving those fuckers rights is gonig to save our country? Who cares, these dudes have C4 and ballbarings strapped to themselves and Bobby the hippy wants to make sure he has enogh water and light in his cell...give the fucker Alpo and never let him see the light of day!
In short, can someone explain this passive line of thinknig to me?

Well first of all, wheres the proof any of these people are terrorists to begin with? When you start saying we should torture people because we think they are terrorists, well then the government can basically torture people on a whim. Surely you don't believe that?

Slippery slope arguments are garbage. If you think that torturing suspected terrorists is going to lead to the torture of a person caught speeding, you're nuts.

 

[Nik]

So I've been struggling with this torture situation for a while and I feel that I have conflicting beliefs. 1. I probably identify with the left more then I do the right and I have a lot of very liberal ideas...mainly legalization of pot ( thats a situation all on its own.) 2. I feel that we should torture the shit out of those terrorist mother F's.
I talk to my liberal friends about it and I get chastized for how I feel and they say I can't be liberal if I feel that way. Why not? Why wouldn't we torture and waterboard and put electrodes on their nut sacks if we could thwart another terrorist attack? I don't see why us lefties feel like giving those fuckers rights is gonig to save our country? Who cares, these dudes have C4 and ballbarings strapped to themselves and Bobby the hippy wants to make sure he has enogh water and light in his cell...give the fucker Alpo and never let him see the light of day!
In short, can someone explain this passive line of thinknig to me?

Well first of all, wheres the proof any of these people are terrorists to begin with? When you start saying we should torture people because we think they are terrorists, well then the government can basically torture people on a whim. Surely you don't believe that?

Slippery slope arguments are garbage. If you think that torturing suspected terrorists is going to lead to the torture of a person caught speeding, you're nuts.

Its not a slippery slope argument at all. The point is that if the government can designate anyone a terrorist and can torture anyone it designates a terrorist, then it can torture anyone for whatever reason it wants.

You don't think thats troubling at all?

 

[Kent.Neidhold]

Well first of all, wheres the proof any of these people are terrorists to begin with? When you start saying we should torture people because we think they are terrorists, well then the government can basically torture people on a whim. Surely you don't believe that?

Slippery slope arguments are garbage. If you think that torturing suspected terrorists is going to lead to the torture of a person caught speeding, you're nuts.

Its not a slippery slope argument at all. The point is that if the government can designate anyone a terrorist and can torture anyone it designates a terrorist, then it can torture anyone for whatever reason it wants.

You don't think thats troubling at all?

Clearly the government isn't going to torture someone who hasn't warrented some sort of reason to be linked to or considered a terrorist. I am assuming that we torturing torrorists and not Johnny from next door or torturing people on whim as you called it. I'm talking about bonafide legimate terrorist suspects. Obviously they have put themselves in the situation or identifies themselves with terrorist or terror suspects

 

[sealybobo]

I feel that we should torture the shit out of those terrorist mother F's.
I talk to my liberal friends about it and I get chastized for how I feel and they say I can't be liberal if I feel that way. Why not? Why wouldn't we torture and waterboard and put electrodes on their nut sacks if we could thwart another terrorist attack? I don't see why us lefties feel like giving those fuckers rights is gonig to save our country? Who cares, these dudes have C4 and ballbarings strapped to themselves and Bobby the hippy wants to make sure he has enogh water and light in his cell...give the fucker Alpo and never let him see the light of day!
In short, can someone explain this passive line of thinknig to me?

Because it won't/doesn't/has never thwarted a terrorists attack. They tortured to those enemy combatants to say that there was a connection between Saddam & 9-11. And they'll tell you anything if you torture them. Not necessarily the truth, but whatever you want to hear.

And the Bush regime used that information to lie us into Iraq.

And next thing you know they'll be justifying why they had to torture you.

Giving those people rights is what our country is all about. How many of them have been convicted? So most of them were just people we picked up because some afgan or iraq warlord turned them in for a reward.

Yes, give them water and enough light. What, are you even more evil and sicker than they are? What is that going to gain to deprive them of water?

You have been sucked into Nationalism.

The Reichstag building in Berlin was constructed to house the Reichstag, the first parliament of the German Empire. It was opened in 1894 and housed the Reichstag until 1933, when it was severely damaged in a fire supposedly set by Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe, who was later beheaded for the crime. That verdict has been a subject of controversy over the years.[1] The National Socialist German Workers Party used this event as casus belli to begin a purge of traitors in Berlin and to ban the Communist Party of Germany.

So we got hit on 9-11 and you are angry, and boy did Bush use that to his advantage.

The sad thing is that far too many Americans condoln breaking the law when they say it is ok to torture. That just simply isn't the American way. Now if they really have some credible information, then torture them in private, and don't make it our policy, and we don't need to find out about it. But to say you approve torture??? How about rape? If it could stop another 9-11, can the CIA go around the world raping women? But they are "TERRORIST"? Says who?

So you have to remember, torture is illegal. We don't torture. And torture doesn't even work. We get better results without torture. Why does that get forgotten?

Bush is just covering his ass, along with Rumsfeld and Cheney. They should be charged with war crimes and put away for life, and have all their assets seized. It wouldn't be the first time. The Bush's did business with the Nazi's too. And today they are in bed with the Bin ladin's.

 

[sealybobo]

So I've been struggling with this torture situation for a while and I feel that I have conflicting beliefs. 1. I probably identify with the left more then I do the right and I have a lot of very liberal ideas...mainly legalization of pot ( thats a situation all on its own.) 2. I feel that we should torture the shit out of those terrorist mother F's.
I talk to my liberal friends about it and I get chastized for how I feel and they say I can't be liberal if I feel that way. Why not? Why wouldn't we torture and waterboard and put electrodes on their nut sacks if we could thwart another terrorist attack? I don't see why us lefties feel like giving those fuckers rights is gonig to save our country? Who cares, these dudes have C4 and ballbarings strapped to themselves and Bobby the hippy wants to make sure he has enogh water and light in his cell...give the fucker Alpo and never let him see the light of day!
In short, can someone explain this passive line of thinknig to me?

Well first of all, wheres the proof any of these people are terrorists to begin with? When you start saying we should torture people because we think they are terrorists, well then the government can basically torture people on a whim. Surely you don't believe that?

Slippery slope arguments are garbage. If you think that torturing suspected terrorists is going to lead to the torture of a person caught speeding, you're nuts.

If you think that taking away non citizens human rights will lead to them taking away American's rights, then you would be right yourself. See Jose Padilla.

Oh, and this guy:

Steven Howards, 54, a consultant to non-profit organizations, was vacationing with his family in Beaver Creek when he spotted Cheney in an outdoor mall shaking hands and posing for photos. Howards and his son walked over and told Cheney that his policies in Iraq are "reprehensible."

Howards said he may have touched Cheney on the elbow or shoulder, like others in the crowd.

Howards kept walking to his son's piano lesson. He returned to the spot about ten minutes later with another son, and that's when Secret Service agent Virgil Reichle handcuffed and arrested Howards for assaulting the vice president.

The charge was later reduced to harassment, then dismissed in Eagle County Court a month later.

Assault arrest followed word to Cheney - The Denver Post

Just like most of the "unlawful enemy combatants have not been charged and have been released. Now they probably are terrorists. How about I lock you up for 5 years and torture you 100's of times?

And why didn't we torture Saddam to find out where those WMD's went?

You right wingers are soooo naive/misled.

 

[Kent.Neidhold]

I feel that we should torture the shit out of those terrorist mother F's.
I talk to my liberal friends about it and I get chastized for how I feel and they say I can't be liberal if I feel that way. Why not? Why wouldn't we torture and waterboard and put electrodes on their nut sacks if we could thwart another terrorist attack? I don't see why us lefties feel like giving those fuckers rights is gonig to save our country? Who cares, these dudes have C4 and ballbarings strapped to themselves and Bobby the hippy wants to make sure he has enogh water and light in his cell...give the fucker Alpo and never let him see the light of day!
In short, can someone explain this passive line of thinknig to me?

Because it won't/doesn't/has never thwarted a terrorists attack. They tortured to those enemy combatants to say that there was a connection between Saddam & 9-11. And they'll tell you anything if you torture them. Not necessarily the truth, but whatever you want to hear.

And the Bush regime used that information to lie us into Iraq.

And next thing you know they'll be justifying why they had to torture you.

Giving those people rights is what our country is all about. How many of them have been convicted? So most of them were just people we picked up because some afgan or iraq warlord turned them in for a reward.

Yes, give them water and enough light. What, are you even more evil and sicker than they are? What is that going to gain to deprive them of water?

You have been sucked into Nationalism.

The Reichstag building in Berlin was constructed to house the Reichstag, the first parliament of the German Empire. It was opened in 1894 and housed the Reichstag until 1933, when it was severely damaged in a fire supposedly set by Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe, who was later beheaded for the crime. That verdict has been a subject of controversy over the years.[1] The National Socialist German Workers Party used this event as casus belli to begin a purge of traitors in Berlin and to ban the Communist Party of Germany.

So we got hit on 9-11 and you are angry, and boy did Bush use that to his advantage.

The sad thing is that far too many Americans condoln breaking the law when they say it is ok to torture. That just simply isn't the American way. Now if they really have some credible information, then torture them in private, and don't make it our policy, and we don't need to find out about it. But to say you approve torture??? How about rape? If it could stop another 9-11, can the CIA go around the world raping women? But they are "TERRORIST"? Says who?

So you have to remember, torture is illegal. We don't torture. And torture doesn't even work. We get better results without torture. Why does that get forgotten?

Bush is just covering his ass, along with Rumsfeld and Cheney. They should be charged with war crimes and put away for life, and have all their assets seized. It wouldn't be the first time. The Bush's did business with the Nazi's too. And today they are in bed with the Bin ladin's.

I guess you could pose a million hypothetical situations and I see your point about rape. I guess I'm with you that, if you are going to torture someone do it in private and dont make it public policy....Well said

 

[sealybobo]

Slippery slope arguments are garbage. If you think that torturing suspected terrorists is going to lead to the torture of a person caught speeding, you're nuts.

Its not a slippery slope argument at all. The point is that if the government can designate anyone a terrorist and can torture anyone it designates a terrorist, then it can torture anyone for whatever reason it wants.

You don't think thats troubling at all?

Clearly the government isn't going to torture someone who hasn't warrented some sort of reason to be linked to or considered a terrorist. I am assuming that we torturing torrorists and not Johnny from next door or torturing people on whim as you called it. I'm talking about bonafide legimate terrorist suspects. Obviously they have put themselves in the situation or identifies themselves with terrorist or terror suspects

Yes the government tortured hundreds of innocent men. Is a Private in the US military a terrorist? If you are Osama Bin Ladin, the answer is yes. And you are no different than he is. You think their foot soldiers are 'terrorists".

 

[Kent.Neidhold]

Its not a slippery slope argument at all. The point is that if the government can designate anyone a terrorist and can torture anyone it designates a terrorist, then it can torture anyone for whatever reason it wants.

You don't think thats troubling at all?

Clearly the government isn't going to torture someone who hasn't warrented some sort of reason to be linked to or considered a terrorist. I am assuming that we torturing torrorists and not Johnny from next door or torturing people on whim as you called it. I'm talking about bonafide legimate terrorist suspects. Obviously they have put themselves in the situation or identifies themselves with terrorist or terror suspects

Yes the government tortured hundreds of innocent men. Is a Private in the US military a terrorist? If you are Osama Bin Ladin, the answer is yes. And you are no different than he is. You think their foot soldiers are 'terrorists".

If you are directing that at me and saying that I am like Osama Bin Laden, then you are grossly mislead.

 

[Nik]

Slippery slope arguments are garbage. If you think that torturing suspected terrorists is going to lead to the torture of a person caught speeding, you're nuts.

Its not a slippery slope argument at all. The point is that if the government can designate anyone a terrorist and can torture anyone it designates a terrorist, then it can torture anyone for whatever reason it wants.

You don't think thats troubling at all?

Clearly the government isn't going to torture someone who hasn't warrented some sort of reason to be linked to or considered a terrorist.

Really? Why is this clear? The Uighurs were held in Guantanamo for...what 5 years? 6 years? They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is literally no evidence that they are terrorists.

I am assuming that we torturing torrorists and not Johnny from next door or torturing people on whim as you called it.

Again, how are we determining that they are terrorists? The government say so?

Ever heard of a case called Reynolds which created an entire doctrine of state secrets?....it has an interesting history and should make you doubt executive power a lot (you should already have a healthy dose of skepticism).

I'm talking about bonafide legimate terrorist suspects. Obviously they have put themselves in the situation or identifies themselves with terrorist or terror suspects

The Uighurs had the indecency to move to Afghanistan. What a crime, eh? Obviously anyone who does that should be tortured!

The government has a bad track record of picking up people who are actual terrorists. This is just the first of many reasons why we shouldn't be torturing "terrorists". We shouldn't torture, period, but torturing people without providing them with any due process just seems incredibly stupid to me.

 

[Nik]

Clearly the government isn't going to torture someone who hasn't warrented some sort of reason to be linked to or considered a terrorist. I am assuming that we torturing torrorists and not Johnny from next door or torturing people on whim as you called it. I'm talking about bonafide legimate terrorist suspects. Obviously they have put themselves in the situation or identifies themselves with terrorist or terror suspects

Yes the government tortured hundreds of innocent men. Is a Private in the US military a terrorist? If you are Osama Bin Ladin, the answer is yes. And you are no different than he is. You think their foot soldiers are 'terrorists".

If you are directing that at me and saying that I am like Osama Bin Laden, then you are grossly mislead.

He was saying that terrorism is dependent on a point of view.

Heres a better question for you. Are the Iranian protestors terrorists? Should the Iranian government be able to torture them without reproach?

 

[Kent.Neidhold]

Yes the government tortured hundreds of innocent men. Is a Private in the US military a terrorist? If you are Osama Bin Ladin, the answer is yes. And you are no different than he is. You think their foot soldiers are 'terrorists".

If you are directing that at me and saying that I am like Osama Bin Laden, then you are grossly mislead.

He was saying that terrorism is dependent on a point of view.

Heres a better question for you. Are the Iranian protestors terrorists? Should the Iranian government be able to torture them without reproach?

No they shouldn't be tortured, they are caught in a horrible situation. But are they blowing things up and taking innocent lives? I dont think they are, I mean I haven't seen that or heard about anything thing to that extent. The Iranian government seems to be overstepping the boundries of freedom and free speach, but Im talking about something I dnot really know a lot about.

 

[Nik]

If you are directing that at me and saying that I am like Osama Bin Laden, then you are grossly mislead.

He was saying that terrorism is dependent on a point of view.

Heres a better question for you. Are the Iranian protestors terrorists? Should the Iranian government be able to torture them without reproach?

No they shouldn't be tortured, they are caught in a horrible situation. But are they blowing things up and taking innocent lives?

Nope. But the government is claiming they are, and its the government who gets to decide whether they are terrorists or not. No due process there either. Sort of a shitty system, wouldn't you say?

I dont think they are, I mean I haven't seen that or heard about anything thing to that extent. The Iranian government seems to be overstepping the boundries of freedom and free speach, but Im talking about something I dnot really know a lot about.

Well the government gets to decide those boundaries over there, and doesn't have to listen to anyone. This is the exact same type of system you are advocating with regards to torture. No accountability, just the government deciding some people are terrorists and then torturing them.

 

[Kent.Neidhold]

He was saying that terrorism is dependent on a point of view.

Heres a better question for you. Are the Iranian protestors terrorists? Should the Iranian government be able to torture them without reproach?

No they shouldn't be tortured, they are caught in a horrible situation. But are they blowing things up and taking innocent lives?

Nope. But the government is claiming they are, and its the government who gets to decide whether they are terrorists or not. No due process there either. Sort of a shitty system, wouldn't you say?



Well the government gets to decide those boundaries over there, and doesn't have to listen to anyone. This is the exact same type of system you are advocating with regards to torture. No accountability, just the government deciding some people are terrorists and then torturing them.

I guess I had a naive approach to the situation. I feel like the way you approach this is with that of a skeptic, which I understand on one end but dont on the other. All in all the torture issue is a hard one to formulate arguments for because you can so easily open yourself up to get balsted.
So I have a question, what if you have a suspect on camera with undeniable evidence of comitting and act of terror? We insert him into our legal system and try to ask him questions about his cell or with whom he identifies with, is ok then to torture that terrorist for info? Or, is the info tainted because of how it was obtained?

 

[Nik]

No they shouldn't be tortured, they are caught in a horrible situation. But are they blowing things up and taking innocent lives?

Nope. But the government is claiming they are, and its the government who gets to decide whether they are terrorists or not. No due process there either. Sort of a shitty system, wouldn't you say?



Well the government gets to decide those boundaries over there, and doesn't have to listen to anyone. This is the exact same type of system you are advocating with regards to torture. No accountability, just the government deciding some people are terrorists and then torturing them.

I guess I had a naive approach to the situation. I feel like the way you approach this is with that of a skeptic, which I understand on one end but dont on the other.

You should approach everything skeptically, especially when it comes to government power. Its strange, actually, I have a great distrust of the executive, but I believe in the government very strongly when there are checks and balances. Conservatives seem to think the government is terrible, corrupt, etc, but they want to give the executive as much power as possible which to me just doesn't make any sense.

All in all the torture issue is a hard one to formulate arguments for because you can so easily open yourself up to get balsted.

Its a hard issue because there aren't hard and fast rules.

So I have a question, what if you have a suspect on camera with undeniable evidence of comitting and act of terror? We insert him into our legal system and try to ask him questions about his cell or with whom he identifies with, is ok then to torture that terrorist for info? Or, is the info tainted because of how it was obtained?

Nope. Lots of reasons why not. Number 1 is that torture is ethically wrong. You don't get to treat someone inhumanely just because they are a bad person, they are still a person. Secondly, its stupid. There is lots and lots of evidence that says that torture simply doesn't work. You get the person to say something, anything, to get the torture to stop. Is that thing true? False? Who knows. Thirdly, its stupid for different reasons. Many military officials have said that AQ's biggest recruiting tool is Abu Ghraib and GITMO.

Wars aren't won just with brute military force. Thats just not the way they go. There is a huge psychological aspect to them, and if we make the other side hate us by committing brutal injustices it makes our task all the much more harder.

For a good example of this, try actually doing some research into whats happening in Iran. It started out because the election was flawed, but now the protesters are getting mass support. Not because everyone supported Moussavi, but rather the support is coming because of the brutal crackdown. The Iranian regime will probably fall not because they weren't brutal enough, but because they were too brutal. This should be a lesson to all those who think that America can accomplish its goals just by being more brutal, more harsh, more inhumane. Thats not the way the world works anymore.

 

[Lycurgus]

I have to chuckle at one thing and that is the premise that just because Obama signs something and states that we do not and never will use alternative methods again, that we won't!

As for how effective more harsh interrogation methods can be, well it is the same as most human mental and emotional issues, it varies greatly from person to person. Some would respond well to it and give us what we want and others would not.

Don't kid yourself folks, if we feel a person has what we need and standard methods are not getting the job done, they will move forward to get the information and it will be done either 100% covertly or still within US law.