Here's How Arabs INTEROGATE People....

[Immanuel]

We all know who would and who wouldn't.

To some, some extreme interrogation is well worth saving U.S. citizens lives.

To others, it is better to let thousands of people die than to have them do something that isn't "acceptable."

I have asked this to other people. To those who disagree with torture, if a kidnapper buried your child - one hour of air left - would you do ANYTHING to the kidnapper to save your child?

I got one honest answer before. They said of course they would. They wouldn't like it, but they would.

How about the rest of you. Kidnapper in a chair in front of you. Your child will die in one hour. How far will you go to get the info and save your child?

Yes, it's pretty obvious who would and who wouldn't. I asked the question because I see much empathy towards the terrorists and their rights, but I don't see much mention of the rights of the innocent Americans who die at the hands of these terrorists. Reading through the many posts on this it comes across as if American lives are worth less than a terrorist's life.

I'm one of those who is opposed to the torture of detainees, but in this case, if a kidnapper took my child, buried him/her and left him/her with one hour of air, I'd cut his balls off and feed them to him in order to get the answer as to where my child is.

But in all sincerity, the hypothetical of your post is different than the very real issue of the detainees. In the hypothetical, the kidnapper is in the act of committing a crime and lives are imminently at stake. In the case of the detainees, they are not involved in an ongoing crime and lives are not imminently at stake here. In fact, there is no proof that the detainees have any knowledge of impending strikes or that torturing the detainee will save one single life.

Immie

But what if we had a terrorist(s) and we knew with reasonable certainty that they did have info on an impending attack that would kill thousands of Americans. Would you support harsh interrogation techniques in that case (thus saving these Americans) or would you say no and let those Americans die? I know it's a hypothetical but . . . 9/11 was just a hypothetical on 9/10.

You won't get a serious answer to this.

Problem is, any "normal" person, who knew that with reasonable certainty, would absolutely do anything they could to save lives.

Excuse me?

I gave a serious and I believe a reasonable answer to that question. And since the question was directed at me, and I had just given you are reasonable answer to your hypothetical earlier, I don't understand that statement.

I realize I'm not a normal person, but geez!!

Immie

 

[B94]

[To all] If the U.S. had a terrorist(s) in custody and they knew with reasonable certainty that this terrorist(s) had intel on an imminent attack on the U.S. and failure to get this intel would result in the death of thousands of innocent American lives, would you employ harsh interrogation techniques to gain this intel (thus saving thousands of innocent American lives)?

It should never be the government’s policy to torture. Torture should be defined by the government and be illegal. Now in the above scenario - if the terrorist while being escorted happened to fall down and at the same time someone spilled some water I wouldn't see any reason to write down a report about this incident.

 

[Iriemon]

[To all] If the U.S. had a terrorist(s) in custody and they knew with reasonable certainty that this terrorist(s) had intel on an imminent attack on the U.S. and failure to get this intel would result in the death of thousands of innocent American lives, would you employ harsh interrogation techniques to gain this intel (thus saving thousands of innocent American lives)?

We all know who would and who wouldn't.

To some, some extreme interrogation is well worth saving U.S. citizens lives.

To others, it is better to let thousands of people die than to have them do something that isn't "acceptable."

I have asked this to other people. To those who disagree with torture, if a kidnapper buried your child - one hour of air left - would you do ANYTHING to the kidnapper to save your child?

I got one honest answer before. They said of course they would. They wouldn't like it, but they would.

How about the rest of you. Kidnapper in a chair in front of you. Your child will die in one hour. How far will you go to get the info and save your child?

In that situation I'd probably torture him. I'd destroy property, assault, rob, steal and maybe even kill.

But I'm not in favor of making that stuff legal.

 

[Burp]

Yes, it's pretty obvious who would and who wouldn't. I asked the question because I see much empathy towards the terrorists and their rights, but I don't see much mention of the rights of the innocent Americans who die at the hands of these terrorists. Reading through the many posts on this it comes across as if American lives are worth less than a terrorist's life.



But what if we had a terrorist(s) and we knew with reasonable certainty that they did have info on an impending attack that would kill thousands of Americans. Would you support harsh interrogation techniques in that case (thus saving these Americans) or would you say no and let those Americans die? I know it's a hypothetical but . . . 9/11 was just a hypothetical on 9/10.

You won't get a serious answer to this.

Problem is, any "normal" person, who knew that with reasonable certainty, would absolutely do anything they could to save lives.

Excuse me?

I gave a serious and I believe a reasonable answer to that question. And since the question was directed at me, and I had just given you are reasonable answer to your hypothetical earlier, I don't understand that statement.

I realize I'm not a normal person, but geez!!

Immie

Nooooo....that absolutely wasn't directed at you.

 

[Immanuel]

You won't get a serious answer to this.

Problem is, any "normal" person, who knew that with reasonable certainty, would absolutely do anything they could to save lives.

Excuse me?

I gave a serious and I believe a reasonable answer to that question. And since the question was directed at me, and I had just given you are reasonable answer to your hypothetical earlier, I don't understand that statement.

I realize I'm not a normal person, but geez!!

Immie

Nooooo....that absolutely wasn't directed at you.

The question or your reply?

It is okay either way. I'm convinced in my beliefs on this issue. Torture is wrong. I am not embarrassed by that stance even though there are many people on this forum and others that I respect and usually agree with who differ with me on this issue. Under no (well almost none) circumstances should we ever stoop to the level of torture to get information and "24" is one of my favorite tv shows. If some of you want to believe that waterboarding is not torture, then fine... lie to yourselves, but we are a nation of laws (not to mention lawyers too) and regardless of what barbarians in another land do, we should never come close to stepping down to their levels.

Immie

 

[Burp]

Excuse me?

I gave a serious and I believe a reasonable answer to that question. And since the question was directed at me, and I had just given you are reasonable answer to your hypothetical earlier, I don't understand that statement.

I realize I'm not a normal person, but geez!!

Immie

Nooooo....that absolutely wasn't directed at you.

The question or your reply?

It is okay either way. I'm convinced in my beliefs on this issue. Torture is wrong. I am not embarrassed by that stance even though there are many people on this forum and others that I respect and usually agree with who differ with me on this issue. Under no (well almost none) circumstances should we ever stoop to the level of torture to get information and "24" is one of my favorite tv shows. If some of you want to believe that waterboarding is not torture, then fine... lie to yourselves, but we are a nation of laws (not to mention lawyers too) and regardless of what barbarians in another land do, we should never come close to stepping down to their levels.

Immie

My "normal" person statement.

 

[Red Dawn]

where did i say anything about Saddam?

Was the intent of our waterboarding to deny our prisoners oxygen, and to induce a feeling of drowning?

Yes or no?

I believe the intent was to gain information to prevent further terrorist attacks and save lives.

so your position is that there is no plausible alternative to protecting the country, and getting reliable intelligence, other than to torture.


That's laughable dude. Do you ever tire of defending Bush?

 

[Burp]

Was the intent of our waterboarding to deny our prisoners oxygen, and to induce a feeling of drowning?

Yes or no?

I believe the intent was to gain information to prevent further terrorist attacks and save lives.

so your position is that there is no plausible alternative to protecting the country, and getting reliable intelligence, other than to torture.


That's laughable dude. Do you ever tire of defending Bush?

It's called enhanced techniques. That means the other techniques failed.

And yes, if there is no other plausible alternative to protecting the country than to torture someone to get intelligence, do it. Tear out each fingernail one by one...slowly. Attach his testicles to battery cables. Waterboard all day long.

It has nothing to do with defending Bush. I would feel this way regardless of who the President is/was.

Do what it takes to save lives.

 

[garyd]

Torture was defined in several memoranda and it didn't include waterboarding. Khalid shaik Mohammed was up to his neck in several terrorist plots against the US to not have done what they did would have doomed several Los Anglenos to certain death. That is clear based on the evdence. To have failed to do what they did would have gotten hundreds of people killed and you fools would then have been bitching because Bush didn't prevent that attack.

 

[Red Dawn]

I believe the intent was to gain information to prevent further terrorist attacks and save lives.

so your position is that there is no plausible alternative to protecting the country, and getting reliable intelligence, other than to torture.


That's laughable dude. Do you ever tire of defending Bush?

It's called enhanced techniques. That means the other techniques failed.

And yes, if there is no other plausible alternative to protecting the country than to torture someone to get intelligence, do it.

Tear out each fingernail one by one...slowly. Attach his testicles to battery cables. Waterboard all day long.



Do what it takes to save lives.

Okay, so your a sick, twisted, sadistic fuck.

Got it.

Only a sick sadist would even think about putting a dudes balls on a battery cable.

Where do you come up with this stuff? You have a very vivid, sadistic, and sick imagination.

What exactly is your fascination with testicles?


I bet you'd LOVE to torture someone, wouldn't you?

 

[Immanuel]

I believe the intent was to gain information to prevent further terrorist attacks and save lives.

so your position is that there is no plausible alternative to protecting the country, and getting reliable intelligence, other than to torture.


That's laughable dude. Do you ever tire of defending Bush?

It's called enhanced techniques. That means the other techniques failed.

And yes, if there is no other plausible alternative to protecting the country than to torture someone to get intelligence, do it. Tear out each fingernail one by one...slowly. Attach his testicles to battery cables. Waterboard all day long.

It has nothing to do with defending Bush. I would feel this way regardless of who the President is/was.

Do what it takes to save lives.

"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" is nothing more than a euphemism (and yes, I had to go to dictionary.com to find the spelling of that) for torture.

Torture was defined in several memoranda and it didn't include waterboarding. Khalid shaik Mohammed was up to his neck in several terrorist plots against the US to not have done what they did would have doomed several Los Anglenos to certain death. That is clear based on the evdence. To have failed to do what they did would have gotten hundreds of people killed and you fools would then have been bitching because Bush didn't prevent that attack.

Funny, I never once blamed President Bush for the 9/11 attacks.

As for trusting that so called evidence, it is coming out of the mouths of those who did the torture. That is not evidence. That is an excuse.

Immie

 

[garyd]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with French interrogation techniques as used by the Foreign legion and others in Algeria. That requires no imagination at all. In fact it was one of the techniques Saddam's boys liked to use on failed athletes according to a History channel documentary.

You my son have lead a very sheltered life. No wonder you're such a clueless dipstick.

 

[Immanuel]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with French interrogation techniques as used by the Foreign legion and others in Algeria. That requires no imagination at all. In fact it was one of the techniques Saddam's boys liked to use on failed athletes according to a History channel documentary.

You my son have lead a very sheltered life.

I'll ignore your last ignorant sentence there as this is an intelligent discussion and you fell out of the intelligence pool there for a second.

So, it is your position, that simply because others have done it, then everyone should do it? Just because someone has done it in the past, someone else should do it now?

By that ludicrous position, one could justify using a nuclear bomb simply because back in 1945 America used two Atom bombs on Japan. Makes a hell of a lot of sense doesn't it?

Immie

 

[Red Dawn]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with French interrogation techniques as used by the Foreign legion and others in Algeria. That requires no imagination at all. In fact it was one of the techniques Saddam's boys liked to use on failed athletes according to a History channel documentary.

You my son have lead a very sheltered life. No wonder you're such a clueless dipstick.

And you love reading about sadistic torture techniques involving mens balls and battery cables.....why exactly?

It sounds like you would LOVE to hook a prisoner's balls to a battery cable and torture him, do I have that right?

 

[Red Dawn]

I think this truly deserved a stand alone post, to highlight the depravity, and sadism of some two-time voting Bush apologists

And yes, if there is no other plausible alternative to protecting the country than to torture someone to get intelligence, do it.

Tear out each fingernail one by one...slowly.

Attach his testicles to battery cables.

Waterboard all day long.

.

 

[rr1]

TORTURE existed in the world before we came into this world. I can most definitely say in all truth that it will remain here in this world long after all of us are gone.

You can blame it on Bush, you can blame it on Churchill, you can blame it on Obama, you can blame it on Clinton, Wilson, Kerry, you can blame it on whoever you want to blame it on but that will not change the fact that there is not one thing you can do about torture. It will survive and you will not.

For those of you out there who want to drag Christ down to your level, I've got this to say; Christ did not run from it. He took it quietly. He took it personally. He took it without giving a politically correct adaptation of its morality or its immorality. He did not blame or condemn it he simply took it. Such was His purpose. And that He did you should all be forever grateful and evermore thankful to Him. I'd venture a guess that He did a little "pro bono" work there wouldn't you say? He didn't lay himself down to make a name for Himself or to pass some worldly legislation. He came for one thing and one thing only. TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST!!! That includes you and me and the rest of this world of unsightly trash. The body was given that the spirit might live. The spirit is truth. Not argue and pine and whimper and whine and point the finger and make excuses that my dog is better than your dog or my president is better than yours or my idea is better than yours. The world is so full of shit and it appears that the shit is getting deeper not shallower. He came for the people. What the hell is our excuse? We fight and wage wars and steal and lie and cheat and accuse others and fuck our neighbors wives and husbands and screw the other guy before he screws you first. You make a mockery out of His death and you think you're all in control.

For those of you who make your living in the legal profession; you can't defend the laws on the books now. You are so busy picking and choosing your own destiny and deciding what cases you will or won't defend or prosecute and deciding what's popular or not popular or winnable or not winnable or whatever fucking excuse you want to come up with that you let those in need of your services hang while you are all fighting and arguing about what is politically correct or morally acceptable. Meanwhile, those out here in the cosmos who need you have nobody to defend or prosecute for them on their behalf. Now that you fucking theoricists, is the truth. Politically correct, morally reprehensible or whatever you want to label it. Hanging on the cross. THAT IS TORTURE!!! REAL TORTURE!!! And it goes on and on and on and on and on and on. How fucking long do the people of this world have to wait? Who knows?

Torture is a thriving entity in and of itself. Everyone has tortured another. None and I mean nobody is exempt from torture or being tortured. I think you would all do well to stick with the things you can make a difference with and quit pining and snitching about something you have not one fucking bit of control over. None.

And for you legal minded professionals and legislative bureaucrats and other timeless argumentative scholarly college educated bought on credit collegiate professionals please be advised that the opinions given here are not necessarily those of the majority nor are they necessarily the opinions of the minority and are not necessarily the opinions of this website. How's that for being politically fucking correct!!! Gnarls Barkley sang the song of the angels when he sang "and I can die when I'm done.""

 

[Zoom-boing]

Was the intent of our waterboarding to deny our prisoners oxygen, and to induce a feeling of drowning?

Yes or no?

I believe the intent was to gain information to prevent further terrorist attacks and save lives.

so your position is that there is no plausible alternative to protecting the country, and getting reliable intelligence, other than to torture.


That's laughable dude. Do you ever tire of defending Bush?

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't believe this at all. I'm all for using the least harsh methods to gain intel and if they work, great. But when the detainees are hardened terrorists who will not divulge information using these less harsh techniques then I am in favor of utilizing the harsher methods. And if those methods gain us intel that saves innocent American lives than to me yes, harsh as they may be, it's what needs to be done; it's what is necessary.

 

[Iriemon]

I think this truly deserved a stand alone post, to highlight the depravity, and sadism of some two-time voting Bush apologists

And yes, if there is no other plausible alternative to protecting the country than to torture someone to get intelligence, do it.

Tear out each fingernail one by one...slowly.

Attach his testicles to battery cables.

Waterboard all day long.

.

At least he was honest about it. Read between the lines and I think a lot of the pro-torture crowd think the same but they are too ashamed to admit their true position.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Here's how the US tortures people:

and...

I think that many of you who support torturing enemy combatants/terrorist suspects feel angry, and that's understandable. I think you hate the people who attacked the US. I think you fear another attack, one which may directly affect you. I think this causes you to feel hatred, and therefore little remorse about how these people are treated. I suspect it has less to do with saving Americans' lives so much as it has to do with that hatred you feel. You want these fuckers to pay. You want revenge.

But that doesn't make it right. Hopefully, the people in position to do something to ensure that we never torture people again can remain more level-headed and therefore more true to the founding principles of this nation than you. That's one of the reasons there is a system of checks in balances in the government: so that even if a majority of Americans want something that isn't right, it doesn't happen.

 

[Newby]

Here's how the US tortures people:

and...

I think that many of you who support torturing enemy combatants/terrorist suspects feel angry, and that's understandable. I think you hate the people who attacked the US. I think you fear another attack, one which may directly affect you. I think this causes you to feel hatred, and therefore little remorse about how these people are treated. I suspect it has less to do with saving Americans' lives so much as it has to do with that hatred you feel. You want these fuckers to pay. You want revenge.

But that doesn't make it right. Hopefully, the people in position to do something to ensure that we never torture people again can remain more level-headed and therefore more true to the founding principles of this nation than you. That's one of the reasons there is a system of checks in balances in the government: so that even if a majority of Americans want something that isn't right, it doesn't happen.

Who is in the first picture, and where/when was it taken?

The second picture is from the Huffington Post, and if I'm not mistaken, those people were put on trail and convicted for their actions. So, why are you attempting to attribute that as 'US torture' or do you have to lie to make a point?