View Full Version : Should suspected al-Qaeda members be tortured?
Almighty Colin
03-07-2003, 08:27 AM
Should suspected al-Qaeda members like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tortured in order to get them to reveal terrorist plans and other important information?
Winetalk.com
03-07-2003, 08:29 AM
Stalin would say YES,
I'd say NO,
penthatol still works, why bother squashing his nuts?
Forest
03-07-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Mar 7 2003, 05:37 AM
Stalin would say YES,
I'd say NO,
penthatol still works, why bother squashing his nuts?
because he deserves it for 2800+ lives thats he took and the 100k's of lives that he changed do to his terrorism
duct tape the fucker and peel it off slllloooowwwwllllyyyyyyyyyyyyy :grrr:
Sword
03-07-2003, 08:42 AM
That's a great question. There's always the line "If we do that, we are no better than them." But is that really true?
A war will kill plenty of people, and is usually justified by saying that the deaths in a war are to prevent future atrocities that will cost many more lives.
That's the usual justification for using the atom bomb on Japan. It killed 100,000 or more people I think, but the justification is that it saved many lives in the long run, and primarily saved Allied lives which would be Allied justification for using it, and rightfully so.
So is it wrong to torture one man if it can save countless lives? Kill thousands to save lives, but don't torture one?
He is a self-professed al qeada chief, terrorist, murderer and enemy of the united states. I really don't think there is any question of his guilt or the fact that he posses knowledge about al qaeda operations and future plans. For those reasons I feel he is a very special circumstance and has given up his right to fair treatment.
Tough call but I say torture him if necessary.
Last edited by Sword at Mar 7 2003, 08:52 AM
Torone
03-07-2003, 08:45 AM
Problem with both torture and pentathol...If he really believes something, that's what he's gonna say.
sarettah
03-07-2003, 08:50 AM
If we resort to torture (which we apparently already have done), then, yes, we are no better than the rest of the nasty nasties out there.
America admits suspects died in interrogations (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604)
Is this the way we want the world to view us ?? Or do we picture ourselves setting an example to the world of how good life can be and how good life should be?
(from the article above):
Some American politicians have argued that torture could be justified in this case if it helped prevent terror attacks on US citizens. Jonathan Turley, a prominent law professor at George Washington University, countered that embracing torture would be "suicide for a nation once viewed as the very embodiment of human rights".
Torture is part of a long list of concerns about the Bush administration's respect for international law, after the extrajudicial killing of al-Qa'ida suspects by an unmanned drone in Yemen and the the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a number of whom have committed or attempted to commit suicide.
President Bush appeared to encourage extra-judicial solutions in his State of the Union address in January when he talked of al-Qa'ida members being arrested or meeting "a different fate". "Let's put it this way," he said in a tone that appalled many, "they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."
Last edited by sarettah at Mar 7 2003, 08:59 AM
Sword
03-07-2003, 08:58 AM
One other thing I wanted to add. If I were the sworn enemy of another country, to the degree that al qaeda is to America, and I were captured, I would expect to be tortured. I wouldn't want to be, but I'd be damn surprised if it didn't happen.
I say yes!!!
And don't waste any $$$ on pentathol... the bastards aint worth it! :devil:
Jonathan Turley, a prominent law professor at George Washington University, countered that embracing torture would be "suicide for a nation once viewed as the very embodiment of human rights".
-------------------
does he mean before or after we were voted off the UN Human Rights Commission? or allowed women to vote? or abolished slavery? or allowed black people to go to an all white school?
people are making assumptions as to what "torture" is.
should sleep deprivation be used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to gain information to save 10's of thousands of lives?
Last edited by JR at Mar 7 2003, 06:32 AM
Mike AI
03-07-2003, 09:26 AM
There are many forms of torture, the US only vows not to use physical torture. I promise you, we are using mental torture. I am sure the top al quada guys have no idea where they are - they are blind folded flown in blacked out planes, in circles, back and forth - he could be anywhere. They have him isolated and such. I am very confident that our country has some pretty sneaky ways of getting information from people without shoving glass rods up their dicks.
But hey, if they don't work, break out the glassrods.... if it would help save 1 American life - it would be worth it!!
should sleep deprivation be used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to gain information to save 10's of thousands of lives?
Yes!
Along with thumb screws, bamboo, baseball bats, electro-shock treatment, gator grips on the nipples and testis, acid bathing....
Wow I'm really quit sick when it comes down to it... but what the hell.... do it to em :devil:
huh? fuck that............torture the sumbitch, put it on Pay per View.
The only thing America has to worry about is how it treats its own accused. He's not entitled to the same protections a citizen is, he doesn't get the presumption of innocence, he's a mother fucking terrorist. What world are people living in? Stop holding America to these ridiculous
standards - it's part of the reason 9/11 happened. Maybe next time they'll think twice about killing thousands when they see how cruel the payback is.
People are screwy, Osama bin Laden isn't O.J. Simpson, if and when he is caught there is no torture that will be good enough for him.
Mike AI
03-07-2003, 09:33 AM
An interesting article
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politi...sp?story=384604 (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604)
Maybe we have been using torture....
Torone
03-07-2003, 09:35 AM
Well put, Mutt! Further, as a non-citizen outside the borders of this country, he is NOT entitled to any protections under our Constitution (see the 14th Amendment).
Winetalk.com
03-07-2003, 09:38 AM
my problem with tourture is:
if we do it, how can we protect OUR POW from enduring the same fate?
Don't get emotional, people,
we don't OUR POW tourtured, don't we?
"What good for a goose..."
we don't OUR POW tourtured, don't we?
"What good for a goose..."
American airforce captured in the gulf war were subjected to 'torture'. Degradation and public humiliation are mental 'torture'. So in reality the US, UK and whatever other countries send in troops risk their POW's being tortured already :(
Plus when you eject from a plane the parachute rarely has you land face first... yet all the pilots had facial injuries... hmmm... torture... maybe....
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Mar 7 2003, 06:46 AM
my problem with tourture is:
if we do it, how can we protect OUR POW from enduring the same fate?
Don't get emotional, people,
we don't OUR POW tourtured, don't we?
"What good for a goose..."
i dont agree with that completely.
it is just an assumption that a 3rd world country being attacked by the US is not going to use torture to extract information just because we dont. its already illegal under the Geneva Conventions and International Law, yet its done everyday all over the world... from simple police, to military to secret/special police or security organs. its done all over the world right now.. today. its done everyday by "friends" and "allies" of the US and certainly by its enemies.
American Citizens were tortured in Isreal, by Isreali police a little over 1 year ago.
Absolutely
They deserve every thing they have coming to them.
Even though I do not agree with Eye for an Eye theory. Since it is impossible to kill each of them 2,800 times and killing 2,800 of them is not enough, Eye for an Eye will not work.
But in case of Mohammed (captured #2) he should absolutely be tortured by Turks, since we know how efficient they are. These animals will break under torture I don’t care how devoted they are. And I am hoping they don’t bring him back to the states to prosecute him. All we need is more of tax money going to waste during his trial and then the rest of his life in our presents.
Hey speaking of prosecuting these animals what ever happened with 20th highjacker. No more news about him hopefully he got shanked in prison.
T-Rav
03-07-2003, 11:05 AM
No. I had a long drawn out response to this question and the disgust I felt by some of the opinions expressed on this thread.
I chose to delete that post and simply answer...no.
I simply don't think it is right or necessary.
disgust I felt by some of the opinions expressed on this thread.
T-Rav I must apologize for my posts as looking at them they are quite clearly obscene and the comments of an ignorant bigot, I know this about myself and it's something I'll have to live with, but my opinions no matter how obscene, ingnorant or bigoted are still my opinions.
I do get vexed and most angry when the subject of terror and terrorists is raised, especially when people claim that as humans they have rights, when they obviously don’t see the rest of the world as having rights or as humans to some extent.
I don't want our society to start acting as they do, clearly with no regard for human life or the suffering they cause with their actions, but I do wonder if the world would defend us or go up in arms if we did!
I think not.
I would say as a society, then its good that we do not accept tortur.
However I´m also sure that even the most civilized person on this planet can be pushed, so she/he will turn to violence.
Ex. What would you do, if you were to interrogate al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the day before 9/11... and you knew that major terror was going to strick 9/11, but had no idea how or where?
Knowing what happen on 9/11, then I´m sure most people would have used reasonable tortur to prevent what happen.
So who should be tortured - who do we think have so important infomation that it could save lives, and how do we prevent that tortur do not take place when its not absolut needed?
That question I would leave to our intelligence service and politicians who deal with national security, they should know who and when tortur would be needed as a last resort...
I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to see these people suffer.....but deep down I have to answer no.
Jonathan Turley, a prominent law professor at George Washington University, countered that embracing torture would be "suicide for a nation once viewed as the very embodiment of human rights".
The above is why I feel the way I do. It will hurt America far more than it would hurt these fuckers. America would be letting them win...again. And for what? To appease a feeling of vengeance. [as far as what is being expressed on this board]
To say 'This will teach them' or 'Next time they might think twice' is naive. Let's look at 9/11. Did those men fear death? No. Their motives and beliefs were far stronger than any fear. That is the scariest part about these morons. The anticipation of torture would only strenghten their resolve, not chip away at it.
does he mean before or after we were voted off the UN Human Rights Commission? or allowed women to vote? or abolished slavery? or allowed black people to go to an all white school?
Allowing women to vote, abolishing slavery etc etc are ALL what makes America 'the very embodiment of human rights". (I can't comment on being voted off the UN HRC...I plead ignorance there)
It's very similar to the privacy issues that are so apparent in the news these days. Do you give up the personal freedom that has made America what it is to feel secure?
Similarly, does America negate a century of fighting for human rights in order to attain vengeance for a horrible atrocity it was the target of?
People on the board seem to be confusing vengeance with extracting information from these prisoners which is SUPPOSE to be the reason for the torture. Being that those two men died, and the US has admitted to killing them, it seems they [the torturers] as well, are somewhat confused with their objective.
Last edited by gigi at Mar 7 2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by gigi@Mar 7 2003, 01:25 PM
The above is why I feel the way I do. It will hurt America far more than it would hurt these fuckers. America would be letting them win...again. And for what? To appease a feeling of vengeance. [as far as what is being expressed on this board]
To say 'This will teach them' or 'Next time they might think twice' is naive. Let's look at 9/11. Did those men fear death? No. Their motives and beliefs were far stronger than any fear. That is the scariest part about these morons. The anticipation of torture would only strenghten their resolve, not chip away at it.
Gigi,
I have to say that I personally do not think that torturing terorists will hurt America more than it would hurt the terrorists. If we tortured them, we would likely uncover additional information that would lead to the further dismantling of their network. We could also torture them in secret.
Further, their motives and beliefs are easily strong UNTIL they get caught and tortured... then, things have a way of changing. Clearly, in the fight to prevent further attacks and win the war on terror, torturing captives for information will help this effort more than it will hurt America. I just don't think America can do anything extra to make these ppl hate us more than they already do.
IMHO, the philosophy to not torture should be on principle only. Sometimes, what is right in principle is not right strategically which makes it a difficult decision.
I would expect to see the captive terrorists "interrogated" for long periods of time under deprivation of essentials (sleep, water, food, etc). Certainly there is a way to obtain information without having to cut off body parts one at a time. It just may take a little longer to get the info.
sarettah
03-07-2003, 02:47 PM
I ran on too long, so I got rid of it
Last edited by sarettah at Mar 8 2003, 12:33 AM
originalheather
03-07-2003, 03:20 PM
Sorry for being an "UnAmerican American" but uh uh. Torture isn't right. Period.
I can understand the anger, frustration, need for revenge, etc. of the people on this board that said, "Right on, go for it!", but then how does that differentiate us from the Nazis, Soviets, Chileans, Argentinians, etc. etc. that have used torture as a modus operandi?
There has to be a place where we draw the line.
I read the British article about the terrorists who died in interrogation and was, in this case, ashamed to be an American.
It's all too easy to say, "Well, only in this one case, just this once". The problem is that it becomes easier after the first time.
There have been a lot of shameful periods of US history: The Native Americans, Slavery, The Japanese-Americans in WWII, McCarthy, etc. etc...but those are in the PAST, aren't they?? We supposedly learned from our mistakes..or haven't we?
T-Rav
03-07-2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Trev@Mar 7 2003, 12:17 PM
disgust I felt by some of the opinions expressed on this thread.
T-Rav I must apologize for my posts as looking at them they are quite clearly obscene and the comments of an ignorant bigot, I know this about myself and it's something I'll have to live with, but my opinions no matter how obscene, ingnorant or bigoted are still my opinions.
I do get vexed and most angry when the subject of terror and terrorists is raised, especially when people claim that as humans they have rights, when they obviously don’t see the rest of the world as having rights or as humans to some extent.
I don't want our society to start acting as they do, clearly with no regard for human life or the suffering they cause with their actions, but I do wonder if the world would defend us or go up in arms if we did!
I think not.
Your opinions are your opinions...and my opinions are my opinions. :D
That is why I deleted what I had written earlier. I think it is very important that everyone have their own opinion and I am happy to hear opinions that differ from mine. Sometimes I do get a little disgusted, that also is my right.
Rolo, you mentioned that even the most civilized person would resort to violence under certain circumstances. Make no mistake about it...simply because I do not agree with torture, I do believe whole heartedly that violence is absolutely necessary in many situations. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe and be willing to die or kill defending or protecting those beliefs.
Now, let me put this to you. Many of the arguments for torturing the terrorists have been to protect us from future terrorist activity or dismantle their organization or some other "defensive" argument.
If you knew you could get the information we needed to protect us further by torturing one of the terrorist's children, would that be acceptable? All you have to do is torture one child, and you potentially save thousands. I find other methods...but that's just me...
OldJeff
03-07-2003, 04:00 PM
Short Answer.....Yes
Long Answer, it is no more or less than EVERY other government on the planet would do / has done to people directly related to the death of their citizens.
Anyone believing their particular government does not / has not / or will not .....
I can only applaud your child like innocence
dantheman
03-07-2003, 04:22 PM
It's happened in the past, it's happening now, and it'll always happen. WHY. to get info! All pow training I've ever had suggest that you will be tortured to some extreme. Know it, try to prepare for it.
WWII my grandfather went into a german pow camp at 175. healthly GI, liberated 1 year later he was 80 lbs. Never said allot just that he hoped I would never see anything like it.
My uncles best friend spent 4 years in a pow camp in hanoi, BRUTAL He's stories will make your skin crawl.
As a soldier you know what could happen if caught my the enemy. just hope it doesnt:/
name/rank and GFY :)
Sword
03-07-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Colin@Mar 7 2003, 08:35 AM
Should suspected al-Qaeda members like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tortured in order to get them to reveal terrorist plans and other important information?
Colin, interested in hearing your opinion on it too. What do you think?
Originally posted by gigi@Mar 7 2003, 10:25 AM
gigi Posted on Mar 7 2003, 10:25 AM ----
Do you give up the personal freedom that has made America what it is to feel secure?
In May 2001, the United States of America was voted off the UN Human Rights Commission.
Do you give up the personal freedom that has made America what it is to feel secure?
DISCLAIMER: the following is straight from the "CNN brainwashed mind" of JR... so they cant really be said to be my own opinions
The difference between me and many people is that i dont feel i am giving anything up. some people fear. i have yet to see that the system of government that we have has completely broken down.
March 07, 2003
"The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Child Online Protection Act restricted free speech by barring web page operators from posting information inappropriate for minors unless they limited the site to adults. The ruling upheld an injunction blocking the government from enforcing the law"
---- i notice that the above story is not as interesting to all the conspiracy theorists as a story about a smart ass in a mall who gets arrested because he refused to leave - then claims it was simply because his shirt said "give peace a chance"
but i am human and there are some things make me feel less secure.
I feel less secure watching the US Government tell the world that their opinions and their voices are irrelevent, that the UN is irrelevent and that the consensus of the international community is irrelevent.
I feel less secure knowing that the US Government continues to make repeated threats to go outside of the rule of the very institution created to avoid war - to start a war. I feel less secure that it is threatening to go outside the rule of that democratic institution to start a war in the name of democracy. I feel less secure that it is doing so when the case cannot be made that there is a grave and immenent threat to the USA. I understand the hypothetical possibilities about the favored term "weapons of mass destruction".
I have yet to wake up in fear of Iraq. I dont know anyone that does.
I do however feel less secure, when North Korea is making remarks daily to the effect that we will all die in a great sea of fire... as they defy international law and continue enriching plutonium and uranium and test firing missiles.
I feel less secure when the Government of the United States downplays the seriousness of the North Korea situation by saying its not "a crisis" - yet they feel its enough of a crisis to move 12 (i think) stealth bombers capable of carrying a nuclear payload to Guam as "a deterrent" as they did today. .... all while North Korea threatens more missile tests.
I spent the other day, reading the UN Charter to try to understand the positions of those countries who oppose war. i forgot what the UN was and why it was formed. it was formed to stop war. forever.
I dont agree that the US is a beacon of truth and hope for oppressed peoples of the world and for human rights. I think that America, like all countries acts out of its own interests.. nothing more. nothing less... just as all other countries do.
for example:
Isreal/Palestine - who is right or wrong? who cares. regardless of blame, no one can deny the living conditions of Palestinians. particularly those who are STILL in refugee camps after how long? Arafat may be a terrorist, he may support Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others. He may be directly responsible for terrorist attacks. What about the rest of the people? No one cares... because no one has a real interest in caring there. no one has a national interest in peace in Palestinian areas. its a nice topic for making a political statement... but who does anything about it? who is actively doing something about it?
We all watched 2,000,000 people get butchered in Rowanda because no one had a strategic interest in the area.
No one cares that the child mortality rate for Iraqi children under 5 is 13% and climbing which has been known for 11 years. even today... there is no issue being raised in the UN Security Council meetings about stacks of dead babies everyday. why not? because the horrible truth is that it is irrelevent on the world stage.
Few people were bothered to watch Somali warlords gunning down unarmed people to take control of UN food aid. In fact, 18 soldiers got killed and public opinion was pretty unanimous on the need to get out of there... so much for the famine and people starving to death... oh well... maybe next time.
Few care about 12 year old kids with AK-47's killing each other all over Africa.
No one cares a whole lot about China. Remember the last and greatest threat that they would not be allowed to join the WTO until they improved thier human rights record? they made no real concessions as they were allowed in. now they have most favored nation trading status with the US. i am assuming that it does not include agreements some popular industries like executing prisoners to sell their organs though.
Few bat an eye at Saudi Arabia and similar countries whos track record for human rights is well known. we dont rock the boat for obvious reasons. We dont even want to rock the boat when a hand full of people come from Saudi Arabia to the USA and kill 3000 people.
Afghanistan was not a problem when it was just people hanging from lamp posts in the street... women getting raped, beaten, stoned and executed. it was not really a problem when Osama was running terrorist camps there and was being sheltered by the Taliban. It all only became important and a "just cause" when they attacked us.
Do you know what the capital city of Grozny looks like in Chechya? probably not. Because its not really in our interest to know. Its leveled. almost every building. Its one massive pile of broken bricks and concrete. Do you know how many refugees there are from Grozny living in tents for the last couple years in extremely brutal conditions? of course not. its not our problem.
Thai police are now on a nation wide rampage, shooting people in the streets who are suspected drug dealers. they have arrested something like 40,000 people in the last few weeks. what is the US position on that? we dont have one because we dont need to have one.
The death penalty in the US is still legal. Its not accepted in most of the free world... yet we still have the death penalty. State sanctioned murder. Why do we support the death penalty if we are "the very embodiment of human rights"? Illinois Governor George Ryan, commuted the sentence of all 160 death row inmates in the State of Illinois before leaving office. He made what i felt to be a very strong case against the death penalty (aside from the case of the 4 that were wrongly convicted and sentenced to die) that changed my views entirely on it.
Why doesn't the world stop and ask Iceland what they think about anything? because its not in anyones interest to do so... and there is nothing to be gained from doing so.
America is no different than any other country. it acts out of its own interest as all countries do. Thats every countries responsibility to itself and every leaders responsibility to its citizens. truth, freedom, justice and the American way only become relevent when its in our interest.
T-Rav
03-07-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 7 2003, 04:08 PM
Short Answer.....Yes
Long Answer, it is no more or less than EVERY other government on the planet would do / has done to people directly related to the death of their citizens.
Anyone believing their particular government does not / has not / or will not .....
I can only applaud your child like innocence
Ahhh, the old we're doing it, we've always done it, and everyone else does it, argument. How quaint ;)
And I do NOT believe that our government does not, has not, or will not...
I think we do, have, and probably will...
does that mean I agree with it, or that I HAVE to agree with it?
...absolutely not...
PornoDoggy
03-07-2003, 05:07 PM
Excellent post, JR.
T-Rav
03-07-2003, 05:23 PM
Whew, JR that was very well said!
I'm done for the day, after reading that I am spent. I really couldn't agree more.
I'm going to have a beer (i think i say that a lot).
Carrie
03-08-2003, 12:23 AM
No. Absolutely not.
Because of who we are, because of what we stand for.
It doesn't matter that "everyone else does it". Who gives a shit what they do? We didn't get to be the country that we are by doing what everyone else does... and to torture someone and then go haywire when our own POWs from the upcoming war get tortured would be more than a bit hypocritical, wouldn't it?
We don't *expect* our POWs not to get tortured if we don't do it, but it sure does give us a leg up if we can say "we did not torture *your* POW..."
Sleep deprivation? Sure - that won't hurt him. Truth serum? Go for it, pump the fucker up. If it won't hurt him, do it.
Beating on him, putting him in pain, cutting off appendages... hell no.
That's not who we are.
And when one of the main reasons we're going into Iraq is because of human rights (Saddam killing and torturing his own people) and we are trying to say that our efforts will "save" them from that... then torturing anyone is the most hypocritical bullshit thing we can do.
Originally posted by JR+Mar 7 2003, 10:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Mar 7 2003, 10:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Mar 7 2003, 06:46 AM
my problem with tourture is:
if we do it, how can we protect OUR POW from enduring the same fate?
Don't get emotional, people,
we don't OUR POW tourtured, don't we?
"What good for a goose..."
i dont agree with that completely.
it is just an assumption that a 3rd world country being attacked by the US is not going to use torture to extract information just because we dont. its already illegal under the Geneva Conventions and International Law, yet its done everyday all over the world... from simple police, to military to secret/special police or security organs. its done all over the world right now.. today. its done everyday by "friends" and "allies" of the US and certainly by its enemies.
American Citizens were tortured in Isreal, by Isreali police a little over 1 year ago.[/b][/quote]
the difference in these situations is that they didn't discuss their actions with the world ... and the politicians didn't make it a matter that had anything to do with the people. they just did/do it ...
this dude is probably already being tortured ... who are we kidding?! the u.s. special forces are waiting around from the go ahead on mission 'desert torture'?!?!?!?
some gung-ho american soldier has already smacked him across the head a few times with the butt of his machine gun when the others weren't looking .... and i'm sure some 'special' special forces have been sent in for some private time somewhere with bolt cutters ... :o has anyone seen scotty?!
but seriously ... torture is just NOT something america does ... i've pointed out the bad qualities enough over the last few weeks so here's some of the GOOD qualities i see in america from my position across the globe:
1) the 'constitution' and all areas of freedom of speech, 5th amendment etc, no matter how silly it may seem in some situations, NEVER gets pushed aside ... what america stands for always holds strong no matter how much critisizm is fired at it.
2) EVERYONE, even the most horrid of criminals, is entitled to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty, and tried through a court of law. there are many countries who look at this system in awe. if usa applies different laws to THIS situation (on american soil or not), i see a lot of respect lost internationally.
3) No matter which country america is dealing with, it has always maintained the same standards and presented the same united front to the world - NO MATTER WHAT.
4) Most of the american people (minus mutt, mikeai and torone), are above torturing another human being. American people do NOT want to feel that they are part of a country who could torture another human being, even a scumbag.
5) America is the expert at covering up government activity, conspiracy theory's everywhere but nobody *really* knows what goes on - this is a great asset. this situation should be handled the same way every other 'delicate' issue is handled. Give the public one version and the real version stays a secret. I don't want to know about it.
No. Absolutely not.
Because of who we are, because of what we stand for.
It doesn't matter that "everyone else does it". Who gives a shit what they do? We didn't get to be the country that we are by doing what everyone else does... and to torture someone and then go haywire when our own POWs from the upcoming war get tortured would be more than a bit hypocritical, wouldn't it?
We don't *expect* our POWs not to get tortured if we don't do it, but it sure does give us a leg up if we can say "we did not torture *your* POW..."
here here
jr,
:wnw:
Sorry for continued ranting. but this is worth noting in the discussion of the USA and Human Rights.
http://www.usaid.gov/about/usaid_faq.html
"The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent agency that provides economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States."
note: "humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the <span style='color:red'>foreign policy goals of the United States."</span>
Human rights in the world... only matter when its in our interest. so if you are wrongly imprisoned, tortured, dying, starving or need medicine, just be careful that you are on the right side of the border... you know, "the good side"
so i would say this about torture. (depending on how it is defined) it would not be unusual to torture him. we do it right now. not directly, they just ship them to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other places where the locals are more than happy to use more pursuasive and traditional means to extract information.
doing so, does not make us any more or less hypocrtitical. its been done since the dawn of time and it can be safely argued that it happens less in the year 2003 than it did in 1503 (without even having to adjust for population growth).
"torture" is just a buzzword that is used to cause an emotional reaction. there is a big difference between "reaction" and "response". The first question MUST be... "what is torture" or you cannot debate it. people hear the word "torture" and their mind is filled with images of the Spanish Inquisition and seemingly do not realize that forcing someone to stand for a prolonged period of time is also "torture" People would say that sleep deprivation is ok, but pulling out fingernails with pliars is not. i would say that as well but BOTH are torture according to the UN.
after reflecting on a wide range of issues, i would say if asked "should he be tortured?" i would answer simply this - "officially no. unofficially yes"
Last edited by JR at Mar 8 2003, 12:16 AM
Almighty Colin
03-08-2003, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by Sword@Mar 7 2003, 04:38 PM
Colin, interested in hearing your opinion on it too. What do you think?
I have been contemplating this question for days and there has been no clear logic that leaves me feeling I know what is right or wrong. I have finally come to an answer that is right for me. I will get to that at the end.
I certainly don't think Mr. Mohammed is deserving of anything but being thrown in a New York City general population prison so he can suffer the fate of Jeffrey Dahmer. This is not about justice, however. That is not the question. Though I wish the guy would suffer I think it would be wrong to inflict suffering upon him for the purpose of punishment. Those that feel we should live up to a high standard we ourselves proclaim to hold are right in a very high moral sense. They are right also by the logic of an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Don't do unto others what they will do back unto you.
There are further difficult questions. Would you kill one person if you thought you could save 1000? The answer to that probably comes down to who the "one" is and who the "1000" are. Would you have killed a Nazi guard to save 1000 Jewish prisoners? Would have tortured him to find out where the key is?
I think:
The state has an obligation to protect its citizens.
The state has an obligation to uphold international laws.
These principles conflict with each other. I am not sure how we can place one above the other
on on any but purely subjective grounds.
The resolution to my dilemma is this.
It finally comes down to the 1000 person question. Everyone MUST have a point at which they say "yes", Would you torture a person to save 1000 lives? How about 10,000? How about one million? How about millions - all of New York City? If you are not willing to torture one person to save 7 million lives, I believe you are truly immoral and inhumane. If we can agree to that, we are agreeing that it is more than a matter of principle but also of practicality. We are weighing the positives and the negatives and deciding that at some point there IS a tipping point somewhere - even if it is in a far off distant place.
I don't think any country is going to stand up for Mohammed and claim him as a citizen complaining that his rights are being violated. I would be willing to bet his citizenship everyhere and anywhere is effectively revoked. I doubt Kuwait or Pakistan want him. I think he has surrendered those rights and that protection. He is a rogue al Qaeda warrior. Cost-benefit analysis? Mohammed to me seems he is worth the price of torture.
Last edited by Colin at Mar 8 2003, 06:27 AM
slavdogg
03-08-2003, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by JR@Mar 7 2003, 10:01 AM
American Citizens were tortured in Isreal, by Isreali police a little over 1 year ago.
JR, what are you reffering to ??
Almighty Colin
03-08-2003, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by JR@Mar 8 2003, 03:04 AM
i would say if asked "should he be tortured?" i would answer simply this - "officially no. unofficially yes"
Yes, I agree with this.
See CJ #5.
:ph34r:
slavdogg
03-08-2003, 06:26 AM
the problem with torute is you dont know if you'll hear what you want to hear or the actual truth.
Almighty Colin
03-08-2003, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by slavdogg@Mar 8 2003, 06:34 AM
the problem with torute is you dont know if you'll hear what you want to hear or the actual truth.
It is a problem. I don't know much about torture and it's effectiveness. The national psychological association always turns the really interesting papers down.
Originally posted by Colin@Mar 8 2003, 06:26 AM
It finally comes down to the 1000 person question. Everyone MUST have a point at which they say "yes", Would you torture a person to save 1000 lives? How about 10,000? How about one million? How about millions - all of New York City? If you are not willing to torture one person to save 7 million lives, I believe you are truly immoral and inhumane. If we can agree to that, we are agreeing that it is more than a matter of principle but also of practicality.
The principle part is not subjective. The practicality part is subjective.
There is no way to know what information will be given and what its affect on future events would or would not lead to.
Just my two cents worth. :)
Almighty Colin
03-08-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by wig@Mar 8 2003, 07:28 AM
The principle part is not subjective. The practicality part is subjective.
There is no way to know what information will be given and what its affect on future events would or would not lead to.
Just my two cents worth. :)
I agree with that. It comes down to one's assessment of what information one might likely attain.
There is where we will all disagree.
Excellent posts from you guys over the last few days.
:wnw:
Originally posted by Colin@Mar 8 2003, 03:26 AM
It finally comes down to the 1000 person question. Everyone MUST have a point at which they say "yes", Would you torture a person to save 1000 lives? How about 10,000? How about one million? How about millions - all of New York City?
This reminds me of an 'Outer Limits' I saw where a woman was sent back in time to kill Adolf Hitler as a baby.
She became a 'nanny' in the house so she could get close to the baby and finally kill him. She switched the baby with another baby...got him out of the house...and then jumped off a bridge not only killing Hitler, but also herself in the process.
Turned out the baby she killed wasn't Hitler at all.....the parents didn't realize the babies were switched and ending raising the switched baby as Adolf....and it was HE who became the Adolf Hitler we know today.
Her actions were sincere, however if she hadn't have done what she did, we would never have known the horror of the Nazi's.....
I know it's far fetched...lol....but the principle is similar to what we are discussing.....who knows what affect the actions of 'torturing' these people will have....and who knows what information we might attain....it truly is subjective....
Almighty Colin
03-08-2003, 02:19 PM
Well said, gigi.
Ahhh, Outer Limits and Twilight Zone. Good stuff.
spanno
03-08-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Colin@Mar 7 2003, 05:35 AM
Should suspected al-Qaeda members like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tortured in order to get them to reveal terrorist plans and other important information?
I think we should torture bush till he tells the truth!
being subjected for a prolonged period of time to spannos ignorance, can be considered torture:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
The States Parties to this Convention,
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),
Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,
Have agreed as follows:
Part I
Article 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.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Last edited by JR at Mar 8 2003, 02:03 PM
States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture and made declaration, under Article 28, that they do not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture to investigate allegations of widespread torture within their boundaries
Afghanistan
Belarus
Bulgaria
China
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Israel
Ukraine
States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture
Belgium
Bolivia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Gabon
Gambia
Iceland
Indonesia
Morocco
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Sierra Leone
Sudan
United States of America
Carrie
03-08-2003, 07:05 PM
We *are* heading into war with Iraq. It's inevitable.
While Hussein is glibly double-talking and acting innocent, North Korea's leaders are loudly telling us to go fuck ourselves and threatening us openly.
Normal people with kids are actually discussing whether a person should or should not be tortured, and whether it's "right" or "okay" to do so.
Stop the world. I want to get off.
TheEnforcer
03-08-2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Mar 7 2003, 08:37 AM
Stalin would say YES,
I'd say NO,
penthatol still works, why bother squashing his nuts?
You're right and torture is by FAR a less reliable method of extracting information. Not to mention it's an extremely stupid move diplomatically.
Originally posted by Carrie@Mar 8 2003, 04:13 PM
Stop the world. I want to get off.
Do as I do... stop watching/hearing the news - you will get more work done, and have less stress and I promiss your mood will be better in less than 1 week :okthumb:
News are overrated... everything is "breaking news", "news flash" etc. no matter how small and unimportant the news REALLY are to your life, then they are presented to you like they are the biggest issues in your life :blink:
Ah well back to my happy news deserted world :bwave:
My answer: ABSOLUTELY.
These are not soldiers of a foreign country that have been captured as a result of a declared and "official" war. These are murderers. Terrorists. Al-Qaeda's primary objective is the murder of as many americans and israelis as possible. Their goal is to kill and terrorize. That is it, period. Electricity to their testicles is too good for them.
Serge...american POW's are already tortured by barbaric enemies. Nothing we do is going to change that, either positively or negatively.
He's a militant fundy, right? I say his torture should consist of sleep deprivation, Ecstasy and sextoy-wielding porn stars!
Seriously, I know it happens everywhere, all the time - no matter what the official stance might be. I wish human beings would evolve past violence, but it's simply the nature of the beast, unfortunately.
Unofficially yes, officially no... that kind of sums it up for me, too. And if we're going to do it, I lean WAY over toward the side of mind-fucking.
And if it *does* involve my first idea, it'd make great pay-per-view, dontchathink? Much better than a public execution. :awinky:
Ironhorse
03-09-2003, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by Sword@Mar 7 2003, 07:50 AM
He is a self-professed al qeada chief, terrorist, murderer and enemy of the united states. I really don't think there is any question of his guilt or the fact that he posses knowledge about al qaeda operations and future plans. For those reasons I feel he is a very special circumstance and has given up his right to fair treatment.
Was he wearing a 'I am Al-Queda chief shirt" on? I didn't see it. Common guys whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I don't mean to go on a leftist binge here, but this is still part of american justice, yes? Now it's ok to torture people? Does anyone else see a problem developing here?
Originally posted by Ironhorse+Mar 8 2003, 11:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ironhorse @ Mar 8 2003, 11:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Sword@Mar 7 2003, 07:50 AM
He is a self-professed al qeada chief, terrorist, murderer and enemy of the united states. I really don't think there is any question of his guilt or the fact that he posses knowledge about al qaeda operations and future plans. For those reasons I feel he is a very special circumstance and has given up his right to fair treatment.
Was he wearing a 'I am Al-Queda chief shirt" on? I didn't see it. Common guys whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I don't mean to go on a leftist binge here, but this is still part of american justice, yes? Now it's ok to torture people? Does anyone else see a problem developing here?[/b][/quote]
who is talking about "American Justice"?
he wasn't arrested in North Dakota. Its a good thing for him that he was not left to "Pakistani Justice"
Last edited by JR at Mar 8 2003, 11:58 PM
Carrie
03-09-2003, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by Ironhorse@Mar 9 2003, 02:49 AM
Common guys whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I don't mean to go on a leftist binge here, but this is still part of american justice, yes?
We could always put him through trial, find him guilty, and then drop him in General Population in some nice *New York* prison.
He'd last about ....oh... two hours maybe.
Unfortunately, if he *were* to go to prison and even if he *were* found guilty (rather than trading off all of his knowledge for a free posh estate with constant surveillance), it would probably be some country club for "special" prisoners that are too high-risk to go into a regular penetentuary (sp?). So the taxpayers - including the relatives of the people he "masterminded" the killing of - would end up paying for him to live far too comfortably for the rest of his natural life. 3 meals a day, cable tv, a full gym, college degrees, book deals, pounds of mail each week from sympathizers telling him to keep his hopes up, endless appeals... etc etc.
Oh fuck it. Let's just bunk him up with Charles Manson and see what happens.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.