View Full Version : Serious question...about torture and stuff
Okla-homey
9/30/2006, 12:01 PM
How do you guys really feel about non-violent forms of torture like "water-boarding" and humiliation to get info from jihaadi prisoners?
FWIW: Water boarding: strap a guy to a back board, put a cloth over his face which you then saturate with water. It feels like you are gonna drown, but you can't if you don't panic -- plus, the minders will ensure that doesn't happen.
Humiliation: Some hottie female interrogator gets all handsy with a jihaadi -- thus freaking him out and making him talk.
SelmaBamaFan
9/30/2006, 12:03 PM
YES ITS A POLE!!!!
Vaevictis
9/30/2006, 12:18 PM
I answered "it depends."
Strictly speaking, all things approaching torture should be illegal. But I also think that the judge should instruct the jury at trial that nullification is an option if the jury thinks the facts warrant it.
(Basically, I think that anyone who uses these methods needs to think it's important enough that they're willing to risk a jury sending them to jail if the facts don't support their actions.)
dolemitesooner
9/30/2006, 12:23 PM
I say put baboo in there ****ing finger nails cut off their ****ing balls, just do whatever it takes
GottaHavePride
9/30/2006, 12:56 PM
1. Whatever method is used it shouldn't cause any permanent injury - no need to stoop to their level.
2. Methods should be appropriate to how important the intel is.
3. In extreme cases, I'm OK with #2 overriding #1, but they had damn well better be right.
So basically, this question throws me into a whole Mr. Spock / R. Daneel Olivaw mindset, in a "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" or "you must not through action or inaction allow the American people to come to harm" sort of way.
jk the sooner fan
9/30/2006, 01:04 PM
if you get into the kind of work that may one day result in an interrogation, i'm thinking its a bit like working at hooters......you knew you'd have to put on those damn orange shorts when you took the job
proud gonzo
9/30/2006, 01:08 PM
that's the other factor, in my mind. somebody better be damn sure the person knows something worth finding out.
but if we're talking about the current war, considering the certainty people had about the WMD and how wrong they were, i'm not at all convinced about their intelligence. in either sense of the word.
SelmaBamaFan
9/30/2006, 01:09 PM
Folks, the pole is about NON VIOLENCE torture... you know like knowing they gotta pee so you turn on the faucet.
proud gonzo
9/30/2006, 01:11 PM
But IMO non-violent torture can be more harmful in the long run than physical torture. You break an arm or pull a few teeth, someone can heal. You screw them up psychologically and they're messed up for life and at a much deeper level than just physical damage.
SicEmBaylor
9/30/2006, 01:59 PM
I have no problem using any kind of torture on NON-American citizen detainees, but I think a very serious cost/benefit analysis should be looked at before doing it as a matter of policy. For example, can we really rely on the information we recieve from them? Do we lose more than we gain as far as retainin the support of more moderate muslim states? Etc.
Chuck Bao
9/30/2006, 02:42 PM
No, not in any case. We can't just tear up the Geneva Convention. What's next? The Bill of Rights?
OklahomaTuba
9/30/2006, 02:54 PM
Well, seems to work in Thailand.
OklahomaTuba
9/30/2006, 02:59 PM
Oh and yes, If that information stands in the way of saving lives, it should be extracted by ANY means.
Once someone makes the choice to become a terrorist, they forfit any rights.
OklahomaTuba
9/30/2006, 03:02 PM
but if we're talking about the current war, considering the certainty people had about the WMD and how wrong they were, i'm not at all convinced about their intelligence. in either sense of the word.
Oh wow, did you just put down Clinton and Kerry there?
You're coming along. :D
soonerthanu
9/30/2006, 03:04 PM
If we dont fix this now our kids will have to.
soonercody
9/30/2006, 03:11 PM
Not under any circumstances. It is the beginning of a steep and slippery slope. These are POWs. Having worked with Ex-POWs, there is a stark difference between how the Nazis and the Japanese treated American POWs and a stark difference in how it affected the guys. The nazis weren't exactly saints, but for the most part didn't treat Americans as blatantly cruelly. They transported them in cattle cars, marched the hell out of 'em, and didn't have enough or good enough nutrition, but this treatment was more a function of the fact that the German war machine was breaking down. Enemy combatants (non-Jews) were mostly treated with some modicum of respect.
The Japanese (and later Koreans when the took prisoners and the Vietnamese) by comparison forced the POWs into slave labor, tortured them routinely, beat prisoners early and often, and killed many unarmed POWs. The "Bushido Code" led them to believe that anyone who was captured rather than fighting to the death was sub-human and this dehumanization led to some nasssty treatment.
No sir, I'm not for psychological torture or "nonviolent" torture. This is one area where I think we have to stand by some firm principles rather than utilitarianism and thinking that if we torture a few bad guys and maybe a few innocents, it is OK as long as we are trying to protect many more good guys.
For the record, combat is different and I don't hold 19 y.o. militants to strict moral standards of behavior in these kill-or-be-killed situations. When an enemy is captured and turned over to the legal system however, we must have some very high standards.
Chuck Bao
9/30/2006, 03:18 PM
Well, seems to work in Thailand.
Huh? A coup d'etat works for you? It doesn't for me. I'm willing to protest for democracy, even though it is now illegal under martial law.
That is my point. We have to be vigilant in guarding our rights.
SicEmBaylor
9/30/2006, 03:33 PM
I don't believe jihadists are covered under the Geneva Convention. They are not legitimate combatants of a nation state at war with other legitimate combatants of another nation state.
They're out of uniform and fighting without the legitimacy that would garner them protection under the Geneva convention.
I would harldy compare an international treaty to our own BOR even if ratified treaties do carry constitutional weight.
proud gonzo
9/30/2006, 03:42 PM
Oh wow, did you just put down Clinton and Kerry there?
You're coming along. :D
what the f*ck are you talking about, dude?
GottaHavePride
9/30/2006, 03:46 PM
what the f*ck are you talking about, dude?
Yeah, I think the "WMDs as excuse to move into Iraq" was all Bush.
I think it's wrong and no amount of trying to hairsplit the differences of definition of POW/detainee, violent/non-violent torture, uniformed combatant/non-uniformed combatant will make it right or morally acceptable.
SicEmBaylor
9/30/2006, 03:56 PM
I think it's wrong and no amount of trying to hairsplit the differences of definition of POW/detainee, violent/non-violent torture, uniformed combatant/non-uniformed combatant will make it right or morally acceptable.
:shrug:
I guess it depends on whether or not you expect the US to protect itself within the limits of what is morally feasible at the time. One could quesiton the morality of letting hundreds of thousands of Americans die in a WMD attack that could have been prevented by pressing a terrorist detainee. Such a scenerio is probably unlikely, but it's worth discussing.
Personally, my biggest complaint with the War on Terror/Iraq and the Bush Administration's foreign policy in general is that it is a morality based policy. Jimmy Carter also had a morality based foreign policy though the ways in which the two administration's executed that policy are the difference between night/day. I'm not a fan of morality based foreign policy, instead, I'd rather the US conduct itself based on cold hard pragmatic self-interest.
Also, I'd point out that in WWII we immediately executed enemy troops found behind our lines and out of their proper uniform. We gave them ZERO Geneva protections, and I dare say their position adn conduct was far more legitimate as a military exercise than yoru typical jihadist.
GottaHavePride
9/30/2006, 04:15 PM
I'm not a fan of morality based foreign policy, instead, I'd rather the US conduct itself based on cold hard pragmatic self-interest.
I agree with that. With a morality-based policy we run the risk of attempting to impose our morality on other countries which, as we have seen, just tends to **** them off and increase the number of problems we have to deal with. Onthe other hand, a policy of - shall we say "enlightened self-interest"? - is a position nearly everyone can relate to.
OklahomaTuba
9/30/2006, 05:19 PM
Yeah, I think the "WMDs as excuse to move into Iraq" was all Bush.
No so much. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/)
OklahomaTuba
9/30/2006, 05:26 PM
One could quesiton the morality of letting hundreds of thousands of Americans die in a WMD attack that could have been prevented by pressing a terrorist detainee. Such a scenerio is probably unlikely, but it's worth discussing.
Thats the problem in a nutshell.
The Geneva Convention isn't a friggin suicide pact. If someone has information that may prevent an attack, then it must be taken.
GottaHavePride
9/30/2006, 05:28 PM
No so much. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/)
Ah. Yes. That shows the problem goes back to 1991, making it Bush the Elder's problem. ;)
yermom
9/30/2006, 05:29 PM
so is it ok for them to torture our guys?
GottaHavePride
9/30/2006, 05:30 PM
Oh, a for the record, I'm no Democrat either. In the Bush vs. Kerry election I thought the both sucked, I just thought Bush sucked a little less hard there at the end.
In retrospect, I'd like to declare a do-over with two entirely different candidates. ;)
OklahomaTuba
9/30/2006, 05:35 PM
so is it ok for them to torture our guys?
Depends. You want the liberal answer, or the sane normal one? ;)
yermom
9/30/2006, 05:38 PM
huh?
so is it ok for them to torture our guys?
Define torture. If sawing the heads off of an infidel for their percieved religious duty, then dragging the fallen soldier on a public parade, or beating the **** outta a person to get a taped confessional of how the bad the US is then sawing the head off.
Then yes they are torturing us.
When push comes to shove, those of yall that are against torture, how do we get the viable intel to save soldiers lives, and our lives.
Col. Nathan R. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know:a soldier's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to
I know I edited the quote, but it is true. If we gain intel that saves our soldiers' and our live's, why would you care?
soonercody
9/30/2006, 07:57 PM
The ends justify the means, then?
So, if we torture an enemy and don't get useful information is it still hunkey-dory?
yermom
9/30/2006, 07:59 PM
i love how you guys quote the bad guy from that movie
so it's ok to throw basic human rights out the window if it's for the good guys, ok i see your point now :rolleyes:
do you think the bad guys don't use torture to try to get real intel?
The ends justify the means, then?
So, if we torture an enemy and don't get useful information is it still hunkey-dory?
No, if he is a known operative and doesnt confess, we still have a known operative.
I am not saying we go and slap the electrodes to any and everyone. If we had caught Zarqaiwi(sp) alive, wouldnt you want to do anything to stop the IED and suicide bombings?
i love how you guys quote the bad guy from that movie
so it's ok to throw basic human rights out the window if it's for the good guys, ok i see your point now :rolleyes:
do you think the bad guys don't use torture to try to get real intel?
I love how you consider a person that would rather slash your throat than post with you on a message board a human. :rolleyes:
What intel do they need?? They can see as plain as day when a humvee is going to roll by. They know when a group of soldiers is going to walk by, and they use women, children, and dogs to get their mission done. If they dont get a platoon of soldiers with said IED, they blown the **** out of any civilian and claim it as sectarian violence.
Once again, can anyone that opposes torture give an alternative that can produce info to save soldiers and our lives??
SicEmBaylor
9/30/2006, 08:13 PM
i love how you guys quote the bad guy from that movie
so it's ok to throw basic human rights out the window if it's for the good guys, ok i see your point now :rolleyes:
do you think the bad guys don't use torture to try to get real intel?
To what degree is one still entitled to those basic human rights when that individual has or is in the process of denying basic human rights to hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people?
At the end of the day if my government is forced into a situation of weighing a terrorist's basic human rights against the basic human rights of Americans then I would expect them to act on the side of American rights ever---damned---time.
SoonerBorn68
9/30/2006, 08:14 PM
How do you guys really feel about non-violent forms of torture like "water-boarding" and humiliation to get info from jihaadi prisoners?
I'm reading a book called Flyboys & it goes into detail about American torture in the Phillipines after the Spanish-American War--water boarding specifically. Apparently back then they basically stuck a funnel into a subject's mouth, poured the water in & waited for him to be on the verge of passing out. Then they would roll him over on his side to purge the water. Repeat if necessary. I'm not sure if I would classify this as "non violent", but hey, if it works...
These are POWs
I'll have to respectfully disagree. They are terrorists. They don't fight for a nation state, they fight for idealogy. I'd like to think we could be "better" than they are by treating them in a humane way, but the fact is our people are targets. We wouldn't be offered the same treatment.
A little analogy. If you catch a mouse in your house with a spring trap it's dead. If you catch a mouse in your house with a "humane" trap & set it free it'll breed and bring more mice into your house eventually.
SoonerBorn68
9/30/2006, 08:18 PM
so is it ok for them to torture our guys?
No, but they're going to do it anyway because we are "evil". I don't think we should afford them the right to humane treatment if they deny it to us.
When a nuke goes off in the US maybe people will see exactly what we are up against & figure out these people will stop at nothing to succeed.
SoonerBorn68
9/30/2006, 08:19 PM
Once again, can anyone that opposes torture give an alternative that can produce info to save soldiers and our lives??
Afternoon tea & some A/C?
yermom
9/30/2006, 08:23 PM
I love how you consider a person that would rather slash your throat than post with you on a message board a human. :rolleyes:
What intel do they need?? They can see as plain as day when a humvee is going to roll by. They know when a group of soldiers is going to walk by, and they use women, children, and dogs to get their mission done. If they dont get a platoon of soldiers with said IED, they blown the **** out of any civilian and claim it as sectarian violence.
Once again, can anyone that opposes torture give an alternative that can produce info to save soldiers and our lives??
you are absolutely right, they aren't human, and knowing exact troop locations and plans would be no use to them whatsoever
soonercody
9/30/2006, 08:23 PM
For example, can we really rely on the information we recieve from them? Do we lose more than we gain as far as retainin the support of more moderate muslim states? Etc.
A couple of good questions here.
"Information" given under duress is not allowed in our courts, assumably because it is not reliable.
And I'd broaden the second question to include other non-muslim states. Not that we need to keep the French happy, they are always against us, but I think we lose way more than we gain by gathering up suspects around the world, detaining them indefinitely and "nonviolently torturing" them for information. All of which would enrage us if it happened to Americans.
The argument that we are looking after our own goes both ways. I'm pretty sure the jihadists and all of the bad guys believe they are looking after their own too.
you are absolutely right, they aren't human, and knowing exact troop locations and plans would be no use to them whatsoever
They arent human. How can you rationalize the thoughts of a psycotic?
They already know the locations and plans of our soldiers, it is called patrols. A routine or pattern is dicovered then kaboom!!
So, once again, how do we get the intel to save US lives??
leavingthezoo
9/30/2006, 10:46 PM
non-violent and violent are silly precursors to the very word TORTURE. just an observation.
Vaevictis
9/30/2006, 10:58 PM
They arent human.
I'm pretty sure I've heard this somewhere before...
(Just sayin'.)
Once again, can anyone that opposes torture give an alternative that can produce info to save soldiers and our lives??
Infiltration.
And as an aside, you realize that this is same argument applies to our soldiers the next time we get into a conventional war with someone, right?
SicEmBaylor
9/30/2006, 11:13 PM
A couple of good questions here.
"Information" given under duress is not allowed in our courts, assumably because it is not reliable.
And I'd broaden the second question to include other non-muslim states. Not that we need to keep the French happy, they are always against us, but I think we lose way more than we gain by gathering up suspects around the world, detaining them indefinitely and "nonviolently torturing" them for information. All of which would enrage us if it happened to Americans.
The argument that we are looking after our own goes both ways. I'm pretty sure the jihadists and all of the bad guys believe they are looking after their own too.
Well who the hell said anything about throwing them into our criminal justice system? No way in hell these people should be prosecuted under the American justice system. The only thing I'm interested in is extracting whatever information can be extracted and letting them rot in a military prison or executing them.
Vaevictis
9/30/2006, 11:17 PM
Here's a values question for you SicEm:
Does the Constitution say what the government can and cannot do, or just who it can and cannot do it to?
In other words, do you view the Bill of Rights (for example) as a limitation on the government, or just as a limitation on what can be done within our country or to our citizens?
SicEmBaylor
9/30/2006, 11:36 PM
Here's a values question for you SicEm:
Does the Constitution say what the government can and cannot do, or just who it can and cannot do it to?
In other words, do you view the Bill of Rights (for example) as a limitation on the government, or just as a limitation on what can be done within our country or to our citizens?
It's a limitation of government that protects American citizens from its own government with the assumptiation that those Constitutional protections and rights are reserved for actual citizens. Whether or not we extend those constitutional protections to non-citizens should be a matter of policy and would amount to pure benevolence on our part.
I'm willing to go so far as to say that a non-US citizen caught performing an illegal act within these United States or its territories, should in most cases, have their cases processed through the criminal justice system with the same protections afforded citizens (with the exception that if they're found guilty we reserve the right to deport). A BIG exception to that is when an individual (non-citizen) is actively trying to subvert the government and kill Americans for the purpose of seeing the eventual collapse of our civilization. Do I think THOSE individuals should be granted due process and constitutional rights? Absolutely not. Nor, do I believe that ANY non-American found outside of our borders attempting to attack or kill Americans should be given due process either.
Here's part of the problem...One of the argument is that these people should be treated according to the rules of the Geneva Convention, but the Geneva Convention doesn't specify that we criminally process these people within our own judicial system. They're eventually given process under a military tribunal which is, for the most part, the policy as it now stands.
Also, how are you suppose to gather evidence needed to criminally prosecute someone that you've rounded up in Iraq or Afghanistan for planting IEDs? We know they're guilty, but do you really want soldiers in the field acting as CSIs trying to piece together a criminal investigation??
For our sake let's hope not.
PhilTLL
10/1/2006, 01:16 AM
I'll have to respectfully disagree. They are terrorists. They don't fight for a nation state, they fight for idealogy. I'd like to think we could be "better" than they are by treating them in a humane way, but the fact is our people are targets. We wouldn't be offered the same treatment.
A little analogy. If you catch a mouse in your house with a spring trap it's dead. If you catch a mouse in your house with a "humane" trap & set it free it'll breed and bring more mice into your house eventually.
We fight for ideology, too, or else this war wouldn't have a purpose, because we could just settle for living under tyranny and oppression. I just want to see us live up to our own ideology.
I don't think anyone wants a terrorist "set free to breed," I just want them brought to justice, trial, conviction, and prison (even death, if the system suggests it). But holding these people--still people despite their warped worldview and actions, not mice, because we too are people, not cats, if you'll pardon the extended animal analogy--holding them without enforcing our own ideology of legitimate justice does not stand up to our own moral tests. If we have the substance to hold and convict them, we need to use it.
Calling them "POWs" suggests that this is a war against a nation-state with a definable end that could see them repatriated, which doesn't seem to be the case, and if they're not POWs, I think we need to convict them as criminals. Especially given the possibility that we used a "capture first, questions later" system employing the tips of warlords, street criminals, etc.
StoopTroup
10/1/2006, 01:31 AM
I think many people around the World (including some of our own people) forget why the United States became such a huge refuge for so many people.
Sure our society has it's flaws but we treat our criminals better than many of them treat thier own people.
Anyone that thinks we shouldn't do what is needed for our own no matter race, religion etc...should really look deeper at these other Countries around the World who are outraged by our actions.
SoonerBorn68
10/1/2006, 01:37 AM
Idealogy? We're fighting for our very existence. It's easy right now to think these terrorists won't bring their war into our cities, but it's closer than anyone thinks.
You're right, they're people, but they are people with a wholly different set of moral values. These islamo fockturds are living a thousand years in the past, only they have modern weapons. I wish these people were reasonable but they aren't. Earlier, cody brought up a point about the Japanese and their Bu****o code only this enemy is more dangerous in their beliefs. Japan's spiritual Bu****o code was tied into nationalism. The islamo fockturds are strictly religous.
Actually if you think about it, why should they stand trial at all? OK, let's treat them as "soldiers". During WWII we put prisoners in prison camps until the war was over...when they surrender we'll let them out. Make them help build the wall on the southern border. Hell, the Germans dug Lake Texoma, let these f'rs built a fence.
PhilTLL
10/1/2006, 01:58 AM
Idealogy? We're fighting for our very existence.
Not to split hairs, but the literal existence of the average American (and the daily operation of the government) is much less in danger now than it was during the Cold War. And I do understand that they'll bring the war to our cities, because they have.
Vaevictis
10/1/2006, 02:19 AM
Anyone that thinks we shouldn't do what is needed for our own no matter race, religion etc...should really look deeper at these other Countries around the World who are outraged by our actions.
I think the main sticking point is whether it's "needed" and whether the cost is worth the price.
What do you profit if you gain the world but lose your soul, and all that.
If a person is willing to fly himself into building or instantly become thousands of human bits next to a road in a desert...
Well, there's you're sign.
I'm pretty sure I've heard this somewhere before...
(Just sayin'.)
Infiltration.
And as an aside, you realize that this is same argument applies to our soldiers the next time we get into a conventional war with someone, right?
What do you consider a jihadi that wants to butcher you and your family smart guy? Oh, you think he is misunderstood and us as Americans need to figure out why they hate us and stop doing things to p!ss them off.:rolleyes:
You want a person in every terror cell? Not only is this hard to do; it is impossible. Say we had an operative in a group, but he only got 50% of the intel and wee needed more. What next?
Vaevictis
10/1/2006, 07:16 AM
What do you consider a jihadi that wants to butcher you and your family smart guy?
... a human who needs to have a bullet put between his eyes.
Oh, you think he is misunderstood and us as Americans need to figure out why they hate us and stop doing things to p!ss them off.:rolleyes:
It's not the ones who have already decided to take up arms that I'm concerned with on that account. Those are easy enough to deal with: You find them, then you put a bullet in their brain.
It's the kid in Palestine who could go either way in about 5-10 years that I'm concerned about reaching. The ONLY way this is ever going to stop is if we cut off their recruitment base. Doing things that convince people who were previously neutral to take up arms against us just isn't advacement towards that goal.
You want a person in every terror cell? Not only is this hard to do; it is impossible.
What, it's impossible, so let's not try? Well, it's impossible to catch every cell, so let's just forget about it, shall we? </sarcasm>
Say we had an operative in a group, but he only got 50% of the intel and wee needed more. What next?
Like I said at the beginning, it would depend on the situation. If I knew a nuke was going to go off in NYC if I didn't get the information out of some dude, he'd tell me what I wanted to know, or in rapid fashion he'd be begging me to just kill him already.
But I'd expect to have to face a jury at the end of it. And I certainly don't think it's proper to have laws that condone it under any circumstances.
Look, you want to be the first in line to jump off the edge and use these options? Tit for tat, torture and brutality? That's fine. Just realize that the Arabs have been playing that game for thousands of years, and THEY NEVER ****ING GROW TIRED OF IT. In fact, they ****ing relish it.
You can do all this stuff, sure, but it ain't a solution. You'll end up right back where you started, with a bunch of crazy *** Muslims seeking revenge or a pan-Islamic state, or whatever the cause du jour is.
You need something more. You need to make them want something else. And obviously, giving them exactly what they've been giving each other for a couple thousand years just ain't going to work.
... a human who needs to have a bullet put between his eyes.
It's not the ones who have already decided to take up arms that I'm concerned with on that account. Those are easy enough to deal with: You find them, then you put a bullet in their brain.
It's the kid in Palestine who could go either way in about 5-10 years that I'm concerned about reaching. The ONLY way this is ever going to stop is if we cut off their recruitment base. Doing things that convince people who were previously neutral to take up arms against us just isn't advacement towards that goal.
So lets spend all our time and efforts to try and change the minds of thousands of years worth of doctrine and behavior? Aint gonna happen. Their recruitment base is their religion. Asking them to change their religion is like asking you to become a republican.
What, it's impossible, so let's not try? Well, it's impossible to catch every cell, so let's just forget about it, shall we? </sarcasm>
We try, but thinking we can infiltrate all cells is a pipe dream.
Like I said at the beginning, it would depend on the situation. If I knew a nuke was going to go off in NYC if I didn't get the information out of some dude, he'd tell me what I wanted to know, or in rapid fashion he'd be begging me to just kill him already.
But I'd expect to have to face a jury at the end of it. And I certainly don't think it's proper to have laws that condone it under any circumstances.
Look, you want to be the first in line to jump off the edge and use these options? Tit for tat, torture and brutality? That's fine. Just realize that the Arabs have been playing that game for thousands of years, and THEY NEVER ****ING GROW TIRED OF IT. In fact, they ****ing relish it.
If they are already are brutal, why are you worried about us torturing and turning them into American haters?
You can do all this stuff, sure, but it ain't a solution. You'll end up right back where you started, with a bunch of crazy *** Muslims seeking revenge or a pan-Islamic state, or whatever the cause du jour is.
You need something more. You need to make them want something else. And obviously, giving them exactly what they've been giving each other for a couple thousand years just ain't going to work.
Want something else? What are we gonna do? Take Abu out to a massage parlor and get him a "rub and a tug" and discuss business? By wanting to change them, you would have to change their religion. You aint gonna do that, so quit thinkin that is a possibility.
There you go
Vaevictis
10/1/2006, 08:00 AM
So lets spend all our time and efforts to try and change the minds of thousands of years worth of doctrine and behavior? Aint gonna happen. Their recruitment base is their religion.
Well then, if that's really the case, your choices as far as I can tell are are:
1. Goodbye to any notion of freedom of religion.
2. Resign yourself to never winning this war.
We try, but thinking we can infiltrate all cells is a pipe dream.
Never said or implied we could. You originally asked for other options, there's another option. There are others.
"Harsh" interrogation happens to be one of them. It also suffers from the "We try, but thinking we can interrogate a member of every cell is a pipe dream."
If they are already are brutal, why are you worried about us torturing and turning them into American haters?
Want something else? What are we gonna do?
It's real simple: Quit drawing attention to ourselves, and get them to go back to killing each other.
Another less cynical approach would be to try and get the more peaceful religious leaders a bigger say in what goes on over there.
As far as it being impossible to change their minds because it's their religion, well, roll back the clock a bit, and you'll find that a large part of Christendom was just as warmongering as any of the more violent Muslim factions. Obviously things can change, or we'd still be speading the Good Lord's word at the end of a spear or bayonet point.
Okla-homey
10/1/2006, 08:02 AM
Okay, so far, all together, we're about 75% in favor of (at least) non-violent torture of jihaadis under certain circumstances. Almost a third of us say any form of torturing jihaadis is fine because they forfeited their human card when they signed-up for jihaadism.
Interesting.
Vaevictis
10/1/2006, 08:03 AM
Okay, so far, we're about 75% in favor of non-violent torture of jihaadis under certain circumstances.
I've said it before: 'tain't the world that changed on 9/11. It was us.
It's real simple: Quit drawing attention to ourselves, and get them to go back to killing each other.
Another less cynical approach would be to try and get the more peaceful religious leaders a bigger say in what goes on over there.
As far as it being impossible to change their minds because it's their religion, well, roll back the clock a bit, and you'll find that a large part of Christendom was just as warmongering as any of the more violent Muslim factions. Obviously things can change, or we'd still be speading the Good Lord's word at the end of a spear or bayonet point.
So you think telling muslims to get more peaceful religious leaders wont draw attention to the US? Telling them how to practice their religion is killing their freedom of religion.
Who do you think changed the way Christians behaved back then? What was their reasoning behind that? And sorry buddy, but Islam aint ever gonna change. Never.
Vaevictis
10/1/2006, 08:25 AM
So you think telling muslims to get more peaceful religious leaders wont draw attention to the US? Telling them how to practice their religion is killing their freedom of religion.
You don't tell them to get more peaceful religious leaders. You fund the ones you like. You kill the ones you don't. And most importantly, you don't get caught doing it.
Who do you think changed the way Christians behaved back then? What was their reasoning behind that?
I don't have an answer for this. I'd speculate it has to do with our move to a more secular society, but I really don't know.
And sorry buddy, but Islam aint ever gonna change. Never.
I'll bet some Muslim in Jerusalem said that about Christians during the Crusades, once or twice.
The thing about "Never" is that never is an awful long time.
Okla-homey
10/1/2006, 09:14 AM
Originally Posted by Mongo
Who do you think changed the way Christians behaved back then? What was their reasoning behind that?
I have a theory. In countries with official state religions, the clerics have real political power. During medieval times in Europe, a bishop or cardinal had almost as much power as the sovereign -- check out your chess set.
In countries which have no state religion, that power is marginalized to the point of ineffectiveness for anything but influencing the opinions of the faithful.
Hence, in Arab lands, clerics are big cheeses. In the West, not so much.
jk the sooner fan
10/1/2006, 09:15 AM
12 gets it....such a simple statement, yet so deep
bravo
StoopTroup
10/1/2006, 09:33 AM
Okay, so far, all together, we're about 75% in favor of (at least) non-violent torture of jihaadis under certain circumstances. Almost a third of us say any form of torturing jihaadis is fine because they forfeited their human card when they signed-up for jihaadism.
Interesting.
I just think you should treat them exactly how they treat other people.
If they want to kill us all and support the killing of us all...
Them torture them effectively.
OklahomaTuba
10/1/2006, 09:39 AM
I've said it before: 'tain't the world that changed on 9/11. It was us.
We didn't change, 9/11 just woke us up again.
Ask the Japanese, Germans, Koreans, Vietnamese, etc...
OklahomaTuba
10/1/2006, 09:43 AM
It's real simple: Quit drawing attention to ourselves, and get them to go back to killing each other.
Yup.
Turn tail, head for the hills, burry your head in the sand, and hope for the best.
jk the sooner fan
10/1/2006, 09:51 AM
was the original purpose of the geneva convention to create some "rules of war"......in that it protected soldiers of governments who were simply following the orders/directions of their governments.......it doesnt just apply to torture, it applies to the battlefield, how civilians are to be treated, etc
so, the question then - does AQ fit that mold?
i dont think so
they are the way they are because they're not afraid of us...they break the rules because they expect us to follow them
in that respect, i think its time to change/bend the rules.....
Vaevictis
10/1/2006, 10:00 AM
Yup.
Turn tail, head for the hills, burry your head in the sand, and hope for the best.
Not what I'm saying gitwit. I know you're just a member of the short bus set, and have trouble remembering to put your underwear on before you put on your pants, so I'll clarify:
Set them against each other. Since they like it, let them kill each other until the end of time, if that's what they feel like doing.
Kind of like what the Brits did in India.
The poll numbers surprise me. I had no idea I'd be in such a minority, even on sf.com. Anyone else surprised?
I did not see much of a response to Sic'Em's comment about our treatment of spies and combatants caught out of uniform in WWII. We executed them quickly. It was not seen as inhumane, and was an understood risk for those who engaged in such activities. Part of the legality was tied up in an official declaration of war against a nation state.
Now we are fighting a guerrilla war against Muslim terrorists. We know the names and organizational structure of most of these Muslim terrorists groups. I would like to see us set a precedent and bring a formal declaration of war against these groups by name. Also, we would bring a formal declaration of war against nation states that are undeniably supporting/and or encouraging these groups to carry out attacks on the US and American interests globally.
It would mean legitimizing these groups in a way that we have been reticent to do up to this point, but I believe it would clear the ambiguity we now face in our prosecution of the war on terror. It would also open a Pandora's Box because it would likely mean war with nation states like Syria, Iran, and North Korea.
Such escalation would be extremely difficult for the US, and we would have to adapt a wartime mentality every bit as stringent as WWII.
The reality is, we are not going to make policy decisions that have those kind of reprecussions. The Muslim terrorists know this, and so does everyone else.
Therefore, since we are unwilling to make a total commitment to end this threat to our way of life, by default we take the second option proposed by Vaevictis:
2. Resign yourself to never winning this war.
I really see it playing out this way. We are engaged in a conflict that we cannot win because we will not do what is necessary to win. It's just not palatable to the majority of the American people.
We will trade shots with one another, and hope for some kind of resolution that will buy us another decade or two. Then it can be another administration and another generation's problem.
Widescreen
10/1/2006, 10:06 AM
I was watching a football movie the other day where the coach made the players do a "death crawl" where one player would be crouched down where his hands and feet were on the ground but not his knees and he would have to crawl that way with another player on his back (they were back-to-back so it wasn't as gay as it sounds). At one point one kid had to do that blindfolded. I thought "Wow! That's torture. That kind of thing goes on at high schools. I wonder why the ACLU and their ilk are more interested in preventing such "torture" on terrorist thugs than they are in American high school students."
That there's character-building Widescreen.
Vaevictis
10/1/2006, 10:13 AM
High school students can say, "**** this coach, I quit," and walk away. Prisoners just get more of the same if they do that ;)
Actually, one day I was browsing through my channel list and passed through Current (which is Al Gore's network) and they actually have a reporter who filmed himself getting waterboarded. Flip through from time to time and you might catch it; it's pretty interesting.
There should be another option in the poll that recognizes the fact that "intel" gained through torture is almost always unreliable. Either the detainee does not crack under the pressure and dies or nearly dies (in many cases). Or, in a state of panicked delerium, they tell the interrogator anything they want to hear. This is a fact.
Not only is torture cruel and immoral, it's ineffective as a way to gain information. As such, the use of it, IMHO, is unjustified. I might be persuaded otherwise, if I could have any confidence in the results.
SicEmBaylor
10/1/2006, 10:24 AM
There should be another option in the poll that recognizes the fact that "intel" gained through torture is almost always unreliable. Either the detainee does not crack under the pressure and dies or nearly dies (in many cases). Or, in a state of panicked delerium, they tell the interrogator anything they want to hear. This is a fact.
Not only is torture cruel and immoral, it's ineffective as a way to gain information. As such, the use of it, IMHO, is unjustified. I might be persuaded otherwise, if I could have any confidence in the results.
I agree with you to the extent that I don't think torture is an effective means of gathering intelligence; most evidence supports that fact.
However, regardless of whether or not its effective we sould not forefit our right to use those means should they become necessary.
Widescreen
10/1/2006, 10:54 AM
High school students can say, "**** this coach, I quit," and walk away. Prisoners just get more of the same if they do that ;)
True. But I'm just amazed at what some of the ACLU types consider "torture". Basically anything the prisoner is made to do that they don't care to do is torture. Much of what they complain about is easier than what I had to do as a fraternity pledge. Again, I could quit if I so chose but it wasn't a big deal.
DON'T RAISE YOUR VOICE TO THESE FREEDOM FIGHTERS! THAT'S TORTURE!
Basically anything the prisoner is made to do that they don't care to do is torture. Much of what they complain about is easier than what I had to do as a fraternity pledgeDON'T RAISE YOUR VOICE TO THESE FREEDOM FIGHTERS! THAT'S TORTURE!
Dood, you had one rough frat! Being subjected to Lendy England is pretty harsh stuff too!
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j257/soonercody/Abu20Ghraib20Torture-715244.jpg
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j257/soonercody/Abu20Ghraib20Series203-0620-2014.jpg
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j257/soonercody/Abu20Ghraib20Series203-0620-2013.jpg
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j257/soonercody/abu20ghraib.jpg
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j257/soonercody/abughraib_dog_torture_4300.jpg
StoopTroup
10/1/2006, 06:48 PM
To many Kodak moments is what ruin all our techniques IMO.
jk the sooner fan
10/1/2006, 06:53 PM
i would guess that if you're the object of torture, you get to determine what is bad and what isnt...
SoonerBorn68
10/1/2006, 06:55 PM
Not what I'm saying gitwit. I know you're just a member of the short bus set, and have trouble remembering to put your underwear on before you put on your pants....
Tuba sticks in your face & instead of letting it go you turn to name calling. :rolleyes: Grow up, Mr. Poopypants.
SoonerBorn68
10/1/2006, 06:57 PM
i would guess that if you're the object of torture, you get to determine what is bad and what isnt...
Well, if you fight for Islam to rule the world, I guess you might get to make that determination.
You don't tell them to get more peaceful religious leaders. You fund the ones you like. You kill the ones you don't. And most importantly, you don't get caught doing it.
Except for the getting caught part, didn't we try this with Hussein and Bin Laden?
Except for the getting caught part, didn't we try this with Hussein and Bin Laden?
We have decent efficiency taking out leaders, but when it comes time to installing new regimes, our track record is for crap.
Looks like a couple more peeps voted for the "never acceptable" option.
This really is one of the better polls and discussions I've read on here in awhile.
soonercody
10/1/2006, 08:38 PM
Another thought, it is an obscure gray line to cross from "nonviolent torture" into "violent" torture.
Vaevictis
10/1/2006, 11:27 PM
Except for the getting caught part, didn't we try this with Hussein and Bin Laden?
Yes, we did, and there are problems with the approach.
But, on the plus side, if you'll recall, Afghanistan never fell under the influence of the Soviets, and Iraq never fell under the influence of Iran (well, at least not so long as Saddam was in power...).
The nice thing about the Middle East, though, is if you set one group against someone, and that group dissapears (like the Soviets, for example), there's always another group they're willing to fight, and always a group willing to fight them. One problem (IMO) is that after the Soviets left, we never replaced them with an appropriate boogeyman, so they picked one themselves.
I don't imagine it would be terribly difficult to exploit the intra-religion differences between, for example, the Sunnis and the Shi'ites -- hell, they're already fighting, we wouldn't even have to start it! -- to arrange for a happy little stand off similar to the one that we had between the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland for awhile there.
It's a terribly cynical approach, but it's proven to be effective in the past.
Frozen Sooner
10/2/2006, 12:27 AM
In very limited circumstances, I'm OK with it.
VERY limited circumstances.
It has nothing to do with the US's signature on a treaty.
It has nothing to do with international law.
Some things you don't do because they're not right. In most cases, torture is one of those things.
Even Alan Dershowitz agrees that in the case that someone has knowledge of an armed nuclear device in a major city that torture is allowable. I tend to agree.
We must have solid, concrete evidence that the person to be tortured actually has the information we need.
We must know that the information held can prevent bodily injury.
In that case?
Go for it.
proud gonzo
10/2/2006, 12:33 AM
spek
Frozen Sooner
10/2/2006, 12:37 AM
I tend to type like Jenni Carlson sometimes.
It irritates me.
I need to get out of the habit of writing in declarative paragraphs.
olevetonahill
10/2/2006, 10:23 AM
if we knew they had the information . Then we would know about the information !
I say in this context of the pole . that what ever means is available is appropriate .
would it not have been OK to torture the **** out of some hajji to learn about the planes that hit us on 9-11 :confused:
Frozen Sooner
10/2/2006, 10:57 AM
if we knew they had the information . Then we would know about the information !
I say in this context of the pole . that what ever means is available is appropriate .
would it not have been OK to torture the **** out of some hajji to learn about the planes that hit us on 9-11 :confused:
1. Nor really. Say we capture Al Qaeda #2 sub 567. We know that he has knowledge of operations that are aimed at US Citizens. We don't know what they are. Alternately, we penetrate an Al Qaeda cell far enough to know that this cell is going to be doing something big, but our operative doesn't know what or where-but knows WHO knows.
2. "Some hajji?" No, not really. I'd be pretty surprised if just any random Muslim knew what was going to happen on 9-11. Someone who had that knowledge? Sure, go to town.
olevetonahill
10/2/2006, 11:16 AM
1. Nor really. Say we capture Al Qaeda #2 sub 567. We know that he has knowledge of operations that are aimed at US Citizens. We don't know what they are. Alternately, we penetrate an Al Qaeda cell far enough to know that this cell is going to be doing something big, but our operative doesn't know what or where-but knows WHO knows.
2. "Some hajji?" No, not really. I'd be pretty surprised if just any random Muslim knew what was going to happen on 9-11. Someone who had that knowledge? Sure, go to town.
#1 so we do have information ?
#2 when i said hajji i was not referring to the main stream Muslims but the idjit extremist
Vaevictis
10/2/2006, 11:26 AM
I think the main stickings point for a lot of people boil down to:
1. Where does it stop?
2. What if someone who ends up knowing nothing -- due to human error, or some other reason -- gets tortured?
The way the laws/regulations are going to get written, *anyone* involved in terrorism is likely to be eligible.
Remember kiddies, McVeigh was an American. He rented that Ryder truck from an American. What if the FBI was on to him a little earlier, and concluded that someone at that Ryder company just HAD to know something?
Even if it starts that way, eventually, it's not going to apply to just jihaadis. And by it's very nature, it's going to apply to *suspects*, not people we necessarily know for a fact are involved.
Sooner or later, some random innocent kid who works behind a rental truck counter in Kansas (or somewhere similar) is going to get wrapped up and have this done to him -- when he doesn't know a thing. Is it worth it then?
yermom
10/2/2006, 11:57 AM
you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs
Chuck Bao
10/2/2006, 12:11 PM
A Jenni Carlson Why-Hide-a-Sentence-in-the-Middle-of-a-Paragraph School of Journalism grad myself.
I go along with the morality issue and the fact that it isn’t too efficient and the likelihood that could very likely end up being used on innocent Americans.
Besides that, I’m not sure that the torturers and snoopers are the best people to police themselves, well given what they do.
I can just imagine:
Torturer #1: Who’s on the rack tonight?
Torturer #2: Let’s see. Ah, probably nobody important, but we still have a full docket.
Tortuner #1: Yeah, it looks like a bunch of losers, again. How do they expect us to ever make the incentive pay on verified confessions?
Tortuner #2: Beats me.
SoonerBorn68
10/2/2006, 03:38 PM
2. What if someone who ends up knowing nothing -- due to human error, or some other reason -- gets tortured?
Oh well...
The way the laws/regulations are going to get written, *anyone* involved in terrorism is likely to be eligible.
Oh well...
Even if it starts that way, eventually, it's not going to apply to just jihaadis. And by it's very nature, it's going to apply to *suspects*, not people we necessarily know for a fact are involved.
This country's been around for a while. You think somehow jaywalkers are going to get tortured. Get over it. It's a mean world & we're a player.
Sooner or later, some random innocent kid who works behind a rental truck counter in Kansas (or somewhere similar) is going to get wrapped up and have this done to him -- when he doesn't know a thing. Is it worth it then?
Are you really that paranoid?
Vaevictis
10/2/2006, 04:56 PM
you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs
It's good to know that the new America believes that "You can't make a safe America without torturing a few innocent people."
(Doesn't sound all that different to me than, "You can't make a pan-Islamic state without killing a few infidels," but hey, what do I know?)
yermom
10/2/2006, 04:58 PM
sarcasm is lost on some people :D
would the winkie have helped? ;)
Vaevictis
10/2/2006, 05:01 PM
sarcasm is lost on some people :D
would the winkie have helped? ;)
Yes! Because, let's be honest, there are people here who would say it with all seriousness.
SoonerBorn68
10/2/2006, 07:11 PM
...but hey, what do I know?)
admission is the first step.
But, he's got me on ignore so he won't be reading this...Igronance is bliss I guess.
Okla-homey
10/3/2006, 05:48 AM
Just something else to think about here. Sometimes, these issues are resolved based on normative judgments/interpretations despite what the courts believe the Constitution and/or statutes say.
For example, everyone knows a literal interpretation of the Fifth Amendment "takings" clause means private property can't be taken for public use without compensation. Well (please trust me on this because I don't want to turn this into some kind of law review article,) but sometimes, the courts will look at the constitutional and statutory language and the prior rulings and just kind of go,"yeah, that's what it says, but we think its fairer under the circumstances to go ahead do [this or that]" based on what judges generally believe is a fair outcome under the circumstances.
That sort of thing is how we got to the current doctrine which allows government eminent domain actions in which private property is taken by an organ of government and then passed to a commercial private entity who will use that property to greater benefit to the public.
Therefore, its just possible, since most folks feel its okay to coerce jihaadis to give up information, it may just be that is where we end up someday no matter what a strict reading of the Constitution says.
Afterall, the dead white guys who wrote the Constitution could not possibly have anticipated war with crazed and unreasonable jihaadis and their sympathizers...not to mention the fact the Court is often very deferential to the executive branch when it comes to actions done in the interest of national security.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.