SavageEagle
Grandmaster
- Apr 27, 2008
- 19,568
- 38
All forms of torture are simply wrong.
Ends do not justify the means!
Does our government have alternative ways of collecting info?
Yes, it does.
Do they work better than using the methods of torture?
I do not have data for it.
It is my understanding that torture is the easiest and most economical way of collecting info. Although, it is debatable how effective the torture is as information gathering tool.
THEN MY FRIENDS, THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON. THEY HAVE INFLICTED ENOUGH TERROR IN US TO SUSPEND THE BASIC HUMANITY OF OURSELVES.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy
I do not support the use of "water boarding" or torture to get information from an individual. This smacks of the inquisition and the witch hunts. The main reason the military tries to stay away from this is not necessarily the legality of the issue, but more of are you really going to get reliable information from someone who knows that you are going to cause them a lot of pain and possibly kill them. Ummmm probally not or they would have already spilled their guts out and told you everything already.
That turns out not to be the case. Not quite true. For one thing, what people think they can take and what they actually can take are two different things.
Yup I learned in a lot of classes that I was a real puss before the miltary. Pain is really in ones mind, ignore it for the most part and you can still function.
BTW, did you know that waterboarding is part of SERE training in the US military? Do you honestly think the military tortures its own people then has record levels of re-enlistments?
BTW yes I know ALL about waterboarding being a part of SERE School I also know they are allowed to break bones in SERE, minor ones granted but they are allowed to.
And yes I think, No I know the military would torture its own people that is the purpose of the course in question. Survival Evasion, Resistance and Escape. Did you ever wonder what the resistance in the name meant or is it just a cool sounding acronym to you?
As far as the record number of re-enlistments only avery small percentage have to go through this course. That and the job market suck out here in the real world.
There is the argument often made about how unreliable the information gotten from "aggressive interrogation" (up to and including torture), however, that can be addressed by both how the interrogation is conducted and what specific information one is looking for. The claim is, they'll say anything to stop the torture. Well, that's true. They'll say anything, including the truth. The trick is to get them to learn early on that lies do not get them a reprieve but the truth does.
Have you ever actually worked HUMINT? I have worked HUMINT before, and have seen more negative leads generated than positive. Sometimes it does work I will grant you that, Sometimes being the key word here.
Quote:
Besides "IF" we needed to torture someone that is why we have allies where it is not quite the wrong then to do there.
And you have just undermined your entire argument. Contracting out what you're not willing to do yourself is the same as doing it yourself only sleazier.
Sleazy yes it is, welcome to the big world of POLOTICS! It is legal though.
My .02 cents again.
If we begin to sanction torture based on the needs, where do we stop?
Why not begin to sanction selective assasination and/or imprisonment of persons without the due process, foreign or domestic, who deemed to pose threat to our national interest? If we let one evil deed to be carried out for the sake of public interest, we are inviting the influx of wrongful ways to innervate our very moral infrastructure.
If we begin to sanction torture based on the needs, where do we stop?
Why not begin to sanction selective assasination and/or imprisonment of persons without the due process, foreign or domestic, who deemed to pose threat to our national interest? If we let one evil deed to be carried out for the sake of public interest, we are inviting the influx of wrongful ways to innervate our very moral infrastructure.
Again, let's all please stop the silly comparison of "inducing the sensation of drowning" with hanging someone from chains and taking a knife, drill, battery hooked up to genitals and blow torch to them and then when convinced that you have all you could get, dragging them outside and putting a bullet into the back of their skull.
People, wake the hell up.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for one example, spilled loads of intelligence that saved lives and nobody here can claim differently. Last I checked, he is still breathing and has all of his fingers and toes.
Doesn't anyone here remember Daniel Pearl? Google his name, find the video of them sawing his head off and then come here and tell me about freaking water boarding.
And you know what, I could give a damn that someone that has the blood of innocent human beings on his hands and would butcher me and my family if he had the chance had to suffer the horrible "sensation of drowning".
Give me a freaking break.
GOOD GRIEF!
1. We only "know" we got good intel from him because those who "extracted it" say so and ask only our trust that they are telling the truth. I cannot deny it, just as you cannot prove it. And trust of our gov't or intel is not easy to come by these days.
2. Are you arguing for "just this one thing" or are you arguing for "what is needed to get the intel"? The first assumes that the slope is not slippery, and the second takes apart your whole argument.
3. What this really comes down to is a question of faith, and fear that puts you into one of two groups really:
Group A has faith in the use of force to produce useful info, fear that they could have the one guy who has the intel to stop the imminent death of hundreds/thousands and are willing to put those two in a dark room together to save us all.
Group B has faith that our government and its agents are not competent to have the right person, or for that matter will grab someone for another reason than first intended, and fear that these techniques will produce results completely other than what we want (bad intel, intel on Americans, or just the accidental killing of a few people here and there).
I fall much more within Group B and fear this added power, pushed through out of "necessity" and am greatly concerned about how, when, and how often it will be used. And I am not for a second, going to believe that there will be any fundamental wall between American and Non-American or Accused Terrorist and Convicted Terrorist. And I cannot see in any way how our Constitution is not fundamentally weakened by yet another new power that those in charge "need to have" in order to keep me safe.
I have heard it all too often:
"Nice Country you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
"Nice Economy you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
Both sound like shakedown lines.
Too bad we lack the one I would like to hear:
"Nice Bill of Rights, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
Oh, wait, it does kinda sound like that, but not in a good way...
Also, as per my highlighted part of your statement....
So you should also fear the laser guided bombs, Predators UAV's, Stealth Bombers, and nuclear weapons being used against American People also. These are all forms of war just as Waterboarding is used in times of war. So therefore, being scared that the Government will Waterboard you for expressing your thoughts and opinions as an innocent person, you should also be scared that Predators are circling above your house ready to unleashe laser guided bombs on you because you ran a red light at rush hour. Or that a murderer will be nuked from Stealth bombers on American soil.
The Government knows there is a line that Americans won't allow them to cross and waterboarding common criminals to find other criminals or their "stash" is something we won't allow.
I mean, I'm paranoid, but come on. Seriously.
1. We only "know" we got good intel from him because those who "extracted it" say so and ask only our trust that they are telling the truth. I cannot deny it, just as you cannot prove it. And trust of our gov't or intel is not easy to come by these days.
2. Are you arguing for "just this one thing" or are you arguing for "what is needed to get the intel"? The first assumes that the slope is not slippery, and the second takes apart your whole argument.
3. What this really comes down to is a question of faith, and fear that puts you into one of two groups really:
Group A has faith in the use of force to produce useful info, fear that they could have the one guy who has the intel to stop the imminent death of hundreds/thousands and are willing to put those two in a dark room together to save us all.
Group B has faith that our government and its agents are not competent to have the right person, or for that matter will grab someone for another reason than first intended, and fear that these techniques will produce results completely other than what we want (bad intel, intel on Americans, or just the accidental killing of a few people here and there).
I fall much more within Group B and fear this added power, pushed through out of "necessity" and am greatly concerned about how, when, and how often it will be used. And I am not for a second, going to believe that there will be any fundamental wall between American and Non-American or Accused Terrorist and Convicted Terrorist. And I cannot see in any way how our Constitution is not fundamentally weakened by yet another new power that those in charge "need to have" in order to keep me safe.
I have heard it all too often:
"Nice Country you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
"Nice Economy you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
Both sound like shakedown lines.
Too bad we lack the one I would like to hear:
"Nice Bill of Rights, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
Oh, wait, it does kinda sound like that, but not in a good way...