Torture ? What torture ?

The problem here is, how do you define torture. Me personally...if it doesn't cause permanent injury (PHYSICAL INJURY) or serious temporary injury......not torture.

So far, NO PICTURES I have seen from any prison equated to torture.

THIS is the problem. I do not think US operatives or soldiers have tortured anyone and been within defined boundries. CRIMINAL TYPES...and the military have some...have committed crimes which they should be prosecuted for.

BTW, torture includes beheading people........

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Sep 18 2006, 07:15 PM) [snapback]321466[/snapback]</div>

And this is from a police officer. Thumb screws and tiger holes will make a comeback. I guess John McCain wasn't "tortured" too much after all. Just once or twice. The rest he shook off. Anything short of trauma is acceptable.

How'd you like to get on this guy's bad side at three in the morning on a country road?

I don't want the definition of torture left in the hands of the torturer. He's never going to think he crossed the line. We are a nation of laws, not creative thinkers. What the gun-toters and power-wielders need is a clear set of definitions, well-printed, with consequences for violation and a chain of command dedicated to seeing rules are followed. The guys at the bottom of the law enforcement food chain need strong reins, as this post suggests.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Sep 19 2006, 12:59 AM) [snapback]321524[/snapback]</div>

we need to stop looking at this like it is a "law enforcement" issue. these are not acts of lawlessness these are acts of WAR. these are not criminals they are enemy combatants. seriously many people who preach that we are a "nation of laws" need to do some further self education on the consititutional basis of the laws under which we live. our constitution does not give any "rights" or "protections" to any such persons, be they foreign (simple terrorists) or domestic (those committing acts of a treasonous nature). failing to make the necessary logical separation between prosecuting a WAR and prosecuting common criminals, we might as well throw in the towell, drop our borders and give control of our own government over to the very enemies we are trying to stop.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Sep 18 2006, 10:09 PM) [snapback]321458[/snapback]</div>

What would you propose we do in terms of interegation when we capture a "bad guy"? Do you think we should handle it in a criminal court with all its rules and regulations or via a military tribunal? Do you think terrorist combatants be afforded rights that US citizens enjoy?

Notice how I am not touching how US POW's are handled by the enemy - an enemy that has not signed on to the Geneva Conventions and one that violates its basic principles governing the conduct of combat. I have yet to see one American POW that has not been tortured and killed and mutilated (not to mention having their bodies booby-trapped). In fact, this enemy has killed/beheaded many US citizens - not even affording them the decency provided for by the Geneva Conventions.

 

When the Geneva Convention signed off, nobody was fighting a countryless enemy that gets it's thrills from blowing up civilians and/or military.

For some or many, maybe this whole thing is confusing. They are unsure if the convention rules apply or not. You get people on both sides of the fence.

We should clear it up. we should make a statement of how it's going to go from here. If we go to war with a country, we will abide by the rules of engagement that governs two countries at war. If we need to persue a terrorist ideology then we will do so by any means determined fit by the crews on the ground.

Islam needs to start patrolling their own kind before we get in a position where the gloves have to come off. If they see their uncle mixing C4 in the basement, they'd better start hamstringing him themselves because this whole deal goes to a point where we finally can't do the job with troops on the ground in every part of the world and we need to go to a more 'hands off' approach to regulating the progress of the enemies that look to destroy us. At some point, we are sorry for the loss of civilians in/around/near the hostile territories, but we had to flatten the whole area.. bummer...

Unless Al Gore or Hillary gets in office. Then, we just all come to expect death in the homeland by terrorist means. Do you want a gas attack, dirty nuke, or a good old fashioned IED in the train with you?

We don't want to offend the terrorists by resisting and wacking them first....

I'm more for the approach where we set them back about 80 years in both economic status and raw numbers. First give them a year to self regulate, then if things are still out of control or more out of control, do like you would if you had too many ants and ant hills in the back yard. Do what has to be done to get the problem under control.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Sep 19 2006, 09:16 AM) [snapback]321564[/snapback]</div>

I believe its called McGruders Law - combat always finds the least common denominator - where both sides fight by the same rules. It usually takes one side time to slide down to the other - but it happens. Here we have the potential of letting the other side get a nuke. Not a pretty picture... A guy with a nuke who believes in 72 virgins waiting for him when he dies... along with thousands of others he thinks should die no matter what... makes you pause a little bit.... or it should. We cannot hold ourselves to a set of rules that potentially endangers the lives of thousands.

 

I believe that torturing enemy combatants ( which isn't necessarily successful) belittles us as it does the tortured. I wonder how someone involved in torture abroad ever makes that adjustment back to "civilized" society back in the US once the whole business is over. In short, I believe that compromising our own humanity has harmful if unintended consequences.

Peace --

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2006, 10:14 AM) [snapback]321594[/snapback]</div>

In the worst case scenario...our survival?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2006, 09:14 AM) [snapback]321594[/snapback]</div>

At some point, you face your enemy and it's no longer about being better than them. It's down to a face off and only one of you is going to live.

I guess we are not there yet. We're still trying to fight a gentlemans resistance to our enemy rather than to get down to brass tacks and put the war machine into kill or be killed mode.

I think there is a tipping point where we can no longer afford ($ and lives) to fight the gentlemans war. At that point, we need to unleash our potential on offense in order to destroy the enemy rather than be destroyed by the enemy.

I would advise anyone to not pick a fight with US since we are such a powerful foe. That doesn't mean those people will take that advice.

If we wack all of Iran, or Syria or any of these terrorist supporting states and maybe the next terrorist supporting state will get the picture.

At some point we tell our diplomats to come home and get down to business.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2006, 10:14 AM) [snapback]321594[/snapback]</div>

I've never bought into this argument. Who says? This is like kindergarten social programming gone amuck. There is absolutely nothing wrong with double standards to keep things "in line" so to speak...

On top of that, I don't really think you can ever balance such equation, morals and values are waaaay too subjective. I say F trying to find a common ground, level playing field, etc., ad nauseum, in this respect...

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Sep 19 2006, 10:32 AM) [snapback]321603[/snapback]</div>

Excellent points. The problem a lot of Americans have is that there is a population amongst us that are enabling our enemy or at the least creating an environment in which we are not defending ourselves to the best of our ability. Hence this discussion on interegation techniques - or using military vs civilian courts. Eventually - and this is a given - this war will get to a point where the clear majority of Americans are on board - the only question is how many of us are going to die before we reach that point.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2006, 11:05 AM) [snapback]321625[/snapback]</div>

Why do you think this? Lincoln withdrew habeus corpus protection - and it was restored. FDR threw 100,000+ Americans into open jails - and let them go. We have a long history of responding to threats as a culture and society and then returning to baseline and then even progressing from there. I think we are pretty close to agreeing on toooo many things here my good doctor

I would argue we only threaten our existance by the lack of recogition of threats both domestic and foreign and our retiscence to act quickly enough.

 

Ok, so what do we do? This is a serious question. Does anyone have any ideas on what we should do, besides only whining about the horror, the horror?

We are fighting a group who does not think the way we do. They don't blink at the concept of blowing up a school bus full of children, or blowing themselves up in a crowded market, killing men, women, and children indiscriminately, or lobbing mortar rounds at random into civilian areas. They believe that doing *anything* to kill people who don't believe the way they do will automatically buy them a slot in heaven. The leaders of these groups receive extensive training in how to resist any interrogation technique, with specific phrases to respond with, and specific methods for resisting based on what verbal approach is taken.

How do we get information from them? How do we determine the structure of their organization, or future plans for horrific acts, or the locations of weapons caches or bomb making facilities, or anything else that will help avoid further loss of innocent life, much less loss of the lives of our military men and women and allies? They're not just going to tell us if we ask. They do not think the way we do. They will not tell us anything if we do not break down that resistance. We cannot cajole them into being nice guys.

Once again - I present a sincere request to those opposed to the techniques successfully used to extract information from these people, information that has been used to save lives. Tell us - what SHOULD we do instead?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Sep 19 2006, 03:16 PM) [snapback]321564[/snapback]</div>

So, you want to use nukes? You like the smell of plutonium in the morning?
I said it before: I like the idea that thousands of nuclear weapons are pointed at YOUR cities. Might provoke a second thought in case someone in charge gets insane and starts thinking about this seriously.

Long live the Soviet nukes!!!

 

I guess I'll keelp asking until someone answers. What kind of military intervention would have prevented 9/11? If you can connect the dots in a tangible way between invading one or two countries and preventing a terrorist attack in US soil my hat's off to you.

BTW, torturing prisoners debase us, most importantly, it does not work. Bush and Co. probably want torture because you can make anyone say anything. Just like some of the fabricated Iraq/al Qaida connection "evidence" came from torture.

 

Torture? that's very funny.

When they killed thousands of innocent people in the twin towers. look at how many people they killed and even cut their heads off. They think it's ok for them but not for us.
We just pinch them a little and they will cry, torture...

I think we should cut all they heads off, put them out of misery. close all those prisons so the press can stop their stupid crying. No more debating what to do with them. But save their heads for sovenir and for show that's what happens when you fck with us. We can be as mean or meaner then them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 19 2006, 09:21 AM) [snapback]321661[/snapback]</div>

I think capturing those prisoner was one of our mistakes. It's too much trouble for everybody. Next time we just shoot them. We don't have to bring them back, feed them, take care of them. no trouble. just shoot. We at war, people. wake up. they shooting at us. wait until they shoot at you and see what you do?