Way to miss my point, AGAIN. We're not doing this to innocent people, most are just interrogated. Of course it feels awful, that's the god damn point.

 

 

 

Torture info can be unreliable, a very valid point, but not if you know what to ask. Don't ask them, "Are you a terrorist?" If you do that, they'll say yes just to make it stop. If you just ask if they know anything, well, you might turn something up.

 

 

 

There's only one thing I don't like about it. What if they really don't know anything? That's the one thing that needs to be addressed for me to fully support ALL types of torture.

 

 

 

And therefore is the problem, what if they're innocent, or just aren't aware of what's actually happening? I doubt Osama's going to be telling the lower to mid ranked Al-Qaeda members, usually the most commonly caught.

 

 

 

Quite a few innocent people have been jailed in X-ray camp or Delta camp (Guantanamo) since the start of the "war on terror", there would be outrage throughout the modern world if it was found out they were being tortured.

 

 

 

You're not doing it to innocent people now, but it's only a matter of time until it happens to an innocent person and wow, what a "we hate America" bandwagon will be going then.

Way to miss my point, AGAIN. We're not doing this to innocent people, most are just interrogated. Of course it feels awful, that's the god damn point.

 

 

 

Torture info can be unreliable, a very valid point, but not if you know what to ask. Don't ask them, "Are you a terrorist?" If you do that, they'll say yes just to make it stop. If you just ask if they know anything, well, you might turn something up.

 

 

 

There's only one thing I don't like about it. What if they really don't know anything? That's the one thing that needs to be addressed for me to fully support ALL types of torture.

 

 

 

You're not doing it to innocent people now, but it's only a matter of time until it happens to an innocent person and wow, what a "we hate America" bandwagon will be going then.

 

 

 

And that, kranked, is where I concede to you. You're absolutely right on that point.

It's not torture.

 

 

 

Yeah, please post a reason for your opinions or you'll end up with the reputation of Robert.

 

 

 

Anyway, you say torture is torture, but you still haven't proven to me that it's torture. There's no harm being done to the person it's happening to.

 

No physical harm. I think its a little naive to say all torture is physical.

 

 

 

It IS. Phsycological harm doesn't matter, if it gets us the information we want without killing the guy, then so be it. And you're not going to get you're information if they don't feel like they're being harmed.

 

 

 

Tbh, stop acting like we're just grabbing random people and doing this to them. If it's happening, there's a good reason.

 

Of course psychological harm matters! In fact, that's the part of physical torture that makes it torture! If someone didn't feel or mind about having their arm cut off, it would hardly be classified as torture, would it? Mutilation maybe, but not torture.

 

 

 

Besides, to say that if the US says it's right means that it's undoubtedly right is a fallacy. There is no such thing as an absolute moral authority which has human (and therefore flawed) components.

It's not torture.

 

 

 

Yeah, please post a reason for your opinions or you'll end up with the reputation of Robert.

 

 

 

Anyway, you say torture is torture, but you still haven't proven to me that it's torture. There's no harm being done to the person it's happening to.

 

No physical harm. I think its a little naive to say all torture is physical.

 

 

 

It IS. Phsycological harm doesn't matter, if it gets us the information we want without killing the guy, then so be it. And you're not going to get you're information if they don't feel like they're being harmed.

 

 

 

Tbh, stop acting like we're just grabbing random people and doing this to them. If it's happening, there's a good reason.

 

Of course psychological harm matters! In fact, that's the part of physical torture that makes it torture! If someone didn't feel or mind about having their arm cut off, it would hardly be classified as torture, would it? Mutilation maybe, but not torture.

 

 

 

Besides, to say that if the US says it's right means that it's undoubtedly right is a fallacy. There is no such thing as an absolute moral authority which has human (and therefore flawed) components.

 

 

 

Read the above post.

And therefore is the problem, what if they're innocent, or just aren't aware of what's actually happening? I doubt Osama's going to be telling the lower to mid ranked Al-Qaeda members, usually the most commonly caught.

 

 

 

Which is exactly why we only use harsh interrogations on people we believe are higher ups and believe to have important information. I think we still need to improve our methods to be more humane, ethical, and such; but its not like we are waterboarding everyone we pick up for the fun of it.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=793416

 

Torture thread, discuss it there.

 

 

 

But please, read the entire thread first. Pretty much all arguments FOR torture are disproven.

 

 

 

Some things I'd like to say first though:

 

1. Waterboarding has major psychological side effects which can be WAY worse than physical. And if the water gets in the lungs it can cause serious physical harm

 

2. It is not simulated drowning. It is drowning that is stopped

 

3. There have been 2 trials for the "terrorists" at gitmo. TWO

 

4. Percent of gitmo detainees actually caught by US forces: 5%

 

Percentage of gitmo detainees turned in for REWARD MONEY by Afghan and Pakistani citizens: 95%

 

"You can receive millions of dollars for helping the Anti-Taliban Forces catch Al-Qaida and Taliban murderers. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and schoolbooks and housing for all your people" Sample text of leaflet handed out by US forces in Afghanistan

 

Seems like a pretty good way to get rid of that neighbor you hate and take his land

 

5. THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT TORTURE IS EFFECTIVE

 

6. So far, there has not been one case where torture has actually got anything valuable (and if it has, it could have been gotten through traditional methods/Rapport building)

 

7. Rapport building is more effective

 

 

 

Honestly, it seems that every time I run into someone who is Pro-Torture it is because they are not educated on the subject or have done no research.

 

 

 

 

 

Annnyyy way, back on topic

 

 

 

There is another forum I frequent that is going to try to open a website and raise money to have other people who say it is not torture waterboarded, and donate the money to a charity of their choice when they do it.

What other term can you possibly use to describe being blindfolded, blasted with music and being repeatedly brought to the point of drowning?

College party?

 

Going to my sig.

 

 

 

Waterboarding is torture, yes.

 

And that's exactly why we should be doing it to terrorists. Why shouldn't we?

What other term can you possibly use to describe being blindfolded, blasted with music and being repeatedly brought to the point of drowning?

College party?

 

Going to my sig.

 

 

 

Waterboarding is torture, yes.

 

And that's exactly why we should be doing it to terrorists. Why shouldn't we?

 

 

 

Short answer - No.

edit: Thanks to the below(with the exception of the insult to tip.it staff) for proving me wrong.

What's wrong with giving them the impression that they're drowning. They won't drown, and they won't die/get hurt from it. Seems much better than what Terrorists would do to any U.S. person that had information they wanted.

 

 

 

Also, if you had a child, and the way to save him was to waterboard a person that was refusing to talk and no other methods worked. Would you do it?

 

 

 

Your current stance seems to say no, so you'd let your child be killed?

 

 

 

Keep in mind 9/11 killed ~2,000 of other people's children. Adults, but they were the sons/daughters of other people.

 

 

 

They aren't being given the impression of being drowned, they're drowning them and then stopping before the point of death. If they continued to do it they would drown.

 

 

 

Yet again, a ticking timebomb-esque argument is used by supporters of waterboarding - there is no scenario where waterboarding (or any other form of torture) is the only recourse to save lives. I feel bad for the people who died during 9/11 but it was an almost inevitable consequence of many years of irresponsible American foreign policy during the Cold War which alienated large parts of the world and fed into the horrible ideology of extremists. Also the 2,000 people that died during 9/11 is a small number when you look at the deaths that have been caused during the War of Terror (not a typo).

This is one of those moments in which I would truly love to speak plainly, but due to my position here I shall hold my tongue to a degree.

 

 

 

I'll say this though; The stupidity & sheer ignorance expressed by a few people is.. simply staggering, and a prime example of a major disadvantage of giving every man the vote i.e. democracy. Certain people should not be given any say, due to the obnoxious (not to mention reckless) sense of pride and justice spouting from their mouths, as it has a truly damaging affect.

 

 

 

[]

This is one of those moments in which I would truly love to speak plainly, but due to my position here I shall hold my tongue to a degree.

 

 

 

I'll say this though; The stupidity & sheer ignorance expressed by a few people is.. simply staggering, and a prime example of a major disadvantage of giving every man the vote i.e. democracy. Certain people should not be given any say, due to the obnoxious (not to mention reckless) sense of pride and justice spouting from their mouths, as it has a truly damaging affect.

 

 

 

And for your flagrant use of emotional porn, Extol, you should be first against the wall.

 

 

 

If I could go off-topic for just a second I'd just like to say that sort of thing does bug me. There are a few mods (not all) who are pretty damn good posters and have to hold back a bit on the forums because of their position. I understand why its necessary but sometimes it feels like the board loses them as good posters because they are mods even though being good posters is a factor in why they were asked to be mods in the first place.

What's wrong with giving them the impression that they're drowning. They won't drown, and they won't die/get hurt from it. Seems much better than what Terrorists would do to any U.S. person that had information they wanted.

 

 

 

Also, if you had a child, and the way to save him was to waterboard a person that was refusing to talk and no other methods worked. Would you do it?

 

 

 

Your current stance seems to say no, so you'd let your child be killed?

 

 

 

Keep in mind 9/11 killed ~2,000 people. Those people were the sons/daughters of other people.

 

 

 

Give me a source where torture has saved people. Please do. So far no one in any discussion I've been has been able to, so please find one.

 

 

 

And psychological harm is ALOT worse than physical. Physical wounds heal, the brain is a very delicate and complicated thing, and water boarding most definitely has a serious impact on psychological health.

 

 

 

 

During waterboarding, some of this water can flow through the nostrils and into the lungs, Keller explains. Water in the lungs, especially if it's dirty, can cause potentially deadly pneumonia or pleuritis, an inflammation of the lung lining.

 

 

 

Waterboarding could also cause hypoxia, a condition in which the body is not getting enough oxygen, either because the victim is holding his or her breath or inhaling water -- and inadequate oxygen supplies can lead to deadly organ failure, Keller adds.

 

 

 

But don't underestimate how tightly intertwined the physical and psychological experiences of waterboarding are, Keller notes. Since it mimics the terrifying sensation of drowning, it triggers the release of stress hormones called catecholamines that can cause heart rate and blood pressure to soar, potentially setting the stage for heart attack in a person with underlying heart disease, he says.

 

 

 

But even healthy people can die from sheer terror, as Martin A. Samuels, chairman of the neurology department at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston told ScientificAmerican.com earlier this year. The sudden outpouring of stress hormones can cause the heart to beat abnormally, hampering its ability to deliver blood to the body.

 

 

 

Waterboarding might be an ideal way to cause a fear-induced heart problem, Samuels speculates, pointing to experiments by the late Johns Hopkins psychobiologist Curt Richter, who in the 1950s created what he called a "swimming" jar for wild rats that was partially filled with water, allowing them to swim but not escape. The rats often died, and when Richter examined their hearts, he found damage suggesting stress hormones caused heart muscle cells to contract uncontrollably, Samuels explains.

 

 

 

"Make no mistake about it, [waterboarding] is a profoundly traumatic event," Keller says. "The physical and psychological and social aspects are all interdependent and feed off one another."

 

 

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2009-05-01

 

 

 

 

I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02242.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And from a leaked CIA document

 

"issued by the International Committee for the Red Cross following two rounds of private interviews it held with the 14 "high value detainees" held at Guantanamo Bay."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and also from that report

 

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nick ... 01728.html

 

 

 

Congratulations to the CIA on becoming as bad, if not worse than Al-Qaida. Round of applause please? =D>

That's why I can't be a Mod. Tip.It stays away from my big mouth. :lol:

It's not torture.

 

 

 

Yeah, please post a reason for your opinions or you'll end up with the reputation of Robert.

 

 

 

Anyway, you say torture is torture, but you still haven't proven to me that it's torture. There's no harm being done to the person it's happening to.

 

No physical harm. I think its a little naive to say all torture is physical.

 

 

 

It IS. Phsycological harm doesn't matter, if it gets us the information we want without killing the guy, then so be it. And you're not going to get you're information if they don't feel like they're being harmed.

 

 

 

Tbh, stop acting like we're just grabbing random people and doing this to them. If it's happening, there's a good reason.

 

 

 

So every single person who ever gets water boarded is guilty or has important information? I think not.

 

 

 

You say psychological harm doesn't matter? You've clearly never been psychologically harmed. Torture doesn't necessarily mean there has to be a physical sign, and water boarding is clearly extremely unpleasant and very damaging.

I do applaud him for changing his position so quickly and admitting he was wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

@ Dizzle: The U.S doesn't always torture the "bad guys". And to not consider waterbording torture is just stupid, have you seen any of the videos where someone gets waterboarding? Most people can only last 6-12 seconds before wanting to call it in, and in real torture it lasts much, much longer than 6 seconds.

6. So far, there has not been one case where torture has actually got anything valuable (and if it has, it could have been gotten through traditional methods/Rapport building)

 

 

 

Although I agree with you that we need to move beyond waterboarding, that statement is entirely subjective. While Rapport building will work with lower level operatives; a key problem lies in what you said, that lower level operatives arent just given information. Any higher ups we capture(Im talking head commanders/people that we know 100% are terrorists/were well known before 9/11) arent going to "betray" the organization they have devoted their life to just because we try to be friendly.

 

 

 

Now, we should be using rapport building and other non torture like means on anyone who is low level if we think we can get some useful stuff out of them. When we start talking about higher levels we need to consider less pleasant means. Waterboarding is in my opinion overboard, but methods such as mild sleep deprivation, nutritious but "cardboard" food, and uncomfortable living quarters(within reason) need to be looked into. While we have to avoid becoming worse then what we are fighting; giving up on intelligence operations is never going to be a solution.

6. So far, there has not been one case where torture has actually got anything valuable (and if it has, it could have been gotten through traditional methods/Rapport building)

 

 

 

Although I agree with you that we need to move beyond waterboarding, that statement is entirely subjective. While Rapport building will work with lower level operatives; a key problem lies in what you said, that lower level operatives arent just given information. Any higher ups we capture(Im talking head commanders/people that we know 100% are terrorists/were well known before 9/11) arent going to "betray" the organization they have devoted their life to just because we try to be friendly.

 

 

 

Now, we should be using rapport building and other non torture like means on anyone who is low level if we think we can get some useful stuff out of them. When we start talking about higher levels we need to consider less pleasant means. Waterboarding is in my opinion overboard, but methods such as mild sleep deprivation, nutritious but "cardboard" food, and uncomfortable living quarters(within reason) need to be looked into. While we have to avoid becoming worse then what we are fighting; giving up on intelligence operations is never going to be a solution.

 

 

 

 

 

If someone is "fanatical" about their cause, they won't give away their info at all. I think people being tortured are far more likely to give false information than real information.

6. So far, there has not been one case where torture has actually got anything valuable (and if it has, it could have been gotten through traditional methods/Rapport building)

 

 

 

Although I agree with you that we need to move beyond waterboarding, that statement is entirely subjective. While Rapport building will work with lower level operatives; a key problem lies in what you said, that lower level operatives arent just given information. Any higher ups we capture(Im talking head commanders/people that we know 100% are terrorists/were well known before 9/11) arent going to "betray" the organization they have devoted their life to just because we try to be friendly.

 

 

 

Now, we should be using rapport building and other non torture like means on anyone who is low level if we think we can get some useful stuff out of them. When we start talking about higher levels we need to consider less pleasant means. Waterboarding is in my opinion overboard, but methods such as mild sleep deprivation, nutritious but "cardboard" food, and uncomfortable living quarters(within reason) need to be looked into. While we have to avoid becoming worse then what we are fighting; giving up on intelligence operations is never going to be a solution.

 

 

 

We touched on this in the other topic, but I'm sure you remember

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KSM and Zubydayh or however you spell it were the mastermind of the first hijacked-airliner attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001. He then claimed to have info on an imminent attack on LA, and the CIA claimed that he was uncooperative to interrogation and responded well to torture.

 

 

 

 

In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques, says the Justice Department memo. Both KSM and Zubaydah had expressed their belief that the general US population was weak, lacked resilience, and would be unable to do what was necessary to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/A ... rcid=46949

 

 

 

 

 

HOWEVER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadnt been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

 

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

 

 

 

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

 

 

 

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasnt, or couldnt have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

 

 

 

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Ma ... logId=7022

 

 

 

Hey look, it's A HIGH RANKING TERRORIST COOPERATING WITH INTERROGATORS! HMMMMMMM

 

 

 

Oh, and that "mild" stuff you talked about is already being used, so there's that

Good that another person sees that it's torture. Ridiculous for people to think it's not.

 

 

 

Erm, it's not torture. It produces the feeling of torture, which sucks for the person being tortured,but really if the government is doing it it's for a damn good reason, and besides, there's no risk.

 

 

 

Still, good to see this guy actually went and did it instead of just being an armchair politician.

 

 

 

False claims:

 

 

 

1.) If the government is doing it for a good reason

 

2.) No risk

 

3.) Only terrorists are tortured (this came in a later statement)

 

4.) It's not torture because there's no "harm."

 

 

 

1.) The government never has a good reason to torture anyone. It produces bad information, and if the person is guilty of terrorism and we need to try them in a court, any information gained through torture is tainted. It's kind of how if you bust someone for drugs but you went in without a warrant, all of your evidence goes out the window.

 

 

 

If the court says to let them off, sorry, but they should be let off. Obama is being boxed in politically, but I don't care, and I will criticize him until he gets "indefinite detention" off of the table and tries every single one of them in a federal court.

 

 

 

2.) There is a risk: you create more terrorists, and the information you "gain" is tainted. We have 240 or so terrorists detained; Guantanamo created at minimum three times that many. A lot of terrorists say they joined the fight because of it, and Abu Ghraib. It's like the bat signal for terrorism.

 

 

 

Lastly, I want to quote you something from page 427 of General Heinz Guderian's Panzer Leader

 

 

 

During this difficult month of March many conversations took place which are sufficiently interesting to be worth preserving. Thus one evening Hitler lost his temper at the high prisoner-of-war claims that were being issued by the Western Allies. He said: 'The soldiers on the Eastern Front fight far better. The reason they give in so easily in the West is simply the fault of that stupid Geneva convention which promises them good treatment as prisoners. We must scrap the idiotic thing.' [General Alfred] Jodl contradicted this wild and senseless proposal with great energy and, with my support, succeeded in persuading Hitler to postpone taking any such step. Jodl also prevented Hitler from appointing as commander of an army group a general who had recently been punished for gross irregularity of conduct and dismissed [from] the Service.

 

 

 

Get that? Hitler knew that Geneva was hurting him, and hurting him badly. Our ability to treat our prisoners with respect and human dignity over the Russians made the Germans much more willing to surrender rather than "tough it out" and "fight to the death." Sounds kinda crazy that a guy who ran death camps saw how "damaging" Geneva was to his army. Even Hitler didn't revoke the Geneva Conventions, but Cheney and Bush did. And they're proud of it. And they stupidly think it made us safer; just like you, I assume.

 

 

 

 

 

3.) Only terrorists are tortured. I love this argument.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Mustafa_Osama_Nasr

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benyam_Mohammed

 

 

 

What about them?

 

 

 

4.) Well considering everyone else told you that there WAS harm beyond physical, we tortured beyond water boarding, and over 100 suspects have died in our custody. I wonder how they died...perhaps they were tortured to death?

 

 

 

3.) Only terrorists are tortured. I love this argument.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Mustafa_Osama_Nasr

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benyam_Mohammed

 

 

 

What about them?

 

 

 

 

 

But see, there are 100 terrists for 100 "innocent" terrists in gitmo, and the guv'ment is torturing them to make sure USA doesnt get attacked again! I mean, look at all the attacks they've prevented so far, like, uh, well ok, they can't ACTUALLY tell us about the attacks they prevent because that would ruin their investigations!

This is one of those moments in which I would truly love to speak plainly, but due to my position here I shall hold my tongue to a degree.

 

 

 

I'll say this though; The stupidity & sheer ignorance expressed by a few people is.. simply staggering, and a prime example of a major disadvantage of giving every man the vote i.e. democracy. Certain people should not be given any say, due to the obnoxious (not to mention reckless) sense of pride and justice spouting from their mouths, as it has a truly damaging affect.

 

 

 

And for your flagrant use of emotional porn, Extol, you should be first against the wall.

 

 

 

If I could go off-topic for just a second I'd just like to say that sort of thing does bug me. There are a few mods (not all) who are pretty damn good posters and have to hold back a bit on the forums because of their position. I understand why its necessary but sometimes it feels like the board loses them as good posters because they are mods even though being good posters is a factor in why they were asked to be mods in the first place.

 

 

 

We've got absolute discretion in the amount of posts we make as mods (no different to normal users), so if we ever do hold back on posting it's always our own choice to do so. I understand that it may be frustrating to see quality posters take a backseat role upon becoming a mod (due to respect, accountability, users viewing our criticism as bias etc), but I like to think that it represents a good price to pay for some quality staff.

 

 

 

Anyway, that's all I'll say on the matter of mods, as this topic is turning into quite an intelligent discussion. :thumbup:

 

 

 

Congratulations to the CIA on becoming as bad, if not worse than Al-Qaida.

 

 

 

I agree. I think it's important that the issue of a moral standpoint should never be overlooked when discussing torture, otherwise we are at risk of getting caught up in a vicious cycle - an attitude which has just been perfectly displayed by roccodog, above.

First, bravo to this guy for changing his beliefs when he knew he was wrong.

 

 

 

My stance on torture is pretty blunt: I say if we can prove they were terrorists or whatever, and have hard evidence, they deserve it. Yes, this is western thinking. Yes, it is narrow minded. Yes, to all those other arguments. But seriously, why should we be nice and civil to the bastards who want to kill us?

 

 

 

A) Congratulations on thinking like a terrorist

 

B) Because torture doesn't get any information which is one of the main reasons for gitmo?

First, bravo to this guy for changing his beliefs when he knew he was wrong.

 

 

 

My stance on torture is pretty blunt: I say if we can prove they were terrorists or whatever, and have hard evidence, they deserve it. Yes, this is western thinking. Yes, it is narrow minded. Yes, to all those other arguments. But seriously, why should we be nice and civil to the bastards who want to kill us?

 

 

 

Having morals would be a good start. Also using torture, from a purely tactical point of view, is counter-productive as it serves to recruit many more extremists who will attempt to attack and kill westerners. We can't be so easily bowed by the fear tactics of both extremists and politicians, that we go from 21st century democracies back towards the dark ages.

Thing is, people think torturing terrorists prevents attacks, it does the opposite, nothing will get people up in arms more than seeing their fellow countrymen slaughtered and tortured. Just think how riled up people get when they see a reporter or soldier killed/captured by terrorists.

 

 

 

As shwn in a quote on the last page, not torturing one suspected terrorist lead them to turn on their f beliefs about America.