US legalizes some torture, overturns hab.corp.?

[knives669]

I don't think we've started beheading people on webcam yet, so I'm not too worried.

 

 

 

Why should we give someone the right they haven't, and wouldn't give us? They don't even give their own people that right.

 

 

 

I'll admit that our government has done some things wrong in the past, but, I think that every government has done something wrong throughout the course of history. I don't think this is really anything to be worried about, and I don't really think it's wrong.

 

 

 

Compare staying awake for 16 days to your neck being sawed through while you cry, and beg for your life. The former almost seems like a slap on the wrist.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I think you all are using the word 'torture' entirely incorrectly.

 

 

 

@Mad: We don't interrogate people with coercive means to find out what they've done - these people were captured during combat. We are coercively interrogating them to find out information about plans that are being made against the US. We have stopped dozens of attacks and captured several high profile terrorists through the use of coercive interrogation. We're not trying to find out what they've done. That would be like capturing Nazis and having a trial to decide whether or not they really are the enemy. It's not like troops are just rounding up random middle easterners - these are people captured in the line of fire - these are people who have information we need to exract. And we don't torture.

 

 

 

Let's take abu-graib (I am too tired to look up the correct spelling - bear with me). That was some horrendous stuff we saw pictures of - but even THAT wasn't torture. Fraternities haze their new members worse than that in America. Is it inhumane? Quite possibly. Is it torture? No.

 

 

 

Torture is what they do to us. Torture is what they did to John McCain.

 

 

 

Here's wha I think is ridiculous. John McCain was tortured. He knows what real torture is - and for that reason - he has opposed Bush's proposals. Yet, he supports this. Why? Because he understands two things: 1) Torture is not what the American media and liberal left make you think it is and 2) We have to coercively interrogate terrorists to win this war.

 

 

 

And mad, you said that if it's good enough for Americans - it's good enough for the world. That's wrong as well. Other people are not following the same standards we are. First, you have to take into account that these people are trained to not talk under severe circumstances and we depend on them talking for the safety of our country. Just asking them questions without coercion is not going to do anything at all. I agree that there should be a universal standard of what's acceptable - but that's not reality. We are in hell right now fighting these terrorists - and to protect innocent lives, we need to coercively interrogate these people. It's not like it's some criminal who murdered a bunch of people who we have captured - and therefore stopped. These people contain information that is vital to protecting America and have been trained not to talk - we have to use severe methods of interrogation to extract that information. It's vital to protect our country.

 

 

 

Am I against torture? Yes. Am I against what the US military does? No.

 

 

 

I have a friend (family friend - he's obviously not my age..in his 30's) who has worked two terms at Guantanamo. He is passionately opposed to Bush, Republicans, and the War in Iraq. I asked him what he thinks about this torture business and what people say about Gitmo and this was his response he emailed me:

 

 

 

It's just silly, Brett. Hell - I wish I could torture those dogs. All I did was direct the loading and unloading of supplies - but I did have to walk by the cells occasional and let me tell you - we f*cking treat them like gods. And you know what they do? Spit on me. I've never even spoken to them - never even got near them - and all they do is sit there watching TVs they we give them. I don't even know why the hell we give them TVs. They sit there watching their American TVs, reading the copies of their Muslim bibles that we pay for - and they spit on me. The worst we do is make them real cold and play loud American music over the intercomm and they're cutting our guys heads off. You know, we've talked - you know I hate Bush - I hate that idiot Rumsfeld (no offence, I know you like them) - but the new york times has it all wrong. CNN, Fox News, ABC - EVERYONE has it all wrong. They haven't got a clue as to what's going on. And here's the sad part. In the middle east - they hear the new york times saying that we're torturing their guys. To them, torturing is cutting off body parts - real pain - and so they hear that and they respond in the same way to our guys. People who talk about torture and haven't a clue as to what they're saying are hurting our guys. It's a shame too because I hate this war, but that doesn't mean I want us to lose.

 

 

 

@Dusqi: We make people stay awake. They saw through our troops' necks. I don't think us taking the "high road" is going to do anything. Bill Clinton didn't do anything productive to fight terrorists - he certainly didn't authorize anything like Bush does - and yet - they still ruthlessly attacked us over and over during his reign. Taking the high road doesn't do anything when you're dealing with people who won't be satisfied until we've all been destroyed.

[mad4u689]

And mad, you said that if it's good enough for Americans - it's good enough for the world. That's wrong as well.

 

 

 

That's not what I said... or at least not what I meant. I meant that if our justice system is good enough to serve "regular" crimes in America, why not these crimes of terrorism as well? Why is terrorism put on this pedestal? Terrorism is sick, but at the heart of it, it still boils down to murder, and should be dealt with according to our legal standards as such.

 

 

 

@Mad: We don't interrogate people with coercive means to find out what they've done - these people were captured during combat. We are coercively interrogating them to find out information about plans that are being made against the US. We have stopped dozens of attacks and captured several high profile terrorists through the use of coercive interrogation. We're not trying to find out what they've done. That would be like capturing Nazis and having a trial to decide whether or not they really are the enemy. It's not like troops are just rounding up random middle easterners - these are people captured in the line of fire - these are people who have information we need to exract. And we don't torture.

 

 

 

Let's take abu-graib (I am too tired to look up the correct spelling - bear with me). That was some horrendous stuff we saw pictures of - but even THAT wasn't torture. Fraternities haze their new members worse than that in America. Is it inhumane? Quite possibly. Is it torture? No.

 

 

 

What happened in Abu Ghraib was pretty horrendous, and also not what I was referring to as torture. It is fairly equivalent to hazing; however, when the hazing is being done by government officials, there's a problem. The government has a higher obligation to standards than ordinary citizens, since they ARE the "protectors." So, while not tortue, it's still a major problem and shouldn't be allowed. However, now they're forcing officials at such prisons to go through training about understanding prison dynamics (such as information about the Stanford Prison Experiment - http://www.prisonexp.com if you're interested, because it's a very interesting experiment, and also interesting in light of your friend's comments), so they're on the right track.

 

 

 

Anyway, as for coercively interrogating people - I don't care what the purpose is, it's still wrong for the government to do. The justice system has standards of collecting evidence, and it should be followed. The CIA might or might not - we don't know, because it's top secret, and apparently not even the legislators have to know, which is also a huge problem. However, coercive interrogatoin is a violation of human rights, and even if you're trying to find out information about OTHER PEOPLE, it still doesn't justify torturing this single person without having given them a trial first! I dont' care if they were found in the wargrounds - we have a policy of innocent until proven guilty... where did that one go? And there HAVE been innocent people taken in and later released after undergoing terrible ordeals where their family wasn't even notified about their status.

 

 

 

After Nazis were captured after the war, there WERE the Nouremberg trials to try them for war crimes.

 

 

 

If you're trying to argue that you kill the Nazis in the middle of war instead of giving them a trial, then I'd be careful about comparing the "War on Terror" to the Second World War, as they're very different.

 

 

 

We make people stay awake. They saw through our troops' necks. I don't think us taking the "high road" is going to do anything. Bill Clinton didn't do anything productive to fight terrorists - he certainly didn't authorize anything like Bush does - and yet - they still ruthlessly attacked us over and over during his reign. Taking the high road doesn't do anything when you're dealing with people who won't be satisfied until we've all been destroyed.

 

And taking the low road has gotten us to such a better place?

[BlueTear]

@Mad: We don't interrogate people with coercive means to find out what they've done - these people were captured during combat. We are coercively interrogating them to find out information about plans that are being made against the US. We have stopped dozens of attacks and captured several high profile terrorists through the use of coercive interrogation. We're not trying to find out what they've done. That would be like capturing Nazis and having a trial to decide whether or not they really are the enemy. It's not like troops are just rounding up random middle easterners - these are people captured in the line of fire - these are people who have information we need to exract. And we don't torture.

 

 

 

So anyone designated an illegal combatant who ends up in, say, Gitmo, is obviously guilty of terrorists act, and the fact that they were arrested and sent there is all the proof needed of their guilt?

[DaN]

 

I agree that your average citizen, and even most hardened criminals should never be tortured, but here we're talking about a terrorist who showed no compassion whatsoever for human life. Why should we defend his human rights? When someone is responsible for the deaths and suffering of so many people, is even death really justice?

 

 

 

I dont consider 9/11 to be terrorism.

 

Its just war America killed civillians in the middle east for years and invaded countrys with no good cause killing thousands of civilians.

 

 

 

Whats the diffence how can you accuse one of being a terrorist and not the other.

 

 

 

I dont support tourture theres no excuse or reason for it this isnt the darkages altho the U.S seems to be a very backwards country.

[assassin_696]

 

I agree that your average citizen, and even most hardened criminals should never be tortured, but here we're talking about a terrorist who showed no compassion whatsoever for human life. Why should we defend his human rights? When someone is responsible for the deaths and suffering of so many people, is even death really justice?

 

 

 

I dont consider 9/11 to be terrorism.

 

Its just war America killed civillians in the middle east for years and invaded countrys with no good cause killing thousands of civilians.

 

 

 

Whats the diffence how can you accuse one of being a terrorist and not the other.

 

 

 

I dont support tourture theres no excuse or reason for it this isnt the darkages altho the U.S seems to be a very backwards country.

 

 

 

If the US had been going around killing innocent civilians in the middle east with no real justifcication then I wouldn't back down from the death penalty for those soldiers. A legitamate war shouldn't involve the deaths of citizens, and if the US really did do that then I wouldn't defend their human rights either. I'm not biased in my concept of justice.

 

 

 

But there is no possible denying that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, deliberately targeting innocent non-combatants and symbols at the heart of the western culture. Even if the US had been doing bad things in the middle east, death shouldn't be brought to those who played no direct part.

[Seahawk10490]

Honestly Mad, compared to the way terrorist treat all our captured soliders, innocents, Iraqi citizens, were a 4 start hotel! They friggin be-head them! I tihnk hazing some physco is alright if its for the defense and weel being of our Country. Wich obviously you fail to realize.

[mad4u689]

Honestly Mad, compared to the way terrorist treat all our captured soliders, innocents, Iraqi citizens, were a 4 start hotel! They friggin be-head them! I tihnk hazing some physco is alright if its for the defense and weel being of our Country. Wich obviously you fail to realize.

 

 

 

What you fail to realize is that "the terrorists" are an organization of criminals whose single goal involves creating fear and killing "us". The United States is a government which supposedly promises to protect freedom. Surely this government must be held to higher standards and be "above" this organization of terrorists!!

 

 

 

"Hazing some psycho" is a violation of basic human rights. The United States should be above that.

 

 

 

The defense and well being of our country is best protected when the United States does not sink to the level of methods of terrorists. If our country becomes worse and less free as a result of trying to protect freedom, was it worth it?

 

 

 

We're all so proud of living in America, right? That's because our country has "freedom." That is, we have a great system of laws that protects people's freedoms (thank you, Constitution!), we have a democracy, we have a fair justice system that treats everyone to a fair trial. (Before there were fair trials, governments would just kill "enemies of the state" - that is, whoever they didn't like.) If we compromise our freedom (by allowing the presidential administration to bypass the Constitution or by bypassing our beautiful fair justice system!) we are becoming more and more like the authoritarian governments we are pledging to be better than!

 

 

 

I hope you see my point :)

[dusqi]

Why should we give someone the right they haven't, and wouldn't give us? They don't even give their own people that right.

 

 

 

The human right is a just one irrespective of what "other people do". It's the old "if your friend jumped off a bridge, should you?" scenario.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compare staying awake for 16 days to your neck being sawed through while you cry, and beg for your life. The former almost seems like a slap on the wrist.

 

 

 

 

So? Both are wrong. I'd rather not have either on my conscience.

[Bubsa]

Exactly. Just because one is the lesser of two evils, it doesn't make it acceptable.

 

 

 

Ghost: You sound like you've been listening to too much Wallace and Fox.

[Seahawk10490]

How can we defend our naiton from attacks if we dont gather the nessecary itel???! Without these interrorgation techinques these terrorist wont talk!

[Guest GhostRanger]

Exactly. Just because one is the lesser of two evils, it doesn't make it acceptable.

 

 

 

Ghost: You sound like you've been listening to too much Wallace and Fox.

 

 

 

I haven't had much time to watch FOX since school started back up... kind of sad.. :cry:

 

 

 

@Mad: We're just going to disagree about this human rights violation thing. To me, I'd rather stop 9/11 from happening again even if it means making someone stay awake for 16 hours. You asked me if we're better off now - yes. Last time I checked, since Bush's national security measures have been put into effect we haven't been attacked. That, to me, is better off.

 

 

 

You brought up the Nuremberg trials. I think those types of trials are a great idea. After we achieved victory, we released almost all of the POW's we had taken and we tried the high ranking officials. I think that is something we should do - after we achieve victory. We're still in the middle of this war, it's not a time for things like that quite yet. Right now we need to focus on winning.

 

 

 

@BlueTear: Enemy combatants who are captured on the battlefield are automatically prisoners of war. That's how it works.

[mad4u689]

 

@Mad: We're just going to disagree about this human rights violation thing.

 

 

 

Alright :) I respect your opinion as fairly consistent, just different from my own :D

[speedofsound]

Protest at boston commons in Boston, Massachusetts tommorow, some mates of mine are goin.

[Seahawk10490]

Bah, I hope they turn the hose on you. Civil Disrest almost always ends up bad.

[Oy_the_Great]

I can't believe some people even try to jusitify this holocaust copy. What's next? Killing them because they don't admit? Stopping the mentally and physically weak from getting meds because that's not the way 'God wanted it to be'?

[BlueTear]

 

@BlueTear: Enemy combatants who are captured on the battlefield are automatically prisoners of war. That's how it works.

 

 

 

That's sidestepping the actual question a bit, don't you think? Yes, enemies captured fullfilling the definitions set forth in the Geneva convention are classified as enemy combatants. I asked specifically about illegal combatants sent to Gitmo though, and 'illegal combatant' and 'prisoner of war' are mutually exclusive; You're either one or the other.

 

 

 

So, let's rephrase it a bit; Is everyone captured - whereever - and sent to Guantanomo guilty of terrorist acts and should be detained for that reason? Is there no question as to their guilt? Can you really say that being detained and put into a camp is all the proof needed that "coercive questioning" is only to be used to extract further information?

[dusqi]

@Mad: We're just going to disagree about this human rights violation thing. To me, I'd rather stop 9/11 from happening again even if it means making someone stay awake for 16 hours. You asked me if we're better off now - yes. Last time I checked, since Bush's national security measures have been put into effect we haven't been attacked. That, to me, is better off.

 

 

 

16 days*

[DaN]

 

What you fail to realize is that "the terrorists" are an organization of criminals whose single goal involves creating fear and killing "us". The United States is a government which supposedly promises to protect freedom. Surely this government must be held to higher standards and be "above" this organization of terrorists!!

 

 

 

 

The US Goverment is creating the fear Osama can sit back and enjoy a beer his work is done.

 

 

 

The Anti-Terror laws can be acts of terrorism once the goverment start removing our freedoms which is all the laws do

 

 

 

Terrorists and goverments have a common goa despite being adversarys (or are they)

[____]

I was under the impression that a human could die from lack of sleep faster than starvation - and the assumed time for starvation is 2 weeks.

[Seahawk10490]

Fine you people say its wrong then answer my damn quesiton.

 

How can we gather the nesseceary intel to defend our nation if we cant use the only interogation techniuqes that work!?

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

@BlueTear: Enemy combatants who are captured on the battlefield are automatically prisoners of war. That's how it works.

 

 

 

That's sidestepping the actual question a bit, don't you think? Yes, enemies captured fullfilling the definitions set forth in the Geneva convention are classified as enemy combatants. I asked specifically about illegal combatants sent to Gitmo though, and 'illegal combatant' and 'prisoner of war' are mutually exclusive; You're either one or the other.

 

 

 

So, let's rephrase it a bit; Is everyone captured - whereever - and sent to Guantanomo guilty of terrorist acts and should be detained for that reason? Is there no question as to their guilt? Can you really say that being detained and put into a camp is all the proof needed that "coercive questioning" is only to be used to extract further information?

 

 

 

Sorry, thought it was answering your question plainly - but I'll say it simpler:

 

 

 

Q: Is everyone captured - whereever - and sent to Guantanomo guilty of terrorist acts and should be detained for that reason?

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: Is there no question as to their guilt?

 

A: No.

 

Q: Can you really say that being detained and put into a camp is all the proof needed that "coercive questioning" is only to be used to extract further information?

 

A: No.

[Necromagus]

Fine you people say its wrong then answer my damn quesiton.

 

How can we gather the nesseceary intel to defend our nation if we cant use the only interogation techniuqes that work!?

Hrm... I'm going to take a guess here and say that people aren't answering your questions because you type them out like a drunken chimpanzee.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'll tell you why the US shouldn't resort to interrogation methods that can be considered torture. The whole reason for this war is that terrorists threaten the 'American way of life'. This 'American way of life' is centered around some very basic principles, most of which have been recorded in the constitution. Now, from what I understand, the US was at one time supposed to be a refuge (something about tired, poor and huddled masses) for people who are opressed for any reason at all. Land of the free and all that. When you throw those principles out the window like congress has done now, you don't need terrorists attacking your 'American way of life', as you've effectively abolished them yourself.

[Oy_the_Great]

I was under the impression that a human could die from lack of sleep faster than starvation - and the assumed time for starvation is 2 weeks.

 

 

 

Yep. Tests on cats have resulted in peculiar results. The cats were woken up every 5 minutes when they fell asleep and due to a lack of sleep (and dreaming) they first became insane, then died.

 

btw, you can suffer starvation for over a hundred days if you have sufficient liquids to drink. There are people who were stuck in the ocean on a raft and survived over half a year with only purified water, no food whatsoever.

[Guest GhostRanger]

btw, you can suffer starvation for over a hundred days if you have sufficient liquids to drink. There are people who were stuck in the ocean on a raft and survived over half a year with only purified water, no food whatsoever.

 

 

 

Woah..that's pretty cool. Links to any stories about it? That's fascinating...