That document does include cases of actual torture, I'm not denying that. I'm simply pointing out that some of the things I am hearing outrage over are not worthy of the same outrage as the heinous acts that resulted in prisoners being strangled or heavily beaten before dieing.
I would like to know what methods you would prefer we use to extract information form captured terrorists.
Steve, this person had a phobia concerning insects. Of course it would be torture to place him in a confinement box with insects.
For example, Winston in room 101 in "1984".
Exactly. As far as I remember, they didn't have to actually use this torture on Winston. Just the threat was enough to make him betray Julia.
I would like to know what methods you would prefer we use to extract information form captured terrorists.
From your tone, it sounds as though you think that we should either torture suspected terrorists or set them free. You've already come out as an advocate for slavery. Are you now advocating torture as well? You've made light of things many people agree constitute torture. How far do you think interrogators should be allowed to go with "harsh interrogations"?
The President is one sneaky sucker. If he had openly pursued investigation, he would have been attacked as a partisan politician seeking revenge. Instead he says, make nice, look forward, IÂ’m not about retribution.
Twist my arm, make me do this. I donÂ’t want to but the law says I gots to.
Exactly. As far as I remember, they didn't have to actually use this torture on Winston. Just the threat was enough to make him betray Julia.
Well, though they didn't actuality release the creatures on him or put him in a room full of them, it was a similar concept. The difference is that they tortured him with the proximity and threat of it before they were going to release them onto him - he just broke before they did.
From your tone, it sounds as though you think that we should either torture suspected terrorists or set them free. You've already come out as an advocate for slavery. Are you now advocating torture as well? You've made light of things many people agree constitute torture. How far do you think interrogators should be allowed to go with "harsh interrogations"?
Making assumptions based on my "tone" has never led anywhere productive.
You didn't even answer the question either.
Also, the "Boo Box" was authorized but never used.
You're alleging they are terrorists. That's an accusation; the defendant is entitled to due process. To detain them without due process is unconstitutional. Before you start torturing them with water, bugs, thumbscrews, or peeling their eyelids back and forcing them to read your posts, they should have the evidence against them weighed by a jury of their peers.
You're alleging they are terrorists. That's an accusation; the defendant is entitled to due process. To detain them without due process is unconstitutional. Before you start torturing them with water, bugs, thumbscrews, or peeling their eyelids back and forcing them to read your posts, they should have the evidence against them weighed by a jury of their peers.
I allege nothing Jason. Please don't make the mistake of assuming things.
I would like to know what methods you would prefer we use to extract information form captured terrorists.
I would like to know what methods you would prefer we use to extract information form captured terrorists.
You alleged they are captured terrorists.
Alleged implies their status is not 100% known. I am referring to people who we are 100% certain to be terrorists.
I do not allege (accused but not proven or convicted) these people to be terrorists but instead state it as a point of fact that they are terrorists. To rephrase my question to keep it from becoming a semantic argument I'll rephrase my question:
I would like to know what methods you would prefer we use to extract information from persons captured who have been proven beyond all shadows of doubt to be terrorists.
Alleged implies their status is not 100% known. I am referring to people who we are 100% certain to be terrorists.
How can you be 100% sure anyone is a terrorist? You can't. You can, however, be sure someone is a terrorist beyond a reasonable doubt. How do you establish the fact that they are a terrorist, beyond a reasonable doubt? A fair trial.
Then, and only then, when you are sure beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of acts of terrorism, does it become ok to relieve a person of their rights, and use legal and practical interrogation methods to extract information from them.
You might say that isn't efficient. That we're putting ourselves in more danger by giving these terrorists their rights. You know what, I agree. We probably could just use our most effective interrogation methods right off the bat to get more info and be safer in cases where we are pretty sure someone is a terrorist. But you know what? We're the good guys, or at least I am. And good guys aren't cowards who are afraid of a little extra danger, or even a lot of extra danger. We do things the right way, even if it means risking life and limb. That's what separates courageous heros who everyone loves from spineless cowards who everyone hates.
Which one are you? Are you such a coward that you will throw away all morals and ethics, even going so far as to torture human beings, just to insure a little bit more safety for yourself? Or are you a hero, willing to do things the right way, even at great personal risk?
If you aren't sure which one you are, answer this question. Would you go to an airport with absolutely no security?
I would like to know what methods you would prefer we use to extract information form captured terrorists.
You alleged they are captured terrorists.
shadows of doubt
I believe the phrase for which you are looking is "beyond a reasonable doubt." We have a procedure for doing that in this country. It's not perfect, but it's fair. You should look into it some time.
Alleged implies their status is not 100% known. I am referring to people who we are 100% certain to be terrorists.
How can you be 100% sure anyone is a terrorist? You can't. You can, however, be sure someone is a terrorist beyond a reasonable doubt. How do you establish the fact that they are a terrorist, beyond a reasonable doubt? A fair trial.
Video footage of the person cutting heads off would not make you 100% sure they are a terrorist? Audio tapes of them claiming to be a member of a terrorist group would not make you 100% sure they are a terrorist? Catching them with a suicide belt on would not convince you that they are a terrorist?
What I am seeing here is a mentality that terrorism is a law enforcement issue. Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like most of you fall into that camp.
What I am seeing here is a mentality that terrorism is a law enforcement issue.
What makes terrorism a military issue?
I did not say it was one.
What else could it be that would justify denying someone the right to a fair trial? The only exceptions we make in this country are for military issues.
And for the record, seeing someone on a videotape beheading someone, and then seeing the beheader in person, is not necessarily sufficient evidence to find them guilty of the beheading. You do understand that, right?
Let's say that dealing with terrorism is a military thing. Let's say that it is a real, declared war. And let's even say that means that these people are POWs who shouldn't get trials. Let's assume all that, hypothetically.
Even in that situation, torture violates the Geneva Convention. Prosecuting those who violated it should be a matter for the world court.
In other words, if you don't give these people trials, you'll soon be looking at a trial of your own.
Hostis humani generis (Latin for "enemy of mankind") is a legal term of art, originating from the admiralty law, and referring to the peculiar status, before the public international law, of maritime pirates, since time immemorial, and slavers, since the 18th century. It is also used in the present to describe the status of torturers.
Then we would simply be turning more people into Hostis humani generis in trying to deal with them. Nothing in the legal implications of that status gives you the right to commit torture. In fact, you join their ranks by committing torture upon them.
If terrorists were declared to possess this status, as I see it (and I'm not a lawyer), all that this means is that we can the legal right of rendition (I.E. Grabbing them) to bring them to trial, in addition to making it the duty of the world to do the same. If these are such bad people, we should be able to prove it in a court of law, then we can exact a punishment that fits the crime.
Honestly, I think this was probably a bad thought to bring up (at least to argue your point, I think it reinforces the torture is bad point even more). I see just as much reason for this status to be applied to anyone in the previous administration that is involved in this.
Personally, on the whole issue of torture, I have to say it's inhumane. It's wrong. It's hitting a person until they give you what you need. Of course there are circumstances where it seems justifiable, but who draws the line on this? Is torture only okay when other lives are at stake? For our country's safety? I believe the United States is one of the most hypocritical countries in the world. If we are going to use torture, we can't scream and say "that's wrong!" when another country uses it on us.
A theoretical example, the press tells us American citizens are being tortured in Iraq. The public instantly is in an uproar over "acts of inhumanity" and "pure evil". But when we use torture to help save America, it's okay? Torture is a military tactic, and should be seen as such, as is terrorism. Military tactics are never humane or okay, but we still use them.
Torture is a military tactic, and should be seen as such, as is terrorism.
Torture is not a military tactic. Anyone can torture anyone else, and has been shown in the past to have been used by non-military groups (such as the Spanish Inquisition). In fact, the majority of torture that is carried out today is carried out by either private contractors or government agencies (i.e. the CIA/NSA).
Military tactics are never humane or okay, but we still use them.
Torture is a military tactic, and should be seen as such, as is terrorism.
tactics: "Tactics – (Department Of Defense) 1. The employment of units in combat. 2. The ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other and/or to the enemy in order to use their full potentialities. (Army) The employment of units in combat. It includes the ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other, the terrain, and the enemy in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements.
What does this even mean?
Apparently, Moving your troops about the place is somehow just plain wrong. Either that, or it's utter nonsense. I'm leaning towards the latter.
A theoretical example, the press tells us American citizens are being tortured in Iraq. The public instantly is in an uproar over "acts of inhumanity" and "pure evil". But when we use torture to help save America, it's okay? Torture is a military tactic, and should be seen as such, as is terrorism. Military tactics are never humane or okay, but we still use them.
Are you trying to show a moral equivalence between torturing that involves physical mutilation and beheading with slamming someone up against a wall or locking them in a confined space?
Are you trying to show a moral equivalence between torturing that involves physical mutilation and beheading with slamming someone up against a wall or locking them in a confined space?
No. I'm saying that we can't exactly define what is "moral and okay". If you start saying torture is wrong, it's like saying war is wrong. In the end, we're still going out and shooting people over what we believe is right. Torture is somewhat the same concept. We're hurting people for "the greater good". I'm specifically speaking about torture used in the military.
I'm not really fighting for either side that torture should or shouldn't be used, I'm merely pointing out that it's all a matter of perspective on what you believe is wrong and right. I just think it's funny when people argue that torture is completely wrong yet whole-heartedly support a war. It seems like an ironic paradox to me.
Are you trying to show a moral equivalence between torturing that involves physical mutilation and beheading with slamming someone up against a wall or locking them in a confined space?
Would you do it to a dog?
Many people do lock their dogs in a small confined space. There is a whole market out there that specializes in dog cages.
This one is called a "puppy playpen". I don't know how much playing will go on in this cage...
Comments
I would like to know what methods you would prefer we use to extract information form captured terrorists.
The Obama administration may be in violation of international law by its refusal to prosecute the torturers. One of the comments to this article is very interesting, and I've begun to suspect something of the sort, but I have not yet been able to enunciate it as clearly as the commenter: Is Obama that clever?
You didn't even answer the question either.
Also, the "Boo Box" was authorized but never used.
I do not allege (accused but not proven or convicted) these people to be terrorists but instead state it as a point of fact that they are terrorists. To rephrase my question to keep it from becoming a semantic argument I'll rephrase my question:
I would like to know what methods you would prefer we use to extract information from persons captured who have been proven beyond all shadows of doubt to be terrorists.
Then, and only then, when you are sure beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of acts of terrorism, does it become ok to relieve a person of their rights, and use legal and practical interrogation methods to extract information from them.
You might say that isn't efficient. That we're putting ourselves in more danger by giving these terrorists their rights. You know what, I agree. We probably could just use our most effective interrogation methods right off the bat to get more info and be safer in cases where we are pretty sure someone is a terrorist. But you know what? We're the good guys, or at least I am. And good guys aren't cowards who are afraid of a little extra danger, or even a lot of extra danger. We do things the right way, even if it means risking life and limb. That's what separates courageous heros who everyone loves from spineless cowards who everyone hates.
Which one are you? Are you such a coward that you will throw away all morals and ethics, even going so far as to torture human beings, just to insure a little bit more safety for yourself? Or are you a hero, willing to do things the right way, even at great personal risk?
If you aren't sure which one you are, answer this question. Would you go to an airport with absolutely no security?
What I am seeing here is a mentality that terrorism is a law enforcement issue. Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like most of you fall into that camp.
And for the record, seeing someone on a videotape beheading someone, and then seeing the beheader in person, is not necessarily sufficient evidence to find them guilty of the beheading. You do understand that, right?
Even in that situation, torture violates the Geneva Convention. Prosecuting those who violated it should be a matter for the world court.
In other words, if you don't give these people trials, you'll soon be looking at a trial of your own.
If terrorists were declared to possess this status, as I see it (and I'm not a lawyer), all that this means is that we can the legal right of rendition (I.E. Grabbing them) to bring them to trial, in addition to making it the duty of the world to do the same. If these are such bad people, we should be able to prove it in a court of law, then we can exact a punishment that fits the crime.
Honestly, I think this was probably a bad thought to bring up (at least to argue your point, I think it reinforces the torture is bad point even more). I see just as much reason for this status to be applied to anyone in the previous administration that is involved in this.
A theoretical example, the press tells us American citizens are being tortured in Iraq. The public instantly is in an uproar over "acts of inhumanity" and "pure evil". But when we use torture to help save America, it's okay? Torture is a military tactic, and should be seen as such, as is terrorism. Military tactics are never humane or okay, but we still use them.
I'm not really fighting for either side that torture should or shouldn't be used, I'm merely pointing out that it's all a matter of perspective on what you believe is wrong and right. I just think it's funny when people argue that torture is completely wrong yet whole-heartedly support a war. It seems like an ironic paradox to me.
This one is called a "puppy playpen". I don't know how much playing will go on in this cage...