Bush: "We Do Not Torture"

[kumquatq3]

Poland, Romania, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand.....God knows where else

 

I'll be waiting for your post where you pick apart these country individually for allowing this to occur

 

Funny how you have an issue with torturing captured enemy prisoners, but your thoughts on civilians seem to be different:

 

As for the rioters, they should be cut down effectively and immediately using riot police and national guard/army because they're nothing but savages, thugs and criminals

 

That only shows they're primitives and should be dealt with 'primitive' means (brute force) as any negotiation with them is impossible

 

I guess blowing up a market place or a bus is better than burning a car

 

or maybe by "brute force" you meant 'distribution of candy'

Edited November 8, 2005 by kumquatq3

[kumquatq3]

Look: The vast majority of Congressmen look to be ready to pass this.

 

Lets not forget that.

 

It's the Bush administration which doesn't want it to pass.

[LoneWolf16]

But Hades is making it seem like torture is a routine policy of the U.S.  The fact that these soldiers get arrested in the first place for it, and the public outcry they face as well, should make our stance clear, shouldn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a little naive, don't you think?

 

The consensus among soldiers charged and convicted, is that the actions they took were permitted, and in some cases, rewarded by higher ranking persons...who've yet to be charged.

 

You really believe that our government won't allow torture just because the people disapprove? So long as we don't know about it...it will continue.

 

Abu Ghraib isn't a singular incident...and honestly, you can't tell me that it wouldn't still be going on, as I type, if the media hadn't gotten a hold of it in the first place.

[metadigital]

It's possible the entire Abu Gahib incident was caused by that redneck (general?) who was parachuted in from Camp Delta (where similar bullying is routine, and the US military's own muslim cleric was interned on suspicion of fraternisation).

 

Possibly his "end justifies the means" approach was not condoned by politicans (even if the results were).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That's a little naive, don't you think?

 

The consensus among soldiers charged and convicted, is that the actions they took were permitted, and in some cases, rewarded by higher ranking persons...who've yet to be charged.

 

You really believe that our government won't allow torture just because the people disapprove? So long as we don't know about it...it will continue.

 

Abu Ghraib isn't a singular incident...and honestly, you can't tell me that it wouldn't still be going on, as I type, if the media hadn't gotten a hold of it in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not particularly.

 

Not uncommon for people caught doing a crime to try to shift the blame onto someone else.

 

In some circumstances. Such as if torturing someone would prevent another 9/11 but then what would be your call in that situation ? But we are back to the definition of torture again. I don't see them hooking peoples nuts to car batteries, or pulling their finger nails out with pliers for example. Or hacking off their ears (something Saddams regime routinely did).

 

Since the army is made up of people and with people your going to get good and bad soldiers. All you can do is make sure the incidents are dealt with when they come to light.

[Commissar]

That's a little naive, don't you think?

 

The consensus among soldiers charged and convicted, is that the actions they took were permitted, and in some cases, rewarded by higher ranking persons...who've yet to be charged.

 

You really believe that our government won't allow torture just because the people disapprove? So long as we don't know about it...it will continue.

 

Abu Ghraib isn't a singular incident...and honestly, you can't tell me that it wouldn't still be going on, as I type, if the media hadn't gotten a hold of it in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not particularly.

 

Not uncommon for people caught doing a crime to try to shift the blame onto someone else.

 

In some circumstances. Such as if torturing someone would prevent another 9/11 but then what would be your call in that situation ? But we are back to the definition of torture again. I don't see them hooking peoples nuts to car batteries, or pulling their finger nails out with pliers for example. Or hacking off their ears (something Saddams regime routinely did).

 

Since the army is made up of people and with people your going to get good and bad soldiers. All you can do is make sure the incidents are dealt with when they come to light.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've said it before, I'm a hundred percent certain that they waterboard. And that's never a good time.

[Darth Launch]

Not particularly.

 

Not uncommon for people caught doing a crime to try to shift the blame onto someone else.

 

In some circumstances. Such as if torturing someone would prevent another 9/11 but then what would be your call in that situation ? But we are back to the definition of torture again. I don't see them hooking peoples nuts to car batteries, or pulling their finger nails out with pliers for example. Or hacking off their ears (something Saddams regime routinely did).

 

Since the army is made up of people and with people your going to get good and bad soldiers. All you can do is make sure the incidents are dealt with when they come to light.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How would torturing someone prevent another 9/11? The same "logic" goes for capital punishment, which in no way prevents murders, rapes or other atrocious crimes occurring in America

 

DL

[Commissar]

Not particularly.

 

Not uncommon for people caught doing a crime to try to shift the blame onto someone else.

 

In some circumstances. Such as if torturing someone would prevent another 9/11 but then what would be your call in that situation ? But we are back to the definition of torture again. I don't see them hooking peoples nuts to car batteries, or pulling their finger nails out with pliers for example. Or hacking off their ears (something Saddams regime routinely did).

 

Since the army is made up of people and with people your going to get good and bad soldiers. All you can do is make sure the incidents are dealt with when they come to light.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How would torturing someone prevent another 9/11? The same "logic" goes for capital punishment, which in no way prevents murders, rapes or other atrocious crimes occurring in America

 

DL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if we captured someone who had crucial information to preventing another 9/11...like, the planes are in the air, and he knows the flight numbers...that sort of thing.

[LoneWolf16]

Not particularly.

 

Not uncommon for people caught doing a crime to try to shift the blame onto someone else.

 

In some circumstances. Such as if torturing someone would prevent another 9/11 but then what would be your call in that situation ? But we are back to the definition of torture again. I don't see them hooking peoples nuts to car batteries, or pulling their finger nails out with pliers for example. Or hacking off their ears (something Saddams regime routinely did).

 

Since the army is made up of people and with people your going to get good and bad soldiers. All you can do is make sure the incidents are dealt with when they come to light.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How so?

 

The higher ups have been doing precisely that by constantly claiming "these soldiers acted alone, we weren't involved...nope...not us...not at all". I happen to trust the average grunt more than I do their commanders.

 

That's a slippery slope...but so long as the examples you cited aren't employed by U.S. forces...I'm fine.

 

You also get good and bad commanding officers (The Commander in Chief is included).

[metadigital]

Not particularly.

 

Not uncommon for people caught doing a crime to try to shift the blame onto someone else.

 

In some circumstances. Such as if torturing someone would prevent another 9/11 but then what would be your call in that situation ? But we are back to the definition of torture again. I don't see them hooking peoples nuts to car batteries, or pulling their finger nails out with pliers for example. Or hacking off their ears (something Saddams regime routinely did).

 

Since the army is made up of people and with people your going to get good and bad soldiers. All you can do is make sure the incidents are dealt with when they come to light.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How would torturing someone prevent another 9/11? The same "logic" goes for capital punishment, which in no way prevents murders, rapes or other atrocious crimes occurring in America

 

DL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... It would work if they applied it more rigorously and broadly ... "

[Darth Launch]

Well, if we captured someone who had crucial information to preventing another 9/11...like, the planes are in the air, and he knows the flight numbers...that sort of thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm... not convinced... would you really trust what a fundamentalist nutjob said about their plans? And surely such information isn't shared with the smaller, less-nutty fundamentalists in order to prevent such information from being revealed?

 

DL

[kumquatq3]

Well, if we captured someone who had crucial information to preventing another 9/11...like, the planes are in the air, and he knows the flight numbers...that sort of thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

agreed

 

but something like that should take an executive order.

 

If the president isn't prepared to order it himself, it's not important enough of a situation

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

How would torturing someone prevent another 9/11? The same "logic" goes for capital punishment, which in no way prevents murders, rapes or other atrocious crimes occurring in America

 

DL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Find out the flight number, identity of the co conspiritors etc.

 

It's not the same thing. If you broke the person you would be able to prevent the operation (even if it meant shooting down the hijacked plane).

 

You couldnt torture someone just in the hopes you found something out though. Only regimes like the one Saddam was in charge of routinely do that .

 

Personally I have a real problem with making anything suffer. So even if those were the stakes I probably couldnt do it. Wouldnt have a problem shooting them though as long as it was legal and justified.

[Dark Moth]

Well, yes. I doubt the government would allow torture, especially since we're supposed to be on the higher moral platform. People will yell at us first before they yell at terrorists for torturing individuals. And Abu Graib was discovered by the press, but what about the other torture scenarios that were taken care of before the press got hold of it? As I've said, torture is generally the exception, not the rule.

 

But that's where we run into a problem. How does one define torture? Torture is generally denoted as an act that leads to physical and/or mental injury or harm. The connotation of torture might differ from person to person, however. Most people seem to agree that stripping men naked and humiliating them is torture. Would holding a barking, snarling dog to a prisoner be considered torture, if it means getting information out of a terrorist? What about keeping a prisoner from sleeping? Would that be torture?

 

I read something about what some terrorists have said about some of our prison facilities (Guantanamo). According to one terrorist, they mocked the way our prisons treated them so, well, humanely. His words were basically that the prison wasn't a torture chamber, that it hadn't broken him in any way, and that they could wait them out until they were released if they had to. And don't think I'm saying we should treat them inhumanely, I'm just trying to point out that these people can and will take advantage of the fact that we're supposed to be the "good guys". here it is

Edited November 8, 2005 by Mothman

[Plano Skywalker]

I don't think Abu Gahib was about getting information...it was more of a sadistic psychological warfare.

 

The "black sites" are, supposedly, CIA, which means they are primarily there to get information. I doubt there is actual "torture" going on.....sleep deprivation, drugs, positive rewards for cooperating (hot babe rubbing you down with oil) would, I think, get you more and better information than torture.

[Commissar]

Well, if we captured someone who had crucial information to preventing another 9/11...like, the planes are in the air, and he knows the flight numbers...that sort of thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm... not convinced... would you really trust what a fundamentalist nutjob said about their plans? And surely such information isn't shared with the smaller, less-nutty fundamentalists in order to prevent such information from being revealed?

 

DL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's McCain's argument, that torture doesn't provide accurate information.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

How so?

 

The higher ups have been doing precisely that by constantly claiming "these soldiers acted alone, we weren't involved...nope...not us...not at all". I happen to trust the average grunt more than I do their commanders.

 

That's a slippery slope...but so long as the examples you cited aren't employed by U.S. forces...I'm fine.

 

You also get good and bad commanding officers (The Commander in Chief is included). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is nothing to indicate that this sort of thing is widespread so believing them to be isolated incidents isnt naive. Actually the one of pictures in the UK tabloids turned out to be fake too.

 

Yes they should be thankful they are not being tortured by the old regime. But like I said there are many definitions of torture. Sleep deprevation is classed as a form of torture for example. But it's not quite in the same league as a car battery to the nuts.

 

Your going to find bad commanders too, thats inevitable. However the idea that the president gets his jollies ordering that sort of stuff dosnt make sense.

[LoneWolf16]

I don't think Abu Gahib was about getting information...it was more of a sadistic psychological warfare.

 

The "black sites" are, supposedly, CIA, which means they are primarily there to get information.  I doubt there is actual "torture" going on.....sleep deprivation, drugs, positive rewards for cooperating (hot babe rubbing you down with oil) would, I think, get you more and better information than torture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm...I need to get government altering information. That type of "torture" is right up my alley.

[Dark Moth]

Well, if we captured someone who had crucial information to preventing another 9/11...like, the planes are in the air, and he knows the flight numbers...that sort of thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm... not convinced... would you really trust what a fundamentalist nutjob said about their plans? And surely such information isn't shared with the smaller, less-nutty fundamentalists in order to prevent such information from being revealed?

 

DL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe, maybe not. I think it'd be a whole lot worse if we just made no attempt whatsoever, don't you think? And if questioning (not necessarily torture) never brought answers, what makes you think they'd still do it? It can't hurt to try.

[Commissar]

I don't think Abu Gahib was about getting information...it was more of a sadistic psychological warfare.

 

The "black sites" are, supposedly, CIA, which means they are primarily there to get information.  I doubt there is actual "torture" going on.....sleep deprivation, drugs, positive rewards for cooperating (hot babe rubbing you down with oil) would, I think, get you more and better information than torture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guarantee you there is torture going on.

 

Look at it this way: we run survival schools attended by various billets in the military. Our pilots, some of our intel guys, our super secret squirrels...every single class, somebody either quits or gives up information they're not supposed to give up. And this is in an environment where they know that it's just a school. Draw your own conclusions, but the guys running these things are some of the ones advising on how to interrogate detainees.

[Darth Launch]

That's McCain's argument, that torture doesn't provide accurate information.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I don't believe it's effective... nor humane on any level

 

DL

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

positive rewards for cooperating (hot babe rubbing you down with oil) would, I think, get you more and better information than torture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd be suprised if there wasnt a queu half way around the block.

[LoneWolf16]

Yes they should be thankful they are not being tortured by the old regime. But like I said there are many definitions of torture. Sleep deprevation is classed as a form of torture for example. But it's not quite in the same league as a car battery to the nuts.

 

Your going to find bad commanders too, thats inevitable. However the idea that the president gets his jollies ordering that sort of stuff dosnt make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never disagreed with you on the former, and when did I claim the latter?

 

Just because he knows about it, doesn't mean he enjoys it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I guarantee you there is torture going on.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

By the broad definition members of the armed forces are routinely tortured. I think they call it training.

[Plano Skywalker]

I guarantee you there is torture going on.

 

Look at it this way: we run survival schools attended by various billets in the military.  Our pilots, some of our intel guys, our super secret squirrels...every single class, somebody either quits or gives up information they're not supposed to give up.  And this is in an environment where they know that it's just a school.  Draw your own conclusions, but the guys running these things are some of the ones advising on how to interrogate detainees.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

oh, they are extracting information and possibly violating international treaties by doing so....I was just suggesting that old school torture is now known to be less effective than other ways of getting good information.