PDA

View Full Version : a few comments about torture



hondo
05-21-2008, 05:22 PM
When I watch 24 and Jack is about to torture someone I
know is guilty to save thousands of lives, I'm all for it.
A couple of times he started to mistakenly torture somebody who the viewers knew wasn't guilty and it was pretty upsetting to watch.
I think this is what makes me nervous about us doing it for real.
Are we only torturing terrorists?
Where are the safeguards? How can we be sure?
What if several innocent people are being tortured?
Have we come to that in America?

Also, what if somebody I love is captured and is being wrongly tortured in another country? Would my country have the right to demand that this stop after what we have done?
Questions about justice for all emerge here.

All that being said, I still feel uncomfortable raising hell about things that we are basically uninformed about and
drawing more criticism to our nation.
Should we be doing that?
Are we to assume that our government is evil and doing terrible things to innocent people? Have we come to that?

To most on here the answers seem cut and dry.
The libs condemn it; the cons support it.
To me, it's just not that easy.
If we are saving American lives by torturing a terrorist, I say torture the bastard.
If we are torturing innocent people, I say stop.

How do we know the truth?

nAz
05-21-2008, 06:40 PM
well Hondo I feel like you do about this... like probably most of us here do, but i wonder what happened to “Innocent until proven guilty” does that apply to U.S. born citizens only? who is to decide when torture is acceptable if ever?

maybe a solution to this is to have everyone who is for torture to be exposed to it first before sighing off on it, and all those found to be innocent afterwards should automatically award some obscene amount of money.

LWW
05-22-2008, 06:42 AM
Well, it has only happened with 3 perps ... the dems decrying it the loudest in public were in on it in private and wanted harsher measures BTW ... and it saved lives each time.

The idea that we are torturing people willy nilly is unfounded and disproven many times.

To make the claims of torture stick, many on the left have defined torture as:

- Being made to stand in the corner.
- Having fingers poked in their chests.
- Being yelled at.
- Being made to watch videos about the lives of the people they killed.
- Being made to listen to the Star Spangled Banner.

so, yes, I', pretty sure that most if not all of us who support Gitmo have endured far worse.

LWW

LWW
05-22-2008, 06:43 AM
BTW, Jack and the torture kit with a torture expert being on call 24/7 is TV and not to be confused with reality, although some do anyway.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-22-2008, 10:03 AM
Torture is never acceptable. It does not provide accurate intelligence. Every national security advisor, including former Republican National Security Advisors, the Military, the FBI, Generals, you name it, there is an outcry against our use of torture.

It is a true shame that at a time when our future is at such peril, Americans spend so little time watching the testimony live, and reading books which have been written by former Generals and Secretaries of State, and National Security Advisors, and their statements on this site are a commentary of how little time and attention that they are spending finding the truth. We cannot afford to live with them in a stqate of denial, at a time like this.

Gayle in Md.

Bush put these methods through. That has been documented, and yet we have to put up with the right denying that it took place, or that he had anything to do with it.

It has damaged our country, and put our own people at greater risk. It is inhumane, and pointless. It achieves nothing of value, and Bush has been caught lying about having used it. to try to justify its use by pointing to the methods of the very terrorist barbarics who use torture, makes us no better than they are. It is a matter of conducting our foreign affairs in was that do not defeat our best interests.

I don't understand how people can say they are for torture, and at the same time, think that they hold the high moral ground.

Gayle in Md.

hondo
05-22-2008, 04:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, Jack and the torture kit with a torture expert being on call 24/7 is TV and not to be confused with reality, although some do anyway.

LWW </div></div>

Really! You mean a drama series on t.v. isn't real life?
Gee, thanks, buddy. You're the bestus.

Vapros
05-23-2008, 07:18 AM
Some of our posters here are being pretty naive. We can agree that torture of the wrong people is a terrible thing, and should be avoided. On the other hand, war is war, and you can't afford to spot your enemy the six and the last four, as he will eat your lunch every time. The public does not need to know everything being done in pursuit of a win. They can't handle it, as we see here.

Let's face it. We eat a lot of things we would not want to see prepared for us, and we win a lot of wars we would not enjoy seeing fought. Render unto Caesar, etc.

cheesemouse
05-23-2008, 07:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Torture is never acceptable. It does not provide accurate intelligence. Every national security advisor, including former Republican National Security Advisors, the Military, the FBI, Generals, you name it, there is an outcry against our use of torture.

It is a true shame that at a time when our future is at such peril, Americans spend so little time watching the testimony live, and reading books which have been written by former Generals and Secretaries of State, and National Security Advisors, and their statements on this site are a commentary of how little time and attention that they are spending finding the truth. We cannot afford to live with them in a stqate of denial, at a time like this.

Gayle in Md.

Bush put these methods through. That has been documented, and yet we have to put up with the right denying that it took place, or that he had anything to do with it.

It has damaged our country, and put our own people at greater risk. It is inhumane, and pointless. It achieves nothing of value, and Bush has been caught lying about having used it. to try to justify its use by pointing to the methods of the very terrorist barbarics who use torture, makes us no better than they are. It is a matter of conducting our foreign affairs in was that do not defeat our best interests.

I don't understand how people can say they are for torture, and at the same time, think that they hold the high moral ground.<span style="color: #FF0000">That's easy Gayle, they are the same people who can be partially pregnant...LOL</span>

Gayle in Md.

</div></div>

Gayle in MD
05-23-2008, 08:23 AM
Breaking international agreements regarding torture, according to our military, puts our own troops at greater risk, hurts our international respect, gave al Qaeda a very effective tool for recruitment. As I understand it, the picture we saw have been spread around the Middle East, and Europe, Africa, Russia, and have been used in ways that have not served our best interests.

Democracy can only survive when governments operate without secrecy, out in the open for all to see, and without lies. We all know that horrible things happen in wars, that fact should not affect our moral aim, nor should we embrace the use of deciet by our government, over issues which damage our higher moral authority. Bush's foreign policies have led to a great deal of isolation from the interaction between other nations. We have lost much leverage, directly because of the Bush styled cowboy diplomacy. While the Middle East has suffered centuries of religious and territorial strife, our interests, reputation, and influence, has been severly damaged, and much hatred has grown and expanded as a direct result of the pictures of torture which have been used for terrorist recruitment.

It would surely be naive to think that the policies of George Bush have not damaged our country, or that innocent people have not been captured and tortured. Subscribing to the use of torture, lessons percieved differences between the U.S., and the terrorists methods. Our military leaders, the FBI, and former National Security leaders, have all taken a stand against the use of torture. I don't think they are naive.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
05-23-2008, 09:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Breaking international agreements regarding torture, according to our military, puts our own troops at greater risk, hurts our international respect, gave al Qaeda a very effective tool for recruitment.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>
Oh please.

We have no agreements which cover non uniformed enemy combatants.

In every war prior to this they were shot upon arrest.

Read a history book.

Furthermore, they hated us bad enough to bomb our embassies, murder our diplomats, blow up our troops in their sleep, and murder our civilians while trying to earn a living.

Again, read a history book.

Do you really believe that it is possible for them to hate us more?

Or that we should give a ding - diddly - amned if they do?

Get off the pompous partisan B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH! nonsense and realize that you are one of Al Qaeda's fifth column operatives and you aren't even smart enough to be getting paid for it.

LWW

Vapros
05-23-2008, 10:01 AM
"Our military leaders, the FBI, and former National Security leaders, have all taken a stand against the use of torture. I don't think they are naive."

Of course they have, and no, they are not naive. It's what the public wants to hear, and that's usually what leaders do. The public also wants our side to win; they just don't want to know how we go about it. So, it will probably continue to be business as usual, and the media will continue to expose it when they can and naive readers, such as you, will continue to rail about it.

Also, 'guilty and innocent' are not suitable terms to describe the subjects of interrogation. Interrogators are seeking the ones that know something, as compared to the ones who don't. This does not make them guilty or innocent.

I bet myself a dollar that your response would be mainly about George Bush. I'm ashamed of myself for stealing - I should have laid 10-1. And I'm not a fan of Bush, either. Be well.

Gayle in MD
05-23-2008, 10:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Of course they have, and no, they are not naive. It's what the public wants to hear, and that's usually what leaders do. <span style="color: #000066">There have been Generals who have resigned over the use of torture, and your point, "that's what leaders do" does not apply to them. The military encompasses both men of high standards, and men who are basically thugs, we have a choice about which we admire. IMO, a man is only as good as his word, and a country is only as safe as it is commited to its agreements, and respected for its actions. </span> The public also wants our side to win; they just don't want to know how we go about it. <span style="color: #000066">I'd say that it is Bush who doen't not want US to know, how HE goes about it, since he is the one who lied about it all along, and covered it up. </span> So, it will probably continue to be business as usual, and the media will continue to expose it when they can and naive readers, such as you, will continue to rail about it.

<span style="color: #000066">The media is our check against the kind of administrations which lie about wars, and while Bush got a bye for a long time, he was exposed for his crimes by people with higher standards than he has, and yes, thankfully, some in the media finally began to report the truth, which is their job. My reference to Bush is appropriate, since he made the decisions, and is the Commander in Chief, and also the person who lied to the AMerican People, over and over, about his torturing innocent people. </span>
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Also, 'guilty and innocent' are not suitable terms to describe the subjects of interrogation. <span style="color: #330099">Interrogation is not a suitable term for torture. </span> Interrogators are seeking the ones that know something, as compared to the ones who don't. <span style="color: #330099">Then they should use methods that work, and don't shame our country. <span style="color: #000066">They should not round innocent people up, and pay dead beats for tips. </span> Torture does not work, and destroys a country's honor, and makes us no better than our enemy, as it puts others, our people, and others in other circumstances of captivity, bin other parts of the world, at greater risk. It is wrong. </span> This does not make them guilty or innocent.

I bet myself a dollar that your response would be mainly about George Bush. <span style="color: #000066">yes, he is the President, and the person who had to approve the torture. </span> I'm ashamed of myself for stealing - I should have laid 10-1. And I'm not a fan of Bush, either. <span style="color: #000066">And I['m ashamed of myself for thinking you could debate, without insulting. </span> Be well.
</div></div> <span style="color: #000066">And you, also. </span>

Deeman3
05-23-2008, 10:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vapros</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Our military leaders, the FBI, and former National Security leaders, have all taken a stand against the use of torture. I don't think they are naive."

</div></div>

<span style="color: #FFCC66"> Our Administration, Congree and Senate have taken positions for the growing and development of Corn Based Ethynol. Does that make them right?

No, collections of idiots still can be naive and make poor decisions. Look at the recent choices by the Democratic Party.</span>

Vapros
05-23-2008, 11:18 AM
Just out of curiosity, what did you find insulting in my posts? Was it the word 'naive'? I passed up some much worse ones.

Gayle in MD
05-23-2008, 11:24 AM
I'm sure.

eb_in_nc
05-23-2008, 11:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vapros</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just out of curiosity, what did you find insulting in my posts? Was it the word 'naive'? I passed up some much worse ones. </div></div>

She finds anyone who challenges her position and thoughts insulting. Don't take it personally. http://www.billiardsdigest.com/forums/images/icons/default/frown.gif
frown

sack316
05-23-2008, 12:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Torture is never acceptable. It does not provide accurate intelligence. Every national security advisor, including former Republican National Security Advisors, the Military, the FBI, Generals, you name it, there is an outcry against our use of torture.

</div></div>

I'm assuming we're still on the waterboarding issue here. And while I am sure we can come to a basic consensus on torture, I don't think we could do so on a definition of torture. Hell, we even use waterboarding in training of special ops in every branch of the military.

But as for me, well I don't know. I wouldn't touch defining torture with a ten foot pole, or even a "when" it could be acceptable for that matter. One may consider a weekend with the in-laws a form of torture /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

FWIW, since it's one of the political hot buttons these days:

MCCain wants to ban waterboarding

Obama wants to ban waterboarding

Clinton opposes torture, but doesn't specifically rule out waterboarding (which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't that what most of the problem with Bush's executive order on torture was in '07?)

I do definitely have one problem with waterboarding (also known as Chinese Water Torture): It's that 20 minutes later you just want more.

Sack

Gayle in MD
05-23-2008, 12:16 PM
Unlike you, I don't usually post for the sole purpose of offending others. A brief review of your few posts, would find few, that were not directed at me, and did not include some sort of condescending, repulsively sexist, or insulting remark. I'm quite able, thank you, of posting with others who do not share my opinions, without those methods, however, when faced with a poster whose posts are almost always meant to irritate, or insult people, I eventually just ignore them, and scroll past their posts in order to avoid sinking to their level.

The purpose of conversation is not agreement, and hence, I don't mind opposing opinions, at all.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-23-2008, 12:18 PM
Sack, please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought McCain had backed off his original position on banning torture.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
05-23-2008, 12:30 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355197,00.html

Please don't just dismiss the link because it says "fox" in the URL, it's a transcript from an interview with O'reilly from a few weeks ago. And c'mon, you know anyone disagreeing with O'reilly has to score at least a few points with you /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Deeman3
05-23-2008, 12:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack, please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought McCain had backed off his original position on banning torture.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FFFF66">I'm not Sack but you are wrong. McCain, in his crazy tempered way, will not disassociate himself from the no- torture crowd much to the dismay of many on the right. He, being a victim of real torture, does not want it to be used. </span>

LWW
05-24-2008, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eb_in_nc</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vapros</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just out of curiosity, what did you find insulting in my posts? Was it the word 'naive'? I passed up some much worse ones. </div></div>

She finds anyone who challenges her position and thoughts insulting. Don't take it personally. http://www.billiardsdigest.com/forums/images/icons/default/frown.gif
frown </div></div>
Good observation.

This is why oppression always originates from the far left.

The Nazi brown shirts, the Sandinista, the Maoists, Pol Pot, the Soviets ... all took power in the name of "THE PEOPLE" and immediately set forth to disarm and rob blind the people while controlling all forms of education and communication.

LWW

LWW
05-24-2008, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't mind opposing opinions, at all.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>
And all proponents of oppression rely on the big lie.

LWW