Torture or "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"
- Thread starter katy perry is hot
- Start date
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
I figured I would post this because no one yet mentioned it in the post...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/0 ... 71065.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_i ... estruction
Apparently these tapes were destroyed because no valid information was found out of any of the interrogations with torture 😛
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/0 ... 71065.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_i ... estruction
Apparently these tapes were destroyed because no valid information was found out of any of the interrogations with torture 😛
As far as I am concerned, terrorists have no business benefiting from any protection, including the Geneva.
The enhanced interrogation techniques should and need to be used on any and all terrorists. Terrorists have only 2 rights:
-be subject of the techniques (and talk)
-die of old age or by a firing squad/beheading
The enhanced interrogation techniques should and need to be used on any and all terrorists. Terrorists have only 2 rights:
-be subject of the techniques (and talk)
-die of old age or by a firing squad/beheading
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Ok I do see your point on some of those things... we just pick up these people overseas and take them to some black site in another country, really, they don't have any rights..... but let's think.. is it worth us as a country using those methods when it is used a recruitment bonanza for terrorists, false information is achieved (it's been proven again and again that torture does not work and is ineffective) and resources are wasted, and most importantly, when we as a country endorse it, we allow them the right to torture our men when they hold our men.avguste said:
agentmanningctu
My Posts = Jack Bauer's Kills
Doesn't anyone watch 24?
Seriously though...it happens. It wouldn't happen behind closed doors every day unless it yielded results.
Seriously though...it happens. It wouldn't happen behind closed doors every day unless it yielded results.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Of course but 24 unfortunately isn't real 😛agentmanningctu said:
OBAMA said:
Your argument doesn't hold.
The terrorists have been torturing and beheading without us doing anything for years. Just remember the security personnel who were tortured and hang over a bridge in Fallujah.
And torture does work when done by professionals (like the CIA guys). It is no secret that waterboarding Sheik Mohamed (or whatever his name is) gave results and saved lives.
More waterboarding, more enhanced tactics used on the terrorists would wield more results than trying to accommodate them or please the public and international opinion.
For Al Qaeda, Iran and North Korea anything that seems like negotiation means weakness.
I'm going to jump in here - sorry, I don't have time to read the whole thread.
I find the whole premise of torture illogical. If you torture someone until they reveal information to you, how can you trust what you hear? What's to say that they won't say anything to make you stop? If you've caught someone who really knows nothing, torture becomes unnecessary violence. If they are guilty, the justice system exists - use that path. I believe that, so long as justice is served, we should aim to keep as many human rights intact as possible. Torturing someone is not the only was of achieving justice; it becomes unnecessary.
I find the whole premise of torture illogical. If you torture someone until they reveal information to you, how can you trust what you hear? What's to say that they won't say anything to make you stop? If you've caught someone who really knows nothing, torture becomes unnecessary violence. If they are guilty, the justice system exists - use that path. I believe that, so long as justice is served, we should aim to keep as many human rights intact as possible. Torturing someone is not the only was of achieving justice; it becomes unnecessary.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Actually, that's not true. Mohammed is used as the posterboy for torture's effectiveness, yet, there are major flaws in that. First, the Bush admin argued that waterboarding him prevented an attack in Los Angelos in 2002. Great! Lives were saved, support torture. Oh, wait, Mohammed was captured in 2003! Again with mohammed, we do know for a fact he was tortured, however, you need to be realistic. Mohammed said himself that when he was tortured, he just gave random answers.avguste said:
Here are some quotes of what he, as well as many other detainees, said to Red Cross representatives:
http://www.nybooks.com/media/doc/2010/0 ... report.pdf
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... fact_mayer
Check that out. The only recorded information gotten from Mohammed was his confessions. Imagine being tortured.
Interrogator who is torturing Mohammed: "DID YOU ORDER THE KILLING OF DANIEL PEARL"..
Mohammed: Yes
Interrogator: ok, no more torture
We have no further proof of whether or not torture worked, because the CIA destroyed their waterboarding sessions. According to a CIA executive assistant director "due to the embarrassment"
Please also check out this article, and educate yourself further than the bullshít on fox news: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01303.html
Though I disagree with point 3. People will say anything under torture is true, however, if we use conventional methods, such as teaching these terrorists that we are a good country with good morals and what Al-Queda taught them is not true, then maybe they will want to actually talk.
I suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Break_a_Terrorist
It tells the story of a military interrogator who was known for his ability to break terrorists using conventional means. However, once the CIA took the terrorist he was interrogating, and used harsh methods, no information was broken out of him.
The extent to which waterboading worked on the Sheikh will never be know for security reasons.
And as far as I am concerned, the less people know, the better. I am of the belief of the "need to know" basis.
I am aware of what he said to the Red Cross, but consider his reasons. He may have broken down under waterboarding, but his goal is and remains to hurt the USA and the West. What better way to do so that involve the Red Cross in something which doesn't concern the Red Cross, nor the international community.
Al Qaeda declared war on the US by its attacks. And it is a war we must win at all costs.
I read the Wikipedia article and it is a good article.
Please note that I am not advocating the only use of waterboarding and torture. What I am advocating however is the use of interrogation methods, conventional and unconventional.
By joining a terrorist organization,terrorists have renegaded their respective countries. Al Qaeda didnt sign the Geneva Convention.
They have absolutely no business to be treated with respect, no rights to an attorney and sure no business being allowed to live.
-- 02 Jan 2011, 15:10 --
One doesn't trust only info gathered by unconventional methods. One compares, checks the information gathered with another source and so forth.
Justice system for a terrorist? I don't think so. Terrorists have no business being in any judicial system.
Human rights for terrorists?.....No comment
And as far as I am concerned, the less people know, the better. I am of the belief of the "need to know" basis.
I am aware of what he said to the Red Cross, but consider his reasons. He may have broken down under waterboarding, but his goal is and remains to hurt the USA and the West. What better way to do so that involve the Red Cross in something which doesn't concern the Red Cross, nor the international community.
Al Qaeda declared war on the US by its attacks. And it is a war we must win at all costs.
I read the Wikipedia article and it is a good article.
Please note that I am not advocating the only use of waterboarding and torture. What I am advocating however is the use of interrogation methods, conventional and unconventional.
By joining a terrorist organization,terrorists have renegaded their respective countries. Al Qaeda didnt sign the Geneva Convention.
They have absolutely no business to be treated with respect, no rights to an attorney and sure no business being allowed to live.
-- 02 Jan 2011, 15:10 --
ItsZippy said:
One doesn't trust only info gathered by unconventional methods. One compares, checks the information gathered with another source and so forth.
Justice system for a terrorist? I don't think so. Terrorists have no business being in any judicial system.
Human rights for terrorists?.....No comment
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
We will never know for security reasons?? Sorry, but we already know. The only real arguments for torture have come from the former Vice President and the Former SECDEF. We haven't really seen anything else in support of torture, only against it, from any other Bush admin officials.avguste said:
The director of the FBI (bush appointed) said torture never worked. The former Bush director of the NCTC and the current Deputy national security adviser says torture doesn't work and that it's a recruitment bonanza for Al-Queda (though he does support extra-territorial rendition)
And I disagree with that statment in every way. We need to know. The less people that know is how countries implode. Having 5-10 people controlling these torture programs is ridiculous and not the way to run a country.
I am against torture on the basis that is A) ineffective and counter productive B) no accountability C) helps al-queda recruit more terrorists, especially domestically D) such harsh methods cause terrorists to become forgetful (look up the woman in the article i linked before) E) allows other countries the right to torture our men (ie, we go to war with Russia, Russia says "The US violated the geneva convention when they tortured all those extremists, so guess what, now we get to violate it and torture your own men, US)
If we lived in 24 universe where torture worked on anyone who we interrogate within seconds and there were no real repercussions (no recruitment bonanza, no risk to our troops) then I would honestly be in full support of it.
Regarding trials for terrorists, if we don't give them proper civilian trials, then the whole fabric of our legal system goes down the toilet. When we arrest terrorists on foreign or domestic soil, and they are taken to a US military base, a US anything, then they deserve the same rights and trials as everyone else. Look at Timothy Mcveigh, responsible for the second largest terrorist attack on US soil. He was tried by a jury of his peers and was sentenced to death. Most of these men we pick up and torture are not responsible for deaths of hundreds of people. And even if they were, they still deserve a fair trial, because that's the type of country we are. We aren't barbarians. If the CIA picks up some terrorist in the middle east and doesn't bring him back to US soil (Gitmo is US soil) then my opinion on what should be done with the guy is different. Interrogate him with normal methods that are proven to work (good cop bad cop, false bargaining chips) then do whatever they want with him.
You refer to the Geneva Convention, however may I remind you that Al Qaeda and the terrorists didn't sign it?
Just based on this, your point concerning other countries doesn't hold.
Al Qaeda is not a country!!!
And yes, bringing terrorists to the US soil is the worst idea ever.
And Gitmo is not US soil. Gitmo is on Cuban soil. It is however controlled by the US in accordance with the lease signed after the Spanish-American war.
And according to the Justice Department, prisoners at Gitmo have no rights of access to US criminal justice system.
"During the Spanish-American War, the U.S. fleet attacking Santiago retreated to Guantánamo's excellent harbor to ride out the summer hurricane season of 1898. The Marines landed with naval support, requiring Cuban scouts to push off Spanish resistance that increased as they moved inland. This area became the location of U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, which covers about 45 square miles (120 km2) and is sometimes abbreviated as "GTMO" or "Gitmo".
By the war's end, the U.S. government had obtained control of all of Cuba from Spain. A perpetual lease for the area around Guantánamo Bay was offered February 23, 1903, from Tomás Estrada Palma, who became the first President of Cuba. The Cuban-American Treaty gave, among other things, the Republic of Cuba ultimate sovereignty over Guantánamo Bay while granting the United States "complete jurisdiction and control" of the area for coaling and naval stations. The base was an important intermediate distribution point for World War II merchant shipping convoys from New York City and Key West, Florida, to the Panama Canal and the islands of Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and Trinidad.[4]
A 1934 treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars, and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it or the U.S. abandoned the base property. Since the Cuban Revolution, the government under Fidel Castro has cashed only one of the rent checks from the US government. The Cuban government maintains this was only done because of "confusion" in the heady early days of the revolution, while the US government maintains that the cashing constitutes an official validation of the treaty. The remaining uncashed checks made out to "Treasurer General of the Republic" (a position that has ceased to exist after the revolution) are kept in Castro's office stuffed into a desk drawer."
The above comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
Just based on this, your point concerning other countries doesn't hold.
Al Qaeda is not a country!!!
And yes, bringing terrorists to the US soil is the worst idea ever.
And Gitmo is not US soil. Gitmo is on Cuban soil. It is however controlled by the US in accordance with the lease signed after the Spanish-American war.
And according to the Justice Department, prisoners at Gitmo have no rights of access to US criminal justice system.
"During the Spanish-American War, the U.S. fleet attacking Santiago retreated to Guantánamo's excellent harbor to ride out the summer hurricane season of 1898. The Marines landed with naval support, requiring Cuban scouts to push off Spanish resistance that increased as they moved inland. This area became the location of U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, which covers about 45 square miles (120 km2) and is sometimes abbreviated as "GTMO" or "Gitmo".
By the war's end, the U.S. government had obtained control of all of Cuba from Spain. A perpetual lease for the area around Guantánamo Bay was offered February 23, 1903, from Tomás Estrada Palma, who became the first President of Cuba. The Cuban-American Treaty gave, among other things, the Republic of Cuba ultimate sovereignty over Guantánamo Bay while granting the United States "complete jurisdiction and control" of the area for coaling and naval stations. The base was an important intermediate distribution point for World War II merchant shipping convoys from New York City and Key West, Florida, to the Panama Canal and the islands of Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and Trinidad.[4]
A 1934 treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars, and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it or the U.S. abandoned the base property. Since the Cuban Revolution, the government under Fidel Castro has cashed only one of the rent checks from the US government. The Cuban government maintains this was only done because of "confusion" in the heady early days of the revolution, while the US government maintains that the cashing constitutes an official validation of the treaty. The remaining uncashed checks made out to "Treasurer General of the Republic" (a position that has ceased to exist after the revolution) are kept in Castro's office stuffed into a desk drawer."
The above comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
If someone is born in Gitmo, they are considered a US citizen. Look at John McCain born in Panama.
I'm not talking about Al-Queda people having rights under the Geneva. I was talking about how it would affect us in the future against other countries. Regardless though it doesn't matter who signed it or who didn't. It refers to how countries must treat prisoners.
Also, good job ignoring all of the other points I brought up.
I'm not talking about Al-Queda people having rights under the Geneva. I was talking about how it would affect us in the future against other countries. Regardless though it doesn't matter who signed it or who didn't. It refers to how countries must treat prisoners.
Also, good job ignoring all of the other points I brought up.
If the information is checked against other sources, what's the point in torture? I agree with you that everything you obtain through torture should be cross-referenced; that begs the question - what do we actually learn from torture?avguste said:
As for the rest of your post, I'm surprised I'm wasting the effort to reply to it. A few major flaws in your thinking. First, we don't know if they're terrorists. If we've caught someone who might be a terrorist and put them in Guantanamo Bay because we're not quite sure where to put them for the time being, we can't just assume that they're terrorists. The justice system is in place to serve justice. If they are terrorists, the justice system will deal with them. What alternatives are there to the justice system, short of imprisonment without a fair trial?
Human rights, yes. Human rights are called human rights because they are rights that every human should hold. Let us see if potential terrorists should have human rights. There seems to be one key criterion - they must be human. Are potential terrorists human? I'd say that they probably are... Does that mean they should have human rights? Yep. Unless you can somehow prove that potential terrorists are not human, or if you start twisting human rights to suit your own oppressive needs, then don't attempt to take them from people.
The American method of dealing with terrorism is similar to Mao's method of dealing with counter-revolutionaries.
Watch Me Sink
Madly Diligent
Jumping in here, but there is a grey area here. You can't be completely for or completely against some form of harsh interrogation. The example (again, bringing in 24 here) is what if somebody has information about a terrorist attack, that it will happen in say an hour, and you have somebody that you can directly tie to the terrorists. What are you going to do, "Aw hi, Mr. Terrorist Dude, do you want to tell us anything?" "No." "Ok."
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Torture wouldn't work in that case either. As numerous experts have said. I have intelligence officials, including two of Bush's. FBI Director and former NCTC Director. You have Dick Cheney who, well, isn't very reputable.Kirisute Gomen said:
Let's continue that scenario....Kirisute Gomen said:
You start to torture this person, they still don't give you information. After a few hours, they finally break. They tell you that you need to go to a New York underground station at 3pm. At 3pm you get to the station. At 3.10pm, a bomb explodes in Washington DC.
Affiliates
