Yamato Posted September 6, 2012 #1 Share Posted September 6, 2012 CAIRO (AP) — Human Rights Watch said it has uncovered evidence of a wider use of waterboarding in American interrogations of detainees than has been acknowledged by the United States, in a report Thursday that details further brutal treatment at secret CIA-run prisons under the Bush administration-era U.S. program of detention and rendition of terror suspects. The report also paints a more complete picture of Washington's close cooperation with the regime of Libya's former dictator Moammar Gadhafi in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. handed over to Libya the Islamist opponents of Gadhafi that it detained abroad with only thin "diplomatic assurances" that they would not be mistreated, and several of them were subsequently tortured in prison, Human Rights Watch said. More: http://news.yahoo.com/rights-watch-evidence-wider-us-waterboarding-072030417.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted September 6, 2012 #2 Share Posted September 6, 2012 CAIRO (AP) — Human Rights Watch said it has uncovered evidence of a wider use of waterboarding in American interrogations of detainees than has been acknowledged by the United States, in a report Thursday that details further brutal treatment at secret CIA-run prisons under the Bush administration-era U.S. program of detention and rendition of terror suspects. The report also paints a more complete picture of Washington's close cooperation with the regime of Libya's former dictator Moammar Gadhafi in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. handed over to Libya the Islamist opponents of Gadhafi that it detained abroad with only thin "diplomatic assurances" that they would not be mistreated, and several of them were subsequently tortured in prison, Human Rights Watch said. More: http://news.yahoo.co...-072030417.html The CIA working with Muammar Gaddafi. Can't believe that would happen That being said I would be more interested on the types and amount of torture being perpetrated by us or on our behalf currently. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted September 6, 2012 #3 Share Posted September 6, 2012 But, but, but.....President Bush said we don't torture! So too President Obama! And US presidents simply do not lie. And the Attorney General just announced last week that there is no evidence that we tortured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted September 8, 2012 #4 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted September 9, 2012 #5 Share Posted September 9, 2012 What's interesting is how few churches and organized religions have come out in opposition to the torture. The sounds of silence, as MLK observed. What's depressing is how many self-described christians actually condone such torture. A few too many episodes viewed of "24", I guess. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted September 9, 2012 #6 Share Posted September 9, 2012 That first photo looks more like someone being apprehended in a combat situation - note the helmet and NVGs on the soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted September 9, 2012 #7 Share Posted September 9, 2012 What's interesting is how few churches and organized religions have come out in opposition to the torture. The sounds of silence, as MLK observed. What's depressing is how many self-described christians actually condone such torture. A few too many episodes viewed of "24", I guess. Your reference to 24 made me think about this simple question. If you had every reason to believe that a captured combatant KNEW the location of a nuclear weapon within the US would you condone torture to find it or would you stand on your very worthy principles and allow thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands to die? Maybe you'd get nonsense from him or maybe you'd stop a tragedy. The point is, I guess, is your set of principles worth an unlimited number of other people's lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackofalltrades Posted September 9, 2012 #8 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Your reference to 24 made me think about this simple question. If you had every reason to believe that a captured combatant KNEW the location of a nuclear weapon within the US would you condone torture to find it or would you stand on your very worthy principles and allow thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands to die? Maybe you'd get nonsense from him or maybe you'd stop a tragedy. The point is, I guess, is your set of principles worth an unlimited number of other people's lives? There is multiple way's that they can find out the information they require to keep people safe without resorting to torture, spying on those people monitoring telephone call's etc doing those thing's would bring about more credible evidence than torture ever will If or when the economy collapses and if You go out to steal some food for You and Your family and You get caught, the government could class You as a terrorist and torture You as they do other people, You could disagree with something the government say or do go on a protest and get classed as a terrorist for speaking Your mind and get tortured And it is highly possible they would or could torture at will, why else would they bring out the NDAA the patriot act etc in America As You know already most thing's the American government do, the UK government are soon to follow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted September 9, 2012 #9 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Your reference to 24 made me think about this simple question. If you had every reason to believe that a captured combatant KNEW the location of a nuclear weapon within the US would you condone torture to find it or would you stand on your very worthy principles and allow thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands to die? Maybe you'd get nonsense from him or maybe you'd stop a tragedy. The point is, I guess, is your set of principles worth an unlimited number of other people's lives? Maybe the US should come clean and leave/repeal the Geneva Convention which they have signed. One of the most recent points agreed to by all signatory nations was against "willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notoverrated Posted September 9, 2012 #10 Share Posted September 9, 2012 if i could save lives from torture sure i would use it, if im just torturing the dude to find some drugs hidden under a bridge no im fine i will just use good detective work to accomplish a task with low risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted September 9, 2012 #11 Share Posted September 9, 2012 There is multiple way's that they can find out the information they require to keep people safe without resorting to torture, spying on those people monitoring telephone call's etc doing those thing's would bring about more credible evidence than torture ever will If or when the economy collapses and if You go out to steal some food for You and Your family and You get caught, the government could class You as a terrorist and torture You as they do other people, You could disagree with something the government say or do go on a protest and get classed as a terrorist for speaking Your mind and get tortured And it is highly possible they would or could torture at will, why else would they bring out the NDAA the patriot act etc in America As You know already most thing's the American government do, the UK government are soon to follow But in such a case the government will have gone from being a protector to a tyrant and such rules would be pointless anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted September 9, 2012 #12 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Maybe the US should come clean and leave/repeal the Geneva Convention which they have signed. One of the most recent points agreed to by all signatory nations was against "willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments" Considering that most of our opponents in war have never abided by the conventions anyway, I have no problem with that. I would never condone such treatment of another human being for casual reasons, however, I would condone it in a situation where it could save many lives. Our choice when faced with barbarity is to surrender to it by inaction, be smarter in our approaches or to meet fire with fire. As a LAST RESORT in a very deadly situation I would do the latter. Speaking as a person who has struggled to breathe for months on end I DEFINITELY consider waterboarding a form of torture. But it's effects pass in time, those of a deadly weapon would not. The bottom line is we are faced with great evil in the world and we are approaching a time when civility will be a luxury none of us can afford if we wish to survive. If a person's morals prohibit their own survival then my hat's off to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted September 9, 2012 #13 Share Posted September 9, 2012 But in such a case the government will have gone from being a protector to a tyrant and such rules would be pointless anyway. The main point of not torturing people is to have the moral high ground in any argument, making it clear who is fighting for good. If we are torturing prisoners of war, then how can we lecture against other acts of inhumanity? It has also caused issues with coalition forces in Afghanistan, who follow the UN guidelines of preventing torture, which are now being investigated by the UN for handing prisoners over to the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted September 9, 2012 #14 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Considering that most of our opponents in war have never abided by the conventions anyway, I have no problem with that. I would never condone such treatment of another human being for casual reasons, however, I would condone it in a situation where it could save many lives. Our choice when faced with barbarity is to surrender to it by inaction, be smarter in our approaches or to meet fire with fire. As a LAST RESORT in a very deadly situation I would do the latter. Speaking as a person who has struggled to breathe for months on end I DEFINITELY consider waterboarding a form of torture. But it's effects pass in time, those of a deadly weapon would not. The bottom line is we are faced with great evil in the world and we are approaching a time when civility will be a luxury none of us can afford if we wish to survive. If a person's morals prohibit their own survival then my hat's off to them. I personally don't feel like we are at the "last resort" at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted September 10, 2012 #15 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) I personally don't feel like we are at the "last resort" at the moment. I agree with that. I think that is a plastic sort of argument though. When IS a situation important enough? When a squad of soldiers could be saved? A company or battalion? How many saved lives is the decision worth? Real life and death here Prof. I realize that the act of torture is abhorrent and that when we do it as a nation it makes us as dirty as those we fight. But if we cannot survive without it then what do we do? Are we to allow those who are most willing to be evil to survive while our way of life fails? Quite a dilemma. I personally could not torture another human being. That being the case I guess I would lose my right to an opinion here but I cannot imagine living in a world where our enemy's sense of what is acceptable becomes our way of life. Edited September 10, 2012 by and then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckskin scout Posted September 10, 2012 #16 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Torture is wrong and morally irreprehensible any way one cuts it. What is intelligence for? What is command for? If the enemy outsmarts you, outfights you, out prepares you, etc. Thats just war. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted September 10, 2012 #17 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Torture is wrong and morally irreprehensible any way one cuts it. What is intelligence for? What is command for? If the enemy outsmarts you, outfights you, out prepares you, etc. Thats just war. You speak of it as some contest where the rules are more important than who wins or loses. It's easy enough to stand on principle when it won't affect you personally. I think that the equation would change drastically for most here as soon as the life being saved by it were your own or one of your loved ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted September 10, 2012 #18 Share Posted September 10, 2012 That first photo looks more like someone being apprehended in a combat situation - note the helmet and NVGs on the soldier. "enemy combatants fight in the nude ? Maybe they've imported ancient celtic warriors? "THEY"re sneaky ya know.. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted September 10, 2012 #19 Share Posted September 10, 2012 A plastic sort of argument, AND THEN? Good Heavens man, what you seem to display consistently is a plastic moral code. You can rationalize any sort of behavior, torture and murder included, if only you can create some sort of hypothetical or fantasy one might see on TV. Your feigned concern about "other peoples' lives" is utterly bogus. You are happy to have other peoples' lives ruined, and your support of torture for Manning and failure of due process for Assange are but 2 examples of HOW your moral code is plastic. You rely upon TV and government to define for you what is right and what is wrong. You happily throw governance under the rule of law to the 4 winds, hoping it does not return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckskin scout Posted September 10, 2012 #20 Share Posted September 10, 2012 A plastic sort of argument, AND THEN? Good Heavens man, what you seem to display consistently is a plastic moral code. You can rationalize any sort of behavior, torture and murder included, if only you can create some sort of hypothetical or fantasy one might see on TV. Your feigned concern about "other peoples' lives" is utterly bogus. You are happy to have other peoples' lives ruined, and your support of torture for Manning and failure of due process for Assange are but 2 examples of HOW your moral code is plastic. You rely upon TV and government to define for you what is right and what is wrong. You happily throw governance under the rule of law to the 4 winds, hoping it does not return. Precisely, if for his own country or an ally.... its only for the greater good. if for his enemy... a outcry for their necks to be dismembered from their shoulders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted September 10, 2012 #21 Share Posted September 10, 2012 A plastic sort of argument, AND THEN? Good Heavens man, what you seem to display consistently is a plastic moral code. You can rationalize any sort of behavior, torture and murder included, if only you can create some sort of hypothetical or fantasy one might see on TV. Your feigned concern about "other peoples' lives" is utterly bogus. You are happy to have other peoples' lives ruined, and your support of torture for Manning and failure of due process for Assange are but 2 examples of HOW your moral code is plastic. You rely upon TV and government to define for you what is right and what is wrong. You happily throw governance under the rule of law to the 4 winds, hoping it does not return. I made my argument clearly. That you disagree is you prerogative but spare me your moralizing. Your opinion of me is totally immaterial to the discussion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildchild41 Posted September 11, 2012 #22 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Torture is wrong and morally irreprehensible any way one cuts it. What is intelligence for? What is command for? If the enemy outsmarts you, outfights you, out prepares you, etc. Thats just war. Did our soilders get treated right in the hands of the Japanese? The Koreans? The Vietnamese? Exactly. Terrorists don't deserve human rights when they want to kill innocent people 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rut Roh Posted September 11, 2012 #23 Share Posted September 11, 2012 "Unthinkable" with Samuel L. Jackson was an interesting watch if only to look at both sides of the torture debate. Regardless of stance on the subject, I think it is safe to say that what some consider "torture" isn't and what some consider not, actually is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted September 11, 2012 #24 Share Posted September 11, 2012 "Unthinkable" with Samuel L. Jackson was an interesting watch if only to look at both sides of the torture debate. Regardless of stance on the subject, I think it is safe to say that what some consider "torture" isn't and what some consider not, actually is. I had trouble watching that movie. Now THAT is torture. And the scenario was a perfect setup to the question at it's most fundamental level. When is it acceptable? And how far are you willing to go? Excellent movie. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted September 11, 2012 #25 Share Posted September 11, 2012 "enemy combatants fight in the nude ? Maybe they've imported ancient celtic warriors? "THEY"re sneaky ya know.. LOL He's obviously under medical care - perhaps he had a gown on or was sleeping in the nude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now