50 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

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

[OverSword]

Yamato, on 06 September 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

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.

[Babe Ruth]

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.

[lightly]

 torture-4.jpg   54.88K   34 downloads

Attached Files

•  abu-ghraib2.jpg   44.84K   33 downloads

[Babe Ruth]

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.

[Rafterman]

lightly, on 08 September 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

[attachment=65417:torture-4.jpg
abu-ghraib2.jpg

That first photo looks more like someone being apprehended in a combat situation - note the helmet and NVGs on the soldier.

[and then]

Babe Ruth, on 09 September 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

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?

[Jackofalltrades]

and then, on 09 September 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

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

[Professor Buzzkill]

and then, on 09 September 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

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"

[notoverrated]

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.

[and then]

Jackofalltrades, on 09 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

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.

[and then]

Professor Buzzkill, on 09 September 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

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.

[Professor Buzzkill]

and then, on 09 September 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

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.

[Professor Buzzkill]

and then, on 09 September 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

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.

[and then]

Professor Buzzkill, on 09 September 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

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 by and then, 10 September 2012 - 01:47 AM.