[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Weider, just being humorous. By the by, I like your new Clock Work Orange handle. Regarding the Israeli Naval Lt. you (lifted) that from Marcinko’s Rogue Warrior didn’t you? (jk)
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s where it came from.
I knew I shoulda put references and a bibliography in…
that’s okay, the alex image got lifted from someone on another board.
I don’t have a photo resize program at the moment…
Jeru
I think it is acceptable to use extraordinary means, torture included, to protect the US population from future attacks. Hope that is clear.
I feel sorry if an innocent person gets caught up in it. I think it is an acceptable cost of war. War sucks and nobody wishes for it but war is what we have.
Joe, I agree terrorists can’t be reasoned with, only eliminated. The enemy will define the level of savagery in war.
Yes Joe but you also said
""most of the people on the Arab street don’t respond well to kindness, they see it as weakness. It’s some sort of cultural thing ". Which IS a generalisation unless you know “most” people who are on Arab streets. The tone of your mail appears as if your not actually bothered about who is a terrorist and who isn’t and that is the crux of the problem. Terrorists don’t go around wearing military insignia’s or bright coloured shirts with " I love Osama " on them. It becomes very easy to lump a whole load of people into one compartment.
Hedo you said:
"I think it is acceptable to use extraordinary means, torture included, to protect the US population from future attacks. Hope that is clear. "
If you take this rationale that torture is acceptable, purely at a logical level Saddam Hussein used the same defence, “I tortured and killed to protect my nation”. So logically at a moral level the US is at the same level as the ex-Iraqi dictator … in fact anybody who tortures to gain information for means of “national security”. Some Americans maybe fine with this while others might find it uncomfortable being morally at the same level as people like Hussain.
The second thing how can you quantify if information given under ‘torture’ are accurate and does this information gleaned from torture actually ‘protect’ the nation ?. Torture unfortunately does not only fall into psychological techniques but evidence suggests that the US has shipped a lot of suspects to other nations who employ physical torture. So Hedo you might well be saying, “good they deserve it”, but the problem is that its not a small number of people who are being found completely innocent, its a lot of people are coming out with stories of being abducted and tortured or just incarcerated with out any real evidence. If the US administration had concrete information why have they not actually convicted any G. Bay detainees, even under a military tribunal ?. Hasn’t it been over 3 years since they have been in prison, surely they have enough evidence ?.
" I think it is an acceptable cost of war. War sucks and nobody wishes for it but war is what we have. "
Again, war against whom ? against ‘terrorism’ ? how do you identify a terrorist, pick up everybody who has dislikes the actions of the US administration ?. I haven’t got the answers but neither have the US administration as it appears and these are the people who have been bequeathed with protecting the US citizens.
Rainjack, the fact I don’t have blind faith in everything every government in the world does, doesn’t make me the same as the ACLU, JTF or Ted Kennedy. If you go backwards in time, what administration has been deserving of blind faith? Is any government every really deserving of such blind faith?
The purpose of scrutinizing the government is to make sure it plays by the rules it has set out. The rules are there for reasons. If those reasons no longer apply, then by all means change the rules.
These are simply issues. The fact I happen to live a couple miles shy of the border doesn’t mean I don’t have a mind, can’t pay attention to the world around me and ask questions.
Why are you so oversensitive to this? Everybody in the US is a recent decendent of someone who came from one of those hated external countries (which seems to be every country these days).
Talk about Kumba-Ya. Having blind faith in your government, any government, which is simply composed of fallable humans, is simply childish and willfull ignorance. Grow up. Learn to have a discussion about something without getting all pissy because others might not have a carbon copy of your almighty opinion.
I’m critical. I like to second guess. I like to look into what things entail or mean. Some people here are claiming it is okay if innocent people get caught in the crossfire. Am I jumping all over them for expressing that opinion?
What opinion have I actually expressed? What is so damned offensive to you? Whatever it is, again, is of your own invention. Your lenses are pretty thick pal.
If you get upset trying to justify these things, that is your problem, don’t shift it to me for asking the questions. If you don’t get upset, why all the histrionics?
Do you actually have any opinions on the issues, or are you too worried about the ACLU and it’s political implications to look under the hood and look at the situation on its own merits?
If so, fine. Be a puss. Striking out at me for simply asking what should be asked speaks volumes.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Jeru
I think it is acceptable to use extraordinary means, torture included, to protect the US population from future attacks. Hope that is clear.
I feel sorry if an innocent person gets caught up in it. I think it is an acceptable cost of war. War sucks and nobody wishes for it but war is what we have.
Joe, I agree terrorists can’t be reasoned with, only eliminated. The enemy will define the level of savagery in war.
[/quote]
We are just from two different worlds I suppose then. In my world: physically torturing another human being is never justified, period.
This is why I stopped posting on this forum; when “innocent people getting tortured is an acceptable cost” is an accepted ethos, we’re just too far apart to have a fruitful discussion. I’m not talking about aggressive interrogation techniques, but physical torture of innocent people?
I guess it’s just that I have a “clear sense of right and wrong that doesn’t waver based on circumstances”, but no attack could scare me enough or anger me enough to toss aside the basic foundations of modern civilization (civil liberties and respect for human rights).
I give you some credit though, it takes some guts to admit that your respect for human rights has changed because the terrorist scared you.
Vroom wrote: “…Everybody in the US is a recent decendent of someone who came from one of those hated external countries (which seems to be every country these days).”
Not everyone 
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m not sure I understand your dripping sarcasm, nephorm. We are at war. Are you saying we should give suspected enemy participants the benefit of the doubt? That, in a war zone, they should be innocent till proven guilty? Do we also need to Mirandize them? Who is the arbitor of the definition of ‘torture’? Ted Kennedy?
[/quote]
Rainjack: I’m really not so concerned with enemy combatants rounded up in Iraq. I do think we should treat them humanely; isn’t it interesting how we portray VietKong as being horrible evil-doers because they inflicted torture on innocent Joes, yet we feel perfectly justified to attempt the same tactics? That’s beside the point.
I think that in the United States of America, you should be innocent until proven guilty. But now, if you’re labeled a terrorist (I’m sorry, a “Material Witness”), all that goes out the window. That’s what burns me… the “war on terrorism” is no real war, and there will never be an end to it. So we’re supposed to just roll over and let the executive branch screw us?
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
hedo wrote:
Jeru
I think it is acceptable to use extraordinary means, torture included, to protect the US population from future attacks. Hope that is clear.
I feel sorry if an innocent person gets caught up in it. I think it is an acceptable cost of war. War sucks and nobody wishes for it but war is what we have.
Joe, I agree terrorists can’t be reasoned with, only eliminated. The enemy will define the level of savagery in war.
We are just from two different worlds I suppose then. In my world: physically torturing another human being is never justified, period.
This is why I stopped posting on this forum; when “innocent people getting tortured is an acceptable cost” is an accepted ethos, we’re just too far apart to have a fruitful discussion. I’m not talking about aggressive interrogation techniques, but physical torture of innocent people?
I guess it’s just that I have a “clear sense of right and wrong that doesn’t waver based on circumstances”, but no attack could scare me enough or anger me enough to toss aside the basic foundations of modern civilization (civil liberties and respect for human rights).
I give you some credit though, it takes some guts to admit that your respect for human rights has changed because the terrorist scared you.
[/quote]
For the record, I’ve always thought this way, all 9/11 did was harden my feelings.
Frontline had a special on one of Bin laden’s Aide’s sons who turned and became an FBI informant.
Basically he went undercover in the Guantanamo bay prison and found that alot of the inmates were just average joes off the street in afghanistan who had turned in for the bounty.
Guess what? If you offer a $5,000 bounty for Al Qaeda members in a country where the per capita GDP is $600, you get alot of innocent people turned in.
[quote]emptymyth wrote:
Vroom wrote: “…Everybody in the US is a recent decendent of someone who came from one of those hated external countries (which seems to be every country these days).”
Not everyone
[/quote]
And define recent, too.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I’m not sure I understand your dripping sarcasm, nephorm. We are at war. Are you saying we should give suspected enemy participants the benefit of the doubt? That, in a war zone, they should be innocent till proven guilty? Do we also need to Mirandize them? Who is the arbitor of the definition of ‘torture’? Ted Kennedy?
Rainjack: I’m really not so concerned with enemy combatants rounded up in Iraq. I do think we should treat them humanely; isn’t it interesting how we portray VietKong as being horrible evil-doers because they inflicted torture on innocent Joes, yet we feel perfectly justified to attempt the same tactics? That’s beside the point.
I?[/quote]
Don’t get carried away.
First of all: the US soldiers captured in VietNam were wearing the uniform of the US. So clearly marked as soldiers. Terrorist rabble from the sewers of the Middle East who attempt to infiltrate polite society in order to inflict as much damage on it as possible aren’t marked as soldiers.
And the standards of torture are different.
WHat the ACLU is calling torture is being sleep deprived and forced to stand up for long periods. The VC would do…well, other things.
Things that actually maimed and killed.
Emptymyth, my apologies to those that were here before the “recent” waves of immigration, I knew what you stated to be true while I was typing, but I didn’t put the work in to reword my statement.
Moriarty wrote:
“We are just from two different worlds I suppose then. In my world: physically torturing another human being is never justified, period.”
How about if they rammed a plane into your spouse’s/child’s workplace? Imagine dying in flames.
You can deny this, but I’ll bet you would think differently if it happened to your family.
“This is why I stopped posting on this forum; when “innocent people getting tortured is an acceptable cost” is an accepted ethos, we’re just too far apart to have a fruitful discussion. I’m not talking about aggressive interrogation techniques, but physical torture of innocent people?”
NO ONE ADVOCATES INNOCENTS BEING TORTURED!!!
Do you accept that some innocents may be imprisioned right now? Want to scrap arresting people?
No. You want people to do their level best to prevent innocents being locked away. Same thing with interrogation.
"I guess it’s just that I have a “clear sense of right and wrong that doesn’t waver based on circumstances”,
Bullshit.
I don’t believe you. Imagine the most heinous crime against your mother/sister/girlfriend/wife/child.
You would change your thinking.
Period.
“but no attack could scare me enough or anger me enough to toss aside the basic foundations of modern civilization (civil liberties and respect for human rights).”
Must be nice living in an ivory tower.
Either way, I don’t believe you.
“I give you some credit though, it takes some guts to admit that your respect for human rights has changed because the terrorist scared you.”
Terrorists abrogate their basic human rights.
Period.
If you use terrorism, you are worse than an animal. You are a cancer.
Nothing can justify 9/11. Nothing.
You are probably right about changing your mind. However, I hope personal circumstances don’t ever force you to re-evaluate your thinking.
JeffR
[quote]vroom wrote:
Not everyone
Emptymyth, my apologies to those that were here before the “recent” waves of immigration, I knew what you stated to be true while I was typing, but I didn’t put the work in to reword my statement.[/quote]
No problem, just have to poke a little fun!
Moriarity
Agreed. To far apart to find a middle ground.
Scared…no not scared. Pissed off. The actions of the terrs justify the use of torture on them.
I want them to fear what will happen to them when we catch them. Greater terror and fear then they can imagine. That’s a deterrent. War isn’t pretty and it’s only fair in the movies and academia.
Good post Jeff! I’ll respond inline.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
“We are just from two different worlds I suppose then. In my world: physically torturing another human being is never justified, period.”
How about if they rammed a plane into your spouse’s/child’s workplace? Imagine dying in flames.
[/quote]
Add “friends” to that list and there’s no need to imagine, that did happen. Doesn’t change my stance on torture.
OK. I wouldn’t.
Hedo said: “I feel sorry if an innocent person gets caught up in it. I think it is an acceptable cost of war.”
I’m saying that innocent people being tortured is not an acceptable cost in any situation. My opinion.
You’re absolutely right, I expect us to do our best with regard to imprisonment and interrogation. However, I expect a zero tolerance policy on torture. The President has made it clear he expects the same as well.
I grew up in Eastside Oakland, and I’ve had heinous crimes committed against both my brother and mother. I wanted the people involved arrested and put away for life, but not tortured.
Period.
OK. May surprise you but a lot of people in this country, and around the world, feel the same way and aren’t lying.
I agree with you that murderers, rapists, child molesters and the like are a cancer, and should be dealt with appropriately. In my mind physical torture is not appropriate. That is also our country’s stance and the President’s stance, so I know I’m not alone.
Agreed. Not sure how that’s relevant to this discussion, but agreed nonetheless.
[quote]
You are probably right about changing your mind. However, I hope personal circumstances don’t ever force you to re-evaluate your thinking.
JeffR[/quote]
I’ve had a few experiences in my life that have made me re-evaluate my thinking. My conclusions have always, in the long-run, been the same with regard to this issue.
Before we go any further, let’s define our terms here. I don’t define a female interogator giving a male prisoner a lap dance torture because it hurts his feelings. Using someone’s fears against them and causing them emotional discomfort is an acceptable form of aggressive interrogation. I’m talking about physical abuse that leaves lasting effects on the abused.
Again, great post!
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
For the record, I’ve always thought this way, all 9/11 did was harden my feelings.
[/quote]
I can appreciate that. Read the post I made earlier about defining our terms. I realized that I should have defined what I am talking about. I’m specifically talking about physical abuse that leaves lasting effects on the abused. Giving a prisoner a lap dance or forcing them to listen to rap music (or even forcing them to stay awake, up to a point) are not “torture”, in the context of my post.
I don’t know about you guys but if my ass gets captured by a “sandi” do you think they give a shit about the law of land warfare or the genevia conv. fuck no. They are going to video tape me getting my head cut off with a dull knife. Who can my family sue for that. Is the ACLU going to sue some middle east country for my family. fuck no.
If we capture someone supporting or in the process of commiting a terrorist act we should not only do anything in our power to get info from them but also use their family as leverage. You should instill so much fear into them that they are afraid of launching attacks on the US.
I’m sick and tired of hearing how we should apply our system of law and tax dollars to savages. Sorry if we don’t have CSI on the case to collect all the evidence after they blow up 100 of their own people. Then go around their town bragging about how their cell helped in the attack and then get arrested by US personnel only to get put back on the street for lack of evidence found on them. You don’t fight and win wars that way. And we will never be safe if we don’t take off the gloves and destroy them.
Sorry if i ranted alittle.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Giving a prisoner a lap dance or forcing them to listen to rap music (or even forcing them to stay awake, up to a point) are not “torture”, in the context of my post.[/quote]
I agree with that. Although, it would seem like lap-dancing-as-interrogation would entice people to be arrested…