Torture of US Citizens - Yes or No?

[MessiahDecoy123]

The only difference between rape and torture is how the anatomy is targeted.

and the end never justifies the means.

You say comparing rape to torture is an insult to rape victims. Why? Do you think being tortured for hours or days is a walk in the park? It's Hell on Earth. No less terrible than rape itself.

In fact one could argue that rape is easier to endure physically because it rarely last as long as torture which can last for hours or days. Rape is physically over the moment the aggressor reaches orgasm. Yes there are mental scars from rape but no less horrific than the scars from torture.

Which would you prefer to endure?

and like I said earlier, you assume the government is and will always be run by noble leadership. But what if an evil person becomes president or head of the CIA? By setting this terrible precedent of allowing torture your giving every future leader and leaders of other countries permission to use torture as they see fit, no matter how amoral the future leadership may be.

There are reason we say no one should torture under any circumstances. Just in case an innocent or decent person becomes a target and just in case bad people rise to power.

Also if America can justify torture, ANY NATION can justify torture ANY TIME in the immediate or distant future.

How it is it worth it just to fight a handful of terrorist attacks every 12 years?

[/rant over]

 

[The Overlord]

Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting this, but I didn't claim, nor do I think that it was OK for the Japanese-Americans to be imprisoned. I was just trying to point out what could be considered American hypocrisy.



As I said in my reply, I freely admit that its an emotional response, and therefor not an effective argument. From a non-emotional perspective, the "right and wrong of it" was determined by the victor - had the Japanese won, the world would have seen us in the wrong.

Well that's not good, without any moral standards, you live in a world where might makes right and the strong have the right to abuse the weak. That doesn't sound like a good world to live in.

Why is okay for the US to use water boarding, but it is not okay for Japan do it? If its okay for the US to use water boarding, why wouldn't other countries decide that is okay for using water boarding whenever they feel like it, because the US says water boarding is okay?

I still find it odd, that you vigorously defended the Second amendment in the past, against even the most minor regulation, but seem perfectly willing to throw out the eighth amendment. That seems like a contradiction to me.

No offense, but many your arguments seem to based on emotion, rather then facts. The scenario you came up with in the OP, where torture is needed to be resolved, seems very fear based. How much facts are there that prove that torture is effective?

 

[dnno1]

The fact is dnno1, they were within the law with the 48 hours, they were not violating ANYONE'S RIGHTS....they were well within the law. Why could the administration have not waited the full 48 hours? They were still questioning him, still getting information according to the FBI agents on site. They were not given the courtesy of being told that the judge and lawyer were coming, their superiors were not called and given a heads up, which is usually how it is done....I have a problem with that.

They don't have to wait 48 hours though (and in this case they came very close to it -- remember he was captured on a Friday evening and read his rights on a Monday morning out of which they questioned him 16 hours of that time). You should be made aware of your rights within 48 hours not necessarily at the end. Once they determined that they had what they needed, I am sure that they then read him his rights. I think a conviction was more important here than what he knew, which was probably not much. They can find the rest of the story (and they are finding it) via investigation of the evidence.

 

[Kelly]

They don't have to wait 48 hours though (and in this case they came very close to it -- remember he was captured on a Friday evening and read his rights on a Monday morning out of which they questioned him 16 hours of that time). You should be made aware of your rights within 48 hours not necessarily at the end. Once they determined that they had what they needed, I am sure that they then read him his rights. I think a conviction was more important here than what he knew, which was probably not much. They can find the rest of the story (and they are finding it) via investigation of the evidence.

If the FBI says they needed that time, if they said that the 48 hours was needed, if they said that the protocol thus far as been for them to get a heads up from a judge when this action was being taken.....guess what? I believe them....and since it was just a few hours away, the judge and lawyer could have waited....BUT NO, because they were afraid he would say something would make this EVEN MORE a terrorist act...and since this administration likes to call "Terrorist Acts" "Workplace Violence" I can see why they were apprehensive of what he would say.

It was stupid, and there is not enough excuses that you can give for this administration to make me think otherwise....

Moving on....

 

[moviedoors]

and there is not enough excuses that you can give for this administration to make me think otherwise....

That's basically the definition of being closed minded.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Well that's not good, without any moral standards, you live in a world where might makes right and the strong have the right to abuse the weak. That doesn't sound like a good world to live in.

Who said anything about eradicating all morals, or even some of them? Also, morals are totally subjective, case in point: this entire thread; I feel it is morally abhorrent to put the short term well being of a terrorist before innocent lives, while others feel it is morally repugnant to think that terrorists' well being isnt equal to innocent lives.

Why is okay for the US to use water boarding, but it is not okay for Japan do it? If its okay for the US to use water boarding, why wouldn't other countries decide that is okay for using water boarding whenever they feel like it, because the US says water boarding is okay?

I think this would be a valid argument if we already didn't see this "it's ok for us, but not for you" mentality in the global theater already. Why can some countries have nuclear power and others can't? Why can't some countries have standing armies, or bases spread around the globe and others can't? The right to water-board would, in theory, fall under the same category (though, let's be honest, torture of all forms happens in most if not all countries for one reason or another regardless of the laws, the difference is whether they admit it or not). The UN approves/disapproves various countries to have or do things for all manner of reasons. Why is it suddenly an issue with THIS particular topic, when there a hundreds more, possibly more important instances of "hypocrisy" (I quote that because like "justified" torture, I do not find it hypocritical for a country to be banned from things if they don't meet the UN's standards while others are given the green light).

I still find it odd, that you vigorously defended the Second amendment in the past, against even the most minor regulation, but seem perfectly willing to throw out the eighth amendment. That seems like a contradiction to me.

Well that's not accurate in the slightest. I've repeatedly stated that better background checks, no gun show loop holes (excluding immediate family), required mental health examines (hell, better mental health programs PERIOD) and stricter punishment, among other things is a good thing. It's ignorant knee-jerk reactions and overzealous regulation that I oppose, not well thought out, reasonable change. Also, people agree with portions of the Constitution and not others - they even, on occasion feel the need to completely change it (there are, after all, 27 ratified Amendments).

I do not disagree with, nor am I "perfectly willing" to throw out the 8th Amendment. Please don't exaggerate my stance; I've repeated it enough times here there isn't any need for that. But for the record:

Firstly, I personally believe that a domestic terrorist (such as the Boston Bomber) should automatically be tried as an enemy combatant, no question, and lose their citizenship flat out. Secondly, ONLY known terrorists, whom the government knows is withholding vital information would, by law, be susceptible to torture, and ONLY under extreme circumstances where ALL OTHER interrogation avenues have been thoroughly exhausted. If government agencies felt that the circumstances have progressed to where torture is the only option, it must be approved by the President or a Federal Judge (circumstances depending), and said torture would be administered under military medical supervision and the strictest of guidelines (ie: only certified techniques used, regulated duration and frequency, etc) to ensure no long term effects.

This does not mean that Joe Sixpack who was unknowingly friends with a terrorist can be pulled out of bed and tortured. This does not even mean that a guy who shoots up a school can be tortured. Again, the terrorist would have to have confirmed ties with terrorist organizations, in an extreme situation where nothing else has worked. This is for those extremely rare, extraordinarily dire circumstances (which, lets all be honest, is far more unlikely than it is likely). This is allowing ourselves the ability to do what needs to be done, god forbid, if we were to ever see that 1 in a million chance. This is not, in my mind, "throwing away" the 8th Amendment in the slightest.

No offense, but many your arguments seem to based on emotion, rather then facts. The scenario you came up with in the OP, where torture is needed to be resolved, seems very fear based. How much facts are there that prove that torture is effective?

Emotion is ALWAYS going to play a role in one degree or another. If we were to damn every decision or opinion that had the slightest bit of emotion involved, every opinion - including mine AND yours here - would be null and void. The trick is to know when emotion is overriding calculated thought. As far as "facts and evidence", I've posted several links in this thread that believe give credence to my opinion (and I'm the only one whose done so, coincidentally). Feel free to look back; I honestly don't care enough at this moment to repost them (no offense to your time or thoughts meant - it's just one of those nights).

 

[Kelly]

That's basically the definition of being closed minded.

No, it is having made up my mind after reading extensively about this issue....not coming up with excuses because I kneel at the alter of Obama and everyone in his Administration.

I will say this, the FBI could have actually LEGALLY in the state of Massachusetts gotten more time, but they did not file charges in a timely manner...so they botched things as well.

 

[Shazam]

yes.....and most people voting no havent been threaten with a bomb or maimed yet.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

yes.....and most people voting no havent been threaten with a bomb or maimed yet.

What are the odds that you'll be killed by a terrorist?

Do you know?

Is it worth giving up (forever) everyone's civil liberties, human rights and moral integrity for a false sense of security?

 

[kedrell]

As to the OP's question I voted no. But honestly, haven't we done this forever in this country anyway already? Sure we let other prisoners carry it out with sodomization and such but it's basically the same thing.

 

[The Overlord]

Who said anything about eradicating all morals, or even some of them? Also, morals are totally subjective, case in point: this entire thread; I feel it is morally abhorrent to put the short term well being of a terrorist before innocent lives, while others feel it is morally repugnant to think that terrorists' well being isnt equal to innocent lives.



I think this would be a valid argument if we already didn't see this "it's ok for us, but not for you" mentality in the global theater already. Why can some countries have nuclear power and others can't? Why can't some countries have standing armies, or bases spread around the globe and others can't? The right to water-board would, in theory, fall under the same category (though, let's be honest, torture of all forms happens in most if not all countries for one reason or another regardless of the laws, the difference is whether they admit it or not). The UN approves/disapproves various countries to have or do things for all manner of reasons. Why is it suddenly an issue with THIS particular topic, when there a hundreds more, possibly more important instances of "hypocrisy" (I quote that because like "justified" torture, I do not find it hypocritical for a country to be banned from things if they don't meet the UN's standards while others are given the green light).
.

So what are you saying? Past hypocrisy justifies current hypocrisy? If so, that is not much of an argument.

So who determines what hypocrisy is okay and what is not? The UN? Because the US seems to ignore the UN whenever it feels like it? The US tries to punish Iraq for violating UN resolution, but has no problem with Israel violating UN resolutions. So who gets to violate UN resolutions and who doesn't?

Plus lots people take the US to task for all this hypocrisy and would reject the idea that past hypocrisy justifies current hypocrisy. I am not anarchist, but they do have some interesting criticism: someone like Howard Zinn would say it makes no sense that individual who murders another individual is to be reviled and punished, but the government can kill a bunch of people in a dubious war and no one gets punished for it.

Again the same arguments you are making, the Japanese solders could have made, that they needed to water board those US soldiers to get information to protect their homeland. You are avoiding my main question, why is it okay for the US to water board people and not Japan? You are not dealing with that incident.

Well that's not accurate in the slightest. I've repeatedly stated that better background checks, no gun show loop holes (excluding immediate family), required mental health examines (hell, better mental health programs PERIOD) and stricter punishment, among other things is a good thing. It's ignorant knee-jerk reactions and overzealous regulation that I oppose, not well thought out, reasonable change. Also, people agree with portions of the Constitution and not others - they even, on occasion feel the need to completely change it (there are, after all, 27 ratified Amendments).

I do not disagree with, nor am I "perfectly willing" to throw out the 8th Amendment. Please don't exaggerate my stance; I've repeated it enough times here there isn't any need for that. But for the record:

Firstly, I personally believe that a domestic terrorist (such as the Boston Bomber) should automatically be tried as an enemy combatant, no question, and lose their citizenship flat out. Secondly, ONLY known terrorists, whom the government knows is withholding vital information would, by law, be susceptible to torture, and ONLY under extreme circumstances where ALL OTHER interrogation avenues have been thoroughly exhausted. If government agencies felt that the circumstances have progressed to where torture is the only option, it must be approved by the President or a Federal Judge (circumstances depending), and said torture would be administered under military medical supervision and the strictest of guidelines (ie: only certified techniques used, regulated duration and frequency, etc) to ensure no long term effects.

This does not mean that Joe Sixpack who was unknowingly friends with a terrorist can be pulled out of bed and tortured. This does not even mean that a guy who shoots up a school can be tortured. Again, the terrorist would have to have confirmed ties with terrorist organizations, in an extreme situation where nothing else has worked. This is for those extremely rare, extraordinarily dire circumstances (which, lets all be honest, is far more unlikely than it is likely). This is allowing ourselves the ability to do what needs to be done, god forbid, if we were to ever see that 1 in a million chance. This is not, in my mind, "throwing away" the 8th Amendment in the slightest.

Gun Violence kills way more Americans then terrorism, so why does terrorism require more drastic action then gun violence? I also think some these general arguments about torture seem like knee jerk reactions, rather then well thought ideas.

Plus if you are worried that the government will over reach on gun control, why can't other people worry government over reach on terrorism and torture? If the government messed up the intelligence on Iraq and managed to kill thousands people in that war, why wouldn't the government mess up the intelligence and think an innocent man is a terrorist? Doesn't the whole "enemy combatant" label mean the government can be more loose with some one rights then they would normally be, so why would the government go through all that over sight you suggested? If the government was sloppy on the Iraq war, I don't see why they wouldn't be sloppy on determining who is actually a terrorist or not.

It seems like many conservatives often portray the government as corrupt and incompetent in many areas, that they can't be trusted to implement an education program or gun control program, but often seem have almost absolute faith in the government in terms of war, terrorism, foreign affairs, etc. The US government has overthrown a democratic government they didn't like, so this trust seems very misplaced. Why should the government in be trusted in some areas and not others?

Emotion is ALWAYS going to play a role in one degree or another. If we were to damn every decision or opinion that had the slightest bit of emotion involved, every opinion - including mine AND yours here - would be null and void. The trick is to know when emotion is overriding calculated thought. As far as "facts and evidence", I've posted several links in this thread that believe give credence to my opinion (and I'm the only one whose done so, coincidentally). Feel free to look back; I honestly don't care enough at this moment to repost them (no offense to your time or thoughts meant - it's just one of those nights).

I think you are letting emotion blind you a bit on this issue.

If you are going to question gun control programs on effectiveness, why cannot I question torture on its effectiveness?

There is a lot of articles that question the effectiveness of terrorism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=1&

http://blog.nola.com/guesteditorials/2009/04/how_effective_is_torture_not_v.html

So if there are major questions on the effectiveness of torture, isn't any right that people question whether the government should violate the 8th amendment for something that may not even work.

 

[Spider-Who?]

So what are you saying? Past hypocrisy justifies current hypocrisy? If so, that is not much of an argument.


So who determines what hypocrisy is okay and what is not? The UN? Because the US seems to ignore the UN whenever it feels like it? The US tries to punish Iraq for violating UN resolution, but has no problem with Israel violating UN resolutions. So who gets to violate UN resolutions and who doesn't?

I think you miss the point. Is it hypocritical for a group of nations to look at a dictatorship and say "No, you're bad news, we don't want you having nukes"? The global community NEEDS to regulate who does what based on the quality of each country. That isn't hypocrisy. That isn't to say hypocrisy does not exist in the global theater - it certainly does.

Again the same arguments you are making, the Japanese solders could have made, that they needed to water board those US soldiers to get information to protect their homeland. You are avoiding my main question, why is it okay for the US to water board people and not Japan? You are not dealing with that incident.

Like with all things - especially war - it's relative. Simple as that. Had Japan won, history would look at them in a different light.

Gun Violence kills way more Americans then terrorism, so why does terrorism require more drastic action then gun violence?

Terrorism is a global threat. It's not only about killing as many civilians as possible, but its also about upsetting the balance of power, tearing down economies, and in cases like in the middle-east, overthrowing the government to create countries that allow for terrorist networks to flourish. Yes, guns may kill more people on any given day, but terrorism in general is a much larger problem with far graver consequences.

Plus if you are worried that the government will over reach on gun control, why can't other people worry government over reach on terrorism and torture?

I never said they couldn't.

Doesn't the whole "enemy combatant" label mean the government can be more loose with some one rights then they would normally be, so why would the government go through all that over sight you suggested?

You answer your own question below:

If the government was sloppy on the Iraq war, I don't see why they wouldn't be sloppy on determining who is actually a terrorist or not.

I also think you vastly underestimate the government's ability to figure out if someone is a terrorist. But like you point out, mistakes can happen, which is the reason for the oversight I mentioned earlier.

It seems like many conservatives often portray the government as corrupt and incompetent in many areas....

I'm not a conservative, actually.

Why should the government in be trusted in some areas and not others?

There are some things the government does very well. Some things the government doesn't do so well. That being said, this question is one that is asked countless times over and applies to FAR more topics than this one. Show me a government that people feel can be trusted in every aspect, and I'll show you an Orwellian nightmare.

I think you are letting emotion blind you a bit on this issue.

You can think that all you want, but trust me: if this were based more on emotion, my thoughts on torture would be a lot more savage. My opinion is based on one simple thought: stopping physical/emotional damage or death of ONE innocent person caused by terrorism is worth FAR more than the life of a terrorist. You can disagree all you want, but I find THAT to be morally/ethically right.

If you are going to question gun control programs on effectiveness, why cannot I question torture on its effectiveness?

I never said you couldn't nor that you shouldn't. That's the entire point of this thread.

There is a lot of articles that question the effectiveness of terrorism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=1&

http://blog.nola.com/guesteditorials/2009/04/how_effective_is_torture_not_v.html

So if there are major questions on the effectiveness of torture, isn't any right that people question whether the government should violate the 8th amendment for something that may not even work.

There's always going to be questions regarding it for a plethora of reasons. The fact that effectiveness can be questioned by those who are against it isn't enough to qualify dismissal (it goes both ways). And honestly, yes, some of the questions are totally valid, which is half the reason why I'm not calling for unrestricted use of torture techniques, whether its water boarding or blaring the theme song to Barney.

Also, once again, I do not believe that it is a violation of the 8th Amendment for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.

I'm curious, what do the people who are against this feel about the death penalty? Or of Obama's drone strikes of suspected terrorists that almost always kill civilians - no arrest and trial; just an immediate death sentence with loss of innocent life? How is none of that worse than water boarding a known terrorist in an extreme situation? I've asked about the drone strikes several times here, but on one offers any thoughts, which says a lot to me. The moral ambiguity here is startling.

 

[SentinelMind]

Support for torturing US citizens should be grounds for removal from office in my opinion...

 

[Spade]

The problem with torture, as I see it: If you were being tortured- let's say waterboarded, since people are most familiar with it- wouldn't you say anything just to make it stop? It doesn't have to be true; you know whatever you say that sounds true enough will make the torture stop temporarily while someone goes to verify what you said. If it's only a few seconds or a few hours, that won't matter to you. That's time you're not being tortured, time to organize your thoughts, to get your bearings. And once the authorities realize you've lied? They could risk torturing you again for kicks and giggles, or come to the safe conclusion that whatever else comes out of your mouth is liable to be another waste of their time.

Now consider that someone who is being tortured, as a last resort or not, has likely been trained for such an occasion. They might have a moment of weakness, sure. But they know, for example, that a vegetable is not a lead. Even torture has its limits. So how useful is it to get information? Sure, with low level goons or a sole nutcase it can work. Maybe. It's worked in the past. Make them pliable, and you've got a stool pigeon. That's not common, though. With someone higher up a chain of command or a real psycho, who more likely has worthwhile intel yet has nothing to gain from speaking, you're barking up the wrong tree to try torture. And if someone outside the inner circle finds out you did? This is the internet age. It will get out. There will be consequences, no matter to what degree.

I can certainly see why people think it's worth a try. These situations where torture is considered usually involve metaphorical or physical ticking clocks. Real lives might be lost if something isn't done. But the data out there on torture proves the sheer odds of getting intelligence out of someone by way of force is very, very low. It's simply too hard to justify.

 

[regwec]

The problem with torture, as I see it: If you were being tortured- let's say waterboarded, since people are most familiar with it- wouldn't you say anything just to make it stop?

This is exactly why we stopped using it in England. In 1640.

 

[Kelly]

To me, just play Tiny Tim music loud, until they crack. I would tell them what they wanted.

Two things would happen, sleep deprivation would slow their ability to make up a good lie, their fear that if you found out they lied they would play more Tiny Tim music, would make you want to tell the truth. *shudders* that would be horrible torture. Maybe we shouldn't use that....

 

[Pink Ranger]

To me, just play Tiny Tim music loud, until they crack. I would tell them what they wanted.

Two things would happen, sleep deprivation would slow their ability to make up a good lie, their fear that if you found out they lied they would play more Tiny Tim music, would make you want to tell the truth. *shudders* that would be horrible torture. Maybe we shouldn't use that....

Just pray that you do not go to war against Canada, because that wouldn't work on us. We gave the world Celine Dion, Justin Bieber and the Call Me Maybe girl, you think we are not immune to your pathetic sonic weapons?!?

 

[Kelly]

Just pray that you do not go to war against Canada, because that wouldn't work on us. We gave the world Celine Dion, Justin Bieber and the Call Me Maybe girl, you think we are not immune to your pathetic sonic weapons?!?

Are y'all tone deaf?????

 

[SuperFerret]

Finally, some serious conversation in this thread.

 

[warhorse78]

What are the odds that you'll be killed by a terrorist?

Do you know?

Is it worth giving up (forever) everyone's civil liberties, human rights and moral integrity for a false sense of security?

Exactly. Also, there is another side we need to look at. What if, you get framed for a terrorist attack, and they go ahead and torture you, even though you are innocent the whole time?????? This is why I don't like extreme punishment, because there is that chance that someone might truly be innocent.

 

[Schlosser85]

Comparing Celine Dion to Justin Bieber is the most offensive statement this thread has seen yet.

 

[Spider-Who?]

The problem with torture, as I see it: If you were being tortured- let's say waterboarded, since people are most familiar with it- wouldn't you say anything just to make it stop? It doesn't have to be true; you know whatever you say that sounds true enough will make the torture stop temporarily while someone goes to verify what you said. If it's only a few seconds or a few hours, that won't matter to you. That's time you're not being tortured, time to organize your thoughts, to get your bearings. And once the authorities realize you've lied? They could risk torturing you again for kicks and giggles, or come to the safe conclusion that whatever else comes out of your mouth is liable to be another waste of their time.

This is a very popular argument, but born out of a total misconception of accurate enhanced interrogation techniques. I blame hollywood. It's actually unlikely that a terrorist will "say anything to make the pain stop", as that is not the purpose and they know it. The purpose of torture is a psychological one. It's about breaking past the mental barrier of not only silence, but dishonesty as well. Interrogators do not ask questions they don't already know the answers to to avoid this; just like in normal interrogations, honesty is the end game. It's about breaking the will of a terrorist so that they not only don't have the energy, but ability, nor desire to say anything but the truth.

Now consider that someone who is being tortured, as a last resort or not, has likely been trained for such an occasion. They might have a moment of weakness, sure. But they know, for example, that a vegetable is not a lead. Even torture has its limits. So how useful is it to get information? Sure, with low level goons or a sole nutcase it can work. Maybe. It's worked in the past. Make them pliable, and you've got a stool pigeon. That's not common, though. With someone higher up a chain of command or a real psycho, who more likely has worthwhile intel yet has nothing to gain from speaking, you're barking up the wrong tree to try torture.

Have you not heard of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? He was a high ranking al-Qaeda member who masterminded the 9/11 attack, the 1993 WTC bombing and many others. He steed fastly refused to talk, laughed and lied during water boarding., but after a week of stress positions and sleep deprivation, he turned a new leaf and has been open ever since. Every one has a breaking point. Being a higher up the chain doesn't save you from that.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Comparing Celine Dion to Justin Bieber is the most offensive statement this thread has seen yet.

Ooooh, now I know your weakness, Schloss! Ha ha ha ...

 

[Kelly]

Comparing Celine Dion to Justin Bieber is the most offensive statement this thread has seen yet.

Oooooooooooooooh PR is in troooouuubbbllleee now. lmao....

 

[Pink Ranger]

Oooooooooooooooh PR is in troooouuubbbllleee now. lmao....

Well, I've always heard that Celine Dion has a gay following ... and now I know who that individual is. t: