O
Oscarthecat
Guest
For the record, I am also opposed to torturing dogs for intel, as it is both cruel and fruitless.
- Status
N
ninaq4
Guest
Hmm…I’ll bet you there are more than a few miltary men and women who would disagree with you…especially when they are the ones that watch as their fellow soldiers are blown up in front of their eyes by the terrorists who conduct many less then sub-human acts on a daily basis.
Let’s not forget these terrorists think that it is okay to strap explosives on their 15 year old sons and daughters…who think its okay to behead volunteers who are simply there to help the people of Iraq and or other arab nations…think of the civilian contractors who were drug through the streets…think of Nicholas Berg…think of Daniel Pearl…think of the 24 Christian aid workers killed in Somalia…think of Gayle Williams…think handicapped 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer…think of the children on the planes that were used as weapons on 9/11…and on and on and on…
And we are not supposed to consider the evil filled terrorists sub-human?? They have no hearts…no consciousness…they are filled with anger and hate…and I for one, am not going to cry if one of them is “suffering” while water is being poured over his head so that he can reveal information about the next hideous and heinous attack on INNOCENT civilians…MEN, WOMEN and CHILDREN!
A
apromisemade
Guest
Although most military analysts and CIA agents who are displaced from the intensity of the battlefield will state that torture is not an effective means of gathering intelligence. I really have no choice but to agree with you as my own brother is one of those “military men” that you speak of who, unfortunately, hold a very, very low opinion of arab people.
As John Mccain put it when addressing the issue of torture by the U.S military, “It’s not about who they are, it’s about who we are.”
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
So it seems you agree with the subhuman statement? Now how do you know the person being tortured is the terrorist(no mistakes allowed) or are you willing to torture innocient people?
N
neat62
Guest
apromisemade
No, I understand you. Just in this day and age, when everyone thinks they are a lawyer, we must now define what subhuman is. If subhuman is like a dog, then, well, one may consider to be pretty lucky.
N
neat62
Guest
apromisemade;
That’s right, they say getting them drunk is much more effective. And so is serving them chicken lemone.
N
ninaq4
Guest
Obviously, the biggest thing that needs to be identified here is what “torture” actually means…as what torture is to one…is not to another. For me…putting gas in my car is torturous…and no, I am not joking! LOL!
In addition…I think its been stated that torture simply for the sake of hurting an individual is not ever right…however, when one is doing what one can to obtain any significant information which will be used to save innocent lives, it can be accepted.
Let me remind everyone too…that the whole definition of torture does in fact have a great deal to do with this…its not simply a black and white issue. If that were the case…solitary confinement while in prison could be considered torture. And for some, their jobs could be considered a form of torture…for instance, my father served in the Navy for 30 years and it was a regular process for him to be deprived of sleep for 48 hours or more…it was simply a part of his job. Does it mean that his superiors tortured him though???
Again, not a black and white issue…and because our government itself is NOT Catholic…they are not obligated to abide by all of the teachings of the Catholic Church…the state still has the ability to discern what they deem is right and necessary…they also have access to intelligence that the Catholic Church DOES NOT…therefore making it almost impossible for the Church to declare whether or not the actions taken were immoral or not.
Finally…let’s be honest…do you really think the Church or the Pope is EVER going to condone ANY form of torture? For that matter ANY war?
I just can’t see Pope Benedict coming out and saying…“yes…torture is good!”
Just like they will not ever come out and say “Yea…let’s go to war!”
N
ninaq4
Guest
Hmm…how do I know…well, he’s captured on the battlefield while weilding a nasty weapon…shooting up innocent victims for the sake of sport…yea…I think I would be pretty dang sure of his “innocence”.
You know…we don’t just go rounding up people and throwing them in prisons…how many of the “innocent” terrorists have been let out of Gitmo only to return to the battlefield to kill MORE of our men and women, as well as innocent Iraqis??
A
apromisemade
Guest
You make a valid point.
However, to me, it all comes back to those images that came out of Abu Ghraib of people (emphasis on people) being contorted into sexually degrading positions and tied into positions that were delibrately meant to put stress on the body while the “interragators” grinned and looked on are all the proof I need that actual torture in the purest sense of the word was committed. Not only was it cruel and downright sadistic, it was pointless. I have seen plenty of proof that torture occured, but nothing to even suggest anything good ever came of it.
N
ninaq4
Guest
Of course…however, that is not the “common” actions of most men and women serving either in the military or any of the intelligence agencies. As far as it being sadistic…I don’t think it was that bad…stupid, yes…but we have sororities here in the US that put their pledges through worse!!
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
You’re mixing cause and effect here-
Encountering a hostile enemy combatant justifies capturing them, or even killing them in self defense or defense of others.
But I can’t see how you would think that torture is an acceptable response in the scenario you detailed. You didn’t even seem to mention whether there was probably cause to believe the hostile had any kind of intel, much less that they were withholding it, or that there was any indication they would only relinquish that information under torture.
Do you think that it is appropriate to torture prisoners just because they are prisoners, or because their crimes have been particularly heinous?
You seem to have very strong feelings on this issue, but it doesn’t seem like you’ve thought through it to an equal degree.
That’s a weak argument- point of fact: we DO go rounding up innocent people and throwing them into prisons. We do it at home and abroad.
There have been several perfectly innocent people released from Abu Ghraib.
You’d be better off defending the right of a nation to go around rounding up people in warzones during wartime. That is a standard operating procedure- we “round up” civilians in warzones to take them out of harms way, and in the process, we screen them and determine if any of them are hostile.
What we DON’T do is assume the guilt of every non-combatant rounded up in a warzone.
And we certainly don’t torture everyone we round up.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
and outside of you where is that standard accepted? I am betting we would have to let most “enemy combatants” go if that statement were real
And you know this how?
probably none, how can you know sentence Gitmo operated in secrecy at least as long as it could?
N
ninaq4
Guest
Again…do you honestly believe that we just randomly pick up people and throw them in Gitmo???
They are considered to be enemy combatants…because they were caught on the battlefields…I know this because I have plenty of family and friends serving…I know that they don’t just go knocking on doors picking individuals up because they don’t like their hair styles…
As for those released from Gitmo returning to commit further heinous attacks…we know because we have examples of such…here try this one for example:
Mind you…that’s from CNN…not exactly a Pro-Gitmo news agency!
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
History would show the wrong people are in fact often picked upAgain…do you honestly believe that we just randomly pick up people and throw them in Gitmo???
and how would you know that? certainly not from their trial as they do not get trials
That is incredibly Naïve and shows a lack of history knowledge ( you may want to read about Mrs. Rosenberg)
From the same people who said there are WMD’s right? Could they be wrong twice?
By The Way (BTW) did you notice you " *captured on the battlefield while weilding a nasty weapon…shooting up innocent victims for the sake of sport *" were released from Gitmo by military personnel? That would make Gitmo worthless as a ligitimate facility
N
ninaq4
Guest
Umm…you’re calling me naive and then daring to bring up the Rosenbergs??? Please…
Are you going to bring up the “Saddam didn’t have WMD argument now too??” Again, let’s talk about who’s naive then…
N
ninaq4
Guest
Oh…and I love the way you completely overlooked the report from CNN supporting my statements…
A
apromisemade
Guest
The abuse and negligence of the prisoners was bad enough that some of them died from it.
Even if that were true, name me one college or university that does not explicitly state that hazing is illegal on their campus.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
CNN only repeated the statement, from the same source as the WMD.Oh…and I love the way you completely overlooked the report from CNN supporting my statements…
Would you rather use McCarthy?
Ethel Rosenburg had little evidence against her, yet she was executed, is that how it is supposed to work?
And again why did your military release those "* captured on the battlefield while weilding a nasty weapon…shooting up innocent victims for the sake of sport " * ?
N
ninaq4
Guest
Can you tell me what happened to those who conducted these actions?
Umm…even if that were true? Have you not seen the stories of the kids who have been killed during hazing? And what has happened to the those who have been caught doing such at the universities? At best the sororities involved get “suspended” and simply because a few conduct stupid hazing rituals…does it mean that every college student is evil and irresponsible?? As is trying to be stated in regards to the US, our military men & women and all those belonging to the various intelligence agencies?
Let’s not forget…WE, the US does sign the Geneva convention…which ALSO states that various forms of torture are illegal! So by your assessment…this is a non-issue because the US has already declared it to be illegal.
N
ninaq4
Guest
First off…lets not compare what happened more than 40 years ago to what goes on today…we know for a fact that some innocent people have been executed in the past through the administration of the death penalty…BUT…in the past we didn’t have the technology and advances that we do today to produce evidence…i.e., DNA, etc. Which has worked as a deterent to the execution of innocents.
Secondly, why were they released? Oh I don’t know…because the LOONIE LEFT here in our nation demands that all be released or haven’t you noticed that our new President Elect has declared he will close Gitmo all together?
I love the way you completely overlook the facts though to divert from responding appropriately…nicely done, good red herring move.
- Status