| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:36 pm Prisoner (Terrorist) Interrogations |
|
In light of all the recent allegations, including on this site, regarding the United States "torturing" terrorists in interrogations, what do you think the United States government should do in interrogations? In particular, the CIA, which is at the center of the current debate?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:21 am |
|
I say anything goes.
If we aren't strong enough to go to the mat with these scumbags then they've already won.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:24 pm |
|
So waterboarding, shock therapy, and threatening to chop their heads off (and even doing so to teach a lesson) is acceptable to you? That is sinking to their level, not to mention going too far.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:11 pm |
|
Actually, scratch waterboarding. I might support that. I need to think this through, but it worked quite well in a number of cases, including Khalid Sheik Muhammed, the mastermind of 9-11
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:06 pm |
|
That's sick.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:26 pm |
|
Well, I don't think that it qualifies as torture, most as a really, really harsh, perhaps abusive, measure, and it has really worked to get information out of people. It saves lives and isn't that extreme. But as I said (or at least implied), I'm not sure.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:12 pm |
|
Pouring Water over peoples heads for 30 min straight = torture
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:18 pm |
|
Not 30 minutes straight. 30 seconds to 2.5 minutes, tops. (That 2.5 minutes was done to Khalid Sheik Muhammed, the hardest to brake.)
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:05 am |
|
Imagine having your head shoved underwater for 2.5 minutes...
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:11 am |
|
I'd hate it, I know. I really would. Hence why it's an effective measure, and why it worked so well.
I suppose it's not the right thing to do from now on, but we have to acknowledge its critical success in the past--and I do mean critical success--and I still don't believe it's torture, but rather a really harsh, effective, perhaps abusive measure of interrogation, yet one of the best methods out there in terms of getting critical information that could save lives on an instant basis.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:13 am |
|
I can kinda understand doing this to a captured terrorist leader, but to an Afghan conscript, who has no idea of plans?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:17 am |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | I can kinda understand doing this to a captured terrorist leader, but to an Afghan conscript, who has no idea of plans? |
Oh, don't worry. The 14 upon whom this method was ditched were all key al-Qaeda leaders and operatives, not your average terrorist joe.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:19 am |
|
Ok, then I can see, and understand it being used.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:31 am |
|
Good. Then we've reached common ground  Waterboarding was what broke, as I said before, Khalid Sheik Muhammed and got him to cough up information about the plot and the hijackers.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:29 am |
|
The "terrorists" want nothing less than the obliteration of our culture and the death of everyone in the West. How is the mere "torture" of a few individuals "sinking to their level"?
torture < genocide
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:07 am |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | The "terrorists" want nothing less than the obliteration of our culture and the death of everyone in the West. How is the mere "torture" of a few individuals "sinking to their level"?
torture < genocide |
Because not all of the people we're torturing are terrorists. Some have been found to have no ties with Al-Queda whatsoever. Then, they return home, bitter about what the US did to them, spreads the word, and the US has just inadverdently created several new terrorists.
This is something we need to be careful with. I don't really care about the conditions of these terrorists to be honest. They have it damn good compared to other nations. But on the other hand, I don't want the US to act like some communist nation that treats it's citizens like garbage. We're the US, we're better then that. I like knowing the US, no matter what, doesn't stoop to their level.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:10 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Because not all of the people we're torturing are terrorists. |
So you're buying the far-left argument that the US is actuallytorturing prisoners?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:14 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | Because not all of the people we're torturing are terrorists. |
So you're buying the far-left argument that the US is actuallytorturing prisoners? |
I take it you've never heard of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay?
Yes, I'm sure they are torturing them. Do I care? Not really. That is the nature of it.
You've already listed what they do to them. While it isn't as bad as anything they'd do to us, it still is torture, just at the mildest of levels.
However, if the Left honestly believes torture started with Bush, then they really are dumb. I'm sure the US has been doing it for a lot longer then Bush. Although, compared to virtually every other nation on the planet, I bet we treat them the most humanely.
What I do worry about is torturing or "interrogating" innocent prisoners. Why? Because that BREEDS more terrorists.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:23 am |
|
Abu Graihb was unfeddered abuse. It was not torture, and it was a rare instance that you cannot bring up in a serious debate over whether or not the US tortures prisoners. Gitmo isn't a torture center as well. There may have been a little torture that occured in the beginning when things were incredibly vague and whatnot, but after that torture has not occured there. The Red Cross has a station on the island at Gitmo. They have yet to complain about the good treatment of prisoners there--treatment which has improved even more so since the recent enumeration of interrogation abilities of the military, enumerations which give the military less latitude with interrogating terrorists than the police are at interrogating criminals.
You're really starting to scare me hear, buying the far-left mantra which rarely is that Bush instigated it. The mantra is that the United States tortures prisoners, and with a few exceptions, that is so clearly not the case.
Now I'm going to ask you the same question I tried to ask WeAz and O'Reilly keeps asking the left-wing folks on his show: What do you do to terrorists being held prisoner in terms of interrogations? Is all you'll allow name, rank, and Jihad number, because that's just not gonna cut it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:47 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Abu Graihb was unfeddered abuse. It was not torture, and it was a rare instance that you cannot bring up in a serious debate over whether or not the US tortures prisoners. Gitmo isn't a torture center as well. There may have been a little torture that occured in the beginning when things were incredibly vague and whatnot, but after that torture has not occured there. The Red Cross has a station on the island at Gitmo. They have yet to complain about the good treatment of prisoners there--treatment which has improved even more so since the recent enumeration of interrogation abilities of the military, enumerations which give the military less latitude with interrogating terrorists than the police are at interrogating criminals.
What? Abuse, not toruture? You're playing with words here and that's ridiculous. I do agree that what happened at Abu Graihb was not happening everywhere, but it IS something that needs to be address and DOES need to be brought up.
As for Gitmo, if there is no torture there, then why are Human rights groups saying there is torture? Other nations are greatly disturbed by it. I don't trust the testimony of the prisoners though, but they do claim there is torture there. Not to mention, the testimony from the FBI agent, Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt, Sean Baker, and more.
Speaking of the Red Cross...
| Quote: | | The International Committee of the Red Cross inspected the camp in June 2004. In a confidential report issued in July 2004 and leaked to the New York Times in November 2004, Red Cross inspectors accused the U.S. military of using "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions" against prisoners. The inspectors concluded that "the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture." The United States Government has reportedly rejected the Red Cross findings. |
Source: Wikipedia
Just because the US doesn't want to accept, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
How about the many suicides?
You're really starting to scare me hear, buying the far-left mantra which rarely is that Bush instigated it. The mantra is that the United States tortures prisoners, and with a few exceptions, that is so clearly not the case.
The only thing that scares me is that you quote O'Reilly word for word on everything.
Well...there is already proof the US has done it before. You can ignore Abu as much as you want, but it did happen. I do agree that the far-left paints it as the US is doing horrendous things, meanwhile, they ignore what other nations do.
Now I'm going to ask you the same question I tried to ask WeAz and O'Reilly keeps asking the left-wing folks on his show: What do you do to terrorists being held prisoner in terms of interrogations? Is all you'll allow name, rank, and Jihad number, because that's just not gonna cut it. |
I'm fine with torturing REAL terrorists. As usual, you're missing my point. I disagree with good ole Bill, then suddenly I'm far-left. Please, spare me that.
I said my grief was with torturing the innocent people and turning them into terrorists. Get it now or what?
|
|
|
Ziona
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Aug 2001
Posts: 12821
Location: Michigan... for now
|
| Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 am |
|
| Founder wrote: |
I'm fine with torturing REAL terrorists. As usual, you're missing my point. I disagree with good ole Bill, then suddenly I'm far-left. Please, spare me that.
I said my grief was with torturing the innocent people and turning them into terrorists. Get it now or what? |
I concur with Founder on this point. I'm totally fine with the torturing of real terrorists that are caught and found out to be terrorists. And I side with Founder in the fact that catching people for the sake of making them terrorists, either by profiling or some other detrimental form of identification is morally wrong.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:58 am |
|
| Ziona wrote: | | Founder wrote: |
I'm fine with torturing REAL terrorists. As usual, you're missing my point. I disagree with good ole Bill, then suddenly I'm far-left. Please, spare me that.
I said my grief was with torturing the innocent people and turning them into terrorists. Get it now or what? |
I concur with Founder on this point. I'm totally fine with the torturing of real terrorists that are caught and found out to be terrorists. And I side with Founder in the fact that catching people for the sake of making them terrorists, either by profiling or some other detrimental form of identification is morally wrong. |
I agree with that to! It is morally wrong to do that, profling and such. As for the statement about Bill? I agree with Andy on that to. It gets tiring.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:51 am |
|
| Quote: | | I'm fine with torturing REAL terrorists. As usual, you're missing my point. I disagree with good ole Bill, then suddenly I'm far-left. Please, spare me that. |
Wow. You're fine with torturing so-called "REAL" terrorists. I'm not even fond of that. So are Ziona and LB? So you guys are extreme on that end. Fartherst I would go on them (leaders, at least) is waterboarding. Beyond that, I don't really think so. I couldn't advocate full-fledged torture, even to terrorists. At least, in most cases. There might be one or two instances where it's warranted.
Next, I didn't call you "far-left." I said you were agreeing with the far-left here. You, as usual, are missing my point.
Anyways, the people being put into these CIA cells, which is what the current debate is all about, are real terrorists. They're the high-profile ones. The other stuff (Gitmo and whatnot) isn't so much currently in the debate, but if you factor that it, the vast majority of people being held there are, in fact, terrorists, with a few excpetions.
However, noting that that Red Cross report was from June 2004, things have changed since then, and that is noteworthy. Just because there is international uproar about Gitmo doesn't mean anything because they have not gone to Gitmo themselves. The UN, which ordered the facility shut down, did not investigate Gitmo for themselves. They only got jaded testimony from people who had no real ground to go on. And the human rights groups are left-wing organizations that see almost every tough action against terrorists by the United States as torture. All they want is as O'Reilly rightly suggests in this debate--name, rank, and Jihad number.
As to O'Reilly, there are only three issues I fervantly agree with him on, and this is one of them (along with illegal immigration and child sex offenders). This is why you consistently see me bringing up things O'Reilly says here--because I fully agree with him on this issue, and he has made excellent points which I find worth bringing up and restating, for they truly are superb.
He went to Gitmo, you know, as have a number of others who came back saying there was nothing wrong there. Not since 2004, as O'Reilly discussed after his visit there, has the Red Cross complained about treatment at Gitmo, where they are stationed. I'm surprised you don't know all the great things the residents of what Rush Limbaugh calls Club Gitmo get. They're things that oftentimes our own prisoners don't get.
I will concede that Gitmo wasn't good for the first two or so years in action, hence the negative reports of it up to 2004. There was abuse that went on there, with rules not really set out, and some of it may have bordered on, or been, torture. And you have Abu Graihb and a few other rare incidents that may have occured when US servicemen got grossly out of line. But you can't take those few rare examples and say, "The US tortures terrorists, and the US tortures non-terrorists," because we don't. There are only a few instances of abuse and torture that have gone on, and it is the exception, not the rule. So please stop trying to make it seem like the rule, or like, probably more accurately (don't want you to accuse me of misconstruing your argument again), the majority, or purality, of the detainees we capture and use harsh measures on are not terrorists, because that isn't so. And I'd advise you to quit stating how you're fine with torture on terrorists and yet not on non-terrorist detainees while making it seem like almost no one we have imprisoned is a terrorist. The way you're framining your argument is just wrong, IMO. Let me know where I'm wrong here, because I'm sure you're going to tell me I'm misunderstanding again.
Though I do get you're final point, though. Torturing definite terrorists is okay, but torturing non-terrorists picked up on the battlefield is not okay.
Well, I agree with the latter and disagree with the former. Harsh measures, as far as waterboarding, should be permitted upon terrorists, but not torture, unless there is an extreme, extreme reason that warrants it (even though terrorists don't fall under the juristiction of Geneva protections or the Constitution, though with regards to the military they pretty much get Constitutional protections now, if not more so).
However, though there are some people who are captured on the battlefield who may not be terrorists, most are, in fact, terrorists, and the reason why they are released is primarily because they have no further info that they can share. It's not like we're churning out new terrorists daily through this, like (it at least appears that) you are insinuating.
Save for a few rare instances, which result in retribution, the United States does not engage in torture. It does coersive interrogations, which are necessary. If you're so concerned about picking up too many people who aren't terrorists and putting them into prisons to be interrogated as such, how do you suggest our troops go about determining whether or not Akmed Doe caught on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan is a terrorist when their positioning is just like those of actual terrorists, not Muhammed the Barber.
Or, most likely better put, say our troops pick up a Muslim on the battlefield that they think are terrorists. They take them in for questioning. How do they find out, there, whether the captured man is a terrorist or not? I mean, how do you think they should find this out? I have a lot more faith in our troops being able to pick out and determined who's a terrorist and who's not than you're giving them credit for.
Coersive interrogation methods are absolutely valid in this war, and if an individual happens to turn out to not be a terroirst, I'd rather be wrong about using coersive measures on him (NOT torture) than be wrong about thinking he's not a terrorist and 10 or more civlians be blown up as a result. Clearly you don't agree with this sentiment, or do you?
Finally, there's one thing that sets you apart from the left-wing people: You support torture. I don't even support that, but you support torture of terrorists, but you're just incredibly picky and whatnot of the determination of who's a terrorist and who's not. You have the mentality, it seems to me, that a majority, or at least plurality, of those suspected terrorists being held in prison cells are not, in fact, terrorists, and that is different from the left, which doesn't believe in torture or even coersive interrogation beyond simple questioning for anyone.
Interesting, though, how you support torture for terrorists, and when that is thought to have happened to those that mostly are terrorists, you seem to detest it, or accuse the US military of being wrong in determining that the individual is a terrorist or not, which is why your argument really makes no sense because it's really based on the idea that most of the suspects captured aren't terrorists, which pretty much negates your argument that it's okay to torture terrorists when by what it seems you're arguing we can't use such measures because we don't know if they're terrorists or not. Such is the critical flaw in your argument.
Please tell me if you think I'm misinterpreting your arguments again, because I think I'm understanding them sufficiently well.
((I've been typing this out for a while now and I realize it's longer than I thought, so I'm too lazy and tired to edit it, hence why there may be errors in my text or argument. I think I may very well be done for the night ))
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:41 am |
|
1) At the heart of the 'torture' issue is this: trying to prove a negative. If we have photos, phone recordings, emails, letters, money drafts, or other tangible proof that a person is connected to terrorism, well and good. But if we nab a suspected terrorist who claims he/she is "innocent", do we simply take their word for it? It's tough to provide proof that you are NOT connected to terrorists.
2) To those who say we should not "stoop to their level":
What if "stooping to their level" is the only way to win?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:25 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | What if "stooping to their level" is the only way to win? |
I don't know, I really don't, because there are other ways (waterboarding, for instance) that aren't qui9te torture but have fantastic success rates with terrorists. Stooping to their level isn't necessary to win.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
