However, this is not what we are talking about. If a government has the right to torture who will make the decision?
Some mid-level government employ?? An administrator that would probably just order torture to cover his ass? You know, he reeeeaaallly tried everything…
A judge, that has either has to be elected (must please the masses) or has to be appointed (must please only one person)?
[/quote]
I understand the gist of your post, but the issue of who will decide occurs in every decision where a person is punished, whether it be suspension from school or the use of the death penalty. The fact we might find the process imperfect does not mean it should not be done.
It is a fact that Saddam had WMD, we just can’t find what he did with them. It’s only common sense that the one’s he had did not just vanish into thin air.
[quote]Beauzo wrote:
It is a fact that Saddam had WMD, we just can’t find what he did with them. It’s only common sense that the one’s he had did not just vanish into thin air.[/quote]
hahahahahahahahahaha! Fact-that’s really rich, ominiscent one. But that has nothing to do with the present case at hand. I’m sorry to say that I think torture is appropriate in some cases. Those cases would be when we have known terrorists in our possession and we need information. Information that can hopefully help prevent attacks. The more troubling issue is determining if someone really is a terrorist. Sometimes it will be pretty clear (known, ranked members of Al Quaeda), but I fear there will still be abuses, and suspected terrorists will be torurted before it’s subtantially certain that they are really terrorists.
[quote]Beauzo wrote:
It is a fact that Saddam had WMD, we just can’t find what he did with them. It’s only common sense that the one’s he had did not just vanish into thin air.[/quote]
Yup,
that is why some of them will probably re-appear right in the US of A. There is some irony in there somewhere put I just cannot put my finger on it…
Funny, but I’d be surprised if the US needed to torture anybody to win any war on this planet.
However, one thing you must realize, is that by acting like the big bad guy, you’ll end up with lots of people hating you that you’ll need to torture.
Funny how that works.
It’s isn’t squeemishness, its the difference between right and wrong. I’d rather kill someone or be killed than torture someone or be tortured. It just isn’t right.
I’d like some right wing nut to explain to me moral relativism out of one side of their mouth while they support all kinds of complete moral attrocities out of the other.
That is why before someone is punished there is what we call a “fair trial” and safety devices like the “appeal process”.
You could do that in torture cases, but then the appeal process would be endless like in US death penalty cases…[/quote]
It would be an imperfect process to be sure, with unjust outcomes at times. In the extreme situations where torture might be considered, the time sensitivity of the matter would be a pre-requisite for the use of torture, ie. trying to get information to stop impending attacks. Again, the fact that mistakes could be made does not in any way mean torture should not occur.
Just to be clear, I am only discussing the extreme cases where it appeared there was no doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner or the dire need for information, as with the Zarqawi example.
It’s isn’t squeemishness, its the difference between right and wrong. I’d rather kill someone or be killed than torture someone or be tortured. It just isn’t right.
[/quote]
No, it’s a choice between two wrongs. Torturing is wrong. A greater wrong is not torturing in cases where there the individual is a known terrorist and there’s the good faith belief that torturing will provide the information that can help stop an attack. If the U.S. has such a person in their possession and does not torture and there’s an attack that kills many that said information could have helped prevent then those deaths are on the U.S. government.
And why did good people die in all our wars, was it for a higher cause? Or to simply enforce our will as Zap here suggests?
Of course it is. Are you being naive?
Do you realize that we actually kill people in war? War is not like the A-Team. People die. Innocents included.
I will not lose sleep over a few murdering scum bastards being waterboarded.
I do get angry when some feckless politician tries to score political points by damaging our ability to prosecute the war.
Yes people do die, please try to focus and answer the question I have proposed to you: why do our good people die in wars? Is it for a higher cause (the American way and all that) or is it simply to impose our will?
If it is for a higher cause, how will that cause remain sacred if we sink to the level of our enemies? And if we do sink to their level we are simply imposing our will, and there is no higher cause. If there is no higher cause that means all those killed died for oil and power, not to defend freedom.
One of the reasons that this issue needs to be thought about carefully is that no matter how you feel about the US government, in truth, if the McCain Bill passes, the USA will honor it. It will become, for better or worse, the way we do things in the future.
So, let us put this in perspective. You have said that you would rather die than torture someone. How about if the person under interrogation knows the whereabouts of a dirty bomb that is going to go off in less than 24 hours in downtown Toronto?
We can agree that torture may not work. The enemy agent may be fanatically tough and resistant. He/she may give false information to stop the torture. He/she may die under torture. Those are all risks. It’s your call (I have just appointed you temporary head of the CIA/FBI/Whatever or the Canadian equivalent). What do you do. The clock is ticking.
[quote]Big Dave56 wrote:
Everyone is forgetting that torture does not work, the intel from it is not reliable. A tortured person will say anything to make the pain stop.
The intel community does not want the torture exemption, why do people on this board and dear leader want it so badly?
I thought this was a Christian country?[/quote]
Only when it serves their purposes. Like abortion. For, say, the death penalty…not so much.
[quote]Big Dave56 wrote:
…What do you support Zap, freedom or cheap oil?
[/quote]
Are the terrorists now bringing freedom?
Shouldn’t these Islamic radicals be resisted with all means? Why disarm our intelligence gathering apparatus of one of the few tools that works in this war?
[quote]Big Dave56 wrote:
Everyone is forgetting that torture does not work, the intel from it is not reliable. A tortured person will say anything to make the pain stop.
The intel community does not want the torture exemption, why do people on this board and dear leader want it so badly?
I thought this was a Christian country?[/quote]
Not true. Torture works on many, but not on all. There is a law of diminishing returns when it is used.
Whoa, slow the fuck down Charley! No offense, but that is NOT what I said at all. I would rather kill someone than torture them, thank you very much.
I think, as a policy, torture should be outlawed. However, I think in special cases is should be authorized directly by explicit executive order to be made public after a very short period during which the issue is resolved.
The responsibility for something like this can only rest at the top. However, it is a very serious thing to get into the business of torture, and the top honcho should be willing to bet his job on the need for it – or it simply should not be done.
What president wouldn’t feel it was worth risking his position in order to seriously save American lives? It is his duty to make that type of decision.
Obviously, I am very opposed to torture, except in extreme circumstances. Mohammad Dildo captured in buttfuck Afghanistan does not warrant torture, now matter how much you or I hate him, except under very special conditions.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The US is reserving this treatment for a tiny minority of confirmed terrorists.
They can drown 50 of the murderous bastards if it saves one innocent life.
As long as they are 100% sure they have the right guy, I say go for it.
Remember Cheney is fighting to save people from terrorism, this is just a weapon, just like a gun.
[/quote]
Most ‘Arrested by Mistake’
Coalition intelligence put numbers at 70% to 90% of Iraq prisoners, says a February Red Cross report, which details further abuses.
WASHINGTON - Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70% to 90% of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year “had been arrested by mistake,” according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The US is reserving this treatment for a tiny minority of confirmed terrorists.
They can drown 50 of the murderous bastards if it saves one innocent life.
As long as they are 100% sure they have the right guy, I say go for it.
Remember Cheney is fighting to save people from terrorism, this is just a weapon, just like a gun.
Most ‘Arrested by Mistake’
Coalition intelligence put numbers at 70% to 90% of Iraq prisoners, says a February Red Cross report, which details further abuses.
WASHINGTON - Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70% to 90% of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year “had been arrested by mistake,” according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.
Thanks for the obviously serious consideration that you gave to the question that I posed. What you have proposed as a solution is probably the best that can be advocated for an extremely messy situation. I find that I am in agreement with you. However, you do not get to vote in America and I only have one vote, which I have already spent in the last election, so this issue will go the way it will go. My bet is that the McCain bill will pass, although it may be amended. However, my predictive ability for American polititics is notoriously bad. I still have my Vote for Goldwater buttons.
