Most Americans believe torture can be justified - poll

LoganRice

No

raze_them_all_

Deleted User wrote: »

I have never had torture justified to me in GENERAL terms as a good way to go. As a general policy I mean. And not so far convinced by the arguments on the thread.

But I can certainly envision specific scenarios where it would be justified. They might be extremely unlikely scenarios but I can envision them all the same.

For example if I walk into a room with a terrorist who has just turned on a bomb - and its a key pad code that is required to unlock it - I would certainly feel justified in applying just the right amount of discomfort to his well being that is required to make him reach over and key in the required code.

But as many have pointed out - in an isolated scenario of information extraction - you tend to end up with a plyable lump of rubbish who will tell you anything you want to hear to stop the torture. Which defeats the purpose of the torture.

I know I would suck as a spy myself however. You would just have to tie me to a chair and APPROACH me with a hot waxy candle - and I would spill everything from government secrets to my sexual sordid thoughts before you even said "dismiteburnya".

yeah the terrorist standing in the room as the bomb he just set wil be convinced by a bit ofpain before he blows up.....

raze_them_all_

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

yeah the terrorist standing in the room as the bomb he just set wil be convinced by a bit ofpain before he blows up.....

Not quite what i said

Tony EH

DrumSteve wrote: »

What?

Really?

In most cases the info gained is useless. Waterboard someone for 10 minutes and they will tell you whatever you want to hear to make it stop i.e. false confessions.

I can guarantee you, most americans believe torture is justified, once they don't have to be the ones to administer it.

Agreed and the same stupid fools would more than likely be "outraged" if it was their own getting tortured in by some other nation.

Fuckwits.

wylie

DrumSteve wrote: »

What?

Really?

In most cases the info gained is useless. Waterboard someone for 10 minutes and they will tell you whatever you want to hear to make it stop i.e. false confessions.

I can guarantee you, most americans believe torture is justified, once they don't have to be the ones to administer it.

"In most cases the information is useless"

If ANY information is useful and saves innocent lives
whats one scumbag terrorist? what because he is a human being, you think he should be treated humanely and with respect. You think he thinks like this, before he sends a suicide bomber into a building full of innocent people, or sends his death squads into a school packed with children.

I would be interested to know how many posters actually read the senates report/CIA rebuttal?

Abu Zubaydah's torture/interrogation lead to the capture of Jose Padilla, who was planning a radiological attack in the US and is now serving 20 or so years in jail. Zubaydah torture also helped coalition forces to Kahlid sheikh mohammed, who was a contact and messenger for Osama bin laden. While all the information didn't lead to capturing terrorists or stopping terror, I can see the advantages, the vital intelligence it gathered. "Know thy Enemy"

One poster mentioned the friendly approach used by the English army with high ranking germans Pow's. This type of interrogation (building rapport)was also used with the terrorists, they were allowed to pray, shower and sleep as long as they played ball and talked. F.B.I interrogator Ali soufan claims, he used the rapport technique and Abu Zubaydah was talking to him, but this was after 126 hours of sleep deprivation, who wouldn't talk. Sounds to me like he was a broken man.

end of the road

wylie wrote: »

"In most cases the information is useless"

If ANY information is useful and saves innocent lives
whats one scumbag terrorist? what because he is a human being, you think he should be treated humanely and with respect. You think he thinks like this, before he sends a suicide bomber into a building full of innocent people, or sends his death squads into a school packed with children.

I would be interested to know how many posters actually read the senates report/CIA rebuttal?

Abu Zubaydah's torture/interrogation lead to the capture of Jose Padilla, who was planning a radiological attack in the US and is now serving 20 or so years in jail. Zubaydah torture also helped coalition forces to Kahlid sheikh mohammed, who was a contact and messenger for Osama bin laden. While all the information didn't lead to capturing terrorists or stopping terror, I can see the advantages, the vital intelligence it gathered. "Know thy Enemy"

One poster mentioned the friendly approach used by the English army with high ranking germans Pow's. This type of interrogation (building rapport)was also used with the terrorists, they were allowed to pray, shower and sleep as long as they played ball and talked. F.B.I interrogator Ali soufan claims, he used the rapport technique and Abu Zubaydah was talking to him, but this was after 126 hours of sleep deprivation, who wouldn't talk. Sounds to me like he was a broken man.

torture did not lead to any of that. the US had the information all ready via legitimate sources. torture never leads to useful information, any country that says it does is lying

end of the road

wylie wrote: »

"In most cases the information is useless"

If ANY information is useful and saves innocent lives
whats one scumbag terrorist? what because he is a human being, you think he should be treated humanely and with respect. You think he thinks like this, before he sends a suicide bomber into a building full of innocent people, or sends his death squads into a school packed with children.

I would be interested to know how many posters actually read the senates report/CIA rebuttal?

Abu Zubaydah's torture/interrogation lead to the capture of Jose Padilla, who was planning a radiological attack in the US and is now serving 20 or so years in jail. Zubaydah torture also helped coalition forces to Kahlid sheikh mohammed, who was a contact and messenger for Osama bin laden. While all the information didn't lead to capturing terrorists or stopping terror, I can see the advantages, the vital intelligence it gathered. "Know thy Enemy"

One poster mentioned the friendly approach used by the English army with high ranking germans Pow's. This type of interrogation (building rapport)was also used with the terrorists, they were allowed to pray, shower and sleep as long as they played ball and talked. F.B.I interrogator Ali soufan claims, he used the rapport technique and Abu Zubaydah was talking to him, but this was after 126 hours of sleep deprivation, who wouldn't talk. Sounds to me like he was a broken man.

if you are against sending suicide bomber into a building or a death squad into a school then you are against torture. torture is a form of condoning terrorism, as it says a country can commit terrorism when it sees fit even if it rants about terrorism in other countries. torture = terrorism and is never legitimate

Jawgap

wylie wrote: »

"In most cases the information is useless"

If ANY information is useful and saves innocent lives
whats one scumbag terrorist? what because he is a human being, you think he should be treated humanely and with respect. You think he thinks like this, before he sends a suicide bomber into a building full of innocent people, or sends his death squads into a school packed with children.

I would be interested to know how many posters actually read the senates report/CIA rebuttal?

Abu Zubaydah's torture/interrogation lead to the capture of Jose Padilla, who was planning a radiological attack in the US and is now serving 20 or so years in jail. Zubaydah torture also helped coalition forces to Kahlid sheikh mohammed, who was a contact and messenger for Osama bin laden. While all the information didn't lead to capturing terrorists or stopping terror, I can see the advantages, the vital intelligence it gathered. "Know thy Enemy"

One poster mentioned the friendly approach used by the English army with high ranking germans Pow's. This type of interrogation (building rapport)was also used with the terrorists, they were allowed to pray, shower and sleep as long as they played ball and talked. F.B.I interrogator Ali soufan claims, he used the rapport technique and Abu Zubaydah was talking to him, but this was after 126 hours of sleep deprivation, who wouldn't talk. Sounds to me like he was a broken man.

I've read a fair bit of material around this.

And don't forget when they waterboarded Khaled Sheikh Mohammed in Poland he gave up information about an al-Qaeda cell of African-Americans operating in the US. This then led to a manhunt for black Muslims in Montana........the only trouble was the waterboarding sessions were not bring used to 'extract' new information, but to confirm other information (as is often the case, as intelligence officers try to 'triangulate'). Unsurprisingly he was only too happy to confirm the information to get the waterboarding to stop.

Roger Hassenforder

as an aside, it appears from one poll the godless heathens are more anti torture than the god botherers.

Egginacup

Deleted User wrote: »

I have never had torture justified to me in GENERAL terms as a good way to go. As a general policy I mean. And not so far convinced by the arguments on the thread.

But I can certainly envision specific scenarios where it would be justified. They might be extremely unlikely scenarios but I can envision them all the same.

For example if I walk into a room with a terrorist who has just turned on a bomb - and its a key pad code that is required to unlock it - I would certainly feel justified in applying just the right amount of discomfort to his well being that is required to make him reach over and key in the required code.

But as many have pointed out - in an isolated scenario of information extraction - you tend to end up with a plyable lump of rubbish who will tell you anything you want to hear to stop the torture. Which defeats the purpose of the torture.

I know I would suck as a spy myself however. You would just have to tie me to a chair and APPROACH me with a hot waxy candle - and I would spill everything from government secrets to my sexual sordid thoughts before you even said "dismiteburnya".

Once you start dreaming up scenaria, however outlandish, to simplify or justify that which is repulsive and reprehensible, then you have gone beyond the bounds of your own inherent and natural instinct to not hurt...whether it be for any kind of gain.

john the one

You can't prosecute someone without fingernails- not my words but those of Samuel L Jackson

Egginacup

Egginacup wrote: »

Once you start dreaming up scenaria, however outlandish, to simplify or justify that which is repulsive and reprehensible, then you have gone beyond the bounds of your own inherent and natural instinct to not hurt...

Not sure I subscribe to that at all. Sounds a bit like a slippery slope / no true scotsman argument to me.

Roger Hassenforder

Egginacup wrote: »

Once you start dreaming up scenaria, however outlandish, to simplify or justify that which is repulsive and reprehensible, then you have gone beyond the bounds of your own inherent and natural instinct to not hurt...whether it be for any kind of gain.

everyone has a line they will cross, some lines are easier crossed.

Timberrrrrrrr

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

everyone has a line they will cross, some lines are easier crossed.

So by that reckoning you have just justified suicide bombing.

ScumLord

wylie wrote: »

"In most cases the information is useless"

If ANY information is useful and saves innocent lives
whats one scumbag terrorist?

I have a rock here that keeps terrorists away, if it can save lives what's the harm in keeping the rock close by? What if the question the torturer is asking is "are you a terrorist?"

The other problem with torturing extremist terrorists is they tend to be isolated into their own cells so they don't have any information about the rest of the network.

wylie

ScumLord wrote: »

I have a rock here that keeps terrorists away, if it can save lives what's the harm in keeping the rock close by? What if the question the torturer is asking is "are you a terrorist?"

The other problem with torturing extremist terrorists is they tend to be isolated into their own cells so they don't have any information about the rest of the network.

"are you a terrorist?" I'm would expect this question is asked every time.

Whats wrong with this question? Do you mean innocent people?.

and yes i would agree about the isolated cells, the intel would be limited, pending on who it was, but intel gathered now adds up to a bigger part of the puzzle.

I'm not saying i totally agree or disagree with torture. I can see the advantages it has in current times. I dont think people realise that freedom and liberty comes at a price.

People will argue that if coalition forces were not in the middle east in the first place Isis/isil taliban would not be fighting and this maybe true, but if you take the way people are treated in these countries, people caught in the middle, young girl's not allowed to go to school. People getting shot, whipped, beating and tortured for speaking out against the government/taliban etc...Should the world not step in.

raze_them_all_

wylie wrote: »

"are you a terrorist?" I'm would expect this question is asked every time.

Whats wrong with this question? Do you mean innocent people?.

and yes i would agree about the isolated cells, the intel would be limited, pending on who it was, but intel gathered now adds up to a bigger part of the puzzle.

I'm not saying i totally agree or disagree with torture. I can see the advantages it has in current times. I dont think people realise that freedom and liberty comes at a price.

People will argue that if coalition forces were not in the middle east in the first place Isis/isil taliban would not be fighting and this maybe true, but if you take the way people are treated in these countries, people caught in the middle, young girl's not allowed to go to school. People getting shot, whipped, beating and tortured for speaking out against the government/taliban etc...Should the world not step in.

The us has armed and funded 3 of their biggest threats in the form of isis, bin laiden and saddam. Lets not pretend they are the white knights

end of the road

wylie wrote: »

"are you a terrorist?" I'm would expect this question is asked every time.

Whats wrong with this question? Do you mean innocent people?.

and yes i would agree about the isolated cells, the intel would be limited, pending on who it was, but intel gathered now adds up to a bigger part of the puzzle.

I'm not saying i totally agree or disagree with torture. I can see the advantages it has in current times. I dont think people realise that freedom and liberty comes at a price.

People will argue that if coalition forces were not in the middle east in the first place Isis/isil taliban would not be fighting and this maybe true, but if you take the way people are treated in these countries, people caught in the middle, young girl's not allowed to go to school. People getting shot, whipped, beating and tortured for speaking out against the government/taliban etc...Should the world not step in.

no evantage for it exists. freedom and liberty is a right that doesn't come at a price, but the governments want it to do so so they can control the people.. yes all that is happening in these countries is aweful but the west has no moral high ground. governments are slowly but surely tightening their grip on the people, the UK government for example. if the world was getting involved in certain countries out of genuine care then maybe i could get behind it but as its only for self interest, then no

wylie

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

The us has armed and funded 3 of their biggest threats in the form of isis, bin laiden and saddam. Lets not pretend they are the white knights

Osama bin Laden was armed and funded by the CIA to fight off the Russians. Makes sense to me, russia was going in after the oil, most of the oil comes from that region, the world needs oil to live.

Saddam was also a friend to the US, and yes they armed him and saddam kept the oil flowing, then he broke the rules by entering Kuwait, so they had no choice but to go in. Then even after the gulf war he was giving another chance to play nice.

These are sound tactics by the US i think.

Timberrrrrrrr

wylie wrote: »

"are you a terrorist?" I'm would expect this question is asked every time.

Whats wrong with this question? Do you mean innocent people?.

and yes i would agree about the isolated cells, the intel would be limited, pending on who it was, but intel gathered now adds up to a bigger part of the puzzle.

I'm not saying i totally agree or disagree with torture. I can see the advantages it has in current times. I dont think people realise that freedom and liberty comes at a price.

People will argue that if coalition forces were not in the middle east in the first place Isis/isil taliban would not be fighting and this maybe true, but if you take the way people are treated in these countries, people caught in the middle, young girl's not allowed to go to school. People getting shot, whipped, beating and tortured for speaking out against the government/taliban etc...Should the world not step in.

So.why have the coalition not gone into.North Korea if they care so much about the poor people getting abused like this?

Timberrrrrrrr

wylie wrote: »

Osama bin Laden was armed and funded by the CIA to fight off the Russians. Makes sense to me, russia was going in after the oil, most of the oil comes from that region, the world needs oil to live.

Saddam was also a friend to the US, and yes they armed him and saddam kept the oil flowing, then he broke the rules by entering Kuwait, so they had no choice but to go in. Then even after the gulf war he was giving another chance to play nice.

These are sound tactics by the US i think.

So when you JUST said it's about

people caught in the middle, young girl's not allowed to go to school. People getting shot, whipped, beating and tortured for speaking out against the government/taliban etc

What you really meant was it's all about America's greed for oil?

wylie

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So.why have the coalition not gone into.North Korea if they care so much about the poor people getting abused like this?

No oil, and China trades about 4 billion with north korea every year.

Timberrrrrrrr

wylie wrote: »

No oil, and China trades about 4 billion with north korea every year.

So basically the Yanks are afraid to go against NK and it's purely for profit sake that they start these wars and illegally torture people, thanks for clearing that up.

wylie

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So basically the Yanks are afraid to go against NK and it's purely for profit sake that they start these wars and illegally torture people, thanks for clearing that up.

Is this not a discussion board? Why are you so agro dude?

You are single out my sentences trying to make out that's my only point of view, its not. I'm not writing a f**king thesis here. I cant write every little thing in regards a war.

end of the road

wylie wrote: »

Osama bin Laden was armed and funded by the CIA to fight off the Russians. Makes sense to me, russia was going in after the oil, most of the oil comes from that region, the world needs oil to live.

Saddam was also a friend to the US, and yes they armed him and saddam kept the oil flowing, then he broke the rules by entering Kuwait, so they had no choice but to go in. Then even after the gulf war he was giving another chance to play nice.

These are sound tactics by the US i think.

sure. but its all about the oil. just remember that. they couldn't give a **** about these countries.

end of the road

wylie wrote: »

Is this not a discussion board? Why are you so agro dude?

You are single out my sentences trying to make out that's my only point of view, its not. I'm not writing a f**king thesis here. I cant write every little thing in regards a war.

you effectively have admitted what was well known all along. that america starts these wars for oil and money and to keep the arms industry in business. they don't care about the people of these countries

ScumLord

wylie wrote: »

"are you a terrorist?" I'm would expect this question is asked every time.

Whats wrong with this question? Do you mean innocent people?.

The problem with asking a person if they're a terrorist using torture is you'll more than likely get them to say yes whether they are a terrorist of not. It's just forced confirmation bias.

I dont think people realise that freedom and liberty comes at a price.

Saying liberty comes at a price should mean tolerating things you don't like for the greater good, personal sacrifice. The Americans through their action movies have linked the phrase with killing people with alternative ideals.

The fact is Islamic fundamentalists have gotten their cause and credibility with locals directly because of American actions, and Americans are more than happy to continue fighting because they are able to profit from war and fighting.

wylie

end of the road wrote: »

you effectively have admitted what was well known all along. that america starts these wars for oil and money and to keep the arms industry in business. they don't care about the people of these countries

I never said they didn't, did I?

wylie

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem with asking a person if they're a terrorist using torture is you'll more than likely get them to say yes whether they are a terrorist of not. It's just forced confirmation bias.


Saying liberty comes at a price should mean tolerating things you don't like for the greater good, personal sacrifice. The Americans through their action movies have linked the phrase with killing people with alternative ideals.

The fact is Islamic fundamentalists have gotten their cause and credibility with locals directly because of American actions, and Americans are more than happy to continue fighting because they are able to profit from war and fighting.

Asking someone whom you suspect is a terrorist "are you are terrorist" is a pretty redundant question, but asking questions like were did you get the RPG might help, Who should you how to make the bomb. If you mean innocent people, isn't that part of war.

Grand Moff Tarkin

end of the road wrote: »

sure. but its all about the oil. just remember that. they couldn't give a **** about these countries.

So?

Oil is a vital resource and its better to have western powers watching over it than some of the more untrustworthy locals.