Is it acceptable for the US government to torture people?

[David13]

Awesome research, monrein. 

[monrein]

It actually was put together by Amnesty International, not by me.

 I had some fairly limited experience a couple times , working with torture victims, one family from El Salvador and some teens from Angola (or was it Uganda?).  It was quite traumatic for me and I didn't go through the "methods".  The torture was a systematic part of regimes of terror and the "crimes" were supporting the "wrong" political party and lying about the whereabouts of their parents.  I didn't feel I had the necessary expertise to provide the therapy in either situation so I referred them to someone who regrettably had worked with many similar cases.  It was an eye-opener for me to talk with that therapist (from Chile originally) about his work and the awful, awful things done by human beings to other human beings.  He had also worked at one time with people whose "job" it was to inflict torture on others (mostly South Americans) and felt that they were almost more damaged than the victims.  Sometimes I wish my curiosity would just shut the hell up.

[paul.karen]

I dont think anyone agrees with torture.
But lets look at what we are talking about and put it into the right light so to say.

Saddam use to torture people daily. Hundreds if not thousands in his many prisons.  Hanging them from hooks electrocuting them beating them, chopping body parts of them, burning them ect ect.  Or just flat out killing them.  When he wasnt busy using chemicals warfare on thousands of men women and children daily.  The torture in Africa, the Philippines and many outher places like Venezuela and the likes goes on daily and is sicking to say the least.  I think most would agree.  To me that is truly torture.  Pain REAL PAIN that stays with you.

We well we waterboarded a FEW PEOPLE.  Quess what when we were done they went back to there room/cells with no physical scars.  No pain, bruises, blood, teeth missing knife cuts electrocution burns ect ect.  They went back and likely laughed and said we should teach these fools how to torture people.  Or we make them sleep with the lights on.  Or we play loud music.  So maybe im wrong and your right.  We are just Barbaric cruel people us Americans. 

And if you would rather let one or one hundred American men, woman and there preferred target children die rather then waterboard one terrorist well then i quess they did win after all.
This is a new war.  The rules are different.  Some of you make me fell like we are the bad guys.   The bad guys are the ones killing innocent people, targeting them.  We do our best to not kill Innocent people.  See the big difference?
Much respect to everyone and there differences.  This is only my opinion and my right to express it thanks to our men and woman figting to give us this right.

[pelagia]

Moral and ethical considerations aside for a moment...  When the past administration decided that it was okay to torture people, they also decided that it was okay to break a treaty with our allies.  The U. S. ratified the Convention Against Torture in 1994.  The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent torture within their borders.  The Bush administration tried to cover their backs by holding the prisoners in Guantanamo.  It didn't work.  They broke the law.

This exchange between Patrick Leahy and Attorney General nominee Eric Holder lays that out and also makes it clear where the new administration will stand. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdAt1GcIs6E

The Bush administration apparently failed to understand that when the U.S. begins to behave like thugs, there are consequences.  It does not become legal to torture people simply because the president is the decider.  I found it astounding that he admitted to knowing this was happening.   Now the question is - will anyone be prosecuted?  Maybe, maybe not.  Obama has to decide what will be best for the country in both the short and long-term. 

All I can say is that I am looking forward to an administration populated by folks who have mastered critical thinking and complex reasoning skills. 

[Rerun]

Is putting womens panties on someone's head torture?  Done by the U.S.

Is cutting off someone's head on Television torture?  Done by Al-Qaeda.

If one of Obama's daughter was captured by the enemy and we had someone in custody who know something about her whereabouts..... I wonder what lengths he would go to to get information.

It really depends which side of the bathroom door you are on.... how desperate you become.

[pelagia]

When we break the law, we have no ground to stand on when our soldiers are tortured.  Is that acceptable?  No, it will lead to anarchy.

[Rerun]

I actually don't believe in torture either. 

          Just shoot the bastards in the head and get it over with.                 

[BigSky]

The military has already stated what is done would not be considered torture if done to our troops.


Its only been the hounding of the left that has caused intense interrogation techniques to be considered torture and now everyone is  being PC in order to CYA over the issue trying to claim these intense methods do not work.  That is despite the proven evidence that what we have done does work.

The thing with government and the military is they will CYA in public and do what needs to be done in private.


The fact is for months KSM was interrogated and he said nothing.  Once these intense techniques were used he squealed like pig.

Less than 2 minutes of waterboarding and he started talking.  Naming fellow terrorists such as: Majid Khan, Hambali, Rusma Gunawan, Yazid Suffat, Jose Padilla, and Iyman Faris.

KSM told us that Yazid Suffat was one of their people helping to develop biological weapons for Al-Qaeda in their Anthrax program of which the US did not know about.


As reported by the AP, that once these methods were used on the terrorists they talked.

No less than 8 terrorist attacks were directly averted and numerous peoples lives saved because they talked.  And you are gonna sit there with a straight face and claim these methods do not work?   You might also note that these people did not say a damn thing UNTIL these methods were used! 

Would you rather see these innocent people dead in these attacks instead?

Intelligence given that lead to identifying nearly 100 individuals chosen by al-qaeda for terrorist acts, many of which have now been caught and removed from the field.

Al-Libi talked and warned of a bombing to occur on a US embassy.  He also gave up fellow terrorist Abu Zubaydah which then was captured on the information he gave up.  Abu Zubaydah was head behind the  new millennium bombing attempt.

Abu Zubaydah wouldnt talk at first and then interrigated using these methods and was forced to listen to loud music and he fessed up.  He gave up numerous terrorists some of who were  Al-Faruq, Al-Nashiri, and Al-Shibh

These methods were eventually used on these people also and like a deck of cards they folded one after the other naming terrorist plans and associates.

When we break the law, we have no ground to stand on when our soldiers are tortured.  Is that acceptable?  No, it will lead to anarchy.

No ground to stand on?  Hate to tell you our soldiers have already been tortured.   Real torture, not the stuff the left think is torture.

Which leads to this interesting question,  how many US soldiers have the terrorists released alive?  NONE?

[glitter]

All I can say is that I am looking forward to an administration populated by folks who have mastered critical thinking and complex reasoning skills.

What about our enemies? don't they have to be this smart and ethical too- or we just keep getting killed....and they get compassion?

[monrein]

 

All I can say is that I am looking forward to an administration populated by folks who have mastered critical thinking and complex reasoning skills.

What about our enemies? don't they have to be this smart and ethical too- or we just keep getting killed....and they get compassion?

Reasoning against torture as a method of interrogating prisoners has little or nothing to do with compassion for enemies.  It has far more to do with not stooping to a level of activity that dehumanizes us as people and as a nation.  Strength and brutality are not synonyms.  It also has far more to do with trying to ensure that our own troops will not, in their turn, be subjected to wholesale, accepted and officially legitimized torture.  The rules of the Geneva Convention would of course work best if followed by all,  but the fact that some behave in ways that are almost universally condemned as barbaric does not mean that we too should abandon our belief in any kind of honour or rules of conduct.  To say that because some people behave badly means it's OK for us to also behave badly is to abandon our moral compass and will not serve our own soldiers well.  We have to be very careful not to become what we profess to despise.  Those who are on the torturing end of the equation also do not escape the effects of torture and often find it utterly impossible to regain any sense of inner peace.  Nazi Germany has some considerable experience in these matters.   Barbarism dehumanizes those who do it as well as those to whom it is done.  PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) is widespread in the combatants of any war and not all scars are physical.   Rape has long been used as an accepted tactic of warfare in many parts of the world but if this were done to "our" women I would hope that we don't think it OK to rape "their" women.  Being honourable and just in our actions is not an easy road, in fact it is an incredibly steep, muddy, rocky trail often obscured by fog but if we want to continue in our quest to be the best that we can be it is our duty to try to stay on the path, whether our enemies do or not.

[Wenchie58]

I actually don't believe in torture either. 

          Just shoot the bastards in the head and get it over with. 

If they ever start drafting mature women like me....and we get to pick teams....
my FIRST pick will be Rerun!! 

And I am confused by all the quotes and references....isn't this question a matter
of opinion?  What's wrong with saying....yes, I agree with it or no, I disagree?

[paul.karen]

Please tell me what part of waterboarding is torture??

Is it where they get wet? Then we give them clean clothes?  No one has died or been bruised by waterboarding.  I dont get it.
We got all this information and yet many would have preferred we had mass deaths here in America.  As not to have gotten a terrorist wet.  Unreal.  Rules of engagement and the Geneva convention  lol.  You dont get it.  They want to kill Children and innocents.  It isnt war like war use to be.  It is kill as many INNOCENT people as you can.  None of those planes went to a military instillation did they.  Like it or not it is a new world.  One where the plans have to change in order to survive.  Again i ask anyone to tell me what part of waterboarding is torture, other then FEELING like you may be drowning.  Have your feelings never been hurt?  Have yo never felt fear?  I have.  Maybe i should start suing people for scaring me.

As for Fisa and the patriot act.  He WILL KEEP these in place.  He may change the names to confuse some people.  But he realizes we need this on the war on Terror.

[monrein]

Well, my life experiences have, fortunately for me, not included any exposure to torture other than that resulting from ESRD.  So, on this topic I like to see what those with experience have to say about it. 
Here is what John McCain felt about it in October of 2006.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/26/mccain-mukasey-torture/

[glitter]

I think it sounds very good to say we hold ourselves to a higher standard, if this were a perfect world where that even mattered.   It makes a person feel good to be so noble.  (self righteous?)

I still believe in protecting ourselves by ANY means necessary.  If you don't have the stomach for it, stay out of the way and let realistic people protect your rights.

But thats just my opinion   

[kimcanada]

I hope I am not in the wrong place at the wrong time with "realistic people" (self righteous?)  determining my fate.   

[glitter]

maybe you would rather have someone more in tune with condeming the US like- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad determine your fate.  If you were a US prisoner- you would not be killed or maimed, and if you were by chance to get your head wet, lol....

anyway - your entitled to your opinion,

and I am entitled to mine.

[monrein]

maybe you would rather have someone more in tune with condemning the US like- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad determine your fate.  If you were a US prisoner- you would not be killed or maimed, and if you were by chance to get your head wet, lol....

anyway - your entitled to your opinion,

and I am entitled to mine.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion Glitter, but I don't believe that anyone here is suggesting that they'd rather have Ahmadinejad as their leader because they say that they don't believe that torture is is an acceptable or "effective" interrogation tool.  And because someone says that they don't think the US should do it (or Canada or anywhere else that considers itself civilized) that doesn't mean that they are anti-USA or condemning the USA.  It means they don't believe in torture, not that they support the terrorists.  These are not the choices before us.  Not believing in torture also does not mean being lenient or treating suspects or prisoners with luxury.  It means refusing to participate in practices of torture on a number of grounds.   Of course this isn't a perfect world and not of us are perfect people but I'm saying that collectively we must never stop trying to be better than our basest selves. 

[Bill Peckham]

maybe you would rather have someone more in tune with condemning the US like- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad determine your fate.  If you were a US prisoner- you would not be killed or maimed, and if you were by chance to get your head wet, lol....

anyway - your entitled to your opinion,

and I am entitled to mine.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion Glitter, but I don't believe that anyone here is suggesting that they'd rather have Ahmadinejad as their leader because they say that they don't believe that torture is is an acceptable or "effective" interrogation tool.  And because someone says that they don't think the US should do it (or Canada or anywhere else that considers itself civilized) that doesn't mean that they are anti-USA or condemning the USA.  It means they don't believe in torture, not they support the terrorists.  These are not the choices before us.  Not believing in torture also does not mean being lenient or treating suspects or prisoners with luxury.  It means refusing to participate in practices of torture on a number of grounds.   Of course this isn't a perfect world and not of us are perfect people but I'm saying that collectively we must never stop trying to be better than our basest selves. 

This is the heart of the matter. This good and evil construct that Bush uses and even hearkened back to again in his departure speech. It's a cornerstone flaw with the Bush world view and unfortunately, we're going to be stuck dealing with the fallout of this construct for a long time.

The flaw is that there is no acknowledgment that there are competing goods or that there are shades of bad. It's all a binary choice - you either are for America using the tactics the Bush administration embraced or you want to live under sharia law. You either want to invade Iraq or you want to allow Saddam to be President of the United States. Either or. And the Bush administration policies must be good ones because he's a great guy and he really, really, really cares about the troops and keeping America safe and he thinks Democracy is great!

Well you know what? What was in his heart mattered not a wit and really all we're left with is just a worthless way to construct a world view that has done immeasurable damage to the interests of the United States and all freedom loving people.

I am constantly reminded that while 13% sounds like a small number it still means that over 27 million Americans think Cheney was a heck of a Vice President

[kimcanada]

maybe you would rather have someone more in tune with condeming the US like- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad determine your fate. 

The way some people in this post speak... there would be little difference.

[Rerun]

Bill you are a "BUSH HATER" that what you write is so left it could break your arm.

President Bush was a good president, and is a good man.  We did not have another strike on home soil in 7 years after 9/11.  The first one Bill Clinton could have put a stop to in his years on watch and he didn't. 

If indeed Obama says "Change We Need" then don't pummel George W. Bush on everything that goes wrong.  Celebrate that Obama is going to be the president of a Country where bombs are not being dropped everyday which may happen in the future.  Celebrate that our economy is still strong enough to spend 100 Million on a party.  Guess things aren't so bad after all? 

P.S.  Don't you have your own site?   

[Bill Peckham]

Like I said

[Rerun]

Fine.  Don't blame George W. Bush when Obama can't get something accomplished or fails at something.  If he has any failures.  I truly hope he does well.  But, people who keep blaming their MAMA for their problems have responsibility issues.  Bush didn't get caught sleeping with anyone other than his wife.... does that matter to anyone?

We all know things aren't great, but horrible, no, we don't know horrible.  Yet.  And I pray we don't, but the bible does say it is coming so it should be no surprise.

"Change We Need" - Let's quit the blame game.  Let's quit using the color of our skin as excuses for non-accomplishment.  Let's move forward.

[Wallyz]

So- The COnvening Judge of the Gitmo tribunals has stated unequivocally that we did torture, and that we were unable to bring people to trial because they were tortured.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html?hpid=topnews




So- does that change the equation?  Or is this conservative military judge simply too liberal?

[Wallyz]

And now, the Gitmo detainees are being declared wrongfully detained.
We, as  a nation, screwed the pooch on this one, folks.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/19/america/19gitmo.php

[BigSky]

Not even close.

Those suspected terrorists were detained properly at the time because of the information given to us at the time. Which btw everyday in the US law enforcement detains people who are innocent.    Which you might note is why they are called suspected terrorists in the first place.

 When this information proved incorrect these people were released.  In fact only 10% have been released as per the story because of this.




What is even more odd is the fact that what the left considers torture hasnt been used in Gitmo for some time.  Yet now  you are at the point that you suggest we should not even capture and hold suspected terrorists at all.

It is inevitable that innocent people will be picked up and detained.  This is a fact and it occurs everyday in the US even by law enforcement. The fact these people get released shows the system works.