TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Suspects die during interrogations
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Suspects die during interrogations
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 March 2003
American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul � reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.
A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.
The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury".
FULL ARTICLE
NObodys gona stop this from happening. There taken to underground bases on foriegn soil where noone really knows whats going on and they do EVERYthing they can to mess with em. They dont care. And quite frankly neither do I. Ive heard other news storys try to throw sympathy at these guyz and get the US to alow Supervisors in these bases to ensure there ok. WTF? FFS! STFU! OMFG. How many peace keepers and other poeple have been tortured by these guys and now they want HUMANITARIANISM!?!??!
QUOTE:
Jonathan Turley, a prominent law professor at George Washington University, countered that embracing torture would be "suicide for a nation once viewed as the very embodiment of human rights".
QUOTE:
LOL!! When was the US declared the very embodiment of human rights??
WHAT EVER DONT GET ME STARTED ON THAT.
This might be 2003 but the world aint a utopia of love and peace who the hell are we kidding!?!?! GET WITH THE PROGRAM! WAR IS WAR no way around that.
Re: Suspects die during interrogations
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles 07 March 2003 American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul � reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives. A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism. The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury". FULL ARTICLE |
it also was on dutch television and (I think) on BBC
of course they are torturing the prisoners who are believed to hold valuable information.
war is hell.
besides they are on foreign soil in secluded military bases.
who's gonna know?
and moreover, who's gonna stop them?
bush sure as hell isn't.
also these people they are torturing didn't show any remorse when they decided to kill innocent civilians nor when they were no doubtably torturing prisoners in their wars before america got involved. (i'm not trying to justify their torture though)
i for one think the people on both sides are absolutly sick. they have their reasons, but i don't think they justify the degradation of human life. by torturing the torturers we are bringing ourselves down to their level of "being wrong"
i think that the americans who are carrying out this torture deserve to go on trial for war crimes.
but thats not going to happen.
for that dude who said that he didnt care if they were torutured.. thats a stupid attitude to have. two wrongs dont make a right.. toture is bad. we fought against the torture of POW's in WW2, so why is it ok for the US to do it to the enemy now..????
its fucking sick, and every american should be ashamed that it has come to this.
Re: Re: Suspects die during interrogations
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider What kind of news source is this? |
Re: Re: Re: Suspects die during interrogations
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JudgeJulez The Independent is a daily in the UK, affliated with the Guardian I think. Though liberal in bent, I think for the most part that it is credible news source. Hehehe....its actually in an analysis piece in this paper where I first heard of this "New American Century." I have done some of my own research online when reading them, and so far they've been pretty spot on. |
Re: Re: Suspects die during interrogations
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I pride myself in the fact that we would never directly stoop to that level of human rights violations. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tu_face for that dude who said that he didnt care if they were torutured.. thats a stupid attitude to have. two wrongs dont make a right.. toture is bad. we fought against the torture of POW's in WW2, so why is it ok for the US to do it to the enemy now..???? its fucking sick, and every american should be ashamed that it has come to this. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tu_face for that dude who said that he didnt care if they were torutured.. thats a stupid attitude to have. two wrongs dont make a right.. toture is bad. we fought against the torture of POW's in WW2, so why is it ok for the US to do it to the enemy now..???? its fucking sick, and every american should be ashamed that it has come to this. |
Re: Re: Re: Suspects die during interrogations
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mental Exodus LOL!@#!@$#!@#$@# AHHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMFG!!!!! LOL Sorry to target your pride but common. U know for a fact that your counrty would "never stoop" to that level??? I know for a fact that a country founded on slavery would and does every day. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tranceaholic you think they r gonna talk if u like nicely ask them dude?..man you have no clue how tough those guys are to interigate and how hard headed they are..living in the comfortable suburbs in the UK i dont think u know anything about these people ..i am originally from egypt and terrorism has effected out country deeply and i actually saw a couple of those terrorists before and if we havent used force to stop those fundementalist terror networks we would have been screwed..sometime u gotta do what u gotta do..granted it is not good but if it comes to it then there is no problem |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tranceaholic you think they r gonna talk if u like nicely ask them dude?..man you have no clue how tough those guys are to interigate and how hard headed they are..living in the comfortable suburbs in the UK i dont think u know anything about these people ..i am originally from egypt and terrorism has effected out country deeply and i actually saw a couple of those terrorists before and if we havent used force to stop those fundementalist terror networks we would have been screwed..sometime u gotta do what u gotta do..granted it is not good but if it comes to it then there is no problem |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tu_face for that dude who said that he didnt care if they were torutured.. thats a stupid attitude to have. two wrongs dont make a right.. toture is bad. we fought against the torture of POW's in WW2, so why is it ok for the US to do it to the enemy now..???? its fucking sick, and every american should be ashamed that it has come to this. |
I don't mind psychological torture such as sleep deprivation, etc. Or even pumping them full of drugs such as sodium pentathol, but physical torture is going a bit too far. Even if they aren't soldiers covered under the geneva convention.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 There's a little difference between Taliban/Al-Quaeda and WW2 soldiers. TERRORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS!! technically by the Geneva convention, we aren't allowed to torture these people, but what do you think is going on is camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Light deprivation, sleep deprivation, etc. For terrorists, a little bit of torture wouldn't hurt, they fuckin' deserve it! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mental Exodus What other way of exctracting info would u suggest?? I dont think the army is issued feathers. Perhaps the US army should have a manditory edicate class?? And dont blame the US citizens, there in left in the dark about this whole incident. They have no idea what war is like. |
Why are some of your pitying these terrorists (criminals) as they are being tortured?
They are Not innocent, do you think the US army took the entire population of Afghanistan and imprisoned them? fuck no
These people that are sitting in cells to be tortured to information are part of a network that would kill YOU without any thought of regret or pity, because YOU are american.
The US government is interogating criminals, do you stand for them? i hope not.
Interogatting innocent people is a different story, because then, that would be very WRONG.
Take for example, Daniel Pearl, the American journalist that went to report in Pakistan. He was captured by some 'terrorists' and tortured and killed brutally. The clip of the killing may still be around the internet somewhere. In this case, killing a reporter is NOT justified.
I hope some of you will reconsider that the american government is NOT holding innocent people in captivity. Also remember, the people belonging to the 'taliban' are very opposed you your 'western' ideas and they would give a shit about you, an innocent person, if they captured you, so why give a fucking shit about them?
| quote: |
| The US government is interogating criminals, do you stand for them? i hope not. |
Just found this on the website of one of Melbourne's main papers:
| quote: |
| Be prepared to die rather than do the evil of the evildoer March 14 2003 The fate of the suspected September 11 mastermind puts us all at a moral crossroads. It has come to this: citizens of countries in danger of terrorist attack are asked to consent to the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of September 11. Never in my lifetime has an invitation to be complicit in evil been so explicit. Thousands of lives might be saved by his torture. No one knows, of course. Perhaps thousands will be lost in reprisals. Suppose, however, that we had better reasons than we have for thinking many more lives will be saved than lost. For some people that would settle the matter. Others would still be troubled by grave misgivings. This article is addressed to those whose misgiving are informed by the idea that torture marks a line we must not cross. Despite our concern with human rights, it is difficult in the modern world to give lucid expression to those misgivings. Attempts to do it sound like echoes of times past, when religion dominated morality, when talk of absolute value embarrassed and offended no one - times, we think, when people were insufficiently sensitive to the plurality and ambiguity of value. So when people argue over whether torture is ever morally justified they refer to doctrines: utilitarians say this, natural law theorists say that and so on. Catalogues of horrors are produced to test the doctrines - hair-raising accounts of what will happen if one doesn't do evil to avert greater evil or of what will happen to ourselves and the moral quality of our community if we do. Often it all seems distant from the moral reality of our lives. We need something closer to our experiences. In his book If This is a Man Primo Levi tells the story of when he and a friend, Charles, lived in Auschwitz with fellow prisoners who had typhus. One of them, a young Dutchman called Ladmaker, had dysentery. He fell from the bed he had soiled onto the floor where he lay groaning in his vomit and faeces. Levi writes: "Charles climbed down from his bed and dressed in silence. While I held the lamp, he cut all the dirty patches from the straw mattress and the blankets with a knife. He lifted Ladmaker from the ground with the tenderness of a mother, cleaned him as best as possible with straw taken from the mattress and lifted him into the remade bed in the only position in which the unfortunate fellow could lie. He scraped the floor with a scrap of tin plate, diluted a little chloramine and finally spread disinfectant over everything, including himself." The whole episode is something to wonder at, but most wondrous is the fact that Charles should have responded "with the tenderness of a mother". It is wondrous because of what it showed about Charles, but also because to be moved by his tenderness is, I believe, to affirm with him that every human being is inalienably precious. A religious person might say that Charles responded to Ladmaker as to someone who is sacred, but one need not be religious to respond fully to Charles's affirmation of the preciousness of the wretched Ladmaker. Examples such as this give content to talk of inalienable rights, of the inalienable dignity of all human beings and of the unconditional respect owed to them. In this context, respect does not mean esteem. The respect owed to the inalienable dignity of all human beings is owed even to those whom we despise. True, these expression have an air of desperation about them, but if you wonder what they could mean, think of Charles and Ladmaker and of many other examples. Torture is the radical denial of what moves us in Levi's story. Charles's tender compassion for his fellow human being reclaimed the wretched, forsaken Ladmaker for the community of humanity. It is possible to kill people - even to execute them, I believe - while fully respecting their humanity. But even when, as sometimes happens, a torturer esteems his victim, he assaults that to which Charles responded in Ladmaker and which exists in every human being. That is why we say torture turns human beings into things. Could any person decently consent to the torture of someone else for his sake? Only someone who lived as though everything is negotiable when one's life is at stake. Such a life is not worthy of a human being. That, I admit, is not a truth written in the heavens. Neither facts nor reason compel its acceptance. But the finest part of our tradition has taught it and many have given their lives rather than betray it. Before democracy, even before freedom, it is this that we should fight for. I speak for myself. I cannot speak for my fellow citizens. But neither, it is of the utmost importance to remember, can those who would torture Mohammed and others for the sake of the hypothetical thousands whose lives may be saved. We do not, together with others, constitute an indivisible mass for whose collective good evil may be done. Each of us must ask himself whether he can consent to the torture of another for his sake. No one can rightly say, "Not for me, but for all the others." Suppose, however, that when put to the question everyone did say, "Torture him so that we may be safe," and suppose they were refused. Could any one of them justifiably claim that he had been wronged, betrayed, abandoned, or in any other way refused a responsibility owed to him? When terrorists were hijacking passenger airliners in the 1970s, the late Denis Grundy argued that to give in to terrorists' demands is always to encourage further terrorism. In the fight against terrorism, he said, each of us should be prepared to die rather than to encourage governments to yield to terrorist demands. Morally, we would then become volunteers in a citizens army, a quite different kind of "coalition of the willing". Grundy was right, I believe, and his idea should be extended. Volunteers in the "war against terror" would be prepared to die rather than do terrible evil merely to save their lives. Raimond Gaita is professor of moral philosophy at King's College, University of London, and professor of philosophy at the Australian Catholic University. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade Fact is though, we don't know if most of them are criminals because they haven't been allowed a fair trial. In fact, the US are doing everything they can to ensure that they don't: apparently because they aren't US citizens, they aren't protected by the US constitution, and thus - because the US ignore international human rights agreements - they feel they can imprison them for as long as they like without a trial). But even if we assume that they are all criminals, where's the justification for torture or for sending them to other nations (like Jordan) where they can be tortured "legally"? The terrorists may hold human life in scant regard, but why should we? I'm all for rigorous interrigation, but beating men to death - while they are in wrongful captivity in the first place - is the sort of activity you expect to hear about in a militant, backwater African nation, not in the supposed "land of the free". |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I agree, the beauty of our country is that we don't jump to conclusions and we give everybody a fair chance to prove their innocence. I truly believe that we shoud uphold a moral standard and I hope most americans agree with me. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dmatrox Why are some of your pitying these terrorists (criminals) as they are being tortured? They are Not innocent, do you think the US army took the entire population of Afghanistan and imprisoned them? fuck no These people that are sitting in cells to be tortured to information are part of a network that would kill YOU without any thought of regret or pity, because YOU are american. The US government is interogating criminals, do you stand for them? i hope not. Interogatting innocent people is a different story, because then, that would be very WRONG. Take for example, Daniel Pearl, the American journalist that went to report in Pakistan. He was captured by some 'terrorists' and tortured and killed brutally. The clip of the killing may still be around the internet somewhere. In this case, killing a reporter is NOT justified. I hope some of you will reconsider that the american government is NOT holding innocent people in captivity. Also remember, the people belonging to the 'taliban' are very opposed you your 'western' ideas and they would give a shit about you, an innocent person, if they captured you, so why give a fucking shit about them? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 There's a little difference between Taliban/Al-Quaeda and WW2 soldiers. TERRORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS!! technically by the Geneva convention, we aren't allowed to torture these people, but what do you think is going on is camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Light deprivation, sleep deprivation, etc. For terrorists, a little bit of torture wouldn't hurt, they fuckin' deserve it! |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.