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

don't foget that we in the uk have lived with terrorism 4 decades.

u say that there is a need 2 use force with these people. nobody's denying that, but there's a difference between using force and resorting to torture.
and, human rights aside, u cannot take a moral highground if u r using the same systems the scumbags u're fighting use.

___________________
NFA

quote:

DROP PILLS NOT BOMBS

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.

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!

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!

argueing technicalities here, that's just looking 4 excuses. anybody who resorts to torture is a sadistic fuck, whether on soldiers or anybody else. u torture a terrorist? u're as bad as they r, 'nuff said.

___________________
NFA

quote:

DROP PILLS NOT BOMBS

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.

What the hell? Even if we ignore how friggin' wrong torture is as a concept for interrogation, how reliable do you think the information gathered through torture really is? The person being interrogated would say just about anything his mind can come up with to make it stop.

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.

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".

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

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.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

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".

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 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.

anyone not american biased knows that this isnt true

___________________

soulful/latin/deep house + jazz

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?

you make me sick, you are giving Americans an excuse to torture people...

You are never allowed to torture anybody!!!!! And that is fucking it.... When people die because of torture, the one who tortured someone is just as bad (maybe even worse) then terrorists!!!

I can't even believe that someone thinks it is okay to torture someone....

___________________
Alsof Het G*dverdomme Himmel Niks Kost!!!