|
Confirmed: "torture" saved L.A. from 9/11 style attack (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Atmos |
Waterboarding is not extreme torture...read "The Great War for Civilisation"....that's ing extreme torture.
Also, thinking that we can obtain equally significant information from extremists, that prefer to die than make a deal with the devil ("America") is simply idealistic and not how things work on the ground. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
What are you going to say when our enemies do their prisoners as we do to ours? |
They already do worse. How many beheadings did you watch? Daniel Pearl was a reporter, not a combatant. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Alccode.... How quickly you give credence to KSM's account, as if he's a beacon of truth and honesty. |
Erm... way to invalidate the "information given under duress is always accurate" argument!
If you can't trust a word he says, why are we using him as an example of the success of torture? Because when you start prying out his fingernails he suddenly goes all George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington on us? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
They already do worse. How many beheadings did you watch? Daniel Pearl was a reporter, not a combatant. |
And they're savages, aren't they?
My stance against torture is threefold - it goes against the values codified for American citizens in our very own Constitution, it simply can't be replied upon and should never replace human intel, and it has devastating consequences for the American image abroad. Torture of detainees = free advertising for anti-America groups feeding on vulnerable populations with an ax to grind. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
And they're savages, aren't they? |
I'm certainly not advocating beheading Al Jazeera journalists on webcam. |
|
|
| Clovis |
The bottom line is that, torture is the forte of terrorists and countries like Libya, Sudan, Iran...etc.
I don't see the value in stooping to that level even under the pretext of saving people's lives. We can obtain information using existing techniques, information that is far more useful from a legal standpoint. My problem is not KSM getting roughed up. I think he's one of the most evil persons on earth. My problem is with all the lesser people, all the ones you don't hear about, all the innocents, who are subjected to those same techniques without any type of due process in place to first determine whether or not they are even a threat to this country or related to terrorism. We have captured people, subjected them to this treatment, and upon figuring out they are not the right person, released them back into the world with absolutely no repercussions whatsoever for the mistake. To me that is completely unacceptable for the United States of America.
John Yoo said yesterday that he thinks he was right because we haven't had another attack in 7 years.
That is an incredibly weak argument for a man that educated to put forward, really shocking.
The complexities of preventing an attack reach far beyond what techniques are used to get information out of suspects.
Like I said, I'm sure waterboarding people gets them to tell us more. Anyone subjected to that would likely spill information in an effort to bring it to an end sooner rather than later.
But the argument that the ends justify the means, it can go on forever. I bet the Iranians have gotten a lot of information via their technique of forcing confessions via beatings and threatening death. Where will we draw the line on what is going to far, in an effort to save American lives? Is it waterboarding? Should we start severing limbs?
Do you think that guy free falling off the WTC would care if we castrate a detainee in order to get information?
Maybe he would. He probably wouldn't. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
umm no. prior to taking the leap he most likely sat at his office window trying to process what the had just happened quickly followed by thoughts of someone he'd miss in a few seconds
he wasnt given the goddamn chance to examine the intricacies of the legal framework involving the interogation of non-state acting mass murderers.
the question falls on us as how to avoid having more Americans being put in the same situation AGAIN. because it can happen again and it can be entirely avoided
, you people are stupid |
I don't think that waterboarding will keep us any safer from people who want to kill Americans.
You call me stupid but you simplify the whole thing to an incredible degree, as if counter terrorism comes down to what happens in an interrogation room when we're allowed to coerce information out of people using a few techniques that used to be illegal prior to 9/11.
Also, to think that terrorism can be entirely avoided is extremely naive.
Not much is in the way of another Oklahoma City bombing...and waterboarding definitely isn't on that case... |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
As far as I'm concerned, an enemy combatant who is already known to be guilty of criminal activity is fair game to tighten the screws on to try to get out as much information as possible. These are not innocent people simply being physically abused with some hope that they might say something useful. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
...and that is one instance we know of...
Not to mention the number of people who have now been released from Guantanamo and are free:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...o_Bay_detainees |
|
|
| Shakka |
I also said this:
| quote: |
I don't think it's a strategy that should be done in a systematic way by default, but I think in some cases the ends probably do justify the means, but certainly not always, and nobody is ever going to bat 1000%. |
|
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I also said this: |
I see your point, but that also goes against legal and judicial principles of fairness and equality under the law.
If there was some sort of framework in place where we could determine high risk individuals who may have time sensitive information that could clearly prevent an incident or attack, it might work. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Erm... way to invalidate the "information given under duress is always accurate" argument! |
Do you think waterboarding KSM, which essentially prevented a massive attack on L.A., was a bad idea? Yes or no. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Do you think waterboarding KSM, which essentially prevented a massive attack on L.A., was a bad idea? Yes or no. |
I disagree with the premise of the question, so I can't really answer it. At the very least, a whole lot of additional information is needed before you can even being to assert that waterboarding ---> "prevention of a massive attack on L.A." - that's very faulty logic to use that line of causality without more context. By your article's own admission, there were like seven layers to the operation that uncovered the "planned attack", and no mention of whether it was anywhere near coming to fruition.
Obviously if I believed that torture improved security, I'd be more inclined to support it. But in my opinion, this is one of those rare times where morality falls in line with being pragmatic. |
|
|
|
|
