Use of torture in interrogation

Richard Stringer

I amgonna be nice. I promised myself I was gonna be nice but you semi educated simple simons make it very very hard. Jim A. Johnson wrote: Dosn't you realize that the Bush fiasco is pushing us closer to nuclear war than we've ever been? Were you alive in 62 ? Bush Fiasco ? Give me a flipping break. Jim A. Johnson wrote: If not, read up on North Korea and India/Pakistan. How are they gonna get a bomb to us - on a donkey cart. They are far to smart to start a nuclear exchange with the US. Jim A. Johnson wrote: You've heard of thise countries, I'm sure. Well not really - I just had my wife them up in my Big Print Geography Book cause she can read better then me- When I went to school we didn't learn no geography and stuff like that - just finger painting and basket weaving and tensor calculus and other useless stuff -just goes to show how things have improved for the later generations. Bet its fun knowing about all them exotic places with elephants and tigers and stuff - Whooeee. Jim A. Johnson wrote: sometimes Fox News will run little blurbes about them at the bottom of the screen during their cheerleading sessions. I prefer the History Channel - give it a try Jim A. Johnson wrote: To assume that anyone opposing this particular absurd war is against all wars is naive at best. Same crowd was around for WWI - WWII - Korea - Vietnam - Gulf War giving the same gloom and doom scenario. Live and learn. Richard I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. Albert Einstein

Richard Stringer

Nishant S wrote: I find it ironic that you have that signature on your post and yet you seem to encourage war as a means of progress for the human race Yea - Thats what is known as a condunrum. Historically war is the catalyst of both change and innovation - from the use of metal hulled ships to viable commercial air travel to antibiotics to computers to lasers to space travel to the GPS system to plastics- all these and many more are directly descended from warfsre. Nishant S wrote: But those wars were always when two opposing groups/nations just had to fight it out or else run the risk of the other taking over their country/tribe I won't go into this because I know that you are an educated person and will realize the absurdity of the statment. Nishant S wrote: do not deny the fact the Saddam Hussain is a dangerous man. But what I cannot understand is how Saddam can be a greater threat to US/world peace than some of the other countries He may not be number one but hes the first we gonna take out. You cannot reason with a tyrant Nish. It simply can not be done. Study the two months prior to Germany invading Poland and see what appeasment gets you. Nishant S wrote: But for various reasons neither Bush nor his pet followers seem to be interested in these countries. See that "pet followers" crap is why I get mad. Whom then are you a "Pet Follower" of? Nishant S wrote: If US really wants to go for war, then it would be far more honest an approach to stop pushing and pulling with the UN ,and On this I agree but Mr. Bush is trying to save some credibility for the UN and trying to make life a little easier fot Mr. Blair Nishant S wrote: and to simply say that for personal reasons Bush wants to oust Saddam Not personal reasons. Give me a break - its oil today and personal reasons tomorrow. Ever think he might know more than you do. Its doubtful but possible. Nishant S wrote: This war would simply result in the formation of a few more terrorist organizations that would train suicide squads to kill more innocent americans! Not if we hit them hard enough and quit "reasoning" with them. They are about as brave as those "Human Shield" idiots. You have your opinion and I have mine. History - not debate - will tell who was right. Richard I know not with

Paul Watson

A bit OT but this is one of the problems the Rest Of Us are having with the US. If any other country decides to torture a suspect then the US comes down on them like a ton of bricks. They say it is barbaric, un-called for and against Charter XYZ paragraph 42. They rally the world against that country until the country stops or is sanctioned or some top dog is held up for war crimes etc. But as soon as the US suffered the terrible events of 9/11, the US felt it was justified to do whatever it could to bring the perps to justic. Wether that included torture or not, does not matter. And heaven forbid any of the Rest Of Us raise our voices against it. Then you get some patriotic American laying a guilt trip on you by saying "You have no fucking idea what we went through with 9/11 you backwards thirld world cretin!" I just think it is a bit FUBAR that the self-proclaimed Best Country On Earth is such a hypocrite, no matter what happened to them. As for torture... it is never right.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

Brad Jennings

Jim A. Johnson wrote: No, most USian's. Including me. Count me in. Brad Jennings "if the golden arches shut shop, where else are the VB people going to get work." - Colin Davies

Brad Jennings

Christian Graus wrote: I'm shocked to be standing alone in this. I'll stand with you. My moral standing on this lies in the Bible where it says that you should love your enemies. Brad Jennings "if the golden arches shut shop, where else are the VB people going to get work." - Colin Davies

bryce

fantastically pious answer i just hope your wife doesnt read it. and for what its worth, if you wouldnt do what you could to save a plane load of people then you're less of a man than the terrorist and it translates directly to a state/national level if a govt take all steps it can to protect its people then the country is morally bankrupt. Bryce

bryce

Paul Watson wrote: A bit OT but this is one of the problems the Rest Of Us are having with the US. If any other country decides to torture a suspect then the US comes down on them like a ton of bricks. They say it is barbaric, un-called for and against Charter XYZ paragraph 42. They rally the world against that country until the country stops or is sanctioned or some top dog is held up for war crimes etc. i disagree with you, you're reporting typical anti-american sentiment. The US has putmore pressure on foreign countries to work for better human rights that any other country i can think of. its very trendy to be anti american, very trendy to be left wing (i'm not saying you are paul) i also think its very short sighted of people to point the finger at the US because and say "hyprocrit" without looking at the big picture. oh...and the bulls lost to the highlanders :) bryce

bryce

but you'd stop a baddy from hurting others wouldnt you? Bryce

Brad Jennings

Of course. I'd beat his ass down if I had to, but I wouldn't torture him. If the baddy was a serial killer, I might be less inclined to say that I could control myself but if the baddy was infantry in an opposing army, I'd never resort to torture. Brad Jennings "if the golden arches shut shop, where else are the VB people going to get work." - Colin Davies

bryce

fair play to ya :) but if we're talking airplanes and kiddies etc...? Bryce

realJSOP

You want to know the best way to get info from someone? Put him in the middle of a line of about ten people, and parade them all into the interrogation room. Start with the first guy, and tell him in a loud, clear voice that if he doesn't answer your question the first time, you'll shoot him in the head. Tell each person that you're also going to hunt down everyone in his family and do the same to them. If he doesn't answer the question, shoot him in the head, dump his body out of the chair, and put the next guy in the chair. Do the same thing. By the time you get to your target, he'll either be willing to answer your questions, or he'll be willing to die for his cause. That's not torture, that's expediting the interrogation. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends

Lost User

Soapbox I think :suss: The tigress is here :-D

Jack Puppy

No, I haven't seen Seven, but it doesn't matter seeing how I would never base my views on a Hollywood movie. If you want a video to watch, I suggest you go search the web for the Daniel Pearl video and see how Al Qaeda treats their prisoners.

Eddie Velasquez

Christian Graus wrote: Thanks for that, Torquemada Is this meant as a joke or an insult? Anyway, it doesn't matter. These people don't value our lifes. Why should we value theirs?

There are only 10 kind of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

Sean Winstead

No, I honestly don't think that there is any situation in which I would torture someone. I'm shocked to be standing alone in this. You're not standing alone. I don't condone torture either. What I don't like about your posts are that a) you condemn my country (and me indirectly) by painting a generalized, unrealistic picture and b) you are arrogant enough to think that you'd never do that which you abhor. Sean Winstead

tidge

Taka Muraoka wrote: Good point. Maybe hand-to-hand combat was a bad example. How about military leaders ordering missile attacks, even on military targets? If it is a functioning military target of an enemy that you are actively at war against, then it makes sense to me that it would be a viable target. Taka Muraoka wrote: But if they were to escape, then they would be combatants again! That's the way I see it. Here is where it gets hairy, and where it's easy to speculate if you aren't actively fighting in the theater. Some prisoner of war escapes. You shoot him. Now you have one group of people saying "Oh, you shot that guy in the back! All he was doing was running away, he wasn't attacking you, he wasn't even armed." Then you have the people who will think "Well if you don't shoot him, then what's to say he won't end up shooting you two days from now? Or maybe he found out some information about your military installation that you would rather the enemy not know"

tidge

I didn't say you had to invite him over for tea. You don't drop your guard. You just don't shoot a man that is standing there with his arms in the air surrenduring. You take them in as a prisoner of war.

tidge

See my other post above. You don't turn around and walk away, or decide to take a break. You take that person in as a prisoner of war.

David Wulff

From the frying pan and into the fire. :( If I was an Iraqi *cough* liberated *cough* by force I would offer my daughter to the first soldier through my door, along with the general household posessions they'd just take anyway. I'd make damned sure I cheered and thanked them - I don't want them to kill me too. Happens just like this all over the world every single day. People cheer when they are opressed and they cheer when they are freed - both for exactly the same reasons.

David Wulff

"David Wulff can't live without me, so you shouldn't either" - Paul Watson

Eddie Velasquez

tidge wrote: You just don't shoot a man that is standing there with his arms in the air surrenduring I know. I wasn't very clear. What I mean is that some kinds of prisoners are different from others. Specially those fanatic extremists that won't stop at nothing until they exterminate us all. I believe those don't deserve any special treatment.

There are only 10 kind of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.