Had Al-Zarqawi been captured alive, would you advocate torturing him for information?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel that if you are willing to start up a rebellion you are already willing to shed a little blood. If the juice is worth the squeeze and I am fighting for the liberty of oppressed people I would hope we all are prepared to shed some blood. Would I like it? No. But I believe Thomas Jefferson once said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Do I want people to be tortured? Absolutely not. Is it a necesary evil? Perhaps. Who am I to say?
 
America is not a given fixed set of borders. It is not a racial identity. It is not even a fixed, coherent culture.

America is a country built around the ideals of liberty, rights, freedom and resistance to tyranny.

If you deny liberty, human rights and engage in tyranny, you are losing the war to preserve America.


Like full scale nuclear war, some "wins" aren't worth it.
 
That wasn't the point of my post. I meant that by this logic you would have to uphold and respect the same sort of action.. bah.

Ok, ok, I concede. Torture is great, after all, Jack Bauer does it!!!1
 
Sorry Heist, I guess I didn't fully understand your question. To answer it, I personally would not condone such activities. I was just throwing the quote out, as a hypothetical, to see if anyone would alter their opinions on the matter if Zarqawi wasn't know to be a part of an "army" and was not wearing any form of insignia and it was questionably "legal" at best. If you read my first couple of posts on this thread you'll see that I am not in favor of physical torture. Just trying to stir the pot a bit.
 
He wouldn't get captured alive if it were up to me, if you get my meaning.

A $.10 bullet is alot faster for a scumbag like that than a trial. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe in due process for criminals. However, for terrorists like him and Saddam etc. no justice can be a swift or accurate as sending them to the hell.

Torture should not be a routine practice. However, it should be used in exceptional circumstances. If he were to get captured alive, I have no problem with torturing him before killing him to give him a taste of what he's been dishing out for so long to so many people.

Have you ever seen the video of what his ilk have done to innocent civilians?? Electrocution, using plyers and scissors to pull peoples tongues out and cut them off, cutting off limbs, beheading... it's just so sickening. I would advocate showing terrorist videos of their torture techniques as psychological torture and then doing some of those techniques against the captured terrorists -- even video tape it and broadcast it.

It's not about being better than the terrorists. It's about sending a message that if you do this to other INNOCENT people you will be brought to justice and this will happen to you.
 
Emotional reaction: cut his head off with a rusty knife while he's alive and conscious.

Intellectual reaction: If by torture one means sleep depravation, loud music, or even some mild forms of physical abuse (whatever that water thing was), and/or psychological attacks, sure. He's no different than any other terrorist from whom we need information.

If by torture one means pulling off toenails with pliers, mutilations, cutting heads off with rusty knives:) , etc then I say no, we're better than that.
 
I think torture diminishes us as a nation and as a culture. When we stoop to that level we've lost the moral high ground that our nation was founded upon.

If you can reason info out of an enemy combatant, good. If not, stand your ground.

See my sig line.
 
I would not, and can not advocate torture. Historically, torture yeilds unreliable information. Furthermore, I have to agree with Handy. Torture destroys us as a nation.
 
No.
As has been mentioned, torture is reported to be an unreliable way to obtain information.

However I would torture him for the sake of GP anyway and disregard any information he may or may not give me. For that matter, I wouldn't even have a translator present at the torturing.
 
It is extrodinary to me to read some of these things written by people who pretend to love the Constitution.

Torture for expediancy of interogation is bad enough, but to hear American's advocate "cruel and unusual punishments" makes my gut ache.

Who are you people? How do you profess to love freedom and then look to betray it whenever convenient?


No wonder we have so many people advocating unwarranted searches, jail without due process the general withholding of rights: It now appears that many Americans have been replaced with dopplegangers from 1930s Germany and Italy.


Did you guys get that way by simply not thinking about what the priveledge of being an American is, or do you simply not care about the sweat and sacrifice of so many of our people to maintain the world model for liberty and equality?


Would the Founding Fathers have risked death for treason if they knew their risk and life's work would end up in the hands of people that have principles more akin to fascists?
 
Handy

Who are you talking about? The ones who posted on here or someone else. Because most of the posters so far wouldn't use torture.
 
I think the first couple of lines makes it pretty clear I'm speaking to those advocating torture for expediency, punishment or personal fulfillment.
 
Oh i thought you was talking to me at first. Then you stated those who advocate it for expediency( depending on which definition you use you could be talking about me),punishment or personal fulfillment
 
We say that we are fighting for our way of life, fighting to spread democracy, and that we are not murderous thugs like terrorists.

So tell me how torturing fits into that. If there are exceptions to the above, that just makes it all pretense.
Being good when times are easy is no challenge.

Torture doesn't work consistantly. People will tell you what they think you want to hear or lie to screw you up.
Nor was he the "top general".
 
Rapier,

Looking back at your comments, I am quite definitely addressing you, among others. You don't seem to understand anything about being free and defending it.
 
Toothpicks under your fingernails??? I'd talk at the mere mention of that! But i've always been real sensitive around the nail area. All kidding aside I think after the things the terrorists have done to people like Nick berg,some of the contractors, and our own military forces I'd say do whatever to them. They aren't military, geneva convention shouldn't apply to terrorists. I'll agree with the poster who said that they disgaree with it because torture only works in the movies to a degree, but i've never been tortured and I doubt many here have. If we could get info then I say fine, if not be rid of them and call it a day.
 
I'm glad you understand me so well handy. But i will tell you this i will do what it takes to win even if it means losing a little humanity in the process. I would rather be alive and deal with my conscience than be buried in a mass grave having taken the moral high ground. Rules are fine and dandy for a softball game but when it comes to my life and my freedom it's katie bar the door. I understand your point of view where do you draw the line once you start down that path i would take. Is it the terrorist family, his friends, his coworkers? You can become even worse than the danger you are trying to prevent. When you wake up and look in the mirror and you see the monster you have become is the same monster you would defeat. It's a very slippery slope. Being morally surperior can be just as slippery slope as the one i would take.
 
Rapier-
Lemme ask you something:

Suppose we appoint you Emperor for a Day. Now, define who you would be willing to torture in operational terms...terms we might put into action; avoid use of generalized or poorly defined terms like "terrorist".

I'm interested.
Rich
 
Rich

I would not accept emperor of anything. If you read what i posted you will see i wrote that is the slippery slope you have to avoid. You can't use torture in every instance. You becomce the monster you are trying to defeat. You end up with an inquisition. The question was asked if we would use torture to get information from Al-zarqawi and i said i would. I never mentioned i would use it across the board in every case. As to who would be tortured that would depend on what you thought that person knew and how valuable it is. It wouldn't do much good to torture someone that didn't have the information to begin with.
 
Rapier-
Well, then you shouldn't have any moral problem with Al Qaeda torturing any Coalition captive who might have information they feel is important.

You also stated you'd do whatever it takes to win. Terrorism is one of the most effective tactics in a guerrilla battle. And so, by the same logic, you can't fault Al Qaeda for using terrorism or public executions and the like, can you?

You could hate them for being the enemy, yes; but you really couldn't decry their methods as barbaric.

See just how "slippery" that slope is?
Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top