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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Information extraction has worked well for thousands of years, thats one reason it is still used. We have friends in the middle east as well as South America who are very good at information extraction.

We probably have gotten some very good information from the captured terrorists which has helped intel and the military thwart many deadly attacks, and aid in offensive ops.

The NYTs and TIME magazine don't like it, but who cares.

Abu Gaib was driven by leftists in the NYTs and heaily supported by the editor. It was not nearly as bad as the liberal edia made t out to be,much like DAN RATHERS make believe story telling on CBS news about Bush.
 
I find it ironic that it's acceptable in war to drop bombs on people, who then are torn apart by the blast, or stagger about with their guts dragging on the ground, or bleed to death from internal injuries, but it's not acceptable to capture a high-ranking terrorist/murderer and make him stay awake for several days, or to keep his prison cell at an uncomfortable temperature, or to give him a dose of drugs.

Torture, no. Sleep deprivation, discomfort, drugs, yes. There is a difference.
 
Leif,
It has nothing to do with the "liberal mind" or "an ethical high ground".
It's about doing or not doing what's in our best national interest. Torture would only help us lose the war.
 
Once Zarquawi was in our posession, he was no good to himself or his sick little gang of thugs. Instead, he becomes nothing more than a data base, with lots of life saving info. We need that data to save innocents.

Such a waste.......
 
GoSlash27, good point; sometimes the "ethical high ground" and the necessary amorality of realpolitik clash in foreign diplomacy and war. Fortunately, this particular question of torture happily leads to a conclusion, at least in my view, that the ethical high ground is indeed that which should be taken and held. Regardless of the conflict or enemy, torture is one of those things that only serves to undermine our cause, whether on a philosophical level or a practical level.
 
Who would not kill, rob, or even torture their "enemies" in order to guarantee their own existence... or that of their children... or for freedom, or for the nation which provides that freedom...????
Click to expand...
Why stop there? Why not torture your political enemies to ensure the country doesn't go the wrong way? How about suspected criminals, who disrupt society? Why believe anybody capable of such a decision draws the borderline where you want them to?
Why pretend this is about freedom, life, and liberty when it is just about existence by your arbitrary rules that aren't remotely founded on what is right? We should honestly tell murders, organized crime, and gang members that they aren't locked up because they did wrong, but because they weren't strong enough to torture the right people to keep the government off their backs.
With the above logic, were any of the people in New Orleans wrong to rob others that were just as bad off?
Force is needed to ensure security. Killing in battle happens and is something we do because we have to. If we can't draw the line and understand why, then we exist merely on force of might, not on any ethical grounds.
 
It is dissapointing to hear that Americans believe that Uncle Sam just engages in loud noises as a means of torture.

I have heard on good authority that Uncle Sam has outsourced torture to Egypt and 'specialists' in Afghanistan and various old eastern block countries. Surely a country that hands people over to someone else to handle the torture is just as guilty as the agent who perpetrates the torture.

As a Lawyer practicing in a country that is an old friend and Allie (Australia) I have a problem with torture- the results are often innacurate and you lower yourself to the level of the terrorists.

Does the end justify the means? I think not.
 
I have a hypothetical. Tim McVeigh did not act alone. He was one of a group of American terrorists. Mad at liberals, the NYTimes, gay activists and the like - Oklahoma City was just the start of a series of truck bombs of similar magnitude. Federal, state and city office buildings are bombed. So-called liberal churches and synagogues are blown up during services.

By chance (as was McVeigh) one bombing goes awry and the driver is caught. He is a corn fed, ex-veteran with decorations for his service. He supports the RKBA, hates gays and liberals. He boasts that his group will continue his wave of bombings.

At the announcement of his capture, a liberal senator is kidnapped and beheaded.

Should the American government torture him to prevent the death of more Americans? How about doing the Abu thing to him?

Please justify that with the Constitution and BOR. Also if you are a person that spouts religion, justify it according to your beliefs.
 
Leif
Pointer, this issue has nothing to do with the "liberal mind" and everything to do with maintaining an ethical high ground.
Click to expand...
The mentality that sucks in air and says things like "Yeooooooh, torture?" and "We should never use torture under any circumstances, is the liberal mentality...

...It is the same permissive, and appeasing, mentality that sympathetically makes allowances for "early outs" from prison and encourages massive welfare to be passed from generation to generation... and sympathizes with the poor, misundertood Saddam Hussein and his Bathist Party rather than the poor Shiites who are being TORTURED and buried alive en masse... :mad:

It is that same mentality that allows our enemies to move into our nation and freely use OUR civilized laws against us by claiming their rights under our system... to continue living under the systems and mores they brought with them ...

EVEN LIBERALS... NAY, ESPECIALLY liberals WILL USE TORTURE if they think the "circumstances" call for it...

croyance
Why not torture your political enemies to ensure the country doesn't go the wrong way?
Click to expand...
And there you have it... Liberals are more than just a little prone to "situationitis"

Me
In order to be civilized... we should make every effort to avoid the "Cruel and Unusual"... The problem is that the liberal mind has duped itself into the belief that society has "0" right to occasionally revert to the un-civilized chaos of self-preservation...
Click to expand...
 
Umm, Pointer, you're a little all over the place with that last post. I'm not quite seeing the connection between welfare, illegal immigration, and torture, except maybe for your, shall we say, 'expansive' definition of what the "liberal mind" represents to you. Where to begin ...

How about here. You stated,

EVEN LIBERALS... NAY, ESPECIALLY liberals WILL USE TORTURE if they think the "circumstances" call for it...
Click to expand...

So let's see some evidence to substantiate your claim. American liberals only, since we're talking about torture within the context of American politics and policy. You can even put their names in red if you like.
 
Pointer, fine, show me some permissive, appeasing American liberals who will use torture. Let's see some examples. You must have had some in mind, right?

Going for more popcorn ... that should give you some time.
 
Pointer
EVERYONE will revert to the uncivilized side, when confronted with the un-manageable condition that threatens their survival...
Click to expand...
It is my opinion that the liberals (Who are afflicted with situationitis) will be last to "revert"... and the most vindictive and cruel in their methods... It is the moralist/cannibalist mentality.

Glenn E. Meyer
Pointer, what's your opinion on my scenario?
Click to expand...
OK, Glenn, I believe I have made myself quite clear already... but... to get graphic about it...

IF WE HAVE McVeigh in custody...
And we KNOW McVeigh has just blown up the OKLA Fed Bldg...
And we are TOTALLY sure he has planted another such bomb due for imminent detonation... I would gladly turn every single appendage on his body "every which way but loose" until he told me where to find it, and how to diffuse it...

AND if he was too late in telling us...I would recommend "the death of a thousand cuts" for his ultimate execution...
and apply for the job! :eek:

Then, I would "RE-revert" to civilized behavior which I reserve for civilized people... :cool:
 
It is dissapointing to hear that Americans believe that Uncle Sam just engages in loud noises as a means of torture.
Click to expand...
I'm suspicious enough of Uncle Sam to agree with you. However, there are plenty of people in our country, some of whom have power, who have voiced an opinion that torture includes sleep deprivation, sodium pentothal and similar drugs, and uncomfortable temperature settings in prisoners' rooms. I consider those things to be legitimate interrogation techniques, not torture.
I have heard on good authority that Uncle Sam has outsourced torture to Egypt and 'specialists' in Afghanistan and various old eastern block countries. Surely a country that hands people over to someone else to handle the torture is just as guilty as the agent who perpetrates the torture.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that this happens, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Why does the guilt necessarily follow the exchange? We extradite people to other countries all the time, and quite often those people are criminals who will suffer far more brutal conditions in foreign jails than they would here in the U.S. Are we guilty of the harsher treatment they will receive? I think most people will agree that Elian Gonzales will have a rougher childhood and life back in Cuba, but we sent him back because that's where the boy's dad lives. Are we guilty of inflicting a harsher life on Elian?
As a Lawyer practicing in a country that is an old friend and Allie (Australia) I have a problem with torture- the results are often innacurate and you lower yourself to the level of the terrorists.
Click to expand...
We should use the techniques above even if they don't produce 100% reliable results. If perfection is your standard, you won't accomplish much in any endeavor.

BTW, the words are "disappointing" not "dissapointing," "inaccurate" not "innacurate," "Eastern Bloc" not "eastern block," and "ally" not "Allie." Normally, I would consider the misspellings to be nitpicks, but lawyers are supposed to display higher standards than normal in their writings.
 
Couple of Ways to Look At It

I'd be in favor of making him listen to RAP Music for hours. That's enough to make me blabber away like an idiot, just to make it STOP !!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top