How about now?

[Boo Radley]

Seriously ? There's going to be a fuzzy distinction between the side that beheads Children and the side that uses enhanced interogation techniques to get information ?

It's torture and is not effective at getting information. As for false equivalency, they don't have to be equally wrong to oppose both.

 

[KevinKohler]

Hi, Thom. Since you mentioned war...wouldn't the president at least need a declaration of war from congress in order to use torture on an enemy? Somehow I don't think the 'war on terror' qualified as a constitutionally declared war.

Maybe not, but make no mistake, we are at war. There is a group of people that, if given the power and the opportunity, would snap their fingers and have us all die. They are compelled to be so by that which they believe governs their soul.

 

[KevinKohler]

They piss-n-moan about us, "being just like them", then use Nazi comparison to prove their point.

Here are American soldiers during WW2 summarily executing German prisoners--actual POW's, not illegal combatants. Our troops being, "just like them".

I don't have a problem with executing Nazis, just like I don't have a problem with torturing jihadists.

Exactly. Because some crimes go beyond civility, and trying to apply something from civilized life to that, is, quite frankly, impossible, and only to the benefit of the uncivilized.

 

[KevinKohler]

Can't resist making it personal, can you? All you Liberals are the same. Nothing to say, but you never lack personal attacks.

To be fair, there's QUITE a few conservatives that do the same, who are active, right here in this thread.

 

[KevinKohler]

I don't think they should have executed POWs. However, equating soldiers in combat to what our intelligence agency does to suspects is not even close to a good comparison.

But that IS the new combat. No one can engage us openly on the field of battle. The ONLY strategy available to them is terrorism.

 

[KevinKohler]

Personally, I would prefer a declaration of some specific at least.

As to your question (War on Terror) and in this instance, I really do not know with any surety. Some, maybe all, present actions have basis and some Congressional approval going back to the Clinton administration. Hell, even entering Iraq and the Congressional approval at that time had basis in acts of the Clinton admin. and U.N. resolutions. At this time, from my viewpoint there certainly is a lack of clarity in many of the admin's. actions concerning this particular foreign policy issue. The Pres. can exercise authority under the 'War Powers Act' but I do not believe that has been executed. You and I as citizens may never know enough to clearly evaluate facts. The entire situation is FUBAR if get my drift.

Further... specifics of torture. While recognizing you and I probably have differing views on such I offer that any acts of that nature would concern National Security and not any specific war powers.

Grist for the mill
Have a good eve Moot

Thom Paine

They cant declare war. Was is, by definition, engaging the whole sale slaughter of one group or another. You declare war on opposing governments. You cannot declare war on an ideology.

 

[KevinKohler]

You would need to define torture. What the CIA did post 9/11 would be fine but i don't define that as torture. I draw the line at physical mutilation.

That is how torture is defined, though. At least, by our government, anyway.

 

[KevinKohler]

Perhaps because torture really doesn't work?? Oh I'm sure you can find isolated cases where people have gotten useful information by torturing someone but there is a significant body of evidence that it simply isn't as effective as other means.

Then why has it been the go to information method from prisoners for thousands of years?



Are we all insane, all throughout history?

 

[Gaius46]

Then why has it been the go to information method from prisoners for thousands of years?



Are we all insane, all throughout history?

Has it? Sure it's been used throughout history but that doesn't mean it's the most effective way to get information, or even really effective in isolation.

 

[KevinKohler]

Torture is heinous. I don't like it. I don't want to ever experience it. I honestly don't think that I, personally, could torture another person. I feel bad about slapping my kid on the hand for doing something wrong. I also don't think I could shoot another person, as in, on a battlefield. I'm just not that guy. I'm not a solider, and likely, no amount of training would ever MAKE me one. Well, at least not a GOOD one.

That said, we have been handling these people with kid gloves for the last century, really. And the fact is, it's a SMALL percentage of the total Muslim population that are the ones causing trouble. Us being nice, and tip toeing around the problem (their extreme sect of Islam) has not, and will not solve the problem.

You can't be everyone's friend. And not everyone in life is going to like you. Sometimes in life, your going to have to take actions that create for you enemies. These people believe that death by suicide bombing = paradise in the afterlife. They are not going to engage us on an open battlefield, they're not IDIOTS. Our military superiority has made terrorism the ONLY viable tactic available to them, other than desisting in their war against christianity, or any other ideology that isn't radical islam. For them, murder is the most efficient way to save the souls of those who aren't muslim. We simply can't combat that with conventional, "moral" means. It's time to terrorize the terrorists. It's time to either kill them all, and put an end to this nonsense ( which is not viable, IMO), or it's time to make them FEAR us. And let's be honest...they don't fear death. Death in the service of islam is a 100% one way ticket to heaven. What do they fear? Hell. And it's time....PAST time, we gave it to them.

 

[KevinKohler]

Has it? Sure it's been used throughout history but that doesn't mean it's the most effective way to get information, or even really effective in isolation.

Then why has it been so prevalent? Are we, as a species, just sadistic?

 

[gdgyva]

Hi, Thom. Since you mentioned war...wouldn't the president at least need a declaration of war from congress in order to use torture on an enemy? Somehow I don't think the 'war on terror' qualified as a constitutionally declared war.

which country is he supposed to declare war on

Afghanistan
Pakistan
Iran
Iraq
Qatar
Egypt
etc
etc
etc

Terrorists have changed the game. It is no longer easy to see who is friend, and who is foe

But we see the training grounds

We know which countries not only hide them, but aid them in endeavors

But do we wipe out entire countries for the actions of a few.......

Or do we limit the warfare to drone attacks......

They will not meet us on the battlefield

There idea of the perfect battle is a 19 year old woman with a belly full of c4 getting onto a bus of 60.......

Wearing white hats, and being the nice guy of the neighborhood isnt going to stop them

 

[Thom Paine]

They cant declare war. Was is, by definition, engaging the whole sale slaughter of one group or another. You declare war on opposing governments. You cannot declare war on an ideology.

I believe you correct in that ^^^^^ Any such situation must be specific ... wars on drugs, poverty, hunger as examples, are too murky to fly here and in the world (maybe).

There is, though, a big BUT i.e. Governments can do whatever they want with semantics .. just redefine the word ... and we all have seen how that happens. Also, with IS declaring statehood any such concerns become less problematic.

Have a good day K

Thom Paine

 

[Gaius46]

Then why has it been so prevalent? Are we, as a species, just sadistic?

I suggested earlier in this thread or maybe another on this subject that people talk a good game and most of the people advocating torture wouldn't if they had to do the deed themselves. About a dozen people told me otherwise. So yeah maybe
we are sadistic.

I think retribution plays a big role in wanting to use torture. I can understand that but if that's what we're after I'd rather put one in his head and be done with it.

 

[gdgyva]

Then why has it been the go to information method from prisoners for thousands of years?



Are we all insane, all throughout history?

all you have to do is have a few conversations with POW's from any of the last 3 major actions

Japanese
Koreans
Vietnamese

Ask a vet who was a POW if torture works.....read a few books as to what our guys went through before giving up the information

The annals of history are filled with stories of wars being turned by information recovered from POW's

Does it always work........no

Does it always have to work to be effective......no

I guess a lot depends on what you have seen, read, and heard from people who actually experienced it

 

[Cephus]

Then why has it been so prevalent? Are we, as a species, just sadistic?

It's been prevalent because it has worked, at least to a certain degree. The point of torture to get information is to exceed the captive's refusal to provide information. If he's unwilling to talk, you have to provide more discomfort than he can bear to make him willing. Of course, you never know if he's going to tell the truth or just lie to make the pain stop, which is a problem inherent with torture. There has to be a balance between going too far and making them lie or not going far enough and getting nothing.

Unfortunately, there are people against whom torture simply will not work, people who are not afraid of pain, not afraid of death, not afraid of anything because they fear the repercussions of talking a lot more than the efforts to get them to talk. Religious fanatics, like we're dealing with today, are such people. Many of them, not all certainly but many, will not talk under any circumstances because they believe that dying for the cause gets them extra rewards in the afterlife. They don't even care if you torture their families. Behead their children in front of them, they still won't talk. They think their family gets extra benefits too. It's good to die for the cause. Fanatics can't be reasoned with. Therefore it is important to figure out who is a lost cause and just put a bullet in their brain and for those who might be convinced to talk, work on them. I'm not recommending torture, I'm just explaining it.

 

[Thom Paine]

I suggested earlier in this thread or maybe another on this subject that people talk a good game and most of the people advocating torture wouldn't if they had to do the deed themselves. About a dozen people told me otherwise. So yeah maybe
we are sadistic.

I think retribution plays a big role in wanting to use torture. I can understand that but if that's what we're after I'd rather put one in his head and be done with it.

Doing the deed.

I think of it in this type of analogy....

If I were facing someone who guaranteed the demise of the Gaius family and I didn't do anything/everything that could be done to stop that murder.... I would not want to live with guilt of not trying all available means to save the Gaius family.

Damned if I do ... damned if I don't.

Good day to ya' G

Thom Paine

 

[Cephus]

I suggested earlier in this thread or maybe another on this subject that people talk a good game and most of the people advocating torture wouldn't if they had to do the deed themselves. About a dozen people told me otherwise. So yeah maybe
we are sadistic.

I think retribution plays a big role in wanting to use torture. I can understand that but if that's what we're after I'd rather put one in his head and be done with it.

It depends on the circumstances. If someone had kidnapped my family and was threatening to kill them and the only possible way of getting the information to save them was to torture one of the criminal gang, you'd better believe that the vast majority of people would do it in a heartbeat.

 

[Gaius46]

Doing the deed.

I think of it in this type of analogy....

If I were facing someone who guaranteed the demise of the Gaius family and I didn't do anything/everything that could be done to stop that murder.... I would not want to live with guilt of not trying all available means to save the Gaius family.

Damned if I do ... damned if I don't.

Good day to ya' G

Thom Paine

Good day TP.

Thank you.

That's probably the one instance where you can possibly justify torture, when there's a short term expiration date. You know something bad is going to happen and you need the info now. You don't have time to buddy up with the guy and just have to hope you get good information.

But cases where you want information along the lines of "who built the bomb" or "who thought up the 9/11 attacks"... Cases where the guy can continually lie to get you off his back I don't see how torture can be effective.

 

[Gaius46]

It depends on the circumstances. If someone had kidnapped my family and was threatening to kill them and the only possible way of getting the information to save them was to torture one of the criminal gang, you'd better believe that the vast majority of people would do it in a heartbeat.

I agree with you and would probably do the same. But that's really the minority case especially with what our CIA was dealing with. They were acting like cops mostly trying to get information to find people.

 

[JUG]

Absolutely not. We abide by our constitution under any and all circumstances. At least that's how it's supposed to be. No where does it say "Two wrongs don't make a right, unless there's children involved, then anything goes". I couldn't even begin to imagine the pain that those families are going through and I hope God is with them every step of the way through their recovery.

 

[Gaius46]

Absolutely not. We abide by our constitution under any and all circumstances. At least that's how it's supposed to be. No where does it say "Two wrongs don't make a right, unless there's children involved, then anything goes". I couldn't even begin to imagine the pain that those families are going through and I hope God is with them every step of the way through their recovery.

But our a Constitution doesn't forbid torture. It is silent on the topic. State and Federal laws regarding the treatment of prisoners do and our treaty obligations require us to treat POWs humanely but there's nothing specific in the Constitution regarding torture.

 

[JUG]

But our a Constitution doesn't forbid torture. It is silent on the topic. State and Federal laws regarding the treatment of prisoners do and our treaty obligations require us to treat POWs humanely but there's nothing specific in the Constitution regarding torture.

What? It's in our Bill of Rights. Cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden.

 

[Cephus]

I agree with you and would probably do the same. But that's really the minority case especially with what our CIA was dealing with. They were acting like cops mostly trying to get information to find people.

True but if they really thought that so doing might save hundreds or thousands of American lives, I'd probably do the same thing.

 

[clownboy]

Even though that didn't make any sense, I think I know what you mean. lol However, torturing people for an act they already committed would be more for revenge than to get information to save lives. But either way, most Americans don't want it done in their name, period. That's just not who we are.

Agreed, it doesn't fit with the internal picture we have of ourselves. Necessity steps in from time to time to ruin that picture, but we always go back to it.