Truth, justice,

[Warin 0]

If this is even remotely true, what does that say about the great bastion of freedom and justice?

Please dont think this a flame or an attack. And please dont use this as a reason to bash the US.

I honestly want the opinions of how a nation can claim to be the font of freedom and justice, and then resort to torture.

[IceFire 0]

Personally I welcome the news.

It's about time we quit with all the beaurocratic nonsense, and did what we need to do to defend our country.

If it means torture, fine.   Just don't be stupid enough to get caught(that seems to be our shortcoming).

I believe a nation has a right, and duty to do whatever it feels necessary to protect the state.   Even if it means being rutheless.  As long as you are deceptive in your methods so it doesn't come to the public eye.

[Placebo 28]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 09 2003,21:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe a nation has a right, and duty to do whatever it feels necessary to protect the state.   Even if it means being rutheless.  <span id='postcolor'>

So you'll stick to that philosophy when Iraq uses Anthrax or whatever on American troops once we invade?

[IceFire 0]

Yes.  Every country has the right to do what it feels is necessary in self defense, or national security.

Irak has that right, but we ALSO have the right to respond however we feel is necessary.

So Irak had really better watch what they try.

[Longinius 1]

The use of torture is sick. Anyone defending it is simply disturbing. Especially considering that it has been used as an argument to start a war with Iraq.

"Buhu, the Iraqi police abuses people."

"Buhu, Saddam gassed Kurds."

And now...

"Yeah, its OK to torture people as long as the nation benefits from it."

I am sure Saddam, Lenin, Hitler and various other nice people used the very same argument.

[IceFire 0]

Technically it isn't really an argument to start a war with Iraq.

Our reasons to go into Irak is because they are in possesion of weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us.

All that about him murdering his people and torture are just side points used to help convince people that we should go along with the war.

[bn880 5]

Raise your hand if you think U.S. authorities did not use torture...

did you have your hand up???

interrogation = torture, no matter what the tactics, to get people like that to talk it's only torture that will work. Narcotics, or sadistic treatment, no difference.

[IceFire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 09 2003,22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Raise your hand if you think U.S. authorities did not use torture...    

did you have your hand up???  

interrogation = torture, no matter what the tactics, to get people like that to talk it's only torture that will work. Narcotics, or sadistic treatment, no difference.<span id='postcolor'>

What's your point?

I think it is already accepted that we do and did use torture to get information from the enemy.

[bn880 5]

Well, I think that was just my point. Yep.

[Frizbee 0]

Physical torture (ie. Being punched or kicked, withdrawing ESSENTIAL medications, needles under the nails, wet towel over the head etc.) is wrong no matter who it is done by.

Phsycological interrogation techniques (Sleep deprivation, continual repetition of the same questions until the interview is a blur) is however alright. Making someone exhausted, and asking them questions they have already answered correctly makes their tired mind confused, and they are then more likely to give the required information.

Also, I believe the use of SOME drugs to get answers is alright, depending on who it is used on, and why.

For example, some car thief off the street getting given mind altering drugs for information on who his gang members are, is stupid and wrong.

Using them on a senior terrorist who would have information of other terrorists, planned bombings and support networks however is alright, as it would save the lives of thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands of people.

As you can see, I disagree with the physical torture of anyone, but at least you know the U.S. wouldn't torture innocent people. Those people are terrorists and murderers.

Iraq simply tortures whoever they feel like. Innocent or not.

[Necromancer- 0]

<span id='ME'><center>Necromancer- sighs</center></span>

Nothing more than revenge feelings of 911.

Why dont the US use psychics anyway?

It would humiliate the prisoners more without Human rights organisations bugging more.

[Warin 0]

So if some US Special Forces operatives were to be captured in Iraq, and were tortured to reveal what they know about their operation, it would be justified? Would the government say 'Hey, shit happens'?

Or would the US Government use it as a way to villify Iraq even further to drum up public indignation and support?

[IceFire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Mar. 09 2003,23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Physical torture (ie. Being punched or kicked, withdrawing ESSENTIAL medications, needles under the nails, wet towel over the head etc.) is wrong no matter who it is done by.

Phsycological interrogation techniques (Sleep deprivation, continual repetition of the same questions until the interview is a blur) is however alright. Making someone exhausted, and asking them questions they have already answered correctly makes their tired mind confused, and they are then more likely to give the required information.

Also, I believe the use of SOME drugs to get answers is alright, depending on who it is used on, and why.

For example, some car thief off the street getting given mind altering drugs for information on who his gang members are, is stupid and wrong.

Using them on a senior terrorist who would have information of other terrorists, planned bombings and support networks however is alright, as it would save the lives of thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands of people.

As you can see, I disagree with the physical torture of anyone, but at least you know the U.S. wouldn't torture innocent people. Those people are terrorists and murderers.

Iraq simply tortures whoever they feel like. Innocent or not.<span id='postcolor'>

I stated that torture for NATIONAL DEFENSE OR FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE.

This philosophy comes from the inherent belief that each state has the right to soveriegnty.

As for torturing your own citizens, that's a completely different thing.

And Warin, if Iraq were to torture some our our men, we would have the right to vilify or react to that however we deem appropriate.

That doesn't mean we can't do the same to their captured soldiers or terrorists.

Again, all states have the right to soveriegnty.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Mar. 09 2003,17:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Phsycological interrogation techniques (Sleep deprivation, continual repetition of the same questions until the interview is a blur) is however alright. Making someone exhausted, and asking them questions they have already answered correctly makes their tired mind confused, and they are then more likely to give the required information.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes sure, except sleep depravation becomes torture and then a risk of death. In my view, depriving someone of sleep for more than 3-4 days is torture... and it is in fact medically just as bad as any other physical abuse.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 09 2003,23:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So if some US Special Forces operatives were to be captured in Iraq, and were tortured to reveal what they know about their operation, it would be justified?  Would the government say 'Hey, shit happens'?<span id='postcolor'>

female pilots who were captured by Iraqis got some sort of treatment called gang rape during Gulf war. I never heard anything about those Iraqs being sent too UN tribunal either.

I never heard a human rights group protest about that either.

edit:

forgot to add. in principle, i'm against torturing.

[Balschoiw 0]

The use of torture for whatever reasons is sick, disturbing and not fitting the human rights. Therefore I condemn any torture methods, physical or mental ones.

Any CIVILIZED western or eastern or whatever nation should NOT use torture as a reliable source of information.

You know people who are tortured will tell you whatever YOU would like to hear. If it is the truth is doubtable.

To justify torture is the sickest thing I can think of or do you want to see your girlfriend raped in front of your eyes tied to a chair with blank wires on it to give you some electrical satisfaction cause someone thinks that you know something that he wants to know ?

Sick. Nothing else than sick. If you try to justify torture with higher motives you are lying. You are levelling at the terrorists you condamn if you use THEIR methods. So what makes you different to famous torturers of the 3rd Reich for example ? Nothing. Everyone who justifies torture is in one barrel with all the "famouse" torturers the planet has seen till today.

The US should especially know about the problem when it comes to police work. There have been several death sentences that based on torture and were wrong. This has been proven.

And yes the soldiers who killed the 2 prisoners should be sent to the electric chair for homicide along with the people who ordered the actions and the guys in washington that are responsible for it.

You want to tell anyone anything about human rights, justice, god, and the western democratic way of life ? You better shut up.

[IceFire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 10 2003,00:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The use of torture for whatever reasons is sick, disturbing and not fitting the human rights. Therefore I condemn any torture methods, physical or mental ones.

Any CIVILIZED western or eastern or whatever nation should NOT use torture as a reliable source of information.

You know people who are tortured will tell you whatever YOU would like to hear. If it is the truth is doubtable.

To justify torture is the sickest thing I can think of or do you want to see your girlfriend raped in front of your eyes tied to a chair with blank wires on it to give you some electrical satisfaction cause someone thinks that you know something that he wants to know ?

Sick. Nothing else than sick. If you try to justify torture with higher motives you are lying. You are levelling at the terrorists you condamn if you use THEIR methods. So what makes you different to famous torturers of the 3rd Reich for example ? Nothing. Everyone who justifies torture is in one barrel with all the "famouse" torturers the planet has seen till today.

The US should especially know about the problem when it comes to police work. There have been several death sentences that based on torture and were wrong. This has been proven.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't "condemn" any of our enemies actions.

They have the right to do those things.

We have the right to despise and hate them.(I know I do)

There are no "levels" here as you stated. We are their enemies, and they are our enemies. It is our mutual goals to get at eachother and eventually someone will win.

We will do whatever it takes to find and eradicate these bastards.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Yes, it sounds bad, but the jury is still out on this one. Both prisoners obviously had serious health problems prior to any torture, so it is probable that US troops were not responsible for their deaths. Recall the situation in Afghanistan- it is entirely possible that the blunt trauma was not caused during the interrogation, or even while the prisoners were in American custody. It is well known that Afghan soldiers are not especially humane with POWs, and the abuse could have been dealt out right after their capture, or prior to it (remember, these guys didn't get shot, so they had to have been captured somehow).

Now, out of curiosity, how are we defining torture in this case? Are we talking a couple smacks about the head, denial of sleep, or removing their kneecaps with power tools? If you go with the absolute definition of torture, that any form of duress for the purpose of yielding intel is torture, then yes, America is guilty. As is 90% of the world. If you go with the definition that torture becomes torture when it starts getting extreme (hooking electrodes to genitals or teeth, removalof fingernails, anything that involves hammers, etc.), then no, America does not use torture, and neither do most nations. So what's it going to be?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't "condemn" any of our enemies actions.

They have the right to do those things.

We have the right to despise and hate them.(I know I do)

There are no "levels" here as you stated.   We are their enemies, and they are our enemies.    It is our mutual goals to get at eachother and eventually someone will win.

We will do whatever it takes to find and eradicate these bastards.<span id='postcolor'>

You know what you are saying ?

"My life and the life of US citizens is the life that is superior to other lifes."

This sucks. You are no better than the regular Iraqi torturer who finds it quite entertaining to torture people who don´t fit his small horizon of world-knowledge. The only difference is that you grow up in a open democracy and should honor the value of life a bit more. You have no excuse for finding torture ok. If you do you can move to Iraq and have a big time torturing there. I am sure the motives are versatile so have fun.

[IceFire 0]

No, I suggest you REREAD what I said.

I said that there are NO "levels", as you put it and that any method that any state uses to gaurd it's own national interests is justifiable.

We have the right to act for our own interests just as they also have that right.

Where did I ever state that I thought our own American lives were "SUPERIOR" to other nations??

I only meant that we should LOOK OUT for our own interests.

Now, I must go get a haircut.

I will be back later if you wish to counter my agrument.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 10 2003,00:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, it sounds bad, but the jury is still out on this one. Both prisoners obviously had serious health problems prior to any torture, so it is probable that US troops were not responsible for their deaths. Recall the situation in Afghanistan- it is entirely possible that the blunt trauma was not caused during the interrogation, or even while the prisoners were in American custody. It is well known that Afghan soldiers are not especially humane with POWs, and the abuse could have been dealt out right after their capture, or prior to it (remember, these guys didn't get shot, so they had to have been captured somehow).

Now, out of curiosity, how are we defining torture in this case? Are we talking a couple smacks about the head, denial of sleep, or removing their kneecaps with power tools? If you go with the absolute definition of torture, that any form of duress for the purpose of yielding intel is torture, then yes, America is guilty. As is 90% of the world. If you go with the definition that torture becomes torture when it starts getting extreme (hooking electrodes to genitals or teeth, removalof fingernails, anything that involves hammers, etc.), then no, America does not use torture, and neither do most nations. So what's it going to be?<span id='postcolor'>

If you beat someone enough that they die, even if they were in a wekended state, then that is torture. Pure and simple.

I am not for a moment suggesting that the US has a systematic policy of torture. I am just saying that it seems to me that the line of what is and isnt torture is getting pretty blurry.

[Chronicles 0]

I cant believe what i read

Some people here find nothing wrong in torture acts and other inhuman procedures ?

I think that the old saying "they will never learn" is always right. It was right centuries ago , it is right even now .....

Sad.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Both prisoners obviously had serious health problems prior to any torture, so it is probable that US troops were not responsible for their deaths.<span id='postcolor'>

Why do you think so ?

This is what is written in the article:

...died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury"...

It doesn´t say that they had a car accident prior to their interrogation. In case they were injured before the interrogation they had the right on medical treatment. The US is no mambo-jumbo country that doesn´t have to follow international rights and law. And even POW´s have rights. At least the right for life. The soldiers took away this rights and I really hope they and the ones responsible for the deaths will be hunted down as the ones that took the valuable lifes of US citizens.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I will be back later if you wish to counter my agrument. <span id='postcolor'>

Which argument ?

Sorry I miss to see ANY point in your post. I only see ignorance, a false attitude towards life and other human beeings. That´s all I can see.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,00:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We will do whatever it takes to find and eradicate these bastards.<span id='postcolor'>

They were suspected terrorists, not proven terrorists. They had not had any trial. Did they die because they wouldn't say something they knew, or were they innocent and had no information?

Now having said that, I'm hardly surprised. All I can say that it is very unprofessional killing the person you are interrogating. It's counterproductive.

As for torture, everybody uses it to some extent. When you are interrogating an uncooperative subject you won't be serving him tea and cookies. There are of course limits. The Swedish military has an explicit ban on torturing POWs and defining torture as "inflicting grave or permanent bodily harm". And if the POW is deemed to have no valuable information then "any bodily harm" is prohibited. It leaves a lot open and means in practice that it's fully ok to beat your prisoners up, and deny them sleep, food etc as long it isn't in violation of the Geneva accords (which are pretty vague). When I was with A-dyk (combat divers) we had four full weeks of interrogation training. It's focus was on how to endure it, but it was obvious that it was also meant to be instructional on how to do it.

If soft-hearted Sweden is ready to apply such methods then I can't even imagine what USA is doing. I doubt that there are any limitations to that.

This is of course not officially sanctioned in any way, and nobody will force you to torture somebody. But I'm pretty sure that they look through the fingers for those sadists that are willing to do it.

Torture is uncivilised and barbaric but war does have its own set of rules that unfortunately often are both uncivilised and barbaric.