Truth, justice,

[Tex -USMC- 0]

That's what it boils down to. If we want to be the good guys, then we have to act like the good guys, and that means we have to operate under restrictions that the bad guys don't have. But, if that's what it takes to be the good guys, then we gotta do it. Simple as that. Otherwise, it turns into a nihilistic, Machiavellian world where your ends justify your means.

The rest of you, cut the righteous indignation crap; IceFire's view might not be G-rated, but it's his, and does make sense on a nihilistic basis. Sort of. Anyhow, what was I saying?

[Mr. Snrub 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not wish these things upon ANYONE, but in wartime, somethings NEED to be done inorder to SAVE your countrymens lives in the future, and to save your own.<span id='postcolor'>

Huh? Bit a contradiction you've got yourself there...

Anway, yes, I agree that things must be done in order to protect the lives of innocent citizens (from my country or any other) - things other than torture. Legitimate intelligence collection, beefing up domestic security and multi-lateral cooperation against terrorism spring to mind.

[IceFire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 10 2003,04:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, apparently a whole bunch of you misunderstood me.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh we understand all right. And thats why we are so disgusted.<span id='postcolor'>

So then you're saying that you are against torture against enemy combattants, even if it would greatly influence the outcome of a war, save many many more lives, and the good of the state?

You mean to say you would not sacrifice one enemy POW to save many innocents??

Than in that case, you are worse than anyone who would torture to get that information that could save lives because you would be willing to give up an opportunity to save innocents.

[IceFire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mr. Snrub @ Mar. 10 2003,04:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not wish these things upon ANYONE, but in wartime, somethings NEED to be done inorder to SAVE your countrymens lives in the future, and to save your own.<span id='postcolor'>

Huh? Bit a contradiction you've got yourself there...

Anway, yes, I agree that things must be done in order to protect the lives of innocent citizens (from my country or any other) - things other than torture. Legitimate intelligence collection, beefing up domestic security and multi-lateral cooperation against terrorism spring to mind.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, there is no contradiciton.

You people just need to fully understand what I mean.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,04:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So then you're saying that you are against torture against enemy combattants, even if it would greatly influence the outcome of a war, save many many more lives, and the good of the state?<span id='postcolor'>

So why are you against the torture of your own citizens. Say suspected crimnals for instance? How many lives could be saved if there were no courts of law to stall the process of justice? Why don't we just let the cops shoot criminals on sight? I mean it's about saving lives of innocent people and for the good of the state!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Mar. 10 2003,04:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sleep deprevation is not preventing all sleep. They do this in every military special forces training course I have heard of. Waking people up at all hours of the night, using any means neccessary. <span id='postcolor'>

Oh yeah baby, marching for 18 hours then getting two hours of sleep before they drag you off to a chopper and throw you in the water 2 km off base and say "swim home". Ah, those were the days  

Interrogations training is also fun. No sleep for three days, extreme lights, loud music (same song over and over again - a polka of all things). Sock in the mouth while they pour water down your throat (that's the worst one). You pass out. When you come to again they repeat the sock procedure and start making statements, not questions. You pass out again. They start asking questions. After days of this you spill your guts and tell everything. If you still have some spirit left you feed them false info and hope that they will fall for it (not likely). In the end everybody breaks. It's just a question of when. I held out for three days. One of the guys in the platoon actally endured for four whole days. And mind you there were not some shite soldiers, all were combat divers that had already been to hell and back during numerous physical and psychical tests.

My point is that you can extract information without using excessive violence or make permanent damage to the person that you interrogate. Those that torture people in the classical sence are not doing it becaue it is a necessity but because they are sadists.

[IceFire 0]

Ok, it's not torture in the classical sense, and it gets the info.

Great. I have no problem with it.

Anyways, how do they manage to even pour water down your throat with a sock in your mouth?

And can't you just refuse to swallow?

And how does it make you pass out?

[IceFire 0]

Can you really swim 2 kilometers?

Must be really hard.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,06:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can you really swim 2 kilometers?

Must be really hard.<span id='postcolor'>

just about every special forces that has to deal with water does that. Navy SEALs do that too. yes, there is a reason why they are called Special Forces

denoir was a diver/coastal ranger which is pretty much same as special force.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyways, how do they manage to even pour water down your throat with a sock in your mouth?

And can't you just refuse to swallow?

And how does it make you pass out? <span id='postcolor'>

the one that i know of requires some additional tools. won't go any further, but he is not giving you much info, and discussing torturing method is inappropriate. there is a limit of how much you can swallow water too.

[IceFire 0]

Denoir was Special Forces?

Well that makes 2 Spec Ops soldiers we've had on the forums.

USSoldier11B too.

[Frizbee 0]

A wet rag soaked with more water (and the additional tools - there are also other ways of doing this, though as stated previously, it won't be discussed) blocks your airway so you can't breath.

Every breath you inhale draws more water down your throat, you start choking but can't draw in sufficient air. You panic, you choke more, you start hyperventilating, drawing in more water. More choking, and then mercifully to you if it is being done to you, you pass out from lack of oxygen, and the interogators remove the soaked object in question.

A few days of that, (sometimes once is enough) and you'll spill everything just to prevent that feeling of suffocating.

[Jinef 2]

None of these guys suprise me, it's like some of the Americans i speak to are talking about killing 'niggers' or the 'terrorist scum' and are basically trying to justify killing due to their own self righteous bollocks.

Maggie Thatcher wanted the SAS guys to kill all the terrorists in the 1980 embassy siege but one lucky one was discovered while he was in full view of the police so they couldn't shoot him. I think that killing unarmed people who surrender is really naughty!

Wise words from Badgerboy once again, i second his opinions.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,04:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So then you're saying that you are against torture against enemy combattants, even if it would greatly influence the outcome of a war, save many many more lives, and the good of the state?<span id='postcolor'>

--

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mean to say you would not sacrifice one enemy POW to save many innocents??

<span id='postcolor'>

You are almost 60 years late - you could have joined the party (yes, litteraly) of Germany. You know, there are still bitter and hatefull people among the old norwegians because of what they had to endure during the occupation. People were slaughtered and tortured to death. The "lucky" ones at the theater in Bergen where they were interrogated, managed to kill themselves. One of those poor innocents threw himself out of a window at the fourth floor.

I was about to suggest you learn from the nazi's and pinochets of the world. You could very well administer a consentration camp - but you already have one at Guantanamo Bay.

I bet the Nazi's of the fourties claimed they had to protect a sovereign state too!

[theavonlady 2]

Let's flip the coin, shall we, in an academic manner?

Suppose it was WWII and you had a Nazi prisoner who won't speak but whose information is vital to attacking a major concentration camp named Bergen Belsen and giving its prisoners a chance to revolt and flee.

I have no doubts what I would personally do.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Couldnt you just ask him the same question three times Austin Powers style?

Or just use a good honest -'we're the good guys'- no nonsense slap across face. Those nazis cant stand up to 'good guy' slaps.

Everyone knows the good guys always win in the end, and they always arrive in the nick of time.

It must be true , i saw it on (US) TV.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 10 2003,14:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's flip the coin, shall we, in an academic manner?<span id='postcolor'>

Well, that's the whole issue, isn't it? Since you cannot predict who will use those methods it's better to agree not to use them at all. Everybody is self-righteous. Nobody thinks of themselves as bad guys.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 10 2003,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 10 2003,14:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's flip the coin, shall we, in an academic manner?<span id='postcolor'>

Well, that's the whole issue, isn't it? Since you cannot predict who will use those methods it's better to agree not to use them at all. Everybody is self-righteous. Nobody thinks of themselves as bad guys.<span id='postcolor'>

Ah, so you would let potentially 100s of 1000s of people die because it's not right to stuff a wet sock down the mouth of a Nazi who likely knows what you need to know to save those people?

If so, that to me is the epitomy of self righteousness.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Really who can say what is right and what is wrong?

Everyone must make their own decision in the end.

If im absolutly honest then if i was in WW2 knowing of the concentration camps and i was a guard outside the torture room, i would not likely try to stop it (but i certainly wouldnt be happy, and it would depend on my assesment of the individuals knowledge

and if it was getting extreme-the type of torture)

But now we have truth drugs etc which we could use over more barbaric torture in such an extreme situation

and importantly there are international rules which governments must abide by or delete their signitures from(and face international condemnation), regardless of the views of

individual figures.

I dont think America is in a situation where physical torture is actually necessary (though certainly it would be useful)

for intelligence purposes,let alone morally justifiable.

There are many other avenues of intelligence gathering

to pursue before turning to the lowest form- ie torture

but if there was great danger of an immediate attack that a certain captive was reported to

know about i wouldnt be totally shocked if some CIA man or other decided to take drastic action.

As for this case i think there is insufficient information to draw a firm conclusion.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 10 2003,15:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah, so you would let potentially 100s of 1000s of people die because it's not right to stuff a wet sock down the mouth of a Nazi who likely knows what you need to know to save those people?

If so, that to me is the epitomy of self righteousness.<span id='postcolor'>

No, not because "it's not right" but because it would justify the methods that the Nazis were using. If you use the same methods as they do, then what's the difference between you?  

Edit: And I don't consider stuffing a wet sock down the throat of a person to be torture. I would not do it myself, but if somebody did it to me I would not say that I have been "tortured".

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 10 2003,16:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, not because "it's not right" but because it would justify the methods that the Nazis were using. If you use the same methods as they do, then what's the difference between you?   <span id='postcolor'>

This doesn't justify anything the Nazis did, including firing a bullet from a gun at an armed Allied soldier.

There was no justification in any act of war the Nazis did - big or small.

Has the world gone mad? No one can distinguish between good and bad and the right for a just and good side to sometimes use extreme and even normally cruel measures to protect itself and save the lives of innocents?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 10 2003,15:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But now we have truth drugs etc which we could use over more barbaric torture in such an extreme situation

and importantly there are international rules which governments must abide by or delete their signitures from(and face international condemnation), regardless of the views of individual figures.<span id='postcolor'>

It's worth mentioning that torture is often a completely worthless way of interrogation since you get your victim to the point of desperation that they'll admit anything and tell you what you want to hear, not the truth.

Case example: the inquisition. After torture people confessed to having all sorts of business with the devil in the most absurd fashion.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 10 2003,16:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's worth mentioning that torture is often a completely worthless way of interrogation since you get your victim to the point of desperation that they'll admit anything and tell you what you want to hear, not the truth.

Case example: the inquisition. After torture people confessed to having all sorts of business with the devil in the most absurd fashion.<span id='postcolor'>

Right. Torture never worked. Historical fact. Thanks for the news.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 10 2003,15:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Has the world gone mad? No one can distinguish between good and bad and the right for a just and good side to sometimes use extreme and even normally cruel measures to protect itself and save the lives of innocents?<span id='postcolor'>

The point is not what you or I think about the Nazis. The point is that the Nazis did not think of themselves as bad guys. They thought that concentration camps were a-ok.

It's a very dangerous assumption that you are right and that you are the "good guy".

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 10 2003,16:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is not what you or I think about the Nazis. The point is that the Nazis did not think of themselves as bad guys. They thought that concentration camps were a-ok.

It's a very dangerous assumption that you are right and that you are the "good guy".<span id='postcolor'>

I wonder where the world would be today if more people thought like you over 60 years ago.

I find this inability to distinguish between good in general versus bad in general most dangerous.

[Guest]

Note that I am not some form of moral absolutist. If you ask me if killing unarmed people is wrong, then I would say yes. If I somehow was teleported to the 1930's and met Hitler on the street, I would blow his brains out, cut his throat or break his neck, whichever seems most convenient.

Using the Nazis as an example is misguiding since they are the ikon of evil in our culture.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 10 2003,16:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Using the Nazis as an example is misguiding since they are the ikon of evil in our culture.<span id='postcolor'>

But in your posts above, you give another impression.

If you would be right in killing Hitler, then what would be wrong in torturing one of his underlings who refuses to talk and knows lifesaving information?