http://content1.clipmarks.com/conten...4-3A07CF501B7C
Good to know just in case...
Printable View
http://content1.clipmarks.com/conten...4-3A07CF501B7C
Good to know just in case...
of what. you wanting to blow yourself and a few US citizens up?
i'm all in favor of using it on Enemy Non Combatents. or as i call them Muslim Extremist.
no uniform NO geneva convention applies.
+1. And after interrogation a summary execution by firing squad would sew things up nicely, to say nothing of preventing them from returning to the battlefield as so many former Guantanamo residents have.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
I just found the video interesting...I've had a couple long arguments with people about waterboarding being torture. I think we should use waterboarding for any enemy combatant lucky enough to be captured. I wish they would bring back the quick drop and sudden stop for the death penalty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
+1
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
If a little waterboarding stops another 9/11, it doesn't bother my consience one little bit if some terrorist gets a little wet.
Waterboarding is torture? Boo-Hoo, my pussy hurts....
I agree that if they are not wearing a "standard, recognized" uniform, anything goes. I may be a little hard hearted on this but...
If I captured several "terrorists" or just plain enemy combantants. I put them all in the same room and line them up. Ask one a question. He doesn't answer, blow his head off. Go down the line.
Waterboarding isn't fun but it's not life threatening. My dad had a friend that was in 'Nam and was a POW for about 4 years. Unfortunately about 6 years after he was freed he divorced his wife, left his kids, and committed suicide. Before he did that though, he had some crazy stories about torture...
If an "enemy" has information that can save your or your team/country/side/etc life, ANYTHING goes in my mind.
Flame suit on.
I'm not against waterboarding terrorists by any means.
But what I AM against is all the propoganda BS on both sides "Ohh nooo we can't torture them..."
"It's not torture, it only simulates drowning."
The video is correct. It doesn not "simulate" drowning. It is slow drowning. and it is torture.
And no, the geneva conventions do NOT apply because
They're not soldiers. They're terrorists. "non combatants"
All that said, if some terrorist has vital information, torture away.
Let's just call it what it is.
Waterboarding is nowhere near torture. We do it to our own troops in SERE school. The politicains have really screwed this up. Now, even physical exercise is considered extreme (even though srtaight out of FM 21-20 and required by EVERY soldier, EVERY morning) when applied to captured prisoners. Since when did terrorists get more rights than the soldier?
Wow, not a single person here thinks waterboarding is torture? I've also seen video of Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded, he lasted a similarly short amount of time.
I'm pretty shocked no one considers it torture. I'm guessing if you had it done to you, you would feel differently.
I'm also fairly surprised that everyone believes life is like an episode of 24, where torturing the bad guy is going to magically save lives. Because that guy they sent to be a suicide bomber would have been filled in on the details of their next operation.
We convicted Japanese after WWII for waterboarding... double standards are a good way to make lots of people hate us. People hating us makes it much easier for terrorists to do their work, get financed, etc. I say that waterboarding has made us less safe.
But hooray for feeling like you're getting some retribution, I guess. I'm tired of people taking "common sense" approaches to things, with no regard for the complexity and longevity of the repercussions. We are still paying for what we did to install the Shah in Iran, still paying for supporting Saddam against Iran, still paying for our blind support of Israel. Are we still going to be paying a price 50 years from now?
H.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
The problem with that idea is that if the second guy in line doesn't know the answer to your question, but doesn't want to die, he will tell you what he thinks you want to hear. And as YOU don't know the answer to your question either, you might just believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBear
That why you don't believe anything they say and just kill them all... They are being killed for their previous actions, not for what knowledge they may or may not posess. If they want to talk, the "suits" will still check it out, but no promises made on that information.
Waterboarding seems to be a viable and effective way of getting information from our enemies.
So does anything go if you're trying to get vital information, or do you just want enemy combatants summarily executed? You seem to have shifted your entire argument in the space of a couple of hours.
How have I shifted anything?
Anything goes when trying to get information. When they served their purpose, kill them.
KEMALL and Let The Great spirit sort em out.
So, the entire "moral highground" concept goes out the door. Terrorists can justify terrorism, since anything goes?
Some percentage of the people picked up will be innocent. Should they be murdered as well?
There is a moral difference between combat on the battlefield, and putting a bullet in the head of someone who isn't posing you a risk. Kept alive in solitary at ADX Florence they may have a change of heart and decide to help us, even 10 years later we could gain insight into the mindset that is our real enemy. At worst, they hold their beliefs until the day they die, unable to communicate with others.
I mean, I can understand saying what you're saying when you're pissed off because they just dropped some of our buildings. In the rational light of day, with reasoning and logic, I don't see how to defend your position.
H.
Yeah, that was the gist of your first post, but in your second post you said "They are being killed for their previous actions, not for what knowledge they may or may not posess."Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBear
Either way, as Hoosier said, it seems to be more of a not-so elaborate revenge fantasy than anything else.
I see your point. Terrorists do justify what they do. They believe in it and act upon it. If innocent people are picked up then they are not so innocent anymore. I TOTALLY agree with you on the moral difference between the battelfield and someone who walks in off the street confessing. On the battlefield anything goes, line em up when caught and shoot. If someone walks in off the street and confesses, etc, then yeah you can do all the holding, trying to befriend and all that crap, but they should still be killed. They may have a sincere change of heart. The guys on the battelfield though... no deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
Maybe it is some "fantasy" as Jake so describes but that's how I think.
"On the battlefield anything goes, line em up when caught and shoot."
So when our troops get captured, they should be lined up and shot, and we're just like, "Ok, that's fair and reasonable."
I mean, you have to be able to perceive the situation from points of view other than your own. Understanding how they perceive it will allow you some insight into how they'll respond. We don't torture, because We. Are. Better. Than They Are. We use to be able to say it. Now we're just hypocrites.
+1 Back when I was on active duty and had to worry about finding myself in places of the world that the U.S. was not officially suppose to be in, I often thought about how much I was going to be able resist and/or endure before telling "them" something, anything to stay alive. The reality is every person is going to have to make that decision for themselves and then will have to live with the decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
Same goes for handling enemy combatants. Do I think that waterboarding them is going to yield high levels of information that can be exploited by analysts?
Beats me, I don't know the answer to that, but based on my understanding of what I was going to do, I would say no. Every other word would be fabrications and lies to get through the next few minutes alive.
Do we treat our "enemies" more humanly than they do us? You beat we do. I've seen some of the handy work some of their "specialists" have administered, it almost always involved sharp instruments or nowadays cordless power tools to parts of your body that will leave emotional and physical scars forever, if you survive. Life is a living hell for those unfortunate bastards that get caught on the wrong side of the line, and God help them die a fast death if given the opportunity.
My two cents for the bleeding heart liberals and blood thirsty conservatives.
Quote:
We convicted Japanese after WWII for waterboarding...
I'm sure there was a lot more to it than just that... Just saying..
1) Torture IS legal and can be authorized from appropriate officials.
2) Do we need the ability to extract information from prisoners? YES
3) Physical torture does have its limits and stipulations therefore information rec'd must be judged accordingly.
4) Are we better than them? When it comes down to your family or your morals, what would you choose? Is one choice wrong ?(Be careful, if you haven't been in this situitation then think about it for a while. It is easy to answer when not in that position, even easier to answer when you are there.)
5) What would be a suitable alternative? Letting them go, bribes, immunity? Could that information be trusted more than info rec'd by torture?
Just some starting thoughts (my opnions aside)....
How much longer that will last... who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier;165318So when our troops get captured, they should be lined up and shot, and we're just like, "Ok, that's fair and reasonable." [COLOR=red
I grew up within one of those fundamentalist enclavements. I woke up every morning watching kid cartoons that taught that killing infidels is a good thing, I was taught to marry infidel women and to assimilate them into islamic culture. I like to assume I know islamic fundamentalist better than most people I know here.
To think that we are better so we should not use a certain method that is considered torture by some is almost self fish.
These fundamentalist would fight you, lost the battle, dropped their weapons, asked for your forgiveness (or currently in afghan, walk away from their position), only to kill you on the very next opportunity. Most of them have been brainwashed and fail to see what we are doing is 'better' or more 'humane.' In their eyes - these are our weaknesses!
Perhaps I have witnessed too much, but I personally HATE extremists and will not treat them as equal human being as they do not see me as one.
My 2 cent!
It's not about them though, is it? As you say, their attitudes will never change, no matter what we do. So we fight them hard, we prosecute them on the battlefield, we incarcerate them until they're no longer a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBear
It's about the people with no particular axe to grind who just want to get on with their lives. I'm personally of the opinion that if we go around torturing, executing and behaving in exactly the way that the radicals say we behave, we're not going to do much to convince moderate Muslims that we have anything to offer them.
It took the British 200 years to realise that if you treat people like crap, eventually they'll reach their breaking point and now it seems like America is the only country more universally hated than Britain (which means if I ever go on holiday to Afghanistan I'm doubly screwed :D)
Sorry jake. Most moderate muslims are keeping their mouth shut because they know we are doing them huge favors.Quote:
Originally Posted by jake
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake
Jake Sir, I agree with you. There is a difference in what we say/do and what others say/do about us. Not to get all religious and crap but there is a time for war and a time for peace. God has His wrath and His mercy. Battlefield combatants ought to be sent to meet their Maker and see our wrath. Those other peoples should see the mercy... We build houses for them after bombings, we try to support their infrastructure, we pour billions of dollars into the local economy, etc. And yes, we make mistakes. I don't know...
If they are not changed by seeing a hardend "infidel" soldier kill a suicide bomber (who was about to take several locals with them), fall down and cry, then get up and APOLOGIZE to the locals for the killing... then to turn around and start helping with the rebuilding of a temporary shelter for the locals, etc.... I don't know what to do. If the moderate muslims stay off the battlefields, they'll be ok. Unfortunately, it's the extremists that live in their midsts that mess things up. There is no surefire way to sort them out. Pysch speaking, they will cover for their own regardless of beliefs before trusting an outsider.
The old saying is still true. You have to talk the talk and walk the walk.
Peace.[Beer]
There is a difference between defending yourself, and being OK with extra-judicially killing someone because you are better than they are. Obviously, you defend yourself. You do not kill someone who is not a threat to you, even if they would kill you if they could. You prevent them from becoming a threat to you, but that doesn't involve murdering them.Quote:
Originally Posted by coloccw
There are obviously better options than those you listed. Look at the work we did interrogating prisoners in WW2. Even when we broke the Geneva convention (P.O. Box 1142, for example) we didn't resort to torture, and we did get results. Real, verifiable results. Beyond that, you see if a case can be made to convict them of crimes, or failing that you hold them as a prisoner of war until the war is over and they're judged to be no longer a risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by coloccw
<-------- bloodthirsty american
In this war on terror I think it's very important to take prisoners.
I just don't think we need to keep them that long.
Can someone clear something up for me? What is all this talk about uniforms? Wouldn't everyone be wearing life jackets in case they fall and have to wait for the boat?
What about the 3,000 lives ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
NO...... we would be Hyprocrites IF we did a podcast of us beheading them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
As for fair and reasonable, while sympathetic to our military both past and present (navy here) I have family members who have been in the sandbox, some going back for the 3rd time. I have no sympathy, sorrow, or regret for anything that happens to MUSLIM EXTREMIST.
They have decided to not only attack military, but also civilian targets, the majority being fellow Muslims. IF they only attacked Military targets, then yes i would reconsider some of my statements/beliefs. HOWEVER since they are non discriminatory in their attacks, they have no foundation saying it is a JIHAD against the INFIDEL AMERICA.
All they are interested in doing is killing, maiming, torturing etc. That is why they are called TERRORIST.
I find myself having difficulty choosing the words I want to express my feelings on this. The bleeding hearts who are so concerned with how we're treating those poor unfortunate souls who happen to consider a 2 year old child as a legitimate target bother me. Maybe they should haul themselves down to the local Army or Marine recruiter and sign up for a 4 year tour as Ground Infantry, so they can go over and make a difference in how those poor unfortunate muslim extremists are being treated instead of judging the way the folks that are in the thick of it are handling it.
Flat out, an Infidel to them is ANYONE not a muslim. Babies, children, women, men, they don't care. The more, the better. They find the most creative and nasty ways to take care of their prisoners, while we fret and cry that the poor unfortunate souls in Guantanamo Bay don't have enough Korans, or that their prayer rugs aren't good enough, or whatever.
I wonder, how many of the folks who are so concerned about how we're treating those poor, poor muslim extremists would be all that concerned if the person on the Al Jazeera video being beheaded with a knife was their buddy, brother, uncle, nephew, son, etc? Are they going to cry that the poor, misunderstood muslim isn't to blame and should be gently brought around and made to understand that they shouldn't do those bad things? All right now, go play nice! I doubt it. I don't think their moral high ground would stand that test.
Their religion teaches them that it's OK to kill us. We, on the other hand, have to be nice to them. Heck, if we legitimately kill too many with headshots we have investigators go over there and grill the troops. One Taliban bigwig gets a bloody lip from a Navy SEAL, those SEALs are done for, Baby! Never mind that the Taliban guy would gut their wives or girlfriends in front of them for sport.
Well, if you want to cry for them you go right ahead. I think we can deal with the torture/abuse problem simply and expediently by NOT TAKING PRISONERS. If they are on the field of battle with a gun and no uniform, shoot them right there and be done with it. No abuse. No torture. No problems.
Even in this war, there will eventually be a peace. Atrosities, tortures, violations of the geneva convention and the helsinki accords lengthens that time. Justifying our violations because they did one thing or another is irrelevent. It's an arguement rife with faulty logic. We can't control their actions, but we are capible of controlling our own. The difference is rolling into a village in Iraq and Afghanistan and having maybe one or two hostiles not willing to do anything vs rolling into the same village and everyone is willing to die to kill you.
There is a time and place for everything. The time and place for these tactics are very very very rare, and I have yet to have seen it appropriate in any aspect of either war. Considering I've been involved in the targeting, capturing, killing (through Ke strike), and interrogation of a few of these guys, I might have a clue.
I must be the "bleeding heart liberal", which makes me laugh; who wants to "cry for the extremists" even though I said no such thing. I have a different opinion on whether it's in our best interests torture people and I'm OK with that; so call me whatever you want.
Whatever, if you don't want us to follow our own rule of law when we deal with another actor, then don't gripe when they do the same, I suppose.
I think the only thing else I'll say is that if the situation was reversed, and another country controlled our land, the members of this forum would be the irregulars not in uniform with guns making them pay.
Most of the people in Iraqi and Afghanistan never met an Al Queda agent, they just don't like having another country rolling through their streets. How many relatives would you have to lose before you decided to make some IED's? How many kids were 10 years old when we came, saw their fathers bagged and taken away, are 17 now and want revenge?
A lot of problem stems from treating all these people as if they're just Haji's who flew planes into WTC, and it just isn't the case.
o7 Peace out
the big issue here for me is the reasoning behind the tactics. its not like we are doing waterboarding to every person we capture. its not like we are putting a hot iron on their face, cutting off fingers, etc. its not like its happening all the time. while i agree you need to be careful in this matter because of the problems it can cause in peace time, i think we have to try to remember we want to get to peace first before we worry about that. we aren't waterboarding for sport (not knowingly by the brass anyway) we are trying to get vital info to save american lives and bring the real criminals to justice sooner rather than later. you can't assume we can ever rid the world of terrorists. its not possible. too many people are fed junk at a young age, are victims of unfortunate circumstances and will inevitably take it out on us. certainly you don't want to fuel the fire, but i don't think we are risking that here. these terrorists aren't like fighting the french, or british or something. waterboarding probably makes them laugh. they do far worse things. waterboarding won't cause them to "up the ante" because it comes nowhere close to what they do. i am 100% against waterboarding every tom, dick and harry we come across, but in situations where we think they have very important information? absolutely. all it is is a fear tactic. we aren't permanently harming them. we aren't killing them. its the fear that drives the give up of information. if these were uniformed, organized afghani soldiers then i 100% agree it should not be allowed. but with terrorists? i think its a gray area we should exploit when absolutely neededQuote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
Fear of death, right? I think that's a fear that might be exploitable in the right circumstances with this tactic. The problem is the ones we really want information from are the the ones that are the biggest zealots. They are willing to die and willing to watch every one in their family die and bask in the perceived glory of those deaths. The results from tactics like this are worthless with a zealot. There are other interrogation tactics more effective with this type of detainee/prisoner.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmckay2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
not by blowing myself up at the mall.
those that legitimize terrorism are fools