Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Originally Posted by Neruo

It is inevitable to have not just extreme interrogation methods, but actually torture people, as it seems, purely for 'fun'? Ironically, it indeed was extremely predictable. If you give people control like that, as in Abu Graibh, they are bound to torture(, as in that famous university experiment that shows people go power-crazy quite quickly). However, doesn't it being predictable make it even more bad? Wasn't there someone that thought this through? Isn't there some council for human rights in the US army that warns and prevents such situations where people are extremely likely to torture and abuse other people?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. So you know about this phenomenon, but the high-ranking officers in charge evidently never heard of it. I don't know the answer to that question, but evidently not. That's bad enough, but what's worse is the torture that is planned and approved of.

Just like any jail you have a boss who watches over everyone else. Seeing as how this is the military I find it hard to believe he didn't know. Infact I wouldn't be surprised if everyone there knew. The question is, is it the offically policy or was it the 'unoffical' policy to torture people. Of course the answer doesn't really matter since its exactly the same thing, and only said one way to cover the butts of higher ranking people when they get caught.

A few 19 year old idiots put some underwear on the heads of some terrorists. That does not mean Bush secretly has a pro-torture policy. The U.S. military is enormous. Some people are going to break rules.

And by the way, the terrorists can go screw themselves. I hope everybody agrees with me on that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A few 19 year old idiots put some underwear on the heads of some terrorists. That does not mean Bush secretly has a pro-torture policy. The U.S. military is enormous. Some people are going to break rules.

And by the way, the terrorists can go screw themselves. I hope everybody agrees with me on that.

I disagree.

If someone thinks and acts differently compared to the so called "majority", regardless of materialistic moral values, that person should not be persecuted by judgement.

It is judgement that forces duality. You have to spite the face, if you cut off the nose.

Originally Posted by cloudWalker

I disagree.

If someone thinks and acts differently compared to the so called "majority", regardless of materialistic moral values, that person should not be persecuted by judgement.

It is judgement that forces duality. You have to spite the face, if you cut off the nose.

What does that point have to do with mine?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And by the way, the terrorists can go screw themselves. I hope everybody agrees with me on that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A few 19 year old idiots put some underwear on the heads of some terrorists. That does not mean Bush secretly has a pro-torture policy. The U.S. military is enormous. Some people are going to break rules.

It was the lack of leadership there that was the problem.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And by the way, the terrorists can go screw themselves. I hope everybody agrees with me on that.

If you mean the 911 terrorists, they were Egyptian and Saudi, not Iraqi.

One guy who had been in Abu Graib when Saddam was in power and then after the US invaded said it was better when Saddam was in power; at least they weren't naked.

*coughcoughOnce Againcough*

And to add to that:

Exporting Torture: US Rendition and European Outrage

U.S. Treatment of Terror Suspects and U.S.-EU Relations

CIA Chief Defends US Rendition, Detention Policies

I'm pretty sure the debate on whether or not the U.S. tortures (and by that, I do include "shipping people off of U.S. soil and/or taking enemy combatants that never touch the U.S., to places where it's reasonable to believe they will be tortured") has been, pretty much concluded. (Or, as to cover all my bases, there is much more supporting evidence for the argument that they do, than that they don't.)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And by the way, the terrorists can go screw themselves. I hope everybody agrees with me on that.

I definitely agree 100%. And to the "terrible" cases where a poor, helpless terrorist gets his jaw shattered or is forced to wear underwear on his head I say: "So fucking what. Sometimes people actually get what they deserve." They have no rights. They were dead to rights the moment they joined the wrong team.

Originally Posted by cloudWalker

I disagree.

So exactly what part of that do you disagree with? The "the terrorists can go screw themselves." part or the that "Some people are going to break rules."? Because honestly, to disagree with of those seems pretty darn ignorant. You'd have to purposely be wearing blinders.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I definitely agree 100%. And to the "terrible" cases where a poor, helpless terrorist gets his jaw shattered or is forced to wear underwear on his head I say: "So fucking what. Sometimes people actually get what they deserve." They have no rights. They were dead to rights the moment they joined the wrong team.

You are forgetting a very large part of the reality of this whole situation, Gh...

These people, being detained are not convicted terrorists. None of them. Not one. In being suspected terrorists, they are denied due process. They get no trial. They are held indefinitely. All under the umbrella of suspicion. Even the ones that you see in the pictures; the ones that you say "so fucking what," to. Not one of them have been tried and convicted (as is what has been considered lawful and humane, under our constitution). They are suspected of terrorism and, therefore, detained.

To take the stance that you're taking, without considering that very strong fact, is to basically take the stance that every suspected felon (regardless of conviction or acquittal) deserves capital punishment.

But yea, in case my logic gives the wrong impression, the actual terrorists (those that kill innocent people to promote any religious or political agenda - whether they are Al Qaeda, African militants, or the American government) can go screw themselves.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I definitely agree 100%. And to the "terrible" cases where a poor, helpless terrorist gets his jaw shattered or is forced to wear underwear on his head I say: "So fucking what. Sometimes people actually get what they deserve." They have no rights. They were dead to rights the moment they joined the wrong team.

Have you ever seen proper media in all of your life?

Quite some people that turned out not to be terrorists after they had been tortured and abused by (people working for) the US Army / CIA.

Also, if you approve of (pointless) torture, you should be revoked your right to vote, you clearly can't restrain your primal urges for pointless vengeance and aggression.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

*coughcoughOnce Againcough*

And to add to that:

Exporting Torture: US Rendition and European Outrage

U.S. Treatment of Terror Suspects and U.S.-EU Relations

CIA Chief Defends US Rendition, Detention Policies

I'm pretty sure the debate on whether or not the U.S. tortures (and by that, I do include "shipping people off of U.S. soil and/or taking enemy combatants that never touch the U.S., to places where it's reasonable to believe they will be tortured") has been, pretty much concluded. (Or, as to cover all my bases, there is much more supporting evidence for the argument that they do, than that they don't.)

I still don't agree. Scaring people into thinking they will be tortured for not doing something they can and should control is not torture. And sending terrorists off to countries where torture is legal is not torture committed by us. It is just a situation of giving them to those who will do it, but not ourselves. So torture is not a government policy.

As far as the morality of sending terrorists to places where torture migh happen, I have no problem with it as long as they are known terrorists, as in people who shot at our soldiers or people who were caught setting up road side bombs and that sort of thing. Those people can have bottle rockets blown up in their penis holes for all I care. They will never have my sympathy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I still don't agree. Scaring people into thinking they will be tortured for not doing something they can and should control is not torture. And sending terrorists off to countries where torture is legal is not torture committed by us. It is just a situation of giving them to those who will do it, but not ourselves. So torture is not a government policy.

Lol. UM...

Say I was a mob boss, and one of my goons caught you sneaking around my house, trying to get into my safe. He then brings you up to me, bound and gagged, and says "What you want I should do with this guy, boss?" and, without missing a beat, I say "Take him out to the docks and empty a clip in him. Make sure he's never found."

Now, say the conversation was eavesdropped upon, by the Feds. The would-be thief is killed, but I'm caught on tape, giving the order...

What...do you think I'm just going to get off, scott-free? No. I'm going to get a murder charge. Whether you agree or not, shipping people off to be tortured, is a torture policy, no matter what kind of a liability loophole they want to try to cover it up with.