Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

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 Oneironaut

But yes, 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.

Those are the ones I mean. Actual terrorists, the ones we already know are guilty. In my opinion, once you're found guilty you ought to be treated in the harshest possible manner, as you no longer have rights of any kind.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Those are the ones I mean. Actual terrorists, the ones we already know are guilty. In my opinion, once you're found guilty you ought to be treated in the harshest possible manner, as you no longer have rights of any kind.

Found guilty how? By what grounds is someone "found guilty?"
In the U.S., you are "found guilty" after you have had a fair trial. In the "war on terror," you are found guilty by suspicion, which is, often, either by association, or completely false.

So, by which grounds of being "found guilty" are you talking about, exactly?

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.

It's like. I cut his head off, but the knife did it.

Of course by this definition the US tortures combatants. I defy you to find me any nation at war that would not torture to find information.

Right now, the US is the bad guy because we started a questionable war and we are a super power. But, when this war ends and another one starts, those nations will be shown to torture too. Torture is a war tactic, and I dont care what nation you are, it happens....it doesnt make it right. I wish they didnt do it. and I am all for trying to get nations to stop it, but how would you go about doing that?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.

I'm just saying that we don't do the torturing, as far as I know. But handing over terrorists to torturers sounds like a nice happy medium. I wish I had their email addresses so I could send them some ideas.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I'm just saying that we don't do the torturing, as far as I know. But handing over terrorists to torturers sounds like a nice happy medium. I wish I had their email addresses so I could send them some ideas.

Umm no, thats not a happy medium, thats just as bad. You can't just pass off responsiblity on some other country. If you know they are going to torture people you can't send them there, or your just as bad as they are.

See the thing you have to understand is, its not about making the US look bad or not because we torture. What its about, is torturing other living beings. And the torture is still taking place, so its just as bad.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I'm just saying that we don't do the torturing, as far as I know. But handing over terrorists to torturers sounds like a nice happy medium. I wish I had their email addresses so I could send them some ideas.

So, lets look at this from a personal level, not a technical one:

Your child - your teenager that is old enough to think for his/herself - hears a rumor that you are a vicious crime boss, who doesn't take any shit from anybody, and kills whoever gets in your way. But, the truth is, while you are that same vicious crime boss, you refuse to do any of the killing yourself, because you don't want blood on your hands, even though all murders are being carried out under your direct order.

One day, your child comes to you and asks you, son (or daughter) to man, straight up, if you kill the people that you feel have wronged you in some way. And, knowing that you have them killed, but don't kill them yourself, you say "No. I don't kill people," and, as added support, you have scores of 'humanitarian documents' throughout the house that, in writing, re-enforce your portrayal of murder as an inhumane act that, because of humanitarian issues, you would never condone, support, or aid in.

Does this not make you a liar? And if so (or if not, just the same) should your child find out that you order your enemies killed, and that you skirted the truth in such a way, knowing exactly what your child was feeling, and the purpose of the question, when it was asked, should your child ever feel that they should have blind trust in you, for anything, knowing that you would stretch the truth to give them an answer they want to hear?

Which brings us back to the OP.

If this sort of misdirection is what we except, support and/or encourage from our government, what does that stop them from getting away with? Nothing.

"Mr. President, was the American government responsible for the events of 9/11?"

"No. It was Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists."

In the above answer, the fact that our government funded, trained and armed Al Qaeda means nothing. In a sheepish world, the answer given would be sufficient. In all possibility, though (not saying this is the case, but using an example) that same misdirection that is being given in "The U.S. does not torture" could be the same misdirection that hides the potential fact that Al Qaeda was created by the U.S. government, to carry out that very same attack, as a pretext for this "greater good" war.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

If you condone misdirection, on any level, you are practically condoning it on all levels, as long as the misdirector can rationalize and convince you that it's "for the greater good." That is a dangerous ideology.