Did we capture bin Laden?

Did we capture bin Laden?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 22 100.0%
  • Total voters
    22
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
I wouldn't enjoy it and I would hope that it would never happen again, but I would have him cut to ribbons if that's the way he wants to play the game.
Click to expand...
Fine. Let's do that.

But only on one condition - that after the war, the people who participated in this process, regardless of who they are, what country they serve, their rank in the military, or their connections in the government, are tried and sentenced for war crimes. Because that's what the torture of POWs is, bub.

How about it? Do you think the interrogators/torturers would do that, knowing they'd be getting long prison sentences afterwards? Because, let me tell you, if you're willing to break the rules you yourself set up, without taking the consequences, then you're in no position to complain when others break them too.
 
Narcoanalysis is much more effective. Modern `Interrogation narcotics` could be mixed with food or medicines, and its impossible to trace them (so interrogated person takes them without even knowing it and there is no evidence that they were used). After interrogation using them you could start normal interrogation using evidence gained earlier (`you already told us everything`), with some elements of psychic torture - using brutal force only is ineffective because interrogated person will tell you only this what you want to hear (it was proved during WWII, and by security agencies in communist states in 40`s/50`s). Those methods are commonly used by military and intelligence agencies.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Fine. Let's do that.

But only on one condition - that after the war, the people who participated in this process, regardless of who they are, what country they serve, their rank in the military, or their connections in the government, are tried and sentenced for war crimes. Because that's what the torture of POWs is, bub.

How about it? Do you think the interrogators/torturers would do that, knowing they'd be getting long prison sentences afterwards? Because, let me tell you, if you're willing to break the rules you yourself set up, without taking the consequences, then you're in no position to complain when others break them too.
Click to expand...

Only one thing wrong with your statement... hes not a POW, Hes a war Criminal, a Terroist... and not what i would consider human... Tourturing POWs is wrong... because not all of them are bad... Bin Laden *is* bad...besides... We were at peace when he bombed WTC... there was no war to fight... it was an act of terrorism, not war... it was attackin CIVILIANS!!!! so i dont see were u get off calling him a POW... coz hes not
 
Experience has shown that typically you don't need to do anything special in order to get someone to crack. Just keep them from speaking to anyone other than an interrogator, and eventually they'll open up. That's one reason why the right to silence and right to an attorney are so important in the US. Having an attorney present on the side of the prisoner helps stiffen their resolve somewhat.
And the easiest way to get someone to talk?
Give them a little alcohol.
The Soviets used to pull a lot of different stunts when they needed a confession (you can read about them in the Gulag Archipelago). One of the simplest was this -
Don't give the prisoner any food for a day or two. Then go ahead and serve them a meal and give them some alcohol. It literally does not matter how much or how little you give the person. It'll go straight to their head, and they'll do pretty much anything you tell them to do.
Of course, if the prisoners are devout Muslims, this might be a little bit of a problem, but on most people, it'll work quite well. And there's no torture involved.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Fine. Let's do that.

But only on one condition - that after the war, the people who participated in this process, regardless of who they are, what country they serve, their rank in the military, or their connections in the government, are tried and sentenced for war crimes. Because that's what the torture of POWs is, bub.

How about it? Do you think the interrogators/torturers would do that, knowing they'd be getting long prison sentences afterwards? Because, let me tell you, if you're willing to break the rules you yourself set up, without taking the consequences, then you're in no position to complain when others break them too.
Click to expand...

If President Bush said to utilise any and all means, then I would take him at his word. Sure, he might not mean the sort of butchery, but Mohummed is a terrorist. Do you think he'd happily tell us what we need to know? He's probably yapping about lawyers and civil rights. Now, admittedably, what they're doing right now seems to be working, but I'd take the lives of the victims of the next terrorist attack they'd find out if they had to resort to drastic measures over the rights of a tango any day of the week. As far as I'm concerned, you try and cause terror on a country and you lose the benifit of it's protectors. So sure, arrest those who utilise those means in trying to save lives from terrorism. It'd make great jail talk and maybe even a New York Times bestseller. And I have no complaints about those who utilise these means if they serve a purpose. But you'll find that most torture conducted in places in Iraq is just for fun.
 
Originally posted by Maniac II
Only one thing wrong with your statement... hes not a POW, Hes a war Criminal, a Terroist... and not what i would consider human... Tourturing POWs is wrong... because not all of them are bad... Bin Laden *is* bad...besides... We were at peace when he bombed WTC... there was no war to fight... it was an act of terrorism, not war... it was attackin CIVILIANS!!!! so i dont see were u get off calling him a POW... coz hes not
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Junior, on your ideas of interrogation, that sounds like a good idea. And it'd be something I'd try first before using torture.
 
The issue is not whether the terrorists are bad or evil or whether their crimes "justify" such punishment. The issue is, will you imitate them? If you go for torture, then unless the torturers will be punished for their actions, you are just as bad as the people you're fighting. You deserve to have the same things done to you as you'd like to have done to Osama Bin Laden. It's that simple - rules are rules. There are no exceptions.
The West has set up many different rules regarding human rights. Yeah, so the terrorists break these rules. So what? Are you gonna break them too, just to prove that you're as bad as they are? You take that step, and you undo more than five decades of progress in human rights. Hell, you become even worse than Bin Laden. What you're saying is, "yeah, so human rights were paid for with blood of millions in WWII. But I don't give a fuck. They might as well have died in vain."

Oh, and by the way, the anti-torture convention makes no differentiation between psychological torture and physical torture. And if the captured terrorists aren't POWs, then what are they? If they're ordinary criminals, then treat them like ordinary criminals, not like animals.
 
I think torture is warranted, but only in extreme ticking clock type cases. For the most part we can head off a terrorist action with good Intel and a strike team. Or sometimes the terrorists slip one through, God forbid.
By the ticking clock case I am onbviously referring to something similar to the show 24. If you know there is an attack imminent, and it would be horrific one, then wouldn't some form of torture be admissable?
Admittedly that such a situation would be a long shot, but the government has looked at the possibility, and there have been proposals for torture by warrant in such a situation.
But think about: What if it did happen in your town?
 
Originally posted by Shaggy
I think torture is warranted, but only in extreme ticking clock type cases. For the most part we can head off a terrorist action with good Intel and a strike team. Or sometimes the terrorists slip one through, God forbid.
By the ticking clock case I am onbviously referring to something similar to the show 24. If you know there is an attack imminent, and it would be horrific one, then wouldn't some form of torture be admissable?
Admittedly that such a situation would be a long shot, but the government has looked at the possibility, and there have been proposals for torture by warrant in such a situation.
But think about: What if it did happen in your town?
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the only way to get information on an imminent terrorist attack is through torture or truth serums, then that is what has to be done. Oh sure, there are things such as human rights as Quarto pointed out, but let's say a terrorist knew that there was a nuclear bomb was going to be set off and he isn't talking. Everything bar torture has been tried, but he still won't talk. Would you still withold torture? What's that? You say you would? Great. I can't wait to hear how you allowed to have a million people turned into blak glass because you were worried about a terrorist's rights.

And as for normal criminals, I do not advocate torture or police brutality to apprehend suspects. Rodney King is out. But slapping a suspect up against the wall to incapacitate them, like Hecklor and Koch teach police forces to do, is perfectly acceptable.
 
I'll be blunt. A million lives is nothing compared to the tens of millions who have already died to secure some semblence of torture-free warfare.

Also, it's interesting to note that you need to resort to increasingly doomsday-like scenarios in order to stand by your original claim that torture is a valid method in this situation. Even if I was to agree that a million lives at stake might validate the use of torture... well, that would still mean that torture is completely and permanently off-limits. A situation where so many lives can be saved or lost depending on whether you employ torture or not will always remain hypothetical.
 
Torture free warfare? Unfortunetly torture is a fact of warfare. It happened in Vietnam, when both VietCong and American soldiers would grab the enemy as they slept, torture them for information and then kill them. It happened in the last decade, where "interrogations" were conducted with a baterry and salt water or pliers. And it happens in places like Iraq today as punishment, something I do not agree with. And just as a point, are you saying, yes or no, you would let people die just so that torture would not have to happen?
 
Phillip, I would really like to see you in war mate. You seem to be all guts and glory when the terrorist is all chained up and cannot hurt you.

Lets see if that changes out in the field. You'd probably lose bowel control and cower behind some shelter. So much for ranting and raving about what you'd do to them.

I agree they are evil, yet Quarto and steampunk take the more civilised approach. We need not stoop to their level! Or put another way, if you become more monsterous then them and mastermind a terror attack on them, be prepared to be tortured the same way you say you would torture them.

Let's show the world the West truly is the leading light in human rights. Although as an Athiest it pains me to say it, but the old quote from the Bible puts it nicely. Treat your neighbour as you would have them treat you.
 
Well, I said "some semblence of torture-free warfare". It's true that torture continues to occur sometimes, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it.

And what I'm saying is that I would do everything I could to prevent people from dying - but there are certain lines I would not cross. So yes, if you want to look at it that way, I'm willing to let people die just so that torture wouldn't happen. But it's more than that - I believe this is a silly way to describe the issue, because you're using the most cataclysmic possibility as an example, even though this possibility could never happen. You're grasping at straws. If this sort of situation is what it would take to justify torture, then why are we even talking about it?
 
I would like to think that I would do my best in war, but you're probably right. I probably would do that. How about you? You ever had bullets whizzing past your head? Ever been so scared that you were going to die? Have you actually been there, and know what it's like?

Certainly what you say is justified, and don't think for a moment that you have to like torture. Hell, I don't support it. Not when it is used for the purpose I have mentioned, particularly not for punishment and especially not for fun. But I would use any means to save innocent lives, and if that means torture, and I'd have a price put on my head to be captured and tortured, then I would do it. But even if torture was the only way to save lives, I don't think I would be the one to do it. Notice how I always said for someone to cut them to ribbons? I don't think I could personnaly bring myself to do it.
 
Yes I would probably be scared too, but at least I don't say what I am going to do to people when I capture them. I just don't talk about it full stop. Therefore the tag hypocrite cannot be attached to me.

However for someone who doesn't support torture Phillip, you sure do talk in vivid tones about what you would like to do to Osama.
 
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Hell, I don't support it.
Click to expand...
Ah, but support it you do. See through you, the council does.

But even if torture was the only way to save lives, I don't think I would be the one to do it.
Click to expand...
You couldn't bring yourself to do it, yet you have the gall to say that it's an acceptable option? Torture doesn't require any special expertise, and it doesn't put you in any danger. So, if you don't want to do it, how can you ask somebody else to?
 
I could talk about this until the cows come home, but I do not want to appear as if I'm fascinated by torture. Anyone who knows me at all would know I really wish we would never have to resort to such tactics. I was going to hopefully finish off this discussion with page after page of me calling your character into question. Remember something that was said about not stoopong to that level, I've decided not to do that. So to answer your points, I happily admit to being crazy for not caring about the rights of a cretin like Khallah Shiak Muhummed. This mind also thinks it's crazy to sacrifice innocent lives for the rights of terrorists. What a crazy crazy world we live in.
 
Remember, civilisation is only a thin veneer. Scratch away at the surface and we are nothing but animals (my apologies to animals, humans truly are the scum of the Earth and animals much higher than us, the way we are going).

What separates us from animals is our ability to be merciful. Yes, we may execute, and I believe that is justified. Yet we can either be humane in doing so, and prove we can separate our heated emotions from our actions; or we can find the most painful way to execute him. Which is more civilised?

If we kill him in the most cruel way, what message will we send to others. We should show that the West is indeed the pinnacle of civilisation. Our culture is dominant in the world, yet let us be responsible in how we wield that power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top