YES I AM!!! If we treat the enemy fair, while they saw off our POW’s heads, it would show a certain lack of resolve on our part. They would be launching unrestricted warfair against us and we would basically act as a police force against them. Giving them a great advantage, which is a incentive.
Two holes in that theory: first, they care nothing about their own lives, let alone those of their fellow terrorists. Second, they are not members of a well organized movement that has any sense of brotherhood. One group of thugs cares little how you treat another group of thugs.
Yeah, Kanicbird’s theory also assumes that the prisoners are all insurgents/terrorists. I’ve seen no evidence for that belief. It seems more likely to me that a lot of these guys were caught for dubious reasons, and their friends and family are more likely to join the resistance if they are mistreated. YMMV.
Do you have any sort of ethics/morals at all? Or is everything an eye for an eye? We’re America, dammit! We’re the good guys! We DON’T DO TORTURE! Or at least, we didn’t before this shit-bedamned Administration…not openly and proudly, anyway.
Wasn’t part of the propaganda used (at least in part) for toppling Saddam, that he was evil for killing and using torture?
This is a minority position.
Exhibit 1: Election 2004.
In theory, our troops in Iraq are supposed to be acting as a police force (as distinct from, say, an occupying force – which they’re not because “sovereignty” has been “restored”).
Anyone willing to die in order to protect a secret is a potential enemy.
So . . . what? You’re endorsing torture as a means of sorting out potential enemies - those who would die to protect secrets - from those who aren’t, and can have those secrets tortured out of them? So if you torture someone and they happen to tell you what you they know, be it useful or not, that means they aren’t a potentional enemy?
It’s a good thing you tortured that person to find out.
Poppycock!
Let’s assume for a moment that the election was honest. You can’t assume that every Bush vote was a vote for torture. Many were votes against gay marriage, many were votes for gutting of the treasury, many were votes for the reckless use of military, many were votes to give obscene profits to Halliburton. To truly know the position of the people on torture, you’d need a special poll.
But of course the election wasn’t honest.
The brink of death is pretty close to actual death.
That doesn’t really answer my questions or make your first statement any clearer. Torture’s good because those who talk under torture are potential enemies? Torture’s good because those who won’t talk under torture are potential enemies? You’re defining as enemies anyone who won’t do as Beautiful America tells them so as to excuse their being tortured? What?
How do you differentiate those who would die to protect a secret from those that have no secrets to reveal?
These are sound arguments and auger well for the future of the US. But I’ve found optimism a poor predictor of such outcomes lately.
The only problem is that we are not fighting against soldiers. There is no opposing army, there are only terrorists.
Proof? Photographing someone on a dog leash is not torture.
And suspected terrorists who are actually completely innocent.
But forcing them to stand for hours, bucket-headed, in mortal fear of electrocution, or lying naked beneath a pile of naked men, or being beaten unconscious, sodomised with broom handles or nearly drowned, are. Your advocacy is despicable.
I believe that torture does not work. Even if it did I believe we should not use it. (What ideals are we fighting to protect if we have to give up those ideals in the fight?) However, you cannot say that it has netted us no information. We do not currently know what it has or has not produced. This administration is incredibly secretive, and even if it wasn’t this is the sort of thing they would not reveal. We do not know what potential disasters have been prevented. As incompetent as some in the CIA may be, I feel certain that they have managed to do somethihng.
Likewise, we cannot say that they would give it up if it didn’t work. They may believe it works when it does not. They may spend a great deal of time chasing red herrings made up by people under duress, never realizing that they are fabrications. The people in charge may realize it does not work but either be unable and unwilling to change the momentum of policy (never underestimate the momemtum of beaurocracy) or having supported it before be unwilling to admit the mistake and change. Hell, they may be unwilling to admit themselves that they were wrong. Much like the cherry picking of WMD info before the war they may be convincing themselves of an opinion they already hold.
Nonsense. Everyone we have as a prisoner is a guilty terrorist. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be in prison, now would they?
So it’s okay to torture people who’re accused of being terrorists? Yes or no? Let’s get everything out in the open.
They aren’t terrorists. They are people suspected by some person for unknown reasons to be somehow related to something undetermined that this person feels would be bad for something/someone/a cause he cares for.
That’s the best case scenario. In the worst one, it’s a random guy in the hands of a bunch of sadists as we saw in Abu Grahib.