****, i find my self agreeing with Red again. The rules for military interrogators have to be different than the rules for the spokes. I would agree that an FBI interrogator on American soil under no time lines can get information out of most criminals. However, enemy combatants have short term information. We need to get the information quickly in order to act on it. Enhanced interrogation should only be used on high value targets that potentially have real intel. The mastermind of 9/11 was subjected to enhanced interrogations (they simulated him drowning and told him that if another attack happens on our soil we will kill his family). He told us everything he knew (or at least a lot). Now he lives comfortably in a nice air conditioned cell with 3 hot meals a day and plenty of freedom to pray as he chooses. I don't have any problems with using EIM on the right bad guys but why tell the world what our techniques are? Why tell the world (or me) who we use them on or what information we get out of it. Just tell the world we do not torture. We will not harm you or kill you. You will however be very uncomfortable if you do not cooperate. You will be cold and hot, you will be wet, the music will be bad and loud, you will not sleep very much, but you can make all of that stop and become very comfortable by telling us what you know about people trying to hurt our citizens. I do not think we should torture. electricity to the nuts, pulling finger nails out, drill bit through the hand, knife gouge to the eye ball, acid on the skin, etc... not acceptable. Telling Khalid Shaikh Mohammed that if his guys attack our country again and he does not tell us about it in advance, we will not only kill him we will also kill his family... OK in my book.
our enemies would never torture our guys unless provoked by our torture. they have too much respect for decency. "has the US tortured our guys recently? no? ok then we cant torture. we terrorists only torture as a response to torture. send the prisoner back to his cell with some doritos and a game boy." - terrorist
What if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or someone else of his ilk was suspected of having knowledge of an imminent terrorsit attack on US soil. lets say the terrorist was strapped down with his cojones exposed and ready to be peeled and salted. At the same time the head of the terrorist is propped up so he can see a live video of his favorite wife, son or daughter about t obe thown feet first into a wood chipper. Don't you think he would beg to spill the beans on whatever he knows. Do you freakin' liberals actually sympathize with this kind of scumbag who is planinig to kill you and your neighborsT This is not directed at you Beaux Boo. I just chose your post to respond
More than likely they'll say no and make a comment about "what if's" this and "what if's that". But the truth is, we're fighting against an unfair enemy anyway. I think all this is Obamas way of kissing foreign @ss. It should be left off of the books. Outta sight outta mind. Maybe my heart doesn't bleed. Who knows
Do you think it's ok to use drugs like sodium pentathol or whatever the equivalent of that is these days to obtain information from suspected terrorists?
Here's the question: are terrorists bound by the Geneva Convention? Obviously, these extremists who've taken prisoners - whether military or civilian - have not abided by the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention specifically states that, Can terrorists be considered Nationals of a State if they leave their home country to take up arms against a foreign military or country, as in the case of 9/11, as a guerilla fighter and not a member of a uniformed military service? If an insurgent who crossed into Iraq from Syria to join the insurgency is taken prisoner by Coalition forces, is he protected by the Geneva Convention? The problem with the Geneva Convention in my mind is that it was written during an era where states were at war with other states. I don't think it was written with a guerrilla insurgency in mind. That being said, I agree that the U.S. should not openly be in the business of torture. It only worsens our credibility if you ask me. On the other hand, I think the CIA should be covertly all over that area of expertise. The worst thing we could've done was admitting that that was going on. But the fact remains, if I were to get shot down and taken prisoner by a member of Al Qaeda in Iraq or any of the other insurgent groups that take up arms in this lovely country (which wouldn't happen because I'd go down swinging first), I'd say my chances of survival would be slim to none, whether the U.S. was openly torturing prisoners or not. These individuals want to kill Americans, plain and simple. They've wanted to kill us LONG before the Iraq War. Simply leaving and saying sorry isn't going to make them all of the sudden amicable to co-existing with us. Would apologizing for past transgressions do any good? Maybe with other countries, but certainly not with the terrorists. The only good I could see come of it is more cooperation from foreign governments in the fight against terrorism. But the bottom line is that prisoners are always going to be interrogated in a fashion that is more than just asking a question. Some type of mental or physical coercion will ALWAYS be used and that's just a fact of life. In the end, a government's main job is to protect it's people and if using questionable means to get information will protect them, they will be used. No piece of paper with a bunch of words is ever going to change that fact.
Not at all. Let the CIA do this covertly as they always have and always will. The objection is to the President of the United States declaring that these practices are legal to use on ANY terrorism suspect, including military prisoners and political prisoners. Legal for Americans, of course. BUT, we have always and have every intention of continuing to prosecute enemies for International War Crimes for doing the exact same thing. This hypocrisy is un-American, unjust, and hurts us with our allies and enemies who then begin to distrust everything we say. And it will be used as justification for future enemies to abuse our own POWs in the future.
I'm going to make this as simple as I can, Red. If you are unfortunate enough to be a POW, you are going to be abused. Period. That's just the way it is.
No, it's not. We're talking about torture here and most POWS that we have held or our own POWS have not been tortured. With the notable exception of the Japanese, most countries that we have fought have respected the Geneva Conventions. I'll make this as simple as I can. We treat prisoners the way that we expect our prisoners to be treated.
