Torture for torture's sake often gets the information the person believes you want to hear. Also, it's meant for retribution rather than information gathering. Our intelligence agencies have worked for decades to calculate the most effective means of interrogation meant to get actual information. I find it difficult to believe that we're sadists, but you're free to believe what you wish. Also, we don't want a government that believes a foreign life is as important as an American life. They're our representatives, so we had better come first. It's the job of the UN to try to treat everyone equally. Gordon Brown needs to put Britain first, Medvedev needs to put Russia first and President Obama needs to put America first.
No kidding. When I read that initial article, I crossed my legs and winced. I'm sorry, but a guy just doesn't do that to another dude unless it's consenual. That's just not cricket.
Question though: Why is he being held at Guantanamo Bay and not HMP Belmarsh (which is pretty much England's equivalent)?
Did I use the word sadists? Oh wait, that's right, I didn't. So please don't put words into my mouth. This isn't a question of "whose life is worth more" this is a question of what lengths governments, societies, and the like will go to in order to try and gain information that may or may not be incorrect and what value they place upon the rule of law. I've refrained from pointing out the bolded statement in the main posting where it says the charges were dropped - that's an entirely different and disturbing issue - regardless of whether I may personally feel the individually was guilty.
Which other term would you use? You seem to believe that we're torturing prisoners even though we know we'll get bad information from them. What other motive would we have? Again, I say the goal on interrogation is to obtain legitimate and correct information. You seem to believe we torture first and not care what the answers are. It's sad you think that little of your fellow Americans.
Hrm, how do you know how I feel about fellow Americans? You don't. Yet again you mis-quote what I say and interpret my statements to mean what you want. I'm done debating you - you don't really have an argument, you just have your beliefs about what everyone else you don't know thinks.
I can't trust you. After all, you're just another bloodthirsty baby killer with no mind of your own. As we know, honor means nothing in the Corps.
Me, a Marine? Oh, Heavens no. I barely made it in the Army as a supply clerk, lol. And besides, every baby I killed had it coming.
I don't believe the claims made by someone with an axe to grind. If there's documentation that we can see, I'd then believe it. It sure looks to me like the administration absolutely pushed for things that fall under the loose term "torture" but they also were clearly concerned about treating the prisoners humanely while at the same time using roughish tactics to interrogate them. We know for a fact that waterboarding was used on 3 detainees, the worst of the worst in this world and clearly who provided actionable quality intel. The "loose term torture" kinds of things were done to me during hell week in the fraternity I joined; for this reason I can see the legal rationale for disregarding the Geneva Conventions (GCs) on these things. Like poking a guy in the chest with a finger or sleep deprivation. I try to keep things in perspective. Consider we nuked Japan twice and firebombed Dresden and otherwise attacked civilian targets (against the GCs) in WW II. When we fought the Japanese, there were few prisoners taken on either side. McCain is pretty good testament to how our guys are treated by enemies. Certainly the beheadings that were televised speak to the value of the GCs to the enemy. I've heard lots of stories about in the field torture by our troops in Vietnam; hooking up guys' gonads to the battery of a jeep, seems a lot worse than anything claimed at Gitmo or anywhere else. War is a bloody business.
It was more like an alcohol-induced, temporary, and regrettable relaxing of inter-species inhibitions than love, but yeah, I guess you could say that...
Amen brother. At least we cut his genitals, not like how they do it in the middle east where they cut your freaking head off. If you're a terrorist, you should be cut to pieces for the crap that you've done by destroying lives of thousands of people. (we'll I'll actually say millions)
I'm assuming in your mind this applies to all detainees? Way to let your jingoism get in the way of basic human decency.
Yeah, I have to agree with hoojacks for once. We do want a government that believes a foreign life is as important as an American life. This is why we send troops to Somalia to feed people, troops to Bosnia to save countless Muslims, and troops into Iraq to end the tyranny (Saddam used WMDs on his own people). That said, if gaining intel saves a good number of lives, then it's worth it. And I would say that if we're going to put our troops in harm's way, we should do what we can to assure their safety.
Not only did the Bush administration consider this legal, it was considered legal to mutilate a detainees OFFSPRINGS genitals. It goes as far as mentioning using a hammer to smash the child's genitals in front of the detainee. <-- see John Yoo torture memo. This of course is whether the detainee (or detainee's offspring) was guilty of anything OR NOT. Due to the suspension of Great Writ of Habeas Corpus and the signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 ANYBODY can be considered an enemy combantant by the office of the President for NO reason (Military Commissions Act) and be detained indefinetly and never see a court or a judge (Habeas Corpus suspension). They could be tortured indefinetly or until they crack and admit to something. This means your mother (if she could be made to look a "Terrorist") could be taken off the street, never told what she did wrong (these detainees don't have to do anything wrong to be taken), be tortured and tortured to such extreme measures that "waterboarding" is the least of their worries. This would happen until you mother would inevitably "volunterily" admit to whatever the torturers suggest. OR they decide there is nothing useful they can get from you and simply released after being tortured (again, FOR NO REASON OR CHARGE). http://www.scribd.com/doc/13965234/John-Yoo-Torture-Memo-Pt-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006 http://belowgroundsurface.smartvide...o.aspx?cid=025A26C9A886470DB1F7FB2E4CBE6F7 2 [video=google;-8421286208568567299]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8421286208568567299&ei=rz4OSrntBZXcqAOt2aDxAg&q=habeas+corpus&hl=en[/video] I don't think the citizens of the US or the world quite understand what has happened to THIER own basic rights not to mention people that "look like a terrorist". So this means ya Mamba, this should concern you too.
