Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims. So although this is not absolute its close to it. So in that mind set yes torture Muslims.
Not all terrorists are Muslims, either.
It doesn't sound like you want to torture people because they have information to prevent a bombing, it sounds like you want to torture people because you are afraid and angry.
I'm not advocating doing nothing. I'm not putting terrorists' rights anywhere.
I'm pointing out that there is a lot of evidence that torture doesn't work.
And in situations where time is of the essence, it's even more likely not to work.
In situations where time is not a factor, the use of torture becomes more and more indefensible, since other methods are just as likely to provide the desired information.
We all understand this, it's common sense.
However, one side of these arguments wants to deny the use of just about any interrogation techniques, under any and all circumstances.
In other words, people should be allowed to die by the millions, rather than resorting to even slapping the face of the man who knows how to stop those deaths.
Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims. So although this is not absolute its close to it. So in that mind set yes torture Muslims.
and not all alligators are man eaters, but since you can't tell which alligator won't eat you, you can't trust any of them. And while you can tell exactly what an alligator looks like and stay away from it, this is not always the case with Muslims. so until someone invents a decoder ring, or Islamic terror stops, there will continue to be a stigma.
However, one side of these arguments wants to deny the use of just about any interrogation techniques, under any and all circumstances.
In other words, people should be allowed to die by the millions, rather than resorting to even slapping the face of the man who knows how to stop those deaths.
It doesn't sound like you want to torture people because they have information to prevent a bombing, it sounds like you want to torture people because you are afraid and angry.
That is the ignorant argument that is used way too often.
Are we afraid that people might die? Yes. Does that mean we lose our freaking mind and become mindless brutes? Of course not. But people resort to that ridiculous characterization of us, in a sad attempt to defend their indefensible position on this issue.
"Where is the bomb, the kidnap victim, the target? "
The justification for torture lies in imminent danger. The answers to the question are not convoluted explanations of events. The answers require verification, which can take time. And if the danger is imminent, then time is on the terrorists' side, because they don't have to endure the torture for months. They only have to endure it until their goal is achieved.
And known investigative/interrogation techniques are effective without torture.
Torture simply cannot be justified.
Terrorists use torture because their purpose is to create fear, and torture does that. We don't have to create fear in terrorists, they are already consumed by their fear and anger. We just have to find ways to capitalize on their fear and anger in our fight against them.
I do have family who train others to interrogate and it is not as you say at all.
Yes it can and it works. Shall I bring out my often repeated practice used by GIs in the ETO when they captured German soldiers and wanted to know what was ahead? Take a guess and it worked.
It doesn't sound like you want to torture people because they have information to prevent a bombing, it sounds like you want to torture people because you are afraid and angry.
You keep lighting candles putting up stuffed animals and flowers. Lets see how far that gets us.
What is relevant is that I speak out against it. Speak out against it because it is immoral. Speak out against it because it goes against the principles this country was founded upon. Speak out against it because it doesn't work. Speak out against it because it contributes to the problem. When I speak out against it, others hear what I have said, and they speak out as well. The American people are divided about terrorism, because they know it is wrong, but they think it might be effective. When they discover that it is ineffective, then more will be against it. And then Americans can lead the world is resolving to end torture.
Seems like you are being ganged up on. Lol
Your position sounds black and white. I don't live in a gray world. Since you brought morality in (posted a thread about black and white morality) it leads me here:
I stated unequivocally for a reason. To be consistent means I have a clear concept of morality, right and wrong. Sometimes things must be done and there will be judgement, legal or otherwise. If one isn't consistent then it drifts into the realm of hypocrisy. I don't use it on these forums. I see it constantly but ignore or make jokes.
Being consistent is a beast. There are times we have to act against morality out of the sake of consistency.
Do I want to have to hold a gun to ones head? Nope. Sometimes life dictates circumstances. To be consistent, the answer is yes.
Plus the whole notion of legalities in defining torture. But that's another semantic argument. I am one of those who don't know what 'is' is, so how can I know torture.
Would you torture a terrorist if it meant you could get info to stop a bombing? How far would you go? Personally I firmly believe that even if we had to torture the terrorists family to death it would be worth it. War is a messy business, no one like to see how sausage is made. You can not have it for breakfast by petting a cow. Blood must be spilled. Where is your line? If it would save 100 people would you torture the child of a terrorist in front of them to get info? What if it was a Nuke and you would save a million people? IMO if we want to win we have to do what ever it takes. Extraordinary times take extraordinary measures. I know the Hippie liberal will say never the same Dukaus idiot answer that he would not want the death penalty for someone who rapped and murdered his wife. This only leads to more crime and more death. Some times you have to cut off the arm to save the body. Sorry liberal but this is the real world not some kumbya world.
This question is a joke ... right?
"Torture" is splashing some water in their faces that some of our own Military do in training. That's the kind of "Torture" the Leftists go berserk over. We wouldn't do that to save a City?
Hell, it's worse than that. Human Rights Watch members even went so far as to claim, because some detainees at Gitmo were not given a firm date set for their release, that this was classified by HRW as torture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
