Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Guys, I never said we should torture innocent people, just actual terrorists if it is necessary for the purpose of gaining information that will help us hunt down and kill the other terrorists. It's a simple concept that's really not that hard to understand.
What is "simple," here, is you. What part of "You don't defeat evil by becoming the evil you seek to defeat." do you not understand? :|
What if that person has information about a terrorist act that could kill thousands of people and torturing him is the only way to get the information out of him? Now what?
It's called "the ticking timebomb scenario," and it's as bogus as any other "argument" in favor of torture. It would help if you read previous posts before proving your colossal, inhuman stupidity. Start with these paragraphs from my third post in this thread (the 27th in the thread):
Second, (listen carefully)...
TORTURE DOES NOT WORK!!! You don't have to take my word for it. In 2002, Donald Rumsfeld's attorney, William Haynes, requested info from
S.E.R.E., the U.S. Airforce's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape program regarding administration's intended use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
This is a small specialized career field in the US Air Force comprised of approximately 325 enlisted personnel. Air Force SERE Specialists train aircrew members and high risk of capture personnel from all branches of the military. The students are trained in skills which allow them to survive in all climatic conditions as well as how to survive while being held captive.
Per their name, the purpose of S.E.R.E. is to train our troops who may be captured to survive possible torture by, and to resist giving any helpful information to, our enemies. Their mission is specifically NOT to describe or define methods to be used by our own intelligence agencies to interrogate possible enemies captured by U.S. forces.
S.E.R.E is the specific military group tasked to understand and teach our troops to resist torture. Here's
the complete report from S.E.R.E. to Haynes.
.
.
Key sentences and phrases:
- The question that should immediately come to mind is whether the application of physical and/or psychological duress will enhance the interrogator's ability to achieve this objective.
- The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.
- The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture. However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.
- Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal treatment.
- For skilled interrogators, the observation of subtle nonverbal behaviors provides an invaluable assessment of the prisoner's psychological and emotional state. This offers important insights into how the prisoner can be most effectively leveraged into compliance. Further, it often enables the interrogator to form a reasonably accurate assessment of the prisoner's veracity in answering pertinent questions. The prisoner's physical response to the pain inflicted by an interrogator would obliterate such nuance and deprive the interrogator of these key tools.
- ... a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.
- The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel.
What makes you think a dedicated terrorist who is already willing to sacrifice his life for a cause would provide accurate information to defeat a pending attack? What makes you think you could such a terrorist would not intentionally provide bad information and misdirection to gain time for such an attack?
What makes you think you still qualify as a human being?
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well then. Since there is no evidence of a clear directive by Bush and Cheney to torture, then they cant be indicted either. Afterall, how can they be held responsible for the actions of a few rogues?
Ah! So, first, you lie through your ass to claim "there is no evidence of a clear directive by Bush and Cheney to torture..." Then, when I bust your sorry lying ass for that lie, you try to weasel out of it with meaningless distinctions between "ordering" and "approving" the use or torture. You said:
Yeah, I know. Knowing and approving != ordering you nitwit. And here's the rub:
We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it
here you have it. Under law at the time, knowing and approving of actions was not wrong. In fact, ordering it probably wasnt either. So he wont be prosecuted.
GarfieldtheCat nailed you for that lie:
Actually, I think that there were only opinions that Yoo wrote and were used, but no actual laws were passed. Just because some lawyer sames something is legal, doesn't make it so.
Yoo is already under investigation because he wrote many opinions that were not based on the law, IOW, he wrote what his bosses wanted. IF a lawyer tells you bankrobbing is legal, do you really think a judge won't convict you for bank robbery?
And also, *all* torture is illegal. Including waterboarding. Congress never passed a law allowing waterboarding. There is 50+ years of legal history of the US convicting people for waterboarding.
The legal "opinions" written by Yoo and others from the OLC were directed by Cheney, Rumsfeld and others from the Bushwhacko administration.
Here's one source. I won't waste and forum space quoting what has been reported many times by multiple sources for at least a couple of years.
By your own admission, Bush and Cheney's own words state that they approved of the use of torture. It didn't happen, and would not have happened, without their express "approval" before, during and after the fact. That erases any distinction between "ordering" and "approving" it, regardless of how many weasel words and how much bullshit you spew.
That makes them directly complicit and responsible for "ordering" torture. They should be tried for their crimes and convicted by their own words. They should be sentenced to spend the rest of their evil lives in dank cells in the hell hole they built at Guantanamo, :thumbsdown: :|
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Your problem Harvey is you equate whats right with whats legal.
Your problem is that, like your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals, you neither know nor care about what is right or legal. That makes you as ethically, morally and intellectually challenged as they are.
The only difference between them and you is, if you haven't actually committed such horrific crimes, you have time to wake up and restore your own humanity. I can wish that for you, but I have little hope that will happen.
Facebook
Twitter