US interrogation policy condemned

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]I have no problem with us interrogating terrorists, so long as they really are terrorists. But since its hard to tell, I agree with them interrogating the prisoners. Just not Jack Bauer style. :Pfelixlynch777

You're a reformed Christian, yet you support torture? You are a disgrace to the christian religion. It is so weird how so many people here support torture. It doesn't matter if they are a terrorist, you just cannot do such horrific things to human beings.

That is exactly what he was arguing against.

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]I have no problem with us interrogating terrorists, so long as they really are terrorists. But since its hard to tell, I agree with them interrogating the prisoners. Just not Jack Bauer style. :PThe_Ish

You're a reformed Christian, yet you support torture? You are a disgrace to the christian religion. It is so weird how so many people here support torture. It doesn't matter if they are a terrorist, you just cannot do such horrific things to human beings.

That is exactly what he was arguing against.

Okay *sighs* let's re-read the quote.

"I have no problem interrogating us terrorists, so long as they really are terrorists."

So he says he has no problem with "interrogating" (polite term for torture) terrorists.

Case closed.

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]I have no problem with us interrogating terrorists, so long as they really are terrorists. But since its hard to tell, I agree with them interrogating the prisoners. Just not Jack Bauer style. :PThe_Ish

You're a reformed Christian, yet you support torture? You are a disgrace to the christian religion. It is so weird how so many people here support torture. It doesn't matter if they are a terrorist, you just cannot do such horrific things to human beings.

That is exactly what he was arguing against.

Finally. Guantanamo bay symbolizes everything that's wrong with the war on terror. What I find even more frightening is the fact is that so many Americans here seem to support it.

They tried to lock terrorists up here in Northern Ireland without a trial back in the 1970's and it became one of the worst disasters of the troubles. Internment doesn't work. It's about time the US realised that.

Okay *sighs* let's re-read the quote.

"I have no problem interrogating us terrorists, so long as they really are terrorists."

So he says he has no problem with "interrogating" (polite term for torture) terrorists.

Case closed.

felixlynch777

Fail for not reading the whole post.

He says he isn't against interrogation as long as it isn't "Jack Baur" **** which is torture. There is a difference.

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

Okay *sighs* let's re-read the quote.

"I have no problem interrogating us terrorists, so long as they really are terrorists."

So he says he has no problem with "interrogating" (polite term for torture) terrorists.

Case closed.

The_Ish

Fail for not reading the whole post.

He says he isn't against interrogation as long as it isn't "Jack Baur" **** which is torture. There is a difference.

But who knows where interrogation ends and torture starts? How far can interrogation go? We have to ask battlefront223 means with interrogation.

But who knows where interrogation ends and torture starts? How far can interrogation go? We have to ask battlefront223 means with interrogation.

felixlynch777

"Not"

"Jack Baur"

"Style"

Translates to: No physical or extreme psychological torture.

About time. Chances are, over half those people haven't even committed attacks on the US. We suspended their right to habeus Corpus... and that just isn't right.Luminouslight

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

But who knows where interrogation ends and torture starts? How far can interrogation go? We have to ask battlefront223 means with interrogation.

The_Ish

"Not"

"Jack Baur"

"Style"

Translates to: No physical or extreme psychological torture.

[QUOTE="Whicker89"]What right does the US have to arrested people in other countries anyway. Stop trying to police the world.Omni-Slash

if the US wishees to use that excuse then they should follow the rules agreed upon in the Geneva Convention :wink:

It should be changed. Our country is about freedoms and liberty. As Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death". Why are we so willing to sacrifice these liberties for the guise of more security? I'm more than willing to die in a terrorist attack than sacrifice my liberties.

Its easy for the rest of the world to condemn this, but then again, most of them are not in the cross hairs like we are. It's easy to be "noble" when you are not at risk. But regardless, our country should not condone this activity. It goes against our principles.

freedom is an illusion something to strive for but never attainJandurin

Then I am the master of illusions! :P

It should be changed. Our country is about freedoms and liberty. As Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death". Why are we so willing to sacrifice these liberties for the guise of more security? I'm more than willing to die in a terrorist attack than sacrifice my liberties.

Its easy for the rest of the world to condemn this, but then again, most of them are not in the cross hairs like we are. It's easy to be "noble" when you are not at risk. But regardless, our country should not condone this activity. It goes against our principles.

sonicare

very true. why destroy that which you strive to protect?

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]freedom is an illusion something to strive for but never attainsonicare

Then I am the master of illusions! :P

I like where this thread is going- finally.

I too would rather take the risk of outside attack than make the government more of a despotism.

I like where this thread is going- finally.

I too would rather take the risk of outside attack than make the government more of a despotism.

ThaSod

I think the problem is that many people are afraid and that makes them think they need laws that take your freedom away to keep you safe. But that's not the only way to keep you safe, you'll also be safe when there's no war to begin with. Instead of just trying to protect yourself from possible attacks, you should be doing everything you can to create peace but that's something the US government doesn't want to do for some reason. They want things to go on their terms, even if it includes stepping on people's toes.

[QUOTE="ThaSod"]

I like where this thread is going- finally.

I too would rather take the risk of outside attack than make the government more of a despotism.

BlackAlpha666

I think the problem is that many people are afraid and that makes them think they need laws that take your freedom away to keep you safe. But that's not the only way to keep you safe, you'll also be safe when there's no war to begin with. Instead of just trying to protect yourself from possible attacks, you should be doing everything you can to create peace but that's something the US government doesn't want to do for some reason. They want things to go on their terms, even if it includes stepping on people's toes.

[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"][QUOTE="ThaSod"]

I like where this thread is going- finally.

I too would rather take the risk of outside attack than make the government more of a despotism.

LJS9502_basic

I think the problem is that many people are afraid and that makes them think they need laws that take your freedom away to keep you safe. But that's not the only way to keep you safe, you'll also be safe when there's no war to begin with. Instead of just trying to protect yourself from possible attacks, you should be doing everything you can to create peace but that's something the US government doesn't want to do for some reason. They want things to go on their terms, even if it includes stepping on people's toes.

yeah, but they still have HUMAN RIGHTS.

yeah, but they still have HUMAN RIGHTS.

II_Seraphim_II

[QUOTE="ThaSod"]

I like where this thread is going- finally.

I too would rather take the risk of outside attack than make the government more of a despotism.

BlackAlpha666

I think the problem is that many people are afraid and that makes them think they need laws that take your freedom away to keep you safe. But that's not the only way to keep you safe, you'll also be safe when there's no war to begin with. Instead of just trying to protect yourself from possible attacks, you should be doing everything you can to create peace but that's something the US government doesn't want to do for some reason. They want things to go on their terms, even if it includes stepping on people's toes.

I don't think that you can or should placate everyone. Some conflicts are inevitable. There are some groups that are so extreme in ideology that no compromise is possible.

That being said, I don't think we have to sacrifice our integrity to combat terrorism. It seems that terrorism brings out the worse in the groups targetted. It's frustrating when you are faced with an enemy that has no honor and no restraint. Terrorists have the luxury of being able to hit any target at any time. There are no rules and no guidelines for them. They tend to prefer soft targets - ones that are easy to hit. While the military tries to target specific enemies and takes measures to avoid collateral damage, terrorists don't. They intentionally hit public places because it's easy. They don't take any measures to avoid civilian casualties. In fact, they revel in it. Women, children are fair game to them.

When you have an enemy that does things like that, it's easy to become bitter and jaded. To lose your own sense of being and just want to hit back. Time and time again throughout history I've seen this. Populations subjected to terrorists attacks tend to crack down with aggressive measures. But randomly striking out at people is not the answer. That's what terrorists do, that's not what we should do.

We need to stay true to what we are and should represent. People that try to harm us can be brought to justice. But they should have a fair trial. We can pursue and prosecute terrorists without violating human rights. Certainly, there will be terrorist attacks in the future - that's inevitable. But I'd rather not stoop to their level.

The situation really starts to become quite complicated, people can talk about civil liberties and human rights, but at the end of the day, that is not going to save the lives of potentially a vast number of people -- I just think sometimes people forget that on the issue of countering terrorism, very hard decisions need to be made.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]

yeah, but they still have HUMAN RIGHTS.

LJS9502_basic

Well, the international community as a society came up with sum basic human rights and a nifty little agreement called the Geneva Convention. I wonder what the US would say if one of its soldiers was captured and was being tortured...

The situation really starts to become quite complicated, people can talk about civil liberties and human rights, but at the end of the day, that is not going to save the lives of potentially a vast number of people -- I just think sometimes people forget that on the issue of countering terrorism, very hard decisions need to be made.

MetalGear_Ninty

yeah but then you become the people who u r fighting against. Using terror to get your way.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

The situation really starts to become quite complicated, people can talk about civil liberties and human rights, but at the end of the day, that is not going to save the lives of potentially a vast number of people -- I just think sometimes people forget that on the issue of countering terrorism, very hard decisions need to be made.

II_Seraphim_II

yeah but then you become the people who u r fighting against. Using terror to get your way.

Not neccesarily, if the goverment know that somebody has participated in terrorist activity, then I don't see why we should be fretting over the rights over the terrorist, which through their detainment, could save the lives of innocents.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

The situation really starts to become quite complicated, people can talk about civil liberties and human rights, but at the end of the day, that is not going to save the lives of potentially a vast number of people -- I just think sometimes people forget that on the issue of countering terrorism, very hard decisions need to be made.

MetalGear_Ninty

yeah but then you become the people who u r fighting against. Using terror to get your way.

Not neccesarily, if the goverment know that somebody has participated in terrorist activity, then I don't see why we should be fretting over the rights over the terrorist, which through their detainment, could save the lives of innocents.

How do you know who deserves to be tortured? You torture to get the truth out of them and when you finally get that truth you might find out that they were innocent all along. What does that say about you? I call it hypocrisy. Ontop of that, it's been proven that innocent people will often give you false information so you stop torturing them. You are trying to make the "evil" people stop terrorizing the innocent people but at the same time you are doing exactly the same as those people you are trying to stop. Is that really the best way to do it? You might say you are doing it for the greater good but that opinion is subjective.

It's really just the same as why you deserve a fair trial when you commit a crime. Maybe you are innocent. Maybe when you go to jail you will still be innocent. Plus, when you give people a fair trial and put them in jail, you don't become jaded and corrupt by performing the same evil that you are trying to stop.

I can't believe the amont of people in this thread actually sticking up for the terrorists. What the hell is wrong with you? We are in a war. The enemy doesn't have rights like our own citizens have. I really don't care what they do to them to gain intelligence, to be honest..

I can't believe the amont of people in this thread actually sticking up for the terrorists. What the hell is wrong with you? We are in a war. The enemy doesn't have rights like our own citizens have. I really don't care what they do to them to gain intelligence, to be honest..

The_Mac_Daddy

I concur. Let's nuke the sons of b****** and get over with it.:roll:

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

The situation really starts to become quite complicated, people can talk about civil liberties and human rights, but at the end of the day, that is not going to save the lives of potentially a vast number of people -- I just think sometimes people forget that on the issue of countering terrorism, very hard decisions need to be made.

BlackAlpha666

yeah but then you become the people who u r fighting against. Using terror to get your way.

Not neccesarily, if the goverment know that somebody has participated in terrorist activity, then I don't see why we should be fretting over the rights over the terrorist, which through their detainment, could save the lives of innocents.

How do you know who deserves to be tortured? You torture to get the truth out of them and when you finally get that truth you might find out that they were innocent all along. What does that say about you? I call it hypocrisy. Ontop of that, it's been proven that innocent people will often give you false information so you stop torturing them. You are trying to make the "evil" people stop terrorizing the innocent people but at the same time you are doing exactly the same as those people you are trying to stop. Is that really the best way to do it? You might say you are doing it for the greater good but that opinion is subjective.

It's really just the same as why you deserve a fair trial when you commit a crime. Maybe you are innocent. Maybe when you go to jail you will still be innocent. Plus, when you give people a fair trial and put them in jail, you don't become jaded and corrupt by performing the same evil that you are trying to stop.

I agree that with you that nobody should be tortured if they haven't been proven to be guilty in court -- I never supported the torture of those who've yet to be charged, I'm all for innocent until proven guilty.

But if they are guilty, theoretically, people would say that is always wrong to torture, but if the lives of a 100 people were on the line, would they really be taking that view -- what exactly does 'human rights' mean when the difference is life or death? Would people be so quick to defend those who are being tortured if a life of a relative was on the line, say one of their relatives had been kidnapped by terrorist -- would they be so quick to condemn torture then?

[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

The situation really starts to become quite complicated, people can talk about civil liberties and human rights, but at the end of the day, that is not going to save the lives of potentially a vast number of people -- I just think sometimes people forget that on the issue of countering terrorism, very hard decisions need to be made.

MetalGear_Ninty

yeah but then you become the people who u r fighting against. Using terror to get your way.

Not neccesarily, if the goverment know that somebody has participated in terrorist activity, then I don't see why we should be fretting over the rights over the terrorist, which through their detainment, could save the lives of innocents.

How do you know who deserves to be tortured? You torture to get the truth out of them and when you finally get that truth you might find out that they were innocent all along. What does that say about you? I call it hypocrisy. Ontop of that, it's been proven that innocent people will often give you false information so you stop torturing them. You are trying to make the "evil" people stop terrorizing the innocent people but at the same time you are doing exactly the same as those people you are trying to stop. Is that really the best way to do it? You might say you are doing it for the greater good but that opinion is subjective.

It's really just the same as why you deserve a fair trial when you commit a crime. Maybe you are innocent. Maybe when you go to jail you will still be innocent. Plus, when you give people a fair trial and put them in jail, you don't become jaded and corrupt by performing the same evil that you are trying to stop.

I agree that with you that nobody should be tortured if they haven't been proven to be guilty in court -- I never supported the torture of those who've yet to be charged, I'm all for innocent until proven guilty.

But if they are guilty, theoretically, people would say that is always wrong to torture, but if the lives of a 100 people were on the line, would they really be taking that view -- what exactly does 'human rights' mean when the difference is life or death? Would people be so quick to defend those who are being tortured if a life of a relative was on the line, say one of their relatives had been kidnapped by terrorist -- would they be so quick to condemn torture then?

C'mon.. how many people do you think are actually 100% innocent that have been tortured in gitmo? I'm sure they know the people they are torturing are not good guys. I'm sure they don't just pick up some random Iraqi from their home and go and torture them.

[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

The situation really starts to become quite complicated, people can talk about civil liberties and human rights, but at the end of the day, that is not going to save the lives of potentially a vast number of people -- I just think sometimes people forget that on the issue of countering terrorism, very hard decisions need to be made.

MetalGear_Ninty

yeah but then you become the people who u r fighting against. Using terror to get your way.

Not neccesarily, if the goverment know that somebody has participated in terrorist activity, then I don't see why we should be fretting over the rights over the terrorist, which through their detainment, could save the lives of innocents.

How do you know who deserves to be tortured? You torture to get the truth out of them and when you finally get that truth you might find out that they were innocent all along. What does that say about you? I call it hypocrisy. Ontop of that, it's been proven that innocent people will often give you false information so you stop torturing them. You are trying to make the "evil" people stop terrorizing the innocent people but at the same time you are doing exactly the same as those people you are trying to stop. Is that really the best way to do it? You might say you are doing it for the greater good but that opinion is subjective.

It's really just the same as why you deserve a fair trial when you commit a crime. Maybe you are innocent. Maybe when you go to jail you will still be innocent. Plus, when you give people a fair trial and put them in jail, you don't become jaded and corrupt by performing the same evil that you are trying to stop.

I agree that with you that nobody should be tortured if they haven't been proven to be guilty in court -- I never supported the torture of those who've yet to be charged, I'm all for innocent until proven guilty.

But if they are guilty, theoretically, people would say that is always wrong to torture, but if the lives of a 100 people were on the line, would they really be taking that view -- what exactly does 'human rights' mean when the difference is life or death? Would people be so quick to defend those who are being tortured if a life of a relative was on the line, say one of their relatives had been kidnapped by terrorist -- would they be so quick to condemn torture then?

Torture is like gambling, you don't know what you'll get. You can't say that you need torture to safe lives because torture might lead to absolutely nothing and like I said before, it's not always reliable. It's not like some people make it out to be, it's not a magic trick that will give you the answer to life and the universe. The people who torture should blame themselves for getting themselves in such a situation. There are generally other means to get information. People can do without torture, it's just that people are lazy and use it because it's quick and easy. The US spends so much money on weapons, don't tell me that they can't increase funding for those other means of getting intelligence without using such extreme violence.

I don't think anybody can deny that torture is flawed and wrong. At some point we'll have to stop using it, just like we stopped using it for the regular legal systems. Like it or not, but war is becoming more personal every day because people start understanding what a small world this is. This makes people sympathize for other people more easily, even if they are at war with them. Besides, if you understand what war really is about, you'll understand why it's important to keep civil about it. Soon you won't be able to just barge in and hold everyone hostage at gunpoint. You'll actually have to show the people you are invading the same respect that you would show to your neighbour or even your own family. Soldiers must turn into policemen.

Torture is like gambling, you don't know what you'll get. You can't say that you need torture to safe lives because torture might lead to absolutely nothing and like I said before, it's not always reliable. It's not like some people make it out to be, it's not a magic trick that will give you the answer to life and the universe. The people who torture should blame themselves for getting themselves in such a situation. There are generally other means to get information. People can do without torture, it's just that people are lazy and use it because it's quick and easy. The US spends so much money on weapons, don't tell me that they can't increase funding for those other means of getting intelligence without using such extreme violence.

I don't think anybody can deny that torture is flawed and wrong. At some point we'll have to stop using it, just like we stopped using it for the regular legal systems. Like it or not, but war is becoming more personal every day because people start understanding what a small world this is. This makes people sympathize for other people more easily, even if they are at war with them. Besides, if you understand what war really is about, you'll understand why it's important to keep civil about it. Soon you won't be able to just barge in and hold everyone hostage at gunpoint. You'll actually have to show the people you are invading the same respect that you would show to your neighbour or even your own family. Soldiers must turn into policemen.

BlackAlpha666

The CIA invested in trying to find a 'truth drug' in the 60s I think, but torture can't be that inneffective or else nobody would use it as a way of getting information.

I agree with your point that modern-day warfare is increasingly about 'winning hearts and minds', but at the end of the day, war is war and inevitably civillians will be harmed in the process.

[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"]

Torture is like gambling, you don't know what you'll get. You can't say that you need torture to safe lives because torture might lead to absolutely nothing and like I said before, it's not always reliable. It's not like some people make it out to be, it's not a magic trick that will give you the answer to life and the universe. The people who torture should blame themselves for getting themselves in such a situation. There are generally other means to get information. People can do without torture, it's just that people are lazy and use it because it's quick and easy. The US spends so much money on weapons, don't tell me that they can't increase funding for those other means of getting intelligence without using such extreme violence.

I don't think anybody can deny that torture is flawed and wrong. At some point we'll have to stop using it, just like we stopped using it for the regular legal systems. Like it or not, but war is becoming more personal every day because people start understanding what a small world this is. This makes people sympathize for other people more easily, even if they are at war with them. Besides, if you understand what war really is about, you'll understand why it's important to keep civil about it. Soon you won't be able to just barge in and hold everyone hostage at gunpoint. You'll actually have to show the people you are invading the same respect that you would show to your neighbour or even your own family. Soldiers must turn into policemen.

MetalGear_Ninty

The CIA invested in trying to find a 'truth drug' in the 60s I think, but torture can't be that inneffective or else nobody would use it as a way of getting information.

I agree with your point that modern-day warfare is increasingly about 'winning hearts and minds', but at the end of the day, war is war and inevitably civillians will be harmed in the process.

So, you might as well not torture but focus your time and resources on something else.

War might be war but this isn't war. There is technically no enemy to kill, there are just a lot of "criminal civilians". Soldiers are there to fight and kill the enemy, that's all they are good for. They did their job when they invaded and destroyed Iraq's military but after that attack it should've been time for different kind of people to take over. Now you got soldiers, the most efficient killing machines in the entire world, patrolling the streets and some people wonder why there's so much violence and so many innocent people getting killed. It's the wrong way to do it. Every detail will reflect upon the entire situation, which is why torture just makes things worse. Afterall, nobody wants to be treated like crap and nobody will accept it. Out of all people on this planet, the US should know that.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"]

Torture is like gambling, you don't know what you'll get. You can't say that you need torture to safe lives because torture might lead to absolutely nothing and like I said before, it's not always reliable. It's not like some people make it out to be, it's not a magic trick that will give you the answer to life and the universe. The people who torture should blame themselves for getting themselves in such a situation. There are generally other means to get information. People can do without torture, it's just that people are lazy and use it because it's quick and easy. The US spends so much money on weapons, don't tell me that they can't increase funding for those other means of getting intelligence without using such extreme violence.

I don't think anybody can deny that torture is flawed and wrong. At some point we'll have to stop using it, just like we stopped using it for the regular legal systems. Like it or not, but war is becoming more personal every day because people start understanding what a small world this is. This makes people sympathize for other people more easily, even if they are at war with them. Besides, if you understand what war really is about, you'll understand why it's important to keep civil about it. Soon you won't be able to just barge in and hold everyone hostage at gunpoint. You'll actually have to show the people you are invading the same respect that you would show to your neighbour or even your own family. Soldiers must turn into policemen.

BlackAlpha666

The CIA invested in trying to find a 'truth drug' in the 60s I think, but torture can't be that inneffective or else nobody would use it as a way of getting information.

I agree with your point that modern-day warfare is increasingly about 'winning hearts and minds', but at the end of the day, war is war and inevitably civillians will be harmed in the process.

So, you might as well not torture but focus your time and resources on something else.

War might be war but this isn't war. There is technically no enemy to kill, there are just a lot of "criminal civilians". Soldiers are there to fight and kill the enemy, that's all they are good for. They did their job when they invaded and destroyed Iraq's military but after that attack it should've been time for different kind of people to take over. Now you got soldiers, the most efficient killing machines in the entire world, patrolling the streets and some people wonder why there's so much violence and so many innocent people getting killed. It's the wrong way to do it. Every detail will reflect upon the entire situation, which is why torture just makes things worse. Afterall, nobody wants to be treated like crap and nobody will accept it. Out of all people on this planet, the US should know that.

But the coalition couldn't have just simply handed the situation to the Iraqi security forces -- there would have been even more death than there is now, it is vital that the coalition forces operate a smooth transition between foreign control and Iraqi self-governance. Afer all, the coalition can't stay there forever -- therefore the most important role that the coalition forces are fufilling at the moment is training Iraqi forces to combat the threat, becuase an eternal occupation really isn't feasible.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

The situation really starts to become quite complicated, people can talk about civil liberties and human rights, but at the end of the day, that is not going to save the lives of potentially a vast number of people -- I just think sometimes people forget that on the issue of countering terrorism, very hard decisions need to be made.

MetalGear_Ninty

yeah but then you become the people who u r fighting against. Using terror to get your way.

Not neccesarily, if the goverment know that somebody has participated in terrorist activity, then I don't see why we should be fretting over the rights over the terrorist, which through their detainment, could save the lives of innocents.

so you agree with the Japanese torturing US soldiers right before the A-bombs were dropped in hiroshima and nagasaki? I mean, they were torturing a few in an attempt to save thousands. :| Why did they get the death penalty?

[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"]

Torture is like gambling, you don't know what you'll get. You can't say that you need torture to safe lives because torture might lead to absolutely nothing and like I said before, it's not always reliable. It's not like some people make it out to be, it's not a magic trick that will give you the answer to life and the universe. The people who torture should blame themselves for getting themselves in such a situation. There are generally other means to get information. People can do without torture, it's just that people are lazy and use it because it's quick and easy. The US spends so much money on weapons, don't tell me that they can't increase funding for those other means of getting intelligence without using such extreme violence.

I don't think anybody can deny that torture is flawed and wrong. At some point we'll have to stop using it, just like we stopped using it for the regular legal systems. Like it or not, but war is becoming more personal every day because people start understanding what a small world this is. This makes people sympathize for other people more easily, even if they are at war with them. Besides, if you understand what war really is about, you'll understand why it's important to keep civil about it. Soon you won't be able to just barge in and hold everyone hostage at gunpoint. You'll actually have to show the people you are invading the same respect that you would show to your neighbour or even your own family. Soldiers must turn into policemen.

MetalGear_Ninty

The CIA invested in trying to find a 'truth drug' in the 60s I think, but torture can't be that inneffective or else nobody would use it as a way of getting information.

I agree with your point that modern-day warfare is increasingly about 'winning hearts and minds', but at the end of the day, war is war and inevitably civillians will be harmed in the process.

So, you might as well not torture but focus your time and resources on something else.

War might be war but this isn't war. There is technically no enemy to kill, there are just a lot of "criminal civilians". Soldiers are there to fight and kill the enemy, that's all they are good for. They did their job when they invaded and destroyed Iraq's military but after that attack it should've been time for different kind of people to take over. Now you got soldiers, the most efficient killing machines in the entire world, patrolling the streets and some people wonder why there's so much violence and so many innocent people getting killed. It's the wrong way to do it. Every detail will reflect upon the entire situation, which is why torture just makes things worse. Afterall, nobody wants to be treated like crap and nobody will accept it. Out of all people on this planet, the US should know that.

But the coalition couldn't have just simply handed the situation to the Iraqi security forces -- there would have been even more death than there is now, it is vital that the coalition forces operate a smooth transition between foreign control and Iraqi self-governance. Afer all, the coalition can't stay there forever -- therefore the most important role that the coalition forces are fufilling at the moment is training Iraqi forces to combat the threat, becuase an eternal occupation really isn't feasible.

No, I'm not saying that. I'll show you a video I saw a while ago. Here it is. That video shows what I'm basically talking about.It doesn't show what I exactly believe in but it shows the "idea" that I'm talking about.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

The situation really starts to become quite complicated, people can talk about civil liberties and human rights, but at the end of the day, that is not going to save the lives of potentially a vast number of people -- I just think sometimes people forget that on the issue of countering terrorism, very hard decisions need to be made.

II_Seraphim_II

yeah but then you become the people who u r fighting against. Using terror to get your way.

Not neccesarily, if the goverment know that somebody has participated in terrorist activity, then I don't see why we should be fretting over the rights over the terrorist, which through their detainment, could save the lives of innocents.

so you agree with the Japanese torturing US soldiers right before the A-bombs were dropped in hiroshima and nagasaki? I mean, they were torturing a few in an attempt to save thousands. :| Why did they get the death penalty?

All is fair in love and war.

I wouldn't particularly condemn the Japanese for their actions if they were trying to save their people, but their role in the war was unjustified in the first place.

All is fair in love and war.

I wouldn't particularly condemn the Japanese for their actions if they were trying to save their people, but their actions in the war was unjustified in the first place.

MetalGear_Ninty

its unjustified because they lost. History is written by the winners...trust me, If they had won, we would be talking in a different tune...and i would be dead :P But i hear what u r saying. I dont agree with it, but i understand your reasoning, and find it rational

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

The situation really starts to become quite complicated, people can talk about civil liberties and human rights, but at the end of the day, that is not going to save the lives of potentially a vast number of people -- I just think sometimes people forget that on the issue of countering terrorism, very hard decisions need to be made.

MetalGear_Ninty

yeah but then you become the people who u r fighting against. Using terror to get your way.

Not neccesarily, if the goverment know that somebody has participated in terrorist activity, then I don't see why we should be fretting over the rights over the terrorist, which through their detainment, could save the lives of innocents.

so you agree with the Japanese torturing US soldiers right before the A-bombs were dropped in hiroshima and nagasaki? I mean, they were torturing a few in an attempt to save thousands. :| Why did they get the death penalty?

All is fair in love and war.

I wouldn't particularly condemn the Japanese for their actions if they were trying to save their people, but their role in the war was unjustified in the first place.

Do you honestly believe that the average Japanese soldier joined the army because he felt like being evil and was in the mood to destroy the world?

Do you honestly believe that the average Japanese soldier joined the army because he felt like being evil and was in the mood to destroy the world?

BlackAlpha666

No, I'm no historian, but I believe that they joined either out of force, or through a strong sense of patriotism.

[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"]

Do you honestly believe that the average Japanese soldier joined the army because he felt like being evil and was in the mood to destroy the world?

MetalGear_Ninty

No, I'm no historian, but I believe that they joined either out of force, or through a strong sense of patriotism.

So you think the US soldiers must be punished by death too for invading Iraq while making false claims and not listening to the international community?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"]

Do you honestly believe that the average Japanese soldier joined the army because he felt like being evil and was in the mood to destroy the world?

BlackAlpha666

No, I'm no historian, but I believe that they joined either out of force, or through a strong sense of patriotism.

So you think the US soldiers must be punished by death too for invading Iraq while making false claims and not listening to the international community?

No, why should think that they should be punished -- it is a grave dishonesty that the US politicians lied, unintentionally or not to the American public and congress, but I don't see why US soldiers should be punished -- and the international community shouldn't have a absolutely major impact on a nation's policy, ultimately it has to be the democratically elected politicans who make the decisions.

[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"]

Do you honestly believe that the average Japanese soldier joined the army because he felt like being evil and was in the mood to destroy the world?

MetalGear_Ninty

No, I'm no historian, but I believe that they joined either out of force, or through a strong sense of patriotism.

So you think the US soldiers must be punished by death too for invading Iraq while making false claims and not listening to the international community?

No, why should think that they should be punished -- it is a grave dishonesty that the US politicians lied, unintentionally or not to the American public and congress, but I don't see why US soldiers should be punished -- and the international community shouldn't have a absolutely major impact on a nation's policy, ultimately it has to be the democratically elected politicans who make the decisions.

But why do you treat the Japanese soldiers different? You say that they deserved to die, but why?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"]

Do you honestly believe that the average Japanese soldier joined the army because he felt like being evil and was in the mood to destroy the world?

BlackAlpha666

No, I'm no historian, but I believe that they joined either out of force, or through a strong sense of patriotism.

So you think the US soldiers must be punished by death too for invading Iraq while making false claims and not listening to the international community?

No, why should think that they should be punished -- it is a grave dishonesty that the US politicians lied, unintentionally or not to the American public and congress, but I don't see why US soldiers should be punished -- and the international community shouldn't have a absolutely major impact on a nation's policy, ultimately it has to be the democratically elected politicans who make the decisions.

But why do you treat the Japanese soldiers different? You say that they deserved to die, but why?

I didn't say they deserved to die, or conveyed any discrimination towards the Japanese soldiers of WW2.

[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"]

Do you honestly believe that the average Japanese soldier joined the army because he felt like being evil and was in the mood to destroy the world?

MetalGear_Ninty

No, I'm no historian, but I believe that they joined either out of force, or through a strong sense of patriotism.

So you think the US soldiers must be punished by death too for invading Iraq while making false claims and not listening to the international community?

No, why should think that they should be punished -- it is a grave dishonesty that the US politicians lied, unintentionally or not to the American public and congress, but I don't see why US soldiers should be punished -- and the international community shouldn't have a absolutely major impact on a nation's policy, ultimately it has to be the democratically elected politicans who make the decisions.

But why do you treat the Japanese soldiers different? You say that they deserved to die, but why?

I didn't say they deserved to die, or conveyed any discrimination towards the Japanese soldiers of WW2.

Then that's good but your post about "all is fair in love and war" says otherwise, which is why I asked all of those things. Somebody asked why they got the death penalty and then you basically said that you condemned them because their actions were unjustified.