Torture by Red Hot Chili Peppers

[Guest shiloh357]

Torture's never okay.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if someone's torturing me, and I really don't know anything, I'll make something up just to get it to stop.

It seems to me that if we want to call ourselves the "good guys", our standards of decency should be maybe just a little higher than the "bad guys".

"If it saves just one American life....." This, to me, sounds like the end justifying the means. We're headed down a slippery slope if we go that route.

so what if it means the difference between life and death for someone you love? If your son or daughter or another loved one such as a spouse was in the hands of a criminal element and you were fairly certain that they had no moral compunction against killing your loved one, how far would go? If a member of this group had been captured, how far would you go to extract the information? It comes down to which is more important: your loved one's life or the criminal's comfort. As long as we don't put a human face on the victims, then a discussion about "torture" remains an antiseptic discussion.

People's lives are on the line, and when our soldiers are captured, they are put through torture that defies human description. It was reported that one Taliban custom was to take a prisoner (usually a fellow Afghan) out into the desert, nail 4 spikes into the ground, tie the prisoner's feet and hands to the spikes so that he is spread out. they would then flay him/her open from the neck to the groin and then leave the prisoner in that condition for the birds of prey and desert animals to finish off.

There is a difference, a moral distinction that must be drawn between what has been described as "coercive interrogation" and genuine torture. What I see on this thread is an attempt to broaden the definition of torture to include anything that makes a prisoner uncomfortable as a means of extracting information. It is a way of "poisoning the well" so to speak, to refuse to make a distinction between, for example, what I described above, and subjecting someone to rock music. It is just plain silly to lump both in the same category.

If "coecrive interrogation" makes us no better than our enemies, then why defend ourselves at all? Why don't you just go ahead and lump our soldiers together with the Taliban since they both carry weapons? Why not take the position that defending yourself against terrorism makes you equal to the terrorists? That is what everybody does to Israel all of the time.

Are you prepared for us to just sit on our hands and when we are attacked again, and do nothing for fear that someone might think we are as bad as those who seek our destruction??? Honestly, the moral absurdity by some on this board is just astounding. There is no way to have a reasonable discussion on the issue of torture when people insist on muddying the waters as to what actually constitutes genuine torture, and what does not.

[Scarletprayers]

Yeah Shiloh!

[Marnie]

Marnie, how do you get that I'm criticising your military, from what I said?

I don't like euphemisms, I think we should all "call a spade a spade". Coercive interrogation IS torture. You must know that. I am not "having a go" at the American military by saying these things. The US military is certainly not unique in this aspect and they do exactly what politicians tell them to do as do all military. It would be hypocritical of me to single out the US military and accuse them of all sorts of things and ignore the actions of other nations' soldiers and I don't do that.

The only thing I am criticising is the seeming mindset of the ordinary person these days (and here I'm DEFINITELY not singling out Americans) that seems to believe that "the rules have changed" and we should no longer follow simple rules of how to treat each other.

Of course you are, buck. Who do you think is doing the torture, in your mind? A private security company??

Coercive interrogation IS NOT torture, buck; how can you be so dense? I am not saying that torture has never taken place, for we know that it has, and those responsible have been dealt with according to military justice.

The simple fact is, the rules have changed, or more accurately, the rules do not apply to enemy combatants. The Geneva Convention was written for uniformed soldiers and definitely is worth reading. The low lifes we have in prison at Gitmo are not uniformed soldiers; they do not abide the Geneva or Hague Conventions. In a bygone era, the aforementioned low lifes would most likely have been shot on the spot for being spies out of uniform or whatever. I think the US military has been more than generous with them, despite the music and cold rooms.

You're looking for Utopia, buck.

[ted]

It's probably a fault of mine that I need to work on, but most days, I could care less about them terrorist's rights and wishes.

They are not American citizens nor should they be afforded the rights of one. They are not common criminals deserving of the Miranda rights or worthy of the time and money it would cost to run these animals through our courts system. They are not uniformed soldiers fighting for a nation which has agreed to the Geneva Conventions or their rules of treatment. They are not POW's in a declared war.

They are simply enemy combatants following a hateful ideology who have chosen to make war against the US in any way they can. They have willfully chosen their path. It's not our fault that they have failed. They are not being treated even faintly close to how bad our own would be treated if the tables were turned. Their heads are still attached to their shoulders. Their bodies are not burned nor dragged through the streets of US cities.

I find it odd that so many people would scream and whine about the conditions of detention of people who would slit their throats in a minute if they were given the chance.

What we have in Gitmo are people who have demonstrated, without a doubt, that they deserve to be there.

Is there anyone here who thinks that, if released, that these people would not actually go back to the fight against us? Not because we detained them, but because they were trying do that very thing when they were caught in the first place?

Get hard, people. I'm sorry, but we have to win this one.

t.

[Gerioke]

Achey Breaky Heart on the bagpipes. Now that would break the hardest mind.

[RGR]

Achey Breaky Heart on the bagpipes. Now that would break the hardest mind.

[buckthesystem]

Silentprayer, quote: "Yes they have, they've improved! Awful horrible torture was the norm in older wars, now most civilized people know that its wrong, and yes your right, I don't think there is anything wrong with psychological torture "under certain circumstances". We are fighting people that hate us because we are not Muslims, they don't mind dying because of that hatred. So getting them cold, and playing loud music considering what they are planning against all people, who wont act, behave and believe the way they do isn't torture in my book, its and irritant".

What "awful, horrible torture that was the norm.." are you referring to?

And what "older wars" are you referring to?

So you "don't think there is anything wrong with psychological torture under certain circumstances". Are you saying that you think "psychological torture" is somehow less damaging than physical torture? Under what "circumstances" do you advocate its use?

So if "psychological torture" was used on you or one of your family members would you still call it an "irritant"?

[Scarletprayers]

Silentprayer, quote: "Yes they have, they've improved! Awful horrible torture was the norm in older wars, now most civilized people know that its wrong, and yes your right, I don't think there is anything wrong with psychological torture "under certain circumstances". We are fighting people that hate us because we are not Muslims, they don't mind dying because of that hatred. So getting them cold, and playing loud music considering what they are planning against all people, who wont act, behave and believe the way they do isn't torture in my book, its and irritant".

What "awful, horrible torture that was the norm.." are you referring to?

And what "older wars" are you referring to?

So you "don't think there is anything wrong with psychological torture under certain circumstances". Are you saying that you think "psychological torture" is somehow less damaging than physical torture? Under what "circumstances" do you advocate its use?

So if "psychological torture" was used on you or one of your family members would you still call it an "irritant"?

You know you can look up different wars and find out what the "human rights" factor was for prisoners during them, yep things have changed. I thought I explained pretty well that considering what the terrorist were planning for anybody that didn't agree with them that, under those circumstances psychological torture is okay. Do I like it, nope, do I think its necessary to save Innocent people, yes.

You know that "how would you feel" argument really doesn't work with me, because I've found out during my life, you can rarely judge how your going to act in a hypothetical situation, most of us can say "I would never do that" or "I would do this" because until your actually there...........you really have no idea just a HOPE that you will respond in a way that you wont be ashamed of. So how would I behave, I don't know. I could probably say with a certain amount of surety that I wouldn't like it. But, I sincerely hope my family member wasn't planning on blowing up or beheading innocent people just because they didn't agree with them.

[Guest shiloh357]

Silentprayer, quote: "Yes they have, they've improved! Awful horrible torture was the norm in older wars, now most civilized people know that its wrong, and yes your right, I don't think there is anything wrong with psychological torture "under certain circumstances". We are fighting people that hate us because we are not Muslims, they don't mind dying because of that hatred. So getting them cold, and playing loud music considering what they are planning against all people, who wont act, behave and believe the way they do isn't torture in my book, its and irritant".

What "awful, horrible torture that was the norm.." are you referring to?

And what "older wars" are you referring to?

So you "don't think there is anything wrong with psychological torture under certain circumstances". Are you saying that you think "psychological torture" is somehow less damaging than physical torture? Under what "circumstances" do you advocate its use?

So if "psychological torture" was used on you or one of your family members would you still call it an "irritant"?

What if it was one of your family members who was captured, and there was a reasonably good chance that if he/she is not rescued, he/she will be killed? If a member of group that kidnapped your family member had been kidnapped, how far would go to get the information needed to save the life of your loved one? Which would be more important, your loved one's life, or the criminal's "comfort?" Would you allow your family to die simply because you are afraid to subject the criminal to rock music or sleep deprivation? From what we know about our current enemy, they are quite proficient at causing slow agonizing deaths. Beheadings are slow and torturous. How far would you go to make a criminal talk before allowing something like that to happen to someone you care about?

[buckthesystem]

Silentprayer, quote: "Yes they have, they've improved! Awful horrible torture was the norm in older wars, now most civilized people know that its wrong, and yes your right, I don't think there is anything wrong with psychological torture "under certain circumstances". We are fighting people that hate us because we are not Muslims, they don't mind dying because of that hatred. So getting them cold, and playing loud music considering what they are planning against all people, who wont act, behave and believe the way they do isn't torture in my book, its and irritant".

What "awful, horrible torture that was the norm.." are you referring to?

And what "older wars" are you referring to?

So you "don't think there is anything wrong with psychological torture under certain circumstances". Are you saying that you think "psychological torture" is somehow less damaging than physical torture? Under what "circumstances" do you advocate its use?

So if "psychological torture" was used on you or one of your family members would you still call it an "irritant"?

What if it was one of your family members who was captured, and there was a reasonably good chance that if he/she is not rescued, he/she will be killed? If a member of group that kidnapped your family member had been kidnapped, how far would go to get the information needed to save the life of your loved one? Which would be more important, your loved one's life, or the criminal's "comfort?" Would you allow your family to die simply because you are afraid to subject the criminal to rock music or sleep deprivation? From what we know about our current enemy, they are quite proficient at causing slow agonizing deaths. Beheadings are slow and torturous. How far would you go to make a criminal talk before allowing something like that to happen to someone you care about?

I take it that you are answering "yes" to my last two questions, and you can't answer the first two.

As to your first question, ".....how far would you go ....etc...." The answer comes easily: I would go as far as would be morally reasonable. This does not include torture. Mainly because I know that it is wrong to deliberately inflict pain on someone and it is also totally ineffective. This rather renders irrelevant, the last part of the question: "Which would be more important ...etc...and would you allow your family to die simply because...etc..."

I am not guessing, or saying "I think I would, but under these circumstances it might be different" I know exactly how I would react under any circumstances. And I am not being sanctimoneous or "holier than thou", I am simply being honest. Neither is it a case of "being afraid to subject the criminal to.......etc......." You don't have to "have courage, i.e. "not be afraid" to do something evil, all it takes is a lack of moral compunction.

We also have to consider the appropriateness of your use of the word "criminal". A person is not a "criminal" until he has been found to be so in a court of law, until then he is a "suspect", and this doesn't address the incompetence of the justice system. How many people have been wrongly tortured or imprisoned for a crime they did not commit? Would you advocate the torture or killing of someone who could turn out to be innocent.

So what exactly has the fact that "our current enemy is quite proficient at causing agonising deaths" got to do with the subject of torture? Are you saying "if they are good at killing slowly and agonisingly then so should we be"?