Thursday, October 18, 2007
What's the big deal?
I was reading about democrats questioning the new attorney general about whether or not the U.S. uses torture techniques. They talked about waterboarding. This is where we put a piece of cloth over the terrorist's face and pour water on it to make him feel like he's drowning. I guess what I'm asking is what's the big deal? We're not harming them by doing this and it's not going to kill them. We aren't drawing and quartering these people. If the U.S. does indeed do this, and it makes terrorists give up informaiton that will save American lives, then what's so bad?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
If that was all the torturing that has been going on, then I might feel a wee bit better about the subject. Unfortunately, its not.
Do some serious research into past torture abuses not only by the U.S. but by other countries as well.
If you have ever talked to someone that has been tortured, like I have from Vietnam veterans, you might take this subject a little more serious.
This is my personal opinion and I have not done any research to substantiate my claim. Having said that I am of the opinion that we gather intelligence from a great deal of sources and that human intelligence is fallible. I also believe that a good number of the combatants in Iraq do not belong to a larger terrorist network cell; therefore it does us little good to torture them for information. And once we have captured these combatants, what do we do with them? Do we release them back to the battlefield where they can kill our soldiers, or do we imprison them forever? Since most of them, arguably, do not yield useable intelligence, I am in favor of eliminating (politically correct term for killing) them on the field of battle. Take no prisoners. There is a one sure way to ensure that you will not be captured and tortured by the United States. Don't show up on the battlefield with a weapon, looking for a fight. Our military at this point is voluntary and so is theirs. War is dirty, dangerous business and if you don't want any of it stay home. Once again, this is my personal opinion based on my experiences.
I'm not talking about other "torture abuses," I'm talking about this one. And I really don't think it's all too horrible.
The whole thing is that the government denies is. If they owned up to it then it would be a different story. The U.S. doesn't expect other countries to torture our captured soldiers, so they are expected not to torture ones that they capture, no matter what the torture may be.
Jessica, this is something that can't be adequately described in a newspaper article. Beyond that the big problems with it are:
1. It violates our laws.
2. It doesn't tend to work. It rarely, if ever, provides useful information. First off, the person being tortured can't give information they don't have, but it is likely that if you don't have information and you are being tortured, you'll make something up to get them to stop.
3. It helps the other side recruit more.
4. Many of the people that have been treated in this and other similar ways are not only not combatants taken from the field, they are people who are 100% innocent and we release them because we find no evidence that they actually did anything wrong. If we illegally torture someone who was innocent and then set them free, what effect does that have on the insurgency?
This would be hypocrisy. Our own laws state that this is unconstitutional. Infact some forms of the death penalty have been abolished due to this. This is termed 'Cruel and Unusual punishment'.
I can't believe that someone actually said that they think torture isn't all that horrible. Is this a legitimate statement? And save American lives? Lowering the speed limit to 35mph on all U.S. roads would save lives, ooh and destroying all non-Americans would definitely save American lives. Seriously, I think this sounds a bit more than just a mere intimidation technique. "Torture" that is not "so bad" is when you take away your child's gameboy when he needs it
I don't have a "bluemeanie" in my gradebook, so I can't give you credit for these posts unless you go back to each individual post an add your name.
I feel that some humane forms aof torture are acceptable.
Again, Brittani, it doesn't matter if individual citizens think it is okay, it is still illegal under our laws.
But, is waterboarding defined as torture? If it's not torture, then is it still illegal?
In my mind, and in my opinion, inflicting bodily harm on someone is torture. But I don't think this is.
>But, is waterboarding defined as torture?
There's some debate about this. That's why it's in the news.
>If it's not torture, then is it still illegal?
Maybe. We've definitely condemned other countries for doing this in the past. It'll be up to the courts to decide for 100%.
>In my mind, and in my opinion, inflicting bodily harm on someone is torture.
Psychological torture also counts and, truthfully, most experts would say that psychological torture is much more damaging.
>But I don't think this is.
Most of the world disagrees with you and would call it torture.
I can't believe that someone actually said that they think torture isn't all that horrible. Is this a legitimate statement? And save American lives? Lowering the speed limit to 35mph on all U.S. roads would save lives, ooh and destroying all non-Americans would definitely save American lives. Seriously, I think this sounds a bit more than just a mere intimidation technique. "Torture" that is not "so bad" is when you take away your child's gameboy when he needs it
Post a Comment