Torture, is it wrong?

1. Triangles are triangles because they have three sides.
2. No, I'm not.
3. Still irrelevant.

 

1. Irrelevant.
2. Sounds like it.
3. Wrong.

 

Pompeo agrees with torture. So does Trump.

Trump's pick to run the CIA, Rep. Mike Pompeo, has told Congress that he would consider bringing back waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation measures under certain circumstances.

In a series of written responses on Wednesday to questions from members of the Senate intelligence committee, Pompeo said that while current permitted interrogation techniques are limited to those contained in the Army Field Manual, he was open to making changes to that policy. https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/pompeo-cia-waterboarding/index.html

Trump supports torture and waterboarding. "When ISIS is doing things that no one has ever heard of, since medieval times, would I feel strongly about waterboarding?" Trump said in an interview with ABC News. "As far as I'm concerned, we have to fight fire with fire." He added, "And if they [Pompeo and Mattis] do want to do (torture), I will work toward that end."

But do I feel it works? Absolutely, I feel it works.

Accordingly, Trump has nominated the darling of torture and waterboarding to be his next CIA director, replacing Pompeo. Her name is Gina Haspel, and she and Trump seem to be a perfect match.

 

How many then? I don't post figures to support my opinion. That is the forum we are in correct? Political opinions and beliefs?

Sorry if it bothers you, but I don't believe most were innocent. They couldn't "prove" OJ did it either.
I believe they were guilty or had associations or information about those that were. Yes, that is a very broad brush, but I am ok with waterboarding someone who is a known associate of terrorists if it means saving American lives.

 

General rule is, if you care about your credibility, when you make a factual assertion, you back it up with support when you are called out on it.

Of course, there are some folks who couldn't care less about their credibility and just make **** up as they go along. It's pretty easy to spot them. They're the ones who dodge and divert when they are called out on their claims.

 

The point of "torture" is to get information, not sadistic pleasure. Always has been since war exists.

You just caught a terrorist and you want to know where they're planning their next attack. That information could save dozens of lives. How do you do it, just ask him nicely?

 

Why do you jump into a middle of a conversation without understanding the context of the question or who I asked. The question wasn't meant for you, but here it is if you want to answer it for the guy who ran off without answering:

You're "comfortable" with American POWs being tortured?

 

If you think my assertion is wrong prove it. I'll be glad to look at your source and admit it if I was wrong. Since it is so important to you though, I have briefly read a few articles and statistic sheets and come up with nothing that would make me change my position.

I believe they were guilty or had associations or information about those that were.

 

According to this report, about 95% of the gitmo detainees were released.

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/gtmo-by-the-numbers.pdf

So unless you have cause to believe that President Bush (and to a lesser extent, Obama) was releasing guilty people pell-mell, the evidence does not support your assertion that "Most at Gitmo were not innocent".

 

HEres a clue. YOU ONLY ARE TOLD OF THAT terror plot. They aren't stupid. They have moar than one team.

 

Torture is wrong. Torturers should be punished.

If theres a bomb in a school full of kids and you gotta pull a doods fingernails out to find it, thats on you.

I would.

And I would happily go to prison for torture knowing I did everything I could to save a bunch of kids.

Thats how torture 'works'.

 

Would you agree to BE tortured for eternity, by a pissed off God, for doing torture and being wrong, or just evil?

 

That's the problem with the right: poor judgement.

 

Then you would tolerate torture of our captive soldiers because, after all, we know you're not a hypocrite.

 

It works? Studies of the data obtained via torture shows that the victim will say whatever he believes the torturer wants him to say to make it end. THAT is not reliable. THAT doesn't work.

 

I would torture anyone in heartbeat if saved my kids life. Torture has a use.

 

Should children be tortured, if they refuse to say who stole the cookie from the cookie jar? We would soon have well behave children.

 

If you make it a practice to torture people, people are going to try even harder not to be captured and will continue trying to fight and kill even when their situation has become completely untenable and it is suicide for them to continue fighting. That means there will be a higher death toll on your side. But this is in a conventional conflict. However, when you are fighting people who will act this way anyway out of islamic extremism, the argument above probably wouldn't make any difference.

 

Two things: 1) that makes you too close to it to be objective, and 2) you wouldn't know if you got reliable information until the crisis was over, so you couldn't advocate or carry out torture knowing it saved your kid's life because you wouldn't know whether it did or not beforehand. So that decision couldn't be made. But your talk is tough-sounding.

 

But does the ends justify the means?
Have you turned this into one big argument about utilitarianism?

Maybe at the very least, before you torture, ask yourself whether the victim deserves it. Then ask whether it is truly realistically likely to give positive results that justify sacrificing your ethics.

 

If it took torture to stop a nuclear detonation in New York harbor, I'd gladly perform the torture.

And when I retire, I'm going to volunteer to be the executioner for the state of Texas. If some guy raped and killed young kids, I would have no problem administering the lethal drug to end his miserable existence. And I'd sleep like a baby that night.

 

Saw that one. Which statistic says they are not guilty of anything?

Now look up what percentage are believed to have rejoined the ranks or committed further terrorist acts.

Is it your assertion that the US military went overseas and rounded up a bunch of innocent people for absolutely no reason?

 

Again, unless you have cause to believe that President Bush (and to a lesser extent, Obama) was releasing guilty people pell-mell, the evidence does not support your assertion that "Most at Gitmo were not innocent".

Do your own homework.

It seems pretty clear they were not very discriminatory. Or else they wouldn't have need to release over 95% of them.

 

Your two year old daughter has been kidnapped and you have trapped the only person who knows her whereabouts but they refuse to tell you where she is. What would you do? Torture is usually the product of desperation and not some random casual act. In the case of combatants where thousands of lives are certain to end without actionable intelligence would you still say never? How about in the case of large scale terrorism against the entire population of a city, what then? Is the argument dead under all circumstances? Your daughter that was kidnapped also has a disease that requires life giving medication every six hours and she was kidnapped over five hours ago, well?

 

Why do you believe that because we did not hold them indefinitely they were innocent? We don't typically detain enemy combatants forever.

I did, it was 30% before they stopped releasing names. Were they innocent as well?

Looking back, yes they could have been more discriminatory. Yes some were probably at the wrong place at the wrong time. But not 95%. That is ridiculous and just because we did not keep them does not mean they were innocent.