Torture, is it wrong?

I like the glass half full version, potentially GUILTY person

 

And what does that amount to in the liberal world, plead, beg and cry? Maybe a gofundme page to beg enough to pay the abductor

 

Of course you do. If you are wrong, would you be cool with that innocent person you just tortured brutally torturing one of your loved ones in exchange for what you did to them?

 

You seriously don’t know non-torture interrogation techniques exist? The FBI, military, and police have made a science of interrogation without using torture.

 

And you have never in your life been absolutely positive of something and then turned out to be wrong?

 

Yup. and a few post ago you were sure that

And in reality

So excuse me if I don't take you seriously

 

See post #132, have you ever been right about anything relating to REALITY

 

And in that source you linked to, how many times do kidnappers get caught without the abductee when the abductee is still alive?

 

Says the guy who would brutally torture a potentially innocent person.

Why won’t you answer the question? If you were wrong and you tortured an innocent person, would you be cool with them torturing one of your loved ones in exchange?

 

Or potentially guilty person I simply like my method above yours is all, you do it your way and I'll do it my way

 

And if your way turns out to be wrong and you do torture an innocent person, are you cool with that person torturing one of your innocent loved ones in exchange for the harm you did to them?

 

Dunno? I'm already running this ridiculous Gauntlet of yours already, it would be beneath me to start doing your foot work too

 

I never said I was going to let them go

 

What ridiculous guantlet? That’s been my point from the beginning.

In the real world, when kidnappings happen, if they catch the kidnapper while the kidnapped person is still alive, they are with the kidnapped person.

The only way you are catching a kidnapper without the abductee in the real world is if the abductee is already dead or released.

 

Things we don't do are line people up and cut their heads off with a Bowie, burn people alive in cages, or make videos of beheading journalists.

That Islamic kind of brutality would be counterproductive.

 

So you **** up and torture an innocent person, you then keep that innocent person prisoner?

So you would kidnap an innocent person?

No wonder you have no problem with torture. You are a sociopath.

 

You don't say.

 

Read the thread before you butt in and say silly things.

I made no such assumption. You're just making **** up. The claim made was that most were not innocent. The person making that claim could provide no evidence of that assertion. And neither have you.

All I said is that over 95% being released does not comport with over half being not innocent. Unless you have reason to believe that President Bush (and to a lesser extent, Obama) was intentionally releasing guilty people.

When you make assumptions based on falsehoods, you are likely to get false conclusions.

The bulk of the Gitmo detainees were released by the Bush administration, not Obama.

 

Wait wait wait. It sounds like you're saying that if you had evidence and knew that torture worked in that particular instance, you would advocate torture in that instance. So which do you think came first, the kid's theft of the candy bar, or your spanking of that kid for stealing that candy bar? You're saying you would spank the kid to prevent the theft of the candy bar.

 

Really? What incentive do you think? Maybe to make the torture stop?

 

Wow. You lack some pretty important and widely-known facts. Many detainees were rounded up when troops descended on an area where, say, an IED detonated or some attack had taken place, and the troops took anyone in the area into custody in case they had information on the attack as a witness or with hearsay evidence. They detained them to question them. This means they were not suspected of committing any act of violence or any crime. And many were tortured to "get evidence". Then they were held for many years without due process. And you're asserting that these people were "enemy combatants" and got what they deserved.

Why do you think so many people in so many countries hate us?

 

That figure doesnt necessarily comport with their innocence NOR their guilt. It depends upon the reason for their release. I dont recall Obama declaring that they were released due to their innocence; certainly not with most that were released anyway. To imply that release somehow indicates innocence is a stretch to say the very least. If you have a link that supports the notion that innocence was claimed with most of those being released, I would love to see it. In the absence of such however, it is off base to suggest that release equates to innocence.

What falsehood? Are you saying that Obama didnt desperately want to close Gitmo but was otherwise thwarted both legislatively and politically ?

It is factually incorrect to say that the bulk of Gitmo detainees were RELEASED by Bush. The bulk of the 500 who left Gitmo under Bush were in fact TRANSFERRED, meaning they were detained/ restricted in other countries. Furthermore, you need to consider the timeline at play. A large number of people were detained initially, and the worst of the worst offenders were the only ones that remained at Gitmo by the time Obama came into office. The two Presidents were dealing with different subsets of detainees.The lesser offenders were transferred for a lesser level of scrutiny and control prior to Obama taking office, and the small subset of those where evidence was lacking were actually released as opposed to being detained elsewhere.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...correct-500-guantanamo-detainees-were-releas/

 

Feel free to defend the claim that most were not innocent with evidence. You've utterly failed to post one shred. Barring that, I stand by my position based on the unrebutted evidence I've posted.

"Obama released 95% of them"

Nope.

That's a fair point. If most of the detainees were transferred, arrested and jailed in other countries for the wrongs they were originally detained by the US for, that would weigh towards them being not innocent. The Factcheck article, however, does not give any details about the number that were transferred to another country, found guilty and jailed, or those who were just jailed without charges, or those who were just transferred.

The Human Rights website (Feb 2018 ) : "Detainees released under President Bush: Over 500"
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/gtmo-by-the-numbers.pdf

So there appears to be some discrepancy between that and the Pentagon sourced information Factcheck reported in 2009.

 

You discard it with a wave of the hand but in fact the key element of your question, torture, is it wrong, is the definition of torture. What some people think is torture to many is a nothing burger so you can't just take an opinion poll. Torture was once universally physical. There might be mental activities that could qualify as torture but mental anguish by itself is way too vague and to low of a bar. Waterboarding? I think debatable. Continuous loud music? I doubt it. How about the police interrogating a suspect for 12 straight hours? 6 hours? 1 hour? How about hounding a suspect for years that almost drives him crazy? How about financially ruining a suspect?

I doubt you have anything to back up your claim of torture and murder at Gitmo, but remember this: everyone at Gitmo was an out of uniform combatant and per Geneva Convention could legally be executed on the spot.