Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You insinuated something you have no proof of, and I called you on it.> Give me a break. You can't prove we tortured anyone, but that doesn't stop you from claiming it. <And that "evidence" would be...?> His actions before he was captured. Did you know the guy he was supposed to fly to Pakistan with was detained at the German airport? Do you know who paid for his ticket? Do you know what his mom testified? You might want to look into this some more before you take this guy's word over US officials. <But we tortured him anyway.> I don't believe we did. <that doesn't speak well of Schroeder's government - too cozy with Bush??> Considering Chancellor Schroeder's remarks and actions compared to Chancellor Merkel's, unlikely. More likely is that there's some evidence that we and the Germans have, that has not been released, that warranted his detention.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm not okay with an innocent person being tortured.> Of course. I'm not either.
Originally Posted By piperlynne What's the test of innocence here? I mean, were these folks tried BEFORE they were tortured or even as some say "Subject to harsh interrogation tactics"? If it is ok to interrogate these people in the way that we did to get "high value information", why is it not ok to waterboard a suspected serial killer or kidnapper in order to get a confession or possible location of a kidnap victim? How is it different? Because they aren't American Citizens? (I'm not saying that's the reasoning, I'm asking)
Originally Posted By DAR Although to be fair to you Doug you never stated you were okay with that either.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <why is it not ok to waterboard a suspected serial killer or kidnapper in order to get a confession or possible location of a kidnap victim?> I wouldn't be surprised if someone has stepped over the line while interrogating a suspected kidnapper. Like I said earlier, this is an area where we need a little wiggle room. But forced confession is definitely a path we don't want to go down. It's important to realize that the things done to the three detainees in the memos were not done as punishment, or to get confessions. They were done to get valuable information to help save lives. I'm okay with our officials pushing the line in those situations. Did anyone think less of Batman for smacking the Joker around in that interrogation room?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>What's the test of innocence here?<< If they float, they are a witch... if they drown, we were wrong.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Did anyone think less of Batman for smacking the Joker around in that interrogation room?<< Meanwhile, back in reality...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They were done to get valuable information to help save lives. I'm okay with our officials pushing the line in those situations.<< Now, what happens if we do these things in order to save lives and it turns out that the particular prisoner we have captured doesn't possess the knowledge of the activities we are trying to stop? How do we un-torture them?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Or how about the prisoner we torture so long that he'll tell us anything we want to hear to make it stop? Is that useful, or will it lead us on wild goose chases? I mean, I guess we can beat the crap out of him for it later, but it doesn't really serve the original purpose. We're the good guys. We don't torture. We're more creative than that. We're better than that. That's the standard I believe in.
Originally Posted By piperlynne >><why is it not ok to waterboard a suspected serial killer or kidnapper in order to get a confession or possible location of a kidnap victim?> I wouldn't be surprised if someone has stepped over the line while interrogating a suspected kidnapper. Like I said earlier, this is an area where we need a little wiggle room. But forced confession is definitely a path we don't want to go down. It's important to realize that the things done to the three detainees in the memos were not done as punishment, or to get confessions. They were done to get valuable information to help save lives. I'm okay with our officials pushing the line in those situations.<< So, are you advocating that we should be able to use these same kind of "tactics" (not going to get into a torture/not torture argument with you there - we have to agree to disagree on that one)on suspected criminals to obtain high value information? And if so, why? And if not, why not and how is it different? Should we be allowed to use that information gained with those tactics in legal proceedings against the suspect? I didn't actually ask if someone has stepped over the line. I asked if it was "ok" in a legal or moral sense in the same way that some contend that it was ok in the case of the detainees.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How do we un-torture them?> We don't. We prosecute the interrogator for using torture. <We're the good guys. We don't torture.> If innocent lives are on the line, then we wouldn't be good guys if we didn't do everything in our power to save them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>We don't. We prosecute the interrogator for using torture.<< Okay, but the interrogator was using the wiggle room because he honestly believed this person had the information that would save lives? You see what a mess it is when we leave "wiggle room" to this degree? >>If innocent lives are on the line, then we wouldn't be good guys if we didn't do everything in our power to save them.<< So, we have these principles and ideals and laws in place, but all of that can be thrown out the window at the discretion of ...? because they think a particular prisoner may have information. But if they're wrong, we prosecute them. You see what a mess it creates?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You see what a mess it is when we leave "wiggle room" to this degree?> They need to be pretty damn sure before they approach the line, let alone cross it. "Honestly believed" isn't a high enough standard. And I'd rather have a mess and people alive than a neat and orderly procedure and people dead.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"Honestly believed" isn't a high enough standard.<< "Pretty damn sure" is? lol
Originally Posted By piperlynne "Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin
Originally Posted By piperlynne "Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin
Originally Posted By DAR So instead of torture is everyone okay with terrorists being dead instead? Because I'll gladly trade.
Originally Posted By piperlynne >>So instead of torture is everyone okay with terrorists being dead instead? Because I'll gladly trade<< Sure when they are taken down during commission of a potentially lethal act in order to prevent it. Or when they are found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to death. I'm good with that.
