Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
WOW! Watch Fox News' Shepard Smith
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jones" data-source="post: 521336" data-attributes="member: 4805"><p>You and I may disagree on what constitutes torture, but the treaties and conventions that the US is a signed party to are pretty clear. We would not have signed if we didn't agree with them. There is precedent in US law as well, as after WW2 one of the war crimes charges that we leveled against the Japanese was the use of waterboarding against American prisoners. In addition the State Department defines "submersion of the head in water" as torture, and the difference between that and waterboarding is simply semantics as they both constitute simulated drowning.</p><p></p><p>I only think "what if" scenarios are relevant if they are based in reality. The "24" scenario only occurs in Hollywood and it certainly was not the case with the guys we tortured because if it was you can bet we would have heard about it as a justification. In the real world you don't torture people because you know what they know, you torture them because you <em>don't</em> know what they know. And if they really don't know what you think they might know(which you have no way of knowing for sure), they'll make something up just to get you to stop.</p><p></p><p>As far whether or not traditional methods always work, I have seen no evidence to suggest that they don't. 9/11 itself could have been prevented by traditional police work if the right people had been paying attention to the right signs. The clues were all there, but nobody put them together.</p><p> </p><p>Like I said above, I have a hard time giving credibility to the "24" scenario. If we already know the target city and the approximate time of the attack, we're pretty much 90% of the way there. At that point I have faith that we have enough info and resources to foil the plot without torturing anyone. </p><p>Speaking strictly for myself, I could never torture another living thing, under any circumstances. 20 or maybe even 10 years ago I might have given you a different answer, but as I've gotten older I see the world differently. Probably just getting soft <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy2.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy2:" title="Happy2 :happy2:" data-shortname=":happy2:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jones, post: 521336, member: 4805"] You and I may disagree on what constitutes torture, but the treaties and conventions that the US is a signed party to are pretty clear. We would not have signed if we didn't agree with them. There is precedent in US law as well, as after WW2 one of the war crimes charges that we leveled against the Japanese was the use of waterboarding against American prisoners. In addition the State Department defines "submersion of the head in water" as torture, and the difference between that and waterboarding is simply semantics as they both constitute simulated drowning. I only think "what if" scenarios are relevant if they are based in reality. The "24" scenario only occurs in Hollywood and it certainly was not the case with the guys we tortured because if it was you can bet we would have heard about it as a justification. In the real world you don't torture people because you know what they know, you torture them because you [I]don't[/I] know what they know. And if they really don't know what you think they might know(which you have no way of knowing for sure), they'll make something up just to get you to stop. As far whether or not traditional methods always work, I have seen no evidence to suggest that they don't. 9/11 itself could have been prevented by traditional police work if the right people had been paying attention to the right signs. The clues were all there, but nobody put them together. Like I said above, I have a hard time giving credibility to the "24" scenario. If we already know the target city and the approximate time of the attack, we're pretty much 90% of the way there. At that point I have faith that we have enough info and resources to foil the plot without torturing anyone. Speaking strictly for myself, I could never torture another living thing, under any circumstances. 20 or maybe even 10 years ago I might have given you a different answer, but as I've gotten older I see the world differently. Probably just getting soft :happy2: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
WOW! Watch Fox News' Shepard Smith
Top