Western governments are quiet about CIA torture techniques
-
Where are the human rights activists who protest about the death penalty in Singapore but are silent about the torture techniques used by the CIA? Why is Australia so quiet about the abuse of human rights and violation of international law committed in CIA secret prisons in Europe?
This is an excerpt from ABC news:
"The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess...."
(http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866&page=1) -
It's like a criminal mastermind reporting to the police a petty crime.
-
OM,Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Where are the human rights activists who protest about the death penalty in Singapore but are silent about the torture techniques used by the CIA? Why is Australia so quiet about the abuse of human rights and violation of international law committed in CIA secret prisons in Europe?
This is an excerpt from ABC news:
"The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess...."
(http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866&page=1)
stop watching CNA and watch more BBC and CNN (not as objective as BBC, but still better than CNA). The activists like AI (Amnesty International) and HRW (Human Rights Watch) are the ones which alerted the world to the CIA torture methods and the secret renditions to other countries (which sadly includes Singapore)!!!
the (sad) pikamaster -
Whats wrong with torturing terrorirst to get information that will save lives?
I read thru the torture techniques listed and they all seem rather mild. I would have used tougher techniques myself if I have a terrorist in my custody.
I think this thing is silly. -
Duh....Ure the one tts silly.....Originally posted by Salman:Whats wrong with torturing terrorirst to get information that will save lives?I read thru the torture techniques listed and they all seem rather mild. I would have used tougher techniques myself if I have a terrorist in my custody.
I think this thing is silly. -
Pikamaster,Originally posted by pikamaster:OM,
stop watching CNA and watch more BBC and CNN (not as objective as BBC, but still better than CNA). The activists like AI (Amnesty International) and HRW (Human Rights Watch) are the ones which alerted the world to the CIA torture methods and the secret renditions to other countries (which sadly includes Singapore)!!!
the (sad) pikamaster
Get your facts straight..this story was an ABC exclusive -
You still did not address my challenge to you.
The logical question is, whats wrong with torturing terrorists for information that will save lives? Don't you know what terrorists do? How many more innocent lives do you want them to kill?
I think you are mad! Too angmo. -
The problem is that: if u torture terrorists, they will give you the info u want, BUT that may not be the correct/ accurate information.Originally posted by Salman:You still did not address my challenge to you.
The logical question is, whats wrong with torturing terrorists for information that will save lives? Don't you know what terrorists do? How many more innocent lives do you want them to kill?
I think you are mad! Too angmo.
Let me illustrate:-
INTERROGATOR: What is your name?
TERRORIST: ABU MASIR (disclaimer: just a random name actually; any relation to any person dead or alive is pure coincidence)
INTERROGATOR: Who do you work for?
TERRORIST: Hamas
INTERROGATOR: You work only for Hamas?
TERRORIST: yes
(whip goes down)
INTERROGATOR: You work only for Hamas?
TERRORIST: yes
INTERROGATOR: (grabs the terrorist by collar) Do you know what is going on in the cell next to this one?
TERRORIST: no
INTERROGATOR: Let me tell you; we captured one of your friends and we are whipping him there right now for not telling us the truth. If you don't comply, you will end up like him. Do you understand?
TERRORIST: (putting his ear to the wall) I don't hear anything.
INTERROGATOR: (slaps TERRORIST) You fucking son-of-a-bitch, don't try to play games ok??
TERRORIST: (terrified) Ok, Ok, I work for Al Quaeda as well.
INTERROGATOR: Did you get possession of a bomb?
Terrorist: yes
INTERROGATOR: From where?
TERRORIST: The military?
INTERROGATOR: Don't talk bullshit. The police say you obtained the bomb from a Black Market along Sin Ming Avenue.
TERRORIST: no, I didn't; one of the army officials sold it to me.
INTERROGATOR pushes TERRORIST onto the floor and stamps boot on his cheeks
INTERROGATOR: How dare you defame the army, you lousy foreign low-life!!! Or do you need a jogging of memory?
TERRORIST: (sincerely and desperately) I really did obtain the bomb from an army official. I think his name was Lt-Col George Sim.
INTERROGATOR: Really? (yells at officers outside interrogation room) Go and catch that frigging Lt-Colone!!! (turns back to TERRORIST) So you say Lt-Col George Sim sold you the bomb.
TERRORIST: yes
INTERROGATOR: He's going to be dealt with severely you know. And if you have blamed an innocent man, we will give his family the permission to stone you to death; that's the punishment in your country for perjury, isn't it?
TERRORIST: (sputters in disbelief) But your country is supposed to be civilized; Civilized people do not stone people.
INTERROGATOR: Well, you are not a citizen, are you? You are a national security threat and we have the right to ....
TERRORIST: I demand to see my lawyer!!!
INTERROGATOR: Your lawyer has realized how wicked the man he was defending was, and has submitted his letter of resignation to me. Look, scumbag, look at this. (smothers TERRORIST's face with a blank piece of paper)
TERRORIST breaks down into tears
TERRORIST: My family will still get to see me, won't they? I have 3 wives and 8 children, I have...
INTERROGATOR: (sneers and spits) Oh yes, they will ... we shall send them your head and your corpse in 2 separate packages by air mail. (to soldiers outside) Get the water tank.
Water tank is borught in. INTERROGATOR submerges TERRORIST's head into water
INTERROGATOR: Have you read our local news; earlier this year a young officer cadet ws drowned because his head remained underwater for too long in training. That is your fate if you don't tell the truth.
TERRORIST: (gasping) alright, alright, I got my bomb from a JI operative at a black market in Sin Ming. And no, George Sim (Lt-Col) was not the operative's name.
INTERROGATOR: (kicks TERRORIST) Where were you instructed to place the bomb? Was it Orchard MRT?
TERRORIST: I ... I was instructed to hand it over to someone at the Botanic Gardens. I don't know where that someone planted it.
INTERROGATOR: You're lying!!!
TERRORIST: (earnestly) No, I'm not.
INTERROGATOR: You're lying!!!
TERRORIST: No
INTERROGATOR: (kicks TERRORIST) you're lying!!
TERRORIST: NOO NOO NOOO!!!
INTERROGATOR: (slams TERRORIST against the wall) You're lying!!!
TERRORIST: (sincerely and fearfully) I'm not. (pleads tearfully) Sir, please give me a timeout.
INTERROGATOR: (to ourside) Bring in the metal crate!!!
metal crate is brought in
INTERROGATOR: You want a time-out?? Ok, you have it IN THAT BOX. We'll give you 24 hrs ok?
TERRORIST: I - I - I placed the bomb at Orchard MRT! It was intended to target the American tourists.. But I...
INTERROGATOR: Silence! (to outside) Bring this useless fool back to his cell!!
aftermath: the bomb was discovered at Chinatown after it exploded, and Lt-Col George Sim was convicted by the military tribunal for leaking military secrets are being reported by a fellow officer at Sembawang Army Camp.
the pikamaster (who prays for the eradication of torture and the softening of men's hearts) -
That means the Japanese have rights to torture us during WWII?Originally posted by Salman:Whats wrong with torturing terrorirst to get information that will save lives?
I read thru the torture techniques listed and they all seem rather mild. I would have used tougher techniques myself if I have a terrorist in my custody.
I think this thing is silly.
I don't agree with you. By torturing them, you will only make the terrorists angrier and the attacks will be worse and more. Is there a need to use to hard tactics to scare them into giving out information? There are other ways to do so. -
I think as they kill people, it will weigh on their conscience. They will then know that it is wrong. I would prefer to let them kill to let them know that they are wrong rather than torturing them to save people.Originally posted by Salman:You still did not address my challenge to you.
The logical question is, whats wrong with torturing terrorists for information that will save lives? Don't you know what terrorists do? How many more innocent lives do you want them to kill?
I think you are mad! Too angmo. -
That is a daft question from a kid and does not really deserve a response.Originally posted by Salman:You still did not address my challenge to you.
The logical question is, whats wrong with torturing terrorists for information that will save lives? Don't you know what terrorists do? How many more innocent lives do you want them to kill?
I think you are mad! Too angmo.
As others have pointed out, torture does not give you the right information. It will give you any sort of information you want, just to get out of suffering. Secondly and most importantly, these persons have not been found guilty of a crime. If they are convicted terrorists, I have no issue with the death penalty being applied on them. Hell, I have no problem with convicted terrorists being hanged, drawn and quartered. I believe in being tough on crime too.
It is the hypocrisy of western governments that I find objectionable. They will champion human rights when it applies to their citizens but turn a blind eye when it involves others.
Finally, if we torture terrorist suspects that fall into our hands, should we be so surprised that they should behead innocent men, women and children who should fall into theirs? -
In the first place, the detainees may not even be terrorists but common crooks or even innocent people who were at the wrong place and at the wrong time.Originally posted by Salman:You still did not address my challenge to you.
The logical question is, whats wrong with torturing terrorists for information that will save lives? Don't you know what terrorists do? How many more innocent lives do you want them to kill?
I think you are mad! Too angmo.
When you torture someone, they'll do anything just to be spared further agony. I think pikamaster has already pretty much highlighted this point for you. They'll confess to crimes they had never committed, make statements under duress, implicate other innocent people, give made-up information.... in the end, all you get is the wrong information. If anything, bad information can even be worse than no information at all.
And mind you, people have died under torture without any reason to suspect that they were even terrorists to begin with.
Want an example? Manadel Al-Jamadi was one of the prisoners who died from torture at the hand of US soldiers while at Abu Ghraib. It has never been proven that he was a terrorist to begin with.
Think I'm making this up? Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manadel_al-Jamadi
Still not convinced? Read up about the Abu Ghraib scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Torture doesn't work? Wanna try?
As others have pointed out, torture does not give you the right information. It will give you any sort of information you want, just to get out of suffering. Secondly and most importantly, these persons have not been found guilty of a crime. If they are convicted terrorists, I have no issue with the death penalty being applied on them. Hell, I have no problem with convicted terrorists being hanged, drawn and quartered. I believe in being tough on crime too.
If torture doesn't work, why would people use it thru the ages to get information?
Surely torture must be very useful to get information, have no doubt about it.
Torture of terrorists for information is about human rights.
It is the hypocrisy of western governments that I find objectionable. They will champion human rights when it applies to their citizens but turn a blind eye when it involves others.
You get information to save innocent lives.
It is hypocrisy of human rights activists to condemn torture of terrorists while keeping mums about terrorists who torture and oppress innocent.
If you can guarantee that terrorists will stop terrorism, I can guarantee you that CIA will not have to torture anyone. Can you do that?
Finally, if we torture terrorist suspects that fall into our hands, should we be so surprised that they should behead innocent men, women and children who should fall into theirs? -
Suppose I decide that you are a terrorist and want you to confess by torturing you. I cut off your fingers one at a time, take out your eyeballs and then castrate you...how long do you think it will take for you to admit that you are Osama bin Laden if that is what I want to hear?
With torture, you can make a terrorist out of anyone... -
Originally posted by Salman:
A highly flawed and immature argument. You got to do better than this.
Torture doesn't work? Wanna try?
If torture doesn't work, why would people use it thru the ages to get information?
Surely torture must be very useful to get information, have no doubt about it.
Just because it has been used through the ages, it doesn't mean that it works. Let's give an example: The Salem Withcraft Trials. All the people who confessed to withcraft did so not because thay were guilty but because they would be hanged if they were to plead innocent. At the very least, they would have been tortured for information which they don't have at all.
Mind you, at least one person died of torture without giving any information: Giles Corey. He was tortured by having heavy rocks piled on top of him and was demanded to give information WHICH HE DIDN'T HAVE. In the end, he died by giving just two words: 'More weight.'
So many people have already told you: victims of torture will say and do anything just to get out of torture, including giving false information. In the case of Giles Corey, you don't even get any information at all.
What if one day you find YOURSELF being tortured for information WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE. Trust me, you won't be singing the same tune.
Now you are the one who's being hypocritical about human rights. So does torturing of suspects who may not even be involved in terrorism fall within the spectre of human rights? You may say that's a hypothetical scenario, but I can retort that that's a true scenario. Many, if not most of the torture victims at the Abu Ghraib prison scandal were not even terrorist suspects to begin with, but common criminals and people who were at the wrong time and the wrong place.
Torture of terrorists for information is about human rights.
You get information to save innocent lives.
It is hypocrisy of human rights activists to condemn torture of terrorists while keeping mums about terrorists who torture and oppress innocent.
Sheesh man.... talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Wanna bet? The Abu Ghraib prison tortures were conducted against people whom the torturers knew had nothing to do with terrorism. Some of the torture victims were there just because they (I quote) 'displayed displeasure or ill will' against US forces!
If you can guarantee that terrorists will stop terrorism, I can guarantee you that CIA will not have to torture anyone. Can you do that?
So even if terrorism isn't there, how can you be so sure that torture won't continue?
Also, Vice-President Dick Cheney has proposed that the CIA specifically be excluded from the proposed McCain Detainee Amendment, which aims to limit the types of interrogation techniques used. In other words, the CIA can torture all they want in the future at their own discretion.
Here's the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Detainee_Amendment
Actually, why do I even bother talking to you? I think banging my head against a brick wall does less damage to my brain. -
I thought the CIA have begun to use truth serums instead of abject torture.
More effective and less ugly. -
First of all, did CIA use your methods?Originally posted by oxford mushroom: Suppose I decide that you are a terrorist and want you to confess by torturing you. I cut off your fingers one at a time, take out your eyeballs and then castrate you...how long do you think it will take for you to admit that you are Osama bin Laden if that is what I want to hear?
With torture, you can make a terrorist out of anyone... -
Does truth serums work?Originally posted by BillyBong:I thought the CIA have begun to use truth serums instead of abject torture.
More effective and less ugly. -
How do you know they didn't?Originally posted by Salman:First of all, did CIA use your methods? -
I think you are childish beyond words.
A highly flawed and immature argument. You got to do better than this.
Really? How do you know they were all not guilty? Did you do a survey?
Just because it has been used through the ages, it doesn't mean that it works. Let's give an example: The Salem Withcraft Trials. All the people who confessed to withcraft did so not because thay were guilty but because they would be hanged if they were to plead innocent. At the very least, they would have been tortured for information which they don't have at all.
Are the CIA tortures the same as Salem?
Lets say info from a terrorist can prevent terrorism, what do you do? Sit there and do nothing? Wats ur alternative? Let innocent people die?
Who is Giles Corey? What was he tortured for?
Mind you, at least one person died of torture without giving any information: Giles Corey. He was tortured by having heavy rocks piled on top of him and was demanded to give information WHICH HE DIDN'T HAVE. In the end, he died by giving just two words: 'More weight.'
Aha! So they will give information, it works.
So many people have already told you: victims of torture will say and do anything just to get out of torture, including giving false information. In the case of Giles Corey, you don't even get any information at all.
Don worry, CIA will know whether your info is real or not or if you truly are innocent.
What if one day you find YOURSELF being tortured for information WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE. Trust me, you won't be singing the same tune.
Anyway, none of those CIA tortures are brutal or fatal. So where is teh copmparison? where is your case?
Wat abt the real terrorists? We don't torture them? How many are innocent? Do you have the figures?
Now you are the one who's being hypocritical about human rights. So does torturing of suspects who may not even be involved in terrorism fall within the spectre of human rights? You may say that's a hypothetical scenario, but I can retort that that's a true scenario. Many, if not most of the torture victims at the Abu Ghraib prison scandal were not even terrorist suspects to begin with, but common criminals and people who were at the wrong time and the wrong place.
Sheesh man.... talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Who is the hypocrite here?
And you still have no answers to the solution. How do you get info from terrorist that can save lives?
Really? How do they know if they were innocent? Where is your proof?
Wanna bet? The Abu Ghraib prison tortures were conducted against people whom the torturers knew had nothing to do with terrorism. Some of the torture victims were there just because they (I quote) 'displayed displeasure or ill will' against US forces!
I think Abu Gharib was just fun, not torture. They won't die from playing human pyramid.
While we have terrorists, we better torture. Talk abt no torture only when you have no terrorism.
So even if terrorism isn't there, how can you be so sure that torture won't continue?
I fully agree with this cos infor from terroriusts can prevent etrrorism and you have yet to provide any alternative solution. You wil rather have terrorists killing more innocent people. That is perversion.
Also, Vice-President Dick Cheney has proposed that the CIA specifically be excluded from the proposed McCain Detainee Amendment, which aims to limit the types of interrogation techniques used. In other words, the CIA can torture all they want in the future at their own discretion.
Here's the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Detainee_Amendment
You my friend are so stupid.
Actually, why do I even bother talking to you? I think banging my head against a brick wall does less damage to my brain.
First of all, you claim torture doesn't work. Thats illogical.
You then create strawmen with talk abt barbaric tortures, things that CIA don't do.
Thirdly, you claim that innnocent people were tortured while providing no proofs of that.
Finally, you gave no solutiuon to the problem of how to get info from terrorists that can prevent more innocent from being murdered.
All that spells hypocrisy. -
Not according to the list provided. So do you oppose to that list?Originally posted by fudgester:How do you know they didn't? -
I think you are childish beyond words.
The very fact that you're launching a personal attack against me instead of my point speaks a lot.
Really? How do you know they were all not guilty? Did you do a survey?
How do you know they were all not innocent? Did you do a survey?
Are the CIA tortures the same as Salem?
Lets say info from a terrorist can prevent terrorism, what do you do? Sit there and do nothing? Wats ur alternative? Let innocent people die?
That's your own argument being thrown back at you, boy.
Of course it's a good thing to get information from a terrorist. Of course if we do get the information, I would want to see measures taken to thwart the attacks. However, I certainly do not want to see innocent people getting tortured for information which they don't have! I've already said this countless times! Which part of my statement do you not understand?!?!
Someone obviously doesn't know history here. I don't think he even heard of The Crucible.
Who is Giles Corey? What was he tortured for?
He was one of the accused in the Salem Witchcraft Trials. He was tortured for refusing to enter a plea when accused of withcraft, knowing that he would be found guilty anyway and executed. So he let himself get tortured so that his properties would not be seized upon his death.
Next time, try typing in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey
Sheesh.... you didn't read what I said properly, did you? To refresh your mind, here's what I said:
Aha! So they will give information, it works.So many people have already told you: victims of torture will say and do anything just to get out of torture, including giving false information. In the case of Giles Corey, you don't even get any information at all.
They gave information, all right. False, fabricated information. If anything, wrong information can be worse than no information at all. The prisoners under torture can just say that Osama is hiding at Block 999, Lim Chu Kang Avenue 666. That's a fictional address, by the way.
Word of advice - change your glasses.
I guess you were living in a well when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke out, eh? Prisoners HAVE died at the hands of torture. Heck, they weren't even terror suspects in many cases; they were common criminals and ordinary people. I thought I had made that clear in my previous post.
Don worry, CIA will know whether your info is real or not or if you truly are innocent.
Anyway, none of those CIA tortures are brutal or fatal. So where is teh copmparison? where is your case?
Here's some reading to straighten you out, boy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manadel_al-Jamadi
Oh.... so you believe that abusing, raping and torturing prisoners to their deaths is your idea of fun? Stripping prisoners, forcing them to form human pyramids and humiliating them by taking photos is fun?!?! Oh sheesh, and there I was playing Warcraft III instead of having your definition of 'fun'.....
Really? How do they know if they were innocent? Where is your proof?
I think Abu Gharib was just fun, not torture. They won't die from playing human pyramid.
If you're wondering, that last line was sarcasm, by the way.
If that's how you see the the abuse and killings of other human beings, then I truly feel sorry for you.
You brought up several other points, but I'm not going to go through them. It'll take too long for me to refute everything you say. As it is, I've thrown enough mud on your face already. I'm done with you. -
Didn't you launch personal attack on me first? Go check out your own posts mr.yellow.
The very fact that you're launching a personal attack against me instead of my point speaks a lot. Mr. Green
I asked first.
How do you know they were all not innocent? Did you do a survey?
That's your own argument being thrown back at you, boy.
By not being able to answer, you debunked your own arguments.
So its ok to torture terrorists for information lah.
Of course it's a good thing to get information from a terrorist. Of course if we do get the information, I would want to see measures taken to thwart the attacks. However, I certainly do not want to see innocent people getting tortured for information which they don't have! I've already said this countless times! Which part of my statement do you not understand?!?!.
So you are not against torture per se but torture of innocent right?
Can you pls clarify your logic?
Anything to do with CIA?
Someone obviously doesn't know history here. I don't think he even heard of The Crucible. Rolling Eyes
Is Salem same as CIA torture?
He was one of the accused in the Salem Witchcraft Trials. He was tortured for refusing to enter a plea when accused of withcraft, knowing that he would be found guilty anyway and executed. So he let himself get tortured so that his properties would not be seized upon his death.
Next time, try typing in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey
Are the purpose and methods the same? Where is the basis for comparison? Aren't you drawing a strawman in desperation?
Why do you keep calling me mr.green? are you mistaking me for someone else out of paranoia?
They gave information, all right. False, fabricated information. If anything, wrong information can be worse than no information at all. The prisoners under torture can just say that Osama is hiding at Block 999, Lim Chu Kang Avenue 666. That's a fictional address, by the way.
Word of advice - change your glasses. Mr. Green
So wat if a few people died. Its much better than dozens dead while praying in a mosque on Friday.
I guess you were living in a well when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke out, eh? Prisoners HAVE died at the hands of torture. Heck, they weren't even terror suspects in many cases; they were common criminals and ordinary people. I thought I had made that clear in my previous post.
Here's some reading to straighten you out, boy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manadel_al-Jamadi
Human pyramnid is nothing man. I play it with kids even. You must be a bloody sissy!
Oh.... so you believe that abusing, raping and torturing prisoners to their deaths is your idea of fun? Stripping prisoners, forcing them to form human pyramids and humiliating them by taking photos is fun?!?! Oh sheesh, and there I was playing Warcraft III instead of having your definition of 'fun'..... Rolling Eyes
Somehow you believe terrorists must be protected.
You believe in protecting terrorists so that they cabn kill even more people. Shame on you and your parents.
If that's how you see the the abuse and killings of other human beings, then I truly feel sorry for you.
The truth is, these are salient points that you can't handle. All you do is create strawmen. [/quote]
You brought up several other points, but I'm not going to go through them. It'll take too long for me to refute everything you say. As it is, I've thrown enough mud on your face already. I'm done with you. -
The belly slap sounds like something I do frequently to my partner.
-
I agree with Salman on this, although not totally.
There are various methods of handling people (prisoners or otherwise) and they all have their fair share of successes and failures.
Salman was right when he said that if torture isn't useful, why has it been used thru out the ages?
Personally, I feel that in the modern day, torture is used more to break the spirit and will of a person than to extract information. Breaking the will of a determined and misled terrorist is very important. Extracting information comes later, once the detainee is no longer defient and willful.
To save a few thousand people (chosen ones and infidels alike), torturing a couple of terrorists is worth it.
Of course torture for sadistic pleasure and "just for the heck of it" is not right.
Frankly, I hope I never get tortured.