rawstory.com — Geneva Convention be damned! GOP hopeful and former Massachusetts governor reserves his right to leave all options on the table when it comes to what US agents are allowed to do to detainees behind closed doors.
Jan 14, 2008 View in Crawl 4
amoro99Jan 14, 2008
A little disconcerting that in 2008 we are using the question of whether or not we should torture people with taxpayer dollars. So much for the advancement of society. Topics for the future might include whether rape can be justified, or maybe, when we should bring back beheading as a form of punishment.
kballwegJan 15, 2008
No they are still just using their standard methods with no need to fall back on something so mild.
voodoopunkJan 15, 2008
Thanks for your well thought out and substantial contribution to the discussion. I always find it quite hilarious that the left, who swallow every single bit of biased information presented to them by the news media, Hollywood, and college professors, truly believe that they are independent thinkers.
Closed AccountJan 15, 2008
Torture actually places American lives in jeopardy. If we don't follow our own rules on torture, then why should others? If we are viewed as torturers then we don't deserve any mercy right?I swear people like you deserve to live in Nazi Germany because that is exactly the mindset that made them kill so many people. They actually thought they were doing good by hurting others just as you.
scdecadeJan 15, 2008
Abu Ghraib: US security fiascoBy Thomas C GreenePublished Monday 24th May 2004 14:01 GMTOpinion If the human rights debacle at Abu Ghraib teaches us anything - besides the routinely-forgotten lesson that people with guns and uniforms tend to go sadistic and feral unless observed openly and controlled rigidly - it teaches us that the global battle against terrorism is being waged by incompetents and fools.The most painfully obvious problem is that people subject to torture will say anything their tormentors wish to hear. Centuries ago, the Spaniards learned that if you get a fellow snug in the rack and surround him with grim adversaries, he'll accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior in an instant. Today, victims hauled off the streets by Iraqi police, whose motives may be little better than a desire to settle personal or political scores, are apt to invent all manner of insider details about Ba'athist plots and sleeper cells.The traditional, time-proven use of torture is to extract false confessions from enemies who can then be condemned and executed by kangaroo courts. Torture is very good at getting people to swear to lies. That's why, throughout history, governments have done so much of it, and still do.It's very bad at getting to the truth, however, which is what good intel is about. If your goal is to hang an innocent man, then torture is an expedient; he'll confess, eventually. But if your goal is to learn something you didn't already know, then you must use a different approach.This was taken from an editiorial published on The Register website in '04. Any arguments with this?
tymeJan 16, 2008
Your question is formulated in such a way as to make me look like and evil person if I say "yes" and stand by my assertion that we shouldn't torture, while simultaneously making me look like a hypocrite if I say "no" and back off on my original assertion. Your question is unfair and avoids the real issue: TORTURE DOES NOT PRODUCE RELIABLE RESULTS. That is why I am against torture. It has been shown time and time again in various psychological studies. Here's a little history: <a class="user" href="http://www.livescience.com/history/071019-torture-history.html">http://www.livescience.com/history/071019-torture- ...</a> - do some googling for more.Yes, I refuse to answer your loaded question and instead choose to continue to justify my own stance.