If they are gathering intel that will keep thousands of people safe, and if they're only torturing people that mean us harm, I don't mind if they do it.
2006-11-19 15:31:27 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The US Government does NOT torture people. They simply use harsher methods, such as leaving lights on 24/7, extended interviews and sometimes messing with the Koran or other things. The Red Cross is angry at the US because our prisoners are in fact getting too FAT! Ha! Anyone think the terrorists are concerned about how much food our boys get when they are captured? Heck no! They are probably not even fed! The fact of the matter is, we feed them 3 squares, give them exercise and do all sorts of things. We do not electrocute or lash or behead or anything like that. The MCA does NOT advocate torture, but harsher measures, measures, mind you, that are not contrary to the Geneva convention. The US gov't realizes that torture does not provide reliable information, but more intense interrogations does. And this is what works, and what needs to be done!
2006-11-19 15:38:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 9⤋
And what if the criteria changes, and for some crazy reason that intel includes you on that list, and I am assuming you are a law-abiding citizen? No doubt, your opinion would do an about-face in about .038 seconds.
NO. NO. NO. The Bush Administration should not be allowed to rewrite the laws, or ignore them to disrupt what the Constitution, and the Geneva convention has set up and protects.
2006-11-20 02:27:44 · answer #2 · answered by Schona 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There is a move to charge Rumsfield for war crimes in Germany, international court, due to torture in Iraq prison. No longer in office, no longer has any protection. If that doesn't convince anyone torture is not okay, you are immune to crimes against humanity, but the rest of the world still rejects torture. Not That Rumsfield will ever face jail time any more than Sharon, Israel leader, fort his invasion into refugee camps, but has been recognized as a war crime.
2006-11-20 00:10:49 · answer #3 · answered by longroad 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think torturing a prisoner of war terrorist or criminal is against wth human rights.Prisoners should be treated well.They should have a right to give proof that they were not a terrorist.Soldiers accused them as terrorists but in fact they are not a terrorists.
They recognized as terrorists because they were not hold out by torturing..The soldiers treated them harmful their physical bodies.
2006-11-20 00:05:14 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, I do not think that it is OK. The United States used to stand for something--or, at least, it tried to. After all of the horrible things we did to the Native Americans, the Africans, each new set of immigrants, etc., we, as a nation, finally decided to take a higher moral ground. We stood for human rights, and denied recognition to countries where people were not afforded those rights. We stood for freedom and decency.
Well, the true colors are showing now, aren't they? When it suits our purposes, we take the moral low ground just like every body else...
edit: I got a "thumbs down" for being honest??!!?!?
2006-11-20 00:02:13 · answer #5 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yea I think its great! I also enjoy beating my dog... ya know he could be plotting to bite me so I primitively beat him. I get out about as much Intel out of him as someone who is already willing to give up their life for a cause they believe in.
I don't agree with human rights but torture hell yea!
2006-11-19 23:47:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't think we should do things like that to people. But I also think that if a terriorist takes even one of our soldiers they should be killed with the full power of out military might. We don't need to be so afraid of them
2006-11-19 23:38:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The fact that you think torture is ok and "American" makes me sick. Do you think John McCain and countless American soldiers that were tortured in WWII and Viet Nam would agree with the statement that torture is "OK"? And remember, you're not allowed to get all outraged next time you hear of an American soldier being tortured, it goes both ways.
2006-11-19 23:41:47 · answer #8 · answered by 7thWave 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
You are a dead set idiot. The problem with your narrow minded argument is that many in Guantanamo Bay Are innocent (eg David Hicks - the Australian, and all those British Citizens who were released).
2006-11-19 23:51:59 · answer #9 · answered by scruff 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well I have kind of a stupid question for you. If they're terrorists, then why are we keeping them alive? As a matter of fact, this war is way past the point of ridiculousness in my opinion. I'm not necessarily against the war, I'm against the weak, pathetic way Bush has went about this whole war. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we didn't send ground troops, we dropped a NUKE!!! And that settled that!!! So with todays technology, it would seem to me, that ground troops should have never been necessary to begin with. We have satelites in the sky that can pinpoint anyones particular house in the USA, now why couldn't we have used that same technology to pinpoint where to bomb and left the ground troops out of it?
2006-11-19 23:39:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋