No? Then why has our government sought to legalize interrogation techniques that had previously been considered torture -- like waterboarding, for which Japanese soldiers in WWII were tried and punished.
Why do we render prisoners to other countries to be tortured?
I can't help but think the reason sits deep within the depraved mind of folks like Cheney and Rummy. They get off on knowing they can order torture. They probably all sit around and maturbate to the Abu Ghraib movies.
And ALL you right wing defenders WILL be waterboarded in hell for your blind, good-german complicity. Enjoy!
2007-03-01 15:26:02 · 10 answers · asked by lonehawk23 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Anyone that is expecting to be tortured would have a cover story.
Anyone innocent will admit to anything to stop the pain.
A bit like dunking witches ... if they float, they're witches so will be burnt.
If not they will be released after they drown.
Your analogy of Germans watching the Nazis victomise Jews, Gypsies, Communists and anyone else is very close to the mark. There should be more outcry against the torture.
2007-03-01 15:41:45 · answer #1 · answered by wizebloke 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well one thing I can tell you is there will be a meeting on how to properly torture the prisoner and when the meeting has adjourned the prisoner will have died of old age or confessed before we could decide on how to ethically do the ****.
The only law I see as properly enforced with no later issue is that an elected official don't pay into social security because they continue to receive their full government pay at retirement.
Now that's torture!!
2007-03-01 16:08:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well
1. The terrorists aren't captured just to be tortured, heck they probably have better living conditions than some.
2. They are given an opportunity to give a truthful answer without torture. But our interrogators aren't complete idiots and know when people are lying. Therefore, means of 'torture' are applied to get the desired information, which may still be a lie but chances are that it will be more reliable than if they were given milk and cookies.
3. All that aside--------If they want me dead I could care less what happens to them.
2007-03-01 15:39:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i'm not a proponent of torture. a techniques from it. yet you ought to use this argument: a individual not below any duress will proceed to be silent. a individual below duress will at last communicate. whilst it fairly is genuine that the advice will on no account be superb, you will nevertheless earnings leads - the prospect of determining to purchase clever advice is greater than not something. even though if those leads purely have an exceedingly distant probability of being genuine, say a million in a million, it fairly is nevertheless extra desirable than you will have interior the non-torture undertaking and could grant a mandatory next clue.
2016-10-17 01:53:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Put it this way: Torture is great for obtaining confessions, but poor for obtaining accurate information, because people will say whatever they think the torturer wants them to say to bring an end to their suffering, true or not. The guy called al-Libi told us all about the secret al-Qaeda poison camps (that didn't actually exist) in Iraq while being tortured in Egypt before we invaded.
2007-03-01 15:45:55 · answer #5 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, reliable information can be obtained through intense interrogation techniques many would describe as torture. As for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld - I cannot speak to their masturbation habits. Are you aware Rumsfeld is no longer the Secretary of Defense?
2007-03-01 15:34:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, if reliable information could not be had through torture - you would not be asking this question because torture would not be an issue - since no one would use a method of interrogation that results in unreliable information.
2007-03-01 15:58:18 · answer #7 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would say it differs from each case of coarse interrogation. It is not torture. Subjects are not permanently physically harmed. Also how would you get information out of a terrorist? would you give him a tummy rub and some warm milk? And if he answered your questions how do you know he was telling correct information?
2007-03-01 15:31:32 · answer #8 · answered by clayman 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its the swinging pendulum - it goes both ways. And would be highly dependable of the benefactors weakness. In reference and regards to the applications being initiated, to extract the information that is needed for further intel and op's..
2007-03-01 16:26:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sometimes now, I just have to threaten to tickle my kids and they'll talk - yes, the information is VERY reliable.
2007-03-01 15:37:27 · answer #10 · answered by teran_realtor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋