I´m Spanish and I see here in Europe everyone is against it, but I support it cos I think suspected terrorists can´t have the same rights as current people. They may have very important information and so strong interrogation techniques must be used. What do you American think about that?
2007-07-31 01:43:17 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Agreed. I think Americans are too sensitive. As far as I know we've never chopped off body parts, starved to the point of malnutrition, or permanently disfigured a detainee in order to gain information. So can someone please define "torture" for me? I must not understand the definition. Those people potentially have valuable information that could save a life, or many lives - it would be irresponsible NOT to do what is necessary to retrieve such information. And in the end, they all get to keep their heads - which is less than I can say for American detainees (hostages).
2007-07-31 01:49:19 · answer #1 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 10⤊ 4⤋
Most liberals despise Gitmo, because we lock up terrorists and enemy combatants. The liberal schills cry long and hard about the "torture" there, yet have never actually been there. They have no problem with the same enemy combatants sawing off Nick Bergs head, and claiming our constitution somehow applies to enemy combatants. Goes to show you who's side the liberals are on. As for Guantanamo. I say more power to them.
2007-07-31 02:29:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Guantanamo Bay might make an fairly scenic vacationer internet site if it weren't for the terrorists imprisoned there. Do you advise my opinion with regards to the terrorists held there? i think of they are being babied. those are all terrorists who have been captured mutually as attempting to kill individuals and harmless civilians. they might desire to be fed Viscount St. Albans and eggs for breakfast, bologna sandwiches for lunch, and Hamburger Helper for dinner. they might desire to be sprayed down weekly with a firehose to bathe their cells. they might desire to have no reading cloth or different touch with the exterior international. The "tarnished photograph" usa provides to the international is the consequences of attempting to be politically maximum suitable extremely than doing what should be executed while it should be executed. Too many politicians attempting to kiss too many backsides concurrently ends up in state of being inactive.
2016-11-10 19:25:42 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone I know, mostly military or ex-military, are not against it. These are people captured while bearing arms against our forces. So they are not entitled to our civil rights because they are not "civilian or noncombatants", these guys are "enemy combatants". These are not nice people. Sometimes I feel like the people who are so against it should volunteer to let these people live with them.
There's no "torture", we use psychological warfare techniques against them. That means just stuff like sensory deprivation and sleep deprivation. If you want examples of torture then look up what the Japanese and North Vietnamese have done to their prisoners of war.
2007-07-31 02:34:44 · answer #4 · answered by tonyngc 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The fact of the matter is that most of the claims about 'abuses' at Gitmo are hot air.
In fact one of the worst issues is people like Coragraph who seem to think that we should violate the Geneva Conventions by placing all of them on trial.
Maybe people like cory should wonder why Germans captured on the battlefield were not given trials.
2007-07-31 02:29:52 · answer #5 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Ask your friends in Europe would they like them living next to them. If the answer is no, what is there solution?
2007-07-31 02:29:10 · answer #6 · answered by labdoctor 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Better there than here. We are criticized if we keep them in Gitmo. We are criticized if we give them back to their own countries (torture and prison), we can't shoot them, we release them and capture them again later in battle or kill them in battle. The interrogation techniques are more of a mind f*** than anything else.
Personally, if they have no intell value, we can lock them up for as long as we want, wherever we want. They are not protected under the Geneva Convention. To be sure, under the rules of the convention they can be shot on the field where they are found. they have no rights, no protections.
2007-07-31 01:54:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 4⤋
Those of us who have actually read the US Constitution oppose our govt violating that Constitution out of fear -- the ends do not justify illegal means. Especially when legal means to accomplish the same ends are available and just as effective.
Our Supreme Court has ruled twice that the Constitutional protections (6th Amendment and 8th Amendment) applies, and it's shameful that our govt is ignoring its own laws. And it's even more shameful that so many Americans support the right of our govt to ignore its own laws.
As for interrogating suspected terrorists, the govt has always had two options (legally) -- torture them for information, but have to let them go -- or don't torture them, but get to send them to jail. That's what our laws require. The govt just has to decide which is more important -- the information or the prosecution.
2007-07-31 02:04:39 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 8⤋
I think those a$$ hole deserve less then what they get now, treat them as they do our soldiers when captured.
2007-07-31 02:51:37 · answer #9 · answered by US soldier 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it fine they are military combatants not civilians, the lib's here willl crap on your question, they apparenttly like the terrorist horde.
2007-07-31 01:58:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 2⤋