Does the United States have a right to torture suspected terrorist?

[Fletch]

Very good point.

There is a huge difference between a Uniformed Soldier and some piece of crap who is willing to murder innocent civilians in his "jihad".

There's also a huge difference between someone who's actually attacking folks and someone you kinda think might want to some day.

 

[antsi]

I don't consider that torture and have no problem with its use against suspected terrorists.

Who gets to decide what constitutes a "suspected terrorist?"

Here's a scenario for you:

The Obama administration comes out with an executive order that right wing gun nuts are likely terrorists because of their racist, violent, anti-social tendencies. Your family winds up on a list of right wing gun nuts. Your home is raided one night, your wife and children are taken into "extra judicial custody" and subjected to "enhanced interrogation." A few weeks later they're released, physically unharmed, but all suffering from severe PTSD.

You are presumably OK with all of this, becuase you've just OK'd the use of "enhanced interrogation" against anyone the .gov believes might be a potential terrorist.

 

[Dogman]

i dont believe torture on a UNIFORMED soldier from a RECOGNIZED COUNTRY fighting under that countries military is right. on a terrorist and a thug who wants to try and fight like a coward, then i dont care, just make them disapear afterwards. when "torture" as some call it (i call it persuasion) reaches a certain point then i do think the intelligence gathered becomes useless in some cases. just my opinion

This ^. Rep'd

 

[mettle]

One of the things that comes to my mind is the term "Domestic Terrorist" and how far we might go to interrogate or "question" them. I understand the "need" to question in Gitmo, but thru out history it was not uncommon to use these techniques against people who are merely political oposition. That is why, as a freeman I worry about where this might go...

This is a fear of mine as well. The original topic was such as Fletch stated, 'suspected terrorists'. I fear the day when I become a Homegrown or Domestic Terrorist suspect, when that day comes I feel my family will be in jeopardy in a grave way.

I forget who said I was confusing the topics: the discussion in the classroom was based upon interrogation leading up to and including 'torture'.

I think it better to start with what is 'torture'? A grandmother who has her feline house companion threatened with a wheel of a car could call that torture---coercion by means of a threat.

Two main arguments really: 1. What is torture. 2. What is a 'suspected terrorist and where is that line drawn?

 

[Fletch]

This seems topical:

Extremists of any color can commit terrorism - CNN.com

Within the last month, our country has witnessed two senseless, high-profile acts of criminal violence that would have been labeled terrorism if brown-skinned Arab Muslim men with foreign-sounding names had committed them.

Because two white men committed these acts of violence, however, our political and media chattering class never used the word "terrorism" in its discussions.



Most recently, John Patrick Bedell, a 36-year-old man from California, walked up to two security guards outside the Pentagon Metro station in suburban Washington and started shooting. He was then shot and killed. According to The Christian Science Monitor, Bedell appeared "to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent anti-government feelings" and also battled mental illness before his shooting rampage.


A few weeks ago, on February 18, another white anti-government extremist named Joseph Stack flew his small airplane into an Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas, killing two people and injuring 13 others.


...


"If this had been done by a brownish-looking Muslim guy whose suicide note paralleled Islamist political themes," wrote media commentator Matthew Yglesias, then right-wingers would "demand that anyone who refused to label the attack 'terrorism' be put up on treason charges."


In a recent piece, Robert Wright, of the New America Foundation, wrote: "In common usage, a 'terrorist' is someone who attacks in the name of a political cause and aims to spread terror -- to foster fear that such attacks will be repeated until grievances are addressed." Following suit, the IRS attacker's suicide manifesto before his aerial kamikaze attack reads in part: "I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after ... I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be whitewashed and ignored" -- at which point, God willing, -- "the American zombies wake up and revolt."



If this same above-mentioned suicide letter had been instead written by an Arab Muslim man named Ali Muhammad right before crashing his airplane into an IRS building, most of the right-wing blogosphere would instantaneously erupt with screaming headlines of another act of Muslim terrorism.

Again, what constitutes a "credible" threat? Based on this pattern of attacks, anyone who's a grumpy, gun-owning white male, disgruntled with the government's handling of any number of things, is or should be considered a "suspected terrorist". That includes the majority of us on this board. Hope you fellas enjoy your waterboarding. After all, it's for the good of the country, isn't it?

 

[dross]

There are no magic lines where questioning turns to interrogation, and interrogation turns to harsh interrogation, and where that turnst to torture.

A couple of points:

1. What would be legal for the police to do to a citizen is very different from what the military should be allowed to do to an enemy soldier.
2. What the military should be allowed to do to an enemy soldier is very different than what the military should be allowed to do to illegal combatants.
3. The idea that torture doesn't work is silly and simplistic. No, it wouldn't work in the scenario always used to make this point - that we're fishing for info and using pain to get it. In any interrogation, whether torture is used or not, the interrogator knows certain things, and the captive doesn't know what he knows or doesn't know. Any argument that torture doesn't work can be used to say, "interrogation doesn't work" which is ridiculous.
4. It harms the Geneva Conventions when we extend those protections to combatants who do not follow them.
5. Governments have powers, not rights.

I don't believe in torture, but I do believe in harsh interrogation techniques, when warranted, which is when we think that illegal combatants have very valuable and timely info and we haven't been able to obtain it through less harsh means.

BTW, if waterboarding is torture, we've been torturing our own military folks for many years.

 

[NWIeng]

No torture under any circumstances. Waterboarding falls under this category.

I'm not a sissy by all means. I want to see KSM hung from the statue of liberty as much as anyone else.

Call it the moral highground or whatever else.

 

[E5RANGER375]

i wanna make it clear that anyone who is an american citizen, suspected of domestic terrorism or not, IS DEFFINATELY ENTITLED to a CIVIL (not military) trial by jury. The terrorist i was reffering to in my other post was foreign terrorist being faought against and captured by our military. if your talking about american citizens that are suspected of terrorism, then we are dealing with a whole other issue entirely. NO TORTURE ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, PERIOD.

taxes are getting bad enough ....

 

[level.eleven]

BTW, if waterboarding is torture, we've been torturing our own military folks for many years.

Except that, the soldier knows its going to end, knows he isn't going to die, knows he will receive medical treatment if need be, and knows its a training demonstration. The people conducting the waterboarding also know that if they go to far and mess up, their butts are in a sling. Personally, I think that would remove a lot of the "torture" aspect of waterboarding.

Of course, we could put the whole waterboarding thing to rest. Just run a video of KSM being waterboarded on the 6:00 news. Let people decide for themselves.

 

[Expat]

Except that, the soldier knows its going to end, knows he isn't going to die, knows he will receive medical treatment if need be, and knows its a training demonstration. The people conducting the waterboarding also know that if they go to far and mess up, their butts are in a sling. Personally, I think that would remove a lot of the "torture" aspect of waterboarding.

And thanks to our beloved mainstream media, the terrorists know that as well. Their training manuals put out by al Qaeda document this knowledge. They are also trained on what their rights are. They are trained to scream torture even if it hasn't happened.

 

[level.eleven]

And thanks to our beloved mainstream media, the terrorists know that as well. Their training manuals put out by al Qaeda document this knowledge. They are also trained on what their rights are. They are trained to scream torture even if it hasn't happened.

My response was in regard to waterboarding as part of our military training.

 

[Expat]

My response was in regard to waterboarding as part of our military training.

With all due respect, I read your point to be that it wasn't really torture when done to our troops because they knew they weren't really going to die. My point was that by that line of reasoning, since al Qaeda tells them in their training manuals that they will not die from waterboarding, it isn't torture when done to them either.

 

[E5RANGER375]

... Hey, did you just see that terrorist fall out of that plane?? what plane sir?

 

[mettle]

... Hey, did you just see that terrorist fall out of that plane?? what plane sir?

LOL! Tried to rep for an earlier post.. sorry but couldn't.


I agree, US CITIZENS have rights. Someone here illegally, trying to perform an act of terrorism that threatens my family and friends as well as fellow countrymen are taking their life in their own hands.
As far as I'm concerned, America needs to maintain it's sovereignty despite what he Geneva Conventions states. If we war with a country, people who will operates within the confines of the Rules of War and the Convention; then, I think we should too. If they don't, let the gloves come off.

To address others arguments about torture: the CIA has demonstrated that the mere threat of torture or deprivation produces results. They have other ways in which to obtain info too.

To steer in another direction: what about regulations on such actions? What about real and trained professionals who are willing to be 'professionalized' and made to operate within restraints?

My whole problem with giving up on torture, or serious interrogation methods, is that legislation will never produce anything.

 

[irishfan]

A non citizen of the United States who is attempting to kill Americans has no rights in my book and I would rather them use any means available to find out more information. Also, an American who goes against America like this "Adam" they keep talking about should have the rights of swinging from a rope as they used to hang people for treason and should start again.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Also, an American who goes against America like this "Adam" they keep talking about should have the rights of swinging from a rope as they used to hang people for treason and should start again.

yeah i do agree as long as he gets a trial first and is convicted. sure i think he is guilty, but what if 10 years after we kill him we found a video tape that proves he was kidnapped by terrorist and forced with fear of death to do what he did? just saying, i believe and my constitution says that every American deserves a trial by jury. even if they are a scum sucking maggot

 

[sporter]

To answer the OP's question: Absolutely.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

[mettle]

yeah i do agree as long as he gets a trial first and is convicted. sure i think he is guilty, but what if 10 years after we kill him we found a video tape that proves he was kidnapped by terrorist and forced with fear of death to do what he did? just saying, i believe and my constitution says that every American deserves a trial by jury. even if they are a scum sucking maggot

I think you make a solid point. But, that still happens here in America to innocent men as well. What is to be done? There are volunteer agencies that work to get DNA submitted, and cases reopened for just this reason too.

I think every American deserves a trial too. But, the question still remains, what about illegal aliens? What about jidah oriented operators coming to America to function for terrorist cells?

 

[irishfan]

I think you make a solid point. But, that still happens here in America to innocent men as well. What is to be done? There are volunteer agencies that work to get DNA submitted, and cases reopened for just this reason too.

I think every American deserves a trial too. But, the question still remains, what about illegal aliens? What about jidah oriented operators coming to America to function for terrorist cells?

If you are not American then I do not believe you should get the same rights of Americans. Personally, if an enemy is attempting to attack our troops in the actual fighting zones such as Afghanistan then I feel they should either be killed or sent to a place where information can be extracted. An American citizen should get the full rights allowed to them by law but if convicted of treason then I believe the death penalty should be used.

 

[Dr Falken]

... Hey, did you just see that terrorist fall out of that plane?? what plane sir?

Wasn't that real popular in Argentina during the '80's and '90's? Usually they would just run disenters or agitators up to the door of a flying plane, threatening to throw them out, occasionally they went to far and the person would fall out of the plane, landing in the sea, far below.